How would we characterize 2011?  There are a few indicators beginning to emerge.

o   This will be a year of mild growth and potential political grid lock

o   The free fall of 2008, 2009 is over, the shell shock of 2010 is going undiagnosed and untreated

o  Debt is on everyone’s mind

Despite the indicators there are two things can be done to ensure that 2011 will go better for us : have a plan and think strategically.

Have a plan

The most familiar paradigm for the planning process reads:   “If you fail to plan you  plan to fail”.  The common sense behind  this statement begins to break down when we test it and find that  100% of respondents are not planning to fail and yet only 25% have a plan.  What gives?  While there are many reasons we do not plan, let’s look at a very relevant reason coming out of 2010; it is very difficult to plan in an environment of uncertainty.

There is another paradigm on planning (coined by General George S. Patton ) that suits our current state: “When the situation is obscure, attack”.  How does this work?  When things are not clear the best way to organize resources and define a clear path is to attack or move forward.  Standing still is not acceptable in battle or in business.  Either move forward or retreat but have a plan and execute it.

Another reason we fail to plan is due to a misunderstanding of  what planning is.  At its core planning is simply taking what we know and assembling it into a course of action.  This is a matter of designing our own path versus having it designed for us.  If life is a stream then planning means placing a water wheel in the stream and tapping into its energy.  This beats drifting with the current and hoping against hope that there are no waterfalls ahead.

It is also helpful to know what planning is not.  It does not require one to predict the future or lock the business into an inflexible series of responses to changing conditions.  It does require knowledge of the status quo and an idea of how to deploy strengths and exploit opportunities.  Trees are good examples of long range plans; life means growth but not every branch will survive.

Another means to plan in uncertain times is to look at what has changed that we can plan for.  There are always changes at some level that can be analyzed for their impact.  What follows is a list of things that seem certain to have an impact on 2011.

o   Growth in GDP is projected at 2 ½ % to 3 ½ %

o   Consumers have reduced debt and are less likely to borrow

o  Banks have adopted stricter lending guidelines making capital harder to raise

o   Businesses have become highly risk averse

o   The population is aging, older consumers are not spending as freely due to losses that they cannot recover

o   More consumers indicated they payed cash for Christmas than ever

o   Cyber Monday was the biggest in history

The need to plan is urgent due to the level of uncertainty in the economy and in politics.  Taking coordinated actions will result in a better outlook and positioning for this year and the years to come.  Failing to plan is the first step in planning to fail.

Think Strategically

“Foresight or valor does not make a general invincible. It is the strategy that leads to inevitable victory”. — Sun Tsu

The great general makes an important point; the journey is a lot more successful when there is a destination in mind.  Thinking strategically is akin to preparing for a trip; knowing where we want to go and having an expectation of what we will do when we get there is vitally important.  Yes, the situation is obscured by very real concerns but there are at least these four things that can be done to improve our businesses now:

Know what you know.  Take time during this slower period of sales to evaluate the following things:

• Business processes
• Budgets
• Personnel
• Markets

Review (or initiate) a SWOT analysis to make sure we understand our strengths and weaknesses.  Thinking strategically means to concentrate on efforts that have the greatest chance of improving the business.  Taking time to evaluate and improve processes, analyze markets, update budget assumptions and develop personnel is the spring training camp of business.

Plan for growth

Making more money is a problem we all would like to have.  Failing to plan for how we will use an increase in revenue to improve our businesses is a problem that we would not like to have.  Here are some questions to get answered when creating a growth plan.

What products will benefit the business the most from increased sales?  Knowing the answer to this question will provide strategic direction to marketing plans.  There are many different approaches to the market, each with its own nuances.  Throw out assumptions based on 2007 and start with a clean sheet of paper.  Determine what products are the most advantageous to sell and craft an approach to reach those customers as a preference.  Design the product mix that works best and take strategic actions to reach those markets with an effective message.

How much capacity is available to accommodate growth?  Knowing the answer to this question will establish trigger points to initiate a response to increased sales.  Eliminate guess work and avoid being risk averse.  Failing to add capacity when it is warranted is not strategic thinking.

Where would capacity be added?  Answering this question will indicate what to do when more capacity is called for and provide guidance in the amount of investment required and help set ROI goals.

