Digital Disruption in the Automotive Industry - Using Game Theory Within Stage-Gate to Launch...
-
Upload
bill-forquer -
Category
Business
-
view
103 -
download
0
Transcript of Digital Disruption in the Automotive Industry - Using Game Theory Within Stage-Gate to Launch...
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
“Using Game Theory Within Stage-Gate to Launch Products That Can Win”
For Stage Gate Intl VOE SummitJune 15,16 2016By Bill Forquer @billforquer
Moving Beyond Competitive Analysis to Competitive Response
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Question #1
“Would you play chess blind-folded?
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Question #2:
“Do you have a structured process for
tracking events?
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Events are the Unit of Change in Your Market
Events Heat Map
With each major event, is our position strengthening or eroding? Can be
applied to Acquirers, Differentiators, Product Roadmap, Standoffs, etc …
Software Inc. Strategic Events Heat Map: for Recent EventsDec-2010 Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Oct-2010
Sustained economic downturn.
Unprecedented consumer
adoption of smartphone and tablet devices.
SaaS Ankle Biter Inc
announces expanded
partnership with Infor.
Won 3 year deal with Anderson Windows
Overall Favorable or Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable Highly Divisive Favorable Favorable/UnfavorableOverall Impact Low Medium High High Low /Medium/HighHigh
Software Inc., Strategic LensVision and Differentiation Sustainability
Improve the credibility of our Vision? Our soln has an ROI in 6 months.
If w e had some vision in this area, it could help.
If w e had some vision in this area, it could help.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #1 Differentiator…adaptive to change?
Creates hesitation to rip & replace incumbent supply chain
softw are investments.
We have no plan for smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter messaging the same as
our dif ferentiator.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #2 Differentiator…lower TCO?
We have lots of proof points.We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter messaging the same as
our dif ferentiator.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #3 Differentiator…dominate in construction industry suppliers?
New construction is dow n; rehab construction is up.
No demands coming from this segment as of yet.
We continue to dominate…Infor likely to
target our accounts.
Great referencable account.
Relationship Position & Strength
Improve our position with Top 5 Rev Producing Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt. No demands coming from this segment as of yet.
Infor likely to target these accounts.
Great referencable account.
Improve our position with Top 5 Prospective Rev Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.Apparel prospects are asking about our plans.
We can still w in against Infor in apparrel.
Need to leverage this into appareI.
Improve our position with #1 Partner?Law son also positioned as the
low er TCO ERP supplier of choice.
No demands from Law son as of yet.
Law son w ill deepen partnership w ith us to f ight
Infor.
Not a Law son customer, but a great reference anyw ay.
Improve our position with #1 Current Competitor?
Doesn't help; doesn't hurt. Ankle Biter has nothing either.
More competitive landscape.
This w as a f ierce battle to not loose this
account to Ankle Biter.
Improve our position with #1 Future Competitor?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.SAP/IBM tolerates us over
Infor+Ankle Biter.Great reference
account.
Improve our position with #1 Targeted Strategic Buyer?
Stunted organic grow th by SAP w ill force them to acquire.
IBM/SAP all very aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM/Law son may acquire us to compete w ith Infor+Ankle Biter.
SAP/IBM/Law son may acquire us to get a
toehold in construction manufacturers.
“Would you play chess blind-folded?
