Comments for Real Strategy http://www.real-strategy.com Strategies: what they are, how to devise, how to recognize, good and bad, strategy types, examples, puzzles, thinking skills, how to win with them. Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:37:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on The Winds of Patagonia; Cooperative Strategy by Bill Carsonhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-design/the-winds-of-patagonia-cooperative-strategy/#comment-93 Bill Carson Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:37:42 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=1049#comment-93 The reason for the lock step is to prevent the person from behind from stepping on the heel of the person in front of them. Just like military marching: left, right; left, right ... The reason for the lock step is to prevent the person from behind from stepping on the heel of the person in front of them. Just like military marching: left, right; left, right …

]]> Comment on The Winds of Patagonia; Cooperative Strategy by Sonja Heckerhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-design/the-winds-of-patagonia-cooperative-strategy/#comment-92 Sonja Hecker Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:25:12 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=1049#comment-92 It was fun to watch the Nebraska barn get moved. What a great community project! The carriers will recount their communal success for years. I also liked the images of the walkers (both the photo and the image in my mind). I am interested that the steps were taken all on the right, then all on the left. For me this was counter-intuitive. In rowing a boat, one needs to row on one side then the other to keep the craft moving toward the intended direction, rather than around in circles. By alternating strokes the boat does not move in a perfectly strait line, but weaves generally in the desired direction. I would have thought that stepping all on the left then all on the right would have made for a similarly weaving line which, while heading generally in the desired direction, would have required a lot of energy to recover from side-to-side movement. I would have thought that instead, every-other person would have stepped on their left, while the people between would have stepped on their right to keep the line from weaving the line dramatically. But perhaps stepping with 1/2 on the right, 1/2 on the left technique actually would have cut the power of each step in half? I'm not sure about this. I guess it's time for a little field trip to Tierra Del Fuego... It was fun to watch the Nebraska barn get moved. What a great community project! The carriers will recount their communal success for years.

I also liked the images of the walkers (both the photo and the image in my mind). I am interested that the steps were taken all on the right, then all on the left. For me this was counter-intuitive. In rowing a boat, one needs to row on one side then the other to keep the craft moving toward the intended direction, rather than around in circles. By alternating strokes the boat does not move in a perfectly strait line, but weaves generally in the desired direction. I would have thought that stepping all on the left then all on the right would have made for a similarly weaving line which, while heading generally in the desired direction, would have required a lot of energy to recover from side-to-side movement. I would have thought that instead, every-other person would have stepped on their left, while the people between would have stepped on their right to keep the line from weaving the line dramatically. But perhaps stepping with 1/2 on the right, 1/2 on the left technique actually would have cut the power of each step in half? I’m not sure about this. I guess it’s time for a little field trip to Tierra Del Fuego…

]]> Comment on Escaping E. Berlin; A Simple Way to Devise Complex Strategies (1) by Carl Cannerhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-definition/general-strategy-model/escaping-e-berlin-a-simple-way-to-devise-complex-strategies-1/#comment-90 Carl Canner Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:57:41 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=856#comment-90 Amusing Bill. Best Carl Amusing Bill.
Best Carl

]]> Comment on Strategy in the News: Fake Review Scams by Sonja Heckerhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-recognition/strategy-in-the-news-fake-review-scams/#comment-85 Sonja Hecker Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:47:38 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=967#comment-85 A few of those consumer tips: Beware of reviews when they: * Have zero caveats, and are full of empty adjectives and pure glowing praise with no downsides. * Are all left within a short period of time of each other. * Mainly tally off product features. (Real users talk more about performance, reliability, and overall value). * Reviewers names are all variations of one another, i.e. happykat1234, happykat7593, happykat6687 Also good advise: skip over the 1 and 5 star ratings. Pay more attention to those in the middle. A few of those consumer tips:
Beware of reviews when they:
* Have zero caveats, and are full of empty adjectives and pure glowing praise with no downsides.
* Are all left within a short period of time of each other.
* Mainly tally off product features. (Real users talk more about performance, reliability, and overall value).
* Reviewers names are all variations of one another, i.e. happykat1234, happykat7593, happykat6687

Also good advise: skip over the 1 and 5 star ratings. Pay more attention to those in the middle.

]]> Comment on Escaping E. Berlin; A Simple Way to Devise Complex Strategies (1) by Sonja Heckerhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-definition/general-strategy-model/escaping-e-berlin-a-simple-way-to-devise-complex-strategies-1/#comment-84 Sonja Hecker Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:15:30 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=856#comment-84 Betty's family is pretty cool. Here is her cousin: http://www.wimp.com/crowtubing/ Betty’s family is pretty cool. Here is her cousin:
http://www.wimp.com/crowtubing/

]]> Comment on Escaping E. Berlin; A Simple Way to Devise Complex Strategies (2) by Thomas Smithhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-definition/escaping-e-berlin-a-simple-way-to-devise-complex-strategies-2/#comment-82 Thomas Smith Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:13:50 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=858#comment-82 Great example of successful strategy. Here is a link to a talk that describes examples of unsuccessful strategies: http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html Great example of successful strategy.
Here is a link to a talk that describes examples of unsuccessful strategies:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html

