Introduction
The source of the quote “No plan survives contact with the enemy” is nothing if not
uncertain, as is the precise wording of the quote itself, but the sentiment is clear: no matter how comprehensively you plan, something will come along pretty quickly and
undermine it. That is not to say that you shouldn’t have a plan, rather, it emphasises that you absolutely musthave a plan in order to assess how changing circumstances affect your intentions and how you expect carry them out.
In the transformation world it is common to see two different planning philosophies which we treat as the two ends of a planning continuum, depicted in the diagram below:
Fig. 1
Which approach is best?
Let’s introduce our two transformation programme sponsors for today, Phyllis and Fred. Both have some experience of running projects but have never led a transformation programme before and have always been able to rely on others to put plans in place. Now, as transformation leaders, they are responsible for the production of the plan and making sure that it will achieve their objectives.
Top-Down Planning
Phyllis decides to plan from the top of the continuum, using ‘Helicopter pilot high-level planning’. She selects this philosophy because, in his experience, the detail will change further down the line and the culture of some countries within his Group will resist planning in any detail. Her team uses planning workshops to produce a roadmap (an example is shown below) which depicts the key projects within the programme and their journeys to completion, with depiction of the major steps required.
Fig. 2
As this is Phyllis’s first time as a transformation leader, she is understandably nervous that she may not have all the information required to have confidence that the plan represents a successful transformation. Therefore, Phyllis wisely calls in an independent advisor to assess the high-level plan and provide a critical evaluation. The summarised results of the assessment are:
Pros: the upsides of Phyllis’s approach were identified as
Fast planning: Phyllis has quickly produced a transformation road map and has a good understanding of the programme building blocks, and the constituent projects
Simple & visual: the road map provides a one-page programme summary which other executive leaders can easily understand
Clear targets: the workshop process used to devise the road map allowed Phyllis’s team to gain a good understanding of the transformation goals, objectives and the desired outcomes
Cons: however, the independent evaluators identified some areas for Phyllis to address
Robustness: although the road map provides indicative timescales, it only reflects the limited thinking done at a high level. As a result, great uncertainty remains, the timescales should be treated as indicative rather than as a commitment
Effective budgeting: is a challenge on a top-down basis. The broad-brush assumptions will give you an indicative budget, but you will probably lack 3rd party contract information, detailed resource requirements and so on at this stage
Risks: require their own planning to that they can be mitigated and their impact minimised. Ideally, mitigating actions will be baked into your plans to ensure that they are completed.
Dependencies: are a hidden form of risk and trip up many transformation programmes. High-level planning is likely to give limited consideration to dependencies and may miss some altogether
Contingency: for both timescales and costs will be high-level, in line with the level of detail available to support planning up until this point
Whilst a rapid, high-level planning process sets the tone that vision and speed are important, it is likely to set false expectations if it is the only planning which takes place. On some programmes, the desire to make progress overwhelms the planning process and the roadmap becomes “the plan” without any real substance to back it up – this is dangerous and commonly leads to spiralling timescales, costs and political fallout.
Bottom-Up Planning
Meanwhile, Fred was taking a different approach. He comes from a background where detail is important so, naturally, he wants his team to produce programme plans to make sure that everyone understands what needs to be done. Having produced a set of detailed programme plans, Fred is confident that people understand the detail but is worried that having the team immersed in it means they will miss the big picture. Therefore, Fred asks for an assessment of the programme plans at the end of the planning phase and receives the following advice:
Pros: the strengths of Fred’s approach were summarised as
Comprehensive: the plans contain lots of detail and reflect the thorough thought processes of the team and key stakeholders
High levels of participation: a well-executed planning phase will embrace people in dynamic ways to produce a well-informed plan, encompassing known risks and issues
A good basis for budgeting: the level of detail produced increased understanding of activities, contracts required and purchases to be made. As a result, the budget required is clear as is the basis for calculating contingency
Risks and issues: are well understood at the project level
Cons: the areas for Fred to attend to are
The plans are not a communications tool: they require expertise to navigate and don’t present an easy snapshot of the key projects, milestones and activities for executive consumption
Time-consuming: producing a project plan which is thousands of lines long reflecting every nuance (the planners can think of) is overkill. A plan needs to tell the story of each project but every 5-minute tasks does not need to be described in the plan itself. They can be managed via actions lists and other such tools
Complex and inflexible: Fred’s plans are so detailed that the work to maintain and update them is significant. There is a very real risk that his Project Managers will spend more time maintaining plans than they will leading the project team
There is no such thing as perfect information: Fred’s lengthy, costly planning exercise sought more and more detail to inform it. Pareto’s Law always applies in planning and Fred’s pursuit of detail failed to recognise that once 80% of the job was done, the law of diminishing returns had applied
Delayed implementation: the length of time taken to plan has delayed the implementation and deferred the transformation benefits
Planning in detail is an absolute requirement for transformation programmes, however, there are many unknowns at the start of the planning process and waiting for them to become known can result in planning for planning’s sake, to the detriment of progress and benefits realisation. It is important to take a strategic approach to planning, so that it does not continue unabated.
Conclusion
In practice, the best plans result from middle of the planning continuum, with slight erring on the side of detail to ensure they are as fully formed as possible. In our next blog, we will discuss ‘10 Steps to Effective Planning’ which explains the planning process but, for now, suffice to say that a state of ‘planning equilibrium’ as depicted in Fig 1 above is the ideal.
A first draft road map can be produced relatively quickly, embracing input from key stakeholders and the design team. In parallel, a ‘rapid planning and design phase’ which informs the plan can be undertaken during which detailed planning inputs can be collated, quotes from suppliers can be obtained, and the design of solutions can be partially worked through.
Using a ‘Planning Timebox’ is an effective technique to prevent detail subsuming the planning exercise. Fixing a date by when planning will complete, and the next phase begins focusses everyone on the big-ticket items. A well-executed timebox will results in:
agreement about approaches to key bones of contention
documented key assumptions and approaches to validate them
identifies and planned mitigating actions associated with risks
identification and resolution of early transformation issues
dependencies between projects within a programme are understood, documented and are assigned a clear owner
Planning equilibrium is the most effective mechanism, performing both top-down and bottom-up planning in parallel and combine them to produce a validated transformation plan. In our next blog ’10 Steps to Effective Planning’ will discuss how to quickly produce a complete, effective plan.
To find out more about planning a successful transformation, visit us at www.clavertonconsulting.co.uk or contact us at info@clavertonconsulting.co.uk
Comments