When translating a purpose-driven sustainability concept, at a certain point, translation into a mature program must happen. A significant part of that translation depends on the organization, its capabilities, and its competencies. While you may eventually be able to hire outside consultants and allocate extensive resources, you will likely find that the fastest path to an initial concept is in leveraging the org's existing resources. In reality, this can many times come down to resourcing the concept via the 'beg, borrow, acquire' approach, as you may not have the time or resouces to go external at this point. Whether tapping into someone's time and expertise or gaining access to specific tooling or equipment, some favors may be needed in early-phase development.
In leveraging any platform, strategy, or concept, a significant aspect in success will be how it integrates into the framework of the organization itself. One program may be a wonderful, logical fit for an organization and experience an easy transition and launch, where translating that same program into a different organization may be a poor fit which will not come to fruition regardless of resourcing.
The overarching purpose of this Lesson is to take the concept into the next step of development and help you to understand the interface between concept and organization.
By the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
To Read | Documents and assets as noted/linked in the Lesson (optional) |
---|---|
To Do | Case Assignment: Five Contexts
|
If you have any questions, please send them to my axj153@psu.edu [1] Faculty email. I will check daily to respond. If your question is one that is relevant to the entire class, I may respond to the entire class rather than individually.
There is a tendency in many organizations to view sustainability as a pastime of sorts, sitting at the fringes of the business and functioning by itself. In the organizational body, sustainability is viewed as the appendix: nice to have, little tangible function or value, and easily removed.
In our time together, we have explored the role of sustainability as infused throughout the organization, and as representing meaningful opportunity for the organization on a myriad of different fronts. If we truly believe that sustainability represents significant opportunity, we should adopt the view that, like all of the other core operations of the organization, sustainability must perform and continue to improve. To do so, sustainability must be viewed as competition.
In broaching this topic in some groups, there is an instant and quite visible recoil from some members of the audience at the very thought of sustainability being competitive, as though the very act of bringing competition into the discussion hints at a corrupt and nefarious plan to actually make money for the organization. For shame, for shame.
Here is the rough logic trail we could propose:
In seeing sustainability as a core function of the organization, it should be treated as such. Sustainability must be measured, goals must be set, and it should receive a level of metrics commensurate with any other function in the organization.
Just because we view sustainability with a competitive frame does not cheapen it or mean there are winners and losers... it simply signals that we want to do as much good with the program as possible. Sustainability is a competition with ourselves to become better, and to do so we know that we must track performance and take a competitive mindset.
As we have seen in understanding and creating sustainability-driven strategies, much of the effort depends on understanding the opportunity and fitting the need. We can think of understanding and leveraging organizational competencies as expressing yet another level of "fit" for a strategy.
For example, if we identified two potentially compelling strategic paths on a map, organizational fit and competencies would be the next filter we would apply. Imagine one of the paths relies heavily on engineering and new product development expertise, where the other relies on high-level marketing and the ability to message over time effectively to educate the market. The logical step would be to evaluate how those needs match the competencies of the organization and its partners, and to do so, we must take a competitive approach to how we can best execute on sustainability.
In this Lesson, we will move our innovation effort forward by gaining a precise view on how a specific organization may execute a strategy, and the resources potentially needed to do so. Where our work up to this point has been to understand the opportunity and create the strategy, we are now entering the feasibility and execution phase of our effort. In the real world, organizations do not all have the same levels of competency in the same skill sets, so as we seek to execute on our vision in the real world, we must consider organizational strengths, weaknesses, and other factors that can affect feasibility.
In executing sustainability-driven innovations, your organization will inexorably have advantages other organizations executing the same effort would not... this is not something to be lamented, it is the competitive frame that we must embrace if we desire do the most good possible in the most effective ways.
In considering innovation, what will become readily apparent is there is a very bold line separating the strategy of innovation and the execution of innovation.
