Strategy is Not a To Do List(steveblank.com)
steveblank.com
Strategy is Not a To Do List
http://steveblank.com/2010/10/07/strategy-is-not-a-to-do-list/
8 comments
I agree with Steve Blank's article. Strategy is not a to do list. But then what is it?
Strategy at the business/product level addresses the following four questions:
(1) Who is your target customer?
(2) What value (in the form of a product and/or service) are you delivering to this customer?
(3) What are your costs for delivering this value?
(4) Are you delivering more value at a given cost (value advantage), or delivering equivalent value but at a lower cost (cost advantage), relative to your competitors? In limited cases you can compete on both value and cost simultaneously (dual advantage).
The question is then what broad activities are you performing to deliver value to your customer (e.g., R&D, marketing), and what are the costs associated with performing these activities (e.g., time, equipment). Through activities, you want to maximize the wedge between value and cost for a particular segment of customers.
The "to do list" then flows from these activities.
Strategy at the business/product level addresses the following four questions:
(1) Who is your target customer?
(2) What value (in the form of a product and/or service) are you delivering to this customer?
(3) What are your costs for delivering this value?
(4) Are you delivering more value at a given cost (value advantage), or delivering equivalent value but at a lower cost (cost advantage), relative to your competitors? In limited cases you can compete on both value and cost simultaneously (dual advantage).
The question is then what broad activities are you performing to deliver value to your customer (e.g., R&D, marketing), and what are the costs associated with performing these activities (e.g., time, equipment). Through activities, you want to maximize the wedge between value and cost for a particular segment of customers.
The "to do list" then flows from these activities.
Value advantage and cost advantage are a comparative advantage. Strategy is usually about competitive advantage.
This is common to so many things. When you treat strategy as a to do list, you are performing the acts without knowing their meanings and without understanding why they have to be performed. It is performing rituals without understanding the dogma. It is building a landing strip out of rocks and stones and then waiting for the gods to bring cargo.
When you finally get it, it feels like a light that was suddenly switched on. You cannot even imagine how it was to work with the lights off.
When you finally get it, it feels like a light that was suddenly switched on. You cannot even imagine how it was to work with the lights off.
If you're using the word "strategy," then you might as well go a little bit deeper into the military metaphor than just having "strategy" and "tactics" as concepts.
Modern military doctrine says that there are three levels of thought, not two. Strategy represents the idea that lets you achieve your objectives. Tactics represent the day-to-day actions that you take. The third level, Operations, sits between the two, and ensures that the tactics you are using actually implement the strategy you've chosen.
Customer Development isn't a strategy. Nor is it tactical. It's an operational tool to generate to-do lists comprising tactical actions.
The problem with using the word "strategy" is that too many people lack awareness of the depth of thought that the analogy encompasses, and fail to see past the common strategy/tactics binary misconception.
Modern military doctrine says that there are three levels of thought, not two. Strategy represents the idea that lets you achieve your objectives. Tactics represent the day-to-day actions that you take. The third level, Operations, sits between the two, and ensures that the tactics you are using actually implement the strategy you've chosen.
Customer Development isn't a strategy. Nor is it tactical. It's an operational tool to generate to-do lists comprising tactical actions.
The problem with using the word "strategy" is that too many people lack awareness of the depth of thought that the analogy encompasses, and fail to see past the common strategy/tactics binary misconception.
Thinking further, I'm now wondering if customer development isn't actually a doctrine. Hm. More thought is required here.
In order to execute a strategy, you need tactics. In order to execute tactics, you need a to-do list.
Sure, you can boil down tactical execution to "do this, then do this, finally do this." I don't think it's best, but it's certainly a way to go.
But if you boil down your whole strategy to "All we need to do is X and then Y and then Z" you're doing it wrong.
But if you boil down your whole strategy to "All we need to do is X and then Y and then Z" you're doing it wrong.
A "to-do list" is an abstraction, like a triangle, or justice. Each to-do list is an instance of this abstraction, none are exactly alike.
There is a big difference between having good to-do list versus a bad to-do list and a hangover -- just like there is a big difference between the supreme court and a drunken lynch mob.
There is a big difference between having good to-do list versus a bad to-do list and a hangover -- just like there is a big difference between the supreme court and a drunken lynch mob.
And a checklist?
