Reading 3 Giles_Making_Strategy_The Marlow Method

8/7/2019 Reading 3 Giles_Making_Strategy_The Marlow Method

1/17

Long Range Planning,Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 75 to 91, 1991 0024-6301/91 $3.00 + .OOPrinted in Great Britain 0 1991 Pergamon Pressplc 75

Making Strategy WorkWilliam D. GilesIf it were possible for an entire organization to sing the samesong from the same song sheet and face in the same directionat the same time, that would be a powerful force. If the songwas good, the direction true and the timing right, it would be avery serious threat to competitors. This paper describes aprocess that can make this a reality for almost any organizationwilling to make the commitment. The process of strategicplanning and its subsequent implementation are capable ofproducing not just the plan but also a powerful educationaltool capable of advancing the strategic understanding of theentire organization.

Most companies understand the need for strategyand its effective implementation. However, even inthe best run organizations, implementation oftenfalls far short of the goals that the corporation has setitself. In parallel with this, many companies investheavily in developing their organization to copewith change. Despite this many would still view thedifficulties in this, the people area, as the greatestconstraint to strategy implementation.However, a few companies are beginning to realizethat the processes of planning and implementationare, themselves, the most powerful vehicles to bringabout this organizational development. The gapthat this closes can be visualized as the bridgebetween corporate aspirations and the values andattitudes of its people. The key that locks the piecestogether is ownership. Figure 1 describes the com-ponent parts.Less attention is paid to the human aspects ofownership than to the more technical process ofstrategy generation. Yet, without ownership therecan be no effective implementation.

A Common MistakeImplementation relies heavily on strategy for itsstart point. However, management jargon hasalready subverted the meaning of strategy byconfusing it with objectives or tactics. A simpleWilliam D. Giles is a Director of the Strategic Market ing DevelopmentUnit.

definition, that removes the ambiguity of theseterms, will be used here. Figure 2 demonstrates thedifferent facets of these three terms.For strategy to be effective it must be visible,consistent and have a direct bearing on the customercompetitor interface. The two prime characteristicsof any successful business are its understanding of thelong term nature of strategy and its ability to createor blur positioning images in the customers mind.This distances it from objectives, which are internalto the organization, invisible to the customer andfrequently change to reflect new situations. Whilsttactics, which are transient and short term, can do nomore than reflect the strategy which created themfor short periods only.All this puts great pressure on determining the beststrategy, implementing it effectively and stickingwith it. As markets become more competitive andcustomers more fickle, the traditional performanceyardstick of measuring performance against objec-tives, becomes progressively less helpful. Successfulcompanies in the 1990s will be those who choose theright strategy and then pursue it relentlessly.Whenever there is a shortfall in business, tradition-ally, the question has been: . . . will we still meetour objectives ? The question that will be asked infuture is: . . . will our strategy hold?When viewing the future, the conventional ques-tion has been: . . . what if ? This question willbecome: . . . how will we react?

Failure in ImplementationImplementation is concerned with putting strategyinto practice. It can be described as the execution oftactics both internally and externally so that theorganization moves in the desired strategic direc-tion.Poor implementation frequently brings the entireplan into disrepute. Invariably, it is the process thatcreated the plan, and not the plan itself, that is theroot cause.


2/17

76 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1991

Figure 1. The link between planning and culture

Objectivesl The Business

Destinationl Long and

Short Terml May Change

l invisible

Strategiesl The Method of

Achievementl Long Term

Onh/l Should Rarely

Changel Image Maker

and PositioningStrength

Tacticsl The Immediate

Activitiesl Short Term

Onlyl Can Change

Oftenl Temporary

Figure 2. The importance of strategyThe majority of implementation failures fall intothree categories which can be seen as a decisionmaking tree in Figure 3.It is worth exploring these three reasons in moredetail :The strategy is not strategy at allObjectives or tactics are often mistaken for

strategy. Some so called strategic plans are littlemore than a mixture of budgets and managementwish lists.The strategy is itself not implementableWhen strategy is formulated away from theinterface with customers and competitors, thechance of the ivory tower perceptions ofthe planners matching the market place reality of


3/17

Making Strategy Work 77

NoB__) NoImplementation

No- _ - ) LipserviceImplementation

2% ) CounterImplementation

Figure 3. Three reasons for failure

the implementors is slim. Strategy generated inthis way, suffers from extremes of broad genera-lity and over-complication.The strategy is not owned by the implementorsPoor internal communications generally takes theblame. Yet proper ownership is rarely achievedwithout the implementors playing some part inchoosing their own direction.

