There are many ingredients required to develop and execute a successful strategy; none more important than discipline. Disruptive innovations that reshape an industry are rare. Most innovation is incremental, and successful execution is a function of hard work, time and patience.

Jeff Bezos’s insight about selling books online (which resulted in the formation of Amazon) was conceived while he worked as an analyst at an investment bank. His conversion of strategy into tactics will go down in history, as Amazon took on all the best in retailing, seemingly overnight.

Bezos remains hungry and focused. Amazon’s top 5 managers meet every Tuesday for four hours to review and rebake strategy. Not once a year, not once a quarter – every Tuesday. Twice a year his team has a two day off-site to think about “big ideas” that may require 2-3 years to implement.

Alan Kay once said, “Perspective is worth 80 IQ points.”  Where the rubber meets the road in strategy is maintaining the right perspective – the intersection of strategic thinking and tactical execution.  Business owners can easily lose perspective when they spend too much time muddled in solving day to day operational problems.

To maintain strategic discipline:

Create a strategy committee, task force or executive management team (EMT).

Each member should have a role in strategy formation and implementation and be accountable for key initiatives of the company. Meet with the EMT monthly to review progress versus goals.

Engage mid-management in strategy formation and execution

Mid-managers are often insightful in identifying latent needs as they are often closer to the customer than their senior counterparts.  Many entrepreneurial companies lack management depth. They are well served to include mid-managers in executing strategy.  Provide learning opportunities for junior managers by delegating tasks for them to complete.

Hold your teams accountable

Results oriented organizations are built from the ground up to support execution, rigorously using scorecards that drill down to individual performance. Best-in-class organizations orchestrate goal setting for individuals that align with the broader goals of the organizations.

Include outside variables in your dashboard

While most successful companies measure internal activities, few score external variables. Seek out external metrics that may be predictive of future demand. Leverage the data to plan capacity, labor, facility expansion, procurement of equipment, etc.

Bezos said, “We are willing to plant seeds and wait a long time for them to turn into trees. Every new business we’ve ever engaged in has initially been seen as a distraction by people externally and sometimes even internally.”

Great strategies convert into initiatives that become the unifying vision of the strategically successful organization. Ideas that lack resources, energy and concentration are just a distraction.

I recently had a conversation with a CEO who was lamenting about the disparity between public company valuations and those of privately held concerns. As of July 2011, the S&P is trading at a multiple of 14, while private company multiples remain in the 5-6 range. Investors value public company access to capital, and scalability into large consumer markets.  Of the Top 10 U.S. companies by size, none are pure play B2B companies.

Small companies come in all forms; some compete with larger branded companies, and some market directly to them.  In the age of confluence, some do both. How can small companies survive in a land of giants?

The primary difference between Fortune 1000 companies and smaller ones is more fundamental than which markets they serve. Intel founder Geoffrey Moore makes a distinction about business architecture – the difference between “complex systems” and “volume operations”[i].

Many smaller B2B companies are built to support specialized and custom solutions, while most Fortune 500 companies are built from the ground up to serve the masses. While customization may command higher prices (per transaction) than generalization, high volume companies cross a threshold where their infrastructure promotes a lower cost per unit and the experience curve takes full affect. Thus, B2B companies face an inherent profitability disadvantage.

Where Microsoft offers its highly useful suite of Office products at around $400 per license, Apple’s B2C model (which is often utilized by small businesses and micro-businesses such as designers and the like) offers Pages and Numbers at $9.99 each. One offer is based on high intellectual capital value and the other on mass appeal and ease of use.

For smaller B2B companies to reach new levels of profitability, requires they find a path to scalability. Of course not every business wants to be big. Some entrepreneurs prefer a “family culture” and more tempered growth (with less risk).

One way to effect profitable volume is to find a balance, where products and services are “mass customized”. Mass customization is all the rage in consumer products where individuals can even build their own handbags and Nike basketball shoes to their specifications.

