Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Artificial intelligence is expected to make strategy easier. Yet many leadership teams are finding the opposite. As analytical capability becomes more powerful and widely available, analysis can support multiple credible futures simultaneously—a condition we call analytical abundance. The result is a paradox: more analysis can make strategy harder. We argue that analytical abundance shifts the primary constraint in strategy from generating insight to creating choice and sustaining commitment. To address this challenge, we introduce a three-cycle architecture that separates strategic intelligence, strategic choice, and strategic change. Competitive advantage depends not only on insight, but also on closure and commitment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marc Baaij (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: