It is January, and looming in many organisations is the annual, calendar driven budgeting exercise.
In more normal times, the strategic planning update would have been done in September or October last year, but that went out the window, along with the comparisons of performance to budget that are usually the basis for an extrapolative budgeting process.
Never has there been a better time to revisit the whole process, as it is clearly no longer fit for purpose.
There are better ways.
Top-down mandated budgets designed to give senior management the appearance of control and foresight have been on the slippery slide for some time. The ‘Bug’ should have been the terminal injection of reality.
Constant and unforecastable crisis does not lend itself to a process that purports to predict the future 18 months to 5 years out.
Given that background, how should management be thinking about the planning process?
My advice is that the process should be one of rolling planning, that accommodates information as it emerges, and rolls it into the action programs, while retaining the necessary strategic consistency and functional alignment.
What constitutes strategic success?
Strategic success is not about the money, profits, or shareholder dividends, although sometimes you might wonder. Strategic success is a function of the choices made, the distribution channels opened, customer lifetime value and share of wallet, the innovation pipeline, and capability development that will enable commercial sustainability. These are all things, amongst many others, that are enabled by the tactical choices being made. While the costs and returns are important considerations in these choices, they are just the simplest but often misleadingly one-dimensional means by which they are measured.
How does this impact the planning process?
Planning is vital, as the absence of a clear destination means any road can be taken. However, the process must be way more agile than has been the norm, while not losing sight of the objective. This requires a clearly articulated and understood strategic framework within which the ongoing tactical decisions can be made. At every point of choice, the question should be asked:
‘Does this choice add to the achievement of the strategy?
Strategic priorities can be broken down into operational and tactical choices across and within functional responsibilities. These choices can then be reviewed and updated regularly as information is received and absorbed.
The ideal outcome is that there is regular communication, and by regular, I mean daily, weekly, monthly, and so on, where information is absorbed into the decision processes and used to adjust on the run. Rolling planning at every level can be ‘rolled up’ (pardon the pun) into the longer-term processes ensuring strategic consistency and alignment.
In effect you are matching the tempo and type of decision making to the level most appropriate for that decision to be taken, with those in whatever ‘front line’ is engaged, taking the responsibility and accountability for the decision.
I refer to it as ‘Nested Planning’.
Each stage builds on the former, becoming increasingly less tactical but more strategic in its nature. The most visible metaphor is the Russian wooden dolls that progressively fit inside each other.
Abandon the immoveable budget that becomes set in stone, and replace it with rolling forecasts that track the progress of the resource allocation choices at every level, towards the strategic outcome agreed.
Header credit: ‘mountaineer’ via Flikr.
