International Association of Facilitators
1999 Annual Meeting
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

January 13-17, 1999

Thread #2: Group Planning

Using Collaborative Technologies in Strategic Planning

Jared Caplan
Claremont Technology Group
5001 LBJ Freeway, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75244
Ph: 972-387-7333
Fax: 972-387-7344
Jared_Caplan@clmt.com

Jana Markowitz
Transition Partners Company
11732 Bowman Green Drive
Reston, VA  20190
703-736-0550

Jmarkowitz@MindSpring.com

Abstract

This session is designed to make facilitators aware of the many types of collaborative technologies available and how they can be used to support the strategic planning process.

Introduction

Since the advent of personal computers, local area networks and the Internet, a new breed of software has emerged under the heading "groupware". These types of software applications are designed to support collaborative work including project management, group decision-making, planning, problem-solving and geographically separated teams.

Almost every kind of organization --- commercial, non-profit and government --- does some form of strategic planning to set direction and get the people in the organization working toward shared goals. This kind of planning requires the expertise and perspective of many people to be successful.

Described below are tools which can be used to support the complex process of information-gathering and decision-making that goes into a strategic planning effort. This paper is designed to provide insight into some of the issues that a facilitator should consider when designing a strategic planning process and choosing the tools to support various strategic planning activities.

Overview of the Strategic Planning Process

The strategic planning process consists of a number of sub-processes which occur in stages. Because the Strategic Planning Process needs to involve a large number of people in order to be effective, Group Activities need to be completed in order to complete each stage (see Exhibit 1 Strategic Planning Process.) The Strategic Planning Process, which is comprised of several different types of Group Activities, needs to be designed and planned by the facilitator and organization representatives with the appropriate collaborative tools in mind. Each Group Activity will have different group members, meeting times, meeting places, and products. All of these differences need to be factored into determining which collaborative tools need to be used for each activity.

The first stage, Information Gathering, is comprised of the SWOT (Strength / Weakness / Opportunity / Threat) analysis which involves assessing the internal strengths and weaknesses of the organization as well as the external opportunities and threats to the organization.

The external assessment involves gathering information including economics, demographics and business trends in addition to analyzing emerging technologies and their potential impact on the organization and the industry.

As reflected in Exhibit 1, we have chosen to break the Information Gathering phase into three different types of group activities. The Delphi Method can be used to elicit external threats and opportunities from a wide array of professionals inside and outside the organization including but not limited to suppliers, representatives of industry associations, bankers and stock market analysts. Individual interviews are generally used to gather this information due to variable schedules, however there is sometimes value in generating interaction among these experts.

The Internal Questionnaire focuses on identifying internal strengths and weaknesses of the organization. This type of process is usually administered to a larger group over a given period of time.

Internal Focus Groups take the information gained from outsiders into their group activities in order to make broad strategic recommendations to senior management.

Using the information and recommendations compiled in the Information Gathering phase, a decision-making group defines the set of strategic initiatives. Stage 2, Direction-Setting usually occurs during a face-to-face meeting of senior decision makers. The main focus of their group work is developing a strategic plan which includes defining vision and mission statements, determining new areas of business for the organization and creating programs to get and keep the organization competitive. Strategic Alternatives are defined and drive the creation of Performance Measures that will be used to 1) evaluate the potential of the alternatives and 2) provide a basis for progress reporting.

Stage 3 consists of detailed Implementation Planning needed to make the strategic initiatives happen in the desired timeframe. Stage 3 involves assigning responsibility for specific projects, programs and activities. This stage also includes discussions, problem-solving and decision-making over a protracted period of time. This activity can involve group meetings at the same time and place or at different times at the same place. For instance, several groups may use the same electronic documents and/or conference room at different times.

Stage 4 consists of developing tactics to Communicate the Plan to the entire organization. The group who developed the Plan must now convince everyone in the organization to adopt the vision, mission and initiatives as their guiding force at work. This requires a lot of "top down" communication and can occur at a large meeting with most of the members of the organization on site. There may also be a need for groups of people to participate from remote locations.

Stage 5, the Monitor and Adjust for Changes process, is on-going until all the initiatives are completed or until the Plan is changed or abandoned. This is another type of information gathering process that can take place in two different types of group activities, Event Triggered Status Reporting or Scheduled Status Meetings. An Event Triggered Status Report occurs when some strategically significant event occurs and needs to be digested by the organization as a whole. The Scheduled Status Meeting is a regularly scheduled update session where performance measures are reviewed. It is sometimes adequate and more time-efficient to organize an update process where group members rarely have face-to-face meetings when all they need to do is exchange project information.

Having identified the various activities that make up our strategic planning process, we need some way of identifying which processes within those activities can be supported by collaborative technology.

Group Activities and Process Needs

In order for any Group Activity to occur, certain processes need to take place, hence Group Activities have Process Needs (see the Appendix for Process Need definitions). The main value collaborative tools provide is support of process needs. For this reason, process needs are the primary driver of collaborative tool selection. Before selecting which tool should be used in a given activity, it is important to understand what processes comprise that activity. The table below provides approximations of the importance of each Process Need as a percentage for each Group Activity:
 
 

Collaborative Technologies

The common elements among all of the collaborative technologies or "groupware applications" are that they are network-based (LAN, Intranet or Internet) and are designed to coordinate communication/collaboration among many participants. They are also designed with specific process needs in mind. Groupware applications include but are not limited to the following:

• Email
• Electronic Meeting Systems
• Videoconferencing
• Discussion Databases
• Calendaring
• Wireless Polling Systems
• Internet/Intranet based applications

Email

Email has been around in various forms for almost 20 years. Originally it served the same purpose as communications written on paper and mailed. As it became more pervasive, new paradigms for its use began to emerge. Distribution lists were easy to set up and alter so managers and team leaders used email frequently to update their staff/team members. Since delivery time was measured in minutes rather than days (as with paper memos), email became a way to communicate urgent, timely information. And because it was much less expensive than long distance phone calls (not to mention the recipient need not be at his desk to receive the message) email became the communication medium of choice for many workgroups. As people became more geographically dispersed, email became even more critical in the exchange of timely information. Hardware kept pace with business travel needs by evolving portable laptop computers that could be used to access email from airports, hotel rooms or any place with a phone.

Electronic Meeting Systems (EMS)

This software was developed in the late '80s and early '90s, originally, to automate existing manual processes in meetings such as recording brainstormed ideas and group votes. Over the years the tools have evolved to support complex group decision-making and consensus-building. Because EMSs are network-based, they can be used both where meeting participants are in the same place at the same time and for different place/same time meetings. Anyone with access to the network can participate in the meeting regardless of his/her geographic location.

When using an EMS, each participant has a computer which he/she uses to respond to questions, vote, rate selections against lists of criteria and comment on issues. The software allows anonymous, simultaneous input resulting in candid comments and much shorter, more productive meetings.  

Videoconference

Videoconferencing became widespread in large organizations in the early '90s. It allowed meetings of geographically dispersed executives while avoiding the time and cost of having everyone travel to one location. Telephone conference calls had long offered the same benefits, but the ability to see fellow meeting participants made videoconferencing seem a little more like a traditional meeting than listening to disembodied voices from a box. Some of the same problems exist with videoconferencing that did with phone conferences including: turn-taking is difficult due to unnatural pauses in speech caused by propagation delays in the network and even though groups can "see" each other, they don't have the same physical interaction, group dynamics and visual perspective as people actually meeting in the same room.

Discussion Databases

The first discussion database, Lotus Notes, came out in 1989 but languished for four years as organizations tried to adapt their organizational structures and reward systems to support "knowledge sharing". Since knowledge represented power or job security in many organizations, the people-changes were not easy to effect. Today Notes and its competitors are the basis for the new field of "knowledge management" which attempts to make both the explicit and tacit knowledge of employees available to everyone in the organization.

Notes-like technology supports sharing of project information as well as "threaded discussions" which , when properly used, can serve as a corporate memory and prevent people from "reinventing the wheel" in their organization.

Calendaring

Calendaring is an application that provides the capability to set individual and group appointments on electronic calendars. Usually an individual can make certain events, times and specific appointments "private" or "public". "Public" portions of an individual's calendar may be accessed by a third party who can set appointments and schedule meetings.

