Strategic Planning Analogy #516: Avoiding Driveways

THE STORY
My wife and I disagree on which types of roads are safer. I think expressways are safer. She thinks city roads are safer.

My logic goes like this: Accidents happen when the unexpected happens (like someone turning off or entering the street) or when change occurs (like a change in speed). By that reasoning, on a city road every driveway, every parking lot entrance/exit, every intersection, every stop sign, every traffic light is a place where an accident can happen, because they are potential sources for the unexpected or change. So, in a few miles of city driving, you may drive past literally thousands of these potentially dangerous locations.

By contrast, on an expressway, I only have to worry about the few cars immediately surrounding me and the rare entrance/exit ramp. That’s a lot fewer potential accident triggers.

My wife’s logic is simpler. The higher the speed, the more dangerous the accident, so drive on slower roads to be safer.

THE ANALOGY
Business strategies can take you on many journeys, including acquisitions, joint ventures, start-ups, brand extensions, new geographies, new customers, and so on. And statistics show that most of these actions end up as failures. There is no safe alternative—acquisitions, joint ventures, start-ups and other business changes all are statistically more likely to fail than succeed.  

It’s like driving when you know that you are more likely to have an accident than not. It’s enough to make one hesitant to get in the car.

But if you don’t get in the car, you will never reach your strategic destination. And because of all the changes in the environment, the status quo will eventually become obsolete. Therefore standing still is not an option, either. It too will eventually be a failure—a horrible accident.

So the business strategy dilemma is similar to the one in the story: What is the safest route to take to avoid terrible accidents?

THE PRINCIPLE
The principle here is that tactics like acquisitions, start-ups, joint ventures, and diversifications are not by themselves the salvation of your company. In fact, they statistically increase your risk for failure. Instead of being your salvation, they are merely tools—and dangerous ones at that. To be successful, one needs a strategy for how to use these tools—a path which optimally avoids most of the accidents which often accompany these tools.

So which path should one take:

1. My wife’s approach (go slow in the city to avoid the biggest accidents);
2. My approach (go fast on the expressways which avoid the uncertainties which increase accidents by avoiding driveways and intersections);
3. Or a combination of paths?

Going Slow

Applying my wife’s advice, the answer would be to go slow. In some cases, that is good advice. Remember, the strategic goal is not to be the first to arrive, but the first to succeed. A strong and savvy follower is often more successful than the reckless trailblazer. As the old saying goes in US westerns, it is the advance scout who gets hit with the most arrows.

For example, Coke did not invent diet cola or cola in cans or caffeine-free cola or sports beverages or pretty much any other beverage innovation in the last 50 years. Yet, Coca Cola is a leader or strong player in just about any non-alcoholic beverage segment currently in existence. Why? Coke is a great fast-follower. By building superiority in distribution, points of customer contact and marketing, Coke can overcome the small innovators over the long haul. Coke lets everyone else take all the risks and then—once a successful innovation becomes apparent—they swoop in and eventually take over. They let other, faster people have all the accidents.

There are several effective tools in the “go slow” approach, like stage-gating and real options. The basic idea is to chop up a grand goal into smaller sub-goals. You aim for the nearest sub-goal. Depending on the success of that early effort, you will make changes in subsequent sub-goals or perhaps halt the project completely. This keeps all your accidents small.

A similar approach is doing a lot of beta-testing. Rather than speeding as fast as possible down a path, you pause to consumer-test the concept and make adjustments based upon the tests. Amazon is famous for doing a lot of testing.

However, the “go slow” approach often has its limits. Sometimes, the dynamics of the market do not provide the luxury of going slow. Faster competitors can get too much of a first-mover advantage (not all of us have as much power to overcome as Coke).

And even the “go slow” approach can eventually require big moves into big acquisitions, big joint ventures, big divestitures and the like. So even though you have eliminated some of the potential accidents, there can be many more that the go slow approach cannot avoid. So going slow it may be part of the solution, but it is not the whole answer.

Avoiding Driveways

So that leads to my go fast approach on the expressways. Accidents are minimized on the expressway because many of the causes for accidents are taken away—driveways, intersections, stop signs and traffic lights.

The business equivalent to avoiding driveways is to look at where the inherent risks are in each business tactic and then try to eliminate them. For example, key sources of accidents in joint ventures come from items like divergent objectives, conflicts between core businesses and the joint venture, governance issues, power issues and so on. The more you can eliminate these sources of accidents up front, the fewer the accidents. These are joint venture equivalents to driveways, intersections and stop signs. The more you can specifically eliminate risks in these areas, the less likely your joint venture will have an accident.

