Reaching Goals with Structured Strategic Plans

Planning (in general) and strategic planning (in particular) are mainstays of the business world. While significant time and effort are placed into the creation and execution of those plans, the results are not impressive. A growing body of research suggests that the benefits of strategic planning are minimal. Even generally accepted methods, such as SWOT analysis, may be detrimental to company performance in some circumstances (Hill and Westbrook, Long Range Plan 30:46–52, 1997). Because our world is made of systems (economic, industrial, organizational, etc.), the problems and opportunities of that world can be better understood and addressed by plans which are themselves more systemic. In our research and consulting experience, however, most plans are not highly systemic and so they are not highly useful for reaching goals. Instead, plans are typically based on simple, linear, assumptions which fail to account for the many variables of this complex world, so leaders may be moving effectively forward in the wrong direction. Metaphorically, the plan is a map that leaders use to guide their organizations. Today, however, most leaders have only a small scrap of a much larger map. As a result, decisions based on those plans often lead to unanticipated and unwanted consequences instead of the anticipated success. What they really need is a highly reliable GPS. This chapter draws on advances in the science of conceptual systems to understand why some plans succeed while others fail. We use Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) and related tools to evaluate and improve the systemic structure of strategic plans to improve their chances for successful implementation and reaching organizational goals. While the chapter is focused on business operations and management, the methods presented here will also be applicable to nonprofit and NGOs, academic and research institutions, government agencies, collaborative megaprojects, and the stakeholders invested in them.