Strategy – it’s one of those magical mystery words which, when dropped into conversations, always make it seem as though we’re talking about something clever and Very Important. How about then adding in ‘open’ at the start and doesn’t it all seem irresistibly ‘switched on’?
So ‘Open Strategy’ is the title of a book I read recently. Perhaps didn’t quite live up the expectations implied by my rather tongue-in-cheek comments above: ‘open strategy’ seemed very much like doing futures, where you recognize the value of looking out far and wide beyond the usual horizons of organisational curiosity and expertise and investing time and effort in thinking through these ‘off the radar’ concepts.
However, it did contain some useful elements. Let’s walk through the three key highlights.
The authors are German and as such, the case studies involve a pleasantly refreshing deviation from the norm of whizzy start-ups or soul-searching FMCG brands. Instead, they talk lots about authentically nuts-and-bolts kind of guys, such as a global leader in the manufacturing, processing and development of sophisticated steel products, or a manufacturing of hearing aids.
Within their thesis as to why open strategy is so valuable, the authors highlight important shortcomings about the expertise of experts. If you get a bunch of experts in on a particular topic, it’s not likely you’ll get lots of fresh perspectives as their views are narrow, linked by the fact their formal training and experiences are probably very similar. And then they probably won’t be that keen on ‘new’ ideas as if you’re intelligent, you’re also better at rationalising why something can’t be the case, and therefore ‘dissing’ the (potentially all important) signals of emerging change or impending doom or opportunity.
Does innovation have to be so very ‘blue sky’? Actually, it seems there’s a lot to be said for new ideas which come from combinations of what’s out there already, so it’s less about the ‘new new’ and more about thinking anew. To put it another more fancy-pants kind of way, what about ‘adjacent possibilities’, which use an existing competence or characteristic for a different purpose than the original. And we shouldn’t forget either that there are different areas in which a business can innovate. Sure, you can do the shiny NPD or new service, but what about rethinking a business model or how you approach giving and getting value in what you do? But perhaps there is a more fundamental question which needs to be addressed first of all. Is all this earnest energy about disruptive innovation really necessary? I happen to work somewhere where that is not the ‘do or die’ question the organisation is asking itself.
I was struck by the following quote from a recent piece giving the ‘facts’ on the topic. “While many believe that technological disruption has been rampant for decades, the internet has actually caused much less creative destruction than people think. Birkinshaw’s analysis of the Fortune 500 and the Global 500, in fact, reveals that most sectors have been surprisingly stable over the past 25 years. Very few firms on those lists today were launched after 1995.’ And it seems it can be ok ‘to wait and see’. “Chances are better than you might think that your incumbent company will be able to survive and thrive in the face of disruptive entrants. Rather than pursuing ad-hoc strategies, incumbents are better off taking their time to observe developments, scrutinize their options and pick an adequate response that meets their individual requirements and conditions.”