Where we may spend significant time and effort understanding the space, finding areas of opportunity, and honing potential propositions, at a certain point, we must begin transforming those thoughts and ideas into beta offerings to test. Although we may have been unconsciously selecting and honing opportunities with an eye toward our organization's competencies, this Lesson addresses considerations in organizational context. In transforming our thoughts and strategies into a tangible offering, we could consider this Lesson as bridging from the "what" to the "how."
To consider, from a detached and insight-minded perspective, the organizational context and competencies in actually being able to execute the strategy is to consider the realities of the road ahead.
As we layer the organization into our innovation strategy, our goal will be to find strategies where our organization will provide even more of an advantage over other organizations that could execute on the strategy. We need to give our offering as much of a chance to succeed as possible, and leveraging competencies, capabilities, and resources already woven into the organizational DNA will increase our odds of success even more.
In taking an independent eye toward organizations' competencies, it can be helpful to not consider mission statements and corporate releases, but what the organization has actually and tangibly executed on recently. This is important as there is a tendency for organizations to define themselves by works from prior decades, as opposed to competencies it may have developed recently.
When considering organizational competencies, think not of what the organization brings to the market or how it behaves, but of those highest-level traits which enable the organization to do those things in the first place.
From David Ulrich and Norm Smallwood, "Capitalizing on Capabilities" [7]:
Organizational capabilities emerge when a company delivers on the combined competencies and abilities of its individuals. An employee may be technically literate or demonstrate leadership skill, but the company as a whole may or may not embody the same strengths. (If it does, employees who excel in these areas will likely be engaged; if not, they may be frustrated.) Additionally, organizational capabilities enable a company to turn its technical know-how into results. A core competence in marketing, for example, won't add value if the organization isn't able to spark change.
There is no magic list of capabilities appropriate to every organization. However, we've identified 11—listed below—that well-managed companies tend to have. (Such companies typically excel in as many as three of these areas while maintaining industry parity in the others.) When an organization falls below the norm in any of the 11 capabilities, dysfunction and competitive disadvantage will likely ensue.
Talent:
We are good at attracting, motivating, and retaining competent and committed people. Competent employees have the skills for today's and tomorrow's business requirements; committed employees deploy those skills regularly and predictably. Competence comes as leaders buy (acquire new talent), build (develop existing talent), borrow (access thought leaders through alliances or partnerships), bounce (remove poor performers), and bind (keep the best talent). Leaders can earn commitment from employees by ensuring that the ones who contribute more receive more of what matters to them. Means of assessing this organizational capability include productivity measures, retention statistics (though it's a good sign when employees are targeted by search firms), employee surveys, and direct observation.Speed:
We are good at making important changes rapidly. Speed refers to the organization's ability to recognize opportunities and act quickly, whether to exploit new markets, create new products, establish new employee contracts, or implement new business processes. Speed may be tracked in a variety of ways: how long it takes to go from concept to commercialization, for example, or from the collection of customer data to changes in customer relations. Just as increases in inventory turns show that physical assets are well used, time savings demonstrate improvements in labor productivity as well as increased enthusiasm and responsiveness to opportunities. Leaders should consider creating a return-on-time-invested (ROTI) index, so they can monitor the time required for, and the value created by, various activities.Shared Mind-Set and Coherent Brand Identity:
We are good at ensuring that employees and customers have positive and consistent images of and experiences with our organization. To gauge shared mind-set, ask each member of your team to answer the following question: What are the top three things we want to be known for in the future by our best customers? Measure the degree of consensus by calculating the percent of responses that match one of the three most commonly mentioned items. We have done this exercise hundreds of times, often to find a shared mind-set of 50% to 60%; leading companies score in the 80% to 90% range. The next step is to invite key customers to provide feedback on brand identity. The greater the degree of alignment between internal and external mind-sets, the greater the value of this capability.Accountability:
We are good at obtaining high performance from employees. Performance accountability becomes an organizational capability when employees realize that failure to meet their goals would be unacceptable to the company. The way to track it is to examine the tools you use to manage performance. By looking at a performance appraisal form, can you derive the strategy of the business? What percent of employees receive an appraisal each year? How much does compensation vary based on employee performance? Some firms claim a pay-for-performance philosophy but give annual compensation increases that range from 3.5% to 4.5%. These companies aren't paying for performance. We would suggest that with an average increase of 4%, an ideal range for acknowledging both low and high performance would be 0% to 12%.Collaboration:
