There are several newsletters that provide information, and resources that will support strategic thinking and planning efforts. You can subscribe to these newsletters at no charge although some newsletters are also published in a “premium” version available for a fee.
Here is a newsletter listing with reference to recent articles relating in some way to strategic planning:
The McKinsey Quarterly published by McKinsey and Co. Go to: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/. Free registration required. Recent article of interest to strategic thinkers: “Improving Strategic Planning: A McKinsey Survey.”
HBS Working Knowledge published by the Harvard Business School. Go to: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/forms/newsletter.html. Free registration required. Recent article of interest to strategic thinkers: “Failing to Learn and Learning to Fail (Intelligently)”
Nonprofit Online News published by the Gilbert Center. Go to: http://news.gilbert.org/. Free registration required. Recent article of interest to strategic thinkers: “The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them”
Fast Company Today published by Fast Company Magazine. Go to: http://www.fastcompany.com/homepage/index.html. Free registration required. Recent article of interest to strategic thinkers: “Demographics: The Population Hourglass.”
I’ll add more newsletters in the future. In the meantime, send your newsletter suggestions to frankwill@aol.com or post them to this blog.
Showing posts with label nonprofit strategic thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nonprofit strategic thinking. Show all posts
Monday, October 02, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
The Fierce Conversations in Strategic Planning
In the last several years, a number of books have appeared on the subject of how to talk through difficult issues with others. The titles say it all: Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work and in Life One Conversation at a Time by Susan Scott; Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss what Matters Most by Douglas Stone; and Crucial Confrontations by Kerry Patterson. The focus of these books is, for the most part, on interpersonal communication with friends, family members and co-workers. But these book titles capture an important quality of effective strategic planning practice. The planning process needs to be designed and conducted in such a way that leaders are able to articulate the most critical issues, choices and challenges facing their organizations, then engage in the “fierce conversations”, “difficult conversations” and “crucial confrontations” to thoroughly discuss these critical issues, choices and challenges and finally come to agreement on how the organization will respond to them.
In an issues based approach to strategic planning, the selection of issues is very important because it determines the range of decisions and choices the nonprofit will consider in the future. In some instances, leaders are already aware of some of the critical issues that the strategic planning process must help them address. In most situations, the planning process participants discern critical strategic issues as they examine the data gathered through external, market and internal assessment conducted earlier in the planning process. I like to challenge people to express their critical issues in the form of questions. The rest of the planning process then constitutes the work of constructing the big answers to these big questions. Identifying the critical issues and choices then becomes the watershed event in the planning process. If we have correctly identified the real issues, we know what we need to have the fierce conversations about. The resulting strategic plan will be relevant. If we fail to identify the real issues, the resulting plan will be useless – answers that may look good but answers to the wrong questions.
In an issues based approach to strategic planning, the selection of issues is very important because it determines the range of decisions and choices the nonprofit will consider in the future. In some instances, leaders are already aware of some of the critical issues that the strategic planning process must help them address. In most situations, the planning process participants discern critical strategic issues as they examine the data gathered through external, market and internal assessment conducted earlier in the planning process. I like to challenge people to express their critical issues in the form of questions. The rest of the planning process then constitutes the work of constructing the big answers to these big questions. Identifying the critical issues and choices then becomes the watershed event in the planning process. If we have correctly identified the real issues, we know what we need to have the fierce conversations about. The resulting strategic plan will be relevant. If we fail to identify the real issues, the resulting plan will be useless – answers that may look good but answers to the wrong questions.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Tools for Strategic Thinking
Recently, I've come across two websites that have great collections of tools that support strategic thinking and innovation. Both are free sites. The first is Businessballs, a free learning and development resource for people and organizations, run by Alan Chapman, in Leicester, England. The website's aims are to provide free and helpful resources for personal and organizational development. The site includes an excellent selection of hundreds of worksheets, games, exercises, tools and diagrams. Go to: www.businessballs.com. The second website is Manyworlds at http://www.manyworlds.com/. The site bills itself as "the Knowledge Network for Business Thought Leaders". You can create a personal knowledge network based on your interests. When you log in, the site displays updates in the topical areas you have previously selected. You can change your preferences whenever you want to. Manyworlds also automatically generates a set of recommendations for new resources that are judged to be useful to you based on your use of the website and your identified interests. This list of recommendations is updated weekly.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Using the Organizational Dashboard to Monitor the Plan
In the previous post, I mentioned that the strategic planning process presents an opportunity for the organization to develop an important tool for ongoing monitoring of the strategic plan. It’s called the organizational dashboard (sometimes referred to as “scorecard”). Using the metaphor of the dashboard in a car, this tool is based on selection of key performance indicators that need to be tracked on a regular basis by the Board of Directors.
Authors Chait, Holland and Taylor describe this tool in Improving the Performance of Governing Boards. The dashboard incorporates key success indicators of the organization – the most essential areas of performance. “ These are the variables that most determine whether the organization will succeed or fail. Once the critical success indicators have been identified, the board and the executive director (and other key staff) can then propose and consider strategic performance indicators – the qualitative and quantitative data that most accurately measure and convey the critical areas of performance.” These critical success indicators should be linked to the organization’s strategic plan. By focusing on these indicators, the board can position itself to place its focus on the priority areas of governance. Here is a process for developing a dashboard.
Step 1: Begin the strategic planning process. Development of the organizational dashboard begins in the strategic planning process. As part of the strategic planning process, the organization initiates discussion of how strategic plan progress will be measured. This can begin during the formulation of goals and strategies. One approach is to generate an initial list of meaningful ways to measure progress for each goal and associated strategies. We refer to this initial list as success or performance indicators. For example, for a revenue goal such as "expand and diversify the revenue base to support anticipated growth", success indicators would include "expansion of revenue base”,"diversification of revenue base", etc. Under this sample goal, one strategy might read "generate more revenue from program fees". Performance indicators for such a strategy might be "dollar amount of program fees generated "or "percentage increase in dollar amount of program fees generated annually". Another strategy might be "reduce reliance on public funding". The performance indicator for this strategy might be "percentage reduction in public funding". The key performance indicators for goals and associated strategies constitutes the strategic planning evaluation framework.
Step 2: Action planning. The process continues as the goals and strategies are translated into the annual plan of action or annual objectives. For the sample strategy "generate more revenue from program fees", an objective might read "The program services department will generate at least $450,000 from program fees by December 31, 2005". For the sample strategy "reduce reliance on public funding", an objective might read "during the life of the strategic plan the percentage of public funding will decrease from the current seventy percent of budget to no more than forty percent of the total budget".
Step 3: Development of Dashboard. The evaluation framework (key performance indicators for each goal and associated strategies) is reviewed by the Board of Directors. The board can also review other key performance measures that have been used in the past. The board then narrows down the list to include those indicators that best reflect the most essential areas of performance for the organization. These key performance indicators become the basis for the dashboard. The board reviews and approves the dashboard.
Step 4: Implementation of Action Plans. Implementation of the action plan then begins. The dashboard is regularly reviewed by the board to measure progress in achieving key outcomes.
Authors Chait, Holland and Taylor describe this tool in Improving the Performance of Governing Boards. The dashboard incorporates key success indicators of the organization – the most essential areas of performance. “ These are the variables that most determine whether the organization will succeed or fail. Once the critical success indicators have been identified, the board and the executive director (and other key staff) can then propose and consider strategic performance indicators – the qualitative and quantitative data that most accurately measure and convey the critical areas of performance.” These critical success indicators should be linked to the organization’s strategic plan. By focusing on these indicators, the board can position itself to place its focus on the priority areas of governance. Here is a process for developing a dashboard.
Step 1: Begin the strategic planning process. Development of the organizational dashboard begins in the strategic planning process. As part of the strategic planning process, the organization initiates discussion of how strategic plan progress will be measured. This can begin during the formulation of goals and strategies. One approach is to generate an initial list of meaningful ways to measure progress for each goal and associated strategies. We refer to this initial list as success or performance indicators. For example, for a revenue goal such as "expand and diversify the revenue base to support anticipated growth", success indicators would include "expansion of revenue base”,"diversification of revenue base", etc. Under this sample goal, one strategy might read "generate more revenue from program fees". Performance indicators for such a strategy might be "dollar amount of program fees generated "or "percentage increase in dollar amount of program fees generated annually". Another strategy might be "reduce reliance on public funding". The performance indicator for this strategy might be "percentage reduction in public funding". The key performance indicators for goals and associated strategies constitutes the strategic planning evaluation framework.
