Thank you Roger, this rings so true with me. I have experienced the failure to look at who is poking their head through the curtain, leading to major market share losses.
Davinia: Indeed there is an offensive and defensive aspect to the room. Offensively, you want to get there first and keep moving forward. However, at the same time, defensively, you want to watch the curtain behind you. Good point. R
Great read as always. In regards to the comments feeling that the corridor of curtains is too linear a metaphor, I suggest the imagery of the "Honeycomb Maze" from Takeshi's castle, where each new insight can lead to branching paths from exploring each Hexagonal room. also matches the bee imagery of the Explore/Exploit of Rory Sutherlands waggle dance example. More bees in business please :)
Tom: I don't fundamentally disagree. But this is a tricky case of precision versus utility. A honeycomb maze would be more precise. But I fear it would do as much confusing/obfuscating than it would clarifying. However, I will think about it. Best, R
The concept of advancing to next rooms as a moat is still one of the most enlightening strategy concepts I have come across, Ive experienced it before but putting it into words & a metaphor is very useful, expecially when dealing with others.
Regarding the illustration, I agree linear rooms are not enough, however they are an important component, because you do build on knolwedge to advance, so there is sequence.
I have a concept in mind for the illustration, I will explore it and maybe we can co-author an article on it :).
I've always been interested in types of moats (as a stand-in for types of competitive advantage, of course). Helmer's 7 Powers is my favorite treatment — he really gets into the mechanics and does a solid job canvassing the types people typically identify (loved your article on it, btw!). Greenwald's Competition Demystified is great on this too. Do you tend to think in moat types when working with clients, Roger? Or does anchoring to a typology end up being unhelpful?
Like so many other readers have noted, the "advancing room to room" metaphor stuck with me from the original article. That said — and I hesitate to ask — I wonder if the theory would be more useful to practitioners with two additions: (a) a specified sequence of rooms (start here, say users, product, or competition, then move to the next), and (b) clearer criteria for judging when you've "mastered" the current room and should move on.
I realize these questions impose a typology and a linear sequence onto your theory, which may be an overreach — forgive me! But I often find myself thinking "What would Roger Martin do?", and without that level of detail it's sometimes hard to know. (Minor note: you once humored me with a piece laying out a "framework" for how you approach growth, which I've read dozens of times and loved: https://rogermartin.medium.com/a-strategic-framework-for-growth-5772d43fe93d)
WTP decisions are another place I wish there were a more templated approach. As you've pointed out, there are WTP decisions tied to position in the industry value chain, alongside market-level decisions (consumer segment, geography, etc.). When I try to run a robust analysis of my own WTP thinking, I get stuck on where to start — offering, consumer segment, value chain or geography? — and on whether I've actually finished. "Would Roger Martin stop here? Have I done a good job completing the WTP evaluation?"
Guy: Thanks for the note. You always get me thinking.
On your 'Room (a)' question, I don't think that is particularly doable. It is so customized to the situation. But I think with some thinking on 'Room (b)' there could be practical value added.
On WTP, maybe another piece is in order. The advice I would give in the meantime is that I don't think about WTP by itself - e.g. by the categories you list. I always think about WTP/HTW pairs - because it is a pair that produces advantage. And continuously toggling to HTW helps determine what are the most promising WTP avenues to explore.
Thank you for this. I've always used the moat metaphor and you've put into words the limits that I couldn't articulate. For what it's worth, I wanted to share that I had the pleasure of reading this while also reading Peter Drucker's Innovation and Entrepreneurship for the first time (embarrassed it took me this long). The two of you are such a natural pairing side by side that I found myself wishing for a future book club edition featuring your favourite Drucker works, paired with some of your own writing.
I would add three capabilities that determine whether this approach actually works in practice - the way I see it.
First, organizations need a systematic way of observing customers, markets, and emerging signals. This is where the parallel with John Boyd’s OODA loop becomes particularly relevant. Companies that continuously observe and orient themselves to changing realities are more likely to identify opportunities before competitors.
Second, they need a culture that supports what I call "Learning Velocity" - the time from insight to integration. This echoes Peter Senge’s concept of the learning organization and the idea that sustainable advantage comes from learning faster than rivals. Spotting an opportunity is valuable only if the organization can rapidly absorb what it learns and translate it into action.
Third, success depends not only on asking questions, but on asking the right set of questions. Missing one or two critical questions can undermine an otherwise promising strategy. In many ways, it resembles writing prompts for AI: experience and judgment often determine whether the most important questions are asked. Nokia and Kodak both recognized major technological shifts ahead of many competitors and invested in their development - Nokia had touchscreen smartphone prototypes nearly seven years before the iPhone; Kodak's own engineer invented the digital camera in 1975. Yet identifying the opportunity was not enough. They failed to ask some of the crucial questions about how those technologies would create future value for customers - and, ultimately, for themselves.
Perhaps the real competitive advantage lies not only in reaching the next room first, but in developing the organizational capability to continuously discover and ask the questions that others have not yet recognized as questions.
Alex: I agree entirely with your thoughts above. The only nuance would be that it has to be ensconced in both the Must-have Capabilities and Enabling Management Systems. For example, your first capability won't take shape without a specific EMS that builds it. Best, R
Thank you Roger, this rings so true with me. I have experienced the failure to look at who is poking their head through the curtain, leading to major market share losses.