Wireless Polling Systems

Wireless Polling Systems consist of a central unit that receives radio transmissions from remote keypads and transfers votes and/or ratings to a PC where the votes/ratings can be tallied, analyzed and graphed. This tool provides an efficient and effective method for focusing a large group on the voting/rating process.

Internet-based Collaborative Software

This technology enables a group to accomplish work in any combination of time and place (i.e., same time/same place, same time/different place etc.). Functionality supported includes threaded conversations, brainstorming, voting, voting analysis, project planning and reporting. Work that is accomplished remotely by a team may be accessed in a real time on-site meeting environment where these tools provide functionality similar to electronic meeting systems. These Internet based tools can also provide a central place for an ad hoc team to store documents, chat and collaborate. The following functions can be supported:

• Access and share information anytime from anywhere
• Send and receive email from any PC that is Internet attached
• Meet colleagues in a private online conference room
• Save time by posting messages on your electronic bulletin board
• Store and access documents, spreadsheets and presentations
• Share and collaborate on files with others while away from the office

Collaborative Technology Comparison

We have identified and defined the various collaborative tools that are available to support the processes that comprise each phase of our strategic planning process. Each group activity has different attributes and process needs. Before we can determine which collaborative tools would best support each group activity, it is important to understand how well each tool supports a particular process need:

0 = the tool provides no support

1 = the tool provides very little support and should be used with other tools or not at all

2 = the tool provides some support and should probably be used with some other tools to meet the needs of the group

3 = the tool was designed to support this need and does it well

The Time-Place Grid

To understand the potential uses of these different technologies, it is helpful to use a framework that describes the time and place that the group work occurs. Traditionally, groups have collaborated in face-to-face meetings, like our Internal Focus Group or Executive Meeting (i.e. same time/same place). Alternatively, the Internal Planning Period is an example of a group collaborating at the same place at different times. For example, various groups may work on an implementation chart that resides in a particular conference room. But if the group decides to maintain a discussion database with project update information, there may no longer be a need for some face to face meetings.

Event Triggered Reporting usually happens at different times and different places. For example, someone in a field office could update an Issues Discussion Database to make headquarters aware of a major client's changing needs. When conducting information gathering using the Delphi Method, a geographically dispersed group may use an electronic chat room to meet at the same time in a way similar to a conference phone call.

Conclusion

While there is no one collaborative tool that supports all the stages and processes involved in strategic planning, many of the tools provide time-saving support. Collaborative tools are useful in all stages of the strategic planning process. Different tools have strengths that make them more useful in some stages than others, but individuals may adapt any of the tools to support any of the planning stages.

The use of collaborative tools is spurred on by the increasing number of geographically dispersed team members and the lack of funds for travel to have face-to-face meetings. We have seen office workers become comfortable using email, phones and faxes. We also expect to see the use of videoconferencing, EMSs and Internet based software become commonplace in strategic planning.

The following questions should be considered when designing the group activities necessary to implement a strategic planning process using collaborative tools:

1. What are the Products of each Group Activity?
2. What Process Needs comprise each Group Activity?
3. What are the Time and Place characteristics of the Group Activity?
4. What Process Needs will a Collaborative Tool support?

Facilitators need to stay one jump ahead of the trends by leading the way in the use of collaborative software. As specialists in group dynamics and organizational development, facilitators should be using and adapting emerging technologies to help in organizational communication, collaboration and planning. These tools do not obviate the need for a facilitator; in fact using the tools may take more facilitator time and effort, but should be done to maximize the effectiveness of group work.

The Presenters
Jana Markowitz is a collaborative-work consultant and facilitator with 15 years experience primarily in the service industry with a focus on information technology organizations. Since founding The Collective Mind she has been a contributing author for the book Groupware: Collaborative Strategies for Corporate LANs and Intranets and has written a number of articles for HR development publications. She is a member of ASTD, IAF, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and the Organization Development Network.

Jared Caplan is a technology and business planning consultant with the Claremont Technology Group. Having served as a senior executive in addition to his experience as a division level marketing executive for Atlantic Envelope Company, Jared has a strength in framing business and technology problems, identifying trends and in creating, proposing and implementing solutions. Drawing on his 10 years experience in business and technology planning in the manufacturing and marketing industries, Jared has written articles for The Facilitator and The Dallas Business Journal.

Appendix : Process Need Definitions