0 Fork 0

Files

T

Evan Hu 33d279889c feat(hands): complete i18n fixes, SKILL.md enhancements, and README overhaul

- Fix French accent characters (é/è/ê/ç/â/ô) across all 14 HAND.toml files
- Fix German special characters (ä/ö/ü/ß) across all 14 HAND.toml files
- Add category translations to all 6 i18n language blocks in all 14 hands
- Enhance SKILL.md content for 9 hands with practical examples and workflows
- Trim bloated SKILL.md files (apitester 1400→892, devops 1301→870)
- Rewrite root README.md with accurate stats, complete hand/integration tables
- Update hands/README.md with full 14-hand listing and i18n documentation

2026-03-23 00:18:18 +09:00

41 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, version, description, runtime

name	version	description	runtime
strategist-hand-skill	1.0.0	Expert knowledge for AI business strategy -- frameworks, market analysis, competitive intelligence, and strategic planning methodologies	prompt_only

Business Strategy Expert Knowledge

Strategic Analysis Frameworks

SWOT Analysis

Map internal and external factors:

	Helpful	Harmful
Internal	Strengths	Weaknesses
External	Opportunities	Threats

Best practices:

Be specific: "Strong brand recognition in enterprise segment" not just "Good brand"
Prioritize: Rank items by impact
Cross-reference: Look for SO (strength-opportunity) and WT (weakness-threat) combinations
Action-oriented: Every SWOT item should suggest a strategic response

Porter's Five Forces

Analyze industry attractiveness:

Threat of New Entrants: Capital requirements, economies of scale, brand loyalty, access to distribution, regulatory barriers
Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Concentration, switching costs, differentiation, forward integration threat
Bargaining Power of Buyers: Concentration, switching costs, price sensitivity, backward integration threat
Threat of Substitutes: Performance trade-offs, switching costs, buyer propensity to substitute
Competitive Rivalry: Number of competitors, industry growth, fixed costs, differentiation, exit barriers

Rate each force: Low / Medium / High with supporting evidence.

PESTEL Analysis

Macro-environmental scanning:

Factor	Key Questions
Political	Government stability? Trade policies? Regulation changes?
Economic	GDP growth? Interest rates? Inflation? Exchange rates?
Social	Demographics? Cultural trends? Consumer behavior shifts?
Technological	Innovation pace? R&D spending? Automation trends?
Environmental	Climate regulations? Sustainability demands? Resource scarcity?
Legal	Employment law? IP protection? Competition law? Data privacy?

Market Sizing (TAM-SAM-SOM)

TAM (Total Addressable Market): Total market demand for a product/service.

TAM = (Total potential customers) x (Annual revenue per customer)

SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market): TAM segment you can reach.

SAM = TAM x (% you can realistically serve given geography, channels, capability)

SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market): SAM you can realistically capture.

SOM = SAM x (Expected market share %)

Methods:

Top-down: Start with industry reports, narrow to your segment
Bottom-up: Start with unit economics, multiply by reachable customers
Value theory: How much value does the solution create? What % can you capture?

Worked Example: Netflix vs Blockbuster (2007)

SWOT Analysis for Netflix:

Category	Item	Evidence
Strength	Streaming technology	First-mover in online streaming; DVD-by-mail eliminated late fees
Strength	Recommendation engine	Personalized suggestions increased engagement 60%
Weakness	Limited content library	Dependent on studio licensing deals
Weakness	High content acquisition cost	Margins compressed by licensing fees
Opportunity	Broadband adoption	US broadband penetration growing 30% YoY
Opportunity	International expansion	Untapped markets in Europe and Asia
Threat	Studio-owned platforms	Studios could bypass Netflix and go direct-to-consumer
Threat	Piracy	Illegal streaming as free alternative

Porter's Five Forces for Video Streaming (2007):

Force	Rating	Rationale
New Entrants	2/5	High capital needed for content + tech infrastructure
Supplier Power	4/5	Studios control content; few alternatives
Buyer Power	3/5	Low switching cost but high engagement reduces churn
Substitutes	2/5	No equivalent convenience at the time
Rivalry	3/5	Blockbuster dominant but slow to innovate

Strategic Insight: Netflix's technology moat + Blockbuster's organizational inertia = classic disruption pattern. Blockbuster's $6B revenue masked its vulnerability to a $1B challenger with superior unit economics. Confidence: High (90%) — outcome confirmed by Blockbuster's 2010 bankruptcy.

Competitive Positioning

Positioning Map: Plot competitors on 2 key dimensions (e.g., price vs. quality, breadth vs. depth).

