Official skill · Strategy

Strategy choice cascade

v1.0.0 · Updated 4 November 2026

Writes a strategy on one page as five linked choices, builds where to play and how to win as pairs, and tests the pair with a what-would-have-to-be-true list. Use it when A team needs a strategy on one page.

Works in Claude, ChatGPT, and coding agents. On Team and Business, the official skill in your pod updates itself when we improve it.

When to use it

• A team needs a strategy on one page
• Leaders are choosing between strategic options and keep arguing
• The strategy is a vision plus a list of initiatives

What you give it

• The scope (company, unit, product, function)
• Facts on customers, channels, competitors, and your strengths
• The options on the table
• Who decides and by when

What you get

The five choices on one page, a what-would-have-to-be-true table with tests and owners, and a choice or a dated test plan.

How it works

1. Set the scope and the aspiration Write the winning aspiration in one or two sentences: what winning means for this scope and for whom. Don't overinvest in it up front: treat it as a direction, and put the effort into the next two choices.
2. Generate where-to-play and how-to-win pairs Write two to four options, each as a pair: where to play (which customers, products, channels, geographies, and stages of the value chain) with the how to win that fits it. How to win must be a theory of advantage for those customers, through more value or lower cost than rivals, not a list of good things to do. Reject any where-to-play that has no how-to-win.
3. Write what would have to be true for each pair For each option, list the conditions that would make it a great choice, grouped by industry (segments, structure), customers (channels and end customers would value and pay for it), the organization's relative position (capabilities and cost it can build), and competitors (how rivals would react). Do not argue yet whether each condition is true.
4. Find the conditions to test first For each pair, mark the conditions the team doubts most. These decide the choice. For each one, agree in advance what test or data would settle it, and how to get that cheaply. Martin's point is to agree on the test before anyone collects data.
5. Choose the pair, or say what must be tested first If the evidence is in, choose the pair and state what it rules out. If not, recommend the tests and a date to decide; do not pick by preference.
6. Name the must-have capabilities For the chosen pair, list the few activities and skills that make how to win real. For each, apply Martin's reality check: can rivals not, or will they not, match it? A capability every competitor has is necessary but not a source of winning.
7. Name the enabling management systems For each capability, the systems that build and sustain it: measures, budgets, hiring and training, decision rights, regular reviews.
8. Check the cascade both ways Read down (does each choice follow from the one above?) and up (can the systems build the capabilities, and do the capabilities deliver how to win?). Revise the upper choices if the lower ones fail.
9. End with decisions and next actions The choice or the tests, what stops because of it, owners, dates, and the facts still to check.

The SKILL.md

The whole file, as your AI reads it. Download it

---
name: strategy-choice-cascade
description: Puts a strategy on one page as five linked choices - winning aspiration, where to play, how to win, must-have capabilities, and enabling management systems - builds where to play and how to win as matched pairs, and checks the chosen pair with a "what would have to be true" list that names the conditions to test first. Use when someone asks for a strategy on a page, a strategy choice cascade, where to play and how to win, a Playing to Win template, help choosing between strategic options, or why their strategy reads like a plan or a list of initiatives.
---

# Strategy choice cascade

A strategy is a set of linked choices that positions an organization to win, not a plan or a list of initiatives. A. G. Lafley, former CEO of Procter & Gamble, and Roger L. Martin, his long-time strategy adviser and former dean of the Rotman School of Management, set out five choices in Playing to Win: How Strategy Really Works (Harvard Business Review Press, 2013): a winning aspiration, where to play, how to win, the must-have capabilities, and the enabling management systems. Martin calls where to play and how to win the heart of strategy and argues, in his later writing, that the two must be chosen together as a pair. The question he calls the most valuable in strategy, "what would have to be true?", turns a debate about options into a list of conditions to test. This skill writes the five choices on one page and runs that check on the chosen pair.

## When to use

- A team needs a strategy on one page for a company, a business unit, a brand, or a function.
- Leaders are choosing between two or three strategic options and keep arguing past each other.
- The current strategy is a vision statement, or a vision plus a list of initiatives, and results disappoint.
- Not for diagnosing the core challenge when nobody agrees what the problem is (use strategy-kernel first), and not for choosing how to plan in an unpredictable market (use strategy-style-selector).

## What you need

- The scope: the whole company, a unit, a product, or a function. A unit's cascade sits inside the company's.
- Facts about customers and segments, channels, competitors, and the organization's current strengths and costs.
- The options being considered, if any, in the user's words.
- Who decides, and by when.
- Never invent market data, shares, or customer behaviour. Ask once for what is missing; then mark it "[check: ...]".

## Steps

1. **Set the scope and the aspiration.** Write the winning aspiration in one or two sentences: what winning means for this scope and for whom. Don't overinvest in it up front: treat it as a direction, and put the effort into the next two choices.
2. **Generate where-to-play and how-to-win pairs.** Write two to four options, each as a pair: where to play (which customers, products, channels, geographies, and stages of the value chain) with the how to win that fits it. How to win must be a theory of advantage for those customers, through more value or lower cost than rivals, not a list of good things to do. Reject any where-to-play that has no how-to-win.
3. **Write what would have to be true for each pair.** For each option, list the conditions that would make it a great choice, grouped by industry (segments, structure), customers (channels and end customers would value and pay for it), the organization's relative position (capabilities and cost it can build), and competitors (how rivals would react). Do not argue yet whether each condition is true.
4. **Find the conditions to test first.** For each pair, mark the conditions the team doubts most. These decide the choice. For each one, agree in advance what test or data would settle it, and how to get that cheaply. Martin's point is to agree on the test before anyone collects data.
5. **Choose the pair, or say what must be tested first.** If the evidence is in, choose the pair and state what it rules out. If not, recommend the tests and a date to decide; do not pick by preference.
6. **Name the must-have capabilities.** For the chosen pair, list the few activities and skills that make how to win real. For each, apply Martin's reality check: can rivals not, or will they not, match it? A capability every competitor has is necessary but not a source of winning.
7. **Name the enabling management systems.** For each capability, the systems that build and sustain it: measures, budgets, hiring and training, decision rights, regular reviews.
8. **Check the cascade both ways.** Read down (does each choice follow from the one above?) and up (can the systems build the capabilities, and do the capabilities deliver how to win?). Revise the upper choices if the lower ones fail.
9. **End with decisions and next actions.** The choice or the tests, what stops because of it, owners, dates, and the facts still to check.

## Output format

```markdown
# Strategy on a page: [scope]
**Decider:** [name] · **Decide by:** [date] · **Date:** [date]

## 1. Winning aspiration
[1–2 sentences]

## 2–3. Where to play and how to win
| Option | Where to play | How to win |
|---|---|---|
| A | | |
| B | | |

**Chosen:** [option, or "not yet: see tests"] · **This rules out:** [what we stop or won't do]

## What would have to be true (chosen pair, or each pair if undecided)
| Area | Condition | Doubt (High/Med/Low) | Test | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | | | | |
| Customers | | | | |
| Our position | | | | |
| Competitors | | | | |

## 4. Must-have capabilities
| Capability | Rivals can't or won't match because | Gap today |
|---|---|---|

## 5. Enabling management systems
| System | Builds or sustains | Change needed |
|---|---|---|

## Consistency check
- **Down:** [does each choice follow from the one above?]
- **Up:** [can systems and capabilities deliver how to win?]

## Decisions and next actions
1. [Decision or test] — [owner] — [date]
**Check:** [check: ...]
```

## Example

**Input:** "We're a Kyoto company making handmade kitchen knives, 22 staff, sold through department stores in Japan (about 70% of sales) and our own web shop (about 30%). Department-store sales fell for three years running. Two options on the table: (A) sell to professional chefs in Japan, sharpening and repair service included; (B) sell to home cooks in the US and Europe through our web shop. A Tokyo competitor already sells abroad through Amazon. We have 3 master smiths; training a new one takes years. Our president, Ms. Mori, decides by the end of March."