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Events Heat Map
• Choose a Lens: Use any of The Wide Lens templates
• Color Code Events each quarter as {Fav, Unfav} and {High, Medium, Low} against the chosen lens
• Consider events from World, Macro Market, Specific Market, and Internal
See Events Heat Map Handout Example
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Your Challenge Today…
Strategic Decision Making
Merge, Acquire, Invest, Divest, Channels, Partners, Gov’t Affairs,
Innovation/Consolidation, Litigation, …
Endless debate
Urgency
Increasing Business Complexity and
Market Disruption
Board of Directors Scrutiny
“More analysis” “More action”
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
The Priiva Process…A Different Approach
Who is involved? Players
What can they do ?Options
What do they want ?Preferences
Where can we get to ?Predicted outcomes
How do we get there ?Tactics
What did we learn ?Insights
Game Theory
MODEL INPUTS MODEL OUTPUTS
|----------------------------------Process duration is 4-6 weeks----------------------------------||---------------- Executive Time Commitment is two half-day workshops-----------------|
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Sample of Priiva Success ReferencesCompany Issue Incoming
BiasPriiva
AnalysisObservation Strategic Action
PlanLarge information technology provider
Fear of disruptive entry by “gorillas”
Find lucrative replacement market or sell-out now
Model overall industry structure
Current competitors and new entrants all favor status quo fearing cascading auction
Grow and scale with targeted acquisitions since consolidation is further away than anticipated
Information Services Provider
“Googlization” and eroding demand for traditional services.
Expand into adjacent services
Analyze competitive and cooperative reaction of adjacent services
Expansion actually accelerates traditional services erosion
Change competitive positioning of the expanded services. Improve sales tools.
Large multinational manufacturer
Enter adjacent market
Alliance w/ selected competitor
Customers, regulators, and competitors
Trigger unilateral capacity expansion eroding price margins
Alliance with market leader rather than the selected competitor
Green Energy Provider
Market structure unknowns
Focus on USA market
Regional market variations
Asian markets more ready, lucrative, and provides USA toe-hold
Invest in Asian market development; advocacy only in USA market
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Deliverables - Quantitative
Niche Player
Struggling Incumbent
Technology Player
DivMultiNat
Customer New Entrant
Influence
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16
17
18
19 20
21
22
23
24
Strong Agreement
Strong Disagreement Option Agreement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Significant
Insignificant
Option significance
Niche Player
Struggling Incumbent
Technology Player
DivMultiNat
Customer
New Entrant
Prefers Status Quo Seeks Change
Change Seeking
Niche Player
Struggling Incumbent
Technology Player
DivMultiNat
Customer
New Entrant
Sensitive to Others Self Focused
Self- importance
US Gov't Favor FC N N N N N → Y Y Y
Favor wind, solar N N N N N → Y Y Y
European Gov't Favor FC N N → Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N N → Y Y Y Y Y Y
Asian Gov't Favor FC N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Investors Invest in FC N N N N N N → Y Y
Invest in wind,solar N N N N N N → Y Y
Utility Providers Promote FC N N N N N N N → Y
Promote wind,solar N N N N N N N → Y
System Integrators Increase outsourcing/JD N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Develop FC internally N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Acquire stack developer N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Large Multinationals Increase FC investment N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Increase Outsource/JD N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Acquire stack developer N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Increase Wind,solar investment N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Early End Users AdoptersFavor FC N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
US DoD Favor FC N N N N N N N → Y
Favor wind,solar,battery N N N N N N N → Y
Outcomes
What is the progression to the outcome? Who wields the power?
What options do players care the most about?
What options are divisive (aka “domino” events)?
Who favors change? Who favors status quo?
Who is self focused? Who is sensitive to the action of
others?
US Gov't Favor FC N N N N N → Y Y Y
Favor wind, solar N N N N N → Y Y Y
European Gov't Favor FC N N → Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N N → Y Y Y Y Y Y
Asian Gov't Favor FC N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Investors Invest in FC N N N N N N → Y Y
Invest in wind,solar N N N N N N → Y Y
Utility Providers Promote FC N N N N N N N → Y
Promote wind,solar N N N N N N N → Y
System Integrators Increase outsourcing/JD N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Develop FC internally N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Acquire stack developer N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Large Multinationals Increase FC investment N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Increase Outsource/JD N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Acquire stack developer N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Increase Wind,solar investment N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Early End Users AdoptersFavor FC N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
US DoD Favor FC N N N N N N N → Y
Favor wind,solar,battery N N N N N N N → Y
Sensitivity of Outcomes
What is the outcome if we change a player’s behavior?
