Strategy is the oldest word of all time, from empires seeking to conquer new lands to today applied to organizations seeking new markets.
We have studied many schools of strategy that proposed various alternatives either to win a battle, to dominate a field or to obtain competitive advantages.
But what we are going to study in this article is how a strategy is composed, whether in an organization, nation or government.
The basic and fundamental part of the strategy that is the central nucleus of it in my understanding is "information" because without it we cannot act accordingly, much less plan the appropriate strategy to achieve the desired objectives.
It is what leads me to think and worry if a strategy can really be put together as it has been planned since the information that we may have at the time of putting together a strategy is already old and constantly changing.
This is what is called in the field of quantum physics the information paradox, where information is lost and contradicts classical physics.
Here I try to demonstrate the same, the information that we have to develop a strategy for example to gain more participation in a segment can be lost or dispersed or become obsolete because the competitor decided at the last minute to change said information or modify business tactics that we did not we had in mind.
So I want to comment in my understanding that the information is not something exact despite the fact that it is obtained from a period of time immediately prior to making a decision on strategy, but that it is constant, it can be lost, changed or left to exist and completely loses the sense of making strategic planning with this type of information.
Other variables to take into account are those of the environment, which I call random, not because they cannot be predicted accurately or because we cannot have access to this type of information, but that we do not have the necessary software or quantitative tools to be able to predict these variables, as far as I'm concerned then they become random and unknown in terms of decision making.
Let us remember then that the core of strategy is information, but in turn it suffers from a paradox which is not being able to blindly trust it.
Although some authors affirm that logical incrementalism has disappeared, I am totally convinced that it is not, that the best strategy is the counter strategy for the best attack of a competitor, since if an adversary A launches a product that we did not have in our plans, the best defense is the counter attack doing the same.
The secret of competitive intelligence? This term was used by Leonard Fuld in terms of developing a strategy that provides a competitive advantage. Let's analyze in parts, a strategy in itself when making it and coming out perfect is a competitive advantage, what this author suggests is that in the times we live where information abounds, it may be that we take the wrong information to carry out a strategy.
The author affirms that this type of competitive intelligence lies in knowing what he wants and designing strategies that allow anticipating the tactics of competitors and finally the author asserts that the information is taken from the Internet and not from the market.
Let's go in order, I honestly do not believe that a CEO gets carried away by information on the Internet that can sometimes be even false, exaggerated, incorrect and inefficient, so it is a point that I do not share, the information always has to be taken from the market or professional agencies dedicated to this type of information for the best appropriate strategy to implement. We then fall with the link of the so-called "information paradox" when it is stolen from the Internet, we do not know since when it is there, if it is invented or is badly written, so the information may not exist and we fall into this paradox that both it has made the business world more complex.
I do not mean that the strategy cannot be carried out because my intention of this article is not to demonstrate this, but that the strategy is made based on logical incrementalism and that the best response of a strategy is the counter strategy, regardless of the documents that organizations implement to meet said objectives, plans or goals to be achieved.
As Henry Mintzberg says, the strategies in the end are written in a document that is filed in the upper management and that ends up applying what is heard in the corridors by the executives.
A clear example that this model that Leonard Fuld tries to apply is that it tells the story of the banker Nathan Rothschild who, thanks to his fine-tuned messenger system, knew of Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo before his competitors knew it and managed to take advantage of this type of information, then my question is what is the original contribution in the competitive intelligence model.
Always, before a strategy model, we must have a counter strategy so that the competitors do not surprise us in the face of any adversity that may occur.
Strategy is not everything, but as Gary Hamel says it is the most important.
