> Both concepts of planning seem a bit too linear and projective to fit the
> current turbulent environment within which planning takes place. Both
> approaches seem to rely on problem solving techniques, just in different
> directions. We are thinking in terms of puzzlesolving, meaning that the
> configuation of the actions and strategies change as each new piece
> (action) is put into place. This concept gives rise to the idea of active
> adaptive planning where ideal futures have been defined but paths to their
> realization are continually formative, taking into account the changes in
> the field and emergent nature of the organization itself within the field.
There are two common (end point) planning techniques that are used to
address that issue at the Corporate and department level. Both involve a
good degree of concept challeges and lateral thinking.
1)Scenario planning (pioneered by SRI and companies such as Royal Dutch
Shell) tries to identify plausible future scenarios for an industry or
business and outline the likely milestones for each path. Progress is
monitored and adjustments to corporate tactics and objectives are made
accordingly...at least in theory.
2)Another technique that is becoming more popular are Opportunity audits
to stretch your opportunity horizon and take advantage of the short-term
shifts in external industry circumstances, competitor information etc,
while maintaining your intitially-planned course down a scennario path.
Opportunity audits look at generic opportunity windows, (both
end-points and starting points) focusing on the different levels of
change affecting a business. Three areas are explored:
What generic opportunity windows or scenarios are open to my business?
What change in the external environment makes this window attractive
in the short term or long term?
Does it align with corporate directions and is it rational to do ?
(ie cost/benefit point of view).
-- Walter Derzko email@example.com