Blended Iteration-and-Moonshot Operating Model
Run predictable priorities iteratively while concentrating resources on one bold leap.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 98%
Divide strategic work into two classes. Predictable, iterative problems can use structured goals, incremental improvements, and outcome metrics because the route to progress is reasonably understood. Non-iterative priorities require a moonshot: an audacious destination that may demand unfamiliar capabilities and exponential rather than marginal returns. Do not manage both classes identically. The moonshot needs disproportionate time, resources, and leadership attention, while ordinary priorities can continue through an iterative operating rhythm. Portfolio discipline is crucial because a team cannot realistically pursue many moonshots simultaneously; the episode recommends one, or at most two, rather than ten. This blended model is particularly useful in uncertain conditions, when organizations must continue improving established engines while also building something fundamentally new.
Origin
Extracted from Marketing Against The Grain through Kipp Bodner and Kieran Flanagan’s discussion of OKRs, incremental work, and moonshot goals.
Core principles
- 01Match the operating model to the nature of the problem.
- 02Use iteration for predictable work and bold bets for discontinuous change.
- 03Concentrate exceptional resources behind a very small number of moonshots.
- 04Do not let incremental measurement make teams risk-averse.
- 05Accept trade-offs because no leadership model is universally correct.
How to run it
- 1
Inventory strategic priorities
List the outcomes the organization believes it must achieve during the planning horizon.
Pro tip Phrase each priority as a meaningful business change.
Watch out Do not classify routine tasks as strategic priorities.
- 2
Classify the work
Determine whether each priority is a predictable iterative problem or requires a non-iterative leap.
Pro tip Ask whether the team already knows the capability and mainly needs to improve it.
Watch out Do not label work a moonshot merely because it is difficult.
- 3
Choose the moonshot
Select the one bold priority with the greatest strategic necessity or potential return.
Pro tip Make the destination audacious but intelligible.
Watch out Multiple simultaneous moonshots dilute the concentration that makes them possible.
- 4
Match the operating systems
Run iterative priorities through structured metrics while managing the moonshot around learning, quality, milestones, and the audacious mission.
Pro tip Use different review questions for each class of work.
Watch out Incremental metrics can push moonshot teams toward safer, smaller bets.
- 5
Concentrate resources
Give the moonshot disproportionate time, talent, money, and executive attention.
Pro tip Explicitly state what will receive fewer resources as a result.
Watch out An audacious goal without exceptional support is only rhetoric.
- 6
Rebalance as conditions change
Review whether uncertainty, learning, or macro conditions have changed a priority’s classification or feasibility.
Pro tip Reclassify openly rather than preserving an obsolete plan.
Watch out Do not treat the original portfolio as permanent.
In the wild
A marketing organization continues making measured improvements to a proven demand-generation engine while selecting brand repositioning as its single moonshot. The demand engine follows normal targets, but the repositioning effort receives concentrated leadership attention, research, creative resources, and learning milestones.
→ The organization protects core performance while creating room for a discontinuous improvement in market perception.
Common mistakes
Incrementing toward irrelevance
Repeated marginal improvements cannot create a capability the organization does not yet possess or overcome a fundamentally changed environment.
Launching ten moonshots
Spreading exceptional bets across too many priorities removes the concentrated resources each one requires.
Using one scorecard for both modes
Judging uncertain exploration by predictable short-term outcomes encourages teams to choose safer, smaller work.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for teams balancing stable core operations with one strategically necessary new capability or major growth bet.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for organizations unwilling to deprioritize competing initiatives or provide concentrated resources to bold bets.
From the transcript
“there is no perfect choice. There's no perfect model for measuring and driving accountability. There's no perfect team structure. There's trade-offs that you have to…”
“you don't have 10 moonshots, you have one moon shot, right?”
“I think you are going to have to have a blended operating model.”
From the episode
Leadership That Drives Growth (Insights from Kipp and Kieran)