Teaching how to make strategic and implementation decisions with limited information.
The February 4, 2008 Business Week included this story "The case against Case Studies" about how Glenn Hubbard, Dean of Columbia business school was not happy with the traditional case study and was experimenting with what he calls "decision brief" which requires making decisions with less information.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's, when I ran the GE Crotonville's Manager Development Course, a four weeks program and all of the strategic planning programs, I recognized that case studies were inadequate to teach strategic thinking and decision making and so I created an "in-basket/ computer competitive simulation case" that forced teams of students to work to together with limited information to create viable strategies and test their decisions via a simulation. In fact, I used this approach with then Columbia Business Dean, Boris (Bob) Yavitz, at the two week strategic planning program at the University's Arden House executive center in the early 1970s.
This approach created competitive business teams..consisting of a General manager and all of the key functional managers (engineering, marketing, finance, human resources and manufacturing) and split the data up among the team. The GM received information typical of the what a GM would get, the engineering manager received his type of information and so on. This forced the team members to share information, integrate and communicate among each other and use the "strategic thinking tools" we were teaching. In addition, the team could purchase additional information for a fee, if they wanted to...some of which was useful and other not so useful. Just like the real world many of the expensive studies are not very useful, while others are very helpful.
During the stimulation, the teams had to make decisions and were given quarterly results, which included some additional information. At the end of program the teams had to present their strategies and results to a simulated board of directors and were evaluated based on the quality of the strategy, their presentation and the simulated financial results.
The program was very successful in all regards. The students learned the art and science of strategic thinking, they learned how to integrate and communicate among each other, as well as to make assumptions, decisions and see if the financial results. If the team didn't manage their cash well, they could go bankrupt. Many teams, led by senior executives, went bankrupt and were not able to make decisions with limited information.
I don't know if this type of simulation and "in-basket" exercise is still being used at Crotonville, but it was highly effective at the time. Maybe, Dean Hubbard might find it useful to study its effectiveness in the Arden House programs and see if would complement his latest new case study approach.
Bill Rothschild, author of Putting It All Together- a guide to strategic thinking, which summarizes the art and science of the concepts and approaches used at GE and many other successful companies.. Learn more by visiting: www.strategyleader.com.
In the late 1960's and early 1970's, when I ran the GE Crotonville's Manager Development Course, a four weeks program and all of the strategic planning programs, I recognized that case studies were inadequate to teach strategic thinking and decision making and so I created an "in-basket/ computer competitive simulation case" that forced teams of students to work to together with limited information to create viable strategies and test their decisions via a simulation. In fact, I used this approach with then Columbia Business Dean, Boris (Bob) Yavitz, at the two week strategic planning program at the University's Arden House executive center in the early 1970s.
This approach created competitive business teams..consisting of a General manager and all of the key functional managers (engineering, marketing, finance, human resources and manufacturing) and split the data up among the team. The GM received information typical of the what a GM would get, the engineering manager received his type of information and so on. This forced the team members to share information, integrate and communicate among each other and use the "strategic thinking tools" we were teaching. In addition, the team could purchase additional information for a fee, if they wanted to...some of which was useful and other not so useful. Just like the real world many of the expensive studies are not very useful, while others are very helpful.
During the stimulation, the teams had to make decisions and were given quarterly results, which included some additional information. At the end of program the teams had to present their strategies and results to a simulated board of directors and were evaluated based on the quality of the strategy, their presentation and the simulated financial results.
The program was very successful in all regards. The students learned the art and science of strategic thinking, they learned how to integrate and communicate among each other, as well as to make assumptions, decisions and see if the financial results. If the team didn't manage their cash well, they could go bankrupt. Many teams, led by senior executives, went bankrupt and were not able to make decisions with limited information.
I don't know if this type of simulation and "in-basket" exercise is still being used at Crotonville, but it was highly effective at the time. Maybe, Dean Hubbard might find it useful to study its effectiveness in the Arden House programs and see if would complement his latest new case study approach.
Bill Rothschild, author of Putting It All Together- a guide to strategic thinking, which summarizes the art and science of the concepts and approaches used at GE and many other successful companies.. Learn more by visiting: www.strategyleader.com.
posted by TheStrategist @ 10:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home