| |
By Janet L. Taylor
The occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the
opening of the Aronoff Center for the Arts was an opportunity for reflection
on the original mission and what had been achieved. From resident arts
groups to audiences, from adjacent businesses and restaurants to newspaper
writers, the assessment, as one might expect, was that the glass was either
half full or half empty. To those of us on staff this was somewhat
disconcerting.
Reflecting on these differing views caused us to understand that the way in
which we were being reviewed was dependent upon why people thought the
building had been built in the first place. Was it a downtown development
engine? Was it to be an incubator of small arts groups? As an organization,
were we to manage a building? Were we to bring programming to the community?
And so the conversations began within our organization as we tried to answer
for ourselves why we came to work each day and what we hoped to accomplish.
We needed to plan our future.
There are a surprisingly large number of performing arts organizations
currently involved with the process, either considering a plan, revising an
old plan or embarking on a new plan. The impetus differs for each
organization. Some are internal such as helping a new operation assess
strengths, weaknesses and determine priorities. Some are prepared for an
external funding body or governing agency. Some arise from negative stimuli
like a downturn in resources, while others are needed to address new
opportunities. But whatever the reason for starting the process, there
seemed to be quite a few organizations disappointed in the results of their
efforts. Before joining those already on this path, it seemed important to
find out what the common causes of failure were. They seemed to fall into
several broad categories; commitment, communication, and product.
Commitment
Some organizations entered into the process because it was fashion, and
without the commitment to use the strategic plan as a tool to achieve their
vision. Some in management failed to shift focus from day-to-day activities
and responding to emergencies to the higher priority of long-range goals.
Others abandoned the plan, lacking the discipline to wait for the benefits
expected in the long-term.
Communication
Poor communication at various crucial points in the process was a potential
pitfall. Though the input and ideas of all participants were gathered to
arrive at a plan, there was a lack of consensus that the final product was
something everyone could get behind. Often there was no vital feedback loop
to refine the strategy to be realistic. Overlooked by many was the document
itself; volumes and chapters instead of pages and paragraphs; strategies
hidden by complicated wording making it confusing to many. And when the
document was incomprehensible, it was impossible for management to explain
it to the staff expected to implement it.
Product
One of the most common failures of the final product was an incomplete
consideration of resources. There might be an inadequate link between
strategy and action, or the crucial element of “human capital” was not taken
into account. After crafting an exciting list of strategic initiatives,
staff was faced with the crushing reality that the organization simply could
not afford to implement them. Surely the saddest reason for failure of a
plan was that it lacked a vision compelling enough to motivate the efforts
of the organization toward the long-term goal.
When asked how best to avoid these, the unanimous answer from colleagues and
consultants alike was to pre-plan the planning process. Borrowing from a
concept called “Appreciative Inquiry” is the four “D” cycle for the steps of
a planning process; Discovery, Dreaming, Design and Delivery. Discovery is
the period of environmental assessment which establishes a baseline with
constraints and opportunities. Dreaming is the sharing of vision and
mission, unfettered by any reality checks and which helps move everyone
toward a consensus. Design is the phase which incorporates the decision
criteria and prioritization of strategies into a comprehensive plan,
complete with implementation activities and measures of success. And finally
Delivery, the roll-out of the plan to all the constituencies involved in its
creation.
The key members of the management team working with a consultant should
establish expectations for each of these stages and create a list of
specific deliverables. This would include developing answers to key
questions: What is the state of organizational readiness? How broad should
participation be and at what levels? For example, is this a board-led
initiative with staff providing information and feedback? Is this a
staff-driven initiative with high level board involvement? To what depth
will the process take you; will it remain at high level mission and values
without restriction or should it develop reality-based operational goals and
objectives? What will the report look like and what are the components?
Nothing can be considered so much a failure as a plan that entails months of
initiatives, interviews, discussions, writing, and final approval – only to
find it shelved in a binder gathering dust until its three or five year term
runs out and it is time to do the exercise again. Hopefully, awareness of
the pitfalls and a carefully crafted pre-plan will result in a strategic
plan that can guide an organization well into its future.
Janet L. Taylor is
vice president/general manager of the Cincinnati Arts Association. Special
thanks to Andrea Stevenson, Deidre Tavera, Lorrin Shepard and Thomas Hall
for sharing their thoughts and experiences with Strategic Planning. |
|
Back to Facility Manager
Contents
