tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461010492997967211.post8709127901975889270..comments2023-08-21T04:21:39.084-05:00Comments on Planninga from Nanninga: A Strategic Planning Blog: Strategic Planning Analogy #337: Magical ProfitsGerald Nanningahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10102230443942149045noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461010492997967211.post-75570816203303093432010-07-13T23:50:36.107-05:002010-07-13T23:50:36.107-05:00Gerald,
I agree with your summary “It’s difficult ...Gerald,<br />I agree with your summary “It’s difficult to juggle both a continuation of the status quo and a bold move in a new direction. They need to be managed separately, by different individuals who can focus on just one of the tasks". <br />Each one of us has one heart; dealing with two different issues requires having two hearts. This is an impossible task. Either the heart bifurcates like a pendulum between two different requirements, or most likely, it shall favor the one it desires.<br />Keeping direction is easier than changing direction. Change of direction is a multi-stage process as it has to go faster, accelerate, and build momentum before change of direction is possible.<br />Yes, the management of both requires different individuals.ali ananihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948497521950629086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461010492997967211.post-68130047045060918022010-07-12T23:18:25.869-05:002010-07-12T23:18:25.869-05:00Hello Gerald – By any chance was it you as a child...Hello Gerald – By any chance was it you as a child doing magic in that picture? If so, you look like a consultant even then Gerald!<br /><br />Yet another great post! “Staying the course is often riskier than taking bold moves and so we are better of going with the bold move “- Great principle and I like it. In a way, your principle somewhat reminds me of the “doing both” principle promoted by Inder Sidhu and interestingly enough - you have preferred the juggler analogy over magical trick analogy- as juggling better represents this doing both concept. <br />Back to the key point - I am sure, this is an issue most companies wrestle even today and ends up choosing the “staying the course” option over the “bold move” option in the name of a compromise and/or trade-off - which in most cases end up hurting them in the long run. For example, driving core business over nurturing disruptive innovation is a classic example – but again, most companies decide to stay the course for the fear of unknown and not willing to take the risk of the bold move. Guess what -someone else (a smaller start-up) end up eating their lunch instead of them eating their own lunch- and so, in a way they are better of going with the bold move themselves. In other words, those companies who chose the seemingly easy way out (staying the course) end up realizing that it is a riskier than the bold move (to your point) and sooner or later end up facing the inevitable of being booted out of the business.<br /><br />Following are some ways these companies can circumvent this fear of unknown or internal risk/cultural resistance standpoint.<br /><br />• Doing bold move or disruptive innovation as part of a newly launched start-up.<br />• Augmenting current business model/product new disruptive innovation within the four walls of an existing organization, but with transfer pricing and/or bundling features between old and new product categories.<br />• Doing bold move or disruptive innovation as part of a newly launched start-up and then merging the start-up back to the parent after disruptive innovation or bold move is commercially successful.<br /><br />Regards,<br />CharlesCharles Prabakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714461775981814360noreply@blogger.com