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Deliverables – Qualitative
Standoffs
Tradeoffs
Zero Sum vs. Rising Tide
Deadlocks
Auction Robustness
Credible Signaling
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Benefits of Game Theory and the Priiva Process
Strategic Action Plan
Predictable Outcomes
Efficient Process Aligned Executive TeamRobust Competitive Response as Gate
Criteria
Deep Insights
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Autonomous Vehicles
Our Working Session
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Auto Industry Disruption
DISRUPTIONDISRUPTION
DISRUPTION
Autonomous Vehicles
Internet of Things Electrification
DISRUPTIONDISRUPTION
DISRUPTION
Direct to Consumer
Sharing Economy Car as a Service
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Autonomous is a Continuum
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Primitive Controls
More Controls
Cede Driving
Driverless
Eg, Cruise Control
Eg, Crash Detection
Still requires a
driver
A living space
Levels 1-4 are the adopted definitions imposed by FHTSA
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Recent Headlines• Mar 11, 2016 – GM Acquires Cruise Automation for
$1B to Accelerate Autonomous Vehicles• Apr 27, 2016 - Ford and Google Lead Lobbying
Coalition• Apr 28, 2016 – Google and Fiat-Chrysler Nearing
Tech Agreement• May 5, 2016 – Ford Invests $182M in Pivotal to
Strengthen Mobility Software• May 14, 2016 – Apple Invests $1B in Didi• May 24, 2016 – Uber & Toyota Confirm Strategic
Investment and Leasing Deal• …
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Recall the 3 Inputs to a Model
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Our Players
1. Tech Player – Apple, Google, MSFT2. Car Mfg Incumbent – Ford, Fiat-
Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, BMW, …3. GM4. Car Disruptor – Tesla, Faraday
Future, …5. Car as a Service – Uber, Lyft, Car2Go6. Govt – Federal, state, local
Who is involved? Players
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Players and OptionsTech Player1 Dev Full Stack (Car and OS)Car Mfg Incumbent2 Dev their own Car OS3 Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS4 Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS5 Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OSGM6 Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OS7 Sunset OnStarCar Disruptor8 Dev their own Car OS9 Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS10 Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS11 Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OSCar as a Service12 Favor Tech Players13 Favor Car Mfg Incumbents14 Favor GM15 Favor Car DisruptorsGovt16 Impose Light Regulations17 Impose Moderate Regulations18 Impose Heavy Regulations
OptionsWhat can they do ?Options
18 total options
Each option has a
unique identifier
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Preference Tree SyntaxPreference Tree
Car Mfg Incumbent
-1-161813-17 More Important
4 IF (17)-6 + Denotes Desire
-12-14 - Denotes Fear-157 IF Denotes Conditional
-11-9 Less Important or Indifferent
-10-8-235
Players and OptionsTech Player1 Dev Full Stack (Car and OS)Car Mfg Incumbent2 Dev their own Car OS3 Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS4 Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS5 Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OSGM6 Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OS7 Sunset OnStarCar Disruptor8 Dev their own Car OS9 Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS10 Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS11 Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OSCar as a Service12 Favor Tech Players13 Favor Car Mfg Incumbents14 Favor GM15 Favor Car DisruptorsGovt16 Impose Light Regulations17 Impose Moderate Regulations18 Impose Heavy Regulations
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
PlayersPlayer PersonaTech Player (Google, Apple, MSFT)
Aggressive technology disruptor
Car Mfg (Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, BMW, Audi, Toyota, Honda, Kia, et al)
Incumbents from USA, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc
GM Incumbent with connected car toehold via OnStar, CaaS toehold in Lyft, and Cruise Acquisition
