How do we choose a new business direction?

A useful business strategy question identifies the challenge without assuming the solution. Begin by investigating the context: whether the problem has been understood correctly, and which underlying issues, trends or forces are shaping it. Then define the problem and the research needed to understand it. A request for a rebrand, website or sales deck is not, by itself, a strategy.

The Frameworks' Reinvention methodology starts by identifying a central challenge, framing it as a question and brainstorming possible answers. This separates the problem from any initial preference and gives the team alternatives to consider. During interviews and discussions, leave room for people to explain their situation in their own terms. Unexpected answers can reveal that the original question needs reframing before strategic options are developed.

An appealing direction becomes a strategic option when the team can explain what must be true for it to succeed. For each possibility, surface those conditions and identify which need testing before commitment. The Reinvention methodology then calls for different tests to help choose among the strongest possibilities, followed by preparation for action and creative execution.

Testing should inform the choice, not simply validate enthusiasm. Rapid prototyping can help teams test assumptions, learn from what does not work and revise ideas. However, persistence and rejection are not interchangeable outcomes. A randomized trial by Alfonso Gambardella and Danilo Messinese found that theory-based training encouraged earlier project abandonment, while design-based training encouraged persistence and breakthroughs. That study concerned early-stage entrepreneurs, so it does not establish a universal rule for abandoning a business or brand direction.

Choosing a business direction benefits from contributions beyond a single leader or specialist team. The Frameworks describes combining creative facilitation and problem-solving with clients' deep contextual knowledge. Its own collaborative practice brings together strategists, account managers, writers and designers, prioritising the contribution rather than the person's job function.

For a leadership workshop, the transferable principle is to involve people who understand the challenge and people who can help develop alternative answers. Research can also bring in employees, subject matter experts and customers whose perspectives may change the framing. Participation alone is not a measure of success: assess whether contributions clarify the problem, expose necessary conditions or improve the options available. The business of imagination report links cross-functional ideation with reported revenue growth, but that association does not prove that a particular workshop caused a better decision.

When assessing a strategy engagement, ask what changed between the initial brief and the eventual decision. A useful account connects the challenge, research findings and resulting choice. Workshop enthusiasm and the number of ideas generated do not, on their own, establish that the organisation chose a better direction.

The Visiativ project provides a concrete example of a changed decision. Visiativ commissioned a visual identity and value proposition for a new product. Research found that the product name confused customers and employees. Although renaming was outside the brief, the team raised the finding, Visiativ agreed, and a new name was developed alongside the identity and value proposition. This documents a change in scope and client choice prompted by research. It does not quantify subsequent commercial performance, which is a separate question to ask when evaluating results.