Framework Pack
Guide
Your Framework Pack is the single most important organizing element of ID514.
It is a collection of the fundamental ideas a designer planner should be familiar
with, and should ultimately master en route to becoming a professional planner.
Frameworks are sort of like the viewfinder of a camera. One can ‘look through
them’ to examine something you need to understand or plan. Frameworks help
ensure that you are using solid, defensible approaches when you do your work.
Specialists in one subject or another author frameworks and the best of them
become famous. Some of the frameworks in this pack have been respected
as insights and tools for more than 30 years; others are a year old or less.
Increasingly, in the world of strategic planning and consulting generally, a frontier
comes in competing frameworks–specifically knowing which to use when, and
also when entirely new ones may need to be created.
In using frameworks the three most common errors are: choosing the wrong
one(s), using them improperly, and not recognizing when the conditions demands
an approach that is unique. Try not to be the first kid on your block to make all
three mistakes in a single plan…
Index to the current edition
The numbering schema of the Framework Pack may seem confusing at first. It is
designed to permit updating year after year in a flexible way. It should make the
most sense if the pages in your binder are in this order:
Overview section a pictorial view of frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O1–O2
Strategic planning section a history of the field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SP1–SP4
Analytic frameset tools that support analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1–A12
Synthetic frameset tools that support synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S1–S11
Innovation frameset a special perspective on innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1–I9
Roadmap frameset techniques that support implementation . . . . . . . . . . R1–R4
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Guide
Design planning algorithm
This general overview of design planning is a very good way of depicting and
mentally organizing the base ideas of this course. You are urged to refer to this
diagram throughout the course to keep track of where we are as we learn about
planning tools, techniques, and theories.
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework O1
Framework mapping
I3-6
A10 S5
A4
A5
A3 R1 R2
S11
A2 S3
A6
S2
A1
S4 I1 – I8
S1 S6
A7
A9
A8
A12 S5 S9
A11
S10
S7
S8
R3
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework O2
A simplified view
of strategy
This very early view of strategy saw it as the mathc (or stretch) from the current
state to some other part of its universe of possibility. although this was instantly
recognized as an insight, in practical terms it was hard to assess either side of the
equation systematically.
Source: Kenneth Andrews, The Concept of Corporate Strategy, 1971
Graphics: Tomoko Ichikawa, Doblin Group
ID514 Design Planning • Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework SP1
Strategy evolution model
Portfolio
management
BCG
Wave 1: Optimize industries
Five forces
Porter - Ave. profitability
Learning - Choose by attractivenss of industry &
organization competitive position
Scenario
planning
Wave 2: Optimize companies
Core
competencies - Skills & learning key
& capabilities - Roots of advantage inside the
Prahalad & Hamel Alliances
enterprise
Category - Strategic intent & scenoarios key
management - TQM
Brand
management
Wave 3: Optimize capabilities
Supply chain
automation - Stratey “modularization”
Users - IT revolution
Process
reengineering - Process focus
& ERP Experiences
- Brand aggressiveness
Network
development
Platform
development
Wave 4: Optimize
Ventures & ventures & relationships
e-commerce
- e-everything
- Venture capital revolution
- Innovation focus
1960 1970 1980 1990 - Strategic “architectures”
- Increasing returns
ID514 Design Planning • Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework SP2
Consulting product evolution
Most people do not realize that consulting has “products.”
This analysis (by noted consultant Richard Pascale) shows
how waves of products have come and gone and depicts the
approximate total revenues and “influence” of each.
Source: Richard Pascale
Graphics: Tomoko Ichikawa, Doblin Group
ID514 Design Planning • Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework SP3
Research &
development evolution
Just as industry has evolved through successive waves of strategy concepts and
methods, so too has the world of fostering technological advance. This is, of
course, a small part of the world of strategy, but it looms somewhat larger when
you consider how it should intersect with innovation or design planning.
First generation (1860s-1940) R&D Labs
Epitomized by Thomas Edison
Projects originated and managed by scientists
Process of experimentation
Intuitive methods of recognizing important products
Ad hoc approaches to downstream market development
Key examples: BASF, Edison, GE, Bell Telephone, Kodak, DuPont
Second generation (1938-1980) R&D Programs
Epitomized by government defense research, WWII
Projects originated and managed by program sponsors
Process of intense focus on needs plus project management
Business or government needs used to recognize value of results
Emergence of specific processes for application and market development
Key examples: Radar, Manhattan Project, lasers, lunar landing, submarines
Third generation (1980-2000) R&D Portfolios
Epitomized by Vegas
Projects managed by risk reward analysis and stage-gate processes
Process of identifying probable success, value, fit, timing and placing bets
New methods linked financial risk with strategic planning and roadmaps
Separates customer needs (market research) and R&D (technology research)
Key examples: IBM, Xerox, Honda, Sony, GE, Monsanto
Fourth generation (1999+) Dynamic Learning R&D
Epitomized by Media Lab or SantaFe Institute?
