Coping Mechanisms for Future Uncertainty

Frustrations abound over most organizations’ inability to effectively deal with future uncertainty, despite a general awareness of the sources of such uncertainty. How can organizations better counter unexpected external developments and surprises?

At the Frost & Sullivan Growth, Innovation and Leadership Executive Congress (San Francisco, September 15-16 2008) I asked 25 director, VP and C-level executives to identify the major sources of strategic surprise in their external environments. The key sources of surprise included:

• Rapid technology advances

• Unforeseen customer demands and needs

• Economic conditions

• Competitor activities and behavior

Perhaps as frustrating as the recurrence of such developments is the near-total lack of control companies have over them. Furthermore, there was widespread agreement that the time and resources firms spend on monitoring the external environment was grossly out of proportion with the time and money spend tracking internal information, further contributing to this “lack of control” feeling.

Similarly, the coping mechanisms companies use to deal with external surprise were fairly consistent -- but deemed, for the most part, to be ineffective. They include conducting ad hoc research studies, conducting one-off brainstorming sessions, and, sadly, doing nothing.

Conduct research. When faced with unforeseen external developments and an urgent need to take action, many companies retrench behind a facade of more information. Consultant studies, project-based research and other variations of data accumulation failed, according to the executives, to yield a greater understanding of the implications of the external events, nor a stronger sense about what to do. Instead, research and data gathering led to a state of “analysis paralysis” that further acerbated the feeling of frustration and hopelessness over companies’ ability to deal with external stimuli.

Brainstorming sessions. While the variety of strategy workshops, brainstorming sessions, and ideation groups tend to result in innovative solutions and approaches for uncertainty management, the transition from idea generation to implementation is weak. The main reason? Lack of clear ownership of response tactics targeted at addressing competitive environment surprise.

Do nothing. Not surprisingly, the least effective approach. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for companies to ignore external surprises in the hope that they will simply go away.

What, then, can companies do? I believe there are three ingredients to maintaining an effective posture against future competitive uncertainty.

Avoid -- or at least minimize -- surprise in the first place. Companies can begin to reverse the imbalance between external versus internal information monitoring by pursuing an indicator-based intelligence early warning system. Such a process helps organize external intelligence gathering against a set of indicators, or signposts of future change, for which significance has been determined and a strategic response already decided.

Develop flexible strategies. By employing techniques such as scenario-based strategic planning, companies can pursue strategic plans that have flexibility built in, allowing for rapid responses to unforeseen developments within a consistent overall strategic framework.

Link intelligence analysis with strategy implementation. Organizations must ensure that intelligence insights can quickly be communicated to those responsible for owning strategic response implementation. Keeping intelligence gathering and analysis several layers beneath strategic implementation will ensure that relevant insights never get the chance to influence strategic response.

Fly Swatting and Competitive Strategy

Recent findings from a Cal Tech research study, published in the journal Current Biology, and reported today by the BBC, reveals interesting parallels between the neurological make-up of houseflies and effective competitive strategy.

According to the BBC report, researchers think that the fly's ability to avoid being hit by a flyswatter is due to its fast acting brain and an ability to plan ahead. High speed, high resolution video recordings showed that the insects quickly work out where a threat is coming from and prepare an escape route.

"Most people will have experienced the frustrating experience of carefully attempting to swat a fly, only to swing and miss while the intrepid insect buzzes off to safety. The research suggests that the best way of swatting a fly is to creep up slowly and aim ahead of its location," the BBC reports.

The article goes on to note that over the years there have been different theories put forward to explain the fly's uncanny ability to outwit human attempts to swat them, but the research says it is about quick-fire intelligence and good planning. Specifically, the researchers discovered that, long before the fly leaps, it calculates the location of the threat and comes up with an escape plan.

Any strategic planner frustrated at his or her company's inability to best a nimble competitor can empathize with unsuccessful human efforts to swat flies. What sets leading companies apart? A fast-acting, nimble nature, sound planning, and an uncanny ability to spot threats before they impact their interests. As with the fly, quick-fire intelligence and good planning are required if any company is to develop keen instincts and an uncanny ability to avoid threats and leap to a new, safe position.

Surprise: Strategic Planning's Achilles Heel

Think of all the ways your company manages its internal information – sales forecasts, ERP systems, and so on. Now, think about the resources spent tracking external events. If your company is like most, it is spending a fraction of its time and effort on the external as it is on the internal. Yet, isn’t the greatest source of strategic surprise found in the events and conditions that lie beyond the corporate walls?

Strategy guru Peter Drucker once said, “ninety percent of the information used in organizations is internally focused and only ten percent is about the outside environment. This is exactly backwards. “ At the heart of Drucker’s comments is the notion of competitive surprise. By failing to monitor external information, companies raise the likelihood of being surprised by external developments.

Research conducted by the Wharton School of Business found that two characteristics of surprise affect companies’ responses: the source of the surprise and the company’s ability to react. The source of the surprise can be looked at in two ways – is it from unknown sources (for example, terrorism) or is it a familiar surprise, such as the timing of a recession? While known threats such as recessions can be anticipated better than sudden ones, successful companies are the ones that can adapt to both.

Surprise acts as a risk-multiplier. It’s bad enough for companies to be confronted with an external development that complicates their strategy. However, if companies at least have an indication that such developments could occur, they can focus on remediation. When such developments happen by surprise, the company’s ability to act in a thoughtful and effective way is compromised. Surprise takes what could be a manageable – though perhaps unpleasant – situation and makes it almost completely unmanageable.

Why do companies do such a poor job of keeping tabs on information that has the potential to cause severe strategic disruptions? I believe there are two causes:

• First, companies have a hard time knowing what to monitor. Given the wide range of industry participants and conditions that can be at the root of external threats, firms struggle just determining what is significant. As a result, many companies attempt to monitor everything, and build elaborate “environmental scanning” systems that crumble under the weight of the mountains of information they accumulate.

• Second, even if companies are able to isolate those external conditions that pose a threat, there are few effective means by which to monitor those conditions. News alerts and filters usually are not precise enough to capture information that is truly diagnostic for assessing a developing threat. At the same time, knowledge management efforts that attempt to encourage employees to share information and observations related to strategic threats have for the most part been a failure.

The solution, I believe, lies in a system that combines structured analysis of plausible threat scenarios with a simple and effective approach to information monitoring. Both elements form the basis of a business early warning system that can allow strategy analysts to provide credible warning of external threats, thereby minimizing the effect that surprise has on executives’ ability to respond.

The early warning indicators a company will monitor may include areas such as technology disruption, competitive shifts, regulatory changes, environmental factors, consumer or social changes, economic conditions and political influences. Analysts should collect industry information from a mix of published and human sources. The information collected can be further synthesized through an IT application designed for just this purpose.

As analysts determine that certain indicators are behaving in such a way so as to present a developing threat, they can generate early warning alerts that argue for a particular strategic option – ideally one considered during the scenario-planning phase. This way, the element of surprise is almost completely eliminated from the equation, and managers can focus on deploying a response.