Why be strategic?

Geo is complex, maybe make a map?

Hey team,

Last time I talked about the resource-based view.  I wanted to start with this because looking inside is a great reminder to existing companies of what got them to where they are. I know personally, I went through a period with Sparkgeo where I wondered why we were succeeding. It wasn’t at all clear. So, digging into what we felt was valuable, rare, and inimitable was helpful. Finally wrapping that up with analyzing how we deliver that value was exceedingly valuable.

I wanted to start this series off with an actual tool. But let's take a quick step back and think about why we should consider these tools and what to expect from them. It would be perfectly reasonable to pick a path and just run hard. However, I have always been more interested in understanding the ground on which I walk.

Using strategic tools is incredibly useful for sharing ideas. You can think of these tools as a common language for abstraction. That’s a fancy way of saying that these tools are a common simplified language. Like a map, I guess. Huh.

The modern geospatial business landscape is very complex. We have massive incumbents, late-stage venture-backed start-ups, publicly traded companies, literally thousands of smaller start-ups, a smattering of service companies, and the influence of big tech. Those combined with various forms of and attitudes towards open and closed-source technology, data, and standards make for a difficult dinner party to place. Personally, I find this a wonderful melting pot of ideas, needs and approaches. But, no matter where you sit on this spectrum, I think we can all agree that “it's complicated” is a pretty good description right now.

And that is why a common, simplified language is helpful. Using these simplifications we will be able to see patterns of activity and identify approaches and reactions to this changing landscape.

Often, I’ve talked about strategy as being a North Star, a navigational beacon. To a large extent, I still agree with that sentiment, but as a navigator, it is important to know when one is faced with a feature to navigate around, or if a deeper direction change is necessary.

The tools I will talk about are models for simplified pattern matching.

Caveat: none of these are in and of themselves a solution. This sounds like an excuse. When I first started looking at this subject, I was deeply frustrated by the lack of “quantitivity” (not a word, I know) associated with the school of strategy. In fact, there must be meta-studies on why almost every strategist has their own brew of the quadrant map, SWOT or whatever. It all seemed so arbitrary. But over time I learned that simplicity is the charm, and each tool is not a solution unto itself. Instead, each tool should be thought of as an opinion.

An opinion can be well-formed and considered, but it is still only a model of reality, simplified so it can be articulated. An opinion therefore must always be, in some manner, flawed. In those flaws are the opportunity to better understand and abstract market opportunities.

In fact, as good leaders, we would be remiss if we did not seek out multiple opinions on the same subject. With more opinions available we are able to better understand a subject and then are better equipped to draw conclusions. When we consider that these tools are each a separate opinion, we can subsequently build a better model of the complex landscape we want to navigate. We can draw a better map.

But we are only drawing a map, and not the landscape itself. So, no, I’m not going to tell you whom to call for that next big deal, and I’m not going to share any stock tips. I’m not going to help with motivating your development team, or with designing your next sprint. However, I will help you think through what business, technology, philosophical and practical patterns are evident around us. Some tactical subjects will come up in passing, some have clearly become strategic for some companies, and I’ve certainly talked about all these subjects at Sparkgeo. But, in general, this will be an intellectual exercise focused out, rather than in. Operations look in, while strategy looks out.

Operations can become strategic, but strategy must become operational, or it's just talking.

Next week: Dominant Designs