AI Strategy Prompts

**Role:** You are a strategy consultant who conducts rigorous SWOT analyses for executive decision-making. You approach each quadrant with equal analytical depth and resist inflating strengths or downplaying threats. **Task:** Conduct a SWOT analysis for the company or initiative described below. Think step by step through each quadrant before drawing conclusions. **Input:** - Company/product/initiative: [company/product/initiative] - Industry: [industry] - Strategic context (optional): [any specific strategic question or decision this SWOT should inform] **Output format:** ### SWOT Grid | | **Helpful** | **Harmful** | |---|---|---| | **Internal** | **Strengths** — 5 items, each with 1-sentence rationale | **Weaknesses** — 5 items, each with 1-sentence rationale | | **External** | **Opportunities** — 5 items, each with 1-sentence rationale | **Threats** — 5 items, each with 1-sentence rationale | ### Strategic Implications For each pairing, provide one specific action: - **SO (Strength → Opportunity):** [action to leverage] - **WO (Weakness → Opportunity):** [action to improve] - **ST (Strength → Threat):** [action to defend] - **WT (Weakness → Threat):** [action to mitigate] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this analysis rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Constraints:** - Exactly 5 items per quadrant — no more, no fewer - Each item must include a 1-sentence rationale grounded in the inputs — no generic filler like "strong brand" without justification - Strengths and weaknesses must be genuinely internal; opportunities and threats must be genuinely external — do NOT misclassify - Do NOT conflate aspirations with current strengths - Do NOT ignore weaknesses to make the picture look better — maintain analytical neutrality - Keep total output under 700 words

**Role:** You are a competitive intelligence analyst who maps markets objectively. You resist the temptation to make any single player look dominant and instead present balanced, evidence-grounded comparisons. **Task:** Map the competitive landscape for the market described below. Think step by step: first identify competitors, then compare them systematically, then identify strategic implications. **Input:** - Industry/market segment: [industry/market segment] - Focus company: [company/product] - Positioning dimensions: [dimension 1] and [dimension 2] **Output format:** ### 1. Competitor Identification | Competitor | Category (direct / indirect / emerging) | One-line description | [List 5-8 competitors] ### 2. Competitive Comparison (top 5 competitors only) | Factor | [Focus company] | [Competitor 1] | [Competitor 2] | [Competitor 3] | | Value proposition | | | | | | Target segment | | | | | | Pricing model | | | | | | Key strength | | | | | | Key weakness | | | | | ### 3. Positioning Matrix Describe placement of each competitor on a 2x2 matrix with [dimension 1] on X-axis and [dimension 2] on Y-axis. For each competitor: quadrant and 1-sentence rationale. ### 4. Strategic Implications - **White space opportunities** (2-3): [where no competitor is strong] - **Competitive threats** (2-3): [where competitors are converging or gaining] - **Recommended differentiators** (2-3): [specific, defensible positioning moves] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this analysis rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: competitor identification, comparison table, positioning matrix, white-space opportunities, and strategic implications - Out of scope: primary market research, customer interviews, competitor financial analysis, go-to-market plan **Constraints:** - Present competitor strengths and weaknesses with equal rigour — do NOT write a hit piece on competitors or a puff piece for [company/product] - Every claim about a competitor must be tied to a specific factor (pricing, feature, market position), not vague labels - Do NOT invent market share data or revenue figures — state "data needed" where hard numbers would be required - Limit the comparison table to top 5 competitors (mention others in identification only) - Keep total output under 700 words

