Procrastination

Procrastination: Do nothing and allowing competition to drive a system to a more evolved form.

warning

This is an early draft and isn't yet up to our standard. You can contribute improvements.

Explanation

Procrastination, as a deliberate strategy within the Wardley Mapping framework, involves making a conscious decision to take no immediate action on a particular component or system and instead allowing competitors to drive its evolution towards a more mature and potentially more efficient form 7. This strategy is predicated on the understanding that the natural forces of supply and demand competition within the market will eventually push a component through the stages of evolution -- from novel and uncertain to more standardized and reliable -- without the need for the organization to expend significant resources in the early, often risky, phases of development 3. Essentially, the organization adopts a wait-and-see approach, allowing its competitors to bear the initial costs and risks associated with early-stage development and then strategically adopting the more evolved solution once it has been validated and refined by the market.

Why is it a valuable strategy?

Strategic procrastination can be a valuable approach for several reasons. It can lead to significant cost savings by allowing competitors to shoulder the often substantial initial investments in research and development, which can be particularly beneficial for non-core components or technologies 3. This also helps in mitigating risk, as the organization can observe the outcomes of competitors' early efforts and adopt a solution that has already been tested and refined by the market, thereby reducing the likelihood of investing in a technology or approach that may ultimately fail 3. By carefully monitoring competitors' efforts, the organization can gain valuable insights into what works and what doesn't, enabling more informed decisions when it eventually chooses to adopt the evolved component 3. This strategy allows the organization to focus its limited resources and efforts on its core competencies and areas of unique differentiation, rather than spreading them thinly across numerous early-stage developments 8. Furthermore, by waiting for the market to mature a component, the organization might have the opportunity to leapfrog competitors who invested earlier by adopting a more advanced or efficient version that has emerged through the competitive process 3.

How is it executed?

Executing a strategy of procrastination requires careful planning and monitoring. The first step is to identify components suitable for procrastination by analyzing the Wardley Map to pinpoint those that are not central to the organization's core value proposition and are likely to evolve through competitive pressures 6. Next, it is crucial to monitor the competitive landscape continuously, tracking the efforts and progress of competitors in evolving these identified components 3. This includes assessing the rate of evolution to determine how quickly the component is likely to mature and when it might reach a sufficiently stable state for adoption. Simultaneously, the organization should prepare for adoption by developing plans and capabilities to quickly integrate the evolved component when the timing is right, which may involve identifying potential vendors or developing internal expertise. Finally, it is important to communicate the strategy clearly to internal stakeholders to ensure they understand the rationale behind the procrastination and are aligned on the future plan for adoption.

This strategy presents several leadership challenges. Leaders must resist the natural urge to invest early and potentially risk falling behind in the short term, requiring a long-term perspective 12. Maintaining constant vigilance and accurately assessing the rate and direction of competitive evolution demands strong analytical skills 5. Knowing precisely when the optimal time to transition from procrastination to active adoption has arrived is critical, and leaders must avoid prolonged inaction that could lead to a significant competitive disadvantage. Managing internal pressures to "keep up" with competitors who are actively investing in the evolving component, even when the strategic decision is to wait, also requires effective communication and a firm conviction in the chosen strategy.

Successful execution of this strategy requires specific leadership skills. Strategic thinking and the ability to understand the broader market dynamics and the likely evolution of components are paramount 5. Leaders must possess patience and discipline to adhere to the procrastination strategy, even when competitors appear to be making progress. Strong analytical skills are needed to continuously assess the competitive landscape and the maturity of evolving components 5. Decision-making skills are crucial for determining the precise moment to shift from procrastination to active adoption. Finally, effective communication skills are necessary to clearly explain and justify the strategy to internal and external stakeholders.