Step 2: Action planning. The process continues as the goals and strategies are translated into the annual plan of action or annual objectives. For the sample strategy "generate more revenue from program fees", an objective might read "The program services department will generate at least $450,000 from program fees by December 31, 2005". For the sample strategy "reduce reliance on public funding", an objective might read "during the life of the strategic plan the percentage of public funding will decrease from the current seventy percent of budget to no more than forty percent of the total budget".
Step 3: Development of Dashboard. The evaluation framework (key performance indicators for each goal and associated strategies) is reviewed by the Board of Directors. The board can also review other key performance measures that have been used in the past. The board then narrows down the list to include those indicators that best reflect the most essential areas of performance for the organization. These key performance indicators become the basis for the dashboard. The board reviews and approves the dashboard.
Step 4: Implementation of Action Plans. Implementation of the action plan then begins. The dashboard is regularly reviewed by the board to measure progress in achieving key outcomes.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Stumbling Blocks to Implementation
There are several reasons why implementation of strategic plans fails. I’ve listed 4 here. In each case the problem is addressed by designing and facilitating the planning process in such a way that the issue doesn’t arise during the implementation phase.
1. Lack of board, staff, volunteer, member, partner and stakeholder commitment to the strategic plan. One of the hallmarks of a successful strategic planning process is high levels of understanding, enthusiasm and support of the resulting plan among the aforementioned constituents. The most effective way to achieve this is to build into the process a variety of engagement opportunities: participation on the strategic planning committee, involvement in information and data gathering and analysis, service on other planning committees and workgroups, focus groups, community partner dialogs, and others. Sometimes, involvement of many in the planning process is avoided for fear that large numbers are unmanageable. If clear roles and responsibilities are communicated and if meetings and tasks are carefully structured, large numbers of involved and engaged people contribute to a successful process. For one thing, it ensures a broad range of perspectives on critical issues, absolutely essential to innovative thinking. As a practical matter, we want and need large numbers of people at all levels of the organization and community who are committed to achieving the vision and strategic goals outlined in the plan. In designing the planning process, the strategic planning committee needs to assess the most effective ways to involve all internal and external stakeholders.
2. Lack of alignment between governance structures (especially committee and workgroup structure) and the strategic plan. In nonprofit organizations, implementation depends on the support and involvement of professional staff, board leadership, other volunteers, members, and community supporters. Organizational structures that align with the strategic plan ensure that all of these individuals can be effectively organized to carry out their work and that they will be moving in the direction of the strategic vision. To the degree that the resulting strategic plan represents a new direction -- in some cases, a radical departure from old ways of doing business -- organizations will discover that many former governance structures constitute unintended barriers to implementation. New structures need to be created if implementation is to succeed. Current board committee and workgroup structures will need to be reviewed in light of requirements of the strategic plan.
3. The design and format of the earlier strategic planning process does not easily translate to action planning and implementation. One of the greatest frustrations in strategic planning is the failure to complete the transition from the “visionary blueprint” (mission, vision, goals, and strategies) to the concrete plans of action (objectives: who accomplishes what, by when, at what cost, to be measured by what indicators). In order to avoid this disconnect, I have found it useful to do the following: From the beginning, it’s important to describe the strategic planning model in sufficient detail that it is clear to all how and when the transition to concrete plans of action occurs. Begin the conversation about performance indicators earlier in the strategic planning process. The identification of key performance indicators sets the stage for developing objectives that are concrete, measurable and tied in directly to the mission, vision and strategic priorities.
4. Related to the third hurdle is lack of an effective framework for ongoing monitoring of implementation. The strategic planning process presents an opportunity for the organization to develop an important tool for ongoing monitoring of the strategic plan implementation. It’s called the organizational dashboard (also referred to as a scorecard). Using the metaphor of the dashboard in a car, this tool is based on selection of key performance indicators that need to be tracked on a regular basis by the Board of Directors. In a future post, I will outline a process for developing a dashboard. Using this process will link the dashboard monitoring tool directly to the strategic plan, thus providing important support for implementation.
1. Lack of board, staff, volunteer, member, partner and stakeholder commitment to the strategic plan. One of the hallmarks of a successful strategic planning process is high levels of understanding, enthusiasm and support of the resulting plan among the aforementioned constituents. The most effective way to achieve this is to build into the process a variety of engagement opportunities: participation on the strategic planning committee, involvement in information and data gathering and analysis, service on other planning committees and workgroups, focus groups, community partner dialogs, and others. Sometimes, involvement of many in the planning process is avoided for fear that large numbers are unmanageable. If clear roles and responsibilities are communicated and if meetings and tasks are carefully structured, large numbers of involved and engaged people contribute to a successful process. For one thing, it ensures a broad range of perspectives on critical issues, absolutely essential to innovative thinking. As a practical matter, we want and need large numbers of people at all levels of the organization and community who are committed to achieving the vision and strategic goals outlined in the plan. In designing the planning process, the strategic planning committee needs to assess the most effective ways to involve all internal and external stakeholders.
2. Lack of alignment between governance structures (especially committee and workgroup structure) and the strategic plan. In nonprofit organizations, implementation depends on the support and involvement of professional staff, board leadership, other volunteers, members, and community supporters. Organizational structures that align with the strategic plan ensure that all of these individuals can be effectively organized to carry out their work and that they will be moving in the direction of the strategic vision. To the degree that the resulting strategic plan represents a new direction -- in some cases, a radical departure from old ways of doing business -- organizations will discover that many former governance structures constitute unintended barriers to implementation. New structures need to be created if implementation is to succeed. Current board committee and workgroup structures will need to be reviewed in light of requirements of the strategic plan.
3. The design and format of the earlier strategic planning process does not easily translate to action planning and implementation. One of the greatest frustrations in strategic planning is the failure to complete the transition from the “visionary blueprint” (mission, vision, goals, and strategies) to the concrete plans of action (objectives: who accomplishes what, by when, at what cost, to be measured by what indicators). In order to avoid this disconnect, I have found it useful to do the following: From the beginning, it’s important to describe the strategic planning model in sufficient detail that it is clear to all how and when the transition to concrete plans of action occurs. Begin the conversation about performance indicators earlier in the strategic planning process. The identification of key performance indicators sets the stage for developing objectives that are concrete, measurable and tied in directly to the mission, vision and strategic priorities.
4. Related to the third hurdle is lack of an effective framework for ongoing monitoring of implementation. The strategic planning process presents an opportunity for the organization to develop an important tool for ongoing monitoring of the strategic plan implementation. It’s called the organizational dashboard (also referred to as a scorecard). Using the metaphor of the dashboard in a car, this tool is based on selection of key performance indicators that need to be tracked on a regular basis by the Board of Directors. In a future post, I will outline a process for developing a dashboard. Using this process will link the dashboard monitoring tool directly to the strategic plan, thus providing important support for implementation.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Scenarios and Theory of Change
Sometimes you can stimulate strategic thinking by combining use of various tools and techniques. Here’s an example: using scenario planning in tandem with theory of change.
Let’s start by defining each one. And then we can talk about how the two tools can work together. First scenario planning. According to What If? The Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits (July 2004), published by the Global Business Network, “scenario thinking is a tool for motivating people to challenge the status quo, or get better at doing so, by asking "What if?" Asking "What if?" in a disciplined way allows you to rehearse the possibilities of tomorrow, and then to take action today empowered by those provocations and insights. What if we are about to experience a revolutionary change that will bring new challenges for nonprofits? Or enter a risk-averse world of few gains, yet few losses? What if we experience a renaissance of social innovation? And, importantly, what if the future brings new and unforeseen opportunities or challenges for your organization? Will you be ready to act?" (For a downloadable copy of What If? The Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits, go to: http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=32655)
Now for theory of change. For our definition we go to the website of Theory of Change. This site is a joint-effort of ActKnowledge and the Aspen Institute. The site defines a theory of change as: “an innovative tool to design and evaluate social change initiatives. By creating a blueprint of the building blocks required to achieve a social change initiative’s long-term goal, such as improving a neighborhood’s literacy levels or academic achievement, a theory of change offers a clear roadmap to achieve your results, identifying the preconditions, pathways, and interventions necessary for an initiative’s success.”