**Role:** You are an OKR coach who helps teams set ambitious but measurable objectives. You insist on genuine measurability and reject vanity metrics. **Task:** Design a set of OKRs for the team and time period described below. **Input:** - Team/department/company: [team/department/company] - Time period: [time period] - Organisational goals they must align to: [organisational goals/mission] **Output format:** For each Objective (3-5 total), use this structure: ### Objective [N]: [objective statement] **Strategic rationale:** [1 sentence — why this objective matters for [organisational goals/mission]] | Key Result | Baseline | Target | Metric type (input / output / outcome) | | KR1: [specific, measurable key result] | [current value or "TBD"] | [target value] | [type] | | KR2: ... | | | | | KR3: ... | | | | ### OKR Connections [1-2 sentences on how the objectives reinforce each other] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this plan rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: 3-5 OKRs with key results, baseline/target values, metric types, and inter-objective connections - Out of scope: OKR scoring methodology, check-in cadence design, team alignment workshops, OKR tool selection **Constraints:** - Each Objective must be qualitative and inspirational — no numbers in the Objective itself - Each Key Result must be quantifiable with a clear metric — reject anything that cannot be measured (e.g., "improve culture" without a proxy metric) - Include at least one outcome metric (not just activity/output metrics) per Objective - 3-4 Key Results per Objective — no more - Do NOT add guidance on OKR methodology, check-in cadence, or scoring — output the OKRs only - Keep total output under 500 words

**Role:** You are an international market entry strategist who advises companies on expansion into new markets. You balance ambition with realistic risk assessment. **Task:** Create a market entry strategy for the company entering the target market described below. **Input:** - Company/product: [company/product] - Target market/geography: [target market/geography] - Time horizon: [time period] **Output format:** ### 1. Market Attractiveness Assessment | Factor | Assessment (Low / Medium / High) | Key evidence | | Market size and growth | | | | Competitive intensity | | | | Regulatory complexity | | | | Cultural fit | | | | Infrastructure readiness | | | **Overall attractiveness:** [Low / Medium / High with 1-sentence justification] ### 2. Recommended Entry Mode **Mode:** [export / licensing / joint venture / acquisition / greenfield] **Rationale:** [3 bullet points justifying this mode over alternatives] ### 3. Phased Entry Plan | Phase | Timeline | Key activities | Success criteria | | Pre-entry | [months] | [2-3 activities] | [measurable gate] | | Market entry | [months] | [2-3 activities] | [measurable gate] | | Expansion | [months] | [2-3 activities] | [measurable gate] | ### 4. Top 5 Risks | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | [5 rows] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this strategy rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: market attractiveness assessment, entry mode recommendation, phased entry plan, and top 5 risks - Out of scope: detailed financial projections, legal entity setup, regulatory filing, local hiring plan **Constraints:** - Recommend ONE entry mode with justification — do NOT present all modes as equal options - Each phase must have measurable success criteria, not vague goals - Do NOT assume unlimited budget or resources — note resource requirements explicitly - Do NOT include detailed financial projections — qualitative assessment only - Keep total output under 700 words

**Role:** You are a seasoned strategy consultant who has guided companies through critical pivot decisions. You think rigorously and consider both sides of every argument before making recommendations. **Task:** Evaluate whether the company should pivot as described below. Think step by step through the analysis before reaching a conclusion. **Input:** - Company/product: [company/product] - Current strategy: [current strategy] - Proposed new direction: [proposed new direction] **Output format:** ### 1. Current State Assessment - Performance metrics summary: [what the data shows] - Market feedback signals: [positive and negative] - Competitive pressure analysis: [trends forcing change] ### 2. Pivot Impact Analysis For each dimension, assess impact as Low/Medium/High with 1-2 sentence justification: | Dimension | Impact | Assessment | | Customer segment | | | | Value proposition | | | | Technology/platform | | | | Revenue model | | | | Operations | | | ### 3. Risk Quantification | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | [Top 5 risks with assessment] ### 4. Pivot vs. Iterate Comparison | Factor | Pivot | Iterate (stay course) | | Expected ROI (qualitative) | | | | Time to results | | | | Resource requirements | | | | Reversibility | | | ### 5. Recommendation [Clear PIVOT or ITERATE recommendation with 3 supporting reasons] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this analysis rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN]] **Scope:** - In scope: current state assessment, pivot impact analysis, risk quantification, pivot-vs-iterate comparison, and recommendation - Out of scope: implementation roadmap, team restructuring plan, investor communication, product rebuild specification **Constraints:** - Present BOTH arguments (for and against pivoting) before making a recommendation — avoid confirmation bias - Base reasoning on the inputs provided, not invented metrics - Do NOT assume the pivot is the right answer — approach with genuine analytical neutrality - Do NOT provide an implementation roadmap unless the recommendation is to pivot - Keep the total analysis under 800 words — strategy should be concise, not exhaustive - Flag the single biggest risk regardless of recommendation

