Pearl Zhu's Blog, page 1449
March 11, 2015
Digital Master Tuning #55: How to Mind the Gap between Strategy and Execution
The business strategy-execution gaps exist at people’ mindsets and beyond.
As companies around the world transform themselves into digital business that is based on information, innovation and intelligence, their ability to well align the strategy and execution, for delivering the solid result; their capability to explore intangible assets (leadership, culture, innovation, knowledge etc) has become far more decisive than their ability to invest in and manage physical assets. In order to build solid strategy and execute it smoothly, more specifically, how to mind the strategy-execution gap? Do you think there should be a specialized strategy department for strategy analysis and formulation? What about strategy implementation and how to measure it effectively?
By mapping strategy to execution, you need to well define the business goals (both long term and short term): What you are going to achieve could be “LONG TERM” or “SHORT TERM” goals. Usually companies need to measure the goals using certain KPIs which are very much to do with time and investment. After that, they need to have SHORT-TERM actions which are aligned with the goals. The managements need to make sure that STRATEGY are on the right track, otherwise they have to take corrective ACTIONS. If strategy (the deliberate strategy) is planned or intended, usually it is LONG TERM. The time factor is needed because you want to measure your performance. If there is no time-frame for the strategy, the actions are meaningless because you could keep executing forever. For emergent strategy, you could have short term or long term goals as well. There are three interrelated terms: vision, strategy and tactics:
-Vision: What you want the organization to be (your dream).
-Strategy: What you are going to do to achieve your vision (goals)
-Tactics: How you will achieve your strategy and when (actions).
The ideation team and execution team have different focal point and performance evaluation criteria: Perhaps the organizational structure is different based on the nature of business and the history of company. It could be a good idea to have an ideation team and an execution team, because though the skill sets needed are almost same, there is an intangible difference woven to it. For an execution team what is more needed is energy, enthusiasm and getting work done attitude, whereas for an Ideation team the need is, innovation, visualizing, analyzing & synthesis and a reprogrammable mind. It means that, for an ideation team, the need is a searchlight mind, and for an execution team the need is, laser focus attitude. From performance perspective, the ideation team can be evaluated via their “thinking performance,” and the execution team will be assessed via the “doer performance.”
Leverage balance scorecard for monitoring business result: You can only manage what you measure. To ensure the noble long term business vision, the entity has to survive and grow – meaning it has to make enough profits for sustenance and expansion. So for this purpose, the concept of Balance Score Card came into practice, to ensure the purpose of sustenance and growth, in a scientific manner. And as the business paradigm keeps changing and becoming more and more dynamic, the management also needs to amend the balance score card along with. For example, you need to bring in environment impact, social impact, etc. The key to a balanced scorecard is to be sure you're measuring the right things. It's hard to predict the behaviors that will result from the measures you've implemented. For example; to measure an organization’s learning and growth - measuring the number of training days employees take isn't useful in and of itself. You have to find a way to measure that the right employees take the right training; and then measure the training's effectiveness - in that the employee's use it to improve their and the organizations' performance. From point of view of business operation, you could classify companies as product-based companies (make to stock) and project-based companies (make to order). There are some arguments that balance scorecard is more appropriate for product-based companies while project management portfolio is more suitable for project-based companies.
The business strategy-execution gaps exist at people’ mindsets, the organizational culture, the business processes & capabilities, the measurement & tools, etc. it takes analytics-synthesis thinking, systematic approach and effective tools such as balanced scoreboard to bridge the gaps and implement digital strategy more seamlessly.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Wikipedia Introduction
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Book URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
As companies around the world transform themselves into digital business that is based on information, innovation and intelligence, their ability to well align the strategy and execution, for delivering the solid result; their capability to explore intangible assets (leadership, culture, innovation, knowledge etc) has become far more decisive than their ability to invest in and manage physical assets. In order to build solid strategy and execute it smoothly, more specifically, how to mind the strategy-execution gap? Do you think there should be a specialized strategy department for strategy analysis and formulation? What about strategy implementation and how to measure it effectively?
By mapping strategy to execution, you need to well define the business goals (both long term and short term): What you are going to achieve could be “LONG TERM” or “SHORT TERM” goals. Usually companies need to measure the goals using certain KPIs which are very much to do with time and investment. After that, they need to have SHORT-TERM actions which are aligned with the goals. The managements need to make sure that STRATEGY are on the right track, otherwise they have to take corrective ACTIONS. If strategy (the deliberate strategy) is planned or intended, usually it is LONG TERM. The time factor is needed because you want to measure your performance. If there is no time-frame for the strategy, the actions are meaningless because you could keep executing forever. For emergent strategy, you could have short term or long term goals as well. There are three interrelated terms: vision, strategy and tactics:
-Vision: What you want the organization to be (your dream).
-Strategy: What you are going to do to achieve your vision (goals)
-Tactics: How you will achieve your strategy and when (actions).
The ideation team and execution team have different focal point and performance evaluation criteria: Perhaps the organizational structure is different based on the nature of business and the history of company. It could be a good idea to have an ideation team and an execution team, because though the skill sets needed are almost same, there is an intangible difference woven to it. For an execution team what is more needed is energy, enthusiasm and getting work done attitude, whereas for an Ideation team the need is, innovation, visualizing, analyzing & synthesis and a reprogrammable mind. It means that, for an ideation team, the need is a searchlight mind, and for an execution team the need is, laser focus attitude. From performance perspective, the ideation team can be evaluated via their “thinking performance,” and the execution team will be assessed via the “doer performance.”
Leverage balance scorecard for monitoring business result: You can only manage what you measure. To ensure the noble long term business vision, the entity has to survive and grow – meaning it has to make enough profits for sustenance and expansion. So for this purpose, the concept of Balance Score Card came into practice, to ensure the purpose of sustenance and growth, in a scientific manner. And as the business paradigm keeps changing and becoming more and more dynamic, the management also needs to amend the balance score card along with. For example, you need to bring in environment impact, social impact, etc. The key to a balanced scorecard is to be sure you're measuring the right things. It's hard to predict the behaviors that will result from the measures you've implemented. For example; to measure an organization’s learning and growth - measuring the number of training days employees take isn't useful in and of itself. You have to find a way to measure that the right employees take the right training; and then measure the training's effectiveness - in that the employee's use it to improve their and the organizations' performance. From point of view of business operation, you could classify companies as product-based companies (make to stock) and project-based companies (make to order). There are some arguments that balance scorecard is more appropriate for product-based companies while project management portfolio is more suitable for project-based companies. The business strategy-execution gaps exist at people’ mindsets, the organizational culture, the business processes & capabilities, the measurement & tools, etc. it takes analytics-synthesis thinking, systematic approach and effective tools such as balanced scoreboard to bridge the gaps and implement digital strategy more seamlessly.
Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Wikipedia Introduction
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Book URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Mind the Gap between Strategy and Execution
As companies around the world transform themselves for digital business that is based on information, innovation and intelligence, their ability to well align the strategy and execution, for delivering the solid result; their capability to explore intangible assets (leadership, culture, innovation, knowledge etc) has become far more decisive than their ability to invest in and manage physical assets. More specifically, how to mind the strategy-execution gap and achieve high-performing business result? Do you think there should be a specialized strategy department for strategy analysis and formulation? What about strategy implementation?
By mapping strategy to execution, you need to well define the business goals (both long term and short term): What you are going to achieve could be “LONG TERM” or “SHORT TERM” goals. Usually companies need to measure the goals using certain KPIs which are very much to do with time and investment. After that, they need to have SHORT-TERM actions which are aligned with the goals. The managements need to make sure that STRATEGY are on the right track, otherwise they have to take corrective ACTIONS. If strategy (the deliberate strategy) is planned or intended, usually it is LONG TERM. The time factor is needed because you want to measure your performance. If there is no timeframe for the strategy, the actions are meaningless because you could keep executing forever. For emergent strategy, you could have short term or long term goals as well. There are three interrelated terms: vision, strategy and tactics -Vision: What you want the organization to be; (your dream). -Strategy: What you are going to do to achieve your vision (goals) -Tactics: How you will achieve your strategy and when (actions).
The ideation team and execution team have different focal point and performance evaluation criteria: Perhaps the organizational structure is different based on the nature of business and the history of company. It could be a good idea to have an ideation team and an execution team, because though the skill sets needed are almost same, there is an intangible difference woven to it. For an execution team what is more needed is: intelligence, energy, enthusiasm and getting work done attitude, whereas for an Ideation team the need is, visualizing, analyzing and a reprogrammable mind. Meaning, for an ideation team, the need is a searchlight mind, and for an execution team the need is, laser focus approach. From performance perspective, the ideation team can be evaluated via their “thinking performance,” and the execution team will be assessed via the “doer performance.”