Competitive Advantage Sources:

Cost leadership: Lower cost structure than competitors
Differentiation: Unique value proposition
Focus/Niche: Serve a narrow segment exceptionally well
Network effects: Value increases with more users
Switching costs: Expensive or difficult for customers to leave

Strategic Planning Methodologies

OKR Framework (Objectives and Key Results)

Objective: [What you want to achieve -- qualitative, inspiring]
  KR1: [Measurable outcome 1]
  KR2: [Measurable outcome 2]
  KR3: [Measurable outcome 3]

Rules:

3-5 objectives per period
2-5 key results per objective
Key results must be measurable (not tasks)
Score 0.0 to 1.0; target 0.7 average (stretch goals)

Strategy Canvas (Blue Ocean)

Compare your offering vs competitors across key factors:

Factor          | Competitor A | Competitor B | Your Offering
Price           | High         | Medium       | Low
Quality         | High         | Medium       | High
Ease of Use     | Low          | Medium       | High
Features        | Many         | Few          | Moderate
Support         | Good         | Poor         | Excellent

Identify factors to:

Eliminate: Remove factors the industry takes for granted
Reduce: Lower factors below industry standard
Raise: Increase factors above industry standard
Create: Introduce factors the industry has never offered

Decision Matrix

Option	Criterion 1 (w:30%)	Criterion 2 (w:25%)	Criterion 3 (w:25%)	Criterion 4 (w:20%)	Weighted Score
A	4	3	5	2	3.55
B	3	5	3	4	3.70
C	5	2	4	3	3.55

Competitive Intelligence

Information Sources

Source Type	Examples	Reliability
Public filings	SEC filings, annual reports	High
Press releases	Company announcements	Medium-High
Job postings	LinkedIn, careers pages	Medium
Product pages	Websites, pricing pages	Medium
Review sites	G2, Capterra, Trustpilot	Medium
Social media	LinkedIn, Twitter, Reddit	Medium-Low
Industry reports	Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey	High
Patents	USPTO, Google Patents	High
News coverage	TechCrunch, Bloomberg	Medium

Competitor Tracking Template

Company: [Name]
Last Updated: YYYY-MM-DD

Product: [Core offering]
Pricing: [Model and price points]
Positioning: [How they describe themselves]
Target Market: [Who they sell to]
Key Differentiators: [What makes them unique]
Recent Moves: [Product launches, funding, hires, partnerships]
Strengths: [What they do well]
Weaknesses: [Where they fall short]
Estimated Revenue: [If available]
Employee Count: [Growth indicator]

Report Templates

Executive Brief Template

# Strategic Brief: [Topic]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD | **Author**: Strategist Hand

## Situation
[2-3 sentences describing the current state]

## Key Findings
1. [Most important finding]
2. [Second finding]
3. [Third finding]

## Recommendation
[Clear, actionable recommendation with rationale]

## Next Steps
- [ ] [Action item 1] -- [Owner] -- [Due date]
- [ ] [Action item 2] -- [Owner] -- [Due date]

## Risk Factors
- [Key risk 1 and mitigation]
- [Key risk 2 and mitigation]

Strategy Memo Template (SCR Format)

# Strategy Memo: [Topic]

## Situation
[What is happening -- neutral facts]

## Complication
[Why this matters -- the challenge or opportunity]

## Resolution
[What we should do about it -- the recommendation]

## Evidence
[Supporting data and analysis]

## Implementation
[How to execute the recommendation]

Worked Examples

Example 1: B2B SaaS Market Entry into Japan

Context: A US-based B2B SaaS company (project management tool, $15M ARR, 200 employees) evaluating entry into the Japanese market.

PESTEL Analysis — Japan B2B SaaS (2025):

Factor	Assessment	Impact	Score (1-5)
Political	Stable democracy; strong US-Japan trade relations; Digital Agency pushing government digitization	Positive	4
Economic	GDP $4.2T; weak yen (150 JPY/USD) makes USD-priced SaaS expensive; enterprise IT spend growing 4% YoY	Mixed	3
Social	Aging workforce accelerates automation need; consensus-driven decision making lengthens sales cycles (avg 6-9 months); strong preference for local-language support	Critical constraint	2
Technological	High internet penetration (93%); cloud adoption lagging US by 3-5 years but accelerating; 5G rollout complete in urban areas	Opportunity	4
Environmental	ESG reporting mandated for listed companies from 2023; sustainability-linked procurement gaining traction	Moderate opportunity	3
Legal	APPI (Act on Protection of Personal Information) requires data residency consideration; strict labor laws affect HR SaaS	Compliance cost	2

PESTEL Score: 18/30 — Moderately favorable. Key risk: social/cultural factors demand significant localization investment.

