While flipping through a vintage (2015-2016) Harvard Business Review (printed) magazine, I was struck by the article “Why Strategy Execution Unravels—and What to Do About It” by Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes, and Charles Sull. It seems that the problems described 10 years ago are still around us, namely horizontal alignment (coordination) in strategy execution.
The original article is still on line, for free: https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-strategy-execution-unravelsand-what-to-do-about-it
What follows is inspired by the HBR article, but largely my own analysis and understanding that I am happy to share and put on trial. Do not hesitate to share your own thoughts in the comments.
The trouble with horizontal alignment
In a nutshell, strategic plans are usually pretty well (vertically) aligned towards the Goal or strategic objectives. Senior management team makes sure that the North Star is clear and understood by their subordinates, who will in turn make sure their subordinates will align their contributions and suggestions towards the same Star. This cascade is seldom a problem.
Alas, when it comes to breaking down the tasks to be achieved, the organization’s structure and inner boundaries “ask” for actions to be attributed to departments, or people in these departments. This distribution of tasks in the departments is then less a matter of contribution to the overall Goal than achieving the department’s assigned objectives first. Hence the trouble keeping the horizontal alignment (coordination, if you prefer) and the management’s energy spent to enforce it.
The HBR article quotes a 2007 survey in which “Fully 84% of managers say they can rely on their boss and their direct reports all or most of the time (../..). When we ask about commitments across functions and business units, the answer becomes clear. Only 9% of managers say they can rely on colleagues in other functions and units all the time, and just half say they can rely on them most of the time. Commitments from these colleagues are typically not much more reliable than promises made by external partners, such as distributors and suppliers.”
That’s not surprising when performance appraisals are still made department by department, depending on how close each one came to its local objectives by the end of the period. As system thinking is still the exception, and for a reason I cannot understand, many managers still believe that the sum of local optima will lead to the global optimum, every department works hard to fulfill its own objectives that are likely to be conflicting with the neighboring department’s. One’s performance improvement can come at the expense of another’s performance, but no manager will voluntarily degrade its department performance to improve the system’s (i.e. company, organization…) performance. At last as long as managers will be judged on their local achievements.
Seen from above, by senior management, and as progress is not going the right way nor happen at the right pace, in the attempt to herd the cats, “many executives create detailed road maps that specify who should do what, by when, and with what resources. (../..) After investing enormous amounts of time and energy formulating a plan and its associated budget, executives view deviations as a lack of discipline that undercuts execution.” Yet tightening the grip of control and demanding more discipline simply stiffens execution when agility is most often the key to success in strategy execution. A deadly spiral is on its way.
Get rid of horizontal alignment (coordination) in strategy execution
The root cause of such problems is, in my humble opinion, the fact that most organizations still cling to tasks distribution according to the organizational structure, focused on departments and other subdivisions, assigning local objectives regardless of adverse effects on the whole system and based on budgets.
Now what if the Goal setting is based on the analysis of the prerequisites necessary to achieve or ensure in order to achieve the system’s Goal? By system I mean the whole organization, the company, etc. Such prerequisites are not proposed sub-projects nor creative suggestions, nor budgets. They are must-haves, absolutely necessary conditions to meet in order to achieve the overall Goal.
Many of these prerequisites that must be fulfilled or granted are cross-functional and require teamwork. For instance, if one prerequisite for success is to deliver 97% On Time In Full (OTIF), achieving this will require many sub-prerequisites to be achieved, like timely clearance of credits, appropriate production schedule, mastery of quality, etc. And when you continue to analyze the underlying prerequisites, you’ll find timely procurement, machine readiness, etc.
Who is in charge and who is a key contributor becomes then pretty obvious, hence the best fit to carry out the necessary tasks will naturally be put in charge. Furthermore, when switching to system thinking, the management’s sole obsession and monitoring system should be to check the journey towards achieving the Goal. Therefore appraisals based on local objectives should be discarded as they are meaningless.
The Goal Tree doesn’t require coordination
I am a huge fan and promoter of the Goal Tree that does exactly what I’ve described above: analyze and identify all the prerequisites to achieve the Goal. Once the Goal Tree is built, it is both a roadmap as well as a visual monitoring system. No horizontal alignment or coordination is necessary, as it is all based on Necessary Conditions. Fulfilling them aligns automatically towards achieving the Goal.
Furthermore, tilting the Goal Tree 90 degrees clockwise will display a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) with the main milestones (the prerequisites) leading to achieving the Goal, which is the ultimate milestone. That means that strategy deployment can be managed as a structured project instead of a bunch of separate initiatives.
In sum, saving the need to align and coordinate all the initiatives and action plans frees a significant share of management’s time. So if you’d like to get rid of the chore of the never ending coordination, go for the Goal Tree!
Chris HOHMANN 
Hi Chris,
Read your article on horizontal alignment/coordination – albeit rather quickly. Came across several disconnects that lead me to question the underlying thinking. But before I mention any let me state that I have not read the referenced HBR article, so everything I state here is simply related to what you’ve written in response.
