Long Range Planning,Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 75 to 91, 1991
OO 75
Printed in Great Britain
Making Strategy Work
William D. Giles
‘If it were possible for an entire organization to sing the same
song from the same song sheet and face in the same direction
at the same time, that would be a powerful force. If the song
was good, the direction true and the timing right, it would be a
very serious threat to competitors.’ This paper describes a
process that can make this a reality for almost any organization
willing to make the commitment. The process of strategic
planning and its subsequent implementation are capable of
producing not just the plan but also a powerful educational
tool capable of advancing the strategic understanding of the
entire organization.
Most companies understand the need for strategy
and its effective implementation. However, even in
the best run organizations, implementation often
falls far short of the goals that the corporation has set
itself. In parallel with this, many companies invest
heavily in developing their organization to cope
with change. Despite this many would still view the
difficulties in this, the people area, as the greatest
constraint to strategy implementation.
However, a few companies are beginning to realize
that the processes of planning and implementation
are, themselves, the most powerful vehicles to bring
about this organizational development. The gap
that this closes can be visualized as the bridge
between corporate aspirations and the values and
attitudes of its people. The key that locks the pieces
together is ownership. Figure 1 describes the com-
ponent parts.
Less attention is paid to the human aspects of
ownership than to the more technical process of
strategy generation. Yet, without ownership there
can be no effective implementation.
A Common Mistake
Implementation relies heavily on strategy for its
start point. However, management jargon has
already subverted the meaning of strategy by
confusing it with objectives or tactics. A simple
William D. Giles is a Director of the Strategic Marketing Development
Unit.
0024-6301/91$3.00 + .
0 1991 Pergamon Pressplc
definition, that removes the ambiguity of these
terms, will be used here. Figure 2 demonstrates the
different facets of these three terms.
For strategy to be effective it must be visible,
consistent and have a direct bearing on the customer
competitor interface. The two prime characteristics
of any successful business are its understanding of the
long term nature of strategy and its ability to create
or blur positioning images in the customer’s mind.
This distances it from objectives, which are internal
to the organization, invisible to the customer and
frequently change to reflect new situations. Whilst
tactics, which are transient and short term, can do no
more than reflect the strategy which created them
for short periods only.
All this puts great pressure on determining the best
strategy, implementing it effectively and sticking
with it. As markets become more competitive and
customers more fickle, the traditional performance
yardstick of measuring performance against objec-
tives, becomes progressively less helpful. Successful
companies in the 1990s will be those who choose the
right strategy and then pursue it relentlessly.
Whenever there is a shortfall in business, tradition-
ally, the question has been: ‘. . . will we still meet
our objectives ?’ The question that will be asked in
future is: ‘. . . will our strategy hold?’
When viewing the future, the conventional ques-
tion has been: ‘. . . what if ?’ This question will
become: ‘. . . how will we react?’
Failure in Implementation
Implementation is concerned with putting strategy
into practice. It can be described as the execution of
tactics both internally and externally so that the
organization moves in the desired strategic direc-
tion.
Poor implementation frequently brings the entire
plan into disrepute. Invariably, it is the process that
created the plan, and not the plan itself, that is the
root cause.
76 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1991

Figure 1. The link between planning and culture

Objectives Strategies Tactics

l The Business l The Method of l The Immediate

Destination Achievement Activities

l Long and l Long Term l Short Term

Short Term Onh/ Only

l May Change l Should Rarely l Can Change

Change Often

l invisible l Image Maker l Temporary

and Positioning
Strength

Figure 2. The importance of strategy

The majority of implementation failures fall into strategy. Some so called strategic plans are little
three categories which can be seen as a decision more than a mixture of budgets and management
making tree in Figure 3. wish lists.
The strategy is itself not implementable
It is worth exploring these three reasons in more
When strategy is formulated away from the
detail :
interface with customers and competitors, the
The strategy is not strategy at all chance of the ivory tower perceptions of
Objectives or tactics are often mistaken for the planners matching the market place reality of
 Making Strategy Work 77

