Search results

Michael Porter, considered by corporate managers and business analysts to be one of strategic planning's leading theorists, is a professor of business policy at the Harvard Business School. Author of the recent bestseller Competitive Strategy and guest columnist for The Wall Street Journal, Professor Porter is noted for his heady stock of insightful planning theories. Here, in an interview conducted by Planning Review Senior Editor Malcolm W. Pennington and Managing Editor Steve M. Cohen, Professor Porter candidly discusses his entry into the field of strategic planning and the application of his theories to specific industries.

Everybody talks about formal planning. Everyone reads the literature. And most people agree that the concept is compelling and logical, and that planning is a thoroughly grand and sensible thing to do.

With no conceptual basis, financial goals can only be haphazardly incorporated into the planning process. A recent survey of 60 large Canadian companies points out that there is little understanding of the “dynamics and interdependencies” for reconciling goals and for making them more congruent with the goals of most managers. Indeed, in 1977 the Journal of Finance stated that a “fully integrated theory on corporate financial decisions has not yet been developed” — a statement which has to date gone unchallenged.

How does a corporate planner respond when line executives show an interest in information concerning strategic planning? It is not necessary to employ a team of creative writers to “reinvent the wheel”; a judicious selection of recently published articles is an excellent way to familiarize executives with the problems, commitment, and terminology associated with planning.

Our planning systems are predicated upon a variety of myths. One of the most cherished is the myth of stability: “Business as usual” is a very comforting notion. Organizations everywhere enjoy the feeling of safety that develops when change is slow. Planners are usually directed to the task of preserving the existing “stable system” and maintaining the status quo. The alternatives — deliberately modifying the system or allowing it to evolve — are not often contemplated.

Few would argue with the proposition that socially, economically and politically, the United States is in a period of turbulence and uncertainty. We are navigating the rapids, and white water is all around us. In the daily struggle to keep the boat afloat and on course, we have little inclination and less time to look ahead. Perhaps we fear that the future holds more of the same, that our present troubles constitute a new normalcy to which we must inure ourselves. In a remarkable turnaround from traditional American optimism, there is now a pronounced feeling abroad in the land that the present is worse than the past, and that the future will be still worse than the present.

To cope with the complexity of modern retail stores and personal time constraints, shoppers must be selective in processing information. During a typical shopping trip, they visit only a fraction of a store’s departments and categories, examine a small subset of the available products, and often make selections in just a few seconds. New research techniques can help marketers understand how customers allocate their attention and assess the impact of in-store factors on shopper behavior. This chapter summarizes studies using observational research, virtual reality simulations, and eye tracking to identify the drivers of shopper attention, product engagement, and purchase conversion. These include shopper goals; product assortment, package appearance, price, and merchandising; shelf space allocation, organization, and adjacencies; and salesperson interaction. The research reveals that small changes in a product’s appearance and presentation can have a powerful impact on consideration and choice.