Rumelt's evaluating strategies - Essay Example

Compare and Contrast Rumelts two Criteria, Advantage and Feasibility for Evaluating Strategies al Affiliation: Traditionally, the process of evaluating a business strategy was based on a simplicity approach that assesses whether the company has grown or whether the profit rate is standard. Such appraisal lacked then the critical emblem, because the determination of quality of long-term results is not obviously obtainable through observation or directly measuring. Such deficit prompted Prof. Richard Rumelt to devise a framework for deeply evaluating a business strategy.

The framework entails four criteria: consistency, feasibility, consonance, and the advantage, all against which a business strategy is evaluated. Whereas the strategies have the same objective of ensuring business success, they also draw various differences. In this short essay, I seek compare and contrast two of the criteria, advantage, and feasibility.One significant distinction between the advantage criterion and the Feasibility criterion is their approach with regard to company or organization’s mission.

The competitive advantage strategy, unlike the feasibility approach, focuses on the differences among other organizations rather than on the firm’s common mission (Crouch 85). The criterion’s approach is not so much on how can this function be achieved but rather how the company can execute it either higher than, or at least as a substitute of the firm’s rivals (Crouch 86).On the converse, the feasibility criterion focuses wholly on the firm’s core mission, and therefore does not overburden the available resources, but rather focuses in appraising whether a strategy can executed within the available human, and financial resources (Windham, n.d). There is no comparison between firm’s available resources with other competing firms as it is with the advantage criterion, but keeping the focus on early appropriated resources.

However, both Advantage and feasibility criteria correspondingly embrace innovative advances to financial expansion can both extend the definitive limitations and offer a competitive advantage, though it might be only temporary.Another difference between feasibility and advantage is that, feasibility tends to focus its evaluation on long-term strategies whereas an advantage aims at what can be invoked right away to bring positive change specifically. Through feasibility, an organization has to be evaluated to see that it demonstrates competencies necessitated by the strategy.

Honestly, from such an approach, it cannot give details of each action demanded to be initiated by the strategy. Therefore, the purpose of the feasibility is to provide configuration to the broad-spectrum concern of the business objectives and approaches to surviving with its long term setting (Windham, n.d). Thus, it is up employees and departments of the firm to execute tasks specified by the strategy, for any strategy that falls out of the realm cannot be accepted (Delgado, 2009). On the contrary, advantage criterion goes hand-in-hand with specifics and the focus is on any possible short-term steps as long as they can bear fruit.

For instance, a firm’s position entails the products or services it currently offers, the market it intends to sell to, and the extent of differentiability from its competitors. In fact, one of the best positions entails the supply of exceptional precious products to price insensitive customers, which, of course, will change from time to time and can’t hold on long-term.Nonetheless, one major similarity that is evident across board is that both advantage and feasibility criteria aim at giving response to three critical questions.

Despite the acknowledgment that each business strategy being unique, the first question responded by both criteria is whether the objectives of the business are appropriate and in line with the firm’s strategy. Secondly, both criteria assess whether the plans and the policies laid down are apposite and finally is whether the outcome as at the time of evaluation is in conformity or refutes the critical hypothesis on which the strategy rests. Ultimately, Rumelt’s two criteria illustrated herein are suitable for defining prioritizes and actions necessary to achieve firm’s objective.

References Crouch, A. (2008). The competitive mind: strategy for winning in business. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 85-86.Delgado, R. I. (2009). Financial performance drivers and strategic control: The case of cancer treatment centers. ProQuest.Windham, C. (n.d.). How to Do a Rumelt Evaluation Method. Business & Entrepreneurship - azcentral.com. Retrieved 22 December 2014, from http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/rumelt-evaluation-method-29008.html