Creating a strategic plan is only the beginning of the journey towards realizing your desired outcomes. Once goals are set and a plan is prepared its time to execute. Most literature and thinking asserts that there is a gap between strategy and execution and that if that gap can be closed, you'll reach your goals. You can find dozens of books dedicated to the study of closing the strategy-execution gap, but the body of writing only tells a partial story.
To begin with, lets settle on a few definitions. I've previously proposed that strategy is "a plan of action designed to achieve outcomes." In other words, strategy has goals and a plan to reach those goals. Another useful concept to pin a short definition upon is "gap." A gap is how we define the space between where we are and where we'd like to be. For our purposes, as we discuss strategy and outcomes, a gap can wear multiple hats. There are frequently gaps between; the results we achieve and the results we set out to achieve, our plans and their outcomes, our communication and what was received, and many others. With these two simple, but essential definitions clear, we can discuss the gaps in the strategy through outcomes process.
What we would like to do consistently is determine strategic goals, develop plans to accomplish those goals, and set the plan in motion to execute. Unfortunately, it rarely works out so neatly. Sometimes actions are taken that are different than the ones that should have been taken. Other times people don't do what we intended. We also find occasionally that we've planned the wrong actions. These problems can be traced back to gaps in our process. Its important to note that I'm referring to gaps, not a single gap between strategy and execution. I previously divided strategy into four phases; setting goals, planning, actions, and outcomes. In turn, I'll divide gaps into three primary gaps instead of a single broad gap. By more tightly defining our gaps, it's easier to plan for them and avoid their pitfalls.
The first gap is the information gap and it is usually found between the setting goals and planning phases of strategy This gap is the difference between what we'd like to know and what we actually know. It also includes the challenging situation of not knowing what we don't know. In short, we don't have and never will have perfect information. Perfect information is the desired state, with it we'd always drill in the right spot for oil, build new stores in the correct location, price products properly, etc. Understanding that we will never have all the information or knowledge that we'd like is the first part of dealing with the information gap.
This gap can be caused by not gathering enough information, interpreting information incorrectly, not clearly knowing our capabilities, making false assumptions about actions of others, or by incorrectly anticipating what will happen in the future.
Building a capability to deal with less information than we'd like as we plan is the best way of mitigating this challenge. This relates directly to the concept of preparing not planning that I addressed earlier. By building an organization that is comfortable operating with less than ideal information, but with a clear focus on the goal, you avoid the common trap of the information gap - paralysis by analysis. In this state, you constantly seek more information and become averse to making decisions, as you know you don't quite have all the information you'd like. Many of the tools I've written about such as a SWOT Analysis, Porter's Five (Six) Forces and others are methods to gather information in a structured manner and to become comfortable with operating with less than perfect information.
The coordination gap typically falls between the planning and action phases. This is the difference between what we want people to do and what they actually do. There are a number of reasons for this gap, but communication is the single largest factor. Here we see difficulties in aligning everybody who needs to act, getting messages to the correct people, understanding of communicated guidance, actions that are too early or too late, buy-in by the people that are carrying out actions, unwillingness to do what is asked, competing priorities, understanding, etc.
The coordination gap can be an outcome of distant leadership or planning teams who are out of touch with the parts of the organization that have the responsibility to execute plans, unclear communication that is misunderstood or ignored, and the competing priorities that people feel when faced with multiple sets of instructions and bosses.
Mitigating this gap requires a well thought out communications plan. Those carrying out the actions needed to accomplish the goals must understand the strategy and intent of the organization. The capabilities of the company must be clearly understood by those making plans; you can't ask for the impossible. It's also very important to involve the people taking action in the planning process. They don't have to help set strategic goals, but they should be involved in the planning to take action to reach those goals. Having them involved in an honest back and forth dialog about actions and outcomes will go a long way towards reaching your goals.
The third gap is the outcomes gap, which happens between the action and outcomes phases. This is the difference between what we expect our actions to achieve and what they actually accomplish. Here it is critical to have created the organization that has focused upon preparing instead of planning. This doesn't mean that we don't plan; it means that we develop a flexible and adaptable organization. An organization that understands that plans rarely go the way they were intended and that is ready to change actions to accomplish the desired outcomes, even if they path taken is unanticipated.
The outcomes gap can be caused by an environment that proves more complicated than expected, unpredictable events, changes in a situation that weren't predicted, chance events, or the actions of our customers and competitors. All of these factors push us towards unexpected results. An organization that is only focused upon the mythical single gap between strategy and execution will have a tendency to begin installing multiple layers of performance measurements in the face of the outcomes gap. This invariably leads to micromanagement and the notion that if the workers were only executing the plan, the results would be as expected. Understanding the outcomes gap allows an organization to adjust on the fly and communicate clearly within itself.
Each of these three gaps needs to be addressed, ideally in concert with organizational training and development. You can't focus on a single gap or you'll eventually fall behind your competition and limit your success. The good news is that most companies still believe in the single gap and have problems executing strategy. This means that firms that understand the strategy cycle and the gaps associated with it will gain a competitive advantage.
Michael Nelson
Phone: 877-242-4812
michael@thecogentcoach.com
http://www.thecogentcoach.com/
This article may be shared provided it is not altered and the contact information remains intact.
© Cogent Consulting Group, LLC All Rights Reserved 2010
Michael Nelson "The Cogent Coach" is the President of Cogent Consulting Group and Expert Small Business Coach. I work together with small business owners to dramatically increase their business success.
I publish the free ezine, Roadmap. Roadmap provides small business owners tips, techniques, and tools to dramatically increase their business success. With Roadmap you'll navigate the pathways to business success.
