Strategic development: Are we missing the point?

We often talk about strategic programmes and actions, but are we taking the appropriate first steps?

This article looks at the steps we take and explores if we can be more strategic and add more value.

Introduction

Often we know where we want to get to, or at least have a good idea, but often as the old saying goes: “If I was going there, I would not start from here.”

That is a very logical reply, even if it is not advice that is of much immediate practical value to the questioner. If you don’t know where you are going, you are not likely to get there.

It is sound advice to know where you are and where you want to end up before starting the journey. Is this why many of the tourist maps have a ‘you are here’ marker?

Where are we now? Where do we want to be?

This is a simple yet basic step in any intervention, at any level within our respective organisations. Yet what is the extent to which we really do it? Where is the ‘you are here’ marker in our organisations? Sure, some of us have tools like customer satisfaction and staff engagement data (as well as the basic business financial measures), but holistic, strategic data?

In the 2007 survey, Develop the Developers (by Morrison & Ritchie), responders to the survey provided the following answers in response to development activities:

• Use of diagnostic approaches:
  Always (8%); usually (33%); sometimes (46%); rarely (10%); never (4%).




• Use of evaluation approaches:
  Always (37%); usually (43%); sometimes (15%); rarely (2%); never (2%).

This highlights why much of what we do in organisational development (OD) and human resource development (HRD) fails, on a regular basis, to make the desired (and recognised) strategic impact.

“How can we ever hope to evaluate any intervention effectively if we do not know where we started from?”

We have read many threads on community forums such as HRZone.co.uk and TrainingZone.co.uk about the difficulties of evaluating activity. How to calculate a return on investment (ROI) or show value for money is a commonly recurring theme.

How can we ever hope to evaluate any intervention effectively if we do not know where we started from? We will only know this by having the same measures at the beginning of an intervention as we want to use for measuring success after the event.

In business we do it – we look at the financial position (profit, turnover etc), we set a plan to achieve it and then we measure after an agreed period of time. In medicine, before a person starts treatment we have some measures – pulse, respiration, blood pressure and so on – we measure before and after (often on going) treatment. Why, in HR and HRD, do we not do the same? Often we do for things like retention, sickness and attendance – but not for the more strategic elements.

What is a diagnostic process?

It is often simpler than it sounds. It is a tool that identifies ‘where you are now’, the dot or arrow on the map if you like. Tools like SWOT and PESTLE are OK to start with, but often these tools are not used as effectively (or broadly) as they were originally intended.

Diagnostic tools that only look at the area of the business you are interested in, for example culture surveys, have their place, but how do you know that culture is the issue – where is the diagnosis to show that a specific tool like a culture survey is the right one? There may be a need with a higher priority.

“A regular, yet effective organisational diagnostic process not only evaluates previous actions but the same data can be used to identify future needs”

It’s like going to your doctor – they will not send you for a special test or scan, until they have undertaken a more general diagnosis. In HR and OD we need to do the same. We need to use holistic diagnostic tools to help us orientate to real needs – often we react to the symptoms. It is easy to treat the cut to the hand from a fall, but if we miss the reason for the person falling – for instance, a minor stroke – sure the hand will get better, but in the mean time the stroke can do more damage.

Making evaluation easier

The more robust the diagnostic process, the easier the evaluation. Some would argue than an evaluation is just a repeat of the diagnostic but with different analysis on the results. The diagnostic is looking for an action plan; an evaluation is looking for change since the last measure. So a regular, yet effective organisational diagnostic process not only evaluates previous actions but the same data can be used (in association with a business plan) to identify future needs. Here is a simple strategic cycle:

• Holistic diagnosis




• Analysis




• Plan




• Action




• Diagnosis

Insanity in our world?

As the saying goes, the first sign of madness is doing the same thing as before and expecting different results. It can be a bit like watching a replay of a race and expecting someone else to win. Obvious when we think about it, but why do we do this with our business activity?

Looking back at the results from the Develop the Developer survey, I wonder why many interventions are evaluated, but with little or no formal diagnostic processes undertaken at all; then we wonder why evaluation is so difficult.

