As a PTW practitioner, the EMS box was indeed the hardest to grasp. To try and understand how to master it I came up with what I call the EMS lego made up of 4 elements :(tool+process+ritual+measure).
The idea being that a complete EMS is always built using these 4 key blocs, and is indivisible.
It might be named after it's most important attribute for practical purposes, but strategically, the key components stay the same or something is missing.
To illustrate here is an example using the famous Error management EMS from Four Seasons
Tool : The Glitch Report Form
Process : The strict zero reprimand rule for the emloyee that signals the mistake
Ritual : The morning meeting where everybody reviews the mistakes from the previous day
Measure : cataloguing mistakes to know which ones happen the most often and be able to fix them
The idea is that it's these 4 elements (TPRM) harmoniously put together that give life to the EMS. Forget the measurement, you end up with a wishlist, forget to build proper processes and Rituals, and you risk drift and surrogation.
I found this concept helpful from a practical standpoint (and it's easy to explain to clients), but I would be really curious to know if it is the right approach?
Valentin: I rarely think something is THE right approach. I am with Karl Weick who said what matters about a theory is whether it is useful or not. I think that your TPRM is useful - so, a contribution. I buy the premise of Atul Gawande's Checklist Manifesto. Checklists are useful because it is easy to forget one component in a long series. In some sense, this is your EMS checklist manifesto. Thanks for thinking and sharing. R
Thanks a lot for your reply. Your parallel with the checklist manifesto is spot on.
As a hobbyist airplane pilot, I try to apply what i learn there to my work because it's a domain where Checklists are at the center of everything, and for good reasons ! As you said in your famous "A strategy is not a plan" video, doing strategy comes with angst, and Checklists help us keep a clear mind and not feel overwhelmed. When I study strategy, I do feel a little bit of angst of missing something important, hence why I tried to build this little tool.
To go further on my contribution, I think that in order to help clients from a practical standpoint, we can go a little bit further with the TPRM than a checklist. These 4 elements must be there, otherwise it's not an EMS, that's the checklist part.
But the way I see it, the components should not be taken sequentially, but arrange themselves in an integrated fashion and must reinforce each other. When you build an EMS you toggle between these elements to make sure of the coherence of the overall system.
This is quite similar as how you would build a Strategic Choice Cascade in this regard.
As you said, EMS must be honed. Here the last element, the measurement, is what gives us the data to hone the system. It closes at a loop. Therefore we are looking at an integrated loop, and not a list per se.
If I had to show a one page visualisation of an EMS Using this method, I have to divide a sheet of paper in 4 quadrants divided as follows,
with arrows going T=>P=>R=>M to illustrate the integrated nature of the components.
Tool Process
Measurement Ritual
On top of the page would be : The MHC we are trying to reinforce, or the WWHTBT question we are trying to address by building this system.
I would love to have your take on this to know if my overall logic is correct or if I missed something important.
Thank you for sharing your insightful reflections on Enabling Management Systems. Reading your articles and taking time to reflect on the final box of the Strategy Choice Cascade has really reinforced just how critical this element truly is.
From my experience on the front lines of strategy, I’ve observed two additional roles of the Enabling Management Systems (EMS):
1. They build Choice Discipline:
Leaders who design and implement strong EMS stay sharply focused on what they chose to do—and what they chose not to do. This discipline prevents them from being pulled in every direction. Without it, leaders often end up trying to do everything for everyone and begin to believe that success comes mainly from luck rather than deliberate choices.
2. They enable Choice Adaptability:
EMS give leaders the ability to continuously compare reality on the ground with their strategy, allowing them to adapt quickly when needed. Leaders without this capability are often caught off guard by changing conditions or waste energy rushing to do things that no longer matter.
I hope these reflections are helpful. Wishing you a great week ahead!
Juan Miguel: I think those reflections both resonate with me and are helpful to strategists. And strategy in general needs both discipline and adaptability - so helping with both on EMS is a contribution. Thanks. Roger
A great spotlight on the Cascade's often-underappreciated infrastructure layer. EMS deserves recognition not only as the builder and sustainer of MHCs - it is a capability in its own right. The discipline to allocate resources, set norms, and coordinate action consistently is itself a source of competitive advantage, and the two are so deeply interlinked that sequential dependency barely captures the relationship.
This matters because many strategies are written as if the required capabilities and management systems already exist - or will materialize once the strategy is declared. In practice, the combination of MHC and EMS functions as the Cascade's reality check: the gatekeeper between strategic intent and actual delivery. A compelling How-to-Win position that rests on capabilities the organization cannot build or sustain isn't a strategy - it's a wish.
Which is precisely why the Cascade works as a system - every box earns its place.
Alex: I agree entirely. Theorists - as opposed to pragmatists - make the fallacious assumption you point out about the automatic availability of MHC and EMS. I think it is mainly because they think MHC and EMS are below them and they need to spend their awesome brains on the first three boxes - which makes me want to puke. I like your closing phrase - every box earns its place. Best, R
Hello Roger,
As a PTW practitioner, the EMS box was indeed the hardest to grasp. To try and understand how to master it I came up with what I call the EMS lego made up of 4 elements :(tool+process+ritual+measure).
