Friday, 9 February 2018

Interview for the University of Southern Indiana

Last Summer, I participated in a video interview with Sonia Garcia-Webb from the University of Southern Indiana, in preparation for their use of StratNavApp.com in their MBA strategy course.

One thing I learned from the experience is that I probably don't have a bright future in broadcast TV! The very far below eye-level camera angle certainly does not help! However, I've posted the video below, and then included a summary of the discussion points below that.



How did StratNavApp.com come about?
  • I realise that I spent most of my working life helping clients to be more effective and/or efficient and that this often involved deploying technology to improve things. However, I realised I was not seeing the same improvements in the way strategy itself is done. We still rely on large Powerpoint decks and Word documents, which we email to each other. We waste a lot of time managing versions and coordinating updates.  I realised it was not a solution I could ever recommend to a client.
  • I start thinking about what a better solution might be. Over time I started building components of that solution and using them in my own consulting work.
  • Eventually, I realised I had a usable solution which I could package up and share with other people. That led to the launch of StratNavApp.
  • The result is:
    • A freemium SaaS solution which doesn't require a download and so is easy to use and manage.
    • Based on a superset of StratML, the ISO standard for strategic and performance plans, giving it a robust foundation.
How does StratNavApp.com assist people to develop and execute strategies?
  • I think most people start using StratNavApp thinking it is just a collection of useful templates encompassing strategy development and execution best practice.
  • Whilst most people engaged in strategy are familiar with the underlying models, my experience is that many don't really understand how the models interact with each other to produce a coherent flow of logic leading to a well-formulated strategy.
  • Because StratNavApp is built on top of an integrated project repository, it is able to make those links explicit and actionable.
  • In fact, as much as StratNavApp can highlight the flow of logic, it can also highlight any gaps or misalignments in the logic. In my own consulting work it often helps me to identify where I have attempted to shortcut the process and then got it wrong, and then it helps me to fix it again.
  • Lastly, one of the big criticisms of strategy is that it is usually an annual process, which results in a thick document which is immediately out date and sits gathering dust on a shelf until the next annual process. Because StratNavApp is an ongoing collaboration all the way from analysis to monitoring the results of delivering the strategy, it never becomes a 'dead document' and the built-in feedback mechanism makes strategy more of an ongoing process.
What do you think challenges clients most in developing and executing strategy?
  • I think that the biggest challenge is not the strategy discipline itself, assuming the people you are working with are properly trained and educated.
  • The first challenge is 'articulation' - a lot of what gets passed off as strategy is really high-level and vague. It reads well, but it lacks enough substance to be executable. Execution becomes like 'trying to nail jelly to the wall'. This is usually because a lack of confidence in the insights, or because people avoid conflict by falling back on 'artfully vague' wording which covers over the underlying disagreements. The way that the tools are strung together in StraNavApp makes it harder to do this.
  • The second big challenge is 'stakeholder management' - strategy tends to be decided amongst senior executives who are usually very intelligent and headstrong but who have different worldviews having had different career experiences. Strategy involves change, and change inevitably creates winners and losers (or even just bigger winners and smaller winners). Winning and losing has real consequences for individuals in terms of prestige and pay. So whilst we think strategy is a rational process, it is clouded by power-political self-interest.
What advice do you give students learning about strategy?
  • For me, a key driver is curiosity coupled with a 'disrespect' for boundaries.
  • When you start your career you typically have a job with prescribed boundaries.
  • Why I think I ended up in strategy is because I was always curious about how my role related to things outside of that boundary.
  • I think as a strategist, you need to be a specialist in the discipline of strategy, but also have the curiosity of a generalist wanting to understand how all the other disciplines work together to achieve success. 
Many thanks to Sonia for recording the interview and allowing me to publish it.

Thursday, 11 January 2018

The 4 books every strategist should read

I was recently asked if I offered training for a new strategist. I don't unfortunately (perhaps I should?). There is this blog, of course, and I also offer a free ebook.

