Why do a series of successful programmes not always add up to overall success?

Abstract

Peter Lavers considers the pressures that organisations in all sectors are under in financially constrained times. He suggests a straightforward way to bring clarity and alignment of vision, strategies, policies, pilots, campaigns and initiatives so that the achievement of successful outcomes are protected even when cutbacks are required.

Like this article? Tell your contacts about it:

The Efficiency Challenge

It is a fact of life that organisations in most sectors are coming under double pressure as we continue to operate in financially constrained times:

1. To demonstrate the delivery of the outcomes of our strategies, policies, pilots, and initiatives

2. To achieve those outcomes at lower cost.

Successfully addressing these key challenges can, in our experience, be significantly supported by understanding in both a strategic and tactical manner, a number of key principles which can be illustrated as follows:

more with less

What of course should be clear is that none of our initiatives are intended to land in boxes 6 to 9! It should also be clear that this model is not time-framed; a project that sits in box 7 after one year could be considered as box 2 after two years when project costs have been absorbed, and end up as box 1 after overall efficiency improvements have been realised.

Each organisation, therefore, needs to agree and set its own timescales and the metrics by which it will measure defined outcomes, which of course will vary by programme.

Our motivation in writing this paper is that it has been our experience that this deceptively simple matrix can be used to accurately reflect the strategic challenges facing organisations today. This is even though strategic outcomes can be more qualitative, subject to external influences, and span long time-scales, for example 'reducing poverty', 'empowering customers', 'improving sustainability', 'becoming more inclusive'.

So how can this thinking be usefully applied to maintain or improve outcomes at less cost?

Overall direction

Which box most accurately reflects your organisation's vision or strategy in the coming two years?

It could be argued that some banks have descended from box 4 (risk-taking) to box 5 (risk-averse) via box 9 (abject failure). It could also be argued that different political parties' manifestos tend towards different boxes, which will of course then affect the direction and strategies deployed at departmental and local government level.

It's important to consider this at the high level, as this strategic direction will directly affect the culture and drive of your organisation.

Depending on your overall strategic direction, you will need different capabilities. Testing whether they are present in your organisation is an often neglected but critical tool to ensuring success. This is particularly important in times when the focus is on driving up satisfaction and quality but reducing costs.

Some of the key characteristics that we have identified are set out below:

Direction

Capabilities

1. Major success:

'Best value', 'Dominant'

Inspirational leadership

Customer obsessiveness – being focused upon what the customer actually needs and how that need might be best satisfied

Innovation and co-creation

Staff engagement – no bystanders

Channel integration

Seamless systems, processes and measures

Piloting and testing

Supplier and partner management

Alignment of personal objectives and rewards to 'more with less' behaviours.

2. Growth-enabling:

'High-performing'

'Leading', 'Growing'

Clear leadership

Customer focus

Innovation

Cost-consciousness and control

Risk assessment

Measuring and key performance indicators (KPIs)

Staff support

Integrated systems and processes

Piloting and testing

Supplier and partner management

Alignment of personal objectives and rewards to 'more with the same' behaviours.

3. Efficiency-driven:

'Lean'

Firm leadership

Customer needs understanding

Process improvement

Cost reduction

Channel migration

Merging

Relocating

Measuring and KPIs

Staff engagement

Systems benefit realisation

Piloting and testing

Supplier and partner management

Alignment of personal objectives and rewards to 'same with less' behaviours.

4. Risk-taking:

'Investing'

'Entrepreneurial'

Energetic or entrepreneurial leadership

Customer acquisitiveness

Risk assessment

No-blame culture

Innovation and new market break-in

Staff motivation

Channel effectiveness

Focused systems and processes

Proposition testing

Alignment of personal objectives and rewards to 'growth' behaviours.

5. Risk-averse:

'Consolidating' 'Downsizing'

Firm leadership

Customer experience protection

Process and systems simplification

Cost reduction

De-merger and asset disposal

Relocating

Internal communications

Channel migration

Product/service simplification and rationalisation

Supplier and partner management

Alignment of personal objectives and rewards to 'less with less' behaviours.

Breadth of programmes

Even though your overall strategic direction might fit in one box, this does not mean that all of your organisation’s programmes have to also fit in the same box. Indeed, it would be unhealthy in large organisations for this to be so.

For example, an organisation that has a growth vision (box 2) is likely to have areas that it wants to invest in (box 4), some to maintain (boxes 3 or 6), and some to cut (box 5).

It would be useful therefore to map where your organisation's current strategic programmes fit on the matrix compared to your overall direction to check that you have a consistent and balanced approach. If you say you are a growth-enabling organisation (box 2) but all your programmes are sitting in the efficiency or risk averse boxes (3 and 5), then you are likely to create staff disengagement, confusion and not achieve your overall aims.

Conversely, if your overall strategy is to downsize, this does not mean that you cannot initiate programmes that improve efficiency and outcomes (boxes 3 and 1), which will of course set your organisation up for recovery and future growth.

Piloting

This simple matrix approach to reviewing direction and strategy and direction highlights the need for organisations to be effective at piloting and testing. One successfully implemented box-1 programme will fund numerous low-cost pilots and tests that may prove unsuccessful (boxes 7, 8 or 9).

So, why do a group of 'successful' programmes not add up to overall success?

This is a perennial conundrum faced by senior management. Perhaps it’s because your vision sits in one box but your strategies and policies sit in others?

A related issue to address is that when a leader sets the overall direction, the tendency for managers is to try and fit all their initiatives into that box. A key role of leadership is to ensure that the balanced approach is being taken, and that people understand where, how and why their programmes fit.

Conclusion

Sometimes, the simplest way of looking at things is the most insightful, and we believe this is the case here.

Assessing your overall direction and your strategies and programmes against this matrix will help you move forward towards achieving your desired outcomes within your budgets.

Different sectors

For the public-service environment, the overall policy direction is most usually set by politicians. However, it is in the interpretation, scoping and implementation phases that a balanced and tactical approach, constructed around the parameters of the model set out here, are most likely to achieve the overarching policy or delivery aim.

For the third sector whilst many of the familiar challenges of having to fight hard to be heard and funded will continue to prevail, we believe that deploying the scrutiny outlined here, will also bring considerable benefits. This is particularly the case for those in the charitable sector who have ambitions to extend their reach as delivery partners within a public service framework.

In summary

Our experience is evidentially grounded in the benefits that derive from systematically reviewing your programmes against this simple matrix, and your capabilities against the defining characteristics for each box.

We are not slavish in our adherence to, or advocacy for, any single particular method or model. What we do believe holds true – that a commitment to testing programmes and projects against overarching organisational vision and aims, combined with a highly tactical approach to ensuring alignment and aggregation of benefits and efficiencies, is a route to organisations being able to respond positively and successfully to both known and emergent challenges.

Peter Lavers, 27/04/2010