We need to ask the question WHY there is no definition in the business world. If we look at the military defintions, the difference between Grand Strategy, Strategy, Grand Tactics and Tactics is clearly spelled out and it is clear which levels are responsible for each.

Could the problem be our old friend, “the not invented here” or “we do things differently” syndrome?

I for one am perfectly comfortable with the military definitions and am equally comfortable making the connection or parallel’s in the business world.

As you know, I have been “doing” project management for 45+ years on a wide variety of projects and the only times I have been involved in setting strategy as a project manager was during the bidding phase, preparing for an RFP. And as a project manager, I only had INPUT, but never actually established strategy.

After I became a General Contractor (GC), I set strategy as an owner, who had my own money riding on the line, and I expected my project managers to develop tactics to support the strategy we were building our proposal around, OR to change the strategy based on a better set of tactics. But in each case, the strategy was not established by the PM, but by the person whose money was riding on the line.

I am not in my office yet, but I seem to recall that Mintzberg was no fan of strategic thinking in most organizations, and I can assure you, as a successful small to medium size enterprise working in a highly competetive market during once in a lifetime financial turmoil, our “strategy” remains extremely fluid and flexible……. To the point we are functioning more at the tactical level with only the most broad and vague strategies in place.

1) Take no project unless it has a high potential to be profitable;
2) Keep overhead costs to the bare minimum;
3) Seek out opportunity whereever one presents itself;
4) Conserve cash whenever possible…..

And these strategies are communicated to our project people, with the expectations they will develop tactics specific to each project in line with those broad strategies…….

BR,
Dr. PDG, packing for Jakarta

We need to ask the question WHY there is no definition in the business world. If we look at the military defintions, the difference between Grand Strategy, Strategy, Grand Tactics and Tactics is clearly spelled out and it is clear which levels are responsible for each.

Could the problem be our old friend, “the not invented here” or “we do things differently” syndrome?

I for one am perfectly comfortable with the military definitions and am equally comfortable making the connection or parallel’s in the business world.

As you know, I have been “doing” project management for 45+ years on a wide variety of projects and the only times I have been involved in setting strategy as a project manager was during the bidding phase, preparing for an RFP. And as a project manager, I only had INPUT, but never actually established strategy.

After I became a General Contractor (GC), I set strategy as an owner, who had my own money riding on the line, and I expected my project managers to develop tactics to support the strategy we were building our proposal around, OR to change the strategy based on a better set of tactics. But in each case, the strategy was not established by the PM, but by the person whose money was riding on the line.

I am not in my office yet, but I seem to recall that Mintzberg was no fan of strategic thinking in most organizations, and I can assure you, as a successful small to medium size enterprise working in a highly competetive market during once in a lifetime financial turmoil, our “strategy” remains extremely fluid and flexible……. To the point we are functioning more at the tactical level with only the most broad and vague strategies in place.

1) Take no project unless it has a high potential to be profitable;
2) Keep overhead costs to the bare minimum;
3) Seek out opportunity whereever one presents itself;
4) Conserve cash whenever possible…..

And these strategies are communicated to our project people, with the expectations they will develop tactics specific to each project in line with those broad strategies…….

BR,
Dr. PDG, packing for Jakarta

If you go to m-w.com or any of the on-line dictionaries you mentioned, the definition of “strategy” typically includes something about planning to meet an objectives, and marshalling resources to achieve a goal. Project management activities, including the ones I describe, can be brought under that goal. There is a tremendous amount of blurry, gray area between “strategy” and “tactics”. It has always been that way — even military experts (where the terms originally came from) do not have an absolutely sharp line between the two.

As you point out, we have an obligation to consult a good dictionary or resource. I recommend taking a look at Mintzberg et al, “Strategy Safari” for a good overview of the wide and varied ways that the words “strategic planning” have been used over the years. Michael Porter also has some great articles around his view of strategy — essentially doing things differently from the competition. Neither of these books match the dictionary definition so well.

I know the importance of consulting dictionaries and experts, but honestly I do not think that they help us very much here. None of them give us a clear boundary between tactics and strategy — nor should they. The words are not mutually exclusive. One action or one goal can be both tactical and strategic.

This area is a great and fluid place. Few signposts and markers have been set. I know you enjoy the exploration as much as I do. I do see appropriate paths where the project manager does far more than just “implement” strategy. Probably we share a different vision of how strategy is built, too. As a PM I have helped shape mission statements, organizational strategy, and marketing plans. I think that is appropriate and an avenue open to others, too. PMs lack authority to set strategy, and they should not act outside their authority. Their influence can be broad and deep, though. I encourage all project managers to expand and deepen their influence, especially with the people who set their organization’s strategy.

–Alex
http://www.alexsbrown.com

If you go to m-w.com or any of the on-line dictionaries you mentioned, the definition of “strategy” typically includes something about planning to meet an objectives, and marshalling resources to achieve a goal. Project management activities, including the ones I describe, can be brought under that goal. There is a tremendous amount of blurry, gray area between “strategy” and “tactics”. It has always been that way — even military experts (where the terms originally came from) do not have an absolutely sharp line between the two.

As you point out, we have an obligation to consult a good dictionary or resource. I recommend taking a look at Mintzberg et al, “Strategy Safari” for a good overview of the wide and varied ways that the words “strategic planning” have been used over the years. Michael Porter also has some great articles around his view of strategy — essentially doing things differently from the competition. Neither of these books match the dictionary definition so well.

I know the importance of consulting dictionaries and experts, but honestly I do not think that they help us very much here. None of them give us a clear boundary between tactics and strategy — nor should they. The words are not mutually exclusive. One action or one goal can be both tactical and strategic.

This area is a great and fluid place. Few signposts and markers have been set. I know you enjoy the exploration as much as I do. I do see appropriate paths where the project manager does far more than just “implement” strategy. Probably we share a different vision of how strategy is built, too. As a PM I have helped shape mission statements, organizational strategy, and marketing plans. I think that is appropriate and an avenue open to others, too. PMs lack authority to set strategy, and they should not act outside their authority. Their influence can be broad and deep, though. I encourage all project managers to expand and deepen their influence, especially with the people who set their organization’s strategy.

–Alex
http://www.alexsbrown.com

I am in total agreement that project managers have the moral, ethical and (under SoX) the legal obligation to provide INPUT to management on how well the project is progressing.

If you look at the definition of “Tactics” or “Tactical”, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tactics or http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/g/tactics.htm or http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tactics.html, I think you can agree that the items you identified more appropriately fall under the category of TACTICS rather than stragegy.

I know you and I have had this discourse in other venues, but I believe we really have an obligation (as professionals) to consult with reputable standard English language dictionaries before we go running off creating or attempting to create our own definitions.

So yes, I do disagree that project managers are anything more than the implementers of strategies, designed by, funded and authorized by others. (Which is more or less consistent with PMI’s definition of “Project Sponsor”) and I think it is irresponsible for us to try to “bend” or “spin” definitions to fit what we would like to believe.

Happy New Year!!!!

Dr. PDG, shoveling snow again west of Boston (only 4 more days till I am back in the tropics!!!)