Do we, as professionals, not learn? Do we keep doing the same things (evaluation but no initial diagnosis) and wonder why we do not add as much value as we expect? Are we ‘mad’? Maybe we are just reluctant learners?

Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI Ltd, a consultancy specialising in helping individuals and organisations improve their business performance through people and organisation effectiveness.

addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = ‘joevallender’;

This version first published: – HR Zone, 1st April 2008
Categories: HR Strategy

———————————————————————————-

Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI, an organizational effectiveness consultancy. He has been involved in HR, OD and strategic development for over 20 years. He can be contacted via www.rapidbi.com/

© This article is copyright RapidBI 2006, 2008 – it may be copied providing the authors are credited, and direct links maintained

© RapidBI.com 2008

http://www.rapidbi.com

This material may be put on your Blog or website – however please keep this copyright statement

Quick and Painless interventions and solutions

Quick and Painless?

In our fast and busy lives we are often looking for that ‘quick fix’ the ‘painless solution’ – but are they? Does it work?

All too often on professional forums and networking groups I hear people asking for quick and painless solutions. Do they really exist in the worlds of business, Human Resources (HR) and Organizational Development (OD)?

Just because a solution is quick does not mean it will work in the medium or long term, nor does it necessarily mean it will support the culture and direction of the business.

Short term pain = long term gain?
What is pain in a professional context? Hassle? difficulty, effort? All of the above? Are many of us now so much under pressure that we ignore the real problem and are happy to stick on a sticking plaster to all problems we face? Do we care about the medium term consequences? – will we still be in the role in 12-24 months to care?

With the current economic climate I believe so – more and more of us will have to face the facts that the interventions we started just did not work – works in many situations they exasperated the problems. Time for us to start slowing down and doing an effective job.

Proof in the pudding

In the 2007 survey Develop the developers – the results highlighted that many in HR and OD are involved in evaluating activity and intervention, and that this trend was increasing, however less than 50% were actively involved in structured diagnosis before launching an intervention – and while there appeared to be intent to do more this will still mean that in 5 years time less people will be using diagnostic techniques than currently evaluate. And we and our clients often wonder why interventions do not add the value expected…

As the old saying goes – if you always do what you have always done – you will always get what you have always got. Or as I prefer – the real sign of madness – doing the same things time and time again and expecting different results!

For us as professionals to help our clients we must start to employ a robust diagnostic process on all our activity before committing to an intervention.

———————————————————————————-

Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI, an organizational effectiveness consultancy. He has been involved in HR, OD and strategic development for over 20 years. He can be contacted via www.rapidbi.com/

© This article is copyright RapidBI 2008 – it may be copied providing the authors are credited, and direct links maintained

© RapidBI.com 2008

http://www.rapidbi.com

This material may be put on your Blog or website – however please keep this copyright statement

Strategy and Tools in Business

Strategy and tools in business

Over the years a lot of good and bad stuff has been said about SWOT. Sure it is not the most robust of tools but when used in the way it was originally developed – it is a powerful tool.
Some people have argued that it is time to move on from SWOT to other things – in this piece we explore SOAR an appreciative Inquiry tool.

An interesting article on this topic was published in Ai Practitioner magazine ( http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bvobg ) (it is available here http://preview.tinyurl.com/26wk4v )for those that are not subscribers).

Having read the article, the SOAR approach to my mind makes the same mistake that many using the SWOT analysis do – and that is they miss the context. When the (highly researched) SOFT was changed to SWOT the new authors missed the point which is why the tool is often miss-understood. It was never designed to stand on its own, nor was it ever to be part of the direct action phase – it was a diagnosis and data capture tool.

The authors of this article to my mind make 2 fundamental mistakes:
1) they assume that all applications of SWOT are in the way they describe
2) they appear to ignore weaknesses and threads – apparently believing that their solution will soar (pardon the pun) over any difficulties.
Would the shareholders of Enron be in the position they are now in (extinct) if they had faced up to their threats and weaknesses, rather than focus on what they thought were their strengths?

