It contended, “All too much of what is put forward as strategy is not. The basic problem is confusion between strategy and strategic goals.

Here, as in so many situations, the required actions were not mysterious. The impediment was the hope that the pain of those actions could, somehow, be avoided. Indeed, we always hope that a brilliant insight or very clever design will allow us to accomplish several apparently conflicting objectives with a single stroke, and occasionally we are vouchsafed this kind of deliverance.

Thus, we should seek coordinated policies only when the gains are very large. There will be costs to demanding coordination, because it will ride roughshod over economies of specialization and more nuanced local responses. The brilliance of good organization is not in making sure that everything is connected to everything else. Down that road lies a frozen

maladaptive stasis. Good strategy and good organization lie in specializing on the right activities and imposing only the essential amount of coordination.

Crown and the majors are in the same industry but are playing by different rules. By concentrating on a carefully selected part of the market, Crown has not only specialized, it has increased its bargaining power with respect to its buyers. Thus, it captures a larger fraction of the value it creates. The majors, by contrast, have larger volumes of business but capture much lower fractions of the value they create. Thus, Crown crafted a competitive advantage in its target market. It isn’t the biggest can maker, but it makes the most money.

But it was Stewart Resnick who helped me see another even more important fact about the silver machine—that its advantage, though real, wasn’t interesting.

The silver machine’s advantage gives it value, but the advantage isn’t interesting because there is no way for an owner to engineer an increase in its value. The machine cannot be made more efficient.