Friday, April 2, 2010

Strategic Planning is Dead! Execute! | FastCompany | Norman Wolfe

Strategic Planning is Dead - Long Live Strategy Execution

BY FC EXPERT BLOGGER NORMAN WOLFE
This blog is written by a member of our expert blogging community and expresses that expert's views alone.

WARNING:  If your environment doesn’t change much and the way you do business today is fundamentally the way you will be doing business in the next 5 – 10 years – DO NOT READ THIS!

In a recent blog post, I declared Strategic Planning was obsolete.  The current approach for defining where an organization is going and how it will get there - the ubiquitous Strategic Planning Offsite meeting - can no longer produce the desired result.   Why? In our dynamically changing world, the environment where we execute is not the same one we originally planned for.

However, the underlying objectives of the Strategy Planning process still remain as important today as ever.  It is still critical to establish and communicate the strategic direction for the firm.  And it is even more critical to align all the elements of the living corporate body to perform in ways that ensure the organization achieves its desired results.

Since the key objectives of setting strategic direction and organization alignment towards those goals remain critical, the process by which these objectives are achieved needs to change. To better understand why this is, let’s continue to explore the analogy of the corporate body operating in a similar fashion to the human body.

We know that over 90% of our behavioral responses to our environment occurs semi-autonomously.  The nervous system determines the body’s response to thousands upon thousands of simultaneous inputs received from our environment.  The brain (our body’s central decision processing function) has little say in how our body responds most of the time.   And this is a good thing.  Imagine what life would be like if all decisions had to first go to our brains for a decision before any action would occur.  There are thousands, perhaps millions of choices being made between the many functional parts of our bodies in one of the most coordinated and collaborative team efforts one can imagine. 

Think about what happens when you drive.  When driving on the freeway at 65 mph, how much of your conscious thought is actually focused on driving? What percentage of your brain is coordinating your foot that is pressing on the pedal, with your arm that is controlling the steering wheel, while taking in the data from your eyes as they scan the environment around you?  It is quite amazing to realize that we get to our destination while our conscious thoughts are focused on everything but our driving.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our organizations can get us to our destination with the same degree of semi-autonomous behavior; where the corporate body could respond to the rapidly changing environment with the speed and accuracy of decisions that ensure our ultimate success, much as the human body gets us to our destination?

Like our human bodies, corporate bodies are driven by their own version of the semi-autonomous nervous system. Directors and managers comprise the corporate nervous system that guides the day-to-day decisions made by the hundreds or thousands of people (the corporate body’s cells) as they respond to the myriad of data inputs coming from the corporation’s operating environment.

With this metaphor in mind, let’s return to the challenge of strategy execution and the role of setting the strategic direction and aligning the forces within the organization to the desired results.

In the traditional approach to strategic planning, the CEO and executive team participate in a offsite planning session, where they evaluate strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, (the classic SWOT analysis), set the future direction for the organization, and map out specific action plans to achieve the desired results.  They then go back and communicate these well thought-out plans to the rest of the organization with “marching orders” as to what the various functional departments will each carry out. So long as the environment remains pretty much as they understood it, this approach was likely to produce the desired results.

But herein lies the failing; the environment now changes at a rate faster than the planning horizon. Said simply, the marketplace dynamics will have changed significantly before the organization has a chance to realize its planned results. 

The current execution model relies too much on the executive team (the brain of the corporate body), being involved in the decision making.  Starting with the planning process and carrying over into the myriad day-to-day decisions, the executive team is the dominant decision makers.   When the environment moved slower this was acceptable, but at today’s rate of change this no longer works.  It is analogous to the brain guiding every movement while driving a car. The driver would slow down to the same speed as that of a student driver trying to get everything coordinated.

The problem lies in the nature of decision making: every decision is made within a specific context.  This context holds the core reason for why we are here and what we are trying to do, and holds the core values against which we evaluate various alternative actions. It also contains the framework which allows us to organize and make sense of the thousands of data inputs we collect. 

In the current approach to strategic planning and execution, the Context of the organization resides with the Executive Team and little, if anything, is ever done to infuse this core Context throughout the organization.  Instead, what is usually communicated is only the “what and the how” of the plan, not the “where and why.” 

Without the Context of Soulful Purpose, Values, and Desired Future and a framework for sorting and evaluating input, the corporate body will never be able to execute without continuous involvement from the executive.  Going back to our driving example, one could say that most organizations today operate like student drivers who are thinking about every move they make.

To operate at the speed of today’s business environment, organizations must have the corporate body operate in a semi-autonomous fashion, much like the human body.  This requires a different approach to strategic planning, with most planning focusing on establishing a strong Context; a Context which is not merely communicated but is infused throughout the corporate nervous system. Additionally, a decision making process must be established that allows individuals (the cells of the corporate body) to quickly respond to the environment in a manner consistent with the Strategic Context. 

To learn more about Context, the human body analogy to today’s corporation, and The Living Organization® model, please click here to download a free white paper.

