Author Archives: markgriffen

SPP vs. 4DX vs. PM

Leave a reply

Our organization uses a Strategic Planning Process (SPP) and we have recently introduced 4 Disciplines of Execution (4DX) and Project Management (PM). So, how do these tools fit together?

These tools are different, and fit different scenarios. The scenarios might overlap and the tools are compatible, but they are designed to be used in different ways.

SPP is designed to re-align an organization (a whole company or a division) to the main strategic goals is needs to achieve. Part of the Strategic Planning Process is to identify what the main goals are and how to achieve them given what is happening in the market. The SPP may result in a series of high level goals and actions, independent of implementation detail.

4DX is designed to help implement one key change (or maximum two) that a strategic plan (or quality review, or audit, or financial review etc.) has identified needs to happen along with everything else that is happening. However, 4DX only really works when there is a team of people needed to implement the change over a period of time (between two weeks and a year) using a repeated number of common actions. In other words, 4DX applies when multiple people can identify a core event that they can repeat to effect a desired outcome. 4DX is not applicable in tasks that happen once, or are implemented by one person (unless that person likes holding weekly meetings with them-self).

PM is designed to help implement a complex project of varied actions to achieve a specific goal. PM is good at breaking a major task down into varied sub-tasks across people of multiple disciplines, and controlling their implementation to achieve the goal. PM can be used to manage performance of repeated tasks, and to track the results of those tasks, but is overkill in this application when compared with the simplicity and focus of 4DX.

SPP would be used to do things like:

  • Stand back from the day to day and see if everything that we have been doing is achieving the highest level goals of our organization.
  • Annually assess if the “way we do things” should change.
  • Identify what new actions to take because the world has changed around you.

Examples of things that fit the 4DX model include:

  • A team decides to collectively gain weight by each eating larger meals every day.
  • Influencing the behavior of a large group of people by repeatedly influencing small actions taken by each member of that group.
  • Saving money at the department level by repeatedly reducing the costs of each individual item used.

Project Management is better suited to objectives that require varied tasks like:

  • Arrange a conference.
  • Build a skyscraper.
  • Develop a new product.
  • Purchase a company (unless your core actions is something like buying one new share of stock of the company on NASDAQ each day).

Note that these are different tools, and one is not necessarily related to the other.

However, if the SPP identifies a specific critical new objective that needs to be achieved, then 4DX may (or may not) be a good tool to drive implementation of some of the actions to achieve that objective and PM may be a good tool to drive the implementation of other actions to achieve that objective.

Using a SWOT Analysis in Developing a Strategic Plan

Leave a reply

A SWOT analysis can be used to help determine what actions should be taken to meet a goal. This should be clear in the items identified in the SWOT, and the actions taken as a result.

The first thing to do is state the goal to be achieved. This could be an organization Vision statement, a Direction statement or a team objective. You can’t develop a strategy using a SWOT analysis if you do not know what goal you want to achieve.

The purpose of completing a SWOT chart is to identify the most important things upon which to build, avoid, make the most of, and counter (respectively) through the actions in the plan in order to achieve the goal. The items in the SWOT analysis should clearly relate to the achievement of the goal.

Similarly, the actions identified after completing the SWOT should clearly relate to the items identified in the SWOT. Otherwise, there was no point in doing the SWOT analysis in the first place.

Let’s work through an example.

Say that an organizational goal is: “To motivate 100 volunteers to do something specific with a product developed by your organization by the end of this calendar year.”

The strengths of your organization, weaknesses of your organization, opportunities coming up in your environment, and the external threats to succeeding in your goal can be listed in a SWOT chart as follows:

Strengths:

  • We have a working prototype of the tool already developed.
  • The tool is easy to use, so training of volunteers should be quick.

Weaknesses:

  • We don’t currently know 100 volunteers.

Opportunities:

  • There’s an industry conference in May that many of our volunteers could attend.
  • An existing donor to our organization has said that they will provide the funds to use tools like the one that we have developed.
  • The volunteers we know respect us and like to refer other people to us.

Threats:

  • The best time of year for volunteers to use this tool is September, and it is already February.

Notice that the wording of the SWOT items specifically relate to the wording in the objective.

The action plan to achieve the objective could then directly relate to the items in the SWOT analysis as follows:

  1. Fred to contact all known volunteers by March 31st to invite them to the May conference.
  2. Jane to produce demonstration kits and promotional material by May 1st for volunteers to recruit further volunteers.
  3. Arthur to contact the donor by February 28th to see if they will fund production of 100 tool kits by August 31st.
  4. Algernon to build a Facebook page by March 31st describing the tool to allow known volunteers to share the idea with other potential volunteers.

Notice that the words in the actions directly relate back to the items identified in the SWOT analysis, which in turn relate directly to the goal.

Real Simple Definition of Good Leadership

Leave a reply

There are just two things that a leader needs to do:

  1. Ensure the people following / working for him / her know what their objectives are.
  2. Provide those people with the resources to achieve their objectives.

It is that simple. Really, it is that simple.

I’ve worked for a lot of different people over the decades in multiple cultures across many countries and socio-economic groups. I’ve worked with all types, from micro-managers to absentee managers. I’ve observed that what the good leaders did boiled down to just these two things. Now, there’s detail behind these things.

“Ensure the people following him / her or working for him / her know what their objectives are” means that the objectives are:

  • defined unambiguously;
  • described as outcomes (or deliverables);
  • SMART – Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely;
  • agreed with the staff member / follower.

“Provide those people with the resources to achieve their objectives” could include:

  • financial and material resources (the agreed budget must be funded);
  • human resources (the people with whom they need to work to achieve the objectives are made available);
  • skill resources (the staff member / follower has access to all the skills necessary to achieve the objectives);
  • processes that they need to or could use.

Leadership all seems to boil down to something as simple as this. Note that this definition is independent of the management / leadership style (e.g. command and control / benevolent / servant) provided by the manager / leader. It is also independent of culture and distance over which leadership is provided.

One note. Personally I’ve noticed that the very best managers / leaders for whom I have worked have always done the above in the context of helping me progress towards my life and career goals. I think that this was because they recognized that they were leading me for only a small portion of my career / life. By developing me as part of achieving the current organizational goals they gave my next leader the opportunity to have me contribute further towards to goals of the organization. I thought that this was a good thing to attempt to do.

There’s a reason why you’ve never read a management book that makes leadership this simple: because you can’t sell a book with only one page.

Really Useful Website of Strategic Management Tools

Leave a reply

The following website has a lot of really useful tools for Strategic Management / Leadership:

http://www.quickmba.com/strategy/

Everything from planning processes to analysis tools to summaries of the best theories.

Check it out.

Virtual Leadership of Your Strategy

1 Reply

OK, so you have a strategy, and you are implementing it. The big problem is that the strategy is being implemented by people you can’t see, and you have to work with them virtually.

You will find here a really good presentation on tips about leading virtually. Great stuff. Have a look-see. If you like what you see and want more, then go here.

Stop Working!!!!

Leave a reply

A while back I asked if you wanted to attend another meeting. The idea was that it is worth taking time to monitor the most important thing to do. Not convinced?

Well, I like the following quote from the Chairman and CEO of Societe Generale. He leads one of the world’s biggest banks, which has 154,000 employees.

“Because we are a service company, our principal differentiator is our people. I am very happy to see the progress our employees have made around client satisfaction. For example, the branches have decided to close for a half hour to an hour every week to discuss and monitor their progress on client satisfaction. The decision to close was a very difficult one, because obviously it meant less access for our clients. However, the branches are very pleased with the management benefit this time provides them. Some branches only have three or four employees, so they rarely, if ever, had time to meet as a team. In the end, I think this illustrates our people’s commitment to the vision, because their decision involved risk and they were able to see that the benefit outweighed that risk.”