I did get me thinking, however, about what 4 books I would recommend every new strategist should read. So here they are:

  1. On Competition, by Michael Porter: Porter's work is often criticised, and many other authors claim to have improved on it, but let us not forget that Porter remains the benchmark they are trying to beat. His style is, unfortunately, not the most gripping, but the insights he offers are essential grounding for any strategist.
  2. The Balanced Scorecard, by Robert Kaplan and David Norton: While Porter lays out the grounding for strategy analysis, Kaplan and Norton set the benchmark for articulating strategy in a way that eliminates ambiguity and ensures it will get delivered. Once you've read The Balanced Scorecard, consider also its sequel, The Strategy-Focused Organisation, by the same authors.
  3. Business Model Generation, by Alex Osterwalder: Oswerwalder tackles the tricky problem of how to ensure your strategy gets delivered in a functioning and fit for purpose organisation. Business Model Generation is a practical text which is elegant in its simplicity. If you're looking for more after reading this, consider also Operating Model Canvas from Van Haren Publishing.
  4. Good Strategy, Bad Strategy, by Richard Rumelt: For me, the most interesting aspect of Rumelt's book is how clearly he spells out the mistakes organisations typically make in developing and executing strategy, and the consequences of doing so. A strategist needs to know not only what they should do, but also how to avoid these common mistakes.


There, are, of course, many other good books on strategy. I have reviewed many of these elsewhere in this blog. A strategist should remain a permanent student, and read as widely as possible. However, if you just getting started, these four books should provide you with the grounding you need.

Please let me know, in the comments below, your thoughts on any of these books, or which other other books you think I should have included on this list.

Saturday, 11 November 2017

An anatomy of Strategy

What are the key elements of a business strategy and how do they relate to each other?


The above chart maps these out, including the key elements of operations which strategy must direct.

The components of the strategy are:
  • Mission: defines why the organisation exists; its purpose.
  • Vision: defines what the world will look like when the organisation succeeds in its mission. See also: Strategic Vision: 3 tests
  • Values: are what the organisation holds dear; they are important in choosing what the organisation will and won't do, and how it will or won't do it, in order to achieve its mission.
  • Goals: describe in more detail what the business must achieve in order to achieve its vision. Goals are often described as defining the financial, customer, operational and learning and innovation perspectives of the vision. See also: Strategic goals versus operational objectives.
  • Objectives: break the goals down into specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound (SMART) achievements.
  • KPIs: define the specific measurements with which the objectives will be measured. See also: Six tips on how to pick the best KPIs for your strategy and Getting the most out of KPIs.
  • Targets: define what must be achieved, expressed in terms of a KPI, within a defined time period.
  • Actuals: define what is actually achieved with a period for a measure; if this is inconsistent with a target, then review and remediation may be required.
  • Initiatives: define specific changes to be made to the business, and should have a clearly defined end state. See also 6 techniques and 5 tips for developing strategic options and How to tune and prune your portfolio of strategic initiatives.
  • Actions: are the specific steps that need to be taken to achieve the end state defined by for initiative. They define exactly who needs to do what and by when and may also define what they need in order to do it, and who they are doing it for.
The components of the operations are:
  • Processes: what the business does on an ongoing basis to transform the input it receives from its suppliers into the output required by its customers.
  • People: who perform the processes.
  • Structure: how the people are organised to do so.
  • Skills: knowledge, experience and capabilities that the people require in order to do so.
  • Capacity: the number of people required to do it.
  • Technology: the systems and equipment required to perform the processes.
For more insight into strategic operations, see How to design a Target Operating Model (TOM).

All of these components and the relationships between them can be defined in StratNavApp.com, the online collaborative platform for business strategy development and execution.

Saturday, 26 August 2017

Everybody Lies: The evolution of market research


I've only just started reading "Everybody Lies" by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz (see right), but already I am hooked.

