Back to blog
Playing to Win by A.G. Lafley and Roger Martin is one of the few strategy books that genuinely changed how serious organisations make strategic choices. Most leadership teams who've worked through its strategy cascade come out the other side with something valuable — a shared filter for decisions, a logic for where to concentrate and where to pull back. The cascade forces genuine strategic choices rather than goals dressed up as strategy. What the cascade sets in motion, though, is a question that sits one layer below the strategic choices themselves: how do you build the commercial architecture that executes against them?
That's the question this article is about.
Most strategies stall not because the choices were wrong, but because the organisation beneath them was never reconfigured to execute them.
The distance between choice and commercial motion
A strategic choice, however well-made, does not automatically become commercial energy. The decision to focus on a particular customer segment, to push certain products and exit others, to build a specific value proposition — none of these translate themselves into the daily decisions of a commercial team. Something has to do the translating.
The signs are familiar. The portfolio still carrying the old weight distribution. The specifier relationships the strategy depends on not yet built. The performance system still measuring activity rather than strategic progress. The people aren't the problem. The system is. Why Strategy Fails in Execution maps those mechanisms in detail — they operate the same way whether the strategic choice was made well or badly, and a sharp where to play decision doesn't immunise the organisation against them.
This is the space the cascade points toward and invites the next layer of thinking to occupy. Must-have capabilities and management systems are real requirements. The question of how to build them, in the right order, around the specific choices that have been made, is what needs answering next.
What the implementation layer actually requires
The most consistent failure we see at this stage isn't a bad strategic choice. It's a commercial architecture that was never rebuilt around the new one. The portfolio still reflects the old mix. The value proposition still represents the segment with the most internal advocates, not the most commercial potential. The performance metrics tell you how busy the commercial team is, not whether it's moving in the right direction.
Building the implementation layer means working through six interdependent blocks — and the order matters as much as the content. Market focus is where the translation from strategic choice to commercial reality begins: which segments to resource seriously, which channels carry the weight. It makes the where to play decision visible and binding. The organisation can no longer behave as if the choice hasn't been made. That discomfort is, in fact, the mechanism.
Portfolio prioritisation follows, giving a P&L-backed rationale for commercial energy allocation — which products to push, which to sustain, which to exit. Value proposition and go-to-market model are built after those decisions are settled, not before. A value proposition constructed before the segment prioritisation is clear will default to the organisation's existing centre of gravity. One built after looks materially different: it's constructed from how a specific set of customers experiences value, and that outside-in logic is what gives it durability under pricing pressure.
The commercial performance system and operating model are the final layer. A performance system built before the strategic choices are settled will measure the wrong bets with precision. The operating model determines whether the commercial function is genuinely cross-functional — whether product, commercial, finance, and delivery are configured around the choices that have been made rather than around the organisation's inherited structure.
Why the sequence is the argument
In Playing to Win, Lafley and Martin are precise about something that is easy to overlook: the five levels of the cascade are not five parallel workstreams. They are a sequence, and the sequence is the logic. You cannot make the capabilities decision well before the how to win choice is settled. You cannot design management systems before you know what capabilities they need to support. The cascade flows in one direction because each level is constrained by the one above it.
The same logic holds at the implementation layer. Market focus must precede portfolio prioritisation. Portfolio prioritisation must precede the value proposition. The value proposition must precede the go-to-market model. And all of them must precede the performance system — because if the performance system is designed first, it shapes the strategy rather than serving it. This is the operating logic Single-Minded is built around: the idea that strategic focus, system design, and execution aren’t separate phases but an integrated, continuous discipline. Single-Minded: The Argument behind the Book covers that in full.
This is where What Is a Commercial Agenda is worth reading alongside the cascade. The two are not competing accounts of the same problem. The cascade resolves the strategic question. The commercial agenda takes over where it ends, providing the sequenced, interdependent mechanisms that turn a coherent strategic choice into a functioning commercial architecture.
A clear strategic choice is the beginning of the commercial work. The organisations that execute well are almost always the ones that treat what follows with the same rigour they brought to the choices themselves.
The cascade gave the field a framework that changed how serious strategy is done. It also points clearly toward the next layer of work: how you actually run the organisation once the choices are made. That work is not harder to understand. It is harder to do. And it is where most strategies either compound or stall.
Key takeaways
The where to play, how to win framework resolves the strategic choice question with rare rigour, giving leadership teams a shared filter for every decision that follows. Building the commercial architecture that executes against those choices is where the work continues.
Translating strategic choices into commercial motion requires a deliberate sequence: market focus, portfolio prioritisation, value proposition, go-to-market model, performance system, operating model. Each block depends on the one above it.
The most consistent execution failure isn't a bad strategic choice — it's a commercial architecture that was never rebuilt around it.
If the performance system is designed before the strategic choices are settled, it shapes the strategy rather than serving it.
Using the cascade and the commercial agenda together gives leadership teams both the conceptual architecture for making sharp choices and the operational mechanisms for delivering on them.
FAQ
What does the where to play, how to win framework actually cover?
The framework provides a five-level strategy cascade built around two core questions: which arenas to compete in, and what competitive advantage to build in those arenas. It covers strategic formulation rigorously, delivering an integrated architecture for making genuine strategic choices rather than goals dressed up as strategy.
Where does the cascade lead?
The cascade delivers a complete strategic architecture. It also points directly toward the implementation question: how do you translate must-have capabilities and management systems into the specific mechanisms a commercial organisation needs — portfolio decisions, value propositions, go-to-market coverage, and the performance metrics that tell you whether the strategy is working.
What is the commercial agenda's relationship to the strategy cascade?
The commercial agenda is the implementation layer that sits beneath the cascade's final two levels. Its six building blocks — market focus, portfolio prioritisation, value proposition, go-to-market model, commercial performance system, and operating model — are the mechanisms that turn strategic choices into commercial architecture. They must be built in sequence, in the same way the cascade's five levels must be worked in order.
Why do good strategic choices so often fail to produce commercial results?
Because the commercial architecture underneath the strategy was never rebuilt around the new choices. The portfolio still carries the old weight distribution. The value proposition still reflects the segment mix before the focus decision was made. The performance system still measures internal activity rather than whether the strategic bets are working. The choice was right. The machinery was never reconfigured to execute it.
We've worked through the cascade. Why hasn't it changed how the organisation behaves?
Because the strategic choice and the commercial architecture are two separate things, and making one doesn't automatically produce the other. The cascade gives you the right strategic filter. What changes organisational behaviour is building the six blocks beneath it — in the right order, with the same rigour that went into the strategic choices themselves. Market focus and portfolio prioritisation make the choice visible and binding. The value proposition and go-to-market model translate it into commercial motion. The performance system and operating model ensure the organisation.
