This past summer, I started working with a client where the project sponsorship for Balanced Scorecards/Strategy Execution resides within the strategic planning function. In this instance, we started our initial discussions around how to provide a better strategic planning automation system.
I’ve been down this path before, and I’ve built and seen just how work-flow intensive and complicated the automation of the planning process can be. Furthermore, I’m convinced that the automation of the planning cycle is somewhat of a low value-add. Planning is about communication, discussion, analysis, disagreement, and hard choices. Applying a coat of technological asphalt over the process isn’t necessarily a good thing.
So, the conversation morphed into one that crossed their functional boundary into that of strategy execution –- which meant we were really talking about the emerging idea of an Office of Strategy Execution. This label hasn’t been openly applied at this client as of yet, but the planning folks are already way down the path of thinking about how to ensure execution occurs (which is clearly beyond their existing functional definition, but the realization of the gap makes it now impossible to ignore). The key is that planners want to see and ensure the results of their plans.
The realization and point I want to make in this posting is that organizations work in clockwork cycles. Appreciating the nuances of these cycles and their inter-related timing is crucial to better strategy execution, wherever it gets its start.
Planners think in master cycles
The key to the planning mentality is that it works within a master calendar cycle -– like that of a big clock. In my work with other clients, this master planning cycle isn’t as palpable, but in this particular situation, it was definitely a focal point for the project.
The strategic planners start off their process with facilitating the organizational pre-planning activities of environmental scans, historical analyses, and SWOT analyses. Such activity exists to drive the creation of a strategic plan (on a 3-year rolling basis) and divisional business plans (on an annual basis). These plans, in turn, drive the creation of initiatives, which kick out budget requirements, both capital and expense in nature. Then, the process is supposed to link down to individuals to ensure personal alignment to the strategy. Finally, they start all over again, year -- after year -- after year.
Project Management thinks in cycles, too
As part of the deployment process, we met with the head of their project management office to determine a way to synchronize and enhance the strategy execution system in a way that better supports their needs. At first blush, the project management function may seem like a very tactical function. However, it quickly became apparent that they also think in a clock-like manner.
Good project management oversight requires proper yearly
forecasting. This process entails prioritizing and selecting approved
projects, forecasting associated budgets (which is fed to the finance
department), and the attempt to assign resources in a balanced and
doable way.
Not only do project management functions want to complete projects on-time, on-budget, and on-quality, but they also want to do so without creating organizational exhaustion. If the scope and resources are properly forecasted, a reasonable dispersement of effort and skills can be maintained, which has a tremendous impact on employee morale, long-term productivity, and retention.
The project management function succeeds by adhering to the yearly cycle of new proposed projects, continuing previously proposed projects, revisiting previously deferred projects, and addressing intra-year emergence of new projects. So, here again, the big clock ticks away.
HR also thinks in waves, but with a bend toward compliance
We also sat down with HR to determine how to integrate their personal goal management process with the business planning process. Here, too, everything happened in yearly cycles. Their model of how to document personal goals was revised in yearly cycles, meaning once they put it in place for a given year, they didn’t make changes until the next year.
Their main cue for when to sound the start gun for personal goal development was the completion of business plans (i.e. people need to see their closest organizational objectives, measures, and initiatives to truly determine their own personal focus).
The HR clock ticked even more loudly and rapidly than elsewhere in the organization. Not only do they manage the organization-wide development wave, they also monitor the periodic status updates, and the year end appraisals. Lots of stage gates to check.
In addition, their job is compounded by the pressure to monitor compliance at every step. So, not only do they follow the ticking of their own clock, they also check to make sure that every tick and every tock is being heard within each part of the organization.
Strategy Execution Moves in Phases
In the end, my view of Strategy Execution evolved a bit by seeing that it must exist and move in clockwork stage gates. Certain pieces are always in development for the next cycle, other pieces are in the process of being executed, and all along the way each step is being verified for proper completion. One. Big. Clock.
A Strategy Execution system does not just start and then keep running in an indefinite mode, nor does it only morph and evolve over time. It actually churns through a master cycle of moving pieces of last year’s, this year’s, and next year’s –- in all functions including strategic planning, finance, HR, project management, and likely more.
So, if you are starting your own Strategy Execution journey or are far down the path, it is important to take inventory of your internal cycles. How do they related to each other? What are their interdependencies? Is anything out of sync with other pieces or functions?
Getting all parts moving in concert and designing this cycle in such a way as to avoid resource exhaustion is a major accomplishment and a method to ensure long term success.
Comments