An analogy: a tactic is like a procedure, a strategy is like a program.
The reality is that strategy should be the to do list. Everything else is just stuff that needs to be taken care of afterward.
A todo list is a tactic, not a strategy.
I agree. If people understood the simple difference between strategy and tactic. this problem would not happen. Another important tool for identifying conflicts and dependencies between tasks and tactics is project management methodologies. I know it's not very hip and doesn't get the hackers among us excited, but: Like Steve Blank I once had a job and a boss I didn't get along with perfectly. I managed a huge IT project for Renault-Nissan with developers in 2 continents, 3 time zones, and some very crucial strategic goals to attain. I am not an entrepreneur and I use the principles of project management (PRINCE, PMP, and countless other similar methodologies) every day in every aspect of what I do.
The difference between tactics and strategy is like the difference between design and implementation: it's relative to scope. If your marketing strategy is to provide the best software for older, resource-limited hardware, then writing memory-efficient code is a tactic for implementing that strategy. But if you're hired to make a piece of software run on a particular resource-constrained device, writing memory-efficient code will be part of your strategy for accomplishing that task. The closer something is to being a global consideration in a scope, the more strategic it is in that scope.
If you broaden your scope to your entire life, one part of your life strategy might be to succeed at your job in order to feel pride in your work and economically support support other aspects of your life. In that scope, designing a good marketing strategy would be a tactical consideration in implementing your life strategy.
If you broaden your scope to your entire life, one part of your life strategy might be to succeed at your job in order to feel pride in your work and economically support support other aspects of your life. In that scope, designing a good marketing strategy would be a tactical consideration in implementing your life strategy.
If people understood the simple difference between strategy and tactic.
Hm. Is it okay to write that, then not go on to describe the difference?
Hm. Is it okay to write that, then not go on to describe the difference?
Tactics are concerned with the conduct of an engagement, while strategy is concerned with how different engagements are linked in a bigger overall plan of action.
The right strategy makes tactics work better. The right strategy puts less pressure on executing your tactics perfectly.
The right strategy makes tactics work better. The right strategy puts less pressure on executing your tactics perfectly.
You should really put those two lines in quotations. I know the second line is word for word from Seth Godin's blog (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/01/the_differen...), and quick check had your first line pretty close to word for word from Wikipedia.
I don't think that's the author's point. Strategy is the war while tactics are involved in individual battles. If anything, I would argue that strategy is more amenable to todo lists because it involves planning. Tactics require you to move quickly and generally is less amenable to things like todo lists.
I think what the author was getting at is that a todo list is simply that: a list of tasks. It doesn't really capture why you're doing those tasks. If you just take jobs as they're handed to you, you're not strategizing. You're turning yourself into an automaton.
I think what the author was getting at is that a todo list is simply that: a list of tasks. It doesn't really capture why you're doing those tasks. If you just take jobs as they're handed to you, you're not strategizing. You're turning yourself into an automaton.
very true, and it's shocking how little most founders (or for that matter executives at large companies) have studied strategy. as well as business strategy (Porter, the "balanced scorecard", strategy maps) there are also a lot of insights from political and military strategy.
Porter : Strategy :: Booch : Programming.
i'd say it' more
Porter : Strategy :: Booch : Software Engineering
with both of them, it's problematic if that's the only thing you're reading. and their best-known works are older; a lot's changed since then. but people who don't have a basic understanding of what they're covering have a big gap in their skills.
Porter : Strategy :: Booch : Software Engineering
with both of them, it's problematic if that's the only thing you're reading. and their best-known works are older; a lot's changed since then. but people who don't have a basic understanding of what they're covering have a big gap in their skills.
Strategy is about the unique position that a company will be able to achieve by executing on their process.
There are two general types of advantage: competitive advantage and comparative advantage.
Delivering more value at a given cost is a comparative advantage. Equivalent value at a lower cost is not a comparative advantage.
Strategy is about competitive advantage. A competitive advantage is a unique position that a competitor can never attain.
In concrete terms, for startups, you will always get the "What if Google did the same thing" question or the "What if Microsoft did the same thing" question.
The answers are "Google will never successfully compete in this space because it will have a negative effect on their advertising revenue" or "Microsoft will never successfully compete in this space because it will have a negative effect on their Windows or Office revenue".
So the stack looks like this: