In this part of the series, we focus on the effective planning of your transformation program. To ensure that planning remains aligned with context and purpose, let’s begin with a quick refresher of the definition we established in the first article of this series:
“Transformation strategy is about delivering to specific transformation requirements, where continuity is maintained through contextual focus and progressive clearance at every stage of execution.”
Having said that, transformation is nothing short of evolution—if done right it has the potential to elevate organizational efficiency and eliminate the core bottlenecks that hinder us from achieving the intended outcomes. Therefore, planning at every level of the transformation program should reflect the intensity and scale of the underlying purpose. This is exactly where effective planning becomes critical and believe me it’s not a onetime thing when it comes to Transformation Strategy (or any complex program). Its an iterative process that in my view must go hand-in-hand with what I call “Effective Selling” (a topic we will cover in the next part of this series) to ensure the established plans are not only effective and relevant but also aligned and accepted by stakeholders.
These recommendations that follow are based on my understanding and experience, drawn from various projects I have managed firsthand or observed across a wide range of PMO engagements. They are meant to complement—not replace—the Project/Program Management framework you are currently practicing.
In this article, we are not discussing the importance of planning itself but rather how to use planning effectively in your transformation strategy. Depending on the size and scope of your transformation program, there may be multiple phases, each consisting of interconnected projects and organizations that must collaborate and deliver to one another. These localized outcomes, in turn, align with the goals of each phase or stage, ultimately contributing to the overall transformation program objectives. To ensure that each level of planning serves its purpose and includes the appropriate level of tracking and traceability, plans can follow these basic guidelines:
1. Plan Simplification
Simplification doesn’t mean creating a simple plan, but rather a plan that is relatable, easily understood by its target audience, and minimizes room for misinterpretation. I say ‘minimizes’ because while 100% alignment is ideal, it is often unrealistic. Simplification is key when aligning a diverse group of stakeholders, each with different interests and contributions. An effective plan should serve its purpose clearly, outlining the necessary work breakdown to achieve its intended outcome within set constraints. This approach helps bridge the gap between a documented plan and a functional plan that is understood, agreed upon, and accepted by its stakeholders
2. Plan Abstraction & Tailoring
For me, complexity is determined by the audience, not the content. A CEO will view a plan from a different perspective than a Project Manager, and similarly, a Quality Engineer will interpret it differently from a Project Manager. A simple technical plan for a Quality team could become highly complex when read by a sales team. The size of the team or audience also matters. Some plans, like a roadmap, are better left abstract, as they aim to address and align all stakeholders with the agreed program milestones and outcome realization timeline. By design, such plans must be compact and abstract to appeal to a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Additionally, plans should be tailored to fit the technical maturity and domain-specific needs of the team responsible for executing them. They should be abstract enough to allow flexibility and accommodate changes, while also being clear and direct enough to ensure the mandated outcome is delivered.
3. Outcome Connectors
Large plans that span multiple projects and work packages are difficult to maintain and prone to errors. These plans quickly exceed their intended purpose and become hard to manage, especially as changes and conflicts arise. In our fast-paced, ever-changing environment, such plans are often inefficient and ineffective. I highly recommend working with abstract, context-specific plans that align with and support each other, remaining manageable as the program progresses. Additionally, every level of plan should provide clear traceable delivery connectors that help stakeholders navigate through the dependencies and deliverables that each project/phase has to deliver.
4. Plan Tolerance
In my opinion, each project in the transformation program should define the allowed tolerances, ensuring they are aligned with the overall program’s tolerance thresholds and strategy. These tolerances should be reflected at every level of planning to ensure they are accounted for, with warning triggers installed in place. I recommend establishing standard tolerance indicators for time, cost, scope, and risk as a minimum during the planning phase. These triggers should work as alerts and provide relief measures where the tollerences should have larger thresholds as they move up in the program level.
5. Plan as the Primary tool for contextual communication
Effective communication is essential when planning your IT transformation strategy. Once plans are established and agreed upon, the PSP codes or plan trackers should serve as the primary indicators for contextual communication within projects and across the overall program. This will help everyone in the Transformation program not only to understand the context and the cost center for each engagement but also serve as an effective tool to keep the plan alive and relevant throughout the transformation journey.
Conclusion
There is much you can do to ensure effective and consensual planning, but often less is more. These guidelines should help you provide a strong foundation for building plans that are actionable, aligned, and resilient. In the next part of this series I will dive into “Effective Selling” part where we will focus on stakeholder “acceptance” and “participation” which in my experience has the power to decide the success or failure of your Transformation Strategy.
Leave a comment