The front line of the organization, when left to theambiguities of interpreting weak strategy on theirown, often find little to implement at all. Of thethree negative outcomes in the diagram above,counter-implementation is the most serious. Inter-nal political forces can head off the real implemen-tation and the organization may actually move inthe wrong direction as opposed to no direction atall.

Ownership vs SophisticationLarge corporations invest considerable energy insharpening up their strategies because it is assumedthat increases in sophistication go hand in hand withincreases in ownership. Much of this energy iswasted when implementation fails.A research project at Cardiff Business Schoolsponsored by Stratmar has shown that increases insophistication have little or no effect on ownership.To aid our understanding of this uncomfortable

reality, four scenarios in Figure 4 have been drawnbased on different combinations of these twoaspects.This compares sophistication (the competitiveexcellence of strategy) and ownership (the organiza-tions appetite for implementation) and producesfour styles of planning.

Cavaliers-Low ownership and weak strategyPlanning is an annual ritual for the satisfaction ofsenior management. The plan is thick and glossy,full of internal budgets and lengthy to do lists thatdemonstrate frenetic activity. The whole processmay even be delegated to a junior member of staffand rubber stamped by senior management later.Few would admit to being in this hapless statealthough many are.Pundits-Good planning but low ownershipOrganizations that build large planning depart-ments inadvertently end up here. Plans are doneby experts and not shared with those who willeventually implement them. Specialist planningdepartments are recruited to do the job thatbelongs to line management. Strategic decisionsbecome the prerogative of the planners. The planappears to bear little resemblance to the cut andthrust of real life.Missionaries-Ownership high and strategyimprovingThe organization is beginning to move in theright direction and implementation is in full


4/17


High

ImplementationandOwnership

Figure 4. Corporate attitudes to strategy

Low Strategy Sophistication * High

swing. The entire organization knows where it isheading. However Missionaries are at a transientstage. Once ownership has taken root, sophistica-tion follows almost inevitably without impairingimplementation. Missionaries are only a shortleap from the Leaders position. Despite theefficiency of this route to leadership, few organiz-ations reach this stage because their preoccupationwith improving sophistication leads them inevit-ably towards the ivory tower of the Pundits.Leaders-Strategy sophisticated and ownership highThis is where all companies would like to believethey are positioned. In reality, very few are.These companies are typified by sustainable,competitive strategies that are well understood bythe implementors who have, in their turn, playeda part in fashioning them. Departmental andfunctional boundaries have broken down. Peoplework together in inter-departmental teams thatfocus firmly on the customer for the good of theentire organization. Duplications and internalcompetition is a thing of the past as the rewards ofeffective implementation are shared by all. Theseorganizations are exerting significant influence ontheir customers and competitors.

The Gateways to SuccessThe rules for success are founded on four simpleobservations :

Better strategies do root automatically lead to betterimplementation. Increasing investment in sophisti-cation without an equal investment in ownershipmakes planning an ivory tower activity. Theplanners become Pundits and implementationfails.Over-sophistication hindering ownership. Once aPundit, additional investment in technical exper-tise is unlikely to turn an organization into aLeader. The behavioural investment that in-creases ownership is different to the technicalexpertise that increases sophistication.Ownership makes implementation work irrespective ofstrategy. An organization can only reach theMissionary stage after significant development inbehaviour and attitudes of its people. This will beeffective irrespective of the level of strategysophistication previously achieved. Curiously,the more sophisticated the previously disownedstrategy is, the more it may need to be reinventedin order to nurture ownership.

The appreciation of these four scenarios is helpful in Sophistication follows ownership. The only way todetermining how an organization can reposition becoming a Leader is by staying on the Mission-itself in a more favourable area of the matrix. ary side of the direct route. This means that


5/17


A Missionaries

lmplementatiorandOwnership

Strategy Sophistication

Figure 5. Gateways to successownership comes first and sophistication second,in the later stages of development. This some-times means that senior management has toconceal its impatience while the transition takesplace.

The fact that these rules have been formulated in thisway, is no accident. Their rationale is firmly rootedin everyday management practice.If the organization does not own the basic strategy itis asked to implement, it is futile to try to improve it.It is more rewarding to concentrate on the organiza-tion owning its own plan, however basic, thanhaving it disown somebody elses highly sophisti-cated work. Where the latter is the case, the mosteffective way to regain this vital ownership may beto let the organization introduce something of itsown. Whilst this is unlikely to be as sophisticatedinitially, it will, at least, have a high probability ofbeing implemented.The organization at large must be allowed theoption (even though it is rarely taken in practice) todismantle the ivory tower for itself. Faced with thedaunting task of creating strategy themselves, theimplementors become more empathetic. Havingthe courage to let this happen, is an important partof the change process.Of the two choices facing management, chasingownership will be more rewarding than chasing

sophistication. The organization that implements afew basic ideas properly will always stay ahead of itscompetitors who are swamped with sophisticatedstrategies to which the organization at large, paysonly lip-service.

