Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why don’t we have a strategy?

cutlefish.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#51

Post by dchuk »

tootie wrote: post #38
dchuk wrote: post #14

The overwhelming majority of “strategies” are just rigid sequences of time bound outputs/shit you want to build, that always end up being wrong and needing to change because of new information coming in. Strategy needs to be: - We’ve identified this deep problem in the world that needs to be fixed - We want to bring the Vision to life where that problem is gone (a big bold future state of the world). - We believe bri…

I think the problem is that strategy is hard and frequently requires divestment. Your head of inbound marketing isn't going to tell you the company strategy should switch to outbound marketing so let's cut my team in half and throw away everything I've built. My company is suffering this right now. We're doing annual roadmapping and it's entirely a program plan. Our business has shifted over the past 5 years and now…

"Your head of inbound marketing isn't going to tell you the company strategy should switch to outbound marketing so let's cut my team in half and throw away everything I've built." 1) Some might, if they see other roles/opportunities for themselves in the event they do 2) Generally your example is a call their boss or another overarching leader would make, not someone within the system/strategy.

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#52

Post by chrisweekly »

dchuk wrote: post #49
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i agree, but think timelines are a practical necessity of business. this is why we get so much half-baked/unfinished stuff being released. and this is where the trade-offs happen that dilute or misdirect an otherwise sound roadmap/strategy. some exec needs shit done so he can present to his boss and get his nice bonus, then jump ship before they realise its a clusterf*ck.

I don't disagree that timelines are important. However, here is the problem I consistently see: Wrong Way: Most roadmaps contain timelines that are "We're going to build this specific thing and we're estimating it's going to take this long" (Even worse is if they're specifically bucketed by quarters with strict cut offs). Isolated estimates of how long something will take will always be wrong because it doesn't accou…

Great comment.

"futures not features" is a gem!

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#53

Post by AlbertCory »

There is an old engineer quote that appears a couple times in my newest book, where at 3Com the Microsoft LAN Manager alliance and OS/2 were considered "strategic," as was the Bridge acquisition:

"Strategic" means "you don't make any money."

So yeah, we were all deeply cynical about that word, because it means, all too often, the inchoate wishes that MBAs throw onto a bunch of slides.

I'm all in favor of a really well-thought "strategy," if you have one. If not, this will often suffice:

We're going to do whatever we have to do to make a ton of money.

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#54

Post by datavirtue »

quirkot wrote: post #12

An important point to add, I think, is that strategy is a set of plans for a future that is different than the present. And that is hard . Many people struggle with it, especially beyond the task level. That's why so much of "strategy" is hand waving nonsense, because it is so difficult

The internal resistance to developing a strategy that you don't have the power to execute can be overwhelming.

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#55

Post by chrisweekly »

Invictus0 wrote: post #44

A lot of people giving hot takes here about what strategy is, and ironically Rumelt wrote his book to give a clear definition on what strategy is. The author of the substack does us all a disservice by not quoting Rumelt accurately.

"does us all a disservice but not quoting Rumelt accurately"

but -> by

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#56

Post by kriro »

I always have interesting discussions during job interviews when I answer the old "where do you see yourself in five years" or when discussing my non-linear/standard career path. I'm a bit of a fan of Mintzberg's view on strategy when it comes to career "planning" and technology companies (I'd recommend his book "Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning"). He uses a garden metaphor and basically says let everything grow and trim the weeds and his reasoning for this "dabble in different things" approach is that in a turbulent world, precise planning is not really feasible. It's basically more of a core competencies approach.

Different situations require different approaches. There's also value in planning and tight operational execution in different domains. For tech...I feel like some overall "vision" and rough "roadmap" are good and then try different things and be quick to market with new ideas and willing to adapt.

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#57

Post by Invictus0 »

chrisweekly wrote: post #55
Invictus0 wrote: post #44

A lot of people giving hot takes here about what strategy is, and ironically Rumelt wrote his book to give a clear definition on what strategy is. The author of the substack does us all a disservice by not quoting Rumelt accurately.

"does us all a disservice but not quoting Rumelt accurately" but -> by

Thanks, I've been making way too many typos lately! :)

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#58

Post by pantulis »

the_af wrote: post #48
tomlue wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly agree, but this position creates a sense of helplessness. If all ideas are bad, then the idea doesn't matter, and I shouldn't waste time evaluating ideas. As an example, people w/ decades of experience in the domain of your idea can sometimes quickly invalidate it. Years of life can be saved by seeking that feedback, particularly when that knowledge is difficult to obtain.

Totally. Note I don't think "all ideas are bad", it's just that the actual execution is often more important, even for good ideas. The whole "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" thing :)

Or put another way: you can execute, with the highest levels of excellence, a bad idea and fail the same.

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#59

Post by splittingTimes »

I am always missing good, positive examples of what are and _are not_ "Goals", "Stratgies", "Missions", "Visions", "Key Results" etc in those articles. And where to start from and where to go?

What is a goal?

"Win in the market place" or "Become profitable" No, that is not a real goal. That is pure business survival.

"Increase market share by %X." or "Grow our portefolio to enter the premium segment" That sounds more like a goal to me.

Then, agreed, a strategy is how you do that. Those layers are really important and who has ownership of those layers. For example, to me the lowest layer are concrete "actions". Those are better defined from the workers that are close to the production and less from management. A higher, more starting layer, are the "guiding principles" the company will follow.

Example: "Grow portefolio". Two strategys how to do it. Either "Grow by aquesitions" (whole companies or external expertise) or you want to "Grow by in-house innovations". Those two "guiding layer" strategies will lead to wildly different action layers.

Re: Why don’t we have a strategy?

#60

Post by ghaff »

tmountain wrote: post #41
vendiddy wrote: post #22

Are there some historical examples of good strategies out there? I'm having trouble understanding the definition of a strategy and how it differs from a plan.

I think Apple launching the iPod is a good example. - They saw a need in the consumer market that wasn't filled. - They used the Apple team as "target customers" to help with needs analysis. - They addressed UX/ergonomics issues present in existing offerings. - They leveraged existing footholds to maximize value (iTunes, digital store, etc). - They started with a niche market to gain influencer status with their offe…

>- They leveraged existing footholds to maximize value (iTunes, digital store, etc)

And with the exception of this, there was arguably very little about the original iPod strategy--at least as seen from the outside--that was at all remarkable and differentiating. It was mostly about execution including marketing.

Post reply on HN