Boleh maklum pengetua, saya nak tengok pelan
strategic
Monday 3 September 2018
Saturday 26 January 2013
Why Plan is difficult to implement and often fail?
I bet that every human being in the Malaysia believes in the
value of planning. More management and personal development books have been
written about goal setting and strategic planning that any other topic.
Planning is often evaluated on the elegance of the decision. What
really counts, of course, is the follow through—the implementation. The quality
of implementation relates to how the plan was created. Not considering planning
methods early in the planning process sows the seeds of failure of the
decisions in the implementation. Well-implemented plans achieve the desired
results, efficiently, on time, and with few unintended side effects. The secret
of good implementation is simple. Implementation requires commitment from all
needed to carry it out.
We can all think of poor planning that achieved stupendous
results. Why? People were committed to the desired results. If the plan is
inadequate, committed people learn from that, make corrections, and achieve.
When people are not committed, they watch your beautiful plan slowly veer off
course, and when it crashes, they may secretly smile.
Including the doers early in the planning is more critical than
having the deciders create a well-designed plan. The doers ideas must be
articulated, accommodated, and integrated during the design of the plan.
Postponing inclusion until the plan is finalized means selling it to the
stakeholders, not accommodating those who will ultimately make it work.
If the deciders listen to the doers after the plan is written, the
plan will require accommodation to their concerns and new ideas. Finding the
willingness to change the plan after the binders have been embossed is like
expecting an architect to accommodate the carpenter's suggestion. The doers,
excluded from real participation in the plan's design, expect their ideas will
be discounted, and they acquiesce. Deciders misinterpret this acquiescence as
agreement and support. Then when the plan does not work well, the doers get
blamed for lack of follow through.
The Reasons Plans Fail
Over the last twenty five years I have facilitated the creation of
several hundred plan. I have had the opportunity to
watch these plans over time and see how they got off course. In many cases when
I was still involved, we could steer back on course.
I have summarized all these planning failures plus those of
hundreds of other businesses whose planning failures ended up in the news. As
you read the twelve reasons for failed plans, evaluate your company's planning
effort using the set of questions at the end of the article.
1.
Lack of clear final outcomes (mission &
vision)
Research supports what leaders have known for centuries: a strong mission and vision contributes to success. Mission and vision embraces values that never change in the service of a long-range purpose. Vision serves to inspire commitment and focus action. As the company achieves shorter-term goals, new ones are formulated in response to unchanging values and stable purpose.
Research supports what leaders have known for centuries: a strong mission and vision contributes to success. Mission and vision embraces values that never change in the service of a long-range purpose. Vision serves to inspire commitment and focus action. As the company achieves shorter-term goals, new ones are formulated in response to unchanging values and stable purpose.
Values and purpose, not projects or campaigns,
drive the company to success over the long run. For instance, a major
renovation can inspire and focus the organization, but only for a few years.
When the new building opens, the company will begin to drift unless sufficient
agreement on the mission and values carry beyond opening night.
2.
Lack of Information
Plans often fail because we base them on incomplete information. The information usually missing from the plan is external to the company and includes:
Plans often fail because we base them on incomplete information. The information usually missing from the plan is external to the company and includes:
o market
size
o strength
of the market's need for the company's products and services
o clarity
on the market's willingness to pay the company's price in dollars, time and
accessibility
o impact of
competitors, especially indirect ones, who fill the same market need with a
different time or service such as running, bicycling or hiking
o analysis
of perceived value of the club's facilities, and services by the market
This type of information is available for the
asking through market research and feasibility studies, which can elicit this
data through well-crafted, efficient questions.
3.
Lack of Inclusion
Information may be missing from inside the club, too. The leaders may exclude professional, technical, administrative, and support employee from the planning process. Plans in companies are frequently drawn without including ideas from the front line employees especially part timers.
Information may be missing from inside the club, too. The leaders may exclude professional, technical, administrative, and support employee from the planning process. Plans in companies are frequently drawn without including ideas from the front line employees especially part timers.
These failures of inclusion occur because
leaders believe:
o They have
little to contribute.
o We cannot
involve too many people.
o We don't
want to involve them until we have a better idea of where we are going.
o There
would be too much disagreement.
o It's too
hard for them to deal with these issues.
o It will
take too much time.
These beliefs limit inclusion. Fortunately,
effective processes, structures, and facilitators exist for including people
successfully—even many people. For the leaders, inclusion means listening and
understanding, not abdicating authority to set the final course. Sequential
inclusion does not build sufficient commitment to planning. The power of
planning comes from simultaneous inclusion.
When every you use the
phrase 'get their buy in', you've probably failed to include key people soon
enough.
4.
