Commissioned by one of my clients to set up the group’s project portfolio (1000 employees), I consulted with several people whom I suspected of having, each at their level, enough experience, perspective, corporate culture and synthesis skills to contribute to the objective: an overall vision, a map, and its projection over time. Throughout the discussions, I was struck by a nuance to which, until then, I had never paid too much attention. Tactical projects, strategic projects…

A dialogue then develops with Alexis Beuve:

– Alexis, why are you so keen to distinguish between tactical projects and strategic projects? They’re kind of the same thing, aren’t they?

Surprised, even shocked (he’s actually provoking me), he replies:

– Pablo… Pablo… are you making fun of me?

A little, it’s true, because Alexis is also an author and publisher. He founded the publishing house Praxeo ten years ago, recognized for teaching Asian games including Go, and he himself is the author of several large, highly strategic and tactical books: poker, backgammon, and even historical simulation games: Memoir 44 (© Days of Wonder 2011). To this, we must add that he puts his theories into practice on a daily basis.

Let’s continue.

– Pablo… you need to read the preface of a book. And there, he pulls out a large manual of more than five hundred pages on Memoir 44 (© Days of Wonder 2011), a simulation game about World War II conflicts! He specifies:

– Originally, the project even included two separate books: The Tactical Guide and The Strategic Guide, so great is the distinction.

– But so in two words?

– In two words? You’re tough. The strategist doesn’t consider defeat. He projects and adapts. Tactics are operational. It’s an expertise. The tactician calculates and maneuvers. The strategist evaluates and decides.

– Hey, but you’re talking about my product owners there!

Product Owners

– I don’t know, maybe, you’re the expert, but if you’re interested, know that I’ve started writing an e-book that only deals with strategy. Surprisingly, game strategy is not at all intuitive, and sometimes deserves some analogies and parallels, notably with business economics and even market finance.

– Alexis, we need to talk!

– The idea for this e-book (which hasn’t yet been published) came to me when I was rereading two manuscripts: the first is Chûban, la stratégie au jeu de go de Dai Junfu (8th Dan), the second is Xiang qi, l’univers des échecs chinois de Marc-Antoine Nguyen (Praxeo, 2009).

These two experts in their respective games agree on the use of strategy and, without consultation, separate positions into three statuses: (1) Ahead (2) In balance (3) Behind. Who should take risks? Should the position be complicated or stabilized? Period. Strategy is that and nothing else: what to do on the battlefield scale when you’re in a position of weakness, or in a position of strength.

– Go, chess, Memoir 44 (© Days of Wonder 2011), I’m sure there are lots of interesting things for product owners, obvious analogies that can enrich our thinking.

– You’ll judge. But in my opinion, after years of reflection, I’m converging toward a minimalist and very precise definition of strategy: what is the appropriate level of risk exposure depending on whether you’re in a position of weakness or strength? What to do when behind or ahead?

He continues, some fundamentals:

– Strategy is the early projection of a totality over time.

The strategist defines a global goal and anticipates a result.

Strategy involves a share of the unexpected and risks.

It proposes to optimize the profit/risk ratio with a view to achieving a specific objective.

Strategy integrates uncertainty, the luck factor and even irrational behaviors.

– We’re really close to vision (in the sense that we precisely ask product owners for a strategy, a projection into the future), and I understand that these Go or chess champions acknowledge, like us agilists, that it’s illusory to imagine being able to foresee everything?

Uncertainty and risk exposure

– Oh yes! Of course. The champion Marc Antoine Nguyen writes for example: “If you thought that a really strong player could enjoy a reduction in levels of risk and the unexpected, you were wrong about strategy: the complete opposite occurs. On the contrary, the strong player is capable of assuming levels of uncertainty and risk exposure far superior to the average!”. That’s what makes him strong.

– I like this definition, because it leads me to a directly applicable business rule: “Strategy is the privilege of the product owner. But I understand that he shares tactical maneuvers with his teammates. If I venture a metaphor on the battlefield: the general is the product owner, he has a strategy (and he doesn’t consider defeat), he decides, he evaluates risks (I read the introduction to Memoir 44 carefully!). Meanwhile, the tactician calculates, maneuvers and uses his weapons wisely, while remaining at all times aligned with the general’s strategy. That’s the team’s autonomy and competence. Tactical choices are also shared by the product owner: how he breaks down his user stories, how he prioritizes certain choices, etc. Alexis, this is fascinating and I’m convinced it can bring a lot to my product owners.

– If you allow yourself these analogies, you’ll have to be very rigorous and precise. I insist for example that the tactician must apply the strategy defined by his high command, even if he doesn’t understand it.

– Ah? That’s brutal.

– Yet I think it’s essential, and even vital. Take the example of a battle in balance where you’re suffering from a worrying weakness in one of your sections, let’s say on your right flank (Waterloo!). Well, in this configuration, the tactician will always have the reflex to reinforce his weak section.

– Is that bad?

– It’s even fatal in some cases. Reinforcing your weak section in a balanced position means stripping some of the other sections to reinforce the first one. Result: it’s the stripped sections that become weakened in turn. Add to this that the temporal dimension, absolutely strategic, was completely overlooked in this purely tactical maneuver.

– How would the strategist think?

– He asks himself two simple questions: how much do I lose (in space, in material, and especially in time) if I reinforce the weak section? Do you see the other question? The alternative?

– No

– How much do I lose if I completely sacrifice the weak section. He evaluates the two losses and chooses the lesser one.

– He loses in all cases! Can we speak of a relevant strategy where you’re sure to lose?

– This is a tactical loss, a small piece of space and material deemed acceptable. Meanwhile, you’re going to use your weak section as a time-consuming bait and reinforce your center, where you’re already strong, to launch a superiority maneuver there. And you crush the guy opposite. Let’s remember that originally, you were in balance.

– If I come back to the question asked, isn’t the tactician better if he understands the strategist’s calculation, if he accepts the idea of sacrifice?

– Ah no! We don’t care and we don’t have time. Everyone has their job. For example, your product owner decides that an entire project section must be sacrificed (abandoned) (the famous weak section). He’s responsible for this decision and supposed to be perfectly competent to know that with the resources or budget thus freed up, he’ll be able to strengthen his core business and, as the case may be, deliver Time2Market, win a new deal or make the difference against a competitor. Does he have to explain (prove, justify) all that to the whole team before having the right to decide? I certainly hope not. A strategy isn’t explained. It’s decided, then exposed and executed without a word.

– From my agile point of view, all interactions with the team are positive. Every exchange or “feedback” is a wealth. But it’s true that it’s essential that one person, the product owner, can make final decisions on priorities (he imposes order on the team). To help my product owners grasp these questions, how to begin the reflection within their company?

– Pablo, when I worked on this subject, I noticed that chess strategists and Go strategists decided on opposite strategies (divergent risk-taking depending on positional advantage or disadvantage). I came to the conclusion that we could conceptualize two systems (concerning the strategist and therefore your product owner). The first tells me that if I’m behind, I must attack, complicate the position, increase my level of risk exposure. It’s my only chance to reverse the trend that isn’t in my favor. Conversely, the second recommends a solid defense, stabilize the rear before counter-attacking to avoid rout.

Scoring systems and sudden death

The systems (the games), belong a priori to one of the following two families, of which we know two representative prototypes.

The “Go game” family: When behind, I attack. I increase my risk exposure, I complicate the position. I call it the scoring system.

– A bit like a company in a dominant position, or at least sustainable, that manages its investments?

– Yes, provided it has cash. In this case, its only risks are market risks. No fatal loss in sight. The other family is represented by chess: When behind, I consolidate first, I first ensure the defense of my King before considering any counter-attack. This time, the risk exceeds a simple material loss. It’s the entire organism that’s in peril. These are sudden death systems, materialized by the King in chess, by fragile cash flow in economics, and by credit risks (liquidity and counterparty) in finance.

– Okay, a startup, but not only, a company that’s playing for its life and whose choices are decisive.

– One day, by applying these rules from game strategy, I’ll explain to you why strategic reasoning is natural for an eight-year-old child, and also how the Spanish Chupa Chups exploded the world leader and undisputed lollipop brand Pierrot Gourmand.

– Let me digest all this already. We need to dig deeper into this subject. I’m intuitively convinced that the strategies of all these games can serve as support for our business strategies. This seems like a great wealth for product owners or product managers. I’m going to think about all this and we’ll talk about it again.

To be continued.

The next article is: Le product owner contre-attaque

And here you have all the related articles on Alexis’s blog.

Alexis, photographed by Chantal Tara Delannoy, of the Photo Club Vicinois