Stephens-Davidowitz documents and evidences in page-turning style a view I have held for some years now:
  1. we can now observe how people actually behave, especially when they don't think anyone is looking, in ways which were previously not possible, and
  2. what we observe it is often very different from 
    1. what they say they do or will do, and
    2. how they behave when they think someone is looking.
I would guess that Stephens-Davidowitz borrowed the title of his book, whether knowingly or not, from the byline of the TV series "House M.D.", whose lead character says "It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what."

Reading the book has given me pause to reflect on the evolution of market research. Without having actually done a comprehensive historical study of the subject, my personal experience suggests at least 3 waves of development.

Market Research 1.0

The first wave of market research consists of asking people for the views, preferences, intentions, wants and needs, etc. This can be quantitative, for example, in the form of a survey, or qualitative, for example, in the form of a focus group, etc.

The obvious problem with this is, of course, that people have many reasons to lie, and few reasons not to. Reasons to lie can be very simple, for example, wanting to appear intelligent, or virtuous, wanting to be liked or admired by the questioner. Often, people won't even be aware that they are lying. As humans, we are excellent post-rationalisers. Cognitive Dissonance Theory suggests that when faced with a question we can't or don't want to answer, in a situation where we'd like to, our brains simply fill in the blanks, making up a story, possibly without even being consciously aware of it. (Note, we're using the word 'lie' here throughout, even when subjects are doing it unintentionally and unknowingly.)

Another problem is that people find it difficult to answer questions about subjects outside of their existing frames of reference. For this reason, market research 1.0 is even less helpful when developing novel ideas. As Henry Ford apocryphally said: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."  

Market Research 2.0

Market Research 2.0 attempts to build on Market Research 1.0 by showing customers examples of what future products or services might look like. Often, more than one version is shown, with subjects asked to interact with them, compare them and indicate preferences.

This can go a long way to alleviate subjects inability to imagine a different future, and if all options are attractive and presented positively, this will also reduce some of their incentive to lie.

Market Research 2.0 requires more work than Market Research 1.0 as it usually means that you first need to develop some ideas to test. If you're innovative in the development of those ideas, that helps. But the innovation is likely coming from the development of the ideas, rather than from the market research.

However, a number of examples illustrate the difficulties still inherent in the approach:
  1. Subjects reportedly overwhelmingly rejected the idea of ever withdrawing cash from a hole in the wall, as opposed to from a bank teller, but today, 94% of UK adults use cash machines.
  2. In market research, 68% of US customers said they liked the taste of New Coke, but 6 months after launch it was removed from the shelves, and the old formula relaunched. (Reference)
  3. Research conducted between the announcement and launch of the iPhone found high demand in emerging economies like Mexico and India, but not in developed countries, stating: “There is no real need for a convergent product in the US, Germany and Japan”. (Reference)
As I write, I can think of at least two factors which might contribute to this problem, and I am sure there are countless more:
  1. The Hawthorne Effect (also known as the Observer Effect) is named after experiments conducted from 1924-32 in which it was shown that subjects behaviour is altered by virtue of the fact that they know they are being observed.
  2. Research subjects typically have no 'skin in the game'. For example, it is a lot easier to say you'd be happy to pay, say, £100 for an item than it is to forego the other enjoyments you'd have to give up in order to do so. This is probably exacerbated where they are positively incentivised to take part in the study.


Market Research 3.0

Market Research 3.0 observes how real prospects and customers behave with and use products and services in the normal course of their lives and when they don't think they are being watched.

As technology evolves it is increasingly possible to track how customers move through a store, what items they buy and how they engage with and dispose of those products.

This involves developing and launching a product before market testing it, but with increasing software content in products and services (think the Internet of Things) and advances in technologies such as 3D printing, it is become ever cheaper to develop and pilot smaller batches of products or to mass-customise products and services.

Sample Application

I use these techniques to great effect in the development of StratNavApp.com in three ways. It is important to stress, however, that all three techniques are based on machine statistical analysis and don't involve anyone ever looking at users' data or strategies, or attributing the results to any specific individuals or companies.

Here are some common ways we measure and
  1. Web-site analytics: using even a simple (and free) tool like Google Analytics, it is possible to understand how users find the service, which parts of it they visit most frequently and in what order, how long they engage, and from where they leave. Using this insight, we can prioritise our development efforts to those areas and features users find most valuable. So, for example, we know that our SWOT analysis tool has been 24% more popular than our Strategy Canvas tool and 33% more popular than our Business Model Canvas tool (confirming our views on the continuing popularity of the SWOT).  
  2. AB Testing: almost all new features are first introduced to a randomly selected subset of users (the "A" group") while the remaining users (the "B" group) continue to see the site unaltered. We can then measure whether the A group engages more positively (against our own defined Critical Success Factors) than the B group or not. If they do, then the feature is released to the remaining users, and if they do not, then the new feature is rolled back or adjusted and retested. Either way, the results are analysed to enhance our picture of how users use the service, and how we can further improve it. By way of a very simple example, StratNavApp.com's byline "Collaborative strategy development and execution" was the winner from among a number of AB Tested alternatives considered.
  3. Content Analysis: StratNavApp.com provides a unique insight into how users develop and execute strategies. By way of a very simple example, we know that the word 'Market' is used almost twice as frequently as the word 'Customer' when describing strategic insights. We may not know why that is, and we may not know if it is a good thing or not, but we can certainly use it to enhance our product. We can analyse word counts, numbers and lengths, etc. of all elements used in StratNavApp.com with a view to optimising users' experiences of the tool.

Privacy and Ethics

This is not intended to be a post on privacy and ethics. However, it goes without saying that privacy and ethics have always been a key consideration in market research and it is right that there is ongoing debate and development of this subject as it evolves.

Conclusion

We've always known that market research is both invaluable and limited. As new technologies evolve we are able to increase the value it adds whilst simultaneously reducing its limitations. Those organisations that explore and utilise these new approaches will be at a distinct advantage over those that do not.

Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Understanding the 3 Horizons model

The 3 Horizons model is one of my favourite tools for helping people to think more strategically.

The 3 Horizons model suggests that a sustainable business plan should include a combination of 3 types of initiatives or projects:
  1. Horizon 1 includes all the initiatives that you need to do in order to maintain and fix your existing business - initiatives required to comply with changes to legislation, to maintain existing systems and to fix problems in your existing processes.
  2. Horizon 2 includes all the initiatives that you need in order to improve and grow your business and includes internal improvements, such as efficiency, effectiveness and quality improvements, as well as developing new products and entering new markets.
  3. Horizon 3 includes initiatives that will evolve and transform your business. These could take your business into new markets, new places in the value chain or new business models. It should include at least one initiative that could transform your industry - the so-called category killer.
You can easily see all 3 Horizons at play in a company like Uber. In Horizon 1 it is grappling with challenges to its employment practices and from traditional taxi firms and licensing authorities. In Horizon 2 it continues to expand into new cities and to develop new services. In Horizon 3 it is investing heavily in the development of autonomous vehicles which will undoubtedly change the very nature of car ownership and personal transportation. To succeed as a business, it must succeed in all 3 horizons at the same time. Its strategy must operate across all 3 Horizons.

I find the 3 Horizons model helpful in countering two problems I frequently encounter.

  1. Businesses that use strategy development as a precursor to the annual budget cycle tend to omit or significantly under-weight Horizon 3 initiatives. Restricted budgets keep people focused on the immediate issues of the day whilst demanding only incremental growth from existing business. Real change quickly becomes an unaffordable luxury.
  2. Businesses that approach strategy from a 'blue sky visioning' perspective tend to underplay Horizon 1 and 2 initiatives. As a result, the strategy is distant from most stakeholders' experiences of the organisation, and removed from its day-to-day operations. In some cases, businesses go as far as developing separate skunk-works to progress the strategy. Whilst this has some advantages, it can make progress difficult to integrate back into the business.

An organisation which is too focused on visionary transformation may not survive long enough to see it bear fruit. An organisation which is too focused on the here and now may be overtaken by events and rendered redundant by the competition.

Applying the 3 Horizons model to your strategy has three advantages:

  1. It quickly highlights whether your strategy is biased towards either the near term priorities or longer term transformation.
  2. It can help you rebalance your strategy by filling in any evident gaps.
  3. It helps stakeholders to understand the need to balance all 3 Horizons and pay attention to all of them on an ongoing basis.

You can now do your own 3 Horizons analysis using the innovative StratNavApp.com online tool for collaborative business strategy development and execution. Simple click on StratNavApp.com, register or log in, and add the 3 Horizons tool in the "Planning" quadrant.

The chart below, illustrating the 3 Horizons, was produced using StratNavApp.com.

See also:

Friday, 23 June 2017

Are we losing focus on strategy?

I recently had a look at the keyword 'strategy' in Google Trends and noticed a worrying trend. Have a look at the chart below, which tracks Google Trends for the search term 'strategy' since records began in 2014:


It seems that interest in 'strategy' as a subject has declined over the last decade or so by over 50%.

I gave some thought as to why that might be and came up with five possible reasons.

1. The anti-strategy movement could be gaining ground


Perhaps people are being taken in by mantras such as 'execution trumps strategy', 'culture eats strategy for lunch', and 'agility is more important than strategy' leading them to mistakenly believe that strategy somehow matters less than previously thought.

I have written on previous occasions explaining why I think this is misguided. See, for example: False dichotomies and the noise before defeat, and Agility needs a strategy.

2. People could be shifting focus to more specific aspects of strategy


Business strategy is a relatively young discipline. It only really rose to prominence in the 1960s. As it has evolved it has developed into several subdisciplines. Where these don't specifically use the word 'strategy' in their labels, and increasing interest in those might appear as a decreasing interest in 'strategy' as an overarching topic. Some example of this might include:
  • Target Operating Model (TOM) development
    The first candidate I looked at was Target Operating Model Development. See for example: How to design a Target Operating Model (TOM). Google Trends analysis suggests that interest in Target Operating Models has increased significantly (albeit from a zero base) over the same period, as shown in the chart below:

  • It also revealed something I had not appreciated before: all of this interest is coming exclusively from within the United Kingdom.


  • Business Model Canvas, Strategy Map, Strategy Canvas and Digital Disruption
    I then added some other strategic concepts I thought might have gained popularity into the mix. The chart below shows the relative popularity of the Business Model Canvas, Strategy Map, Strategy Canvas and Digital Disruption into the mix along-side Target Operating Model Development, over the same time period - see the chart below:

    • Blue | Target Operating Model: The chart highlights the fact that, whilst popular in the United Kingdom, Target Operating Model development barely features in the rest of the world.

    • Green | Strategy Canvas: I was also surprised to see that, the Strategy Canvas popularised in the book Blue Ocean Strategy, languishes at the bottom of the chart with the Target Operating Model. Further analysis shows that, in contrast to the Target Operating Model, interest in the Strategy Canvas originates almost entirely in the USA.

      See also: How to draw a Strategy Canvas in 4 steps.

    • Purple | Strategy Map: Popularised in the book, The Balanced Scorecard, and its sequel, The Strategy-Focused Organisation, seems to be suffering a similar fate to the word Strategy itself, slowly losing popularity.

    • Yellow | Business Model Canvas: Introduced in the book Business Model Generation seems to be the big winner. I am a great fan of the model, and given the ever increasing popularity of startups and startup culture, the popularity of this model is unsurprising.

      See also: How to use a Business Model Canvas.

    • Red | Digital Transformation: Whilst not a model or specific concept in the same way that the others are, I included this one off the back of some research claiming that Digital Transformation now accounts for ~25% of all strategy projects. The Google Trends analysis certainly bears this out, and one can easily imagine Digital Transformation eclipsing the Business Model Canvas in the very near future.

      See also: The digital spiral towards innovation at the core

3. Attention spans could be reducing


In a world where even world leaders struggle with more than 140 characters, it could be that disciplines like strategy simply require too much attention for people to bother.

I'd like to believe that we're not living through the early scenes of the film Idiocracy. However, as the art of strategy evolves, strategists need to work with ever greater care and discipline in order to identify and extract value from increasingly competitive markets.

Perhaps that is simply something that fewer and fewer people are willing to do.

4. People could think strategy is really easy


In direct contrast to the previous points, perhaps everyone thinks they are now a strategist.

In the last 4 hours, I've read two blog posts in which the author picked holes in well-known business and claimed to have the fix for them. Both analyses were based on precious little data or other evidence, were over-simplistic and completely missed the mark. One basically criticised Linkedin for not being more like Facebook, whilst the other thought Uber was doomed because after 4 rides they'd not asked him for an NPS score. (I'd only read them because the headlines had seemed promising.) 

When you think strategy is that easy, why would you need to Google it or take any other steps to learn how to do it?

5. Google Trends could be too blunt an instrument


Search terms trends are a blunt instrument for measuring the popularity of something. In the first instance, who really knows how Google collects and presents this data. Certainly not I. There could be many other technical reasons for the trends we think we're seeing.

In the second instance, we don't really know why people are searching for strategy. They could be searching for strategy games, military strategy or any of a range of topics with little to do with business strategy at all. So the decrease in popularity of strategy could have little to do with business strategy at all. A quick Google Trends check on 'business strategy' reveals, however, a similar trend as for 'strategy' in general. However, I am not sure if that distinction is viable as I suspect few business strategists distinguish when searching.

Conclusions:


Having completed the above analysis, my conclusions are that:
  • The specific terms 'Strategy' and 'Business Strategy'do appear to be losing popularity.
  • However, specific sub-disciplines, particularly those labelled without including the word 'strategy' are thriving. (Tip: If you're developing a new strategy concept, leave the word out of its name.)
  • The popularity of some strategy approaches is much more regional than I had realised.
Over to you: Do you think we are losing focus on strategy? If so, why do you think that might be? Should we be concerned? What, if anything, should we do about it? Please drop your answers in the comments below.

Thursday, 15 June 2017

How to evaluate and prioritise strategic options

Once you've developed a comprehensive list of strategic options, it's time to evaluate, prioritise and select the ones you want to pursue.

Evaluation is typically based on four criteria:
  1. feasibility,
  2. strategic fit,
  3. interdependencies, and
  4. financial risk and reward.

Feasibility


It doesn't matter how compelling your strategy is, if it requires you to build a time travel machine and teleport into a parallel universe, you're probably going to fail.

Feasibility is a measure of how easy it will be to execute an option.

One way to establish this is to cross-check the option against the strengths and weaknesses in your SWOT analysis. Does the option capitalise on your strengths? Do your strengths provide you with a unique opportunity to succeed with this initiative where others might find it more difficult? Does the option require strengths you don't have or where you are weak? Would the option protect you from exposure to your weaknesses?

Of course, you may find the option requires capabilities which you simply did not evaluate when you originally did your SWOT, in which case, you may want to consider updating it.

Just because an option will be difficult for you to execute does not mean you should give up on it. When America decided to put a man on the moon, no-one thought it would be easy. But it is certainly an important consideration when weighing an option up against alternatives.

Strategic Fit


There is little point in starting to build a commanding position offering a product or service for which demand is in free fall.

Strategic fit is a measure of the future attractiveness of an option.

You can establish this by cross-checking the option against the threats and weaknesses in your SWOT analysis, PESTEL analysis and/or Porter's 5 Forces analysis. Do industry trends suggest that demand for a product, service feature or attribute is likely to increase or decrease? Does the option capitalise on recent or anticipated changes in order to operate more effectively or efficiently? Do other external factors mitigate in favour of or against this option? Is it a unique fit to your specific relative strengths and weaknesses, or is it a me-to undifferentiated move?

Typically, lower strategic fit is less of an issue for very short-term options (think, for example, Horizon 1) which play strongly relative to strengths and weaknesses. However, they mitigate much more strongly for or against longer term investments (think, especially, Horizon 3).

Looked at together, a rigorous assessment of feasibility and strategic fit should also stop organisations from meandering aimlessly in pursuit of the next shiny idea, and instead help to develop a portfolio of strategic options which is holistic and based on sound analysis.

Interdependencies


It is important to remember that not all strategic options are independent of each other. There may be trade-offs and mutual exclusions (going in one direction may make it harder, or even counterproductive, to go in another), or dependencies (executing one option first may make it easier to implement another one second).

It is important to identify these before proceeding to look at financial risk and reward, as these interdependencies can have a significant impact on financial costs, benefits and risks.

The matrix below illustrates a simple approach to bulleting out the potential interdependencies between options (additional supporting documentation may be required):

Financial Risk and Reward


Financial risk and reward is probably the most widely written about of the 4 criteria. It is also the least strategic in that it can be applied to any project on a standalone basis. However, having worked through the other three criteria have a significant impact in understanding the costs and risks of implementation (feasibility & interdependencies) and the size and risk of the prize at stake (strategic fit and, again, interdependencies).

There are a number of ways of assessing financial risk and reward, including NPV, Profitability Index, IRR, Payback Period, Discounted Payback Period, etc. each with its pros and cons. Discussion of these is beyond the scope of this post. (If there is demand, I may consider a future post - please let me know in the comments.) All of these methods are based on future expected cash flows. Again, there are numerous ways of calculating these, and again, they are beyond the scope of the post (but could be the subject of a future post if there is demand).

It is self-evident but never-the-less worth stating that all of these methods of assessment are only as good as the forecasts on which you base them. Garbage in - garbage out. Furthermore, forecasts are notoriously unreliable, and probably more so as the options you're evaluating get more innovative and strategic. 

It is important to undertake financial risk and reward forecasts as they force you to confront difficult to answer questions. However, it is equally important not to then believe that your forecasts are somehow factual or accurate.

Bringing it all together


Once you've evaluated all of your options against each of the 4 criteria, you're in a position to review your portfolio and to start making choices.

Start by assigning a simply High, Medium and Low score to each option for each of Feasibility, Strategic Fit and Financial Risk and Reward. The result can easily be translated into a total score from 3 to 9 by giving one point for a Low and 3 points for a High, and the options can then be sorted based on that score. Then, where there are dependencies, firstly remove any lower scoring options which are mutually exclusive with higher scoring options, and if any preceding options score less well than their succeeding options, move the preceding options to just before the succeeding options.

The strategic portfolio analysis matrix provides a useful way to visualise the solution.

This basic approach will yield a prioritised list of options from which you can build a roadmap for delivering your strategy. There will inevitably arise situations where you disagree with the result. Any system for prioritisation will give you an indication but not a definitive solution. So if you really think you should charge what the formula spits out, then do so - but do it consciously and make sure you document and agree your reasons so that you're not left second guessing yourself.

Once you've evaluated and prioritised your strategic options, you're ready to move on to build your implementation roadmap. But that will have to wait for another post. Do be sure to signup to receive email updates to make sure you don't miss it if you've not already done so - just enter your email address in the panel to the right at the top of the page.