Porter's Five Forces — Japan Project Management SaaS:

Force	Rating	Evidence
New Entrants	2/5	High localization cost ($500K-$1M); relationship-driven market favors incumbents
Supplier Power	1/5	Cloud infrastructure (AWS Tokyo, Azure Japan) is commodity; no supplier concentration
Buyer Power	4/5	Enterprise buyers demand customization; long procurement cycles give buyers leverage; RFP-driven purchasing
Substitutes	3/5	Excel/spreadsheet culture deeply entrenched; domestic tools (Backlog, Jooto) have cultural fit advantage
Rivalry	4/5	Asana, Monday.com, Notion already present; domestic players Backlog (Nulab) and Redmine have loyal bases

Go-to-Market Recommendation:

Strategy: Partner-Led Entry (not direct sales)
Timeline: 18 months to first enterprise deal

Phase 1 (Months 1-6): Foundation
  - Hire Country Manager (must be bilingual Japanese national)
  - Full UI/UX localization (not just translation — date formats, name order, honorifics)
  - Achieve ISMAP certification (required for government/enterprise procurement)
  - Data residency: Deploy on AWS Tokyo region
  - Budget: $800K

Phase 2 (Months 4-12): Channel Development
  - Sign 2-3 SIer (System Integrator) partners: target NTT Data, Fujitsu, NEC
  - Japanese SIers control 60% of enterprise software purchasing decisions
  - Co-develop integration with domestic tools (kintone, Sansan, freee)
  - Budget: $600K (partner enablement + integration development)

Phase 3 (Months 8-18): Market Penetration
  - Target mid-market first (500-2000 employees) — faster decision cycles than enterprise
  - Launch at Japan IT Week (Spring/Autumn) and SaaS Industry Conference
  - Content marketing: Japanese-language case studies, webinars with local customers
  - Target: 20 paying customers, $500K ARR by month 18
  - Budget: $400K

Total Investment: $1.8M over 18 months
Break-even: Month 30 (projected)

Decision: Proceed with caution. The $4.2T economy and cloud adoption tailwind justify the investment, but only with proper localization and channel strategy. Direct sales without SIer partnerships has a historically high failure rate (>70% for foreign SaaS in Japan).

Example 2: Competitive Response — Major Player Enters Your Niche

Context: You run a $5M ARR vertical SaaS for veterinary clinics (500 customers, 15% market share). Salesforce just announced "Salesforce for Veterinary" — a vertical solution built on their platform.

Threat Assessment:

Dimension	Your Position	Salesforce	Gap
Brand recognition	Niche leader	Global enterprise brand	Large — but irrelevant in vet niche
Product depth	Purpose-built (8 years domain expertise)	Horizontal platform with vertical skin	Strong advantage
Price point	$200/mo per clinic	$500/mo estimated (Salesforce pricing)	2.5x cheaper
Implementation time	2 weeks	3-6 months (typical SF implementation)	Strong advantage
Integration depth	Deep PMS/PIMS integration	API-based, requires middleware	Strong advantage
Sales motion	Direct + word-of-mouth	Enterprise sales team + SI partners	Different segments
Switching cost for your customers	Moderate (data migration + retraining)	High (Salesforce ecosystem lock-in)	Neutral

Strategic Response Framework:

IMMEDIATE (Week 1-4): Defend the Base
  1. Customer communication campaign
     - CEO letter to all 500 customers: "Our commitment to veterinary"
     - Emphasize: purpose-built > horizontal platform
     - Announce product roadmap acceleration

  2. Lock in at-risk accounts
     - Identify top 50 accounts by revenue
     - Offer annual contract discounts (15-20% for 2-year commitment)
     - Schedule QBRs with all enterprise accounts within 30 days

  3. Competitive battle card
     - Create internal sales doc: feature-by-feature comparison
     - "Why vets choose us over Salesforce" — 5 key differentiators
     - Objection handling for "shouldn't we go with the safe choice?"

SHORT-TERM (Month 2-6): Deepen the Moat
  4. Accelerate domain-specific features
     - AI-powered treatment plan suggestions (Salesforce can't match this)
     - Telemedicine integration (vertical-specific)
     - Inventory management tied to treatment protocols

  5. Build switching costs
     - Launch data analytics dashboard (clinics depend on historical trends)
     - Introduce multi-location management (target growing chains)
     - API marketplace for vet-specific integrations (lab equipment, imaging)

  6. Community defense
     - Launch "Vet Tech Community" — user forum + knowledge base
     - Annual user conference (even virtual — creates tribal loyalty)
     - Customer advisory board (top 10 clinics = co-development partners)

MEDIUM-TERM (Month 6-18): Counterattack
  7. Move upmarket selectively
     - Enterprise tier for 10+ location chains ($500/mo — match SF pricing)
     - Offer white-glove migration from legacy systems
     - This is the segment Salesforce will target — contest it

