Business War Games

How Large, Small, and New Companies Can Vastly Improve Their Strategies and Outmaneuver the Competition

Benjamin Gilad

• Publisher: Career Press
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781601638922
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Strategy
• Index: Business

In a global, complex, and competitive world, developing a plan without testing it against market reaction is like walking blind into a minefield. War gaming is a metal detector for a company. Yet war games run by the large consulting firms are kept secret and cost millions. For the first time, this book makes them accessible to every product and brand manager, every project leader, every marketing professional, and every planner, no matter how small or large the company.

Business War Games will show you in steps and practical detail:

• How to decide if war gaming is right for you
• Which decisions call for war gaming
• How to prepare, organize, and run a realistic and inexpensive war game
• How to predict competitor moves with accuracy and little information
• Why you do not need computers, consultants, software, or a PhD in math to do it well

This book is your bible of how to stay one step ahead of your competitors. Do not leave home without it.

PART I

From Sand Table to Boardroom

Chapter 1

War Gaming Made Simple

War games in business are hot.

Recent reports in the business press suggest the large consulting firms are running three times the war games they used to just a few years ago.

Yet, chances are, if you are not a senior executive, you have not been invited to them. The typical war game in a large corporation is a large-scale, expensive exercise, with sophisticated computer modeling, a small army of consultants from a big consulting firm, and days of preparations and data inputting. These games are mostly restricted to top executives and their advisors.

That makes no sense. War games do not need to be expensive, nor do they require a prestigious consulting firm. Further, the experience and results should be accessible to every manager in the corporate world who faces decisions involving competitors; they should not be just for top executives.

More than anything, though, war games should be realistic.

They should bring practical ideas to help you make better decisions and plans that can survive market reaction.

You should be able to use war games to replace “naval gazing” with a more insightful, external perspective of your markets and your products.

Marketing managers, brand teams, and product and project leaders should be able to run quick, cheap, and effective war games to:

• Assess and anticipate changes in their markets.

• Pressure-test global and regional strategies.

• Develop and test plans to go after existing competitors or defend against rising threats.

• “Insulate” new launches.

• Get a buy-in, identify gaps in market knowledge, and create a defensible business case.

This is what this manual is all about: I intend to teach you step-by-step how to organize, prepare, and run your war game with your team at a fraction of the cost of the big consultants.

Reading this book may just mean the difference between your plan reaching its goals or crashing out there.

What Are War Games?

More than 2,000 years ago, the Battle of Cannae pitched 72,000 legionnaires from the almighty Roman Empire against 32,000 tribesmen under Hannibal of the tiny city-state Carthage. If you follow the diagrams, you will see, move after move, how Hannibal won that famous battle.

The previous diagram depicts the initial positions. The Roman forces are on top. Both armies placed their infantry in the center, with a cavalry unit on each side. Note that Hannibal’s left cavalry wing was much larger than the right, and that his center was pitched forward.

Because they enjoyed tremendous numerical superiority, the Romans attacked first, sending in their infantry. Hannibal knew that was what they were likely to do. He ordered his center to retreat and, at the same time, the large left-wing cavalry to start a flanking maneuver, overwhelming the numerically inferior Roman cavalry wing.

In the heat of the advance, the Romans did not notice that they were being flanked from behind, and that Hannibal’s infantry was drawing them into an arc. Then Hannibal’s center stopped retreating.

The Roman legionnaires were surrounded. Sixty thousand of them perished that day, making it one of the bloodiest battles in the history of wars.

These four short reenactment visuals tell a tale of superior planning by Hannibal. He figured out the Roman initial positions, their first move, and their responses (or lack thereof) to his countermoves. We can imagine him standing on a hill, under the hot Italian sun (it was August), surrounded by his generals, drawing the battle plan in the sand: “I know the Romans. This is what they will do, and then when we do that, they will move here, and you, Hasdrubal, then take the cavalry and….”

Fast-forward 2000 years. Abstract from generals and sand tables (and later toy soldiers or red paint guns), what is the unique essence of war gaming? After a bit of thought you realize the principle:

War gaming is nothing more than role playing
in order to understand a third party,
with the goal of answering: What will the
opponent do? What then is my best option?

We all role-play various third parties throughout our lives, in order to understand their perspectives. We try to think the way our boss does, in order to improve our odds of gaining his approval for our ideas; we try to put ourselves in the shoes of our teenagers (“I was young once, too, you know?”), in order to be able to relate better to them. And when we say in exasperation: “What were you thinking?” we actually admit a failure of insight into another person’s perspective.

War Gaming in Business: Where Does It Make the Most Sense?

If war gaming is about external perspective and insight through role-playing opponents, where would it make most sense in business? The answer is, clearly, in testing a competitive plan—for a single product, a brand portfolio, a division, or a whole company. Why is role-playing such powerful a tool for competitive planning? The chance of success for any and every competitive strategy depends to a large degree on the reactions of third parties such as competitors, but, because most of us do not have direct knowledge of these intended reactions, role-playing allows us to predict these reactions without such knowledge.