Davinia: Indeed there is an offensive and defensive aspect to the room. Offensively, you want to get there first and keep moving forward. However, at the same time, defensively, you want to watch the curtain behind you. Good point. R
Hi Roger,
Great read as always. In regards to the comments feeling that the corridor of curtains is too linear a metaphor, I suggest the imagery of the "Honeycomb Maze" from Takeshi's castle, where each new insight can lead to branching paths from exploring each Hexagonal room. also matches the bee imagery of the Explore/Exploit of Rory Sutherlands waggle dance example. More bees in business please :)
Tom: I don't fundamentally disagree. But this is a tricky case of precision versus utility. A honeycomb maze would be more precise. But I fear it would do as much confusing/obfuscating than it would clarifying. However, I will think about it. Best, R
Hi Roger,
The concept of advancing to next rooms as a moat is still one of the most enlightening strategy concepts I have come across, Ive experienced it before but putting it into words & a metaphor is very useful, expecially when dealing with others.
Regarding the illustration, I agree linear rooms are not enough, however they are an important component, because you do build on knolwedge to advance, so there is sequence.
I have a concept in mind for the illustration, I will explore it and maybe we can co-author an article on it :).
Fahd: I like when my pieces spur readers to push the ideas farther and in new directions. Go for it and keep me posted. R
I've always been interested in types of moats (as a stand-in for types of competitive advantage, of course). Helmer's 7 Powers is my favorite treatment — he really gets into the mechanics and does a solid job canvassing the types people typically identify (loved your article on it, btw!). Greenwald's Competition Demystified is great on this too. Do you tend to think in moat types when working with clients, Roger? Or does anchoring to a typology end up being unhelpful?
Like so many other readers have noted, the "advancing room to room" metaphor stuck with me from the original article. That said — and I hesitate to ask — I wonder if the theory would be more useful to practitioners with two additions: (a) a specified sequence of rooms (start here, say users, product, or competition, then move to the next), and (b) clearer criteria for judging when you've "mastered" the current room and should move on.
I realize these questions impose a typology and a linear sequence onto your theory, which may be an overreach — forgive me! But I often find myself thinking "What would Roger Martin do?", and without that level of detail it's sometimes hard to know. (Minor note: you once humored me with a piece laying out a "framework" for how you approach growth, which I've read dozens of times and loved: https://rogermartin.medium.com/a-strategic-framework-for-growth-5772d43fe93d)
WTP decisions are another place I wish there were a more templated approach. As you've pointed out, there are WTP decisions tied to position in the industry value chain, alongside market-level decisions (consumer segment, geography, etc.). When I try to run a robust analysis of my own WTP thinking, I get stuck on where to start — offering, consumer segment, value chain or geography? — and on whether I've actually finished. "Would Roger Martin stop here? Have I done a good job completing the WTP evaluation?"
Guy: Thanks for the note. You always get me thinking.
On your 'Room (a)' question, I don't think that is particularly doable. It is so customized to the situation. But I think with some thinking on 'Room (b)' there could be practical value added.
On WTP, maybe another piece is in order. The advice I would give in the meantime is that I don't think about WTP by itself - e.g. by the categories you list. I always think about WTP/HTW pairs - because it is a pair that produces advantage. And continuously toggling to HTW helps determine what are the most promising WTP avenues to explore.
Hope that helps.
Roger
Thank you for this. I've always used the moat metaphor and you've put into words the limits that I couldn't articulate. For what it's worth, I wanted to share that I had the pleasure of reading this while also reading Peter Drucker's Innovation and Entrepreneurship for the first time (embarrassed it took me this long). The two of you are such a natural pairing side by side that I found myself wishing for a future book club edition featuring your favourite Drucker works, paired with some of your own writing.
Daniel: I did a piece on one Drucker book.
https://rogerlmartin.substack.com/p/2025-03-10_management-tasks-responsibilities-practices-playing-to-win-82eae1c84112html
But maybe I should attempt something more ambitious along those lines. Thanks for the suggestion. R
I would add three capabilities that determine whether this approach actually works in practice - the way I see it.
First, organizations need a systematic way of observing customers, markets, and emerging signals. This is where the parallel with John Boyd’s OODA loop becomes particularly relevant. Companies that continuously observe and orient themselves to changing realities are more likely to identify opportunities before competitors.
Second, they need a culture that supports what I call "Learning Velocity" - the time from insight to integration. This echoes Peter Senge’s concept of the learning organization and the idea that sustainable advantage comes from learning faster than rivals. Spotting an opportunity is valuable only if the organization can rapidly absorb what it learns and translate it into action.
Third, success depends not only on asking questions, but on asking the right set of questions. Missing one or two critical questions can undermine an otherwise promising strategy. In many ways, it resembles writing prompts for AI: experience and judgment often determine whether the most important questions are asked. Nokia and Kodak both recognized major technological shifts ahead of many competitors and invested in their development - Nokia had touchscreen smartphone prototypes nearly seven years before the iPhone; Kodak's own engineer invented the digital camera in 1975. Yet identifying the opportunity was not enough. They failed to ask some of the crucial questions about how those technologies would create future value for customers - and, ultimately, for themselves.
Perhaps the real competitive advantage lies not only in reaching the next room first, but in developing the organizational capability to continuously discover and ask the questions that others have not yet recognized as questions.
Alex: I agree entirely with your thoughts above. The only nuance would be that it has to be ensconced in both the Must-have Capabilities and Enabling Management Systems. For example, your first capability won't take shape without a specific EMS that builds it. Best, R