We are good at working across boundaries to ensure both efficiency and leverage. Collaboration occurs when an organization as a whole gains efficiencies of operation through the pooling of services or technologies, through economies of scale, or through the sharing of ideas and talent across boundaries. Sharing services, for example, has been found to produce a savings of 15% to 25% in administrative costs while maintaining acceptable levels of quality. Knowing that the average large company spends about $1,600 per employee per year on administration, you can calculate the probable cost savings of shared services. Collaboration may be tracked both throughout the organization and among teams. You can determine whether your organization is truly collaborative by calculating its breakup value. Estimate what each division of your company might be worth to a potential buyer, then add up these numbers and compare the total with your current market value. As a rule of thumb, if the breakup value is 25% more than the current market value of the assets, collaboration is not one of the company's strengths.Learning:
We are good at generating and generalizing ideas with impact. Organizations generate new ideas through benchmarking (that is, by looking at what other companies are doing), experimentation, competence acquisition (hiring or developing people with new skills and ideas), and continuous improvement. Such ideas are generalized when they move across a boundary of time (from one leader to the next), space (from one geographic location to another), or division (from one structural entity to another). For individuals, learning means letting go of old practices and adopting new ones.Leadership:
We are good at embedding leaders throughout the organization. Companies that consistently produce effective leaders generally have a clear leadership brand—a common understanding of what leaders should know, be, and do. These companies' leaders are easily distinguished from their competitors'. Former McKinsey employees, for instance, consistently approach strategy from a unique consulting perspective; they take pride in the number of the firm's alumni who become CEOs of large companies. In October 2003, the Economist noted that 19 former GE stars immediately added an astonishing $24.5 billion (cumulatively) to the share prices of the companies that hired them. You can track your organization's leadership brand by monitoring the pool of future leaders. How many backups do you have for your top 100 employees? In one company, the substitute-to-star ratio dropped from about 3:1 to about 0.7:1 (less than one qualified backup for each of the top 100 employees) after a restructuring and the elimination of certain development assignments. Seeing the damage to the company's leadership bench, executives encouraged potential leaders to participate in temporary teams, cross-functional assignments, and action-based training activities, thus changing the organization's substitute-to-star ratio to about 1:1.Customer Connectivity:
We are good at building enduring relationships of trust with targeted customers. Since it's frequently the case that 20% of customers account for 80% of profits, the ability to connect with targeted customers is a strength. Customer connectivity may come from dedicated account teams, databases that track preferences, or the involvement of customers in HR practices such as staffing, training, and compensation. When a large portion of the employee population has meaningful exposure to or interaction with customers, connectivity is enhanced. To monitor this capability, identify your key accounts and track the share of those important customers over time. Frequent customer-service surveys may also offer insight into how customers perceive your connectivity.Strategic Unity:
We are good at articulating and sharing a strategic point of view. Strategic unity is created at three levels: intellectual, behavioral, and procedural. To monitor such unity at the intellectual level, make sure employees from top to bottom know what the strategy is and why it is important. You can reinforce this sort of shared understanding by repeating simple messages; you can measure it by noting how consistently employees respond when asked about the company's strategy. To gauge strategic accord at the behavioral level, ask employees how much of their time is spent in support of the strategy and whether their suggestions for improvement are heard and acted on. When it comes to process, continually invest in procedures that are essential to your strategy. For example, Disney must pay constant attention to any practices relating to the customer-service experience; it must ensure that its amusement parks are always safe and clean and that guests can successfully get directions from any employee.Innovation:
We are good at doing something new in both content and process. Innovation—whether in products, administrative processes, business strategies, channel strategies, geographic reach, brand identity, or customer service—focuses on the future rather than on past successes. It excites employees, delights customers, and builds confidence among investors. This capability may be tracked through a vitality index (for instance, one that records revenues or profits from products or services created in the last three years).Efficiency:
We are good at managing costs. While it's not possible to save your way to prosperity, leaders who fail to manage costs will not likely have the opportunity to grow the top line. Efficiency may be the easiest capability to track. Inventories, direct and indirect labor, capital employed, and costs of goods sold can all be viewed on balance sheets and income statements.