The article clearly states in its summary
“This article has attempted to address the strategy-to-execution gap. In doing so, we have discussed SOAR, a strengths-based framework that builds on the best points of SWOT (strengths and opportunities) in order to move beyond the “as-is” state of the organization’s environment to the “to-be”.“

Yes this as a framework can be used as the authors state to take SWOT data and apply it – but SOAR in itself is not a diagnostic or orientation tool. Anyone using this as a diagnostic tool is going to make the same errors as 1000′s of people have done with inappropriate use of SWOT.
This thread has been started to help CIPD students (and others) complete their studies – and for that they must use SWOT and PESTLE – if they chose to use other tools they will need references – I cannot see any on the article .

Appreciative Enquiry has its place.
Appreciative Inquiry is a particular way of asking questions and envisioning the future that fosters positive relationships and builds on the basic goodness in a person, a situation, or an organization. In so doing, it enhances a system’s capacity for collaboration and change. Appreciative Inquiry utilizes a 4-stage process focusing on:

• DISCOVER: The identification of organizational processes that work well.
• DREAM: The envisioning of processes that would work well in the future.
• DESIGN: Planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.
• DESTINY (or DELIVER): The implementation (execution) of the proposed design.
  
  

The basic idea is to build organizations around what works, rather than trying to fix what doesn’t. It is the opposite of problem solving. AI focuses on how to create more of what’s already working.
This method is more positive in nature than many others, however it is as a strategy naive in that it assumes success breeds success – many organizations are in fact where they are now because they did solve problems and did not just focus on what works.

Would a company that currently makes plastic carrier bags be advised to use SOAR – or look at the external factors which may bring about the end of the need for their product?

Equally any diagnostic process needs to look holistically at the people and the processes – not just one or the other.

Is SWOT redundant?…..

No but it is sure made more reliable with additions of other models in the transition to application.

———————————————————————————-

Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI, an organizational effectiveness consultancy. He has been involved in HR, OD and strategic development for over 20 years. He can be contacted via www.rapidbi.com/

© This article is copyright RapidBI 2008 – it may be copied providing the authors are credited, and direct links maintained

© RapidBI.com 2008

http://www.rapidbi.com

This material may be put on your Blog or website – however please keep this copyright statement

Diagnosing Organizational Culture

Today I read a thread on Diagnosing Organizational Culture, where someone was asking for recommendations on tools to use to undertake this task.

If you are only looking for isolated culture tools then the following should be considered (in no particular order):

• Diagnosing Organizational culture – Harrison
• Denison Organizational Culture Survey – Denison
• Corporate Culture Questionnaire – SHL
• The Creatrix – Byrd (http://www.creatrix.com/ ) looks at the culture for innovation and effective leadership
• Organizational Dynamics – Kotter (book with diagnostic)
• Diagnosing & Changing Organizational Culture – Cameron, Quinn (book with diagnostic)
• and many many more….

Many instruments will claim to be ‘normed’ – be careful of this – we know the difficulties in ‘norming’ personality psychometrics – well imaging that complication multiplied ten fold per person employed… each person acts and interacts with another in a different way – I would love to see the data to be verified for this – the psychometric publishers would love to have such technology!

Context based Cultural Review

There are many approaches to looking at culture and for each firm their will be an appropriate tool based upon:

• Current culture (ironically)
• Goals of undertaking the survey
• Desired outputs

I have been part of a team looking at what makes an effective firm for over 10 years now and have used many, many instruments from around the world looking at organizational culture. To my mind they all have one fundamental flaw – they assume there is a right way to run a business.

While there may well be a preferred approach of empowerments, engagement etc, I have worked with many firms that use an autocratic style very effectively, and when changed often people feel less secure and over time those firms fail to perform to the level they once did.

Change the culture at your peril

Having worked with over 700 firms in the last 10+ years I have discovered that the best culture to have is the culture that best suits the owner/ CEO and their natural style, then it is about getting consistency across the organization.

To change the culture without the TOTAL commitment from the CEO (and the CEO having appropriate one-to-one support to change their own style first) is pure folly. Change of culture must be led from the top if it is to be sustained and add value to the organization.

