{"id":2300,"date":"2023-08-28T12:58:35","date_gmt":"2023-08-28T12:58:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dcss.in\/?p=2300"},"modified":"2024-03-14T16:19:08","modified_gmt":"2024-03-14T16:19:08","slug":"theory-vs-practise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dcss.in\/index.php\/2023\/08\/28\/theory-vs-practise\/","title":{"rendered":"Theory vs Practise"},"content":{"rendered":"Reading Time: <\/span> 2<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>\n

According to 50 years of textbook wisdom, strategy is a linear, structured process from SWOT to measure and control. But, did you know this model was already called \u2018traditional\u2019 and \u2018distorted\u2019 40 years ago? Time for a pause and reconciliation.
There\u2019s an extremely persistent myth about strategy: that it is a linear, step-by-step and largely analytical process. It goes like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  • You do a SWOT<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • You define a mission, vision, purpose or high level goals<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • You generate alternatives, options or scenarios<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • You choose and define targets and initiatives<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • You implement<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • You measure and control<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    There\u2019s variations of this model, but altogether this is the dominant approach we find in strategy textbooks for about half a century. And not just back then, also today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


    Most strategy scholars and experts today accept that this is not how strategy goes in reality. They realize that the world is too dynamic and complex for such an approach to work, and that strategy needs a more dynamic, short-cycle approach with more place for creativity, agility and iteration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


    Nevertheless, this model is so persistent that as soon as people speak about strategy, it is this model that comes to the surface.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But guess what? There\u2019s an interesting 1984 article by Roy Wernham in Long Range Planning about \u201cThe Awful Gap Between Strategy and Action.\u201d In this article, Wernham calls this the \u201ctraditional\u201d approach that doesn\u2019t have much to do with reality. Here\u2019s the most interesting quote from that article:<\/p>\n\n\n\n


    \u201cit is oversimplified for presentational or teaching purposes to the extent that it seriously distorts the reality\u201d (p35).<\/p>\n\n\n\n


    This is 1984. Almost 40 years ago. Do you still subscribe to this traditional approach?
    Wernham\u2019s alternative (right side of the picture) may be realistic, but it is not very compelling. Therefore, we need an \u201cin-between\u201d approach that acknowledges the fuzziness of the real world, but at the same time provides method and structure.<\/p>\n