{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "skill_name": "strategy-frameworks",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": "strategic-direction",
      "prompt": "Our company has grown reactively for years and the leadership team cannot agree on where we are going. I have been asked to structure a strategic-direction conversation. How do I run it and what artifact should come out?",
      "expected_output": "A strategic-direction process that uses a framework to make the conversation structured rather than free-form: the response selects the strategic-planning approach and runs it through the working method — state the decision and its owner, articulate the current situation and the constraints, generate the direction options with the assumptions behind each, and record the trade-offs and the conditions that would change the choice. The output artifact names the direction, the alternatives considered, the evidence, the key assumptions, and the next validation step. The response explains the discipline: the framework produces questions and options, not a verdict, and strategic logic is paired with financial, customer, and operational analysis rather than asserted. It also covers where the output lands in the organization's planning cycle so the direction is not a document that dies on a shelf.",
      "assertions": [
        "The process is framework-structured with a stated decision, owner, and constraints",
        "Direction options are generated with assumptions and evidence made visible",
        "The artifact names the decision, alternatives, evidence, assumptions, and next validation step",
        "The response states that frameworks produce questions and options, not verdicts",
        "The output connects to the planning cycle so it is acted on"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "competitive-analysis",
      "prompt": "We are entering a market with two strong incumbents and several startups. I need to understand the competitive landscape to decide whether entering is even wise and how to position. What analysis should I do and what framework fits?",
      "expected_output": "A competitive analysis using industry-structure frameworks to examine the attractiveness of the market before the positioning question: the response applies a five-forces-style analysis to the market (rivalry intensity, threat of entry, supplier and buyer power, substitutes) to surface where the profit pool is and how hard it is to capture, then layers a competitor-positioning view (who serves which segments, on what dimensions they compete) to identify an underserved position. It explains the working method: state the decision (enter or not, and how), make the assumptions about competitors' likely responses explicit, and record the trade-offs and the evidence that would change the recommendation. The output names the decision, the alternatives, the evidence, and the next validation step rather than producing a framework-labeled verdict.",
      "assertions": [
        "Market attractiveness is assessed with an industry-structure framework before positioning",
        "Competitor mapping identifies an underserved position rather than a crowded me-too one",
        "Assumptions about competitor responses are explicit",
        "The working method records evidence, trade-offs, and the decision",
        "The output includes the next validation step, not just a framework classification"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "growth-strategy-options",
      "prompt": "Our core product is mature and growth has flattened. The options on the table are expanding into adjacent segments, moving upmarket, or building a platform play. How do I structure the growth-strategy decision so we compare the options fairly?",
      "expected_output": "A growth-option analysis that compares the candidates on common criteria rather than their internal enthusiasm: the response frames each option (adjacent segments, upmarket, platform) with its market evidence, the capabilities it requires and whether they exist, the capital and timeline involved, and the risk profile, then evaluates them against the company's current position and constraints. The framework is used to generate questions and options: for each candidate the response identifies the critical uncertainty and the smallest experiment or evidence step that would validate or kill it. The output names the recommended option with its alternatives, assumptions, trade-offs, and the next validation step, and the response explicitly rejects picking an option because it is more exciting rather than better evidenced.",
      "assertions": [
        "Each growth option is assessed on common criteria: evidence, capabilities, capital, timeline, risk",
        "The framework generates the critical uncertainty and the smallest validation step per option",
        "Options are compared fairly rather than by internal enthusiasm",
        "The output names the recommendation, alternatives, assumptions, and trade-offs",
        "The next validation step is explicit for the chosen path"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "resource-allocation",
      "prompt": "Our company has three business units and limited capital for next year. Each unit is asking for more than it got last year, and the requests together exceed what we can fund. How do I structure the capital-allocation decision across the portfolio?",
      "expected_output": "A resource-allocation process that compares the units on the economics of the choice rather than last year's budget: the response defines the decision criteria (return prospects, strategic fit, risk, and the funding required to actually move the needle for each unit), gathers comparable evidence for each unit against those criteria, and frames the options including the portfolio-level trade-offs — funding one unit fully versus spreading thin, or investing in new growth versus defending the core. It records the assumptions and the conditions under which the allocation would change, and it names the decision owner for the final call. The response explains the discipline that allocation decisions are about marginal return, not fairness or history, and it structures the conversation so the leadership team sees the trade-offs explicitly instead of negotiating from last year's numbers.",
      "assertions": [
        "Units are compared on marginal-return criteria, not last year's budget or fairness",
        "Common evidence is gathered for each unit against the defined criteria",
        "Portfolio-level trade-offs are framed explicitly, including defend-core versus new-growth",
        "Assumptions and change conditions are recorded",
        "A named decision owner makes the final call"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "portfolio-choice",
      "prompt": "We are considering acquiring a small competitor to close a capability gap, and separately a team inside is proposing to build the same capability from scratch. How do I structure the build-versus-buy portfolio decision?",
      "expected_output": "A build-versus-buy analysis that compares the two options on the dimensions that matter: time to capability, total cost including integration and ongoing ownership, risk (acquisition integration risk versus build delivery risk), strategic control, and the option value each path creates. The response gathers comparable evidence for both options, makes the assumptions explicit (what the acquisition would actually cost including integration, what the build timeline really requires, what talent is available), and identifies the critical uncertainty that should decide between them plus the smallest step to resolve it, such as a scoped pilot or deeper diligence. It records the trade-offs and the decision owner, and it explicitly rejects defaulting to build because it feels cheaper or acquire because it is faster without comparing the full cost picture.",
      "assertions": [
        "Build and acquire are compared on common dimensions: time, total cost, risk, control, option value",
        "Assumptions about integration cost and delivery timelines are made explicit",
        "The critical uncertainty and the smallest step to resolve it are identified",
        "The trade-offs and decision owner are recorded",
        "Neither path is chosen by default without the full cost comparison"
      ]
    }
  ]
}

# Competitive Analysis

Use these lenses to investigate a market and an organization's relative position. Their output is a set of questions, evidence needs, and hypotheses, not a profitability forecast.

## Five Forces

*Attribution: Michael E. Porter described the framework in "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy" (1979).*

Analyze industry structure by examining rivalry, potential entrants, substitutes, buyer power, and supplier power. Define the market boundary first, then ask for each force:

- Who has choices or negotiating leverage, and why?
- Which costs, constraints, regulation, channels, standards, or relationships shape that leverage?
- What evidence supports the assessment, and what is changing?
- Which relevant complements, ecosystems, or nonmarket factors are outside the model?

The framework helps compare structural pressures and identify questions for further research. It does not determine an industry's or firm's profitability; firm capabilities, timing, regulation, execution, and market definition also matter.

## Value-Curve Exploration

*Attribution: value-innovation and "Blue Ocean Strategy" tools are associated with W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne.*

Map the factors customers use to compare alternatives, then describe how each alternative emphasizes those factors. Challenge the current value curve with four prompts:

- Which factors could be removed because they add little value for the chosen customer?
- Which could be reduced?
- Which could be increased?
- What new factor or combination of factors might be worth testing?

This is an exploratory exercise, not evidence that a new market exists. Validate customer value, cost implications, adoption barriers, and competitive response before acting.

## Potential Advantages

An advantage may arise from network participation, switching friction, scale economics, intangible assets, distinctive capabilities, data access, relationships, or another context-specific source. Avoid assigning a categorical durability rating.

For each claimed advantage, ask:

1. What mechanism creates value or lowers cost?
2. For whom does it matter, and what evidence shows that it affects behavior or economics?
3. What would a competitor, supplier, customer, regulator, or substitute need to do to weaken it?
4. What investment, maintenance, or dependencies does it require?
5. Under which scenarios does it strengthen, weaken, or become irrelevant?

## Positioning

Describe a position relative to the alternatives customers actually consider. A useful draft can answer: for whom is the offering intended, what job or problem does it address, which category or frame is relevant, what outcome is promised, and what evidence distinguishes it from alternatives?

A two-axis map can help discuss perceptions, but its axes may omit important dimensions and its placement can reflect analyst judgment. Test the map with customer evidence. Neither narrow nor broad positioning is inherently superior; fit depends on the customers, market, capabilities, and chosen trade-offs.

## Competitive-Assessment Artifact

Record enough evidence that another analyst can challenge the result:

- Market boundary, customer set, geography, time context, and alternatives included or excluded.
- Evidence and uncertainty for each relevant force, plus direction of change.
- Complements, ecosystems, regulation, or other material factors the selected framework omits.
- Value-curve hypotheses and the customer or cost evidence needed to test them.
- Each claimed advantage as a mechanism, not a label: who benefits, how value or cost changes, dependencies, counterfactuals, and erosion scenarios.
- Positioning alternatives, supporting customer evidence, and trade-offs.
- Strategic implications framed as options and validation needs, not as conclusions mechanically produced by a framework.

# Growth Strategy

These frameworks organize growth hypotheses. Pair them with customer research, operational feasibility, financial scenarios, and applicable regulatory analysis.

## Ansoff Matrix

*Attribution: H. Igor Ansoff, "Strategies for Diversification" (1957).*

Classify an option by product novelty and market novelty:

| | Existing market | New market |
|---|---|---|
| Existing offering | Market penetration | Market development |
| New offering | Product development | Diversification |

The matrix is a vocabulary for discussing uncertainty, not a ranking of risk or a forecast of results. For any quadrant, assess the relevant unknowns: customer need, willingness to pay, distribution, capabilities, competition, regulation, capital, reversibility, and learning path. The materiality of each unknown depends on the specific option.

## Three Horizons

*Attribution: the Three Horizons framework is associated with Baghai, Coley, and White's* The Alchemy of Growth *(1999).*

Treat the horizons as concurrent maturity states, not calendar buckets:

| Horizon | Maturity state | Questions |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | Established activities | What sustains and improves current value creation? |
| H2 | Emerging growth activities | What evidence would show the activity can become repeatable or material? |
| H3 | Exploratory options | What uncertainty is being investigated, and what would justify further learning or stopping? |

An initiative can move between states as evidence changes. Choose allocation, governance, metrics, ownership, and review moments according to strategic importance, constraints, uncertainty, and decision reversibility. Do not infer a required allocation from the framework.

## Market Entry

Entry modes can include building organically, acquiring, partnering, forming a joint venture, licensing, or other arrangements. Their commitment, risk exposure, control, speed, and reversibility are contextual, shaped by the market, counterparties, regulation, capabilities, financing, and desired learning.

Before deciding, investigate:

- Which customer segment, use case, and unmet need form the initial thesis?
- What evidence supports demand, pricing, channel access, and ability to serve the market?
- Which incumbents, substitutes, partners, legal constraints, and local conditions matter?
- What would a plausible competitive response look like?
- Which capabilities are owned, missing, or better accessed through a partner?
- What investment, operating assumptions, decision points, and exit or adaptation paths are acceptable?

Avoid treating market size as sufficient evidence, assuming a uniform competitor response, or presenting a mode of entry as an all-or-nothing commitment. Use scenario analysis to surface downside, upside, and adaptation paths.

## Growth-Options Artifact

For every option under consideration, capture:

- The customer, offering, market, and maturity assumptions that determine how it is classified.
- Evidence already available and the unknowns that matter most.
- Required capabilities, channels, partners, capital, approvals, and organizational attention.
- Strategic fit and interaction with established, emerging, and exploratory activities.
- Reversible learning steps, decision points, and conditions for expanding, adapting, pausing, or stopping.
- Downside, base, and upside scenarios with assumptions rather than unsupported point forecasts.
- The decision owner, recommendation, dissenting view, and next evidence-gathering action.

Compare options on decision-relevant dimensions. Do not convert Ansoff quadrants, horizon labels, or entry modes into an automatic ranking.