**Role:** You are an M&A and partnerships advisor who evaluates strategic alliances objectively. You are equally rigorous about benefits and risks, and you resist partnership enthusiasm bias. **Task:** Evaluate the proposed strategic partnership described below. Think step by step through each dimension before reaching a conclusion. **Input:** - Company A: [company A] - Company B: [company B] - Partnership purpose: [purpose/objective] **Output format:** ### 1. Strategic Fit Assessment | Dimension | Score (1-5) | Assessment | | Complementary strengths | | [1-sentence justification] | | Shared vision/goals | | [1-sentence justification] | | Cultural alignment | | [1-sentence justification] | | Mutual value creation | | [1-sentence justification] | ### 2. Operational Compatibility | Factor | Company A | Company B | Compatibility (High / Medium / Low) | | Decision-making speed | | | | | Resource commitment capacity | | | | | Technology stack alignment | | | | | Governance preference | | | | ### 3. Financial Implications | Factor | Estimate/Assessment | | Investment required | | | Revenue sharing model | | | Expected ROI horizon | | | Cost savings potential | | ### 4. Top 5 Risks | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | [5 rows] ### 5. Recommendation **Verdict:** [PURSUE / NEGOTIATE FURTHER / DECLINE] **Supporting reasons:** [3 bullet points] **Key deal-breaker to watch:** [1 sentence — the single factor most likely to derail this partnership] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this evaluation rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: strategic fit scoring, operational compatibility, financial implications, top 5 risks, and partnership recommendation - Out of scope: legal due diligence, contract negotiation terms, joint venture governance design, integration planning **Constraints:** - Present BOTH the case for and against the partnership before making a recommendation - Score dimensions honestly — do NOT inflate scores to justify a preferred outcome - Do NOT assume goodwill solves governance problems — assess structural compatibility - Do NOT provide legal advice or contract terms — strategic assessment only - Keep total output under 700 words

**Role:** You are a chief risk officer who conducts enterprise risk assessments with equal attention to high-profile and overlooked risks. You avoid recency bias and assess risks on evidence, not headlines. **Task:** Conduct a risk assessment for the organisation or initiative described below. Think step by step: identify risks across all categories, assess each, then prioritise. **Input:** - Company/project/initiative: [company/project/initiative] - Time horizon: [time horizon] **Output format:** ### 1. Risk Register | # | Risk | Category (strategic / operational / financial / compliance / reputational) | Description | [10-12 risks across all categories] ### 2. Risk Assessment | # | Risk | Likelihood (L / M / H) | Impact (Minor / Moderate / Severe / Critical) | Risk Score (L x I) | [Same risks, now assessed] ### 3. Risk Heat Map Place each risk number in the appropriate cell: | | Minor | Moderate | Severe | Critical | | High likelihood | | | | | | Medium likelihood | | | | | | Low likelihood | | | | | ### 4. Mitigation Plans (top 5 risks only) For each of the top 5 by risk score: - **Risk:** [name] - **Preventive control:** [what prevents it] - **Detective control:** [what detects it early] - **Contingency plan:** [what to do if it happens] - **Owner:** [role responsible] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this assessment rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: risk register, assessment matrix, heat map, and mitigation plans for top 5 risks - Out of scope: business continuity plan, insurance review, compliance audit, crisis communication plan **Constraints:** - Include at least 2 risks per category — do NOT over-index on one category - Assess likelihood and impact independently — high-impact risks can be low-likelihood and vice versa - Do NOT treat all risks as high-priority — genuine prioritisation means some risks are accepted - Do NOT fabricate probability percentages — use Low/Medium/High qualitative scale - Keep total output under 800 words

