An emerging sphere within the business decision making context is the non-linear and dynamic rise of information networks that proliferate on the internet and mobile phone; through various social media channels or information aggregators that, if used properly, are powerful tools in the strategic formulation and subsequent implementation of diversification imperatives that collectively defines Organisational DNA.
A key focal point in competitive strategy is the management of ‘cost leadership’ which is highly contingent on how it can be mimicked to streamline efficiency to enable organisational practices and processes to foster a) knowledge management and b) value management in the organisational system.
My level of insight into the ‘knowledge management’ spectrum of organisational systems is that there exists two levels of distinctively attributable knowledge sources – the first being ‘tacit’ knowledge and the other known as ‘explicit’ knowledge. Both of these knowledge sources in this digital age are freely available either through aggregation software (such as one I use NetNewsWire) or direct-social-media such as Twitter and LinkedIN Groups.
Tacit knowledge is embedded deep within the organisational code from the genesis of the corporation – something that evolves with astute and experienced leadership opposed to ‘explicit knowledge’ which is emergent that often coalesce through the interaction of some or all participants in the system (whether from front-line or middle-office functions).
To quickly assess whether the right type of knowledge management is taking place in the organisational setting; one needs to immerse their intellect into a framework that not only aims to define management by objectives; but also one that fosters the sense of learning that is often an overlooked dimension when formulating strategic innovations.
This framework should not be reconciled in isolation but in tandem with established strategic management techniques such as The Boston Consulting Group Matrix which is re-factored into what I call the ‘microarray-model’ of organisational learning.
Evidently, as the ‘Learning Organisation’ tests its forecasts as a function of time and hones its competitive advantage, it can likewise digest its mindset in the ‘stars’ plane which indicates that the organisation is positioned well to capitalise on some imminent opportunities in its environment and subsequently capture these opportunities which exist, but its only at an aggregate level i.e. not investing its full organisational capabilities in this domain as doing so would deplete the benefit of marginal increases to induce capacity.
The flip side of this spectrum – which is also representative of the ‘start-up’ challenge is that the organisation is ‘premature’ in its maturity lifecycle (finance folks would attribute this as the ‘seed or angel funding’ challenge) and is thus positioned on the ‘question marks’ spectrum of the plane on the right – which is indicative of the appreciative foresight into capturing a myriad of opportunities that will be conducive to the organisations growth; but the likelihood of penetrating markets for revenue is relatively low due to a lack of captured market share (the niche market problem).
This paints two diametrical scenarios – or a ‘mystery of the middle’ type of scenario – where the start up organisation is trying to formulate its competitive strategy in the face of a plethora of unique opportunities but the incumbent is well developed and armed with a ‘distinctive competence’ to scope and deploy its resources to capture the market in question; which leads to lost opportunities and a possible alienation of the startup’s ambition to integrate quick wins due to their inability to scale to the incumbents size – a clear cut definition of the premise that defines the failure and potential ‘value-creation’ aim of the startup.