Last weeks column focused on some broad aspects of planning. This edition will concentrate on the nuts and bolts of effective planning. Much of the discussion on a recent broadcast of Radio Ones In the Mix version of Managers Journal was devoted to the problem of school violence, a difficult issue confronting schools everywhere. Lets use school violence in the Virgin Islands as a hook for the examination of a planning process that can produce concrete improvement on a range of issues.
Almost everyone has an opinion about how to curb school violence. These range from an emphasis on addressing root causes to proposals to arm teachers. The job of the planner is not to add another opinion but to help produce the best possible plan for a set of specific circumstances. The total focus is on producing outcomes that get implemented. Planning is about change and getting a group of people moving in the same direction. So it really doesnt matter if the planners think the person who wants to arm and train teachers is totally insane, although I do; what matters is a process that works.
Toward the end of producing viable plans that get implemented, here is a set of approaches and ground rules that have proven successful in diverse settings and in dealing with various complex and difficult issues.
Rule One: Make sure that the right people are in the room. Real planning is directed toward action. Those who can make relevant decisions have to be in the room for the discussion. If they are not there, all decisions become provisional, there is lots of backtracking and the process tends to wither on the vine. So question one is: Who do we need?
Once they are in the room, it is helpful if these stakeholders are willing to subordinate their egos to the greater good by actively listening to others and avoiding posturing. Planning sessions are work sessions. Their value is diminished if they are used for purposes of self-aggrandizement or turf protection. Anyone doubting the importance of this point should read either Thomas Ricks Fiasco or Bob Woodwards State of Denial on the disastrous effects of egos run wild and turfism in planning and executing the Iraq war.
Rule Two: Correctly define the problem. Descartes memorable quote — the most corrupting lies are problems misstated — is a universal planning truth. Do not solve the wrong problem. Spend time discussing what the problem is. Once it is defined, try the following simple process:
1) Ask the planning group, What happens because of this problem? This is an invaluable question because it tells everyone just how serious the issue is, as well as how it affects different stakeholders. It also begins to forecast possible solutions. This should be a laundry list. Anything that anyone says is an outcome or impact of the problem should be listed without discussion.
2) Rank the listed outcomes or impacts in the groups perceived order of importance. Any simple voting procedure can be used. The result is a clear statement of the groups priorities and a basic action agenda.
3) Flip these outcomes. For each of the top-ranked outcomes, describe what the group realistically wants this situation to look like in the near future. Describe this mini-vision in concrete and operational terms, in part to filter out wish lists or grandiose and unachievable goals.
4) Shape these desired outcomes into time-targeted, measurable and achievable objectives. For example, By February 1, 2007, we will ….
5) Convert these objectives into simple action plans: tasks, assignments, dates for completion and resources needed, if any. Think short term. In most instances, people lose interest, get discouraged or move on to other concerns if they do not see some concrete change in a short period of time. The planning-implementation honeymoon is a very short one. These action plans are also a reality check. Who will do what? What is a reasonable time frame? Do we have adequate resources?
6) Assign responsibility for monitoring implementation and make sure everyone is committed. Emphasize seriousness. If the environment is one in which these commitments are often taken lightly, emphasize that this is different, and possibly discuss incentives for effectiveness and some consequence for failure to execute.
Rule Three: Focus on reality. The complexity and deep roots of problems like school violence are easy to see, but neither is a cause for doubting that significant progress is possible. After all, there are lots of schools with minimal violence, and if we think in time, we know that schools have not always been plagued with the levels of violence that we see today. One basic reality is that there are always grounds for hope. Conversely, the other reality is that school violence — like many others issues — is a tough problem without simple one-dimensional solutions. In this respect, we should define reality as the outer limit of positive, achievable change. The challenge for the planning group is to find that outer limit.
Part of a focus on reality is also avoidance of the they should … approach. Whoever they are, they are not going to do what they are supposed to do simply because someone tells them they should do it. A legitimate planning question is: What is needed to get this they group to change their behavior or norm?
Finally, planning decisions invariably involve choices. What are our realistic choices? Based on what criteria and values? Is the choice we have made achievable? If not, go back to the drawing board and find a solution that can be achieved. If, on the other hand, a realistic solution is one that does not significantly address the problem, the planning group must revisit its assumptions, usually to discuss finding additional resources or to identify ways to create a greater sense of urgency about this problem. Just as there is no point in solving the wrong problem, there is little point in investing in an effort that will fail to resolve or mitigate the real problem.
Rule Four: Focus on the problem and not people or organizations. Planning is about problem-solving, not about blaming. Particularly in an inter-agency environment, blaming, blame shifting or blame avoidance are all killers. One can state without equivocation that a planning process that manifests blaming behaviors is doomed to fail. It will remain mired in the past and will never build the trust needed to move toward implementation.
Rule Five: Focus on the future. We need to understand the past and to think in terms of trends that are affecting the problem. What is changing? If it is a moving target, how do we get ahead of the curve? Dont spend valuable time on trips down memory lane. What do we want this to look like in one year, and how do we get there?
Rule Six: Build accountability for reasonable and achievable goals. Planning is about execution and bringing about real change. Positive planned change rarely occurs in accountability-free zones. Someone has to be responsible for holding everyone with a substantive assignment accountable for doing what they are committed to doing. Committed is the operative word here. Effective planning is commitment based. It is not consensus based. Not everyone has to agree on everything that is going to be done. They have to commit to doing what they have agreed to do, even if they didnt accept every point.
Finally, effective planning is a faith-based activity. It is not faith based in the current politicized meaning of the term, but in the sense that we obviously do not know what the outcome is going to be. We understand that this is a difficult problem and that there have been failures in the past. So we know that optimism is not a useful mental model, except for those who choose to live in denial. On the other hand, pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophesy, and we also know that people do have the capacity to solve problems. In the end, this kind of planning is faith based because we put our faith in the value of a clearly concei
ved best effort even though we know that the specific outcome cannot be predicted or assured.
Editor's note: Dr. Frank Schneiger is the president of Human Services Management Institute, Inc., a 25-year-old management consulting firm that focuses on organizational change. Much of his current work is in the area of problems of execution and implementing rapid changes as responses to operational problems.
Readers are invited to submit questions, topics or issues that they would like addressed in a column.Submit by clicking here.
