Author: Robert Bradford

  • Strategic Planning Lessons from Going Green

    By Robert W. Bradford

    Note: The following article was first published in 2008 but seems timely today.

    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford
    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford

    It shouldn’t be a surprise to you that going green can be an extremely useful strategy in today’s markets. Without question, our strategic planning clients who have pursued environmental friendliness as a part of their strategies are reaping noticeable benefits. Indeed, in some areas — such as metal machining in the Midwest — we are already noticing that “green” markets are driving demand growth in otherwise depressed markets, where alternative fuels and wind power are showing real growth.

    These benefits are most pronounced where companies began working on a “green” initiative years before any competitor. Interestingly, some of these initiatives started at a time when ideas like hybrid vehicles, alternative sources of energy, and green buildings were not yet clearly winners in the marketplace. Looking at how companies have fared with the rise of a major new customer preference can tell us a lot about how strategy works.

    First, it’s clear that the strategy of catering to this customer preference has worked best when it is clearly visible. Prospective customers need trustworthy ways to distinguish your company from the crowd when assessing whether you are the best at meeting the new need. There are several ways to make your advantage (in this case, “green-ness”) visible: advertising, public relations, awards, certifications, alliances, “packaging” (not just boxes, but the way you present your products or services), and vendor relations, to name a few.

    Advertising is obvious, but we need to be wary of wasting money on vague claims that develop little credibility with customers. The best “green” advertising has made specific, verifiable claims about distinctive environmental benefits derived from the purchase or use of a product or service. Public relations should be treated similarly, but don’t forget that proactive involvement in environmental activism can do a lot to build your credibility. This is an investment that is best made before you need credibility — not after.

    Awards and certifications seem to be sprouting like mushrooms in a wide variety of industries. For example, in the construction industry, LEED certification is a way of showing that your building uses less energy and has less harmful impact on the environment that other building. Breadloaf Corporation in Middlebury, Vermont has taken steps to assure they have more LEED-trained architects and construction managers than their competitors, and they have successfully used this distinction to become one of the fastest-growing construction firms in Vermont.

    Other ways to make your advantage visible will vary by industry. A good general rule, however, is to ask if your choices can make your strategic advantage more visible when you are, for example, designing products, choosing vendors, or designing your packaging.

    The second way to assure you profit from a visible claim to an advantage like “green-ness” is to be able to back up the claim with reality. An excellent example of this was Toyota’s decision to back hybrid vehicles as a good short-term way to reduce automotive emissions. Millions of dollars in research and development money were poured into the hybrid concept years before anyone at Toyota — or anywhere else — knew for sure that there would be a payoff in the marketplace. Toyota’s strategy paid off because — rather than just pursuing the technology for its own sake — they carefully analyzed what factors would make it successful, including pricing, features, and impact on the experience of using the product. Today’s reality for Toyota is a growing fleet of reasonably priced vehicles with strong fuel economy and lower overall emissions — which translates into growing market share for the brand.

    Backing up your claims is a serious issue in consumer products, largely because there are few regulations regarding what you can claim or how you can claim it. As a result, customers have become wary of false claims, and they won’t likely rely on a vague claim in their decision-making. One way around this issue is to use a sales or distribution channel as a proxy for a claim. A good example of this is the rise of “organic” grocery chains in North America in the past eight years. Many consumers will trust the purchasing processes of a chain like Whole Foods to screen out false claims for organic or sustainably-produced food. It’s possible that we will see more players in different distribution channels pumping up their purchasing processes to cater selectively to such focused markets.

    Probably the most cost-effective way to back up environmental claims is to have a clear, visible, measurable difference in the way your products or services affect the environment. This can come from obvious differences in product design (such as in hybrid vehicles), or it can come from measurable differences (such as in energy efficient fluorescent light bulbs). Either way, if there is a way to measure the effect, you will be able to make much stronger claims than your competitors if you design your offering to create that measurability.

    Third, the Toyota experience suggests another strategic concept that we have suspected for some time: starting early, while riskier, can deliver a more sustainable competitive advantage. I can remember hearing Toyota executives discussing hybrid vehicles at a conference of the Association for Manufacturing Technology in 2001 — long before “green” was a popular concept in marketing circles. While the money invested in hybrid technology might not have crippled Toyota, it was a very real and substantial investment made long before the market benefit of the “green” advantage was perceived to be a sure thing. This is important because the companies that waited until the “green-ness” was a sure thing are now playing catch-up with companies like Toyota that started down the path years before. Playing catch-up will hit you in three key areas: first, product technology will lag behind the leaders, second, your process technology will lag, and thirdly — perhaps most importantly — your image in the marketplace will not be associated with the new advantage.

