Chapter 18: Building Alternatives That Actually Solve the Problem

Chapter 18: Building Alternatives That Actually Solve the Problem - Creating Genuine Strategic Choices

Video: Alternatives That Win: MECE Options + Decision Criteria That Make Your Recommendation Obvious

Video: Turn Your SWOT into Strategic Alternatives: The TOWS Method That Actually Builds Solutions

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

• define the central decision before developing alternatives;

• distinguish a strategic alternative from an initiative, tactic, feature, or implementation step;

• generate alternatives directly from case insights;

• use customer, industry, capability, financial, stakeholder, and organisational evidence to shape options;

• apply TOWS to convert SWOT connections into strategic possibilities;

• use MECE thinking without forcing artificial categories;

• identify the dimensions along which strategic alternatives can differ;

• develop alternatives that are realistic, complete, and meaningfully different;

• include the status quo or minimum-action path as a credible comparator when relevant;

• identify and avoid strawman alternatives;

• screen out infeasible options before detailed evaluation;

• develop each remaining alternative to a comparable level of specificity;

• avoid confirmation bias and premature commitment;

• create a strategic choice set that enables rigorous evaluation.

Why This Matters

One of the most common weaknesses in case competitions is the absence of genuine alternatives. Teams often create:

• Option A: Improve marketing.

• Option B: Improve operations.

• Option C: Expand internationally.

Then they select Option B. The problem is that these options may not answer the same question. Marketing, operations, and international expansion could all be part of a single strategy. They are not necessarily competing paths. Other teams develop alternatives such as:

• launch a social-media campaign;

• create a loyalty program;

• redesign the website;

• improve customer service.

These are initiatives or tactics. The organisation could implement all four simultaneously. Still other teams develop one serious recommendation and surround it with two weak alternatives designed to lose. For Example:

• Option A: Do Nothing.

• Option B: Spend $100 million the organisation doesn't have.

• Option C: Implement our preferred balanced solution.

The evaluation may appear rigorous, but the choice was predetermined. Strong case teams develop a set of credible strategic paths before deciding which one is best. Alternatives create the foundation for:

• strategic choice;

• comparison;

• trade-off analysis;

• financial evaluation;

• risk assessment;

• a defensible recommendation.

If the alternatives are weak, the recommendation has not been tested meaningfully.

Discover Your MAD Skills Principle

Alternatives should represent different strategic choices, not different collections of tactics.

Suppose the decision is: How should the company enter the Canadian market? Strategic alternatives might include:

• build an owned operation;

• acquire an existing competitor;

• enter through a local partner;

• license the offering to an established operator;

• begin with a limited pilot before deciding whether to scale.

Each alternative represents a different path involving different levels of:

• ownership;

• control;

• speed;

• investment;

• capability;

• risk;

• flexibility.

By contrast:

• advertise digitally;

• hire a country manager;

• open a local office;

• develop Canadian pricing

are implementation actions. They may support one of the entry alternatives. The difference is that an alternative changes the strategic path. A tactic helps execute the chosen path.

Begin with the Decision

Before generating alternatives, complete this sentence: The decision we need to make is… Examples include:

• Which customer segment should the company prioritise?

• How should the organisation enter the Canadian market?

• Which growth strategy should the company pursue?

• How should the organisation respond to declining profitability?

• Which operating model should support the new service?

• Should the company build, buy, or partner for the required capability?

• How should the organisation reduce emissions while maintaining affordability?

• Which delivery model should the not-for-profit use to expand access?

A clear decision creates a common question that every alternative must answer.

Weak Decision Statement

How can the company improve? This is too broad. Almost any initiative could qualify.

Stronger Decision Statement

Which strategic path should the company pursue over the next three years to restore profitable growth among high-value customers? The stronger statement defines:

• the type of decision;

• objective;

• customer;

• time horizon.

Decision Versus Objective

The objective explains what the organisation wants to achieve. The decision identifies the choice required to achieve it.

• Objective: Restore profitable growth.
• Decision: Which customer segment and value proposition should the company prioritise to restore profitable growth?
• Objective: Expand access to healthcare.
• Decision: Which service-delivery model should the organisation use to reach rural patients?
• Objective: Reduce delivery cost.
• Decision: Which distribution model best reduces cost while maintaining service reliability?

If the alternatives are built around the objective but not the decision, they may become incomparable.

Alternatives, Initiatives, Tactics, and Features

These levels should be distinguished.

Strategic Alternative

A coherent path that answers the central decision. Example: Enter the market through a local joint venture.

Initiative

A coordinated program supporting the selected alternative. Examples include:

• develop partner governance;

• adapt the product;

• build local brand awareness;

• establish regulatory compliance.

Tactic

A specific action used to execute an initiative. Examples include:

• launch a targeted digital campaign;

• hire two regulatory specialists;

• conduct monthly partner reviews.

Feature

A specific element of a product, service, process, or experience. Examples include:

• real-time tracking;

• flexible cancellation;

• multilingual support.

A strategic alternative may contain several initiatives, tactics, and features. Don't compare a high-level strategic path with a low-level action.

The Same-Level Test

Alternatives should exist at approximately the same level of decision-making. Weak choice set:

• acquire a competitor;

• improve the website;

• enter through a partner.

"Improve the website" is not comparable to the other two. Stronger choice set:

• build an owned direct-to-customer operation;

• acquire an established local operator;

• enter through a strategic distribution partner.

Each option addresses the market-entry model. Apply the test: Are these alternatives different answers to the same decision? If not, rebuild the option set.

What Makes a Strong Alternative?

A strong strategic alternative should satisfy six tests.

1. Relevant: Does it answer the central decision?
2. Complete: Does it provide a coherent path rather than one isolated activity?
3. Meaningfully Different: Would selecting it lead to a different strategy, resource commitment, operating model, or risk profile?
4. Realistic: Could the organisation pursue it given its financial position, capabilities, time, and constraints?
5. Implementable: Can the resources, skills, systems, partners, and organisational changes be obtained?
6. Comparable: Can the option be evaluated against the same criteria as the others?

A creative idea that cannot pass these tests may still inspire part of another option, but it should not remain as a final alternative.

Alternatives Should Emerge from Analysis

Alternatives should not appear suddenly after the analysis. They should respond to what the team learned. For Example:

• Customer Insight: Customers prioritise convenience and reliability over the lowest price.
  • Alternative Implication: Develop an option based on dependable premium service rather than broad discounting.
• PESTLE Insight: New regulation increases the cost and complexity of full market entry.
  • Alternative Implication: Consider a partnership, licensing, or a phased entry.
• Five Forces Insight: Buyer power is high because offerings are difficult to differentiate.
  • Alternative Implication: Develop a specialised segment strategy or increase switching value.
• Value Chain Insight: Weakness in distribution is undermining customer satisfaction.
  • Alternative Implication: Consider owned distribution, a specialist partner, or a redesigned service area.
• VRIO Insight: The organisation has a rare capability in local supplier development.
  • Alternative Implication: Build an option that uses that capability rather than competing through scale.
• Business Model Insight: The current revenue model cannot support high-touch service.
  • Alternative Implication: Consider membership, subscription, premium pricing, or a different customer segment.
• McKinsey 7S Insight: The organisation lacks the structure and skills to implement at scale immediately.
  • Alternative Implication: Consider a pilot, partnership, or capability-first option.
• Persona and Journey Insight: The critical customer failure occurs during onboarding, not during awareness.
  • Alternative Implication: Develop an experience-redesign option before increasing customer acquisition.

Analysis should shape the alternatives.

From Insight to Strategic Choice

Use this pattern: Insight → Strategic implication → Alternative. Example:

Insight

The target segment values local products, but the company lacks supplier relationships outside its home region.

Strategic Implication

The organisation needs either to build local relationships gradually or access them through another organisation.

Alternatives: 

• build regional supplier networks internally;

• partner with an established local operator;

• acquire a company with existing supplier relationships;

• remain in the current market and deepen the core business.

This creates a visible connection between evidence and choice.

TOWS as an Alternative Generator

SWOT organises internal strengths and weaknesses alongside external opportunities and threats. TOWS connects those factors to generate strategic possibilities.

Strength–Opportunity Strategies

Ask: How can the organisation use a strength to capture an opportunity? Example:

• Strength: Trusted relationships with institutional customers.

• Opportunity: Rapid growth in an adjacent institutional segment.

• Alternative: Enter the segment via referrals and a targeted institutional sales model.

Strength–Threat Strategies

Ask: How can the organisation use a strength to reduce or respond to a threat? Example:

• Strength: High customer trust.

• Threat: Entry of low-cost digital competitors.

• Alternative: Develop a high-trust advisory service that competes on expertise rather than price.

Weakness–Opportunity Strategies

Ask: What weakness must be addressed to capture an opportunity? Example:

• Weakness: Limited digital capability.

• Opportunity: Growing demand for online service.

• Alternative: Partner with a technology provider rather than building the platform independently.

Weakness–Threat Strategies

Ask: How can the organisation reduce a weakness that increases exposure to a threat? Example:

• Weakness: Dependence on one supplier.

• Threat: Increasing supply disruption.

• Alternative: Diversify suppliers and redesign products to use more readily available inputs.

TOWS generates possibilities. The team must still:

• combine related ideas;

• develop coherent options;

• assess feasibility;

• compare them.

Other Alternative-Generation Dimensions

Alternatives can be generated by changing one or more strategic dimensions.

Where to Focus

• customer segment;

• geography;

• product;

• service;

• channel;

• need;

• point in the value chain.

How to Create Value

• lower cost;

• premium differentiation;

• specialisation;

• convenience;

• customisation;

• trust;

• access;

• experience.

How to Access Capability

• build;

• buy;

• borrow;

• partner;

• license;

• or outsource.

How Much to Commit

• pilot;

• limited launch;

• selective expansion;

• full-scale implementation.

When to Act

• immediate;

• phased;

• delayed;

• contingent on a trigger.

How Much Control to Retain

• full ownership;

• joint control;

• contractual partnership;

• licensing;

• platform participation.

How to Reach the Customer

• direct;

• intermediary;

• digital;

• physical;

• institutional;

• blended channels.

How to Capture Value

• direct sale;

• subscription;

• usage fee;

• commission;

• licensing;

• membership;

• sponsorship;

• another funding model.

Changing these dimensions can produce genuinely different strategic paths.

MECE Thinking

MECE means:

• Mutually Exclusive; and

• Collectively Exhaustive.

Mutually Exclusive

The alternatives should not substantially overlap. Selecting one should generally mean not selecting the others as the primary strategy. For market entry:

• build;

• acquire;

• partner;

• license

represent different primary entry modes.

Collectively Exhaustive

Together, the alternatives should cover the meaningful strategic choices. The goal is not to include every imaginable possibility. It is to avoid overlooking an important category of choice. For Example, a team comparing only:

• large acquisition;

• small acquisition;

• medium acquisition

has ignored:

• organic entry;

• partnership;

• licensing;

• not entering.

Don't Force MECE

Strategic alternatives are not always perfectly MECE. Real strategies may be:

• staged;

• combined;

• conditional;

• hybrid.

For Example: Begin with a local partner and acquire the operation later if performance thresholds are met. This combines partnership and acquisition over time. The solution is not to reject every hybrid. Instead, ask:

• Is the hybrid a distinct strategic path?

• Does it have a coherent logic?

• Is it meaningfully different from the other options?

• Can it be evaluated clearly?

• Does it avoid disguising the preferred option as "the best of everything"?

MECE is a tool for clarity, not a rule that should distort the decision.

Decision Architecture

A decision architecture identifies the main dimensions defining the choice. Suppose the decision is: How should the company expand into a new market? Important dimensions may include:

• entry mode;

• ownership;

• investment;

• speed;

• customer segment;

• geographic scope;

• channel;

• timing.

The team might decide that the central choice is the entry mode. It can then create alternatives around:

1. owned organic entry;

2. acquisition;

3. strategic partnership;

4. licensing;

5. staged pilot.

Other dimensions such as customer segment and channel can be specified consistently within each option. This prevents alternatives from changing several unrelated factors at once without clear logic.

Generate Broadly Before Narrowing

Don't attempt to generate exactly three alternatives. Begin with a broader option set. A useful process is:

1. define the decision;

2. generate five to eight possible paths;

3. identify the dimensions on which they differ;

4. group overlapping ideas;

5. combine complementary ideas;

6. remove options that fail basic feasibility;

7. develop the strongest three or four for evaluation.

The final number depends on the decision. In many competition cases, three credible alternatives provide enough choice without overwhelming the analysis.

Status Quo and Minimum Action

The current strategy or a minimum-action path can be an important comparator. It answers the question: What happens if the organisation doesn't make the proposed major change? A credible status quo should include:

• likely financial performance;

• strategic consequences;

• risks;

• opportunity costs;

• and the possibility that conditions worsen.

"Do nothing" should not mean that Nothing happens. The environment, customers, competitors, costs, and organisational capabilities continue to change.

When the Status Quo Belongs

Include it when:

• the organisation can realistically delay or decline action;

• the investment is substantial;

• uncertainty is high;

• current performance may remain acceptable;

• avoiding the initiative may be a strategic choice.

When It May Not Be a Final Alternative

If action is legally required or the central question asks which implementation method to select, a no-action option may not be appropriate. It can still serve as a baseline for comparison.

Avoid Straw-Man Alternatives

A straw man is an intentionally weak option made to make the preferred recommendation appear stronger. Examples include:

• an unaffordable acquisition;

• a full-scale launch with no risk mitigation;

• doing nothing despite an immediate legal requirement;

• a poorly developed competitor to a detailed preferred option.

Signs of a straw-man include:

• loaded names;

• obviously unrealistic assumptions;

• limited explanation;

• no mitigation;

• unequal development.

The Fairness Test

Ask whether an intelligent decision-maker reasonably chooses this alternative. If the answer is no, it may not belong in the final set of choices.

Use Neutral Labels

Alternative names can bias evaluation.

• Weak labels:

  • reckless expansion;

  • safe partnership;

  • best balanced option.

• Neutral labels:

  • owned organic entry;

  • partnership-led entry;

  • acquisition-led entry.

The label should describe the strategic path, not signal the expected winner.

Screen Before Detailed Evaluation

Not every generated idea deserves a full financial model. Use a basic feasibility screen. An option may be removed if it:

• fails to address the problem;

• violates a non-negotiable legal or ethical requirement;

• requires unavailable resources with no credible path to obtain them;

• exceeds the organisation's financial capacity;

• conflicts fundamentally with the organisation's mission;

• cannot be implemented within the required time;

• duplicates another alternative.

The screen should be transparent. Don't eliminate an option merely because the team dislikes it.

Non-Negotiables and Preferences

Before screening, distinguish:

Non-Negotiables

Conditions an alternative must satisfy. Examples include:

• legal compliance;

• patient safety;

• maximum available investment;

• minimum service standard;

• mission alignment;

• implementation deadline.

Preferences

Conditions that make an alternative more attractive but are not mandatory. Examples include:

• faster payback;

• greater management control;

• lower complexity;

• stronger long-term upside.

Options that fail a non-negotiable may be removed. An option that performs poorly on a preference should remain for comparative evaluation.

Develop Alternatives Comparably

Each final alternative must be developed to a comparable level of detail. For every option, define:

• Strategic Logic: What is the central choice?
• Target: Which customer, market, stakeholder, or need does it prioritise?
• Value Proposition: How does it create value?
• Operating Model: How will the organisation deliver it?
• Required Capabilities: What resources, skills, technology, partners, and systems are needed?
• Financial Logic: What revenue, cost, investment, or savings are expected?
• Timing: How quickly can it be implemented?
• Advantages: What does it do particularly well?
• Disadvantages: What meaningful trade-off does it create?
• Risks: What could cause it to fail?
• Mitigation: How could major risks be reduced?
• Strategic Fit: How does it connect to the organisation's objectives and capabilities?

Without comparable development, the evaluation will favour the alternative described most favourably.

The Alternative One-Pager

A simple alternative profile may include:

Element	Description
Alternative	Partnership-led market entry
Strategic logic	Use local capability and access while limiting initial commitment
Target	Urban premium customers in one priority region
Value proposition	Locally adapted service with established partner credibility
Requirements	Partner, adapted product, integration, governance, launch funding
Investment	Moderate
Speed	Relatively fast
Control	Shared
Main advantage	Access and lower initial risk
Main disadvantage	Lower control and margin sharing
Critical assumption	Partner incentives and service quality remain aligned
Major risk	Dependency on partner
Mitigation	Governance, performance standards, data access, and exit rights

Develop the same profile for every alternative.

Make Trade-Offs Visible

Alternatives are valuable because they force everyone to compare the trade-offs. For Example:

Alternative	Speed	Control	Investment	Local capability	Flexibility
Build organically	Slow	High	Moderate to high	Must be developed	Moderate
Acquire	Fast	High	Very high	Acquired immediately	Low
Partner	Moderate to fast	Shared	Moderate	Accessed through partner	High
License	Fast	Low	Low	Mostly external	High

No option dominates every dimension. That is what makes the decision meaningful.

Hybrids and Sequenced Alternatives

Sometimes analysis reveals that the strongest path changes over time. For Example: Partner first → learn the market → acquire or build later. This can be a legitimate alternative when:

• uncertainty is high;

• early learning has value;

• the organisation wants to preserve options;

• the stages have defined triggers.

However, a hybrid should not become "use every good feature from every option." A coherent hybrid explains:

• what happens first;

• why;

• what is learned;

• what triggers the next stage;

• which commitments are delayed.

Alternatives and Risk

Alternatives should not be designed merely to maximise upside. They may differ in:

• downside exposure;

• reversibility;

• cash requirements;

• stakeholder impact;

• organisational disruption;

• uncertainty.

For Example:

• acquisition may create speed but high integration risk;

• organic growth may preserve control but require time;

• partnership may limit investment but create dependency;

• licensing may reduce risk but surrender customer relationships;

• a pilot may create learning but allow competitors time to respond.

Risk belongs inside each alternative, not as a generic section added later.

Alternatives and Ethics

An alternative should be screened for:

• legal requirements;

• rights;

• safety;

• fairness;

• environmental impact;

• vulnerable stakeholders;

• unacceptable harm.

Ethics should not be treated only as one low-weight criterion that an otherwise harmful option can "outscore." Some conditions should be non-negotiable. For Example:

• a healthcare option that fails patient-safety requirements;

• a supplier option dependent on serious labour violations;

• a data strategy that lacks legal permission

should not remain simply because it performs well financially.

A Worked Example

Return to the regional meal-kit company examined in earlier chapters. The company wants to expand beyond its home city.

Central Decision

Which market-entry model should the company use to test and pursue expansion into a second Canadian city?

Key Insights

• Customer Insight
  • Target customers value:

  • convenience;

  • reliability;

  • flexible commitment;

  • and locally sourced ingredients.

  • Industry Insight
    • The market contains:

    • intense rivalry;

    • high buyer power;

    • low customer switching costs;

    • strong substitutes.

• Capability Insight
  • The company is strong in:

  • regional supplier relationships;

  • culinary development;

  • and locally differentiated menus.

    • It is weaker in:

    • geographic expansion;

    • integrated forecasting;

    • delivery scale.

• Organisational Insight
  • The organisation lacks:

  • a dedicated market-entry team;

  • scalable partner-governance systems;

  • enough capacity for a large owned launch.

• Financial Insight
  • A fully owned operation would require substantial upfront investment before demand is proven.

Broad Option Set

The team initially considers:

1. build an owned facility;

2. acquire a local meal-kit company;

3. partner with a shared kitchen and delivery provider;

4. license the brand and menus;

5. enter through grocery retailers;

6. launch a direct-delivery pilot from the home city;

7. remain in the current market.

Feasibility Screen

• Acquire a Local Company
  • The organisation lacks sufficient capital, and no suitable target has been identified.
  • The option is removed from detailed evaluation but may be reconsidered in the future.
• Direct Delivery from the Home City
  • Delivery distance would undermine reliability and unit economics.
  • The option is removed.
• Grocery-Retail Entry
  • This represents a distinct channel strategy but doesn't test the full subscription model. It remains a potential future growth path rather than the primary city entry option.

Final Alternatives

Alternative 1: Owned Organic Entry

Build a small dedicated operation in the new city.

• Strategic Logic
• Maintain full control over the brand, customer experience, supplier relationships, and operations.
  • Requirements

  • facility;

  • local employees;

  • supplier network;

  • delivery capability;

  • technology integration;

  • launch marketing.

• Main Advantage
  • Maximum control and potential long-term margin.
• Main Disadvantage
  • High upfront investment before demand is proven.
• Critical Assumption
  • Customer adoption will scale quickly enough to cover the fixed-cost base.

Alternative 2: Partnership-Led Pilot

Enter through a shared commercial kitchen, regional delivery provider, local suppliers, and selected employer partners.

• Strategic Logic
  • Test the market while accessing local capability and limiting fixed investment.
• Requirements

  • partner selection;

  • contracts;

  • service standards;

  • technology integration;

  • local supplier onboarding;

  • pilot governance.

• Main Advantage
  • Lower initial commitment and faster local learning.
• Main Disadvantage
  • Reduced control and dependence on partner performance.
• Critical Assumption
  • Partners can deliver the required quality, reliability, and customer experience.

Alternative 3: Strengthen the Core Before Entry

Delay geographic expansion for 12 months while improving the home-market operation.

• Strategic Logic
  • Correct weaknesses in forecasting, delivery, and technology before transferring the model elsewhere.
• Requirements

  • system integration;

  • process redesign;

  • capability development;

  • home-market retention improvement.

• Main Advantage
  • Reduces the risk of scaling existing operational problems.
• Main Disadvantage
  • Delays market entry and may allow competitors to strengthen their positions.
• Critical Assumption
  • The opportunity will remain attractive after the capability-building period.

Why These Are Alternatives

Each option answers the same decision: How should the company approach entry into the second city? They differ meaningfully in:

• timing;

• ownership;

• investment;

• control;

• learning;

• risk.

They are not three unrelated initiatives.

Next Step

The team should now evaluate the options using criteria such as:

• customer value;

• strategic fit;

• financial attractiveness;

• capability fit;

• speed;

• control;

• flexibility;

• risk.

Don't select the recommendation until the comparison is complete.

Alternatives Are Not the Recommendation

Generating alternatives doesn't determine which one is best. A complete process is:

1. define the decision;

2. identify objectives and non-negotiables;

3. review the major case insights;

4. identify relevant decision dimensions;

5. generate a broad set of possibilities;

6. use TOWS and other tools to expand the set;

7. group, combine, and refine related ideas;

8. screen for relevance and basic feasibility;

9. develop three or four credible alternatives comparably;

10. define common decision criteria;

11. evaluate the alternatives;

12. test sensitivities and risks;

13. select the recommendation; and

14. explain why it is stronger than the best alternative.

Alternatives create the choice set. Evaluation earns the recommendation.

Team Process: Generate First, Evaluate Second, Choose Third

• Generate First

• • define the decision;

  • generate independently;

  • use analysis and structured creativity;

  • create a broad option set.

• Evaluate Second

• • screen basic feasibility;

  • develop options comparably;

  • agree on criteria before scoring;

  • compare evidence, trade-offs, and uncertainty.

• Choose Third

• • select the strongest option;

  • test it against the runner-up;

  • explain why the trade-offs are acceptable.

Don't allow the team to reverse the order.

Preventing Premature Commitment

Teams often fall in love with an idea early. The rest of the case becomes an attempt to prove that idea correct. This creates:

• confirmation bias;

• selective financial assumptions;

• weak alternatives;

• defensive team behaviour;

• fragile recommendations.

Practical Safeguards

• Require each teammate to generate alternatives independently.

• Don't name a preferred option during initial analysis.

• Assign someone to develop the strongest case for each alternative.

• Agree on criteria before scoring.

• Use neutral labels.

• Require one reason the preferred option may fail.

• Compare the winner directly with the strongest runner-up.

• Ask what evidence would change the selection.

The objective is not to prevent conviction. It is to ensure conviction is earned.

Winning the Room: Presenting Alternatives

The audience doesn't need to see every idea the team considered. It needs to understand:

• the decision;

• the credible paths;

• the major trade-offs;

• why the selected recommendation is stronger.

State the Decision

We evaluated three approaches to entering the second city.

Present Alternatives Neutrally

• owned organic entry;

• partnership-led pilot;

• capability-first delay.

Explain the Strategic Difference

Alternative	Central trade-off
Owned entry	Greater control but higher commitment
Partnership pilot	Faster learning but partner dependency
Capability-first delay	Lower execution risk but delayed growth

Avoid Weak Sales Language

Don't describe:

• two alternatives through disadvantages;

• the preferred option only through benefits.

Present each fairly before showing the evaluation.