Leverage balance scorecard for monitoring business result: But to ensure this noble long term vision, the entity has to survive and grow – meaning it has to make enough profits for sustenance and expansion. So for this purpose, the concept of Balance Score Card came into practice, to ensure the purpose of sustenance and growth, in a scientific manner. From point of view of business operation, you could classify companies as product-based companies (make to stock) and project-based companies (make to order). There are some arguments that balance scorecard is more appropriate for product-based companies while project management portfolio is more suitable for project-based companies. And as the business paradigm keeps changing and becoming more and more dynamic, the management also needs to amend the balance score card along with. For example, you need to bring in environment impact, social impact, etc. The key to a balanced scorecard is to be sure you're measuring the right things. It's hard to predict the behaviours that will result from the measures you've implemented. For example; to measure an organization’s learning and growth - measuring the number of training days employees take isn't useful in and of itself. You have to find a way to measure that the right employees take the right training; and then measure the training's effectiveness - in that the employee's use it to improve their and the organizations' performance.
The business strategy-execution gaps exist at people’ mindsets, the organizational culture, the business processes & capabilities, the measurement & tools, etc. it takes analytics-synthesis thinking and systematic approach to bridge the gaps and implement digital strategy more seamlessly.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
March 10, 2015
Can Agile Make Better Quality of Software
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Einstein
Agile is emerged as a major software development methodology, because twelve principles behind Agile manifesto such as people over process, change over document, customer-centricity and speed, etc. are more adaptable to the changes, it is a philosophy and mindset to either build software or run a business today. However, from quality perspective, can Agile make better software, why or why not?
Agile is simply a framework to say that it makes better quality of software projects or just the opposite are both incorrect. It's very simple that you need to focus on the customer, and then you can optimize the team's process what it takes to make them great at what they do and ensure your product owner knows where you're headed and can relay that to the the business. Agile runs better when you have developers on hand to focus on a continuous product development. Do not think methodology (whether waterfall or agile) alone can be responsible for delivering value, quality and customer satisfaction. There is more than just methodology alone such as (a) right choice of methodology based on organizational context (b) right level of skill and experience of the project team (c) tools and technology available to work on project tasks and more.
Agile is one of those things that's simple in principle but may be very challenging in practice. Software is never done. It needs to be enhanced to be brought closer to ideal, and ideal is continuing to change. This leads towards viewing software development as an ongoing improvement activity. The perceived complexity arises from the fact that "agile" isn't what many people wish it were. They are pushing back against the expectations that (a) they must think for themselves rather than following a guideline process, and (b) they must be accountable for their results, rather than using a methodology or buzzword as a scapegoat for poor outcomes. It is looking complex mostly because "you" haven't got Agile mindset. The components of Agile work coherently
Software Development is complicated, whether it is agile or not. Maybe some development methodologies look easier to a customer, but they rarely are. Of course it may seem simple to make some upfront choices, but you will have to deal with change at any certain moment. And then those 'complicated' agile methodologies seem a whole lot less complex.Agile is a way to get a handle on the fact that many organizations try to build projects that they don't have the resources to complete. Agile solutions may not have every bell and whistle, but they always implement the most important things well. That would have a better outcome than running out of resources a year into a project and having nothing that works at all. However, without the right context and right way of implementation, a methodology alone will not produce value, quality and customer satisfaction. For example, if you try to implement agile where there is no customer involvement on regular basis (that is how the organization works), it will fail or produce unwanted results.
There's no one size fits all when it comes to methodologies. Every organization and team is unique and has different strengths and needs. Effectiveness-oriented software development can deliver better products than the efficiency-oriented software development. It is not the methodology only which can deliver better quality projects, but the mind, the talent, the methodology and the measurement process well aligned in order to improve product quality and customer satisfaction.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Agile is emerged as a major software development methodology, because twelve principles behind Agile manifesto such as people over process, change over document, customer-centricity and speed, etc. are more adaptable to the changes, it is a philosophy and mindset to either build software or run a business today. However, from quality perspective, can Agile make better software, why or why not? Agile is simply a framework to say that it makes better quality of software projects or just the opposite are both incorrect. It's very simple that you need to focus on the customer, and then you can optimize the team's process what it takes to make them great at what they do and ensure your product owner knows where you're headed and can relay that to the the business. Agile runs better when you have developers on hand to focus on a continuous product development. Do not think methodology (whether waterfall or agile) alone can be responsible for delivering value, quality and customer satisfaction. There is more than just methodology alone such as (a) right choice of methodology based on organizational context (b) right level of skill and experience of the project team (c) tools and technology available to work on project tasks and more.
Agile is one of those things that's simple in principle but may be very challenging in practice. Software is never done. It needs to be enhanced to be brought closer to ideal, and ideal is continuing to change. This leads towards viewing software development as an ongoing improvement activity. The perceived complexity arises from the fact that "agile" isn't what many people wish it were. They are pushing back against the expectations that (a) they must think for themselves rather than following a guideline process, and (b) they must be accountable for their results, rather than using a methodology or buzzword as a scapegoat for poor outcomes. It is looking complex mostly because "you" haven't got Agile mindset. The components of Agile work coherently
Software Development is complicated, whether it is agile or not. Maybe some development methodologies look easier to a customer, but they rarely are. Of course it may seem simple to make some upfront choices, but you will have to deal with change at any certain moment. And then those 'complicated' agile methodologies seem a whole lot less complex.Agile is a way to get a handle on the fact that many organizations try to build projects that they don't have the resources to complete. Agile solutions may not have every bell and whistle, but they always implement the most important things well. That would have a better outcome than running out of resources a year into a project and having nothing that works at all. However, without the right context and right way of implementation, a methodology alone will not produce value, quality and customer satisfaction. For example, if you try to implement agile where there is no customer involvement on regular basis (that is how the organization works), it will fail or produce unwanted results.
There's no one size fits all when it comes to methodologies. Every organization and team is unique and has different strengths and needs. Effectiveness-oriented software development can deliver better products than the efficiency-oriented software development. It is not the methodology only which can deliver better quality projects, but the mind, the talent, the methodology and the measurement process well aligned in order to improve product quality and customer satisfaction.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Leverage Strategic Frameworks in Crafting a Good Digital Strategy?
Businesses today need to move beyond the notion of a jungle of threats to a notion of dynamic ecosystem with managing both opportunities and threats effectively.
The world changes, and businesses today have become more fluid, uncertain, and unstable in some industries or markets, but the fundamentals are still largely the same. And there have been environmental uncertainties, periods of business disruptions, and technological discontinuities as long as there have been markets, but the speed of change is accelerating. Are those well popular strategy models still relevant? And how to craft a good strategy?
Strategic thinking frameworks are better understood as complements (as opposed to substitutes). Each thinking framework is an abstraction, and as such, it is based on simplifying assumptions - sometimes explicit, usually implicit, and mostly related to the disciplines that the proponents have mastered. Uncovering underlying assumptions produces knowledge, albeit not of the “know-how” type, but more related to “know when” and “know where” perspectives. This type of knowledge has both a descriptive as well as a prescriptive side. Today’s business is hyper-connected and over-complex, more fundamentally, the strategy of the firm must be expanded to include a cross-level analysis of both a local firm and its portfolio of alliances. Ecosystems involve complex relationships based on "coopetition" where members of the ecosystem cooperate to create value and compete to capture value.
Both Porter’s Five Forces and Blue Ocean strategy model are relevant, but have their share of limitation: Different strategy model focuses on different aspects. Porter's Five Forces is an evaluative environment analysis, which is well suited for existing markets. Blue-Ocean Strategy, in contrast, is a strategic approach for identifying new (blue ocean) markets and unique position. Value creation can be viewed as a multi-dimensional approach, because they speak two different points of view. Porter's five forces discuss about environmental assessment and Blue Ocean is a strategy to acquire positioning and competitive advantage. The first discuss to analyze the environment. The second expose the advantage of being competitive by not competing neck-to-neck . Due to the rapid change and VUCA nature of digitalization, both strategy models have their share of limitations: Both fail to incorporate alliance network and ecosystem platform into consideration. Nowadays, competition is occurring not simply at the level of independent firms, but often at the level of network, platform, and business ecosystem. The strategy needs to be made not only based on the historical pattern, more importantly, it has to leverage the emergent thinking, shifting from descriptive to predictive to prescriptive analysis.
Emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist: If deliberate strategy dominates the companies running at industrial speed, then, emergent strategy has the digital tone of strategy making. In order to balance of such two speeds, emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist. If this is achieved and the organization is able to implement systemic thinking and double-loop learning, then the outcome may be that emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist in the same organization and that by developing this into an institutionalized element of the organization's culture and values (DNA), it would itself turn into a competitive strength. Organization theorists refer to this capability as ambidexterity. Now, every time business practitioners face a dilemma between opposing objectives, perhaps there are three simplistic scenarios: a) Focus: the organization which tries to be proficient at the “opposing objectives” is becoming disoriented, losing focus, turning out to be “good at nothing.” b) Choice: the organization realizes it is aiming at opposing objectives and understands it must choose. According to Porter, this choice is the basis for strategic positioning (“not only deciding what are we going to do but also what we definitely are not going to do”) c) Shift: This applies to firms that aim to “solve” the dilemma or at least shift the frontier of what is possible aiming for both objectives at the same time. Blue Ocean provides a way to improve both value and cost drivers by “rearranging” business attributes within the value proposition in response to value gaps in under-analyzed market segments.
Value innovation is more an emergent strategy than a deliberate strategy. Organization’s value propositions are multi-faceted. Value innovation is not immune to competition. Once a value innovation is successfully established, the innovator commits to scaling it up to create economic value. Going from exploration to exploitation increases the firm's commitment to the new successful business model. Its profitability logic becomes ingrained in its management processes and organizational culture. When competitive pressures erode profitability, it becomes difficult for the firm to creatively destroy its business and organizational model because the organization´s “immunological system” attacks and nullify new ideas. Typically that is done by another (entrepreneurial) firm without the burden of being committed to “legacy” models. Managing emergent strategies in well established firms is hard. Most of the time, value innovations are created by small disruptors. Thousands of experiments are conducted aimed at value innovation. Most of them fail, the fittest survive and then became famous when its story becomes known to business audiences. Large firms hear these stories and think they have the resources to create their own blue oceans. Most of the time, their legacy systems working in exploitation mode do not allow them to do it.
Turning organizational knowledge into strategic intelligence is crucial: All value creation and innovation may be fleeting as the blue ocean turns red and competitors imitate and market convergence erodes first mover or innovation advantage, so transforming knowledge into intelligence is mandatory. More specifically, transforming and harnessing organizational knowledge, turning it into strategic intelligence at the same time as creating a foundation level of capability upon which a flexible modular business established.This organization will be equipped with an operating element that is exploiting and a strategic framework that enables exploration, adaptation and timely response. This will facilitate continual strategic renewal through learning, and, therein, create the inherent ability and agility to respond to evolutionary as well as revolutionary changes and opportunities in the business ecosystem. Such emergent capability helps a firm function at both exploration and exploitation modes.
Businesses today need to move beyond the notion of a jungle of threats to a notion of dynamic ecosystem with managing both opportunities and threats effectively. From the perspective of dynamic ecosystem, Porter's five forces can be reframed from competing relationships to cooperative partnerships. You can immediately see the opposite strategies; simultaneously, which is a necessary condition for it to be able to appropriate economic value from its last blue ocean innovation while building the next value innovation in its pipeline, focus on customer-centricity rather than rivals only. The organization will be equipped with an operating element that is exploiting and a strategic framework that enables exploration, adaptation and timely response. This will facilitate continual strategic renewal through learning, and, therein, create the inherent ability to respond to evolutionary as well as revolutionary changes and opportunities in the business ecosystem. Strategy frameworks are just tools, many business concepts and disciplines need to be considered to ensure that not only is a "strategy" produced, but that "strategic management" is practiced.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The world changes, and businesses today have become more fluid, uncertain, and unstable in some industries or markets, but the fundamentals are still largely the same. And there have been environmental uncertainties, periods of business disruptions, and technological discontinuities as long as there have been markets, but the speed of change is accelerating. Are those well popular strategy models still relevant? And how to craft a good strategy?
Strategic thinking frameworks are better understood as complements (as opposed to substitutes). Each thinking framework is an abstraction, and as such, it is based on simplifying assumptions - sometimes explicit, usually implicit, and mostly related to the disciplines that the proponents have mastered. Uncovering underlying assumptions produces knowledge, albeit not of the “know-how” type, but more related to “know when” and “know where” perspectives. This type of knowledge has both a descriptive as well as a prescriptive side. Today’s business is hyper-connected and over-complex, more fundamentally, the strategy of the firm must be expanded to include a cross-level analysis of both a local firm and its portfolio of alliances. Ecosystems involve complex relationships based on "coopetition" where members of the ecosystem cooperate to create value and compete to capture value.
Both Porter’s Five Forces and Blue Ocean strategy model are relevant, but have their share of limitation: Different strategy model focuses on different aspects. Porter's Five Forces is an evaluative environment analysis, which is well suited for existing markets. Blue-Ocean Strategy, in contrast, is a strategic approach for identifying new (blue ocean) markets and unique position. Value creation can be viewed as a multi-dimensional approach, because they speak two different points of view. Porter's five forces discuss about environmental assessment and Blue Ocean is a strategy to acquire positioning and competitive advantage. The first discuss to analyze the environment. The second expose the advantage of being competitive by not competing neck-to-neck . Due to the rapid change and VUCA nature of digitalization, both strategy models have their share of limitations: Both fail to incorporate alliance network and ecosystem platform into consideration. Nowadays, competition is occurring not simply at the level of independent firms, but often at the level of network, platform, and business ecosystem. The strategy needs to be made not only based on the historical pattern, more importantly, it has to leverage the emergent thinking, shifting from descriptive to predictive to prescriptive analysis.
Emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist: If deliberate strategy dominates the companies running at industrial speed, then, emergent strategy has the digital tone of strategy making. In order to balance of such two speeds, emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist. If this is achieved and the organization is able to implement systemic thinking and double-loop learning, then the outcome may be that emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist in the same organization and that by developing this into an institutionalized element of the organization's culture and values (DNA), it would itself turn into a competitive strength. Organization theorists refer to this capability as ambidexterity. Now, every time business practitioners face a dilemma between opposing objectives, perhaps there are three simplistic scenarios: a) Focus: the organization which tries to be proficient at the “opposing objectives” is becoming disoriented, losing focus, turning out to be “good at nothing.” b) Choice: the organization realizes it is aiming at opposing objectives and understands it must choose. According to Porter, this choice is the basis for strategic positioning (“not only deciding what are we going to do but also what we definitely are not going to do”) c) Shift: This applies to firms that aim to “solve” the dilemma or at least shift the frontier of what is possible aiming for both objectives at the same time. Blue Ocean provides a way to improve both value and cost drivers by “rearranging” business attributes within the value proposition in response to value gaps in under-analyzed market segments.
Value innovation is more an emergent strategy than a deliberate strategy. Organization’s value propositions are multi-faceted. Value innovation is not immune to competition. Once a value innovation is successfully established, the innovator commits to scaling it up to create economic value. Going from exploration to exploitation increases the firm's commitment to the new successful business model. Its profitability logic becomes ingrained in its management processes and organizational culture. When competitive pressures erode profitability, it becomes difficult for the firm to creatively destroy its business and organizational model because the organization´s “immunological system” attacks and nullify new ideas. Typically that is done by another (entrepreneurial) firm without the burden of being committed to “legacy” models. Managing emergent strategies in well established firms is hard. Most of the time, value innovations are created by small disruptors. Thousands of experiments are conducted aimed at value innovation. Most of them fail, the fittest survive and then became famous when its story becomes known to business audiences. Large firms hear these stories and think they have the resources to create their own blue oceans. Most of the time, their legacy systems working in exploitation mode do not allow them to do it.
Turning organizational knowledge into strategic intelligence is crucial: All value creation and innovation may be fleeting as the blue ocean turns red and competitors imitate and market convergence erodes first mover or innovation advantage, so transforming knowledge into intelligence is mandatory. More specifically, transforming and harnessing organizational knowledge, turning it into strategic intelligence at the same time as creating a foundation level of capability upon which a flexible modular business established.This organization will be equipped with an operating element that is exploiting and a strategic framework that enables exploration, adaptation and timely response. This will facilitate continual strategic renewal through learning, and, therein, create the inherent ability and agility to respond to evolutionary as well as revolutionary changes and opportunities in the business ecosystem. Such emergent capability helps a firm function at both exploration and exploitation modes.
Businesses today need to move beyond the notion of a jungle of threats to a notion of dynamic ecosystem with managing both opportunities and threats effectively. From the perspective of dynamic ecosystem, Porter's five forces can be reframed from competing relationships to cooperative partnerships. You can immediately see the opposite strategies; simultaneously, which is a necessary condition for it to be able to appropriate economic value from its last blue ocean innovation while building the next value innovation in its pipeline, focus on customer-centricity rather than rivals only. The organization will be equipped with an operating element that is exploiting and a strategic framework that enables exploration, adaptation and timely response. This will facilitate continual strategic renewal through learning, and, therein, create the inherent ability to respond to evolutionary as well as revolutionary changes and opportunities in the business ecosystem. Strategy frameworks are just tools, many business concepts and disciplines need to be considered to ensure that not only is a "strategy" produced, but that "strategic management" is practiced.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Leverage Strategic Frameworks to Craft a Good Digital Strategy?
