There are indeed a lot of cunning planners out there. So for you, and having written or reviewed a lot of these docs (the good, bad and the ugly), here are three more guide points to help make them work to the max. This is important. Well-written ones get read and have a far better chance of being acted upon. Bad and ugly ones get condemned to the (digital) closet.
SWOTs that (again)? Last time, I looked at how distilling key issues from SWOT content is crucial (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats). But what if the content itself is less than perfect, ambiguous, or even confusing? Ever read one in which the same issue or factor appears more than once e.g. it is both a Strength and i) a Weakness or even ii) an Opportunity?
For i), you must make a judgement call – decide which it is on the weight of evidence and impact and stick with it. In ii), the most frequent reason for such a mix-up is unclear understanding of the differences between SW and OT. SWs are intrinsic issues that fall largely under your or the firm’s control or ability to influence; OTs are extrinsic issues largely beyond your control/influence.
SFA your options Once the plan has generated a number of real strategic options, choosing which is best to pursue becomes critical. The one that seems to deliver most financial ‘bang’? Or that you are personally most vested in? Here, the three classic strategic SFA option criteria* and appropriate analysis tools for them need to be used:
- Suitability (would it work?): whether a strategy addresses the key issues identified in the plan
- Feasibility (can it be made to work?): whether the resources required to implement the strategy successfully can be made available, developed or obtained. These include funding, people, time and information.
- Acceptability (will they work it?): whether the expectations of the various stakeholders will be met so that they buy in and better ensure success.
Monitor, review and update I have jested about plans never seeing the light of day because they are too long. But even if they are OK as a ‘product’, they can still not be used once formal acceptance has occurred: so into the dark recesses of the cupboard they also go. This tends to occur in organisations where there is no real buy-in to the need for planning and thus no real importance attaches to its achievement. It is just a “paper exercise”.
Good firms ensure such importance by adopting the maxim: “what gets measured and rewarded gets done”. Performance against plan is tracked and monitored rigorously by senior management; partners and teams are held directly accountable for what happens (or does not happen) and what is (not) achieved. As a result, funnily enough, plans tend to get reviewed and updated regularly by their originators and users.
* ‘Exploring Strategy: Text & Cases’ (2013) Johnson, Whittington & Scholes
James Newberry runs People Scope, a consultancy, interim, training and coaching firm working with lawyers, accountants and other specialists to help them operate successfully outside of their comfort zones. http://www.peoplescope.com.