"If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail" - Benjamin Franklin.
Context
Does your organisation need a strategy or a plan? Chances are, in most endeavours, it will need both if the terms are understood and applied correctly.
A common understanding of terms and definitions is always essential to effective communication and avoiding failures in execution.
Strategy and planning have their origins in a military context, so I like to start with the military explanations as the initial benchmark for a common understanding upon which we can build or adjust to suit a specific organisational context without diverging too far from the original intent of the terms.
What is interesting about these two terms in the Australian military context is, they are very much viewed as intrinsically interdependent; therefore, organisations should ensure they are engaging in strategic planning, not just strategy or planning in isolation from each other.
To help avoid this pitfall, a brief taxonomy of the two key components of strategic planning is very helpful; I’ll get to this shortly, but first:
Meet the Team
The following org. chart depicts some key functions which, in certain circumstances, may all relate to strategy and planning in large organisations, even if they are not always engaged in strategy-based activities:
The Executive is often found planning, and clearly communicating its intended direction for the organisation.
The Risk team are often running workshops with management teams to try and identify the various operational risks within their respective divisions.
The Governance team are always writing new policies about how the organisation needs to function and make decisions in its internal and external environments.
The Innovation teams are just out there doing cool stuff, creating things, solving complex problems and improving how the organisation does business.
Now let’s get back to the taxonomy of Strategic Planning.
What is Planning?
Australian military doctrine [i] provides a very extensive explanation for the term ‘planning’ and various aspects of the planning process, which it summarises nicely in the following paragraphs:
“Planning is an activity of the mind guided by a process.”
“Planning involves clearly identifying the end state and objectives to be achieved, identifying and selecting a preferred course of action (COA), describing how the COA is to be prosecuted and identifying the resources that will be required.”
“The most effective plans are comprehensive, clear, concise and direct.”
“A plan is not a fixed succession of steps to be slavishly followed but, rather, is a solid foundation for adaptation to changing circumstances.”
Planning is part of business-as-usual in the military context and is always strategic in nature in that it considers those factors which might impinge on the successful execution of the plan.
In the business context, there is often a gaping separation between strategy and planning, and strategy teams are often siloed into separate areas; some have their “foot” on the “accelerator” (the executive and innovation-based areas), whilst the others have their “foot” on the “brake” (governance, risk and compliance areas). Wouldn’t it be amazing if all stakeholders could come together to develop strategic plans in a more coherent way?
Let’s look at a simple plan.
The following drawing and explanation presents a very simple and linear example of a plan – the result of planning – something we regularly see from the executive:
We are currently at position A.
Our objective is to move to position C.
We intend to rest for 24 hours at position B.
This is not a very comprehensive plan, as it is missing a lot of important information such as dates and times, distances, and logistics information; but it is a very clear, concise and direct plan.
This is not a strategic plan, nor is it a strategy. It is simply a plan.
The executive writes excellent plans, but often doesn’t engage the support they need to turn their plans into comprehensive strategic plans.
To complete planning in the absence of strategy or extreme good fortune, is to set the organisation on a path to almost certain failure (if it weren’t for all the experts who pick up the pieces along the way).
What is Strategy?
Perhaps it is first helpful to consider what strategy is not. Strategy, in a pure sense, is not:
just a plan,
a mission, vision or values statement,
a policy, nor is it
a goal or objective.
All elements from this list may, and often will, form part of a comprehensive strategic plan, but neither element alone is considered strategy.
Think back to our executive’s simple plan to move from A to C. What if we now have information that there is a threat in our path between positions B and C? Our simple plan has not allowed for this. If we proceed as planned, we will accept an unknown level of risk of failure.
Our new planning diagram may look like the following:
The threat to the execution of our plan is X.
We need to understand what or who X is, how X might hinder the execution of our plan, how X’s strengths and weaknesses relate to our own so we can defend our weaknesses against X’s strengths and exploit X’s weaknesses with our own strengths.
X may be a competitor, and enemy force, a malicious insider, a cyber threat, or even a bureaucratic process.
This is where strategy comes into play. Strategy is what we employ to deal with the possible threats to the execution of our plan.
The innovation team loves pulling problems like this apart and developing smart solutions.
The risk team needs to know about these challenges, the intended solutions, and the initiative’s progress, to report back to the executive on whether the plan remains within risk appetite.
The governance team may need to provide some clear policy to guide the strategy from a legal, reputational or regulatory perspective to ensure the strategy is in keeping with the organisation’s values and external obligations.
“Good strategy” should at its core should consist of a diagnosis, a guiding policy, and coherent actions [ii].
Prior to our knowledge of X, we should have developed a deliberate strategy to allow for the possibility of something like X, Y or Z hindering our plan.
If X takes us by surprise, we will revert to our established, well-rehearsed tactics or emergent strategy to deal with X as effectively as we can with the information and resources at our immediate disposal.
Whether a deliberate or emergent strategic approach is taken, a diverse group of people from the relevant teams should be brought together to find the best solution for mitigating the threat X poses to the plan.
When a threat takes you by surprise, leadership and well-rehearsed tactics are often the most effective tool for ensuring your plan is executed successfully.
In a nutshell, ‘strategy’ is problem solving; therefore, ‘strategic planning’ is building viable options into your plans to mitigate possible threats to the achievement of your plan’s objective.
Conclusion
Most organisations are great at planning.
However, fewer organisations are great at strategy or strategic planning.
Planning will only take an organisation as far as the nearest threat, of which there is an abundance.
Planning and strategy should be treated as interdependent disciplines which are critical to the success of any new undertaking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
[i] 2014, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 5.0 – Joint Planning, p.28
[ii] Rumelt, R 2011, ‘Good Strategy Bad Strategy’, p.7
About the Author
Colin Pecats is Director, iTools Technology at iTools Advisory & Technology where our mission is Creating and Protecting Value through Innovation™.
Our core products and services are focused on Government and Critical Infrastructure, and include:
Strategic Planning
Risk & Resilience Advisory and Software Solutions
For more information, please contact us on any of the following channels:
T | 1300 855 480
Comments