Is Strategic Planning Dead?

Tweet

The Wall Street Journal ran a story last week on the downfall of strategic planning.  According to the article, companies learned during the recession that flexibility and quick decisions are more important to a business than planning, and that strategic planning as a practice is becoming outdated.  I hope anyone who decides to scrap a company's strategic planning process based on this article clearly understands the ramifications before doing so.

As I read the article, I found that the authors pointed out many of the misconceptions of the strategic planning process more than the problems with the concept itself.  People often mistakenly utilize the process as solely a financial review and confuse strategic planning with budgeting.  The article mentioned several examples of companies that realized during the recession that they were not reviewing sales and spending numbers often enough to react to quick changes in their markets.  By itself, this realization makes perfect sense as the last two years has been characterized as the worst since the Great Depression.  With that said, however, the need to stay on top of budgets has nothing to do with the value of an effective strategic planning process.

Strategic Planning 101

Strategic planning is a process by which an organization defines its strategy to successfully achieve its fundamental purpose.  The outputs of the process include high-level objectives (critical improvement areas) and initiatives (action plans to address the barriers that prevent achievement of the objectives).  It is a valuable process to assure the organization understands its strategies to improve its competitive position and be successful for many years into the future.

Periodic review is required to (1) assure that the initiatives are progressing as intended; and (2) assure that the initiatives - if they are progressing - are actually resulting in achievement of the high-level objectives.  For example, an organization may create an initiative to change its ERP system in order to support the objective of improving inventory management.  If the new system is implemented but inventory turns do not improve and stock-outs continue to delay shipments, it may be that the ERP system was not the problem and, therefore, should not have been an initiative.  The management team needs to revisit the inventory management system in order to determine how to improve the situation (e.g., identify other initiatives that will result in achieving the objective).

There is no single approach for strategic planning that will work for all organizations.  The process must be tailored to the specific circumstances and culture of each company.  The depth, frequency, and type of review will be different for everyone, but it must still be done if the organization is to become and remain successful.

Remember the Future

Eliminating the strategic planning process will only serve to increase the number of attention deficit disorder (ADD) companies that already exist.  The short-term behavior that has severely weakened so much of western business will continue, resulting in a continuation of dramatic swings in earnings and share price.

Let's be clear - I am not discounting the value of quick decision-making to a business.  Problems occur, though, when "quick" becomes "careless."  A company can benefit from continually focusing on speeding up decision-making without sacrificing quality.  Improving information systems and training can speed up decision-making without putting the company at risk.  If this is what a company needs, though, it will become evident through the planning process.  Those who believe that strategic planning is a slow process that does not add value are not doing it correctly.  If the process is too slow and is not helping the business grow and succeed, it needs to change.

The leader is responsible for assuring that the organization survives the short-term so it can succeed in the long-term.  Quick decision-making and frequent reviews can help take care of the short-term while effective planning (and successful implementation of the plans) is the key to taking care of the long-term.  Stop strategic planning and you might as well forget about the future of the company.

Being Lean is Not Enough

Tweet

One of the hottest trends in business over the last few years has been lean.  Most of the Fortune 50 companies currently claim to be doing lean and the market is flooded with training and consulting companies touting the benefits of the approach.  I recently Googled the term lean+business and received 30.1 million results.  It appears that we're presently in the midst of a lean blitz.

Don't get me wrong, I think lean is a strategy from which virtually every company can benefit.  It is a great way to gain control over processes and improve quality while reducing costs.  Throughout my career, I helped many companies implement lean and have seen some great benefits as a result.

The problem I'm having is that lean is being oversold to business.  Consultants and practitioners are promoting lean as if it is the cure for all of a company's problems.  I have gotten into many discussions over the years with people who are disappointed when leaders don't place lean at the very top of the company's priorities.

Part of the Picture

Lean can be a valuable part of the company's overall strategy.  The critical word here is part.  There are other elements of a corporate strategy that are just as - if not more - important depending on the company's individual circumstances.  In the most simple example, a company can be highly successful with lean but go out of business if it is not offering products or services that people want to buy.

However strategic planning is specifically conducted, the process should generally include an analysis of the four high-level objectives that are necessary for success:  (1) People/Leadership Development; (2) Process Improvement; (3) Product/Service Development; and (4) Market Development.  There are times when one or more of these areas will need extra focus, but unless all are analyzed on a regular basis, the ability to understand which areas are in need of attention is limited.

Strategic planning requires an assessment of the company's situation to understand where the current barriers are to achieving success at any given time.  The barriers can be weaknesses that interfere with success, or opportunities that can help the company grow and improve performance, but they will become evident during the process of understanding and evaluating the four high-level objectives.  The analysis helps senior leaders understand where the company's focus (in terms of investment and resources) needs to be in the coming one to three years (or beyond, depending on the normal planning horizon).

Let's Maintain Perspective

The point here is not to oversell the benefits of lean, and to understand why executives don't necessarily put it at the top of the company's priorities.  As an initiative, lean can directly support the process improvement objective and indirectly aid product/service development, but to truly help an organization succeed, it is important to understand that it may be end up being something other than the top priority.

Sprinting Into a Death Spiral: Sprint Nextel Announces Layoffs

Tweet

Last week, Sprint Nextel announced plans to cut up to 2,500 jobs in an effort to - once again - reduce costs. This is the third round of layoffs since early-2008, when the company announced job cuts of 4,000 (they also eliminated 8,000 jobs in January, 2009). Employees who manage to survive this latest round of layoffs are probably thinking that it's only a matter of time before the next one occurs.

In 2008, Sprint lost 4.6 million subscribers. During the same period, AT&T and Verizon added 7 million and 5.8 million, respectively. Sprint also reported a $4.2 billion loss for the year. I'm thinking that addressing the problems at the company are going to require much more than cost cutting to resolve.

Remember that this is the company that, in 2007, made the much publicized decision to drop customers who make too many calls to customer service for help. Whether or not this decision made sense from a financial perspective, it did a lot of damage to the company's reputation for customer service.

According to their website, Sprint's mission statement is: To be No. 1 in providing a simple, instant, enriching and productive customer experience. Judging by the number of subscribers lost last year, I'm guessing that their customers do not think they are achieving their purpose.

The company needs to get back to the basics and focus on the customer instead of just costs. This means reflecting on its purpose and openly and honestly debating what it means to the company. Do they truly believe in it? Does the leadership team in place feel they can achieve it? If not, there is little chance of getting anyone else to believe in it either. Many companies, especially during the recession, have acted as if their purpose is to cut costs instead of provide value for their customers.

Once it is clear that the leadership team absolutely believes in the purpose and feels confident that it can be achieved, they need to identify the barriers that are preventing the company from being number one and start aggressively attacking them. This will require creating initiatives in critical areas like product & service offering, market development, process improvement, or people development. Chances are, there will be some pretty daunting barriers to overcome, but they need to be addressed for the company to become competitive again.

Ignoring the barriers is not an option - neither is continuing to focus on cost cutting. The company shrinks in size and the culture is damaged with each round of cuts and eventually there will be nothing left to cut without completely shutting down the company . . . which is definitely not the way to become number one.