Similarly, in acquisitions many of the risks have to do with things like over-evaluating synergies, paying too much, poorly integrating the two companies, dealing with divergent corporate cultures, underestimating negative customer reactions, and so on. If you can eliminate these sources of accidents, your acquisition is more likely to be successful.

The folks at McKinsey did research and discovered that the companies which are most likely to avoid accidents in acquisitions are the ones who do a lot of acquisition and have built core competencies in how to do acquisitions well. In other words, the successful acquirers have enough experience to know where all the driveways and intersections are and have competencies in finding paths to avoid them (their expressways).

So the idea here is to first understand the key sources of risk in whatever tactical tool your choose. Then, take a path of implementation which avoids these sources of risk (Better yet, make understanding and avoiding core competencies of the firm).

For example, don’t even try to do a joint venture with someone who has a radically conflicting strategic agenda. That’s like driving the wrong way on a one-way road. You are just begging for an accident. Instead, take the expressway where that intersection doesn’t even exist.

A Combination

In reality, a combination of the two approaches can often work best. Don’t be so hasty that you take needless risks. Taking time out for stage-gating or beta testing can be very prudent. On the other hand, large, gutsy moves may eventually be required to reach a better tomorrow. Rather than delay them too long, move forward quickly, but smartly by proactively avoiding specific areas which are most likely to increase the risk of a failure/accident.

SUMMARY
Tactics like acquisitions, start-ups, joint ventures, and diversifications are not by themselves the salvation of your company. Instead, they are necessary, but dangerous tools which increase one’s risk of failure if used improperly. To improve one’s likelihood of success with these tools, consider the following:

1. Before rushing full speed ahead, take time to de-risk the overall strategy. Consider additional tools like stage-gating, real options, and beta-testing to make sure your ultimate goal is correct.
2. Consider building competencies which can make you a great fast-follower towards good strategic goals “proven” by riskier firms.
3. When implementing tools like acquisitions to reach the goal, understand the risks inherent to the particular tool. Then specifically address those risks prior to acting, so that those risks can be avoided.
4. Consider building core competencies in handling these tools before using them.

FINAL THOUGHTS
So, in a way, I guess my wife and I are both a bit right in our approaches to safe driving.

Strategic Planning Analogy #472: Watering Seeds

 

THE STORY
This past summer was unseasonably hot and dry.  My lawn suffered from the harsh weather.  As a result, I needed to plant some grass seed this fall to fill in the dead spots. 

Getting grass seed to grow takes a lot more effort than just throwing some seeds on the ground.  First you have to loosen the soil.  Then you have to keep watering it on a regular basis for several weeks.  Then you have to fertilize it.  That was tough work.  Tossing the seeds on the ground was the easy part.

At first, I thought I wasn’t watering the grass enough.  But then I saw a cardinal giving himself a bird-bath in a puddle where I had watered.  So I guess I watered enough.

And now, my lawn is covered with new grass.

 

THE ANALOGY
Strategy is like grass seed.  It is something new sown into the business with the hope of increasing the growth and value of the company.  And if you want to take the analogy further and think of US dollars as “greenbacks,” strategies are the grass seeds that create that green (money).

The problem is that just because one throws seed on the ground does not guarantee that the growth will occur.  If the ground is hard and dry, the seeds will just sit there until the birds eat it.  Similarly, if strategy is just thrown at a company, there is no guarantee that the strategy will take root. Just as it took a lot more than just tossing seeds to get grass, it takes a lot more than just delivering a strategy in order to achieve a strategy.

If you see the role of strategy as merely delivering a fancy document with all the clever ideas on it, then all you have done is just toss seeds at the company.  The document will then most likely just end up on a shelf and never be touched again.  It’s as if the birds ate all your seeds.

No, if you want a strategy which gets implemented, you have to get involved in all the other work—the ground preparation, the watering and the fertilizing.

  

THE PRINCIPLE
The principle here is that strategies only succeed in a company which is committed to making it succeed.  And that does not usually happen naturally.  In fact, there is usually active resistance to strategies because they require changing the status quo—and that bothers those who are comfortable or have power in the status quo.  Therefore, if you want to successfully implement a strategy, you can’t just give it to the company—you have to actively counter that resistance as part of the strategy process. 