Car Disruptor (Tesla, Faraday Future)
Disruptive with autonomous features as well as electrification, biz model, and driver experience
Car as a Service (Uber, Lyft, Car2Go et al)
Disruptor wanting to end personal car ownership
Govt Regulates transportation and safety
Who is involved? Players
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Lets do the first preference tree together
Preference Matrix GM Govt
Tech Player1.) Dev Full Stack (Car and OS)Car Mfg Incumbent2.) Dev their own Car OS3.) Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS 12 -1 -1 -1 -18 14.) Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS 4 -16 -16 -18 16 45.) Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OS 3 18 18 16 1 8GM -18 13 14 15 4 66.) Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OS 16 -17 5 8 10 107.) Sunset OnStar 1 4 IF (17) 11 10 9 17Car Disruptor -2 -6 -3 9 3 128.) Dev their own Car OS 10 -12 -2 -17 11 159.) Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS 9 -14 -4 -11 5 1410.) Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS -11 -15 -8 -12 6 1311.) Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OS -14 7 -9 -13 -17 5Car as a Service -8 -11 -10 -14 -7 -212.) Favor Tech Players -5 -9 -17 -4 -2 313.) Favor Car Mfg Incumbents -17 -10 -7 2 -8 -714.) Favor GM 13 IF (3) -8 6 3 12 915.) Favor Car Disruptors -6 -2 -12 5 15 11Govt 7 3 -13 7 13 -1816.) Impose Light Regulations 15 IF (9) 5 -15 -6 14 -1617.) Impose Moderate Regulations18.) Impose Heavy Regulations
Preference MatrixTech
PlayerCar Mfg
Incumbent GMCar
DisruptorCar as a Service Govt
Tech Player1.) Dev Full Stack (Car and OS)Car Mfg Incumbent2.) Dev their own Car OS3.) Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS 12 -1 -1 -1 -18 14.) Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS 4 -16 -16 -18 16 45.) Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OS 3 18 18 16 1 8GM -18 13 14 15 4 66.) Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OS 16 -17 5 8 10 107.) Sunset OnStar 1 4 IF (17) 11 10 9 17Car Disruptor -2 -6 -3 9 3 128.) Dev their own Car OS 10 -12 -2 -17 11 159.) Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS 9 -14 -4 -11 5 1410.) Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS -11 -15 -8 -12 6 1311.) Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OS -14 7 -9 -13 -17 5Car as a Service -8 -11 -10 -14 -7 -212.) Favor Tech Players -5 -9 -17 -4 -2 313.) Favor Car Mfg Incumbents -17 -10 -7 2 -8 -714.) Favor GM 13 IF (3) -8 6 3 12 915.) Favor Car Disruptors -6 -2 -12 5 15 11Govt 7 3 -13 7 13 -1816.) Impose Light Regulations 15 IF (9) 5 -15 -6 14 -1617.) Impose Moderate Regulations18.) Impose Heavy Regulations
Which option 1-18 is the most important
to Tech Player?
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Build Preference Trees for all other Players …
Player's interests are directly reflected in the preference trees
Player Represents Description
Tech Player (Google, Apple, MSFT)
Aggressive technology disruptor
Wants every car depending on their Car OS. Wants govt to impose light regulations. Will manufacture cars (ie, the full stack) if that is the pre-requisite to winning every car. Doesn’t want incumbents or Car Disruptors developing their own OS, but are not overly sensitive to that because they believe those players will fail doing so.
Car Mfg (Ford, Daimler, BMW, Audi, Toyota, Honda, Kia, et al)
Incumbents from USA, Germany, Japan, Korea, etc
Favors status quo and fears disruption. Fears Tech Players entering with a full stack. Fears that govt will be light handed but wants them to be heavy handed to slow down others giving themselves more time to develop. Needs to win new car sales of CaaS fleets. Does not view Onstar as a viable Car OS. Tech Players need to fail at manufacturing so they become more amenable to partnering for the Car OS.
GM Incumbent with connected car toehold via OnStar
Not as fearful as Car Mfg incumbents as Onstar and Lyft investment provide toeholds. Fears the govt will be light handed but wants them to be heavy handed to slow down others and would like others to fail at their own Car OS efforts falling back to OnStar partnerships triggering more aggressive Onstar development.
