Most often when faced with a decision, we want to gather as much data as possible in order to reach the best conclusions in our decision-making process. This much is perhaps rather obvious. But what do we do when there is missing data? It will then be tempting to discount whatever is missing as simply unavailable for the decision-making process, but perhaps we should be asking why the data is missing, and what we can learn from that fact.
I enjoyed a recent post on Wally Bock’s Three Star Leadership Blog about innovation â€” Wally contends that ideas are easy, but innovation requires work. He quotes Robert Tucker, who said: “Anyone who has ever taken a shower has had a good idea.” He may be right… I had a great idea in the shower today too… and a good strategic one at that. The ground he covers from there is to illustrate how some ideas die on the table, and others get killed.
I have a number of partially-completed blog posts, and this is one I was reminded of while reading Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom’s The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations (www) over the past week… I hope to say more about the book in due course, but for now it has me thinking about the strategic flexibility of flat “leaderless” decentralized organizations vs. the relative inflexibility or unimaginatively of their monolithic counterparts. It’s an examination of piracy that had me thinking about something from Michael Raynor‘s book, The Strategy Paradox: Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure (and What to Do About It).
John Moore at Brand Autopsy notes a case of one ad agency hiring another to solve its branding issues.
According to Ad Age, Campbell-Mithun, a Minneapolis-based advertising agency thatâ€™s been around since the 1930s, recently hired another ad agency to solve its branding/positioning issues. (Yep, you read that right…)
Unable to define or articulate why Campbell-Mithun is indispensable and how they go about helping improve the branding/marketing efforts of their clients, Campell-Mithun hired Cue, a Minneapolis-based ad agency, to solve for these communication issues.
I previously linked to an interview with Michael Raynor, author of The Strategy Paradox: Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure (and What to Do About It). I think Raynor’s got something here, despite a bad review by John Moore.
Guy Kawasaki plays “Ten Questions” with Michael Raynor, author of The Strategy Paradox: Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure (and What to Do About It). Actually, the numbering of the questions at “10” is somewhat suspect, but the article is an excellent read.