  8. Geographic expansion
     - Salesforce announcement creates awareness of the category
     - Ride the wave: "Already purpose-built, already proven"
     - Target UK, Australia, Canada (English-speaking, similar vet market structure)

Pricing Response Decision Matrix:

Option	Revenue Impact	Competitive Effect	Risk
No change	Neutral	Salesforce still 2.5x more expensive	Low — price isn't the battleground
Cut prices 20%	-$1M ARR	Signals weakness; Salesforce won't match	High
Add premium tier	+$500K potential	Compete at enterprise level; justify R&D	Medium
Usage-based addon	+$300K potential	Expand ARPU without base price war	Low

Recommendation: Add premium tier + usage-based addons. Do NOT cut base prices. Salesforce's entry validates your market — use it to raise your valuation narrative ("Salesforce sees a $2B market opportunity in vet SaaS — we already own 15%").

Confidence: Medium-High (75%) — Historical pattern: when Salesforce enters verticals, purpose-built incumbents retain 80%+ of existing customers. Risk is in new customer acquisition where brand matters more.

Example 3: Platform Sunset Decision — Migrate or Maintain Legacy Product

Context: A mid-stage startup ($20M ARR) runs two products: a legacy desktop app (60% of revenue, declining 10% YoY) and a modern cloud product (40% of revenue, growing 50% YoY). Should they sunset the desktop app?

Decision Matrix:

Criterion (Weight)	Option A: Maintain Both	Option B: Sunset in 12mo	Option C: Sunset in 24mo
Revenue protection (30%)	5 — No disruption	2 — Lose 40% of legacy revenue	4 — Gradual migration
Engineering efficiency (25%)	1 — Two codebases drain resources	5 — Full focus on cloud	3 — Phased transition
Customer satisfaction (20%)	3 — Legacy stagnates	2 — Forced migration angers users	4 — Supported migration path
Market positioning (15%)	2 — Confused narrative	5 — Clear cloud-first story	4 — Transitional narrative
Financial risk (10%)	3 — Slow bleed sustainable	2 — Revenue cliff risk	4 — Manageable decline
Weighted Score	2.95	3.35	3.75

Recommendation: Option C — 24-month sunset with structured migration program.

Migration Program:
  Months 1-6:   Feature parity audit; build top 20 missing cloud features
  Months 7-12:  Migration incentive (20% discount for annual cloud commitment)
  Months 13-18: Desktop enters maintenance-only mode; no new features
  Months 19-24: End-of-life announcement; dedicated migration support team
  Month 24:     Desktop product sunsets; legacy support for 6 more months

Financial Model:
  Current state:     $12M desktop + $8M cloud = $20M ARR
  Month 12 (projected): $9M desktop + $14M cloud = $23M ARR
  Month 24 (projected): $2M desktop + $22M cloud = $24M ARR
  Month 30 (projected): $0 desktop + $26M cloud = $26M ARR

  Net ARR risk: ~$3M from non-migrating desktop customers
  Offset: Engineering savings of $1.5M/yr + faster cloud feature velocity

Financial Analysis Frameworks

Unit Economics

Core metrics every strategy should quantify:

CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost)
  = Total Sales & Marketing Spend / New Customers Acquired
  Example: $500K spend / 100 new customers = $5,000 CAC

LTV (Lifetime Value)
  = ARPU x Gross Margin % x (1 / Churn Rate)
  Example: $500/mo x 80% x (1 / 0.03) = $13,333 LTV

LTV:CAC Ratio
  Target: > 3:1 for healthy SaaS
  Example: $13,333 / $5,000 = 2.67:1 (below target — reduce CAC or increase retention)

CAC Payback Period
  = CAC / (ARPU x Gross Margin %)
  Example: $5,000 / ($500 x 0.80) = 12.5 months
  Target: < 18 months for SaaS

Unit Economics Health Check:

Metric	Danger Zone	Acceptable	Excellent
LTV:CAC	< 1:1	3:1	> 5:1
CAC Payback	> 24 months	12-18 months	< 12 months
Gross Margin	< 60%	70-80%	> 80%
Net Revenue Retention	< 90%	100-110%	> 120%
Logo Churn (monthly)	> 5%	2-3%	< 1%

Revenue Modeling

SaaS Revenue Waterfall:

Beginning ARR:                    $10,000,000
  + New Business:                 +$3,000,000  (new logos)
  + Expansion:                    +$1,500,000  (upsell/cross-sell)
  - Contraction:                    -$500,000  (downgrades)
  - Churn:                        -$1,200,000  (lost customers)
  = Ending ARR:                   $12,800,000

Net New ARR:         $2,800,000
Net Revenue Retention:   113%  = ($10M + $1.5M - $0.5M - $1.2M) / $10M
Gross Revenue Retention:  88%  = ($10M - $0.5M - $1.2M) / $10M

