Strategic Management

Welcome to the Turbulent High-Tech Global Knowledge Business Environment.

We believe all roads lead to Strategic Posture.

Translates into:

Turbulence,
Strategy,
Capability
and Change
determines
Growth
and Profit
at scale
over TIME.

We help you plan/implement your Strategic Posture to answer four questions:
1. Where we are now?
2. Where do we need to be?
3. How do we get there?
4. How do we lead/manage transition, resistance and/or support to change?

Snapshot of the practical paradigms and principles we help you apply to balance, integrate and differentiate operational and strategic behaviors.

Our practice is from the general to the specific and vice versa at scale.

Helping you audit, diagnose, train, plan, and implement for your future strategic decision making.

Click to view list

The end product of strategic decisions is deceptively simple; a combination of products and markets is selected for the firm. This combination is arrived at by addition of new product-markets, divestment from some old ones, and expansion of the present position.
H. Igor Ansoff (Father of Strategic Management)

Birds eye view of what we do. (soundless 40 second video)

Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things .
Peter Drucker (Father of Modern Management)

We are a team of multi-disciplinary strategists; transforming knowledge into action through coaching and counsulting in Leadership and Management.

Our team's experience and expertize will partner with you to achieve effective, efficient and equitable performance.

Management is, above all, a practice where art, science, and craft meet.
Henry Mintzberg

Helping you reconstruct your model of reality.

Overview
Engagements
Feedback
Research
Strategic Alliance

Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.
Peter Drucker (Father of Modern Management)

We are a knowledge based firm; a strategic management think tank and thought leader in turbulent business environments. We apply knowledge, experience, expertise, imagination and will to solve problems. Solutions are for achieving exceptional, effective, efficient and equitable performance for growth and profit. Our scope is local, regional, national and international.
We customize methods that are based on digging in depth until the cause is clear and the desired effect is within grasp. We test/build (quantitatively, qualitatively or mixed) on existing and new knowledge to create success. We address the current and future "turbulent, multi-ideological and multi-disciplinary complexity" of the firm at scale. Therefore, we help you plan and/or implement for growth and profit in turbulent business environments.

If you look for perfection, you'll never be content.
Leo Tolstoy

Some of the participants in consulting and coaching where from: A.H. Robins Ltd., Abu Dhabi Combat Club, Amdahl International Management, Anderson Corporation, Arab Monetary Fund, BAYER, Boehringer Ingelheim Zentrale, C.G. Jensen A/S, CEPSA, Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Computervision France, CONEX, DEC Digital Equipment GMBH, Delta Airlines, Electro-Oil AB, Ernst and Whinney, FARMITALIA C ERBA SPA, General Electric, Honeywell Europe, HUELS AG, IBM Brazil, IBM Mexico, IBM Nederland, IBM New York, ICI PLC, INFOTEK A S, Institute for Banking Studies Kuwait, Jeumont-Schneider, Johnson Wax, KONE, Kuwait Finance House, Lockheed Martin, Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Minolta Camera Handles GMBH, MUTATIS, NOKIA, Oeberg ODC, Oy Rastor AB, Pearl River Investment Company, Philips SPA, Sandoz AG, Shell, Sony Mexico, Texas Instruments France, UNI Forsikring, UNISYS Belgium, Unilever, United Nations, United Trading & Services, US AID Middle-East Education, US Navy, US-China Chamber of Commerce, Westinghouse and much more, plus empirical research findings from over 2,100 companies.

Feedback from participants, listed below in three categories:

Note: Unfortunately, some of the participants in consulting and coaching with a feedback fluctuating between dismissal, rejection and denial are not reported.

Strategic Posture vs. Financial Performance
BY Dr. Dan Kipley, Dr. Alfred Lewis and Dr. Orlando Griego

Dan

Alfred

Orlando

Collected Data is Presented with Utmost Confidentiality

Introduction

Over the last thirty years researchers have developed analytical tools that systematically attempt to establish a firm’s future competitive position and future potential of the industry in which it competes. Many of these analysis tools utilized positioning matrices to depict the firm’s relative position based on two variables such as market share or growth rate. As researchers began to understand the importance of internal and external factors, the analysis tools were enhanced to enable management’s deeper interpretation of the firm’s position. H. Igor Ansoff further contributed to academia and industry with his Strategic Success Paradigm. Extensive references are available for your review, which amounts to 2,100 cases in 17 countries (link).
This research is an extension of an earlier article published in 2015 and provides contemporary empirical evidence of strategic posture analysis and its relationship to return on investment (ROE) and return on assets (ROA). The study analyzed 61 (list Below) publicly traded firms in various industries including retail, technology, manufacturing and the service sector.

This research is an extension of an earlier article published in 2015. It provides empirical evidence of strategic posture analysis and its relationship to financial performance. The study analyzed 61 publicly traded firms in various industries including retail, technology, manufacturing and the service sector to determine if a relationship exists between the firm’s strategic posture and key performance indicators, namely ROE and ROA.

Theory

This Study was based on Ansoff's Strategic Success Paradigm
“Optimum performance occurs when turbulence, strategy, and capability match each other.”
H. Igor Ansoff (Father of Strategic Management)

Strategic Posture Analysis is a tool invented by Dr. H. Igor Ansoff. It is a descriptive and prescriptive tool used to measure the size of the gap between turbulence, strategy, and capability.
Previous and current research findings indicate that there is a strong relationship between the firm’s strategic posture and financial performance. This study addressed the three main variables, namely;
1. environment measured by level turbulence (T),
2. strategy (S) measured by level of aggressiveness to respond to turbulence,
3. and, openness level to measure capability (C) for supporting strategy.
The difference between T, S and C produce a STRATEGIC GAP.
The levels are determined using a five point interval scale, ranging from 1 as very low to 5 as very high, or respectively repetitive to surprising. The formula is: Strategic gap = ((T-S)+(T-C))/2. A small strategic gap (T, S and C match) results in higher ROE and ROA potential.

Sample QUESTIONNAIRE and Data Source

The strategic posture analysis questionnaires (sample provided below) contained 62 questions as follows:
1. environment 14 questions,
2. strategy 13 questions,
3. and, capability 34 questions.
The study used financial measures from the firms public record (10K) and they are the standard:
1. return on investment (ROE) = Net Income/Equity,
2. and, return on assets (ROA) = Net Income/Total Assets.

Sample Questionnaire
(N=61 Companies)

Data Source

Findings

Research findings indicate that there is a strong relationship between the firm’s strategic posture and financial performance. Higher ROE and ROA materialized when environment, strategy and capability matched each other measured by the strategic gap. The difference between Turbulence, Strategy and Capability produce a STRATEGIC GAP.
Group 1 with the smallest Strategic Gap, followed by Group 2 and Group 3 had the largest.
The study used financial standard measures from the firms public record (10K), namely:
1. return on investment (ROE) = Net Income/Equity,
2. and, return on assets (ROA) = Net Income/Total Assets.

RESULTS
The smaller the strategic gap the higher
ROE and ROA. (Group 1 with the smallest Strategic Gap and Group 3 had the largest.)