No
B__)
No
Implementation

No
- _- ) Lipservice
Implementation

2% )
Counter
Implementation

Figure 3. Three reasons for failure

the implementors is slim. Strategy generated in reality, four scenarios in Figure 4 have been drawn
this way, suffers from extremes of broad genera- based on different combinations of these two
lity and over-complication. aspects.
The strategy is not owned by the implementors This compares sophistication (the competitive
Poor internal communications generally takes the excellence of strategy) and ownership (the organiza-
blame. Yet proper ownership is rarely achieved tion’s appetite for implementation) and produces
without the implementors playing some part in four styles of planning.
choosing their own direction.
Cavaliers-Low ownership and weak strategy
The front line of the organization, when left to the Planning is an annual ritual for the satisfaction of
ambiguities of interpreting weak strategy on their senior management. The plan is thick and glossy,
own, often find little to implement at all. Of the full of internal budgets and lengthy to do lists that
three negative outcomes in the diagram above, demonstrate frenetic activity. The whole process
counter-implementation is the most serious. Inter- may even be delegated to a junior member of staff
nal political forces can head off the real implemen- and rubber stamped by senior management later.
tation and the organization may actually move in Few would admit to being in this hapless state
the wrong direction as opposed to no direction at although many are.
all.
Pundits-Good planning but low ownership
Organizations that build large planning depart-
ments inadvertently end up here. Plans are done
Ownership vs Sophistication by experts and not shared with those who will
eventually implement them. Specialist planning
Large corporations invest considerable energy in departments are recruited to do the job that
sharpening up their strategies because it is assumed belongs to line management. Strategic decisions
that increases in sophistication go hand in hand with become the prerogative of the planners. The plan
increases in ownership. Much of this energy is appears to bear little resemblance to the cut and
wasted when implementation fails. thrust of real life.

A research project at Cardiff Business School Missionaries-Ownership high and strategy

sponsored by Stratmar has shown that increases in improving
sophistication have little or no effect on ownership. The organization is beginning to move in the
To aid our understanding of this uncomfortable right direction and implementation is in full
78 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1993

High

Implementation
and
Ownership

Low * High
Strategy Sophistication

Figure 4. Corporate attitudes to strategy

swing. The entire organization knows where it is The Gateways to Success

heading. However Missionaries are at a transient
stage. Once ownership has taken root, sophistica- The rules for success are founded on four simple
tion follows almost inevitably without impairing observations :
implementation. Missionaries are only a short Better strategies do root automatically lead to better
leap from the Leaders position. Despite the implementation.Increasing investment in sophisti-
efficiency of this route to leadership, few organiz- cation without an equal investment in ownership
ations reach this stage because their preoccupation makes planning an ivory tower activity. The
with improving sophistication leads them inevit- planners become Pundits and implementation
ably towards the ivory tower of the Pundits. fails.
Leaders-Strategy sophisticated and ownership high Over-sophistication hindering ownership. Once a
This is where all companies would like to believe Pundit, additional investment in technical exper-
they are positioned. In reality, very few a’re. tise is unlikely to turn an organization into a
These companies are typified by sustainable, Leader. The behavioural investment that in-
competitive strategies that are well understood by creases ownership is different to the technical
the implementors who have, in their turn, played expertise that increases sophistication.
a part in fashioning them. Departmental and
Ownership makes implementation work irrespective of
functional boundaries have broken down. People
strategy. An organization can only reach the
work together in inter-departmental teams that
Missionary stage after significant development in
focus firmly on the customer for the good of the
behaviour and attitudes of its people. This will be
entire organization. Duplications and internal
effective irrespective of the level of strategy
competition is a thing of the past as the rewards of
sophistication previously achieved. Curiously,
effective implementation are shared by all. These
the more sophisticated the previously disowned
organizations are exerting significant influence on
strategy is, the more it may need to be reinvented
their customers and competitors.
in order to nurture ownership.
The appreciation of these four scenarios is helpful in Sophistication follows ownership. The only way to
determining how an organization can reposition becoming a Leader is by staying on the Mission-
itself in a more favourable area of the matrix. ary side of the direct route. This means that
 Making Strategy Work 79

A Missionaries

lmplementatior
and
Ownership

Strategy Sophistication

Figure 5. Gateways to success

ownership comes first and sophistication second, sophistication. The organization that implements a
in the later stages of development. This some- few basic ideas properly will always stay ahead of its
times means that senior management has to competitors who are swamped with sophisticated
conceal its impatience while the transition takes strategies to which the organization at large, pays
place. only lip-service.

