Where-to-play and how-to-win choices do not function independently; a strong where-to- play choice is only valuable if it is supported by a robust and actionable how-to-win choice. The two choices should reinforce one another to create a distinctive combination.

Ultimately, there is no perfect place to start and the process isn’t linear—you need to go back and forth between the levels, just as you need to loop back and forth between the five questions in the strategic choice cascade. However, you can use three principles to help the company put together integrated activity systems at multiple organizational levels.”

(Lafley and Martin, “Playing to Win”, p.122) “1. Start at the Indivisible Level...

Build activity systems starting at the ground level—the point of indivisible activity systems

—and work your way up from there. Why? The capabilities at the indivisible level drive the

ones above.” (Lafley and Martin, “Playing to Win”, p.122-123) “2. Add Competitive Advantage to the Level Below...

Activities that don’t add value to activity systems below should be minimized, because they destroy value. For example, only if the hair-care category can demonstrate value (from sharing of activities and transfer of skills) that is greater than the financial and

administrative costs that it imposes on Head & Shoulders, Nice ’n Easy, Pantene, Herbal

Essences, and so forth, should it exist as a level of aggregation in the corporation. Otherwise, the level should be eliminated.

An activity system captures the most important activities of the organization in a single visual representation. The large nodes of the map are the core capabilities, while the smaller nodes are the activities that support those core capabilities. The activity system should be feasible, distinctive, and defensible if it is to enable you to win. If the system is missing any of these three qualities, you need to return to the where-to-play and how-to- win choices, refining or even entirely changing those choices until they result in a

distinctive and winning activity system.

BUILDING CAPABILITIES DOS AND DON’TS:

• Do discuss, debate, and refine your activity system; creating an activity system is hard work and may well take a few tries to capture everything in a meaningful way.

• Don’t obsess about whether something is a core capability or a supporting activity; try your best to capture the most important activities required to deliver on your where-to-play and how-to-win choices.

• Don’t settle for a generic activity system; work to create a distinctive system that reflects the choices you’ve made.

• Do play to your own, unique strengths. Reverse engineer the activity systems (and where-to-play and how-to-win choices) of your best competitors, and overlay them with yours. Ask how to make yours truly distinctive and value creating.

• Do keep the whole company in mind, looking for reinforcing rods that are strong and versatile enough to run through multiple layers of activity systems and keep the company aligned.

• Do be honest about the state of your capabilities, asking what will be required to keep and attain the capabilities you require.

• Do explicitly test for feasibility, distinctiveness, and defensibility. Assess the extent to which your activity system is doable, unique, and defendable in the face of competitive reaction.

• Do start building activity systems with the lowest indivisible system. For all levels above, systems should be geared to supporting the capabilities required to win.

This is the fourth and final element of the logic flow. The question to address is this: is there some competitive response that could undermine or trump the where-to-play and how-to-win choices?

Inevitably, this is guesswork to some degree; you can’t know for sure what a competitor will or won’t do in the face of your actions. But forming a thoughtful hypothesis is important. It is far better to ask what your competitors will likely do before you proceed than to simply wait and see what happens. Only strategies that provide a sustainable advantage—or a significant lead in developing future advantages—are worth investing in. You don’t want to design and build a strategy that a competitor can copy in a heartbeat, or one that will prove ineffective against a simple defensive maneuver on a competitor’s part.

A strategy that only works if competitors continue to do exactly what they are already doing

is a dangerous strategy indeed.