Our engagements most often begin when a programme has reached crisis point. One of the most important things to understand in that situation is the extent to which the programme has a plan and is executing it. You might think that we assess that by asking for the plan, but there’s a quicker, more reliable way: We just go to one of the regular team meetings, and sit in quietly. We’re looking for two things: The first is whether plans are referred to or even brought into the meetings. The second is the extent to which there is interaction going on in the meeting that is compensating for the lack of an executable plan. We don’t often see the former. We do see a lot of the latter.
When I talk to exec sponsors of high-stakes programmes, some of their greatest frustrations are with planning. The top five:
1.
The amount of time spent planning – and therefore waiting for a plan.
2.
The volume of caveats that come with the plan when it’s produced.
3.
The fact that it’s just a PoaP (‘Plan on a Page’) that looks great, but has no underlying detail.
4.
The fact that the PoaP evaporates instantly when a milestone is missed.
5.
The assertion that “we’re agile” and that therefore the detail is secreted away in Kanbans that simply don’t provide a joined-up view suitable for executive consumption.
Of these five, the last one is the most problematic. How can an exec sponsor possibly hold the programme team to account when the exec has no line-of-sight to who’s supposed to be doing what and by when? Slippage becomes rather like changes in the weather; unfortunate, unforeseen and not really anybody’s fault. Unless of course you’re the exec sponsor, explaining the slippage to the Board.
The 1999 study in the US, “To Err Is Human” provides the proof, if proof is needed, that human beings cannot plan and execute at the same time. Having a plan first is vital. So how do you get to a plan without the frustrations?
There’s a question I always ask when exec sponsors tell me of their frustrations: “Did you train the team before sending them away to plan?” The answer, universally, is ‘no’. There is an assumption that, as change professionals, they already know how to plan. But if they do, why it is such a struggle to produce a plan?
When we take on a new client, one of the default items in the action plan (the setup bit at the start of the engagement) is two days of planning training for the team. Initially, the idea of planning training is not well received by the team: Why do they need to spend two days in a room learning something that they already know how to do? Surely, this is an affront to their professionalism??
The first hour of the training involves a simple exercise to produce a plan. I won’t tell you the subject-matter (because I’d be letting the cat out of the bag), but it’s an everyday task that should be a piece of cake for a sub-team of four. No-one ever completes the exercise on time, but by the end of it, everyone understands the stark difference between a statement of intent and a properly executable plan.
It then takes another 13 hours of training to bring everybody up to the same standard with specific approaches and techniques, case studies and worked examples. And once it’s done, it’s done. They can crack on with the plan itself via a predictable, rigorous 3-cycle approach. Three-and-a-half weeks later out pops an executable plan. No caveats, no evaporation, and no inaccessible Kanbans.
Eisenhower is popularly credited with the quote “A plan is useless, but planning is indispensable.” From what we see in our field work, he was at least half-right.