Francis Wade | Difficult problems for big organisations: master planning on steroids

You work in the public sector, or in a big for-profit company with multiple business units. Given its size, it possesses a master plan. However, in spite of hard work, important targets are being missed. So, how do you ensure the firm achieves remarkable results?

According to Vision 2030 Jamaica, the top three priorities for citizens are becoming the preferred place to live, economic growth, and crime reduction. They are detailed in a master plan of sorts. Currently, it is no secret that we haven’t made man-in-the-street progress on these indicators.

Yes, there have been small wins, but we are yet to earn the right to book a January 2031 stadium celebration.

While there’s still time – five years – to produce a miracle, we have reason to be patient. These three core objectives are difficult to accomplish due to the setup of our government. Why?

In a nutshell, we are attempting to achieve results which cross MDAs, short for government ministries, departments and agencies. Unfortunately, they were designed for simpler, siloed times. How do we bridge the gaps? Thankfully, a new way to conduct master planning is emerging. Here’s how this potential lifesaver is defined.

The term master planning was probably first used in urban development projects in the 1950s. The core idea was to bring together stakeholders from different disciplines. As a group, they could craft a long-term vision lasting anywhere from 10 to 50 years.

To accomplish this vision, a cross-functional leadership team would imagine a future, then backcast to the present. As a result, they would produce short, mid and long-term projects.

Today, however, things have changed at the hands of consultants.

They introduce a shortcut in which they propose to create better plans than stakeholders. How? They claim to have greater knowledge and international experience.

Don’t fall into their trap.

If your organisation has already been tempted, do a rethink. The fact is, outsiders will probably interview your stakeholders and compile their futuristic points of view into a single document. You are going to end up with a raw list of aspirations, an output which takes you only part of the way.

It may appear impressive, but look closer. You are likely to find a wishlist like the ones kids give: ‘I want to grow up to be a fireman, a cowboy, a lawyer and a doctor!’

This implies that it’s up to you to take the adviser’s output through several additional steps. Consequently, you must decide which projects to pursue, by when, and with what budgets. That’s not their job … nor should it ever be.

Instead, such decisions belong to your top leadership team. The consultant’s report or master plan might make things a bit easier, but not much. The most difficult steps are still to come.

This is the reason why Dwight D. Eisenhower said: “Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” What you really need is a different process – master planning on steroids.

Instead of avoiding hard decisions, this approach brings the main 20 leaders together, in person, facing the same data. Within a matter of days, they must make the trade-offs necessary.

Unfortunately, this challenging decision-making is emotionally taxing. By contrast, it’s easier for consultants to publish reports which simplistically call for more capacity. This ploy avoids the most critical decisions.

This is far removed from the new approach. In comparison, Master Planning on Steroids calls for trade-offs to be made on the spot, via difficult negotiations between colleagues.

Fortunately, it also allows implementation to begin right away, before any momentum is lost.

In the context of government, maintaining momentum means acting on the plan before elections interfere, ministries are reorganised, ministers or permanent secretaries are replaced, or pandemics disrupt.

Therefore, master planning on steroids is more a matter of change management than report production. Seen this way, perhaps your company’s biggest challenges exist because they cross functional areas. Certainly, in the case of Jamaica, a strategy to reduce murders would involve ministries of national security, education, social security and more.

However, if you do the requisite backcasting, you may define: projects which should move forward, using assigned timelines, budgets, human resources, and technologies; and current initiatives which should be killed to make way for new ones.

The good news in all this is that if your team manages to execute the above choices, you will have achieved a miracle. Instead of managers running away from a losing Master Plan, they’ll own this one with their hearts and souls. Why?

Difficult discussions produce the kind of ownership which can’t be manufactured any other way. Consequently, your Master Plan on Steroids won’t necessarily be bigger in terms of its aspirations. But it will be more likely to succeed.

Francis Wade is a management consultant and author of Perfect Time-Based Productivity. To search past columns on productivity, strategy and business processes, or give feedback, email: columns@fwconsulting.com