Tag Archives: strategic planning

“Strategic fallout points”; is a term used to explain how innovative forms of new strategic thinking starkly differ from the norms of academic strategic practice and design.

13 Oct

We all have “strategic fall out points”. Mainly, it is because of the nature of our strategic reality changing still even today, the way we have to do things keeps changing. You can’t really compete in the world if you don’t understand it, and how change changes things.

Consequently “Strategic fall out points” occur where we do things in an “unorthodox” or radically different manner from the set norm, as taught academically, to stay both efficient and effective.

Even academic and qualified people also, deviate from certain “set piece” applications and taught theory, and then they fall out on that point, with the strategic norm…that is.

Surely no one is still “brave” enough to say that “one size strategy fits all” anymore – when looking at strategy from a academic perspective, no one set perspective can set the tone for all the practice of strategy existing, for all types of business and projects today still, which can be used throughout all industries and across the globe. No, even strategy and how it’s done traditionally has changed, strategy today is now more concerned with people… than at any other time in our human history…

Continue reading

Ideology can become a sources of Risk

11 Nov

Risks are not just about identifying events that, when triggered, could cause problems, even all the defects, and operational issues like none performance, shortage or scarcity of some resource, all the obvious things we were taught that create risk, yes still valid, but now there is more to consider when talking risk. The SWOT analysis is just not good enough; we require some sociological scanning…

The environmental scan is the second tool to use with RISK analysis; for today deeper and unseen aspects prevail, that also impact our risk factors and profile; it could start with any underlying philosophy being promoted, even our way of thinking could be contaminated, anything that rides the strategic train of thought with us, and then takes over at some point from rational and tips us towards the emotional, or abstract side of reasoning. Aha, so risk is not just measurable, tangible, foreseeable, and obvious, it’s also hidden in our metal make-up…and very much so.

Hence, risk identification should also include the people involved in our teams, profile them; for their bias, fears and then most important their ideology.  Yes, the very way we are trying to solve a problem, is directly linked to how we are positioned, toward our environment, how we understand it, operate in it, and control it, is strongly influence by our ideology, things we believe in. This aspect could become the actual risk, sometimes only later on, and even a threat to the entire scheme, greater that the initial problems we foresee now… itself.

Continue reading

Not everything labelled “Grand Strategy” is just that – Grand or even Strategy…

4 Nov

By definition; Grand Strategy; refers to a complexity of power, residing in strategic elements, both prevalent and indispensable for achieving very large-scale objectives such as winning a War or changing the political course of a nation.

In truth, No business ever reaches such a scale of work flow on the strategic level implied here. The launch of a new product for instance, could not possibly qualify for this analysis as “grand strategy” however important they are to those directly involved with it, it is still nowhere near the scale and scope of a true grand strategy – like WAR for instance.


Still, daily the term Grand Strategy is used out of context.


Now in business; for an enterprise, the “Grand Strategy”  – to be termed one – should include a cradle to grave approach, with for instance; prior calculations, assumptions, and research (by experts) on the business assumptions made in relation to what will actually be required to achieve various and diverse objectives simultaneously, through the application of concurrent running strategies – with simultaneous employment of divergent strategies and tactics for instance. Even then, it’s still not that clear-cut, or qualifies as a Grand Strategy.

The rules are different; for business there are no such things as peace and war, no transition from politics to War to achieve their aims with. It’s all substituted; there is intensive competition and “civilised rivalry” – a battle fought on supply and demand estimates – every day, but there is no conflict in which someone dies, no, contrary the outcome is severely constrained by laws, treaties, and regulation – quite civilised.

Continue reading

Looking at the basic concepts of cognitive Strategic Management

23 Jun


Strategic management should exist at all levels of management for it to have any value and impact. This is well taught and understood, however, we never teach cognitive strategy, the part where we need critical thinking, to put it all together, the theory and the practice. With that said, it must be seen to be overlapping and intersecting, like limbs on a body. For the theory on strategy is all good, but without the mental maps, and critical thinking we can’t draw strategic deductions, then things are just organised chaos.

Strategy needs a tight fit between mental and practical application. Because it gets easily influenced both by internal aspects; like culture, perception, structure, policy, politics, finances, perception and bias, to name but a few, all of them way to powerful forces to trust not to interfere.


Thant’s just internally, then we still need to go externally, starting with the immediate environment surrounding the habitat; legislation, rates and taxes, infrastructure, government policy, local area challenges, etc… The point is strategy is part of something; therefore it connects to everything else, before it gets its own character and purpose.

Strategy derived from a need, a necessity, tends to serves a purpose. It aligns parts to form a whole, to steer an agenda with.

This process needs more insight; the thin line that joins cognitive and relative, as we navigate strategy we find many more diversions, setting in. Everyone and thing seems to want to divert us. Therefore it’s important to be systematic and critical when thinking, and applying a strategic mind set. It requires a set process…that will unite and focus efforts… Continue reading

A Question; Strategic Management vs. Strategic Planning, what’s the difference?