**Output:**

```markdown
# Strategy on a page: handmade kitchen knives
**Decider:** Ms. Mori · **Decide by:** end of March · **Date:** [date]

## 1. Winning aspiration
Be the knife maker that the people who cook with our knives every day would choose again, with a business that no longer depends on department stores.

## 2–3. Where to play and how to win
| Option | Where to play | How to win |
|---|---|---|
| A | Professional chefs in Japan, sold direct, with sharpening and repair | Differentiation: a handmade knife kept at its best for years by the people who made it; a service rivals selling through stores don't offer |
| B | Home cooks in the US and Europe, through our web shop | Differentiation: the maker's story and handmade quality, sold direct |

**Chosen:** not yet: see tests · **Either option rules out:** relying on department stores for growth.

## What would have to be true
**Option A**
| Area | Condition | Doubt | Test | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customers | Chefs will pay for a knife plus a service plan | High | Offer the plan to restaurants we know (suggested: about 20) [check: list] | Sales lead |
| Our position | 3 smiths can handle sharpening without cutting output | High | Time a sample of sharpenings this month (suggested: about 30) | Workshop head |
| Competitors | Store-based rivals won't add a service quickly | Med | Check what the main rivals offer chefs today (suggested: 3) | Sales lead |
| Industry | Enough restaurants in reach of our service [check: count] | Med | Count restaurants within shipping and visit range | Sales lead |

**Option B**
| Area | Condition | Doubt | Test | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customers | Home cooks abroad find and trust a small maker's web shop | High | [check: current foreign web orders] | Web lead |
| Competitors | We can stand apart from the Tokyo rival already on Amazon | High | Compare their price and range with ours | Web lead |
| Our position | We can ship knives abroad at a cost customers accept | Med | [check: shipping and import rules for knives by country] | Operations |

## 4. Must-have capabilities (if A is chosen)
| Capability | Rivals can't or won't match because | Gap today |
|---|---|---|
| Sharpening and repair by the makers | Store-based sellers have no workshop | Smith time [check: result of timing test] |
| Direct relationships with chefs | Rivals sell through stores and don't know the end user | No chef customer list yet |

## 5. Enabling management systems (if A is chosen)
| System | Builds or sustains | Change needed |
|---|---|---|
| Workshop schedule with fixed sharpening slots | Sharpening service | New weekly schedule |
| Chef account records and visit plan | Chef relationships | Simple customer list and monthly visits |
| Apprentice training plan | Smith capacity over years | [check: whether to hire an apprentice] |

## Consistency check
- **Down:** A follows from the aspiration (daily users, less store dependence). B does too, but its how to win is weaker: the story alone is easy to copy.
- **Up:** A depends on smith time, the scarcest resource; the timing test decides whether the capability is real.

## Decisions and next actions
1. Run the chef service offer and the sharpening timing test — sales lead and workshop head — by end of February
2. Pull foreign web-order data and check shipping rules for B — web lead — by end of February
3. Ms. Mori chooses A, B, or neither on the test results — end of March
**Check:** [check: restaurant list], [check: foreign web orders], [check: knife shipping rules]
```

## Checks before you send

- [ ] All five choices are on the page and fit together.
- [ ] Every where to play has its own how to win; no option is a where to play alone.
- [ ] How to win is a theory of advantage over rivals, not a list of improvements.
- [ ] "What would have to be true" lists conditions by area, marks the most doubted, and gives each a test and an owner.
- [ ] Each must-have capability says why rivals can't or won't match it.
- [ ] It ends with a choice or a dated test plan, with owners.

## Common mistakes

- Writing only the aspiration and calling it the strategy.
- Stopping after how to win and blaming execution later; capabilities and systems are part of the strategy.
- Listing many where-to-play options, choosing one, and only then asking how to win. Build them as pairs.
- Arguing about which option is true instead of agreeing on what would have to be true and testing it.
- Listing capabilities every competitor has. They keep you in the game; they don't win it.

Share it with your team

Add it to an AI Skill Pod and everyone on the team, contractors included, uses the same version from their own AI. Read the best ways to share AI skills with a team

Add to my team's pod

Changelog

• v1.0.0 · 4 November 2026 · First release.