Athena Bulletin

By: Michael Jacobson

Strategic planning in some circles has a bad name. Some of the common complaints I have heard over the years:

• “It sits on the shelf”
• “We never know how we are doing on implementing the plan”
• “There’s no accountability"

I have heard  these criticisms and seen all these problems firsthand. And I have been energized (aka frustrated) by the fact that people stopped being curious as to why these problems persisted and weren’t being solved. Is it the fault of the plan or the planning process that these problems exist? Is it a structural issue with the level of engagement or the types of strategies identified?

I would like to challenge the thinking that strategic plans aren’t worth doing because of these reasons and present practical approaches for overcoming these concerns.

Overcoming strategic planning complaint #1: “It sits on the shelf”

Good planning involves people, all kinds of people, in identifying the issues and coalescing around some proposed solutions. The broader the number and type of people the better: clients and customers, employees, residents,  organizations, organizational management, and elected officials. Those solutions, called strategies, are derived from lived experiences, best professional judgement, and ideally evidence-based research. Assuming the strategies are sound, then why do plans “sit on a shelf”?

I have found the number one structural issue is that people assume the plan, once written, is somehow self-implementing. That everyone will just adjust to the new approach and the new strategies will be adopted. In reality, a strategic plan is meant to be strategic. In other words, it is a change from the status quo, it requires leadership and a new direction, new behaviors and often new thinking. Not for everything everywhere all at once, but strategically in some specific areas.

Those specific areas need a road map, support of leadership, communications about the new direction, ongoing change management, and some way to know if they are meeting their intended targets. They also need structured and routinized meetings to ensure the new strategy is being adopted, followed, and is successful. A plan without an implementation plan, at least for the first year or two, will just sit on the shelf.

The implementation plan also needs a parallel implementation team. The team can bring together people that don’t traditionally work together to solve a problem across departments or program, and it can even be temporary (the “Year 1 Implementation Team”). However, the plan should serves as the basis for regular implementation review, data review, and strategy adjustment as the work unfolds.

Overcoming strategic planning complaint #2: “We never know how we are doing on implementing the plan”

I like to say that a strategic plan without performance measures is just a wish! Measures make the plan real, they help with specificity, and they reinforce the strategy. If I were to say to you that I wanted to “be healthier” you might immediately wonder if I meant losing weight, or be able to run a marathon, or lowering my cholesterol. Measures not only make your strategies trackable, but they also communicate and help specify your chosen strategy. And while running as a strategy would probably help with weight, the marathon, and cholesterol, I might also need to add a strategy (e.g., reduce my meat consumption) if my real intended goal was better cholesterol.

Measures are also a way to have a fresh discussion around strategy over time, they help the plan not “stay on the shelf.” Periodic performance reviews based on project status and initial outcome data can help the team see how things are going and inform adjustments or if you need to change course.

Overcoming strategic planning complaint #3: “There’s no accountability”

If you’ve made it this far, you will see that the creation of an implementation plan, a cross functional implementation team, measures tied to your strategy, and periodic measures review all help reduce the feeling that the plan is static and lacking accountability. The well executed plan is both a project (time bound) and program (sustained overtime); it should be referred to as a tool for prioritization and a new way of looking at the organization.

Implementation plans and measures are too often forgotten or considered afterthoughts after the hard work of engagement, analysis, and drafting are done. By putting them on an even footing with the rest of the planning work, you will find plans that continue to live, provide clarity, and help you assess if you have reached your goals into the future.

___

Michael Jacobson is an award-winning public sector leader with 20+ years of experience in strategy, performance management, and organizational transformation.