The world changes, and businesses today have become more fluid, uncertain, and unstable in some industries or markets, but the fundamentals are still largely the same. And there have been market uncertainties, periods of business disruptions, and technological discontinuities as long as there have been markets, but the speed of change is accelerating. Are those industry popular strategy models still relevant? And how to craft a good strategy?
Strategic thinking frameworks are better understood as complements (as opposed to substitutes). Each thinking framework is an abstraction, and as such, it is based on simplifying assumptions - sometimes explicit, usually implicit, and mostly related to the disciplines that the proponents have mastered. Uncovering underlying assumptions produces knowledge, albeit not of the “know-how” type, but more related to “know when” and “know where” perspectives. This type of knowledge has both a descriptive as well as a prescriptive side. Today’s business is hyper-connected and over-complex, more fundamentally, the strategy of the firm must be expanded to include a cross-level analysis of both a focal firm and its portfolio of alliances. Ecosystems involve complex relationships based on coopetition where members of the ecosystem cooperate to create value and compete to capture value.
Both Porter’s Five Forces and Blue Ocean strategy model are relevant, but have their share of limitation: Different strategy model focuses on different aspects. Porter's Five Forces is an evaluative environment analysis, which is well suited for existing markets. Blue-Ocean Strategy, in contrast, is a strategic approach for identifying new (blue ocean) markets and unique position. Value creation can be viewed as a multi-dimensional approach, because they speak two different points of view. Porter's five forces discuss about environmental assessment and Blue Ocean is a strategy to acquire positioning and competitive advantage. The first discuss to analyze the environment. The second expose the advantage of being competitive by not competing neck-to-neck . Due to the rapid change and VUCA nature of digitalization, both strategy models have their share of limitations: Both fail to incorporate alliance network and ecosystem platform into consideration. Nowadays, competition is occurring not simply at the level of independent firms, but often at the level of network, platform, and business ecosystem. The strategy needs to be made not only based on the historical pattern, more importantly, it has to leverage the emergent thinking, shifting from descriptive to predictive to prescriptive analysis.
Emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist: If deliberate strategy dominates the companies running at industrial speed, then, emergent strategy is the digital tone of strategy making. In order to balance of such two speeds, emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist. If this is achieved and the organization is able to implement systemic thinking and double-loop learning, then the outcome may be that emergent and deliberate strategies could co-exist in the same organization and that by developing this into an institutionalized element of the organization's culture and values (DNA), it would itself turn into a competitive strength. Organization theorists refer to this capability as ambidexterity. Now, every time business practitioners face a dilemma between opposing objectives, perhaps there are three simplistic scenarios: a) Focus: the organization which tries to be proficient at the “opposing objectives” is becoming disoriented, losing focus, turning out to be “good at nothing.” b) Choice: the organization realizes it is aiming at opposing objectives and understands it must choose. According to Porter, this choice is the basis for strategic positioning (“not only deciding what are we going to do but also what we definitely are not going to do”) c) Shift: This applies to firms that aim to “solve” the dilemma or at least shift the frontier of what is possible aiming for both objectives at the same time. Blue Ocean provides a way to improve both value and cost drivers by “rearranging” business attributes within the value proposition in response to value gaps in under-analyzed market segments.
Value innovation is more an emergent strategy than a deliberate strategy. Organization’s value propositions are multi-faceted. Value innovation is not immune to competition. Once a value innovation is successfully established, the innovator commits to scaling it up to create economic value. Going from exploration to exploitation increases the firm's commitment to the new successful business model. Its profitability logic becomes ingrained in its management processes and organizational culture. When competitive pressures erode profitability, it becomes difficult for the firm to creatively destroy its business and organizational model because the organization´s “immunological system” attacks and nullify new ideas. Typically that is done by another (entrepreneurial) firm without the burden of being committed to “legacy” models. Managing emergent strategies in well established firms is hard. Most of the time, value innovations are created by small disruptors. Thousands of experiments are conducted aimed at value innovation. Most of them fail, the fittest survive and then became famous when its story becomes known to business audiences. Large firms hear these stories and think they have the resources to create their own blue oceans. Most of the time, their legacy systems working in exploitation mode do not allow them to do it.
Turning organizational knowledge into strategic intelligence: All value creation and innovation may be fleeting as the blue ocean turns red and competitors imitate and market convergence erodes first mover or innovation advantage, so transforming knowledge into intelligence is mandatory. More specifically, transforming and harnessing organizational knowledge, turning it into strategic intelligence at the same time as creating a foundation level of capability upon which a flexible modular business established.This organization will be equipped with an operating element that is exploiting and a strategic framework that enables exploration, adaptation and timely response. This will facilitate continual strategic renewal through learning, and, therein, create the inherent ability and agility to respond to evolutionary as well as revolutionary changes and opportunities in the business ecosystem. Such emergent capability helps a firm function at both exploration and exploitation modes.
Businesses today need to move beyond the notion of a jungle of threats to a notion of dynamic ecosystem with both threats and opportunities. From the perspective of dynamic ecosystem, Porter's five forces can be reframed from competing relationships to cooperative partnerships. You can immediately see the opposite strategies. simultaneously, which is a necessary condition for it to be able to appropriate economic value from its last blue ocean innovation while building the next value innovation in its pipeline, focus on customer-centricity rather than rivals only. Strategy frameworks are just tools, many business concepts and disciplines need to be considered to ensure that not only is a "strategy" produced, but that "strategic management" is practiced. The organization will be equipped with an operating element that is exploiting and a strategic framework that enables exploration, adaptation and timely response. This will facilitate continual strategic renewal through learning, and, therein, create the inherent ability to respond to evolutionary as well as revolutionary changes and opportunities in the business ecosystem.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
March 9, 2015
Macro vs. Micro Level of Systems Analysis
In general the energy comes from the micro level. The constraints come from the macro level.
The organization's become an over-complex and hyper-connected digital ecosystem nowadays, analytics turns to be a “must have,” not a “nice to have” tool, for both strategy making and problem solving. Macro vs. Micro level of systems analysis, what are they all about, and how to apply them accordingly?
Macro analysis identifies the impact factors in a system, and micro-approach is pinning down into the underlying elements: Macro-approach identifies the impact factors in a system into chunky distinct facets or scenarios. It can be articulated via Alexander's "pattern language," where the "patterns" are essentially relational process or entity templates with attached descriptions and contextual information that make them useful in a range of cognate cases within a target domain of choice. On the other hand, the "micro-approach" is more concerned with pinning down the elementary and underlying constituents of a system, seeking to abstract and codify aspects of the system into the data-sets and algorithmic process formulas. In such scenario, the individual and elementary constituents of a resultant "system object" (or composite of objects) may be meaningless in isolation, unlike at the macro-level that concerns itself are primarily with the larger "macroscopic objects" of the system.
The diamond-shaped macro and micro perspectives are both analyzed and synthesized to establish a direction, but these are iterative. Where macro or micro are simply methods of viewing or understanding resolution of the process. Analysis and synthesis is iterative, first to ask, then to answer, and again, throughout the process in refining the ideas. You could also recognize the entire method as "macro" and the iterations as "micro." If the system structure is a diamond made up of two triangles; The top triangular structure of the diamond as Macro Analysis and the bottom triangle of the diamond as Macro Synthesis. The analysis and synthesis as articulated throughout the system process of refinement; first via divergent thinking then via convergent thinking are micro iterations of the system. One could imagine the system map as a diamond shape, first diverging to articulate the various factors as defined by the system, then converging in a process of articulating solutions; in tighter and tighter iterations of analysis and synthesis to refine and solve for the system, articulated at the bottom point as a holistic set of ideas that refined converge to a systemic solution. Macro: - identify system/subsystem input/output boundaries for a system, as well as external variables to the system that can and cannot be controlled. - identify the subsystem interactions - data collection on subsystem input/output - modeling and analysis of the system/subsystemsMicro: - identify subsystem internal boundaries and interactions, processes, flows, etc. - data collection - modeling and analysis of the subsystem
Macro analytics is more qualitative; and micro analytics is more quantitative. Macro analytics model is often the starting point when one is ignorant about the details - more qualitative and general, and "micro" analytics models are "scientific" and specific - more quantitative. The interesting observation is that as one gets more "micro," more data is required to set parameters and the model has less generality. And this observation applies equally to all length scales - from cosmological to cellular to atomic. It starts as a top-down method of divergent thinking to establish context of the system that will be eventually conceptualized and designed for. This obviously requires both levels of macro and micro perspectives of this system. The process uses iterative methods of both analysis and synthesis to develop the system structure and divergent framework. At the bottom of this framework the method elicits both functions of the user and functions of the system. Then data is cross-referenced, also this divergent map provides the context to converge, toward the solution space. Evidently, the macro-level is more tangible, intuitively meaningful and immediately actionable -- a precision level of choice for illustration and management. Yet it doesn't yield itself well to the generation of metrics data on the process progression, to logic validation, or to other forms of programmatic evaluation. Analysis with a deeper itemized reach would confer obvious benefits in terms of identifying process fallacies, providing spectrums of perspective, or even rendering (potential) novel solutions based on the available data.