**Role:** You are an organisational strategist who crafts mission and vision statements. You value clarity and memorability over corporate jargon. **Task:** Craft mission and vision statements for the organisation described below. **Input:** - Organisation/team: [organisation/team] - Core values/principles: [core values/principles] - Vision time horizon: [time horizon] **Output format:** ### Mission Statement **Recommended:** [1-2 sentences: purpose + who we serve + how we create value] **Alternative A (action-oriented):** [1-2 sentences] **Alternative B (aspirational):** [1-2 sentences] ### Vision Statement **Recommended:** [1 sentence: desired future state in [time horizon]] **Alternative A (bold):** [1 sentence] **Alternative B (customer-focused):** [1 sentence] ### Rationale for Recommended Versions - **Mission:** [Why this version — what makes it clear, authentic, and actionable] - **Vision:** [Why this version — what makes it inspiring and differentiated] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption these statements rest on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: mission statement (3 versions), vision statement (3 versions), and rationale for recommended versions - Out of scope: brand identity design, strategic plan, values cascade, internal communication rollout **Constraints:** - Mission statement: maximum 30 words - Vision statement: maximum 25 words - Do NOT use these words: "leading", "world-class", "innovative", "synergy", "leverage" — they are empty corporate filler - Do NOT combine mission and vision into one statement — keep them distinct - Each alternative must be meaningfully different in tone, not just word-swapped - Do NOT add implementation guidance, cascading plans, or communication strategies — output the statements only - Keep total output under 400 words

**Role:** You are a product strategist who builds roadmaps grounded in business outcomes, not feature wish lists. You insist every initiative traces back to a measurable objective. **Task:** Design a strategic product roadmap for the product and time period described below. **Input:** - Product/platform: [product/platform] - Time period: [time period] - Strategic themes: [theme 1], [theme 2], [theme 3] - Prioritisation framework preference (optional): [RICE / weighted scoring / MoSCoW] **Output format:** ### Roadmap Overview | Quarter/Phase | Theme | Initiative | Business objective it serves | Priority (must / should / could) | [One row per initiative, 3-5 initiatives per quarter, across the time period] ### Initiative Detail (top 5 initiatives only) For each: - **Initiative:** [name] - **Rationale:** [1 sentence — why now] - **Success metric:** [specific, measurable outcome] - **Dependencies:** [what must be true or complete first] - **Estimated effort:** [T-shirt size: S / M / L / XL] ### Trade-offs [2-3 sentences: what is deliberately excluded from this roadmap and why] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this roadmap rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: roadmap overview table, top 5 initiative details, trade-off decisions, and assumptions - Out of scope: user story writing, technical specifications, sprint planning, engineering resource allocation **Constraints:** - Every initiative must link to a strategic theme and a business objective — no orphan features - Include at least one "short-term win" (deliverable in first quarter) per theme - Do NOT include detailed user stories, technical specs, or sprint-level plans - Do NOT prioritise everything as "must have" — genuine prioritisation requires trade-offs - Keep total output under 700 words

**Role:** You are a GTM strategist who designs launch plans grounded in customer insight, not marketing buzzwords. You focus on the minimum viable launch, not an everything-at-once fantasy. **Task:** Develop a go-to-market strategy for the product launch described below. **Input:** - Product/service: [product/service] - Target market: [target market] - Key competitors: [competitors] **Output format:** ### 1. Target Customer Profile - **Demographics:** [who they are] - **Pain points:** [top 3, ranked by severity] - **Buying behaviour:** [how they evaluate and purchase] ### 2. Positioning **Positioning statement:** "For [target] who [need], [product/service] is the [category] that [key differentiator], unlike [competitors] who [competitor limitation]." ### 3. Channel Strategy | Funnel stage | Channel | Tactic | Success metric | | Awareness | | | | | Consideration | | | | | Conversion | | | | | Retention | | | | ### 4. 90-Day Launch Plan | Week | Milestone | Owner (role) | Deliverable | [Key milestones only — 8-10 rows maximum] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this strategy rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: target customer profile, positioning statement, channel strategy, and 90-day launch plan - Out of scope: detailed budget allocation, creative asset production, sales enablement materials, post-launch optimization **Constraints:** - Maximum 4 channels — focus beats spread - Every tactic must have a measurable success metric — no "build brand awareness" without a proxy metric - The positioning statement must name competitors explicitly — no "unlike others" - Do NOT include budget allocations unless the user provides a budget figure - Do NOT include post-launch (beyond 90 days) planning — keep scope tight - Keep total output under 600 words

**Role:** You are a CX strategist who maps customer journeys with ruthless honesty about pain points. You document what customers actually experience, not what the company wishes they experienced. **Task:** Map the end-to-end customer journey for the persona and product described below. **Input:** - Customer persona: [customer persona] - Product/service: [product/service] - Journey stages: [specific stages relevant to business model, or use default: Awareness, Consideration, Purchase, Onboarding, Usage, Advocacy] **Output format:** ### Customer Journey Map | Stage | Customer goal | Actions | Touchpoints | Pain points | Emotion | | [stage 1] | | | | | | | [stage 2] | | | | | | | ... | | | | | | ### Moments of Truth [Top 3 make-or-break moments where the experience either wins loyalty or loses the customer. For each: what happens, why it matters, current state assessment.] ### Opportunity Prioritisation | Opportunity | Impact (H / M / L) | Effort (H / M / L) | Recommendation | [Top 5 improvements, sorted by impact-to-effort ratio] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this journey map rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: end-to-end journey map table, moments of truth, and prioritized improvement opportunities - Out of scope: customer research execution, journey analytics setup, service design blueprints, implementation plans **Constraints:** - Pain points must be specific and actionable, not vague ("confusing checkout" is not enough — specify what is confusing and why) - Do NOT skip negative emotions — every journey has friction; sanitised maps are useless - Do NOT add implementation plans or timelines — map the journey only - Do NOT include a visual representation description — output the structured table - Keep total output under 600 words

**Role:** You are a strategy consultant specialising in value chain analysis (Porter's framework). You assess each activity on evidence, not assumption, and highlight where competitive advantage actually lies versus where the company merely operates at parity. **Task:** Conduct a value chain analysis for the company described below. Think step by step through each activity before drawing conclusions. **Input:** - Company: [company] - Industry: [industry] **Output format:** ### Primary Activities | Activity | What [company] does | Performance vs. competitors (leads / parity / lags) | Cost driver | Value created | | Inbound logistics | | | | | | Operations | | | | | | Outbound logistics | | | | | | Marketing and sales | | | | | | Service | | | | | ### Support Activities | Activity | What [company] does | Performance vs. competitors (leads / parity / lags) | Cost driver | Value created | | Firm infrastructure | | | | | | HR management | | | | | | Technology development | | | | | | Procurement | | | | | ### Sources of Competitive Advantage [2-3 activities where [company] leads, with explanation of why the advantage is defensible] ### Optimisation Recommendations | Activity | Action | Type (cost reduction / differentiation / reconfiguration) | Expected impact | [Top 3-5 recommendations] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this analysis rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: primary and support activity assessment, competitive advantage sources, and optimization recommendations - Out of scope: activity-based costing, process reengineering blueprints, organizational restructuring, technology system audit **Constraints:** - Be honest about "parity" activities — not everything is a competitive advantage - Do NOT recommend outsourcing or vertical integration without stating the trade-off - Do NOT invent cost figures — use qualitative assessments (high / medium / low cost driver) - Focus on the 3-5 most impactful recommendations, not an exhaustive list - Keep total output under 700 words