The fact that these rules have been formulated in this

way, is no accident. Their rationale is firmly rooted
in everyday management practice.
If the organization does not own the basic strategy it
is asked to implement, it is futile to try to improve it.
It is more rewarding to concentrate on the organiza-
tion owning its own plan, however basic, than
having it disown somebody else’s highly sophisti-
cated work. Where the latter is the case, the most
effective way to regain this vital ownership may be
to let the organization introduce something of its
own. Whilst this is unlikely to be as sophisticated
initially, it will, at least, have a high probability
being implemented.
The organization at large must be allowed the
option (even though it is rarely taken in practice) to
dismantle the ivory tower for itself. Faced with the
daunting task of creating strategy themselves, the
implementors become more empathetic. Having
the courage to let this happen, is an important part
of the change process.
Of the two choices facing management, chasing
ownership will be more rewarding than chasing
The Challenge
Few companies possess a strategy generation process
that is sympathetic to the notion of mass ownership.
Even fewer companies have formalized implemen-
tation as a structured activity which places owner-
ship as the highest priority. Generally implemen-
tation exists as an ad hoc activity where the results of
failure are only realized after the event.
Thus the challenge can be broken down into the
three separate elements of Figure 6.
of
The Organizational Challenge
Strategy generation and implementation must
involve all levels of the organization. The output
from each level becomes the input for the level
below. In this way ownership cascades across the
entire organization.
The Strategy Challenge
Strategy must be generated within a process that can
accept many inputs from many differing manage-
ment disciplines. In addition, the strategy output
must be suitable as direct input to the implemen-
80 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1991

J7$IEEy
ORGANIZATION

A Process of Human Involvement

I, IMPLEMENTATION

A Formal Process
of Ownership

Figure 6. The triple challenge

tation process. Thus, most existing strategy is Each level has a different function, a different
unsuited to implementation. perspective and different responsibility. Thus, three
separate processes are required, each appropriate to
The Implementation Challenge the input and output of the level for which it is
The implementation process must create a forum designed.
where teams of implementors can take ownership of
the strategy by designing their own implemen- The aims of each process are distinctly different:
tation. In order that the implementors understand
Top executive: long term vision
the strategy generation process, they must be
allowed to inspect and challenge the logic by which Function, market or medium term strategy
the strategy was created. To do this successfully the product management:
two processes of strategy generation and implemen- Operational and front-line immediate implementation
tation must be seamless. management:

Thus the challenge of combining strategy gener-
ation with implementation in a continuous nrocess
1.
surrounded by the correct sequence of people
involvement is a massive undertaking. It requires
great patience and commitment.
The output from the top level becomes the input to
the next level and so on. Each level and each process
becomes more detailed and immediate than the level
above it. The overlap between the processes at each
level allows this transfer of ownership to cascade
down throughout the organization.

Considerable discipline is needed to prevent the

The Application of Good Principles
The key to applying these principles across an entire
organization is to match each of the different levels
of the organization to its own process. For the sake
of simplicity most organizations can be visualized in
three levels. This model can be applied to the entire
organization, a single business unit or a discrete area
of market responsibility. In essence, an organization
is a large number of pyramids, each partially
overlapping one another. Figure 7 describes one
such pyramid.
occupants of one level encroaching on the roles of
those below. The successful achievement of this
creates the right ownership environment at the
lower levels. It also encourages delegation of
accountability by the higher levels down to the
implementors, where the responsibility should
be-at the customer interface.
The Marlow Method
The Marlow Method is a process for formulating

Management and
Front-line Employees
Figure 7. The three levels of planning
and implementing strategies. Its structure in
Figure 8 is more comprehensive than conventional
methods.
The three tiers of the process map exactly onto the
three layers of the organizational pyramid. Each has
a different role and output. Each uses the input from
the level above to create a continuous seamless
process.
Goal setting requires special techniques to create
something which is genuinely visionary. This makes
it markedly different from conventional corporate
missions and objectives. It encompasses the entire
span of the business that is about to be subjected to
this new scrutiny.
The strategic level is more focused. It digs deeper
into specific priority markets and goes into con-
siderable detail to uncover the real competitive
issues. However its real advantage is the marketing
education it provides to participants, experienced or
not. It is divided into two parts to allow for separate
iterations. There are a number of formal iterations
within the process whereby outputs can be com-
pared with the visionary goal.
Implementation is by far the most powerful of the
three stages in the process. It should touch the entire
Making Strategy Work 81
organization. It relies for its input on the strategy
that is generated from the level above. This strategy
must be simple, unambiguous and in a format with
which the implementors can grapple. The logic of
each strategy must be traceable back to its source in
minute detail. This places the responsibility on the
strategists to produce clearly articulated, unambi-
guous strategies. This is the fundamental reason why
implementation cannot be treated on its own.
The Transfer of Ownership
Planning in this way is essentially a team occupation.
Each level of the process is undertaken by teams of
managers drawn from their particular level. Multi-
disciplined teams work best-spreading the owner-
ship as wide as possible. It is not enough, however,
to assume that ownership will automatically be
passed from level to level. There needs to be a well
organized conduit through which the transfer can
be formally passed. This is the role of the Mentor.
Each team, be it at the strategy or the implemen-
tation level, has its own Mentor. The role of Mentor
differs from the role of manager in several funda-
mental ways. Mentors, who are usually senior to
their team, act primarily as councillors and concilia-
tors. They may challenge, probe and question the
82 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1991

Figure 8. The structure of the Marlow Method

findings of their team but they may never dictate traditional processes are subtle. These differences can
answers nor lead the team towards their own pet be seen in the stages of the process as shown in
solutions. Their’s is the responsibility of carrying the Figure 10.
input down from the level above, and maintaining
the integrity of their team’s output back upwards. Each stage has a very special role to play:
Trigger strategy creation starts with a vision statement
The key to cascading ownership from one level to that clearly articulates the long term aspirations
another lies in the choice of Mentors. Each team at of the organization.
one level supplies the Mentors to the teams at the
Bench Mark existing knowledge and experience is shared to
level below it as Figure 9 shows. This has consider-
achieve initial consensus.
able ramifications in the choice of team members at
the strategy level, since each must be in a position Pencil ideas are formed into an embryonic strategic
capable of mentoring an implementation team. In Sketch direction, which, whilst unresearched as yet,
this way the integrity of the business goals are will form the hypothesis to be tested in
Codebreaker.
maintained and ownership from above becomes
overtly public. Codebreaker a replacement for the conventional audit, it
concentrates on interpretation and iteration to
Each team, under the guidance of its Mentor, may validate the hypothesis from Pencil Sketch.
challenge, realign or reject the input it receives from Blueprint the hypothesis, tried, tested and modified in
above as it proceeds. This creates a healthy environ- Codebreaker, is turned into a sharply focused
ment that promotes ownership. The output from strategic plan.
this scrutiny is fed back to the level above who in
Action Line this stage moves smoothly beyond the plan into
their turn may accept or reject. In this way each level implementation. It combines the techniques of
takes on the responsibility to pass actionable output project management with the strategic
to the level below. The accountability for imple- philosophy of the plan.
mentation is thus pushed down the organization
closer to the customer interface.

The Marlow Method vs Traditional Getting Started

The start point in any process which is designed to
Processes create an open innovative environment, is impor-
The differences between the Marlow Method and tant. Our method handles this with a statement of
 Making Strategy Work 83

Mentors Teams Process Reviews

Top Trigger
Executive

I Progress
Review

I I
Strategy Action Action
Team Line Teams Line
t- t-l
1 I

I Action
Line Teams t--
Individual
Champions
t-l
Results

Figure 9. The cascade effect of the process

the business goals of the organization in unambi- Sharing Experience

guous detail. This is the Trigger.
Another important step towards creating the right
Again, this approach, shown graphically in frame of mind lies in Bench Mark-the first step in
Figure 11, differs from the conventional corporate the strategy generation process.
objective, which tends to be a vague statement of
the past and present, extended into the future. The Management knowledge is without doubt one of
Trigger which is the only subjective part of the the richest sources of input most often denied within
entire process, is a blue skies vision of the future. It is the traditional process. In many organizations, a
essential that this goal lies beyond the current defensive ethic exists that deters managers from
comprehension of the organization. This will have a committing themselves to public statements unless
dramatic effect on the attitudes of the strategy team they reinforce the prevailing corporate wisdom.
as they grapple to find solutions later in the process. Controversial statements, based on intuition, that
Unless there is a gap to close, the intensity of the attack this wisdom cannot always be voiced in a
process and the need for innovation are unnecessayy. factual way and are therefore lost. These controver-
sies are, however, the fuel that sparks the innovation
The Trigger neither gives answers nor dictates for which the organization is so desperately search-
strategy. Its contribution is the framework within ing. Bench Mark is structured specifically to give
which teams work. The fact that the Trigger is recognition to intuition, experience and best guesses
visionary and therefore outside the immediate knowledge. It encourages the mutual trust and
comprehension of those who are tasked to run with sharing that is so fundamental to building manage-
it, is a healthy first step. It prevents the obvious ment teams. The process blends the disjointed
solutions of simply being able to do more tomorrow fragments that emerge into comprehensible pictures
of what is already being done today. It forces a new that can subsequently be validated. It reduces
approach and a different perspective. politicking, a frequent challenge to the conventional
process, and it unearths the real issues in a way that
In practice, the visioning part of the process may cannot subsequently be ignored.
span the tops of several business unit pyramids. This
creates a senior management forum, often at board
level, where consensus rather than competition and
business judgement rather than power and politics
The Imperfect Environment
become the tools of the trade. The logical format of traditional methods has done
84 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October
Goal Setting
Market I
Appraisal
Pencil Sketch
Strategy
I
Validation
Figure 10. The steps of the Marlow Method
more to hamper the recognition of sound planning
than any other single factor. The human brain is an
illogical workhorse, making great leaps of creativity
on the one hand whilst being caught in seemingly
endless loops on the other hand. This method,
designed around this illogical sequence of input,
follows more closely the path of the human brain. It
sets up information in a way that encourages the
creative leaps. It forces breakpoints in the endless
loops by identifying the contradictions. Finally, the
organization challenges its own dogma. The way
that the approach handles the conventional audit in
the Codebreaker section shown in Figure 12 is an
example of this.
This structure encourages iteration and tangential
thinking. Codebreaker is a sequence of iterations
that allows analysis, interpretation and strategy
generation to run side by side until a best fit can be
found. Without these vital ingredients, bad deci-
1991
Trigger
I
4
I
4
Blueprint
.
sions taken early on become compounded as the
process progresses. Without this rigorous iteration
and self-checking, such decisions might eventually
pass unchallenged and become accepted. Our
approach prevents this through its careful design.
Each step is an iteration of the previous step. The
output of Pencil Sketch and later Blueprint are
compared to the aspirations of the Trigger. The
implementation teams that orchestrate Action Line
revisit Blueprint and the work of the strategy team.
Earlier information is constantly being presented
alongside new inputs in a way that prevents
superficial conclusions being drawn.
Judgements and assumptions are encouraged. More
often than not teams surprise themselves with the
breadth and accuracy of their own knowledge. It is
an important part of the organization’s education
that strategy generation is based on intuitive
judgements, best estimates and reasoned opinions. It

