Strategic Intent Essay

This clause serves a purpose to expatiate some of the flaws that argon currently used by western organisations in regards to strategicalal planning. In this article we see are shown the detriment of the methods in practice at the time of the article, and examples of alternative strategic approaches in use by Japanese firms which have allowed them to have sustained success. Strategic Intent and CharacteristicsAs indicated in the article, Japanese companies began with ambitions that were out of all proportion to their resources and capabilities, but created an obsession with winning at all levels of the organization and then sustained that obsession over the 10- to 20-year quest for global leadership. Inspired by this obsession, the supposition of strategic intent is introduced to the world of strategy. Strategic intent captures the essence of winning, is stable over time, and sets target that deserves individual(prenominal) effort and commitment. It comes with an ambition in the pursuit of global leadership that used to be right(prenominal) the start of traditional strategic planning. By implementing strategic intent, a company can create long barrier objectives despite of considerable resources, whereas thinking in a traditional way, finales should be made on the mark of fit between existing resources and current opportunities. DescriptionThe key points to this article refer to the differences in strategic approach that the Japanese firms use, in contrast to the approaches used by western organizations. Japanese firms use four main techniques when constructing their strategy Building layers of advantageSearching for loose bricksChanging the terms of engagementCompeting finished collaborationApplicationsStrategic Intent is a breakthrough concept in the field of Strategic Management. It has potently influenced how strategy is defined, and isresponsible for main changes in the functioning style of many an(prenominal) organizations. Key ideas brought together with strategic intent such as core competence and stretch, have been introduced to every company. With the very(prenominal) cadence of resources and capacity, many companies have become much more successful than they were before under the inspiration of this strategy. one(a) example that emerges from the article is when Canon changed the terms of engagement in an effort to compete against Xerox. Xerox had created many advantages where other competing firms (most notably Kodak and IBM) were not able to directly compete against Xerox. Canon changed the terms of engagement by standardizing their components, distributing through office supply stores instead of their own sales force, sold instead of leased, and appealed to secretaries and administrative positions at heart companies. All of these factors helped Canon change the terms of engagement, and not directly compete against Xerox who already held a sizable advantage. Questions and concernsIn the article Making Strategi c Planning Work there is reference that idle planning may be a result of failure to develop clear policies, where those policies would guide decision making. However, in Strategic Intent, a global executive describes how they look for competitors who operate on a portfolio remains (where businesses may be sold if a certain market share is reached). Therefore, could having a strategic insurance hurt decision making? Connection to Prior ThoughtsIn Making Strategic Planning Work, the pen talks about some requisites for strategic planning. Strategic intent share the same way. It requires the management to bear on internal self-appraisal and future environment assessment to ensure the strategy is on the right track. The main mind for failure could be the same lack of commitment for planning. In Crafting Strategy, it mentions how detecting the subtle discontinuities that may profane a business in the future is crucial. This opinion is also shared in Strategic Intent, where it refer ences the problem how managers operating on a 3-5 year window can cause damage as they are not looking out for the long term interest for the company. While both articles share the samethoughts, why arent more companies willing to pay for those managers with several years experienceinstead of hiring outside the company?