MRR Growth Decomposition:

MRR Growth Rate = New MRR + Expansion MRR - Churned MRR - Contraction MRR
                  ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
                                     Beginning MRR

Quick Ratio = (New MRR + Expansion MRR) / (Churned MRR + Contraction MRR)
Target: > 4 for high-growth SaaS

Break-Even Analysis

Break-Even Revenue = Fixed Costs / Gross Margin %

Example:
  Fixed Costs (monthly): $200K (salaries, rent, tools)
  Gross Margin: 80%
  Break-Even Revenue = $200K / 0.80 = $250K/month = $3M ARR

Break-Even Customers = Break-Even Revenue / ARPU
  = $250K / $500 = 500 customers

Scenario Table:

Scenario	Fixed Costs	Gross Margin	Break-Even ARR	Break-Even Customers
Lean	$150K/mo	85%	$2.1M	353
Base	$200K/mo	80%	$3.0M	500
Growth	$350K/mo	75%	$5.6M	933

Project Evaluation — Simplified DCF

Use for evaluating strategic investments (new market entry, build vs buy, major feature investment):

NPV = Σ [Cash Flow_t / (1 + r)^t] - Initial Investment

Where:
  r = discount rate (typically 10-15% for startups, 8-10% for established companies)
  t = year (0, 1, 2, ... n)

Worked Example — Should we build a mobile app?

Initial Investment: $500K (development cost)
Discount Rate: 12%

Year  | Incremental Revenue | Incremental Cost | Net Cash Flow | PV Factor | Present Value
------|--------------------|--------------------|---------------|-----------|-------------
  0   | $0                 | $500,000           | -$500,000     | 1.000     | -$500,000
  1   | $200,000           | $80,000            | $120,000      | 0.893     | $107,143
  2   | $400,000           | $100,000           | $300,000      | 0.797     | $239,158
  3   | $600,000           | $120,000           | $480,000      | 0.712     | $341,655
  4   | $700,000           | $130,000           | $570,000      | 0.636     | $362,204

NPV = $550,160  → Positive NPV → Project is financially justified
Payback Period: ~2.3 years (cumulative cash flow turns positive in Year 3)

Decision Rule:

NPV > 0 → Proceed (project creates value)
NPV < 0 → Reject (project destroys value)
Compare NPV across mutually exclusive options; pick highest

Go-to-Market Strategy Patterns

Growth Motion Selection

Growth Motion	Best For	Sales Cycle	CAC	Key Metric
Product-Led Growth (PLG)	Self-serve products; low price point (<$500/mo); individual users	Minutes to days	Low ($50-$500)	Activation rate, PQL conversion
Sales-Led Growth	Enterprise products; complex deployment; >$50K ACV	Weeks to months	High ($5K-$50K)	Pipeline velocity, win rate
Community-Led Growth	Developer tools; open-source; platform products	Varies	Very low ($10-$100)	Community size, contribution rate
Partner-Led Growth	Market entry; regulated industries; ecosystem products	Varies	Medium ($1K-$10K)	Partner-sourced revenue %

PLG Funnel:

Visitor → Sign-up → Activated User → PQL → Paid Customer → Expanded Account
  100%     10%        40%             25%      15%            30%

Key levers:
  - Sign-up friction: Reduce form fields, add SSO
  - Time-to-value: Get user to "aha moment" in < 5 minutes
  - PQL definition: User hits usage threshold that correlates with purchase
  - Expansion trigger: Team features, usage limits, premium capabilities

Sales-Led Funnel:

Lead → MQL → SQL → Opportunity → Proposal → Closed Won
 100%   20%   50%     60%          70%        30%

Key levers:
  - Lead quality: ICP fit scoring
  - MQL→SQL handoff: Alignment between marketing and sales
  - Discovery: Deep pain identification
  - Champion building: Enable internal advocate
  - Procurement: Legal/security review preparation

Pricing Strategy Frameworks

Value-Based Pricing (recommended for most SaaS):

1. Quantify customer value created
   Example: Your tool saves 10 hours/week per user
   Value = 10 hrs x $75/hr x 52 weeks = $39,000/year

2. Capture 10-20% of value created
   Price = $39,000 x 15% = $5,850/year = $487/month

3. Validate with willingness-to-pay research
   Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter:
   - "At what price is this too expensive?" → $600/mo
   - "At what price is this a bargain?" → $200/mo
   - "At what price does it seem expensive but you'd still consider?" → $450/mo
   - "At what price does it seem too cheap to trust?" → $100/mo
   → Optimal price range: $200-$450/mo

Pricing Tier Architecture:

