Strategy, the end of the game 1.Three bodies of thought (phases) have built progressively on each other 1.‘Business policy’. This approach rested on implicit assumptions: 1.That problems were sufficiently similar for formalization to be workable 2.That the essence of the problem could be captured in such abstraction 3.That senior managers, by dint of their experience or unique ability to marshal resources, could add value via such a process

Strategy, the end of the game 1.Three bodies of thought (phases) have built progressively on each other 2.‘Competitive analysis’. Strategy became the pursuit of sustainable advantage within an industrial, technological and competitive context. Implicit assumptions: 1.The industry, the business, the competitors and the customers were well defined. 2.Returns were diminishing 3.Microeconomic control variables were the ones that mattered. Attention shifted to operational excellence and the affective management to the quartet of quality, kanban, customer care and culture

Strategy, the end of the game 1.Three bodies of thought (phases) have built progressively on each other 3.‘Resource base view of the firm’. 1.This new view reinstated the top-down perspective (?) via the concept of ‘core competencies’ 2.Since (dirty secret), a core competency was anything you wanted to be, the theory could resonate without running the risk of refutability 3.Although nobody could define competencies, competencies defined the firm. And strategists, once again, had something new an knotty to talk about

Strategy, the end of the game 2.The Internet Challenge 1.It destroys the stable, mature environment the Business policy schools assumed it could create. This school believed that reviews, controls and formalities would minimize the probability of getting things wrong. Now the goal is maximizing the probabilities of getting things right. Risk has to embraced, not avoided, Speed matters more than accuracy, innovation matters more than control.

Strategy, the end of the game 2.The Internet Challenge 2.It undermines the premises of competitive analysis. 1.The definition of the business, competitors, suppliers, etc. is now the essence of the question, not a premise of the question. 2.Increasing returns related to business defined by Information systems, intellectual assets or networks. The logic of microeconomic organization crumbles 3.In this environment fine tuning gives way to big bets, resources become chips to be shuffled and deployed; planning becomes gambling. Poker replaces Pareto as the paradigm of competition

Strategy, the end of the game 2.The Internet Challenge 3.The New Economy liberated competencies from the core. 1.Personal networks, fluid labor markets, and sophisticated venture capital communities transplant much of that know-how from one firm to another. 2.Competencies rule more than ever, but they no longer define corporate shape

Strategy, the end of the game 3.The crisis in strategic planning 1.Theory of chaos does not help. 2.Sensitivity of complex systems to minuscule changes makes simulation tools useless. 3.Perhaps we need to redefine strategy as direction rather as solution 4.From paradigms to rules of thumb 1.This premises move away our attention from principles of advantage to rules of thumb for surviving. They provide direction 2.The new objective of strategy is survival into the next round of the game. 3.Successful strategies generate options

Strategy, the end of the game 5.Directional rules of thumb 1.Information flows are tending to separate from physical flow. 2.Connectivity and information standards are driving progressive reductions in transaction costs. 3.Navigation is progressively emerging as an independent function. Strategy becomes a matter of positioning one’s business to exploit them, of placing repeated bets on an outcome whose logic is merely tendency.