Stakeholders often approve a strategic plan without scrutinizing the strategic assumptions, the very foundation on which the plan has been built (Sound familiar? As in, “…the value of this derivative, which we call a Collaterized Debt Obligation, is built on the value of the underlying securities.” (which we have looked at…but uh..not very closely). This author sees an inherent danger in such a practice and states that stakeholders need to start scrutinizing the strategic assumptions that underlie the very plan they are being asked to approve.
In the field of strategy, the admission that assumptions are being made in the preparation of strategic plans needs to be acknowledged. Moreover, transparency and discussion surrounding these assumptions need to be viewed as key elements and the responsibility of the strategy creators.
In doing so, the practitioners themselves – be they CEOs, consultants, Chief Strategy Officers, or employees in the Strategy Management Office – will be forced to elevate both their own performance standards and the rigor of the strategy process to a level comparable to that exercised in the fields of science, economics and finance, where the publication and debate of assumptions are the norm. This will pave the way for strategy creators to gain greater credibility and build a stronger voice on executive teams. Finally, it will provide them with the opportunity to increase their contributions in determining direction and forecasting the future performance of the organization.
The reality is that strategic assumptions form an identical, underlying foundation for the strategic plan. They underpin everything contained therein – and hence reflect the vision, strategic map, performance targets and project portfolio which subsequently follow. The problem is that in the field of strategic planning, the assumptions that have been made are almost never clearly documented or highlighted. As a consequence, they are rarely scrutinized or challenged as they should be.
Too often, shareholders, employees and other major stakeholders unnecessarily invest time, money and energy in supporting an organization’s vision and strategic plan, not recognizing that the vision and plan were doomed to fail from the day they were conceived.
This article posits that the identification and in-depth analysis of an organization’s strategic assumptions need to become an integral part of the strategic planning process, and that the presentation of these underlying strategic assumptions should become an implied and required part of any written strategic plan.
The rationale for preparing a set of strategic assumptions
Financial analysts examining a set of projections insist on seeing a complete and detailed set of financial assumptions. These assumptions represent the raw material — the opinions, beliefs and more often, the hopes, of the management team — on which the projections are based. They usually receive very close scrutiny, especially since financial projections are only as valid as the assumptions upon which they are based. If the assumptions are deemed unrealistic or otherwise questionable, so are the projections. Analysts also understand that while financial projections can be manipulated, clearly presented financial assumptions cannot.
It is not just in the realm of finance that stakeholders demand to see assumptions. In almost all other fields, be they marketing and sales, or even engineering, science and economics, the assumptions used for future predictions are the first element to be examined and rigorously challenged.
The reality is that strategic assumptions form an identical, underlying foundation for the strategic plan. They underpin everything contained therein – and hence reflect the vision, strategic map, performance targets and project portfolio which subsequently follow. The problem is that in the field of strategic planning, the assumptions that have been made are almost never clearly documented or highlighted. As a consequence, they are rarely scrutinized or challenged as they should be.
Generally, this is not due to management duplicity – although in certain cases that cannot be ruled out. After all, it is easier to defend a set of financial projections when the financial assumptions are not attached; that is the reason financial analysts insist on receiving them. Likewise, it is easier to defend a strategy, business model, value proposition, value chain network, etc. when interlocutors are not aware of the underlying assumptions.
A major reason for the absence of a set of strategic assumptions is that often senior management does not recognize that assumptions are, indeed, being made. They genuinely believe that future markets, competition, customer needs, etc. will evolve exactly as they are expected to. The resulting “group think” – valid and well-founded or not – is therefore not viewed as a set of assumptions at all. It is viewed as fact, the most dangerous assumption of all!
Given today’s shift towards greater transparency, tighter governance, greater accountability for board members, and most importantly, the high levels of uncertainty about tomorrow, next quarter or next year, the business community requires a new paradigm for preparing and certifying a plan as “strategic.” Quite clearly, the moment has come to recognize that the content of any organization’s strategic plan is incomplete unless a complete set of strategic assumptions are included.
Preparing a set of strategic assumptions
The contents of an organization’s business plan often reflect the difficult choices made by management during the strategic planning process. The identification and discussion of the key issues are not intended to generate right or wrong “answers;” rather, they represent choices and shared points-of-view about what the team believes will happen. Together, they form a set of approximately 12-15 strategic assumptions upon which management intends to build its strategic plan and business.
Because all markets and organizations are unique, there is no universal set of strategic questions that must be posed when assembling a business plan. Indeed, a major challenge in strategic planning is the identification of the major questions an organization needs to address. Likewise, there is no universal set of strategic assumptions that must absolutely be generated and covered in every organization’s strategic plan. There are, however, generic areas where strategic assumptions generally must be made and which stakeholders should realistically expect management to disclose:
These are:
| Generic Areas | Possible Strategic Questions: What is the Strategic Assumption about? |
|---|---|
| 1) Macro-Environmental Forces | |
| e.g. Technological Forces |
|
| e.g. Socio-demographic Forces |
|
| 2) Markets | |
| e.g. Substitutes |
|
| e.g. Potential Competitors |
|
| e.g. Market Rivalry |
|
| 3) Customers |
|
| 4) Stakeholders |
|
| 5) Financial Management |
|
| 6) Internal Processes |
|
| 7) Asset Management |
|
| 8) The Workforce |
|
| 9) Background of Shared Obviousness |
|
The category “Background of Shared Obviousness” makes explicit the existing, but often hidden strategic assumptions (or shared beliefs) that emerge from conversations and discussions that take place during the strategic planning process.
Shared beliefs about who the company is and beliefs on how it must operate in order to be successful are often seen as “obvious” by the participants and are rarely challenged, unless captured in real-time – often by a consultant, facilitator, or other outsider present –during the strategic planning sessions. Simple examples include:
| Strategic Assumptions “Background of Shared Obviousness” |
Possible Negative Consequences |
|---|---|
| “Industry winners always manufacture in-house – so we manufacture in-house.” | Opportunities to partner or out-source are never explored. Higher capital costs are incurred. Migration into new areas of the value-chain is avoided. |
| “Customers want face-to-face contact with us.” | Automated orders are limited. Internet sales are not explored. Sales costs on repeat business are potentially higher than required. |
| “We only acquire companies with tangible assets.” | Service or knowledge-based businesses are not acquired. Branding opportunities are not fully explored. |
| “We do not partner on R&D projects.” | Many opportunities to reduce R&D risks and lever R&D funding are never explored. Competencies must be built-up internally. |
| “We only hire people with engineering backgrounds.” | The organization remains production-and design-focused. The recruitment pool and employee diversity is limited. |
These types of assumptions are very powerful and can be the sources of best practices, historical wisdom, norms of positive organizational culture or, alternatively, barriers to change. They can epitomize strategic and organizational rigidity, and guarantee that mistakes of the past are likely to be repeated. As with all strategic assumptions, this category of assumptions is not, by definition, positive or negative. It is, however, crucial that they be identified and recognized as being merely assumptions, not fact. They should also be made explicit, challenged, and only retained if they remain valid in the context of the future of the market and not as remnants of the past.
An example: The importance of a single strategic assumption
Let’s consider a simple example and examine the role of just one key strategic assumption: the strategic assumption about the future structure of an industry.
Imagine that we are considering investing in a relatively small steel company, “X”. There are major differences in the strategic assumptions X’s management team might make about the future development of the global steel industry. Will the business plan for the company be built upon the strategic assumption that:
- The steel market will be dominated by a few global players, with all other contenders seeking to partner or avoid direct competition?
- There will be regional consolidation, with key (different) players dominating markets in Asia, Europe and the Americas?
- The high-margin steel businesses of the future will lie in specialty steel that serves one or several specific industries (i.e. automotive, aerospace, medical, etc.), thereby allowing for “niche” players?
- There is no future in the steel industry for small players; the company needs to reposition itself as a supplier of “materials” (i.e. a supplier of composites, plastics, rubber as well steel) as opposed to being a supplier of steel products exclusively?
- All trading of commodity steel products will soon be done through one global web site?
The contents of the strategic plan – and the future success of the company – will largely depend upon which of these, and perhaps a dozen other, strategic assumptions are made.
Lakshmi Mittal, President of Arcelor Mittal Steel, made his own personal strategic assumption about the future structure of the steel industry very clear in the following quote:
“I strongly believe that in the steel industry, scale is a crucial ingredient in the pursuit of value. Arcelor Mittal will be three times the size of its nearest competitor. The steel industry consolidation is under way and I have repeatedly said that by 2015, I expect each of the two to three largest global players to produce 150 million to 200 million tons of steel a year. This compares to 116 million tons produced by Arcelor and Mittal today.”
Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2006
In this quote, Mr. Mittal clearly communicates one of his strategic assumptions about the future of the steel industry. The company’s corporate strategy, M&A activities, global distribution and marketing strategies, are all built upon this fundamental strategic assumption.
As potential investors in steel company “X”, we need to know whether and why its CEO agrees or disagrees with Mittal’s strategic assumption. We also need to know which other strategic assumptions that he is making. If he provides us with a complete list, we should be able to do a very accurate and thorough initial screening of the company’s request for funds – before we invest more of our time and energy examining the contents of the business plan.
Other examples of powerful strategic assumptions
- In 2002, when one Canadian dollar was worth approximately US $0.65, a shared strategic assumption of almost all Canadian manufacturers was that parity between the Canadian/US dollar was simply unthinkable. In 2008, how have their beliefs changed? What is their strategic assumption of exchange rates for 2013? It is a crucial assumption that will form the foundation of their production strategy for the next five years.
- An Asian hydro-electricity corporation built many facilities based upon two strategic assumptions: that there would always be glacial melt waters, and that there would be a predictable monsoon season each year. These strategic assumptions are no longer valid.
- One of Jack Welch’s major strategic assumptions while at GE was that the company could not compete in commodity markets. Therefore, during his entire tenure, he moved GE in the direction of product differentiation and value-added services. This “Background of Shared Obviousness” strategic assumption drove GE’s strategic direction for many years.
- What is a wine merchant’s strategic assumption around packaging? Will bottles prevail? Will the green movement see Tetrapak packaging make significant penetration in the market? Investment in manufacturing lines will rely on this assumption. Based on these assumptions, will the company perceive itself as a “packager of liquids” or as an “exclusive wine packager”?
- What are the strategic assumptions envisioned by a university? Is it a research-based university? Does it serve the global market or is it focused on local population needs? Does it see e-learning as the way of the future or does it believe that students will always choose to “come to class”? The types of professors recruited, courses offered and delivery mechanisms all depend on the answers to these questions.
- Does the mayor of a town located close to a major urban centre see itself as a bedroom-community or as a fast–growing potential rival which should attempt to attract new industry to locate within its boundaries?
- Is the strategic assumption of a country based upon the assumption that economic growth (GNP) is paramount or does it subscribe to the theory of Gross National Happiness (GNH)?
Examples of the strategic assumptions adopted by the individuals, teams, organizations and nations in the above cases will determine their future plans and all the actions, projects, programs that will follow. We, as stakeholders in any of them, should be able to identify the strategic assumptions that have been made without having to try to read between the lines of a strategic plan. They should be clearly and proudly highlighted for all to see, for Strategic Assumptions show how we view the world, how we view ourselves, and who we really are.
Publicizing strategic Assumptions: The tipping point
It is unlikely that all CEOs will voluntarily choose to publish their strategic assumptions for evaluation overnight. Divulgence will only occur when important stakeholders demand to see them included as outcomes of the strategic-planning process and included as a separate item in the contents page of the plan.
There are several benefits which result from demanding to see the set of strategic assumptions included in a strategic plan:
- Inclusion facilitates the analysis of any organization’s business plan by a financial institution, venture capitalist or angel investor. The risk of making a bad investment will be reduced if the investors understand and share the strategic assumptions of the organization’s management team.
- Differences in points-of-view about strategic assumptions are the source of many of the conflicts that arise between investors and company management – and within a management team itself. Strategic assumptions represent the shared values, beliefs and vision of the management team. Demanding that they be included in a strategic plan will force management teams to hold the difficult internal conversations required and that allow them to uncover, challenge, and capture their shared assumptions.
- Knowing they need to exit a strategic planning process with a complete, shared set of strategic assumptions forces a management team to use a much more rigorous strategic planning process.
- Face-to-face, it is very difficult for most people to defend strategic assumptions which are ungrounded or that they do not believe or share.
- Developing and debating strategic assumptions with groups of employees is an excellent way to gain buy-in and commitment to the organization. Having to declare and justify the assumptions upon which a plan is built means that it is difficult for a CEO to impose his or her views. With increased levels of employee buy-in, there is a greater probability that the strategic plan will actually be implemented.
- By presenting strategic assumptions for rigorous debate and analysis, the probability is minimized that investors, employees, management and any other stakeholders will waste time, money and energy on trying to implement plans that have little chance of generating the promised results.
Final word
In the field of strategy, the admission that assumptions are being made in the preparation of strategic plans needs to be acknowledged. Moreover, transparency and discussion surrounding these assumptions need to be viewed as key elements and the responsibility of the strategy creators.
In doing so, the practitioners themselves – be they CEOs, consultants, Chief Strategy Officers, or employees in the Strategy Management Office – will be forced to elevate both their own performance standards and the rigor of the strategy process to a level comparable to that exercised in the fields of science, economics and finance, where the publication and debate of assumptions are the norm. This will pave the way for strategy creators to gain greater credibility and build a stronger voice on executive teams. Finally, it will provide them with the opportunity to increase their contributions in determining direction and forecasting the future performance of the organization.
Strategic assumptions have been missing from the strategic planning lexicon for too long. It is time to put them in their rightful place.