Manage risk

The only risks to be worried about are the ones not being managed.  Good risk management strategies assure that during times of economic stress the business shrinks by going on a diet instead of suffering an amputation.  Growth  creates risk when resources are invested, new markets are explored and new products launched.  It is also risky to become so averse to making changes that opportunities are ignored.  Knowing what you know will be the first step to understanding strengths and managing risks successfully.

Things to think about when managing risks in 2011:

Threats: Does 3% growth ensure survival?  Can the business accommodate  another year of flat revenue?

Opportunities:  What risk need to be managed in order to take advantage of opportunities?   What kind of money can be raised and what return is needed to justify an investment?

Design-in flexibility

Taichi Ohno (the father of the Toyota Production System), designed a system which has revolutionized the modern approach to manufacturing.  He developed his method during a time when the fledgling automotive industry in Japan was struggling to stay afloat.  His first challenge was to efficiently build a large mix of vehicles in the same factory and compete with western car makers who could dedicate entire factories to a limited number of models and versions.  His work is most noted for its impact on quality and efficiency yet he was as dedicated to designing in flexibility as he was in any other aspect of his work.

Building a culture that encourages change, adaptation and improvement is a cornerstone to becoming efficient and staying relevant.  It is more important than ever to think in terms of flexible responses to emerging challenges, especially when facing an uncertain terrain.  The Land Rover conquered Africa because it could adapt to the varying landscapes.  It was not the fastest, most comfortable vehicle and did not have huge load carrying capacity.  The operator could however take it anywhere on the continent with confidence that it was better suited to the variety of challenges than any other choice.

Designed-in flexibility impacts main street in different ways. It could mean creating multi-functional roles for personnel, developing multiple revenue streams, implementing culture change to encourage innovation and continuous improvement, or all of the above. Think in terms of a land rover versus a freight train.  Which one is better suited to traversing uncertain terrain and off road (out of the box) performance?

Conclusion

There is no silver bullet or crystal ball.  Building a winning team takes planning, thinking strategically, and managing the details.  There are uncertainties to face but effectively dealing with what you know and the changes that have occurred will equip our businesses to be winners in 2011.

An article from the BBC News entitled “Infomania, worse than marijuana” stated that a “study carried out at the Institute of Psychiatry found excessive use of technology reduced workers’ intelligence.  Those distracted by incoming email and phone calls saw a 10-point fall in their IQ – more than twice [the decrease] found in studies of the impact of smoking marijuana.”

Our brains do a poor job of multi-tasking.  Studies by MIT neuroscience professor Earl Miller show that we don’t really juggle several things in our mind and work on them concurrently; instead, the brain skitters from one activity to the next, much like the circus performer racing around to keep spinning plates balanced on the end of long sticks.

Multi-tasking overloads centers of the brain that specialize in specific activities.  If we read email while talking, we overload the brain’s speech center and slow down our ability to process information.  Multi-tasking while studying will send information to a brain center unsuited for long term retention and recall.  Professor Russell Poldrack of the University of California stated, “There is a cost to the way that our society is changing. Humans are not built to work this way.”  Professor Poldrack added, “We’re really built to focus.”

Multi-tasking sounds and acts like a drug.  It reduces our mental capacity, interferes with learning, causes changes in our ability to process information, reduces our attention span and is possibly addictive.  Why do we do it?  Because we live in a society which, as a rule, values activity over productivity and quantity over quality.

It is also very hard not to multi-task.  In an article for Harvard Business Review entitled “How (and Why) to Stop Multi-Tasking,” Peter Bregman wrote about his experience when he made a calculated effort to stop multi-tasking.  He reported good results, and listed six discoveries demonstrating benefits.  It required, however, a very deliberate process.  This points out how ingrained the habit is.  Does anyone recall when multi-tasking was the conscious choice?

One defense of the multi-tasking habit is that we are too busy not to keep several activities going simultaneously.  How could we justify concentrating on only one thing when there is so much demand for our time?   Unfortunately, multi-tasking makes us less productive and not more so.  It is estimated that we lose as much as 40% of our productivity when we multi-task, and that the quality of our work suffers.  Businesses love it because they think they get more value out of a stressed and highly loaded employee.  This leads us to a Steve-Ism: “Companies preach excellence and practice mediocrity.”  Much like the expectation of diners at an all-you-can-eat buffet, quality is not important when there is the prospect of quantity set before them.