Real world examples

A classic example of successful strategic procrastination is the approach of "fast followers" in the technology industry. Many companies deliberately observe the initial innovations and market entries of competitors and then swiftly enter the market with a more refined, cost-effective, or user-friendly product once the underlying technology and market demand have been validated. This is essentially a form of strategic procrastination on the high-risk, early-stage research and development. Similarly, some large enterprises initially hesitated to adopt cloud computing, allowing early adopters to navigate the initial challenges and mature the technology. By waiting, these enterprises could often adopt more stable, secure, and potentially less expensive cloud solutions. Generic drug manufacturers provide another clear example, strategically procrastinating on the expensive research and development of new pharmaceutical drugs, waiting for patents to expire, and then rapidly entering the market with lower-cost generic versions.

A failed example of this strategy can be seen in the case of some traditional media companies and their response to the internet. Many were slow to embrace the emerging digital landscape and the shift towards online content consumption, hoping their established business models would remain dominant. This procrastination allowed new, digitally native competitors to gain significant market share, leaving the incumbents struggling to adapt and catch up 1. Similarly, many brick-and-mortar retailers were slow to invest in and develop robust e-commerce capabilities, allowing online giants like Amazon to gain a substantial first-mover advantage. This procrastination proved to be a costly misstep as consumer shopping habits increasingly moved online 38.

When to use the strategy

Strategic procrastination is most appropriate when the component in question is not a core differentiator for the organization and is likely to evolve significantly through the competitive efforts of others. It is also a sensible approach when early-stage investment in a particular component carries a high degree of risk and uncertainty. This strategy allows the organization to focus its limited resources and core capabilities on areas where it can create a more unique and sustainable competitive advantage. Furthermore, waiting can be advantageous when it allows for the eventual adoption of a more mature, stable, and cost-effective solution that has been validated by the market.

When to avoid the strategy

This strategy should be avoided when the component in question is central to the organization's competitive advantage or unique differentiation in the market. Similarly, if early adoption of a component provides a significant first-mover advantage or allows the organization to actively shape the emerging market, procrastination would likely be a missed opportunity. In situations where the rate of market evolution is highly uncertain and prolonged inaction could lead to the organization falling significantly behind its competitors, a more proactive approach is warranted. There is also a risk in procrastinating if competitors are likely to establish strong network effects or build significant customer loyalty around the evolving component during the waiting period. Finally, if the organization possesses unique insights or capabilities that could potentially accelerate the evolution of the component and create a distinct competitive edge, then procrastination would be a suboptimal strategy.

Leadership challenges

Leading with a procrastination strategy presents several unique challenges. Leaders must possess a strong long-term perspective and be able to resist short-term pressures to take immediate action, especially when competitors are visibly investing 12. Accurately assessing the complex competitive landscape and the likely rate of market evolution requires keen analytical skills and foresight 5. Knowing precisely when to transition from a posture of procrastination to active engagement and adoption of the evolved component is a critical decision that leaders must make. Effectively communicating the rationale behind the procrastination strategy and managing potential criticism, both internally and externally, requires clear and consistent messaging. Finally, leaders must ensure that the organization remains agile and prepared to act swiftly and decisively when the optimal time for adoption arrives.

Leadership skills required

Successful leadership in employing a procrastination strategy demands a specific set of skills. Strategic foresight and the ability to anticipate future market trends and technological advancements are crucial 5. Leaders must possess strong analytical skills to continuously assess the competitive landscape and the ongoing evolution of relevant technologies 5. Patience and discipline are essential for adhering to the chosen strategy, even when it might seem counterintuitive or when there is pressure to act. Effective decision-making skills are required to determine the optimal timing for adopting the evolved component. Communication skills are vital for clearly articulating the strategy and managing the expectations of various stakeholders. Finally, leaders must have strong risk assessment skills to understand the potential downsides of prolonged procrastination and to know when to adjust the strategy.

Ethical considerations

While seemingly a passive strategy, procrastination also carries ethical considerations. Prolonged procrastination could potentially delay the adoption of beneficial technologies or solutions, which might have negative consequences for users or the broader market. There is also a risk of the organization being perceived as uninnovative or complacent if the strategy is not clearly communicated and its rationale understood by stakeholders. Employees might feel that the organization is falling behind or not investing sufficiently in the future. Furthermore, if competitors who invest early gain an unassailable lead due to the organization's inaction, this could ultimately harm the organization and its stakeholders.