We will refer to those actions as preparing the soil, watering, and fertilizing.

1. Preparing the Soil

In grass-growing, you prepare the soil before planting the seed. The idea is to loosen the soil so the seed can penetrate and get buried in the soil.

A similar activity needs to take place in strategy.  Before presenting the strategy, you need to first prepare the audience so that the strategy will penetrate their wall of resistance.  Since that wall of resistance is in their minds, then the mind is where you need to prepare the soil.

The core idea is very simple.  People act based on the way they think.  Therefore, if you want to change the way they act, you must first change the way they think.  In other words, if you want the leaders embrace and willingly implement the strategy, then you must first get them to think that it is right to abandon the status quo and embrace the new strategy.

There are several ways to change that mind.  The first approach is “The Burning Platform.”  This is where you change how people think about the status quo.  The idea is to convince them to believe that remaining with the status quo is not a viable option for the long term.  It does not work in the changing environment.  Instead, it is like being on a platform which is burning up.  It is only a matter of time before it is all burned up.   And if we do not jump off that platform, we will burn up as well.  It is only a matter of time.  So we may as well jump as soon as possible.

The second approach is “The Locked Door.”  The idea here is to paint a picture of a glorious and prosperous future—a place so desirable that it makes your executives salivate with anticipation when thinking of it.  Then you convince them that there is a locked door between them and that glorious future.  That locked door is the status quo.  It is impossible to reach that future as long as we cling to the status quo, because that approach cannot get you there.  It is only by tearing down the status quo that we can enter that glorious future.

The first approach of thinking prevents actions of turning back and the second approach of thinking increases enthusiasm for actions moving forward.  Depending on the nature of your soil (type of resistance) you may need one of these or some other thinking approach to prepare them for proper acceptance and action.

2. Watering the Soil

Watering the soil is an intensified effort for the period immediately after planting the seed.  It is not a one-time act, but needs to be done continually until the grass seed has fully sprouted.  The strategic planning equivalent is working intensely with executives until they see the connection between the long-term strategy and their daily actions.

If executives do not see a connection between their daily decisions/actions and the long term strategy, then they will not change their daily decisions or actions.  And, as we all know, if the daily actions don’t change, then the long-term outcomes will not change.  The real strategic outcome of a company is the cumulative result of all those daily actions (not the result of that document on the shelf).  So if you want to get the new strategy implemented, if must be meaningfully represented at the point when daily decisions are made.   Watering the seed then means that strategists need to be present when daily decisions are being made—to teach people how the new strategy should influence how those decisions are made.

For example, new strategies are typically about winning a particular position.  And in order to have enough emphasis in the winning area, one usually needs to makes trade-offs with areas less critical to that success.  Therefore, our daily actions need to make the right trade-offs so that we choose in the direction of the winning position.  And if intensive effort is not placed on training people to make the right trade-offs, then wrong trade-offs will occur.

Think back a few years ago to the crisis at Toyota.  Their strategy was built upon winning in dependability.  However, for awhile, management’s daily decisions were not keeping dependability at the forefront.  Ideas of growth, expansion, and low prices got in the way.  As a result, dependability suffered (numerous crashes, lawsuits and recalls) and Toyota had a huge set-back.  Management had to go back and re-water the soil—to get everyone to realize that dependability is top priority and must penetrate every decision made on a daily basis.  Once the soil was sufficiently watered with that intensive effort, dependability came back and so did the prospects at Toyota.

3. Fertilizing the Soil
Fertilization is a brief activity which takes place at set intervals.  For example, many recommend fertilizing grass 5 times a year.  The equivalent activity in strategy is the strategic review.  The idea here is that just as periodic fertilization keeps the grass on track to grow, periodic strategic reviews help keep the strategy on track to proper implementation.

There are several methods to do this.  One is the dashboard approach.  The idea is to set desired near-term outcomes related to the strategy.  These are usually referred to as KPIs, or key performance indicators.  You then measure actual performance against the KPIs and display them on a dashboard.  Periodically you look at the performance on the dashboard and make the appropriate adjustments to get back on track.  Depending on how broadly you want to measure the strategy you will end up with different dashboards.  In the broadest approach, you end up with something like a Balanced Scorecard.