Lack of Strategy
Most strategic plans lack strategy. What's needed is strategic thinking, not strategic planning. Strategic plans consist of long lists of goals, objectives, tasks, and actions. Powerful strategy fits on a page or two. Plans fill pages and binders. The purpose of strategy is to define the organization in a unique niche. When this is not done, the organization competes for resources and customers with other, similar organizations. Most organizations have plans; very, very few have strategies.
Most strategic plans lack strategy. What's needed is strategic thinking, not strategic planning. Strategic plans consist of long lists of goals, objectives, tasks, and actions. Powerful strategy fits on a page or two. Plans fill pages and binders. The purpose of strategy is to define the organization in a unique niche. When this is not done, the organization competes for resources and customers with other, similar organizations. Most organizations have plans; very, very few have strategies.
5.
Participation as an End
Involving lots of people because you believe in participation may create a hodgepodge plan. You pass the basket and everyone contributes. Inconsistent, contradictory, and ill-conceived ideas accumulate and get packaged into the plan. These plans have high agreement but little focus and require unrealistic resources. The management fads for participative "visioning" and development of mission statements have largely resulted in useless, unused documents.
Involving lots of people because you believe in participation may create a hodgepodge plan. You pass the basket and everyone contributes. Inconsistent, contradictory, and ill-conceived ideas accumulate and get packaged into the plan. These plans have high agreement but little focus and require unrealistic resources. The management fads for participative "visioning" and development of mission statements have largely resulted in useless, unused documents.
The solution? Include people in a way that
respects and builds on their needs and has focus and direction. This process
requires synthesis of needs and perspectives to create new ideas. The process
often transforms the people involved, too, and creates agreement on a future
for the company. You will also have to engage in difficult conversations and
even conflicts in order to synthesize all the input into a powerful and focused
strategy.
6.
Lack of Productive Conflict
People included in the planning process will have different perspectives and concerns. These differences have value. If the differences remain hidden and unexplored, they can be destructive. For example, if the need for job security is not addressed, individuals may be unable to concentrate on changing the company's structure. The planning climate must constantly encourage honest, complete input. When participants strive to learn from conflict, synthesis can occur and can generate new and more powerful ideas for resolving differences. Most planning will engage in conflict more productively if they engage a skilled facilitator.
People included in the planning process will have different perspectives and concerns. These differences have value. If the differences remain hidden and unexplored, they can be destructive. For example, if the need for job security is not addressed, individuals may be unable to concentrate on changing the company's structure. The planning climate must constantly encourage honest, complete input. When participants strive to learn from conflict, synthesis can occur and can generate new and more powerful ideas for resolving differences. Most planning will engage in conflict more productively if they engage a skilled facilitator.
7.
Untested Assumptions
Invariably, planners use information, make decisions, and draft plans without challenging deeply held, underlying assumptions that supports favorite positions. Our universal desire to feel good and be nice works against honest exploration of differing ideas. A skilled facilitator can help the planners explore assumptions typical to company such as:
Invariably, planners use information, make decisions, and draft plans without challenging deeply held, underlying assumptions that supports favorite positions. Our universal desire to feel good and be nice works against honest exploration of differing ideas. A skilled facilitator can help the planners explore assumptions typical to company such as:
o The
public needs what we have.
o We'll
build it and they will come.
o We have
always been pretty successful in the past.
o The
Titanic is unsinkable.
Identifying, testing, and challenging
assumptions critical to your plan will allow it to stand on solid ground. For
implementation success, assumptions must be regularly monitored as well. Plans
often fail because assumptions change while the plan remains. For example,
members really want a club with lots of staff on the floor.
8.
Lack of Communication and Accommodation
People need to know about your plans. Employees and members may feel marginalized when they are the last to hear about a significant change. They may wonder: Why the secrecy? I feel stupid not knowing!
People need to know about your plans. Employees and members may feel marginalized when they are the last to hear about a significant change. They may wonder: Why the secrecy? I feel stupid not knowing!
Every stakeholder can't be included in the
planning process, but communications can go to everyone. Face-to-face
communication is by far the most effective medium known to human kind, but
videos, memos, newsletters, and telephones, and email all help. Your
responsibility is to send the communication and to engage in sufficient
dialogue to ensure understanding that will build energy and commitment.
Often, by the time planners communicate their
effort, they psychologically etch it in stone. Their task is finished. Done.
Completed. Not open to change. When they begin to share the plan, on some
level, they're thinking: 'We created it. We're proud of it. Thank God the
labor's over. Don't criticize our newborn plan!' This natural and unconscious
attitude usually blocks dialogue and engagement with others. The plan is an
announcement not communication—which is two way speaking and listening.