Measuring success

The success of a procrastination strategy can be measured in several ways. One key metric is the cost savings achieved by deliberately avoiding early-stage development and allowing competitors to invest first. Another is the level of reduced risk attained by adopting a solution that has already been validated and refined by the market. Faster time to market with a proven technology or approach, compared to the time it would have taken to develop in-house, is also a sign of success. The ability to leapfrog competitors who invested earlier by adopting a more advanced or efficient version of the component is a significant positive outcome. Finally, the successful integration of the evolved component into the organization's offerings when it is eventually adopted is a crucial indicator of the strategy's effectiveness, as is the maintenance of a strong competitive advantage despite the delayed initial investment.

Common pitfalls and warning signs

One of the most significant pitfalls of strategic procrastination is waiting for too long, thereby allowing competitors to establish a substantial and potentially insurmountable advantage 38. Another risk is underestimating the actual rate of market evolution, which can lead to the organization being caught off guard by rapid and unexpected changes. Failing to adequately monitor the competitive landscape and accurately assess the maturity of evolving components can result in missing the optimal window for adoption. Furthermore, the organization might lack the necessary internal capabilities to quickly and effectively adopt the evolved component when the time finally comes. Internal resistance or a lack of understanding regarding the chosen procrastination strategy can also undermine its success. Several warning signs might indicate that the procrastination strategy is not working as intended. These include competitors gaining significant market share with the evolving component, the organization's own offerings becoming increasingly outdated compared to the market, and a growing sense of internal urgency to catch up with the competition.

Strategic insights

Procrastination, when employed strategically, can be a valuable defensive maneuver, allowing an organization to conserve crucial resources and effectively mitigate early-stage risks associated with evolving technologies or market trends. However, its success hinges on a deep and accurate understanding of market dynamics and the ability to reliably predict the future evolution of relevant components. This strategy underscores the critical importance of strategic timing when it comes to adopting new technologies or approaches; waiting for the right moment can be as crucial as acting decisively. Strategic procrastination can be particularly effective for components that are not core to the organization's unique value proposition or in markets where strong competitive pressures are already driving rapid evolution. Ultimately, this approach demonstrates that sometimes the most strategic action is inaction, provided it is a deliberate, well-informed decision based on thorough market analysis and a clear understanding of the potential trade-offs.

Key questions to ask

Before deciding to employ a strategy of procrastination, several key questions should be carefully considered. Which of our non-core components are likely to undergo significant evolution through the efforts of our competitors? What is the anticipated rate of this evolution, and what are the key milestones we should be monitoring? What are the potential cost savings and risk reductions that we could realize by adopting a procrastination strategy for these components? How will we continuously monitor the competitive landscape and accurately determine the optimal time for us to adopt the evolved solutions? What internal capabilities and resources will we need to have in place to ensure a swift and effective adoption when we decide to act? What are the potential downsides and risks associated with prolonged procrastination, and what triggers will we use to indicate that we need to adjust our strategy? Finally, how will we clearly communicate this seemingly counterintuitive strategy to our internal and external stakeholders to ensure understanding and buy-in?

The fast follower strategy is closely aligned with strategic procrastination. In this approach, a company deliberately waits for a market to become established by early innovators and then quickly enters with its own competitive offering. Procrastination on early-stage development can be a necessary precursor to successfully executing a fast follower strategy. Within the context of Ecosystem gameplays, particularly the "sense, innovate, leverage, commoditize" cycle, procrastination can be viewed as strategically waiting for the "Commoditize" phase to be driven by the sensing and innovating efforts of the broader ecosystem before the organization decides to leverage that component. When monitoring the competitive landscape for an evolving component while employing procrastination, the organization might be actively looking for weak signals that could indicate the future direction and pace of that evolution. These weak signals can help refine the timing of the eventual adoption.