This presentation was given at Stage-Gate International's Voice of the Ecosystem Summit in Jun 2016. It proposes using player-centric competitive response scenarios in a Stage-Gate model. Digital disruption in the auto industry is used as the illustration.

1. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
“Using Game Theory Within Stage-
Gate to Launch Products That Can
Win”
For Stage Gate Intl VOE Summit
June 15,16 2016
By Bill Forquer @billforquer
Moving Beyond Competitive
Analysis to Competitive Response

2. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Question #1
“Would you play chess
blind-folded?

3. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Question #2:
“Do you have a
structured process for
tracking events?

4. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Events are the Unit of Change in
Your Market
Events Heat Map
With each major event, is our position
strengthening or eroding? Can be
applied to Acquirers, Differentiators,
Product Roadmap, Standoffs, etc …
Software Inc. Strategic Events Heat Map: for Recent Events
Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Oct-2010
Sustained
economic
downturn.
Unprecedented
consumer
adoption of
smartphone and
tablet devices.
SaaS Ankle
Biter Inc
announces
expanded
partnership with
Infor.
Won 3 year
deal with
Anderson
Windows
Overall Favorable or Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable Highly Divisive Favorable Favorable/Unfavo
rable
Overall Impact Low Medium High High Low /Medium/High
High
Software Inc., Strategic Lens
Vision and Differentiation Sustainability
Improve the credibility of our Vision?
Our soln has an ROI in 6
months.
If w e had some vision in
this area, it could help.
If w e had some vision in
this area, it could help.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #1
Differentiator…adaptive to change?
Creates hesitation to rip &
replace incumbent supply chain
softw are investments.
We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter
messaging the same as
our differentiator.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #2
Differentiator…lower TCO?
We have lots of proof points.
We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter
messaging the same as
our differentiator.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #3
Differentiator…dominate in
construction industry suppliers?
New construction is dow n;
rehab construction is up.
No demands coming from
this segment as of yet.
We continue to
dominate…Infor likely to
target our accounts.
Great referencable
account.
Relationship Position & Strength
Improve our position with Top 5 Rev
Producing Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
No demands coming from
this segment as of yet.
Infor likely to target these
accounts.
Great referencable
account.
Improve our position with Top 5
Prospective Rev Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
Apparel prospects are
asking about our plans.
We can still w in against
Infor in apparrel.
Need to leverage this
into appareI.
Improve our position with #1 Partner?
Law son also positioned as the
low er TCO ERP supplier of
choice.
No demands from Law son
as of yet.
Law son w ill deepen
partnership w ith us to fight
Infor.
Not a Law son
customer, but a great
reference anyw ay.
Improve our position with #1 Current
Competitor?
Doesn't help; doesn't hurt.
Ankle Biter has nothing
either.
More competitive
landscape.
This w as a fierce battle
to not loose this
account to Ankle Biter.
Improve our position with #1 Future
Competitor?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM tolerates us over
Infor+Ankle Biter.
Great reference
account.
Improve our position with #1 Targeted
Strategic Buyer?
Stunted organic grow th by SAP
w ill force them to acquire.
IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM/Law son may
acquire us to compete
w ith Infor+Ankle Biter.
SAP/IBM/Law son may
acquire us to get a
toehold in construction
manufacturers.
“Would you play
chess blind-folded?

5. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Events Heat Map
• Choose a Lens: Use any of The Wide Lens
templates
• Color Code Events each quarter as {Fav,
Unfav} and {High, Medium, Low} against the
chosen lens
• Consider events from World, Macro Market,
Specific Market, and Internal
See Events Heat Map Handout Example

6. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Your Challenge Today…
Strategic Decision Making
Merge, Acquire, Invest, Divest,
Channels, Partners, Gov’t Affairs,
Innovation/Consolidation,
Litigation, …
Endless debate
Urgency
Increasing Business
Complexity and
Market Disruption
Board of Directors Scrutiny
“More analysis” “More action”

7. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
The Priiva Process…A Different
Approach
Who is involved?
Players
What can they do ?
Options
What do they want ?
Preferences
Where can we get to ?
Predicted outcomes
How do we get there ?
Tactics
What did we learn ?
Insights
Game Theory
MODEL INPUTS MODEL OUTPUTS
|----------------------------------Process duration is 4-6 weeks----------------------------------|
|---------------- Executive Time Commitment is two half-day workshops-----------------|

8. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Sample of Priiva Success References
Company Issue Incoming
Bias
Priiva
Analysis
Observation Strategic Action
Plan
Large
information
technology
provider
Fear of
disruptive entry
by “gorillas”
Find
lucrative
replacement
market or
sell-out now
Model overall
industry
structure
Current
competitors and
new entrants all
favor status quo
fearing cascading
auction
Grow and scale with
targeted acquisitions
since consolidation is
further away than
anticipated
Information
Services
Provider
“Googlization”
and eroding
demand for
traditional
services.
Expand into
adjacent
services
Analyze
competitive and
cooperative
reaction of
adjacent
services
Expansion actually
accelerates
traditional services
erosion
Change competitive
positioning of the
expanded services.
Improve sales tools.
Large
multinational
manufacturer
Enter adjacent
market
Alliance w/
selected
competitor
Customers,
regulators, and
competitors
Trigger unilateral
capacity expansion
eroding price
margins
Alliance with market
leader rather than the
selected competitor
Green Energy
Provider
Market structure
unknowns
Focus on
USA market
Regional market
variations
Asian markets
more ready,
lucrative, and
provides USA toe-
hold
Invest in Asian
market development;
advocacy only in
USA market

9. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Deliverables - Quantitative
Niche Player
Struggling
Incumbent
Technology
Player
DivMultiNat
Customer
New Entrant
Influence
1
2
3
4 5
6
7
8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15 16
17
18
19 20
21
22
23
24
Strong
Agreement
Strong
Disagreement Option Agreement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Significant
Insignificant
Option significance
Niche Player
Struggling Incumbent
Technology Player
DivMultiNat
Customer
New Entrant
PrefersStatus Quo Seeks Change
Change Seeking
Niche Player
Struggling Incumbent
Technology Player
DivMultiNat
Customer
New Entrant
Sensitive to Others Self Focused
Self- importance
US Gov't Favor FC N N N N N → Y Y Y
Favor wind, solar N N N N N → Y Y Y
European Gov't Favor FC N N → Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N N → Y Y Y Y Y Y
Asian Gov't Favor FC N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Investors Invest in FC N N N N N N → Y Y
Invest in wind,solar N N N N N N → Y Y
Utility Providers Promote FC N N N N N N N → Y
Promote wind,solar N N N N N N N → Y
System Integrators Increase outsourcing/JD N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Develop FC internally N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Acquire stack developer N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Large Multinationals Increase FC investment N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Increase Outsource/JD N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Acquire stack developer N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Increase Wind,solar investment N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Early End Users AdoptersFavor FC N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
US DoD Favor FC N N N N N N N → Y
Favor wind,solar,battery N N N N N N N → Y
Outcomes
What is the progression to
the outcome? Who wields the power?
What options do players
care the most about?
What options are divisive (aka
“domino” events)?
Who favors change? Who
favors status quo?
Who is self focused? Who
is sensitive to the action of
others?
US Gov't Favor FC N N N N N → Y Y Y
Favor wind, solar N N N N N → Y Y Y
European Gov't Favor FC N N → Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N N → Y Y Y Y Y Y
Asian Gov't Favor FC N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Investors Invest in FC N N N N N N → Y Y
Invest in wind,solar N N N N N N → Y Y
Utility Providers Promote FC N N N N N N N → Y
Promote wind,solar N N N N N N N → Y
System Integrators Increase outsourcing/JD N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Develop FC internally N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Acquire stack developer N N N → Y Y Y Y Y
Large Multinationals Increase FC investment N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Increase Outsource/JD N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Acquire stack developer N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Increase Wind,solar investment N N N N → Y Y Y Y
Early End Users AdoptersFavor FC N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Favor wind,solar N → Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
US DoD Favor FC N N N N N N N → Y
Favor wind,solar,battery N N N N N N N → Y
Sensitivity of Outcomes
What is the outcome if we
change a player’s behavior?

10. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Deliverables – Qualitative
Standoffs
Tradeoffs
Zero Sum vs. Rising
Tide
Deadlocks
Auction Robustness
Credible
Signaling

11. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Benefits of Game Theory and the Priiva Process
Strategic Action Plan
Predictable
Outcomes
Efficient Process Aligned Executive Team
Robust Competitive
Response as Gate
Criteria
Deep Insights

12. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Autonomous Vehicles
Our Working Session

13. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Auto Industry Disruption
Autonomous
Vehicles
Internet of
Things
Electrification
Direct to
Consumer
Sharing
Economy
Car as a Service

14. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Autonomous is a Continuum
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Primitive
Controls
More
Controls
Cede
Driving
Driverless
Eg, Cruise
Control
Eg, Crash
Detection
Still
requires a
driver
A living
space
Levels 1-4 are the adopted definitions imposed by FHTSA

15. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Recent Headlines
• Mar 11, 2016 – GM Acquires Cruise Automation for
$1B to Accelerate Autonomous Vehicles
• Apr 27, 2016 - Ford and Google Lead Lobbying
Coalition
• Apr 28, 2016 – Google and Fiat-Chrysler Nearing
Tech Agreement
• May 5, 2016 – Ford Invests $182M in Pivotal to
Strengthen Mobility Software
• May 14, 2016 – Apple Invests $1B in Didi
• May 24, 2016 – Uber & Toyota Confirm Strategic
Investment and Leasing Deal
• …

16. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Recall the 3 Inputs to a Model

17. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Our Players
1. Tech Player – Apple, Google, MSFT
2. Car Mfg Incumbent – Ford, Fiat-
Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, BMW, …
3. GM
4. Car Disruptor – Tesla, Faraday
Future, …
5. Car as a Service – Uber, Lyft, Car2Go
6. Govt – Federal, state, local
Who is involved?
Players

18. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Players and Options
Tech Player
1 Dev Full Stack (Car and OS)
Car Mfg Incumbent
2 Dev their own Car OS
3 Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS
4 Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS
5 Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OS
GM
6 Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OS
7 Sunset OnStar
Car Disruptor
8 Dev their own Car OS
9 Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS
Options
What can they do ?
Options
18 total
options
Each option
has a
unique
identifier

19. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Preference Tree Syntax
Preference Tree
Car Mfg Incumbent
-1
-16
18
13
-17 More Important
4 IF (17)
-6 + Denotes Desire
-12
-14 - Denotes Fear
-15
7 IF Denotes Conditional
-11
-9 Less Important or Indifferent
-10
-8
-2
3
5
Players and Options
Tech Player
1 Dev Full Stack (Car and OS)
Car Mfg Incumbent
2 Dev their own Car OS
3 Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS
4 Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS
5 Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OS
GM
6 Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OS
7 Sunset OnStar
Car Disruptor
8 Dev their own Car OS
9 Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS
10 Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS
11 Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OS
Car as a Service
12 Favor Tech Players
13 Favor Car Mfg Incumbents
14 Favor GM
15 Favor Car Disruptors
Govt
16 Impose Light Regulations
17 Impose Moderate Regulations
18 Impose Heavy Regulations

20. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Players
Player Persona
Tech Player (Google,
Apple, MSFT)
Aggressive technology disruptor
Car Mfg (Ford, Fiat-
Chrysler, BMW, Audi,
Toyota, Honda, Kia, et al)
Incumbents from USA, Germany, Japan, Korea,
etc
GM Incumbent with connected car toehold via OnStar,
CaaS toehold in Lyft, and Cruise Acquisition
Car Disruptor (Tesla,
Faraday Future)
Disruptive with autonomous features as well as
electrification, biz model, and driver experience
Car as a Service (Uber,
Lyft, Car2Go et al)
Disruptor wanting to end personal car ownership
Govt Regulates transportation and safety
Who is involved?
Players

21. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Lets do the first preference tree together
Preference Matrix
Tech
Player
Car Mfg
Incumbent GM
Car
Disruptor
Car as a
Service Govt
Tech Player
1.) Dev Full Stack (Car and OS)
Car Mfg Incumbent
2.) Dev their own Car OS
3.) Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS 12 -1 -1 -1 -18 1
4.) Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS 4 -16 -16 -18 16 4
5.) Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OS 3 18 18 16 1 8
GM -18 13 14 15 4 6
6.) Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OS 16 -17 5 8 10 10
7.) Sunset OnStar 1 4 IF (17) 11 10 9 17
Car Disruptor -2 -6 -3 9 3 12
8.) Dev their own Car OS 10 -12 -2 -17 11 15
9.) Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS 9 -14 -4 -11 5 14
10.) Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS -11 -15 -8 -12 6 13
11.) Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OS -14 7 -9 -13 -17 5
Car as a Service -8 -11 -10 -14 -7 -2
12.) Favor Tech Players -5 -9 -17 -4 -2 3
13.) Favor Car Mfg Incumbents -17 -10 -7 2 -8 -7
14.) Favor GM 13 IF (3) -8 6 3 12 9
15.) Favor Car Disruptors -6 -2 -12 5 15 11
Govt 7 3 -13 7 13 -18
16.) Impose Light Regulations 15 IF (9) 5 -15 -6 14 -16
17.) Impose Moderate Regulations
18.) Impose Heavy Regulations
Preference Matrix
Tech
Player
Car Mfg
Incumbent GM
Car
Disruptor
Car as a
Service Govt
Tech Player
1.) Dev Full Stack (Car and OS)
Car Mfg Incumbent
2.) Dev their own Car OS
3.) Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS 12 -1 -1 -1 -18 1
4.) Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS 4 -16 -16 -18 16 4
5.) Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OS 3 18 18 16 1 8
GM -18 13 14 15 4 6
6.) Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OS 16 -17 5 8 10 10
7.) Sunset OnStar 1 4 IF (17) 11 10 9 17
Car Disruptor -2 -6 -3 9 3 12
8.) Dev their own Car OS 10 -12 -2 -17 11 15
9.) Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OS 9 -14 -4 -11 5 14
10.) Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OS -11 -15 -8 -12 6 13
11.) Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OS -14 7 -9 -13 -17 5
Car as a Service -8 -11 -10 -14 -7 -2
12.) Favor Tech Players -5 -9 -17 -4 -2 3
13.) Favor Car Mfg Incumbents -17 -10 -7 2 -8 -7
14.) Favor GM 13 IF (3) -8 6 3 12 9
15.) Favor Car Disruptors -6 -2 -12 5 15 11
Govt 7 3 -13 7 13 -18
16.) Impose Light Regulations 15 IF (9) 5 -15 -6 14 -16
17.) Impose Moderate Regulations
18.) Impose Heavy Regulations
Which option 1-18 is
the most important
to Tech Player?

22. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Build Preference Trees for
all other Players …

23. Player's interests are directly reflected in the
preference trees
Player Represents Description
Tech Player (Google,
Apple, MSFT)
Aggressive technology
disruptor
Wants every car depending on their Car OS. Wants govt to impose light regulations. Will manufacture cars
(ie, the full stack) if that is the pre-requisite to winning every car. Doesn’t want incumbents or Car
Disruptors developing their own OS, but are not overly sensitive to that because they believe those players
will fail doing so.
Car Mfg (Ford,
Daimler, BMW, Audi,
Toyota, Honda, Kia, et
al)
Incumbents from USA,
Germany, Japan,
Korea, etc
Favors status quo and fears disruption. Fears Tech Players entering with a full stack. Fears that govt will
be light handed but wants them to be heavy handed to slow down others giving themselves more time to
develop. Needs to win new car sales of CaaS fleets. Does not view Onstar as a viable Car OS. Tech
Players need to fail at manufacturing so they become more amenable to partnering for the Car OS.
GM Incumbent with
connected car toehold
via OnStar
Not as fearful as Car Mfg incumbents as Onstar and Lyft investment provide toeholds. Fears the govt will
be light handed but wants them to be heavy handed to slow down others and would like others to fail at
their own Car OS efforts falling back to OnStar partnerships triggering more aggressive Onstar
development.
Car Disruptor (Tesla,
Faraday Future)
Disruptive with
autonomous features
as well as
electrification, biz
model, and driver
experience
Fears Tech Players entering with a full stack. Fears heavy regulations and wants light regulation to favor
autonomous features and electrification. Wants to win new car sales of CaaS fleets and is prepared to
develop their own OS to do so. Not fearful of the actions by Car Mfg incumbents, GM, and does not view
Onstar as a viable Car OS.
Car as a Service
(Uber, Lyft, Car2Go et
al)
Disruptor wanting to
end personal car
ownership
Wants govt out of the way and all parties to succeed getting genuine driverless cars to market which
triggers their purchase of a fleet of driverless vehicles from multiple vendors and eliminates their expense
of drivers.
Govt Regulates
transportation and
safety
Wants all players to be successful achieving driverless status as a means for the USA to regain worldwide
dominance in the auto industry. Will exert moderate regulations so as to not stifle innovation and not
compromise safety.

24. Simulation Summary
• The Natural Outcome:
• Will develop quickly…there are no
deadlocks to slow down the market
• Govt has lots of tradeoffs
• Tech Player and Govt are the power
players and exert their options early
• Tech Player, Govt, and CaaS interests
align well with the Natural Outcome
• Car Mfg Incumbent, GM, and Car
Disruptors must act quickly

25. Influence
Tech Player
Car Mfg
Incumbent
GMCar Disruptor
Car as a Service
Govt
The Influence Chart measures a
player's ability to influence the
behavior of other players.
The larger the slice…
• the more importantly other
players view their options
• the more influence they have
over the behavior of the other
players

26. Self Importance
Tech Player
Car Mfg Incumbent
GM
Car Disruptor
Car as a Service
Govt
Sensitive to Others Self Focused
The Self Importance Chart
measures how important the
player's owned options are to
themselves.
The more important the player
is, the less likely they are to be
influenced by the behavior of
others.
The less important a player is,
the more likely they are to be
influenced by the actions of
others.

27. Natural Outcome vs. Player’s Interests
0
20
40
60
80
100
Tech Player
Car Mfg
Incumbent
GM
Car Disruptor
Car as a Service
Govt
Radar
Natural Outcome R6
The Radar Chart
•Maps how well aligned
Outcomes are with the
different player's Interests
•A point near the origin
represents the least
preferred outcome
•A point near the terminus
represents the most
preferred outcome
The Happiness Map

28. Change Seeking
Tech Player
Car Mfg Incumbent
GM
Car Disruptor
Car as a Service
Govt
Prefers Status Quo Seeks Change
The Change Seeking Chart
measures a player's
appetite for change to
occur.
A preference toward the
status quo may indicate
fear of consequences of
change as well as
preference for the status
quo.

29. Interest Alignment
Tech Player Car Mfg IncumbentGM Car Disruptor Car asa Service Govt
Tech Player
Car Mfg Incumbent
GM
Car Disruptor
Car asa Service
Govt
The Interest Alignment Chart reflects alignment of
interests. Green indicates good alignment and may
reveal hidden allies. Red indicates mis-alignment and
may reveal hidden enemies.

30. Tech
Player,
Govt, and
CaaS
interests
align well
with the
Natural
Outcome
The Natural Outcome
Tech
Player
Develops their own full stack and non-
exclusively licenses their Car OS. More
regulation than they prefer.
Car Mfg
Incumbent
Non exclusively licenses Car OS. Operates in
fierce competition and with less regulation
than desired. Expect consolidation.
GM
Eventually develops OnStar due to a late
developing partnership. Lyft toehold may be
an (expensive) savior.
Car
Disruptor
Non exclusively licenses Car OS. Operates in
fierce competition amongst its
differentiators.
Car as a
Service
Has lots of options to own driverless car
fleets and cut driver costs.
Govt
Imposes moderate regulation so as to
stimulate innovation and ensure safety.

