Archive for the ‘Strategic Plans’ category

« Strategy Insight home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Putting It All Together: Initiatives, Priorities and an Approach

November 3, 2008

Today’s post is the culmination of the “trilogy” of posts (see the “Managing by Priority” and number of Business Initiatives” posts for the first two.) My intention is to provide a working model that allows you to decide which projects should be in the portfolio of projects that you would choose to address.

To accomplish this, I have found it best to apply the classical decision making process with a strategic twist. (To learn more about this approach, you may want to visit the American Management Association site and research their seminars on Strategies for Effective Problem Solving and Decision Making or look at some of Peter Drucker’s books and particularly “The Practice of Management“)

Here’s the model we will use:

  1. Prework: Understand and agree on the problem / opportunity. This is really one of the most critical steps. Often decisions are made incorrectly simply because the “wrong” problem or opportunity is defined. I consider it wise to add a strategic filter to any discussion. Put more simply, the problem or opportunity has to be supportive or related to one of our strategic goals.
  2. Define the Objectives: Establish the outcome of the process. This is a further refinement of the defined problem or opportunity. It speaks broadly to the attributes of a successful decision. Performing this step allows us to assess the decision that we make is in the context of a specific outcome. If it allows us to meet the outcome that we were aiming at, the decision is probably a good one. This can be quickly accomplished by merging perspectives into a brief written statement regarding the desired outcome.
  3. Establish Criteria: Establish boundaries within which the decision must fall. This is yet another level of refinement of the objectives. I like to execute this step before we discuss tactical options. This is because it is not uncommon for the people in the room to be biased toward a particular tactic(s). By establishing criteria first, the group tends to offer more objective factors or conditions by which the options will later be evaluated. Examples of criteria might be ROI, availability of resources, committed executive sponsorship or complexity.
  4. Generate Alternatives: At this stage we are ready to list all of the tactical options. An effective facilitator should be careful not to edit out options or pre-judge them. To enable buy-in, everyone must be heard and the process must have integrity.
  5. Evaluate / Analyze Alternatives: With our choices in front of us and criteria establish by which we may evaluate them, the group is well positioned to determine which projects are the most appropriate ones to be addressed. I do counsel the group to create a portfolio of short-, medium- and long-term projects as well as allowing some room to handle emergencies.
  6. Make the Decision: This is the final stage. At this point the group reaches alignment. (The choice of the word “alignment” is by design. It is a more apt word to me than “consensus.” In many situations the group does not fully agree but they can “get behind” the decision and agree to move forward with it as the plan for the organization.)

Once all of this has been accomplished, there is typically one of two steps that must take place. Either the group must obtain approval from someone else or it can begin implementation planning. Each of these processes has very defined steps to success and I hope to discuss them in a future post.

Categories: Leadership, Strategic Plans, Strategy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Managing by Priority

October 29, 2008

A little more than ten years ago, when I began to actively study business process redesign, I came across a book titled Managing by Priority: Thinking Strategically, Acting Effectively. The book’s author, Giorgio Merli, introduced me to a concept called time “horizons” and its role in decision making.

There are a number of ways to understand this concept. On a personnel level, think of it in terms of a typical departmental organization. A customer facing employee (sales reps, customer support staff) operate in an immediate time horizon. There job is to address whatever issue the client or prospect puts in front of them. A departmental manager typically has a longer time horizon. Their thoughts are more focused on a year or two down the road. A general corporate manger is focused typically on a three to five year plan.

From an initiative perspective, to be successful, a company has to effectively pursue objectives with three different time horizons (short, medium, and long) and at the same time manage emergency situations. If they are effective at doing so, the results of their efforts will be seen at different times.

Emergencies are typically problems to be solved or opportunities to be capitalized upon. A work stoppage or the ability to deliver a product or service caused by a “trigger” in the environment is a common example. Success rests on quick reaction times, improvisation and rapid deployment.

Short-term objectives are usually aimed at operational performance. Examples include issues related to quality, cost, processes, and financial results. Corporate leadership will typically frame these as annual objectives.

Medium-term objectives are those that concentrate on assuring that the business will still be competitive two to three years down the road. Leaders would focus on organizational capabilities after assessing where they think the competition will put the company at risk and market trends. Think new product development, retooling and significant technology improvements at this level.

The long-term objectives are more closely aligned with a five to ten year horizon. This point of view looks at where the company must be in terms of its organizational and cultural shape. It is for this reason that the word “vision” is commonly associated with long-term thinking.

If you look for it, you’ll find this pattern of time horizons appearing a lot and in places such as business process redesign, portfolio analysis and – you guessed it – strategy.

Does your mix of initiatives address all of these time horizons? More important, is your leadership team evaluating all of these time horizons when building your strategic plan?

Categories: Strategic Plans, Strategy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

How many business improvement initiatives can a company manage at any one time?

October 24, 2008

Operating a business in these challenging times is certainly not easy. In the last two posts, I introduced a number of strategies that make sense during an economic downturn. One of these strategies can best be classified as a sales strategy – that is, how to reignite opportunities that one would otherwise expect to stagnate when the economy is in difficult straits and businesses are adhering strongly to the philosophy of hoarding cash because “cash is king.”

The other strategy looked to the internal workings of a company and focused on how a company might best use underutilized resources that are suddenly available because sales are lagging. In this context, we discussed the development of best practices and the optimization of internal processes.

It is on this internal opportunity that I would like to discuss in today’s post.

The internal business process redesign discussion begs the question as to how many initiatives can a company manage at any given time. Is there an optimal number and if there isn’t, how does one determine how many initiatives are manageable so that business opportunities and the needs of clients continue to be addressed?

In all of my research and studies, I have yet to come across a discussion that addresses this particular question. To address this question, I will rely on my thirty years of experience as a CEO and consultant and share with you what I have learned from my experiences as a strategist.

To perform this analysis, one must:

  • Understand your company’s strategic goals
  • Define what tactics are required to support these strategic goals
  • Establish what each department must do to achieve the strategic goals
  • Determine the time and effort required by departmental staff to support the achievement of the core goals that essentially enable the company to deliver value and stay in business

What remains after performing this analysis is the amount of time available for personnel to address new improvement initiatives.

In other words, this analysis is predicated on assessing the company’s priorities and the core roles that must be fulfilled. After all, customer support personnel must perform their support function or the company risks client defections. Sales and relationship professionals must be engaging prospects and customers to assure growth. Accounting and internal support staff must make certain that the infrastructure exists so that the organization can run efficiently. These are the prime functions of these departments.

So is there an optimal amount or maximum number of initiatives a company can manage? As best as I can tell, the number of enterprise-wide initiatives that a company can swallow is typically between one and three. (Note added 11/09/08: Interestingly, several weeks after this post was written, the Obama Transition Team was enagged in a similar conversation and may have reached a similar conclusion.)

The reason that I believe this to be so is that I have concluded that most people have a difficulty managing more than five significant goals or projects simultaneously at any given time. And if one considers that the average person has two or three core functions for which he or she is accountable, this only leaves so much space for professional and organizational development without impacting the core responsibilities that each of us have.

Categories: Sales, Strategic Plans, Strategy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

A Case Study of the Five Tests of a Sound Strategy

September 26, 2008

A short time ago, there was no such thing as overnight shipping. Then Federal Express, DHL and Airborne Express came upon the scene. At first blush, these three companies appeared to be competitors but upon closer examination, they each passed the five tests of a sound strategy.

DHL staked out in the international shipping arena so if you didn’t need to send something overseas, there was no need to use them. Their value proposition was simple – “DHL ships overseas and the others don’t.” Because of this, they required a different value chain – one that would allow them to take packages, manage them through customs, get them on a plane to some fairway land and then have some method of getting the package from the airport to the intended recipients. Their activities fit together and everyone in the organization knew exactly what the business model was and how to deliver the business’ value. Finally, DHL, for the most part, chose NOT to compete in the domestic market space.

You may recall Federal Express’ initial advertising campaign. It was simply stated as “when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.” Their second marketing campaign was built around the slogan “our most important package is yours.”

These two messages are core to understanding the FedEx strategy. The business model was that you could count on your important package being delivered anywhere in the United States by 9:30 am in that particular time zone provide that the package was in a FedEx drop-off box by 7 pm the night before. The second slogan creatively expressed that Federal Express treats all of our packages the same. There is no differentiation based on who sent it or why or even what is inside. Indeed, the most important package that FedEx was delivering was everybody’s.

The FedEx model was pioneering in the overnight shipping industry because their value chain created a standardized way of assuring delivery overnight of any package. This required a value chain that guaranteed and measured the time by which a package was received as well as when it arrived. The company chose not to promise faster delivery of any package – the package would always be delivered by 9:30 the next morning even if the customer was willing to pay more for special treatment. And everyone in the company knew the model.

