STRATEGIC PLANNING

STRATEGIC PLANNING uses group facilitation techniques to develop an organization’s core values, vision, mission, situation analysis, goals, objectives, strategies, and action plans. Control and tracking disciplines turn plans into realities. The strategic planning activities are developed on a proven model used throughout the Southwest and US by small and large organizations to revitalize their teams and set new directions. As part of the planning activities, a computer model can be used to analyze the organization’s balance sheet and expense data to graphically summarize current and projected measures. Based on strategic planning decisions, organizations usually find they need to reengineer processes.

 

HOW TO SAY NO!
----AFTER YOU HAVE TRIED ALL THESE WAYS TO GET TO YES

 

This monologue was initiated by the realization that Nortel IS staff does not - generally - know how to say NO to the Client Manager / Client.  In evaluating the root causes of customer dissatisfaction with IS, one of the results was that IS knew the requirements, cost, and/or schedule were unrealistic, but were unable to say NO.  The following paragraphs are a summary of Getting to YES by Fisher and Ury.  It is offered as an introduction to these concepts with the expectation that the reader will use this paper as a starting point, and will find the concepts useful enough to read the full text.  My additions are included between { x }.

First, some definitions:  In any negotiation, there are at least two participants.  For our purposes, we’ll call them A and B.  Both A and B have “positions” and “interest.”  Position is a solution you have chosen; interests are the motivations that caused you to take that particular position.  The book uses the example of the Egyptian-Israeli 1978 peace treaty.  Israel’s position was that it would not give back the Sinai. Egypt’s position was that every inch of Sinai must be returned.  When the negotiations changed from position to interest, what motivated Israel was security.  Israel did not want Egyptian tanks on their border.  Egypt’s interest lay in sovereignty; Sinai had been part of Egypt since the Pharaohs.  The solution was a treaty that returned Sinai but designated it as a demilitarized zone with no tanks permitted. 

From this analysis, Fisher and Ury develop four points that define their method of negotiation. 

1. People:     Separate the people from the problem.
2.  
3. Interest:     Focus on interests, not positions
4.  
5. Options:    Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do
6.  
7. Criteria:    Insist that the results be based on an objective standard

 

People problems fall into one of three categories:  perception, emotion, and communications.  Perception begins by understanding the other person’s thinking.  “Their thinking is the problem.”  Conflict does not lie in objective reality but in the other person’s head.  How you see the problem depends on where you sit.  {Since I never mastered mind-reading, I ask the following questions to better understand the other person’s perspective:

1. What is the problem or opportunity?
2. Who is the Sponsor who needs the solution and can resolve issues?
3. Who are all the Stakeholders who must support the solution?
4. What are the resources/constraints?
5. What would a solution look like if it were right in front of us?
6. If our solution solved the problem/opportunity, what business metrics would change and by how much?

Once you have this information, “try to prove that the other person is right.”  This is Steven Covey’s …first seek to understand, then to be understood.}

Understanding their point of view is not the same as agreeing with it. 

Emotion exist on both sides; theirs and yours.  Make emotions explicit by acknowledging them as legitimate.  Let the other person state their emotions and give both sides permission to “let off steam.”  When the other side is telling you how they feel about the situation, do not interrupt or be defensive.

Communications - verbal and non-verbal - is essential to any negotiations.  Communications generally fail because of three reasons: (1) both sides give up talking to one another, (2) either side may still be talking but not hearing - listening skills are rare, and (3) even when both side do hear, they may misunderstand one another.  {These skills are the subject of many classes that most of you have already taken.  My summary on communications is “nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care” about their problem.}

Once you have successfully separated the people from the problem, you can focus on interest, not positions.  Even when positions are in opposition, there are usually some compatible interests - as well as conflicting interest.  How do you identify interest?…ask “why?”  Ask yourself why the other person might take the position they have, {and then ask them, “what is the test of whether this solution is a good one or not.”  When we begin to understand how the other person will judge the solution, we start to see what interest them.}  Make a list of each parties’ interest and look forward - not back.  “Why” can have two quite different meanings.  One looks backward for causes and treats the future as determined by prior events.  The other looks forward and treats the solution as determined by our choices.  Both parties will satisfy their interest better if the topics are “who should do what tomorrow” rather than “who did what yesterday.”

From your understanding of each parties’ interest, you can develop options for mutual gain.  The major obstacles to inventing an abundance of options are:
(1) premature judgment, (2) searching for a single answer, (3) the assumption of a fixed pie, and (4) thinking that “solving the problem is their problem.”

{When setting up the agenda for the meeting, structure the sequence of topics so that defining options comes early in the time allowed so that you do not cut off creative solutions too soon.}

Most people think the job is to narrow the gap between positions, not to broaden the number of options available.  Since the solution will be a single decision, they feel that a brainstorming session to define options will delay and confuse the process.  {A good discussion of brainstorming is on page 61.}  Often the best solution comes from combining parts of different ideas generated by the brainstorming session.  The “fixed pie” concepts generally come from taking too narrow a definition of the problem.  When no good solution emerges, then the next question is to go back and redefine the problem in new and broader terms. 

Thinking that “solving the problem is their problem,” does not result in win-win solutions and sets up additional problems that will still have to be solved. 

The next step is to develop objective criteria.  Agree on what is a “fair” criteria {in IS terms, this could be “what is an acceptable test result”} and agree on what is a “fair” procedure {in IS terms, what are the test cases.  My experience has taught me that if I do not know how to test a requirement, and test it to the customer’s satisfaction, then I do not really have a requirement.}

The rest of Getting to YES gives some detailed case studies and examples of how to apply the principles summarized above.  At the end, they provide some frequently asked questions, and answers, and a summary of the Harvard Negotiating Project which was the foundation for this work.  My summary is that we generally do not take the time to do successful negotiations.  The “needs of the business” dictate schedules that cause short-cuts at every step of the process.  Since we do not keep the historical data that would be required for factual analysis, we resort to “best guesses” and keep going.  Even using parts of this negotiating method would improve the user’s satisfaction with the decision-making process and would contribute to better solutions.  However, when Getting to YES fails, the result will probably not be a fair “NO,” but will be an escalation to upper management for a decision.