The Corporate Dilemma of the Current Business vs. the Future Business

written by: Darold Smith; article published: year 2006, month 09;



In: Categories » Business » Business development » The Corporate Dilemma of the Current Business vs. the Future Business

It is not easy for the senior management team of an existing company to navigate the white water conditions of a dynamic marketplace. Everything seems to be constantly changing—products, technologies, competitors, customer needs, distribution channels, and so on. How should the company respond? Is it better to take action or wait for the market to settle down? Should the company stick with their current strategy or move to a new one?

On the one hand, the company must manage its current business, which has been proven and time-tested in its ability to find a market and deliver a product or service to that market. This predictability represents a low-risk means for the company to meet its financial goals, ensuring its survival. It is the goose that laid the golden eggs. However, that current business is probably working off an older business model, created in the past when the market conditions were quite different. Being an older business model, it may have an infrastructure and overhead expenses that are inordinately high, keeping prices high and making the market an attractive target to new, leaner competitors.

A start-up company with a Web site and access to cheap manufacturing capabilities overseas could replicate your products at lower prices and steal your market share. A global goliath could apply its considerable resources and technologies to offer your customers more than you can. All existing businesses are vulnerable, to some degree, to competitive pressures in a dynamic marketplace, making their futures uncertain. On the other hand, there are countless ways for a company to create new business opportunities in a dynamic marketplace. Change in the status quo of any market component creates some degree of disequilibrium, which means that there are likely to be customers somewhere who are being underserved or business systems that are not working at full efficiency. This results in the potential to create value, which is the basis for new, future business opportunities. Revenue generated from these new ventures can help fuel the future growth necessary to keep the company financially vital and attractive to investors, suppliers, and employees. However, new business opportunities have a downside. They can introduce potential new risks to the company’s financial equation, as the development and successful implementation of a new business opportunity is far from certain. Spending too much or taking too much time to pursue these new, untested opportunities may kill the goose, cutting off your golden egg supply.

This ‘‘tension’’ between focusing on the current, lower-risk (but vulnerable) businesses versus higher-risk new business opportunities is often a critical factor in the creation of a corporate strategy. It is the corporate strategy that identifies how the company will allocate and develop its resources to meet both current and future market needs, while keeping the company financially viable. Therefore, it is an important strategic imperative to consider how a company will balance the needs of today’s business while pursuing the business needs of the future. Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, in their book Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, write, ‘‘Managers at visionary companies simply do not accept the proposition that they must choose between short-term performance or long-term performance. They build first and foremost for the long term while simultaneously holding themselves to highly demanding short-term standards.’’

Although allocating time, attention, and resources to managing the future business will divert time, attention, and resources from managing the current business—and vice versa—this tension between the present and the future business is a healthy tension to foster in an organization. Linda S. Mayer, the senior vice president of marketing and product development at Moen, calls it the need for ‘‘bifocal vision.’’ It requires everyone to always determine and strike a balance of the two, thus preventing the urgency of the present from overshadowing the importance of the future.

This difficult trade-off between the present and future businesses of corporations. To succeed both today and tomorrow, managers must play two different games simultaneously. The management of today’s business requires a focus on efficiency and stability, aligning and improving the productivity of all facets of the business model. The business of the future, however, requires ‘‘streams of innovation,’’ which can be a destabilizing force because they require corporate change. ‘‘Given these contrasting forces for change and stability, managers need to create ambidextrous organizations—organizations that celebrate stability and incremental change as well as experimentation and discontinuous change simultaneously.’’

One way to foster this healthy tension is to create an internal corporate system focused on strategy innovation and the future. By formalizing such a system, senior management makes a corporate commitment to the importance of the company’s future, while still running today’s business.

legal disclaimer

1) Our website is not responsible for the information contained by this article as well for any and all copyright infringements by authors and writers. E-articles is a free information resource. If you suspect this article for any copyright infringements, please read the Terms of service and contact us to investigate the problem.
2) The E-articles directory team is not responsible for inaccuracies, falsehoods, or any other types of misinformation this tutorial may contain and will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by a user through the user's reliance on the information gained here. Please read the Terms of service

Useful tools and features

Translate this article to...    Send this article to you or to a friend

Link to this article from your page   
If you like this article (tutorial), please link to it from your web page using the information above. Linking to this page, this is the only way to help us improve our service, the same time providing your visitors with a way to improve their online experience.

related articles

1. Key Elements for Strategy Innovation
Strategy innovation can be done in a company on a one-time, ad hoc basis.  However, there is growing interest in the development of an internal capability for strategy innovation. Whether it is done on an ad hoc or ongoing basis, strategy innovation in any corporation must consist of the following four elements: 1. Management mandate 2. Corporate infrastructure 3. Innovation process 4. Corporate culture Management Mandate It is ...

2. Which Companies Benefit from Strategy Innovation
A strategy innovation process may not be right for every company. However, it is difficult to cite what type of company would not benefit from understanding their customers better, gaining valuable foresight about their emerging marketplace, and considering how changes in their business model could provide a competitive advantage. If your company fulfills these requirements, you can benefit from a strategy innovation initiative or an ongoing strategy innovation process. Listed below are those types of...

3. The Five Phases of the Strategy Innovation Process
The strategy innovation process is a method for creating a portfolio of innovative, new business opportunities that could become the basis for a new strategic direction for your corporation. Corporate teams that have taken these journeys liken themselves to reconnaissance teams, sent by their companies to explore the strategic frontiers of their industries. The Strategic Innovation Process is a series of phases, not a linear series of steps By carrying out the phases, your company will avoid some of the proce...

4. Flexibility of the Discovery Process and Strategic Innovation
The purpose of a strategy innovation initiative that is right for your company will typically depend on the following factors: Size of company Size of industry Type of industry Strategic frontier Degree of innovation desired Size of Company In general, larger companies have more resources available for strategy innovation than smaller companies. Yet the process of identifying new business opportunities is equally important, if not ...

5. Business Strategy Innovation and Product Innovation
It is interesting to note how many companies in recent years have adopted ‘‘innovation’’ as a core value or as part of their mission statements. If we as a society have moved from the Information Age to the Knowledge Age, then this relatively new emphasis on innovation is quite logical. When information is ubiquitous and is no longer a source of competitive advantage, it is the innovative use of that information (via knowledge) that differentiates people, companies, and nations. Innovation ...

6. Risks Involved in the Discovery Process and the Strategy Innovation
There is very little at risk with a strategy innovation initiative, other than the time and money invested by the team. The internal team sets the overall budget so that costs (primarily in the Exploring Phase) can be controlled to whatever level represents a reasonable investment in the company’s future. We have never encountered an initiative where discussions with customers and industry experts did not lead to valuable insights for the company. The only question is whether the impact of those insi...

7. Strategy Innovation as a Source of Corporate Renewal
Strategy innovation is often considered the calling card of startup companies looking to enter already-existing markets. However, established companies also use strategy innovation to their advantage, if they have the instinct for it. We recognize this instinct as a strong, internal emphasis on corporate ‘‘renewal.’’ The instinct for renewal is something beyond a cultural norm; it seems to be embedded in the organization’s DNA, what it sees when it looks in the mirror. These companies...

8. Developing Applications with the User in Mind
The corporate scenario described in this article is an example of a common problem in the development of management support systems: in both systems design and implementation, too little attention is given to the needs and perspectives of the end user. Inadequate attention to ease of use in system design and lack of appropriate training and conversion preparedness affect applications aimed at salespeople, production people, administrators, middle managers, and senio r management. These shortcomings can be observed in companies across ...