It’s more than just culture change

In addition, looking at culture on its own is meaningless – the systems, structure and processes need to be congruent with the culture, and just looking at culture in isolation is folly for short term feel good but little long term added value.

Any diagnostic process as part of an organizational development intervention needs to be as holistic as practical to avoid duplication of effort at a slightly later stage (clients get diagnostic’ed out)

Going truly Holistic

Many OD practitioners talk about holistic reviews – but are they truly holistic? Do they look at the way Finance, Marketing and Operations are run in the organization? are these put in the context of the culture and the stated/ desired goals of stakeholders?

The BIR (Business Improvement Review) not only looks at culture, style and values but puts it in the context of operations and the goals of the organization. It does not assume there is a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’ to run a firm, nor does it assume a single management model. The BIR provides the coach or consultant to start a meaningful discussion based upon a common understanding. This creates ownership in the key decision makers and as a result has a high proportion of participants take meaningful action post diagnostic. They own the results and the reason for change.

If you would like more information on the BIR please visit www.rapidbi.com/bir or email me for further details.

———————————————————————————-

Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI, an organizational effectiveness consultancy. He has been involved in HR, OD and strategic development for over 20 years. He can be contacted via www.rapidbi.com/

© This article is copyright RapidBI 2008 – it may be copied providing the authors are credited, and direct links maintained

© RapidBI.com 2008

http://www.rapidbi.com

This material may be put on your Blog or website – however please keep this copyright statement

How to Write a SWOT analysis

SWOT Analysis

A SWOT is a planning tool used to understand the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project or in a business. It involves specifying the objective of the business or project and identifying the internal and external factors that are supportive or unfavourable to achieving that objective.

SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.

There are several ways of graphically representing the SWOT analysis matrix or grid. Several versions are shown on this article – use the one which is best suited to your application. (More templates can be seen on our website SWOT analysis templates )

While at first glance the SWOT looks like a simple model and easy to apply, I can say from experience, that to do a SWOT analysis that is both effective and meaningful, requires time and a significant resource. This cannot be done effectively by just one person. It requires a team effort. The SWOT methodology has the advantage of being used as a ‘quick and dirty’ tool or a comprehensive management too, and that one can lead to the other. This flexibility is one of the factors that has contributed to its success.

The term “SWOT analysis” is in itself an interesting term. To my understanding, the SWOT is not an analysis. It is a summary of a set of previous analyses – even if those were not more than 15 minutes of mini-brainstorming with yourself in front of your computer. The analysis or more correctly interpretation comes after the SWOT summary has been produced.

The SWOT Model

Positive	Internal		Negative or potential to be negative
	Strengths	Weaknesses
	Opportunities	Threats
	External

	Strengths	Weaknesses
Opportunities	Offensive – make the most of these	Defensive – watch competition closely
Threats	Adjust – restore strengths	Survive - turn around

Definition of SWOT

A SWOT analysis process generates information that is helpful in matching an organization or group’s goals, programs, and capacities to the social environment in which it operates. Note the SWOT itself is only a data capture – the analysis follows.

Strengths

• Positive tangible and intangible attributes, internal to an organization.
• They are within the organization’s control.
  

Weakness

• Factors that are within an organization’s control that detract from its ability to attain the desired goal.
• Which areas might the organization improve?

Opportunities

• External attractive factors that represent the reason for an organization to exist and develop.
• What opportunities exist in the environment, which will propel the organization?
  Identify them by their “time frames”

Threats

• External factors, beyond an organization’s control, which could place the organization mission or operation at risk.
• The organization may benefit by having contingency plans to address them if they should occur.
• Classify them by their “seriousness” and “probability of occurrence”.

Background to the SWOT Analysis

The SWOT analysis technique is credited by Albert Humphrey, who led a research project at Stanford University in the 1960s and 1970s using data from top companies.

The goal was to identify why corporate planning failed. The resulting research identified a number of key areas and the tool used to explore each of the critical areas was called SOFT. Humphrey and the original research team used the categories “What is good in the present is Satisfactory, good in the future is an Opportunity; bad in the present is a Fault and bad in the future is a Threat.” This was called the SOFT analysis.