Communicating the plan usually surfaces
questions, disagreements, and doubts. Planners ignore or discard these at the
plan's peril. Each discard reduces energy and commitment. Some best-known
failures of top-down, central planning can be seen in the breakup of the former
Soviet Union, of IBM, and the World Bank's attempts to help developing
countries. Exploring and accommodating feedback may mean modifications,
typically in how rather than what gets done. If accommodation is not made,
planners lose the opportunity to build commitment and may secure only
compliance from those responsible for implementing the plan. If you end
"being right," the plan stands, unchanged, but energy for
implementation may be low.
9.
Lack of Strategic Alignment
Plans by themselves lack sufficient power to guide an organization, particularly if change is required. Like a supertanker, organizations have extraordinary momentum to keep on the old course. Even if the captain spins the wheel to a new direction, the autopilots deep in the bowels of the ship will correct to the old course unless they, too, are reset.
Plans by themselves lack sufficient power to guide an organization, particularly if change is required. Like a supertanker, organizations have extraordinary momentum to keep on the old course. Even if the captain spins the wheel to a new direction, the autopilots deep in the bowels of the ship will correct to the old course unless they, too, are reset.
Companies have at least seven autopilots:
strategy, culture, structure, systems, resource allocation, employing, and
rewards and recognition. If the plan requires change, the autopilots require
alignment with the new direction. This means creating a strategic culture, a
strategic structure, and so forth, aligned with new strategies.
10.
Lack of Strategic Focus
Most planning efforts create pages of new things to do. When these are layered on already full work loads and over committed resources, it means everything gets spread thinner. Everything gets done a little less.
Most planning efforts create pages of new things to do. When these are layered on already full work loads and over committed resources, it means everything gets spread thinner. Everything gets done a little less.
Setting strategy means
making the tough decisions on what not to do.
Invariably these decisions are tough for two
reasons. First, each and every activity has advocates. Second, each and every
activity has a good argument for pursuit.
Setting strategy means making the tough
decisions on what not to do.
When planners shy from tough decisions, strategy
is undermined. A plan is not strategic unless it spells out what the
organization will stop doing. A slow, ongoing accumulation of priorities
accelerates aging and bureaucratization.
11.
Plans not finalized
Finalizing a plan consists of breaking the plan down into reasonable sized tasks which define the results to be achieved, by what date, and by designating a champion responsible and accountable for the results.
Finalizing a plan consists of breaking the plan down into reasonable sized tasks which define the results to be achieved, by what date, and by designating a champion responsible and accountable for the results.
Many tasks require a team effort. Assigning
accountability to a team only works when the team is functioning at a level
high enough that each team member accepts 100 percent of the responsibility for
the result. Too often, team assignments mean that no one takes the
responsibility. If effective team work is not the cultural norm within the
organization, one person should have the responsibility for the results.
Each element of the plan requires the details
of: what results, by whom, by when, and with what resources. Without these, the
plan is only a wish.
Unfinalized plans drift because employees work
away as they always have. Effectively assigning strategic tasks often means
changing some job descriptions and reallocating resources.
Each element of the plan
requires the details of: what results, by whom, by when, and with what
resources. Without these, the plan is only a wish.
12.
Specifying Results, not Activities
Many plans specify activities such as: improve coordination between x and y or launch a training program for front desk staff. These imply that coordination and training are the purpose of the organization. More likely, the need is to improve coordination to reduce duplication of work or to train to improve customer service.
Many plans specify activities such as: improve coordination between x and y or launch a training program for front desk staff. These imply that coordination and training are the purpose of the organization. More likely, the need is to improve coordination to reduce duplication of work or to train to improve customer service.
Not spelling out the results can mean that you
get better coordination, without a reduction in duplicated services. If the
goal is better customer service, be sure to spell that out and hold people
accountable for this result, not for setting up a training program. Not
specifying the result is the precursor of irresponsible behavior.
Improving Your Planning Process
If the twelve reasons Why Plans Fail make sense to you, you have
the raw data to redesign and improve your planning and decision-making process.
The brief survey below enables you to assess how significant each of the twelve
reasons is for your club's planning. A sum of thirty-five or higher for either
Questions A or Questions B indicates that you can significantly improve your
planning process.
If this article has failed to describe Why Plans Fail you
may improve your planning process by rigorously analyzing why your past plans
and decisions have not been well implemented. Create your own list of reasons
Why Plans Fail to improve your planning process.
Evaluation Questions
Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 Unsure = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly
Disagree =1
1A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
1B. This reason contributed to the success or failure of my
company's plan
2A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
2B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
3A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
3B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
4A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
4B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
5A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
5B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
6A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
6B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
7A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
7B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
8A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
8B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
9A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
9B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
10A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
10B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
11A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
11B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
12A. This reason for why plans fail makes sense to me
12B. This reason contributed to the failure of my company's plan
37
reasons why strategic plans fail (V 3.0)
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)
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).
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)