MMG's perspectives on complexity, stakeholder alignment, and the structural conditions that separate organizations that execute from those that produce strategies.
Complexity
Most execution failures are not caused by incompetence. They're caused by applying the wrong tool to the wrong problem class — and the most common version of that error is treating a complex challenge as if it were merely complicated. Understanding where your challenge lives on the complexity spectrum is the first and most consequential strategic decision you can make.
Read Framework →You have teams. What you don't have is a team of teams. When external actors — payers, regulators, provincial health authorities, vendors, community partners — must make different but coordinated changes for your strategy to succeed, standard governance models collapse. The village is not a metaphor. It's the binding constraint.
Read Framework →Traditional advisory engagements produce frameworks. They are passive documents. They represent the "polite alignment" stage of strategy — everyone agrees a problem exists, everyone agrees collaboration is required. The gap lives in what comes next: the absence of named owners, committed timelines, and the structural conditions for implementation to hold under real-world pressure.
Read Framework →When Eisai was preparing to launch Leqembi, their initial diagnosis was wrong: they assumed the constraint was a lack of MRI machines. The actual constraint was a shortage of Medical Radiation Technologists. That kind of invisible constraint — the Black Box — is not a life sciences phenomenon. It appears in government, not-for-profit, and commercial settings whenever a system's inner workings are opaque to the actors who depend on them.
Read Analysis →Psychological safety matters — but it is not sufficient. The research on group decision quality consistently shows that the path from safety to decision-grade output requires structured divergence, adversarial pressure-testing, and a convergence process that forces real trade-offs. Without structure, psychological safety produces polite agreement, not strategic commitment.
Read Framework →The Cynefin framework — developed by Dave Snowden — distinguishes four problem domains: Simple, Complicated, Complex, and Chaotic. Each requires a fundamentally different response. MMG uses Cynefin as a diagnostic lens, not an academic exercise. Before designing any engagement, the first question is always: what kind of problem is this actually?
Read Framework →