Home | About Us | Subscribe | Advertise
Contact Us
| Feedback
| 4Ps TEAM
| 4Ps Archives

Special Columns
Arindam Chaudhuri, Editor-in-Chief, 4Ps B&M Chief Consulting Editor's Desk
Rajita Chaudhuri
A.Sandeep Editor's Desk
From The Editorial-in-Chief's Desk

Editor, 4Ps B&M
Go to Page Number - 1   2   3   
Modern day corporations should have a structured capability & competence development process in place to achieve long-term success! Presenting, the theory of it all – a benchmark model that organisations can implement off-the-rack for developing capabilities and competencies
Share |
Look around – and you’ll easily find a plethora of visionless CEOs arbitrarily deciding which business areas should a company enter and which it should leave, without giving a glimmer of thought to whether their organisations have the wherewithal to succeed in chosen battlefield. The astoundingly mammoth list of failed M&As is evidence of the same. More evidence is provided by the speed with which CEOs are being eased out of their jobs – from Yahoo to Google to Tiger Airways to Wipro to RIM, from new-age to traditional industries, companies and CEOs seem to be deciding on new businesses based more on the “fools dare where...” ideology than basing the same on a logical and structured capability and competence advancement agenda. I usually write what my readers term ‘light stuff’ – easy on the eyes and amusing on the brain – and would have used this column to simply berate those organisations that don’t have structured plans to develop competencies and would have praised those that did. But I realized that even for an organisation that in all sincerity wants to set in motion a long term plan that could match its capabilities and vision, there practically exists no ‘readymade’ model that one could implement straight off the board to document one’s competencies. Worse, there’s no telling which competence fits where and is how important for future growth!

Guess what, for a change, I decided to ditch the ‘light stuff’ trademark and to go ahead and benchmark the methodology that is followed by the best in class to match vision with strengths, goals with skills, objectives with focused training – I call it the C2A2 model; in other words, the ‘Capabilities and Competencies Advancement Agenda’! Of course, the ‘C2A2’ term might seem pure limerick at its best, meant to invoke ‘term recall’ in the minds of the reader. But irrespective of the play of the term, the fact is that implementing such a competence development agenda in your organisation – whatever you call it, as long you have a process that does it – might just save your firm from getting decimated in the near future.


An imperative reason for corporations to take up the C2A2 model is the fact that immediately, the top management within the organisation is forced – or encouraged – to match their irreverent business vision (which may have been earlier propagated more due to their ego) with the competencies that are documented within the organisation. In other words, call it what you may, but even if you have documents floating around in various business of your organisation that have mapped out various strengths and weaknesses of those businesses, you’re well started already. But wait, there’s much more left – and that’s where I hit you with the jargon.


Capabilities within any organisation should be visibly perceived in two basic forms, namely HardCaps and SoftCaps. Hard capabilities, or HardCaps, show themselves in the forms of visible ‘hard’ items that can be seen. For example, machinery, cash, personnel, number of patents et al, are HardCaps. Soft capabilities, or SoftCaps, show themselves up in the form of ‘soft’ items that cannot be necessarily seen, rather can be perceived. The backbone of any company’s strategic architecture is made up of the combination of HardCaps & SoftCaps. HardCaps can be quantified. But Hard Capabilities are ruled by Soft Capabilities and this is where the problem arises. It is much difficult to maintain and understand SoftCaps. Knowledge management, process manuals, ISO et al, are all attempts by any organisation to maintain a Hard interface on Soft Capabilities. The corollary is that SoftCaps are most difficult for competitors to replicate and hence can become the basis for extremely long sustainable competitive advantages. But a corporation cannot succeed on SoftCaps alone. There has to be a most practicable combination of Soft Capabilities and Hard Capabilities for any company to succeed.

So how does one understand which ‘Caps’ is more important? And which less? And how does one know which capability does one need to develop and which to destroy? Differentiating your capabilities using the Structural Capabilities Architecture is one solution that provides the answers.

Share |

Go to Page Number - 1   2   3        Next
Home | About Us | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact Us | Feedback | 4Ps TEAM | 4Ps Calendar | 4Ps Archives
4Ps Business and Marketing is also associated with :
Copyright © Planman Media Pvt. Ltd. 2004-2007 All Rights Reserved