I've started to write an article on why strategic planning fails and started to informally poll my clients to get their feedback....here are some of the common reasons noted.
Please help me expand my list to 50. The first Contributors of any new idea or reason will be credited in my article. Add your experiences and reasons in the Comments section below
A big Thank you to Blog Readers in advance
Walter Derzko
37 reasons why strategic plans fail (V 3.0)
1) overemphasis on strategic planning and under -emphasis on implementation
2) internal focus vs balanced external /internal focus
3) focus on mechanical and rational strategic planning & goal-setting vs strategic thinking (the overt emphasis on the lateral cognitive skills and operations to generate new ideas and concepts around tactics and strategy)
4) straight-line forecasts vs scenarios
5) clarity between certainty vs uncertainty…we are certain about this ? we are uncertain about that
6) challenging assumptions ; what do we take for granted (WDWTFG) about ?
7) fear of or ignorance of how to surface our personal and often tacit world views (key concepts), mindsets (assumptions, norms and values ), mental maps (the landscape) and models (social networks, interactions & relationships)
8) challenging “what works”
9) ignoring changing circumstances and time scales
10) ignoring 2ndary and 3 Impacts & Consequences of events, tactics and strategies
11) ignoring dissenting opinions
12) dismissing outlying nonconforming information (problem of scope and definitions)
13) ignoring ambiguity ( lack of any framework),
14) mishandling uncertainty ( lack of data or even which questions to ask to find the information),
15) not knowing how to handle complexity (too many interrelated components or events to manage or understand the specific
workings of the system in focus i.e. our body)
16) difficulty with equivocality ( multiple interpretations of same events or data).
17) Poor sense-making , sense-modeling and sense-portraying (Sense-making occurs when we consciously or unconsciously compare new
knowledge with our existing mindset-assumptions, norms and values and see what's changed, challenged, dismissed or reinforced ( usually a process that shifts back and forth from tacit to explicit knowledge creation).
18) Not thinking in system terms, do we actually have a Viable system? What’s the big picture?
19) Ignoring the metrics that measure the results; what’s considered good, mediocre or poor performance
20) Not building in flexibility and adaptability into your strategic plans, ie if circumstance or condition A changes, then we go with Tactic B
[ ... ]
36) Urgent vs important; deflected from the task by the supposed urgent issues of the day
37) poor communications
Now please add your comments below in the Comments Section
© 2005-2006 Expert, Consultant and Guest Speaker on emerging Smart Technologies, Strategic Planning, Business Development, Lateral Creative Thinking and author of an upcoming book on the Smart Economy " To arrange for an inhouse presentation on smart technology see here To explore the opportunities and threats of any new smart technology in your industry - Contact Me .....Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare" - old Japanese proverb P. S. if this is your first visit to my blog, please go to our Welcome page
here's part of the list tp give you a sample of answers so far......
In the many meetings where planning was on the agenda that I have attended, the people in power, usually a government person or a management person had no personal experience to draw on when they are making plans for large groups of people. I have been on Anti-poverty groups at the federal level and sometimes I would have to spell out in detail what the probable outcome of that particular plan would be. Some one in the higher ups may say something like " In order to save paper and money on printing costs, we will send all this information out on the internet". They do not take into consideration the fact that many of their clients do not own computers or if they do, can not afford to pay the extra money for internet access. They do not like me at this stage because I then go on to ask what languages is this information going to be available in? and how will blind people get to know about this? and how are people who can not read going to get this information? etc. I throw money-monkeywrenches in their plans. They own their plan or solution and thought it out based on their own experience. If they are in management they are usually intelligent and well educated and never slept a night in the streets in their life. They have never been hungry and never had to choose between buying food or having heat in their home. That is just one of many examples of how a group of management people can not come up with a plan that is geared to people at a lower economic level as they are. When they do, they make great big mistakes and waste is always the result.
Michael J. Kaer
Posted by: Michael J. Kaer | June 12, 2006 at 09:17 PM
Not sure if this is already in the list (in the missing 21..35); here are two more points I've experienced:
- Totally ignoring / misjudging the status quo (of what use is measuring results if you don't know where you're starting from?)
- Failing to relate strategic goals to appropriate actions (like projects) and periodically re-evaluating the projects' results in the context of strategic plans.
There often remains a gap between the "abstract, strategic" and the "concrete, operational" lines of thought
Posted by: Eduard Rysavy | April 19, 2006 at 08:52 AM
Walter, 21-35 appear to be missing but here's a past article i wrote on my own very personal experiences of poor change management. The best plan will fail if the change isnt managed well.
The Challenges of Change
Why is that so many companies spend time and effort creating vision and values statements but never seem to inspire, engage and enable their people to take up the challenge and deliver their aspirations?
