Editorial Review:
Great business strategies, like great discoveries, are inspired acts of creation, brilliantly synthesizing disparate ideas into something surprising and new. In the history of science, think of John Snow's inspiration to chart London's cholera outbreak on a city map, thus pinpointing the city's water systems as the disease-spreading culprit...and founding the science of epidemiology in the process. In the world of business, look to Fred Smith's hub-and-spoke overnight delivery concept, an unheard of idea that gave birth to FedEx--and an indispensable service the world never knew it needed! STRATEGIC RENAISSANCE adds to the roster of great discoveries by linking the formation of business strategy to such fields as science, philosophy, and history--to supply an original and sophisticated new approach to strategic thinking. The book uncovers the principles and guidelines--along with an abundance of hard-hitting examples--for moving beyond an outdated "sustainable competitive advantage" model and embracing a dynamic "opportunity creation and exploitation" approach. Readers learn how to: * Dissect the four key elements of a great business strategy * Generate, test, and refine strategic hypotheses--the kind that outmaneuver the conventional approaches of competitors * Develop strategic breakthroughs, decide which to pursue, and exploit the winners * Understand how corporate culture can sabotage effective strategy, and ensure that doesn't happen * Plus 81 "do's and don'ts" on the road to a great corporate strategy.
Cached date: AWS Called=true
You may also be interested in these products:
These categories may also be of interest to you:
Customer Reviews
Average Customer Rating: 
Revitalize your strategy development  2006-01-27
Is your corporate strategy stuck in the mold of Sustainable Competitive Advantage, that is becoming rapidly outmoded? Do you find that really creative ideas are stifled by your corporate culture? Do you find yourself relying on imitating your competitor's strategies, and brainstorming in dead-end circles? Evan M. Dudik is offering a better way to develop strategy within your organization by creating and exploiting opportunities. He has identified four guidelines for developing strategy:
1. The strategic hypothesis: create a strategic hypothesis about something vital and central to the company. Ask yourself the question, "If this strategy were used, would it be vital to the company?" Then ask yourself what would be even more vital. Cut to the core of what your company needs to create a successful strategy.
2. The if-then statement: Recognize that your strategy must be conditional. Create an if-then statement where the "if" outlines concrete actions that are expected to produce the "then," the desired result.
3. The pivot and the hammer: this is an old military strategy. The point where you decide to concentrate your effort is the hammer. The point where you are already strong enough to play defense is the pivot. Identify the positions where you can successfully and easily defend your market position. Pull extra resources off of your defensive position to implement your offensive position.
4. The principle of complementarity: The elements of your strategy need to complement what your company already does.
A Classic  2003-04-22
Evan Dudik has made a critical contribution to the strategy field with an examination on how to recognize if a strategy is good (meaning, has a rock solid chance of success). If Mr Dudik had been a Harvard Business School professor, this book would be on the bestseller list and Mr. Dudik could command consulting fees ten times as great as he is now. Maybe it is not too late....Using the philosopher Karl Popper's approach as a guide Mr. Dudik draws a parrallel between scientific theory and strategy. Like a theory, a strategy cannot be proved at all. Instead they both can prove their greatness by their "great explanatory power coupled with great specificity about what observations...would make the theory false." Mr. Dudik's insight is to apply this concept to the cause-effect relationship that must exist between the assumptions on which a strategy is based and the results the strategy is supposed to lead to. That cause-effect relationship he says is best expressed as an IF... THEN statement. For example, "IF I enter the market with a product of equal performance than the leader and at 20% discount, THEN I will gain 5 points of market share." It is not enough to express it that way, the cause-effect relationships need to be proven correct by testing and whatever other means that exist. Most companies express a strategy as above but never bother to go to that step of proving that cause-effect relationship and making that connection compelling. In other words, most strategies are built on quick sand and stay at the level of "pray and hope": "IF I enter the market with a product of equal performance than the leader and at 20% discount, THEN (I HOPE and I will PRAY) I will gain 5 points of market share."
I happened to have read Mr. Dudik's book right before a meeting with a client who was looking for help in strengtheneing his strategy. Summarizing what he presented as an IF...THEN statemnt, and pointing to the various assumptions he was making in the cause-effect relationship was extremely valuable. This IF...THEN approach is by itself worth the cost of the book and the 5 stars I am giving it. There are many other areas that Mr. Dudk's cover. Most books I have read on strategy focus on how to develop one, regardless of whether it can work or not. This book is different. It focus on the "greatness" quality of the stated strategy. You can use all the tools that exist (like SWOT, balanced score cards, core competencies and the like) but if there is one critical cause-effect relationship relationship that is false, the entire edifice can collapse. Mr. Dudik shows us how to avoid the trap. Mr. Dudik's book is a classic, and like all classics it needs to read and reread a regular basis.
Basic contradictions weaken the book's credibility  2002-10-08
I am a big believer in the use of metaphor and historical examples to frame strategy questions. Consequently, I was excited by the premise of this book - using ideas from science and history to build innovative strategies. By the time I finished the first chapter, though, this excitement had dissipated. Two issues surfaced in the first chapter: Dudik starts by emphasizing a flaw common to most strategy books - relying on a sea of examples to justify a particular perspective. He argues that relying on examples is flawed, because of the potential for distortion and selectivity. For the moment, ignore the fact that both inductive and deductive reasoning have a place in scientific inquiry. Instead, my concern here is that author then proceeds to use his own sea of examples to justify his own framework. The second issue is related - he condemns theories that aren't suitable to testing. Citing Karl Popper, the author notes that many theories - e.g., Freudianism and Marxism - are not readily testable. As such, they become matters of belief. Dudik use this rationale to argue that strategy theories should be testable. The argument is a reasonable one, and he shows how this can help firms uncover assumptions behind a mission or a strategy. Subsequently, though, he offers his own model of strategy - the Hammer and Pivot. As far as I can tell, it is no more testable than these other theories he critiques. His own recommendation to carefully try and falsify a theory is also ignored. The bottom line, then, is not to trust an untestable model supported by countless anecdotes. I could not get past this basic contradiction. More generally, I did not find much in the way of new thinking here. Many of the topics have been covered better elsewhere - e.g., in the context of sustainable advantage, Charles Fine has a much more insightful assessment in Clockspeed, and Dudik largely dismisses the role of human capital and culture as the basis of an advantage. Other recommendations are scarcely novel. Some of his recommendations include: stretch goals improve performance; anonymous participation lowers inhibitions in a discussion group. Finally, most of the parallels come from military history - a different orientation than one would expect from the book summary.
New Thinking Indeed! 2002-02-06
I have been attempting to write you for several days regarding my impressions of SR. Each time I would think I had read enough to make a comment; I would be hurled into another captivating chapter. I resigned that I would have to finish the book before e-mailing you. I finished it last evening! When I sat down to write you, I almost felt like I was writing a review of a Broadway play and not a strategic planning book. Phrases like, "Wow," "Fabulous" and "Spell-Binding" come to mind. The book is well-crafted, humorous, thought-provoking, and cuts to very heart of what is not working in popular management circles. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology and Master's Degree in Sociology and have worked in private counseling and a psychiatric hospital setting. I found your views on TMT dynamics and business culture to be fascinating and insightful. Thanks for confirming my belief that there is no substitute for the "big picture." I am now a reconfirmed "generalist." I referred the book to a friend of mine in Orlando and he read several items from your web site and ordered two copies immediately. I plan to take several days and go back through my copy so as to make notes and jot down creative ideas related to my current job. Please accept my sincere thanks for sharing a significant part of your personal and professional life. Robert C. Coop
Volaris Online
Business Planning
A good concept with disappointing substance 2001-07-29
At first, I was intrigued by the title and the idea of using insights from history and science to formulate corporate strategy. However, disappointment set in already in the first chapter. It gave the impression that the whole strategic concept was based on a "falsifiable strategic hypothesis" with little room for imagination and creative thinking. The historic lessons appeared also to be scarce and somewhat academic. I ran out of incentive to complete reading the book. As a fellow McKinsey alumnus and a 'student of the arts', I had expected something better than that.
|
