andreworia Where to Play, How to Win
When to use
Use this when leadership has ambition and initiatives but no coherent strategic direction that ties them together. The symptom is a strategy that reads as a list of goals or a budget, where any given choice could be swapped out without the rest noticing. This skill forces a set of linked choices that reinforce each other and make winning plausible.
What it does
It produces a five-part strategy choice cascade in which each choice constrains and supports the next, plus an explicit test of whether the choices reinforce one another. The output is a single coherent theory of how the business wins in its chosen arena, not a menu of options.
Method
Run the strategy choice cascade as five linked choices. Each answer must be a real choice that rules something out, not a platitude.
Winning aspiration. State what winning means for this business in this arena. Not "be a leader" but a concrete definition: who we serve, what outcome we deliver, and what success looks like in economic and market terms. Reject aspirations that no competitor would disagree with.
Where to play. Define the specific field of competition across five dimensions: geographies, customer segments, product and service categories, channels, and stages of the value chain. For each dimension, name what is in and what is deliberately out. A "where to play" that includes everything is a non-choice. Force at least one explicit exclusion per dimension.
How to win. State the value proposition and the source of durable advantage in the chosen field. Ground it in one of two generic advantage types: lower delivered cost, or differentiation the customer will pay for. Name the specific mechanism (scale, network effects, proprietary asset, brand, switching costs, a unique activity system). Answer why this advantage is hard to copy and why it fits this "where to play."
Capabilities that must be in place. List the three to six reinforcing capabilities the business must be distinctively good at for the "how to win" to hold. Capabilities are what you do, not what you have. Test each against: is it necessary for this way of winning, and does it reinforce the others.
Management systems required. Name the systems, metrics, and structures needed to build and sustain those capabilities (the measures, the review cadence, the talent and IT systems). Without these the capabilities decay.
After drafting all five, run the reinforcement test. Ask three questions:
- Coherence: does each choice support the others, or do any two pull in opposite directions?
- Feasibility: are the capabilities buildable given where we start?
- Robustness: if a competitor knew this cascade, could they easily neutralize it? If yes, the "how to win" is weak.
Then run a reverse test on the strongest competitor: fill in their likely cascade and check whether your "how to win" survives head-to-head. If your advantage disappears when theirs is stated plainly, sharpen "where to play" until you are choosing a field where your reinforcing capabilities matter most.
Close with the "what would have to be true" check: for the cascade to win, list the conditions that must hold about customers, competitors, capabilities, and economics. Flag the least certain condition as the thing to test first.
Inputs
- The business or unit the strategy is for, and its current position.
- Any stated ambition, financial targets, or board expectations.
- What is known about customers, segments, and competitors.
- Current capabilities and any constraints (capital, talent, regulation).
Output format
Return a one-page cascade with the five choices stated as declarative sentences, each with its explicit exclusions. Follow with:
- A short reinforcement-test verdict (coherent / feasible / robust, with the weak link named).
- The strongest competitor's implied cascade and why yours still wins (or where it does not).
- A "what would have to be true" list with the single riskiest assumption flagged for testing.
Example
Illustrative only, with round numbers framed as an example.
Winning aspiration: Be the default records system for independent veterinary clinics in one country, measured by serving a majority of clinics under 10 vets within four years.
Where to play: In small and mid independent clinics (in), not corporate chains or hospitals (out). One country first (in), no international (out). Records plus billing (in), not diagnostics hardware (out). Direct online sales (in), no reseller channel (out).
How to win: Differentiation through the fastest setup and the deepest clinic-specific workflow. Advantage mechanism is switching costs plus workflow depth that a horizontal tool cannot match. Hard to copy because depth requires narrow focus a broad player will not fund.
Capabilities: clinic-workflow product depth, self-serve onboarding, high-trust support, and disciplined narrow focus.
Management systems: net revenue retention as the north-star metric, weekly onboarding-time review, and a product council that guards against scope creep into adjacent verticals.
Reinforcement test: coherent (narrow focus feeds depth feeds switching costs); feasible if onboarding capability is built; robust because a horizontal rival would have to fragment its roadmap to match. Weakest link: the assumption that clinics will pay a premium for depth over a cheaper generic tool. Test that first with the current customer base.