| Wednesday, 30 July 2008 |
|
|
The 4 Ps of Service Strategy (after Mintzberg) are as follows: Perspective, Plan, Position and Patterns - at least according to ITIL v3. A Strategy can be any of these things or, indeed, any mixture of them.
- Perspective - in other words Vision - straightforward enough I think; we all need a Vision.
- Plan - again no problem here - a Strategy can be a Plan.
- Position - a marketing term - how do we position ourselves in the market - so far so good.
Now then ...
- Patterns - that seems an odd one doesn't it?
I have taken to thinking of Patterns as 'the way we do things around here' and so would be essentially related to organisational culture. That's what I thought it meant; and in ITIL, it probably does. However, I have taken a bit of trouble to find the Mintzberg reference.
Here it is ....
For Mintzberg (1994) strategy is a word that we define differently than we practice. For many, the definition of strategy is "a plan," but in actuality strategy appears as a pattern that blends intended responses with responses that emerge out of the changing environment. (The power and importance of emergent strategy increases when compared to the fact that less than ten percent of intended strategies are successfully implemented.)
Strategy may appear as a plan to some, but to others the term is used to describe a position, "namely the determination of particular products in particular markets" (p. 27). For others, strategy implies a perspective or concept of doing business. This last often speaks volumes to the organization's values and culture.
Less positively in his list of "p" terms to define strategy, Mintzberg suggests that strategy is used to mean ploy, or a "specific maneuver intended to outwit an opponent or competitor" (p. 29)
Source: New York: The Free Press, 1994 - Henry Mintzberg So, as you can see, in Mintzberg's mind the 4th P was actually Ploy. Now to me, that makes much more sense in terms of strategy. A ploy is an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by means of taking some identifiable action.
As you can also see, Mintzberg does refer to Patterns, but his meaning is slightly different to ITIL's, in that he is contrasting emergent strategy with planned strategy in his use of the term.
This does not represent a great problem, as such, but perhaps it does help a little to understand why people tend to struggle with the concept of Patterns being an intended strategy. |
|
ITIL Training
ITIL Foundation
ITIL Jobs
Service Desk
Service Management
posted by The White Dove Partnership @
15:35 |
|
| 2 Comments: |
-
Actually, “Ploy” is Mintzberg’s 5th P.
ITIL is spot on with Mintzberg's “strategy as a Pattern”, defined as a consistency in behavior over time. Organizations develop plans for their future and they also evolve patterns out of their past. The first is called an intended strategy (perspectives, plans and such) while the other is a realized strategy.
Mintzberg argued that few, if any, strategies are purely deliberate, just as few are purely emergent. All real-world strategies mix these in some way. An umbrella strategy, for example, means that the broad outlines are deliberate while the details are allowed to emerge through consistent behaviors within the outlines.
It’s understandable why ITIL left out the 5th P of ploy. Offering guidance on outwitting a competitor sets a somewhat disreputable tone.
Yes, ITIL trigger me into researching Mintzberg also. See: - The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning - Mintzberg on Management - Strategy Safari
But here is strangest effect: after taking the time to do research, I can see how less competent my IT executives are at “strategy setting”. I find myself drawn to the business-related roles rather than IT operational roles. A little learning is a strange thing.
-
Hi Mike
Thanks for your comments and the Mintzberg references. It looks like I have a bit more reading to do ;). I'll certainly blog about this again at some future stage.
Best wishes,
Will.
|
| |
|
<< Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
Actually, “Ploy” is Mintzberg’s 5th P.
ITIL is spot on with Mintzberg's “strategy as a Pattern”, defined as a consistency in behavior over time. Organizations develop plans for their future and they also evolve patterns out of their past. The first is called an intended strategy (perspectives, plans and such) while the other is a realized strategy.
Mintzberg argued that few, if any, strategies are purely deliberate, just as few are purely emergent. All real-world strategies mix these in some way. An umbrella strategy, for example, means that the broad outlines are deliberate while the details are allowed to emerge through consistent behaviors within the outlines.
It’s understandable why ITIL left out the 5th P of ploy. Offering guidance on outwitting a competitor sets a somewhat disreputable tone.
Yes, ITIL trigger me into researching Mintzberg also. See:
- The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning
- Mintzberg on Management
- Strategy Safari
But here is strangest effect: after taking the time to do research, I can see how less competent my IT executives are at “strategy setting”. I find myself drawn to the business-related roles rather than IT operational roles. A little learning is a strange thing.