Divergent-convergent thinking cycle: Where many 'designers' utilize the funnel to parse ideas of the 'fuzzy-front-end,' from brainstorms, but by starting with convergent thinking, only funnels thoughts swirling into a muddy bucket of thought. However, if one starts by diverging instead, like turning a tree upside down, starting at the trunk on top and then gradually building finer detail to the tips of the branches. This upside down tree establishes a rich context, focusing on coverage and breath that establishes a meta-understanding of the system being designed for. Then one can place the funnel underneath, to vet and converge elements into usable ideas and thoughts. Holistically this system structure illustrates a plan, where the system context is clear, the concepts are clear and the solution set will be clear. The part of the analysis, where both self-properties and relational properties are identified, and then proceeding to analysis of the processes where the identified entities are involved, again both self-processes and relational processes, or combinations thereof.
It is an "artificial boundary" design requires both analysis and synthesis: to ask and to answer, the only constant is change, especially if you are considering the dynamics of the system. First, discover the issue, analyze. Next, frame the issue, synthesize. They look at all these factors through different resolutions of macro and micro 'lenses' or methods. And then build concepts based on these resolutions. This builds a structure used to plan the process, and it's an "artificial boundary or constraint." This is the very definition of "synthetic" modeling: -Macro view is mainly to know what to do, -Micro view is mainly to know how to do it, -Both micro and macro requires operational methods: Analysis, Synthesis.
Systems thinking provides a perspective that characterize, synthesize, and thus recognize both patterns and anomalies of a contextualized system. Fortunately or unfortunately, humans are the major outlier of any system. As many data-points we can track we can not 'know' every aspect of natural systems. This is why it is critical to recognize the perspective as taken, when articulating 'systems thinking.' Macro and micro refers to the level of aggregation, both can be collaborative, analytical, synthetical, competitive, blue, yellow and so on. Using a micro-meso-macro approach. The meso level is the customer experience. The micro level is the passion and talent of the designers.The Macro level are the constraints of time and money. A small change in the macro level is most effective to create a big change in the meso level.The macro view is useful to tell you What? While micro view tell you How? You have to be careful not to see this as a view, because it is up to you. Both are necessary, analysis and synthesis. Continue to questioning: Why?, Where? and Who? Those three friends require their own views like fishbone, mapping and agents. All of them are necessary to play the imitation game.
As "everything exists in time," all systems can be related to the system model at four levels. This articulates a dynamic system structure. From here one can imagine user needs and system requirements that articulate and solve for the established context framework, allow participants to bring up their own problems, and then see how solutions to complex problems become self-evident through the power of paying attention. Under such collaborative and competitive systems, there’s conflict and crisis. As such the term 'environment' doesn't mean anything as a better lens for an ‘'ecosystem', as a collection of overlapping changing systems interacting at and across as different levels of abstraction over time. As such systems can be resolved from multiple perspectives in time and resolutions change with time. Underlying Change in those ecosystems isn't just aggregate stress cause-effect relationships from interaction but could be by chance. The four levels of system analysis model are:- Top level defines the system scope, - Second level describes the modes or major operations of the system, - Third level defines the activities of the modes, and the - Fourth level describes the user and system functions of the activities.
While oscillating between two levels of system analysis is important, it may also be useful to keep in mind that the macro system has more "dimensions of analysis" that should be considered. For example, on a micro level, one department may improve their operational efficiency. On a macro level, you should consider the optimization of all the departments, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the inter-departmental interactions (an additional dimension). Indeed, the macro may be said to be defined by those interactions. Sometimes, learning by doing - working with dynamic change as your tool is the best approach, rather than analyzing, planning then implementing, and waiting. A basic skill is determining which approaches are appropriate, rather than just always reaching for system thinking first. In general the energy comes from the micro level. The constraints come from the macro level. The boundary definition of the "problem" is at the meso level. Analogically, when you drive a car, the GPS gave you the macro view, while you are engage in the micro view. Business is a complex and adaptive system and you are on the wheel. You can put in practice your strategies and tactical moves, when you navigate through the journey you’ve never been before.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The organization's become an over-complex and hyper-connected digital ecosystem nowadays, analytics turns to be a “must have,” not a “nice to have” tool, for both strategy making and problem solving. Macro vs. Micro level of systems analysis, what are they all about, and how to apply them accordingly?
Macro analysis identifies the impact factors in a system, and micro-approach is pinning down into the underlying elements: Macro-approach identifies the impact factors in a system into chunky distinct facets or scenarios. It can be articulated via Alexander's "pattern language," where the "patterns" are essentially relational process or entity templates with attached descriptions and contextual information that make them useful in a range of cognate cases within a target domain of choice. On the other hand, the "micro-approach" is more concerned with pinning down the elementary and underlying constituents of a system, seeking to abstract and codify aspects of the system into the data-sets and algorithmic process formulas. In such scenario, the individual and elementary constituents of a resultant "system object" (or composite of objects) may be meaningless in isolation, unlike at the macro-level that concerns itself are primarily with the larger "macroscopic objects" of the system.
The diamond-shaped macro and micro perspectives are both analyzed and synthesized to establish a direction, but these are iterative. Where macro or micro are simply methods of viewing or understanding resolution of the process. Analysis and synthesis is iterative, first to ask, then to answer, and again, throughout the process in refining the ideas. You could also recognize the entire method as "macro" and the iterations as "micro." If the system structure is a diamond made up of two triangles; The top triangular structure of the diamond as Macro Analysis and the bottom triangle of the diamond as Macro Synthesis. The analysis and synthesis as articulated throughout the system process of refinement; first via divergent thinking then via convergent thinking are micro iterations of the system. One could imagine the system map as a diamond shape, first diverging to articulate the various factors as defined by the system, then converging in a process of articulating solutions; in tighter and tighter iterations of analysis and synthesis to refine and solve for the system, articulated at the bottom point as a holistic set of ideas that refined converge to a systemic solution. Macro: - identify system/subsystem input/output boundaries for a system, as well as external variables to the system that can and cannot be controlled. - identify the subsystem interactions - data collection on subsystem input/output - modeling and analysis of the system/subsystemsMicro: - identify subsystem internal boundaries and interactions, processes, flows, etc. - data collection - modeling and analysis of the subsystem
Macro analytics is more qualitative; and micro analytics is more quantitative. Macro analytics model is often the starting point when one is ignorant about the details - more qualitative and general, and "micro" analytics models are "scientific" and specific - more quantitative. The interesting observation is that as one gets more "micro," more data is required to set parameters and the model has less generality. And this observation applies equally to all length scales - from cosmological to cellular to atomic. It starts as a top-down method of divergent thinking to establish context of the system that will be eventually conceptualized and designed for. This obviously requires both levels of macro and micro perspectives of this system. The process uses iterative methods of both analysis and synthesis to develop the system structure and divergent framework. At the bottom of this framework the method elicits both functions of the user and functions of the system. Then data is cross-referenced, also this divergent map provides the context to converge, toward the solution space. Evidently, the macro-level is more tangible, intuitively meaningful and immediately actionable -- a precision level of choice for illustration and management. Yet it doesn't yield itself well to the generation of metrics data on the process progression, to logic validation, or to other forms of programmatic evaluation. Analysis with a deeper itemized reach would confer obvious benefits in terms of identifying process fallacies, providing spectrums of perspective, or even rendering (potential) novel solutions based on the available data.
Divergent-convergent thinking cycle: Where many 'designers' utilize the funnel to parse ideas of the 'fuzzy-front-end,' from brainstorms, but by starting with convergent thinking, only funnels thoughts swirling into a muddy bucket of thought. However, if one starts by diverging instead, like turning a tree upside down, starting at the trunk on top and then gradually building finer detail to the tips of the branches. This upside down tree establishes a rich context, focusing on coverage and breath that establishes a meta-understanding of the system being designed for. Then one can place the funnel underneath, to vet and converge elements into usable ideas and thoughts. Holistically this system structure illustrates a plan, where the system context is clear, the concepts are clear and the solution set will be clear. The part of the analysis, where both self-properties and relational properties are identified, and then proceeding to analysis of the processes where the identified entities are involved, again both self-processes and relational processes, or combinations thereof.
