Adjacent Possible

The adjacent possible is the small set of actions genuinely reachable from your current position. You take one, the world reconfigures, and you get the next set of reachable actions — which will be different from the last set. Alex Komoroske uses it as a constraint on strategic ambition: the adjacent possible is always smaller than we assume, and attempts to jump past it into long-range commitments are the primary source of strategic waste.

The term originates in design thinking and complexity theory; Komoroske encountered it from designers in his network and adapted it for product strategy.

Core argument

In tech product strategy, the default assumption is that the adjacent possible is large — that you can jump directly from where you are to a clearly imagined end-state. Komoroske argues this is almost always wrong:

The end-state is typically more complex than it appears from where you stand.
Actions that look reachable often have invisible dependencies.
Each step genuinely changes what the next step can be — you cannot plan the full path in advance.

The implication is not timidity but sequencing: slice decisions into the smallest defensible steps, each of which clearly pays for itself. This eliminates most of the risk while preserving full exposure to the upside if the compounding path opens up.

The North Star pairing

Adjacent possible alone produces pure incrementalism — gradient descent into a local maximum. Komoroske pairs it with a North Star: a low-resolution 3–5 year direction that:

Every relevant domain expert finds plausible (“I could see how that could work”).
Is worth high-fiving if you get there.
Updates slowly — slides across the sky, does not jerk around.

Combined model: at each decision point, find the adjacent action with the steepest gradient toward the North Star. Take it. Repeat.

This is neither pure opportunism (adjacent possible only) nor waterfall planning (North Star only).

The false precision trap

Organisations spend significant resource computing five-year numbers to two significant figures on decisions where the real question is order-of-magnitude: “Will this be zero or 1,000?” Compounding bets don’t require precision at the beginning; they require the right order-of-magnitude bet and disciplined iteration.

False precision provides comfort, not information. It is a comfort blanket, not analysis.

Buddhist framing

Komoroske endorses the meditation retreat metaphor: point the cart in the direction you want to go, and start walking. Don’t figure out exactly which path you will take to get to the end destination. You will know the shape of the path after the fact; pre-planning it in detail is usually wasted work because the terrain always differs from the map.

Relationship to gardener mindset