Car Disruptor (Tesla, Faraday Future)
Disruptive with autonomous features as well as electrification, biz model, and driver experience
Fears Tech Players entering with a full stack. Fears heavy regulations and wants light regulation to favor autonomous features and electrification. Wants to win new car sales of CaaS fleets and is prepared to develop their own OS to do so. Not fearful of the actions by Car Mfg incumbents, GM, and does not view Onstar as a viable Car OS.
Car as a Service (Uber, Lyft, Car2Go et al)
Disruptor wanting to end personal car ownership
Wants govt out of the way and all parties to succeed getting genuine driverless cars to market which triggers their purchase of a fleet of driverless vehicles from multiple vendors and eliminates their expense of drivers.
Govt Regulates transportation and safety
Wants all players to be successful achieving driverless status as a means for the USA to regain worldwide dominance in the auto industry. Will exert moderate regulations so as to not stifle innovation and not compromise safety.
Simulation Summary
• The Natural Outcome:• Will develop quickly…there are no
deadlocks to slow down the market• Govt has lots of tradeoffs• Tech Player and Govt are the power
players and exert their options early• Tech Player, Govt, and CaaS interests
align well with the Natural Outcome• Car Mfg Incumbent, GM, and Car
Disruptors must act quickly
Influence
Tech Player
Car Mfg Incumbent
GMCar Disruptor
Car as a Service
Govt
The Influence Chart measures a player's ability to influence the behavior of other players.
The larger the slice…• the more importantly other players view their options• the more influence they have over the behavior of the other players
Self Importance
Tech Player
Car Mfg Incumbent
GM
Car Disruptor
Car as a Service
Govt
Sensitive to Others Self Focused
The Self Importance Chart measures how important the player's owned options are to themselves.
The more important the player is, the less likely they are to be influenced by the behavior of others.
The less important a player is, the more likely they are to be influenced by the actions of others.
Natural Outcome vs. Player’s Interests
0
2 0
4 0
6 0
8 0
1 0 0
Tech Player
Car MfgIncumbent
GM
Car Disruptor
Car as a Service
Govt
Radar
Natural Outcome R6
The Radar Chart•Maps how well aligned Outcomes are with the different player's Interests•A point near the origin represents the least preferred outcome•A point near the terminus represents the most preferred outcomeThe Happiness Map
Change Seeking
Tech Player
Car Mfg Incumbent
GM
Car Disruptor
Car as a Service
Govt
Prefers Status Quo Seeks Change
The Change Seeking Chart measures a player's appetite for change to occur.
A preference toward the status quo may indicate fear of consequences of change as well as preference for the status quo.
Interest Alignment
Tech Player Car Mfg IncumbentGM Car Disruptor Car as a Service GovtTech PlayerCar Mfg IncumbentGMCar DisruptorCar as a ServiceGovt
The Interest Alignment Chart reflects alignment of interests. Green indicates good alignment and may reveal hidden allies. Red indicates mis-alignment and may reveal hidden enemies.
Tech Player,
Govt, and CaaS
interests align well with the Natural
Outcome
The Natural OutcomeTech
Player
Develops their own full stack and non-exclusively licenses their Car OS. More regulation than they prefer.
Car Mfg Incumbent
Non exclusively licenses Car OS. Operates in fierce competition and with less regulation than desired. Expect consolidation.
GMEventually develops OnStar due to a late developing partnership. Lyft toehold may be an (expensive) savior.
Car Disruptor
Non exclusively licenses Car OS. Operates in fierce competition amongst its differentiators.
Car as a Service
Has lots of options to own driverless car fleets and cut driver costs.
Govt Imposes moderate regulation so as to stimulate innovation and ensure safety.
