Talk:Strategy/Archives/2011

Historic texts on strategy
Is The Practice of Everyday Life a "historic text" as such? If it isn't, then maybe the section title should be changed, or maybe a new section created? --Darrel Stadlen 22:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

stratoegy
I can't recall but is there a'Bold text'Bold text'Bold text'n archaic spelling of strategy with the use of the letter oethel so it would look like stratœgy?

No.Stormj (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikification
I made some "wikifications" to the article, although they are more accurately described as simple definition and grammar that the authors should attempt using themselves. Changes made:

- Removal of application list in lead paragraph, re-incorporation into its own subheading later in the article

- Deletion of repetition of ideas and an unneccessary quote in the "Interpretation" section

- Expansion of concepts in the "Interpretation" section

There appears to be an editor keen on paraphrasing what is already said; please discuss changes here in Talk before doing so.

I haven't removed the Wikify tag, there is still alot of bulk missing from the information. There also appears to be a contradiction between the lead paragraph and the interpretation paragraph; something to be sorted by a more qualified wikipedian than I.

Exemplar sententia 12:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies to 81.100.164.216, but the quote you provided (""Strategy is the battle plan for a better future" - Patrick Dixon - author Futurewise") is of a subjective nature, and doesn't provide any academically valuable information that might explain the concept of Strategy. It also appears to be promoting the book you specified. If you object to my removing it, please say so here and we can come to an agreement.


 * Exemplar sententia 11:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Long Shang
Doesn't The Book of Lord Shang fall under political strategy as well? As far as I know it's an older counterpart of Machiavelli's The Prince.

AD means "Anno Domini" - "In the Year of Our Lord", AC means after Christ I guess. Not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loaferman (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Strategy - a decission making tool or an explanation in hindsight ?
Strategy processes and tools have become an industry in itself and specially after the eminent thinking of Michael E. Porter. Reading text books today and consulting advices given we may wonder how companies managed to develop successful businesses before Porter. There is no doubt that there are some excellent tools that are useful to assist in strategic thinking and development, as five forces, SWOT, competitive advantage etc., but did successful companies like Microsoft, Coca Cola, MacDonalds, IKEA etc. happen because of of excellent strategic processes or some excellent business ideas driven by individuals with strong belive in their business idea and potential business model? Once the success is achieved it´s no problem to explain its success by established strategic tools, but for me this is explaining the history and not shaping the future. So, do really strategic tools help us in bringing succesfull business forward or will they always be too late ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terje Arnesen (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A worthy question; unfortunately, you will have to find an answer elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages

 Exemplar Sententia. 12:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Stategy and Uncertainty
Strategy is often confused with long-term planning. I think you should add that the strategy is needed only under face of uncertainty. The long-term plan or another plan ensures you reach the goal in any area if the horizon is certain. For example, when planning typical physical process one can foresee step needed to succesfully fulfill it. In war, chess or business you face uncertainty and you cannot know the result for ahead. That's where the need for strategy arises. Strategy should provide you some flexibility under choosen course of action so as to withstand the ups and downs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.251.194 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Operations/operational - the highest or the lowest corporate and military activity?
In several military texts, as well as in the article, the following chain of command arises: 1 Strategy, 2 Operations, 3 Tactics. Where tactics is below Operations. As a matter of fact: Operation deals with the campaign, ie. several battlefields, whereas tactics deal with each battlefield. Clearly, Operations is defined as being on a level above tacticts. An excellent military textbook on this topic is ''Pure Strategy: Power and Principle in the Space and Information Age. Everett Carl Dolman. New York: Frank CASS. 2005. p. 26''

But in several Business Administration Texts, for instance ''Operations Management: Producing Goods & Services. Donald Waters. Harlow: Addison-Wesley. 1996. p. 54'' the following chain of command is described: 1 strategic, 2 tactic, 3 operational. Where operational is below tactics and deal with the day-to-day tasks ordered by tactical commanders in the corporation, pretty much as the foot soldiers on the battlefield. In Business the word "operation" also have a second meaning: production of either a physical good or an intangible service. In this text "Operation" and "operational" is not the same thing as the former means production and the latter is a level in the command structure. Thus, "operation" can itself have strategic, tactical and operational levels alongside other parts of the corporation such as marketing/sales or accounting/finance. Clearly operations/productions can be both on the floor level ("operational") as well as on middle management (tactic), and highest management level (strategic).

Such corporate terminology of the command chain (1 strategy, 2 tactics, 3 operations) seem to be consistent througout the Bussiness Administration community. Now, the article links to the following site http://www.chris-kimble.com/Courses/World_Med_MBA/Strategy-and-Tactics.html where the command levels in business are described from top to bottom as: 1 Mission, 2 Policy, 3 Strategy, 4 Tactics, 5 Operations. Where 5 operations is the lowest, most day-to-day executional level. The word "Operations" in this context means exactly what the Business textbook author above meant when using the word "operational". In any case none of those meanings seems to conform to the high strategic level of operations the military are referring to when using the same word. One could argue that the military operations are indeed productions (business operations) of military services, but that is too far fetched since "operation" is a military level below strategy and one can also find so called grand-operation (operational strategy) which concerns logistics and all kinds of extra parameters around the actual military operation/campaign and is a level in between operations and strategy as is described by Dolman, p.26). Clearly, a production and a level is not the same things. Furthermore, one don't talk about producing tactics, so there is no need to use the word production (operation) for the level between tactic and strategy. Or, is there?

Clearly, there is a gap between how the Business Administration authors denotes "operations" or "operational" and what the military authors mean with the same words. Business people use "operation/operational" as the lowest level of execution, whereas military people use operations as the highest levels - and yet it is the same word!

To get the proper terminology straight, there needs to be a military word introduced to denote the lowest level of execution, a word to describe the actions of the particular soldier on the lowest executional level - the level the business people refer to as the "operational" level.

Also, the Business Administration community of scholars at Business Schools need to recognize that this confusion has emerged, get the terminology straight and get in line with the litterature on strategy, and thus perhaps merge the fields of military and corporate strategy as both seems to be concerened with the distribution and deployment of scarce assets and resources to reach specific societal states, such as dominating the market place or the political environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.227.51 (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)