]]> Comment on Strategy in the News: Witch’s Horns by Bill Carsonhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-in-the-news/strategy-in-the-news-witchs-horns/#comment-81 Bill Carson Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:19:30 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=775#comment-81 Interesting comment. In the posts just published today in this blog, a focus is on decomposition of strategies into their substrategies. It’s also possible to look in the other direction, recognizing that any strategy one is entertaining can be viewed as a substrategy of one or more other (higher level) strategies - and that’s the direction in which your comment takes us. It’s good practice to look ahead, and to extend the Objectives Diagram (see current posts) to the right, to see if your current objective supports higher level objectives, as your comment would suggest. Many a time a lower level strategy undercuts a higher-level one (try Presidential election campaigns). So supporting the higher level is a good thing, provided you know enough, care enough, or forecast well enough to do that. Sometimes it’s only feasible to plug in with one strategy, detach when it’s time, and then adapt with a newly informed strategy. In some cases the environment may have been evolving and the earlier higher level objective may have become obsolete (a common problem with grand strategies – being overtaken by events). I’m not sure if Ms. Strivelli was following the star of a higher level strategy, or just trying to get the administrators to back off their distribution program. As for side-effects … Interesting comment. In the posts just published today in this blog, a focus is on decomposition of strategies into their substrategies. It’s also possible to look in the other direction, recognizing that any strategy one is entertaining can be viewed as a substrategy of one or more other (higher level) strategies – and that’s the direction in which your comment takes us.

It’s good practice to look ahead, and to extend the Objectives Diagram (see current posts) to the right, to see if your current objective supports higher level objectives, as your comment would suggest. Many a time a lower level strategy undercuts a higher-level one (try Presidential election campaigns).

So supporting the higher level is a good thing, provided you know enough, care enough, or forecast well enough to do that. Sometimes it’s only feasible to plug in with one strategy, detach when it’s time, and then adapt with a newly informed strategy. In some cases the environment may have been evolving and the earlier higher level objective may have become obsolete (a common problem with grand strategies – being overtaken by events).

I’m not sure if Ms. Strivelli was following the star of a higher level strategy, or just trying to get the administrators to back off their distribution program. As for side-effects …

]]> Comment on Strategy in the News: Witch’s Horns by Jxnhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-in-the-news/strategy-in-the-news-witchs-horns/#comment-80 Jxn Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:35:00 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=775#comment-80 Great post! I seem to learn something every time I read these! Keep 'em coming. :) Great post! I seem to learn something every time I read these! Keep ‘em coming. :)

]]> Comment on Strategy in the News: Witch’s Horns by Thomas Smithhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-in-the-news/strategy-in-the-news-witchs-horns/#comment-79 Thomas Smith Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:13:07 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=775#comment-79 I would seem that, if you're going to strategize to defeat an adversary, you have to know pretty clearly what the adversary will do after being defeated. In the case of the school administrators they will probably just keep looking for more ways to sell Christianity and deprecate Wicca. In the end Christianity probably didn't lose any adherents, but when people learned what the Wicca lady had done that probably just reinforced stereotypes of witches and solidified opposition to Wicca philosophy. I think she has won the battle but created a bigger barrier that will cause her to lose the war. Shows the dangers of defining the game too narrowly. I would seem that, if you’re going to strategize to defeat an adversary, you have to know pretty clearly what the adversary will do after being defeated. In the case of the school administrators they will probably just keep looking for more ways to sell Christianity and deprecate Wicca. In the end Christianity probably didn’t lose any adherents, but when people learned what the Wicca lady had done that probably just reinforced stereotypes of witches and solidified opposition to Wicca philosophy. I think she has won the battle but created a bigger barrier that will cause her to lose the war. Shows the dangers of defining the game too narrowly.

]]> Comment on What Strategies Are by Jon Rhttp://www.real-strategy.com/strategy-definition/what-strategies-are/#comment-78 Jon R Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:10:01 +0000 http://www.real-strategy.com/?p=99#comment-78 Mary / BIll - For my own practice, I tried to put the start-up pottery decision within the context of the 6 elements. Mary - Each element would require a lot of work to adequately determine if the risk/reward is worthwhile for both you and your son. Bill - I'd be interested in your comments to see if I'm applying these concepts correctly. Objective: Start pottery business Barrier: Start-up costs / unsure profitability Vulnerability in barrier: Is there demand for the items he makes? If yes, vulnerability exists. Advantage in resource: Objectively, does your son have a superior product or superior price. Resource: Equipment & Pottery skills Exploit: Begin business Excellent introduction to strategy! Mary / BIll – For my own practice, I tried to put the start-up pottery decision within the context of the 6 elements. Mary – Each element would require a lot of work to adequately determine if the risk/reward is worthwhile for both you and your son.

Bill – I’d be interested in your comments to see if I’m applying these concepts correctly.

Objective: Start pottery business
Barrier: Start-up costs / unsure profitability
Vulnerability in barrier: Is there demand for the items he makes? If yes, vulnerability exists.
Advantage in resource: Objectively, does your son have a superior product or superior price.
Resource: Equipment & Pottery skills
Exploit: Begin business

Excellent introduction to strategy!

]]>