The ChallengeFew companies possess a strategy generation processthat is sympathetic to the notion of mass ownership.Even fewer companies have formalized implemen-tation as a structured activity which places owner-ship as the highest priority. Generally implemen-tation exists as an ad hoc activity where the results offailure are only realized after the event.Thus the challenge can be broken down into thethree separate elements of Figure 6.The Organizational ChallengeStrategy generation and implementation mustinvolve all levels of the organization. The outputfrom each level becomes the input for the levelbelow. In this way ownership cascades across theentire organization.The Strategy ChallengeStrategy must be generated within a process that canaccept many inputs from many differing manage-ment disciplines. In addition, the strategy outputmust be suitable as direct input to the implemen-


6/17


J7$IEEyORGANIZATIONI, A Process of Human InvolvementIMPLEMENTATIONA Formal Process

of Ownership

Figure 6. The triple challengetation process. Thus, most existing strategy isunsuited to implementation.The Implementation ChallengeThe implementation process must create a forumwhere teams of implementors can take ownership ofthe strategy by designing their own implemen-tation. In order that the implementors understandthe strategy generation process, they must beallowed to inspect and challenge the logic by whichthe strategy was created. To do this successfully thetwo processes of strategy generation and implemen-tation must be seamless.

Each level has a different function, a differentperspective and different responsibility. Thus, threeseparate processes are required, each appropriate tothe input and output of the level for which it isdesigned.The aims of each process are distinctly different:

Top executive: long term visionFunction, market or medium term strategyproduct management:Operational and front-line immediate implementationmanagement:

Thus the challenge of combining strategy gener-ation with implementation in a continuous nrocesssurrounded by the correct sequenceinvolvement is a massive undertaking.great patience and commitment.

The output from the top level becomes the input tothe next level and so on. Each level and each process1.of people becomes more detailed and immediate than the levelIt requires above it. The overlap between the processes at eachlevel allows this transfer of ownership to cascadedown throughout the organization.

The Application of Good PrinciplesThe key to applying these principles across an entireorganization is to match each of the different levelsof the organization to its own process. For the sakeof simplicity most organizations can be visualized inthree levels. This model can be applied to the entireorganization, a single business unit or a discrete areaof market responsibility. In essence, an organizationis a large number of pyramids, each partiallyoverlapping one another. Figure 7 describes onesuch pyramid.

Considerable discipline is needed to prevent theoccupants of one level encroaching on the roles ofthose below. The successful achievement of thiscreates the right ownership environment at thelower levels. It also encourages delegation ofaccountability by the higher levels down to theimplementors, where the responsibility shouldbe-at the customer interface.

The Marlow MethodThe Marlow Method is a process for formulating


7/17


Management andFront-line Employees

Figure 7. The three levels of planning

and implementing strategies. Its structure inFigure 8 is more comprehensive than conventionalmethods.The three tiers of the process map exactly onto thethree layers of the organizational pyramid. Each hasa different role and output. Each uses the input fromthe level above to create a continuous seamlessprocess.Goal setting requires special techniques to createsomething which is genuinely visionary. This makesit markedly different from conventional corporatemissions and objectives. It encompasses the entirespan of the business that is about to be subjected tothis new scrutiny.The strategic level is more focused. It digs deeperinto specific priority markets and goes into con-siderable detail to uncover the real competitiveissues. However its real advantage is the marketingeducation it provides to participants, experienced ornot. It is divided into two parts to allow for separateiterations. There are a number of formal iterationswithin the process whereby outputs can be com-pared with the visionary goal.Implementation is by far the most powerful of thethree stages in the process. It should touch the entire

organization. It relies for its input on the strategythat is generated from the level above. This strategymust be simple, unambiguous and in a format withwhich the implementors can grapple. The logic ofeach strategy must be traceable back to its source inminute detail. This places the responsibility on thestrategists to produce clearly articulated, unambi-guous strategies. This is the fundamental reason whyimplementation cannot be treated on its own.

