Wie bewerten Sie strategische Optionen für eine optimale Performance?

The term "strategic" is used here with a loose interpretation. Replace it with "important" and you will get the exact same result. Strategy is something completely different than day-to-day managing of activity, operations, situations, etc. The author of this initial text deepens the confusion by further invoking "vision, mission, values, and priorities" that are usually associated with an organization's Strategy. However, by reading further, we realize that the initial author actually talks about Strategy, mentioning things like Porter's five forces. This is the moment when we probably realize that this article is not about "options", a term used more in mundane decision-making, but about Strategic Choices. Very confusing article!

The Strategic Choices, confusingly referred here as "options", are NOT born from "brainstorming to generate ideas". Although I guess that this is what amateurs in Strategy Management would think. John Boyd's OODA is faster and better decision-making by using an Observe-Orient-Decide-Act loop. The Orient step deserves an explanation: here we employ a Reference Cognitive Model, developed from previous iterations and knowledge buildup, that allows us to SELECT, rather than imagine our Strategic Choices from those referenced by the model. How to select choices? By looking at Trends & Weak Signals that are valid for our considered Strategic Horizon, and estimate the impact upon our business, should we select one Strategic Choice or another.

We select our Strategic Choices from those referred by a cognitive model of alternative choices available. We do that by looking at Trends & Weak Signals that are valid for our considered Strategic Horizon. But how do we select which Trends and Weak Signals to look for? We usually employ a context categorization framework, like PESTEL for outside our industry/arena and Porter's Five Forces for inside it. We look at each category: Politics, Economy, Social, etc. and ask ourselves: "What Trends & Weak Signals in this category may impact our business over the considered Strategic Horizon?". Finally we evaluate that impact should we select each Strategic Choice alternative available in the model, selecting the most promising ones.

By rigorously analyzing options, organizations and individuals can increase the likelihood of selecting the most suitable and effective choice, enhancing their overall decision-making process and achieving better results.

We should NOT "compare and rank" the Strategic Choices, aka "options", here. Ranking the choices at this point would be counter-productive, as we do not know what implications do they have in terms of things required to do to turn them into reality. So, we make the selection of our Strategic Choices on only one criterion: Estimated Economic Results that allow us to reach our Strategy's winning aspirations. Then, we take those most promising choices and identify what activities should we master, and what capabilities must we posses, in order to be able to turn them into reality. Finally, we validate the feasibility of achieving that, and the viability of the resulting business model. If validation fails, we go back and redo our selection.

We should NOT select Strategic Choices, aka "options", here, based on "comparison and ranking". We select the combination of Strategic Choices that may deliver the best Estimated Economic Results. We then pass those choices AND their required activities and capabilities, through a Feasibility and Viability validation gateway. We compare those requirements to what we already do and have. The result are the Strategic Gaps that we must fill for turning our Strategy into reality. 1) Feasibility: Can we fill those gaps within the Strategic Horizon available? 2) Viability: Is the resulting business model financially viable? If 1) or 2) fail, we go back and select another Strategic Choices combination, until we can pass the validation.