The Power of the 2 x 2 Matrix: Using 2 x 2 Thinking to Solve Business Problems and Make Better Decisions
By studying the work of hundreds of the most original and effective business minds, the authors present a common architecture that illuminates exceptional analysis and creative performance. 2 x 2 Thinking is characterized by a fundamental appreciation for the dynamic and complex nature of business. The best strategists go out of their way to tackle dilemmas rather than merely solve problems. They use opposition, creative tension, iteration and transcendence to get to the heart of issues and involve critical others in finding the best solutions. The authors demonstrate how to apply the 2 x 2 approach to a wide range of important business challenges.
Wat mensen zeggen - Een recensie schrijven
We hebben geen recensies gevonden op de gebruikelijke plaatsen.
Overige edities - Alles weergeven
The Power of the 2 x 2 Matrix: Using 2 x 2 Thinking to Solve Business ...
Alex Lowy,Phil Hood
Geen voorbeeld beschikbaar - 2010
analysis Ansoff approach Archetypal Assess challenge Clockspeed communications competencies competitors context core dilemma corporate cost create Customer Value cycle decision defined dialectical Differentiation drive effective example experience Experience Economy explores two key factors feedback Figure firms focus Four Quadrants framework FTXS Fujitsu Global Global Business Network Harvard Business Harvard Business School Herman Miller identify Igor Ansoff important improve industry innovation integrated investment issues Johari Window key dimensions knowledge leaders leadership learning Lower left Lower right Mass Customization matrix explores MBTI Method Myers-Briggs Type Indicator offering one’s options organization organizational partners Paul Hersey planning Prisoner’s Dilemma problem profit quadrant retail risk scenario planning scenarios situation social Social Styles solution Step Stephen Covey strategy structure style Supply Chain Tacit Knowledge tension Thinking tion Upper left Upper right value proposition versus