Because We Said So!

 

Richard Teichmann (1868 – 1925) is said to be the originator of the assertion that chess is 99% tactics, and 1% strategy.[i] I was reminded of this quote the moment Cameron announced the ProjectManagement.com theme for October, that of Strategic Initiative Management (hey, if the editorial boss uses initial caps, I’m doing it, too). But if Teichmann was right, and the game of chess is somewhat analogous to management science, then does that render strategic management (strikethrough, sorry) Strategic Management only 1% of what we as PM practitioners should be paying attention to? In a word, no.

Note that the topic is not simply Strategic Management – it’s Strategic Initiative Management. The distinction is huge. It’s relatively simple to devise a strategy – the trick is implementing it within the organization, to get the team on board with the initiative part.

This Is So 2008

I actually discuss this at length in my first book, Things Your PMO Is Doing Wrong (available from PMI’s marketplace here). One of the basic ideas from this book is that you can not advance a capability by leveraging organization power. In other words, the typical approach used by most organizations to implement a new strategic direction (or even re-start an existing one) is doomed to fail, and I can explain why in this short blog.

Last week I described the highly formulaic manner in which internal, capability-advancing projects are performed by many (if not most) sponsors, but when it comes to employing an ossified strategic initiative approach, these guys have nothing on information technology (IT) projects. Take a look at the following list of steps, and tell me if they don’t look familiar.

• An information consumer (it might be a manager, but doesn’t have to be) is not reliably receiving some sort of data from the existing management information system(s) (MISs).
• So, they perform an analysis of rival systems that perform a similar function to the existing one, except these others provide the type of information stream they crave.
• Part of the review involves visiting other organizations considered to be able to perform the specific function sought, in a superior manner to the frustrated manager’s team, and seeing how they do what they do.
• Probably well before, but certainly by this point the preferred system has been identified. The “researching” manager begins to seek out higher-placed people within the home organization, and persuade them that the (already chosen) solution is within reach.
• The manager is assigned to write some sort of document – procedure, desktop instruction, analysis brief – that purports to evaluate the nature of the problem, and potential solutions. Keep in mind, though, that at this point the preferred “solution” has already been determined.
• The document receives a perfunctory peer review, and is then approved by upper management, signaling their support.
• The new system is purchased and installed. Users of the old system receive training, and all organizations that had used the previous system are expected to use the new – under pain of disobeying the execs who signed the so-called implantation document.

This is the point at which these strategic initiatives invariably fail, with their champions absolutely convinced that the proximate cause is the lack of “executive involvement,” which is really another way of saying “my bosses wouldn’t force my colleagues to use my great idea.”

So, Where Is The “Executive Involvement”?

Unless the executives we’re trying to involve here are also information consumers under-served by the existing systems, they have no motive to participate. It’s easy for non-executives to imagine that, having already approved the “solution,” these upper-management-types need only begin using the imperative tense when discussing the initiative and the entire organization will robotically comply, with the only ingredient missing being this “involvement.” But even upper management’s influence is finite, and it’s usually directed towards the issues that they perceive stand in the way of their doing their jobs. They may superficially acknowledge that your initiative is a good idea, but if your management of the initiative is to simply purchase your preferred solution, train the staff, and then expect these execs to lean on the macro organization to make it work, you’re doing the whole strategic initiative management stuff wrong.

And pretending that you know more than the bosses after approaching your implementation in this manner and seeing it fail is not helping your situation.

Next up: exactly what are we talking about when discussing Strategic Initiative Management?

[i] Retrieved from chess.com on 1 October 2016, 19:15 MDT, https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-is-99-tactics