A strategic review which will occur less frequently is the review of assumptions.  The idea here is to periodically go back to the core assumptions behind the strategy to ensure that they are still relevant.  If they are no longer relevant, then it is time to modify the strategy.  Sometimes, this process makes use of scenario planning.  In scenario planning, several potential environmental assumptions are examined.  Strategies are developed for the most like sets of assumptions.  Then, at the periodic reviews, one looks to see which scenario is coming to pass, so that  one will know which path to take.

A third approach for strategic review is known as stage-gating, or real options.  The idea here is that large strategic initiatives are broken down into smaller parts.  Each part optimizes the strategy based on what is known at the moment the stage is started.  Then, based on what is learned over the interim of that stage, you choose the proper next stage, and so on.  The periodic reviews occur for each stage.

An example would be in oil drilling, where one buys an option to drill well before drilling begins.  Then one examines in more detail the likelihood of that being a good place to drill.  If yes, the next stage is to prepare drilling.  If no, you let the right to drill lapse.  The idea is to maximize action while minimizing risk.

 

SUMMARY
Just having a strategy does not guarantee that the strategy will become a reality in the business.  To increase the likelihood that the strategy comes to pass, you also need three other activities:

1. Preparing the Soil--Changing the way the company thinks, so that they naturally want to work hard to make the strategy come to pass.
2. Watering the Soil—Intensive effort up-front to teach people how to incorporate the essentials of the strategy into everyday decision-making.
3. Fertilizing the Soil—Periodic strategic reviews in order to make sure everything is on track, that the assumptions still hold, and that periodic adjustments can be made.

 

FINAL THOUGHTS
You can’t prepare the soil, water the soil and fertilize the soil if you are locked up in the ivory tower at corporate.  No, you have to get your hands dirty and get out into the field where the soil is.

Strategic Planning Analogy #451: Too Much Cotton in the Bottle

THE STORY
The other day I bought a bottle of ibuprofen. I bought it to help with the occasional headache I get with my spring allergies.

When I opened the bottle, I couldn’t get the pills out. There was so much cotton stuffed in the bottle that I couldn’t get to the pills. It was quite a struggle to get that cotton out of the jar.

I understand why the cotton is put in the bottle. It is to protect the pills from bouncing around in the bottle and getting damaged during shipping.

But here is my question: What is the benefit of having perfectly undamaged pills if I am unable to get to them and use them for my headache? If they are locked up in a bottle behind too much cotton, they cannot help my headache. They are worthless to me.  I’d rather have easier access to a slightly damaged pill.

THE ANALOGY
That ibuprofen is only useful to me if I can get those pills into my bloodstream. Having them in a bottle does nothing for the pain.

A similar situation can occur in the business world. Businesses have all sorts of resources. They can be financial, technological, intellectual or a wide range of other resources. These resources are like those ibuprofen pills. If properly used, they can be productive and solve problems.

However, if the company tries too hard to protect those resources, it can be like over-stuffing the medicine bottle with cotton. The protection makes it nearly impossible to get access to those resources. And if you cannot use the resources, it is irrelevant that you kept them in top condition. They become worthless to you in your battle to increase your prosperity in the marketplace. THE

PRINCIPLE
The principle here has to do with risk. The problem is that if a company gets overly protective of its resources in order to eliminate downside risk, they will not only prevent undesirable activity—they will prevent all activity. Like over-stuffing the medicine bottle with cotton to prevent any damage, over-stuffing your business with policies to prevent any risk leads renders your resources worthless.

The only way to be 100% certain that activities with downside risks are eliminated is to eliminate all activity. And that leads to another 100% certainty—100% certainty that the company will cease to exist due to a lack of investment. And so, ironically, the policies intended to minimize downside risk actually increase the likelihood of the greatest downside risk—the risk of destroying the entire business through resource starvation.

As the old saying goes, you have to take some risks in order to receive any rewards. So, the goal should not be to stuff the medicine bottle with as much cotton as possible. The goal should be to find the best way to use the pills in the bottle. Or, to use business terms, the goal is not to avoid risk by preventing investments, but to find the most prudent ways to invest.

Now I understand the need to prevent wasteful and reckless use of resources. For example, if I had been reckless and swallowed all of those ibuprofen pills at once, I would have killed myself. But, if used properly, ibuprofen can do wonderful things. And similarly, wise use of company resources can do great things.

So the rest of this blog will look at ways to prevent over-stuffing the bottle with cotton and promote more prudent investing.

