Next-level strategising

3 existential questions

I’ve just spent time with one of the world’s leading scientific research organisations. They’re here in Australia and routinely ranked in the Top 3 globally in their field.

When I asked their director why they wanted to develop a new strategy, his response was simple, “We want to stay world-leading.”

To help him to do that, we’re working on strategy over several months, but the key event was this week’s two-day strategy retreat for 60 of his senior people. So, we had to make decisions about how to use their time — and input — most valuably. We ended up looking at just three things:

1. How they’ll recognise and adapt to the biggest shifts in their external strategic environment.
2. Where they’ll invest time, money and effort in pushing forward the single most important ‘accelerant factor’ that drives their ambition.
3. Ways to realise, and communicate, their value even more powerfully to varied stakeholders.

I won’t reveal the substance of (2) and (3), but I will explain (1).

Their science is outstanding, and they recognise that to continue being so, they need to have a ‘position’ on three questions that are pre-eminent in the world right now:

(a) How do we use artificial intelligence to accelerate discoveries and target beneficiaries more effectively?

(b) How does climate change both present new problems for us to solve through our discoveries, as well as present opportunities to mitigate the effects of our research?

(c) What are the big opportunities — and new ways — to translate and commercialise our basic science discoveries?

But, out of the dozens of environmental factors (social and demographic, technical and scientific, political and sectoral, financial & economic), why those three?

This is how we did it. We set up surveys, followed by workshop groups within their research themes, and asked all staff, even the most junior, common questions to draw out ‘existential issues’ for each. Then we grouped them. We asked a common question of the groupings: “On which of these do our stakeholders (funders / investors, the academic and scientific community, government, and the public) expect us to hold a position?” And, of those, we asked, “On which of these do we need to see — and realise — the opportunities, if we’re to retain our leadership?”

It turned out they already had a position on (c) but it could be strengthened. They were already using (a) but not coherently. And, for (b) they sensed there was opportunity, but they hadn’t drawn it out consciously. So, that de

Now, those 3 issues won’t be the same for you, but all organisation should ask the question, “What is changing in your world that you, as a minimum need to be aware of, and as a maximum, need to adjust your operations to take advantage of?”

Question: What 3 - 4 strategic shifts do you need to recognise - and act upon - if you’re to realise your potential?

Completing the jigsaw

Imagine being a consultant to Leopold III in 1648. He was Holy Roman Emperor, he’d just come out of the 30 Years War (that killed 25% of his 20 million population) and the map of his territories looked like this

.What do you see?

I see a patchwork — no, a mess — of tiny disconnected princely states, interspersed with a few heavyweights. But fast forward 375 years to today, and when I show my clients this, they often will twig as to why I’m showing them (and it’s not because I’m particularly fascinated with 17th century European history!).

“Yes, that’s like us”, someone will say.

They’ll point out their common functions inconsistently dispersed across business units (e.g., communications, or even strategy). Or their fiefdoms competing with each other (sometimes putting in parallel bids to the same funding source). Or their huge scale differences (one of my clients has on org chart with one operational team of 7 people, with one of 700 immediately adjacent).

If you look at Leopold’s dominions today, you’ll see just five countries: Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Czechia. 130 million people, compared to 16 million in 1650. All are EU members, creating even greater cohesion. And, they haven’t had a war for 75 years, by far the longest ever in the history of that region.

Now, organisations aren’t nation states, but visual mapping will often show, in sharp relief, how you are — and aren’t — integrated. Over the past year, I’ve asked my clients to produce four variants. They’re simply diagnostics, and sometimes they’re elaborately designed slides; other times, literally paper napkin sketches. Either way, it suffices to tell me if they have an EU map — or a Holy Roman Empire map! Here are the four:

1. A customer map: “Depict your largest customers (or segments) and what differentiates them, or makes them similar”
2. A value map: “Depict your value chain(s) and the relationship between the various ways in which this happens” (also called a theory of change, or process logic, and sometimes a customer journey).
3. A functional map: “Depict the major capability sets that your organisation employs, and how they add value to your customers, including the relationship with ‘enabling’ capabilities” (often called a delivery model).
4. Financial map: “Depict where your major revenue sources are, and your major expense categories, and how profit is created”

There is no one formula, or template, for any of these, but organisations that can do ALL, are usually those whose jigsaw is well on the way to complete. For those who can’t, the exercise usually shows where there are gaps in coherence, and where effort needs to go to think through their customer targetting, their fundamental offer or value proposition, their structure, or their financial flows.

Question: How would you map any (or all) of the above in your business?

Getting strategy to stick

Formulating strategy is easy; executing on it is where organisations don’t do so well.

A CEO to whom I pitched a strategy project asked me a great question as part of his qualification process: “Andrew, once we have our strategy, what do I and my team have to be able to do so we implement it well?”

I wanted to respond, “If you ask questions like that, you will!”

But instead I told him he and his team need to do four things:

1. Tell the story of your strategy - in your own words. Over and over. All of you.
2. Ask yourselves, “What do we need to understand better?”.
3. Then ask yourselves, and your people, “What do we now have to do differently?”
4. Finally, debate furiously this question: “What’s the hardest part?”

That last question will give rise to a discussion about your sacred cows, your ‘elephants in rooms’ and will, by itself, transform the quality of conversation in your leadership circle. And a bonus fifth question that truly separates the strategically able from everyone else:

1. “When we are successful, what new problems will we have to solve?”

He liked these answers, and we started our work together the following month.

Question: In your organisation, what prevents strategy from being implemented?

At the retreat I talked about above, numerous people came to speak to me, not about our project, but about this newsletter. Some had subscribed for years, so it was a great to hear how much they enjoy reading.

If you do too, please at least click the ‘Like’ below, and consider also sending it on to someone else who might like it.

This coming week, think about the existential questions that you need to ask within your organisation, and I’ll see you next Friday.

Andrew