# Resource Allocation

Use these prompts to compare uses of capital and organizational attention. The criteria, measures, and review approach should reflect the organization's objectives, financing, constraints, stakeholders, and uncertainty.

## Capital Allocation

Potential uses include reinvestment, acquisitions, debt reduction, distributions, reserves, and options not listed here. Compare them through scenarios rather than a blanket ordering.

For each option, document:

- Strategic fit and the capabilities it supports or constrains.
- Expected outcomes, assumptions, and sensitivity to changed conditions.
- Cash needs, liquidity, financing terms, and opportunity cost.
- Risk exposure, reversibility, governance needs, and stakeholder effects.
- Alternatives considered and the evidence needed before commitment.

Financial measures such as return on invested capital, cost of capital, cash flow, and leverage may be relevant, but their use and interpretation depend on the decision and accounting context. Use `financial-modeling` for quantitative scenario construction.

## Acquisition Evaluation

An acquisition can be assessed for market access, capabilities, product fit, talent, distribution, competitive effects, financial value, or another stated rationale. Synergy is one possible rationale, not a universal requirement.

Separate the strategic thesis from the valuation and integration assumptions. Ask:

1. What problem or opportunity does the transaction address, and what alternatives could address it?
2. Which claims about customers, capabilities, economics, regulation, and competitors require diligence?
3. Which valuation methods and scenarios fit the target's circumstances?
4. If benefits depend on integration, what specific changes, owners, costs, dependencies, and risks are assumed?
5. What integration approach fits the operating model: preserve, combine selectively, or integrate more deeply?
6. What evidence or changed conditions would alter the recommendation?

Plan pre-close and post-close work according to the deal's legal, operational, technical, cultural, and customer dependencies. The sequence and duration are deal-specific. Guard against confirmation bias with independent challenge, explicit assumptions, and documented counterarguments; do not attribute that risk to a particular role or personality type.

## Portfolio Management and the Growth-Share Matrix

*Attribution: the growth-share matrix is associated with the Boston Consulting Group and Bruce Henderson.*

The matrix places a business or offering on relative market share and market growth axes. Common labels for the resulting quadrants are stars, cash cows, question marks, and dogs. It is descriptive: it helps organize a portfolio conversation and does not prescribe investment, harvesting, or divestment.

The two axes are limited proxies. They can omit profitability, cash needs, competitive dynamics, strategic interdependence, option value, regulation, management capacity, and the reliability of market data. Use supplementary analysis before a capital decision.

For each portfolio element, assess strategic role, competitive position, customer value, economics, dependencies, future scenarios, and feasible actions. Compare actions such as invest, maintain, partner, reposition, harvest, or exit based on those conditions rather than quadrant alone.

## Allocation Decision Artifact

Document the allocation decision so the logic can be revisited after conditions change:

- Decision owner, scope, constraints, stakeholders, and alternatives considered.
- Strategic rationale and explicit connection to the organization's chosen direction.
- Financial scenarios and assumptions, with sensitivity analysis delegated to `financial-modeling` where appropriate.
- Customer, employee, operational, technical, legal, financing, and integration effects that are material to the option.
- Opportunity costs, dependencies, reversibility, and concentration risks.
- Evidence for the acquisition or portfolio thesis, including disconfirming evidence and independent challenge.
- Governance, accountable owners, decision points, and indicators that would support continuing, adapting, or exiting.

Keep framework classifications separate from the recommendation. A portfolio label, synergy hypothesis, or valuation model is one input to judgment, not the judgment itself.

# Source Index — strategy-frameworks

## Provenance

This skill was adapted from the [`strategy-frameworks` material](https://github.com/magnus919/hermes-profiles/tree/867a555/skills/strategy-frameworks) in `magnus919/hermes-profiles` at commit [`867a555`](https://github.com/magnus919/hermes-profiles/commit/867a555). This repository version reorganizes the material into a host-neutral index and decision prompts. It adds no scripts or templates.