In a previous post titled “Information Management is not Knowledge Management” we discussed the need to filter information sources to increase knowledge gain.   This means breaking the potentially addictive habit of multi-tasking.  By doing so, we can set ourselves apart and achieve an edge.  It seems that the key to becoming the smartest generation is to reduce the quantity of inputs, increase the value of those inputs, and, therefore, ultimately increase our understanding of them.  Oddly enough, this sounds like the effective habits that led to the greatest generation.

Interestingly enough, our bodies do not know the difference between physical and psychological threats.  When the “fight or flight” stress response is triggered it is the same for the anxiety we feel when looking at the checking account balance or if running from an attacker.  This response is very useful when confronted by danger because it heightens our awareness, quickens reflexes, produces added strength.  It can also provide the extra energy needed to succeed in career, sports, family crises and is an important driver in meeting goals.  Long term exposure to stress is also a health risk.

Chronic stress has been linked to all of the following health issues (from Helpguide.org):

• Increased blood pressure
• Suppressed immune system
• Increased risk of heart attack and stroke
• Infertility
• Accelerating the aging process
• Increased vulnerability to anxiety and depression

One of the unintended consequences of the emancipation of women has been their increase in cardiac disease and deaths from heart related illnesses.  It is unfortunately true that heart disease kills more women than all cancers and that since 1984 the death rate of women from heart disease has exceeded that of men.  This trend coincides with the entry of women into higher levels of responsibility at increasingly more stressful positions.  This is not a political commentary on women in the workforce, it is just an indicator that stress takes a deadly toll.

Could stress be the great health risk of our age? There is no American Stress Association to consult for the answer.  A survey of the many websites that concern themselves with stress provide a lot of helpful tips on how to manage it.  Three of the top ten prescribed drugs in the United States are anti-depressants and sleep aids which helps us understand one of the pathways taken when dealing with it.  Surprisingly little is said about examining its causes.  It seems self evident that the vast majority of stress is not due to physical danger and is therefore imminently controllable.  Why are the sources of stress not the subject of societies, organizations, marches or government intervention?  One would think that with heart disease killing ten times as many women as breast cancer and stress playing such a big part in heart health that we would at least have a ribbon dedicated to eradicating chronic stress.

It is not that we don’t care, it is just that stress has value.  Employers benefit from it because it energizes the employee and brings added productivity.  Employers understand the value of the “energized” employee and are practiced at techniques that motivate.  In some cases the motivation is an opportunity, in most cases it is the fear of failure or loss of the job.

It is now routine for interviewers to ask how well job candidates handle stress as a condition of employment.  Many postings describe the position offered as fast paced, high demand and stressful.  This is an attempt to screen out those with a low tolerance for stress and hire only those who can be energized.   This is reminiscent of early studies being conducted with radiation; prospective workers were screened to see  if they were able to tolerate radiation by being bombarded with high doses of X-rays.  It was understood that radiation caused health issues but it was many years later before the truly devastating consequences of exposure were discovered and proper practices put in place.

Our modern society benefits from stress, indeed relies upon it.  Self induced causes like consumer spending (and the debt that enables it) powers our economy.  We want new cars every year and a new house every three.  We eat on the road because we drive three hundred miles a week after work to take our children to events and activities.  Americans are sleep deprived, over weight, depressed and running at a furious pace in the quest to have it all.  Anxiety over having more and bigger and newer drove us into the  ruinous amounts of debt we are now  buried under.  The cure prescribed by our government?  Borrow almost a trillion dollars and spend it on propping up the debt ridden in hopes they will return to their spendthrift ways.

Where would  we be without chronic stress?  The fear is that we would be less productive, save more, spend less, and be healthier.  We study the French and attribute their lower rates of heart disease to red wine and chocolate.  We  reject the idea that thirty five hour work weeks, thirty or more holidays a year and eight weeks of vacation might somehow have something to do with it.  The value of stress is too well understood of this side of the pond and is too entrenched in our society to be seriously challenged.  Indeed, it is considered the secret of our success.

• In 2006, the amount of digital information created, captured, and replicated was 1,288 x 1018 bits. In computer parlance, that’s 161 exabytes or 161 billion gigabytes … This is about 3 million times the information in all the books ever written.
• Between 2006 and 2010, the information added annually to the digital universe will increase more than six fold from 161 exabytes to 988 exabytes.
• YouTube, a company that didn’t exist just a few years ago, hosts 100 million video streams a day. Experts say more than a billion songs a day are shared over the Internet in MP3 format. Digital bits.
• London’s 200 traffic surveillance cameras send 64 trillion bits a day to the command data center.
• Chevron’s CIO says his company accumulates data at the rate of 2 terabytes – 17,592,000,000,000 bits – a day.