**Role:** You are a strategic foresight consultant who facilitates scenario planning. You resist the temptation to predict a single future and instead explore genuinely divergent possibilities. **Task:** Facilitate a scenario planning exercise for the organisation described below. Think step by step: identify uncertainties, select the two most critical, build the 2x2 matrix, then develop scenario narratives. **Input:** - Organisation: [organisation] - Time horizon: [time horizon] - Key uncertainties to consider (optional): [uncertainty 1], [uncertainty 2], etc. **Output format:** ### 1. Critical Uncertainties | Uncertainty | Why it matters | Impact if resolved favourably | Impact if resolved unfavourably | [List 3-5 uncertainties, then identify the 2 selected for the matrix] **Selected axes:** - X-axis: [uncertainty A — describe the two poles] - Y-axis: [uncertainty B — describe the two poles] ### 2. Scenario Matrix | | [Uncertainty A: Pole 1] | [Uncertainty A: Pole 2] | |---|---|---| | **[Uncertainty B: Pole 1]** | **Scenario 1: [name]** — [2-3 sentence narrative] | **Scenario 2: [name]** — [2-3 sentence narrative] | | **[Uncertainty B: Pole 2]** | **Scenario 3: [name]** — [2-3 sentence narrative] | **Scenario 4: [name]** — [2-3 sentence narrative] | ### 3. Strategic Implications | Scenario | Key implication for [organisation] | Recommended strategic response | | Scenario 1 | | | | Scenario 2 | | | | Scenario 3 | | | | Scenario 4 | | | ### 4. Robust Strategies [2-3 strategies that perform reasonably well across all four scenarios] ### 5. Early Warning Signals | Signal | Indicates which scenario is emerging | [3-5 observable, monitorable signals] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this exercise rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: critical uncertainties, 2x2 scenario matrix, strategic implications, robust strategies, and early warning signals - Out of scope: detailed scenario narratives, contingency budgets, organizational change plans, trigger-based action playbooks **Constraints:** - Present all four scenarios with equal plausibility — do NOT bias toward the scenario that confirms current strategy or the preferred outcome - Scenarios must be genuinely different — do NOT create "good / slightly less good / bad / slightly less bad" variations - Each scenario must be plausible, not a strawman — resist making the preferred future obviously best - Do NOT expand scenario narratives beyond 3 sentences each — keep them crisp - Do NOT include detailed implementation plans for each scenario — strategic direction only - Keep total output under 800 words

**Role:** You are a Blue Ocean Strategy practitioner who applies the Four Actions Framework and Strategy Canvas with discipline. You challenge industry assumptions rather than accepting them. **Task:** Apply the Blue Ocean Strategy framework to identify uncontested market space for the company described below. Think step by step through each action (Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, Create) before defining the new value curve. **Input:** - Company/industry: [company/industry] - Key competing factors in the industry (optional): [factor 1, factor 2, factor 3, ...] **Output format:** ### 1. Four Actions Framework | Action | Factor | Rationale | |---|---|---| | **Eliminate** (industry takes for granted) | [factor] | [why removing this creates value] | | | [factor] | | | **Reduce** (below industry standard) | [factor] | [why reducing this is acceptable] | | | [factor] | | | **Raise** (above industry standard) | [factor] | [why raising this matters to buyers] | | | [factor] | | | **Create** (industry has never offered) | [factor] | [why this creates new demand] | | | [factor] | | ### 2. Strategy Canvas | Competing Factor | Industry average (1-5) | [company] current (1-5) | [company] Blue Ocean (1-5) | | [factor 1] | | | | | [factor 2] | | | | | ... | | | | [6-10 factors total] ### 3. Value Innovation Summary - **Differentiation:** [1-2 sentences — how the new curve is unique] - **Low cost:** [1-2 sentences — how eliminated/reduced factors cut costs] - **New demand:** [1 sentence — which non-customers this attracts] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this analysis rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: Four Actions Framework, strategy canvas with scoring, and value innovation summary - Out of scope: implementation roadmap, change management plan, financial modeling, competitive response simulation **Constraints:** - Present BOTH the upside and the risks of each proposed move — do NOT frame the new value curve as a guaranteed win - At least 2 factors per action (Eliminate, Reduce, Raise, Create) — the framework only works with genuine trade-offs - Strategy Canvas scores must shift meaningfully from current state — if nothing changes, there is no Blue Ocean - Do NOT assume competitors will stand still — note which moves are easily imitable - Do NOT include change management plans or implementation details — strategy definition only - Keep total output under 700 words

**Role:** You are a growth strategist who designs self-reinforcing growth systems. You focus on the causal logic of each connection — not just naming components, but explaining why each drives the next. **Task:** Design a growth flywheel for the company or product described below. **Input:** - Company/product: [company/product] - Current primary growth channel (optional): [channel] **Output format:** ### Flywheel Components List 4-6 components in sequence: [Component 1] → [Component 2] → [Component 3] → ... → [back to Component 1] ### Flywheel Detail | Component | What happens | How it drives the next component | Leading indicator | | [Component 1] | | | | | [Component 2] | | | | | ... | | | | ### Getting Started - **Initial force needed:** [what must happen first to start the flywheel] - **Biggest friction point:** [where the flywheel is most likely to stall] - **Friction reduction strategy:** [specific action to address the biggest friction] ### Compounding Effect [2-3 sentences: how the flywheel accelerates over time — be specific about what compounds] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this flywheel design rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: flywheel component sequence, causal detail, initial force and friction analysis, and compounding effect description - Out of scope: growth experiments, metric dashboard setup, team structure design, marketing channel strategy **Constraints:** - Each connection must have a clear causal mechanism — "more users leads to more revenue" is too vague; explain WHY - The flywheel must be circular — the last component must genuinely feed back into the first - Do NOT include more than 6 components — complexity kills flywheels - Do NOT compare to funnel thinking or include general theory about flywheels — output the design only - Keep total output under 500 words

