Strategic Planning - Implementation Issues

In our work, strategic planning, we often work with companies that have tried the first strategic planning. Almost inevitably, the companies were disappointed that we meet the results obtained before using Simplified Strategic Planning. While some of these disappointments can be attributed to poor strategy or process issues, many - perhaps a third - were disappointed that the plan failed to lead to a correct application of the strategy.

This is a shame, because your management team puts some of his best thoughts in your strategic plan. Often, the team is very excited about the vision portrayed by your strategies. So, how is it possible that strategic plans are so often poorly implemented?

In our experience, there are five main causes of poor implementation. Some of these are closely linked to one another - that is, it is common to see pairs of this problem of tandem operation. But, at the end, each of these elements, by itself, can torpedo the implementation strategy:

1. The plan is not tied to the construction

2. The application lacks follow-through

3. The implementation is provided with sufficient resources

4. Managers change their goals too quickly

5. The plan attempts too much and too fast

Let's examine each of these themes, and how to mitigate its negative effects on the implementation of the strategy at your company.

1. The plan is not tied to the construction

This is unfortunately very common. In many cases, the issues of the plan can be traced back to a consultant who wanted to sell each phase of implementation as a separate service, but sometimes stems from sheer ignorance of the pitfalls of strategic planning. Many people who attempt to strategic planning for the first time assume that once the strategies are written, the organization has a plan. In a sense, this is true - the strategies are written, technically, a plan. Write your vision down, however, does not guarantee that it will happen. If so, we'd all be living in the utopia of the mission statements of most of us worked well in the years 1980 and 1990.

The most obvious symptom that a plan is not tied to implementation is the absence of clear and measurable objectives and action plans that define, at a rather low level, that is going to do what, when, how much it will cost and when they happen . Sometimes this happens when the process stops after identifying strategies and objectives, and sometimes the goals are set, but not the action plans are created (often because there are too many goals).

The simplest remedy for this problem, of course, is to follow a process that drives the implementation by progressing beyond the strategies and measurable goals and objectives of appropriate strategic level action plans. Yes, this takes longer than the cheap and cheerful one-or two-day retreat that many companies seem to appreciate, but it has a profound impact on the results generated by the plan that is time well spent.

2. The application lacks follow-through

Sometimes, we see companies that do a decent job of linking their strategies to objectives and action plans, but still lose steam in the implementation of the planning cycle. The lack of follow-through is one of the most common causes of this'' running out''.

The best indication of poor follow-through action plans that have not been updated since the plan was completed, or perhaps a month or two later. The team set their plans for implementation of good intentions, but then dropped the ball as the most urgent task, he led the implementation of the strategy out of your mind. This is common because the best strategies are not urgent - they are undertaken well ahead of time, because time and money can usually be exchanged for implementation of the strategy. Companies that choose to spend time, when they have - even when the strategic initiative is not urgent - are almost always more efficient.

To remedy the lack of follow-through requires the highest level of commitment of the management team. If the owner, president, CEO and insists on a serious examination of the periodic progress in implementing the strategy, it is highly unlikely that your company dropped the ball. In practice, this means that you must keep the monthly monitoring process are outlined in the Simplified Strategic Planning seminar and manual.

3. The implementation is provided with sufficient resources

Another way of stating this is the implementation date is'' priority'' insufficient. It is not uncommon to see, in a society that is relatively short of management resources, the action plan is a step in the referral tool widely used in time management executive team. It 's always easier to defer a strategic action that, for example, to hire a new executive.

A common symptom of this problem is the action plans in which many steps are postponed two or three times before completion. The implementation is still ongoing, but at a much slower pace than originally expected.

Solving this problem is not always easy. Of course, if you have the money, adding power to your management team can help. Give managers clear priorities, in particular on the relationship between their responsibilities and routine operational personnel, may also help. Finally, be aware that this problem may actually be the number number 5 (the plan attempts too much too quickly) in disguise. It 'difficult if not impossible, to distinguish between trying to do too much and too little to deal with it, because they are essentially two ends of the stick itself.

4. Managers change their goals too quickly

In some companies, the principal amounts of the implementation strategies for a sort of company'' inches short attention span. Many of these companies are a long way in their implementation of the strategy, because they are heading in one direction long enough for the strategy to pick up steam.

A common symptom of this problem of implementation is a society that seems to be perpetually at the center of dramatic changes. In a society with a sound, coherent strategy, the change is happening, but the change tends to flow around the strategy because the strategy represents a stable, unchanging reality,'' as customers of Starbucks as a coffee in a good environment ''.

Another symptom is the'' classic'' flavor of the month syndrome, in which the company moves toward every month or two according to the views of management guru who is currently in favor of managers. This is a dangerous problem, because many of today's management gurus espouse strategic perspectives that are diametrically opposed. For example,'' The Experience Economy'' marries a strong, service-centered strategy of specialties, while Nuts!'' Centers'' of a focused product strategy. You may be able to shoehorning both of these perspectives into a single company, but they are just as likely to end up with a train wreck.

The annual planning process, and strict discipline around that process, you know that the best antidote to the'' short attention span.'' The key here is to make sure you have good strategic reasons for any changes in your goals (and no,'' there are a lot of money to be made'' is NOT a good strategic reason). Similarly, any change to test against the wisdom that is inherent in their strategy. If you place, great - but when it is not, be very cautious to make changes due to small variations in the temporary market or (worse) the reading list.

5. The plan attempts too much and too fast

This is probably the second most common problem, and, as we have said, sometimes difficult to distinguish from number 3 (The application has insufficient resources). As a manager, and as teams, they all seem to have eyes that are much bigger than our stomachs. If five goals are good, ten must be better, right?

Well, wrong ... ten objectives are almost always worse, from the point of view of implementation, of five. There are two main reasons for this. First, psychologically tend to focus more on the elements when they are in limited quantities. Everyone in your company is able to meet the goals of your company if you have only four or five. If you have 42 (we call this a'' shopping list''), it is likely that no one will know most of them, and few will even care. This is not because employees are bad - rather, it is because it is not humanly possible for a group of people to remember and correctly 40-two priority objectives.

The solution of this problem is simple, but often difficult. Do not be addressing more goals than you can handle. If you have trouble with nine last year, seven-year trial. In our experience, the implementation is optimized to be somewhere between five and ten objectives, depending on the organization, its culture and resources.

These are just some of the implementation problems that become more common in our business strategy consultant, assisting businesses like yours in strategic planning. It is not exhaustive, but hopefully as you get your plans for this year, is expected to take some of the procedures described here to improve the implementation. Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI - Reprint permission granted with full attribution .......