Successful strategy development? This is how you do it. In his previous blog, Dolf L'Ortye, one of the founders of Summiteers, explained why a good strategy should be implementable. He also explained what two scenarios you have when working on strategy development. Scenario 1: Get the whole process right from the start. Scenario 2: recover from the bad start you've already made. In this blog, he zooms in on the first scenario. The next blog is about scenario two.

‍

Strategy development more than just a plan

It should be clear by now. In our view, strategy development is about so much more than just making a plan. Yes, the plan is a product, but there are a few other “products” that are desperately needed for success and that you should think about from the start. Don't let yourself be fooled into thinking about the how question later! At least: if you want to achieve the desired result. Starting later with the how question always leads to problems.

‍

How to think as part of strategy development

How to think as part of strategy development is an essential element in creating support and testing the way of thinking with the organization. If you wait until the implementation phase to create support for the direction and input of crucial knowledge about your own organization — issues such as capabilities, execution power, risks — you will either go completely wrong or you will lose an awful lot of valuable time in the implementation phase. When you want to implement, you must then still enter into discussions and adjust your plan. For example, a major change in strategy or organization may seem to require too much of the employees' executive power, even if a gigantic system replacement process is underway. Sound familiar to you? You are not alone. It still happens far too often and, in my opinion, that is highly undesirable. A waste of time, energy and money.

‍

Strategy or ambition statement

Some nuance is appropriate here. What exactly do you aim for with your strategy to be developed? For an implementable strategy, you undoubtedly need that strong content, understanding and support. But when it comes to just a school of thought or a statement of ambition, you may not need all of that — yet. Then you use that to inspire or start a discussion — what do we want, what do we think is possible, do we understand each other, things like that — but certainly not to implement. So think about this when you start a strategy process. What do I actually need? Especially if you are going to work with an external advisor, be extra sharp on this consideration. What exactly will this party bring? And if you want an implementable strategy, ask the party where its vision is on this. If the answer is: “We're doing analysis, a few interviews, and we're going to do workshops with top management about the analysis results, iterate a number of times and then we'll arrive at a strategy paper,” then some alarm bells may sound. At least if you don't want to spend a lot of time in the implementation phase. If you are looking for an ambition statement, a kind of shot across the bow, you can of course start like this.

‍

Contents

Anyway, I'm just assuming you're looking for a strategy. Of course, content is important, it needs to be sharp. In my opinion, being sharp has to do with choosing, really choosing. Be clear about what you do and what you don't do. I can also dedicate a blog or something to this. After all, it often happens that the image prevails: it's clear, isn't it? The plan is there, just implement it. But after a few questions about the content, it quickly becomes clear that there is still too much room for interpretation. You can still go in any direction. It doesn't aim, there are no sharp choices. And from experience, I know: if that space exists, it will be used 😊. In my opinion, the sharpness of the content is: clear in terms of content (no air, the room for interpretation is limited) and understood (everyone who plays a key role in the implementation has the same image).

‍

Understanding and support, the how dialogue

What contributes enormously to understanding and support is if you already apply how thinking during the development phase of the plan. Essentially, this is taking the space to understand together how you are actually going to realize the plan, while you are still forming the plan. This is an iterative process. How to think leads to a sharpening of the original way of thinking, which in turn triggers a how dialogue. So, apart from that content, think carefully about the process to arrive at that content. Who are the key players who will most likely play a major role in the implementation soon? After all, that is often not top management. How can we already involve these key players, during the strategy development phase, in a role where they can provide targeted input, shine a light, and be critical. I can already hear you say: boy, that's going to take a lot of time. And yes, this takes more time than just writing a plan by yourself or with a small group. But I'm sure I don't need to tell you that in the long run, it's going to cause much more time loss — and frustration — if your nice plan comes under discussion, if it's not as clear after all, certainly not as feasible as you thought when you thought about it in a small committee.

‍

Planning without how? Nice and easy, because it's not exciting yet

A plan without a 'how' is not exciting. Then your plan remains a theory; it does not specifically discuss what needs to change in the organization itself, because that's in the “how”. No one is affected by a theory. It's just nice words, with plenty of room to look away or consider that it won't affect you. Everyone usually likes such a plan, but it only becomes really interesting when the 'how' factor is added. At that moment, unexpected things can come to light. You are forced to become more concrete and translate it into the reality of your own departments. You may even need to review an entire department because it takes people with different skills to achieve your goals. As far as we are concerned, when planning, there must also be a dialogue about how you are going to reach the top. Then suddenly there are consequences. This can be stressful, but it does ensure that your plan becomes executable. Don't get me wrong: the trick is finding the right depth here. If you go very deep into the details, it takes far too long. This requires good organization of the strategy development process. Who do we put in what, keep having the dialogue about the necessary depth with each other, how do we connect the different themes that arise, et cetera.

‍

Need help with strategy and execution?

We are Summiteers, we create movement, make something that is complex understandable again, something big achievable, a - vague - idea concrete and make something difficult succeed. Can you use help with this? Take contact with us.

Interested, but not ready for the trip yet? Follow our LinkedIn page and get inspired.

‍