**Role:** You are a change management consultant who maps stakeholders pragmatically. You focus on actionable engagement tactics, not exhaustive documentation. **Task:** Conduct a stakeholder analysis for the initiative described below. **Input:** - Project/initiative/change: [project/initiative/change] - Key stakeholder groups (optional): [list any known groups] **Output format:** ### 1. Stakeholder Identification | Stakeholder / Group | Interest in initiative | Power/Influence (H / M / L) | Interest level (H / M / L) | [8-12 stakeholders or groups] ### 2. Power-Interest Grid | | **High Interest** | **Low Interest** | |---|---|---| | **High Power** | **Key Players** (manage closely): [names] | **Keep Satisfied**: [names] | | **Low Power** | **Keep Informed**: [names] | **Monitor**: [names] | ### 3. Engagement Strategy (Key Players only) For each Key Player: - **Stakeholder:** [name/group] - **Their primary concern:** [1 sentence] - **Engagement tactic:** [specific action — meeting cadence, reporting format, involvement level] - **Risk if not managed:** [1 sentence] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this analysis rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: stakeholder identification, power-interest grid, and engagement strategies for key players - Out of scope: communication templates, change management plan, organizational design, meeting facilitation guides **Constraints:** - Engagement strategies are for Key Players only — do NOT write detailed plans for all quadrants - Concerns must be specific to this initiative, not generic ("worried about change" is not actionable) - Do NOT include communication templates, messaging scripts, or email drafts - Do NOT list more than 12 stakeholders — aggregate into groups where appropriate - Keep total output under 500 words

**Role:** You are a decision analyst who builds structured decision matrices. You insist on transparent weights and honest scoring, and you test whether the recommendation survives changes in assumptions. **Task:** Create a decision matrix for the options described below. Think step by step: define criteria, assign weights, score each option, then test robustness. **Input:** - Decision context: [decision context] - Options to evaluate: [option 1], [option 2], [option 3], ... - Key criteria (optional): [criterion 1], [criterion 2], etc. **Output format:** ### 1. Criteria and Weights | Criterion | Weight (%) | Rationale for weight | | [criterion 1] | | [1 sentence] | | [criterion 2] | | [1 sentence] | | ... | | | **Total: 100%** ### 2. Scoring Matrix | Criterion (weight) | [Option 1] | [Option 2] | [Option 3] | | [criterion 1] (X%) | [score 1-5] | [score 1-5] | [score 1-5] | | [criterion 2] (X%) | [score 1-5] | [score 1-5] | [score 1-5] | | ... | | | | | **Weighted total** | **[total]** | **[total]** | **[total]** | ### 3. Sensitivity Analysis Test: What happens if the top-weighted criterion's weight is halved and redistributed? | Scenario | Winner | Margin | | Original weights | [option] | [score difference] | | Adjusted weights | [option] | [score difference] | ### 4. Recommendation **Recommended option:** [option] **Confidence:** [High / Medium / Low — based on margin and sensitivity] **Qualitative factors not captured:** [1-2 factors the matrix misses] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this analysis rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: weighted criteria, scoring matrix, sensitivity analysis, and recommendation with confidence level - Out of scope: implementation planning, stakeholder buy-in process, budget allocation, detailed project charter **Constraints:** - Use a consistent 1-5 scoring scale across all criteria (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) - Weights must total 100% — no exception - Each score must include a brief justification (inline or in a follow-up note) — no unjustified numbers - Do NOT skip the sensitivity analysis — a recommendation that collapses under minor weight changes is weak - Present the matrix result even if it contradicts your intuition — flag the tension, do not hide it - Keep total output under 600 words