Company
success
Turnover
Profits
Return
Share
Position
Image
Past
Performance
Today
Figure 11. The trigger as a starting point
is the very fabric of one organization that makes it
different from any other.
Successful Implementation
Without doubt Action Line is the most powerful
organizational tool of the entire process. However,
despite this, it cannot be used as a shortcut or stand
alone implementation process. It depends entirely
for both its strategic and human input on the output
of the strategy team above it.
Action Line converts the grandiose strategies and
their tactics into small steps of reality. It does this by
combining the concepts of strategic planning with
the techniques of project management in 12 basic
implementation steps.
The concept of Mentors within Action Line is
fundamental to the cascading nature of ownership.
Members of the strategy team group their tactics
based on similar skill requirements for implemen-
tation. They form Action Line teams from across
the organization and each becomes the Mentor to
their own team. This passes the strategic under-
standing down to the implementors whilst placing
responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the
plan on those who created the strategy.
Making Strategy Work 85
Expectations
incremental
Year-on-year
Approach
Planning Horizon Long-term
As the implementation tasks are worked out,
champions emerge from within the Action Line
teams to execute each task. This fixes accountability
at an individual level in a way that can be managed
within a peer group. The Action Line champions
become part of an unofficial organization that can
challenge the dogma of the official organization.
Thus a healthy appetite for change is created from
within, without making the cardinal mistake of
making change an end in itself.
Within the Action Line process, the implementation
teams have ample opportunity to challenge the
tactics they have been asked to implement. They can
do this through the strategy team, via their mentor,
who is charged with resolving such conflicts. It is
this freedom to reject rather than actual rejection
(which rarely happens in practice) that cements
ownership.
Not surprisingly, the way that many companies
operate falls far short of these demanding require-
ments. The reasons are complex. Time constraints
steer the organization towards quick solutions that
are often short-term and profit driven. This politi-
cises the process, obviating the importance ofproper
structure, rigour and iteration. Regrettably, there
are no short cuts to combining good strategy with
86 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1991