Smaller companies (B2B and B2C alike) should seek out solutions that allow for better utilization of existing solutions across more customers. In other words, the provider should not need to reinvent the wheel with each project. Often, optimizing margin requires leverage of a base product or service that can be replicated, at times with features configured to the customer’s individual needs. To configure from a menu of choices is considerably different than satisfying each specific whim, which may offer greater intimacy with the customer, but may also require the business to sacrifice profit. For every feature created for an individual customer, there is a resulting opportunity cost (time, money and energy that could be invested elsewhere).

The other requirement for getting big is a shift towards systems thinking, where management teams make decisions within the framework of their company’s capabilities. For a new initiative to succeed requires careful analysis of the resources required to implement it. The key for smaller companies who aspire to do business with larger ones it to utilize systems and processes consistent with the expectations of the customers they serve.

Competing against larger companies requires a unique mindset. Often small businesses use concepts like judo (where the larger opponents energy is often used against him) to beat the larger foe at the point of attack. Consider the depth and width of the market you want to serve, and scale your resources accordingly.

The long term implications of Japan’s massive earthquake and tsunami have recently begun to materialize. Over the course of the last twenty years, management principles have centered on efficiency; do more with less.  Six Sigma, Lean Manufacturing, outsourcing, and off-shoring have boomed. Perhaps our fascination with reducing costs and optimizing return on assets has manifested in an overly minimalistic view of the world.

The recent supply chain disruptions have illustrated the vulnerability of our thinking as just in time translated into late product shipments, unsatisfied customers, and sluggish earnings, spanning from Toyota to Tiffany’s. The vulnerability may be far greater for smaller companies with less sophisticated logistics and reliance on a smaller web of suppliers.

Thus the central question is shifting away from what is the minimum possible cycle time to what are the supply chain risks and how can they be mitigated? Manufacturers have had to adapt, in some cases reengineering their products to use components or materials that have been suddenly unavailable.  Some product development teams have had to adapt, at times looking like a scene from Apollo 13 (when astronauts famously had to construct a part based on the materials they had on hand).

Customers have the right to ask more questions about how their vendors manage supply and what types of contingencies they have in place.  As has been evident in recent years, vendors and customers alike must think broadly about what eventualities could disrupt the global marketplace and collaborate on solutions. The horrific events in Japan reflect only the latest in a series of events that are reshaping how products come to market.

I have to admit I am a hater; a Cowboys hater. Clearly one of the most talented teams in the NFL, the Cowboys are off to a 1-4 start, and leading the league in penalties. They are an undisciplined bunch.  Organizations take on the personalities of their leaders, and America’s team carries on with the swagger of its egocentric owner (Jerry Jones). The Cowboys look the part, but do not execute very well.

Most everyone reading these words knows the fundamental principles of business.  I am not suggesting any of us stop reading, and learning; we all need that. But the basics are clear: create a compelling offer, hire great people and manage your cash and balance sheet.

It is one thing to know what to do, and another to actually execute. Like the Cowboys, many businesses have a fundamental lack of discipline. They do not stay true to their business discipline and core competencies. As Jim Collins points out in “How the Mighty Fall”, many of the Good to Great companies have not sustained their success. Collins blames an undisciplined “pursuit of more,” as some Good to Great companies expanded into new lines of business too far afield from what they knew best.

The organizational effectiveness of a company is often tied to the discipline of its leaders. The lowest functioning entrepreneurs are the ones who simply do not follow through on their own commitments. Some talk of corporate values but act irresponsibly. Others say they have a premium offer, but discount vigorously. Some come up with a plan and do not follow it.

Discipline and organization are often linked. It is those who have the hunger to execute who seem most organized, and most committed to outcomes.  It just takes a little more time to delve into details to insure your organization is fulfilling its commitments.  Setting goals and following them takes work. If you accept mediocrity, so will others.  We should all aspire to do the best work we can, and hold our people accountable for doing the same.

There is an old saying that #%$@ roles downhill. If the leader lacks focus and discipline, so will his or her followers. I have had the opportunity to work with some world-class entrepreneurs and they are spot on with follow through.  For the crème de la crème, discipline is part of their DNA.  They do what they say, and say what they do.