Skip to main content

Is it time to give the Cognitive School another chance?



There was a time when the process of strategic management involved a smart Manager sitting down and really thinking about the direction to take his or her business.


This was a time before personal computing, widespread data availability; before Michael Porter and the cult of the McKinsey Way. Since there was no way to do rigorous analysis outside of the rarefied academic labs of RAND, people contented themselves with the application of intellect, experience and context. This was called the “Cognitive School” of strategy.


Of course things have changed since then. We have a better way, a way that, empowered by cheap computing and a flood of data from the Internet, enables the 21st Century strategist to test any hypothesis to death in a matter of days. Never has the Excel Wizard been more valuable than now.

Now the market’s obsession with Big Data has led to a new wave of analytical tools hitting the streets. These, we’re told, will supplement weak human logic with the two towers of software and silicon. All options will be considered and “visualised” based on data cleansed by dozens of filters and cross-references. Our strategies will get even more efficient, less fallible; as befits a world with scarcer resources and ever more vicious competition.

I hear these messages a great deal. And they worry me. For starters, people often forget the arms race paradigm. Once one side has a weapon, given enough resources everyone will have the same weapon. Very few or none of the strategy houses or corporate strategy functions are also analytical software developers so we’re all buying the same kit and tweaking it a little.
We’re all adding this technology in the assumption that it will bring advantage, but I don’t believe that it will. Not just because everyone will pretty soon have the same weapon, but for human reasons too.


Even Excel has the power to take away people’s ability to think and to empathise. Imagine what the next wave will do. In my view great strategy is all about the cognitive process that takes a fundamental piece of insight and turns it into strategic advantage. Coloured blobs on a screen can’t do that. Better still, the same thinking techniques also allow outstanding analysis. But analytical techniques blunt creative thought. And because everyone will have spent a fortune on the weapon, we'll spend our time tweaking it incrementally to eek out just a bit more performance, when we could be using our Mk 1, Model 0 brains to make giant leaps and create genuine advantage.

I think we as a profession need to figure out how to reboot the Cognitive School. Embrace the cult of genius and understand how to commoditise data collection, filtration and analysis into its rightful place as an input into strategic management. It shouldn’t, in my view, be at the core.

Or perhaps I’m just a white collar Tramp, railing against Modern Times? Fortunately, the solution to this dilemma is quite simple. Think about it some more.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Impacts of a handset leasing model on mobile telcos

Following yesterday's post, here's some related thinking on the impacts on operators of handset leasing. Handset sales represent around 25% of operator revenues in a typical European market, but generate only around 5% of margin. It may therefore be the case that the scenario described would lead operators to a more profitable structural model than exists today. Oil companies are consistently and acceptably profitable, despite being (literally in some cases) the ‘dumb pipe’ that operators are so desperate to avoid becoming. One of the reasons for the oil majors sustained profitability is clear focus on their role in the value chain – to supply the fuel that enables transportation, relying primarily on location, then brand and finally product innovation to compete. BP or Shell do not need to subsidise the purchase of a car in order to drive consumption of fuel because consumers are ‘hooked’ on it (it gets them from place to place) and there are many credible car manufacturers an

Value drivers for telecoms retail

I've been doing a really large number of driver trees recently - we've taken to using them on every project to get really into the guts of value creation for businesses and thus decide where to focus initiative development (How To Win, if you're keeping score). Anyhow, I had to pause for thought recently to work out how to represent the subscription aspect of telecoms retail for a client. Since it took me a minute, I thought I'd share... its lack of elegance suggests that its not quite right, although it was enough to demonstrate that there was a certain lack of coverage in the initiatives that my client was pursuing and thus spark a debate. Enjoy.

Chief Strategy Officers II - Career Development

Here's a follow up to my earlier post on the starting point of Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) careers in the FTSE 100 and S&P 500 companies - a visualisation of two steps in their careers: their first employer or job and the job they had before they got their current position. Lots of work went into this... so any insights that you glean from the visualisation would be great to hear about :). The CSO is a crucial strategic role on the executive (!) and the owner of the tone and philosophy of decision making across much of the business, knowingly or unknowingly. Scrutiny of their experience in defining the process and language of strategic management is therefore appropriate not just amongst their executive peers, but in my view amongst shareholders. The days when being very smart and able to analyse large amounts of data were enough to be a CSO are basically gone... has the profession moved on enough to cope?