Much of the information that is available, whether printed word or online, to those seeking to learn how to better develop strategies tends to refer to what strategists term, ‘Vision-Based Strategy’ falsely giving the impression that all strategy should be vision based.
If all in the garden is rosy, this might be the case however reality does have a habit of throwing up problems which side-track us from our vision. When this happens, what do we do with strategy?
Ever since H. Igor Ansoff’s ‘Corporate Strategy’ (1965) popularised the concept of business strategy to a wider audience, strategy has evolved at an incredible pace with numerous models, theories, versions and methods arriving (and frequently departing).
How many different models of strategy are there? Probably over 1000 and, as in many other areas of life, some are good, many are mediocre, most lag behind or have fallen by the wayside.
It sounds confusing but it doesn’t need to be. Fundamentally nearly all of the successful models fall into one of two camps.
Model One; Vision-Based Strategy (aka Goals-Based Planning)
This will be the more familiar model to most working in and with strategy. It is ‘vision-based’ in that it defines the future before working (planning) back to the present by defining specific objectives that will need to be achieved against a set timescale if the Vision is to become reality.
These objectives will typically be specific (e.g. to increase profit margins on ‘product X’ by 10% by the end of the next four years). Actions will be attached to each goal clarifying the what, when, why, where, who and how to each objective.
A good Vision-Based Strategy will consider both external and internal factors, clearly identify organisational priorities and utilise both historical intelligence and analysis of current factors. In looking to the future, consideration will be given to informed forecasts, intuition and common sense.
Vision-Based Strategy tends to be longer term planning, certainly longer than 3 years with sounder models looking 10-12 years ahead although it should be noted that this will be subdivided into strategic planning cycles (frequently 3-5 years in duration).
Model Two; Issues-Based Strategy
This model will be less familiar to many although that is not to say it doesn’t have its place.
With Issue-Based Strategy we begin with the present and Work (plan) forward to the future. As the name suggests, it is typically used to identify issues faced by the organisation and work them forward toward solutions.
Common practice is to identify issues as questions (e.g. “how will we recruit our Board of Trustees?” or “how will we address the shortfall in expected funding?”) Action plans are then compiled describing the what, when, why, where, who and how required to address each issue.
Although this model can be used to address external factors it is more commonly utilised to focus on internal matters and the establishing of strong internal structures and systems.
Issue-Based Strategy tends to the shorter term, typically one year and never more than three. It is generally beneficial for young organisations, those facing critical current issues and/or those with far less resource (e.g. personnel or funding) than is required for its desired development. Generally, through sound Issue-Based Strategy, once issues have been addressed organisations will emerge stronger and then benefit from more Vision-Based planning.
The Hybrid Model
It is possible for a Vision-Based Strategy to incorporate Issue-Based planning. For example, if short-term, unpredicted problems arise while working towards a longer term vision it will make little sense to ‘bin’ a Vision-Based Strategy which is otherwise delivering. Far wiser to incorporate into it Issue-Based planning designed to address and solve the problem so delivery of the longer term vision stays on course.
Don’t overcomplicate it
As stated earlier, since 1965 there have probably been over 1000 different models of strategy of which those which have stood any test of time are based on either Vision or Issue.
Regardless of which model you are applying, it is worth remembering that at its most basic, strategy is about identifying and working through the challenges which hinder you from reaching your chosen destination. Challenges that can be predicted should be planned for via ‘Vision-Based’ thinking, those that can’t will likely require ‘Issue-Based’ thinking as and when they arise.
© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, September 2011
Read more blogs by Jim Cowan
info@cowanglobal.net
Twitter @cowanglobal
Facebook.com/cowanglobal
OLYMPIC LEGACY – THE ONE THAT WON’T GO AWAY
23 09 2011Former Sports Minister Richard Caborn has hit out at “disastrous” results in the drive to boost sports participation on the back of the London Olympics. In doing so, he once again highlights the myth of the promised Olympic legacy and the failure of successive governments (his own included) to plan properly for its provision.
Speaking on the BBC, Caborn says that Sport England’s aim of increasing participation by one million is facing “complete failure” before going on to say; “The Olympics will be a spectacular success but we are not capitalising on that. We are in danger of failing completely on the long-term sporting legacy of the Games. There needs to be a major change of direction in the strategy on this if the disastrous decline experienced by many of the sports is to be reversed.”