    It’s useful to note that Toyota did not abandon their profitable core product line when they decided to start down the hybrid path many years ago. They did, however, invest substantial money and key personnel in the initiative, and kept it on the burner for years before it generated a single dollar in profit.

    A good example of “late start” competitive advantage can be seen in the electronics industry. At the 2008 Consumer Electronics Show, “green” products — those that, for example, consume less power — are being featured prominently. In fact, where the latest technologies have typically been touted at CES, this year, some of the biggest product announcements have essentially been last year’s products, made more energy-efficient. One common certification — “Energy Star” — indicates that a computer can be configured to consume less energy during periods of inactivity, and even turn itself off when left unused for a long period. While this designation has largely been the domain of laptops — where energy efficiency translates into highly valuable battery life — this year’s CES features a much larger number of desktop units sporting the “Energy Star” logo.

    The electronics industry does show an example of how starting early can fail to produce results, too. Toshiba introduced a laptop made of polymers derived from corn in 2006 in Japan, and will be introducing this product in 2008 in the US. This is obviously an early start with a technology — and it is also obviously not taking the laptop market by storm. This is likely due to two issues, both of which should be considered when you are considering “green” technology advances. First, the reality of making a durable laptop case still requires some petrochemical based resins in the case, so it is not really biodegradable. Second, there is a strong disconnect between the environmental value — biodegradability — and the customer’s perception of value in the product. Clearly, we do dispose of old electronic devices, and this is a growing problem in waste management. Just as clearly, no one likes to buy an expensive gadget like a laptop thinking about throwing the device away. Technical issues aside, it’s highly unlikely that “green” disposal will motivate consumers to buy products that they prefer to think of as durable.

    So here are the key learnings about how to use a new, emerging customer preference to gain market share:

    • Make it Visible
    • Make it Real
    • Make it First

    Also, based on the Toshiba experience, be wary of using new advantages in ways that don’t fit well with customer perceptions and preferences, and — when you are first — be aware that the current technology may not deliver the benefit customers are really looking for.

    There is no substitute for good, structured strategic planning in assessing and choosing the rising new customer preferences that you will serve. Many of tomorrow’s winning companies will succeed because they made great choices in their strategic planning in 2008. Will your company end up riding the wave of the “next big thing”? Doing the best job you possibly can at your strategic planning will dramatically improve your chances of leading — rather than following – your industry in the future.

    Interested in more ways to improve your strategic planning process?  Download a complimentary copy of our Strategic Planning Tune-up book by clicking on Tune-up.

    Robert Bradford is President/CEO of the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc.  He can be reached at rbradford@cssp.com.
    © Copyright 2014 by Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI — Reprint permission granted with full attribution.
  • Why Stretch Goals Make Bad Strategic Objectives

    This is my fifth post on bad strategic objectives.  In my first post, I discussed a test to tell whether an objective you set for your organization is truly strategic.  By now, I’ve also highlighted four common types of non-strategic objectives, the incremental objective , the accounting objective, the lead brick objective and the world peace objective.  Today, we’ll take a look at one more very common type – the stretch objective.

    We hear all kinds of people extolling the virtues of “stretch objectives” – people who tell us to “shoot for the moon, because even if you miss you’ll be among the stars”.  In some cases, this advice can be truly useful.  In most strategic planning situations, instead of ending up “among the stars”, you’re more likely to end up lost in space without any air.

    Why is the stretch objective a problem in strategic planning?  First, in strategic planning, we are explicitly creating a plan of what we will do in the future.  The credibility of the plan itself is vital – and stretch objectives encourage us to depart the sensible world of the possible for the la-la land of the unlikely.  Second, good strategy requires that we carefully match our intentions with our resources – and the stretch objective inclination pushes us to ignore the realism required for good resource planning.  Finally, stretch objectives create a feeling that your planning and execution have failed even in cases where you have achieved quite a bit.

    This is not to say that you shouldn’t consider audacious objectives – but rather that there is a place for audacity, but that objective-setting is not that place.  Remember, your strategic objectives are the crucial link between your strategy and execution.  One of the key transitions we need to make when shifting from strategy to execution is the transition from thinking of possibilities to thinking of realities.  A good, audacious objective will connect possibilities with reality, and force your thinking into an action plan that delivers a substantial, but realistic result.  By way of contrast, many stretch objectives will cause people responsible for execution to throw up their hands in despair and not even consider execution.

    If you face the temptation – or the pressure – to include stretch objectives in your strategic planning, how do you handle it?  A well-thought out, disciplined strategic planning process can be a vital tool in assuring your objectives are both strategic and realistic.

    If setting good objectives is hampering your execution of your strategic plan, you might also want to consider re-thinking your strategic planning process.  A great starting point to this would be to attend one of our popular Simplified Strategic Planning seminars.  Click here for more information.

    To improve the execution of your strategic plan, download an archived version of the webinar Strategy Execution: Path to Profitablity.  Click here.

    Robert Bradford is President/CEO of the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc.  He can be reached at .
    © Copyright 2014 by Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI — Reprint permission granted with full attribution.
  • Is it a good objective, or are you seeking “world peace”?

    This is my fourth post on bad strategic objectives. In my first post, I discussed a test to tell whether an objective you set for your organization is truly strategic. By now, I’ve also highlighted three common types of non-strategic objectives, the incremental objective , the accounting objective, and the lead brick objective. Today, we’ll take a look at a very common type – the world peace objective.

    When beauty pageant contestants are asked what they would like to accomplish in their lives, one of the most vapid answers we often hear is “world peace”.  Smart people find this distasteful for two reasons:  first, it’s not what the contestants really want, it’s what they think the judges want to hear, and second, it’s impossible.

    Robert Bradford
    Author
    Robert W. Bradford

    Do you ever encounter this in your strategic objectives?  When the owner, or CEO of a company says “I want to see profit rise by 80% each year”, does someone suggest “Increase profit by 80%” as one of your strategic objectives?

    On its face, the world peace objective looks very strategic. After all, we can’t argue that and 80% increase in profit wouldn’t be great, and it seems strategic in its impact. But there are three key problems with the world peace objective:

    1.  It’s about symptoms, not causes.

    While the SMART definition of objectives maintains an objective must be a result, it’s very difficult to act on results. The best objectives help us act toward a mid-point goal which leads to the results we want. This means your objectives will lead to better results if they at least mention the cause that you are working on.

    2.  It’s completely overwhelming in scope.

    Think about it:  where would you begin?  You might take the “eat an elephant” approach and tackle the objective one bite at a time, but this one could be streamlined into a single, unworkable action step: “everyone do their jobs better and get better results”. In a real-world action plan, this would lead to about 2,000 steps, which would look like an insanely detailed job-description manual that NO ONE WOULD READ or use. Sure, you might score big with it, but I see far greater success with smaller, do-able objectives.

    3.  People have real trouble getting excited about it.

    Think about objectives that you have seen people get excited about. They are very, very specific, and people like thinking about the result of the objective. Certainly, the CEO and CFO will be excited about a big increase in profit, but it’s much easier to celebrate the opening of a new location, the launch of a new product, or a patent on a new technology.

    So, next time you hear someone suggest a “world peace” type objective, ask this simple question:  “How, specifically, could we accomplish this?” If you can break it down into three or four concrete, big things you can do, consider making those your strategic objectives instead.

    If setting good objectives is hampering your execution of your strategic plan, you might also want to consider re-thinking your strategic planning process. A great starting point to this would be to attend one of our popular Simplified Strategic Planning seminars.

  • Are your Objectives Really Worth Pursuing? Or are they just “Lead Bricks?”

    By Robert W. Bradford, President and CEO

    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford
    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford

    In my first post on strategic objectives, I discussed a simple test to tell whether an objective you set for your organization is truly strategic.  I’ve also highlighted two common types of non-strategic objectives, the incremental objective and the accounting objective.  Today, I’ll cover another common non-strategic objective – the lead brick objective.

