Case 1: Recommendation #3

This strategic alternative also makes sense. At the time (and indeed still true today), there was no certification for strategic planners. It would be an excellent way to grow, and would reach down in most organizations to get individuals "on the rise" in their careers to become certified. (This is different from targeting CEOs, who do not require "certification" to prove themselves.) Not only would the organization make money in training and certifying individuals, but would also keep them as members in succeeding years to keep their certification current. (Two well known examples include the Project Management Institute, whose highly regarded PMP certification has given it a membership base of over 100,000, and the Institute of Management Consultants, whose CMC certification is key to building its membership base.) The certification itself, once accepted in the business world generally, would brand the organization as the industry source for strategic planning, increasing its influence with the business community. The Planning Forum did not even consider this option... one has to wonder whether it did any strategic thinking at the time to come up with good strategic options, or simply followed the first suggestion that a board member made.

Of course, no particular option is necessarily the best option, i.e., there is no "right answer" to this case (in the event you were expecting one). When companies choose to change their strategy, they do so only by being persuaded at the time that it makes the most sense. It's an imperfect process at best, witness the many corporate decisions made today that turn out badly...

>>Back to Case 1