Bringing Science to the Art of Strategy

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Overview
Conclusion
Works Cited

Overview

Written by Lafley, Martin, Rivkin and Siggelkow in 2012, the article “Bringing science to the art of strategy” seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of the problems facing strategic management in modern large and medium-sized corporations. They argue that the existing strategic planning lacks science because there is no careful generation and testing of scientific hypothesis (Lafley et al. 58). In science, these two aspects are the key to scientific methods.

To provide a solution to the problem, the authors have attempted to provide an outline of a process for strategy making, which makes use of a combination of creativity and rigor. In simple terms, the process begins with the development of a team. The team is supposed to begin its work by setting up options and determining some factors needed for succeeding. The team must assess the likelihood of the options.

This task helps in the identification of barriers. The team proceeds to the stage of testing the conditions of the barrier to determine which barrier holds true. The team should review all the results to remove possibilities of errors. Finally, the team must choose the possibility with the minimum number of barriers. In their analysis, the authors use Proctor And Gamble as an example of an organization that used this stratify-making process with success in 1990s.

Facts (concepts)

In the development of the article, the authors have identified seven key areas of study and discussion. In fact, the paper is divided into seven topics, each representing a step for the proposed scientific method of making strategies in an organization.

In the first step, the authors point out that a management team must move from issues to choices. They argue that this nature is dangerous for organizational management because it will lead to a failure.

The authors propose a simple way of strategizing to avoid failure. The management should define two options that are mutually exclusive and with the capacity to resolve the problem at hand. The choice helps the team to focus its analysis and emotions on recognizing the need for the organization to make a choice.

However, the choice has consequences. Again, the authors use the example of Proctor and Gamble in its attempt to reorganize its strategic planning in 1990s. For instance, the company lacked a credible brand in skin care products. To enhance its presence in the global market, the company decided to cross its Rubicon and lay two options- to transform the existing brand (Oil of Olay) into a competitor or spend vast amounts of resources to buy an existing brand.

In the second step, the authors provide an analysis of the process of generating strategic possibilities. Once the team has recognized the choices to be made, the next choice is to turn to a wide range of possibilities. The possibilities might be the options that have been identified in the first step.

Using the case of P&G, the authors argue that the company faced two choices- to grow its existing brand (Oil of Olay) or seek to buy an existing brand (Nivea or Clique). In addition, the authors assert that the possibilities are not limited to the first options. For instance, P&G had the choice of extending some of its successful brands in cosmetic line such as Cover Girl. They could extend this brand into a skin care product and present it as a global competitor.

The third step involves a process of specifying the conditions for success. In this case, the authors say that the purpose of the step is to specify and describe the issues that are true for each of the possibilities identified in step 2. However, it is worth noting that the management team should not use this step to argue about what is true and what is false.

They do not need to assess the soundness of the logic behind each possibility. Rather, the team must involve a number of stages in this step. First, the team should generate a list of the issues that hold true for every member. For instance, every member should feel confident enough to make each possibility.

However, the individuals who propose a choice must not predominate the conversation but should let others have the chance to discuss the issue in depth. Each member of the team must be given the chance to contribute in the discussion. The facilitator should read the list aloud for everyone to hear. If every person agrees with the list, then the team must move to the next stage- weeding the list. This stage involves removal of some of the items in the list that do not have a significant strength as far as the issues at hand are concerned.

The fourth step involves the identification of the barriers to choice. In this case, the team must cast a critical evaluation of the conditions. The main task is to assess the conditions that are least likely to hold true. These choices will define the barriers to the process of choosing the possibility. The facilitator is supposed to ask all the members of the team to suggest the conditions that hold true and the conditions they would apply.

The discussion should come up with several ideas. It should also come up with a process of designing and applying the test for each condition. All the conditions suggested by the members must be kept in a list. For example, P&G reviewed its nine conditions the beauty care had drawn for dealing with the Olay brand. However, the members discarded three and took six as the conditions that would hold true.

The fifth step involves the process of designing tests for the barrier conditions. Once the team has come up with an order of the key barrier conditions, the facilitator is required to ensure that each of the conditions is tests to determine whether it holds true. Each member is asked to suggest the conditions he or she believes holds true and is stronger than the others in the list are.

Step 6 is concerned with conducting of the tests. The members who suggest a condition should also take the lead in designing a process of testing it. All the members are supposed to question its credibility and discuss it in depth. In addition, all the choices in the list should be tests in the same manner. Conditions should be tests in the reverse order, following the “lazy man’s approach”. After the discussion to determine the condition that is stronger than the others are, the team must move to the last step.

The last step involves the process of making a choice. In this case, the authors argue that the process is difficult and should involve actual pilot research in the field. The team must use a possibility-based approach in order to come up with an anticlimactic choice making.

The interesting part of the process

In this article, the whole process is interesting because it uses the scientific approach to solving difficult problems facing companies. However, I find the process of involving a strategic team in the process of making decisions interesting. In fact, the authors have used a real-life example of P&G. Interestingly, the company used the entire procedure suggested by the authors to come up with a strong brand that has dominated the skin care market in the world.

Critical comments

Although the procedure suggested in the article is evidently strong, several weaknesses have been overlooked. For instance, the authors have failed to show some evidence that the process could fail at any stage due to disagreement between the members of the team. In addition, not all the members of the team would agree with the choices and conditions. Finally, it is worth noting that the process is lengthy and costs a company a lot of time and resources.

Conclusion

The article provides an in-depth analysis of a process that uses a scientific approach to solve problems facing conventional strategic planning. The process involves problem solving using a team of professionals in strategic management. In addition, the process is good for organizations because it employs evidence and testing of every choice. However, it is lengthy and can cost a company a lot of time and resources.

Works Cited

Lafley, Alfred, Roger Martin, Jan Rivkin and Nicolaj Siggelkow. Bringing Science to the Art of Strategy. Harv Bus Rev, 90.9 (2012): 56-66. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!