 

 


Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

LjjSpeaks: What will you give of yourself today?

Thank you for communicating with me! I will be out of the office through April 13, 2010. I will rarely be checking email and voice mail. I will respond to you after April 14. You can schedule a presentation, workshop or keynote address through my website with my online assistant. www.TheJjWay.com.

Have a fabulous week!


Lynne Jarman-Johnson
"Vacation starts now!"

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

LjjSpeaks: What will you give of yourself today?

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Keep YOUR action plan on track! | Harvard Business Review | Gill Corkindale


How To Keep Your Action Plan On Track: 


Gill Corkindale 

Original Post:  http://blogs.hbr.org/corkindale/2010/01/how_to_keep_your_action_plan_o.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-MANAGEMENT_TIP-_-APR_2010-_-MTOD0401&referral=00203


Four days into 2010 I received an email from a client, Erik, updating me on the progress he had made with his action plan since our last meeting in October. Back then, we had identified a number of things he needed to work on — including listening more effectively and being politically aware. The plan also included how he might measure his progress — for example, with the feedback he received from colleagues, improved relationships, and more visibility — and some target dates for improvement.

Erik said he would call me to go through the details and discuss some refinements to his plan. I was impressed. Rarely do I have clients who report their progress so promptly and spontaneously. When we spoke, I commented that his plan was right on schedule: neither year-end fatigue nor the holiday break had derailed him. How had he managed to keep it on track?

He replied that his plan was designed to support his development, not get in the way of his work and life. It was, he said, specific, realistic, with clear time frames and small, manageable goals. Put simply, it worked for him. Erik's success lay partly in his motivation and focus and partly in the fact that he had designed a living, working plan — and not a piece of paper to be shoved in his desk drawer, only to be consulted occasionally.

Not everyone is as diligent in implementing their action plans as Erik, myself included: some of my resolutions for 2010 have already lapsed and need serious action to get back on track. It's a fact that most people's good intentions lapse as soon as they re-enter the real world — or the organisation.

I see this again and again in my work as a coach and consultant. Even the best coaching session or consultancy project is time wasted if the sudden breakthrough, excellent action plan or exciting strategy fails to become reality. It is easy to write an action plan, but an important first step is often overlooked: anticipating potential threats to the plan.

Before my clients leave the consulting room, I always ask them, what will get in the way of your plan? Using a using a simplified version of Lewin's Force Field Analysis, I ask clients to identify factors that will support and oppose their plan. For example, someone who wants to improve her relationship with her boss might identify supporting factors such as being reasonably approachable, staying in her job for a year or two, and the boss having a reputation for being consistent. Opposing factors might include her boss having to travel extensively (precluding regular meetings), responsibility for a large or disparate team, or her own lack of confidence.

Then I ask the client to think of ways that she might mitigate or work with these opposing factors. In the example above, the client could work on her personal confidence, making sure she fights for some time with her boss, and planning meetings to fit in with her boss's schedule. In these ways, she can capitalise on the supporting factors in the situation.

As I tell my clients repeatedly, the real work is making things happen. There is no easy way to say this — it requires hard work, application, patience, vision, foresight, self-belief, pragmatism, dogged determination (sometimes), flexibility (often), energy, and consistency. Staying power and the ability just to keep going are critical however many times you lapse or fall short of your plan.

One of the problems with working within an organisation is that collectively there could be more opposing forces than supporting forces. You might wish to make a personal change, such as being more open and transparent, but corporate cultures, power structures and politics could make this difficult. Or the organisation might be suffering from change fatigue, which could scupper new initiatives.

If you are in charge of a team action plan or are handling a company-wide change intitiative, try to devise a realistic plan: be aware of what you can reasonably achieve and what might be impossible. Then apply the same principles: identify supporting and opposing factors, then develop strategies to mitigate or deal with opposing factors.

Here are some thoughts about what individuals, teams, and organisations can do to keep their plans on track.

Individuals


  • Keep a journal to hold yourself accountable to your plan. This might cover how you use your time, small steps you have taken, feedback from others, what worked and what didn't work, and changes you can see. Try to enter a few lines each day and review the journal each week for signs of progress or slippage.

  • Find a coach, mentor, manager, or buddy to support you in your action plan. Ask for help or advice in getting your plan back on track if it lapses. And don't forget to talk about your successes to keep motivated.

Team


  • If you are managing a team — or you are part of a team — it's important to share the responsibility and accountability for the plan.

  • Ensure that notes are taken at meetings and distributed afterwards, appoint project managers and allocate key responsibilities.

  • Hold team members to real deadlines and schedule regular meetings to give updates and monitor progress

  • Tie individual accountability into appraisals

  • Regular team offsite days will help the team review the wider progress.

Organisations


  • Ensure you have backing at the highest levels for change initiatives and appoint change champions across the organisation

  • Set aside time for top team offsite meetings to discuss strategy, assess progress, refine plans and change direction if necessary.