The Transfer of OwnershipPlanning in this way is essentially a team occupation.Each level of the process is undertaken by teams ofmanagers drawn from their particular level. Multi-disciplined teams work best-spreading the owner-ship as wide as possible. It is not enough, however,to assume that ownership will automatically bepassed from level to level. There needs to be a wellorganized conduit through which the transfer canbe formally passed. This is the role of the Mentor.Each team, be it at the strategy or the implemen-tation level, has its own Mentor. The role of Mentordiffers from the role of manager in several funda-mental ways. Mentors, who are usually senior totheir team, act primarily as councillors and concilia-tors. They may challenge, probe and question the


8/17


findings of their team but they may never dictateanswers nor lead the team towards their own petsolutions. Theirs is the responsibility of carrying theinput down from the level above, and maintainingthe integrity of their teams output back upwards.

traditional processes are subtle. These differences canbe seen in the stages of the process as shown inFigure 10.Each stage has a very special role to play:

Figure 8. The structure of the Marlow Method

The key to cascading ownership from one level toanother lies in the choice of Mentors. Each team atone level supplies the Mentors to the teams at thelevel below it as Figure 9 shows. This has consider-able ramifications in the choice of team members atthe strategy level, since each must be in a positioncapable of mentoring an implementation team. Inthis way the integrity of the business goals aremaintained and ownership from above becomesovertly public.Each team, under the guidance of its Mentor, maychallenge, realign or reject the input it receives fromabove as it proceeds. This creates a healthy environ-ment that promotes ownership. The output fromthis scrutiny is fed back to the level above who intheir turn may accept or reject. In this way each leveltakes on the responsibility to pass actionable outputto the level below. The accountability for imple-mentation is thus pushed down the organizationcloser to the customer interface.The Marlow Method vs TraditionalProcessesThe differences between the Marlow Method and

Trigger

Bench Mark

PencilSketch

Codebreaker

Blueprint

Action Line

Getting StartedThe start point in any process which is designed tocreate an open innovative environment, is impor-tant. Our method handles this with a statement of

strategy creation starts with a vision statementthat clearly articulates the long term aspirationsof the organization.existing knowledge and experience is shared toachieve initial consensus.ideas are formed into an embryonic strategicdirection, which, whilst unresearched as yet,will form the hypothesis to be tested inCodebreaker.a replacement for the conventional audit, itconcentrates on interpretation and iteration tovalidate the hypothesis from Pencil Sketch.the hypothesis, tried, tested and modified inCodebreaker, is turned into a sharply focusedstrategic plan.this stage moves smoothly beyond the plan intoimplementation. It combines the techniques ofproject management with the strategicphilosophy of the plan.


9/17


Mentors

I IStrategy

Team t-1 I

I ActionLine Teams t--

Teams ProcessTopExecutive Trigger

Actiont-l

ActionLine Teams Line

IndividualChampions t-lResults

Reviews

ProgressI eview

Figure 9. The cascade effect of the process

the business goals of the organization in unambi-guous detail. This is the Trigger.Again, this approach, shown graphically inFigure 11, differs from the conventional corporateobjective, which tends to be a vague statement ofthe past and present, extended into the future. TheTrigger which is the only subjective part of theentire process, is a blue skies vision of the future. It isessential that this goal lies beyond the currentcomprehension of the organization. This will have adramatic effect on the attitudes of the strategy teamas they grapple to find solutions later in the process.Unless there is a gap to close, the intensity of theprocess and the need for innovation are unnecessayy.The Trigger neither gives answers nor dictatesstrategy. Its contribution is the framework withinwhich teams work. The fact that the Trigger isvisionary and therefore outside the immediatecomprehension of those who are tasked to run withit, is a healthy first step. It prevents the obvioussolutions of simply being able to do more tomorrowof what is already being done today. It forces a newapproach and a different perspective.In practice, the visioning part of the process mayspan the tops of several business unit pyramids. Thiscreates a senior management forum, often at boardlevel, where consensus rather than competition andbusiness judgement rather than power and politicsbecome the tools of the trade.

Sharing ExperienceAnother important step towards creating the rightframe of mind lies in Bench Mark-the first step inthe strategy generation process.Management knowledge is without doubt one ofthe richest sources of input most often denied withinthe traditional process. In many organizations, adefensive ethic exists that deters managers fromcommitting themselves to public statements unlessthey reinforce the prevailing corporate wisdom.Controversial statements, based on intuition, thatattack this wisdom cannot always be voiced in afactual way and are therefore lost. These controver-sies are, however, the fuel that sparks the innovationfor which the organization is so desperately search-ing. Bench Mark is structured specifically to giverecognition to intuition, experience and best guessesknowledge. It encourages the mutual trust andsharing that is so fundamental to building manage-ment teams. The process blends the disjointedfragments that emerge into comprehensible picturesthat can subsequently be validated. It reducespoliticking, a frequent challenge to the conventionalprocess, and it unearths the real issues in a way thatcannot subsequently be ignored.

