As someone who has dedicated her life to design strategy, this is one of the most compelling and clear argument for design education and practice - and why so much great design strategy is crushed under the weight of outdated business beliefs and practices. Thank you for this!
I would love to hear or read a reasonable explanation of the difference between the strategy and the business model. Both are defined along the lines of "coherent sets of choices designed to position the organization on its playing field in a way that it performs successfully over a longer run by effectively creating value for the customer segments of its choice and capture value for itself and its owners". Prof. George Yip concluded that the popular / classic definitions of strategy (like this of Michael Porter or the one by Roger Martin - which can be deemed as representing the positioning school) are better geared towards business model as they describe a rather static construct / state (instead of a dynamic process), whereas "strategy" rather refers to dynamic processes / actions, like a coherent mix of policy and actions to MOVE the company from its current inferior position or business model to a new, more successful position or busines model. In other word the business model is the result of past decisions and describes the CURRENT STATE of affairs - how the company creates, delivers and captures value more effectively than the competitors, whereas the strategy is a coherent set of choices about the DIRECTION the organization should go and change its current inferior business model or position towards a defined better one.
I’m probably thinking differently then the speaker on revenue forecasting but in my business like any business we have to forecast what we expect to make. With those projections we formulate our plans to support the increased demand. Without those exercises we would always be responding last minute to the success of our business. Because of direct response campaigns we are able to forecast pretty accurately what we will make.
I think the difference being made is your point on scaling to your demand. The strategy should be made as far as intentions on growth and expanding. Forecasting and analysis should inform when to initiate, or don't, that expansion as a response to your market. So I think of it as, you should have a clear strategy on capitalizing on good sales, responses. The COO/CFO/CIO are figuring out how they'll do it, which should be informed by performance data. Because if the goal is stated, we'll be aggressive in expanding in a positive market with fiscal discipline... the trust is given to the team to make their decisions as they see fit and how they maintain fiscal accountability.
“Revenue forecasting is the moral equivalent to giving a pacifier to a crying baby” 😂😎💎 Thank you soooo much. I was wondering how I’m expected to forecast even pre-launch!
To say revenue forecasting is a waste if time is dumb. Revenue forecasting is necessary for resource planning. If i don‘t have an estimate of what i might sell, then i don‘t know what resources i may need - should i just go ahead an build a big, new factory if i have no idea what i might produce there?
I think Roger was just highlighting the point that there is so much time wasted on revenue forecasting rather than working on the tough strategy decisions and market insights that should be occurring.
It is good learning, but how many companies are willing to take risk execution of Strategy rather than plan. Regarding planning future based on past data is being implemented in all the business spears and success is also measured based on past records.
Glad it was helpful Sanjeev, thanks for sharing your perspective. The theme of the conversation was to make sure real (and tough) strategy choices are made upfront before planning. Roger brings an alternative view to not just focus on data (which is historical) as the default but to also go out and get your own unique insights that will help you make strategy decisions.
@@foundstoneconversations absolutely. I believe data is important to help shorten the odds but thats it - strategy is all about making choices for the future and trying to de-risk by shortening the odds. but ultimately you cannot prove it will work - 100% of data is always going to be in the past, even if it was collected 1m ago. So the best you can is to test using abductive logic and some sample data from the market - to tease out whether what you are working towards will build a compelling vision and value proposition that the customer will buy into, and pay for with the currency (time, money, attention etc).
I think Roger was just highlighting the point that there is often so much time wasted on revenue forecasting that distracts people away from the real strategy work that needs to be done.
The whole strategist vs execution monkey conversation is because people falsely believe in the one true helmsman fallacy of leadership. If the C-Suite isn't the ultimate decision maker entirely responsible for the success of the company, then why do they get paid so far beyond everyone else in the company? Roger's arguing in the face of the old adage, "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it". Their wealth is a direct result of the lie that they are the ones making the company work, will the rest of the salt miners down in the trenches just work away stupidly, executing their vision. It's a carry over from Fredrick Taylor's completely psychotic view of people as machines.
Dad must be selling animal feed which has got patented ingredients unit with obviously a unique Vitamin that is hard to copy. Dad surely is a genius. Unless customers finds out “complimentary co-existing animals” feeding one another in a perpetual food-chain.
That's a fair comment. I think Roger was just trying to make a very strong point that there is often too much time spent on trying to finesse and forecast numbers when this effort would be better spent out in the market and working on the 'how' of the strategy itself.
As someone who has dedicated her life to design strategy, this is one of the most compelling and clear argument for design education and practice - and why so much great design strategy is crushed under the weight of outdated business beliefs and practices. Thank you for this!
That's wonderful to hear it was so valuable Sarah!
hmm okay interesting i'll have a look through it.........
Love the 'well, Roger' stories!
Great to hear it was valuable!
