Bringing science to the art of strategy. Lafley AG(1), Martin RL, Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N. Author information: (1)University of Toronto, Rotman School of. Many managers feel doomed to trade off the futile rigor of ordinary strategic planning for the Bringing science to the art of strategy. A G Lafley, Roger L. Martin, +1 author Nicolaj Siggelkow; Published in Harvard business review. Manageris recommande l’article Bringing Science to the Art of Strategy, Harvard Business Review,
|Published (Last):||3 June 2012|
|PDF File Size:||14.84 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.99 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The team then tests the key barrier conditions to see which hold true.
Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Jan Rivkin. Rivkin and Nicolaj Siggelkow.
Business and Environment Business History Entrepreneurship. To continue reading, become a paid subscriber for full access. For Hilti, it represented an entirely new business model, which would substantially differentiate the company from its competitors.
The authors outline a strategy-making process that combines rigor and creativity. Already a Business Briefings subscriber? Strategic Planning ; Science.
Bringing Science to the Art of Strategy
Technology and Operations Management. About the Author Jan W. The possibilities-based approach, therefore, begins with the recognition that the organization must make lfaley choice, and that the choice has consequences. For the management team, this is the step that starts the strategy-making process.
Bringing Science to the Art of Strategy – Business Briefings
Print Find at Harvard Purchase. All it had was Oil of Olay, a small, Casadesus-Masanell, Alfley, and Jan Rivkin. The new Olay succeeded beyond expectations-showing what can happen when teams shift from asking “What is the right answer” and focus instead on figuring out “What are the right questions?
It lacks the hypothesis generation and testing that’s at the heart of the scientific method. The group need ghe review the test results and choose the possibility with the fewest serious barriers. Many managers feel doomed to trade off the futile rigor of ordinary strategic planning for the hit-or-miss creativity of the alternatives.
Cite View Details Purchase. Published on Oct 20, in Issue – October It lacked a credible brand in skin care, scuence largest and most profitable segment of the sector. For all its emphasis on data and number crunching, conventional strategic planning is not actually scientific. Rivkin, and Nicolaj Siggelkow. A simple way to get strategists to avoid that trap is to require them to define two mutually exclusive options that could resolve the issue in question.
Karen Mills and Jan W. From here, choosing a strategy is simple: As long as this is the case, the organization will fall into the trap of investigating data related to the issues, rather than exploring and testing possible solutions.
The key is to recognize that conventional strategic planning, for all its analysis, is not actually scientific-it lacks the careful generation and testing of hypotheses that are at the heart of the scientific method.
Once you have framed the problem as a choice — any choice — your analysis and emotions will focus on what brinigng have to do next, not on describing or analyzing the challenge. Article Harvard Business Review September The associated case explores the strategic decision-making process of premium power tools manufacturer Hilti inwhen the company was considering implementing a fleet management system in the construction industry.
Fleet management would involve a shift from selling power tools to leasing them as a service. Conventional strategic planning is driven by the calendar and tends to focus on issues, such as declining profits or market share.
Bringing science to the art of strategy.
Finance Globalization Health Care. Find at Harvard Purchase. Frame a choice by converting each business issue into at least two mutually exclusive options that might resolve it. To produce novel and successful strategies, teams need to adopt a step-by-step process in which creative thinking yields possibilities, or hypotheses, and rigorous analysis tests them. After testing the barrier conditions for several possibilities, it opted for a bold strategy that might never have surfaced in the traditional process: A team begins by formulating options, or possibilities, and asks what must be srategy for each to succeed.
This seven-step method, developed by the authors, involves applying creativity to a scientifically rigorous process to enable teams to strateegy novel strategies and to pinpoint the one most likely to succeed.
They should ask what must be true for a given possibility to succeed—and bringng whether those conditions hold.