The Imperfect EnvironmentThe logical format of traditional methods has done


10/17


Goal Setting TriggerI4

Market IAppraisal Pencil SketchI

4

StrategyValidation I

Blueprint .

Figure 10. The steps of the Marlow Methodmore to hamper the recognition of sound planningthan any other single factor. The human brain is anillogical workhorse, making great leaps of creativityon the one hand whilst being caught in seeminglyendless loops on the other hand. This method,designed around this illogical sequence of input,follows more closely the path of the human brain. Itsets up information in a way that encourages thecreative leaps. It forces breakpoints in the endlessloops by identifying the contradictions. Finally, theorganization challenges its own dogma. The waythat the approach handles the conventional audit inthe Codebreaker section shown in Figure 12 is anexample of this.This structure encourages iteration and tangentialthinking. Codebreaker is a sequence of iterationsthat allows analysis, interpretation and strategygeneration to run side by side until a best fit can befound. Without these vital ingredients, bad deci-

sions taken early on become compounded as theprocess progresses. Without this rigorous iterationand self-checking, such decisions might eventuallypass unchallenged and become accepted. Ourapproach prevents this through its careful design.Each step is an iteration of the previous step. Theoutput of Pencil Sketch and later Blueprint arecompared to the aspirations of the Trigger. Theimplementation teams that orchestrate Action Linerevisit Blueprint and the work of the strategy team.Earlier information is constantly being presentedalongside new inputs in a way that preventssuperficial conclusions being drawn.Judgements and assumptions are encouraged. Moreoften than not teams surprise themselves with thebreadth and accuracy of their own knowledge. It isan important part of the organizations educationthat strategy generation is based on intuitivejudgements, best estimates and reasoned opinions. It


11/17


Companysuccess

TurnoverProfitsReturnSharePositionImage

PastPerformance

Expectations

incrementalYear-on-year

Approach

Today Planning Horizon Long-term

Figure 11. The trigger as a starting point

is the very fabric of one organization that makes itdifferent from any other.

Successful ImplementationWithout doubt Action Line is the most powerfulorganizational tool of the entire process. However,despite this, it cannot be used as a shortcut or standalone implementation process. It depends entirelyfor both its strategic and human input on the outputof the strategy team above it.Action Line converts the grandiose strategies andtheir tactics into small steps of reality. It does this bycombining the concepts of strategic planning withthe techniques of project management in 12 basicimplementation steps.The concept of Mentors within Action Line isfundamental to the cascading nature of ownership.Members of the strategy team group their tacticsbased on similar skill requirements for implemen-tation. They form Action Line teams from acrossthe organization and each becomes the Mentor totheir own team. This passes the strategic under-standing down to the implementors whilst placingresponsibility for maintaining the integrity of theplan on those who created the strategy.

As the implementation tasks are worked out,champions emerge from within the Action Lineteams to execute each task. This fixes accountabilityat an individual level in a way that can be managedwithin a peer group. The Action Line championsbecome part of an unofficial organization that canchallenge the dogma of the official organization.Thus a healthy appetite for change is created fromwithin, without making the cardinal mistake ofmaking change an end in itself.Within the Action Line process, the implementationteams have ample opportunity to challenge thetactics they have been asked to implement. They cando this through the strategy team, via their mentor,who is charged with resolving such conflicts. It isthis freedom to reject rather than actual rejection(which rarely happens in practice) that cementsownership.Not surprisingly, the way that many companiesoperate falls far short of these demanding require-ments. The reasons are complex. Time constraintssteer the organization towards quick solutions thatare often short-term and profit driven. This politi-cises the process, obviating the importance ofproperstructure, rigour and iteration. Regrettably, thereare no short cuts to combining good strategy with


12/17


Pencil SketchHypothesisI

Market

Product

Distribution &,_&-,++q/II

Communications )Anah/sisj + II -C [ Straiegy q iI

Price

output toBlueprint

Figure 12. The iterationssolid ownership in order to achieve consistent andsuccessful implementation.

