strategic-analysis

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

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

1. Framing: Right question being answered?
2. Alternatives: Multiple options considered?
3. Information: Reliable data gathered?
4. Values: Aligned with company values/strategy?
5. Logic: Sound reasoning and analysis?
6. 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