Based on Richard Rumelt's strategic frameworks and the comprehensive analysis of protocols versus platforms, this methodology provides a structured approach for determining when to solve problems at the protocol level versus the platform level across leadership, technical, and community contexts.

The Strategic Kernel Foundation

At the core of this methodology lies Rumelt's strategic kernel, which consists of three essential elements that must be applied to every technological decision[1][2]:

1. Diagnosis: Clearly define the challenge and identify the biggest barriers to forward progress[1][2]

2. Guiding Policy: Outline an overall approach to overcoming the obstacles highlighted in the diagnosis[1][2]

3. Coherent Actions: Translate the guiding policy into coordinated and feasible actions[1][2]

This kernel serves as the foundation for determining whether protocol-level or platform-level solutions are most appropriate for addressing specific challenges and opportunities.

The Cynefin-Enhanced Decision Framework

Building on Rumelt's approach, we integrate the Cynefin Framework to categorize problems by their complexity and predictability, which directly informs whether protocol or platform solutions are most suitable[3][4][5]:

Domain Classification

Clear Domain: When cause-and-effect relationships are obvious and best practices exist, platform-based solutions with established patterns are typically most appropriate[6][5]

Complicated Domain: When cause-and-effect relationships exist but require expert analysis, hybrid approaches combining protocol standards with platform implementations often work best[6][5]

Complex Domain: When cause-and-effect can only be understood in retrospect and emergent patterns dominate, protocol-first approaches that enable experimentation and adaptation are usually more suitable[6][5]

Chaotic Domain: In crisis situations requiring immediate action, temporary platform solutions may be needed to establish order before transitioning to protocol-based approaches[6][5]

Leadership Level Decision-Making

Phase 1: Strategic Diagnosis

Step 1: Identify the Crux

• Ask: "What is the hardest part of this challenge that, if solved, would make the biggest difference?"[7][8]

• Determine whether the fundamental barrier is at the infrastructure level (protocol) or application level (platform)

• Assess whether the challenge requires network-wide coordination or localized optimization[5][9]

Step 2: Power Source Analysis

• Identify available sources of strategic power including leverage, reputation, specialized knowledge, and growth opportunities[10][11]

• Evaluate whether power can be better harnessed through protocol-level standardization or platform-level optimization[10][5]

• Consider whether the solution requires distributed consensus (protocol) or centralized decision-making (platform)[5][9]

Step 3: Context Assessment

• Use the Cynefin Framework to categorize the problem domain[3][4]

• Determine the level of uncertainty and predictability in the challenge[12][6]

• Assess whether the situation requires emergent solutions (complex) or established best practices (clear)[6][5]

Phase 2: Strategic Policy Formation

Step 4: Proximate Objective Setting

• Define objectives that are close enough at hand to be feasible while addressing the core challenge[8][13]

• Ensure objectives can be reasonably achieved with available resources and capabilities[8][13]

• Align objectives with either protocol-level infrastructure building or platform-level user experience optimization[5][9]

Step 5: Resource Allocation Decision

• Determine whether resources should focus on lower-level infrastructure (protocol) or higher-level abstraction (platform)[5][9]

• Consider scalability requirements: network-level (protocol) vs. application-level (platform)[5][9]

• Evaluate governance model preferences: decentralized community governance (protocol) or centralized decision-making (platform)[5][9]

Phase 3: Strategic Implementation

Step 6: Coherent Action Planning

• Design actions that reinforce each other and collectively advance the strategic objective[1][2]

• Ensure actions align with the chosen protocol or platform approach[5][9]

• Build in feedback mechanisms to enable course correction as understanding evolves[7][2]

Technical Level Decision-Making

Phase 1: Technical Architecture Assessment

Step 1: Abstraction Level Analysis

• Determine whether the solution requires foundational infrastructure (protocol) or user-facing applications (platform)[5][9]

• Assess technical complexity and whether it fits in the Clear, Complicated, Complex, or Chaotic domain[6][14]

• Evaluate interoperability requirements and cross-system communication needs[5][9]

Step 2: Scalability and Performance Evaluation

• Analyze whether scalability challenges exist at the network level (protocol solution) or application level (platform solution)[5][9]

• Consider consensus mechanism requirements and security model preferences[5][9]

• Evaluate development velocity needs: rapid iteration (platform) vs. network-wide coordination (protocol)[5][9]

Phase 2: Technical Solution Design

Step 3: Security and Trust Model Selection

• Determine whether network-wide security guarantees (protocol) or application-specific protections (platform) are priority[5][9]

