Robert Bacal responded to my requirement, that a good strategy should show how to:
>> 1.) Provide satisfaction to the market now as well as in the future.
>> 2.) Make company goal units (money in your case) now as well as in
>> the future.
>> 3.) Provide a secure and satisfying environment to employees now as
>> well as in the future.
>It could very well be that a company might have a strategy in place
>without these "necessary conditions". I guess we would have to call such >a strategy a shazzbot or something, since according to this definition in
>isn't one.
It wasn't my intent to define the term "strategy". For such an attempt (or
better: proof that such an attempt is impossible) I recommend Strategy
Safari by Henry Mintzberg et. al.
But when I evaluate a presented strategy or strategy in action, I try to
find out how those three necessary conditions are meant to be met. This
helps to point to where the company is going to run into troubles. It also
makes clear, whether a company/strategy is following a fad or creating
profound knowledge: Are you pursueing TQM, JIT, LO... for the sake of
itself or for the sake of customers, goal units and employees?
But may be I should really take it as a definition of strategy. In the
past I would have pointed to inconsistencies in a given strategy. Now I
can say: "That's not a strategy, that's shazzbot!" And when I notice the
questionmark in the face of my counterpart, I may add: "Ask Robert Bacal.
I got that word from him."
Being serious again: What do you require from a good strategy? Isn't it
the direction of how to improve performance? Wouldn't you agree that above
three conditions are generic necessary conditions for any attempt to
improve performance? I am curious to hear your opinion.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>