The Method in ActionCase Study OneA large manufacturer of computers required aprocess that would be common across the organiza-tion to add a human dimension to its planning. Aneasily understood, step by step process was requiredas previous planning attempts had failed to gain thecommitment of the majority of the companysmanagement.Programme and time scales. Initially a meeting washeld with senior executives to select the prioritymarket areas for treatment. Each priority marketarea was given to a senior executive who then actedas a Mentor for that strategy team.The Trigger stage of the process took about 1

month. Two half-day sessions were held with eachmentor, to create a strategic vision of the future,choose the team and set a workshop timetable. Atotal of 11 planning sets were started at approxi-mately two monthly intervals.The Market Appraisal stage of the process took 6weeks to complete. This consisted of two 3-dayworkshops held 2 weeks apart. The first workshopcovered Benchmark where existing knowledge andexperience was shared to achieve initial consensus.The second workshop covered Pencil Sketch whereideas were formed into a hypothesis to be tested inCodebreaker. Each team prepared an initial findingsreport and presented this to the senior executivecommittee who had orginally chosen the marketarea as a priority.The Market Analysis stage took 4 months tocomplete and consisted of seven 3-day workshopsheld 2-3 weeks apart. The first five workshops eachcovered one section of the Codebreaker. The last


13/17

Making Strategy Worktwo workshops were spent on Blueprint where thehypothesis, tried, tested and modified in Code-breaker, was turned into a sharply focused strategicplan. The team finalized the plan and presented it tothe same senior executive committee for a major gono-go decision.The role of the mentors. Each mentor chose his ownteam from people across the organization who heconsidered had a positive contribution to make. Atypical planning team included a senior accountmanager, a marketing manager, a technical servicemanager, an engineering maintenance manager, aproduction manager, a financial accountant and aplanning manager.Each mentor presented their vision to their strategyteam at the first workshop to start the process off.Thereafter, they attended only 1 day of each 3-dayworkshop. This allowed the teams to work uninhi-bitedly but kept each mentor informed and able toact in his counselling role. Between workshops, eachmentor would sound out his senior colleagues overthe ideas of his planning team then gave thisfeedback to the team at the next workshop.Problems encountered. At first there was a certainamount of scepticism to the process. The corporateculture was typical of many IT companies-high oncreativity but low on discipline. Wholeheartedsupport for the process developed as more groupsbecame involved in the workshops. Generallyparticipants found it difficult to explain to theircolleagues the process they had been throughbecause it had been a totally different experience toany other outside programmes used by the corpor-ation. However, as more people became involved acommon language sprung up which was one of theoriginal objectives in employing the process.Aficts on corporate culture. The process createdgroups of people around the organization that bothunderstood their problems-because they had spenta lot of time thinking about them-and werestrongly committed to the decisions that had to betaken. The teams, being trans-departmental had theeffect of uniting different disciplines within theorganization. Thus major structural changes couldbe effected relatively painlessly from below.Case Study TwoMarket planning was virtually unknown in whole-sale banking. The Merchant Banking and Treasurydivision of a major international European bankrequired both a business planning and organiza-tional development tool that could move theorganization towards customer orientation andaway from transaction orientation. The existingmethod of planning was based on the fiscal cycle ofbudgets and numbers. The plan itself was really anaction list without the necessary strategic backdrop.A traditional bank culture existed where it wasbelieved that the future was driven more by interest

rates than an ability to choose the way it positioneditself. It was a dealer mentality requiring instantsolutions and instant actions.Programme and time scales. The business unit headacted as mentor to a planning team of eight seniormanagers. The Market Appraisal stage of theprocess again took 6 weeks to complete and theMarket Analysis stage a further 4 months.After the strategic presentation, Action Line, theimplementation stage, was embarked upon. A 2-day workshop was held to break the plan intoimplementable sections and to train each strategicteam member as a mentor. Each of these newmentors took their part of the plan and formed ateam to implement it. Implementation was designedto be complete within 1 year, of which the firstmonth was spent using the process to organize thetasks. Subsequent quarterly reviews designed withinthe process kept implementation on track.Action Line consisted of two 3-day workshops3 weeks apart. Each team created as many as 50implementation tasks out of their part of the plan.Team members took it upon themselves to choosetasks that they could personally champion over thecoming year. Six such programmes ran concur-rently, each mentored by a member from thestrategic planning team. This stage culminated in aday of presentations. Each team made a presentationto the Strategic Planning team with the otherAction Line teams as the audience. The StrategicPlanning team responded by authorizing some taskswhilst asking for more clarification on others.Problems encountered. Very few problems wereencountered because the senior executive whosponsored the program thoroughly understood therationale behind the process. He could therefore leadhis people through the inevitable vacuum thatensued from time to time when breaking com-pletely new ground such as this.The hardest task was to persuade highly experiencedspecialists from one discipline to think about otherpeoples problems and solutions when workingtogether in the workshops.The eficts of the process on bank culture. The processstarted with a top senior executive who was thebusiness unit head. This expanded to eight seniormanagers who created the strategy and was thenfinally devolved to over 60 middle and juniormanagers who formed the Action Line teams.Within the business unit, all managers, irrespectiveof their status, discipline or experience becameinvolved in the process. This had a positive effect onthe strategic decisions made within the divisionthereafter.The most significant change was that employeesbegan to see their organization as their customers