Sport England’s ‘Active People Survey’ supports Caborn’s position showing that since 2007/8 only nine sports have seen an increase in participation while 21 have seen a decline. The reality is likely far worse with athletics being reported by Active People to be one of the nine growth sports while independent analysis of participation in the sport suggests the opposite is true. Athletics is the only sport to have received independent analysis of its reported figures.
However, where Caborn calls for “a major change of direction in the strategy” what is he actually asking for?
It was Richard Caborn who was the Minister for Sport when, in 2005, London won the right to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. It was at this time that the target of one million more participants was set by him but no strategy (worthy of the name) was ever presented for public consumption by Caborn’s department. Instead a series of initiatives were launched in the hope that they would support the stated aim.
Caborn told the BBC that in 2008 it was decided that Sport England should merely fund governing bodies instead of involving local authorities and regional sports councils in boosting participation. Sport England insist that is not the case.
Of course, it should be remembered that Sport England’s primary role is to support government policy via the distribution of Lottery cash and therefore the government and Sport England are not that separate.
The fact is that both are right. Caborn’s successor as Minister for Sport, James Purnell, decided that the governing bodies (NGBs) should play a larger role in raising sports participation. Sport England were briefed to change ‘strategy’ to reflect this and agencies like the County Sports Partnerships were, as a result briefed by Sport England to focus more closely on working with NGBs. This did not stop them also working with local authorities, education, health and others, it was the prioritisation of such partners which changed.
Purnell did not stay long at the DCMS but for the remainder of its life the last government continued on a policy of ‘initiativeitis’, a term coined by Tory Minister for Sport Hugh Robertson, in place of one involving proper strategy aimed at the integrated development of sport.
When the Conservatives won the election, Robertson lambasted initiativeitis and promised to deliver the missing strategy. That was in May of last year and yet we still await the strategy while initiativeitis continues unchecked.
But what of one million new participants in sport? Caborn is right when he says the aim will not be delivered but he has missed an important fact; no one is trying to deliver it anymore. In an interview with The Guardian newspaper on 29th March (and reported in this blog) the Olympics Secretary Jeremy Hunt admitted that the previous government’s target had been quietly dropped by the present government shortly after the election.
What the revised target may be we don’t know. What the strategy for achieving the revised target may be is also unknown. The sad fact is that despite promising to the world that a legacy from hosting the Games in London would be an increase in the participation in sport, no one in government has yet seen fit to produce a strategy (worthy of the name) to deliver on that promise.
When Caborn calls for “a major change of direction in the strategy” what he should be asking for is a strategy designed to deliver on our promise to the world however the evidence of the past and of governments of both hues does not suggest we should be getting too optimistic.
Speaking on BBC London yesterday, Hugh Robertson reminded us that no other host nation has ever managed to achieve the feat of raising participation through hosting the Games, something we knew already and something which the bid presentation in 2005 pointed out, telling the world that Britain would deliver.
Not without a strategy we won’t and time is fast running out!
More from Cowan Global on the Olympic Legacy issue:
Initiative-it is – A Welcome End?
Initiative-it is Returns Before It Had Even Left
Is It Initiative-it is? The Minister Says Not
The Public Funding Of Sport And A Legacy From 2012
How Government Policy (Past & Present) Undermines Our Children’s Future
School Sports Partnership Likely U-Turn Begs The Bigger Question
Sports Strategy Still Absent While Initiative-it is Continues Unchecked
School Sports U-Turn Further Evidence That The Government Lacks Strategy
Legacy Or Smokescreen?
Now The Stadium Is Decided Can We Please Debate The Legacy?
The Clock Finally Stops For The Promised Legacy
Olympic Legacy Report Is Right – But For The Wrong Reasons
Sky Sports News On Legacy – Not Such A Special Report
© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, September 2011
info@cowanglobal.net
Twitter @cowanglobal
Facebook.com/cowanglobal
Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: Consultant, Consulting, DCMS, Hugh Robertson, Initiativeitis, James Purnell, Legacy, Leisure, London 2012, Minister for Sport, News Comment, Olympic Legacy, Planning, Political Comment, Richard Caborn, Sport, Sport England, Sport Politics, Sports Development, Strategy
Categories : All Blogs, Consulting, News Comment, Sport, Strategy