In 1964 Urick and Orr at a conference changed the F to a W, and it has stuck as that, soFt to sWot

On its own a SWOT analysis is meaningless It works best when part of an overall strategy or in a given context or situation. This strategy may be as simple as:

1. Goal or objective
2. SWOT / SOFT
3. Evaluation or measures of success
4. Action

Introduction to SWOT

The SWOT analysis tool is great for developing an understanding of an organization or situation and decision-making for all sorts of situations in business, organizations and for individuals.

The SWOT analysis headings provide a good framework for reviewing strategy, position and direction of a company, product, project or person (career).

Doing a SWOT analysis can be very simple, however its strengths lie in its flexibility and experienced application. Remember the capture is only part of the picture.

Applications

A SWOT analysis can be used for:

• Workshop sessions
• Brainstorm meetings
• Problem solving
• Planning
• Product evaluation
• Competitor evaluation
• Personal Development Planning
• Decision Making (with force field analysis)

The SWOT is a great tool that can be used in association with PESTLE

Overview of SWOT

	POSITIVE/ HELPFUL to achieving the goal	NEGATIVE/ HARMFUL to achieving the goal
INTERNAL Origin facts/ factors of the organization	Strengths Things that are good now, maintain them, build on them and use as leverage	Weaknesses Things that are bad now, remedy, change or stop them.
EXTERNAL Origin facts/ factors of the environment in which it operates	Opportunities Things that are good for the future, prioritize them, capture them, build on them and optimize	Threats Things that are bad for the future, put in plans to manage them or counter them

Aim of a SWOT Analysis

• Reveal your competitive advantages
• Analyze your prospects for sales, profitability and product development
• Prepare your company for problems
• Allow for the development of contingency plans

A SWOT analysis is a process to identify where you are strong and vulnerable — where you should defend and attack. The result of the process is a ‘plan of action’, or ‘action plan’.

The analysis can be performed on a product, on a service, a company or even on an individual.

Done properly, SWOT will give you the BIG PICTURE of the MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS that influence SURVIVAL and PROSPERITY. As well as a PLAN to ACT ON.

How to do a SWOT

Irrespective of whether you or your team are future planning for specific products, work, personal or any other area, the SWOT analysis process is the same.

• Step 1 – Information collection – In the here and now…
  List all strengths that exist now. Then in turn, list all weaknesses that exist now. Be realistic but avoid modesty!
• You can conduct one-on-one interviews. Or get a group together to brainstorm. A bit of both is frequently best
• You’ll first want to prepare questions that relate to the specific company or product that you are analyzing. You’ll find some questions and issues below to get you going.
• When facilitating a SWOT – search for insight through intelligent questioning and probing
• Step 2 – What might be…
  List all opportunities that exist in the future. Opportunities are potential future strengths. Then in turn, list all threats that exist in the future. Threats are potential future weaknesses.
• Step 3 – Plan of action…
  Review your SWOT matrix with a view to creating an action plan to address each of the four areas.

In summary:

• Strengths need to be maintained, built upon or leveraged.
• Weaknesses need to be remedied, changed or stopped.
• Opportunities need to be prioritized, captured, built on and optimized.
• Threats need to be countered or minimized and managed.

A SWOT analysis can be very subjective, and two people rarely come-up with the same final version of SWOT. It is an excellent tool however, for looking at the negative factors first in order to turn them into positive factors. Use SWOT as guide and not a prescription.

For more detailed examples, templates etc visit http://www.rapidbi.com/created/SWOTanalysis.html

Mike Morrison

————————————————————————————–
Mike Morrison is director of RapidBI, an organisational effectiveness consultancy. He has been involved in HR, OD and strategic development for over 20 years. He can be contacted via www.rapidbi.com © This article is copyright RapidBI 2006, 2008 – it may be copied providing the authors are credited, and direct links maintained

© RapidBI.com 2008

http://www.rapidbi.com

This material may be put on your Blog or website – however please keep this copyright statement