Problem #1: Personal Biases
Scientists and researchers tell us that most managers have built-in biases when it comes to making decisions. They say that the typical manager over-emphasizes the potential downside risk and under-emphasizes the upside potential. As a result, managers become too protective and miss out on making perfectly sensible investments.

I have a theory about why that occurs. I believe the problem is that the upside and downside risks for the company are not always in sync with the upside and downside risks for the individual making the decision.

For example, let’s assume that a manager has a tough decision to make. If you just look at the math from a probability analysis, you would see that although the downside risk is large, the upside risk is a little bit larger and a little bit more likely. Therefore, the “experts” would say that the manager should make the investment.

However, that is just considering the risk to the business. Now consider the risk to the manager making the decision. The manager may think that if the upside potential occurs, he/she may only get a minor recognition. After all, it is their job to make good decisions, so if the decision turns out well, they were just doing their job properly.

On the other hand, if the downside were to occur, the manager may rightly assume that he/she would lose their job. Just look at what is happening at J.P. Morgan. Some trading deals went bad and the downside scenario came to pass. And as a result, a number of people at J.P Morgan are losing their job.

So, from the manager’s perspective, there is very little personal upside potential from recommending the deal and if the downside potential occurs, he/she could lose their job. Therefore, it is no wonder that executives appear irrational (from the company’s perspective) in saying no to “reasonable” risk. After all, from a personal perspective, saying no seems highly rational.

Consequently, if you want management decisions to be in the best interests of the company, you need to make the personal risk profile more similar to the company risk profile. Otherwise, you can end up with managers overstuffing the medicine bottle, which hurts the company but protects their career.

Problem #2: Departmental Biases
Large business decisions often impact large sections of a business. Problems can occur if the risk profile varies between the sectors of a business impacted by a decision.

For example, one part of a business might bear the biggest brunt of the investment while another department may reap most of the benefits. In such a circumstance, the department needing to make the investment may resist the move, because the math may not make sense when just looking at that particular department in isolation.

To prevent this “irrational” cotton stuffing, one needs to get all of the affected parties to share in the entire company-wide risk profile. That way, decisions will be made for the good of the company rather than the good of the individual department.

Problem #3: Excessive Busyness
Just because a resource is kept busy does not mean it is being invested properly. There is an opportunity cost risk in missing out on potentially huge gains because resources are focused on surer, but much smaller gains.

Take, for example, your human resources. Since the start of the great recession, there has been a push to keep those human resources as busy as possible. Individuals are often doing a workload previously done by two or three people before the recession. At first, this may be admired as a wonderful productivity gain.

However, if someone is too busy with the mundane, they will not have the luxury of time to ponder larger issues which produce major breakthroughs. As we’ve seen in prior blogs (here and here), some down time is needed if you want the brain to discover that next huge breakthrough.

As a result, excessive busyness can act like that cotton, and prevent you from being able to use those resources for greater benefit. Therefore, one may need to program in some more “slack” time in order to get the most out of the resource.

Problem #4: All or Nothing
Often times, an investment can look scary because it is positioned to appear so massive. It is proposed as an all or nothing deal. You are told you are either in or you are out. And if you are in, you have to make the big bet all at once. And that can scare people away.

Well, this is often a false premise. Most big deals can be broken down into smaller deals. You may be able to test it in a small fashion before rolling it out. You may be able to borrow or rent resources before committing to purchase. You may be able to do a joint venture with a firm rather than have to acquire it.

Tactics such as risk-sharing, stage-gating or real options theory can help keep the risks manageable by placing them into smaller chunks. If a small chunk goes bad, you can stop before investing in the next stage.

Problem #5: A Portfolio of One
One of the best ways to overcome downside risk is to avoid putting all of one’s eggs in a single investment basket. That is just another scare tactic akin to the all or nothing approach mentioned above. Instead, invest in multiple investments. With a portfolio of investments in your pipeline, then the odds increase that the entire mix of investments will be positive (even if some of the individual investments are negative).

Therefore, to encourage better levels of investing, two actions should occur. First one needs to diversify the risk by building a portfolio of investments (at least in their initial stages). Second, one needs to move away from treating risk in isolation but look at the risk in terms of the whole portfolio. Accept some individual failures as a necessary part of the overall quest to create a positive portfolio.

Problem #6: Fear of Obsolescence
Often times, there can be a fear of investing in something new out of fear that it will hurt the core business. For example, Kodak did not aggressively invest in digital imaging for fear of hurting the core analog film business.

