Brand-new markets are like the wormholes of science fiction, where the usual rules of time and space do not apply. When a market has just been born, the forces of competition there are constantly in flux, it's unclear who your customers really are, and conventional strategies just don't make sense. How then can you navigate this constantly shifting terrain? Over the past few years, two business school professors have interviewed entrepreneurs and corporate innovators in new fields such as genomics, augmented reality, and fintech. They discovered that the most successful ones practice something called "parallel play," exploring and testing the world the way preschoolers do. Instead of trying to differentiate their businesses, they observe what others in the market are doing and borrow ideas. After relentless experimentation, they commit to a single template for creating value. But rather than quickly optimizing that template, they leave it partially undetermined and pause, watch, and wait. As they gather serendipitous insights and the market begins to settle, they refine their models bit by bit.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Capturing new growth opportunities is fundamental to strategy, innovation and entrepreneurship. These days, experimentation and improvisational change are in. But how should managers address the challenge? The answer, the authors argue, can be more complex and more crucial to a company's success than previously thought. Their research on mature corporations, growing businesses and new ventures suggests a paradoxical tension between focus and flexibility that can define or break a business. Based on more than 150 interviews with managers at 30 companies in North America, Europe and Asia, the authors conclude that focus is still critical and may be just as important as flexibility. What's more, they conclude that a company's focus may influence its flexibility and vice versa. There are two components to capturing a new business opportunity: opportunity selection and opportunity execution. Opportunity selection involves determining which customer problem to solve, whereas opportunity execution deals with solving the problem. The authors point out that most books, articles and thought leaders focus on opportunity execution -how to create value by developing solutions. But research suggests that innovation initiatives often move so quickly to identify a solution that the innovators have to cycle back to figure out which problem they are actually solving. The authors found that opportunity selection appears to matter as much as opportunity execution. More importantly, how managers approach opportunity selection (whether with flexibility or with focus) has a critical impact on how successful they are at opportunity execution. The authors observed that managers and entrepreneurs tend to fall into two groups: opportunists and strategists. Opportunists rely on a less scripted and more flexible approach to opportunity selection, letting emergent customer inquiries shape opportunity selection.

How do successful companies shape their high-level strategies? A decade ago, London Business School's Sull and Stanford's Eisenhardt looked for the answer by studying the era's leading high-tech firms. They discovered that such firms relied not on complicated frameworks but on simple rules of thumb. Managers translated corporate objectives into a few straightforward guidelines that helped employees make on-the-spot decisions and adapt to constantly shifting environments, while keeping the big picture in mind. This article describes the authors' subsequent research into why simple rules work and how firms develop them. Typically, after setting its priorities, a company will identify a bottleneck preventing it from making progress toward them and then create rules for managing that bottleneck. At America Latina Logistica, for instance, the problem was capital spending: The railway had only a tenth of the funds it needed to invest in growth and infrastructure. So a cross-functional team came up with rules to guide spending: Any proposal had to remove obstacles to growth, minimize up-front costs, provide immediate benefits, and reuse existing resources. The rules allowed employees across departments to make difficult trade-offs and quickly innovate solutions that put the firm on the fast track. Effective rules, the authors say, are specific, not broad; draw from historical experience; and are made by their users, not the CEO. Moreover, as a company evolves, they evolve with it.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Markets are changing, competition is shifting, and businesses may be suffering or perhaps thriving. Whatever the immediate circumstances, corporate managers ask the same questions: where do we go from here, and which strategy will get us there? To understand how to choose the right strategy at the right time, the authors analyzed the logic of the leading strategic frameworks used in business and engineering schools around the world. They matched those frameworks with the key strategic choices faced by dozens of industry leaders at different times, during periods of stability and of change. Two insights emerged from their analysis. First, the frameworks divided into three archetypes: strategies of position, strategies of leverage, and strategies of opportunity. What's right for a company depends on its circumstances, its available resources, and how management combines those resources. Second, many of the assumptions about competitive advantage didn't hold. For example, although strategy gurus talk about strategically valuable resources, sometimes competitive advantage came from very ordinary resources assembled well. To figure out when it makes sense to pursue strategies of position, leverage, or opportunity, the authors advise managers to understand their company's immediate circumstances, take stock of their current resources, and determine the relationships among the various resources. Understanding these factors, they argue, will help managers select the right strategic framework.

The success of Yahoo!, eBay, Enron, and other companies that have become adept at morphing to meet the demands of changing markets can't be explained using traditional thinking about competitive strategy. These companies have succeeded by pursuing constantly evolving strategies in market spaces that were considered unattractive according to traditional measures. In this article--the third in an HBR series by Kathleen Eisenhardt and Donald Sull on strategy in the new economy--the authors ask, what are the sources of competitive advantage in high-velocity markets? The secret, they say, is strategy as simple rules. The companies know that the greatest opportunities for competitive advantage lie in market confusion, but they recognize the need for a few crucial strategic processes and a few simple rules. In traditional strategy, advantage comes from exploiting resources or stable market positions. In strategy as simple rules, advantage comes from successfully seizing fleeting opportunities. Key strategic processes, such as product innovation, partnering, or spinout creation, place the company where the flow of opportunities is greatest. Simple rules then provide the guidelines within which managers can pursue such opportunities. Simple rules, which grow out of experience, fall into five broad categories: how-to rules, boundary conditions, priority rules, timing rules, and exit rules. Companies with simple-rules strategies must follow the rules religiously and avoid the temptation to change them too frequently. A consistent strategy helps managers sort through opportunities and gain short-term advantage by exploiting the attractive ones.

