What are we deliberately stepping back from?
The opening session of Day 2. Takes the Strategic Intent outputs and moves them from direction-setting into prioritisation, asking the team to make explicit decisions about what they will stop, reduce, or deprioritise in light of their chosen strategy.
Every strategic choice creates a trade-off. Resources, attention, and capability are finite. This session makes those trade-offs explicit, using the Strategic Intent outputs as the reference point throughout.
Framing (10 min): The facilitator reconnects the group with their Strategic Intent outputs, focusing particularly on the Arena and Edge elements. The session's purpose is clarified: strategy only creates value when it shapes decisions about where effort actually goes.
Current activity audit (20 min): Working individually, participants list the initiatives, projects, activities, and investments the organisation (or team) is currently running. No filtering at this stage: the goal is a comprehensive picture of where time, money, and energy are going.
Mapping against Strategic Intent (20 min): Using a simple two-axis canvas (effort/cost versus strategic alignment), the group maps current activities. The Easy High Impact tool is used to focus attention: which activities are well-aligned and easy to sustain, which are misaligned and costly, and which sit in the uncomfortable middle?
The trade-off conversation (30 min): The group works through activities in the misaligned or low-priority quadrants. For each, they consider: stop, reduce, or continue with eyes open? The facilitator holds the Strategic Intent as the reference point throughout, preventing the conversation from defaulting to the familiar or the politically safe.
Capturing decisions (10 min): Decisions and next steps are documented. Not all trade-offs will be resolved in the session, but each is named, owned, and given a clear next action.
The team identifies which current activities, initiatives, and investments are misaligned with their strategy. They make explicit trade-off decisions instead of leaving them to default. They leave with a clear picture of where effort needs to shift.
This is the move from direction into prioritisation. Given what the group has said it wants to do and where it has chosen to compete, the session asks the hard question of what to stop, reduce, or deliberately deprioritise.
Reconnect the group with the strategic direction they have already set, focusing on where they have chosen to compete and where their advantage lies. Strategy only creates value when it shapes where effort actually goes.
Working individually, people list every initiative, project, and investment currently running. No filtering yet: the goal is a complete picture of where time and money go.
Using a two-axis canvas of effort against strategic alignment, the group maps current activities and sees which are well-aligned, which are costly and misaligned, and which sit in the middle.
Work through the misaligned and low-priority activities. For each, decide: stop, reduce, or continue with eyes open? Hold the agreed strategy as the reference point throughout.
Document the decisions and next steps. Each trade-off is named, owned, and given a clear next action.
Use Strategic Trade-Offs when a team has set its direction and effort is still spread across too many initiatives. The team audits what it is currently running, maps each activity against the strategy, and decides openly what to stop, reduce or keep.
Using this tool with a skilled facilitator means that discussions are focused, time is used efficiently, and the group moves toward consensus, making the session productive and impactful.