Apparently, it is more important to close your business for 30 minutes a week to figure out if you are doing the right thing the other 39.5 hours, than it is to keep going because there is too much work to do. I find myself agreeing with this. Two key questions for all of us:

  1. What is the goal that we are trying to achieve?
  2. Are we achieving it?

Are You Really Implementing Your Strategy?

Leave a reply

So, you have a strategy, but are you following it? Writing down a strategy is the easy part. Getting 1,000+ people to change what they do to follow it is the hard part. In this previous article I commented on the need for rapid resource (people and money) allocation to reflect a strategic change.

I like what is said in this video from McKinsey quoting one of their consultants:

“I don’t want to read your strategy plan. I want to see what’s shifted in your budget. Then I’ll tell you what your strategy is.”

Could someone reverse engineer your strategy based upon your team’s expenditure? They should be able to do so.

You Review Your Strategy How Often?

Leave a reply

There’s a good article from McKinsey here.

A few key points from the man who runs Ford, which had 2012 revenue of $36.5Bn, and profit of $5.7Bn:

1.    The leadership team meet every week to review the strategy and modify it where necessary. Note that:
– They review the environment (gather input) every week.
– Even though they run a very large organization, the senior leadership doesn’t consider itself too busy to meet every week on the thing that is most important to it.
– The leaders don’t consider weekly meetings on something that has a massive lag measurement (increased profits of 10% p.a.) too frequent.

2.    The leadership team review corporate information every week. This means that they have corporate information to review every week. There obviously aren’t a lot of people in Ford who think that they are above ensuring data is entered into corporate computers.

3.    The CEO of Ford gets his energy to run his business from his family, exercise, and spiritual well-being. Interesting. He doesn’t say that he imposes this on the rest of the organization, but he recognized the importance of spiritual well-being in his life, and the need for balance in life in order to work effectively.

Resource Allocation to Encourage The Strategy

3 Replies

Got a strategy but having trouble getting people to put their time and effort into implementing it?

See the great article / video here from McKinsey. One of the best I have seen for a long time. The bottom line: organizations that are free to reallocate resources (people and money) to rising star projects from dog projects have 4% p.a. higher returns.

This applies to not-for-profits as well, as the profits / returns to which this article refers translate into increased productivity in not-for-profits.

A long time ago the organization for which I worked brought in a new CEO to implement needed changes. Everyone said “yes” to the ideas, but carried on as normal. The CEO ended up creating the change by making himself the sole approver of any capital expenses over $8000. It was difficult for the organization to carry on as normal when they could not buy the tools to do this. It took three months for one person to change the strategy of a 25,000 person organization using this simple tool. He was busy signing (or rejecting) expenses for three months. It was time well spent.

Is the project that you have identified as the most important thing to do being done? If the reason for it not being done is that people are not working on it, then force the issue by reallocating resources to it from low priority projects. Go ahead, you can do it.

Lead With No Data, Or Lead With Bad Data?

1 Reply

What do you do if you need data to make leadership decisions, but your in-house systems don’t have perfect data?

This was a question with which the team in which I work wrestled last week.

An answer can be found here. The  bottom lines are this:

  1. Trying to make leadership decisions based upon incomplete data is probably better than trying to make them using no data at all.
  2. If you make decisions based upon imperfect data that affects the people who provided you with the data, then the people who provided the data will improve its accuracy for future decision making.

One of the most senior managers in our organization reinforced this in a story he told me last year. As a regional leader he wanted to allocate funds within the organization. He knew that the data describing the parts of the organization under his authority was not reliable. But, the data represented, was collected, and was entered into the database by the staff who worked for him. He used this (unreliable) data anyway, and allocated funds according to it. People complained. However, the completeness of the data entered into the database increased dramatically. The next year, the appropriate data was available to make good decisions that everyone knew were fair.

So, in conclusion, when leading strategically to cause an organization to most effectively accomplish a vision use the data you have rather then ignore it because it is not perfect.