does your strategy need stretching? - bcg.com does your strategy ... the boston consulting group...

Abu DhabiAmsterdamAthensAtlantaAucklandBangkokBarcelonaBeijingBerlinBostonBrusselsBudapestBuenos AiresChicago

CologneCopenhagenDallasDetroitDubaiDüsseldorfFrankfurtHamburgHelsinkiHong KongHoustonJakartaKievKuala Lumpur

LisbonLondonLos AngelesMadridMelbourneMexico CityMiamiMilanMinneapolisMonterreyMoscowMumbaiMunichNagoya

New DelhiNew JerseyNew YorkOsloParisPhiladelphiaPragueRomeSan FranciscoSantiagoSão PauloSeoulShanghaiSingapore

StockholmStuttgartSydneyTaipeiTokyoTorontoViennaWarsawWashingtonZurich

bcg.com

Does Your Strategy Need Stretching?

Adapting Your Strategy-Development Approach to Fit Today’s Rapidly Changing Competitive Environment

R

p g

Does Your Strategy N

eed Stretching?

��

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a global manage-ment consulting fi rm and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy. We partner with clients in all sectors and regions to identify their highest-value opportunities, address their most critical challenges, and transform their businesses. Our customized approach combines deep in-sight into the dynamics of companies and markets with close collaboration at all levels of the client organization. This ensures that our clients achieve sustainable compet-itive advantage, build more capable organizations, and secure lasting results. Founded in 1963, BCG is a private company with 66 offi ces in 38 countries. For more infor-mation, please visit www.bcg.com.

For a complete list of BCG publications and information about how to obtain copies, please visit our Web site at www.bcg.com/publications.

To receive future publications in electronic form about this topic or others, please visit our subscription Web site at www.bcg.com/subscribe.

10/08

Stretching Oct 08_Covs.indd ICVRStretching Oct 08_Covs.indd ICVR 10/14/08 9:46:28 AM10/14/08 9:46:28 AM



bcg.com

Nicolas Kachaner

Michael S. Deimler

Camille Saussois

October 2008

��

© The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. 2008. All rights reserved.

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at:E-mail: [email protected]: +1 617 850 3901, attention BCG/PermissionsMail: BCG/Permissions The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 USA

��

D Y S N S?

Contents

Note to the Reader 5

Introduction 6

Stretching Time Horizons 8The Long Term: Visioning 9The Medium Term: Business Planning 10The Short Term: Annual Planning 11Coordinating Across Horizons 13

Stretching the Thinking 14Investing in the Art of Questioning 14Multiplying Perspectives 15Building Scenarios 16

Stretching the Engagement Model 17Changing the Tone 17Changing the Rhythm 18Expanding Strategy Forums 18Exploring New Roles 19

Implementing Stretching 21Communication 21Incentives 22Training 22

Epilogue 23

��

T B C G

��

D Y S N S?

Note to the Reader

This report is the culmination of a research eff ort sponsored by The Boston Consulting Group’s Strategy practice. Through a combination of in-depth interviews with executives at leading companies, secondary research, and the mining of the collective experience of many BCG partners, the team sought to under-stand how companies are adapting their strategic-planning processes to fi t today’s competitive reality. This report elaborates on ideas in a previously published BCG Perspec-tive by the same name.

About the AuthorsNicolas Kachaner is a senior partner and managing director in the Paris offi ce of The Boston Consulting Group. He leads the fi rm’s Strategy practice in Europe and is the global topic leader for strategic planning processes and approaches. Michael S. Deimler is a senior partner and managing director in BCG’s Atlanta offi ce and the global leader of the Strategy practice. Camille Saussois is a principal in the fi rm’s Budapest offi ce.

If you would like to discuss our observations and conclusions, please contact one of the authors:

Nicolas KachanerBCG Paris+33 1 40 17 10 [email protected]

Michael S. DeimlerBCG Atlanta+1 404 877 5200 [email protected]

Camille SaussoisBCG Budapest+36 1 235 [email protected]

AcknowledgmentsFirst and foremost, we would like to thank the 20 companies that con-sented to participate in the research for this report:

American ExpressAstraZenecaBASFBNP ParibasCodelcoE.ONING GroepLafargeMerck & Co.NokiaOrangeRenaultS. C. Johnson & SonSAPShellTextron

TNTToyota Motor CorporationUBSUnited Parcel Service (UPS)

Drawing on the results of nearly 100 in-depth interviews with executives of those companies, we formed and focused our conclusions.

We are also grateful to the BCG partners, too numerous to name here, who shared their perspec-tives—and those of their clients—with us on this important topic.

In addition, we would like to thank the members of the research team, including Alex Bartolini, Vivian Browning, Eric Dusseux, Audélia Krief, Agnes Sauvage, and Olivier Wierzba. Finally, we thank Matthew Clark for his contribution to the shaping and writing of this report and Gary Callahan, Angela DiBattista, Elyse Friedman, and Gina Goldstein for their contribu-tions to its editing, design, and production.

��

T B C G

Introduction

A s the future becomes less and less predict-able, some argue that we’ve come to the end of strategy. A er all, if prediction is too diffi cult, won’t management’s focus inevitably shi from insight to speed? Isn’t

time spent on strategy time wasted?

A recent study by The Boston Consulting Group of the strategy development practices of leading companies found little support for that view. Although many execu-tives described their processes as ossifi ed and bureau-cratic rather than insightful, and as focused on extrapo-lating historical trends instead of capturing future competitive advantage, they still believed strongly in the power of strategy.

A er all, when visibility is reduced, the reward for fore-sight increases. Competing on responsiveness alone im-plies a neck-and-neck race with lower returns and little diff erentiation among players. Strategy—because it can off er a head start and even defi ne a new course—remains essential to advantage, and we found that leading compa-nies are adapting their strategy-development processes to match the global competitive reality.

Although these new processes still aspire to create good strategies, they focus just as much—or more—on develop-ing good strategists: strategists who are prepared enough to spot shi s in competitive conditions early and agile enough to do what it takes to seize or retain leadership.

So what are companies doing to renew their strategies, preparedness, and agility? Our study, which included in-terviews with nearly 100 executives at 20 leading compa-nies, indicates (as shown in Exhibit 1) that they are stretching in three mutually reinforcing dimensions:

Stretching their time horizons◊ to give the short, medium, and long term each its due

Stretching their thinking◊ with new techniques that boost creativity and insight

Stretching their engagement model◊ to foster dialogue, capabilities, and alignment across the organization

In the fi rst section of this report, we explain the most common stretching practices at each time horizon (vision-ing for the long term, business planning for the medium term, and annual planning for the short term) and de-scribe the key integration mechanisms.

