Questions:
1) Why would having an available strategy be a positive for a firm?
An available strategy can contribute to a firm in several ways. Firstly, the strategy developing process requires a firm to identify its resources and capabilities, evaluate the external context, and study its competitors. People involved in this process can take the chance to think through their ideas and try convincing others through the discussions. More importantly, a short and easily-understood strategy can be readily communicated and internalized among the employees in the firm. It aligns personal choices and decisions of everyone within the firm, thus making execution of the strategy more successful. Lastly, after the strategy is formed, it also reduces cost in terms of time and energy spent on the decision making during implementation, for instance, whether to have more financial advisors in an office or have more offices. This is because the strategy has already provided the guideline and defined a clear objective, scope and advantage of the business.

2) In what case would this not be a positive?
The first issue came into my mind is that a simple and clear strategy known to everyone in the firm could be easily stolen by strong competitors, especially those big companies with sufficient capital and relevant experience. To be specific, companies such as Tencent, Baidu have “integrated” or acquired some features developed in startups. Consequently, it is extremely difficult for small companies to survive in highly competitive markets. Another drawback could be if the specific objective and scope become set and fixed, it may hinder the firm’s flexibility to adapt to external changes, particularly in emerging industries.

3) Why is having a “strategy” difficult for some firms?
One reason is that people managing the firm do not know or understand the definition of a strategy and