3 ms·
I’ll go deeper than that: A “strategic” choice is an otherwise-incredibly-unjustifiable choice. When a nation builds an aircraft carrier (apart from the US who
by eastbound 4y ago
I’ll go deeper than that: A “strategic” choice is an otherwise-incredibly-unjustifiable choice. When a nation builds an aircraft carrier (apart from the US who has 10), they call it strategic, when a town builds an airport, they call it strategic, because no sane model would justify expending 2 or 5 times the current income. It only starts to make sense when the nation/city/enterprise has another face, and finds itself moved onto another scenary, part of the G8, member of the unicorn club, etc.
Corrolary: When a manager says a choice is “strategic”, it’s because its financial justification can’t be demonstrated. He may very well be tanking the company, so beware of this territory. On the other hand, it’s worth putting any resource available and risking tanking the company if, for example, we expect the market to be 100% cloud at one point.
- AlbertCory 4y agoRight. By way of contrast, Bill Krause at 3Com used his HP discipline to push MOST - Mission, Objectives, Strategy, Tactics. So strategy is 2 down from M and O (in case it's not obvious, I'm not holding that up as a good example). Wrong. The word should be forbidden to top executives, since its meaning is not universally understood and often abused. You should just say why it's the driving force, and leave it at that.