◊ Strategizing for the long, medium, and short terms through visioning, business planning, and annual planning◊ Ensuring alignment and value creation by coordinating across time horizons

◊ Engaging broadly◊ Turning strategic planning into strategic dialogue◊ Redefining the role of the corporate center

Stretchingtheir timehorizons

◊ Asking the right questions

◊ Using multiple lenses to broaden perspectives and avoid blind spots

◊ Exploring the strategic implications of future scenarios

Stretchingtheir

thinking

Stretchingtheir

engagementmodel

Exhibit 1. Organizations Are Stretching Their Strategy-Development Processes to Increase Insight, Engagement, and Agility

Source: BCG analysis.

��

D Y S N S?

In the second section, we describe a wide array of tech-niques—such as the use of deconstruction, analogy, met-aphor, alternative points of view, and scenario develop-ment—that are helping companies broaden their perspectives and complement traditional modes of stra-tegic thinking.

In the third section, we discuss how companies become “strategy enabled” by extending opportunities for dia-

logue and expanding the forums for their strategy discus-sions, by changing the tone and rhythm of those discus-sions, and by developing new roles for the corporate center. Finally, in the fourth section, we describe ways to implement these stretching techniques through commu-nication, incentive systems, and training.

��

T B C G

Stretching Time Horizons

W hen asked about their strategy-devel-opment processes, some executives in our study talked about a vision exercise they had done several years before. Others cited strategic reviews

linked to their annual budgeting process. It is interesting to note that only a few described processes that consid-ered business strategy over the long, medium, and short terms. (See Exhibit 2.)

Yet addressing each of these time horizons can be critical in eliciting the superior strategic insights on which excep-tional performance depends. The goal is to see, before others do, how the future competitive environment is

likely to change and—through well-crafted strategic moves and compelling business models—to shape the future to the company’s advantage.

Dell saw, before others did, how to leverage direct sales and lean manufacturing to create a compelling value proposition in selling high-quality customized personal computers to a large audience. Unilever was among the fi rst to recognize and seize the business opportunity in serving low-income populations in developing countries. It launched specifi c product lines tailored to those con-sumers’ fi nancial constraints and specifi c needs, using low-cost distribution and small-size packages. Clear vision enabled both Dell and Unilever to secure an advantaged

◊ Analyzing megatrends and developing scenarios

◊ Shaping the future by influencing the competitive environment

Visioning◊ Anticipating and preparing for likely developments

Long term(more than five years)

◊ Addressing critical questions and challenges

◊ Identifying the highest-priority initiatives and defining the path to value creation

Business planning

◊ Exploring sources of competitive advantage

Medium term(three to five years)

◊ Prioritizing business initiatives

◊ Making tradeoffs between long-term competitiveness and short-term results

Annual planning◊ Aligning plans and metrics with the business strategy to drive value creation

Short term(one to three years)

Exhibit 2. Strategy Needs to Be Considered and Created Along Three Distinct Time Horizons


��

D Y S N S?

position and to maximize the period of growth and above-average profi tability that comes with it.

If a company’s strategy process focuses only on short-term imperatives, there’s a danger of myopia. When you can’t make out the signs in the distance, there’s a greater risk that you’ll miss a key strategic turn. Companies with-out a clear long-term outlook can miss the weak signals that suggest how the future competitive environment will evolve. Consequently, such companies frequently fi nd themselves surprised by important developments and are forced to follow rather than lead.

Other companies suff er from hyperopia, or farsighted-ness. They can see the fi nish line clearly, but they trip over their own feet trying to get there. In these situations, the disconnect is between aspirations and the well-aligned short- and medium-term activities and resources needed to realize them. Although the distinction between long-, medium-, and short-term horizons may seem obvi-ous, our executive interviews indicated that it is not broadly recognized. For example, few of the companies we studied had performed long-term visioning exercises.

For many, short-term business planning was still mingled with the annual budgeting process. And even among those that considered diff erent time horizons separately, few did it in a coordinated fashion. Those companies that did, however, reinforced their advantage. (See the sidebar “The Three Horizons at Nokia.”)

The Long Term: Visioning

The purpose of visioning is to increase a company’s abil-ity to recognize and benefi t from shi s and disruptions in the business environment by creating a shared vision of the future and the company’s desired position within it. The process typically involves exploring possible “fu-tures” and, for each one, determining the current business model’s relevance and potency, as well as the moves that would be required to retain and enhance advantage.

Visioning demands imagination but is based on reality. It eschews rose-colored glasses, exploring positive and neg-ative developments in the competitive environment with equal intensity. It is not purely aspirational—describing the world as the company wishes it were—but is instead a level-headed consideration of how things are likely to develop. Unlike some corporate mission statements, it is specifi c enough about the conditions of rivalry to distin-guish between good and bad strategic moves. (See the sidebar “Realizing the Strategic Vision at UPS.”)

Visioning looks not only outside at conditions on the play-ing fi eld but also inside at the organization’s own capa-bilities. Ideally, the result is a strategic vision that can foster preparedness and alignment across locations and business models—a shared mental map comprising pos-sible competitive environments, the company’s ideal po-sition within each, and the macro moves the company needs to make to capture (or retain) that position.

In 2005, Nokia became convinced that its planning proc-ess was too detailed and time consuming. Interdependen-cies among its business units were growing, and the company wanted the corporate center to play a more ac-tive role. So it redesigned its strategy-development proc-ess from the ground up. Now Nokia is one of the few companies that explicitly stretch their business strategy across all three time horizons.

Nokia starts every year with an exercise called the busi-ness environment outlook, which focuses on the impact of major long-term trends on the company’s business model. It is complemented by “wildcard” exercises in which a range of potential disruptions challenge that model.

In light of the business environment outlook, Nokia re-views and adapts the medium- and short-term plans as appropriate. Business unit strategies are not necessarily recra ed every year but rather are updated on the basis of performance and environmental changes. Each busi-ness-unit plan is translated into a three-year business plan with fi nancials, as well as into a detailed short-term plan for the next six months.

Executives report that the approach has helped business unit leaders see new opportunities and be better pre-pared for long-term challenges.