In considering these eleven competencies in your organization, consider forcing yourself to take a rigorous approach to detach your perspective a bit:
As we move through our layering of organizational context and competencies onto our strategy, it will be essential that we are working from an unvarnished view of realities.
Please allow me to be blunt: sustainability departments are not defined by being flush with resources or headcount (and even then, they may actually be a shared department, such as "sustainability and EHS").
To put it in perspective, Caterpillar, a $56 billion company, has three [8] people in its sustainability area. In essence, each sustainability staffer at CAT is therefore responsible for the sustainability activity of 12 L.L. Bean's worth of revenue (quite literally, "a hill of Beans").
Make no mistake, there are very large and respected organizations in sustainability doing wonderful work with one or two dedicated staff (who, in turn, tap freelancers, consultants, partners, interns, or any passersby on the street wearing a Patagonia jacket who happens to make eye contact). More often than not, this pattern is a hallmark of sustainability as it exists in the organization: The best programs are many times decentralized and infused throughout the organization, and therefore, are quite lean in dedicated staff.
In some cases, the creation and execution of our sustainability-driven innovation may fall onto other functions, such as product development, marketing, HR, or other classically less constrained departments. But they, too, face the constraints of the organization, be they budgetary, attentional, or otherwise.
Although we may be experimenting and ideating and "playing in the white space," as some point, we must consider the realities of the organization if we are to select, create, and roll out our offering in the most effective manner. These realities may be considering the highest level competencies of the organization (as we saw in our last topic), or the most nuanced and personal constraints. In small organizations, a retirement or turnover in a core position may cause some level of reevaluation of strategy, as an initiative which was once feasible is now considerably less so.
We will go through the rigor of lensing and evaluating an opportunity according to capabilities, competencies, capacity, and constraints later in this Lesson, but, philosophically, the goal should be to place names (internal or external to the organization) next to those resources we will likely need to launch the Beta offering. If we are unable to resource a needed item internally or externally, it is not necessarily a red flag, but we must consciously consider the implications.
For example:
Remember, our goal is for our Beta to prove or disprove the viability of the offering, and create an extended list of assumptions to be tested... not to create the final product. You may find that a freelancer may fill the need for your internal copywriter, a prototype may fill in for the final product for photography, or that you can use a graduate student as opposed to a licensed engineer for initial calculations.
If Beta offerings are designed to be lean, and sustainability, as a practice, is perennially lean, you can imagine what a sustainability-driven beta could potentially face. So, for that reason, we need to have a realistic view of, quite literally, the amount of begging, borrowing, stealing, and cajoling we may need to do to bring the offering to beta.
In our consideration of organizational competencies in the earlier topic, "Identifying Competencies," you'll note that "innovation" itself is listed as a single of the eleven competencies.
Innovation:
We are good at doing something new in both content and process. Innovation—whether in products, administrative processes, business strategies, channel strategies, geographic reach, brand identity, or customer service—focuses on the future rather than on past successes. It excites employees, delights customers, and builds confidence among investors. This capability may be tracked through a vitality index (for instance, one that records revenues or profits from products or services created in the last three years).
But, consider what may be a more traditional definition of "competency" in an organization, those based in product and differentiation. We may call these "hard competencies," as they are highly tangible, quite evident within the organization, and well-recognized by those external to the organization.
From "The Core Competence of the Corporation," by Prahalad and Hamel [9]:
At least three tests can be applied to identify core competencies in a company. First, a core competence provides potential access to a wide variety of markets. Competence in display systems, for example, enables a company to participate in such diverse businesses as calculators, miniature TV sets, monitors for laptop computers, and automotive dash-boards—which is why Casio's entry into the handheld TV market was predictable. Second, a core competence should make a significant contribution to the perceived customer benefits of the end product. Clearly, Honda's engine expertise fills this bill.