Failure almost always comes from a lack of understanding of the huge commitment that business managers, particularly the team leader, must make in orchestrating the changes. Often as not the top team crafts their statements in splendid isolation, issues them as edicts, sits back and is surprised when nothing happens.
But, even when there is commitment, programmes of this nature fail – why?
The root causes of this failure of leadership come primarily from a combination of perhaps ten key issues: -
O Managements words don’t match reality. This is akin to saying one thing and doing another. People in work situations follow their leaders. If the leaders give mixed signals confusion will reign.
O Consequences and risks are not managed from the beginning. To every change, so Newton’s Law goes, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So it is with change programmes. Not everyone is going to embrace the new vision; some will be negatively effected, others won’t see the benefit – these, and many more risks need identifying early and plans made to minimise or eliminate their impact.
O Those effected by change are left to their own devices and often expected to adopt new practices without proper training, new tools and techniques. That’s like entering for an Olympic final without any prior preparation.
O The methods of introducing change are inappropriate or ill conceived. This can be particularly true in organisations that fail to analyse their existing condition and implant a new model on an unready business.
O Measures of success and systems to gauge performance are absent or directed at the wrong targets. People will find ways to achieve targets even if they are mis-directed thus reducing, not increasing, corporate health. Without well-crafted and well-understood targets the organisation will drift aimlessly.
O There is insufficient allocated resource to ensure success. While successful programmes usually produce substantial quick wins, failed changes often demonstrate meanness in providing the initial investment to make a fundamental shift in business think.
O Conflicting commitments and existing issues remain unresolved. Change programmes of this nature require the organisation to be centred on their intent. Often as not the change has been sold as an add-on to already over-burdened people sick of initiative-itis.
O The concerns and ideas of people are ignored instead of being used as a source of improvement. Imposed strategy changes rarely lead to the inspiration, engagement and enablement of the very people required to make it happen. Managements with a short term, tactical, and task driven focus are particularly susceptible to this failure.
O Key pieces of the change have been ignored e.g. training and measurement. Strategic change requires top team attention to all aspects of the business if real organisational movement is to be achieved. People will be only be fully convinced when they see the whole business being aligned behind a powerful vision.
O Conflicts between success criteria. The message here is Keep it Simple – many times failure comes from having too many success criteria, too many numbers, and too many words. If the change can’t be described in one short, crisp, memorable sentence chances are it won’t be remembered and acted upon.
So, if these are the reasons change programmes fail, what makes others successful, sometimes against great odds and sometimes with phenomenal results? What model, either implicit or explicit are they using to create a substantially better chance of success?
Many strategic success models have been suggested but they all boil down to five key areas for the business leadership to pay the most attention to: vision, values, measurement, processes and communication
The dictionary definition of “leadership” describes the word as two nouns – initiative and influence. Successful change programmes put equal weight on both.
In taking the initiative, successful change comes from first crafting an inspiring, engaging and enabling vision statement and determining the corporate values most prized by the business’s stakeholders. This is no mean task, and is definitely not best done by the team leader alone in our ever more inclusive world, but by involving customers, colleagues, and collaborators through research and analysis. The vision sets the direction of the business and is as much about where the business is not going as to where it seeks to be. The few in number, but succinctly described, values provide the engine for creating a unique business and brand reputation, the by words of the company and how it wishes to be seen by all its publics.
It’s at this stage, that most change programmes fail because the leadership fails to put enough effort on the other noun – influence!
Influencing the business to fully adopt the change programme
requires new systems of measurement and processes to create an open feedback loop on progress towards the vision. For instance, a vision statement which drives the business towards being the best at innovation needs new measures of learning, new product start ups, idea generation etc. A vision focused on profitable customers, requires new measures of customer loyalty, retention, and contribution.
“What gets measured gets done” says the old saw and if you can’t measure it you can’t manage it. All too often the existing measurement systems remain in place, rewards are based on existing targets and management continues to make decisions based on yesterday’s model.
No wonder people scratch their heads at looming failure.
And, the measurement systems can’t be put in place unless new processes are designed to eliminate that which is no longer required and re-built around the new vision and values. It is here that businesses that make successful change get their most reward through aligning everything they do against what they are seeking to achieve.
Lastly, leadership is about communication, communication, communication of the initiative and influence, selling the benefits and dealing with concerns in an open, honest and caring manner. The team leader has the pivotal part to play here.
Nothing ever really happened without a dedicated missionary! So it is with change programmes – the leadership needs to feel sufficiently inspired by their own vision and values to get the bug. If they don’t get the bug early on then its back to the drawing board or failure will be inevitable!
Dr. Michael Jackson : Results Plus Limited : First published HR Magazine; March 2000
Posted by: Mike Jackson | April 16, 2006 at 02:48 PM