Three Horizons
Splits activity into defending today, building the next thing, and seeding what comes after. Its value is that it makes the collapse into horizon one visible, because that collapse is always happening.
The printable canvas and the handoff into Claude Code are part of a paid plan. See what a plan includes. It needs the Claude desktop app on this machine, and your team and the prompt library already installed in that project — we cannot see your disk, so open it there.
What it is
A McKinsey framework separating a business's activity into three horizons by maturity rather than by calendar. Its purpose is to stop the current business consuming all the attention and capital, which it does naturally, because horizon one always has the more urgent argument.
- Horizon one — defend and extend the core
- The business generating cash today. Improvement, efficiency, defence. Usually 70 to 90 per cent of investment and rightly so, but rarely deliberately.
- Horizon two — build emerging businesses
- Ventures with real customers and growing revenue that are not yet profitable. They need investment and patience, and they are what horizon one becomes.
- Horizon three — create viable options
- Experiments, pilots and research. Cheap individually, mostly failures, and the only source of horizon two in five years.
- The investment split
- How money, people and management attention are actually divided across the three. Almost always more concentrated in horizon one than anyone intends.
- Governance separation
- Each horizon needs different metrics and different decision rights. Judging horizon three on horizon one metrics kills it within two quarters.
How you run it
- Place existing activity before planning newMap what you already do onto the three horizons. The distribution is usually the finding, and it is usually 95/4/1.
- Define the horizons by maturity, not by dateHorizon one is the core producing cash now. Horizon two is emerging and demands investment. Horizon three is optionality. Time ranges vary by industry.
- Be honest about which is whichExtensions of the core get labelled horizon two because it flatters them. If it serves existing customers with an existing model, it is horizon one.
- Set the intended split, then compareDecide the split of investment you want across the three, and compare it with the actual. The gap is the decision.
- Protect two and three structurallyThey will lose every resource argument against horizon one on a bad quarter unless the funding is ring-fenced and separately governed.
The prompt
Run this tool in your own Claude
The short prompt starts your partner against the library on your disk. The long one carries everything with it and needs nothing installed.
Your playbook
It lands in the earliest stage this tool suits. Move it on the Playbook page.
You’ll need
- Current initiatives and where investment actually goes
- A view of what is maturing and what is declining
- Someone able to protect horizon two and three funding
You’ll end up with
- Every initiative placed on a horizon
- The actual split of money and attention across the three
- A governance decision about protecting the later horizons