• Assess data ownership and privacy requirements[5][9]

• Consider trust assumptions and whether they align with decentralized (protocol) or centralized (platform) models[5][9]

Step 4: Development Methodology Choice

• For Clear/Complicated domains: Apply established development practices appropriate to the chosen approach[6][14]

• For Complex domains: Implement experimental approaches with safe-to-fail experiments[6][14]

• For Chaotic domains: Focus on rapid stabilization before transitioning to more structured approaches[6][14]

Phase 3: Implementation Strategy

Step 5: Deployment Model Definition

• Protocol approach: Plan for network-wide coordination and consensus-based upgrades[5][9]

• Platform approach: Design for rapid iteration and user feedback incorporation[5][9]

• Hybrid approach: Balance infrastructure stability with application flexibility[5][15]

Step 6: Technical Risk Management

• Identify potential failure modes specific to the chosen approach[5][9]

• Build in redundancy and fallback mechanisms[5][9]

• Plan for monitoring and observability appropriate to the solution type[5][9]

Community Level Decision-Making

Phase 1: Stakeholder Analysis

Step 1: Community Mapping

• Identify all stakeholders affected by the protocol or platform decision[5][16]

• Assess stakeholder preferences for autonomy (protocol) vs. optimization (platform)[5][17]

• Evaluate community technical expertise and governance participation capacity[5][9]

Step 2: Governance Model Assessment

• Determine whether the community prefers decentralized governance (protocol) or centralized coordination (platform)[5][9]

• Assess community capacity for consensus-based decision-making[5][16]

• Evaluate token-based governance feasibility and community interest[5][9]

Phase 2: Community Engagement Strategy

Step 3: Communication Framework Design

• Protocol approach: Emphasize transparency, decentralization, and community ownership[5][17]

• Platform approach: Focus on user experience benefits and optimized outcomes[5][17]

• Hybrid approach: Balance both value propositions appropriately[5][15]

Step 4: Participation Mechanism Creation

• Design appropriate channels for community input based on the chosen approach[5][9]

• Create feedback loops that align with protocol or platform governance models[5][9]

• Establish clear decision-making processes that match community expectations[5][16]

Phase 3: Community Implementation

Step 5: Adoption Strategy

• Protocol approach: Focus on developer adoption and ecosystem building[5][9]

• Platform approach: Prioritize end-user experience and onboarding[5][9]

• Create incentive structures aligned with the chosen approach[5][9]

Step 6: Community Sustainability

• Build governance mechanisms that can evolve with the community[5][16]

• Establish funding models appropriate to the protocol or platform choice[5][9]

• Create succession planning for community leadership[5][16]

Integrated Decision Matrix

To synthesize these three levels, use this decision matrix to evaluate each major factor:

Implementation Guidelines

For Leadership Teams

1. Begin every strategic decision with Rumelt's diagnostic process[1][2]

2. Use the Cynefin Framework to avoid applying wrong solutions to problems[3][4]

3. Set proximate objectives that create momentum toward larger goals[8][13]

4. Regularly reassess whether the chosen approach remains appropriate as conditions change[7][2]

For Technical Teams

1. Match technical architecture decisions to problem complexity using Cynefin domains[6][14]

2. Prioritize interoperability and composability when choosing protocol approaches[5][9]

3. Focus on user experience optimization when selecting platform approaches[5][9]

4. Build in measurement and feedback mechanisms regardless of the chosen approach[5][9]

For Community Teams

1. Align governance mechanisms with community values and technical approach[5][16]

2. Create participation channels appropriate to the chosen model[5][9]

3. Build sustainable funding and incentive structures[5][9]

4. Plan for community evolution and changing needs over time[5][16]

This methodology provides a structured yet flexible approach to making strategic decisions about protocol versus platform solutions, ensuring that technological choices align with broader organizational objectives while serving the needs of all stakeholders involved.

⁂

1. https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/good-strategy-bad-strategy-richard      

2. https://www.alexmurrell.co.uk/summaries/richard-rumelt-good-strategy-bad-strategy        

3. https://thecynefin.co/about-us/about-cynefin-framework/   

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework   

5. Sensemaking-Approaches-for-Platform-and-Protocol-Decision-Making.docx                                                     

6. https://whatfix.com/blog/cynefin-framework/           

7. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/why-bad-strategy-is-a-social-contagion   

8. https://www.startuphughes.com/good-strategy-importance-proximate-goals/