One would think that with this explosion of information that the greatest generation was destined to be succeeded by the smartest generation.  Unfortunately, information does not yield knowledge in accordance with a defined relationship.  By this I mean that there is no formula that tells us that an increase in information yields a known increase in knowledge as a result.

The last statement begs two questions; first,  what is knowledge that sets it apart from information?  Knowledge is defined in the School of Hard Knocks as proven information that serves as an important factor in a making decisions.  There is a necessary filtering process involved in screening out poor quality information when acquiring knowledge.  This helps us answer the second question;  if knowledge is so important why aren’t we seeing a knowledge explosion?  Simply put, the type of information available lacks substance and the effort being put forth to  to understand it lacks the depth needed to cause a gain in knowledge.

Let’s look at what characterizes much of the information available.

• It is not accurate (or in some cases truthful)
• It is not useful
• It is not analyzed
• There is so much of it that it becomes noise
• It is lacking context

Most information of this type is obtained by surfing  – which by definition, occurs at the surface, a sort of information lite.  Knowledge on the other hand occurs in the depths.  It takes effort to verify and validate information, put it in context, test it, prove it and finally assimilate it before it becomes knowledge.

Knowledge is also the beginning of understanding and equips us to answer the question “Why”,  which is perhaps the most challenging question.  Knowing how things work is real guidance and does not come quickly or cheaply.  Understanding something means to think in it, to have an instinct for it born of experience and practice.  Information is like rain; some if it finds a parched plant or puddle where a thirsty sparrow can be refreshed.  Most of it however rolls away or dissipates as quickly as it came.  Information management is concentrating on flooding us with more and more while there is less and less time and effort available to turn it into knowledge.

The slow rate of knowledge gain in common culture can be seen in the relative confusion over how to characterize the times we live in.  Are we generation “X”, generation “Y” or even “Z”?  Our lack of understanding demonstrates that this age is none of the above and is instead generation “Don’t ask why”.  Understanding takes too much work and we don’t have time (or more correctly do not value knowledge enough to make time) to really think about how things work.  Is it any wonder that the U.S. charged head long into ruinous amounts of debt and busied ourselves creating toxic assets instead of real worth?

Knowledge Management concerns itself with converting information into substance.  It is a slower and more meticulous process and one can not achieve gains in it just by increasing bandwidth.  It does however yield great results to those who take the time to study and place a high value on quality over quantity when managing information.

Xanthippus was a Spartan General who came to the aid of Carthage with a band of mercenaries at a time when Rome was invading North Africa.  The Roman Consul Regulus was having his way with Carthage and ravaging the continent.  Xanthippus convinced Carthage to trust their forces to him and in the ensuing battle he thoroughly punked the Romans to the delight of his clients.  Carthage in turn made him an offer they thought he couldn’t refuse, leadership of their armies in the war against Rome.

Let’s consider this offer.  Xanthippus was a free agent and came to Carthage seeking employment in his craft as a leader of fighting men.  He is made a long term offer based on his success and in essence gets a chance to become a company man.  As a consultant I am familiar with the contract to hire scenario and know of colleagues who have been in this very situation.  In many cases these offers are turned down based on the consultant’s desire to remain independent.  In Xanthippus case he turned down the offer and left Carthage as master of his own destiny.  His decision leads me to a  Steve-ism: “No good deed goes unpunished”‘.

So what did Xanthippus know? It is recorded that he left because his intuitions told him that the jealousy of Carthaginian generals would certainly lead to his demise.  It was better to leave this offer on the table and by keeping his wits he would keep his head.  He felt his good deed would be punished by leaders who either would not or could not have wrought the same victory for the home team.

Why are we being schooled by this ancient Greek?  Hasn’t modern culture elevated us above the barbarians?  This question might have some merit if it was true that modern culture is truly advanced.  Unfortunately it is not, it is a very common culture which means it is not really advanced at all.  All of this goes to say that in our green era we are recycling the same human tendencies known by every generation.

This post is not meant to discourage readers from performing good deeds.  It is however the voice of one crying in the wilderness, alerting readers to the pitfalls of doing the right thing.  It takes real commitment to be a Self-Lead-Person (reference the post “Being a Somebody Takes More Than Warhol’s Fifteen Minutes”) and only the personal rewards are certain.

There is another kind of somebody that I refer to with this Steve-ism: “There are two people who work at every job; somebody and nobody.  When things need to be done, somebody ought to do it but in the end, nobody does it”.  All cynicism aside, there is a lot of truth in this statement.  Somebody is the nameless person with the responsibility to act and doesn’t.  Nobody is the equally nameless person who gets the blame for inaction.

What is lacking in this scenario?  The presence of a Self-Lead Person (SLP) to seize the opportunity and take action.  How does one become an SLP?  It is my view the best way to become one is to attend the school of hard knocks.

Let’s look at some traits that characterize an SLP.

• Awareness
• Accountability
• Initiative
• Confidence
• Persistence
• Humility

When problems arise an SLP sees what needs to be done (awareness), understands their part in the solution (accountability), takes action (initiative, confidence), gets the job done despite obstacles (persistence) and seeks to assign credit to the team for reaching a solution (humility).

Warhol’s commentary spoke to a school of knock-offs who cheapened fame to become a famous.  The school of hard knocks speaks to the person who wants to build value in their life and in the lives of those around them.  SLPs graduate from this school and become a Somebody, the person who steps in and takes hold of a situation.  They have had to seize the day in their own life and know what it takes to face reality and deal with difficulties.  They have enjoyed the sweet taste of  success, made all the sweeter because it was their work that won the day.  In my book, if you want to be a somebody, be a Somebody.  Be that person who puts a name to the Somebody who ought to get something done.  Be a Self-Lead Person and accept personal responsibility for your life and that of those around you.

First is the silo principle.  This refers to a vertical structure, specialized in purpose, that is rigid and stands separate from other structures.  This term is always used to describe shortcomings in an organization because it exemplifies a lack of communication and consideration within the company.  The generalist by nature dis-assembles silos to more readily manage the business.  Sometimes referred to as change agents in this case, their general background allows them to see the benefit of improving horizontal relationships in the company and building internal links.

Next is the renaissance concept, or the idea that a person is capable of significant contributions in a number of areas.  A generalist is someone who has a broad range of skills though only one or two of them is highly specialized.  The real advantage in this case is the ability to understand the relationship between functions and devise unique solutions based on the combined contributions of several groups.  This is real out of the box thinking.

Finally is the idea of the entrepreneur who by definition must master multiple skills in order to survive.   While it is true that most start ups are team efforts, still there are the archetypal  entrepreneurs in our economy who understand how to put product, process, marketing and sales together in a cohesive approach.  This is the generalist’s home turf.

What career paths are there for the generalist?  Well, a general manager is a good start.  I would add that a project manager benefits from understanding how different functions relate and this is another excellent fit.  How about an engineering manager?  One of  the best managers I ever worked with is a former boss of mine and he deliberately sought to hire engineers with a generalist background.  His view is that a generalist is better at seeing the purpose of the engineers role as it impacts the company’s goals and is not focused entirely on technology.  I taught many a co-op that they needed to see the entire picture in order to create the best solution.  I have a Steve-ism that summarizes this point: “All machines make the same thing; money”.  More in this one in a later post.

• Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely

Goals establish the metrics that measure success in achieving objectives.  Objectives are the steps that lead to achievement of strategic initiatives which in turn are the building blocks of the strategic plan.

How does the process usually work?  A functional manager assigns the employee the task of determining his or her goals and objectives as part of performance measurement.  The employee plays the game by selecting cost saving projects, involvement on the right committees and maybe even some training.  Then follows negotiations with the boss to make sure they will be a success.  Does this sound familiar to anyone?  Following this process will mean that an organization of thirty persons will have at least thirty separate views of the best way to fuse personal and corporate agendas.   Is this smart?

Objectives must be in alignment with corporate strategy.  Just ensuring the prosperity of the individual or functional organization one belongs to is not adequate.  Indeed, it is very possible that damage can be caused by competing groups meeting their personal and department objectives.  I have a Steve-ism for this: “Smart goals are useless if you start with the dumb objectives”.

Smart objectives set by the management team will ensure that the strategic vision of  the company will be accomplished.  See my acronym for objectives setting below.

Strategic, supportive of the vision of the company

Meaningful, objectives that if met will play a real part in transforming the company

Aligned, every employee understands how they impact the strategic success of the company

Rational, make sense in light of the resources available and within the core competencies of the company

Team driven, empowers employees at every level to determine how to meet objectives

Once smart objectives are communicated it will  be up to functional managers to coordinate departmental and individual objectives to align with corporate strategy.  Consistent communication of the corporate vision as a team deliverable will encourage departments to cooperate with each other in reaching objectives that they both play a part in.

