In recent years, I have participated in defining the strategy of various organizations: an audiovisual cluster, a chemical cluster, a research institute, a public company, different businesses… and recently also an engineering college.
I was thinking about what I could share regarding the definition of the strategy of organizations that do not depend on a single person, the owner, the executive, or the entrepreneur, but rather on a collective.
One of the elements to consider in defining the strategy of these types of organizations is the importance of the narrative: in my view, building a strategy shared by the collective involves carefully listening to the different elements of the collective and putting words to the organization’s song, crafting a story about what the organization is and what it aspires to be, and what its role is towards the collective and society as a whole.
In this same line, once we have the organization’s narrative, its song, it is fundamental to identify its purpose, which is the reason why it must continue operating in its environment, what society and the planet would lose if the organization disappears. The purpose, to me, is more about the organization’s life meaning, it is the organization itself that defines it, and it is not the same as the organization’s mission, which is the meaning given to the organization by the elements that constitute it. In the end, it’s about observing what life gives you to offer what life asks of you, and the purpose would have to do with what life asks of you.
The traditional structure of strategic planning includes an internal analysis (who we are, what we want, with whom we can have it, and how) and an external analysis (political, economic, social, technological, ecological, and legal factors that affect or can affect the organization’s activity, among others). These internal and external analyses are usually summarized in a SWOT diagram (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) of the organization, and from there the mission, vision, and objectives of the organization for the next period, usually about 3-4 years, are defined.
In a highly changing environment like the one in which organizations usually operate, one might think that it makes less and less sense to define and specify what the organization will do in the next 3-4 years, since in most sectors the level of change is too high to maintain the same organizational trajectory for so long. In my experience, it makes a lot of sense to do the internal and external analysis and detailed definition of the purpose, mission, vision, objectives, and other elements at least once every 10-12 years because this contributes to creating a narrative about who the organization is and what it wants to do, as a general approach, and to reach consensus among the different agents on this approach.
However, once this is done, it can be observed that the purpose of the organization is practically the only thing that does not change. That is why, as part of the strategy and thinking about shorter-term planning, I like to represent the organization’s business model canvas, how it is now, and the business model canvas of how it can evolve in the next period, to pull it in that direction. With this tool, one can organize and imagine where the organization can evolve and establish objectives and key expected results that lead the organization to be what it is called to be.
Doing an annual review of the canvas and a proposal of what should change constitutes a short-term strategic planning model that I believe allows organizations to adapt much better to the intrinsic instability of the times we live in. The simplicity of the model makes it much easier to convey what is important for the next period to all involved, allowing them to align much better with the organization and pull together in unison in the same direction.
