Much of what is written about and discussed with regard to strategy refers to ‘planning for success’ – but what happens next? Many businesses plan for success without contemplating the impact the success they desire might have on their business and the demands it might make on the staff they rely on…..
The success story that is British Cycling offers numerous lessons in strategic and tactical planning however twelve years ago such success was very new to the organisation and putting in place planning to accommodate the impact of the success they strived for was a new concept.
In the Atlanta Olympic Games of 1996, as hard as it might be to believe in the light of current successes, British Cycling was among the also rans. The team picked up two Bronze medals ranking them twelfth in the cycling medal table.
Four years later, their now famous planning and attention to detail had started and the upward curve of success had started. Sydney 2000 saw Britain climb to sixth in the cycling medal table with Jason Queally picking up Gold and Silver medals and young unknowns by the name of Chris Hoy (Silver) and Bradley Wiggins (Bronze) picking up the first of their now many medals.
Of course, this success was the reward for vastly improved planning and attention to detail but while the team enjoyed success in Australia, back in the UK the impact of that success had not received the same attention to detail and the small staff at their offices nearly drowned under the tidal wave of media and public interest.
As is the way with British Cycling, and with all organisations pursuing excellence, the lesson was learned and now along with achieving success, the impact of that success is always a consideration when planning.
The impact success can have on your business is not always as obvious. Consider the membership organisation I came across that consider themself to be a success. With 3500 members they are among the largest organisations of their type in the UK and they also lead the way with the recruitment of new members; around 300 a year. And yet, membership year on year is static, they are not only recruiting 300 new members a year they are also losing 300 members a year.
The business concerned considers the ‘lost 300’ to be normal, an accepted churn rate. But closer examination showed the impact of a very successful department within the business not being considered across the business.
The sales team was well resourced and had a range of exceptional benefits to offer prospective new members. As a result they were highly effective. Meanwhile the member services team was under-resourced and struggling to keep up, failing to deliver on benefits promised as part of the sales process. The impact of success in one department had not been considered when resourcing another. The result was that for every new member recruited one was lost and, largely ignored by the Board, the organisation’s reputation among its remaining membership for delivering on promises was poor. The organisation’s poor planning was undermining its own potential for growth and its reputation.
When pursuing excellence for your business which model will you choose to follow, the one that plans for success and for the impact of that success or one which plans for a version of success limited by its capacity to recognise the impact on it of one successful department?
Continued success and increased success can be reliant on recognising and planning for the impact of success. Don’t undermine your
THIRD RUNWAY DEBATE HIGHLIGHTS THIRD-RATE STRATEGY
28 08 2012The debate over whether to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport has re-emerged over the last couple of days with opinion split. However being for or against a third runway at London’s main airport is avoiding the important question; why is government strategy on transport so poor?
It is a topic I have covered on this blog before; that of the absence of an integrated strategy for transport. In January, news of the new HS2 high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham broke while last month investment in electrified rail lines was the latest announcement from government.
Linking the two together was an apparent recognition of the future importance of Heathrow. HS2 will have a spur added to link it directly to the airport while Wales and the West Country will gain direct links thus avoiding the need to travel into London and back out for flights.
What no one has announced is any research which clearly defines what future transport in, around, to and from the UK needs to look like in 10, 20 or 40 years’ time. This is important because without knowing this, no one can be sure that these are the right trains running between the right places.
It is something that doesn’t only impact on planning our railways and on Heathrow’s expansion (or not). Neither does it only impact on our road networks and all of our airports; it impacts on all aspects of transport including (for example) the possible use of canals as a green alternative for freight transport and, most importantly, how they all interlink.
Those for the building of a third runway at Heathrow, quite rightly, point out that London and the UK risk falling behind our competitors if we do not address the need for increased capacity especially for flights to and from emerging markets. What they don’t explain is why this capacity has to be at Heathrow.
Those against, quite rightly, point out the already high levels of noise and other pollution suffered by those living under Heathrow’s flight paths. What they don’t offer is an alternative solution to the problem.
Others, for example Boris Johnson, argue for a new airport in the Thames Estuary (nicknamed ‘Boris Island’) while Stanstead, Birmingham, East Midlands and others have all been put forward and dismissed at different times.
Meanwhile, while approving rail infrastructure plans which recognise Heathrow’s importance the Government sees no need to consider the need for increased air capacity until 2015 or later. As a strategy this is one of crossing the fingers in the hope the trains will be going to the right place instead of making decisions and planning now to ensure they are.
Such third-rate strategy negatively affects us all. The delay in making a decision could undermine Britain’s competitiveness in the global marketplace. Making what should be integrated plans separately risks far higher costs, especially if the solution used is away from Heathrow and (e.g.) a different HS2 spur is needed or further electrified lines are required.
The time to make the decision on Britain’s need for increased air capacity is now. The time to devise an integrated strategy for transport over the next three to five decades is now. Doing it piecemeal, addressing the railways without considering the roads, without considering the canals, without considering the ports (air and sea) is to apply third-rate thinking and third-rate strategy.
We will end up with what we get having missed the opportunity to clearly define what is to the nation’s best benefit from the outset.
It is not all negative though; the above provides a great warning for business when addressing strategy. Be sure to gain an awareness of the big picture before turning to detail and be sure to consider the impact of planning for one aspect of your company on those other, apparently unrelated elements.
© Jim Cowan, Cowan Global Limited, August 2012
Read more blogs by Jim Cowan
info@cowanglobal.net
Twitter @cowanglobal
Facebook.com/cowanglobal
Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: Boris Island, Business, Government, Heathrow, HS2, Infrastructure, Learning from mistakes, News Comment, Planning, Political Comment, Strategy, Third Runway, Transport, Travel
Categories : All Blogs, Business, Consulting, Management, News Comment, Strategy