BIG – from Business Drivers to Strategic Responses

Before we dive into BIG Principles, Models and Methods, we need to make sure we’re all speaking the same language.

One of the biggest sources of confusion in organisations isn’t a lack of strategy or delivery capability—it’s terminology.

Different organisations often use different words for the same thing, or the same word for very different things. Cue confusion, crossed wires, and governance that looks fine on paper but doesn’t quite work in practice.

This BIG Body of Knowledge (BoK) Club session focuses on the core concepts that underpin BIG, creating a shared foundation before we move into principles and practice.

What we covered:

The session focused on clarifying a set of strategic concepts that are frequently conflated in organisations, and on reinforcing how the BIG framework uses these terms deliberately and consistently to support better governance and decision-making.

David opened with an overview of the Key Concepts from the BIG framework and its purpose – to create a shared language that make strategic discussions clearer and more productive. He outlined several core distinctions, including strategy versus strategic processes, strategy implementation versus delivery, the role of the strategy information model, and the place of the operating model in maintaining alignment between intent and execution. The framework was positioned as a flexible body of ideas that can be applied pragmatically rather than as a prescriptive method.

A central theme throughout the discussion was what strategy actually is. The group explored the distinction between strategy as a set of intentional choices about direction, positioning and trade-offs, and the processes used to develop, review and refresh those choices. Participants noted that many organisations mistake plans, planning cycles or activity for strategy itself, which creates confusion and weakens downstream decision-making.

Closely linked to this was the strategy information model. The discussion emphasised the need for a coherent, shared representation of strategic intent, assumptions, constraints, objectives and measures. The focus was not on tools or templates, but on having an explicit model of the information decision-makers require. Without this, strategy discussions become opinion-led and governance forums struggle to act consistently.

The conversation then turned to strategy implementation and delivery. A clear distinction was made between implementation as the translation of strategic intent into coherent change and operational outcomes, and delivery as one component within that. Implementation was explicitly not treated as a phase that follows strategy, nor as synonymous with project delivery. Participants shared practical challenges around accountability, maintaining strategic intent over time, and managing multiple levels of strategy within complex organisations.

Operating models were another major topic. The group discussed what an operating model is, and what it is not. In particular, the operating model was described as a structural view of how an organisation delivers value, acting as a bridge between strategy and day-to-day operations, rather than as an org chart, process map or IT architecture. The importance of integrating people, behaviours and decision rights into this view was highlighted, alongside the risks created by inconsistent language across functions and seniority levels.

The relationships between all of these elements – strategy, the strategy information model, implementation, delivery and the operating model – were a recurring thread. The group repeatedly returned to the point that effective governance depends on these relationships being explicit and understood, rather than assumed. Issues such as loss of meaning during strategy cascades, weak feedback loops, and misalignment between corporate and local strategies were discussed, along with the need for clear measures, review cadence and communication.

There was also reflection on how these concepts are explained in the BIG Bo(o)k. Participants discussed the challenge of making strategic ideas accessible to different audiences, the potential value of clearer differentiation in language, and the use of examples or appendices to support understanding. The importance of being precise with definitions was framed as a practical necessity, not academic pedantry – a response to real-world problems such as misaligned decisions, duplicated effort and governance forums talking past one another.

The session concluded with a discussion of possible future topics, with particular interest in information and data, and in accountability and leadership, as areas for further exploration.

Link to the Chapter on Key Concepts

Why this session matters

• Builds a shared mental model across strategy, change, delivery and governance
• Reduces ambiguity and talking-past-each-other in senior forums
• Sets the groundwork for applying BIG in any organisational context
• Makes later BIG principles and models land properly (instead of feeling abstract)

Whether you’re new to BIG or already using its ideas, this session helps reset and align understanding—so we’re all starting from the same place.

Further BIG definitions are available in the Glossary (Appendix) and will be referenced during the session.

Please Access the Full Member Resources to watch the session.

Become a Full Member here.