1) What is actually meant by vertical and horizontal alignment? It would – on the surface – seem obvious to anyone familiar with the traditional (i.e., hierarchical and siloed) structure of organizations. BUT, the reality is that all organizations are not structured in the same manner. As a result, it would seem quite necessary to define terminology and context up front before delving into any perceived issues. It’s those up-front definitions that help establish a meaningful CONTEXT for whatever is likely to come next. Without the essential definitions and focusing context, the content of article becomes little more than personal musings.
2) When it comes to thinking about and treating organizations as being a COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM, at the highest level of structure there is only ONE SYSTEM and that’s the organization as a whole. And yes, within that WHOLE there typically are numerous SUB-SYSTEMS. However, if those sub-systems are all operating according to their own different and un-related/un-coordinated/un-integrated sets of objectives/goals (as you seem to imply in your article), then the OVERALL SYSTEM is subject to being dysfunctional and – in the long run – not viable. So, if you agree with this concept, then your article contains a fatal flaw as manifest in your use of the words… “systems’ goals” ; therein implying the existence of multiple competing systems within an overall system.
3) For many, many decades now, the existence and awareness of Toyota’s use of “POLICY DEPLOYMENT” (aka HOSHIN KANRI) as a SYSTEM-WIDE/ENTERPRISE-WIDE approach to executing a coordinated and tightly-integrated set of activities throughout the organization/system has been on the radar. It represents a long-standing, proven approach to pursuing a common/shared, higher-order (aka over-arching) PURPOSE (aka REASON FOR EXISTING), VISION (aka a target future state-of-being relating to where the organization/system needs/wants to be at some foreseeable point in time), and related/supporting/enabling OBJECTIVES and GOALS for realizing that target state-of-being. As such, there’s actually no need to make use of any other approach to coordinating activities on a SYSTEM-WIDE/ENTERPRISE-WIDE basis, including the use of a GOAL TREE.
4) Finally, the notion or suggestion that having a GOAL TREE eliminates the need for any form of coordination among the players/participants/stakeholders is PURE FANTASY. It’s akin to suggesting that simply having a “PLAN” that lays out or specifies the driving conditions for each element is sufficient. Well, as any military organization that survived for any length of time can testify… plans are all well and good to have, until the fighting begins. So, as is also true for any sustainable COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM, it must be able to readily adapt to changing conditions in its operating environment in order to successfully pursue and realize its overall objectives in fulfillment of its INTENDED PURPOSE. That means all elements comprising the overall SYSTEM must be able to coordinate – ideally in real-time – with one another in a highly-adaptive (aka improvised) manner wherever and whenever necessary. And to ensure that this is possible, all elements MUST be highly versed in what the overall desired outcome happens to be and what it is likely to require (from all elements) in order to achieve the desired/targeted state-of-being. Arie de Geus makes this point eminently clear in his 1988 HBR article entitled “Planning as Learning.”
LikeLike
Hi Jay, thank you for your critical review.
I’ll consider some corrections 😉
LikeLike
Jay, as for Hoshin Kanri, I’ve posted some while ago “How Goal Tree can help Hoshin Kanri” https://hohmannchris.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/how-goal-tree-can-help-hoshin-kanri/ and I consider the Goal Tree and Hoshin Kanri as a powerful combination.
In response of your 4), the Goal Tree is a roadmap that is (if properly built, scrutinized and validated) resistant to changes. That’s because the prerequisites to achieve the Goal are not likely to change, even is the condition in market for instance change. With the limit of a total disruption of course. The execution and adaptation to those changes are done using Current Reality Trees and Future Reality Trees and ultimately updating the action plan. You may like to read “Goal Tree Chronicles – Your Current Reality changed, not your Goal” https://hohmannchris.wordpress.com/2018/11/05/goal-tree-chronicles-your-current-reality-changed-not-your-goal/
LikeLike
Hi Chris,
Most interesting about your article referencing the practice of HOSHIN KANRI is the implicit contention that it needs help. That would seem to me to be a rather bold assertion. The fact that HOSHIN KANRI has been around for as long as it has and that its most proficient practitioners have been evolving and improving upon practice as needed from its beginning should be sufficient testament to its robust nature.
The persistent trend – throughout the global CI community – toward combining elements/aspects/pieces of various popularized approaches to CI together with the practices that are known to be core/central to the overall practice of TRUE LEAN THINKING AND BEHAVING (ala the combination of the Toyota Production SYSTEM and the Toyota WAY) seems to be a reflection of the inherent weaknesses of the other popularized approaches and/or the general lack of understanding of and experience with the practice of TRUE LEAN THINKING AND BEHAVING.
By way of examples:
1) the past attempts to combine Six Sigma together primarily with the tool-based methods found in the practice of TRUE LEAN to create an amalgam referred to as LEAN SIX SIGMA or LSS for short seems more a reflection of the desire (primarily within the consulting sector of the CI practitioner community) to elevate the practice of Six Sigma to the same level of efficacy that TRUE LEAN THINKING AND BEHAVING has already achieved on its own. Despite the fact that these two methods share common methodological roots that go back to the principles and precepts taught by Shewhart, Deming and Juran, that does not mean that they are in any way, shape or form equivalent in nature or – for that matter – logically and pragmatically combinable. The end result here has been little more than to introduce a more complex and obfuscated approach to CI that opens the door to disconnects in both translation and execution. It’s a also a reflection of the need for a “feel good” solution to the fact that although the practice of QUALITY began in the West, it has been more effectively embraced and evolved (to its highest form) in the East.