Now let’s talk about how the two can work together. We can start by posing the following questions: “Does your organization base its work on a coherent theory of change? What is it?” Use scenario planning to develop alternative pictures of how the future will play out for your organization, your customers, your issue or field of work – your “part of the world”. Then pose the question “How does our theory of change fit in each of those alternative futures? Will the theory of change work? How do the alternative scenarios challenge assumptions on which you base your theory of change? How does that theory of change stand up to the future? Do you need to modify your theory of change to fit with emerging realities?”
For more information about theory of change, go to: http://www.theoryofchange.org/index.html. The site introduces a process for developing a theory of change, gives examples of this process, and tackles several interesting advanced topics on putting the process into practice.
Let’s start by defining each one. And then we can talk about how the two tools can work together. First scenario planning. According to What If? The Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits (July 2004), published by the Global Business Network, “scenario thinking is a tool for motivating people to challenge the status quo, or get better at doing so, by asking "What if?" Asking "What if?" in a disciplined way allows you to rehearse the possibilities of tomorrow, and then to take action today empowered by those provocations and insights. What if we are about to experience a revolutionary change that will bring new challenges for nonprofits? Or enter a risk-averse world of few gains, yet few losses? What if we experience a renaissance of social innovation? And, importantly, what if the future brings new and unforeseen opportunities or challenges for your organization? Will you be ready to act?" (For a downloadable copy of What If? The Art of Scenario Thinking for Nonprofits, go to: http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=32655)
Now for theory of change. For our definition we go to the website of Theory of Change. This site is a joint-effort of ActKnowledge and the Aspen Institute. The site defines a theory of change as: “an innovative tool to design and evaluate social change initiatives. By creating a blueprint of the building blocks required to achieve a social change initiative’s long-term goal, such as improving a neighborhood’s literacy levels or academic achievement, a theory of change offers a clear roadmap to achieve your results, identifying the preconditions, pathways, and interventions necessary for an initiative’s success.”
Now let’s talk about how the two can work together. We can start by posing the following questions: “Does your organization base its work on a coherent theory of change? What is it?” Use scenario planning to develop alternative pictures of how the future will play out for your organization, your customers, your issue or field of work – your “part of the world”. Then pose the question “How does our theory of change fit in each of those alternative futures? Will the theory of change work? How do the alternative scenarios challenge assumptions on which you base your theory of change? How does that theory of change stand up to the future? Do you need to modify your theory of change to fit with emerging realities?”
For more information about theory of change, go to: http://www.theoryofchange.org/index.html. The site introduces a process for developing a theory of change, gives examples of this process, and tackles several interesting advanced topics on putting the process into practice.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Further thoughts on fads and trends
David Zach the futurist quoted in the previous post had this further comment on fads: "I do want to point out that fads are not all bad. Some fads you shouldn't necessarily resist. Why? Because they're often a fun and necessary part of life. As one friend of mine explained in the way of a question, "Do you have enough fads in your life such that you're not boring?" Too many fads, such as can be ascribed to American culture, can pull an organization (or individual or nation) down. Not enough fads and I think the Soviet Union or the likes of the Taliban are equally doomed. You can resist fads and I mention any fad can be safely ignored. Resist or ignore too many of them and you're probably just dull. Embrace too many of them and you're irrelevant." More about the future at http://www.davidzach.com/
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Strategic Planning? ... Again?
Ellen Shapiro, author of Fad Surfing in the Boardroom: Managing in the Age of Instant Answers, has compiled a fad surfer’s dictionary. Here is her definition of “strategic plan” – 1. a set of analyses, packaged in accordance with corporate requirements, that is undertaken in order to justify a campaign already underway or a budget about to be submitted; 2. A set of analyses, packaged in accordance with corporate requirements, that nonetheless bears little or no resemblance to the real strategy being followed (but that, once printed and bound, can, in a pinch, be used as a doorstop or a book end).
