How to use Business Battle Maps with Strategic Navigation

Henrik Mårtensson

8 July, 2009

Abstract

This paper proposes that having a battlefield map is as important to business strategists
and change agents as it is to military strategists and commanders.
A network battle map is easy to make, and can help determine system boundaries,
and serve as input for gap analysis. It is also a valuable presentation aid, and useful
when looking for solutions to complex problems.
This paper outlines how to use network battle maps with Strategic Navigation, a
fast paced business strategy method combining Maneuver Conflict and The Logical
Thinking Process from The Theory of constraints.

Contents
1. Why Use Business Battle Maps?
2. Battle Mapping with Strategic
Navigation .. .. .. .. .. ..
3. Battle Maps and the OODA Deci-
sion Loop .. .. .. .. .. ..
4. Showing Pervasive Influences ..
5. Layered Battle Maps .. .. ..
6. Sub-maps .. .. .. .. .. ..
7. Battle Map on the Wall .. .. ..
8. Battle Maps and the 36
Stratagems .. .. .. .. .. ..
9. When Not to Use Battle Maps ..
References .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
1. Why Use Business Battle Maps?
Business strategy is a complex game with
many players making concurrent moves.
Many business strategy games are played
like blind chess, with the players keeping the
game board in their heads. Imagine the ad-
vantage you can get by making a simple map
of the battlefield: It’s like being the only play-
er with a chess board and pieces at a chess
competition.
A battle map is a kind of network dia-
gram showing the field of battle. It depicts
important entities on the business battlefield,
and the relationships between them.
A battle map makes it easier to do the
following things:
• Think through the relationships be-
tween different stakeholders in the sys-
tem you want to change. This will help
you come up with an overall strategic
plan.
• Communicate important information
about power and information structures
that is otherwise likely to be communi-
-2-
cated in a disjointed manner, or simply
forgotten until it is too late.
2
• Determine where you need to allocate
3 your resources for maximum effect dur-
ing execution.
5 • Visualize a desired future state. When
7 doing a gap analysis it can be useful to
7 visualize a desired future state in terms
7 of power and lines of communication.A
network battle map, even a simple one,
7 provides a more accurate view than an
organizational chart.
8
8
What should a battle map look like? For
starters, what are the important entities, and
9
what relationships should the battle map de-
scribe? And at what resolution?
The entities you need to put on the map
are the stakeholders in the strategic game. I
will not go into how to identify stakeholders
in this paper. Suffice to say that a change in
part of an organization can have system wide
repercussions.
For example, introducing Agile soft-
ware development methods like Scrum or
eXtreme Programming, may be seen as death
threat by the Project Manager Department,
because these methods do not have or need
project managers in the traditional sense. The
way software development services are sold
may have to change, because Agile methods
can speed up development, and selling devel-
opers by the hour may no longer be a viable
option. Five times faster development would
mean one fifth the revenue…
The effects of making changes to part of
an organization are often quite predictable,
and yet, the effort to understand the implica-
tions of a change is rarely made. Making a
network battle map can make it easier to un-
derstand how the organization as a whole is
affected by a local change.
There are many kinds of interactions in
 -3-
Interpersonal
Legitimate: Power derived from formal au-
thority
Reward: Power to reward behavior. (Often
misused to reward results even if the results
are not due to the behavior of the entity re-
warded.)
Coercive: Ability to punish. (Often misused
to punish results even if the results are not
due to the behavior of the entity punished.)
Expert: Knowledge and skills that are irre-
placeable, or difficult to replace.
Referent: Personality, charisma.
Table 1. Types of Power
an organization. Mapping them all is neither
feasible, nor useful. What are the most rele-
vant relationships to map?
Usually, the most relevant relationships
are relationships of power, including materi-
al flow. Table 1 on page 3 shows eight differ-
ent types of power that may be important[2].
Of course, a map showing all power rela-
tionships would become too messy to read,
and to unwieldy to update. The map should
show only the most important relationships.
It is necessary to have some way to filter data,
so that the map does not become overloaded
with information.
Business strategy deals with organiza-
tions, which are complex systems, and in-
teractions between the organization and cus-
tomers, competitors, allies, and society. There
are many, complex interactions, but relatively
few degrees of freedom. As a result, there are
usually only a few strategic leverage points.
Given a method for locating lever-
age points, it would be possible to use this
method to locate those areas of the battlefield
where a detailed battle map will be most use-
ful. The rest of the battle map can be left pret-
Positional/Situational
Resource: Control over material flow, phys-
ical resources, or special access to informa-
tion sources.
Decision-making: Influence over decisions,
or selection of which decisions are made.
Information: Control over or special access
to knowledge or data by virtue of position.
ty sketchy, until there is reason to focus on a
new area of the strategic battlefield..
There are several methods for locating
the leverage points in complex systems, but
this paper will focus on The Logical Thinking
Process (TLTP). TLTP can be used as a stand-
alone toolset for solving complex problems,
but it is also a part of the Strategic Navigation
toolkit.
2. Battle Mapping with Strategic
Navigation
Strategic Navigation is a business strate-
gy method created by William Dettmer[2].
The method is a powerful synthesis of
John Boyd’s Maneuver Conflict[1][8][7] and
William Dettmer’s The Logical Thinking
Process1[4] (TLTP). Strategic Navigation
also uses an extremely powerful method of
gathering data and brainstorming, Crawford
Slip[3].
TLTP is a powerful tool for solving
complex problems, formulating strategy, and
1
An extended version of Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt’s Thinking
Process.
 -4-
Figure 1. Simple System Description with Areas of Control and Influence
seamlessly plan to execution level, i.e. mak-
ing project plans. TLTP is based on Systems
Thinking. An important question when us-
ing any Systems Thinking based method is:
Where are the system boundaries?
TLTP uses a simple method to answer
the question. Basically, list the parts you can
identify, then categorize them as being in
your area of control, your area of influence,
within the system, or external to the system.
Strategic Navigation does not require
you to draw a picture or mark the system
boundary in a diagram. Depending on the
situation, you could use lists, a table, draw
closed curves on an organization chart, or use
a network battle map as outlined in this pa-
per. Figure 1 on page 4 is an example of what
a simple drawing of the system boundaries
might look like.
Figure 2 on page 5 shows what an initial
network battle map may look like. The map is
drawn from the perspective of a Software De-
velopment Department manager. Note how
I use color to highlight areas of control and
influence. This makes it very clear where
there are holes in the map. In the example, the
Project Manager Department is outside the
sphere of influence drawn in the map. Such
holes are quite common, and it is important
to identify them. A system unit you cannot
influence is a system unit you cannot align to
the goal of the system.
The map in Figure 2 on page 5 is orga-
nized around a value stream. Material flow is
indicated with arrows twice as thick as other
arrows.
Other unlabeled links in the diagram
represent legitimate power, that is, links rep-
resenting formal authority. These links are
not necessarily the most powerful, but they
are common, and usually easy to find, for ex-
ample by looking at an organization chart.
The link arrows are pointed along the
power flow. For example, “A has authority
over B” is drawn as:
The initial input you use to create a battle
 -5-
Figure 2. Initial Network Map with System Boundary and Areas of Influence and Control.
map is likely to include an organization chart,
an interview with your sponsor, and, if you
are very lucky, a reasonably accurate Value
Stream Map (VSM). The initial information
about interactions in the system is likely to
concern material flow and legitimate author-
ity. This is not likely to be the only important
information, but it is enough to get started.
3. Battle Maps and the OODA Decision
Loop
Figure 3 on page 6 shows John Boyd’s fa-
mous OODA decision loop1, and how the
1
The OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) decision
loop has emerged as a central concept in strategic and
tactical planning over the past few decades. The OODA
loop concept is applicable to split second decisions, such
as those made by a fighter pilot, as well as to tactics, op-
erations planning, and strategy. It is a central concept in
strategic planning and execution cycle in
Strategic Navigation relates to the OODA
Loop.
Initially, the battle map is used to deter-
mine the system boundaries. Determining the
system boundaries is a prerequisite for creat-
ing an Intermediate Objective Map (Step 1).
The battle map then becomes one of
the inputs for creating a Current Reality Tree
(Step 2). The Current Reality Tree identifies
leverage points that can be used to change the
system to the desired state.
Figure 4 on page 8 shows how the lever-
age points identified in the Current Reality
Tree can be mapped back to the battle map.
This shows which areas of the strategic bat-
Maneuver Conflict and Maneuver Warfare. The OODA
Loop is also at the core of Strategic Navigation.
 -6-
Figure 3. How Strategic Navigation Maps to the OODA Decision Loop
tlefield that should be investigated further.
Depending on the situation, and the
complexity of the existing battle map, either
more information can be added to the exist-
ing map, or more detailed sub-maps may be
added. See Section Sub-maps on page 7.
The expanded battle map (or sub-map)
is then used as input when generating ideas
for solutions (Step 3), for operations planning
(Step 4), and for Mission (project) planning
(Step 5).
In the strategy evaluation phase (Step
7), the battle map is useful for evaluating suc-
cess. Executing strategic plans often changes
the shape of the battle map, so it is important
to update the battle map before using it for
evaluation. There may be new connections
between the organization and customers.
 -7-
New customer segments may have been iden-
tified. If there has been a reorganization, au-
thority and communication links should have
changed within the organization. Competi-
tors may have been isolated from their allies,
such as suppliers and distributors. There may
be more or significantly stronger links with
allies.
4. Showing Pervasive Influences
Some entities have a pervasive influence on
a system. For example, the CEO, an IT de-
partment or an accounting department may
influence all other entities in an organization.
Government regulations or public opinion
may have a strong influence on an entire mar-
ket. For example, environmental concerns has