Pencil Sketch
Hypothesis
I

Market

Product

Distribution &,_&-,++q/

I
I

Communications )Anah/sisj + II -C [ Straiegy q i

I

Price

output to
Blueprint

Figure 12. The iterations

solid ownership in order to achieve consistent and
successful implementation.
The Method in Action
Case Study One
A large manufacturer of computers required a
process that would be common across the organiza-
tion to add a human dimension to its planning. An
easily understood, step by step process was required
as previous planning attempts had failed to gain the
commitment of the majority of the company’s
management.
Programme and time scales. Initially a meeting was
held with senior executives to select the priority
market areas for treatment. Each priority market
area was given to a senior executive who then acted
as a Mentor for that strategy team.
The Trigger stage of the process took about 1
month. Two half-day sessions were held with each
mentor, to create a strategic vision of the future,
choose the team and set a workshop timetable. A
total of 11 planning sets were started at approxi-
mately two monthly intervals.
The Market Appraisal stage of the process took 6
weeks to complete. This consisted of two 3-day
workshops held 2 weeks apart. The first workshop
covered Benchmark where existing knowledge and
experience was shared to achieve initial consensus.
The second workshop covered Pencil Sketch where
ideas were formed into a hypothesis to be tested in
Codebreaker. Each team prepared an initial findings
report and presented this to the senior executive
committee who had orginally chosen the market
area as a priority.
The Market Analysis stage took 4 months to
complete and consisted of seven 3-day workshops
held 2-3 weeks apart. The first five workshops each
covered one section of the Codebreaker. The last
 Making Strategy Work

two workshops were spent on Blueprint where the
hypothesis, tried, tested and modified in Code-
breaker, was turned into a sharply focused strategic
plan. The team finalized the plan and presented it to
the same senior executive committee for a major go
no-go decision.
The role of the mentors. Each mentor chose his own
team from people across the organization who he
considered had a positive contribution to make. A
typical planning team included a senior account
manager, a marketing manager, a technical service
manager, an engineering maintenance manager, a
production manager, a financial accountant and a
planning manager.
Each mentor presented their vision to their strategy
team at the first workshop to start the process off.
Thereafter, they attended only 1 day of each 3-day
workshop. This allowed the teams to work uninhi-
bitedly but kept each mentor informed and able to
act in his counselling role. Between workshops, each
mentor would sound out his senior colleagues over
the ideas of his planning team then gave this
feedback to the team at the next workshop.
Problems encountered. At first there was a certain
amount of scepticism to the process. The corporate
culture was typical of many IT companies-high
creativity but low on discipline. Wholehearted
support for the process developed as more groups
became involved in the workshops. Generally
participants found it difficult to explain to their
colleagues the process they had been through
because it had been a totally different experience to
any other outside programmes used by the corpor-
ation. However, as more people became involved a
common language sprung up which was one of the
original objectives in employing the process.
Aficts on corporate culture. The process created
groups of people around the organization that both
understood their problems-because they had spent
a lot of time thinking about them-and were
strongly committed to the decisions that had to be
taken. The teams, being trans-departmental had the
effect of uniting different disciplines within the
organization. Thus major structural changes could
be effected relatively painlessly from below.
Case Study Two
Market planning was virtually unknown in whole-
sale banking. The Merchant Banking and Treasury
division of a major international European bank
required both a business planning and organiza-
tional development tool that could move the
organization towards customer orientation
away from transaction orientation. The existing
method of planning was based on the fiscal cycle of
budgets and numbers. The plan itself was really an
action list without the necessary strategic backdrop.
A traditional bank culture existed where it was
believed that the future was driven more by interest
rates than an ability to choose the way it positioned
itself. It was a dealer mentality requiring instant
solutions and instant actions.
Programme and time scales. The business unit head
acted as mentor to a planning team of eight senior
managers. The Market Appraisal stage of the
process again took 6 weeks to complete and the
Market Analysis stage a further 4 months.
After the strategic presentation, Action Line, the
implementation stage, was embarked upon. A 2-
day workshop was held to break the plan into
implementable sections and to train each strategic
team member as a mentor. Each of these new
mentors took their part of the plan and formed a
team to implement it. Implementation was designed
to be complete within 1 year, of which the first
month was spent using the process to organize the
tasks. Subsequent quarterly reviews designed within
the process kept implementation on track.
Action Line consisted of two 3-day workshops
3 weeks apart. Each team created as many as 50
implementation tasks out of their part of the plan.
Team members took it upon themselves to choose
tasks that they could personally champion over the
coming year. Six such programmes ran concur-
on rently, each mentored by a member from the
strategic planning team. This stage culminated in a
day of presentations. Each team made a presentation
to the Strategic Planning team with the other
Action Line teams as the audience. The Strategic
Planning team responded by authorizing some tasks
whilst asking for more clarification on others.
Problems encountered. Very few problems were
encountered because the senior executive who
sponsored the program thoroughly understood the
rationale behind the process. He could therefore lead
his people through the inevitable vacuum that
ensued from time to time when breaking com-
pletely new ground such as this.
The hardest task was to persuade highly experienced
specialists from one discipline to think about other
people’s problems and solutions when working
together in the workshops.
The eficts of the process on bank culture. The process
started with a top senior executive who was the
business unit head. This expanded to eight senior
managers who created the strategy and was then
finally devolved to over 60 middle and junior
managers who formed the Action Line teams.
Within the business unit, all managers, irrespective
and of their status, discipline or experience became
involved in the process. This had a positive effect on
the strategic decisions made within the division
thereafter.
The most significant change was that employees
began to see their organization as their customers
88 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October 1991