  • Remind people that day-to-day business must not marginalise or overwhelm change initiatives

  • Bring in external consultants and external stakeholders to provide new perspectives and energy when plans are flagging

Keep your plan alive and working for you as long as it serves you, whatever challenges the opposing forces may bring. The reward will be personal and organisational change, growth, and even transformation.

As ever, these are my thoughts — I am sure you have many more interesting insights and ideas into how individuals, leaders, and organisation can hold to their plans of action. What have been your personal and organisational experiences? Do you have any useful strategies to share with readers or questions you would like to ask? I look forward to hearing from you.


NOTE:  I posted this idea that works for teams - thank you to Kent Regional Community Coordinated Child Care  for creating it:  

When you send NOTES from a meeting take the time to highlight in RED the accountability actions for EVERYONE - not just yourself.  Then place them in a calendar and reimind everyone consistently about what the team said they will be accountable for. It's amazing how the "blame" of getting something done goes away and together you work to get tasks complete.  There is no more "I forgot" and instead there is "does anyone need help with their tasks?!" 

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

LjjSpeaks: Replace the word "THINK" with "THANK" today! Amazing Results: Example: THANK outside of the box!

Thank you for communicating with me! I will be out of the office through April 13, 2010. I will rarely be checking email and voice mail. I will respond to you after April 14. You can schedule a presentation, workshop or keynote address through my website with my online assistant. www.TheJjWay.com.

Have a fabulous week!


Lynne Jarman-Johnson
"Vacation starts now!"

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

LjjSpeaks: Replace the word "THINK" with "THANK" today! Amazing Results: Example: THANK outside of the box!

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Why does a customer want to give money to you? The start of a great business model | Harvard Business Review

    Quick: Describe your company's business model.

    Having trouble? That wouldn't surprise me. In reality, there isn't really any consensus about what the term "business model" even means. Suggestions range from the all-encompassing, everything-in-your-value-chain approach to the reductionist "A business model is nothing else than a representation of how an organization makes (or intends to make) money."

    That latter definition is from Peter Drucker. And while I applaud his attempt to reach for the essence of the idea, I think he went too far. A business model has to specify more than just how a company intends to make money. It also needs to include some information about why a customer would ever want to give the company any money.

    As something of a middle ground, I've proposed (in both an HBR article and in more depth in my book Seizing the White Space) a framework meant to be specific enough to overcome the reductionist problem but selective enough to overcome the unwieldiness of the kitchen-sink camp. I've broken it out into four boxes that answer the following questions:

    1. Why would someone want to buy something from you?
    2. How will you make money selling it?
    3. What, exactly, are the important things you need to do to pull off the plan?

    (I know that's three questions, but the answer to that last question comes in two parts, so the model requires four boxes.)

    To answer the first question, you need to construct acustomer value proposition (CVP) — not by trying to convince customers of the value of your products but the other way around, by identifying an important job a customer needs to get done and then proposing an offering that fulfills that job better than any alternative the customer can turn to. Generally speaking, the more important job is to the customer, the lower the level of satisfaction with current alternatives and the lower the price, the stronger the CVP.

    To answer the second question, you need to specify your profit formula. On one level you could think of this merely as how much you expect to sell at a certain price minus your costs, but to be useful as a strategic tool, I've broken it out into four buckets:

    1. Revenue model — simply, quantity times price
    2. Cost structure — not only direct costs and indirect costs, but also overhead, which too many companies think of as immutable
    3. Margin model — though technically part of the cost structure, I break it out separately because all too often companies mistake their margins for their entire profit formula and have tremendous difficulty understanding how a lower – margin opportunities could ever be profitable
    4. Resource velocity — often overlooked as a profit generator, this measures how many widgets a company can invent, design, produce, warehouse, ship, service, sell, and pay for throughout the value chain for a given amount of investment, for a given amount of time. In some sense, it's a measure of not how much money flows through your company but how quickly it flows through it.

    Finally, to answer the third question, you need to identify which company resources and which processes are essential to delivering the customer value proposition. These are not all the steps in the value chain — just those that are critical for the CVP.

    As Peter Drucker did in the quote above, many people equate the profit formula with the entire business model. That's often all that's captured in many business model analogies, as well. Worse, many people focus just on the margin or overhead requirements of their current profit formula.

    But every successful company is operating according to a business model that incorporates all four parts of this framework — a value proposition customers want, delivered through a coherent profit formula, which not only covers its overhead and margins but generates revenue at a certain volume and velocity, by employing certain key resources effectively through certain key processes.

    Identify this model and you will go a long way toward understanding why your company is successful in what it's doing (or at least what it was doing before the recession). And unless you know that, you'll have little chance of working out what you need to change to be successful doing something else — like meeting whatever challenges the post-recession economy creates this year.

    Mark W. Johnson is chairman of Innosight, a strategic innovation consulting and investing company with offices in Massachusetts, Singapore, and India, which he cofounded with Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen. Mark's book is Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal.

    Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!