Field of Dreams vs. Strategy

Such a memorable line "if you build it, he will come" (Field of Dreams, 1989, Universal Pictures). If you have not seen the film then I suggest you grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy the late 80s Kevin Costner and James Earl Jones classic. The premise of the film is an Iowa corn farmer, hearing voices, interprets them as a command to build a baseball diamond in his fields: he does and the Chicago Black Sox come and play ball! The film's underlying themes are the fulfilment of dreams and how people can overcome any regrets they may have about the life choices they make (IMDB).

But as with all things Hollywood and their theory of "don't let facts get in the way of a great story" Field of Dreams is just that, a great story. A tale similar to the great fairy tales of the past and like most fairy tales they rarely come true? A bit like the reality for the initial investors in the Facebook IPO!!!!

It doesn't take an MBA Business Strategist to point out that Hollywood is, well Hollywood! But when I chat with managers of retail outlets, restaurants and B2B service providers, I ask the same question:

What process (actions and knowledge) are the projected numbers based on?

It once baffled me the amount of bullish business plans, sales projections and product development road maps that were based on the concept of "if we build it they will buy it!". But I now realise that there is a winning and sustainable difference between "if we build it" and "what are we building"!

A couple of my fellow MBA Alumni believe that business strategy is a waste of time and a few senior business leaders I know echo their sentiment! Granted they have yet to provide me with an alternative and would rather sit waxing lyrical and taking pot shots at scholars, such as Porter, Grant, Drucker and Mintzberg. But their voices stirred something inside me to consider the difference between the two ends of the spectrum. That being the bullish Just Do It "if you build it, they will come!" concept/mindset or the bearish more measured view of Vision and Mission "what are we building, and where are they coming from?".

My Alumni brothers do like to grind my gears occasionally, so they may be pushing my buttons to see how I will react. But as these usual suspects work in the public sector, their exposure and reliance on a cracking strategy is possibly more politically driven than a commercial necessity? However, having experienced the diverse cultural differences between the private and public sectors (via successful private sector sales development roles, pitching to Government and Transport departments), there is a commonality in mindset that resonates with some senior managers. What is the need for strategic planning, when the organisation already possess market share, a dominance, or a monopoly!

A monopoly or oligopoly lends itself to the false tactical chant of "Location, Location, Location" which is the idea of being in the right place at the right time! But in contrast there is case after case where organisations pitch up in a fantastic location, open their doors to learn that its neighbours achieve greater sales than they do and are at a loss as to why! This weakness in understanding is usually met with the blame game and the execution or lambasting of the odd employee or two, usually sales. But generally the fact is that the management just didn't get their offering on the money before shouting "show me the money"!

The backward tactical notion of managing a business solely by profit and loss (P&L) management stinks of the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. It is more akin to driving a car via the rear view mirror, as the information it provides is about yesterday rather than providing a framework for the needs of tomorrow. P&L management disguises the perspective of complexity and an ever changing environment and can lead management on an easy go-to efficiency quest. In isolation a P&L can only inform managers of a small percentage of the bigger picture and can lead to the "business as usual" or "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" management styles, that have led to the "oops to late!" demise of Woolworths, Clinton Cards, HMV and Blockbusters. A management team that is comparing its performance to its market sector and competitors has a broader understanding of what the numbers are telling them. But managements' awareness needs to be wider and more creative than this, to ensure there's time to fix or incorporate external market influences. I'm sure Blockbusters and HMV would be alive today if they envisaged and incorporated the technical innovations that Amazon (Love Film) and iTunes built their success off.

Then of course you have the sceptics that suggest that the above named companies and others were unlucky due to the economic crisis. But as the old saying goes "the smarter I work, the luckier I get!". And then there are the most dangerous of managers which truly believe they are making a difference in the organisation as their short term targets and P&L numbers justify their existence without thought to the long term health and risk of the company. But as I mentioned earlier, numbers are only relevant when compared; proving that ignorance is not bliss, in the long term its costly!

This may therefore suggest that an organisation vs. a strategically led organisation is the difference between a good company and an AWESOME company. So to answer my fellow MBA Alumni, a great location may assist the "If you build it, they will come" theory but that may be all they do, come! But a robust strategy will increase the odds of sustainability, competitive advantage and ensure they will come, engage and actually BUY what you are selling!