    For some managers, one of the uncomfortable things about the simplified strategic planning process is that it requires accountability for the completion – or non-completion – of objectives that move your organization in the direction of your strategy.   This discomfort is healthy – it’s hard to get anywhere without feeling uncomfortable about your current position – but it is unfortunately easy to avoid by devising certain types of objectives.  One of the most common is an objective that simply reflects what would happen anyway in the normal course of your business.  For example, if you have good reason to expect a specific market segment would grow by 10% this coming year, you’d feel very comfortable committing to an objective to grow that segment by 5%.  Why wouldn’t you – it will be done about as easily as falling off a log!  Unfortunately, for strategic planning purposes, this type of objective is not just a waste of time – it will preclude you from actively pursuing a more vigorous objective that would necessarily require attention and resources.  This is certainly true if you limit the number of objectives you manage – and we strongly recommend you limit yourself to a maximum of 10 (or less!).

    How can you manage around this tendency?  First, you want to test your objectives with two questions:

    1.  Are we likely to achieve this objective without an action plan?
    2. Will the active management of the action plan make a difference in our results?

    If the answer to the first question is “yes”, there is no need for an action plan to achieve the objective, so don’t waste a precious action plan on it.  If the answer to the second question is “no”, then the action plan is useless, and should also be avoided.  Strategic action plans should be strictly limited to objectives that require top level co-ordination of resources – both people and money.  They should also be limited to objectives that will change the direction of your enterprise or propel it more successfully along the chosen direction.

    Have you experienced the frustration of “lead brick” or other useless objectives?  Consider attending our popular seminar “Simplified Strategic Planning” and come home with a treasure trove of ideas to improve the results you get from strategic planning in your organization.  Register at www.cssp.com today!

    Robert Bradford is President/CEO of the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc.  He can be reached at rbradford@cssp.com.
    © Copyright 2014 by Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI — Reprint permission granted with full attribution.
  • Accounting and Strategic Objectives

    By Robert W. Bradford, President and CEO

    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford
    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford

    Recently, I discussed a simple test to tell whether an objective you set for your organization is truly strategic, and highlighted a common type of non-strategic objective, the incremental objective.  Today, I’d like to cover a similar type of objective that is unfortunately very common – the accounting-driven objective.  Many management gurus will tell you that profit is the only measure of whether you are managing well, but the reality is much deeper than this.  This is because profit is merely a simple way to measure whether you did the right things well after the fact.  Before the fact, you can’t always tell if you are doing the right thing with accounting – you can only guess (even if it is a very educated guess).  This is, essentially, one of the main problems with accounting-driven objectives.  They are objectives that, strictly speaking, only measure the accounting outcome of your endeavor, and not whether anything real was accomplished.

    Take, for example, a company I worked with many years ago who set a very simple objective:  increase profit by 20% next year.  On the surface, this looks like a great objective – it is a result, it is measurable, and it is achievable.  The objective has three key problems, however:

    1.  It’s just too big – a bit like “Achieve world peace” – and there are a nearly infinite number of ways to get it done.
    2. It’s possible to achieve with no strategic improvement at all.
    3. Most managers would have no clue how to tackle writing the action plan for this.

    In the following year, the company did improve their profits by 20%.  What bothered me was that about 10% of this profit improvement came from disposing of an outmoded asset.  Now, this was a great thing to do, no question – but it had no other strategic benefit, other than the financial improvement.  The next year we introduced a great new product line that disrupted the company’s industry and put them on track to a dominant market share position, and we could have started on that a year earlier if we had put that objective in the place of the accounting-driven one.

    Remember, accounting is simply a way to measure how you managed financially with an activity.  It is possible to do a great job on the operational objective – such as introducing a new product – and still have dismal financial performance, perhaps because of a mistake in pricing or distribution arrangements.  The best strategic objectives measure both whether something happened and the positive intended result of that event.  If you focus too much on the measurement, you run the risk of doing strategically inappropriate activities for short-term financial improvements.

    Have you had this experience with accounting driven objectives?  A disciplined examination of your objectives can prevent this frustration in the future.  A good way to test for this is to ask “What is the core strategic benefit of this objective?”  If the answer is simply a financial measurement, you may need to take a step back and define the objective in terms of non-financial strategic benefits.

    If you are interested in hearing more about setting objectives and executing to achieve your strategy please listen to our webinar on Strategy Execution by clicking here.

    Robert Bradford is President/CEO of the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc.  He can be reached at rbradford@cssp.com.
    © Copyright 2014 by Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI — Reprint permission granted with full attribution.
  • Are Your Objectives Really Strategic?

    One of the issues that comes up in the second session of the Simplified Strategic Planning process is whether your objectives are “strategic enough”.  Strictly speaking, objectives are only strategic if they have a significant impact on what you sell, how you sell it, or how you beat or avoid competition.  A set of well-executed, truly strategic objectives will definitely move your organization in the direction you envision in your strategies.  We encounter several kinds of objectives, however, which are not strategic – and in some cases, end up wasting the precious management resources of an organization.

    The first type of non-strategic objective is the incremental objective.  It can usually be spotted by watching for objectives that are simply expressed as an increase in a key metric.   While increasing your most important metrics – especially those which measure your achievement

    Robert Bradford
    Author, Robert Bradford

    of goals on page 6.2 – setting an objective that is simply an increase in one of those metrics has two problems.  First, it can generate a lot of very non-strategic (and even counter-strategic) activity to hit the objective, and secondly, it can be very hard to write a good action plan for.  A much more useful approach to this, especially if you are repeatedly failing to hit a key metric, is to set an objective to remedy this issue in a specific, strategic way, such as introducing a new product/service or changing processes.  This will assure that hitting the objective will have a significant impact on one of the three strategic factors – what you sell, to whom you sell, or how you beat competition.

    In my next post, I’ll discuss the second type of non-strategic objective – the accounting-driven objective.

  • Sit still or move forward?

    Conventional wisdom has it that sitting still is a strategic disaster – especially in high tech, but also in more mundane industries. As with many chestnuts I hear in strategic planning meetings, this one is both true and false. It’s true because the world will continue to move on with or without your company – and your customers don’t really care whether you are ready to come along with them. In technology markets in particular, many customers won’t wait for your company to get new technologies right – they will simply jump ship to whatever the latest and greatest provider is supplying (and if you doubt this, ask the folks at Research In Motion, whose Blackberry phone was the pinnacle of geekdom just a few years ago, but is now known as “the phone your employer makes you use” by those who still have them).

    Robert Bradford
    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford

    On a more profound level, however, there is a very delicate balance to be found between rushing forward into the new and really getting the value from what is already working. In the Blackberry example I just cited, I stuck with my Blackberry for two or three years longer because I liked the way the device fit my needs. I still miss being able to type without looking at the screen, which – of course – you cannot do with the latest touch screen phone models. I suspect many, many Blackberry users – past and present – feel the same way. But this does not stop people from shifting to other suppliers – it merely increases the perceived cost of shifting.  And there is the rub – because so many people shifted to an entirely new form factor, almost all new smartphone models –including Blackberrys – are designed as a touchscreen, candybar shaped phone.  This leaves customers who prefer an actual keyboard with far fewer options today.  It also makes Blackberry a “less-than-me-too” product, with a limited market, a poor result for RIM.

    Smart phones are not the only products that suffer from over-acceleration.  Take a walk through a toy store, and you’ll be struck by how few of the products that were popular ten years ago are available today.  In many markets, new is confused with better.  From a strategic perspective, this isn’t just hogwash, it’s strategically very dangerous.  Many companies succeed with a very specific value model, and have great difficulty shifting into a new model – but feel compelled to do so because pundits tell them that innovation is the key to profitability.  Innovation is important – and in some industries, it’s a vital part of the value model – but it is not a substitute for really understanding the needs and preferences of your markets.  Whether you are developing real estate or designing packaging, it’s vital to really get inside your customers’ heads and understand what keeps them up at night.  It’s also vital to get why some customers like your company – and to assure that your strategy doesn’t eliminate that value in favor of innovations your customers don’t really care about.

    Where does your company stand in this world?  Are you over-accelerating or under-accelerating in your strategic planning?  As always, I’d love to hear real-world examples and issues you may be facing.  And if you’d like to explore this concept further, feel free to contact me at .

  • What Level is your Strategic Thinking?

    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford
    Strategic Planning Expert Robert Bradford

    I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about strategic thinking this month.  One of the things that vex me is when people overuse the term “strategic”, as if it is a magic wand that will make something – such as social media marketing – more valuable.  While there IS such a thing as “strategic social marketing”, calling it strategic does not make it so.

    It’s clear that there is one obvious divide – between strategic and non-strategic – but there are also levels of strategic thinking above the basic level.  True strategic thinking involves more than just thinking about what you are going to do next, or how you will do better next year – it’s about the course and direction of your organization.  In my mind, good strategic thinking is about balancing current performance with building capabilities for the future.  So we can call just thinking about the future “level 0” planning, and the more capability-oriented thinking “level 1” planning.

