4 ms·

The overwhelming majority of “strategies” are just rigid sequences of time bound outputs/shit you want to build, that always end up being wrong and needing to c

by dchuk 4y ago

The overwhelming majority of “strategies” are just rigid sequences of time bound outputs/shit you want to build, that always end up being wrong and needing to change because of new information coming in. Strategy needs to be: - We’ve identified this deep problem in the world that needs to be fixed - We want to bring the Vision to life where that problem is gone (a big bold future state of the world). - We believe bringing this sequence (roadmap) of intermediate states of the world to life will get us to that vision. - These are the things we WONT do along the way. (Guiding policy) A roadmap unrolls your strategy into that sequence. A good roadmap item clearly lays out where you’re trying to go without committing you to doing it in any particular way. <— this is the most important principle you need to master to create good, proper roadmaps Most roadmaps are really a feature release plan. A roadmap should contain Futures, not Features. All of the above is uncomfortable at first and takes a lot of practice to get used to, so many just end up committing to a timeline of things to build that doesn’t really add up to an actual strategy.

danielvaughn 4y ago
A major component of a strategy is constraint. In other words, what are you going to give up? If you're going to do All The Things, that isn't a strategy, it's a wishlist. You have to bring constraints into the picture before anything like a strategy emerges.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  This is exactly right, the most important thing that makes it a strategy is what we cut ourselves off from doing. If we're only hiring seniors, we don't get access to cheap graduates who can stay up all night. If we play a high line, we can't sit deep and wait for a counterattack. The basic thing that makes a plan a strategy is it stops you from doing "the everything". A constrained menu of actions can still contain variability but it reduces the scope for total chaos that happens when you try to do absolutely everything. It's quite possible that two opposing strategies can both work, but that allowing the team to do both at once will fail. That's called straddling. For example it's hard to appeal to exclusivity and the mass market at once, but businesses have done well doing one or the other.
5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
i agree, but think timelines are a practical necessity of business. this is why we get so much half-baked/unfinished stuff being released. and this is where the trade-offs happen that dilute or misdirect an otherwise sound roadmap/strategy. some exec needs shit done so he can present to his boss and get his nice bonus, then jump ship before they realise its a clusterf*ck.
- dchuk 4y ago
  I don't disagree that timelines are important. However, here is the problem I consistently see: Wrong Way: Most roadmaps contain timelines that are "We're going to build this specific thing and we're estimating it's going to take this long" (Even worse is if they're specifically bucketed by quarters with strict cut offs). Isolated estimates of how long something will take will always be wrong because it doesn't account for all the work in the system and the trade offs that brings with it. Basic Lean theory at work. Right Way: "We're going to try and create this future state of the world, we'll know we're there as measured by x y z metrics, and we're going to budget this much time and this many resources to try and pull this off. Here's some high level ideas of how we can do this". When you roadmap in the second way, you can still provide the business a timeline, but: - You leave yourself the ability to pivot your approach along the way and still try and hit those measurables (futures not features, you want to be crystal clear about where you're trying to get without committing to how you're going to get there in any specific way) - You transition the evaluation of your results away from a boolean (did you build this thing or not), to a discrete measurable, that still allows you to achieve some amount of success even if you didn't completely hit the goal ("Our target was a 60% reduction in support calls, and we were able to reduce by 40%"). I'd also argue that a kanban style roadmap (considering, planning, next, doing, done), is more than enough of a timeline even without dates, so long as each outcome seems reasonable enough to achieve in 2-4 month efforts. The reason why, is I can look at the right side of the roadmap and immediately understand that you've prioritized those Outcomes as being more impactful than the left side of your roadmap. (Extreme caveat here: You have to have a leadership team that buys into this approach. Some leaders will look at this and just say WTF where's your Gantt chart. You can then either teach them the right way, do what they say and probably fail, or quit, your call).
mikkergp 4y ago
I find the good strategy/bad strategy definition useful, which is essentially, an area of ‘strength’ as to be applied to an area of ‘weakness’ (put in quotes because I think weakness can be replaced with “opportunity” or similar words, but his point is that a good strategy should respect the specific skills of the business/team while also finding some unique space in the market those skills apply. Otherwise “visions” are just pipe dreams.
- clairity 4y ago
  that's definitely a good heuristic for finding a strategy. strategies are realistic methods for how you'll achieve a goal without getting into the details of what you will do to get there (that's the plan). in chess, it might be "control the middle" (if you're strong positionally). in basketball, it might be "run and gun" (if your strength is endurance and speed). it's important to understand that strategy only exists relative to competition. thus a business strategy only exists at the level of a firm, and not a department or a product, because firms compete in markets (for which a firm may produce many products). that also means it doesn't make sense to talk about marketing strategy or product strategy, because those are implementation details of the firm's business strategy. further, firms only have two broad strategic options: differentiaton (compete on quality) or cost (compete on price). within that, they can apply their strengths to tailor their strategy to the firm (our proprietary manufacturing process produces much more consistent and precise tiddlybonks, so we'll compete on quality).
tootie 4y ago
I think the problem is that strategy is hard and frequently requires divestment. Your head of inbound marketing isn't going to tell you the company strategy should switch to outbound marketing so let's cut my team in half and throw away everything I've built. My company is suffering this right now. We're doing annual roadmapping and it's entirely a program plan. Our business has shifted over the past 5 years and now there's a lot of initiatives being pitched to justify their department's existence.
- dchuk 4y ago
  "Your head of inbound marketing isn't going to tell you the company strategy should switch to outbound marketing so let's cut my team in half and throw away everything I've built." 1) Some might, if they see other roles/opportunities for themselves in the event they do 2) Generally your example is a call their boss or another overarching leader would make, not someone within the system/strategy.
  - tootie 4y ago
    Yeah, my example is a bit reductive but some form of this happens pretty frequently. Especially when the high-level decision makers are relying on their reports to provide inputs to their strategy decisions.
brador 4y ago
Disagree. Short term - todo list, Mid term - features list, Long term - future milestones. All three together form your roadmap. All three guided by macro goals.
tibbetts 4y ago
Finding a big problem is actually optional, and often a distraction. Most companies that are already functioning at scale have plenty of medium sized problems that need strategic fixes. For example “sales aren’t growing in Japan.” Most small companies are happy to stay small and also need only solve medium sized problems. For example “there is no good construction supplies vendor in this geography.” It’s only startups looking for rapid-scaling venture-friendly returns who need a big unsolved problem they can grow into. Of course, those companies get a whole lot of attention. But Google and Facebook and Twitter don’t need big new unsolved problems. They already picked their big problem, and solved it well enough to get big. Now they need strategies which address the medium sized problems that limit their continued success. When they go looking for big new unsolved problems (I’m looking at you Alphabet and Meta) it’s usually a distraction.
FunnyBadger 4y ago
Exactly. If you think "strategy" involves following a simple one-size-fits-all cookbook recipe, you are very deep in the weeks. Sadly that's pretty much what most MBAs get from their MBA program. Rather than the true lessons. A lot of this is also easier if you are "present" in the now and the world. I don't meet many people who are either.
picsao 4y ago

by dchuk 4y ago

danielvaughn 4y ago

A major component of a strategy is constraint. In other words, what are you going to give up? If you're going to do All The Things, that isn't a strategy, it's a wishlist. You have to bring constraints into the picture before anything like a strategy emerges.

lordnacho 4y ago
This is exactly right, the most important thing that makes it a strategy is what we cut ourselves off from doing. If we're only hiring seniors, we don't get access to cheap graduates who can stay up all night. If we play a high line, we can't sit deep and wait for a counterattack. The basic thing that makes a plan a strategy is it stops you from doing "the everything". A constrained menu of actions can still contain variability but it reduces the scope for total chaos that happens when you try to do absolutely everything. It's quite possible that two opposing strategies can both work, but that allowing the team to do both at once will fail. That's called straddling. For example it's hard to appeal to exclusivity and the mass market at once, but businesses have done well doing one or the other.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago

i agree, but think timelines are a practical necessity of business. this is why we get so much half-baked/unfinished stuff being released. and this is where the trade-offs happen that dilute or misdirect an otherwise sound roadmap/strategy. some exec needs shit done so he can present to his boss and get his nice bonus, then jump ship before they realise its a clusterf*ck.

dchuk 4y ago
I don't disagree that timelines are important. However, here is the problem I consistently see: Wrong Way: Most roadmaps contain timelines that are "We're going to build this specific thing and we're estimating it's going to take this long" (Even worse is if they're specifically bucketed by quarters with strict cut offs). Isolated estimates of how long something will take will always be wrong because it doesn't account for all the work in the system and the trade offs that brings with it. Basic Lean theory at work. Right Way: "We're going to try and create this future state of the world, we'll know we're there as measured by x y z metrics, and we're going to budget this much time and this many resources to try and pull this off. Here's some high level ideas of how we can do this". When you roadmap in the second way, you can still provide the business a timeline, but: - You leave yourself the ability to pivot your approach along the way and still try and hit those measurables (futures not features, you want to be crystal clear about where you're trying to get without committing to how you're going to get there in any specific way) - You transition the evaluation of your results away from a boolean (did you build this thing or not), to a discrete measurable, that still allows you to achieve some amount of success even if you didn't completely hit the goal ("Our target was a 60% reduction in support calls, and we were able to reduce by 40%"). I'd also argue that a kanban style roadmap (considering, planning, next, doing, done), is more than enough of a timeline even without dates, so long as each outcome seems reasonable enough to achieve in 2-4 month efforts. The reason why, is I can look at the right side of the roadmap and immediately understand that you've prioritized those Outcomes as being more impactful than the left side of your roadmap. (Extreme caveat here: You have to have a leadership team that buys into this approach. Some leaders will look at this and just say WTF where's your Gantt chart. You can then either teach them the right way, do what they say and probably fail, or quit, your call).

mikkergp 4y ago

I find the good strategy/bad strategy definition useful, which is essentially, an area of ‘strength’ as to be applied to an area of ‘weakness’ (put in quotes because I think weakness can be replaced with “opportunity” or similar words, but his point is that a good strategy should respect the specific skills of the business/team while also finding some unique space in the market those skills apply. Otherwise “visions” are just pipe dreams.

clairity 4y ago
that's definitely a good heuristic for finding a strategy. strategies are realistic methods for how you'll achieve a goal without getting into the details of what you will do to get there (that's the plan). in chess, it might be "control the middle" (if you're strong positionally). in basketball, it might be "run and gun" (if your strength is endurance and speed). it's important to understand that strategy only exists relative to competition. thus a business strategy only exists at the level of a firm, and not a department or a product, because firms compete in markets (for which a firm may produce many products). that also means it doesn't make sense to talk about marketing strategy or product strategy, because those are implementation details of the firm's business strategy. further, firms only have two broad strategic options: differentiaton (compete on quality) or cost (compete on price). within that, they can apply their strengths to tailor their strategy to the firm (our proprietary manufacturing process produces much more consistent and precise tiddlybonks, so we'll compete on quality).

tootie 4y ago

I think the problem is that strategy is hard and frequently requires divestment. Your head of inbound marketing isn't going to tell you the company strategy should switch to outbound marketing so let's cut my team in half and throw away everything I've built. My company is suffering this right now. We're doing annual roadmapping and it's entirely a program plan. Our business has shifted over the past 5 years and now there's a lot of initiatives being pitched to justify their department's existence.

dchuk 4y ago
"Your head of inbound marketing isn't going to tell you the company strategy should switch to outbound marketing so let's cut my team in half and throw away everything I've built." 1) Some might, if they see other roles/opportunities for themselves in the event they do 2) Generally your example is a call their boss or another overarching leader would make, not someone within the system/strategy.
- tootie 4y ago
  Yeah, my example is a bit reductive but some form of this happens pretty frequently. Especially when the high-level decision makers are relying on their reports to provide inputs to their strategy decisions.

brador 4y ago

Disagree. Short term - todo list, Mid term - features list, Long term - future milestones. All three together form your roadmap. All three guided by macro goals.

tibbetts 4y ago

Finding a big problem is actually optional, and often a distraction. Most companies that are already functioning at scale have plenty of medium sized problems that need strategic fixes. For example “sales aren’t growing in Japan.” Most small companies are happy to stay small and also need only solve medium sized problems. For example “there is no good construction supplies vendor in this geography.” It’s only startups looking for rapid-scaling venture-friendly returns who need a big unsolved problem they can grow into. Of course, those companies get a whole lot of attention. But Google and Facebook and Twitter don’t need big new unsolved problems. They already picked their big problem, and solved it well enough to get big. Now they need strategies which address the medium sized problems that limit their continued success. When they go looking for big new unsolved problems (I’m looking at you Alphabet and Meta) it’s usually a distraction.

FunnyBadger 4y ago

Exactly. If you think "strategy" involves following a simple one-size-fits-all cookbook recipe, you are very deep in the weeks. Sadly that's pretty much what most MBAs get from their MBA program. Rather than the true lessons. A lot of this is also easier if you are "present" in the now and the world. I don't meet many people who are either.

picsao 4y ago