saw it. Attitudes became less reactive and more
proactive. The bank became more discerning over
choosing customers rather than letting counter-
parties choose them. The result is a wholesale arm to
the Bank that enjoys more status in its market place
and earns more money for the Group.
The team members who had experienced the
process found that they had a higher standing
amongst their peers in the rest of the bank and were
able to talk with colleagues in other divisions in a
common language, thus spawning pan organization
projects that could not otherwise have been contem-
plated.
Results achieved. Sharp increases in profits and
returns were shown within a year of introducing the
process. The division was able to open up a new
customer base that changed its positioning from an
uncertain generalist to a serious niche player.
The successful implementation of strong robust
strategies will give any company a significant
competitive edge. However, it is the high level of
ownership that can be attained which provides the
sustainable advantage.
The beneficial effects of Marketing Kinetics are far
reaching and touch every area of the organization.
The first and most tangible group of benefits are
those that effect the business itself which are listed in
Figure 13.
The cumulative effect of these business benefits is to
make the company more competitive and more
profitable through a stronger position in its chosen
market place. This would not be possible unless
significant change had also taken place in the
organization itself. Thus the second significant area
of influence is the benefits that are accrued within
the organization which are listed in Figure 14.

The organizational benefits in turn are only realis-

The Benefits of Combining
Ownership and Sophistication
The approach is in reality an organizational de-
velopment process. Because of this, the changes that
take place are lasting and the benefits considerable.
able because significant behavioural change has
come about within the beliefs and attitudes of
individuals that make up that organization. These
are listed in Figure 15.
These benefits collectively describe the results of