Finally, a core competence should be difficult for competitors to imitate. And it will be difficult if it is a complex harmonization of individual technologies and production skills. A rival might acquire some of the technologies that comprise the core competence, but it will find it more difficult to duplicate the more or less comprehensive pattern of internal coordination and learning. JVC's decision in the early 1960s to pursue the development of a videotape competence passed the three tests outlined here. RCA's decision in the late 1970s to develop a stylus-based video turntable system did not.
Few companies are likely to build world leadership in more than five or six fundamental competencies. A company that compiles a list of 20 to 30 capabilities has probably not produced a list of core competencies. Still, it is probably a good discipline to generate a list of this sort and to see aggregate capabilities as building blocks. This tends to prompt the search for licensing deals and alliances through which the company may acquire, at low cost, missing pieces.
When considering the more traditional definition of competency in an organization, we can begin to see where an organization with expertise in "hard competencies" may function as such without the ability to actually innovate in those same competencies. For example, consider a long-term market share leader in a given industry, defined by its portfolio of products, and perhaps launching one major product rollout every three years. While this organization may absolutely be a powerhouse in its domain of expertise and loaded with core competencies that allow that advantage, it may not have "innovation competencies."
While we examine the organization's competencies, it is important to layer both the "soft competencies" (such as Leadership and Speed) with the "hard competencies" (such as domain expertise). If we do not consider both hard and soft competencies, we may neglect to understand how the organization may be fully leveraged in the innovation offering.
The purpose of adding this lens to our consideration of organizational competencies is to help us understand not just general "competencies" within the organization, but specifically those soft and hard competencies which we may leverage in service of taking our offering to Beta.
Our consideration of organizational competencies is not simply background information, we can actively add it to our strategy and consider it in our Cognitive Map for the offering.
Although this discussion of organizational competencies may appear to happen rather late in the innovation process, it is by no means an afterthought or to be given short consideration. There are a few, very purposeful reasons why we choose to hold what is an examination of organizational strengths and weaknesses:
So, as we begin to go through the rigor of layering the organization's competencies onto our Map, do not consider a gap in competencies to be a reason not to pursue a strategy, but a signal that additional competencies will need to be added for the offering to be successful.
In the following, we will consider some organizational scenarios, examine how they may influence our interpretations of the Map, and what they may signal for those involved. Remember there are many different strategies and tactics which we can use, and the below are sample narratives that an organization could consider.
In this case, both the rewards and barriers are potentially high. If an organization sought to tap what is a new constellation of concepts centered around "Can enjoy surroundings, weather," "More time for family/kids," and "I am a good dad/mom," it would have to be acknowledged that there would be a heavy marketing/storytelling need to gain traction. While any organization could take the rogue position and attempt to own this space in the minds of customers, we could consider this strategy may be best served by those with heavy ad spend, high marketing competency, and a strong brand.
Here we see a subset of attributes from the image "Map of 10 test user interviews after one year with native grass X, cutoff n = 2."
The subset includes concepts centered around the following topics:
and includes the following attributes:
If we are considering a potential strategy for a new, perhaps small organization, we would likely be well served by tapping existing concepts as opposed to trying to create spaces and educate the market. In this case, the story would be clear: Native grass X is easy to care for because it is well adapted, so it does not require the chemical and herbicidal inputs that the seed from the neighborhood "big box" would.
By taking this strategy in a smaller startup, we would embrace the position of a sustainable "fighter brand," taking a clearly defined position against the incumbent lawn products companies. When in startup mode, we have to consider the ability to own the message against far more well-funded companies, so the goal is to chisel out a niche and own it.
Here we see a subset of attributes from the image "Map of 10 test user interviews after one year with native grass X, cutoff n = 2."