Projects transcend any one company
Process of mutually dependent learning
Methods link technology exploration with applications concepts
Tries to integrate development infrastructure with market development
Key examples: Complexity work, MP3, set top boxes
Source: Based in part on Morris & Miller, Fourth Generation R&D, 1999
ID514 Design Planning • Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework SP4
Porter’s five forces
Arguably, Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School is the world’s pre-
eminent strategy theorist. For over twenty years he has worked to describe the
issues of strategy in terms sufficiently general that they apply to General Motors,
Yahoo, and the corner dry cleaners more or less equally. While there are hipper
strategists out there in many areas, few can touch Porter in terms of universal
strategy theory truisms.
And when you then put Porter’s work in perspective, his 1980 classic Competitive
Strategy, is the Big Kahuna of strategy books. It starts out by describing how
to analyze industries structurally using the five forces model shown here. This
work is as basic to strategy— and perhaps just as tautological— as Malthus is
to population theory (populations grow through natality and immigration; they
shrink through mortality and emigration…). This model is useful for helping to
describe base dynamic patterns that affect industries and thus shape the actions
of individual firms. Be sure to read the supplied chapter 1 of his book, “The
Structural Analysis of Industries” to more fully appreciate this model.
Forces driving industry competition
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A1
Porter’s three
generic strategies
“How many ways are their to run a railroad?” goes the the cliché question.
Drawn again from the classic Competitive Strategy, Michael Porter offers the
shortest and most elegant answer to this question ever. This deceptively simple-
seeming model helps to explain the trade off between being efficient (low costs)
and being distinctive (preferred for some reason; and between being a general
player appealing to an overall market vs. being a focused player appealing to
some specific user group.
Some simple examples help make this model come alive. Apple would love
to sell its PCs to everyone (fat chance!), and they derive their appeal by
being allegedly easier to use— a differentiation strategy. Meanwhile, Home
Depot derives much of its power from its broad selection of hardware and
building supplies merchandise that it can offer up at prices competitors cannot
touch profitably— a cost leadership strategy. Finally, while there are many
great cameras to choose from in the marketplace, in overwhelming numbers
photography professionals choose Nikon because of the way the firm has
effectively focused on the need of this particular user segment. Be sure to read
the supplied chapter 2 of Porter’s book, “Generic Competitive Strategies” to
appreciate nuances of this model.
Three generic strategies
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A2
McKinsey’s three C’s
Since 1979, McKinsey & Company, the world’s leading strategy consultancy, has
taught each and every one of its ten thousand or so consultants the virtues of a
simple framework for helping any business unit make sense of its world. Trying
to offer up a Porteresque universal strategy theorem, Kenichi Ohmae (who until
recently ran McKinsey’s Japan office) suggested that the basis for analysis was to
understand the company itself, its customers, and its competitors. This is a logical
and disciplined way to think.
A subtlety not elegantly written in the original paper (supplied for you) is the
base dynamic use of this model. In practical terms you try to use strategy to
drive a wedge between your firm and your competitors to enhance your appeal to
customers. McKinsey, ever a believer in the supreme importance of money above
all else, tries to reduce this to an equation. They argue that both the Company
to Customer relationship and the Competitor to Customer relationship can be
reduced to a value to price ratio. And further, that the relationship between a
Company and its Competitors is a function of value and quality divided by cost.
Be sure to read “The Strategic Triangle” article, a McKinsey Staff paper supplied
to you, to get the full fruity flavor of this McKinsey model.
McKinsey’s three C’s
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A3
McKinsey’s seven S’s
Just as no man is an island, no individual is a corporation. No matter how you
slice it, a characteristic of business is that it tends to be run by groups of people.
Any time you have groups of people they need an organization and some means
of governance. Thus one of the base disciplines of business management (along
with specialties like finance, marketing, and operations) is organization. Within
this specialty, no single framework has endured as well as the Seven S model,
which dates back to 1980. An astonishing array of McKinsey consultants claim
authorship, but Tony Athos, Richard Pascale, and Bob Waterman are probably the
most important three developers of this set of ideas, a set of ‘lenses’ you can use
to analyze and describe any enterprise of any scale.
The most important thing to realize about the Seven S’s is that they work best
when employed with a detective fervor combined with deep respect for the
enterprise you are trying to assess. To make this less abstract, it is simply useful
to recognize that an enterprise survives over time only if it is successful. The
Seven S’s can be used, looking backwards, to help you figure out what made an
organization successful at different points in its history. Perhaps more exciting to
planners, it can help you know what you may need to tweak to shape that success
going forward. Be sure to read “Structure is not Organization,” a paper supplied
to you, where this model was first made public by McKinsey authors.
McKinsey’s seven S’s
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A4
Era analysis
McKinsey’s well-known "Seven-S" framework (introduced in the seminal article
Structure is not Organization by Waterman et. al.) has also been adapted as an
analytic tool for assessing an enterprise’s change over time. Much like countries
and governments, the principal signal of a significant change to an enterprise
tends to be correlated with a change in leaders instead of, say, a change from one
decade to another. On some rare occasions good leaders may significantly change
direction at some point in their tenure—as Bill Gates did when he got Microsoft to
embrace the Internet, and Jack Welch did when he got GE businesses to leverage
one another. The Seven-S framework can be used as shown below to help bring
the essential nature of such shifts into sharp relief.
