This weekend I was at the bookstore thumbing through a few recently released books on innovation. As I browsed the pages it got me thinking about innovation as it pertains to the strategic planning process. I wondered how such a structured and sometimes static set of activities might be looked at from a fresh perspective. That reasoning led me to this simple question: “How can organizations improve their strategic planning processes?” I’ll leave it to the reader to define what the word ‘improve’ means.
To approach this you might apply a technique called SCAMPER I found in a great book on creative thinking techniques called Thinkertoys: a handbook of creative thinking techniques by Michael Michalko. The SCAMPER technique is essentially a checklist of idea spurring questions that can be applied to virtually any product, service or even process. With the above question in mind ask yourself the following:
- What part(s) of the strategic planning process can be substituted?
- Which steps or activities can be combined?
- Can something be adapted to it?
- Is any part able to be modified or magnified?
- Can the process in whole or part be put to another use?
- Can elements of it be eliminated?
- Could it be reversed or rearranged in some way?
Attached is a link to the book and a ‘classical’ strategic planning process. How would you go about improving this decades old planning process that 9 out of 10 organizations use today?
Link to Thinkertoys: http://www.amazon.com/Thinkertoys-Handbook-Creative-Thinking-Techniques-2nd/dp/1580087736
This looks like the application of a slightly re-worked “Blue Ocean” type approach to the strategic planning process itself. Nice to challenge us to address the questions we pose to our own clients!
For my part,
1) I am increasingly convinced that strat planning should be focused on deep conversations about a few key issues as opposed to a broad but shallow discussion about many (Pareto’s law)
2) I am also questioning whether the “internal diagnostic” phase adds much value. What would be lost if it was not done?
3) Which comes first? The “diagnostic” or the “visioning” phase? I am increasingly favouring doing the visioning before the diagnostic.
4) I think much more emphasis needs to be put on developing a managable “project portfolio” and follow-up process than is currently given.
5) The consequences of the resulting budget re-allocations should be discussed openly “in plenary” as part of a more transparent process……particularly wrt where the $ for new initiatives/project will be taken from….
Regards
Mark
By: Mark Hollingworth on February 15, 2010
at 1:52 pm
Interesting read
By: anil kumar on February 15, 2010
at 8:32 pm