Game Model ProgressionPlayers Option List Moves
Tech Player Dev Full Stack (Car and OS) N → Y Y Y
Car Mfg Incumbent Dev their own Car OS N N N N
Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OSN N → Y Y
Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OSN N → Y Y
Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OS N N N → Y
GM Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OSN N N → Y
Sunset OnStar N N N N
Car Disruptor Dev their own Car OS N N → Y Y
Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OSN N → Y Y
Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OSN N → Y Y
Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OS N N N N
Car as a Service Favor Tech Players N N N → Y
Favor Car Mfg Incumbents N N N → Y
Favor GM N N N → Y
Favor Car Disruptors N N N → Y
Govt Impose Light Regulations N N N N
Impose Moderate Regulations N → Y Y Y
Impose Heavy Regulations N N N N
1. Government imposes moderate regulations to encourage broad investment in AV.
2. Tech Players invest in full stack dev, especially knowing moderate regulation.
3. Car Disruptors pursue all their options.
4. Car Mfg Incumbent’s attempt to partner with Tech Players
6. CaaS are agnostic, looking to drive down costs via aggressive competition
5. GM and a Car Mfg Incumbent finally partner triggering OnStar development
What CarMfgIncumbent Should Do• Tech Player’s option to Dev Full Stack and Govt’s Option for Moderate
Regulation are power events that occur early and largely dictate the Natural Outcome.
• Car Mfg Incumbent needs to alter or embrace one or both of those player options IMMEDIATELY
• Incumbents could tie other investments with regulations favorable to incumbents
• Incumbents should establish an early partnership with a Tech Player and a CaaS player
• Incumbents should explore if the insurance lobby can increase govt regulation and slow down the market
• Incumbents should innovate new car features that stave off eroding personal car ownership as driven by CaaS
• Incumbents interests align well with Car Disruptor. Explore partnering opportunities.
• Incumbent(s) could partner with GM and tie further Onstar investment with regulations favorable to incumbents
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Events are the Unit of Change in Your Market
Events Heat Map
With each major event, is our position strengthening or eroding? Can be
applied to Acquirers, Differentiators, Product Roadmap, Standoffs, etc …
Software Inc. Strategic Events Heat Map: for Recent EventsDec-2010 Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Oct-2010
Sustained economic downturn.
Unprecedented consumer
adoption of smartphone and tablet devices.
SaaS Ankle Biter Inc
announces expanded
partnership with Infor.
Won 3 year deal with Anderson Windows
Overall Favorable or Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable Highly Divisive Favorable Favorable/UnfavorableOverall Impact Low Medium High High Low /Medium/HighHigh
Software Inc., Strategic LensVision and Differentiation Sustainability
Improve the credibility of our Vision? Our soln has an ROI in 6 months.
If w e had some vision in this area, it could help.
If w e had some vision in this area, it could help.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #1 Differentiator…adaptive to change?
Creates hesitation to rip & replace incumbent supply chain
softw are investments.
We have no plan for smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter messaging the same as
our dif ferentiator.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #2 Differentiator…lower TCO?
We have lots of proof points.We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter messaging the same as
our dif ferentiator.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #3 Differentiator…dominate in construction industry suppliers?
New construction is dow n; rehab construction is up.
No demands coming from this segment as of yet.
We continue to dominate…Infor likely to
target our accounts.
Great referencable account.
Relationship Position & Strength
Improve our position with Top 5 Rev Producing Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt. No demands coming from this segment as of yet.
Infor likely to target these accounts.
Great referencable account.
Improve our position with Top 5 Prospective Rev Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.Apparel prospects are asking about our plans.
We can still w in against Infor in apparrel.
Need to leverage this into appareI.
Improve our position with #1 Partner?Law son also positioned as the
low er TCO ERP supplier of choice.
No demands from Law son as of yet.
Law son w ill deepen partnership w ith us to f ight
Infor.
Not a Law son customer, but a great reference anyw ay.
Improve our position with #1 Current Competitor?
Doesn't help; doesn't hurt. Ankle Biter has nothing either.
More competitive landscape.
This w as a f ierce battle to not loose this
account to Ankle Biter.
