PRMM – How is That Planning Thing Working Out for You?

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:

  1. Of Course: we already do this. Good on you, see you at the next blog!
  2. Great Idea: this may be incrementally more work during the planning process but ultimately over all less effort for the organization.
  3. What is This Planning Thing you Speak Of: hmmm, we may have identified your top risk.

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 reading →

90 or 99 – That is the Strategic Question

Nicolas 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?

How Much Is 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:

  • Pareto: 20% of an organization’s actions account for 80% of its results.
  • 90 Rule: 1% of the operational decisions are enacted by 9% of the organization affecting the remaining 90%.
  • 99 Rule: 0.1% of the strategic decisions are enacted by 0.9% of the organization which impacts the remaining 99%.

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.

Who Does What and What to Do with Your 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.

Measuring what Matters

The point of completing these measurements is to answer four fundamental questions:

  1. Is the organization doing enough strategic planning relative to the environment?
  2. Is the organization doing too much planning?
  3. Are we getting value for the investment of resources?
  4. How do we get better at the activities to reduce this total?

Is the organization doing enough strategic planning relative to the environment?

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.

Is the organization doing too much planning?

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.

Are we getting value for the investment of resources?

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.

How do we get better at the activities to reduce this total?

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 Do You Have?

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
  1. Few professionals work an 8-hour day let alone a 7.25-hour one.  Nevertheless, everyone has non-productive time such as bathroom breaks, filling up on coffee, walking between buildings.  So I am leaving the actual average productive hours at 8 and 7.25 respectively.
  2. For a cool site in adding this calculation, see: www.workingdays.ca.  Note this includes 3 days of Christmas Closure.
  3. 10 days is the minimum number of vacation days required to be given to an employee.  The average is a surprisingly difficult number to find (at least to a casual searcher).  15 days is based on an Expedia 2015 survey.
  4. Reference Statistics Canada: Days lost per worker by reason, by provinces.
  5. Sources vary.  I have chosen the high value for the for-profit organization as they often have stringent regulatory requirements for health and safety training.  For government I have chosen a medium value.  Sources:

Other Thoughts on Strategic Planning

Six PoC Questions for Success

The article discusses the significance of Proofs of Concept (PoCs) in problem-solving, emphasizing a scientific approach and the “Fail Fast” principle. It presents six essential questions to guide organizations through the PoC process, ensuring clarity in objectives, results, and future applications while fostering innovative solutions.

Continue reading →

Strategic Planning: How Not to Waste Your Time 

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 →

Organizations in Four Part Harmony

What exactly makes up an organization and how is work done within them?  This is a subject of a handy mental model I use when I am trying to understand an organization; an organization in four part harmony.

1.    Harmony 1, Infrastructure: the furniture, furnaces, machinery and head offices of the organization.  Note that in many organizations infrastructure is often a non-tangible.  For example a computerized airline reservation system or perhaps a finance system.

Steamfitter, by Lewis Hine (American, 1874–1940) .  Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.  Accession Number: 54.549.56

Steamfitter, by Lewis Hine (American, 1874–1940) . Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Accession Number: 54.549.56

2.    Harmony 2, Operations: these are the day-in-day-out processes, tasks and procedures which we typically hire people to do.  Accounts payable clerks, widgets assembler or process engineers are hired because payables need to be clerked, widgets assembled and processes engineered.

3.    Harmony 3, Ad hoc activities: if you have a reserved parking spot close to the head office of an organization, I bet this is what you do all day.  Sure, you were hired to do operations (Chief Executive/Finance/Information Officer) and sometimes operational work sneaks in when you are not looking.  More than likely though, you have crossed into the grey and smudgy no-man’s land that separates operations from the world of the ad hoc.

4.    Harmony 4, Strategic thinking/planning: Periodically, the leaders of an organization will set aside their many ad hoc and fewer operational activities to complete strategic plans.  Strategic plans hopefully answer questions like, do we have the right infrastructure, efficient operations and why are there so many ad hoc activities.

Four Perfect Harmonies

If you dig out your old college text books, organizations are described as functioning something like this.  Wise executives poke their heads up from the fray and gain strategic knowledge.  In turn, this knowledge is used to tweak infrastructure and adjust operations.  Ad hoc opportunities are few and nearly always involve entering into new markets, maximizing shareholder wealth or stakeholder well-being.

Dilbert and The Four Harmonies

In a Dilbert’esque world, the four harmonies work in isolation.  Most of the management focus is on performing ad hoc work that usually involves fixing or infrastructure or operations.  This is because infrastructure suffers from a lack of investment while operations are conducted by poorly trained leading the newly hired.  The only time either of these harmonies get any attention is when they fail and then they are hastily repaired, usually in an ad hoc manner.

