Business Strategy & Growth
Strategists, economists and entrepreneurs who help organisations identify opportunity and execute with conviction
Sustained competitive advantage has stopped behaving the way strategy textbooks promised. Incumbents with strong positions are being overtaken by entrants who change the rules of the game rather than play it better. The harder question for boards is not how to defend the current business, it is how to keep creating new value when the industry definition itself keeps moving.
Most innovation programmes stall in the gap between idea generation and operational adoption. Stakeholders are consulted late, ownership stays with a small central team, and the resulting initiatives lose energy before they touch the customer. The harder question is how to design an innovation process that the people responsible for executing it actually feel they built.
Most leadership teams consume far more futures content than they can act on. The problem is not a shortage of prediction. It is the absence of a structured method for connecting macro change to the specific decisions an organisation is already under pressure to make. Without that connection, strategic planning is reactive, investment decisions trail the market, and the wrong questions dominate the board’s time.
Most consumer brands describe sustainability as a value. Few have rebuilt their supply chain to pay for it. The harder question for any operator is whether ethical sourcing can survive contact with unit economics, scale, and a competitive high street.
Most large companies have an innovation programme that produces activity but not commercial outcomes. Pilots multiply, hackathons run, idea portals fill up, and the operating model still rewards what worked last year. The harder question is how to make innovation a managed discipline that allocates real capital to the right problems, not a creativity theatre that the executive committee tolerates.
Most large companies have an innovation problem they cannot solve internally. They have signed memoranda with startups, run accelerators, opened innovation labs, and still struggle to convert any of it into operating advantage. The gap is not strategic intent. It is the practical discipline of partnering across a size and culture asymmetry that defeats most corporate teams.
Most large organisations have spent heavily on AI and data without seeing the commercial return promised in the business case. Boards want a clearer answer on where AI actually earns its keep, how to govern it as regulators circle, and how to build the internal capability to use it at scale. The gap is rarely the technology. It is the operating model, the talent and the willingness of senior leaders to make specific bets.
Boards know AI is not optional. What they do not know is which of the dozen initiatives on the deck will compound into advantage, and which will sink six quarters of budget into pilots that never scale. The gap is not ambition, it is a repeatable way to decide where the organisation actually stands and what to do next.
Most leadership teams know how to optimise the business they have. They are far less practised at building the one they will need. The gap between recognising change is coming and structuring an organisation to act on it is where most strategies stall.
Complex B2B deals stall because buyers cannot process the information they already have. More content, more stakeholders and more options make consensus harder, not easier, and conventional relationship selling has stopped clearing the path. The question for commercial leaders is what their sales and marketing function has to do differently when the constraint is no longer access to the buyer, but the buyer’s ability to decide.