I remember when the FedEx deliver person would come to pick up a package at our offices. If the package wasn’t ready when the client said it would be, the FedEx employee would become agitated and sometimes even leave the office without the package if the wait was too long. Boy, were they in a hurry! Our staff never even knew the FedEx employee’s name because there was never any time for conversation. Chasing the clock is very intense work.

And then there was Airborne Express…

There aren’t many who remember their advertising slogan because Airborne chose not to advertise. Airborne’s model was built around custom delivery services. They made business deals with companies that required frequent and ongoing shipments that had to arrive before 9:30 am. Some of their customers were companies that supplied parts and needed to have these parts in a technician’s hand before 9:30 am. Airborne would even build warehouses and acquire roadway services if the customer was large enough so that it could adhere to the promise of customized delivery.

Did the shipping customer pay more? Sure. But for those companies who needed to get staff on the road sooner than 9:30 am, the premium was well worth it. The interesting thing was that if there was a package that was not from an elite customer, there was no guarantee that it would arrive on a certain day, let alone by a certain time. Their most important package was the one sent by the special customers who shipped large volumes of packages requiring special care or timing.

Airborne too passed the test of a sound strategy. Unique value proposition? You betcha. Tailored value chain? Check. Choosing what not to do? Absolutely. Activities that reinforce one another? Certainly. Strategic continuity? Without a doubt.

All three companies effectively executed their strategies and also taught us that you can serve the same function and be successful if you implement a sound strategy.

Categories: Strategic Plans, Strategy, Visioning
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

The Five Tests of a Sound Strategy

September 24, 2008

Assuming that we know “what we want to be,” that is, we now have a vision in place, we can begin to immerse ourselves in deciding the best path toward reaching our destination.

Yes, we are finally ready to formalize our business strategy.

Strategy is defined based upon (1) the industry and your position within the industry as well as (2) your position relative to your competitors’ position.

Most people think of strategy as optimizing what they already do and being the best at it, leading them to conclude that there is one, best way to compete. Strategy is really about choosing to differentiate one’s product / services from one’s competitors.

Failing to differentiate one’s products / services from those of one’s competitors – meaning the consumer can’t decide which product is better — creates destructive competition in which the only distinction is price. Price competition is never sustainable and is unwinnable.

Competing effectively means that a company is

  • Exceeding the Industry Average Return
  • Creating a return greater than those of most or all of your competitors

To win, you either have to have a higher price (justified by a differentiation of product / service) or a lower cost (justified by a more efficient value chain). You need to operate from the industry cost vs. your cost and the industry price vs. your price. Regardless, you have to be profitable. After all, you can’t have an army without feeding it…and you can’t have a business without being able to sustain it.

Five Tests of a Sound Strategy

There are five tests of a sound strategy

1.      A unique value proposition compared to competitors

2.      A different, tailored value chain

3.      Clear tradeoffs, and choosing what NOT to do

4.      Activities that fit together and reinforce each other

5.      Strategic continuity (having the strategy permeate throughout the organization)

Defining the Value Proposition

Defining the value proposition means identifying the end users and the channels used to sell to them; understanding the end user’s needs and which products, features, and services will address them; and creating a profitable price at which they will buy. We have already discussed how we can learn more about what our customers are really buying.

According to UCLA Anderson’s School of Management Professor Richard Rummelt, there are two ways to get to a successful value proposition. One, you can invent your way to success. Unfortunately, you can’t count on that. The second path is to exploit some change in your environment – in technology, consumer tastes, laws, resource prices, or competitive behavior – and ride that change with quickness and skill. The key is to take a position while there is uncertainty and ambiguity. Clarity occurs only after a company takes a position. However, by choosing to let another take a position, one loses the opportunity to profit from the knowledge.

The second path is how most successful companies develop their plan. Changes do not come along in nice annual packages, so the need for strategy is episodic, not necessarily annual.

Sustaining Competitive Position – The Role of Tradeoffs

  • Choosing a unique position is necessary but not sufficient to create a sustainable advantage because of the threat of imitation
  • Traditional thinking focuses on competitors’ difficulty or ability to imitate
  • Equally, if not more important, is whether competitors want to imitate
  • Tradeoffs are incompatibilities between strategic positions that create the need for choice
  • Strategic tradeoffs lie at the heart of sustainability
  • An essential part of strategy is choosing what not to do

The takeaway is that as business leaders, we want to encourage choice. In fact, we want to our offering to appeal to our target consumers. We want the service / product to contain exactly what they would like and not have more features than are required, even if they are additional to what the consumer wants. Additional and unnecessary features only drive up our costs and reduce profitability.

In the next post, we’ll talk about companies who employed this approach to great success.

Categories: Leadership, Strategic Plans, Strategy
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Four Questions You Must Answer and The Importance of Your Vision

September 4, 2008

It’s time then to get down to the more practical aspects of creating a business strategy.

Fundamentally speaking, every strategic plan must answer these four questions and they must be answered in this very logical progression:

  1. Who are we?
  2. What are we?
  3. What do we want to be?
  4. What can stop us from getting there?

The answer to the first question is articulated in the mission and vision of the company. The mission states what business we are in and what we do and provide for our clients.

However, it is the vision of what the company hopes to become that establishes the strategic direction for the organization. An effective vision lays out a future about what the company hopes to become. It typically is uncomfortable, much like clothing that is too big because it doesn’t fit who we are today. (I still remember that as a child, my Mom would always say “don’t worry, you’ll grow into it.” Visions are just like that.)

The vision states the value that we are ultimately committed to providing to our clients, employees, stockholders and even ourselves. It motivates us to stretch beyond where we are today.

Establishing a vision first is critical because it becomes our corporate compass. It sets a direction and destination for the company. The tactical options that we choose to implement must propel us towards reaching that destination, and so, the vision helps us to make intelligent choices. When opportunities present themselves we are able to evaluate them in a context of whether it moves us forward and whether it moves us forward more effectively than the other options that are available to us.

It is important to recognize that understanding the vision is a requirement for every member of the organization. If you subscribe to the belief, as I do, that every job in a company is meaningful – otherwise why do it or pay someone to do it? – then you must conclude that every employee will be expected to make choices on behalf of the company. The greatest tool that we may provide to our people is the vision as it will provide the context for so many decisions.

A vision is very different from goals and objectives. Goals and objectives are predictions of what we are going to accomplish or do in the next weeks or months or quarter to get to our vision. The vision though must come first as it is the foundation for goal setting that is based in the future and not in the past.

Categories: Leadership, Strategic Plans, Strategy, Visioning
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

The Art of War and the Art of Battle

August 22, 2008

The goal of a business strategy is clear-cut:

Win the customer’s preference and create a sustainable competitive advantage, while providing sufficient return for owners or, in the case of a publicly held company, the shareholders. A strategy defines the direction the business will take and positions it to move in that direction.

A strategic plan outlines how the war will be won. It defines the critical hills that must be taken. With that information in hand, the generals must determine how the resources – people, equipment, finances, timing and focus – will be allocated. If those resources are insufficient or lack the ability to win the war, the leadership must plan to supplement its army.

The allocation of these resources and the timing for deploying them is in essence the art of battle. It is how we will win the war. In business, we refer to this as the tactical or operational plan.

One of former President Dwight David Eisenhower’s favorite sayings was “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

At the World Business Forum in New York City, New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani said, “You have to be prepared for the worst things that can happen in order to get people through things. My mentor in the Attorney General’s offices said that I should always prepare four hours for every hour I planned to spend in court. When you’re prepared, the unanticipated is just a variation on the anticipated.”

Mayor Giuliani recounted that at the turn of the millennium, the entire world undertook massive preparations for what was termed the Year 2000 problem. Private and public sector leadership were concerned that all computer systems would no longer function accurately when the calendar turned from 1999 to 2000 because of the way that calendar years had been coded. There was a widespread concern that banks would no longer have access to funds, patient age records in hospitals would be completely inaccurate, traffic systems would cease to work and even prisons would find themselves without secure systems.

Billions of dollars were spent to recode software applications, and still, there was a widespread fear that catastrophe loomed somewhere as certainly, some application must have been overlooked. To be certain, The Mayor challenged his management team to create extensive plans to ward off this possible catastrophe. In effect, he charges his management to plan for an eventuality where New York could no longer function.

On January 2nd, 2000, leadership throughout the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. There was no computer-spawned catastrophe and while there were some inconveniences, these inconveniences were quickly remedied.

Mayor Giuliani might have felt that this massive investment in contingency planning might not have been all that valuable, given the limited scope of the challenges that appeared in January 2000. After all, nothing significant happened. But, as he explained, it was our Y2K preparations allowed us to be ready for September 11th, 2001 when an unthinkable tragedy brought New York to a standstill.

Indeed, it is difficult to anticipate the exact scenario and match the plan to the anticipated circumstance. Yet, the very act of planning provides us with the means by which we can anticipate responses and adjust our actions accordingly.

Categories: Strategic Plans, Strategy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »