Shipulski On Design

Plans are good, until they’re not.  The key is knowing when to stay the course and when to adjust the plan.

The time horizons for strategic plans or corporate initiatives can range from two to five years.  To ensure we create the best plans, we assign the work to our best people, we provide them with the best information, and we ask them to use their best judgment.  As input, we assess market fundamentals, technology trends, customer segments, our internal talent, our partners, our infrastructure, and our processes.  We then set revenue targets and create project plans and resource allocation plans to realize the revenue goals.  And then it’s go time.

We initiate the projects, work the plans, and report regularly on the progress.  If the progress meets the monthly goal, we keep going.  And if the progress doesn’t meet the monthly goal, we keep going.  We invested significant time and effort into the plan, and it can be politically difficult, if not bad for your career, to change the plan.  It takes confidence and courage to call for a change to a strategic plan or a corporate initiative.  But two to five years is a long time, and things can (and do) change over the life of a plan.

A plan is created with the best knowledge available at the time.  We assess the environment and use the knowledge to set the financial requirements for the plan.  When the environment and requirements change, the plan should change.

Before considering any changes, if we learn that the assumptions used to create the plan are invalid, the plan should change.  For example, if the resource allocation is insufficient, the timelines should be extended, resources should be added, or the scope of the work should be reduced. I think changing the plan is responsible management, and I think it’s irresponsible management to stay the course.

The environment can change in many ways.  Here are five categories of change: tariffs, competition, internal talent (key people move on), new customer learning, and new technical learning (e.g., more technical risk than anticipated).  Significant changes in any of these categories should trigger an assessment of the plan’s viability.  This is not a sign of weakness.  This is responsible management.  And if the change in the environment invalidates the plan’s assumptions, the plan should change.

The specification (revenue targets) for the plans can change.  There are at least two flavors of change: an increase in revenue goals or a shorter timeline to achieve revenue goals, which are usually caused by changes to the environment.  And when there’s a need for more revenue or to deliver it sooner, the plans should be assessed and changed.  Again, I think this is good management practice and not a sign of failure or weakness.  When we realize the plan won’t meet the new specification, we should modify the plan.

When we learn the assumptions are wrong, we should change the plan.  When the environment changes, we should change the plan.  And when the specification changes, we should change the plan.

Image credit — Charlie Day 

Comments are closed.