Strategies & Analysis
Scientific Methods Applied to Strategy Development
(Part One of a Two Part Series)
by Phil Phillips, PhD
Contributing Editor
phillips@chemarkconsulting.net
Conclusions... operations man- agers hate the strategic plan- ning annual ritual...it consumes
enormous amounts of management
time... it has very little impact on company actions... it does not produce
novel results... it does perpetuates the
status quo.
Can strategic planning and scientific
methods be like-minded enough to bring
forth a more dynamic strategy? The an-
swer is YES but with a large caveat... to
do so one must first recognize that con-
servative strategic planning is NOT in
reality, scientific.
The bridge that supports a combination of the two is key and the underpinning is...unique novel hypotheses and
custom made to order tests of these hypotheses. These two basics are missing
from conventional strategic planning.
Issues vs Possibilities
Conservative planning centers on the calendar and is driven by issues. Resolving
issues is certainly important but by first
exploring and testing possible solutions,
one has the opportunity to resolve the issues while opening up other options.
Possibilities-based (versus issue-based)
choices provides an enormous array of
options while an issue-based strategic
mind-set narrows options dramatically.
As we have invited our clients to
use this methodology... the Seven Steps
to Strategy-Making as detailed in their
September, 2012 article “BRINGING
SCIENCE TO THE ART OF
STRATEGY”, HARVARD BUSINESS
REVIEW, Lafley, Martin, Rivkin &
Siggelkow have convinced me and many
others that it really works in freeing up
latent strategic creativity.
In Part 2 we will provide examples
and illustrations of the Seven Steps to
Strategy-Making. CW
