How to unlock your residential sales strategy to win in tomorrow’s market

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

PwC Strategy&, June 2025

by Karim Abdallah, Joe Rached, Zahi Awad, and Maria Geagea




The surge in integrated mega projects in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries is heating up competition among residential real estate developers. Value propositions offering homebuyers distinctive designs and long lists of amenities have become commonplace. Developers need to find new ways to differentiate themselves from competitors, attract buyers, and optimize financial results. In this environment, a winning sales strategy is crucial for both survival and success.

The strong market for high-end residential real estate in the GCC countries is driven in large part by domestic demand for “branded” properties (built in alliance with a famous brand) and rising expatriate homeownership. During 2024, for example, the Saudi residential real estate market recorded a 38 percent increase in transaction volume and a 35 percent rise in transaction value.

The inventory needed to meet this demand is coming soon. Our review of new project announcements in locales such as Diriyah and the Red Sea, and by such developers as Dar Al Arkan and Roshn, shows that a substantial increase in residential units is in the works.

The challenge now facing developers is that many of them are targeting the same pool of middle- to high-income homebuyers. As more and more homes come onto the market, the features and amenities they offer will become increasingly commoditized—providing less opportunity for differentiation. Consequently, competition among developers will intensify.

Developers that want to win in this increasingly competitive residential real estate marketplace need to formulate and execute a sales strategy that strikes the optimal balance of pricing, financing, marketing, and differentiation to drive demand, move buyers through the sales funnel, and deliver sustained growth in an evolving market. This strategy should make full use of innovative tools and approaches, such as digital tokenization, which enhances the liquidity of real estate investments and brings more buyers to market.

A sales strategy for residential real estate developers needs to define the developer’s sales objectives and targets, the value proposition needed to achieve those objectives, the sales operating model, and the enablers that support the execution of the strategy (read the rest here).

Film and beyond: Leapfrogging into the global screen industry

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

BroadcastPro Middle East, February 5, 2025

by Tarek Matar, Karim Sarkis and Maansi Sagar



Ongoing transformation in the global screen industry has created an opportunity for GCC countries to establish themselves as prominent players. As the industry grapples with the future of content creation and the demands of a global audience, the combination of an appetite for investment in state-of-the-art technologies and media hubs, a focus on attracting investors and producers, a young and digitally-savvy workforce, and a culture rich with stories and landscapes could enable the GCC region to become a centre of cinematic innovation. Success in this endeavour will require a collaborative effort between governments and the private sector to bridge the silos of geography, technology and media industry verticals.

The screen industry, which has expanded beyond movies and movie theatres, is facing the uncertainties that accompany the impact of new technologies on its production value chain, particularly GenAI (simply defined here as artificial intelligence that can generate video content from text, image and video prompts). Video tools like Runway and Meta’s Movie Gen, along with virtual production and other advancements, are raising questions: Will content be generated versus filmed? Will soundstages and physical locations still be needed? What talent and skills will be essential? How will budgets and timelines be affected?

Creatives are soul-searching. Infrastructure investors are hesitating. Media conglomerates are experimenting. Big Tech is pouring billions into new tools. Yet the value is there to be captured. Strategy& forecasts that global video revenues – cinema, OTT services and TV – will increase by approximately $165bn to $564bn by 2028.

Simultaneously, audience and economic dynamics are changing, driven by shifting viewer preferences and industry budgetary pressures. Audiences are fuelling demand for locally-produced content as they search beyond the once-dominant Hollywood-centric model in search of relatable storytelling, cultural representation and authentic experiences. Film producers must do more with less as distribution and streaming platforms focus on profitability and tighten their budgets, thus making cheaper international content more appealing.

This uncertainty and the changing dynamics create an opportunity for the GCC’s forward-leaning economies to position themselves as a global film production hub with five actions. Read the rest here.

Open banking is a rich opportunity for GCC incumbent banks

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

Finance Middle East, July 28, 2024

by Dr. Antoine Khadige, Nader Haddad, and Marwan Nadda



Banking in the GCC region is undergoing a significant transformation with the growing impact of regulatory-led open banking initiatives. The Central Bank of Bahrain is preparing to enter the second phase of its open banking plan. Saudi Arabia has announced the gradual implementation of open banking use cases. Kuwait is testing open banking products, and the Central Bank of the UAE has initiated an open finance initiative covering banks and insurers.

With open banking regulatory directives, which require the sharing of customer data (with the customer’s consent) with trusted third parties, incumbent banks are entering a new era of competition. New banking entrants such as fintechs and payment providers can access incumbents’ now-exclusive customer relationships and entice customers away with new products and services.

If they articulate the right vision, however, incumbent banks can meet this challenge head-on, adopt the regulatory dictates of open banking and go beyond them. Banks that embrace open banking—which will grow at a global annual rate of 25% to 27%, according to MarkNtel Advisors and Grand View Research—can retain their market share and transform themselves, create new revenue streams, and forge deeper customer relationships. In Saudi Arabia, for example, we project an open banking penetration rate of 20% with retail customers by 2030.

Incumbent banks can take three actions to take advantage of open banking and position themselves in its vanguard. Read the rest here.

The art of the turnaround—circa 27 BC

strategy+business, July 31, 2023

by Theodore Kinni

Photograph by Viacheslav Peretiatko

The ranks of companies that have faced existential crises and succumbed are legion. When industries disappear and markets dry up, turnaround leaders who are charged with picking up the pieces and transforming for the future might find some perspective and inspiration in Virgil’s Aeneid.

“The song of the Aeneid is meant for moments when people desperately need to wrap their heads around an after that is shockingly different from the before they’d always known,” writes Andrea Marcolongo, an Italian journalist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, in her book about the 2,000-year-old epic poem, Starting from Scratch: The Life-Changing Lessons of Aeneas (translated by Will Schutt). “In the parlance of forecasters: The Aeneid is warmly recommended reading for days when you’re in the eye of the storm without an umbrella.”

The Roman emperor Octavian commissioned Virgil to write the Aeneid at just such an unsettling moment. The Roman Republic had disintegrated into a series of civil wars, which eventually resulted in Octavian establishing himself as its first emperor in 27 BC. He wanted Virgil to create a piece of work that reinforced his claim to power and reassured the empire’s subjects about their prospects under his rule. Virgil did this by linking Octavian’s divine authority to the origin story of Rome.

The reluctant hero of this tale is Aeneas, the son of a prince and the goddess Venus, a character Virgil borrowed from Homer. In Homer’s Iliad, Aeneas fights in the Trojan War against the Greeks. In the Aeneid, Troy has fallen after a long siege (that darn horse).

As Aeneas surveys the wreckage, he steels himself for a fight to the death. At this moment, Venus appears and tells him to face reality. The gods have abandoned Troy, she says, Aeneas should salvage what he can and save his family and companions. Her son is still reluctant to give up on Troy, until the ghost of his dead wife prophesizes that in doing so, he will eventually “come to Hesperia’s land, where Lydian Tiber flows in gentle course among the farmers’ rich fields. There, happiness, kingship and a royal wife will be yours.” Finally, Aeneas gets the message. He gathers his compatriots (the Aeneads); they build a fleet of boats and set sail. Therein lies the first lesson for turnaround leaders: when your industry or the markets your company depends upon are in ruins, don’t double down. Move on. Read the rest here.

Preparing Your Company for the Next Recession

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, December 6, 2022

by Donald Sull and Charles Sull

Winter is coming: Inverted yield curves, rising interest rates, and a rash of layoff announcements have convinced many economists that the global economy is headed for a downturn. Recessions are bad for business, but downturns are not destiny.

The worst of times for the economy as a whole can be the best of times for individual companies to improve their fortunes. One study found that lagging companies are twice as likely to overtake industry leaders during a recession, relative to nonrecessionary periods. Another study, of nearly 4,000 global companies before, during, and after the Great Recession, found that the top decile of companies grew earnings by 17% per year during the downturn, while the laggards saw profits stagnate or decline. The difference between the companies in the two groups translated into $6 billion in enterprise value on average.

How can the same recession cause some corporate empires to rise and others to fall? The short answer is that uncertainty surges dramatically during recessions — increasing roughly threefold at the company level compared with the relative calm before or after a downturn.

“Chaos isn’t a pit,” explains Petyr “Littlefinger” Baelish in Game of Thrones. “Chaos is a ladder.” The chaos of a recession, however, is both a pit and a ladder. In the face of uncertainty, some companies retrench. They abandon attractive customers and promising markets, offload valuable assets at fire sales, cut prices, and seek new partners to bolster cash flow. Others start climbing. They seize opportunities and improve their fortunes.

Our research has identified three fundamental ways to manage uncertainty: resilience, local agility, and portfolio agility. Leaders can take a series of steps, such as building a strong balance sheet or diversifying cash flows, to boost an organization’s resilience and ability to withstand environmental shocks. Local agility is the ability of individual business units, functions, product teams, and geographies to respond quickly and effectively to changes in their specific circumstances.

Portfolio agility is an organization’s capability to quickly and effectively shift resources across different parts of the business. While local agility enables individual teams to spot and seize opportunities, portfolio agility enables the company as a whole to double down on its most promising investments. Portfolio agility is, by some estimates, the largest single driver of revenue growth and total shareholder returns for large companies. Quickly and effectively reallocating resources is valuable at any point in the business cycle, but it’s decisive during downturns, when internal cash flows dwindle and access to external funding dries up.

Resilience and agility are effective in isolation, but in combination, their impact is turbocharged. In the midst of a downturn, resilient companies can weather the storm to wait for opportunities to arise. Having a high level of resilience — by building a war chest of cash or obtaining secure access to funding — provides an organization with the wherewithal to fund emerging opportunities, but only if it is agile enough to seize those opportunities. Resilience without agility may ensure survival but will not position a company for future growth. Agile companies without resilience, in contrast, often lack the resources to exploit the opportunities they spot. Read the rest here.

How Smart Products Create Connected Customers

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, September 8, 2022

by Mohan Subramaniam

Jon Krause/theispot.com

As leaders of legacy product and service companies anchored in traditional value chains seek ways to prosper in the digital economy, one of the most important questions they can ask is, “How can we turn our existing customers into digital customers?” Digital customers don’t simply buy products and services: Their interactions with those products and services generate data that companies leverage to provide them with greater value over time. Those data insights also help companies attract new customers, create fresh revenue streams, and expand the scope of their businesses. This customer-generated data, which is often combined with other data streams, has fueled the growth engines of companies built on digital platforms, like Amazon and Google.

Legacy companies typically collect episodic data from discrete events — the sale of a product or the shipment of a component, for instance. Amazon and Google capture a continuous stream of data at every customer touch point on their platforms that is used to generate a new class of insights that play a more expansive role in their businesses. All of their customers are digital customers. Now, thanks to technologies such as sensors, the internet of things (IoT), and artificial intelligence, legacy firms, too, can transform their customers into digital customers who generate streams of data via their interactions with connected products.

Sleep Number uses sensors in its mattresses to track its customers’ sleeping heart rates and breathing patterns. This data enables the company to identify chronic sleep issues, such as sleep apnea and restless legs syndrome, and expand its business scope beyond mattresses to wellness provision. Sensors on Caterpillar heavy machinery produce data that enables the company to track wear and tear, predict component failures, and create new revenue streams from maintenance services. Chubb is installing sensors in the buildings it insures to detect water leaks before they become claims. In this way, the company is expanding beyond damage compensation to damage prevention.

For all its promise, harnessing value from digital customers also brings new challenges for legacy companies. They must develop new value propositions, build out their data infrastructures and strategies, staff for new digital and product design capabilities and competencies, and rework innovation processes to create a feedback loop using valuable customer interaction data. And they must learn to market and sell their new value proposition to create a new digital customer base — and reap the benefits of their digital transformation. Read the rest here.

How “Corporate Explorers” Are Disrupting Big Companies From the Inside

Insights by Stanford Business, August 24, 2022

by Theodore Kinni


|iStock/Alexey Yaremenko

The conventional wisdom holds that disruptive innovation is beyond the ken of large, incumbent companies. But then there are companies like Microsoft, which transformed its ubiquitous Office software suite into the Office 365 subscription service. “If Microsoft had done that as a startup, it would be a multi-unicorn,” says Andrew Binns, a founder and director of the strategic innovation consultancy Change Logic. “Office 365 is a whole new business model, but nobody talks about it as disruptive innovation.”

Binns, along with Charles O’Reilly, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Michael Tushman of Harvard Business School, finds that more and more established companies are overcoming the obstacles to innovation with the help of what they call corporate explorers. Corporate explorers are managers who build new and disruptive businesses inside their companies. Sometimes with a formal mandate, sometimes not, they use corporate assets to support and accelerate the development of these new ventures.

Binns, O’Reilly, and Tushman studied a number of these entrepreneurial insiders and report their findings in The Corporate Explorer: How Corporations Beat Startups at the Innovation Game. The book builds on the trio’s continuing research into ambidextrous organizations — companies that succeed over the long haul by simultaneously exploiting their existing businesses and building new ones that drive future growth.

In a recent interview, O’Reilly and Binns described the traits of corporate explorers and the conditions they need to thrive. Read the rest here.

Saudi Arabia’s dynamic television and video market

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

PwC Strategy&/MBC Media Solutions, July 2022

by Karim Sarkis, Karim Daoud, Carla Khoury, Nadim Samara, and Jamil Kabbara



Saudi Arabia’s vibrant and rapidly growing entertainment and media (E&M) industry is making an important contribution to the country’s culture and its economic diversification. In particular, the TV market is undergoing transformation and the over-the-top (OTT) video market is dynamic and developing as new technologies emerge. Globally, audiovisual content has become a respected cultural artefact and is experiencing record levels of demand—in which Saudi Arabia can now participate.

The Saudi market’s E&M growth potential stems from its distinct features—high rates of content consumption, including TV, streaming, video sharing, and gaming; impressive adoption of smartphones; robust social media; fast connectivity; and advertising growth opportunities. Indeed, while streaming and mobile penetration are changing how video is consumed, TV retains a majority share of viewership. Digital technology allows viewers to blend linear and streaming, curating their own content.

To grab more of this market, TV and video players should know their viewers intimately so that content producers can predict programming needs, grow viewer numbers, and create content to gain audience share domestically, regionally, and internationally. Media companies should continue with extending their offerings to on-demand streaming, digital transformation, innovation, data analytics, social media engagement, and digitally enabled advertising. To support such customer-centric change, media players should deepen partnerships with telecom operators, technology companies, and content creators, while building their internal capabilities to become more innovative. Read and download report here.

What Is Your Business Ecosystem Strategy?

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

Boston Consulting Group, March 11, 2022

by Ulrich Pidun, Martin Reeves, and Balázs Zoletnik





From media and technology to energy and mining—no major industry is untouched by the rise of business ecosystems. These dynamic groups of largely independent economic players working together to deliver solutions that they couldn’t muster on their own come in two flavors: transaction ecosystems in which a central platform links two sides of a market, such as buyers and sellers on a digital marketplace; and solution ecosystems in which a core firm orchestrates the offerings of several complementors, such as product manufacturers in a smart-home ecosystem. Both types can quickly generate eye-popping valuations; since 2015, more than 300 ecosystem startups have reached unicorn status.

Given the success of this cohort of startups, as well as the Big Tech ecosystem players now numbered among the world’s most valuable companies, it’s no surprise that ecosystems are high on the strategic agendas of incumbent companies. More than half of the S&P Global 100 companies are already engaged in one or more ecosystems, and in a recent BCG survey of 206 executives in multinational companies, 90% indicated that their companies planned to expand their activities in this field.

Yet many leaders of incumbent companies are still unsure how to define their ecosystem strategies. This article aims to help them in that pursuit. It is informed by the insights we’ve gleaned from three years of ecosystem research and engagements with large enterprises across industries and geographies. Organized in eight fundamental questions, it offers a step-by-step framework for developing a company’s ecosystem strategy. Read the rest here.

Open Up Your Strategy

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, December 20, 2021

by Christian Stadler, Julia Hautz, Kurt Matzler, and Stephan Friedrich von den Eichen


Michael Austin/theispot.com

Formulating and executing sound organizational strategy is difficult work. Strategy is often made by elite teams and thus can be limited by their biases about competitors, customer needs, and market forces. And it can be an uphill battle convincing stakeholders across the company to channel money, time, and energy in a new and unproven direction.

Our solution to both the strategy formulation and execution challenges is radical: Open up your strategy process. Open strategy offers leadership teams access to diverse sources of external knowledge they wouldn’t otherwise have, while also making individual leaders aware of their biases and helping them build the buy-in needed to speed up execution.

This approach is particularly valuable when companies face disruptive threats and contemplate transformational change. It’s much easier to master disruptions when you’re forging strategy in concert with others who view the world through a different lens than you do. Progress and innovation depend less on lone thinkers with exceptional IQs than they do on diverse groups of people working together and capitalizing on their individuality, as social scientist Scott E. Page has shown.1 In short, diversity of perspective matters — a lot.

Involving people from outside the C-suite — and outside your company — in strategy-making not only provides a wellspring of fresh ideas but also mobilizes and galvanizes everyone involved. Thus, execution becomes an integral part of strategy. The best part: All this can happen without a loss of control over the strategy-making process. Read the rest here

Sharing Value for Ecosystem Success

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, November 1, 2021

by Ron Adner


Image courtesy of Jon Krause/theispot.com

What do you call an ecosystem in which you always see your company as the central actor?

An ego-system. This is how we end up with labels such as the “Google ecosystem,” the “Facebook ecosystem,” the “insert-your-name-here ecosystem.” These labels seem impressive at the get-go, but they undermine an important truth: Ecosystem strategy is alignment strategy.

Defining ecosystems around companies blinds everyone involved to alignment hurdles and limits their ability to craft appropriate strategies. The presumption of centrality makes it harder to establish the relationships needed to achieve their goals: It’s harder for ecosystem leaders to create strategies that attract followers, and harder for ecosystem partners to know which leaders to follow and where to place their bets.

Apple offers a stark example. The most valuable company in the world has been enormously successful in extending the mobile data device ecosystem it leads — iPod to iPhone to iPad to Apple Watch, encircled by its App Store and iOS platforms. But it has been shockingly disappointing in its efforts to expand into new businesses that require the construction of new ecosystems. Apple’s failures to deliver on ambitious promises — that health care would be the company’s “greatest contribution to mankind”; that the HomePod would “reinvent home audio”; that its classroom education platform would “amplify learning and creativity in a way that only Apple can” — are concealed by the profits gushing from its core ecosystem, but they are failures nonetheless. The consequences of these failures are borne not only by Apple, but also by all the companies that joined as complementors in these efforts.

If successfully aligning the partners and other participants in new ecosystems is challenging to a company as sophisticated as Apple, a giant at the height of its power, then (1) no would-be market leader should be deluded into thinking that its success in one ecosystem will naturally translate to leadership elsewhere, and (2) no would-be complementor should assume that following established leaders into new domains is a safe bet.

How can all ecosystem players do better? They can anchor their notion of ecosystems in the value propositions that are being pursued, not in corporate identity. This shift in mindset supports the formulation and execution of more successful strategies for leadership (not always the most advantageous role to play) and followership (far more common, but too often neglected) in an ecosystem world...read the rest here

The Digital Superpowers You Need to Thrive

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, September 28, 2021

by Gerald C. Kane, Rich Nanda, Anh Nguyen Phillips, and Jonathan Copulsky

On Jan. 8, 2020, when Chinese researchers announced that they had identified a new virus that had infected dozens of people across Asia, few business leaders realized that their companies were on the brink of an economic, medical, political, and cultural disruption of global magnitude. In short order, they were called upon to respond to potential illness among employees and customers, supply chain interruptions, dramatic fluctuations in demand, and extraordinarily high levels of uncertainty.

Yet, for all its grim — and ongoing — consequences, the COVID-19 pandemic is just one of many fundamental breaks in the business environment that have challenged leaders over the past 30 years or so. These disruptions come in two forms.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an acute disruption. As with an acute medical condition, the onset of such a disruption is sudden and severe, and its symptoms are obvious. Its treatment calls for a rapid and dramatic response, and its duration is relatively short. The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S., the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, the 2008 housing and financial crisis, and the 2010 volcanic eruptions in Iceland are examples of acute disruptions.

The second form of disruption is more like a chronic medical condition. Chronic disruptions build slowly. Their immediate symptoms can be subtle and easily overlooked. They require sustained treatment that must be tolerable over time. Chronic disruptions, such as China’s economic rise, climate change, and the evolutionary emergence of digital technology, tend to be persistent and long lasting.

While the two phenomena present differently, they both represent a departure from business as usual to which companies must respond. In studying corporate responses to the pandemic from March through December 2020, we found that companies with existing playbooks for responding to chronic digital disruptions were also responding more quickly and effectively to the acute pandemic disruption. The economic payoffs from digital technologies that allow for enterprise virtualization — such as remote work, e-commerce, and telehealth — increased significantly in the context of COVID-19. Moreover, in responding to the pandemic, many of these companies wound up accelerating their digital transformation efforts and their returns on those efforts.

These companies’ ability to manage the pandemic offers a dramatic illustration of what we’ve come to call the transformation myth. The myth is the idea that transformation is an event with a start and an end during which organizations migrate from one steady state to another, as opposed to a continuous process of adapting to a highly volatile, ambiguous, and uncertain environment shaped by multiple, overlapping disruptions. Read the rest here.

Why Good Arguments Make Better Strategy

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, June 3, 2021

by Jesper B. Sørensen and Glenn R. Carroll

Image courtesy of Phil Wrigglesworth/theispot.com

Strategy is hard — really hard — to do well. Many leaders will admit this privately: In an anonymous 2019 survey conducted by Strategy&, 37% of 6,000 executive respondents said that their company had a well-defined strategy, and 35% believed that their company’s strategy would lead to success.

Great leaders create ways of engaging their teams that can cut through this strategic fog. They may adopt frameworks to guide their analysis, but they expect participants in strategy discussions to contribute coherent reasoning and defensible ideas. Amazon is well known for its requirement that major initiatives be proposed in the form of a six-page memo. The virtue of the memo — versus a slide deck — is that writing in full sentences and paragraphs forces leaders to clarify how their ideas connect to each other. Similarly, Netflix has driven stunning transformations in the media landscape in part through its success at encouraging its leaders to debate ideas frankly and its willingness to empower them to take risks without waiting for an annual strategy planning process. It is no surprise that CEO Reed Hastings views working from home as “a pure negative” for the company, in part because “debating ideas is harder now.”

The emphasis on vigorous debate at Netflix and Amazon clarifies a truth that many approaches to strategy obscure: At their core, all great strategies are arguments. Sure, companies can and do get lucky; sellers of hand sanitizer, for instance, have done very well during the pandemic. But sustainable success happens only for a set of logically interconnected reasons — that is, because there is a coherent logic underlying how a company’s resources and activities consistently enable it to create and capture value. The role of leaders is to formulate, discover, and revise the logic of success, making what we call strategy arguments.

Many leaders would agree with this claim but struggle with how to translate the insight into practice. What does it mean to construct a strategy argument? How does one evaluate such an argument? Read the rest here.

How Healthy Is Your Business Ecosystem?

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, March 9, 2021

by Ulrich Pidun, Martin Reeves, and Edzard Wesselink


Image courtesy of Harry Campbell/theispot.com

Companies that start or join successful business ecosystems — dynamic groups of largely independent economic players that work together to create and deliver coherent solutions to customers — can reap tremendous benefits. In the startup phase, ecosystems can provide fast access to external capabilities that may be too expensive or time-consuming to build within a single company. Once launched, ecosystems can scale quickly because their modular structure makes it easy to add partners. Moreover, ecosystems are very flexible and resilient — the model enables high variety, as well as a high capacity to evolve. There is, however, a hidden and inconvenient truth about business ecosystems: Our past research found that less than 15% are sustainable in the long run.

The seeds of ecosystem failure are planted early. Our new analysis of more than 100 failed ecosystems found that strategic blunders in their design accounted for 6 out of 7 failures. But we also found that it can take years before these design failures become apparent — with all the cumulative investment losses in time, effort, and money that failure implies.

Witness Google, which made several unsuccessful attempts to establish social networks. It invested eight years in Google+ before shutting down the service in 2019. One reason for the Google+ failure was its asymmetric follow model, similar to Twitter’s, in which users can unilaterally follow others. This created strong initial growth but did not build relationships, which might have fostered greater engagement on the platform. The downfall of another Google social network, Orkut, was built into its unusually open design, which let users know when their profiles were accessed by others. It turned out that users were uncomfortable with this lack of privacy, and the network went offline in 2014, 10 years after its launch.

Typically, ecosystems are assessed using two kinds of metrics: conventional financial metrics, such as revenue, cash burn rate, profitability, and return on investment; and vanity metrics, such as market size and ecosystem activity (number of subscribers, clicks, or social media mentions). The former are not very useful for assessing the prospects of ecosystems because they are backward-looking. The latter can be misleading because they are not necessarily linked to value creation or extraction. They indicate the current interest in the ecosystem, and presumably its potential, but may also reflect an ecosystem’s ability to spend investors’ money on marketing and other growth tactics more than its ability to generate value.

To improve the odds of success and mitigate the high costs of failure, leaders must be able to assess the health of a business ecosystem throughout its life cycle. They need metrics that indicate performance and potential at the system level and at the level of the individual companies or partners participating in the ecosystem, as well as the ecosystem leader or orchestrator. They need to be able to gauge growth in terms of scale not only in ecosystem participation but also in the underlying operating model. And most critically, they need metrics that reflect the success factors unique to each of the distinct phases of ecosystem development.

This article lays out a set of metrics and early warning indicators that can help you determine whether your ecosystem is on track for success and worthy of continued investment in each development phase. They can also help you identify emerging issues and decide if and when you may need to cut your losses in an ecosystem and/or reorient it. Read the rest here.

Arguing your way to better strategy

strategy+business, March 2, 2021

by Theodore Kinni



Illustration by johnwoodcock

There is no shortage of theories regarding the proper basis for a winning corporate strategy. You can set sail on blue oceans with W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, hone core competences with C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel, and get competitive with Michael Porter, to call out just a few of the fashionable options. But how do you transform the theories into a unique strategy capable of driving your company’s long-term success?

This is the question Stanford business school professors Jesper Sørensen and Glenn Carroll address in Making Great Strategy. It’s a book about strategic due diligence. And it fills an important gap in the literature by caring not a whit about a company’s strategy per se, but rather focusing entirely on how rigorously that strategy has been formulated and how thoroughly it has been vetted.

Toward this end, Sørensen and Carroll define strategy as a logical argument that coherently articulates “how the firm’s resources and activities combine with external conditions to allow it to create and capture value.” They further assert that “the development, communication, and maintenance of a strategy argument is best achieved through an open process of actually arguing within the organization, engaging in productive debate.”

Sørensen and Carroll find that in many companies this process of argumentation is either altogether missing or poorly conducted. Instead of using logical argument, decisions about strategy are often dictated by the most powerful people in the room. Or, when they are made more democratically, they are chosen in a rigged or otherwise flawed manner. The authors’ insights help explain the findings of a 2019 survey by Strategy&, PwC’s strategy consulting group, in which only 37 percent of 6,000 executive respondents said that their company had a well-defined strategy, and only 35 percent believed their company’s strategy would lead to success. Read the rest here.

How to Pressure Test Your Strategic Vision

Insights by Stanford Business, January 15, 2021

by Theodore Kinni

iStock/BeholdingEye

There is no shortage of advice regarding the art and craft of business strategy. Yet, in 2019, when the consulting firm Strategy& surveyed 6,000 executives, only 37% said their companies had well-defined strategies and only 35% believed that their strategies would lead to success.

Stanford Graduate School of Business professors Jesper Sørensen and Glenn Carroll peg this lack of confidence in the ability to make sound strategy to a dearth of critical analytical thinking. They find that the strategies that have driven the long-term success of companies such as Apple, Disney, Honda, Southwest Airlines, and Walmart are typically — and insufficiently — attributed to either an innovative vision or the fortuitous discovery of emerging opportunities. In their new book, Making Great Strategy: Arguing for Organizational Advantage, they assert that neither explanation tells the whole story.

“To put it bluntly: Without reasoned analysis, neither vision nor discovery will lead to strategic success,” Sørensen and Carroll write. In their book, which grew out of developing and teaching strategy and organizational design courses at Stanford GSB, Sørensen and Carroll apply the logician’s tools to the creation of successful corporate strategy.
The Importance of Rigorous Logic

Executives need the tools of logic to construct a coherent and valid strategy argument, which Sørensen and Carroll identify as the common core in all successful strategies. They define a strategy argument as “an articulation of how a firm’s resources and activities combine with external conditions to allow it to create and capture value.”

“We tend to venerate and celebrate strategic intuition, but intuition can always be wrong,” explains Sørensen. “Leaders need to buffer themselves against that possibility by being rigorously logical, too. Logic also is easier to communicate accurately than vision. If I articulate a grand vision for the future, you may be inspired by it, but how will you act on it?”

“There’s a distinction between talent and a skill,” adds Carroll. “Steve Jobs had a talent for envisioning the future that can’t be taught. But the skills needed to develop a logical argument that will reveal if the strategy being envisioned has holes in it or is missing things that you haven’t thought about — those skills can be taught.” Read the rest here...

Four Questions for Appraising Your Alliances

MIT Sloan Management Review, December 22, 2020

by Theodore Kinni



Over the past four years, many of the United States’ geopolitical alliances have been remade with bewildering speed. It’s no surprise that many of those changes created an uproar — some of these relationships dated back a century or more and seemed sacrosanct, until they weren’t. It also prompted Stephen Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, to cut through the noise with an article in Foreign Policy titled “How to Tell if You’re in a Good Alliance,” which is instructive for business leaders as well as diplomats.

Walt is a pragmatist, so the first thing he points out is the unspoken assumption behind the uproar: that each of a nation’s existing political alliances is actually worth maintaining. “Surely this is not the case, for all allies are not created equal, and the value of any commitment is likely to wax and wane over time,” he writes. “Wise countries choose their allies carefully and do not treat any of them as sacred and inviolable.”

This is as true in business as it is in international relations. Corporate alliances are a means to an end, and they involve costs and obligations. Accordingly, corporate leaders, like the heads of nations, should never take the value of their partnerships for granted. Toward that end, you can conduct a fast review of the value of your company’s alliances by asking the following four questions, derived from the short list of attributes of a good ally that Walt offers in his article.

Does your partner make a meaningful contribution to the alliance? This is a key question when reviewing a partnership. It’s also one that torpedoed the 2009 alliance between Suzuki Motor Corp. and Volkswagen. Volkswagen wanted to gain greater access to the fast-growing Indian market through Suzuki, and Suzuki wanted access to Volkswagen’s hybrid and diesel technologies. The problem, claimed Suzuki chairman Osamu Suzuki less than two years after the companies bought stakes in each other, was that the technology Suzuki sought wasn’t forthcoming. Suzuki didn’t need the technology that VW was willing to provide, and VW wouldn’t provide access to the technology that it did need. If your partner hasn’t made the contributions it promised, you don’t have a good ally. Read the rest here.

Competing on Customer Outcomes

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, September 2, 2020

by Marco Bertini and Oded Koenigsberg




Image courtesy of Richard Borge/theispot.com

In his 1969 book The Marketing Mode, Harvard Business School professor Theodore Levitt immortalized a gentleman named Leo McGivena, who reportedly said: “Last year 1 million quarter-inch drill bits were sold — not because people wanted quarter-inch drill bits but because they wanted quarter-inch holes.” A half-century later, this insight is as compelling as it ever was — customers still want to buy meaningful outcomes (a particular sensation, a tangible benefit, or some combination of the two), not products and services. What’s changing is companies’ ability to become more accountable for those outcomes by helping customers navigate three critical checkpoints: accessing the solution, consuming (that is, experiencing or using) it, and getting it to perform as expected or above expectation.

Even so, most companies do not stake their success on these checkpoints. Instead, they sell quarter-inch drills and promise customers that the quarter-inch holes they desire will follow. Indeed, a revenue model focused on transferring the ownership of a product or service to the buyer may appear prudent because revenue accrues up front, and any risk associated with access, consumption, and performance is passed on to customers. But in reality it places an unnecessary burden on customers and ultimately shrinks the opportunity in the market. This contraction occurs when, for instance, customers are priced out or forgo a purchase because it is inconvenient, when they perceive ownership as too risky and decide not to buy, and when they resolve to pay less to account for the possibility that they will not make sufficient use of their purchase or that it will not perform as advertised.

Technological advances are enabling companies to rewrite the rules of commerce. Mobile communication, cloud computing, the internet of things, advanced analytics, and microtransactions offer sharper, more timely information that can illuminate when and how customers access and consume their products and services, and whether and how well those products and services perform. We call this information impact data — it enables companies to track and understand what happens to their solutions beyond the moment of purchase.

The way we see it, impact data — and the technologies that deliver and analyze it — is transforming corporate accountability for customer outcomes from a fashionable marketing slogan into a strategic imperative. Some organizations dismiss this imperative, hoping that it is another passing trend. Others (often intentionally) make their prices more ambiguous and thus less comparable across competitors, which impedes sound purchasing decisions on the customer side. These will not be winning plays in the long run. Instead, companies should start to embrace accountability for outcomes and change their revenue models accordingly before they are forced to do so by more enlightened competitors and disruptive startups.

In this article, we’ll describe three types of revenue models that can help companies win customers and drive growth in today’s increasingly transparent markets. The framework draws on insights from our respective academic areas of behavioral economics and operations, our research, and our ongoing interactions with companies. We’ll also provide guidance on developing and implementing the right revenue model for your company, unlocking the untapped market potential of your solutions, and capturing the lion’s share of the resulting value... Read the rest here

The general wisdom of Ulysses S. Grant

strategy+business, May 27, 2020

by Theodore Kinni



Photograph by drnadig

Prior to the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant didn’t show much promise. He called his admission to the U.S. military academy at West Point “an accident,” and when he graduated in 1843, he was only in the middle of his class. Just over a decade later, in 1854, he resigned from the U.S. Army. In the next few years, he proved to be a failure in business — even during boom times, such as the California gold rush.

In 1861, as the slave states seceded from the U.S. and the Union rushed to build up its army, Grant struggled just to get a commission leading 630 men in the 21st Illinois Infantry Regiment. And yet, four years later, it was Grant who, as the chief strategist and leader of more than 1 million men serving in the Army of the United States, left Robert E. Lee with no choice but to surrender at Appomattox, effectively ending the Civil War.

What was it that made this least likely of leaders such a success? And what can we learn from Grant’s experience? I recently read 1,700 pages looking for answers — Grant’s best-selling memoirs, which he wrote as he was suffering from cancer and finished a few days before he died, in 1885, and Ron Chernow’s more wide-ranging and much-praised biography. Both contain valuable lessons for leaders.

The first striking attribute about Grant was his low-key management style, which is the polar opposite of the textbook definition of an alpha leader. He assumed leadership more than he asserted it. And he certainly didn’t dress for success: Instead, Grant wore a mostly unadorned blue coat and black hat throughout much of the war. He showed up for his first regimental assignment in civilian garb, reports Chernow, prompting one soldier to quip, “He don’t look as if he knew enough to find cows if you gave him hay.” Read the rest here.

The Future of Platforms

Learned a lot lending an editorial hand here:

MIT Sloan Management Review, February 11, 2020

by Michael A. Cusumano, David B. Yoffie, and Annabelle Gawer

The world’s most valuable public companies and its first trillion-dollar businesses are built on digital platforms that bring together two or more market actors and grow through network effects. The top-ranked companies by market capitalization are Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), and Amazon. Facebook, Alibaba, and Tencent are not far behind. As of January 2020, these seven companies represented more than $6.3 trillion in market value, and all of them are platform businesses. 

Platforms are also remarkably popular among entrepreneurs and investors in private ventures. When we examined a 2017 list of more than 200 unicorns (startups with valuations of $1 billion or more), we estimated that 60% to 70% were platform businesses. At the time, these included companies such as Ant Financial (an affiliate of Alibaba), Uber, Didi Chuxing, Xiaomi, and Airbnb.

But the path to success for a platform venture is by no means easy or guaranteed, nor is it completely different from that of companies with more-conventional business models. Why? Because, like all companies, platforms must ultimately perform better than their competitors. In addition, to survive long-term, platforms must also be politically and socially viable, or they risk being crushed by government regulation or social opposition, as well as potentially massive debt obligations. These observations are common sense, but amid all the hype over digital platforms — a phenomenon we sometimes call platformania — common sense hasn’t always been so common.

We have been studying and working with platform businesses for more than 30 years. In 2015, we undertook a new round of research aimed at analyzing the evolution of platforms and their long-term performance versus that of conventional businesses. Our research confirmed that successful platforms yield a powerful competitive advantage with financial results to match. It also revealed that the nature of platforms is changing, as are the ecosystems and technologies that drive them, and the challenges and rules associated with managing a platform business.

Platforms are here to stay, but to build a successful, sustainable company around them, executives, entrepreneurs, and investors need to know the different types of platforms and their business models. They need to understand why some platforms generate sales growth and profits relatively easily, while others lose extraordinary sums of money. They need to anticipate the trends that will determine platform success versus failure in the coming years and the technologies that will spawn tomorrow’s disruptive platform battlegrounds. We seek to address these needs in this article. Read the rest here.