Mobilizing To There:
The Packing and unPacking of Strategy; We still need to hold the theory. We've rote memorized ourselves into being poor observers of the world around us. We parrot both fact and fiction without much research. And, we are prone to make less than optimal choices as a result of the world we think we see from our cocoon on a single branch, in a single tree.
To make it operational, we must engage some foundational elements:
Demographics | Finance | Technology | Policy are the lenses we must begin to look through to form new perspectives, while we are continuously checking ourselves against a series of continuums and others to see where we are. To marshall our assets.
"My start-up is the ___Anchor model___ of the ___X, Y, Z space___."
NO. It isn't. Your start-up may be many things, but it is not that. Yet. It could be. If we tend to a sequence that supports our strategy. That's where the rails come off. Back to the theory.
In order to mobilize to there we need to begin a rigorous journey of testing and retesting our own theories of value with real, live suspects and prospects. We need to talk. We need to wrestle concepts to the ground in a way that makes both parties stronger. We are strongest when we are at peace internally. Martial arts can teach this. Dialog in tiny boxes is actually dong the opposite. Dialog in tiny boxes isn't dialog, generally, and is a breeding ground for anxiety, normally. We must resist taking our horrible online habits of dismissal and rebuff into our physical lives. Through dialog maps are co-invented. Maps for taking territory.
What we are doing here is beginning to sketch a observational framework for operational success. A framework, which reduces coordination waste in the process to as close to zero as we can get. What we are outlining is how we get from speech acts to maps to actual territory with velocity.
Note: Two colleagues pitched me on frameworks recently. What they shared made my head spin. That in itself is fine, though my sense was that what they were offering was too dense. Too complicated to embody, to take in as a way of beginning to move quickly. This is why we've broken the distinction of frameworks down to three groups; Elemental, Foundational, and Situational frameworks. The latter is the most complex in terms of detail, it has to be to account for multivariate input and rapid change. The first is the least complex, the most flexible in terms of mixing and matching elements. Foundational, the second, is an in between that could head in either direction towards simplicity, or away from simplicity, depending on the desired outcomes one wants to realize.
The power of sketching in business comes from loose relationships, which can be held while a picture begins to form as to where both (all) parties are in their thinking, perspectives and willingness to act.
Distinctions: Continuums, Assets, Strategy, Observational Frameworks, Elemental, Foundational, Situational, Power,