14/17

88 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1991saw it. Attitudes became less reactive and moreproactive. The bank became more discerning overchoosing customers rather than letting counter-parties choose them. The result is a wholesale arm tothe Bank that enjoys more status in its market placeand earns more money for the Group.The team members who had experienced theprocess found that they had a higher standingamongst their peers in the rest of the bank and wereable to talk with colleagues in other divisions in acommon language, thus spawning pan organizationprojects that could not otherwise have been contem-plated.Results achieved. Sharp increases in profits andreturns were shown within a year of introducing theprocess. The division was able to open up a newcustomer base that changed its positioning from anuncertain generalist to a serious niche player.

The successful implementation of strong robuststrategies will give any company a significantcompetitive edge. However, it is the high level ofownership that can be attained which provides thesustainable advantage.The beneficial effects of Marketing Kinetics are farreaching and touch every area of the organization.The first and most tangible group of benefits arethose that effect the business itself which are listed inFigure 13.The cumulative effect of these business benefits is tomake the company more competitive and moreprofitable through a stronger position in its chosenmarket place. This would not be possible unlesssignificant change had also taken place in theorganization itself. Thus the second significant areaof influence is the benefits that are accrued withinthe organization which are listed in Figure 14.

The Benefits of CombiningOwnership and SophisticationThe approach is in reality an organizational de-velopment process. Because of this, the changes thattake place are lasting and the benefits considerable.

The organizational benefits in turn are only realis-able because significant behavioural change hascome about within the beliefs and attitudes ofindividuals that make up that organization. Theseare listed in Figure 15.These benefits collectively describe the results of

The Business Benefitsl Crystalise and Validate Longterm Corporate Directionl Better Revenue Streams and Greater Profitsl Formulate a Sustainable Competitive Strategyl Increased Market Share of Chosen Segmentsl Higher Investment Return and More Efficient use of Resourcesl Major Marketing Emphasis in Areas of Greatest Strengthl Strongly Positioned Positive Imagel Development of New Products and Markets Brought Fowardl Reduced Vulnerability to Competitors Strategies

Figure 13. The business benefits


15/17

Making Strategy Work

The Organizational Benefitsl Common Purpose and Understanding to the Entire Organizationl Genuine External Customer Focus - Market Orientationl Strategic Dimension to De&on Making at all Levelsl Resolution of Resourcing and Ambition Conflictsl Integration and Synergism Between Competing Businessesl Organisational Structure that Follows Strategyl Management Teams that Act and Manage Cohesiilyl Barriers Broken Down Between Departments and Functionsl Acceptable Challenge to Conventional Management Wtsdom

Figure 14. The organizational benefits

The Personal Benefnsl Execut~e Ownership of Strategy and Implementation Tasksl Satisfaction of Influencing the Direction of the Businessl Good Solid Understanding of Strategic Managementl New Skills in Understanding Markets and Competitorsl Confident Positive Attitude Towards Changes in the Futurel Recognition of Experience and Personal Opinionsl Acceptance of Accountabilii Through Task Force Approachl Ability to Articulate the Logii of Corporate Strategy

89

Figure 15. The personal benefits


16/17

90 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1991providing the entire organization with a soundstrategic education.Such advantages are only realisable through theteam nature of the process. The participants progressby doing it first and then learning the principleslater. This sequence intellectualizes the best practiceof intuitive management in a way that is relevant,memorable and transferable. Traditional methodsof strategic education introduce the theory first,leaving the participants in a vacuum to work out forthemselves how to apply it to their own particularcorporate situation. This differentiates the heuristiclearning approach of the Marlow Method from thedidactic approach of traditional teaching.

Different Strategic ProblemsSome examples of typical situations are listed below.All have one element in common-the need to reactquickly to changes in the market place.

