In last week?s post, Strategic Planning: 12 Common Mistakes (Part 1 of 2), we explored the first six of 12 common mistakes made in corporate strategic planning. This week, let?s look at six more common mistakes to learn from and avoid making.
Before moving on, here is a recap of 1-6 from last week:
- The timeframe of the plan is too long
- Too many strategic goals
- Goals not tied to measurable outcomes
- Employees are unaware of the goals
- Key vendors and partners not considered
- Plan leaves too much room for interpretation
Now let?s examine mistakes 7-12 on the strategic planning no-no list:
7. Job descriptions not aligned to desired strategic outcomes
When job descriptions and job responsibilities align with corporate goals, organizations see better results in strategy execution. Job alignment helps achieve accountability and also fosters needed cooperation from individuals throughout the organization. When job descriptions and responsibilities are effectively communicated to employees and when additional responsibilities are given to them related to accomplishing tasks related to strategic goals ? these individuals become tuned-in with their roles and the expectations surrounding them. The goal is to create empowered team players.
8. Performance measures not aligned to organizational goals
Adding to the above, organizations must set performance measurements and incentives for employees and officers. These performance measurements should be derived from the job descriptions and job responsibilities, and the resulting incentives must be strong enough to empower all layers of management to measure and manage efforts toward the achievement of plan goals. While this adds a layer of complexity to the organizational planning process, neglecting this step will result in subpar performance.
9. Organizational culture is overlooked
The corporate planning process must consider the organizational culture. Without this, it is impossible to fulfill the organization?s potential to dominate within their marketplace. Culture determines how the organization functions and how work will be completed. Aligning strategy, tactics and governance to address these dimensions will positevely affect the outcome of planning efforts.
10. Customer value is overlooked
Customer-centric planning puts your number one stakeholder ? the end customer ? at the forefront of the organization?s activities and goals. By creating goals that reflect the type of value the organization can create for the customer, you?ll ?put a face to the name? and more effectively connect members of the organization with the desired outcomes. This requires a competitive analysis in order to understand positioning, threats and the true current-day value proposition of the organization?s offerings. Not all goals need to be customer-centric in nature, but overlooking this aspect during planning can lead to missed opportunities.
11. Operational planning is overlooked
An effective corporate planning process allows the organization to plan strategically at the enterprise level and then operationally at the business unit level with each part supporting the other. Failing to reach all the way down through the organizational layers is a common problem with corporate planning processes. This is where inadequate budgeting can come into play, resulting in resource constraints that will undermine the plan?s execution down stream. Strategic planning, to be effective, must address the entire business ecosystem ? from top to bottom.
12. Cyclical and seasonal peaks and valleys overlooked
It is well-understood that organizations must balance the realities of financial budgets during the corporate planning process. Yet, the organization must also take into account relevant economic cycles that will impact the strategy over time.? Economic cycles will affect market conditions, access to capital, energy, focus, and many other factors (both positively and negatively) to inhibit or accelerate an organization?s ability to accomplish its desired outcomes.?To the extent that economic and cyclical factors are understood and anticipated, the organization can build a layer of realistic contingency into corporate plans that address the peak workloads of workers, budget cycles and many other factors ? thus improving the realism of the plan and ultimately the results.
Wrap Up
This list is not intended to be all inclusive. There are many blunders that can bring a good strategy down during execution, but the list we have covered addresses many common mistakes that should be avoided or corrected.
?
when is daylight savings 2011 cain gingrich debate andy rooney dies andy rooney dies bank transfer day daylight savings 2011 us geological survey
The UK has the most Internet-centric economy in the G20 group of industrialised nations according to research by the Boston Consulting Group released in March 2012. It estimates that the UK?s internet economy was worth ?121bn in 2010, more than ?2,000 per person. Couple this with the knowledge that approximately 20 threats per second are discovered on the Internet, and it?s not surprising that UK government lists cyber security as a ?Tier 1 Threat?, alongside terrorism. However, recognising the threat is slightly different from actually doing something about it.
Interestingly the UK and the US are seen as the safest places for Internet based business. This has resulted in several large corporations quietly reversing the recent trend to relocate business to the developing world to reduce costs. Ensuring security has become as important, if not more important, a business driver for governments as cost. When a country loses its AAA credit score for a ratings agency, it makes headlines. I predict it will not be long before similar importance is attached to measures such as the Booz Allen cyber hub index.
A significant difficulty in protecting critical national assets is that the Internet is primarily run by private companies or non-governmental organisations. That?s true even in the case of? critical national infrastructure such as utilities, which are vulnerable to attack via the Internet. Most of the infrastructure and services that underpin national digital infrastructures are run by private companies such as HP, Fujitsu, IBM, Verizon, BT and others. Even the key technologies employed to sit on top of the infrastructure are developed by private companies ranging from Google, to Microsoft, to Apple plus a raft of much smaller start-ups, some of whom you will never have heard. The level of investment produced by these companies dwarfs those made by governments.
For example, the UK?s National Cyber Security Programme is making available a total of GBP650 million (USD1.01 billion) over four years. This money is intended to be part of a programme whereby government works with businesses, as well as protecting governmental assets. But this money is lost when you think, for example, of cyber security company Symantec spending USD862 million in 2011 alone on research and development. Similarly, Microsoft spent USD8.7 billion in 2010 and Google USD3.7 billion. The disparity between individual government spend, and that they are used to procuring systems over many years rather than at the speed at which Internet technologies change, means that governments find it very difficult to engage with private businesses.
For example, you might imagine the all-out attack on Estonia in 2007 would have led to an aggressive response. Instead it led to the formation of the Co-operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD COE). The purpose of CCD COE is to understand the cyber threat as it develops and thence to prevent those attacks. This is an approach which has received the full backing of NATO. Meanwhile, the EU has created the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) to act as a hub for the exchange of information, best practices and knowledge in the field of information security.
Regardless of style of approach one common theme has emerged: the key to effective defence against the rapidly evolving threat is shared intelligence. The studies conducted by Dr Rogoyski showed that what business wants most from government is Information Sharing and Awareness Raising. And, intelligence is one thing that governments do have.
In the UK, the private sector is not necessarily waiting for government direction. For example, a financial services virtual task force has been formed by several large banks. This task force co-operates with the Metropolitan Police and exchanges information on threats and attacks as rapidly as possible. This has proved to be a very effective approach and has led to a number of successful prosecutions. Another information exchange is being set up by Intellect and ADS, UK hi-tech trade associations.
From the location, to the brands the shop carries, Aloha has truly embraced the definition of doing things differently. Although they?ve encountered some criticism about the location?primarily the fact that it?s miles inland from the beach?Kalama and Wickens say that North Park?s young demographic make it the perfect location for a brick-and-mortar door. At the same time, the shop?s main focus is to reach a much broader audience than just San Diego, and places high importance on holding events that speak to a range of age groups, personalities, and geographic regions. 
The presentation of the store reflects the same thoughtful outlook, with unique POP and merchandising displays for apparel, footwear, and surf hardgoods, all positioned against the backdrop of a beautifully finished wooden wall that Kalama and Wickens built by hand, using reclaimed wood scraps from a friend?s barn in Oregon.
?Quitting your job to start something holds a lot of people back from doing things,? says Wickens. ?If you are working for someone else and applying yourself creatively and giving yourself to a company, then you can do those same things and do it for yourself. Not that working for someone else is bad at all, but if you have the desire to work for yourself it?s totally doable. It definitely takes sacrifice. I think it?s just realizing that you don?t need a lot.?