But here is what one needs to realize. If it is a good investment, somebody else will make it. Consequently, the core business is at risk whether you make the move or not. So in most cases you’d be better off making the move, since at least then you would be a part of that which destroys your core. Otherwise, you core is destroyed by someone else and you are left with nothing.

SUMMARY
There are many factors which can act to hold people back from making the investments which they should. We were only able to scratch the surface here. However, in the areas we looked at, it was seen that these factors can be minimized/reduced by becoming proactive in addressing them. By getting in front of these issues, we can establish approaches which keep people from stuffing the investment bottle with too much cotton.

FINAL THOUGHTS
By first investing in policies and approaches which help us to better handle risk, we will end up making more good investments in the business.

Strategic Planning Analogy #381: Strategy Backstop

THE STORY
Back when my son was young, we lived next door to a city park. Many times we would walk over to that park to play a little “two-man baseball.”

In two-man baseball, you only have two positions—a pitcher and a batter. The problem occurred when the batter would hit the ball out into the outfield. Since there was nobody in the outfield to catch the ball, the pitcher would have to run out there and try to find the ball in the tall grass. And since there was nobody in the infield to throw the ball to, the pitcher would have to run the ball back to the infield.

Unfortunately, running out to the outfield and back was usually longer than the distance to run the bases. Therefore, any ball hit into the outfield usually scored a home run.

Fortunately, neither of us was all that good at hitting the ball, so that problem wasn’t as bad as it could have been. Instead, we had a different problem. We would swing the bat and usually miss. Since we didn’t have a catcher, the ball would continue to zoom past the batter.

Fortunately, there was a backstop fence behind home plate. Any ball that went past the batter would hit the backstop fence and stop, making it easy to retrieve.

What we really needed was another backstop fence behind the pitcher. The way, any ball hit towards the outfield would be intercepted by the fence and drop down by the pitcher.

THE ANALOGY
The purpose of the backstop fence in baseball is to stop bad pitches and bad hits from flying away into a space where they do not belong, protecting spectators from injury. In the business world, bad things can happen as well. Therefore, businesses look for their own form of backstops—ways to minimize any negative implications when things go wrong.

A lot of research has been done lately into the science of risk. What these studies have found out is that humans tend to put a lot more weight on the negative consequences of a decision and a lot less weight on the positive upside of a decision. In other words, humans tend to make decisions more around the principle of minimizing loss than in trying to maximize gain. It takes an awful lot of positive upside to get us to accept a little bit of downside.

The mathematicians and statisticians will tell us that this is “irrational” behavior. They would say that as long as the upside is only slightly higher than the downside, a “rational” person should move forward.

But consider how risk can impact the career of a business decision maker. If the person makes a decision which turns out badly, they could lose their job. If they make a decision which turns out well, often nothing happens, since that is what was expected. Only when an outcome is outstandingly positive well beyond earlier optimistic expectations does a career get rewarded. Why take on the risk of getting fired unless there is enough upside to provide the chance for personal reward?

I think this explains why scientists find us fearful of a little loss and desiring a huge gain in order to offset the risk. But regardless of whether or not this behavior is “rational,” it is reality, so we need to work with it.

Therefore, if we want a company to embrace a strategy, we need to make sure the leaders feel comfortable about the risk. And that means that the potential downside needs to appear a lot smaller than the potential upside. And one of the key ways to do this is by putting a lot of “backstops” into your strategic plan.

THE PRINCIPLE
The principle here is that strategy is not just about trying to move a company forward. It is also about trying to prevent a company from moving backward. If you ignore the fears of moving backward, you will never get the company to embrace your plan to move forward.

Strategies usually involve change. And with change comes the risk of something going wrong. And when something goes wrong, the negative consequences can be huge. Not only can the company move backwards, but so can people’s careers. This creates fear about adopting the strategy.

Just as backstops in baseball stop balls from taking a dangerous trajectory, strategy backstops try to stop the negative consequences when something goes wrong.while implementing strategic change. By helping to minimize negative consequences, the strategy becomes more desirable to management.

Strategy backstops tend to fall into two categories: Control (Ownership) and Controls (Exit Ramps).

1) Control (Ownership)
For a strategy to succeed, a number of things have to happen to the company’s advantage—a lot of decisions have to go your way. The more other people control those decisions, the more likely they will decide in a manner which is not in your favor. Their strategic agendas may not be the same as yours; in fact, their aims may be the opposite of yours. Therefore, if you want to minimize the risk of decisions going against you, it helps to control as many points where decision-making takes place as possible.

