字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント This was the very helpful advice I received just a few seconds before entering the conference room of a major retailer to discuss. You guessed right strategy. Me, the strategist. Don't mention strategy, a moment of blind terror. But I'm a rational guy. Two questions popped into my head. One was, how can I re script this entire meeting in two seconds? That was pretty scary. So I had another thought, which was What did this guy? I mean, maybe I could sort of argue this out, but I have to confess, I sort of knew what he meant. Strategy, a slightly old fashioned, faintly pompous word, probably conjures up images of the Arcadian processes of strategic planning that are generally very complex. Me finding a large companies, lots of analysis, lots of planning, all in the name of improving the competitive advantage of the company. It's this classical concept of strategy, which is increasingly being called into question, and not just by our CEO friend. I think the whole idea of planning was one executive succinctly put to me. We spend three months of the year planning, and then the plan is obsolete within a month. Does that make sense? Not really. We'll take one of the big ideas of strategy. B C JIS founder, said that bigness was a very big idea. The idea of scale advantage. If you're the biggest in your industry, you'll probably be advantaged on costs. You'll probably make more money scale advantage. Well, let's look at some data. What proportion of the three largest companies across all industries do you think? Also amongst the top three in terms of profitability is it 50%? Perhaps, maybe 25% maybe 5%. Just look at some data. Here is that number across 65 years for all companies in the US, and the answer is not particularly overwhelming. 7%. So big, really is not as beautiful as it once waas, and neither are some of the core concept of strategy. So maybe strategy is dead killed by technology or something like that. Maybe we should look for a new job, but it can't be so simple. Surely, in these complex, turbulent times, don't we need great strategy more than ever, think about the gap between winners and losers. For example, let's look at the top 25% of profitable companies on the bottom 25% in profitability of all companies in the US across the same 65 year period. Let's see what happens. Crocodile Jaws. When is the winning big up on losers A. Losing bigger from the gap is getting wider. We need to make the right choices and have great strategist more than ever. And furthermore, just consider how long it takes to go from being on the Green Line. A winner to be on the white line, a loser if you reach into your pockets. I'm sure you're all carrying a smartphone, and it probably isn't a knock your phone because they don't make smart phones anymore. They were. They were supplanted by Apple, a company that had never made a smartphone before. They supply did a 60% market share leader in a highly technology and intensive business with high fixed costs, high returns to scale high regulation and fully global and very complex. And in less than five years, And this is, of course, just one of many examples I could give. So what's going on here? How can strategy be both more important than ever on Increasingly questioned, it really does seem like strategy itself needs a strategy of some sort. Let's try and make sense of that. Let's strip strategy of all its complexity and you wants and just what is it? Well, it's basically getting a job done. It's a tool, and the job is winning competitively in a particular situation, and we can capture those particular situations. I think we're just three very simple questions. Can we predict it and coming planet? Can we shape it? I'm kind of we survive it now. There are all sorts of changes that we've talked about that are going on a business across the last 10 2030 years. Technology, globalization, social feedback loops, Breathing's strategically. The most important change is that business has been stretched by the forces of change across more of this space. So we still have very predictable businesses, ones where technology change isn't so fast, where strong brands protect against change and we have very unpredictable businesses. We have businesses that haven't changed for decades on end, not easily shaped. We have ones that have just been brought into being and therefore are infinitely shape herbal. We have high growth hits, technology businesses that have very favorable conditions and we have declining businesses in declining markets, meeting very harsh conditions. So the question is, what approach to winning would apply across this huge diversity of environments? What's the approach to strategy that maximizes your chance of winning? Given this incredible diversity, well, it doesn't exist. This sweater is not here. There is no one size, which fits all. The approach to strategy has to match the situation. This shouldn't surprise us. In fact, mathematicians have actually logically proven that there can be no universal approach to strategy across all problem sets. It really just depends upon the problem. So let's rethink that question of how to win in different environments and get a feel for what's the best approach to strategy in five very different types of environment. Let's go back to this space first. Let's start with the familiar classical environment. We couldn't predict strong brands, limited technology change, absolutely regulation so we can plan. We can analyze and plan and execute in the classical manner, and that's just fine if you're in branded household products or confectionery or a host of other industries. But what if you're in a turbulent technology industry where it's virtually impossible to forecast, and you're in an adaptive environment. What we can't plan, so we shouldn't try. It's a waste of time. What can we do? Instead, we take a leaf from biology and we experiment. We adapt. The mantra becomes experiment, select, scale up and iterated very different way of thinking about strategy. Think about the environment of the entrepreneur. Let's hope it does get actually to shape and to predict How could they do that? It's because they are creating their environment by creating products such as three D printing or personal genomic service is so the matter of a strategy is very different. Again, you envisage is envisaged something which doesn't exist, and you realize that in reality and you exploit it a very different way. Thinking about strategy. Think about the exotic environment of the shaping environment. Here we have the ability to influence, but not the ability to predict. How could that be? That's because an ecosystem of many companies are collectively reshaping an industry. Think about, for example, the digital commerce businesses of Ali Baba or the software or hardware ecosystems of Apple. Here we see an ecosystem work on. The thinking is much more about influencing, collaborating, orchestrating and co evolving than about necessarily only competing in the penalty box. The renewal environment. If a company's talking about transformation or something of this sort, then basically it's gotten out of step with this environment and your face is very harsh conditions. And the objective here is not competitive advantage. It is miss survival, and the mantra is different again. This is about focusing activities, freed up resources and then transiting to another approach to strategy. Five very different environments. Five very different ways of thinking about strategy, all unleashed by one extra question. Extra question is what is the approach to winning in the particular environment? But I face you're probably thinking which of those approaches would work with my business, and that would be precisely the wrong question. And that's because all large businesses operate in multiple markets with multiple products, multiple lines of business, the face different conditions, each requiring their own approach, and furthermore, conditions change across time and increasingly quickly. So really, this is about choosing the right approach to winning in the right part of the business at the right time. Leaders today I think, have a very key role in making sure that this strategy ka large, is vibrant, dynamic and in tune with the changing environment back to reality. That scary meeting the door opens. What did the CEO really think the technology killed strategy? That we could somehow replace strategic choice and thought with agile action Orlean or something of this sort? No. What he actually meant was that the single approach to strategy that the company had bean adopting for years classical strategic planning was no longer adequate for the diverse circumstances that the different parts that business faced. This business and business in general in a way are exiting an extraordinary period of business history, where we believed that we could create success by analyzing and planning by adopting one approach to strategy. Strategy is more important than ever, but we need to adopt the right approach in the right situation. We need to apply the whole palette of human ingenuity to ingenuity, to the science of winning.