2) similarly, with any attempt(s) to combine either the whole of or elements of TOC together with TRUE LEAN THINKING AND BEHAVING – typically in a very ad hoc and superficial manner – the end result is more of a hodgepodge/mash-up of methods, terminology, and tools that requires more time and attention be given to integration than is worth any potential benefit. In fact, from my POV, there is unnecessary redundancy being introduced that makes the overall resulting combination much more cumbersome to execute. More specifically, trying to replace the supporting/enabling practice of CATCH-BALL – within the HOSHIN KANRI framework – with the practice of the GOAL TREE method – as it exists within the TOC framework – is akin to attempting to graft a horse’s hind legs onto a world class human sprinter. What one ends up with is a non-viable chimera that costs more in keeping it alive than it’s worth.
Bottom line: When it comes to interbreeding the methods/tools/techniques that are endemic to the various approaches to CI such as TOC, LEAN, and SIX SIGMA (ala TLS), any competent practitioner must be extremely well-versed in the pluses and minuses of the various methods/tools/techniques and have a CLEAR PURPOSE/INTENT in mind related to a desired/needed outcome and be attempting any such combination simply because it will carry a more appealing cache (i.e., look/sound cool) or in a vain attempt to elevate the perceived value of any particular method/tool/techniques in the market/practice place.
Note: No “VIABLE” SYSTEM is completely static in nature. IF any aspect of a SYSTEM becomes so, then it likely diminishes the viability of the OVERALL SYSTEM. What it is so often mis-understood by individuals dealing with organizations is that the SYSTEMIC NATURE of each and every viable organization makes it difficult to predict exactly how a change made in one part of the system will impact/effect the function/performance of another part of the system. Accordingly, when you describe the driving conditions in the GOAL TREE roadmap as being unchanging and how implementing the necessary interventions throughout the entire structure will not have any impact on other parts of the structure, I become skeptical as to its overall efficacy as an enabler of transformation.
LikeLike
Jay, you keep surprising me how much you invest your (assumed) precious (and also assumed limited) time to comment my post, with comments being much longer than the commented post itself.
If I partly agree to some of your arguments, especially the attempt to plug other methods/tools/techniques or extend existing and proven ones, e.g. adding more Ss to the 5S, in order to get attention, I am more of the (hopefully) competent practitioner with a CLEAR PURPOSE/INTENT in mind when I myself try or promote combinations.
The Goal Tree used in combination with Hoshin Kanri as I propose it is not to replace the catch-ball (which in my understanding is a “participative management patch” to the more authoritarian top-down commandment in Management by Objectives, and a way to gain buy-in more than getting bottom-up suggestions), it is a way to feed the breakthroughs with those required (must-haves) and not those coming out from the usual “creativity sessions” (like-to-haves).
As for your end note, either you didn’t understand/read with enough attention the Logical Thinking Process or my English (not my mother tongue) and/or ability to explain is/are poor.
Anyway if you don’t buy/like it, leave it.
Fine for me.
LikeLike
Hi Chris,
No need for surprise… complex issues are most typically not amenable to overly simplistic and/or truncated/abbreviated/abridged responses… especially when the often same-ol, same-ol issues consistently show up in the various media channels that happen to cross my radar. I would rather make an investment in time and effort to rectify the issues than spend that same amount of time being frustrated by the seamingly perpetual pursuit of better sameness… often without any appreciable understanding and/or awareness of any meaningful justification, other than to promote a particular CI/OpEx plank.
For example, Catch-ball is NOT an afterthought fix for a flawed top-down/MBO approach to policy deployment. Stating that as such seems to me to be evidence of a lack of adequate understanding about the holistic/systemic nature/orientation that at that heart of the practice. Accordingly, it would make little sense to bolt-on any alleged superficial “FIX” to a tightly-integrated approach to long-range planning and execution. In fact, the last thing that the Catch-ball process is intended to achieve is a heretofore non-existent level of participation among the lower ranks of the organization. Rather, its PRIMARY PURPOSE and focus is on IDENTIFYING AND OVERCOMING the potential ROADBLOCKS that would preclude the successful pursuit and ultimate realization of the stated long-term objective(s). And quite clearly – IMO – any attempt to achieve this level of integrated THINKING AND BEHAVING throughout an organization/system without involving critical stakeholders – AT ALL LEVELS – would be highly dubious.
Finally, when it comes to NOT BUYING the role of the GOAL TREE in the HOSHIN KANRI process, YOU ASKED FOR READER RESPONSES/FEEDBACK. So, that question arises… does your final line in your last response actually mean that you are NOT interested in receiving feedback; particularly of the type that runs counter to your own thinking? IF so, then I would agree that any attempts to counter prevalent and persistent thinking fallacies is a lost cause. In fact, it’s not much different from what’s taking place these days around the world – and particularly here in the US – which serves as testament to that fact.
LikeLike