The Three Horizons at Nokia

��

T B C G

The outside view can be developed by exploring the im-pact of key megatrends on the economics and priorities of customers, on the universe of choices that customers are likely to have, and on the potential for market disrup-tions. This exercise inevitably yields a set of plausible futures. Rarely are all these futures equally attractive to a company, so considering each through the lens of or-ganizational capabilities and resources—the inside view—can help refi ne a practical strategic vision. Vision-ing doesn’t need to be done annually but, depending on industry conditions and developments, should typically be reconsidered and possibly repeated every three to fi ve years.

A clear strategic vision of potential futures produces three main advantages:

Readiness.◊ A company that understands what poten-tially lies ahead will be ready to respond as conditions change. A classic example of the power of visioning is Shell’s pioneering use of scenario planning, which al-lowed it to predict and be prepared for the oil crisis of 1973.

A Head Start. ◊ Preparedness confers suffi cient lead-time to shape the competitive environment to a company’s advantage. For instance, Codelco, the world’s leader in copper production, saw that copper could become one of the world’s key materials, but this scenario was by no means a certainty. To increase the likelihood that it

would come to pass, the company teamed with other copper companies to promote the substitution of cop-per for other materials, to encourage favorable regula-tory changes, and to invest in critical enabling tech-nologies.

Alignment. ◊ A shared vision of the future can be a pow-erful tool for aligning a company’s eff orts and invest-ments with its business strategy. Some companies pub-lish their main scenarios to inform decision making throughout the organization. Others lay out a set of guiding principles that emerge from those scenarios. Toyota, for example, has seven pillars for growth that refl ect its sense of what will drive future advantage—and all the company’s investment decisions.

The Medium Term: Business Planning

If the purpose of visioning is to establish a strategic vi-sion, the purpose of business planning is to decide how to realize and create value from that vision.

In this phase, the focus is on securing and strengthening competitive advantage and leveraging that advantage to achieve superior returns. One surprising insight gained from our study was that although most executives felt that their company had a business plan, few mentioned “competitive advantage” when discussing their plan or its formulation. This omission is intriguing because a shared appreciation of the sources of advantage is a powerful

United Parcel Service maintains separate, though inte-grated, processes to develop a long-term view and a medi-um-to-short-term plan. The company conducted its fi rst formal long-term visioning exercise in 2002 and has since repeated it to explore potential changes in its strategic vision. The visioning process yields distinct scenarios that inform strategic decisions. UPS has also established a sensing process to detect weak signals and new trends that could challenge the company’s assumptions.

The medium-term plan is updated annually, has a fi ve-year horizon, and is grounded in a detailed one-year busi-ness plan that covers all parts of the enterprise. Both are discussed as part of the annual planning process. UPS ex-ecutives are constantly promoting alignment of strategy

and vision. The Enterprise Strategy, a formal description of the company’s strategy, is owned by the management committee, which guides all of UPS’s change initiatives and ensures execution and accountability by integrating the strategy into both the business plan and the medium-term plan.

The company’s stretching has yielded real results. As one executive told us, “No change in the industry or in market conditions has surprised UPS over the past years—apart from calamities. For example, both the consolidation of the industry and the eff ect of Internet purchases were an-ticipated and prepared for. The only surprise has been the velocity of change.”

Realizing the Strategic Vision at UPS

��

D Y S N S?

mechanism for both alignment around a strategy and self-preservation. Competitive advantage is naturally un-stable and evanescent, evolving along with changing con-sumer priorities, shi ing technologies, and the actions of competitors. Keeping it front and center helps ensure that changes in these underlying conditions are noticed while there’s suffi cient time to respond.

Business planning requires a company to address diff erent questions and challenges depending on its particular circumstances. If its strategic vision has recently shi ed signifi cantly, the critical questions will re-volve around developing a detailed busi-ness plan to achieve the new vision. How should investments be redeployed? What principles should guide action? How does the business model need to change? Which current initiatives should continue, accelerate, or be shut down? What new invest-ments in assets and capabilities are needed to strengthen competitive advantage? What year-by-year programs will be required to realize the new vision? What high-level targets need to be achieved? What metrics should be tracked? And how should responsibility be apportioned?

If the company’s strategic vision has remained consistent, however, the questions will likely focus on opportunities to optimize medium-term value creation. A retailer or hotel chain might consider whether to replicate a format in a new region—and, if so, whether to adapt it to the new market. Other companies might explore the wisdom of a corporate acquisition or outsourcing parts of the value chain.

Although the business plans that result can vary signifi -cantly, they have a few common elements: a statement of the drivers of advantage, a description of the key guiding strategic assumptions and management principles at the core of the strategy, a discussion of the highest-priority initiatives for the coming years that will bring the plan to life, and a translation of the plan into numbers, including medium-term fi nancial objectives.

The Short Term: Annual Planning

Budgeting should refl ect strategy, not substitute for it. Yet in many companies, budgeting and the next quarter’s re-sults dominate. In extreme cases, as one executive we interviewed put it, “the accepted rule is numbers fi rst,

strategy second. Only numbers matter. Strategy becomes the qualitative introduction of the quantitative plan.” While that view is not widespread, many of the execu-tives we spoke with felt that their annual planning proc-esses were too focused on fi nancials and le too little room for addressing critical strategic issues.

But the annual planning process has a cru-cial role to play in aligning day-to-day ac-tivities with the necessarily higher-level business plan at the heart of the business strategy. Done right, annual planning transforms strategy into the concrete busi-ness initiatives and metrics that focus the organization on fulfi lling the chosen strat-egy’s value-creation potential. And it fo-

cuses management on a critical question: How do we make the right tradeoff s between short-term results and long-term competitive advantage?

Companies that do try to inject more strategy into the annual planning process seem to be taking one of two approaches.

The Three-Layer Cake. The CEO of a large consumer-goods company described the “planning process” he in-herited as follows: “It was always the same. I would fl y in that morning. A car would take me to the business unit, where I would have a tour of the offi ces and factory. Shortly a er a nice lunch—while we were sleepy from digestion—there would be two hours of rosy PowerPoint presentations (growth, success story of the new product launch, et cetera). There would be no time for the hard questions. At the end of the day, I would go back to the airport, and that would be it.”

The CEO replaced this routine with what we call a three-layer-cake process. The fi rst layer addresses the key num-bers and spans a broad range of issues, including growth, asset utilization, new-product introductions, and produc-tion bottlenecks. The second layer addresses key ques-tions sent from the corporate center—typically, about two months in advance. In the third layer, the business units present one or more out-of-the-box ideas. This ap-proach forces the business heads to think beyond the next quarter and pay closer attention to weak signals.

Essilor International, a leader in ophthalmic optical prod-ucts, approaches each of the three layers at a diff erent

Budgeting should

reflect strategy,

not substitute

for it.

��

T B C G

time of year. In the fall, the focus is on the fi nancials—both a detailed review of the previous year’s achieve-ments and the business rationale for the next year’s budget. In March, the focus is on progress against the plan, in particular, key performance indicators and opera-tional issues. Finally, in July, the meeting concentrates on strategy, signs of shi ing advantage, and business model innovation—whether large scale or incremental.

The W Approach. At many companies, two of the main drawbacks of the traditional planning process are that it starts too early and it provides too little opportunity for iteration and dialogue. The top half of Exhibit 3 illustrates a typical process. Around the start of the second quarter, the board establishes the targets that will inform the fol-lowing year’s business-unit planning; in the fourth quar-ter, the business unit plans are reviewed. Because this single review meeting takes place close to the end of the year, it is almost inevitably dominated by budgetary concerns.

By contrast, the W approach, illustrated in the bottom half of Exhibit 3, off ers several improvements.1 First, the

W approach starts later in the year, when market condi-tions are closer to those that will prevail when the plan is executed. Second, the two rounds of interaction between the corporate center and the business units make it pos-sible to agree on strategy fi rst and budget second.

Like the traditional planning process, the W approach starts with a top-down communication of targets to the business units. But the W’s two-round structure enables an entirely diff erent type of response: a free-ranging stra-tegic dialogue about the business, with the targets serving as critical reference points. Together, the corporate center and business unit managers address such critical ques-tions as, What strategic considerations will support or impede a particular unit’s ability to meet the targets? What strategic moves might enable a unit to deliver re-sults well above the targets? Is the unit well positioned for the long term? The outcome of this dialogue is con-

1. The approach gets its name from the two cycles of interaction between the corporate center and the business units. Each cycle starts with direction from the top and ends with a bottom-up re-sponse, graphically forming the shape of the letter W.

Exhibit 3. The W Approach Injects Strategic Considerations into the Annual Planning Process


Round twoRoundone

1 42 7 8 9 10 113 125 6Board meeting Plan review

Detailed planning

Target setting Final plan

Corporate center(executive committee

and strategy department)

Traditional

Targetsetting Plan review

Strategydialogue

Month

Moretimelyplans

Shorter process

Detailed planning

Final plan

Business unitmanagement

Corporate center(executive committee

and strategy department)

The W

Business unitmanagement

��

D Y S N S?

sensus on the strategic scenario (or scenarios) for which detailed operating plans and budgets should be devel-oped. In the second round, the business unit leaders pre-sent those detailed plans and, in a series of meetings with the center, agree to a short-term plan fully grounded in long-term strategic realities. By decoupling strategy from the numbers, this approach breaks the cycle of fi nancial-ly driven incrementalism. It frequently yields a shorter process with higher-quality results and heightened buy-in from the business unit leadership.

Coordinating Across Horizons

Defi nition of the long and medium terms depends on industry investment horizons and business model life cycles. For a mining company, the long term extends much further into the future than it does for a mobile-phone maker. That said, long-term visioning typically looks fi ve to ten years into the future; a typical medium-term business plan looks three to fi ve years out.

How frequently should a company reconsider a vision or a business plan? A typical company needs to review and renew its business plan every three years or so, whereas the period between visioning exercises is rarely less than fi ve years. Clearly the insights and decisions produced by addressing the three time horizons need to be coordinat-

ed to drive value creation. Our interviews pointed to three primary mechanisms for achieving alignment:

The Executive Committee.◊ Because of its deep involve-ment in all three phases of the strategy development process, the executive committee in some companies plays the central role in ensuring consistency among the long-term vision, the medium-term business plan, and the annual plan.

The Strategy Department.◊ In other companies, the strat-egy department plays this critical role by orchestrating a large-scale eff ort across the three time horizons, serv-ing as a thought partner to the executive committee and as a sounding board to business unit leaders, and addressing daily issues as they arise.

Metrics. ◊ Some other companies use metrics as the com-mon thread that runs through all three time frames. For example, at Procter & Gamble, all strategic initia-tives are linked to a shareholder return metric that refl ects the value creation ambitions inherent in the medium-term business plan. At Renault, metrics are defi ned at the top level and cascade down to the level of individual incentives so that everyone has specifi c objectives linked to the overall business strategy.

��

T B C G

Stretching the Thinking

Many of the executives we interviewed stressed how diffi cult it was to keep the thinking fresh in a process that had be-come rote. One complained, saying, “Our formal frameworks and processes

have become mental straitjackets.”

Tools and processes frame a company’s thinking. Using the same ones year a er year increases the probability of getting the same answers. And the resulting strategies are more likely to be incremental and blind to emerging op-portunities or changing competitive patterns.

The traditional approach to strategy development—com-bining an external perspective (analysis of markets, com-petitors, channels, and economics) with an internal as-sessment of resources—remains useful, but it is no longer suffi cient. The companies we studied saw a need for new methods that would foster lateral thinking and out-of-the-box ideas.

Stretching the thinking is about multiplying the lenses through which a company considers its business. It is about going beyond classical strategy tools to enhance strategic creativity. Our research suggests that through permanent additions or one-time experiments, compa-nies are expanding their thinking repertoire in three dis-tinct ways: investing in the art of questioning, multiplying perspectives, and building scenarios.

Investing in the Art of Questioning

This approach is based on the Socratic belief that asking the right questions stimulates productive dialogue. Few of the executives we interviewed felt that their compa-nies did a suffi cient job of articulating the core questions

that their strategies should address. Those executives who were satisfi ed with their performance on this dimen-sion reported greater confi dence in their strategies and greater organizational alignment in pursuing them.

There is an art to asking questions. They should be nei-ther too broad (What are our competitors’ strengths and weaknesses?) nor too narrow (Will product X launch on time?). Good questions frequently focus on actions and reactions: If we lower prices in category A, is competitor B positioned to wage a successful price war? Moreover, questions that are overly focused on the current business model risk missing a looming disruption. Formulating the right questions demands signifi cant up-front investment by both senior management and the strategy department in isolating the key strategic issues.

The chairman and CEO of Essilor International, Xavier Fontanet, has been harnessing the art of questioning for many years. When he discusses business issues with his teams, he avoids advocacy. Rather, he asks questions that stimulate thinking and inspire further investigation of issues. In answering these questions, his teams develop the ability to refi ne their strategies on their own, and, in so doing, they enhance their strategic skills. In fact, the company has redesigned its strategic-planning process in Europe to emphasize high-quality strategic questions.

Sometimes the best questions are subversive. Instead of asking how to grow a business, ask how to kill it. A well-known example is Jack Welch’s destroy-your-business.com initiative to prepare General Electric to prosper in a digi-tal world. Welch asked his business heads to imagine how an insurgent could destroy their businesses, instructing them not merely to sketch out possibilities but also to develop a full-fl edged business plan.

��

D Y S N S?

Instead of asking businesses to justify their requests for more resources, ask them how they would operate with-out them. Instead of renegotiating contractual terms with your key suppliers, ask how to redesign your product without their components.

Multiplying Perspectives

The fundamental job of a strategy devel-opment process is to see change coming—and to fi nd ways to benefi t by adapting to it. Yet all too o en, even great companies are blind-sided by developments that oth-ers see clearly. Why? In many cases, com-panies fall into a competence trap. They miss the emergence of a powerful new threat by continuing to do what made them successful in the past. They become the victim of “experience bias” by insisting on looking at things from their own perspective rather than that of an upstart.

Increasingly, companies are trying to build alternative perspectives into the strategic dialogue. With these ad-ditional lenses, they hope to avoid potential blind spots and enhance both their long-range and their peripheral vision. The following are six approaches.

Explore industry analogies. Does the experience of other industries off er perspectives on how yours may evolve? For example, the pharmaceutical and motion pic-ture industries are in many ways fundamentally diff erent, yet both have benefi ted from a blockbuster model. Does the more “deconstructed” entertainment value chain of-fer guidance on how pharmaceutical companies can pros-per through distributed innovation? There’s some art to selecting such analogies, but the resulting insights can be powerful.

Another example is the inspiration some organizations have found in Rolls-Royce’s power by the hour model of selling fl ight hours rather than aircra engines. These companies have moved beyond the sale of price-compet-itive capital equipment to performance guarantees priced on a variable-cost basis.

Use metaphors. Consider strategic issues through the lens of an alternative discipline, such as biology, physics, or sports. The idea is to enhance your understanding of your business (what linguists call the target domain) by

comparing it with a completely unrelated fi eld (the source domain). By exploring both the similarities and diff er-ences, participants are forced to question long-held as-sumptions about the target domain and to shake things up with fresh ideas borrowed from the source domain. The goal is not a one-to-one correspondence, such as “business is war,” but a fruitful exploration of the gray

area between the two domains that re-veals where true commonality exists and where it doesn’t.2 This friction can ignite new perspectives on the familiar.

Deconstruct the business. Break down the business into slices along the value chain and determine which slices confer a superior competitive position, which

should be outsourced, and which must be defended against capture by external players. This exercise forces a company to understand where in the chain the profi t po-tential is highest—and to make conscious decisions about where and how to play. Zara’s business model and com-petitive advantage demand an integrated approach. Nike prospers by owning marketing and design but outsourc-ing production and most distribution. Intel largely focus-es on a single slice of the personal-computer value chain.

Consider the impact of megatrends. Identify how megatrends (sociological, economic, political, technologi-cal, legal, and environmental) singly and in combination will aff ect your business—both positively and negatively. This lens can reveal important long-term growth oppor-tunities, as well as help you prepare for potential disrup-tions to business model economics. One industrial com-pany convened a team of up-and-comers under the leadership of a respected senior executive and charged it with identifying signifi cant long-term growth opportuni-ties adjacent to the core business. The team brainstormed relevant opportunities at the intersections of critical megatrends and then winnowed them down through an interactive process. Experiential “learning journeys” were used to pressure-test the potential opportunities with real customers, and classic economic analysis was used to assess the attractiveness of the opportunities. Ultimately this process enabled the company to settle on a manageable number of high-impact investments while

Extra lenses mean

fewer blind spots

and better

peripheral vision.

2. Tihamer von Ghyczy, “The Fruitful Flaws of Strategy Metaphors,” Harvard Business Review, September 2003.

��

T B C G

creating enthusiasm and alignment around the new op-portunities.

Explore diff erent points of view. Put yourself in the shoes of a stakeholder, either internal (for example, the head of an employees’ union or another business or func-tional unit) or external (a competitor, supplier, govern-ment body, consumer, or investor) and consider your business from that perspective. This approach is common in marketing but much less so in strategy development. We’ve seen pharmaceutical companies that play war games—with each team taking on the role of a diff erent stakeholder—to anticipate market, regulatory, and com-petitive responses for a new drug launch. S. C. Johnson and Toyota both involve key suppliers in strategic discus-sions. And Codelco holds sessions with employee unions at the start of its long-term strategy process. The aim of those sessions is to reach agreement on goals, values, and mission. As paradoxical as it might seem, some compa-nies even involve competitors in their strategic-planning process. Usually this happens through industry associa-tions that seek to infl uence market factors—for example, demand and regulatory regimes—to the advantage of all members.

Sometimes taking the perspective of an owner—rather than a manager—can be helpful. Using a model of the key drivers of stock price can reveal important diff erences among investors that other approaches would miss. A er all, just as there are diff erent customer segments, there are also various types of owners, and companies can sig-nifi cantly increase their valuations by adapting their strategies to the priorities of key investors—and by shap-ing their “portfolio” of investors to better match their strategies.

Build on undervalued assets. Catalog your assets—core and noncore, tangible and intangible—and ask whether they are fully leveraged and whether additional busi-nesses could be built around them. For example, many major oil companies have opened convenience stores at their gas stations, and many hypermarkets have built gas stations in their parking lots. Both are leveraging the same asset: real estate along high-traffi c roads. Michelin, one of the world’s leading tire manufacturers, launched ViaMichelin, a route-planning Web site, to leverage its extensive travel-related content, including maps and in-formation on sightseeing, hotels, and restaurants. Anoth-er example is a parcel-shipping company that improved

its customer service by off ering online parcel tracking, a feature that already existed in its logistics system but had hitherto been used only internally.

Building Scenarios

Building scenarios is about envisioning possible futures and fi guring out how best to prosper in each. In contrast to forecasting, which assumes that there is one “right” answer, scenarios need only be plausible and mutually exclusive to be useful. They enhance preparedness by forcing executives to rehearse and evaluate their actions in a variety of possible strategic environments. The diffi -culty is to create scenarios that are suffi ciently broad to encompass major potential changes but suffi ciently con-crete to facilitate a rich discussion about business deci-sions.

Typically, a company considers only a small number of scenarios, perhaps three to fi ve. Scenarios are particu-larly useful in long-term visioning, but they can also be built into medium-term business planning by establishing scenario-driven “triggers” for certain moves.

UPS has made extensive use of scenarios, which it up-dates regularly when reviewing the eff ectiveness of its business strategy. Shell, the father of scenario planning, has been using the approach since the 1970s and recent-ly released its three scenarios for 2025.

Companies have found that stretching their think-ing enhances both insight and creativity. To some degree, this is a result of the approaches them-

selves, but some of the benefi ts can be attributed solely to novelty. So a fi nal recommendation is to mix things up. Run a traditional process every other year, perhaps, alter-nating with something novel. Or add a fresh perspective every year. But whatever you do, don’t let the process become rote: routine is the enemy of creativity and in-sight.

��

D Y S N S?

Stretching the Engagement Model

Of all the complaints lodged by the execu-tives we interviewed regarding their strat-egy-development processes, some of the most passionate centered on the broad theme of engagement. Instead of being a

mechanism for generating enthusiasm, ownership, and alignment around a strategy, those processes were de-scribed by many as a chore. The goal, they explained, is data collection rather than decision making, and the process discourages productive dialogue by making an implicit distinction between corporate “thinkers” and business unit “doers.” All too o en, the process devolves into a negotiation that adds little real value.

Companies are recognizing that the most eff ective strate-gies are the result of cocreation at multiple levels: be-tween staff and line workers, and among line managers, senior management, and the strategy department. And companies are adjusting their processes to foster cocre-ation. The goal is not just to create strategies but to create strategists as well—people at all levels of the organization who can think and act strategically, recognize and react to weak signals, and initiate and conduct strategy debates with their teams and superiors. A er all, most great strat-egists are mentored, not born or book taught.

Organizations are developing their traditional processes along four dimensions to drive deeper engagement.

Tone. ◊ They are moving away from formal presentations toward a more freewheeling, collegial dialogue on strategy.

Rhythm.◊ They are speeding things up with more fre-quent and focused strategic reviews. Given the pace of change today, once a year is no longer enough.

Forums. ◊ They are expanding both the contexts for stra-tegic dialogue and its participants.

Roles. ◊ They are redefi ning the primary roles of the cor-porate center as agenda setting, coaching, and orches-tration of the strategy development process.

Changing the Tone

Innovators on this dimension aspire to replace reams of PowerPoint slides and templates with real, no-holds-barred strategic dialogue. They want formality to give way to informality and passive listening to give way to the ac-tive back-and-forth of ideas and collaborative brainstorm-ing. Analysis is, a er all, only a complement to thought, not a substitute for it. As Jack Welch once said, “Our plan-ning system was dynamite when we fi rst put it in. The thinking was fresh; the form mattered little—the format got no points. It was idea-oriented. We then hired a head of planning and he hired two vice presidents and then he hired a planner, and the books got thicker and the print-ing got more sophisticated, and the covers got harder and the drawings got better. The meetings kept getting larger. Nobody can say anything with 16 or 18 people there.”3

Our research found that companies are expanding dia-logue in three ways. First, they’re going deeper on fewer topics. The idea is to have fruitful debates about hard questions: What competitive moves do we most fear? Can our current business model extend profi tably into region X? The topics can be business specifi c or of gen-eral corporate relevance, but it is crucial that they touch on the key drivers of current and future advantage and

3. Richard G. Hamermesh. “Making Planning Strategic,” Harvard Business Review, July 1986.

��

T B C G

give participants a chance to think through moves and countermoves as a team.

Second, they’re requiring more preparation to enable a richer discussion. The communication and consideration of basic facts and metrics take place before the strategy session, leaving more time for debate. To further facilitate an eff ective discussion, some companies cap the number of slides permitted—or even forbid them entirely. This approach puts extra demands on both senior man-agement to invest time up-front and busi-ness unit leaders to move beyond descrip-tion to advocacy—and to be prepared for a discussion that goes well beyond the slide deck.

Third, they’re extending the conversation beyond the usual suspects. As we discussed in the previous section, more and more companies are seeking the input of out-siders on strategic issues. In addition, they are reaching further down in the organization. This approach is valu-able training for young up-and-comers—and it can also generate fresh ideas. At L’Oréal, for example, there was for many years a special place at headquarters called the confrontation room, where even junior managers from around the world were invited to discuss their strategies with the executive committee.

Changing the Rhythm

Few executives would disagree that talking about strategy more than once a year is valuable—or that high-growth and troubled units merit deeper and more frequent stra-tegic dialogue—yet, in many companies, that’s not what happens.

In our study, however, we saw a clear trend at companies that had recently reviewed their strategic-planning proc-esses: an acceleration of the organization’s metabolism, with more frequent discussions of strategy focused on nurturing strategists, pinpointing unexpected challenges, and working through critical strategic uncertainties.

Some companies have established committees that deal with strategic issues throughout the year. In others, the executive committee itself holds regular strategy discus-sions. Discussions are organized on a rolling agenda that changes according to how critical the strategic issue is

and how close it is to resolution. For example, at E.ON, top executives meet monthly to consider key issues. And at UPS, a corporate-strategy group staff ed with top man-agers meets for half a day each month with the CEO and the executive team to discuss important issues. The man-agers may keep an issue on the agenda for as long as it takes to arrive at a decision and a course of action—

reviewing critical facts, working toward new insights, or developing and refi ning options. One major benefi t of such ongo-ing discussions is the maturity of the resulting decisions, a quality that cannot be achieved at off -site meetings, where decisions have to be made in two to three days.

Some companies are also matching the frequency, depth, and focus of their strategy discussions to the require-ments of the business. At Textron, a large U.S. conglomer-ate, the duration of annual strategic reviews varies de-pending on the value at stake within each business unit. And regularly scheduled strategic dialogues throughout the year concentrate on the issues with the greatest po-tential impact across the enterprise.

Tailored reviews are particularly useful for companies with business units in diverse industries, at diff erent stag-es of the business model life cycle, or of signifi cantly dif-ferent sizes. The approach enables top management to spend more time on the strategic issues that are most likely to further or impair value creation.

Expanding Strategy Forums

Companies are also broadening the reach of their strat-egy discussions and the number of venues in which the discussions take place. Those who believe that strategy is the exclusive preserve of a corporate brain trust are in-creasingly in the minority.

Instead, the trend is toward broader organizational de-bate on strategy—up to the point when decisions are made and the focus shi s to execution. The broader reach of the strategy forums and the multiplication of venues help in three ways.

First, they bind strategic thinking more tightly to the ac-tual work of the enterprise and the minds of employees, leading to stronger alignment with the chosen course of

The trend is

toward broader

organizational

debate on strategy.

��

D Y S N S?

action. Second, they enhance the quality of the dialogue by creating more opportunities for mentoring, for tapping a broader experience base, and for accessing better and timelier market information. A er all, no single individu-al has all the pieces needed to complete the strategic jig-saw puzzle. Third, by giving key people at all levels of the organization the chance to help shape strategy, these ex-panded discussions enhance loyalty amid the current war for talent.

The executives with whom we spoke re-ported that while the main vehicle for strategic dialogue was still the traditional strategy-development process, they were also chartering specific, purpose-built forums. These are of four common types.

High-Profi le Strategy Committees. Typically staff ed with a small group of top executives, including the chief strategy offi cer, these committees meet regularly (month-ly, quarterly, or biannually) to explore a shortlist of key issues—generally topics, challenges, or opportunities that are relevant across business units. Depending on the is-sue, the committee either resolves it directly or shapes the critical questions and then delegates them to a spe-cial project team or business-level forum. Such strategy committees are particularly useful in multiunit compa-nies because they can cut through silos and address is-sues that might otherwise fall through the cracks.

Business Unit Strategy Forums. Some organizations have one or more strategists at the business unit level who act as sounding boards, coaches, and facilitators of strategic dialogue. These strategists play an important role in the overall strategy-development process and also lead or support key ad hoc strategy forums for the business units. In particular, these forums bring en-ergy and urgency to the discussion of strategy within each unit.

Project Teams. Some issues are of such fundamental strategic importance that they need focused attention and careful monitoring by top management. In these circumstances, companies deploy specially chartered project teams. These internal groups come together for a specifi ed period of time to address a specifi c strategic question. The primary benefi t of project teams is their ability to focus deeply on an issue; their primary risk is that the resulting insights and conclusions will not be

embraced by the business units. This risk can be miti-gated by carefully maintaining a balance between staff and line workers to facilitate buy-in by the aff ected busi-ness units.

Greenfi eld Incubators. Some companies create green-fi eld units to smooth the transition from opportunity as-

sessment and business model design to actual implementation. When it appears that a new business model will be at vari-ance and possibly competitive with the company’s dominant model, the best course is to insulate the eff ort from the core business. Nespresso was born in this way. Once a small entrepreneurial project within Nestlé, it became a worldwide

success—but only a er it was set up as an indepen-dent unit.

Similarly, ING Direct, now a key contributor to ING’s growth and profi ts, grew out of a team that was specially chartered to explore new territories. Of course, the fi nan-cial risk of greenfi eld projects needs to be addressed. Ad-ditionally, they require a diff erent governance model, with sponsors behaving more like a board of directors than a boss, and a diff erent compensation model, with the potential for team rewards proportionate to the value that the teams ultimately create.

Exploring New Roles

As the strategy development process shi s toward more dialogue, the role of the corporate center—the executive leadership and the strategy department—will, in the process, inevitably evolve toward a more facilitative one. The objective will shi from providing answers to setting the broad agenda of critical strategic issues and manag-ing a productive strategic dialogue about them.

In this new environment, coaching and mentoring skills become centrally important—and so does the ability to orchestrate and make linkages among the organization’s disparate strategy-related activities. Companies that make this transition successfully fi nd that the quality of strate-gic thinking across the organization is enhanced.

Coaching can take a number of forms. It can start out simply as good training in classic analytical tools, strate-gic frameworks, creativity, and lateral thinking for all par-

The role of the

center becomes less

directive and more

facilitative.

��

T B C G

ticipants in the development process. But its essence is the rough-and-tumble of strategic dialogue—the chal-lenge and defense of assertions through the posing of pointed questions.

Coaching is a collective obligation. Of course, the chief strategy offi cer and the strategy department have an im-portant role, but no less important is the responsibility of senior management and the executive committee to en-sure that all managers are “strategy enabled.” Top man-agement should also share the responsibility for orches-tration. When strategy processes are stretched—with new time frames, new forums, and new participants—the center’s ability to see the big picture and make critical

connections spells the diff erence between success and failure.

By expanding the dialogue, changing the rhythm, expanding the venues, and developing new roles, companies are increasing the business relevance

and thus the perceived value of the strategy develop-ment process. Enhanced engagement in both the devel-opment process and the strategy itself is the happy re-sult—along with better-prepared strategists throughout the organization whose commitment will drive better performance.

��

D Y S N S?

Implementing Stretching

A lthough few of the companies we studied were stretching aggressively on all three dimensions—time horizons, thinking, and engagement model—many have sought and reaped the benefi ts of critical shi s in

one or two. The drivers of the decision to stretch were varied, but management change o en played a role. And the degree of change also varied. All, however, realized that achieving the benefi ts of a stretched strategy process could demand a real cultural shi .

People need to believe that there is real interest in know-ing what they think before they’ll engage in a true dia-logue. This takes clear and consistent communication. People need to be recognized and rewarded for making critical strategic contributions. This takes aligned incen-tives. And people need to be familiar with the classic tools of the strategy trade (such as business analogies and other common analytical and strategy frameworks) to be able to test, present, and support their strategic hypoth-eses. This takes training and mentoring.

The companies we studied are investing in communica-tion, incentives, and training to ensure that their organi-zations make the most of the new processes and the strat-egies that they produce.

Communication

The most eff ective kind of communication is two-way communication. Unless a message is acknowledged, there’s no way to know whether it has been understood, let alone internalized. Speeches, no matter how well de-livered, can only play a part in rallying the organization around a strategy. People need to believe the speeches. A critical goal of communication should be to win over

middle managers who, by redeploying the assets they control in support of the new processes and strategy, can play a central role in aligning the organization around a new strategic approach.

There are many ways to communicate eff ectively, but in the companies we studied, we saw two main approaches, sometimes in combination.

Signature Initiatives. At Textron, each business head must propose his or her 10 or so priority initiatives to drive growth and advantage. From this universe of proj-ects, the CEO selects those that represent the most value to Textron as a whole. (Typically, the CEO selects 8 to 12.) These initiatives are broadly and clearly communicated and are at the core of the company’s agenda for the com-ing year.

Cascading. In order to facilitate strategic communication, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals uses a strategy map to illus-trate the key strategic initiatives for a three-year period, the value levers that each one addresses, and the target (such as customers or processes) that each one is intend-ed to affect. The company cascades this map down through the organization. Each department is required to develop its own version, highlighting those initiatives in which it will play a role—and what specifi cally it plans to do to ensure success.

At other companies, each department refracts the strat-egy through its own lens by means of cascading memos. The process starts at the top with a strategy memo from the CEO to his or her direct reports, who then tailor and adapt the message to their specifi c areas of responsibility and communicate it to their direct reports, and so on throughout the organization. But regardless of what is

��

T B C G

cascaded, the eff ect is the same. The process of thinking about the strategy and making it concretely relevant across the organization allows for the identifi cation and resolution of disagreements and the enhancement of buy-in—particularly among middle managers whose sup-port is essential to mobilizing the organization around new approaches and new strategies.

Incentives

Incentives are another way to build commitment to the process and the strategy. Yet many companies fail to in-clude the consideration of strategic factors in their incen-tive systems. Although these factors are so er and more subjective than fi nancial metrics, they can and, in most cases, should be considered. A er all, if compensation is based only on immediately measurable results, managers will work to achieve those results in any way they can—whether or not it’s consistent with the company’s strategy and whether or not it furthers the company’s long-term competitiveness.

Instead, some companies are incorporating criteria linked to key strategy initiatives—and linked even to the strat-egy development process itself—into managers’ objec-tives. By doing so, they increase the time spent on strat-egy and, in many cases, improve the relationship between the business units and the corporate-strategy department, which comes to be recognized as a valuable partner in helping managers achieve their goals. This objective-set-ting process has a further benefi t: it forces employees and their superiors to agree on the most important contribu-tions that each employee can make to the company’s long-term competitiveness.

Business managers are rarely promoted because of the quality of their strategic thinking; rather, they are pro-moted because of their ability to deliver results, manage teams, and win contracts. Yet as managers move up in the organization, strategy skills inevitably become more im-portant. Including strategic objectives in the compensa-tion system encourages the development of those skills over time.

Training

While many strategic skills are learned through mentor-ship and experience, there is also a role for more struc-tured training. It may take the form of a formal course

integrated into the organization’s talent-management programs. Or it may be a series of workshops to facilitate experience sharing among executives and middle manag-ers. Many companies have developed portfolios of strate-gic tools and templates that leverage the experience of the strategy department and senior executives and help managers learn on the spot.

Communication, incentives, and training are clear-ly important to stretching a company’s strategic-development process. But employees gauge the

importance of initiatives by the level of resources—fi nan-cial and nonfi nancial—dedicated to them. So walking the walk is essential to success. This means making time for strategy dialogue within the senior executive team, be-tween the CEO and the board of directors, and between the corporate center and business units. It’s also critical to support the dialogue with investments in good data, which means that standing and chartered strategy-project teams need to be staff ed with the best people and given the resources needed to achieve their objectives.

��

D Y S N S?

Epilogue

Stretching is about pushing the boundaries of traditional strategy making. It is about increas-ing competitive advantage and the creativity of strategies. It empowers the organization to shape its destiny through shared strategic as-

pirations, to enhance preparedness and agility, and—by developing and engaging people—to foster affi liation and enthusiasm.

So where should a company start stretching? Some com-panies have opted for a “light” approach, incorporating focused but critical changes into their traditional strategy-development processes. For example, they introduce a long-term perspective, turning their business reviews into strategic conversations, using lateral-thinking methods, or introducing issue-based strategic committees. Other com-panies have gone for a “heavyweight” approach, rede-signing their process from the ground up and stretching on multiple dimensions simultaneously.

And the stretching must not stop. Otherwise, what is to-day’s revolution will inevitably become tomorrow’s rou-tine. And routine is the enemy of the kind of fresh per-spectives from which strategic insight springs.

Just as athletes cannot predict how a match or a race will turn out, companies in today’s markets cannot fully anticipate the outcome of the competitive battle. But those that are better trained to capture and shape the opportunities that come their way have a decisive advantage.

Does your strategy need stretching?

��

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a global manage-ment consulting fi rm and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy. We partner with clients in all sectors and regions to identify their highest-value opportunities, address their most critical challenges, and transform their businesses. Our customized approach combines deep in-sight into the dynamics of companies and markets with close collaboration at all levels of the client organization. This ensures that our clients achieve sustainable compet-itive advantage, build more capable organizations, and secure lasting results. Founded in 1963, BCG is a private company with 66 offi ces in 38 countries. For more infor-mation, please visit www.bcg.com.

For a complete list of BCG publications and information about how to obtain copies, please visit our Web site at www.bcg.com/publications.

To receive future publications in electronic form about this topic or others, please visit our subscription Web site at www.bcg.com/subscribe.

10/08

Stretching Oct 08_Covs.indd ICVRStretching Oct 08_Covs.indd ICVR 10/14/08 9:46:28 AM10/14/08 9:46:28 AM

Abu DhabiAmsterdamAthensAtlantaAucklandBangkokBarcelonaBeijingBerlinBostonBrusselsBudapestBuenos AiresChicago

CologneCopenhagenDallasDetroitDubaiDüsseldorfFrankfurtHamburgHelsinkiHong KongHoustonJakartaKievKuala Lumpur

LisbonLondonLos AngelesMadridMelbourneMexico CityMiamiMilanMinneapolisMonterreyMoscowMumbaiMunichNagoya

New DelhiNew JerseyNew YorkOsloParisPhiladelphiaPragueRomeSan FranciscoSantiagoSão PauloSeoulShanghaiSingapore

StockholmStuttgartSydneyTaipeiTokyoTorontoViennaWarsawWashingtonZurich

bcg.com



R

p g

Does Your Strategy N

eed Stretching?

��

does your strategy need stretching? - bcg.com does your strategy ... the boston consulting group...

Documents