Ohmae's Key success factors LO11835

ANDREW WONG (michwy@pl.jaring.my)
Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:12:31 +0800

Replying to LO11682 --

HOW DO WE VIEW "PARETO RPINCIPLE", OR DR. JURUN / DEMING'S
"VITAL IMPORTANCE VS TRIVIAL MANY" IN THE LIGHT OF THE
FOLLOWING DISCUSSION.

DIFFERENTIATING & SORTING VARIOUS ELEMENTS / COMPONENTS OF A TOTAL SYSTEM
INTO SOMETHING MORE MANAGABLE, SUPPORTED BY
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE PROVIDES ESSENTIAL FOCUS FOR CREATIVTY
AND ENERGY AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY DISCARD SYSTEM THINKING.

A point of View from:
Andrew Wong
Organisation Observer and Thinker
Office eMail : andreww@petronas.com.my
homePage : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5621
~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To quote Myers, Kent (myers@carsoninc.com)
Mon, 6 Jan 1997 09:23:30 -0500 :

>The concept of 'key' or 'critical' success factor is the perfect opposite
>of systems thinking. I've always used it as an indicator: if a person
>uses the phrase or responds to it favorably, he is not a systems thinker
>and we will have a hard time communicating. I gave up trying to explain
>the point because "key thinking" is often a deep commitment that is
>impervious to reason, evidence, or experience. But I was beginning to
>hink I was a crank, since leading writers never seemed to make the point
>for me. I was delighted to read the following in the current issue of
>Harvard Business Review (Michael E. Porter, "What is Strategy?", Nov/Dec
>1996, p70):

>"The importance of fit among functional policies is one of the oldest
>ideas in strategy. Gradually, however, it has been supplanted on the
>management agenda. Rather than seeing the company as a whole, managers
>have turned to 'core' competencies, 'critical' resources, and 'key'
>success factors. In fact, fit is a far more central component of
>competitive advantage than most realize....

-- 

"ANDREW WONG" <michwy@pl.jaring.my>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>