Example.  The company sets a 10% increase in sales as a goal to support their growth objective.  Because this is a SMART objective, there is a team approach for how to align the company to meet this goal.  The director of sales works with product development to suggest new introductions that play best to the market.  Logistics and operations align to improve delivery performance and quality establishes projects to improve customer relationships.  Each manager assigns department goals to regularly meet with the other functions to coordinate their efforts.   The company has a much better chance of reaching it’s growth objective armed with these kinds of improvements and a coordinated approach.  Sales has a new story to tell to customers and can refresh the market with new ideas and opportunities.  Without smart objectives, salesman will make more calls, drive more miles and offer discounts; doing what they have always done and not even getting what they have always gotten.

That leads me to a Steve-ism: “When you take something for granted you take it away from yourself”.

Let me explain.  In the case where a person has a desire for a new car and manages to buy it, there is the usual excitement over the purchase and introductory rides for friends and family.  Of course, after a while the car is no longer new and becomes part of the furnishings in their life and it is taken for granted that to drive a car means driving the formerly new car.  The only way to revive the old affection for their ride is to buy another, newer, vehicle.  In essence, by taking it for granted the car is devalued.

Does this same factor work in the economy?  Yes but in a different way.  For instance, when the textile industry was first getting started in the North East it was conveniently located where machinery, labor, and water were abundant.  It migrated South in response to an abundance of cheaper labor and to be closer to its source of raw materials.  Once the 1990′s arrived, textiles began to migrate quickly, first to Mexico then China and now it is on the move again to Vietnam.  What happened to the advantages of moving in each case?  The advantage was assumed by the market.  In this case prices were leveraged down by lower cost suppliers and eventually margins became paper thin.  Textile manufacturers went in search of an advantage somewhere else.  This is not uncommon and the consumer usually benefits (with the exception of those displaced by the migration of jobs).

Governments also make assumptions.  In the case of taxes they assume a certain level of income for each budget year based on their receipts from previous years.  When times are good and revenues are up they assume the increases and the baseline cost of government grows along with the expectations of the populace.  When revenues are down there is a cry for new taxes to restore the advantages once afforded by a robust economy.  Our leadership seizes the day and the usual suspects are rounded up and we see tax increases on sin, transportation, wealth and the like.

Where economic assumptions decrease costs, government assumptions increase them and personal assumptions make us fools and take things away that we once appreciated.  I plan on sticking  with my Missouri attitude and insist that life “show me” instead of making assumptions.

A major business decision should come as the result of weighing and analyzing facts and choosing between several plausible alternatives.  It is assumed that the best option is selected from among realistic proposals, all of which have been thoroughly evaluated and analyzed before making a choice.   It is equally true that many alternatives are de-selected through a process of elimination.  This is where indecision is at work making decisions for you.

How does this work?  In the case of time sensitive alternatives, indecision de-selects certain options because the team did not pull the trigger in time.  In some cases, other groups in the company (or other firms) move forward to keep their time lines intact and leave  procrastinators behind.

Delaying a decision  means accepting the status quo.  In this case, indecisiveness yields results that the team has already decided  they need to improve.  It may also mean passing on opportunities, which is a case where indecision can set strategic direction as well.

I have found that it is just as important to have a clear idea of what fits your situation as it is to have options presented.  Otherwise you wind up with analysis paralysis.  See an example below.

I know of a company that was considering options on a capacity increase.   The manufacturing team prepared four viable options for the leadership team.  They expected to be asked for revisions and additions but got more than they bargained for; they finally submitted 42 different options.  The final decision was months in the making and in the end one of the original options was the winner.  During the debate over what to do much time was lost and several time sensitive options were no longer possible by the time a decision was reached.

What is the proper blend of decisiveness and caution?  First, know your limitations.  Perform a credible SWOT analysis and benchmarking study as a part of understanding the box you have invested in. This provides a context for what options to consider.  Next, understand your financial situation, ROI targets, and timing for a decision.  New directions require additional money and time investment to create new processes and products.  Finally, when you see something that fits, act.   A good idea fully implemented in a timely manner beats the best idea implemented only after lengthy delays and excessive costs.    This leads me to another Steve-ism: “The best is the enemy of the good”.