Rudimentary implements—though they often generate buzz—are for a number of reasons underdeveloped. Sometimes, developing them would be overly complex; other times, the problems they’re meant to address are deemed not worth the investment. In this year’s study, examples include RFID technology, corporate blogs, and consumer ethnography. Rudimentary implements score below average in usage frequency and satisfaction in our surveys.
Specialty tools fill niche needs and are highly effective when applied correctly. When used in the wrong situations in the wrong ways, however, they can be like crowbars in the hands of children. For instance, business process reengineering proved highly beneficial to manufacturing operations in the early 1980s, but when it later became a euphemism for mass layoffs, both satisfaction and usage plummeted (the tool has since rebounded, as the chart shows). Specialty tools are used sparingly but get high marks in satisfaction.
Blunt instruments attack pervasive problems in cumbersome ways. Often, managers trying to meet a widespread need in their organizations see the instrument as the best available (if imperfect) option. In other cases, the tool is a management fad that is being asked to do more than it can. A classic example of a blunt instrument is knowledge management. Managers realize they need to capture and share employees’ knowledge, but they often fall short because the technology they use is too complex, they gather too much extraneous data, or they don’t give people incentives to share knowledge. Blunt instruments score high in usage but low in satisfaction.
Power tools, which get high scores in both usage and satisfaction, can be applied with rigor in a variety of settings. They’re used by many managers with success and thus incur very little risk. Strategic planning has consistently been rated as a power tool by nearly all managers in all industries and company sizes—even when management gurus and journalists have declared it dead (witness business thinker Tom Peters’s 1994 review of Henry Mintzberg’s book The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning). In fact, practitioners usually say that strategic planning is their most frequently utilized and highly satisfying management technique. One of our survey participants commented, “It’s so easy to get absorbed in daily operating urgencies that we need the strategy process to challenge traditional thinking and redirect where we spend our time and money.”
Though some tools have remained in the same category for a long time, others have evolved in fascinating directions, because changes in their capabilities or in the business environment have made them more or less useful. (See the chart “.”) For instance, scenario and contingency planning leaped quickly from a specialty tool to a power tool after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a change we analyzed in a previous Forethought article (“A Growing Focus on Preparedness,” HBR July–August 2007). Customer relationship management began as a rudimentary implement when we first studied it in 2000, but by 2002 the global economy had strengthened: Managers had shifted their attention from cost reduction to revenue growth and increased their focus on measuring and improving customer satisfaction. Meanwhile, technology improved companies’ ability to track and analyze customer behavior, and CRM took off.