31. Game Model Progression
Players Option List Moves
Tech Player Dev Full Stack (Car and OS) N → Y Y Y
Car Mfg Incumbent Dev their own Car OS N N N N
Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OSN N → Y Y
Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OSN N → Y Y
Partner with GM for Onstar as Car OS N N N → Y
GM Aggressively fund OnStar to be ubiquitous Car OSN N N → Y
Sunset OnStar N N N N
Car Disruptor Dev their own Car OS N N → Y Y
Partner Exclusively with a Tech Player for Car OSN N → Y Y
Partner Non-Exclusively with Tech Player(s) for Car OSN N → Y Y
Partner with GM for OnStar as Car OS N N N N
Car as a Service Favor Tech Players N N N → Y
Favor Car Mfg Incumbents N N N → Y
Favor GM N N N → Y
Favor Car Disruptors N N N → Y
Govt Impose Light Regulations N N N N
Impose Moderate Regulations N → Y Y Y
Impose Heavy Regulations N N N N
1. Government imposes moderate
regulations to encourage broad
investment in AV.
2. Tech Players invest in full stack
dev, especially knowing moderate
regulation.
3. Car Disruptors pursue all their
options.
4. Car Mfg Incumbent’s attempt to
partner with Tech Players
6. CaaS are agnostic, looking to
drive down costs via aggressive
competition
5. GM and a Car Mfg Incumbent
finally partner triggering OnStar
development

32. What CarMfgIncumbent Should Do
• Tech Player’s option to Dev Full Stack and Govt’s Option for Moderate
Regulation are power events that occur early and largely dictate the
Natural Outcome.
• Car Mfg Incumbent needs to alter or embrace one or both of those player
options IMMEDIATELY
• Incumbents could tie other investments with regulations favorable to
incumbents
• Incumbents should establish an early partnership with a Tech Player
and a CaaS player
• Incumbents should explore if the insurance lobby can increase govt
regulation and slow down the market
• Incumbents should innovate new car features that stave off eroding
personal car ownership as driven by CaaS
• Incumbents interests align well with Car Disruptor. Explore partnering
opportunities.
• Incumbent(s) could partner with GM and tie further Onstar investment
with regulations favorable to incumbents

33. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Events are the Unit of Change in
Your Market
Events Heat Map
With each major event, is our position
strengthening or eroding? Can be
applied to Acquirers, Differentiators,
Product Roadmap, Standoffs, etc …
Software Inc. Strategic Events Heat Map: for Recent Events
Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Oct-2010
Sustained
economic
downturn.
Unprecedented
consumer
adoption of
smartphone and
tablet devices.
SaaS Ankle
Biter Inc
announces
expanded
partnership with
Infor.
Won 3 year
deal with
Anderson
Windows
Overall Favorable or Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable Highly Divisive Favorable Favorable/Unfavo
rable
Overall Impact Low Medium High High Low /Medium/High
High
Software Inc., Strategic Lens
Vision and Differentiation Sustainability
Improve the credibility of our Vision?
Our soln has an ROI in 6
months.
If w e had some vision in
this area, it could help.
If w e had some vision in
this area, it could help.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #1
Differentiator…adaptive to change?
Creates hesitation to rip &
replace incumbent supply chain
softw are investments.
We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter
messaging the same as
our differentiator.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #2
Differentiator…lower TCO?
We have lots of proof points.
We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter
messaging the same as
our differentiator.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #3
Differentiator…dominate in
construction industry suppliers?
New construction is dow n;
rehab construction is up.
No demands coming from
this segment as of yet.
We continue to
dominate…Infor likely to
target our accounts.
Great referencable
account.
Relationship Position & Strength
Improve our position with Top 5 Rev
Producing Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
No demands coming from
this segment as of yet.
Infor likely to target these
accounts.
Great referencable
account.
Improve our position with Top 5
Prospective Rev Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
Apparel prospects are
asking about our plans.
We can still w in against
Infor in apparrel.
Need to leverage this
into appareI.
Improve our position with #1 Partner?
Law son also positioned as the
low er TCO ERP supplier of
choice.
No demands from Law son
as of yet.
Law son w ill deepen
partnership w ith us to fight
Infor.
Not a Law son
customer, but a great
reference anyw ay.
Improve our position with #1 Current
Competitor?
Doesn't help; doesn't hurt.
Ankle Biter has nothing
either.
More competitive
landscape.
This w as a fierce battle
to not loose this
account to Ankle Biter.
Improve our position with #1 Future
Competitor?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM tolerates us over
Infor+Ankle Biter.
Great reference
account.
Improve our position with #1 Targeted
Strategic Buyer?
Stunted organic grow th by SAP
w ill force them to acquire.
IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM/Law son may
acquire us to compete
w ith Infor+Ankle Biter.
SAP/IBM/Law son may
acquire us to get a
toehold in construction
manufacturers.
“Would you play
chess blind-folded?

34. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Your Stage-Gate Process
• Track and codify
events as they
occur
• Apply structured
approach for your
bigger bets (i.e.,
M&A)
Software Inc. Strategic Events Heat Map: for Recent Events
Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Dec-2010 Oct-2010
Sustained
economic
downturn.
Unprecedented
consumer
adoption of
smartphone and
tablet devices.
SaaS Ankle
Biter Inc
announces
expanded
partnership with
Infor.
Won 3 year
deal with
Anderson
Windows
Overall Favorable or Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable Highly Divisive Favorable Favorable/Unfavo
rable
Overall Impact Low Medium High High Low /Medium/High
High
Software Inc., Strategic Lens
Vision and Differentiation Sustainability
Improve the credibility of our Vision?
Our soln has an ROI in 6
months.
If w e had some vision in
this area, it could help.
If w e had some vision in
this area, it could help.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #1
Differentiator…adaptive to change?
Creates hesitation to rip &
replace incumbent supply chain
softw are investments.
We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter
messaging the same as
our differentiator.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #2
Differentiator…lower TCO?
We have lots of proof points.
We have no plan for
smartphones or tablets.
Infor+Ankle Biter
messaging the same as
our differentiator.
Great referencable
account.
Improve sustainability of our #3
Differentiator…dominate in
construction industry suppliers?
New construction is dow n;
rehab construction is up.
No demands coming from
this segment as of yet.
We continue to
dominate…Infor likely to
target our accounts.
Great referencable
account.
Relationship Position & Strength
Improve our position with Top 5 Rev
Producing Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
No demands coming from
this segment as of yet.
Infor likely to target these
accounts.
Great referencable
account.
Improve our position with Top 5
Prospective Rev Customers?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
Apparel prospects are
asking about our plans.
We can still w in against
Infor in apparrel.
Need to leverage this
into appareI.
Improve our position with #1 Partner?
Law son also positioned as the
low er TCO ERP supplier of
choice.
No demands from Law son
as of yet.
Law son w ill deepen
partnership w ith us to fight
Infor.
Not a Law son
customer, but a great
reference anyw ay.
Improve our position with #1 Current
Competitor?
Doesn't help; doesn't hurt.
Ankle Biter has nothing
either.
More competitive
landscape.
This w as a fierce battle
to not loose this
account to Ankle Biter.
Improve our position with #1 Future
Competitor?
Doesn’t help; doesn't hurt.
IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM tolerates us over
Infor+Ankle Biter.
Great reference
account.
Improve our position with #1 Targeted
Strategic Buyer?
Stunted organic grow th by SAP
w ill force them to acquire.
IBM/SAP all very
aggressive in mobility.
SAP/IBM/Law son may
acquire us to compete
w ith Infor+Ankle Biter.
SAP/IBM/Law son may
acquire us to get a
toehold in construction
manufacturers.

35. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
Benefits of Game Theory and the Priiva Process
Strategic Action Plan
Predictable
Outcomes
Efficient Process Aligned Executive Team
Robust Competitive
Response as Gate
Criteria
Deep Insights

36. © Priiva Consulting Corporation 2016
About Priiva
1. A boutique strategy consulting firm.
2. Specialized in applying game theory methodology to optimize the
outcome of strategic business decisions.
3. Our clients engage us for…
a) Strategy development
b) Executive development (on competitive landscape and external environment)
c) Mgmt retreat curriculum (on competitive landscape and external environment)
d) Risk mitigation (ie, 2nd opinion on a decision already taken)
4. Principals are industry executives from IT, Energy, Chemicals, Financial
Services, and Automotive industries.
5. Hundreds of business cases analyzed with 85% prediction accuracy.
6. Fixed price consulting engagement OR fixed price insights report on an
industry topic. Bill Forquer
Principal
Priiva Consulting
Bio: www.priiva.com/Bill.html
Twitter: @billforquer