The subset includes concepts centered around the following topics:
and includes the following attributes:
Some organizations are especially competent on the product knowledge side, perhaps boasting especially deep technical and product knowledge. In this case, let us imagine the organization has a couple PhDs in plant biology who can represent that deep knowledge. Let's also assume this product expertise approach is one taken on the other seeds and products in the portfolio (i.e., why they have two PhDs on staff).
In this case, the strategy could embrace that knowledge and tell the story of the attributes and what makes the seed different. In this case, we could take what could be a negative attribute ("Light green color"), and own it as a badge of pride, of sorts. Our goal here could be to leverage the knowledge competency already in the organization to make our early adopter customers "experts," as well, knowing that they will be answering questions from neighbors, etc.
In this strategy, we could also elect to leverage the fact that there is indeed less information about "native grass X" as a lawn seed, and therefore it is that much more important to rely on a company with expertise and experience to help you.
Here we see a subset of attributes from the image "Map of 10 test user interviews after one year with native grass X, cutoff n = 2."
The subset includes concepts centered around the following topics:
and includes the following attributes:
In the case of an organization (or non-profit) with an especially strong social pull or presence, we should elect to take a strategy which leverages this competency and reach as much as possible.
The strategy here could be a fairly pure sustainability play, one which talks about how wasteful lawns are (CHG needed to create fertilizer, water intensity, etc.), and then compares this resource intensity to that of a native grass. Similar to "droughtshaming" that happened in the midst of the California droughts, we could elect to go even further as part of "lawnshaming," while also reinforcing that a beautiful lawn can be had in a far less wasteful manner.
This strategy could also highly leverage Instagram, Twitter, and other social channels to support those converting their lawns, by showing how much less effort and material it takes to maintain, etc. It is one destined for infographics, shares, and bringing the wasteful lawn to light.
Here we see a subset of attributes from the image "Map of 10 test user interviews after one year with native grass X, cutoff n = 2."
The subset includes concepts centered around the following topics:
and includes the following attributes:
If we are in an organization which embraces the "fast follower" approach to the product offering and gaining as much leverage as possible as quickly as possible, we may elect to pursue a strategy built around an almost accounting-based approach. This is one which could leverage a tactic such as an online calculator to calculate time and financial savings from converting an existing lawn to native seed, for example.
In its purest form, an approach a lean operation could elect to take would be to take the concept path with the highest current use/potential/traffic, and see if it can capture some percentage of revenue. This is not necessarily a strategy which is especially appealing to those most concerned with brand building, but it is one which is an obvious strategy, and one which could allow rapid growth in market share.
In essence, it is a similar bite-sized and elegant approach to strategy, just a larger niche: "Tired of mowing your lawn all the time? Mow 40% less with native grass x."
Here we see a subset of attributes from the image "Map of 10 test user interviews after one year with native grass X, cutoff n = 2."
The subset includes concepts centered around the following topics:
and includes the following attributes:
I'm writing to you in great haste, I assure you that there's a lot involved in compositions with figures, and I'm very busy. I assure you that there's a lot involved in compositions with figures. ... It's like weaving... you must control and keep an eye on several things at once.” -Vincent van Gogh, to Theo van Gogh, October 8, 1882. [14]
Up until this point in the creation process, our focus has primarily been on spaces of opportunity, how they may be leveraged, and understanding as much as possible so that we may make the most informed decision. At this point, we are transitioning into the actual execution phase of innovation, considering tools and resources at our disposal, and how they may shape our strategies.
In doing so, the need for balance and "keeping an eye on several things at once" becomes paramount to the innovation process, as this begins a period where there can be a tendency to fall into the rush of execution, especially given the time and effort spent in all of the preliminary research up until this point. Just after this point, you (and your organization) may feel compelled to get a Beta into the market as soon as possible, which is certainly understandable.