Connect Alternatives to Insights

Explain why each path was considered and how it responds to the analysis. The presentation chain becomes: Decision → Insights → Strategic Alternatives → Trade-Offs → Evaluation.

Coach's Lens

Don't decide too early. Teams often fall in love with an idea during the first hour. From that point forward, the analysis becomes an effort to prove the idea correct. That is confirmation bias. A stronger process is: Generate First. Evaluate Second. Choose Third.

I often ask teams, if your preferred alternative disappeared, which option would you choose and why? If the team cannot answer, it may not have seriously considered the other alternatives. I also ask, could an intelligent decision-maker reasonably select each of these options? If not, the team may be comparing one recommendation to two straw men.

Common Mistakes

• Starting Without a Decision: The team generates ideas around a broad problem. Complete the sentence, "The decision we need to make is…"
• Confusing Objectives with Decisions: "Grow revenue" doesn't define the choice. Identify the strategic question required to achieve the objective.
• Alternatives That Are Actually Tactics: "Launch a social-media campaign" is usually an implementation action. Build alternatives at the strategic-path level.
• Comparing Different Levels of Choice: The team compares an acquisition with a website redesign. Apply the same-level test.
• Developing Random Options: Alternatives are disconnected from the analysis. Trace every option back to customer, industry, capability, financial, or stakeholder insight.
• Alternatives That Overlap: Two options are minor variations of the same strategy. Clarify the central choice and meaningful trade-off.
• Forcing MECE: The team creates artificial categories or rejects a logical staged path. Use MECE to improve coverage and clarity, not to distort reality.
• Ignoring a Major Strategic Path: The set of options covers only familiar choices. Examine the focus, value proposition, ownership, access to capabilities, commitment, timing, channel, and revenue model.
• Unrealistic Alternatives: The option exceeds the organisation's financial or operational capacity. Conduct a transparent feasibility screening.
• Eliminating Options Because They Score Poorly on a Preference: A slower option is removed even though speed is not a non-negotiable. Distinguish mandatory conditions from comparative criteria.
• Using a Strawman: One alternative is designed to fail. Apply the intelligent decision-maker test.
• Using Biased Labels: The preferred option is described as "balanced" or "strategic." Use neutral descriptive names.
• Unequal Development: The preferred option is detailed while others remain vague. Use a common alternative template.
• Treating "Do Nothing" as Nothing Happening: The baseline ignores market and organisational change. Forecast the consequences of maintaining the current course.
• Too Few Options: The team may miss a meaningful strategic direction. Generate broadly before narrowing.
• Too Many Final Options: Five or six weak options create noise. Present the three or four most credible paths.
• Creating a "Best of Everything" Hybrid: The preferred option collects every advantage without inheriting the disadvantages. Explain the hybrid's real trade-offs, sequence, and dependencies.
• Ignoring Ethics or Non-Negotiables: A harmful or illegal option remains because it scores well financially. Screen for mandatory conditions before evaluation.
• Selecting Before Setting Criteria: Criteria and weights are adjusted to support the favourite. Agree on the criteria before scoring.
• Choosing Without Testing the Runner-Up: The recommendation is not compared seriously with the next-best option. Explain why the winner is stronger and when the runner-up might become preferable.

MAD Skills Drill

Choose a case and complete the following steps.

Step 1: Define the Decision

Complete: The decision we need to make is… Include:

• objective;

• scope;

• time horizon.

Step 2: Identify Non-Negotiables

List the conditions every alternative must satisfy. Examples include:

• legal compliance;

• maximum investment;

• mission alignment;

• minimum customer outcome;

• implementation deadline.

Step 3: Identify the Insights

Select the five findings most relevant to the decision. Include evidence from:

• customer analysis;

• external environment;

• industry;

• capabilities;

• financial analysis;

• organisation;

• stakeholders.

Step 4: Generate Five to Eight Options

Use:

• TOWS;

• Creative Thinking;

• build–buy–partner;

• different customer segments;

• different channels;

• different levels of commitment;

• different timing.

Don't select a winner.

Step 5: Identify the Decision Dimensions

Determine how the options differ:

• focus;

• ownership;

• investment;

• control;

• timing;

• scale;

• capability;

• channel;

• revenue model.

Step 6: Group and Refine

Combine overlapping ideas and separate concepts that answer different decisions.

Step 7: Conduct a Feasibility Screen

Remove only options that:

• don't solve the problem;

• fail a non-negotiable;

• are genuinely infeasible;

• duplicate another option.

Record why each was removed.

Step 8: Select Three or Four Final Alternatives

Apply the tests:

• relevant;

• complete;

• distinct;

• realistic;

• implementable;

• comparable.

Step 9: Develop Each Alternative

For every option, write:

• strategic logic;

• target;

• value proposition;

• requirements;

• financial logic;

• timing;

• greatest advantage;

• greatest disadvantage;

• critical assumption;

• major risk;

• mitigation.

Step 10: Test Fairness

Ask:

• Are the alternatives developed equally?

• Are the labels neutral?

• Could an intelligent decision-maker choose each one?

• Is one option a strawman?

• Have we overlooked a legitimate path?

Step 11: Don't Choose Yet

Stop before deciding. The next chapter will establish the criteria and method used to evaluate the alternatives.

Step 12: Deliver the Choice Set

Prepare a 60-second explanation answering:

1. What is the decision?

2. Which insights shaped the options?

3. What are the alternatives?

4. How are they meaningfully different?

5. What is the central trade-off of each?

Don't announce the winner.

Reflection Questions

1. Did your team define the decision before generating alternatives?

2. Were the alternatives answers to the same question?

3. Did the options emerge from the analysis?

4. Which major strategic path did you initially overlook?

5. Were any alternatives actually tactics?

6. Did two alternatives overlap?

7. Was the preferred option developed more favourably?

8. Could a reasonable decision-maker choose each option?

9. Did the team include a credible baseline?

10. Did the team decide too early?

11. Which teammate developed the strongest case for the runner-up?

12. What evidence would make a different alternative preferable?

Chapter Summary

Strategic alternatives create the choice set from which the recommendation will be selected. Strong alternative development follows this progression: Decision → Insights → Broad Option Set → Decision Dimensions → Distinct Alternatives → Feasibility Screen → Comparable Choice Set. Alternatives should:

• answer the same decision;

• emerge from the analysis;

• represent meaningfully different strategic paths;

• be realistic and implementable;

• and be developed to a comparable level.

MECE thinking can help ensure alternatives don't substantially overlap and that important paths have not been ignored. However, MECE should improve clarity rather than force artificial categories. The strongest teams don't create one recommendation and two alternatives designed to lose. They develop credible choices and allow evaluation to determine the winner.

• A weak alternative set makes the recommendation appear inevitable.
• A strong alternative set makes the recommendation worth choosing.

Key Takeaways

✓ Begin by defining the central decision, not merely the objective.

✓ Strategic alternatives are different paths; initiatives and tactics help execute the selected path.

✓ Apply the same-level test to ensure alternatives are comparable.

✓ Every alternative should be relevant, complete, distinct, realistic, implementable, and comparable.

✓ Generate alternatives from customer, industry, capability, financial, organisational, stakeholder, and journey insights.

✓ Use TOWS to convert SWOT connections into possible strategies.

✓ Examine different focus areas, value propositions, ownership models, capability-access methods, commitment levels, channels, timing, and revenue models.

✓ Generate broadly before narrowing to the final choice set.

✓ MECE is a useful test for overlap and coverage, but it should not distort a genuinely hybrid or staged decision.

✓ Include the current path or minimum-action option when it is a credible choice or useful baseline.

✓ Don't treat "do nothing" as though the environment remains unchanged.

✓ Screen alternatives against non-negotiable requirements before detailed evaluation.

✓ Distinguish non-negotiables from preferences.

✓ Avoid strawmen and biased labels.

✓ Develop every final alternative using the same structure and level of detail.

✓ Make the trade-offs in speed, control, investment, capability, flexibility, impact, and risk visible.

✓ A staged or hybrid alternative should explain its sequence, learning objective, and triggers.

✓ Generate first, evaluate second, and choose third.

✓ In the presentation, explain the decision, strategic differences, and trade-offs before revealing the evaluation.

Looking Ahead

Once the team has developed several credible alternatives, the next question is how we determine which option is strongest. The next chapter introduces Decision Criteria and Alternative Evaluation: how to select criteria before scoring, weigh what matters, evaluate evidence fairly, test sensitivity, and make the recommendation emerge logically from the comparison.