Improve our position with #1 Future Competitor?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.SAP/IBM tolerates us over
Infor+Ankle Biter.Great reference
account.
Improve our position with #1 Targeted Strategic Buyer?
Stunted organic grow th by SAP w ill force them to acquire.
IBM/SAP all very aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM/Law son may acquire us to compete w ith Infor+Ankle Biter.
SAP/IBM/Law son may acquire us to get a
toehold in construction manufacturers.
“Would you play chess blind-folded?
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Your Stage-Gate Process• Track and codify
events as they occur
• Apply structured approach for your bigger bets (i.e., M&A)
Software Inc. Strategic Events Heat Map: for Recent EventsDec-2010 Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Oct-2010
Sustained economic downturn.
Unprecedented consumer
adoption of smartphone and tablet devices.
SaaS Ankle Biter Inc
announces expanded
partnership with Infor.
Won 3 year deal with Anderson Windows
Overall Favorable or Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable Highly Divisive Favorable Favorable/UnfavorableOverall Impact Low Medium High High Low /Medium/HighHigh
Software Inc., Strategic LensVision and Differentiation Sustainability
Improve the credibility of our Vision? Our soln has an ROI in 6 months.
If w e had some vision in this area, it could help.
If w e had some vision in this area, it could help.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #1 Differentiator…adaptive to change?
Creates hesitation to rip & replace incumbent supply chain
softw are investments.
We have no plan for smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter messaging the same as
our differentiator.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #2 Differentiator…lower TCO?
We have lots of proof points.We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter messaging the same as
our differentiator.
Great referencable account.
Improve sustainability of our #3 Differentiator…dominate in construction industry suppliers?
New construction is dow n; rehab construction is up.
No demands coming from this segment as of yet.
We continue to dominate…Infor likely to
target our accounts.
Great referencable account.
Relationship Position & Strength
Improve our position with Top 5 Rev Producing Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt. No demands coming from this segment as of yet.
Infor likely to target these accounts.
Great referencable account.
Improve our position with Top 5 Prospective Rev Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.Apparel prospects are asking about our plans.
We can still w in against Infor in apparrel.
Need to leverage this into appareI.
Improve our position with #1 Partner?Law son also positioned as the
low er TCO ERP supplier of choice.
No demands from Law son as of yet.
Law son w ill deepen partnership w ith us to f ight
Infor.
Not a Law son customer, but a great reference anyw ay.
Improve our position with #1 Current Competitor?
Doesn't help; doesn't hurt.Ankle Biter has nothing
either.More competitive
landscape.
This w as a fierce battle to not loose this
account to Ankle Biter.
Improve our position with #1 Future Competitor?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.SAP/IBM tolerates us over
Infor+Ankle Biter.Great reference
account.
Improve our position with #1 Targeted Strategic Buyer?
Stunted organic grow th by SAP w ill force them to acquire.
IBM/SAP all very aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM/Law son may acquire us to compete w ith Infor+Ankle Biter.
SAP/IBM/Law son may acquire us to get a
toehold in construction manufacturers.
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Benefits of Game Theory and the Priiva Process
Strategic Action Plan
Predictable Outcomes
Efficient Process Aligned Executive TeamRobust Competitive Response as Gate
Criteria
Deep Insights
© Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
About Priiva
1. A boutique strategy consulting firm.2. Specialized in applying game theory methodology to optimize the outcome
of strategic business decisions.3. Our clients engage us for…
a) Strategy developmentb) Executive development (on competitive landscape and external environment)c) Mgmt retreat curriculum (on competitive landscape and external environment)d) Risk mitigation (ie, 2nd opinion on a decision already taken)
4. Principals are industry executives from IT, Energy, Chemicals, Financial Services, and Automotive industries.
5. Hundreds of business cases analyzed with 85% prediction accuracy.6. Fixed price consulting engagement OR fixed price insights report on an
industry topic. Bill ForquerPrincipalPriiva ConsultingBio: www.priiva.com/Bill.htmlTwitter: @billforquer