Strategy Guide

Strategy Guide

 

If your team has difficulty moving strategies from thought to action, take advantage of 20 years of experience in strategy consulting from Andrew Hone’s company by clicking through to this comprehensive guide on strategy implementation.

You’ve just put the finishing touches to your business strategy. You’ve spoken to customers, researched the key market segments, and projected the financials. The Board and shareholders are aligned and agree on the priorities to take the business forward. That was the easy part!

Translating a strategy into action is a significant challenge. All too often, the benefits that were promised are delivered late, or fail to materialize at all. Management teams get distracted by the day-to-day challenges of running the business. Cross-functional initiatives fall between operating silos, budgets get reallocated and the initial momentum is lost.

If this sounds familiar, you are not alone. Despite strategy implementation being seen as a key priority by most senior executives, fewer than 15% of organizations consider themselves to be successful when it comes to executing strategy. Estimates for strategy implementation failure rates range from 50% to 90%.

We have spent over twenty years helping clients translate strategy into action, working with a range of clients from start-ups through to large corporations and public sector organizations. Through this, we have identified a number of key principles that can help you to avoid common implementation pitfalls. By applying these principles, strategy implementation can be a more predictable, transparent and repeatable process, improving both the speed and certainty of the outcome.

 

Information in this article includes:

  • Why strategies fail
  • A strategy implementation framework
  • FAQs

 

Access the guide and full report, Implementing Strategy, on the Zenith Strategy Associates’ website. 

 

 

Vik Muktavaram applies a few principles of risk management to understand why COVID-19 grew from a risk to a pandemic. 

As the federal government finally took the first decisive step in stemming the outbreak of COVID-19 in the US, the images of serpentine lines of arriving international passengers at airports waiting for immigration and screening for COVID-19 coronavirus ubiquitous online and in print. Presumably, the rationale for the screening was that these arriving passengers represented a high-risk cohort. Yet, the long, crowded lines with no social distancing not only defeats the very purpose of screening but in fact, one could argue that the risk of spreading is increased substantially amongst the ground staff as well as passengers from different airlines. 

As we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, we should also be wondering how did we miss this when all the signs were there. How did some countries such as Singapore and South Korea manage to contain, if not necessarily prevent, the spread of virus in their countries despite their proximity to China? Risk Management is a structured way of looking at early indicators and prioritizing risks and then managing these risks. As our crisis response continues to be a case study in “how not to”, let’s take a step back to see how the risk (low likelihood, high impact) of a virus-pandemic became a crisis. Mind you, this was not a black swan event. Even as early as 2015, Ebola outbreak provided a harbinger of things to come. Before there is a war, there is a failure of diplomacy, before there is a bankruptcy, there are telltale signs of declining sales, before COVID-19 became a pandemic there was Wuhan and there were several emerging risk indicators.

 

Points covered in this article include:

  • Risk transfer
  • Risk acceptance
  • Risk avoidance
  • Risk mitigation

 

Read the full article, COVID-19 pandemic – How a risk became a crisis in the US, on the Rithym Advisors website. 

 

 

When Kaihan Krippendorff found his calendar clear due to COVID-19 cancellations, he, in collaboration with his team, decided to launch the Reimagine the Future summit. This article is a summary of all 47 sessions, reviewed recordings, and in-depth content analysis of the session transcriptions and audience dialogue from today’s most influential business thinkers who took part in the summit.   

In March, as the reality of COVID-19 started taking hold, when my team received our fifth request in one day to postpone a keynote speech and my calendar was suddenly, unexpectedly, free for months, we sat down to discuss what to do. We figured that (a) other business thought-leaders are similarly, suddenly free and (b) many are wondering what would happen to the business they own or work.

So, we decided to link supply with demand and launch a series of virtual summits connecting today’s most influential business thinkers with the practitioners (strategists, executives, and entrepreneurs) who could apply the business thinkers’ insights to create a better future … with 100% of profits donated to COVID-19 charities. We called it the Reimagine the Future summit.

The response exceeded our hopes. Immediately, many of today’s foremost business thinkers signed up including Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize-winning economist), Renee Mauborgne (creator of Blue Ocean Strategy and ranked the #1 business thinker in the world), Rita McGrath (ranked the #1 innovation thinker in the world), and Liz Wiseman (ranked the #1 leadership thinker in the world). In all, 47 of the most influential management thinkers today agreed to speak. We attracted over 5,000 “Outthinkers” (innovators, executives, entrepreneurs) and raised $160,000 for charity.

 

Included in this post:

  • Proximity: Rethink what it means to be close.
  • Purpose: Find and align to a purpose that puts you and your collaborators into action.
  • Options: Focus not on creating a plan but on creating options.
  • Coordination: Create collaboration, finding ideas from non-obvious spaces.
  • Work through the messy middle to create a new order

 

Read the full article, What Today’s Most Influential Business Thinkers Recommend For Managing Through Covid-19, on Kaihan.net

 

 

Davide Gronchi provides a pragmatic approach to risk mitigation and shares a method he uses that was invented by the US military in the late 1940s: FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) to assess risk under three lenses. 

Whilst in the middle of a heavy and unexpected crisis, company leaders are requested to keep looking far ahead and shape the future of their company by (re-)designing the strategy and how to implement it.

Current times are full of worries and threads, every day are more negative than positive news that capture our attention. How to concentrate on our business, sailing in calm waters and heading to a bright future? Yes, company leaders must keep this attitude! Nobody else can do this, it cannot be delegated. And recent research proves that CEOs like crafting strategy more than other tasks they are responsible for!

Nevertheless, we are all prone to see risks everywhere now during the COVID-19 crisis. This was a risk that nobody was really ready to mitigate. Nobody actually ever thought it could ever be real!

In our life of leaders, in our companies, many can be the risks that we might face and that need to be considered and need a mitigation plan. How to identify and prioritize risks?

 

The lenses for risk explained in this article include:

  • Severity
  • Occurrence
  • Detection

 

Read the full article, The Pragmatic Way for Risk Mitigation, on LinkedIn.

 

 

James Bowen takes a moment to muse on risk expectations and market values.

 

Today I read Christopher Schelling’s insightful article in Institutional Investor, “The Dust Bowl Ravaged 1930s America: Coronavirus is Today’s Equivalent.” It led me to thinking about risk, and in particular how a risk no one considered at all a little over a month ago has emerged to destroy trillions of dollars of value — perhaps not in percentage terms, but certainly in dollar terms the largest destruction of value in my lifetime. How can this be?

The market value of anything, whether a farm or a necklace or a share of stock, is what someone else is willing to pay for it. In financial markets, we should see a relationship between the market price of an asset and its future cash flows, discounted for the riskiness of the asset. The riskier the asset, the greater the rate of discount of the future cash flows. Of course, it’s all more complicated than that, but at its very core the foundational principle of modern finance is that return is commensurate with risk, and the sum of the expected future returns on an asset tells us what it is worth. When the riskiness of future returns increases, present value decreases, and vice versa. It’s that simple.

 

Read the full article, On Risk in the Coronavirus Era, on LinkedIn.

 

 

Vik Muktavaram recently published an article that evaluates the current crisis through four approaches of risk management.

“As the federal government finally took the first decisive step in stemming the outbreak of COVID-19 in the US, the images of serpentine lines of arriving international passengers at airports waiting for immigration and screening for COVID-19 coronavirus ubiquitous online and in print. Presumably, the rationale for the screening was that these arriving passengers represented a high-risk cohort. Yet, the long, crowded lines with no social distancing not only defeats the very purpose of screening but in fact, one could argue that the risk of spreading is increased substantially amongst the ground staff as well as passengers from different airlines. 

 As we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, we should also be wondering how did we miss this when all the signs were there. How did some countries such as Singapore and South Korea manage to contain, if not necessarily prevent, the spread of virus in their countries despite their proximity to China? Risk Management is a structured way of looking at early indicators and prioritizing risks and then managing these risks. As our crisis response continues to be a case study in “how not to”, let’s take a step back to see how the risk (low likelihood, high impact) of a virus-pandemic became a crisis.”

 

The four approaches explored are:

  • Risk Transfer
  • Risk Acceptance
  • Risk Avoidance
  • Risk Mitigation

 

Read the full article, Covid-19 in the U.S. How a Risk became a Crisis, on the Rithym Advisors’ website. 

 

There are four good reasons for holding on to a cash-based economy. Tobias Baer reveals the hidden economic benefits and explains why cash is still king.

Do we still need cash? More and more stores are going cashless. A whole country—Sweden—is intent on becoming the world’s first cashless nation in 2023. The attraction is the savings from avoiding the substantial handling costs of cash. In many places, increasing numbers of consumers have stopped carrying wallets because their phones have become viable substitutes. And government agencies fighting tax evasion love the trail electronic payments leave.

 

Four reasons to keep cash explored are:

-Operational risk

-Privacy

-Hidden economic benefit

-Financial exclusion

 

Read the full article, Why We Need Cashon LinkedIn.