## Framework References

| Framework or topic | Reference |
|---|---|
| Objectives and key results | Andy Grove; John Doerr, *Measure What Matters* (2018) |
| Five Forces | Michael E. Porter, "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy" (1979) |
| Value-innovation tools | W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne, *Blue Ocean Strategy* (2005) |
| Ansoff Matrix | H. Igor Ansoff, "Strategies for Diversification" (1957) |
| Three Horizons | Mehrdad Baghai, Stephen Coley, and David White, *The Alchemy of Growth* (1999) |
| Growth-share matrix | Bruce Henderson and the Boston Consulting Group |
| Capital allocation and M&A | Synthesized from strategy and finance literature; use deal-specific and financial sources for decisions |

These references identify intellectual provenance. The explanations in this skill are paraphrased working prompts and should be checked against the cited work when primary-source interpretation matters.

## Current Skill Boundaries

| Skill | Use it for |
|---|---|
| `product-discovery` | Stakeholder and customer discovery, interviews, and requirements evidence |
| `product-methodology` | Product prioritization, decision records, specifications, and stakeholder communication |
| `financial-modeling` | Assumptions-led financial models, valuation scenarios, unit economics, and operating metrics |
| `technology-radar` | Technology adoption posture, build-versus-buy analysis, and architecture governance |

Strategy-frameworks organizes organizational choices across these inputs; it does not replace the specialized analysis.

# Strategic Planning

Use these structures to clarify direction and test alignment. Adapt the prompts to the organization's decision context and evidence.

## OKRs

*Attribution: the objectives-and-key-results approach is commonly associated with Andy Grove and was later popularized by John Doerr.*

An objective describes a meaningful change or direction. Key results state observable evidence that would indicate progress or achievement. Choose the number, level of aggregation, time boundary, and scoring convention to fit the work; they are design choices, not universal rules.

### Prompts

- What decision or strategic priority does this objective support?
- What outcome would a relevant audience be able to observe?
- Which measures are useful signals, and what could distort them?
- Which activities or milestones enable the outcome but should remain separate from it?
- Is the result a commitment, a hypothesis, or an aspiration, and how will that distinction affect interpretation?
- Who owns the result, what dependencies matter, and when should the assumptions be revisited?

Review results as learning about the strategy, environment, and measurement design. Do not treat a score alone as a judgment of a person or team.

## Purpose, Direction, and Values

These labels vary among organizations. Use them only if they help distinguish durable purpose, desired direction, and behavioral commitments.

| Element | Useful prompt |
|---|---|
| Purpose or mission | What contribution does the organization intend to make, for whom, and why? |
| Direction or vision | What future condition are we trying to help create or reach? |
| Values | Which behaviors and trade-offs should guide decisions, especially under pressure? |

Test a draft against real decisions: does it clarify a trade-off, distinguish the organization from plausible alternatives, and remain understandable to the people expected to use it? Revise when evidence, ownership, or context changes.

## Strategic Narrative

A narrative can make a strategy easier to discuss; it is not a required format or a substitute for analysis. Select and adapt only the prompts that serve the audience:

1. What external change, customer need, or internal constraint makes a choice necessary?
2. What evidence supports the organization's understanding of the situation?
3. What ambition or direction is being proposed?
4. What approach, capabilities, and trade-offs would make that direction credible?
5. What uncertainties, risks, or counterarguments should remain visible?
6. What decisions, measures, or experiments connect the narrative to action?

Use a narrative alongside supporting analysis when communicating a strategy. Keep its claims traceable to evidence, and label hypotheses as hypotheses.

## Decision Artifact

A strategic-planning artifact should stand alone for a reader who was not in the planning session. Include:

- The decision and accountable decision owner.
- Current evidence, constraints, and unresolved disagreements.
- The proposed purpose, direction, values, narrative, or OKRs, with the choices each is intended to clarify.
- Measures or observations that would test the strategy, including known measurement weaknesses.
- Dependencies, assumptions, counterarguments, and conditions that would trigger revision.
- The next decision, validation activity, or review event and its owner.

Do not hide uncertainty behind polished language. If stakeholders disagree about purpose, evidence, or trade-offs, record the disagreement rather than manufacturing consensus.