Strategy is a hard nut to crack. No doubt in everyone’s use nearly all the time, people still tend to have little clues as to what »strategy« actually means. What it’s supposed to be. By stating: »My strategy is . . .«, people often want to express how they intend to proceed: the process, the procedure, the line of (future) action. Tactical considerations, too. Or techniques.
The strange thing about »our« strategy (that is, the strategy of e.g. an organization) is, however, that it doesn’t tell something about the »how« of future action. Basically, it doesn’t even tell the »what«. What it does contain, what it has to define, is the frame of future action; is the environment for future action to happen in, and the environment’s (supposed) preconditions; is the focal aspects to concentrate one’s resources on, that is, to »allocate« them; and is, of course, what one expects to be the outcomes, once the resources have been accordingly – and properly – allocated.
No doubt the latter aspect is a crucial one: To know what one expects allows for the organization to check: Did our strategy work? Has happened what we expected to happen? After we’ve focused and invested our forces in the fields we deemed the important ones? The ones to make the difference?
Have a quick look at our very simple, five-step model below.
»When things are complicated, there’s always someone to botch it.«* — Here’s a very simple strategy model, with only five questions.
(* As stated by »The Big Lebowsky« – know the movie?)
Two more sentences on strategy — from very different perspectives.
While we are quoting the great Halldór Laxness, we cannot keep from showing where he used to live — Halldór Laxness’ home, and car.*
(*Great thanks to the photographer: Jóhann Heiðar Árnason – CC BY – SA 3.0, https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5596174)