Competitive encroachment. Companies sufferingfrom a rapid increase in competitive presence,often from the global activity of overseas com-petitors, look for a way to mobilize their entireorganization in a fresh offensive.Market concentration. Companies with an internalstructure that competes with itself in gainingbusiness, need to create market focused multi-disciplined teams to direct and implement stra-tegy .Leadership maintenance. Companies who arealready at the top of their industry, who realizethis position is transient, wish to invest some oftheir success in distancing themselves from theceaseless advance of competition.Aggressivegrowth. Companies who are looking todramatically improve their market position,want to develop innovative strategies that can beimplemented within the resources and abilities ofthe existing organization.Post reorganization. Companies that have recentlyundergone major structural reorganization, facethe prospect of integrating new managementteams into a cohesive force.Core concentration. Companies who have over-stretched on too many fronts, look for ways toredirect their organizations efforts towards thesuccessful core business to achieve a better returnon scarce resources.Approaching deregulation. Companies faced withthe deregulation of a previously protected marketplace, have to take on board a hitherto uncalledfor competitive attitude and face up to harshreality.Corporate senility. Companies which have slowlyslipped from their leadership position, realize the

need to readopt a more external competitivefocus.These categories are not mutually exclusive andmany companies fall equally into several. Howeverthere is one thing that all the successful adoptershave in common. It is the acknowledgement that aproblem exists and the commitment to do some-thing about it.The application of different planning styles in a waythat has lasting behavioural benefits, is not a quickprocess. The process takes time to cascade downthrough the levels of management and permeateacross different business units. Typically the turn-around time for an entire organization in thesesituations is 2 to 3 years. However, the humanbenefits become obvious in as little as 3 months andthe first tangible business benefits may be felt withinthe first 12 months.

The Problems EncounteredThe problems encountered by organizations adopt-ing this approach can be categorized according totheir culture. In highly disciplined organizations,such as banks, management creativity is lower,whereas in the less disciplined organizations, such ascomputing and telecommunications, managementcreativity is high.Highly disciplined organizations using the processdemonstrate excellent commitment but resistanceto change tends to be the main stumbling block tocreativity. It often requires monumental effort andencouragement from top management to break-down the cultural dogma so that creative thinkingcan develop. The desire to introduce and effect thechanges will then follow automatically.At the other end of the scale, organizations with lowdiscipline but high creativity demonstrate thereverse situation. In these organizations, the greatestproblem encountered is the lack of sustainedcommitment. However, once committed, the paceis invariably rapid.Once committed to the process, organizations fromboth ends of the scale experience a permanentbehavioural change within their organization,which becomes evident over a 3-year period.During the first year of the process, the managementstruggles with learning and adapting to the newapproaches. Often it is difficult to perceive theresults and benefits of their efforts. Once they havecarried the process through to implementation, thepermanancy of the new culture becomes obvious.During the second year, understanding dawns andenthusiasm for the process is confirmed. It becomesexplicitly tailored to an organizations own situa-tions. By the third year, permanent behaviouralchange is embedded within the organization and the


17/17

Making Strategy Work 91techniques of the process become part of corestrategic management. The process may take aperiod of time to learn but on completion the wholeorganization is well equipped to react quickly andeffectively to changes in the market.

Implications for ManagementThe adoption of the Marlow Method within anorganization normally revolves around one seniorexecutive who has the foresight to realize that longterm management education is the key to overcom-ing the continuous short term reactions to marketforces that so bedevils Western progress.The process requires a significant commitment ofhuman resources in both time and effort. Ratherthan tackling the whole organization at once, fasterresults can be produced by introducing the processinto divisions who can be seen to be most in need.The process will spread throughout the organiza-tions based on its own reputation.Senior management should consider the following:*

**

Where do the greatest opportunities for thefuture lie?Which parts of the business are most at risk?Can a team of managers be identified to own theproblems and opportunities?

+r Is there a senior executive who is prepared toarticulate his vision?

Sr Does this group have a real appetite to make asignificant commitment of time and effort?

There are no short cuts. The approach is tough andlengthy requiring considerable commitment fromthe organization.

Reading ListA. P. de Geus. Planning as learning, Harvard Business Review.pp. 70-74, March/April (1978).W. Fulmer and R. Fulmer, Strategic group technique: involving

managers in strategic planning, Long Range Planning, 23 (2).79-84, April (1990).W. D. Giles, Marketing planning and customers policy, Management

Decision, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 19-27, MCB University Press (1986).W. D. Giles, Marketing Handbook, Third Edition, M. J. Thomas (Ed.)Vol. 4, pp. 64-98, Gower (1989).W. D. Giles, Marketing planning for maximum growth, MarketingIntelligence and Planning, Vol. 7, No. 314, MC0 University Press

(1989).N. Piercy and W. D. Giles, The logic of being illogical in strategicmarketing planning,19-32 (1989).

The Journal if Marketing Management. 5 (i).

D. M. Reid, Where planning fails in practice, Long Range Planning,23 (2), 85-93, April (1990).

Reading 3 Giles_Making_Strategy_The Marlow Method

Documents

Transcript of Reading 3 Giles_Making_Strategy_The Marlow Method