The marketing operating model: how an experiment becomes durable capability
Most marketing language describes either the tiny (an A/B test) or the grand (a strategy) — and nothing connects them. This is the operating vocabulary that does: a single spine, Experiment → Play → Capability, that turns a proven test into a reusable procedure, and a portfolio of procedures into a competitive capability you actually own.
By William Walczak — MBA, PhD candidate (UBC‑Okanagan), CEO, Hiilite Creative Group Inc.
Two languages that never talk to each other
Practitioners speak in funnels and experiments. Strategists speak in positioning and capability. The seam between them is where most marketing operating models quietly fall apart.
The operational layer
Growth hacking — rapid, measured experimentation against a metrics funnel (AARRR). Concrete and precise at the level of a single action. Its weakness is theoretical depth: it tells you what to do, not why it compounds.
The theoretical layer
Dynamic capabilities (Teece) — a firm’s higher-order capacity to sense, seize, and transform its resource base in volatile markets. Deep, peer-reviewed, explanatory. Its weakness is abstraction: it explains durable advantage but doesn’t tell you what to do on Monday.
Used together — with the seam made explicit — they describe both what Hiilite does and why doing it that way produces durable advantage.
The bridge is microfoundations
The most heavily policed line in the strategy literature is the one between ordinary capabilities (doing current things well) and dynamic capabilities (changing what the firm does). Flattening both source frameworks onto a single ladder would be a genuine theoretical error — so we don’t.
Instead we use Teece’s own connective construct. The microfoundations of a dynamic capability are the distinct, codified low-level processes that undergird sensing, seizing, and transforming — which run in parallel and continuously, never as a sequence. That is the precise slot a Hiilite Play occupies:
A growth-hacking experiment that proves out is codified into a Play; a maintained portfolio of plays constitutes a dynamic capability. Running a known play well is ordinary; changing the portfolio when the market shifts is the dynamic capability at work.
This is also a direct answer to the standing criticism that dynamic capabilities are too abstract to operationalise: Hiilite enacts sensing, seizing, and transforming through a concrete, agency-specific microfoundations layer — its library of Plays.
The master reference table
One vertical axis of abstraction, with each tier shown by its operational term, its theoretical anchor, the attribute that defines it, and the basis on which it can be cited.
| Tier | Operational term | Theory anchor (DC) | Defining attribute | Citation basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 — Capability | (no GH term) | Dynamic capability: sense / seize / transform | Higher-order; reconfigures the resource base; continuous & parallel | Established — Teece (2007) |
| 1 — Strategy | Strategy | Output of seizing; strategic positioning | Durable, directional, rationale-bearing choices | Established — Mintzberg; Porter |
| 2 — Tactic | Channel / lever | Functional-level routine | Standing method or class of action (not a dated instance) | Established — marketing mix |
| 3 — Play | Play / playbook | Microfoundation (low-level DC) | Reusable, codified procedure; triggered by a recurring situation | Defined construct (practitioner origin) |
| 3 — Campaign | Campaign | Bundle of microfoundations applied | Time-bounded coordinated effort; defined start & end | Practitioner term; defined for use |
| 4 — Experiment | Experiment (AARRR) / activity | Atomic enactment of a routine | Single build–measure–learn test or task; lowest granularity | Practitioner — Ellis; McClure |
Tiers 0–2 are asserted from the literature. Tier 3 holds two unit-types at the same level of abstraction — they share an altitude but differ in kind. Tier 4 is the native home of growth-hacking experimentation.
Why Play and Campaign sit at the same level
Naming the axes explicitly — rather than burying them in the hierarchy — is what protects the framework under scrutiny.
Abstraction
The vertical axis: Capability → Strategy → Tactic → (Play | Campaign) → Experiment.
Reusability
Play is high — invoked on a trigger, again and again. Campaign is low — run once.
Time-bounding
Campaign is bounded — it has an end date. Play is standing — situation-triggered, no end date.
Reusability and time-bounding aren’t competing for one slot. They are the two attributes that differentiate the two unit-types occupying the same altitude. A campaign is frequently composed of plays and experiments.
Which tier is this work? Six tests, in order
When it’s unclear where a piece of work belongs, apply these in sequence and stop at the first that fits.
- Does it change what we are capable of doing, not just execute? → it touches a Tier-0 capability.