Tier Structure (Good-Better-Best):

| | Starter | Professional | Enterprise |
|---|---------|-------------|------------|
| Target | Individual/SMB | Mid-market team | Large organization |
| Price | $29/mo | $99/mo/user | Custom (>$500/mo) |
| Anchor role | Drive adoption | Revenue driver (~60% of revenue) | Margin driver |
| Features | Core functionality | Full platform | Custom + SLA + support |
| Support | Self-serve/email | Priority email + chat | Dedicated CSM + phone |
| Billing | Monthly/Annual | Annual preferred | Annual contract |

Design principles:
  - Middle tier should be the obvious best value
  - Top tier exists to make middle tier look reasonable (anchoring effect)
  - Feature gates should align with natural usage growth
  - Price metric should scale with value received (per user, per GB, per transaction)

Competitive Pricing Analysis:

Competitor Price Map:

Competitor    | Entry Price | Mid-Tier | Enterprise | Price Metric
-------------|-------------|----------|------------|-------------
Competitor A  | $49/mo      | $149/mo  | Custom     | Per user
Competitor B  | $0 (free)   | $99/mo   | $299/mo    | Flat rate
Competitor C  | $29/mo      | $79/mo   | Custom     | Per user
Your Product  | ???         | ???      | ???        | ???

Positioning options:
  - Price leader: 20-30% below average → requires cost advantage
  - Value leader: At or above average → requires clear differentiation
  - Premium: 30%+ above average → requires brand and feature superiority

Channel Strategy

Channel	Margin	Control	Scale	Best For
Direct sales	High (85-95%)	Full	Slow	Enterprise, complex products
Inside sales	High (80-90%)	Full	Medium	Mid-market, $5K-$50K ACV
Self-serve	Highest (95%+)	Full	Fast	PLG, low ACV
Reseller/VAR	Low (60-70%)	Medium	Medium	Regional coverage, compliance
Marketplace (AWS/Azure)	Low (70-85%)	Low	Fast	Enterprise procurement shortcuts
System Integrator	Low (50-70%)	Low	Medium	Complex implementations
Affiliate/Referral	High (80-90%)	Low	Fast	Consumer, SMB

Launch Playbook Template

LAUNCH PLAYBOOK: [Product/Feature Name]
Launch Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Launch Type: [Major / Minor / Feature / Beta]

PRE-LAUNCH (T-8 weeks to T-0)
  Week -8: Finalize positioning and messaging
  Week -6: Create sales enablement materials (battle cards, one-pagers, demo script)
  Week -4: Brief analyst relations (Gartner, Forrester) if applicable
  Week -3: Seed beta customers (5-10 design partners); collect testimonials
  Week -2: Pre-brief press/media under embargo
  Week -1: Internal all-hands; sales team training; support team training

LAUNCH DAY (T-0)
  - Blog post (SEO-optimized)
  - Email to customer base
  - Social media campaign (LinkedIn, Twitter/X)
  - Press release (if major launch)
  - Product Hunt submission (if applicable)
  - In-app announcement for existing users
  - Founder/CEO LinkedIn post (highest engagement channel)

POST-LAUNCH (T+1 to T+8 weeks)
  Week +1: Monitor activation metrics; respond to all feedback
  Week +2: Publish customer case study
  Week +4: Webinar / live demo for pipeline
  Week +6: Analyze launch metrics vs targets
  Week +8: Retrospective and iteration plan

METRICS TO TRACK:
  - Awareness: Blog views, social impressions, press mentions
  - Activation: Sign-ups, trial starts, feature adoption rate
  - Revenue: Pipeline generated, deals influenced, new ARR
  - Sentiment: NPS from beta users, social sentiment, support ticket volume

Scenario Planning

Best / Base / Worst Case Framework

Structure every major strategic decision with three scenarios:

SCENARIO PLANNING: [Decision or Initiative]

                    | Worst Case      | Base Case       | Best Case
--------------------|-----------------|-----------------|------------------
Revenue impact      | [quantify]      | [quantify]      | [quantify]
Timeline            | [duration]      | [duration]      | [duration]
Key assumption      | [what goes wrong]| [most likely]   | [what goes right]
Probability         | [15-25%]        | [50-60%]        | [15-25%]
Trigger indicators  | [early signals] | [tracking metrics]| [early signals]
Response plan       | [pivot/exit]    | [continue/adjust]| [accelerate/expand]

Worked Example — Launching a New Product Line:

SCENARIO PLANNING: Launch enterprise analytics add-on ($200/mo)

                    | Worst Case (20%)  | Base Case (55%)   | Best Case (25%)
--------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------
Adoption rate       | 5% of customers   | 15% of customers  | 30% of customers
Year 1 revenue      | $120K             | $360K             | $720K
Development cost    | $400K             | $400K             | $400K
Year 1 ROI          | -70%              | -10%              | +80%
Break-even          | Never (kill it)   | Month 18          | Month 8
Key assumption      | Customers don't   | Moderate demand;  | Strong demand;
                    | see value; churn  | gradual adoption  | pulls forward
                    | increases 2%      |                   | enterprise deals