a strong influence on car design and manufac-
turing processes.
Rather than representing such influ-
ences by drawing lines to all entities in the
map, it is better to show the entity as free-
standing, with an annotation showing the
type and range of influence. (Not shown in
this paper.)
5. Layered Battle Maps
Most drawing programs support layers. This
means you can put different types of infor-
mation on different layers, and then elect to
hide or show different kinds of information
at different times.
For example, in Figure 2 on page 5 it
would be possible to create a layer for aver-
age waiting and process times for nodes in the
value stream. In effect, this would turn part
of the battle map into a Value Stream Map[6].
This would be useful for locating process bot-
tlenecks.
Because the battle map shows who con-
trols and influences the process bottlenecks,
it also provides guidance for where to inves-
tigate causes of bottlenecks, and may provide
insights into how to resolve the problems.
6. Sub-maps
An alternative to loading up a battle map with
information is to use smaller sub-maps to
map up smaller sections of the strategic land-
scape. A sub-map might, for example, map
the most important individuals in a group and
their relationships, or it might map the rela-
tionships in a part of a value stream.
Figure 5 on page 9 shows how a sec-
tion of the large scale battle map has been
expanded using a sub-map. The map reveals
why the Project Manager Department is out-
side the influence of the Software Develop-
ment Department: The PM Department’s al-
legiance is to a powerful group of high level
managers with an agenda different from that
of the CEO.
The sub-map also shows that the PM
Department manager can be influenced from
the bottom up, as he tends to give a high de-
gree of weight to the opinions of at least one
of his Project Managers.
7. Battle Map on the Wall
Strategic Navigation advocates “strategy on
the wall”, putting The Logical Thinking Pro-
cess diagrams on a wall, so that everyone
working with strategy development can see
it1.
A battle map also needs to be seen to be
useful. The larger the map, the better, though
making and printing the map in A3 format is
sufficient for most purposes.
1
Ideally, the strategy wall should be where employees
can easily see it, so they can see the work in progress and
comment. Some things may have to be hidden in order
to prevent leaks to competitors, or prematurely revealing
information to customers. In general though, strategy
development should engage as many people as possible
in the company.
 -8-
Figure 4. Current Reality Tree and Battle Map
I usually use A3 format for The Logi-
cal Thinking Process diagrams, and use the
Toyota Production System A3 report format
as much as possible. Thus, A3 format battle
maps fit nicely with other documentation I
produce.
8. Battle Maps and the 36 Stratagems
The 36 Stratagems[5] is an an ancient Chi-
nese collection of strategic patterns. The 36
Stratagems were developed for warfare, but
they have also proven effective in business.
The stratagems are useful as idea gener-
ators, and work well with Strategic Naviga-
tion and other business strategy methods.
Idea generators do not work from
scratch. They need input. A network battle
map can be very useful in this regard, because
a battle map provides an excellent overview
of the current situation.
If you use a battle map as input to 36
Stratagems idea generation, you may wish to
experiment with using an annotation layer in
your battle map drawing. Use the annotations
to provide important input for idea genera-
tion, and suggestions for which stratagems
to use.
9. When Not to Use Battle Maps
Creating a battle map takes a bit of effort.
Thus, the effort spent must be weighed
against the benefit of having the map. A bat-
tle map can be very useful when you try to un-
derstand a system. On the other hand, if the
system under consideration is simple, or well
known to everyone involved in strategic plan-
ning, you may not need one.
One thing you should consider is
whether having a battle map means you can
skip something else. Can you skip making
a slideshow presentation? Or would a bat-
tle map enhance the presentation if it was in-
cluded?
Remember that a battle map can be
very simple and still useful. You may find
that drawing maps in your notebook, or on a
whiteboard, is the best solution in many situ-
ations.
References
 -9-
Figure 5. Sub-map
[1] Col. John Boyd, U.S. Air Force. A Dis-
course On Winning and Losing. Also
known as The Green Book. Defense
and the National Interest, address. URL
http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/strategy-and-
force-employment/boyd-and-military-
strategy/.
[2] H. William Dettmer. Strategic Naviga-
tion: A Systems Approach to Business
Strategy. Quality Press, 600 N. Plankin-
ton Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 1st
ed., 2007.
[3] H. William Dettmer. Brainpower
Networking Using the Crawford Slip
 - 10 -

Method. Trafford Publishing, Suite 6E,

2333 Government St., Victoria, B.C.
V8T 4P4, CANADA. 1st, 2003.

[4] H. William Dettmer. The Logical Think-

ing Process: A Systems Approach to
Logical Problem Solving. Quality Press,
600 N. Plankinton Avenue, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. 1st ed., 2007.

[5] Kaihan Krippendorff. Hide a Dagger

Behind a Smile: Use the 36 Ancient Chi-
nese Strategies to seize the Competitive
Edge. Adam’s Media, Adam’s Media,
57 Littlefield Street, Avon, MA 02322.
U.S.A.. 1st, 2008.

[6] Jeffrey K. Liker. The Toyota Way. title.

McGraw-Hill, Two Penn Plaza, New
York. 1st ed., 2004.

[7] Frans P.B. Osinga. Science, Strate-

gy and War. Routledge, 270 Madison
Ave., New York NY 10016. 1st ed.,
2007.
[8] Chet Richards. Certain to Win. Xlibris
Corporation, address. 1st ed., 2004.