Beyond the Harmonies

Most organizations fall in between these two extremes.  Ideally infrastructure is like a well-run furnace on a cold winter’s day – well-functioning, appreciated and invisible.  Time invested in operations saves management effort solving future ad hoc problems (an ounce of prevention is worth of pound of cure).   Ad hoc efforts need to be the exception and not the standard modus operandi of an organization.  Unfortunately management through heroics and drive by management can make it difficult to operationalize a corporate culture used to the adrenalin rush of the last moment.

Finally strategic planning should be an ongoing rather than intermittent activity, ad hoc activity.  Ideally, an orchestra-conductor makes small corrections to the harmony rather than having to stop the tune and start again from the top.

Organizations are much too complex to fit into four neat buckets, but it is surprising how this simple model has help me channel my thinking about complex and abstract structures, such as organizations.  So, how well does your organization manage the four harmonies and what are your thoughts on the mental model?  As always drop me your thoughts, ideally via a singing telegram in four part harmony.

The SWOT+4 Planning Model

Information Management/Technology (IM/IT) is expensive. As well, the advantages it provides are fleeting and easy to imitate (or worse steal). An organization must strategically and operationally plan for its investments in IM/IT. The problem is, what exactly should be in the Strategic or Operational plan, and what are the questions the plans are trying to answer?

Over the past 20+ years I have being pondering these questions. Being a visual person, I have developed what I am calling the SWOT+4 IM/IT Planning Model. It is a bit busy but here it goes. At the centre is the SWOT matrix. Overlaying the SWOT matrix are the four-central IM/IT questions and on top of the questions are the respective planning tools to answer the questions.

SWOT+4 Planning Model

SWOT+4 Planning Model

At the core of the SWOT+4 model are the organization’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. This 2×2 matrix is a mainstay of strategic analysis. Although familiar to virtually everyone, in brief it is a method to view a situation from two key dimensions: internal versus external and positive versus negative. For example, Strengths are internal-positive attributes whereas Threats represents the external-negative possibilities.

Unfortunately, the SWOT tool is incomplete when it comes to evaluating an organization’s IM/IT. For example, is a change of technology an opportunity or a threat? Are the existing IM/IT systems a strength or a weakness? The answer to both questions is – it depends. As a result, I have used a Four Question Model for IM/IT Planning over the years as an analysis checklist. In order of priority the questions are:

  1. ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN: What is important (e.g. priorities, plans and strategies) to the organization? This is at the centre of the model and crosses all four SWOT considerations. Included in this question are things like the organization’s vision, its mission, business plan(s), budgets and all things strategic.
  2. ORGANIZATIONAL IM/IT: How can/does/should IM/IT support or impede what is important to the organization; does the organization have the right IM/IT and if not, when will it get it? This is an internal consideration although it touches the external dimensions of the SWOT model to represent amongst other things benchmarking and industry best practice. This question is ideally answered by both the strategic documents discussed above and the IT Department’s operational plan(s).
  3. IM/IT CAPACITY: How well does the organization DO IM/IT, is it getting better, worse or about the same? What about the fleet of applications or physical resources; is the organization still running Windows 3.1, Office 95 or has it been able to adopt leading/bleeding edge technologies. How about the organization’s Bespoke and COTS applications, are they on current versions or getting long in the tooth? These questions are internal considerations for the organization.
  4. IM/IT FUTURE: What is on the organizational event horizon that will affect or change the above? There are both threats and opportunities in this respect for an organization. Hacker activists, lower technology costs, legislation (e.g. privacy or technical) and changing industry standards are all examples of future changes that may be positive or negative.

Finally two typical planning tools are overlaid on the SWOT and 4 questions. The bottom and foundation is the organization’s business or strategic plan. IM/IT may have its own strategic plan or it may piggy back on a larger corporate plan. Irrespective, the plan should be able to answer the questions of (q1) what is important and (q4) what is on the horizon for the organization? The IM/IT operational plan focuses on the questions of (q3) current capacity and (q2) near term organizational IM/IT activities.

The delineation between the plans is not clear and ideally they should overlap each other rather than having a gap. The operational plan purposely extends into the Threat quadrant of the organization and the Business Plan relies on organizational strengths to capitalize on opportunities in the environment.

Beyond the Box

What do you think? Is the SWOT+4 Planning Model a muddled mess or does it provide a conceptual basis in which your organization can begin to structure its IM/IT planning. What is the value proposition to understanding and using the model well? I believe the model can support faster technology adoption, lower cost of implementation and ownership and better leveraging of IM/IT assets. Stay tuned as I am hoping to drill in a bit more into the model in future blogs. For example:

  • How a lifecycle approach can be used to measure IM/IT Capacity (q3)
  • The roles and technologies involved in delivering Organizational IM/IT (q2)
  • How much IM/IT should be in an organizational plan (q1), and
  • Where to buy a good crystal ball for the IM/IT Future (q4).