Conclusions Form the Logical Bedrock of a Strategy
An explicit strategy helps an organization become more successful. It is a complex product an institution must develop iteratively and incrementally. Although its pieces might differ, it has a general structure composed of the same types of components. The foundational element in that framework is data and domain knowledge. Yet, conclusions are just as essential. They form the logical bedrock on which a company builds a strategy.
That organization uses its information and expertise to make judgements. Those decisions are the foundation on which it erects its strategy. For example, it has numbers regarding the relationship between two-point attempts and free throws, and it holds stats about true shooting percentage and offensive efficiency. That institution is also aware that conventional wisdom holds a team should attempt as many three pointers as it can. Yet, that company’s data yields an analysis questioning that piece of scripture. It draws a conclusion that a team cannot exclusively take three pointers, if that group’s target is efficiency. Offensive effectiveness is judged, through those same numbers, to be impactful on winning. Most units exist to win. Therefore, a team’s model should be built to result in victories. If that success is partially predicted by scoring efficiency and a three-point-exclusive-strategy harms performance, then a group builds its approach around those conclusions. Its model is constructed, on a foundation assuming an efficient team must take some two pointers. That organization erected its strategy, on a bedrock of the logic laid down by those judgements.
Yet, a verdict does not have to stem from an institution’s data and domain knowledge. A decision can flow from one or more opinions. For example, a company could use its conclusion about average approximate-value declining the later a player is picked to render a judgement that draft-slot should be the base unit of measurement. That verdict could be used by an organization to hold the opinion that it must convert all selection factors to a lottery position value. That institution could use those conclusions to determine that it can calculate an aggregate draft-slot. A company can develop judgements from other verdicts, without domain knowledge and data.
However, insights and numbers must be the source of at least one decision. That judgement is the base on which a business builds its strategy. A settlement based on those elements is more sound than one built on another conclusion, because it has independent verification. Data and domain knowledge confirm each other, and they validate that verdict. A verified decision can form the basis of other ones, which are themselves corroborated by that foundational judgement. An organization must build its strategy on the bedrock of at least one conclusion drawn from informational elements.
Yet, the links between verdicts must end at some point. A company needs closure. That terminus occurs, when a sketch of a model emerges. That portrait should become clearer, as a business develops opinions. Each ruling should bring the picture of the model closer to focus. Yet, that image might not emerge right away. An organization could need several cycles for a scaffolding to appear, but it should see an outline eventually. Once that sketch of a framework is held by an institution, it can stop generating conclusions.
Those verdicts are generated by a business to reach a scheme. Judgements are not useful on their own. They exist as a part of a larger architecture. Their piece in that structure is to provide a logical bedrock to a conceptual scaffolding: the model. That framework is undergirded by the reasoning of opinions. Without conclusions, a theoretical scheme is no different from blind guesses, which are not an explicit strategy. An identifiable approach increases an organization’s likelihood of success. If an institution wants to improve its odds, then it should develop an obvious methodology, which requires a model. That conceptual framework must be built on a logical foundation, which a company derives from its conclusions.
An organization builds its verdicts on a bedrock of data and domain knowledge. Those judgements can lead to other opinions, which can result in other decisions. One of those opinions must derive from informational elements. That ruling validates the others ones. Eventually, those settlements create a sketch of a model, which is a strategy’s theoretical scaffolding. That skeleton is built around the reasoning that the conclusions of an institution provide. That company needs an explicit approach to improve its odds of success. Its judgements are only a part of creating that methodology. The other components and the minutia of building an identifiable game plan will be discussed in future articles.
Follow ExperTech Insights on Twitter and subscribe to its Substack newsletter.
This article originally appeared in the Strategy Construction Journal hosted by ExperTech Insights.
