Good strategic planning should lead an organization to growth, increasing profitability and surge share over time. But what happens every company refuses or neglects to hear and understand what is going on in the markets they can serve?
There are many instances one may cite about companies that were successful for some time that relatively suddenly chanced on serious problems. IBM was very successful in supplying and using mainframe computers, to the point they ignored for too much time the changes in the business enterprise place. Until Lou Gerstner restructured the company, they were declining rapidly in their performance because they didn't enjoy what was really happening are you hoping place.
Polaroid went via the similar set of problems. RIM is suffering from not following on from the technologies of Apple. And try to, most recently, Kodak found itself floundering enough where it had to say Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection.
Why do great brands like those above fall straight into such difficult circumstances? IBM did as it chose to listen primarily to these who had the most reduce if mainframes went aside. Because IBM didn't measure the big picture, they information about missed significant trends regarding distributed processing.
Kodak is a much more troubling case. Kodak the significant leader in the advance and implementation of camera's, yet they almost blindly hung of their film manufacturing business in to the detriment of your camera until the competition outstripped them and if they became a lower rate competitor.
When a small company, particularly an industry lead designer like Kodak, weds itself too tightly due to its current technology, and ignores industry trends because it is often so successful with its method for so many years, the rest of the market, which is apparently so there for innovation and developments out of the current technology, can and will eventually pass the old offerings by, leaving constantly diminishing returns and market share for that company. Unchallenged recipes for success could be the worst enemy of the company's future.
What medicine lesson learned from a first rate companies' plights as verified above?
One should analyze the quantity of risk one should present as seen from two different points of view. First: If the company stays using current technology, what risks can it run to future conversions growth, technological leadership, roi, etc.? Second: If the corporate invests in new hardware, what should it expect in terms of future sales, competitive understanding, ROI, etc.? Included in the analysis should delve into the upside and pitfall with each alternative and comparing your options to reach the clear decision.
Will the changes to get made be incremental, or can they become radical in mother nature and effect? What total risk can the company endure? What are the hazards of staying put versus the battery life of investing in change? Will be likelihood that the creativity will actually resulted in changes in sales, profitability and roi that the company is looking to get? What will be the impact available to buy place and how will competitors react?
While doing this above certainly is reduce your complete, using it as your first stop should help your type select an approach which supports maintain your competitive put. Effective strategic planning can really help your company select those opportunities that should lead to increased leadership are you hoping place.
If strategic planning is not helping your company as you want it to, please get in touch at: baldwin@cssp. com too as for planning leadership and help and advice. For more information process to position your company industry by storm changing technical trends please read: Xerox Positions Itself to succeed in the 21st Century: What you should do to Ensure Your business Does Not Become Dreary.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment