Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Frame the Strategic Question and Analyse Context
2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Define a specific, real strategic question facing a real organisation — not a hypothetical. Conduct a situation analysis to establish the strategic context: the organisation's competitive position, key constraints, and the forces driving the need for a decision. The framing must rule out some options and constrain the solution space.
Proof required
Submit a strategic context document (two to three pages) covering: the specific strategic question stated in one sentence, a situation analysis using a recognised framework (PESTLE, Porter's Five Forces, or equivalent), the organisation's key constraints and competitive advantages, and a statement of what the chosen strategic option must achieve.
What gets checked
- The strategic question is specific enough that two people reading it independently would agree on what a good answer looks like
- The situation analysis cites real data sources — financial reports, market data, or documented competitive intelligence — not generalised industry observations
- The framing explicitly rules out at least one class of strategic options and explains why
Common mistakes
- Framing the question so broadly that virtually any option could be justified — 'how should we grow?' is not a strategic question
- Situation analysis based on assumptions rather than cited data, making the downstream evaluation unverifiable
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the candidate to state the strategic question in one sentence, then ask 'what would a bad answer look like?' — if they cannot answer, the framing is too vague
- Probe one data point in the situation analysis: 'where does this number come from?'
- Challenge the constraint framing: 'why is this a constraint rather than something you could change?'
- Ask whether the framing was reviewed or validated with anyone inside the organisation before finalisation
Identify and Evaluate Three or More Strategic Options
2–3 weeks (2 hrs/day)
Generate at least three genuinely different strategic options — not variations of the same approach — and evaluate each against the same set of criteria derived from your strategic question framing. Document the key uncertainties, risks, and assumptions for each option. Clearly identify your recommended option and explain why it is preferable.
Proof required
Submit a strategic options analysis document covering: at least three distinct options each described in one to two paragraphs; a structured evaluation against four to six consistent criteria; a risk and assumption table for each option; and a clear recommendation with the explicit reasoning for preferring it over the next-best alternative.
What gets checked
- Three options are genuinely different strategic directions — not variations of the same approach with different timelines
- Evaluation criteria are consistent across all options and were defined before evaluating the options
- The recommendation explicitly addresses why the top alternative was rejected
Common mistakes
- Designing one preferred option and two straw men that are clearly inferior — the evaluation then teaches nothing
- Evaluation criteria that change between options, making comparison meaningless
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the candidate to argue the strongest case for the option they did not recommend — can they do it compellingly?
- Check the evaluation criteria: were they defined before or after the options were generated?
- Probe the recommendation: 'what would have to be true for the second-ranked option to be the right answer?'
- Ask which assumption, if wrong, would change the recommendation — is the candidate aware of its sensitivity?
Present Recommendation for Expert Q&A
1 week (2 hrs/day)
Present the strategic framing, options analysis, and recommendation to a strategy practitioner or senior leader with direct experience in strategic decision-making. The practitioner challenges your framing assumptions, option generation, evaluation criteria, and recommendation logic — posing at least one scenario where a different option would be preferable.
Proof required
Submit: the final strategic options document; a written review session record with the reviewer's credentials, at least three specific challenges raised including at least one alternative scenario, and your written responses; and a revision log showing what changed in the analysis or recommendation and why.
What gets checked
- Reviewer has direct experience in strategic option evaluation at organisational level — not a general management background without strategy work
- At least one 'what if' scenario was posed and the candidate provided a specific reasoned response — not 'that's a good point, I'd need to think about it'
- The revision shows that a substantive element of the analysis was updated, not just wording
Common mistakes
- Choosing a reviewer who is very senior but unfamiliar with structured strategic analysis — they may offer useful opinions but cannot challenge analytical rigour
- Treating pushback on the recommendation as validation rather than re-examining the underlying assumption
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm the reviewer has direct experience with strategic option evaluation, not just senior management generally
- Pose a specific scenario: 'the market assumption underlying your recommendation is wrong by 30% — what then?'
- Ask whether the candidate held their position or revised it under challenge — and whether that was the right call
- Check the revision log: did the update address the root of the challenge or reframe the same conclusion?