name	strategic-analysis
description	McKinsey-level strategic analysis with MECE frameworks and quantitative prioritization
allowed-tools	["Read","Glob","Grep","WebSearch"]
context	fork
user-invocable	true
version	1.0.0

Strategic Analysis Skill

Reusable workflow extracted from domik-mckinsey-strategic-decision-maker expertise.

Purpose

Apply McKinsey-level strategic analysis using MECE frameworks, hypothesis-driven problem solving, and quantitative prioritization to drive transformational business decisions with executive-ready recommendations.

When to Use

Strategic initiative prioritization
Business transformation planning
Technology investment decisions
Market entry/expansion strategy
Digital transformation roadmaps
M&A evaluation and due diligence
Portfolio optimization
Go/no-go decisions for major projects
Executive decision support

Workflow Steps

Situation Assessment
- Define the strategic question clearly
- Understand current state and context
- Identify key stakeholders and their perspectives
- Map competitive landscape
- Gather relevant data and metrics
- Document constraints and assumptions
Issue Tree Construction (MECE)
- Break down the strategic question into components
- Ensure Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive structure
- Create hypothesis-driven issue tree
- Identify key decision drivers
- Prioritize branches for deep dive analysis
Hypothesis Formation
- Formulate testable hypotheses about the answer
- Define what evidence would prove/disprove each
- Create hypothesis tree with supporting logic
- Identify critical assumptions
- Plan data collection to test hypotheses
Quantitative Analysis
- Gather data to test hypotheses
- Apply ISE Prioritization Framework (if applicable)
- Calculate financial impact (NPV, IRR, ROI)
- Perform sensitivity analysis
- Create scenario models (best/base/worst case)
Qualitative Assessment
- Evaluate strategic fit with company vision
- Assess organizational capability and readiness
- Consider market timing and competitive dynamics
- Evaluate execution risk and mitigation strategies
- Assess stakeholder alignment
Framework Application
- Apply relevant strategic frameworks:
  - Porter's Five Forces (competitive analysis)
  - 7S Framework (organizational alignment)
  - Three Horizons (innovation portfolio)
  - Value Chain Analysis (competitive advantage)
  - SWOT Analysis (strategic positioning)
- Synthesize insights across frameworks
Recommendation Development
- Synthesize analysis into clear recommendation
- Create executive summary (three key messages)
- Develop implementation roadmap
- Identify quick wins and long-term plays
- Define success metrics and KPIs
Executive Communication
- Structure as situation-complication-question-answer
- Lead with recommendation, support with analysis
- Create visual "so what" slides
- Prepare for objections and questions
- Define clear next steps with ownership

Inputs Required

Strategic Question: Clear, specific decision to be made
Business Context: Company strategy, market position, competitive landscape
Financial Data: Revenue, costs, growth rates, market size
Organizational Context: Capabilities, resources, constraints
Timeline: Decision deadline, implementation window
Stakeholders: Key decision-makers and their priorities

Outputs Produced

Executive Summary: Three key messages with recommendation
Strategic Analysis Report: Detailed issue tree and hypothesis testing
Quantitative Models: Financial projections, scenario analysis, ROI
Decision Framework Scorecards: ISE or custom scoring with justification
Implementation Roadmap: Phased plan with milestones and accountability
Risk Assessment: Key risks with mitigation strategies
Presentation Deck: Executive-ready slides for decision meeting

MECE Framework Principles

Mutually Exclusive

No overlap between categories
Each item fits in only one bucket
Clear boundaries between segments

Collectively Exhaustive

All possibilities covered
Nothing left out
Complete picture of the problem space

Example Issue Tree

Should we enter Market X?

├─ Market Attractiveness (IS the opportunity good?)
│  ├─ Market size and growth
│  ├─ Competitive intensity
│  └─ Profitability potential
│
├─ Strategic Fit (SHOULD we pursue it?)
│  ├─ Alignment with company strategy
│  ├─ Synergies with existing business
│  └─ Risk profile compatibility
│
└─ Ability to Win (CAN we succeed?)
   ├─ Competitive advantage
   ├─ Required capabilities vs current state
   └─ Resource availability and commitment

ISE Prioritization Framework

Initiative-Level Assessment (1-5 scale)

Customer Value

5: CxO-validated outcomes with precise benchmarks
4: Defined outcomes with preliminary benchmarks
3: Aspirational outcomes without clear benchmarks
2: Problem identified, outcomes vague
1: No clear problem or impact defined

Microsoft Value (Annual NNR)

5: >$50M annual NNR
4: $20M-$50M annual NNR
3: $5M-$20M annual NNR
2: $1M-$5M annual NNR
1: <$1M annual NNR

Ecosystem Impact

5: Microsoft-wide blueprint with PG interest
4: Multi-industry use case, strong partner enablement
3: High relevance across industry, aligned to priority use case
2: Replicable across customer segment, moderate TAM
1: Replicable to 1-2 similar customers, low TAM
0: Highly tailored, not replicable

Technical Innovation

5: Transformational initiative co-led with PG
4: Deep frontier tech use, co-engineering with PG
3: Technically innovative, partially aligned with PG
2: Moderate complexity, some key Azure services
1: Not new, novel, or complex

Engineering Time to Solution

5: <60 Dev Days
4: 61-199 Dev Days
3: 200-499 Dev Days
2: 500-999 Dev Days
1: >1000 Dev Days

Time to Full Production

5: ≤2 months
4: 2-4 months
3: 4-8 months
2: 8-12 months
1: >12 months or no Azure tenant

Composite Score Calculation

Total Score = (Customer Value + Microsoft Value + Ecosystem Impact +
               Technical Innovation + Engineering Efficiency +
               Time to Production) / 6

Interpretation:
4.5-5.0: Strategic priority - immediate investment
3.5-4.4: Strong candidate - detailed planning
2.5-3.4: Conditional - requires optimization
1.5-2.4: Deferred - not currently strategic
<1.5: Decline - does not meet minimum criteria

Executive Summary Template

# Strategic Recommendation: [Clear Decision Title]

## Recommendation

[One sentence: What should we do?]