Trigger Indicators:
  Worst: < 3% adoption after 3 months; NPS < 20 for add-on
  Base:  8-12% adoption after 3 months; positive but slow pipeline
  Best:  > 20% adoption after 3 months; inbound enterprise interest

Response Plans:
  Worst: Pivot to bundling analytics into existing plan (retention play)
  Base:  Continue; invest in onboarding and customer education
  Best:  Hire dedicated analytics PM; accelerate roadmap; raise prices 20%

Expected Value Calculation:

Expected Revenue = (Worst Revenue x Worst Prob) + (Base Revenue x Base Prob) + (Best Revenue x Best Prob)
                 = ($120K x 0.20) + ($360K x 0.55) + ($720K x 0.25)
                 = $24K + $198K + $180K
                 = $402K

Expected ROI = ($402K - $400K) / $400K = 0.5%
→ Marginal on expected value alone — proceed only if strategic upside justifies the bet

Sensitivity Analysis

Identify which variables have the highest impact on outcomes:

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: New Market Entry

Base Case NPV: $550K

Variable            | -20% Change    | Base     | +20% Change    | Sensitivity
--------------------|---------------|----------|----------------|------------
Customer price      | $280K (-49%)  | $550K    | $820K (+49%)   | HIGH
Customer volume     | $310K (-44%)  | $550K    | $790K (+44%)   | HIGH
Churn rate          | $720K (+31%) | $550K    | $380K (-31%)   | HIGH
Development cost    | $650K (+18%) | $550K    | $450K (-18%)   | MEDIUM
CAC                 | $610K (+11%) | $550K    | $490K (-11%)   | MEDIUM
Discount rate       | $590K (+7%)  | $550K    | $510K (-7%)    | LOW

Interpretation: Price and volume are the highest-leverage variables. Strategy should prioritize pricing power and demand generation over cost optimization.

Tornado Chart Format (text representation):

Variable Impact on NPV (base = $550K):

Customer price     |████████████████████| -49% to +49%
Customer volume    |███████████████████ | -44% to +44%
Churn rate         |██████████████      | -31% to +31%
Development cost   |█████████           | -18% to +18%
CAC                |██████              | -11% to +11%
Discount rate      |████                | -7% to +7%

Risk-Adjusted Decision Making

Risk Register Template:

Risk	Probability (1-5)	Impact (1-5)	Risk Score	Mitigation	Residual Risk
Key hire doesn't work out	3	4	12	Pipeline of 2 backup candidates	6
Competitor launches first	4	3	12	Focus on differentiation not speed	8
Technical architecture fails to scale	2	5	10	Prototype load test at 10x before commit	4
Regulatory change blocks approach	1	5	5	Legal review + pivot plan documented	3
Customer demand lower than projected	3	4	12	Pre-sell to 10 design partners before building	6

Risk-Adjusted NPV:

Risk-Adjusted NPV = Base NPV x (1 - Risk Discount)

Where Risk Discount = Σ (Probability x Impact x Weight) for all material risks

Example:
  Base NPV: $550K
  Combined risk score: 0.15 (derived from risk register)
  Risk-Adjusted NPV: $550K x (1 - 0.15) = $467.5K

Industry Analysis Templates

Market Landscape Map

Plot all players in a market on two strategic dimensions:

MARKET LANDSCAPE: [Industry/Category]

                        Enterprise-Grade
                              |
                    Quadrant 2|  Quadrant 1
                    Niche     |  Market Leaders
                    Enterprise|
         Narrow ──────────────┼────────────── Broad
         Solution             |               Platform
                    Quadrant 3|  Quadrant 4
                    Point     |  Mass-Market
                    Solutions |  Platforms
                              |
                         SMB-Focused

Example — Project Management SaaS (2025):

Quadrant 1 (Leaders):   Asana, Monday.com, Smartsheet
Quadrant 2 (Niche):     Targetprocess (SAFe), Planview (PPM), Kantata (services)
Quadrant 3 (Point):     Todoist, Basecamp, Trello
Quadrant 4 (Platforms): Notion, ClickUp, Microsoft Planner

Your Position: [X]
Desired Position: [→ direction of strategic movement]

Building a Landscape Map:

Select two dimensions that represent the most important strategic trade-offs in the market
Commonly used axes:
- Price / Complexity
- Breadth of platform / Depth of solution
- Enterprise / SMB focus
- Horizontal / Vertical specialization
- Self-serve / High-touch
Plot all known competitors (minimum 8-10 for useful map)
Identify white space — under-served quadrant combinations
Draw your strategic vector — where are you moving and why?