It is an "artificial boundary" design requires both analysis and synthesis: to ask and to answer, the only constant is change, especially if you are considering the dynamics of the system. First, discover the issue, analyze. Next, frame the issue, synthesize. They look at all these factors through different resolutions of macro and micro 'lenses' or methods. And then build concepts based on these resolutions. This builds a structure used to plan the process, and it's an "artificial boundary or constraint." This is the very definition of "synthetic" modeling: -Macro view is mainly to know what to do, -Micro view is mainly to know how to do it, -Both micro and macro requires operational methods: Analysis, Synthesis.
Systems thinking provides a perspective that characterize, synthesize, and thus recognize both patterns and anomalies of a contextualized system. Fortunately or unfortunately, humans are the major outlier of any system. As many data-points we can track we can not 'know' every aspect of natural systems. This is why it is critical to recognize the perspective as taken, when articulating 'systems thinking.' Macro and micro refers to the level of aggregation, both can be collaborative, analytical, synthetical, competitive, blue, yellow and so on. Using a micro-meso-macro approach. The meso level is the customer experience. The micro level is the passion and talent of the designers.The Macro level are the constraints of time and money. A small change in the macro level is most effective to create a big change in the meso level.The macro view is useful to tell you What? While micro view tell you How? You have to be careful not to see this as a view, because it is up to you. Both are necessary, analysis and synthesis. Continue to questioning: Why?, Where? and Who? Those three friends require their own views like fishbone, mapping and agents. All of them are necessary to play the imitation game.
As "everything exists in time," all systems can be related to the system model at four levels. This articulates a dynamic system structure. From here one can imagine user needs and system requirements that articulate and solve for the established context framework, allow participants to bring up their own problems, and then see how solutions to complex problems become self-evident through the power of paying attention. Under such collaborative and competitive systems, there’s conflict and crisis. As such the term 'environment' doesn't mean anything as a better lens for an ‘'ecosystem', as a collection of overlapping changing systems interacting at and across as different levels of abstraction over time. As such systems can be resolved from multiple perspectives in time and resolutions change with time. Underlying Change in those ecosystems isn't just aggregate stress cause-effect relationships from interaction but could be by chance. The four levels of system analysis model are:- Top level defines the system scope, - Second level describes the modes or major operations of the system, - Third level defines the activities of the modes, and the - Fourth level describes the user and system functions of the activities.
While oscillating between two levels of system analysis is important, it may also be useful to keep in mind that the macro system has more "dimensions of analysis" that should be considered. For example, on a micro level, one department may improve their operational efficiency. On a macro level, you should consider the optimization of all the departments, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the inter-departmental interactions (an additional dimension). Indeed, the macro may be said to be defined by those interactions. Sometimes, learning by doing - working with dynamic change as your tool is the best approach, rather than analyzing, planning then implementing, and waiting. A basic skill is determining which approaches are appropriate, rather than just always reaching for system thinking first. In general the energy comes from the micro level. The constraints come from the macro level. The boundary definition of the "problem" is at the meso level. Analogically, when you drive a car, the GPS gave you the macro view, while you are engage in the micro view. Business is a complex and adaptive system and you are on the wheel. You can put in practice your strategies and tactical moves, when you navigate through the journey you’ve never been before.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Digital Master Tuning #53: What are the Key Factors in Knowledge Management
Knowledge is the power, so empower your employees.
Business is going through a period of huge disruption due to the accelerating speed of changes and the emergent digital technology, and business life cycle is significantly shortened. Knowledge is without a doubt one of the most valuable and most poorly managed asset in business today. It is worthy of massive amounts of attention and resources. However, knowledge now is also like a perished food, easy to get expired, so knowledge cannot be managed based on traditional asset management discipline, it is not about control, but about flow, to capture insight and wisdom from it. More specifically, what are the key factors in managing knowledge successfully?
The insightful leaders are critical to manage knowledge flow. Knowledge can not be managed like those other hard assets. More attention needs to be placed on the conditions that allow knowledge to flow and generate value rather than try to manage ("control") knowledge like it is a thing that can benefit from that type of intervention. And to enable knowledge flow, the role and vision of leadership, is absolutely essential. KM needs to be taken from the hands of folks interested in document management and social media which are merely sidebars to the real conversations and put in the hands of peoples with the power and insights to make the right things happen. You need the right kind of leadership to make things happen. In its absence, making KM work is almost impossible and therefore likely to fail, no matter how shiny your "KM model" is.
Being successful at KM requires an advanced set of skills: The right sets of skills are not that easy to come by, which complicates being able to successfully implement and embed KM in an organization. Unfortunately few organizations do this well. The current rage is to lead from the center to control everything. Of course this is directly contradictory to the theories of employee engagement which stress autonomy, mastery and a sense of purpose. The other pitfall of Knowledge Management is that the focus of management is on "efficiency," most staff have their heads down looking for pennies to save. They therefore cannot see the disruption bus running straight at them.
The business purpose of Knowledge Management is to connect ideas, but also people: An essential role for Knowledge Management is the need to connect ideas but also people, and crucially management; coach them and many others in organizing their personal knowledge mastery and collectively engaging with others and making decisions. While some leaders may embrace the importance of innovation, collective thinking, intangible assets etc, but not many are thinking of, let alone good at mastering their own information items, knowledge flows, learning processes. Knowledge Management falls into a big picture category which is not what most knowledge managers are doing.
Knowledge Management needs to be well embedded into the key business processes to shape a culture of learning: Knowledge Management goes well beyond leadership, it actually extends to the culture of the company. Because at the end of the day what you want is companies that are capable of mobilizing all the ideas, experiences, capacities of everyone in the company and partners to a) adapt to ever-changing challenges and b) anticipate some of the big things that may turn up, be adaptive, agile, 'in the flow'...
As companies around the world transform themselves into digital business that is based on information, their ability to explore intangible assets has become far more decisive than their ability to invest in and manage physical assets. It needs visionary leaders who treat knowledge like any other invaluable tangible assets, but also manage it differently in order to keep it flow; it is important to practice “lesson learned” or intangible asset management, but more importantly, to integrate knowledge management into the information management life cycle, with the focus on empowering employees, enabling them to get the right knowledge at the right time to make the right decision. Knowledge is the power, so empower your employees. Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Wikipedia Introduction
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Book URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Business is going through a period of huge disruption due to the accelerating speed of changes and the emergent digital technology, and business life cycle is significantly shortened. Knowledge is without a doubt one of the most valuable and most poorly managed asset in business today. It is worthy of massive amounts of attention and resources. However, knowledge now is also like a perished food, easy to get expired, so knowledge cannot be managed based on traditional asset management discipline, it is not about control, but about flow, to capture insight and wisdom from it. More specifically, what are the key factors in managing knowledge successfully?
The insightful leaders are critical to manage knowledge flow. Knowledge can not be managed like those other hard assets. More attention needs to be placed on the conditions that allow knowledge to flow and generate value rather than try to manage ("control") knowledge like it is a thing that can benefit from that type of intervention. And to enable knowledge flow, the role and vision of leadership, is absolutely essential. KM needs to be taken from the hands of folks interested in document management and social media which are merely sidebars to the real conversations and put in the hands of peoples with the power and insights to make the right things happen. You need the right kind of leadership to make things happen. In its absence, making KM work is almost impossible and therefore likely to fail, no matter how shiny your "KM model" is.
Being successful at KM requires an advanced set of skills: The right sets of skills are not that easy to come by, which complicates being able to successfully implement and embed KM in an organization. Unfortunately few organizations do this well. The current rage is to lead from the center to control everything. Of course this is directly contradictory to the theories of employee engagement which stress autonomy, mastery and a sense of purpose. The other pitfall of Knowledge Management is that the focus of management is on "efficiency," most staff have their heads down looking for pennies to save. They therefore cannot see the disruption bus running straight at them.
The business purpose of Knowledge Management is to connect ideas, but also people: An essential role for Knowledge Management is the need to connect ideas but also people, and crucially management; coach them and many others in organizing their personal knowledge mastery and collectively engaging with others and making decisions. While some leaders may embrace the importance of innovation, collective thinking, intangible assets etc, but not many are thinking of, let alone good at mastering their own information items, knowledge flows, learning processes. Knowledge Management falls into a big picture category which is not what most knowledge managers are doing.
Knowledge Management needs to be well embedded into the key business processes to shape a culture of learning: Knowledge Management goes well beyond leadership, it actually extends to the culture of the company. Because at the end of the day what you want is companies that are capable of mobilizing all the ideas, experiences, capacities of everyone in the company and partners to a) adapt to ever-changing challenges and b) anticipate some of the big things that may turn up, be adaptive, agile, 'in the flow'...