## Three Key Messages

1. **[First key message]** - [Why it matters]
2. **[Second key message]** - [Supporting evidence]
3. **[Third key message]** - [What it means]

## Strategic Rationale

[2-3 paragraphs explaining the "why" behind the recommendation]

## Expected Impact

- Financial: [Revenue/cost impact with timeframe]
- Strategic: [Competitive advantage, market position]
- Organizational: [Capability building, culture]

## Implementation Roadmap

- **Phase 1 (Months 1-3)**: [Quick wins, foundations]
- **Phase 2 (Months 4-6)**: [Scale, optimization]
- **Phase 3 (Months 7-12)**: [Full deployment, measurement]

## Key Risks & Mitigation

1. **[Risk]** - Mitigation: [Strategy]
2. **[Risk]** - Mitigation: [Strategy]

## Investment Required

- Capital: $[amount]
- People: [FTE count] over [timeframe]
- Timeline: [Duration]
- Expected ROI: [X]% by [timeframe]

## Success Metrics

- [KPI 1]: [Target by date]
- [KPI 2]: [Target by date]
- [KPI 3]: [Target by date]

## Next Steps

1. **[Action]** - Owner: [Name], Due: [Date]
2. **[Action]** - Owner: [Name], Due: [Date]

Example Usage

Input: Should we invest in building an AI-powered customer service platform?

Workflow Execution:
1. Situation: Current support costs $5M/year, 24-hour response time,
   customer satisfaction 3.2/5

2. Issue Tree (MECE):
   ├─ Market Opportunity
   │  ├─ Cost savings potential
   │  ├─ Customer experience improvement
   │  └─ Competitive differentiation
   ├─ Technical Feasibility
   │  ├─ AI/ML capabilities required
   │  ├─ Data availability and quality
   │  └─ Integration complexity
   └─ Business Case
      ├─ Development cost and timeline
      ├─ ROI and payback period
      └─ Risk vs reward profile

3. Hypothesis: "AI platform will reduce support costs by 60% while
   improving satisfaction to 4.5/5 within 18 months"

4. Quantitative Analysis:
   - Current cost: $5M/year
   - Projected savings: $3M/year (60% reduction)
   - Development cost: $2M
   - Payback period: 8 months
   - 5-year NPV: $12M

5. ISE Framework Scoring:
   - Customer Value: 5/5 (CxO-validated cost savings + satisfaction)
   - Company Value: 4/5 ($3M annual recurring savings)
   - Ecosystem Impact: 3/5 (replicable across industry)
   - Technical Innovation: 4/5 (frontier AI/ML)
   - Engineering Effort: 4/5 (120 dev days)
   - Time to Production: 4/5 (3 months MVP)
   Composite Score: 4.0/5 - STRONG STRATEGIC PRIORITY

6. Framework: Porter's Five Forces shows AI as key competitive moat

7. Recommendation: "Invest $2M to build AI customer service platform"

8. Executive Summary: Three key messages format with roadmap

Output:
✅ RECOMMEND: Proceed with AI platform development
Expected Impact: $3M annual savings, 4.5/5 customer satisfaction
ROI: 150% over 5 years, 8-month payback
Next Step: Approve $2M budget, kickoff with 6-person team by Q2

Strategic Frameworks Catalog

Porter's Five Forces

Threat of new entrants
Bargaining power of suppliers
Bargaining power of buyers
Threat of substitute products
Competitive rivalry

7S Framework (McKinsey)

Strategy, Structure, Systems
Shared Values, Style, Staff, Skills

Three Horizons Model

Horizon 1: Core business optimization
Horizon 2: Emerging opportunities
Horizon 3: Transformational bets

Value Chain Analysis

Primary: Inbound logistics, operations, outbound, marketing, service
Support: Infrastructure, HR, technology, procurement

BCG Growth-Share Matrix

Stars, Cash Cows, Question Marks, Dogs

Related Agents

domik-mckinsey-strategic-decision-maker - Full agent with deep analysis
satya-board-of-directors - System-thinking strategic guidance
antonio-strategy-expert - Business strategy frameworks
amy-cfo - Financial analysis and ROI modeling
ali-chief-of-staff - Strategic initiative coordination

Decision Quality Criteria

Six Tests of a Good Decision

Framing: Right question being answered?
Alternatives: Multiple options considered?
Information: Reliable data gathered?
Values: Aligned with company values/strategy?
Logic: Sound reasoning and analysis?
Commitment: Stakeholders aligned and committed?

ISE Engineering Fundamentals Alignment

Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for strategic tech decisions
Trade studies before major investments
Technical spikes for high-risk unknowns
Data-driven decision making with metrics
Iterative approach: pilot → scale → optimize