Comments on: Strategy versus Tactic http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/2009/09/06/strategy-versus-tactic/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=strategy-versus-tactic Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:07:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Stewart Rogers http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/2009/09/06/strategy-versus-tactic/comment-page-1/#comment-304 Stewart Rogers Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:02:21 +0000 http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/?p=968#comment-304 I agree that 'being market driven' is very high-level and no where near sufficient for basing decisions. However, I do think it makes a decent start to building a mission or values. If you can distill that statement down and frame it with the missing attributes that you listed (i.e. which market) then you will have a strong component to your strategy.<br><br>Great comment!<br>Stewart I agree that 'being market driven' is very high-level and no where near sufficient for basing decisions. However, I do think it makes a decent start to building a mission or values. If you can distill that statement down and frame it with the missing attributes that you listed (i.e. which market) then you will have a strong component to your strategy.

Great comment!
Stewart

]]> By: Stewart Rogers http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/2009/09/06/strategy-versus-tactic/comment-page-1/#comment-444 Stewart Rogers Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:02:00 +0000 http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/?p=968#comment-444 I agree that 'being market driven' is very high-level and no where near sufficient for basing decisions. However, I do think it makes a decent start to building a mission or values. If you can distill that statement down and frame it with the missing attributes that you listed (i.e. which market) then you will have a strong component to your strategy. Great comment! Stewart I agree that ‘being market driven’ is very high-level and no where near sufficient for basing decisions. However, I do think it makes a decent start to building a mission or values. If you can distill that statement down and frame it with the missing attributes that you listed (i.e. which market) then you will have a strong component to your strategy.

Great comment!
Stewart

]]> By: Stewart Rogers http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/2009/09/06/strategy-versus-tactic/comment-page-1/#comment-124 Stewart Rogers Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:02:21 +0000 http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/?p=968#comment-124 I agree that 'being market driven' is very high-level and no where near sufficient for basing decisions. However, I do think it makes a decent start to building a mission or values. If you can distill that statement down and frame it with the missing attributes that you listed (i.e. which market) then you will have a strong component to your strategy.<br><br>Great comment!<br>Stewart I agree that 'being market driven' is very high-level and no where near sufficient for basing decisions. However, I do think it makes a decent start to building a mission or values. If you can distill that statement down and frame it with the missing attributes that you listed (i.e. which market) then you will have a strong component to your strategy.

Great comment!
Stewart

]]> By: Harvey Andruss http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/2009/09/06/strategy-versus-tactic/comment-page-1/#comment-123 Harvey Andruss Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:18:20 +0000 http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/?p=968#comment-123 I'm a fan of Eli Goldratt, but there were so many typos in your reference, I started doubting the full validity of your washington state univ/vancouver faculty reference. The Theory of Constraint gods spend lots of time working through argument forms and testing validity of assumptions (necessary, sufficient, parallel, etc.), which is helpful in working through conflicting strategies, but I would submit that "being market driven" (or BMD) is nearly meaningless jingoism unless you can define which market, how you are sensing their needs and how you are aligning your distinctive competencies to them. If you like the hierarchical constructs, the ones I have seen start with vision and move on down to mission, values, personality/brand, strategic goals, resources, systems/processes, objectives, strategies, tactics. It is not unlike a project management office or other sytematic thought-process. Whether you buy into 1-to-1 matching between the levels or not, we probably can agree that BMD isn't even a sufficient "vision", which is the highest level of abstraction in any strategic analysis and the obvious target to attempt to pigeon hole this favorite Dilbert-esque business-speak. BMD is not even a sufficient philosophy. If you see subliminal parallels between BMD and WMD, that is on purpose (neither really exist, but they sounded good to someone at the time...) I'm a fan of Eli Goldratt, but there were so many typos in your reference, I started doubting the full validity of your washington state univ/vancouver faculty reference. The Theory of Constraint gods spend lots of time working through argument forms and testing validity of assumptions (necessary, sufficient, parallel, etc.), which is helpful in working through conflicting strategies, but I would submit that “being market driven” (or BMD) is nearly meaningless jingoism unless you can define which market, how you are sensing their needs and how you are aligning your distinctive competencies to them. If you like the hierarchical constructs, the ones I have seen start with vision and move on down to mission, values, personality/brand, strategic goals, resources, systems/processes, objectives, strategies, tactics. It is not unlike a project management office or other sytematic thought-process. Whether you buy into 1-to-1 matching between the levels or not, we probably can agree that BMD isn't even a sufficient “vision”, which is the highest level of abstraction in any strategic analysis and the obvious target to attempt to pigeon hole this favorite Dilbert-esque business-speak. BMD is not even a sufficient philosophy. If you see subliminal parallels between BMD and WMD, that is on purpose (neither really exist, but they sounded good to someone at the time…)

]]> By: Twitted by StewartRogers http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/2009/09/06/strategy-versus-tactic/comment-page-1/#comment-122 Twitted by StewartRogers Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:21:25 +0000 http://www.strategicproductmanager.com/?p=968#comment-122 [...] This post was Twitted by StewartRogers [...] [...] This post was Twitted by StewartRogers [...]

]]>