by Eric Britten
A recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Can You Open-Source Your Strategy, by Barry Newstead and Laura Lanzerotti, describes how The Wikimedia Foundation (the non-profit that operates Wikipedia) open-sourced a good part of its strategy development between 2009 mand 2010. Senior executives ultimately set the priorities and synthesized the final initiatives into a business plan, but their customers, suppliers and colleagues contributed a significant amount of the input up to that point.
That may be a radical approach for many traditional planners, but it seems to me that it's just a continuation of the philosophy that has opened many corporate plannng processes to the rank and file, customers, suppliers and even other organizations in the same industry group.
True strategy development that takes a hard look at the future landscape has to be driven by ideas, perspective and opinions of those that are often external to the organization. Why would you engage in strategic planning if you weren't attuned to what your customers were thinking about the future, particularly as it relates to your products or services? The same goes for your suppliers and other partners. Gathering that data is a critical initial phase in a modern day heads up planning process. Letting others munch the data and begin to think about where that might take an organization is a natural next step in the evolution of planning.
Strategic planning processes that incude external data gathering and interpretation are scenario, mission-based , and outcome-based planning. Even in more traditional planning processes, these outside resources could add dynamic ideas to the S-W-O-T analysis. Those who think strategy development is a secret process that only the top echelon should dabble in probably should keep their VCR players and Selectric typewriters. A CEO I once worked for had it right when he said, "I don't care who knows our strategy. Only we can execute it."
You can read Can You Open-Source Your Strategy in our business article library. Click here to go there.
Citizen-Driven Budgeting
Katherine Barrett & Richard Greene ((In "Governing")
September 23, 2010
People talk about "citizen-driven" budgeting. It's certainly a phrase that's hard to argue with, at face value. Who better than the citizens to decide where their money is spent? But life is complicated. How many married couples have difficulties coming to a meaningful consensus about how to spend their income? (Years ago, we wrote an article for Ladies' Home Journal that argued that money, not sex, was the single biggest cause of marital discord.)
All that said, Larisa Benson, director of performance audit in Washington, shared some thoughts about the subject with us, and we think she makes a whole lot of sense. Here, some excerpts:
"I believe in citizen-driven budgeting for outcomes, but I remain convinced that posing the 'what should we cut?' question to citizens will never work. It's impossible to have a 'tradeoffs' discourse if you start with the cutting proposition. Is $4 billion too much to spend on Medicaid? What would be the right amount to cut (or add?). Who can answer that question?! Even among the Medicaid budget experts, I find few who can wrap their mind around that question (much less the $4 B figure — it's enough to blow anyone's fuse).
"By contrast, engaging citizens in a dialogue of contrasting priorities is not only effective, it's wondrously fun. Those hard-boiled government types who think 'the average citizen can't grasp the complexity of government' are seriously underestimating just how smart and caring most citizens really are. I have found 'regular Joe' citizens are quickly and constructively engaged if you pose the right questions and provide enough summarized concise results data to spark their natural curiosity. I think this question/frame works equally well in good revenue and bad economic times."
September 23, 2010
People talk about "citizen-driven" budgeting. It's certainly a phrase that's hard to argue with, at face value. Who better than the citizens to decide where their money is spent? But life is complicated. How many married couples have difficulties coming to a meaningful consensus about how to spend their income? (Years ago, we wrote an article for Ladies' Home Journal that argued that money, not sex, was the single biggest cause of marital discord.)
All that said, Larisa Benson, director of performance audit in Washington, shared some thoughts about the subject with us, and we think she makes a whole lot of sense. Here, some excerpts:
"I believe in citizen-driven budgeting for outcomes, but I remain convinced that posing the 'what should we cut?' question to citizens will never work. It's impossible to have a 'tradeoffs' discourse if you start with the cutting proposition. Is $4 billion too much to spend on Medicaid? What would be the right amount to cut (or add?). Who can answer that question?! Even among the Medicaid budget experts, I find few who can wrap their mind around that question (much less the $4 B figure — it's enough to blow anyone's fuse).
"By contrast, engaging citizens in a dialogue of contrasting priorities is not only effective, it's wondrously fun. Those hard-boiled government types who think 'the average citizen can't grasp the complexity of government' are seriously underestimating just how smart and caring most citizens really are. I have found 'regular Joe' citizens are quickly and constructively engaged if you pose the right questions and provide enough summarized concise results data to spark their natural curiosity. I think this question/frame works equally well in good revenue and bad economic times."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)