"[Options] have zero value until one is actually chosen and executed."
I was all like "Chris Matts begs to differ" :D
And then he's been summoned anyway.
It's an important clarification. Having an option does have value. It's just that we realize that value once we execute an option.
Having a ticket to the space shuttle (an option) would have immense value if the planet were facing an unavoidable threat of annihilation. You could easily sell such a ticket for loads of money, I guess.
I think there's one point worth stressing here. Options have value. But, as you point out, there's a cost attached. Not only in purchasing/creating an option, but also maintaining it.
It's not necessarily true for a space shuttle ticket (or any other admission we purchase in real life). It is true in product development, though. Especially for startups. Even more so, for early-stage startups.
In theory, they can pursue so many directions. Even the Ideal Customer Profile, initially, is a broad category. Maintaining the perception that we do stuff for a broad audience comes at a cost of focus. And inefficiency because of higher work in progress and more context switching.
About the value of an option: It’s funny. Not having an option leaves you dead. So obviously there is value inhaling an option. But you still have to execute it to harvest the value. And then if you execute on too many there will be way less value. But also simply horsing options won’t help. It’s a right line to walk.
Isn't the observation you describe the very core of optionality?
I had a very similar discussion recently in the context of making business bets in the short- and long-term context.
Ideally, we want our bets to be long-term focused (opportunity) *and* improve our short-term survivability (so that we can execute on our long-term options).
However, under unfavorable conditions, such bets may be unavailable. So, the next best thing is to have a portfolio of bets (options) that balance both survivability and long-term gain. It improves the overall outcome.
Until it doesn't and it does the exact opposite.
If we keep too many options open, the simple fact of maintaining too many active endeavors (again, the gem from your original post: in business context, maintaining an option isn't free) will make us unable to accomplish anything (https://brodzinski.com/2025/04/growth-and-survival.html).
I did not 100% of you mean a single bet would serve long and short term. I guess not. But yes, that's why we need a portfolio of options.
A bet, though, is an option we act on already.
But temporality is just one qualitative aspect of options.
If you treat strategy, creating options (and the creative act to do so) is the core of strategic work. Which requires, in my mind, weekly, regularwork on assessing outside and inside signal, balancing the option portfolio and always be a step ahead in creating new options. -> That's also why you always need more options than you will act on, but hopefully not too many -> re your maintenance cost point.
A later article will be about "Where and how are options born?"
While details matter, the problem in most companies is that tehy simply linger along intuitively and have no explicit of strategy and options and all, so the details we are discussing here are already advanced and I would be happy for most to simply have *any* concept and work on it continuously.
Those who do so are highly unlikely to end up in a situation where no viable, winning option is available. The best know how to invest in a crisis even with tight budget, as crises are the moment where stuff is malleable and future can be created and formed.
Companies investing in shaping in a crisis are doing way better than those who simply go on a tight budget out of fear.
"[Options] have zero value until one is actually chosen and executed."
I was all like "Chris Matts begs to differ" :D
And then he's been summoned anyway.
It's an important clarification. Having an option does have value. It's just that we realize that value once we execute an option.
Having a ticket to the space shuttle (an option) would have immense value if the planet were facing an unavoidable threat of annihilation. You could easily sell such a ticket for loads of money, I guess.
I think there's one point worth stressing here. Options have value. But, as you point out, there's a cost attached. Not only in purchasing/creating an option, but also maintaining it.
It's not necessarily true for a space shuttle ticket (or any other admission we purchase in real life). It is true in product development, though. Especially for startups. Even more so, for early-stage startups.
In theory, they can pursue so many directions. Even the Ideal Customer Profile, initially, is a broad category. Maintaining the perception that we do stuff for a broad audience comes at a cost of focus. And inefficiency because of higher work in progress and more context switching.
About the value of an option: It’s funny. Not having an option leaves you dead. So obviously there is value inhaling an option. But you still have to execute it to harvest the value. And then if you execute on too many there will be way less value. But also simply horsing options won’t help. It’s a right line to walk.
Isn't the observation you describe the very core of optionality?
I had a very similar discussion recently in the context of making business bets in the short- and long-term context.
Ideally, we want our bets to be long-term focused (opportunity) *and* improve our short-term survivability (so that we can execute on our long-term options).
However, under unfavorable conditions, such bets may be unavailable. So, the next best thing is to have a portfolio of bets (options) that balance both survivability and long-term gain. It improves the overall outcome.
Until it doesn't and it does the exact opposite.
If we keep too many options open, the simple fact of maintaining too many active endeavors (again, the gem from your original post: in business context, maintaining an option isn't free) will make us unable to accomplish anything (https://brodzinski.com/2025/04/growth-and-survival.html).
I did not 100% of you mean a single bet would serve long and short term. I guess not. But yes, that's why we need a portfolio of options.
A bet, though, is an option we act on already.
But temporality is just one qualitative aspect of options.
If you treat strategy, creating options (and the creative act to do so) is the core of strategic work. Which requires, in my mind, weekly, regularwork on assessing outside and inside signal, balancing the option portfolio and always be a step ahead in creating new options. -> That's also why you always need more options than you will act on, but hopefully not too many -> re your maintenance cost point.
A later article will be about "Where and how are options born?"
While details matter, the problem in most companies is that tehy simply linger along intuitively and have no explicit of strategy and options and all, so the details we are discussing here are already advanced and I would be happy for most to simply have *any* concept and work on it continuously.
Those who do so are highly unlikely to end up in a situation where no viable, winning option is available. The best know how to invest in a crisis even with tight budget, as crises are the moment where stuff is malleable and future can be created and formed.
Companies investing in shaping in a crisis are doing way better than those who simply go on a tight budget out of fear.