The idea being that a complete EMS is always built using these 4 key blocs, and is indivisible.
It might be named after it's most important attribute for practical purposes, but strategically, the key components stay the same or something is missing.
To illustrate here is an example using the famous Error management EMS from Four Seasons
Tool : The Glitch Report Form
Process : The strict zero reprimand rule for the emloyee that signals the mistake
Ritual : The morning meeting where everybody reviews the mistakes from the previous day
Measure : cataloguing mistakes to know which ones happen the most often and be able to fix them
The idea is that it's these 4 elements (TPRM) harmoniously put together that give life to the EMS. Forget the measurement, you end up with a wishlist, forget to build proper processes and Rituals, and you risk drift and surrogation.
I found this concept helpful from a practical standpoint (and it's easy to explain to clients), but I would be really curious to know if it is the right approach?
Best Regards,
Valentin
Valentin: I rarely think something is THE right approach. I am with Karl Weick who said what matters about a theory is whether it is useful or not. I think that your TPRM is useful - so, a contribution. I buy the premise of Atul Gawande's Checklist Manifesto. Checklists are useful because it is easy to forget one component in a long series. In some sense, this is your EMS checklist manifesto. Thanks for thinking and sharing. R
Hello Roger,
Thanks a lot for your reply. Your parallel with the checklist manifesto is spot on.
As a hobbyist airplane pilot, I try to apply what i learn there to my work because it's a domain where Checklists are at the center of everything, and for good reasons ! As you said in your famous "A strategy is not a plan" video, doing strategy comes with angst, and Checklists help us keep a clear mind and not feel overwhelmed. When I study strategy, I do feel a little bit of angst of missing something important, hence why I tried to build this little tool.
To go further on my contribution, I think that in order to help clients from a practical standpoint, we can go a little bit further with the TPRM than a checklist. These 4 elements must be there, otherwise it's not an EMS, that's the checklist part.
But the way I see it, the components should not be taken sequentially, but arrange themselves in an integrated fashion and must reinforce each other. When you build an EMS you toggle between these elements to make sure of the coherence of the overall system.
This is quite similar as how you would build a Strategic Choice Cascade in this regard.
As you said, EMS must be honed. Here the last element, the measurement, is what gives us the data to hone the system. It closes at a loop. Therefore we are looking at an integrated loop, and not a list per se.
If I had to show a one page visualisation of an EMS Using this method, I have to divide a sheet of paper in 4 quadrants divided as follows,
with arrows going T=>P=>R=>M to illustrate the integrated nature of the components.
Tool Process
Measurement Ritual
On top of the page would be : The MHC we are trying to reinforce, or the WWHTBT question we are trying to address by building this system.
I would love to have your take on this to know if my overall logic is correct or if I missed something important.
Best Regards
Valentin
Hi Roger,
Thank you for sharing your insightful reflections on Enabling Management Systems. Reading your articles and taking time to reflect on the final box of the Strategy Choice Cascade has really reinforced just how critical this element truly is.
From my experience on the front lines of strategy, I’ve observed two additional roles of the Enabling Management Systems (EMS):
1. They build Choice Discipline:
Leaders who design and implement strong EMS stay sharply focused on what they chose to do—and what they chose not to do. This discipline prevents them from being pulled in every direction. Without it, leaders often end up trying to do everything for everyone and begin to believe that success comes mainly from luck rather than deliberate choices.
2. They enable Choice Adaptability:
EMS give leaders the ability to continuously compare reality on the ground with their strategy, allowing them to adapt quickly when needed. Leaders without this capability are often caught off guard by changing conditions or waste energy rushing to do things that no longer matter.
I hope these reflections are helpful. Wishing you a great week ahead!
Best regards,
Juan Miguel
Juan Miguel: I think those reflections both resonate with me and are helpful to strategists. And strategy in general needs both discipline and adaptability - so helping with both on EMS is a contribution. Thanks. Roger
A great spotlight on the Cascade's often-underappreciated infrastructure layer. EMS deserves recognition not only as the builder and sustainer of MHCs - it is a capability in its own right. The discipline to allocate resources, set norms, and coordinate action consistently is itself a source of competitive advantage, and the two are so deeply interlinked that sequential dependency barely captures the relationship.
This matters because many strategies are written as if the required capabilities and management systems already exist - or will materialize once the strategy is declared. In practice, the combination of MHC and EMS functions as the Cascade's reality check: the gatekeeper between strategic intent and actual delivery. A compelling How-to-Win position that rests on capabilities the organization cannot build or sustain isn't a strategy - it's a wish.
Which is precisely why the Cascade works as a system - every box earns its place.
Alex: I agree entirely. Theorists - as opposed to pragmatists - make the fallacious assumption you point out about the automatic availability of MHC and EMS. I think it is mainly because they think MHC and EMS are below them and they need to spend their awesome brains on the first three boxes - which makes me want to puke. I like your closing phrase - every box earns its place. Best, R