Most people have all had experiences with strategic planning—good, bad or indifferent. It’s understandable that there will be some resistance when “it’s time to do strategic planning again” because of past disappointments and frustration with the process. In order to be successful, future planning efforts must somehow provide reasonable assurances that the time and energy people invest in the process result in changes and improvements that are implemented and supported by leadership. And then we have to deliver on the promise!
Most people have all had experiences with strategic planning—good, bad or indifferent. It’s understandable that there will be some resistance when “it’s time to do strategic planning again” because of past disappointments and frustration with the process. In order to be successful, future planning efforts must somehow provide reasonable assurances that the time and energy people invest in the process result in changes and improvements that are implemented and supported by leadership. And then we have to deliver on the promise!
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Is there a difference between strategic thinking and strategic planning?
Is there a difference between strategic thinking and strategic planning? And if there is, what is the difference? I found an article that does an excellent job of exploring the question. The article is entitled “Strategic Thinking: A Discussion Paper” by Eton Lawrence of the Public Service Commission of Canada. The answer to the question – there is a difference and at the same time, the two processes are closely connected. You have to read this article because it is so good! It brings into this discussion of strategic thinking and planning, related themes of systems thinking, organizational learning and strategy development. According to the article, the purpose of strategic thinking is to discover novel, imaginative strategies which can rewrite the rules of the competitive game and to envision potential futures significantly different from the present. The purpose of strategic planning is to operationalize the strategies developed through strategic thinking and to support the strategic planning process. Strategic thinking and planning are then two sides of the strategic management coin.
The article also challenges some of the traditional notions of strategic planning. For example, organizations are usually counseled to find a fit between their mission, external opportunities and their core competencies. This advice makes usually makes great sense. However, there is a danger: we can run the risk of doing strategic planning that is not really "strategic". The traditional advice can result in the organization missing or passing up innovative courses of action. This appraoch can result in the decision to essentially remain the same organization doing a few new things or doing the same things a little differently. The article suggests that strategic thinking can sometimes (and should) disrupt alignment, leading to a vision or preferred future that is not a match for the organization’s current core competencies and yet it’s the compelling vision that the organization will choose to pursue. Strategic planning can then recreate a new alignment by helping the organization figure out how to build the required new core competencies or finding new partners that already possess them. Quoting from Hamel and Prahalad, Lawrence States “whereas the traditional view of strategy focuses on the degree of fit between existing resources and current opportunities, strategic intent (strategic thinking) creates an extreme misfit between resources and ambitions.” The article also provides important insights about why it is vital to involve lots of people in the strategic thinking and planning process. Finally, the article challenges organizations to understand their work as occurring within larger systems. For example a nonprofit working on job creation for residents of a low income urban neighborhood would need to consider ways to link their efforts to regional economic development efforts.
The article also challenges some of the traditional notions of strategic planning. For example, organizations are usually counseled to find a fit between their mission, external opportunities and their core competencies. This advice makes usually makes great sense. However, there is a danger: we can run the risk of doing strategic planning that is not really "strategic". The traditional advice can result in the organization missing or passing up innovative courses of action. This appraoch can result in the decision to essentially remain the same organization doing a few new things or doing the same things a little differently. The article suggests that strategic thinking can sometimes (and should) disrupt alignment, leading to a vision or preferred future that is not a match for the organization’s current core competencies and yet it’s the compelling vision that the organization will choose to pursue. Strategic planning can then recreate a new alignment by helping the organization figure out how to build the required new core competencies or finding new partners that already possess them. Quoting from Hamel and Prahalad, Lawrence States “whereas the traditional view of strategy focuses on the degree of fit between existing resources and current opportunities, strategic intent (strategic thinking) creates an extreme misfit between resources and ambitions.” The article also provides important insights about why it is vital to involve lots of people in the strategic thinking and planning process. Finally, the article challenges organizations to understand their work as occurring within larger systems. For example a nonprofit working on job creation for residents of a low income urban neighborhood would need to consider ways to link their efforts to regional economic development efforts.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
The Link Between Board Development and Strategic Planning
The link between board development and strategic planning; it's a theme that I will return to again and again. Effective strategic planning requires the engagement and leadership of the board of directors; involvement of the board in strategic planning is one of the most effective ways - probably the most effective way - to strengthen the board. Today, I came across an excellent resource for understaning this connection between board development and strategic planning: The Dynamic Board: Lessons from High-Performing Nonprofits from McKinsey & Company. The report summarizes the best practices identified through McKinsey’s interviews with the directors or board chairs of 32 highly-regarded nonprofits. Included with the report is a self-assessment tool for nonprofit boards. This is one of the best board assessment tools available and comes in 5, 15 and 30 minute completion time versions. You'll need to register to access the report and the three assessment versions. Go to: http://www.mckinsey.com/practices/nonprofit/ourknowledge/dynamicboards.asp. The report and the assessment make constant links between strategic thinking and planning and board effectiveness. Very well done!
Monday, January 31, 2005
Who's going to implement the plan?
An article from the McKinsey Quarterly, January 2005, “Leadership As The Starting Point Of Strategy” reminds us of the importance of leadership in strategic planning. Here’s the abstract: “Companies that overlook the role of leadership in the early phases of strategic planning often find themselves scrambling when it's time to execute. No matter how thorough the plan, without the right leaders it is unlikely to succeed. … Executives must consider their leadership pool as they shape strategy and align their leadership-development programs with long-term aspirations.” And in nonprofits, this includes board leadership as well.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Finding your way in the information maze
Gathering and analyzing information is a critical ingredient in strategic thinking and planning. The Web is a powerful information gathering tool. But it’s good news/bad news. The good news: the wealth of information available; The bad news: too much information! Every once in a while I come across a site that does an amazing job of bringing order out of the chaos. I found one such website today. It’s called Emerald Management Reviews. It provides access to electronic management journals, databases, discussion forums and other online resources. Everything is rated on a five-star scale. Check it out: http://puck.emeraldinsight.com/vl=966865/cl=51/nw=1/rpsv/reviews/coolsites/index.htm
Friday, January 28, 2005
What I believe about strategic planning …
I believe that the primary purpose of strategic planning is to provide leaders with the opportunity to collectively determine the future direction of their organization and then develop plans to immediately and rapidly begin to move in that direction. To be successful, the process of planning must be made to work for people in the organization -- not the other way around. While I believe that there are some basic principles of strategic planning that must be followed, I also know that there must be flexibility in designing the actual planning timetable so that the organization in question achieves its hoped-for outcomes.
I am also convinced that many strategic planning efforts falter for at least three reasons: First, the failure to involve enough people in the process with the consequence that commitment to the strategic plan is weak. It is critical that representatives of all key constituencies be involved in the planning process in a meaningful way. "Real commitment" to a shared vision for the future only results from "real participation."
The second problem is the failure to translate the strategic plan into concrete action plans on an annual basis. Mention the words "strategic planning" in a large room and you can be sure that you'll hear a groan from some people. All too often, countless meetings, during which people invest considerable time and energy in the development of missions, visions, goals and strategies, never lead to development of concrete, measurable plans of action with clear accountability for results. Is it any wonder that people lack enthusiasm for strategic planning?
Related to this is the third reason for failure: resistance to the planning process because of past disappointments with similar efforts. In order to be successful, future planning efforts must somehow provide reasonable assurances that the time and energy people invest in the process result in changes and improvements that are implemented and supported by leadership.
I am also convinced that many strategic planning efforts falter for at least three reasons: First, the failure to involve enough people in the process with the consequence that commitment to the strategic plan is weak. It is critical that representatives of all key constituencies be involved in the planning process in a meaningful way. "Real commitment" to a shared vision for the future only results from "real participation."
The second problem is the failure to translate the strategic plan into concrete action plans on an annual basis. Mention the words "strategic planning" in a large room and you can be sure that you'll hear a groan from some people. All too often, countless meetings, during which people invest considerable time and energy in the development of missions, visions, goals and strategies, never lead to development of concrete, measurable plans of action with clear accountability for results. Is it any wonder that people lack enthusiasm for strategic planning?
Related to this is the third reason for failure: resistance to the planning process because of past disappointments with similar efforts. In order to be successful, future planning efforts must somehow provide reasonable assurances that the time and energy people invest in the process result in changes and improvements that are implemented and supported by leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