As companies around the world transform themselves into digital business that is based on information, their ability to explore intangible assets has become far more decisive than their ability to invest in and manage physical assets. It needs visionary leaders who treat knowledge like any other invaluable tangible assets, but also manage it differently in order to keep it flow; it is important to practice “lesson learned” or intangible asset management, but more importantly, to integrate knowledge management into the information management life cycle, with the focus on empowering employees, enabling them to get the right knowledge at the right time to make the right decision. Knowledge is the power, so empower your employees. Digitalization is like a flywheel, and Digital Masters are the one riding above it. Surf more Information about Digital Master:
Digital Master Wikipedia Introduction
Digital Master Kindle Version Book Order URL
Digital Master Book URL
Digital Master Author URL
Digital Master Video Clip on YouTube
Digital Master Fun Quiz
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
March 8, 2015
IT Leaders & Professionals: Do you Ask the Right Questions
A set of excellent questions themselves are perhaps like a poem, both philosophical and intellectual.
Although almost all serious digital professionals today understand the importance of asking the right question, it takes both courage and humility for leaders to ask questions, rather than providing the answers; and it takes both insight and wisdom to ask the right questions; many times, you have to breakdown the status quo and breakthrough the conventional wisdom, to keep informative and inquisitive, always to challenge and ensure that the question itself is corrected before answering…
Ask the right questions for ensuring doing the right things before doing things right. The CIO role is a challenging perch to sit on. Whilst they need to ensure their IT department keeps the lights on, continually improves, provide the IT enablement to allow the business to grow. The CIO also needs to be acutely in tune with the business. This is a truism that is perhaps more in focus today than for some time previously with the relentless push for new IT delivery models, particularly with the third party cloud based solutions. IT leaders and professionals need to self-reflect their management and problem-solving style, to ensure doing the right things, before just doing things right. Do you always ask the right questions? Or do you just keep pushing and rushing up to find the answers without really understanding users’ true needs.
Ask the right question by using business vocabulary if possible: Too often, when ask questions, you tend to assume that the people who are answering actually understand your language. Many times, that is not the case and leads to misalignment between "what you need" vs. "what you get." Especially in the case of GRC, this can have pretty disastrous consequences. As technologist, IT leaders and professionals must learn to speak many different languages of the businesses you serve, so that you can ask the right questions, and then search for the contextual answers to deliver the IT services/solutions in the manner that is expected, and not as you want them to be.
Ask the right question via business’s viewpoint: One point perhaps too often overlooked is that the CIO needs to be a part of a the executive team, for the role to be effective and as such the specific skills and areas of engagement will inevitably vary across organizations, as these individuals fill the gaps left by other colleagues. CIOs' specific responsibility vary depending on the business maturity; in some cases, there will be a strong technology need that they fulfill; in others, the development of business strategy which they may need to focus on; for some IT organizations, there may be more of a back office transformation challenge they have to rise to. In all cases, the common element is business engagement - wherever the business needs focus and support the CIO needs to be engaged, and at the most senior levels to help influence and shape the business of the future. It is important for CIOs to be inquisitive with learning agility, to ask the right questions using business’s vocabulary, not only via technical lenses, but also via business point of view.
The good question is usually open and thought provoking: The good question brings multifaceted perspective. A digital CIO's position has to reach out horizontally to their business peers. Understanding and communicating the business strategy is a beautiful thing. Without business strategy execution, there is no future and no need for IT. Not only IT leaders lead by questioning their business peers, they would also equally invite those business stakeholders to their IT forums. These sponsors led IT brainstorming discussions via asking questions, to share IT innovation, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats present within IT, so IT management listened to the business to understand the issues, put in action plans to help, reviewed the business plans and strategy and worked within IT to drive the value and outcomes to meet the business objectives. Where these types of interactions were sustained, year on year, openly reviewed and improved, this interaction forced a close collaboration and better understanding of each other's worlds and IT was able to influence and contribute to corporate strategy.
Either the big "WHY" question to diagnose the root cause, or the witty "WHY NOT" question to provoke innovation; Either the straight "WHAT" question to put emphasis or the logical "HOW" question to reach the detail, a good question is half way of problem solving, a fine-tuned question stimulates energy, a great question inspires imagination and creativity. And a set of excellent questions themselves are perhaps like a poem, both philosophical and intellectual.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Although almost all serious digital professionals today understand the importance of asking the right question, it takes both courage and humility for leaders to ask questions, rather than providing the answers; and it takes both insight and wisdom to ask the right questions; many times, you have to breakdown the status quo and breakthrough the conventional wisdom, to keep informative and inquisitive, always to challenge and ensure that the question itself is corrected before answering…Ask the right questions for ensuring doing the right things before doing things right. The CIO role is a challenging perch to sit on. Whilst they need to ensure their IT department keeps the lights on, continually improves, provide the IT enablement to allow the business to grow. The CIO also needs to be acutely in tune with the business. This is a truism that is perhaps more in focus today than for some time previously with the relentless push for new IT delivery models, particularly with the third party cloud based solutions. IT leaders and professionals need to self-reflect their management and problem-solving style, to ensure doing the right things, before just doing things right. Do you always ask the right questions? Or do you just keep pushing and rushing up to find the answers without really understanding users’ true needs.
Ask the right question by using business vocabulary if possible: Too often, when ask questions, you tend to assume that the people who are answering actually understand your language. Many times, that is not the case and leads to misalignment between "what you need" vs. "what you get." Especially in the case of GRC, this can have pretty disastrous consequences. As technologist, IT leaders and professionals must learn to speak many different languages of the businesses you serve, so that you can ask the right questions, and then search for the contextual answers to deliver the IT services/solutions in the manner that is expected, and not as you want them to be.
Ask the right question via business’s viewpoint: One point perhaps too often overlooked is that the CIO needs to be a part of a the executive team, for the role to be effective and as such the specific skills and areas of engagement will inevitably vary across organizations, as these individuals fill the gaps left by other colleagues. CIOs' specific responsibility vary depending on the business maturity; in some cases, there will be a strong technology need that they fulfill; in others, the development of business strategy which they may need to focus on; for some IT organizations, there may be more of a back office transformation challenge they have to rise to. In all cases, the common element is business engagement - wherever the business needs focus and support the CIO needs to be engaged, and at the most senior levels to help influence and shape the business of the future. It is important for CIOs to be inquisitive with learning agility, to ask the right questions using business’s vocabulary, not only via technical lenses, but also via business point of view.
The good question is usually open and thought provoking: The good question brings multifaceted perspective. A digital CIO's position has to reach out horizontally to their business peers. Understanding and communicating the business strategy is a beautiful thing. Without business strategy execution, there is no future and no need for IT. Not only IT leaders lead by questioning their business peers, they would also equally invite those business stakeholders to their IT forums. These sponsors led IT brainstorming discussions via asking questions, to share IT innovation, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats present within IT, so IT management listened to the business to understand the issues, put in action plans to help, reviewed the business plans and strategy and worked within IT to drive the value and outcomes to meet the business objectives. Where these types of interactions were sustained, year on year, openly reviewed and improved, this interaction forced a close collaboration and better understanding of each other's worlds and IT was able to influence and contribute to corporate strategy.
Either the big "WHY" question to diagnose the root cause, or the witty "WHY NOT" question to provoke innovation; Either the straight "WHAT" question to put emphasis or the logical "HOW" question to reach the detail, a good question is half way of problem solving, a fine-tuned question stimulates energy, a great question inspires imagination and creativity. And a set of excellent questions themselves are perhaps like a poem, both philosophical and intellectual.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
What's Focal Point for Practicing Strategy? Idea Generation or Capability Building
A company needs to be multidimensional in approaching both innovation and execution.
Today’s business is hyper-competitive and over-complex, there’re so many things going on in the business executives’ agenda, what’s your emphasis point for practicing business strategy -idea creation or capability building? What’s the root cause for business lagging behind: Is it that you do not have the culture to develop new ideas or is it that you are unable to execute them?
Everything has always started with an IDEA. Idea generation has an edge to be a key business differentiator, because these skills are based on inter disciplinary approach, compared to execution of these ideas. To get an idea one can first research the market and look for gaps to get an idea or it is just spontaneous, or it is very fluid and becomes a strong concept over a period of time. There are many ways towards an idea. Idea is also about vision and farsightedness. It is about sensing the future trends. There is no differentiation at that stage. Then it is more important to first convert a concept into a salable product rather than just start with execution. So start has to be with idea practitioners, and those ideas which get generated can then be weighed against the requirements of translating them into opportunity and profit. Sometimes out of the box thinking transforms the organization, just a stray thought...out of the blue, the miraculous results were achieved. Ideas practitioners, with creativity associated with strategy can help moving forward, even when facing difficulty.
Execution is the next step of idea creation. It is all about: Plan... Do... Check ...Act. Planning is not execution. It is generating ideas and finalizing the idea and shaping up the ideas, then execution comes into picture. Both are equally important and focused. But first focus should be on foundation which is strategic planning and then the pillar. The execution also should be emphasized but on the later stage. Planning is half way to succeed, if it fails everything fails; but execution part will have more hands to work on and can be continuously adjusted for execution of thoughts and execution of whatever has been decided to do effectively. So idea generation is the most important starting point, and execution capabilities are the “innate strength” to decide business’s competency.
Either idea generation or execution capability building, the diversified team with well blended talent is the critical success factor. The strategy can't be done only with one or two types of people, you can't create a team of only idea practitioners. In any activity you need four to five kinds of people: one generate ideas, the other one criticizes and peels off each activity of the plan to see where it is weak, to tell you not to take risk, and see where you can go wrong. One is good in pointing out problems, another plans and prioritizes and tells you the kind of actions you need to take to make the idea successful. Then, the doers would be diligently spending time on putting everything together, and follow steps, no deviations; and then perhaps the executioner, would put it in market and generate profit. Ideas are worth nothing unless it's being executed. But still you need an idea to be executed.
A company needs to be multidimensional in approaching both innovation and execution. Innovation and execution are like two wings of an eagle- you need both to thrive in an insanely competitively world where product and service life cycles are getting rapidly shortened. Ideas help in innovation, innovation helps in creating product and market, planning gives a roadmap for execution giving clear warnings where can the problem come, and then the strategy practitioners execute and go to market, market gives feedback, the feedback helps in generating ideas. It is a healthy business life cycle.
Majority of companies today work more on the execution aspect because it is said that business is 70% execution. But that does not devalue the role of innovators. The general belief is that most ideas people are dreamers & at times get so carried away with their ideas that they forget practicalities. This is one of the reasons innovation is not valued in conventional organizations. Environment is changing, competition with new ideas are coming in the market place. Innovation becomes a board room scenario, how come others are able to come up with these ideas, what is wrong with your organization? There’s no such one size fit all success formula for business success. The history of the world is the history of NEW IDEAS. Innovation makes you stand out, to lead long term prosperity, and execution capability is the foundation to build the solid business performance.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Today’s business is hyper-competitive and over-complex, there’re so many things going on in the business executives’ agenda, what’s your emphasis point for practicing business strategy -idea creation or capability building? What’s the root cause for business lagging behind: Is it that you do not have the culture to develop new ideas or is it that you are unable to execute them?
Everything has always started with an IDEA. Idea generation has an edge to be a key business differentiator, because these skills are based on inter disciplinary approach, compared to execution of these ideas. To get an idea one can first research the market and look for gaps to get an idea or it is just spontaneous, or it is very fluid and becomes a strong concept over a period of time. There are many ways towards an idea. Idea is also about vision and farsightedness. It is about sensing the future trends. There is no differentiation at that stage. Then it is more important to first convert a concept into a salable product rather than just start with execution. So start has to be with idea practitioners, and those ideas which get generated can then be weighed against the requirements of translating them into opportunity and profit. Sometimes out of the box thinking transforms the organization, just a stray thought...out of the blue, the miraculous results were achieved. Ideas practitioners, with creativity associated with strategy can help moving forward, even when facing difficulty.
Execution is the next step of idea creation. It is all about: Plan... Do... Check ...Act. Planning is not execution. It is generating ideas and finalizing the idea and shaping up the ideas, then execution comes into picture. Both are equally important and focused. But first focus should be on foundation which is strategic planning and then the pillar. The execution also should be emphasized but on the later stage. Planning is half way to succeed, if it fails everything fails; but execution part will have more hands to work on and can be continuously adjusted for execution of thoughts and execution of whatever has been decided to do effectively. So idea generation is the most important starting point, and execution capabilities are the “innate strength” to decide business’s competency.
Either idea generation or execution capability building, the diversified team with well blended talent is the critical success factor. The strategy can't be done only with one or two types of people, you can't create a team of only idea practitioners. In any activity you need four to five kinds of people: one generate ideas, the other one criticizes and peels off each activity of the plan to see where it is weak, to tell you not to take risk, and see where you can go wrong. One is good in pointing out problems, another plans and prioritizes and tells you the kind of actions you need to take to make the idea successful. Then, the doers would be diligently spending time on putting everything together, and follow steps, no deviations; and then perhaps the executioner, would put it in market and generate profit. Ideas are worth nothing unless it's being executed. But still you need an idea to be executed.
A company needs to be multidimensional in approaching both innovation and execution. Innovation and execution are like two wings of an eagle- you need both to thrive in an insanely competitively world where product and service life cycles are getting rapidly shortened. Ideas help in innovation, innovation helps in creating product and market, planning gives a roadmap for execution giving clear warnings where can the problem come, and then the strategy practitioners execute and go to market, market gives feedback, the feedback helps in generating ideas. It is a healthy business life cycle.
Majority of companies today work more on the execution aspect because it is said that business is 70% execution. But that does not devalue the role of innovators. The general belief is that most ideas people are dreamers & at times get so carried away with their ideas that they forget practicalities. This is one of the reasons innovation is not valued in conventional organizations. Environment is changing, competition with new ideas are coming in the market place. Innovation becomes a board room scenario, how come others are able to come up with these ideas, what is wrong with your organization? There’s no such one size fit all success formula for business success. The history of the world is the history of NEW IDEAS. Innovation makes you stand out, to lead long term prosperity, and execution capability is the foundation to build the solid business performance.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The Culture-Savvy Board
The board plays significant role in advising & overseeing corporate strategy and taking governance practices for strategy execution. Culture is the most invisible, but powerful element which directly impact how effective the execution could be, should board also oversight the culture, and how to build the culture-savvy board?Culture governance is an important practice which is being part of strategy execution governance discipline: Culture and brand are the most important "soft" element that a company will make since they will define how the company interacts with its various stakeholders. The strategy defines what they will do, with whom and how they will be successful if objectives are achieved, but this will mean nothing if the underlying culture does not focus on values and a culture that are aligned with the strategy and facilitate success. In a simple, yet quite profound way, one of the best explanations of the meaning of culture in an organization was simply to say "This is the way we do things around here!" Anyone can understand that. So the two expected governance practices include (i) auditing culture, assuring to the board, and what that would look like; and (ii) the board reporting on culture to shareholders and other stakeholders.
The consistency or discrepancy between behaviors and practices on one hand and stated values, vision, mission, strategy and risk appetite on the other, is what should be audited. The totality of behaviors, practices, values, vision, mission, strategy, and risk appetite is the definition of culture. The consistency or discrepancy between behaviors and practices on one hand and stated values, vision, mission, strategy and risk appetite on the other, is what should be audited. Culture and brand are the most important "soft" element that a company will make since they will define how the company interacts with its various stakeholders. The strategy defines what they will do, with whom and how they will be successful if objectives are achieved, but this will mean nothing if the underlying culture does not focus on values and a culture that are aligned with the strategy and facilitate success. Culture should not be seen as some superficial phenomenon, "is everyone happy, we have a fuse-ball table and wear jeans to work" but rather, more profoundly, what are the ideas within our walls that derive profitable action and collective confidence. That's the key: culture should be based on what gives collective confidence and make positive influence on surroundings.
Board has to pay more attention to culture, otherwise it will "eat the strategy." "What comes first, strategy or culture?" Many picks strategy; the company needs to determine its direction, and then assure that the culture supports that strategy. Many of us also like Drucker's witty quote: Culture eats strategy for breakfast! It means the way things are done and allowed to be done every day. It is reflected and influenced by policies, practices, rewards and incentives. often, executives and the board assume that these things are correct, but employees know they are not and can tell you what gets in the way. When culture is "working" it can unlock powerful synergies that drive performance..... especially in today's world that relies so much on collaboration and teamwork. Many say boards do not pay enough attention to the culture within the company. since the culture can undermine strategy, they certainly should be concerned and seek assurance that the culture is aligned with the strategy and that the values that form the foundation of the couture are aligned with the expectations of customers (part of the risk assessment).
Culture is part of corporate brand, the board should oversight it. Culture is the beating heart of an organisation. It determines what the place feels like, how people behave, whether people feel empowered or not etc. The ideal culture is one of vision driven leadership coupled with empathetic listening of valued employees. A healthy corporate culture is very important as a determinant of business performance. Among other considerations, it stands as a key factor not only in attaining organizational goals, but also in the attraction and retention of desirable employees, creating a public image that is positive, and building respectful relationships with stakeholders and within the organization itself. On the flip side, if the corporate culture is toxic, expect high employee turnovers, an organization faced with ethical issues that detract from a positive public image, and a total disregard of stakeholders, and probably chronic bullying within the organization. Corporate culture should be a business 'app', in that if you can rally an entire organization around operationalized brand positioning, everyone can apply it each day as part of business performance.
The culture is the most important element to an organization achieving their strategic goals in today's VUCA digital age. The people at the top must set the tone and be both culture conscious and culture leaders, as maintaining and developing the culture of the organization is the most important task for the senior leadership team. A culture savvy board can walk the talk and become the culture master.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