The promise of synergy is the prime rationale for the existence of the multibusiness corporation. Yet for most corporations, the "1-plus-1-equals-3" arithmetic of cross-business synergies doesn't add up. Companies that do achieve synergistic success use a corporate strategic process called coevolving; they routinely change the web of collaborative links among businesses to exploit fresh opportunities for synergies and drop deteriorating ones. The term coevolution originated in biology. It refers to the way two or more ecologically interdependent species become intertwined over time. As these species adapt to their environment, they also adapt to one another. Today's multibusiness companies need to take their cue from biology to survive: They should assume that links among businesses are temporary and that the number of connections--not just their content--matters. Rather than plan collaborative strategy from the top, as traditional companies do, corporate executives in coevolving companies should simply set the context and then let collaboration (and competition) emerge from business units. Incentives, too, are different than they are in traditional companies. Coevolving companies reward business units for individual performance, not for collaboration. So collaboration occurs only when two business-unit managers both believe that a link makes sense for their respective businesses, not because collaboration per se is useful. Managers in coevolving companies also need to recognize the importance of business systems that support the process: frequent data-focused meetings among business-unit leaders, external metrics to gauge individual business performance, and incentives that favor self-interest.

In turbulent markets, businesses and opportunities are constantly falling out of alignment. New technologies and emerging markets create fresh opportunities. Converging markets produce more. And of course, some markets fade. In this landscape of continuous flux, it's more important to build corporate-level strategic processes that enable dynamic repositioning than it is to build any particular defensible position. That's why smart corporate strategists use patching, a process of mapping and remapping business units to create a shifting mix of highly focused, tightly aligned businesses that can respond to changing market opportunities. Patching is not just another name for reorganizing; patchers have a distinctive mind-set. Traditional managers see structure as stable; patching managers believe structure is inherently temporary. Traditional managers set corporate strategy first, but patching managers keep the organization focused on the right set of business opportunities and let strategy emerge from individual businesses. Although the focus of patching is flexibility, the process itself follows a pattern. Patching changes are usually small in scale and made frequently. Patching should be done quickly; the emphasis is on getting the patch about right and fixing problems later. Patches should have a test drive before they're formalized but then be tightly scripted after they've been announced. And patching won't work without the right infrastructure: modular business units, fine-grained and complete unit-level metrics, and companywide compensation parity. The authors illustrate how patching works and point out some common stumbling blocks.

Most companies change in reaction to events such as moves by the competition, shifts in technology, or new customer demands. In fairly stable markets, "event pacing" is an effective way to deal with change. But successful companies in rapidly changing, intensely competitive industries take a different approach. They change proactively, through regular deadlines. Kathy Eisenhardt of Stanford and Shona Brown of McKinsey have studied this alternative approach, which they call time pacing. Like a metronome, time pacing creates a rhythm to which managers can synchronize the speed and intensity of their efforts. For example, 3M dictates that 25% of its revenues every year will come from new products, Netscape introduces a new product about every six months, and Intel adds a new fabrication facility to its operations approximately every nine months. Time pacing creates a relentless sense of urgency around meeting deadlines and concentrates people on a common set of goals. Its predictability also provides people with a sense of control in otherwise chaotic markets. The authors show how companies such as Banc One, Cisco Systems, Dell Computer, Emerson Electric, Gillette, Intel, Netscape, Shiseido, and Sony implement the two essentials of time pacing. The first is managing transitions--the shift, for example, from one new-product-development project to the next. The second is setting the right rhythm for change. Companies that march to the rhythm of time pacing build momentum, and companies that effectively manage transitions sustain that momentum without missing important beats. This piece presents important new thinking on one of the most demanding challenges managers face today.

Top level managers know that conflict over issues is natural and even necessary. Management teams that challenge one another's thinking develop a more complete understanding of their choices, create a richer range of options, and make better decisions. But the challenge--familiar to anyone who has ever been part of a management team--is to keep constructive conflict over issues from degenerating into interpersonal conflict. From their research on the interplay of conflict, politics, and speed in the decision-making process of management teams, the authors have distilled a set of tactics characteristic of high-performing teams. These tactics work because they keep conflict focused on issues; foster collaborative, rather than competitive, relations among team members; and create a sense of fairness in the decision-making process.

Strategy making has changed. No longer is the carefully conducted industry analysis or deliberate strategic plan a guarantee of success. Speed matters. A strategy that takes too long to formulate is at least as ineffective as the wrong strategy. But how do decision makers, make fast, yet high-quality, strategic choices? This article describes the powerful tactics that fast decision makers use. They maintain constant watch over real-time operating information and rely on quick, comparative analysis to speed cognitive processing. They favor approaches to conflict resolution that are rapid and yet maintain group cohesion. Finally, their reliance on the private advice of experienced counselors and on integration with other decisions bolster their confidence to decide quickly in the face of big stakes and high uncertainty.