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A5
Strategic planning
models
The recent work of Henry Mintzberg, a professor of strategy at McGill University
and a respected strategic planner, has done a fine job of coalescing about half a
dozen classic strategic planning methods into this simple diagram. He uses this to
both explain and criticize the conventional practice.
Professor Mintzberg goes on to challenge the definition of strategy saying it
is a plan, a pattern, a position, and a perspective, substantially enlarging the
conventional view. He then offers up this revised diagram that shows the
difference between intended strategy and realized strategy.
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A6
Positioning maps
This visual way of comparing alternative offerings within a category was hot
perhaps twenty-five to thirty years ago. It can still be a useful device for certain
quick efforts to clarify differences between alternatives. It is conventional to use
the vertical axis for dependent variables, almost always price or cost, while using
the horizontal axis for some meaningful independent variable that separates out the
items you wish to compare. This tool can be useful for both market planning and
product planning.
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A7
Product planning
maps
Product planning tends to look for dynamics of products over time, perhaps as
competitive entrants rise or fall, as new technologies emerge and are adopted, or
as new channels start to have impact. In general, an aspect of product planning is
to depict these dynamic shifts in ways that clarify causes and effects of change.
1980 1990 2000
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A8
Conjoint analysis
plots
This technique relates to product positioning maps, but instead of plotting the
artifacts it plots characteristics of those who prefer them. This method was all the
rage in marketing about twenty years ago, and is still the favored technique for
many marketers and most pollsters. Interpreting these plots is not self evident,
and has to do with drawing perpendiculars to any given vector to determine
design (or much more likely, marketing and advertising) consequences. Done
right, conjoint analysis (or its cousin, multi-dimensional scaling) might be useful
for suggesting how to target designs towards specific kinds of users. This tool is
principally useful for market planning.
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A9
Industry convergence
Given the rise of the Internet plus the significant acquisitions in the cellular,
entertainment, software and electronic banking domains, it has become
commonplace in the press to recognize the new interdependencies of markets.
Some have come to use the convenient shorthand of the networked economy to
refer to this set of macro trends. It is important to begin by deconstructing this
term and its associated trends that it might be more precisely understood.
One of the best and most basic ways the networked economy can be understood
is as a confluence of industries. This is made possible by and accelerated by
technology in what some have termed an autocatalytic reaction. This diagram
helps to illustrate how entertainment, telecommunications, and computing have
been converging for some time.
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A10
Value “chains” vs.
value “webs”
One of the most prevalent strategy theories suffusing nearly every aspect of
analysis within business school training is the notion of value chains. In (overly)
simplified summary, this is the notion that one can look systematically at different
stages by which a product or service gets created and sent to market, in order to
determine where ‘value’ is added and how to act strategically within that. In most
industries this has led to years of sedimentized theory about how to analyze an
industry, create strategies, and modify tactics.
In a surprisingly small number of circles this nearly omni-present belief system is
starting to be challenged. Some theorists are hypothecating that the very notion of
the value chain is obsolete, replaced by a very different idea variously called value
nets or value webs. In essence, this suggests that where customers can use many
alternative pathways to get their goals accomplished, the traditional tools used for
market and financial analysis are ineffectual. In practical terms, you should ask
yourselves: Does (or should) the customer have many different ways to achieve
her goals? If you are inclined to answer yes, you may be on the frontiers of a
whole new form of strategy that is little understood.
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A11
Networked economy effects
The networked economy exerts three powerful kinds of
shaping forces on modern industries, companies and
strategies. All three happen concurrently, just one of the
reasons why the times we live in are both exciting and
confusing.
1. Macro effects 2. Industry effects 3. Nodal effects
In the networked economy most major industries In the networked economy it has become common for For those firms that become nodal (disproportionately
are experiencing a confluence of players. This is multiple players to become highly interdependent upon influential compared to their size), additional strategic
often accelerated by technological development, one another, though typically in unplanned ways. In consequences typically occur. Often these are in the
deregulation, or changes in distribution. many cases (like PCs, Internet software, banking and area of brand leadership, distribution power, or strategic
credit cards, etc.) this becomes an ‘external economy’ architectures. These range from very powerful (like
where no one is really in control of a big, important area. path-dependent economics and increasing returns) to
This tends to lead to new sources of value and extreme simply very popular (like brands people broadly deem
shifts in the market influence of some players (who are to be hip and compelling). In either event, the practical
said to be ‘nodal’). consequence is that these firms find it easier to extend
their successes into more and different areas, some of
them surprisingly evolved from their starting place.
Examples Examples Examples
Telephony, computing, utilities, air travel, finance, Netscape and RealAudio; Microsoft
European Monetary Union. Microsoft, Intel, Toshiba, Compaq, and Dell; Intel
Quicken, VISA, Citibank, and Veriphone; Starbucks
American Airlines, British Airways, Sabre, and Disney
American Express; NIKE
McDonald’s and Coca-cola;
NIKE and its celebrity athletes.
ID514 Design Planning Keeley Framework Pack Fall 2010 Framework A12