Objectives are a cornerstone of organizational control and risk management. So far so good, but how do you know if you have a good objective? More important, how do you know if you have a real-stinker on your hands?
In the ‘The RBM Plan!‘, I detailed a number of blogs in a series, this is the third. It is a brief visit to see how the United Nations are doing with their RBM implementation after nearly 20 years of effort and what other organizations can learn from this experience.
The blog introduces Results-Based Management (RBM), emphasizing its significance in public sector reform as outlined in “Reinventing Government”. It discusses the historical context of RBM, its endorsement by key organizations, and the challenges of implementing standardized practices. The focus is on ensuring effectiveness and accountability in public expenditures for optimal results.
Continue readingIn my last blog, I introduced the ‘NOW-Event-Map‘. This model combines both a forward looking strategic planning model with a retrospective performance reporting model. At the center of the map is the enduring concept of ‘NOW’. At the end of the prior blog I promised some thoughts on how the map might be used – besides as an academic thought exercise.
The ‘Cone of (Un) Certainty’ has been a fixture in strategic planning for a few decades [1]. In reviewing these models I was struck by the assumption that planning ends…. and well that is it. To correct this, I would like to propose a planning model entitled: ‘The NOW-Event Map’. which considers both planning and delivery.
This is the second in a series of blogs on a Practical Risk Management Method or PRMM. At the bottom of this blog is a refresher of the other steps. This step’s premise is don’t separate your planning activities from your risk management activities. In other words:
Planning = Risk Management. Planning is ultimately about managing uncertainty which is a fancy name for Risk. At this point you may be saying:
I am afraid I can’t help you if you fall into the last category but hopefully these blogs can help you if you with the first two.
Continue readingThis is part two of my thoughts on Risk Management. Part I, “Guns, Telephone Books and Risk” focused on the problem of creating long lists of things that will (may) never happen.
Continue readingNicolas Taleb would have us believe that strategic planning is ‘superstitious babble’ (see Anti-fragile strategic planning). In contrast, Kaplan and Norton make strategic planning a cornerstone of the Balanced Scorecard. The reality is probably in the middle.
This blog however considers the question, how much time should an organization spend on planning? Successful or not, when do you cut your losses for a year or when do you think that you are not doing enough?
On the one hand, strategic planning can become its own self-sustaining cottage industry. Endless meetings are held and navels are closely examined with little to show for it. On the other hand, the organization is so tied up in operations and ‘crisis du jour‘ that they wake up and discover the world (and even their organization) has completely changed around them.
What rule of thumb or heuristic can be used to know that you are doing enough Strategic Planning without decorating cottages? My proposed answer is somewhere between the 1.0% and 0.1%. Although a full order of magnitude separates these values, a range is important due to the volatility of an environment an organization finds itself in. Governments are likely on the low-end (closer to 0.1%) and tech start-ups on the higher end (1.0%).
For more on the basis for these heuristics, take a read of ‘A Ruling on 80, 90 and 99‘ for my thoughts and a review of such things as Vilfredo Pareto’s legacy and internet lurkers. A recap from this blog is as follows:
Thus the 99 Rule provides a minimum amount of time for an organization to consider strategic questions while the 90 rule provides a maximum amount of time.
Consider a fictional organization of 1,000 people. This is a medium sized business, typical government Ministry or employees of a large town or a small city. Assuming there is about 1,700 productive hours on average per year per employee (e.g. after vacation, training, sick time, etc. see below for my guesstimation on this) this means the organization in total has 1,700,000 hours to allocate. How much of this precious resource should be spent doing strategic planning?
I am recommending no less than 1,700 hours and no more than 17,000 hours in total. In total means involving all people in all aspects of the process. Thus if there is a one hour planning meeting with 20 people in the room, that is 20 hours. To prepare for this meeting, 3 people may have spent 2 full days each – another 3 x 2 x 8-hours or another 48 hours against the above budget.
The point of completing these measurements is to answer four fundamental questions:
What happens if you discover you are not doing enough? For example your 1,000 person organization is only spending 100 hours per year doing planning. You may be very good and efficient and if so bravo to you and your planning folks! On the other hand, you may be missing opportunities, blind sided by challenges and mired in the current day’s crisis – in which case maybe a bit more effort is needed.
The 1,000 person organization may also be in a Ground Hog Day’esque hell of constantly planning with not much to show for it. Perhaps you have a full time planning unit of five people who host dozens of senior management sessions and the best they can is produce an anemic planning document that is quickly forgotten. In this case, measuring the effort of consuming 10 to 20 thousand hours of efforts for nought can lead to better approaches to the effort.
The above two examples demonstrate how a bit of measurement may help you decide that 100 hours is more than sufficient or 20,000 hours was money well spent. The output of the planning process is… well a plan. More importantly it is a culture of monitoring, planning and adapting to changing organizational and environmental circumstances. Thus setting an input target of planning to measure the quality of the output and the impact of the outcomes can answer the question if the planning effort were resources well spent.
The advantage of measuring, evaluating and reflecting on the planning efforts is to get better at. Setting a target (be 1.0% or 0.1%) is the first step of this activity and measuring against this target is the next.
Good luck with your planning efforts and let me know how much time your organization spends on its planning initiatives.
How much time does an organization have per annum to do things? The answer is … it depends. Here are two typical organizations. The first is a medium size enterprise that works an 8-hour day, offers 3-weeks vacation per year, in addition to sick days and training (e.g. for safety, regulatory compliance, etc.). On the other hand is a Ministry that offers a 7.25-hour day, 5-weeks of vacation plus sick and training days.
| Organization | Medium Size Company | Government Ministry |
| Hours/day (1) | 8 hours | 7.25 hours |
| Work days per year (2) | 254 | 250 |
| Work Hours per year | 2,032 | 1,812.5 |
| Avg Vacation days x work hours (3) | 120 (3 weeks) |
181.25 (5 weeks) |
| Avg Sick Days/year x work hours (4) | 60 (7.5 days) |
54 (7.5 days) |
| Avg Hours of Learning/year (5) | 42 | 29 |
| Total productive hours/employee | 1,810 | 1,548.25 |
Other Thoughts on Strategic Planning
There are two inherent tensions when it comes to budgeting: compliance versus cooperation and people versus technology.
Strategic planning can be more effective by focusing on three principles: first, prioritize the planning process over the final document; second, timely execution is crucial, as plans quickly become outdated; third, concise plans of four pages promote clarity and strategic thinking. These methods aim to enhance organizational responsiveness and focus.
Continue reading
Organizational Biology 