14 May

Its not always a clear cut between pebbles, some are white some are brown, but who gets to wear the crown?

In both strategic, and academic circles, we all strive for the maintaining of the highest standards of intellectual thought; especially when referring to the philosophy of strategy. In plain English – it’s all about perception as we deal with philosophy, and any philosophy changes constantly; or should…thereby influencing strategy directly as a result.

Thus “philosophy”; both in the business and strategic sense dictates when it becomes BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY, and then as a result also becomes a STRATEGY OR STRATEGIC.

When the basic of “FORMING STRATEGY“,  is met, and the elements of  strategy become apparent, then we should have;

  • a vision,
  • a mission,
  • goals,
  • and action plans…
  • then we refer to something as being or becoming Strategic; or as STRATEGIC PLANNING.

1)Strategic plans are made up of action plans;

Where Action Planning deals with;

Who What Where When How How much
Responsibility Objectives Location Time/ frame Goals Quantity/ cost

2)Now we get to Strategic Management, it in turn gives us a required business perspective; a business perspective is the organisation of all activities, in a structured manner. We want to or need to organise things, in order to be able to measure and gauge things like our; performance, progress and quality, all whilst these strategic plans unfold, into smaller action plans,and then into finality.

The whole purpose of management is to add;

  • structure,
  • process,
  • procedures,
  • policy,
  • resources,
  • and organisation.

All in order to connect all the resources, with systems, and get results in the form of products or services, that impacts on other initiative, activities, and plans, that then starts coinciding with the business model, and plan, and its ideology, to make all its aims happen.

Management as a process; becomes systematically inclined and also procedural, it steers these “action plans”, or “strategic plans” with intent, that are otherwise in effect just seen as dead pieces of paper, which needs to be interpreted, and given life. Management becomes this means.  By combining ideas, with effort, substance starts to emerge with an expected resolve or end state,, coming from some place, somewhere between practical and philosophical – dealing with all aspects between knowledge and wisdom, then when backed up with factual relevance – then we are seen to manage.

Describing management and actually doing it is difficult, it becomes two worlds, as we all experience life from different angles, and levels of difficulty. Never-the-less, it’s these “words” that we use, that should unite us in mind and effort to perform the same functions. Therefore it’s very essential that we find the same meaning in terminology so that we may all benefit from both the knowledge and the wisdom it brings.

Then only will we know the true distinction – or difference – between them, planning and management.

Very philosophical, yes that’s the point. It somehow never becomes a simple enough explanation, when we just take out the words strategic, and try and deduce some common meaning. When in fact, planning and management are two very different animals.

Then we are only left with, management and planning. There you have it sweet and short, straight to the point. The one is all about management the other planning, or is it?

Some will argue that these terms do not exist at all; People try and get way to clever (and Philosophical) for their own good. then this happens, then you get aspects arising like; Strategic management vs. strategic planning, what’s the difference?

This can be attributed to the relationship between words and their meanings, that also become culturally significant, and extremely complicated when we want to take or when taken to literally. For instance; if we take the literal meaning of the words used and get their synonyms, then Strategic means planned”, then that would in fact imply that you can’t come up with something like “planned planning” or can you, what does that mean or imply anyway?…  Nor could you tell if it is still the same thing? Then Strategic planning should have a significant meaning if we choose to explain something significant by merging these two words, should it not?

When in doubt, we should also look at a words connotation; thus implying – what is suggested as well as its denotation – what our intellect tells us it should imply, and then we will know what we are looking at.

This aspect belongs to the field of semantics. For now though, what you need to know is that words do not have single or even simple meanings – they have implicit meaning.

Traditionally, grammarians have referred to the meanings of words in two parts: their;

  1. Denotation; referring to the literal meaning of the word
  2. Connotation; referring to a relationship to the word either emotional or otherwise; something which the word evokes in people…

1) Strategic + Planning;

  • As a denotation; Strategic; literally means – planned.
  • As a connotation; Strategic; implies – organised or deliberate actions…
  • As a denotation; Planning; literally means – preparation
  • As a connotation; Planning; implies – scheduling or setting up

So if we connect the two words now; we get strategic planning meaning or implying;

  • As a denotation = Planned preparation
  • As a connotation; = Organised / deliberate – preparation or setting up

2) Strategic  + Management;

  • As a denotation; it implies supervision
  • As a connotation; it implies organised, or administration
  • Strategic Management; as a denotation; planned supervision; and levels of supervision, or hierarchy in business
  • Strategic Management; as a connotation; deliberate organisation of actions – The deliberate preparation then of actions consistent with organisation…

Here we go..  Strategic + planning; implies; planned or deliberate preparation then

                              Strategic + management; implies planned supervision or administration 

So yes, they are still two totally different animals

And then you also get Grand Strategy  and Business formation

Get my new book here; its pumped with strategic relevance;   

%d bloggers like this: