Thursday, September 4, 2008

Strategic Planning Tool – The Goal Grid

The strategic planning tools such as Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) and SNAC that were discussed in class got me curious and led me to delve into other such planning tools prevalent in the industry. During the course of my study into alternate planning tools, one particular tool caught my attention- The Goal Grid.

Goal Grid

What struck me most about this method was its simplicity. Unlike other planning tools which would require consultants to make a detailed presentation to explain the procedure to the management, this method can easily be implemented without any elaborate training requirements.

The Goal Grid is a 2x2 matrix which is formed from four fundamental questions which help generate the grid:

1. What do you want that you don’t have? (Achieve)

2. What do you want that you already have? (Preserve)

3. What don’t you have that you don’t want? (Avoid)

4. What do you have now that you don’t want? (Eliminate)

Analysis using Goal Grid

The Goal Grid is a bottom-up approach which starts by segregating the goals into Achieve, Preserve, Avoid, and Eliminate.

Typically, in a process to implement Goal Grid, the participants first generate their grids individually. Then all the participants get together and engage into a dialogue aided by computers and recording devices. Flip charts and other technical tools can be used to further facilitate the process. The end of the discussion usually results in a consolidated grid.

Once the grid is populated on all its quadrants, a general idea of the over-riding goals can be ascertained. For example pollution can be placed in the Eliminate category and increasing product penetration can be placed in the Achieve section.

The Grid then helps organize the goals into “What they have” and “What they want.”

Uses

Being a simplistic process to implement, the Goal Grid can be used to kick start the process of Strategic Planning. It can help initiate a dialogue between all the stakeholders involved. It gives a platform for employees of the organization to voice their opinions on the goals they foresee for the company.

It also provides a way of managing and controlling conflicting goals and objectives within an organization. Being a simple two dimensional grid, it becomes easy for employees to observe and understand what the organization is attempting to communicate to them.

Drawbacks of the Goal Grid

Ironically, I believe the drawback of this tool lies in its simplicity. Managers today believe in hiring expensive consultants who provide complex frameworks for analysis, as they believe that the more complex the tool-the more effective it is.

I also believe that there could be a large scope for ambiguity. For example, if worded alternately, an “Eliminate” can be placed into an “Achieve.” Take the problem of pollution, it can either be placed in the Eliminate category or can be worded as ‘Improve surrounding environment’ and be placed in the Achieve category.

Taking an overall view of the planning tools and putting it in perspective with other tools such as ISM and SNAC, I believe that this is a simple yet highly effective tool to develop goal clarity. I also find it highly practical and believe such a simplistic tool can be used to even plan our own personal goals in life.

References

1. Nickols, Fred & Ledgerwood, Ray (2006). The Goals Grid as a Tool for Strategic Planning. Consulting to Management – C2M, 17(1), 36-38.

2. Nickols, Fred & Ledgerwood, Ray (2004). The Goals Grid. Consulting to Management – C2M, 15(4), 35-37.

3. Russell Ackoff (1981). On the Use of Models in Corporate Planning. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 2, 353-359.


1 comment:

Unknown said...

I believe, the arguments presented here provide a new perspective to the ever-existing problem of forecasting for the firms. I agree with the approach being propounded as it is more holistic in its outlook and gets to the core of the problem. As far as the simplicity of the model is concerned, I believe its more of an advantage,as ultimately what the managers are really concerned with is getting the final results as easily as possible, the complexity of the means employed is hardly a criteria for the fairness of the judgement.