Manufacturing & Distribution

The business, a recently acquired subsidiary of a French company, has a long and successful history in its chosen markets. The parent company owned a second UK operation and wanted to capitalise on the synergy from integrating these two operations. The Group MD was tasked with developing a business strategy for combining then developing the resultant business.

The first phase was to create the Project Team. In addition to the Group MD three other Directors were selected plus two recently recruited senior executives with experience of creative strategic projects. An external advisor was appointed to assist the Project Team.

Discussions to define the expectations for the combined business revealed significant variations within the Project Team. However, highlighting these variations was essential as it enabled an exchange of views leading to an acceptance of the demanding targets set by the parent company related to growth of earnings.

As the Project Team proceeded with the "Challenge" analysis, threats to their current earnings level were uncovered that needed addressing. However, on the positive side there were plenty of opportunities that had yet to be exploited. To meet the exacting targets set by the parent company it was obvious that innovative new ideas were needed to eliminate existing weaknesses plus positive actions to generate increase earnings.

The PESTEL and Business Drivers analysis at Phase 3 were extremely interesting. They brought out different thinking from the newly integrated Team members setting the tone for a vigorous SWOT debate. The subsequent SWOT workshop was an ideal opportunity to invite some of the managers into the process. This was very advantageous as it allowed a greater clarity of purpose to emerge regarding the range of opportunities for the new business.

In common with most projects the lists of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats was extensive. However, by following our process framework they were able to select the most promising ideas to meet their identified "Challenge".

It took the Project Team several more sessions to produce a range of strategies for detailed evaluation. At this stage they were faced with some difficult choices including the decision to drop a couple of well known product lines and outsource the manufacture of alternatives. However, by focussing on what each option would contribute to their "Challenge" provided a solid benchmark against which decisions could be made. It was necessary to create an action team to explore some of the more controversial ideas related to an audacious acquisition but three other strategies emerged relatively quickly. The review of the action team recommended that the controversial idea be adopted by the Project team as the fourth strategy.

Having chosen four strategies from the provisional list of eight the Team were able to develop implementation and monitoring plans. Senior personnel were appointed strategy leaders with responsibility for delivering the outcomes detailed in the Strategy Monitoring Plan, an essential component of the overall project. Empirical evidence shows that changing circumstances over time necessitates adjustments to most strategies to keep them on track.

The Group MD agreed that they would initiate periodic reviews and would ensure that senior executive performance assessment considers strategy performance.

The Project Team were satisfied with the outcome recognising that some radical proposals had been adopted. Nevertheless, there was confidence amongst the Team because they had worked well together during the Project and had a strong commitment to deliver success.

The new company has a clear strategic vision and at the first annual review the Group MD was very satisfied with progress and the increase in earnings to date.