The “We’ve Already Taken This Into Account” Myth

In The Halo Effect (Free Press, 2007), an intriguing and thoughtful book written by Professor Phil Rosenzweig of the IMD school in Lausanne, Switzerland, the author exposes the flawed assumption behind best-selling books promoting a “formula for success” (such as Build to Last, From Good to Great, What Really Works, and In Search of Excellence) and much-hyped studies of corporate performance by such prestigious consulting firms as McKinsey & Co., and Bain, who claim to have identified the definitive set of behaviors and characteristics leading to the high performance of successful companies. One of the most persistent fallacies of those studies involved what he terms “The Delusion of Absolute Performance,” in which companies are told by the gurus and consultants that their success depends largely, if not solely, on their own actions, as if performance was absolute. In Rosenzweig’s words:

The Delusion of Absolute Performance is hugely important because it suggests that companies can achieve high performance by following a simple formula, regardless of the actions of competitors. [McKinsey’s] Evergreen Project wasn’t alone in this basic misconception—the same delusion was implicit in Build to Last, where [authors] Collins and Porras claimed that following a handful of steps provided a “blueprint for enduring success” without any mentioning of rivals or any appreciation of the dynamic of industry competition. Yet once you see that performance is relative, it becomes obvious that companies can never achieve success simply by following a given set of steps, no matter how well intended; their success will always be affected by what rivals do.¹ (italics added)

It is a natural attitude of managers to believe that success depends on their own hard work and smarts, and that their plans already account for competitors’ likely actions. However, this bias towards an optimistic attitude causes the vast majority of managers to pay lip service to others’ actions. Instead, they should consider their plans as bets that come with risk, a risk originating from competitive dynamics in their markets, and study those risks carefully to minimize them. War gaming will not guarantee their success—nothing will—but it will increase the odds in their favor.

War Games Without Computers

Did Hannibal need a laptop? No. Superior plans have nothing to do with computer simulations. Unfortunately, computer simulations have been popular features of war gaming in the military and with big consulting firms and big-budget games.

“I’d like to run our market domination forecast once more, but, this time, let’s see what happens if we plug evil flying monkeys into the equation.”

They are unnecessary. They make games expensive. You want an inexpensive, quick, simple, and realistic war gaming methodology, a methodology you can apply to decisions all over the company. When it comes to predicting competitors’ behavior, computer algorithms are especially short on the realism part. This manual is about role-playing using analytical and behavioral models, which are much more powerful than software programs; trying to understand the motivation of a competitor is both cheaper and more effective than an army of consultants running algorithms in the back room.

Why Not Game Theory?

Some consulting firms in recent years offer war games based on game theory programming. Game theory is a mathematical branch of economics that models interactions between non-cooperative multiple parties. However, despite game theorists’ proclamations, game theory applicability to strategic plans is severely limited. Game theoretic simulations that promise to find “optimal” or “stable” solutions in a world of suboptimal decision-makers and dynamic competition fail to meet the criteria of simple, transparent, and realistic games. Their predictions of stable solutions are not consistent with observed behavior. Their resultant moves fail to meet Michael Porter’s criterion of superior strategy, which has little to do with equilibrium solutions among millions of possibilities, and everything to do with distinctive activities. (There’s more about game theory and other mathematical modeling of market behavior in the appendix to Chapter 4.) The good news is that there are other inexpensive, fun, and simple methods that bring more realism into your plans and at the same time save a bundle!

Humans Make It Realistic

Based on my experience with both human and computer-based games, role-playing games bring far superior results, because predicting human and organizational behavior is far beyond current mathematical models. Role-playing war games focus on understanding market perspective, leading to insight about differentiation as a basis for superior strategy, not on generic solutions. Finally, because role-playing games are transparent and simple, they are easily accessible. They can therefore improve plans and strategies at all levels of the organization.

War Games Without the War?

War gaming is about role-playing. Still, the term implies war. There are some managers who get turned on and others who get turned off by the origin of the term war games with the military. Many businesses may be locked in a “heated battle” for customers, but that’s as far as the analogy with war should go. Though the origin of war games may be in the military, business is much more difficult and much more complex subject than war. There is a reason why, in the United States, entrepreneurs are heroes and inspiration models, where generals are, well, generally not. There is little concrete value business managers can derive from military war game techniques. In business, strategy is always about a third party (the customer) whose role in deciding who is a “victor” is rather complex and may involve keeping the competition alive rather than allowing for a decisive “victory.” There are signs that military planners are actually learning this lesson from business. The changing strategy of U.S. forces in Iraq in late 2007, which enlisted the cooperation of the purported “customers” (the Sunni population) to fight Al Qaeda, showed a beginning of an understanding of this complexity.

So, though at times we may use analogies such as the “battlefield,” we adamantly refuse to quote clichés from Sun Tzu’s book The Art of War. Clichés affect mindsets, and mindsets affect thinking. One needs a sense of appreciation and shared values to try and understand the other side’s logic and actions. The Japanese had that mentality down to an art, which made it easier for them to compete. They admired the big American firms, and then set out to defeat—oops, sorry, to take away ma...