I mention this "pull" now because we are now in (or rapidly nearing) the point in the process where we are likely down to three or so potential "Tier 1" strategies or a tightly defined space, and we may have been responsible to present those to management or other areas in the organization to be vetted, approved, etc. What works in your favor is that you likely have deep research and have found some appealing short- and long-term opportunities... yet, this same fact can also work against you, as the more appealing the strategy, the more excited and impatient all involved become. While you may have been able to get away with the classically sheepish insight line, "We're exploring some interesting opportunities," those opportunities are now likely "out in the open" in the organization, and the clock begins ticking.
This is dangerous namely because it can have the tendency to close you from opportunities not within the current capabilities and competencies of the organization, as going outside the current competency footprint of the organization to find partners, resources, suppliers, and agencies to work with you on an emergent project can, in and of itself, be daunting. The greater the pressure of the pull, the more apt we are to revert to those lower-hanging strategies we know the organization can execute currently.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but we need to have a level of consciousness and awareness as to the strategic decisions we make and why. If we consciously make the decision to pursue shorter-term, more near-field strategies, that is certainly a valid strategy - - as long as we do so in a well informed and purposeful way.
This is indeed also the point which, in my opinion, differentiates the basic strategies from the great. Basic strategies tend to be a bit of an awkward fit, those which are not conscious of context, fit, or how well they may be executed in practice. These are the impractical, the carbon copies, the generic. These are the strategies which may sound lovely on a white sheet of paper, but meet very real limitations in practice.
On the other hand, the great strategies are those which, to the casual observer, are almost insultingly simple. You may explain them in a sentence or two to the unacquainted in your organization, and you may be met with a blank stare and something along the lines of, "We should have been doing this five years ago." Those are indeed some of the best strategies, as they fit, reinforce, and leverage the organization as it stands today while creating the trajectory of what the organization desires to be tomorrow.
No strategy for innovation can truly be great without a deep understanding of the organization, for it is the organization which acts to provide form and context to the strategy. Needless to say, one can only imagine that if the organization has this much influence on the strategy, that the actual tactics of executing the strategy–be the product design, messaging, marketing, or otherwise–are that much more dependent on the organization.
For all of these reasons, we are now entering the "weaving" phase of our offering and strategy, as we will be simultaneously considering strategies, tactics, offerings, messaging, research design, and more as we enter Beta. Needless to say, like van Gogh's letter to his brother, "you must control and keep an eye on several things at once."
Luckily for us, the goal is not to get it right on the first try, but to iterate and test the offering until we do.
To refresh ourselves, our goals for this week's Lesson are to:
To these ends, this week's assignment will closely examine how our strategies may be woven in different ways depending on organizational context.
Links
[1] mailto:axj153@psu.edu
[2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/tabor-roeder/8695182424/in/photolist-efn5Nm-cUo2DJ-c7t171-ax77Yv-cUo3wm-ax77gz-5aTLjd-oPdj1Q-c7t1hC-ojX3KR-c7sZGj-ax77Ft-ax77ve-pQj3YY-pQg6YE-ax77K6-ax77C2-o3tj1A-ojXDwK-7B4829-omHqwv-o3tvkF-fHebek-oqD8re-cUo3i9-o3ELug-osiw18-o3DZa8-7VxtE5-ok8ijN-oqwb49-omS2ge-okcNTT-ojUmjF-omWM4X-o3Gkwz-7Vx7fw-oqwmju-oqxLtn-oqksvw-o3H2zc-o3F5EW-o3tNfH-ax9PQN-ax784B-ax77Ti-ax9PAd-ax77MZ-ax77z2-osixZ8
[3] https://www.flickr.com/photos/tabor-roeder/
[4] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
[5] https://www.flickr.com/photos/garryknight/4876209724
[6] https://www.flickr.com/photos/garryknight/
[7] https://hbr.org/2004/06/capitalizing-on-capabilities
[8] http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/03/31/moving-mountains-earths-sake-caterpillar
[9] https://hbr.org/1990/05/the-core-competence-of-the-corporation
[10] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Moulin_de_la_Galette_Van_Gogh.jpg
[11] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Institution:Museo_Nacional_de_Bellas_Artes,_Argentina
[12] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
[13] https://commons.wikipedia.org/
[14] http://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let271/letter.html