- Is it a durable directional choice? → Strategy (Tier 1).
- Is it a standing method we always use? → Tactic (Tier 2).
- Does it have a fixed end date? → Campaign (Tier 3).
- Is it triggered by a recurring condition and meant to be reused? → Play (Tier 3).
- Is it a single test or task? → Experiment / Activity (Tier 4).
Worked example. Running one Google Ads headline A/B test is a Tier-4 experiment. The documented “winning-headline” procedure it produces is a Tier-3 play. Your team’s standing ability to keep running and re-tooling those tests as the market shifts is a Tier-0 capability.
Every skill is a Play
In this vocabulary, every Claude skill in the Hiilite platform is a Play (Tier 3) — a reusable codified procedure that enacts one of the three dynamic-capability clusters. The dual label is what keeps the platform and the dissertation speaking one language.
| Skill (Play) | DC cluster | Why |
|---|---|---|
seo-audit | Sensing | Identifies threats and opportunities in a client’s organic position — the textbook definition of sensing. |
page-cro | Seizing | Acts on an identified opportunity by reconfiguring a page to capture conversion value. |
quickbooks-client-lookup | Transforming | An internal-process routine that keeps records and systems aligned — organisational renewal, not market action. |
fyxer-to-onenote | Transforming | Codifies meeting knowledge into the internal knowledge base — a transforming microfoundation. |
hiilite-org | Sensing Transforming | Navigates internal SOPs and docs — supports both situational awareness and process renewal. |
When an experiment proves out, we promote it — it moves up from a Tier-4 experiment to a Tier-3 play: write it up as a procedure so the learning becomes a reusable microfoundation rather than a one-off result.
Using the vocabulary in practice
In project management
Portfolios & strategic initiatives map to Tier 0–1. Projects are usually Campaigns (Tier 3) or standing Tactic areas (Tier 2). Recurring checklists are Plays. Individual tasks are Experiments / Activities (Tier 4).
In the platform
Each skill is documented as a Play, tagged with its DC cluster (sensing / seizing / transforming). Proven experiments get promoted into Plays so learning compounds.
In academic writing
Assert Strategy and Tactic as established terms with citations. Present Play and Campaign as defined operational constructs. Carry the theoretical weight with dynamic capabilities — and never depict sensing/seizing/transforming as a sequence.
Glossary
From doctoral research, in the product every day
This taxonomy is a design-science artifact — the act of defining the constructs is the contribution. It grounds Hiilite’s operating vocabulary in established strategic-management theory so the same words mean the same things in an Asana project, a Claude skill, a client deliverable, and a dissertation chapter.
Questions, answered
What is the difference between a play and a campaign?
Both sit at the same level of abstraction but differ in kind. A Play is a reusable, codified procedure triggered whenever a recurring situation arises — high reusability, no end date. A Campaign is a time-bounded coordinated effort with a defined start and end, run once, and is frequently composed of plays and experiments.
How do marketing experiments become a competitive capability?
Through the Experiment → Play → Capability spine. An experiment that proves out is codified into a Play (a microfoundation); an accumulated, maintained portfolio of plays constitutes a dynamic capability. Running a known play well is ordinary; changing the portfolio when the market shifts is the dynamic capability at work.
Are sensing, seizing and transforming a sequence?
No. In dynamic-capabilities theory they run in parallel on a more-or-less continuous basis. Representing them as a pipeline misstates the theory.
What are dynamic capabilities for a small business?
The ability to keep re-tooling how you market as conditions change — sensing a shift (like AI answer engines disrupting organic search), seizing the right response, and transforming your routines. Concretely: maintain a portfolio of codified plays and deliberately change that portfolio when the market moves, rather than running the same plays harder.
Want an operating model, not just a campaign?
One conversation to map your plays, the capabilities they build, and what we’d measure to prove it.
References
- Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.
- Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355.
- Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
- Mintzberg, H. (1987). The strategy concept I: Five Ps for strategy. California Management Review, 30(1), 11–24.
- Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.
- Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
- Teece, D. J. (2018). Dynamic capabilities as (workable) management systems theory. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(3), 359–368.
- Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
- Practitioner sources (cited as practitioner constructs, not theory): Ellis, S. (growth hacking); McClure, D. (AARRR / pirate metrics).