Replying to LO28656 --
It bears mentioning that the activity system concept as put forward by
Porter and Siggelkow (What is strategy, HBR; Evolution of Fit, ASQ)
address the idea of strategic alignment of firm level choices or
"activities"
This work is grounded in the idea of activity complimentarity
(flexible manufacturing increases the marginal profitablity of a large
product line, and vice versa; whereas adding one without the other
decreases performance), and the concept of tradeoffs (flexible
manufacturing is costly; many customer segments can not be served
profitably)
This suggests that the context of firm's choices is critical, and that
sustainable advantage can only be created through firm-specific
interactions, routines, and resources. This discounts the "best
practice" view- how can a generic best practice create any competitive
advantage or fit better within one firm than another?
The 7S's could be a useful laundry list of things to consider when
assessing internal "fit" or coherence, but I'm not sure any stock
framework can get to firm-specific insights. Another alternative is
to simply lay out the firm's value chain and analyze the tradeoffs and
distinctive choices made at every major step (R&D, Manufacturing,
Marketing, Sales, HR, etc)
Regards,
Mac Hodell
hodellm@wharton.upenn.edu
[Host's Note: Mac, thanks for your addition to this thread from 2002.
For those interested, here is the msg to which Mac is replying.
.Rick]
>>Subject: McKinsey 7-S Framework LO28605
>>Several years ago I posted a note on LO which also enquired about the
>>research base for the 7S model. I got zero response. ... The nearest I
>>got to the whole mystery of the 7S origin was an apocryphal story about
>>people at McKinsey trying to keep Tom Peters under control during a
>>one-week workshop.
>>
>>BOB WILLIAMS
>
>Bob,
>
>No brilliant insights. I had forgotten about this model. The spider
>diagram always looked cool, but I no longer have any copies. As I
>understood it the knowledge base to support it was very similar to what
>Peter's described in a recent Fast Company article on "In Search of
>Excellence." It was mostly experience based (personal) and they needed
>some type of a framework to talk (and hopefully think) holistically. The
>model evolved through several iterations and was published in the
>Quarterly. I went back to McKinsey's website after reading your post.
>No easy to obtain information is available anymore, they no longer
>reference the model. As I recollect the model was somewhat short on time,
>technology and people as key strategy components.
>
>There were certainly no scientific studies done on the model. Which does
>not bother me. It was useful in its day. Sometimes we forget how
>recently planning evolved as thinking thing. It was really in the 1970's
>that people began to talk/think about strategic planning. And, of course
>the initial efforts were longer on programatic stuff and somewhat short on
>"thinking." Which is a very normal thing for people to do as they try to
>figure stuff out and share the knowledge.
>
>Best wishes,
>Michael Bremer
--"Hodell Martin" <hodell.martin@bcg.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.