    In the past decade, we’ve been adding a level of strategic thinking which is driven by the concept of strategic competency.  Strategic competency is a combination of skills, processes and knowledge which differentiates your organization from your competition in a way that is highly valuable.  Strategic thinking about competency creates tremendous and increasing advantages.  I think of this as “level 2” strategic thinking – it’s not just the usual, tired SWOT analysis and five forces mumbo jumbo, but rather a new way of thinking that can actually drive a valuable change in strategy.

    It seems there is another level above this that some organizations use, sometimes.  I haven’t seen anyone do this all the time, and I’m not sure it’s necessary to commit to it every year, but “level 3” strategic thinking is a step beyond “level 2” – in much the same way “level 1” is a step beyond “level 0”.  “Level 3” strategic thinking involves thinking not just about competencies, but about how you build your organization’s ability to grow and enhance your strategic competencies.  Another way to say this, quite simply, is that “level 3” strategic thinking involves examining how well your organization really learns and builds know-how.

    A good question to ask about your own strategic planning is:  what level is our strategic thinking?  Is most of your plan built around level 0 or level 1 thinking, or do you have some level 2 or 3 thinking in your strategic plan?

    If you are interested in hearing an in-depth webinar on strategic thinking please click on Strategic Thinking.  In this program, we address the three key elements of strategic thinking that are missing in most organizations, and how they add up to explosive success for the organizations that use them.

    Robert Bradford is President/CEO of the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc.  He can be reached at rbradford@cssp.com.
    © Copyright 2013 by Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI — Reprint permission granted with full attribution.
  • Back to Basics in Strategic Planning

    By Robert W. Bradfordrobert-bradford-presenting

    Strategic planning is the process of setting an organization’s course to optimize its future results.  We define anything that revolves around one of three questions as strategic:

    1. What do we do?
    2. For whom do we do it?
    3. How do we beat or avoid competition for resources?

    These may seem like simple questions, but they are not. They are the core of every truly strategic issue and discussion you will ever have. This fundamental approach – of both questioning and understanding the reasons behind the answers to these questions – is one thing many companies miss when they attempt to do strategic planning. A good sign that you are failing to address these questions is when your team starts to see major environmental trends only as threats that you need to resist. Resisting threats rarely stops the trend – it only creates the illusion that it has been slowed down. In reality, most companies that waste their precious resources in this manner simply become increasingly irrelevant as the real world – and their customers – bypass them.

    There is a second thing that is often missed, although many give it lip service. That is the concept of focus. Most of us understand the value of focus – you can do something very well if you do it over and over again. So why do so many organizations really fail at focus?  The reason focus usually only gets lip service is that there will always – ALWAYS – be some bright, shiny object sparkling just outside your current focus. These bright, shiny objects are often attractive and can, with some effort, produce some kind of results. The problem is, those results can never equal the performance of a focused player. Another way to put this is that focus is difficult – not because it’s hard to choose what you will focus on, but rather because it’s very difficult NOT to pay attention to the things you are not focusing on. In my mind, this is fine, because it makes focus difficult, and difficult things tend to be more profitable than easy things. When you do strategic planning, be acutely aware of how serious your commitment to focus is. If you only pretend to focus, your success is just as likely to be a fantasy.

    I pose these two ideas because I see more and more people attempting to re-frame strategic planning as something that should be more “current”. Being current is not about forgetting the basics of strategy – it’s about paying attention to the forces that are in play in the world around you. If you think strategic planning needs to change to adapt to the new ways of doing things in your market, you have probably been doing it wrong. I hope you’ll take this nudge to think about how to get your own strategy back to basics – not by becoming old-fashioned, but by thinking strategically about how you deliver value to those you serve, and focusing on doing just that.

    How are you currently doing strategic planning? Is your process yielding great ideas and solid implementation? If not, I’d encourage you to consider attending our 2-day Michigan State University seminar on Simplified Strategic Planning. And, as always, if you have any comments or questions, they are more than welcome! To learn more about our seminar, please click on Simplified Strategic Planning.

    Robert Bradford is President/CEO of the Center for Simplified Strategic Planning, Inc.  He can be reached at .