I would love to hear or read a reasonable explanation of the difference between the strategy and the business model. Both are defined along the lines of "coherent sets of choices designed to position the organization on its playing field in a way that it performs successfully over a longer run by effectively creating value for the customer segments of its choice and capture value for itself and its owners". Prof. George Yip concluded that the popular / classic definitions of strategy (like this of Michael Porter or the one by Roger Martin - which can be deemed as representing the positioning school) are better geared towards business model as they describe a rather static construct / state (instead of a dynamic process), whereas "strategy" rather refers to dynamic processes / actions, like a coherent mix of policy and actions to MOVE the company from its current inferior position or business model to a new, more successful position or busines model. In other word the business model is the result of past decisions and describes the CURRENT STATE of affairs - how the company creates, delivers and captures value more effectively than the competitors, whereas the strategy is a coherent set of choices about the DIRECTION the organization should go and change its current inferior business model or position towards a defined better one.
Great interview and reflections. Especially relevant, the comparison between business and design schools. Congrats Roger!!!
I love and appreciate you both so much!
Experience is talking in this interview!!
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks Prof Roger Martin, and the host
Glad that it was helpful! It was a great conversation
Love the 'well, Roger' stories😊!
Glad to hear it was valuable!
Thank you for teaching me
Glad you found it helpful!
Terrific video. Thanks
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it
I’m probably thinking differently then the speaker on revenue forecasting but in my business like any business we have to forecast what we expect to make. With those projections we formulate our plans to support the increased demand. Without those exercises we would always be responding last minute to the success of our business.
Because of direct response campaigns we are able to forecast pretty accurately what we will make.
I think the difference being made is your point on scaling to your demand. The strategy should be made as far as intentions on growth and expanding. Forecasting and analysis should inform when to initiate, or don't, that expansion as a response to your market. So I think of it as, you should have a clear strategy on capitalizing on good sales, responses. The COO/CFO/CIO are figuring out how they'll do it, which should be informed by performance data. Because if the goal is stated, we'll be aggressive in expanding in a positive market with fiscal discipline... the trust is given to the team to make their decisions as they see fit and how they maintain fiscal accountability.
“Revenue forecasting is the moral equivalent to giving a pacifier to a crying baby” 😂😎💎 Thank you soooo much. I was wondering how I’m expected to forecast even pre-launch!
Glad it was helpful :)
fantastic conversation.
Glad it was helpful Julian!
@@foundstoneconversations 😮😮😮😮😮😮
To say revenue forecasting is a waste if time is dumb. Revenue forecasting is necessary for resource planning. If i don‘t have an estimate of what i might sell, then i don‘t know what resources i may need - should i just go ahead an build a big, new factory if i have no idea what i might produce there?
I think Roger was just highlighting the point that there is so much time wasted on revenue forecasting rather than working on the tough strategy decisions and market insights that should be occurring.
Great stuff. Thanks for sharing.
No problems Peter, glad it was helpful !
In play game strategy must change plan to win game. If no completer strategy is needn't.
Hope the conversation was helpful
It is good learning, but how many companies are willing to take risk execution of Strategy rather than plan. Regarding planning future based on past data is being implemented in all the business spears and success is also measured based on past records.
Glad it was helpful Sanjeev, thanks for sharing your perspective. The theme of the conversation was to make sure real (and tough) strategy choices are made upfront before planning. Roger brings an alternative view to not just focus on data (which is historical) as the default but to also go out and get your own unique insights that will help you make strategy decisions.
@@foundstoneconversations absolutely. I believe data is important to help shorten the odds but thats it - strategy is all about making choices for the future and trying to de-risk by shortening the odds. but ultimately you cannot prove it will work - 100% of data is always going to be in the past, even if it was collected 1m ago.
So the best you can is to test using abductive logic and some sample data from the market - to tease out whether what you are working towards will build a compelling vision and value proposition that the customer will buy into, and pay for with the currency (time, money, attention etc).
@@user-jp7ni5xv1r Thanks for sharing your perspective on this
A company needs both plan and strategy. It's not a matter of either or.
Be more specific on what you mean by "do not waste time on revenue forecasting", please.
I think Roger was just highlighting the point that there is often so much time wasted on revenue forecasting that distracts people away from the real strategy work that needs to be done.
The whole strategist vs execution monkey conversation is because people falsely believe in the one true helmsman fallacy of leadership. If the C-Suite isn't the ultimate decision maker entirely responsible for the success of the company, then why do they get paid so far beyond everyone else in the company? Roger's arguing in the face of the old adage, "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it". Their wealth is a direct result of the lie that they are the ones making the company work, will the rest of the salt miners down in the trenches just work away stupidly, executing their vision. It's a carry over from Fredrick Taylor's completely psychotic view of people as machines.
Thanks for sharing your perspective
Dad must be selling animal feed which has got patented ingredients unit with obviously a unique Vitamin that is hard to copy. Dad surely is a genius. Unless customers finds out “complimentary co-existing animals” feeding one another in a perpetual food-chain.
Forecasting comments making me a bit uncomfortable
That's a fair comment. I think Roger was just trying to make a very strong point that there is often too much time spent on trying to finesse and forecast numbers when this effort would be better spent out in the market and working on the 'how' of the strategy itself.