Technology Adoption Lifecycle Positioning

THE ADOPTION CURVE:

  Innovators   Early        Early       Late        Laggards
  (2.5%)      Adopters     Majority    Majority     (16%)
              (13.5%)      (34%)       (34%)
     ___
    /   \
   /     \____
  /            \________
 /                      \_________
/                                  \___

       ↑                ↑
    THE CHASM      MAINSTREAM
    (biggest       (revenue
     risk point)    acceleration)

Positioning by Stage:

Stage	Customer Profile	Sales Approach	Pricing Strategy	Key Risk
Innovators	Tech enthusiasts; will tolerate bugs	Community; direct outreach	Free/very low; usage-based	Building for wrong use case
Early Adopters	Visionaries; want competitive advantage	Consultative selling; pilots	Value-based; ROI-justified	Chasm — can't cross to mainstream
Early Majority	Pragmatists; want proven solutions	References; case studies; demos	Competitive; published pricing	Scaling sales and support
Late Majority	Conservatives; want complete solutions	Standard procurement; RFPs	Bundled; enterprise agreements	Margin compression
Laggards	Skeptics; forced by circumstance	Compliance-driven; mandates	Legacy pricing; long contracts	Market is commoditizing

Chasm-Crossing Checklist:

□ Whole product: Does the product solve the complete use case without workarounds?
□ References: Do you have 3-5 referenceable customers in the target segment?
□ Repeatability: Can you sell and implement without founder involvement?
□ Support: Can you support customers at scale (not just white-glove)?
□ Positioning: Is the messaging pragmatist-friendly (ROI, risk reduction) not visionary?
□ Competition: Have you defined the competitive set for pragmatist comparison?
□ Pricing: Is pricing simple, transparent, and aligned with buyer expectations?

Value Chain Analysis

Decompose industry activities to find competitive advantage:

VALUE CHAIN: [Industry]

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES:
┌─────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
│  Inbound    │  Operations  │  Outbound    │  Marketing   │  Service     │
│  Logistics  │              │  Logistics   │  & Sales     │              │
├─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┤
│ Sourcing    │ Production   │ Distribution │ Branding     │ Support      │
│ Inventory   │ Quality      │ Delivery     │ Pricing      │ Maintenance  │
│ Supplier    │ Assembly     │ Warehousing  │ Channel mgmt │ Returns      │
│ management  │ Testing      │ Order mgmt   │ Positioning  │ Training     │
└─────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘

SUPPORT ACTIVITIES:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Infrastructure: Finance, Legal, Management, Planning                     │
│ Human Resources: Recruiting, Training, Compensation, Culture             │
│ Technology: R&D, IT systems, Automation, Data analytics                  │
│ Procurement: Vendor selection, Negotiation, Contract management          │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Analysis Process:

For each activity:
  1. Cost: What % of total cost does this activity represent?
  2. Value: How much does this activity contribute to customer willingness-to-pay?
  3. Capability: Rate your performance vs competitors (1-5)
  4. Strategic importance: Is this a source of differentiation? (Yes/No)

Activity             | Cost % | Value Contribution | Capability | Differentiator?
---------------------|--------|-------------------|------------|----------------
Inbound logistics    | 15%    | Low               | 3/5        | No
Operations           | 25%    | High              | 4/5        | Yes
Outbound logistics   | 10%    | Medium            | 3/5        | No
Marketing & Sales    | 30%    | High              | 2/5        | Needs improvement
Service              | 20%    | High              | 5/5        | Yes

Strategic Implications:
  - Invest: Operations (current strength + high value) and Service (strength to protect)
  - Improve: Marketing & Sales (high cost + low capability = drag on growth)
  - Optimize: Logistics (non-differentiating — minimize cost)

SaaS-Specific Value Chain:

┌────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┐
│ Product    │ Customer      │ Customer     │ Customer       │ Expansion   │
│ Development│ Acquisition   │ Onboarding   │ Success        │ & Retention │
├────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼────────────────┼─────────────┤
│ R&D        │ Marketing     │ Implementation│ Support       │ Upsell      │
│ Design     │ Sales         │ Training     │ Account mgmt  │ Cross-sell  │
│ QA         │ Partnerships  │ Migration    │ Health scoring │ Renewals    │
│ Platform   │ Growth/PLG    │ Integration  │ Community      │ Advocacy    │
└────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┴────────────────┴─────────────┘

Key insight for SaaS: The majority of LTV is created AFTER the initial sale.
Disproportionate investment should go to Onboarding → Success → Expansion.

41 KiB Raw Blame History