How to use Business Battle Maps with Strategic Navigation

Henrik Mårtensson

8 July, 2009

Abstract

This paper proposes that having a battlefield map is as important to business strategistsand change agents as it is to military strategists and commanders.

A network battle map is easy to make, and can help determine system boundaries,and serve as input for gap analysis. It is also a valuable presentation aid, and usefulwhen looking for solutions to complex problems.

This paper outlines how to use network battle maps with Strategic Navigation, afast paced business strategy method combining Maneuver Conflict and The LogicalThinking Process from The Theory of constraints.

- 2 -

Contents

1. Why Use Business Battle Maps? 2

2. Battle Mapping with StrategicNavigation .. .. .. .. .. .. 3

3. Battle Maps and the OODA Deci-sion Loop .. .. .. .. .. .. 5

4. Showing Pervasive Influences .. 7

5. Layered Battle Maps .. .. .. 7

6. Sub-maps .. .. .. .. .. .. 7

7. Battle Map on the Wall .. .. .. 7

8. Battle Maps and the 36Stratagems .. .. .. .. .. .. 8

9. When Not to Use Battle Maps .. 8

References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9

1. Why Use Business Battle Maps?

Business strategy is a complex game withmany players making concurrent moves.Many business strategy games are playedlike blind chess, with the players keeping thegame board in their heads. Imagine the ad-vantage you can get by making a simple mapof the battlefield: It’s like being the only play-er with a chess board and pieces at a chesscompetition.

A battle map is a kind of network dia-gram showing the field of battle. It depictsimportant entities on the business battlefield,andthe relationships between them.

A battle map makes it easier to do thefollowing things:

• Think through the relationships be-tween different stakeholders in the sys-tem you want to change. This will helpyou come up with an overall strategicplan.

• Communicate important informationabout power and information structuresthat is otherwise likely to be communi-

cated in a disjointed manner, or simplyforgotten until it is too late.

• Determine where you need to allocateyour resources for maximum effect dur-ing execution.

• Visualize a desired future state. Whendoing a gap analysis it can be useful tovisualize a desired future state in termsof power and linesof communication.Anetwork battle map, even a simple one,provides a more accurate view than anorganizational chart.

What should a battle map look like? Forstarters, what are the important entities, andwhat relationships should the battle map de-scribe? And at what resolution?

The entities you need to put on the mapare the stakeholders in the strategic game. Iwill not go into how to identify stakeholdersin this paper. Suffice to say that a change inpart of an organization can have system widerepercussions.

For example, introducing Agile soft-ware development methods like Scrum oreXtreme Programming, may be seen as deaththreat by the Project Manager Department,because these methods do not have or needproject managers in the traditional sense.Theway software development services are soldmay have to change, because Agile methodscan speed up development, and selling devel-opers by the hour may no longer be a viableoption. Five times faster development wouldmean one fifth the revenue…

The effects of making changes to part ofan organization are often quite predictable,and yet, the effort to understand the implica-tions of a change is rarely made. Making anetwork battle map can make it easier to un-derstand how the organization as a whole isaffected by a local change.

There are many kinds of interactions in

- 3 -

Interpersonal Positional/Situational

Legitimate: Power derived from formal au-thority

Resource:Control over material flow, phys-ical resources, or special access to informa-tion sources.

Reward:Power to reward behavior. (Oftenmisused to rewardresultseven if the resultsare not due to the behavior of the entity re-warded.)

Decision-making: Influence over decisions,or selection of which decisions are made.

Coercive:Ability to punish. (Often misusedto punishresultseven if the results are notdue to the behavior of the entity punished.)

Information:Control over or special accessto knowledge or data by virtue of position.

Expert: Knowledge and skills that are irre-placeable, or difficult to replace.

Referent:Personality, charisma.

Table 1. Types of Power

an organization. Mapping them all is neitherfeasible, nor useful. What are the most rele-vant relationships to map?

Usually, the most relevant relationshipsare relationships of power, including materi-al flow. Table 1 on page 3 shows eight differ-ent types of power that may be important[2].Of course, a map showing all power rela-tionships would become too messy to read,and to unwieldy to update. The map shouldshow only the most important relationships.It is necessary to have some way to filter data,so that the map does not become overloadedwith information.

Business strategy deals with organiza-tions, which are complex systems, and in-teractions between the organization and cus-tomers,competitors,allies,and society.Thereare many,complex interactions,but relativelyfew degrees of freedom. As a result, there areusually only a few strategic leverage points.

Given a method for locating lever-age points, it would be possible to use thismethod to locate those areas of the battlefieldwhere a detailed battle map will be most use-ful.The rest of the battle map can be left pret-

ty sketchy, until there is reason to focus on anew area of the strategic battlefield..

There are several methods for locatingthe leverage points in complex systems, butthispaper will focuson The Logical ThinkingProcess (TLTP).TLTP can be used as a stand-alone toolset for solving complex problems,but it is also a part of the Strategic Navigationtoolkit.

2. Battle Mapping with StrategicNavigation

Strategic Navigation is a business strate-gy method created by William Dettmer[2].The method is a powerful synthesis ofJohn Boyd’s Maneuver Conflict[1][8][7] andWilliam Dettmer’s The Logical ThinkingProcess1[4] (TLTP). Strategic Navigationalso uses an extremely powerful method ofgathering data and brainstorming, CrawfordSlip[3].

TLTP is a powerful tool for solvingcomplex problems, formulating strategy, and

1An extended version of Dr.Eliyahu Goldratt’s ThinkingProcess.

- 4 -

Figure 1. Simple System Description with Areas of Control and Influence

seamlessly plan to execution level, i.e. mak-ing project plans. TLTP is based on SystemsThinking. An important question when us-ing any Systems Thinking based method is:Where are the system boundaries?

TLTP uses a simple method to answerthe question. Basically, list the parts you canidentify, then categorize them as being inyour area of control, yourarea of influence,within the system, or external to the system.

Strategic Navigation does not requireyou to draw a picture or mark the systemboundary in a diagram. Depending on thesituation, you could use lists, a table, drawclosed curves on an organization chart, or usea network battle map as outlined in this pa-per.Figure 1on page 4 is an example of whata simple drawing of the system boundariesmight look like.

Figure 2on page 5 shows what an initialnetwork battle map may look like.The map isdrawn from the perspective of a Software De-velopment Department manager. Note howI use color to highlight areas of control andinfluence. This makes it very clear where

there are holes in the map. In the example, theProject Manager Department is outside thesphere of influence drawn in the map. Suchholes are quite common, and it is importantto identify them. A system unit you cannotinfluence is a system unit you cannot align tothe goal of the system.

The map inFigure 2on page 5 is orga-nized around a value stream. Material flow isindicated with arrows twice as thick as otherarrows.

Other unlabeled links in the diagramrepresentlegitimate power, that is, links rep-resenting formal authority. These links arenot necessarily the most powerful, but theyare common, and usually easy to find, for ex-ample by looking at an organization chart.

The link arrows are pointed along thepower flow. For example, “A has authorityover B” is drawn as:

The initial input you use to create a battle

- 5 -

Figure 2. Initial Network Map with System Boundary and Areas of Influence and Control.

map is likely to include an organization chart,an interview with your sponsor, and, if youare very lucky, a reasonably accurate ValueStream Map (VSM). The initial informationabout interactions in the system is likely toconcern material flow andlegitimate author-ity. This is not likely to be the only importantinformation, but it is enough to get started.

3. Battle Maps and the OODA DecisionLoop

Figure 3 on page 6 shows John Boyd’s fa-mous OODA decision loop1, and how the

1 The OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) decisionloop has emerged as a central concept in strategic andtactical planning over the past few decades. The OODAloop concept is applicable to split second decisions,suchas those made by a fighter pilot, as well as to tactics, op-erations planning, and strategy. It is a central concept in

strategic planning and execution cycle inStrategic Navigation relates to the OODALoop.

Initially, the battle map is used to deter-mine the system boundaries.Determining thesystem boundaries is a prerequisite for creat-ing an Intermediate Objective Map (Step 1).

The battle map then becomes one ofthe inputs for creating a Current Reality Tree(Step 2). The Current Reality Tree identifiesleverage points that can be used to change thesystem to the desired state.

Figure 4on page 8 shows how the lever-age points identified in the Current RealityTree can be mapped back to the battle map.This shows which areas of the strategic bat-

Maneuver Conflict and Maneuver Warfare. The OODALoop is also at the core of Strategic Navigation.

- 6 -

Figure 3. How Strategic Navigation Maps to the OODA Decision Loop

tlefield that should be investigated further.

Depending on the situation, and thecomplexity of the existing battle map, eithermore information can be added to the exist-ing map, or more detailed sub-maps may beadded. See SectionSub-mapson page 7.

The expanded battle map (or sub-map)is then used as input when generating ideasfor solutions (Step 3), for operationsplanning

(Step 4), and for Mission (project) planning(Step 5).

In the strategy evaluation phase (Step7), the battle map is useful for evaluating suc-cess. Executing strategic plans often changesthe shape of the battle map, so it is importantto update the battle map before using it forevaluation. There may be new connectionsbetween the organization and customers.

- 7 -

New customer segments may have been iden-tified. If there has been a reorganization, au-thority and communication links should havechanged within the organization. Competi-tors may have been isolated from their allies,such as suppliers and distributors. There maybe more or significantly stronger links withallies.

4. Showing Pervasive Influences

Some entities have a pervasive influence ona system. For example, the CEO, an IT de-partment or an accounting department mayinfluence all other entities in an organization.Government regulations or public opinionmay have a strong influence on an entire mar-ket.For example,environmental concernshasa strong influence on car design and manufac-turing processes.

Rather than representing such influ-ences by drawing lines to all entities in themap, it is better to show the entity as free-standing, with an annotation showing thetype and range of influence. (Not shown inthis paper.)

5. Layered Battle Maps

Most drawing programs support layers. Thismeans you can put different types of infor-mation on different layers, and then elect tohide or show different kinds of informationat different times.

