How Low Can You Go? – Part IV – Essentials for building, sustaining & improving corporate competitive advantage.
Blog: KWKeirstead's Blog
This article attempts to bridge the gap between operational methods such as ACM/BPM/CPM/RALB and FOMM and methods used to evolve business strategy.
The mission of all strategic and operational initiatives is to build, sustain and augment competitive advantage.
Photo by : Anneli Salo
See “Theories of the Firm – Expanding RBV using 3D free-form search Kbases” at https://wp.me/pzzpB-Ms
RBV allows organizations to assign priorities to promising initiatives that are competing for scarce resources. Proper implementation, in theory, leads to increased competitive advantage.
The mechanism for bridging the gap between an initiative and its practical implementation within, typically, a Case, is to have operations prepare an ROI submission, citing benefits and objectives. The latter can be parked at a Case in an Figure of Merit Matrix. Periodic assessment of progress toward meeting the objectives of the Case with regard for the ROI really is all you need to bridge the gap.
Things often don’t go this way because of the bizarre habit of some corporations of authorizing initiatives and then not bothering to carry out periodic monitoring/auditing on progress.
In extreme cases, the strategy is changed yet the initiative continues. The practical equivalent of this in government is to have an agency in charge of taking care of monuments that no longer exist.
“Must haves” for bridging the gap between operations and strategy/between strategy and operations include RBV and Case w/FOMM.
Note from the “Theories of the Firm . . “ article, that, for large corporations, RBV does not work very well if you don’t have access to 3D free-form-search knowledgebases.
For me, all of this boils down to “. . . you cannot manage what you cannot see”.