For example, think about access to critical supplies for your business model. If you want to ensure timely access to a sufficient amount of those supplies, you may want to exert more control over your suppliers. Perhaps you need to acquire your supplier in order to ensure that your strategic concerns are their top priority. Perhaps you need to renegotiate your supply agreement.

It appears that Apple is switching suppliers for its memory chips from Samsung to TSMC. Although there are many reasons for doing so, one reason appears to be because Samsung makes devices which directly compete with Apple devices. As a result, Samsung’s strategic goals with their chip supply may diverge at times from Apple’s. By switching to TSMC, Apple should have more control over its chip supplier.

This principle not only works upstream with suppliers but also downstream with distribution channels. Coke and Pepsi have been acquiring their bottlers. The reason is because Coke and Pepsi see the value in increasing the control over how their products are distributed. This is particularly true for the faster-growing non-traditional beverages, where Pepsi and Coke had less contractual control over the bottlers. The ownership created a backstop for strategies around these newer beverages.

Of course, the more of the process you own, the greater are your share of the losses if the process goes badly. Therefore, sometimes a good backstop is to give up some of the ownership. By not having 100% of the ownership, you do not have 100% of the losses.

This is common in Hollywood, where movie ventures are funded by multiple motion picture companies. The risk is shared amongst them. There are lots of ways to structure joint ventures and strategic alliances so that the burden of potential loss is shared, creating a backstop.

Franchising is another example. Franchisees put up the investment capital and take on the risk of the franchisee failing. Ironically, even though the franchisor is giving up ownership to the franchisee, the franchisor is in some ways actually gaining more control. Because the franchisee has a greater vested interest in making the venture a success, they are more likely to help the strategy succeed than a mere employee. So with franchising, you lower your share of any loss while simultaneously increasing the motivation of the operator to make the venture a success. Now that’s a good backstop.

2) Controls (Exit Ramps)
One big bet can look a lot riskier than a many small bets. Therefore, one way to reduce perceived risk is by dicing up one big decision into a lot of small decisions. The more opportunities you have to make decisions, the more opportunities you have to opt out or modify the approach early, before the losses get too large.

Think of it as being like two different expressways. One has exits every fifty miles; the other has exits every mile. If you accidentally find yourself going in the wrong direction on the first expressway, you have to go fifty miles before you can make a correction. On the second expressway, you are never more than a mile from being able to make a course correction. The more exit ramps you put into your strategy, the sooner you can correct course (before the losses become huge).

There are many processes to do this, such as stage gating or real options. The general principles work something like this. First, you develop key success indicators—metrics which help you tell whether or not you are on the right course. These are your controls, like a GPS on the dashboard on your car. Second, you develop a process where there are many opportunities to assess your progress. These are like building lots of exit ramps.

Then you monitor your controls. If the controls say you are off course, you make a correction at your next exit ramp.

What are examples of exit ramps? If you are a retailer, instead of signing up for a twenty year lease, you can sign up for a five year lease with three five year renewal options. That gives you more opportunities to walk away if the store is not performing. If you are in the oil drilling business, instead of buying a property where you think there may be oil, do a short lease to test for oil, with an option to buy later. Design contracts with lots of clauses for opting out if key measures are not met.

Sure, all of these exit ramps may cost you a little bit more, reducing upside potential a little. On the other hand, they reduce the downside risk by a lot. And, in the end, minimizing the downside seems to be more desirable than maximizing the upside.

SUMMARY
If you want people to embrace your strategy, then you had better understand the psychology behind risk. In general, downside potential is weighed far more than upside potential. Therefore, people are more likely to embrace your strategy if there are lots of backstops embedded in the plan to minimize risk. Common backstops include increasing control of key decision points and increasing the number of opportunities to opt out or modify the decision (like stage gating or real options programs).

FINAL THOUGHTS
Since most decision makers want a high upside to compensate for any downside, if you cannot reduce the downside through backstops, then look for ways to increase the upside. For example, Disney tries to leverage its investments into as many selling opportunities as possible. A successful Disney movie can be leveraged into lots of toy sales, amusement park rides, Broadway plays, TV shows, licensing agreements and so on. All of these add-ons make the downside risk on that movie venture appear less threatening.