Use our filter system at the lakehouse (rust and smell) as a metaphor for strategic clarity
From: Granger-Happ, Edward
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:55 PM
To: Steinke, Megan; Freireich, Jessica
Subject: RE: Strategic Filters Exercise: a proposal
I agree that a simple, over-arching scheme like the Collins framework can be a good place to start and provide some organizing principles that are east to communicate. I like what Jessica has done with organizing some of the questions under the hedge-hog concepts. I agree that gaining specificity under the 3 categories will be a critical step. I’ve added a few questions, in red below, that suggest some possibilities.
What I was driving at with the comparison of our historical “yes” and “no” initiatives, was to provide an “operational test” of the filters. If our filters (and sub-filters) do not clearly differentiate between these historical cases, then we need to reexamine the filters (or the cases!). My thinking was that if we could get agreement on some yes-and-no cases, then showing how the proposed filtering criteria differentiate these (or does not differentiae them) would provide a means to (1) buy-in to the criteria and (2) still end up with something that works.
I recommend sharing what you’ve done below with Carolyn. If she’s keen on the Schrage-Tesco case, and we are promoting the Collins hedge-hog framework at the Summit, then reconciling these two (and the strategic assumptions) will be important.
Ed
From: Steinke, Megan
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Freireich, Jessica; Granger-Happ, Edward
Subject: RE: Strategic Filters Exercise: a proposal
Ed -
You are right on with us needing to define a set of criteria to use as filters in this process. In my experience, the broader categories like the Tesco and the Collins filters, though nice and concisely stated, can be broadly interpreted to include a lot of things if not further specified. So sub-criteria will no doubt be in order. If we use broader to start, then get more specific - we can always come back up to the broader set to use as shorthand. It seems like if we are asking folks to get into the good to great mindset - we might use those as headings - and i think the sort Jessica did on the Tesco filters by Collins filters works pretty well.
Agree with jessica on the assumptions translating into criteria - some are a bit apples and oranges however. Whereas the first 3 are pretty right on, the meeting current construction commitments is not so much.
Other filters that come to mind are: our value added (we have expertise, others not doing it or not doing it well enough) and that there are local partners who will help sustain programs and/or results once we are out of picture.
More to come.
Ed- please keep us looped into Carolyn's thoughts too!
Megan
-----Original Message-----
From: Freireich, Jessica
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:39 PM
To: Granger-Happ, Edward; Steinke, Megan
Subject: RE: Strategic Filters Exercise: a proposal
Hi Ed,
Thanks very much for the note. Megan and I have been thinking a bit about filters, since we'll want to be using them as a way to screen the strategies (or "strategic scenarios") we'll be building over the 3 days at the Summit. I think what you're proposing generally makes sense, and it suggests to me that the good to great criteria are basically useful as a starting point / unifying concept -- though we may want to blow them out in more detail.
For example, I think at a superficial level we may say we're "passionate" about something -- but we should have a more rigorous test for that, i.e. does it create impact for children consistent with our theory of change, since those things are the things we should be passionate about.
To me not all of the strategic assumptions are really filters as such (or at least they're not equally important filters), but many of them could be put in as sub-criteria within the 3 hedgehog criteria. For example:
1) Are we passionate about it?
- Does it align with our mission, values, and theory of change
- Does it grow our impact
- Does it support on the ground . .
- Does it scale up . . .
- Does it increase impact for kids? [Schrage-Tesco, from below.]
2) Can we be best in the world at it?
- Can we do it as a high quality high accountability program (or maybe this goes above?) [I like it here]
- Is this where the need for children is greatest?
- Is this in the top 20 countries identified as the lowest in the Mothers Day report rankings?
- Is this where children are underserved by other international NGOs?
- Is this where we have sector/technical expertise?
- Is this an area where we are, or can soon be, in the top 3 International NGOs?
3) Will it drive our resource engine? (build money and brand)
- Does it promote sponsorship?
- Does it support, work through, or build a closer relationship with the Alliance (again maybe goes above?) [maybe]
- Will it decrease cost to the agency? (implying have to fundraise less) [Schrage-Tesco, from below.]
- Will it make things simpler for staff? (implying use less staff time and resources)
- Is there a ready and sufficient level of funding? Is funding identified to support it and available to the level to succeed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not totally sure how the Schrage criteria fit in, but I'd propose:
1) Are we passionate about it?
- Increase impact for kids?
3) Will it drive our resource engine?
- Will it decrease cost to the agency? (implying have to fundraise less)
- Will it make things simpler for staff? (implying use less staff time)
We're setting up the 3 days with a discussion of the 3 circles and asking people to apply them to choices / tradeoffs they've made in their personal lives around their careers (their "personal hedgehogs). It's hopefully a way to illustrate that sometimes you do need to say no, and that these three criteria are a useful way of thinking about focus -- and about what to stop doing, what to continue doing and what to add.
As we build the strategic scenarios (options around our goals and aspirations, where to work, how to succeed, etc.), we will use criteria to think about pros and cons. And then at the end of the three days we could use the criteria (3 hedgehog plus more detail around each as above?) to:
1) figure out what we'd stop, continue, add to our to do list in each of the scenarios (to further flesh out the scenario)
2) evaluate the scenarios and whether we should pursue them.
Quickly written so not sure if it's comprehensible. Thoughts? (I'll be off e-mail for most of tomorrow)
Jessica
-----Original Message-----
From: Granger-Happ, Edward
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 9:54 PM
To: Freireich, Jessica; Steinke, Megan
Subject: Strategic Filters Exercise: a proposal
Importance: High
Jessica, Megan,
To test my comments about our need for clear, strategic filters (and encourage a healthy debate about them), I did a quick, back-of-the-envelope exercise. The attached spreadsheet is a very rough draft of the exercise, where I’ve taken three programs or initiatives where we have made a “yes” bet and three where we made a “no” bet. The 1-5 ratings are purely mine and may be ill-informed, but they illustrate the point of the exercise, namely, do our proposed strategic filters clearly differentiate between our historical yes and no bets? In many cases, I found they do not, but there were three that seemed to stand out (and two are variations on the “best-in-class” filter.) What do you think about this?
|