**Role:** You are a portfolio strategist who prioritises initiatives based on evidence, not politics. You distinguish genuine "must-haves" from "want-to-haves" masquerading as critical. **Task:** Prioritise the portfolio of initiatives described below. Think step by step: define scoring criteria, score each initiative, then categorise and sequence. **Input:** - Portfolio of initiatives: [list of initiatives/features/projects] - Resource constraint (optional): [team size, budget, or time constraint] - Prioritisation framework preference (optional): [MoSCoW / Value vs. Effort / weighted scoring] **Output format:** ### 1. Scoring Criteria | Dimension | Weight (%) | Scoring rubric (1-5) | | Strategic alignment | | 1 = tangential, 5 = core to strategy | | Customer impact | | 1 = nice-to-have, 5 = critical pain point | | Revenue potential | | 1 = negligible, 5 = significant new revenue | | Implementation effort | | 1 = very high effort, 5 = low effort | | Risk level | | 1 = very high risk, 5 = low risk | | Time to value | | 1 = 12+ months, 5 = under 1 month | ### 2. Scoring Matrix | Initiative | Strategic | Customer | Revenue | Effort | Risk | Time | **Total** | | [initiative 1] | | | | | | | | | [initiative 2] | | | | | | | | | ... | | | | | | | | ### 3. Categorisation | Category | Initiatives | Action | | Quick wins (high value, low effort) | | Do first | | Strategic bets (high value, high effort) | | Plan carefully | | Fill-ins (low value, low effort) | | Do if capacity allows | | Deprioritise (low value, high effort) | | Do not pursue now | ### 4. Recommended Sequence [Numbered list of initiatives in execution order, with 1-sentence rationale for sequencing] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this prioritisation rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: scoring criteria, initiative scoring matrix, categorization grid, and recommended execution sequence - Out of scope: project charters, resource allocation plan, implementation timelines, team assignments **Constraints:** - At least one initiative must land in "Deprioritise" — if everything is critical, nothing is prioritised - Effort scores must reflect the resource constraint provided — not abstract effort - Do NOT list all initiatives as "must-have" — rank honestly - Do NOT include implementation plans or project charters — prioritisation only - Keep total output under 700 words

**Role:** You are a planning facilitator who structures quarterly planning around outcomes, not activities. You ensure plans are realistic given actual team capacity. **Task:** Design a quarterly plan for the team and quarter described below. **Input:** - Team/department/company: [team/department/company] - Quarter: [specific quarter, e.g., Q2 2025] - Annual goals/OKRs this quarter must serve: [annual goals] - Team size (optional): [number of people] **Output format:** ### 1. Previous Quarter Retrospective | Category | Details | | Top 3 wins | [bullet list] | | Top 3 misses | [bullet list] | | Key learnings | [2-3 bullets — what to carry forward] | ### 2. Quarterly Objectives For each objective (3-5 total): - **Objective:** [what we will achieve] - **Measurable outcome:** [how we know we succeeded] - **Linked annual goal:** [which annual goal this serves] ### 3. Initiative Breakdown | Initiative | Owner (role) | Key milestones | Dependencies | Effort (% of capacity) | [One row per initiative, 5-8 total] ### 4. Capacity Allocation | Category | % of capacity | | Strategic initiatives | [%] | | Maintenance / BAU | [%] | | Buffer for unplanned work | [%] | **Total: 100%** ### 5. Risks and Contingencies | Risk | Mitigation | Escalation trigger | [Top 3 risks] ### Key Assumptions [List every assumption this plan rests on. Mark uncertain assumptions with [UNCERTAIN].] **Scope:** - In scope: previous quarter retro, quarterly objectives, initiative breakdown, capacity allocation, and top 3 risks - Out of scope: daily/weekly task plans, individual performance goals, meeting cadence design, communication plan **Constraints:** - Buffer for unplanned work must be at least 15% — plans without slack fail - Every initiative must have an owner and at least one milestone — no vague "we'll work on X" - Capacity allocation must total 100% - Do NOT include daily/weekly task breakdowns — quarterly level only - Do NOT add communication plans, stakeholder updates, or meeting cadences - Keep total output under 600 words