BENEATH THE SURFACE Is SWOT Passé? M ost of you have at one time or another been part of a strategic planning exercise that included a tool called the “SWOT Analysis.” As a reminder for those who have gone through this exercise, and for those who have somehow avoided the exper ience, SWOT i s typical ly a “facilitator-managed-flip chart-aided session” in which the participants take a look at the current performance and/or goals and objectives of their department, division, company, committee or task force. SWOT stands for “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats” relative to the here and now, and perhaps the future of the entities being evaluated. As one might expect given the title, SWOT parti- cipants offer their views on where they feel things stand under the system’s headings in a brainstorm setting. Lists are made for each category and flip chart sheets are pasted up on a wall with the goal of creating an overview com- prised of both specific and summary insights, and most importantly that this awareness will lead to developing plans that provide direction for future actions. A number of acknow- ledged strategic planning professionals have become critical of what has been a bedrock analytic tool for some time. For example, planning expert Jon Turner, in his blog “Evolving a Strategic Mindset” (April 22, 2016), opines that while the SWOT approach has merit, it “is old and outdated, and even at best is, as a tool, a static look at a given organization.” I agree that SWOT has become a bit of a cliché, and while it has been used with thousands of organizations, it in itself is not static. A SWOT approach represents a snapshot of where an organization is at the time it is subjected to A key part of any strategic undertaking is to develop a roadmap by which responsible parties can navigate, and ultimately achieve, agreed upon goals and outcomes. this type of analysis. Semantics notwithstanding, “static” vs. “dynamic” doesn’t really mean a whole lot to me. In my view, the SWOT approach has a dynamic underpinning in that it encour- ages dialog, does not prescribe where the insights will take the participants, and while it is formulaic, it isn’t terribly restricting. I do however feel that this approach has its shortcomings. As a planning facilitator myself, I have been trained in and exposed to a number of planning templates, some of which are more effective than others. A key part of any strategic undertaking is to develop a r o a dma p b y wh i c h responsible parties can navigate, and ultimately achieve, agreed upon goals and outcomes. One of the justifiable criticisms of strategic plans is that while they may be well intended, unless they are proactively implemented through committed and monitored actions, they never go beyond being “plans.” In my own exper- ience, the shortcoming is always follow-up and follow-through. I would comfortably guess that there are virtually hun- dreds of thousands of plans gathering dust on shelves. In one of my prior lives I worked for several strategic planning firms, each with its own protocol, and all of which were effective in getting participants to seem to agree on a path forward. The problem was always implementation. Not all plans are equal. In other words, there are good ones and not such good ones. A key to developing a good one is that it has to have built-in flexibility. Not too long ago, planners, and therefore plans, were focused on a 10-year, then 5-year implementation AUTHOR S. Scot Litke, Hon. D.GE period. Well guess what, in today’s speed-to-market, just-in- time delivery mindset, with a premium placed on the here and now, we are lucky to be able to arrive at a plan that will hold water for 3 years. For example, if a company is only focused on this year’s bottom line you will have a problem. This is particularly the case as it relates to publically-held companies that tend to be “accountant-driven.” The attitude seems to be that if you don’t bring home the bacon to shareholders “this year” you are toast. As a result, long range plans that stretch 10 years into the future are a thing of the past. An effective SWOT approach must take these realities into account, and I think that it can. However, I am not married to a SWOT format. To me the important thing is winding up with a plan that can take you forward in whatever timeframe you have determined is the target. Keys to the Planning Kingdom No matter which planning tool(s) you employ, the questions that must be addressed and answered are: what, where, when and how? 1. Where are we now? 2. Where do we want to be, and when do we want to be there? 3. Why do we want to even go there? (This is often the most overlooked com- ponent in planning). 4. How do we get there, with an emphasis on not only “how” but “who” will get us there, with “who” being plural? 5. How do we know when we are there? 6. What do we think it will look like? This is the point at which strategy, logistics and tactics come into play. While you can DEEP FOUNDATIONS • SEPT/OCT 2016 • 105
