> From: "Myers, Kent" <myers@carsoninc.com>
>
> The concept of 'key' or 'critical' success factor is the perfect
> opposite of systems thinking.
"Perfect opposite" implies mutual exclusiveness. I would suggest that key
success factor (KSF) is actually a subset of systems thinking.
I agree that organizations could not substantiate their competitive
advantage w/out the "fit." But not very many companies have the
resources, knowledge and time to "fix" everything all at once.
Prioritization is usually in order. The top priorities are usually what
give the most mileage for the effort. They are called KSF not because
they by themselves bring success, but because in the whole system, they
are the ones w/ high profile. It does not mean that we can neglect the
rest though. Without the "fit," the KSFs will not get us very far.
> What is Southwest's core competence? Its key success factors? The
> correct answer is that everything matters. Southwest's strategy
> involves a whole system of activities, not a collection of parts.
> Its competitive advantage comes from the way its activities fit and
> reinforce each other."
If "fit" is all there is to it, there wouldn't be much differentiation
between Southwest and the rest of the industry. Therefore, Southwest'
performance would not be that far off from the rest of the industry. I
think Southwest did a few things differently and well, and their whole
system "fit" to support those differentiating factors. Hence their
success. It's those differentiating factors that we usually label KSF.
Would they be as successful w/out the "fit"? Probably not.
- sh
-- Slamet Hendry <s_hendry@dnet.net.id>Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>