The Business Benefits

l Crystalise and Validate Longterm Corporate Direction

l Better Revenue Streams and Greater Profits

l Formulate a Sustainable Competitive Strategy

l Increased Market Share of Chosen Segments

l Higher Investment Return and More Efficient use of Resources

l Major Marketing Emphasis in Areas of Greatest Strength

l Strongly Positioned Positive Image

l Development of New Products and Markets Brought Foward

l Reduced Vulnerability to Competitors Strategies

Figure 13. The business benefits

 Making Strategy Work 89

The Organizational Benefits

l Common Purpose and Understanding to the Entire Organization

l Genuine External Customer Focus - Market Orientation

l Strategic Dimension to De&on Making at all Levels

l Resolution of Resourcing and Ambition Conflicts

l Integration and Synergism Between Competing Businesses

l Organisational Structure that Follows Strategy

l Management Teams that Act and Manage Cohesiily

l Barriers Broken Down Between Departments and Functions

l Acceptable Challenge to Conventional Management Wtsdom

Figure 14. The organizational benefits

The Personal Benefns

l Execut’~e Ownership of Strategy and Implementation Tasks

l Satisfaction of Influencing the Direction of the Business

l Good Solid Understanding of Strategic Management

l New Skills in Understanding Markets and Competitors

l Confident Positive Attitude Towards Changes in the Future

l Recognition of Experience and Personal Opinions

l Acceptance of Accountabilii Through Task Force Approach

l Ability to Articulate the Logii of Corporate Strategy

Figure 15. The personal benefits

90 Long Range Planning Vol. 24 October
providing the entire organization with a sound
strategic education.
Such advantages are only realisable through the
team nature of the process. The participants progress
by doing it first and then learning the principles
later. This sequence intellectualizes the best practice
of intuitive management in a way that is relevant,
memorable and transferable. Traditional methods
of strategic education introduce the theory first,
leaving the participants in a vacuum to work out for
themselves how to apply it to their own particular
corporate situation. This differentiates the heuristic
learning approach of the Marlow Method from the
didactic approach of traditional teaching.
Different Strategic Problems
Some examples of typical situations are listed below.
All have one element in common-the need to react
quickly to changes in the market place.
Competitive encroachment.Companies suffering
from a rapid increase in competitive presence,
often from the global activity of overseas com-
petitors, look for a way to mobilize their entire
organization in a fresh offensive.
Market concentration. Companies with an internal
structure that competes with itself in gaining
business, need to create market focused multi-
disciplined teams to direct and implement stra-
tegy .
Leadership maintenance. Companies who are
already at the top of their industry, who realize
this position is transient, wish to invest some of
their success in distancing themselves from the
ceaseless advance of competition.
Aggressivegrowth. Companies who are looking to
dramatically improve their market position,
want to develop innovative strategies that can be
implemented within the resources and abilities of
the existing organization.
Companies that have recently
Post reorganization.
undergone major structural reorganization, face
the prospect of integrating new management
teams into a cohesive force.
Core concentration. Companies who have over-
stretched on too many fronts, look for ways to
redirect their organization’s efforts towards the
successful core business to achieve a better return
on scarce resources.
Approaching deregulation. Companies faced with
the deregulation of a previously protected market
place, have to take on board a hitherto uncalled
for competitive attitude and face up to harsh
reality.
Corporate senility. Companies which have slowly
slipped from their leadership position, realize the
1991
need to readopt a more external competitive
focus.
These categories are not mutually exclusive and
many companies fall equally into several. However
there is one thing that all the successful adopters
have in common. It is the acknowledgement that a
problem exists and the commitment to do some-
thing about it.
The application of different planning styles in a way
that has lasting behavioural benefits, is not a quick
process. The process takes time to cascade down
through the levels of management and permeate
across different business units. Typically the turn-
around time for an entire organization in these
situations is 2 to 3 years. However, the human
benefits become obvious in as little as 3 months and
the first tangible business benefits may be felt within
the first 12 months.
The Problems Encountered
The problems encountered by organizations adopt-
ing this approach can be categorized according to
their culture. In highly disciplined organizations,
such as banks, management creativity is lower,
whereas in the less disciplined organizations, such as
computing and telecommunications, management
creativity is high.
Highly disciplined organizations using the process
demonstrate excellent commitment but resistance
to change tends to be the main stumbling block to
creativity. It often requires monumental effort and
encouragement from top management to break-
down the cultural dogma so that creative thinking
can develop. The desire to introduce and effect the
changes will then follow automatically.
At the other end of the scale, organizations with low
discipline but high creativity demonstrate the
reverse situation. In these organizations, the greatest
problem encountered is the lack of sustained
commitment. However, once committed, the pace
is invariably rapid.
Once committed to the process, organizations from
both ends of the scale experience a permanent
behavioural change within their organization,
which becomes evident over a 3-year period.
During the first year of the process, the management
struggles with learning and adapting to the new
approaches. Often it is difficult to perceive the
results and benefits of their efforts. Once they have
carried the process through to implementation, the
permanancy of the new culture becomes obvious.
During the second year, understanding dawns and
enthusiasm for the process is confirmed. It becomes
explicitly tailored to an organization’s own situa-
tions. By the third year, permanent behavioural
change is embedded within the organization and the
 Making Strategy Work 91

techniques of the process become part of core +r Is there a senior executive who is prepared to
strategic management. The process may take a articulate his vision?
period of time to learn but on completion the whole
Sr Does this group have a real appetite to make a
organization is well equipped to react quickly and
significant commitment of time and effort?
effectively to changes in the market.
There are no short cuts. The approach is tough and
lengthy requiring considerable commitment from
Implications for Management the organization.
The adoption of the Marlow Method within an
organization normally revolves around one senior
executive who has the foresight to realize that long
term management education is the key to overcom-
ing the continuous short term reactions to market
forces that so bedevils Western progress. Reading List
A. P. de Geus. Planning as learning, Harvard Business Review.
The process requires a significant commitment of pp. 70-74, March/April (1978).
human resources in both time and effort. Rather
W. Fulmer and R. Fulmer, Strategic group technique: involving
than tackling the whole organization at once, faster managers in strategic planning, Long Range Planning, 23 (2).
results can be produced by introducing the process 79-84, April (1990).
into divisions who can be seen to be most in need. W. D. Giles, Marketing planning and customers policy, Management
The process will spread throughout the organiza- Decision, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 19-27, MCB University Press (1986).
tions based on its own reputation. W. D. Giles, Marketing Handbook, Third Edition, M. J. Thomas (Ed.)
Vol. 4, pp. 64-98, Gower (1989).
Senior management should consider the following: W. D. Giles, Marketing planning for maximum growth, Marketing
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 7, No. 314, MC0 University Press
* Where do the greatest opportunities for the (1989).
future lie?
N. Piercy and W. D. Giles, The logic of being illogical in strategic
* Which parts of the business are most at risk? marketing planning, The Journal if Marketing Management. 5 (i).
19-32 (1989).
* Can a team of managers be identified to own the D. M. Reid, Where planning fails in practice, Long Range Planning,
problems and opportunities? 23 (2), 85-93, April (1990).