For example, inFigure 2 on page 5 itwould be possible to create a layer for aver-age waiting and process times for nodes in thevalue stream. In effect, this would turn partof the battle map into a Value Stream Map[6].This would be useful for locating processbot-tlenecks.

Because the battle map shows who con-trols and influencesthe process bottlenecks,it also provides guidance for where to inves-

tigate causes of bottlenecks,and may provideinsights into how to resolve the problems.

6. Sub-maps

An alternative to loading up a battle map withinformation is to use smaller sub-maps tomap up smaller sections of the strategic land-scape. A sub-map might, for example, mapthe most important individuals in a group andtheir relationships, or it might map the rela-tionships in a part of a value stream.

Figure 5 on page 9 shows how a sec-tion of the large scale battle map has beenexpanded using a sub-map. The map revealswhy the Project Manager Department is out-side the influence of the Software Develop-ment Department: The PM Department’s al-legiance is to a powerful group of high levelmanagers with an agenda different from thatof the CEO.

The sub-map also shows that the PMDepartment manager can be influenced fromthe bottom up, as he tends to give a high de-gree of weight to the opinions of at least oneof his Project Managers.

7. Battle Map on the Wall

Strategic Navigation advocates “strategy onthe wall”, putting The Logical Thinking Pro-cess diagrams on a wall, so that everyoneworking with strategy development can seeit1.

A battle map also needs to be seen to beuseful. The larger the map, the better, thoughmaking and printing the map in A3 format issufficient for most purposes.

1Ideally, the strategy wall should be where employeescan easily see it, so they can see the work in progress andcomment. Some things may have to be hidden in orderto prevent leaks to competitors, or prematurely revealinginformation to customers. In general though, strategydevelopment should engage as many people as possiblein the company.

- 8 -

Figure 4. Current Reality Tree and Battle Map

I usually use A3 format for The Logi-cal Thinking Process diagrams, and use theToyota Production System A3 report formatas much as possible. Thus, A3 format battlemaps fit nicely with other documentation Iproduce.

8. Battle Maps and the 36 Stratagems

The 36 Stratagems[5] is an an ancient Chi-nese collection of strategic patterns. The 36Stratagems were developed for warfare, butthey have also proven effective in business.

The stratagems are useful as idea gener-ators, and work well with Strategic Naviga-tion and other business strategy methods.

Idea generators do not work fromscratch. They need input. A network battlemap can be very useful in this regard,becausea battle map provides an excellent overviewof the current situation.

If you use a battle map as input to 36Stratagems idea generation, you may wish toexperiment with using an annotation layer inyour battle map drawing.Use the annotationsto provide important input for idea genera-

tion, and suggestions for which stratagemsto use.

9. When Not to Use Battle Maps

Creating a battle map takes a bit of effort.Thus, the effort spent must be weighedagainst the benefit of having the map. A bat-tle map can be very useful when you try to un-derstand a system. On the other hand, if thesystem under consideration is simple, or wellknown to everyone involved in strategic plan-ning, you may not need one.

One thing you should consider iswhether having a battle map means you canskip something else. Can you skip makinga slideshow presentation? Or would a bat-tle map enhance the presentation if it was in-cluded?

Remember that a battle map can bevery simple and still useful. You may findthat drawing maps in your notebook, or on awhiteboard, is the best solution in many situ-ations.

References

- 9 -

Figure 5. Sub-map

[1] Col. John Boyd, U.S. Air Force.A Dis-course On Winning and Losing. Alsoknown asThe Green Book. Defenseand the National Interest, address. URLhttp://www.d-n-i.net/dni/strategy-and-force-employment/boyd-and-military-strategy/.

[2] H. William Dettmer. Strategic Naviga-tion: A Systems Approach to BusinessStrategy. Quality Press, 600 N. Plankin-ton Avenue, Milwaukee,Wisconsin. 1sted., 2007.

[3] H. William Dettmer. BrainpowerNetworking Using the Crawford Slip

- 10 -

Method. Trafford Publishing, Suite 6E,2333 Government St., Victoria, B.C.V8T 4P4, CANADA. 1st, 2003.

[4] H.William Dettmer.The Logical Think-ing Process: A Systems Approach toLogical Problem Solving. QualityPress,600 N. Plankinton Avenue, Milwaukee,Wisconsin. 1st ed., 2007.

[5] Kaihan Krippendorff. Hide a DaggerBehind a Smile:Use the 36 Ancient Chi-nese Strategies to seize the CompetitiveEdge. Adam’s Media, Adam’s Media,57 Littlefield Street, Avon, MA 02322.U.S.A.. 1st, 2008.

[6] Jeffrey K. Liker. The Toyota Way. title.McGraw-Hill, Two Penn Plaza, NewYork. 1st ed., 2004.

[7] Frans P.B. Osinga.Science, Strate-gy and War. Routledge, 270 MadisonAve., New York NY 10016. 1st ed.,2007.

[8] Chet Richards.Certain to Win. XlibrisCorporation, address. 1st ed., 2004.