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

Differences between Industrial and Digital businesses

Since I'm stuck on a Eurostar crawling through western France I thought I'd use the downtime to share this table I've made on the differences between Industrial and Digital companies across the main business functions. A strange insight into how my mind works... but hopeful a useful summary!

Strategic lessons from Debenhams

Yesterday’s news cycle brought with it the announcement that Debenhams, a staple of the UK high street, was now in the control of its lenders . This kind of news is sad for the employees of Debenhams and certainly for its shareholders, but it is also a good opportunity for reflection. A business that can trace its history back to 1778 may be about to cease trading forever. For leaders in the retail and associated consumer industries, now is a good time to consider what lessons can be learnt from Debenhams and what could be done to seize the opportunity presented by its passing. I’m thinking about the topic of strategic responses to emerging events at the moment because of the seeming inevitability of a recession this year or next, which will doubtless bring with it many similar situations. Before I get started, a disclaimer. I have no inside knowledge of Debenhams, I have never consulted for them, pitched to them or even met anyone in their management team. This post uses Debenham...

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...