Project Management 411

Barriers to Strategy Development: Willingness of Management to Embed Processes

by Bob Turek on February 18th, 2008

My post titled “IN SEARCH OF: Business Processes Supporting Strategy Execution and Innovation” continues to attract excellent practical comments by many including former CEO Cullen Coates. I encourage you to read the comments- they reveal a desire by all parties to learn and understand each other. Below are some of Mr. Coates’ remarks with emphasis on points that jumped out for me:

*********************

Mr. Coates: I have been working with organizations on an integrated process of strategy development through online software for execution management. I find that, as with some of the other commenters, that - aside from ensuring that strategy itself is of value - the critical problems for organizations is the willingness of management to embed disciplined execution processes into the organization - software and such can help but in the end it’s the discipline of having everyone accountable for consistent tracking and exception-based reporting.

I got involved in all this coming from the perspective of having run and invested in and having been on the Boards of a number of emerging growth and other larger companies and nonprofits. I felt that what was lacking was a truly systemic approach that:

1. Involves Board, Management and lower staff as appropriate,

2. Focuses on the entire process from strategy development to execution - and that cascades the strategy process down into the organization - so that lower level planning follows a “strategic” process (this builds alignment and trust),

3. Uses online software for exception-based tracking (I have created a number of solutions that are very simple for implementation teams compared to large performance management systems)

4. Embeds all the history of the process so that new members of the team/board can understand how the organization got to where it is and

5. Employs an annual audit process so that strategy management is part of the ongoing Board oversight and management reporting rather than a one-time event.

PM411: The “focus on the entire process” and “history of the process” points really jump out for me. As to linking strategies to tactics and then the projects to accomplish the tactics, have you been exposed to Eli Goldratt’s Viable Vision process? I know a little about it and like the strategy tree approach (also called strategy mapping by some). I’ve used a strategy mapping approach (first overall goals that are fed by strategies that are fed by tactics) in selling and scoping large business solution projects- it always seems to be something that executives rarely do and is key to aligning projects with strategies.

*********************

How do you feel about technology enabling the strategy process? Do you agree that the real problem is the discipline to do the process or are some processes just too difficult to do without technology? Why is a standardized strategy development process often overlooked? Is it because it is not considered “operational”? Get involved in the discussion! Share YOUR expertise.

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL.

Share This

Related Stories

• February 2008 Sum Up: From Hardware Death to Managing a Crisis
• Barriers to Strategy Development: Admitting You Need Help and Issue Prioritization
• Innovations Are Under Your Nose: “Go and See”
• Value Drives the Best Tech and User Collaboration
• Spend Less While Innovating More? Yes!

POSTED IN: Best of the Best Practices, Solutions and Trends Requiring Projects