Building on yesterday’s post, in another way of thinking about it, I’ve been trying to tap into several layers down. Like the caveat on an attempt at mind-mapping the performance ecosystem, this only begins to scratch the surface as each of these elements unpacks further, but it’s an attempt.
The plan you take (your sequence of prioritized goals), the metrics you use, and your schedule, will be individual. However, the other elements will share some characteristics.
Your governance plan should include a schedule of when the group meets, what policies guide the role of governance, what metrics the governance group uses to look at the performance of the group implementing the plan (ie how the executors of the strategy are doing, not how the strategy is doing), and what partners are included.
The strategy will need partners including fundamental ones providing necessary components (e.g. the IT group), and members who may have political reasons to be included such as power, budget, or related interests.
The resources needed will include the people, the tools, and any infrastructure elements to be counted upon.
Support capability will include supporting the team with any questions they might need answer, and also the folks for whom the strategy is for.
And there will need to be policies around what responsibility there will be for support, access to resources, and other issues that will guide how the strategy is put in place, accounting for issues like security and risk.
I’m sure I’m forgetting something, so what am I missing?
All I can say is: WOW. Great job. One question: haven’t you tested such a method somehow?
Kernel, this has been the basis of much work with clients.