The general concept: a correctly designed and implemented strategic plan is the only way to success.
The only way to plan is to know completely the desired outcome and plan backwards to achieve it. Plan each battle along the way and build the tactical choices to avoid the known pitfalls - and also provide escape routes in the case of out-of-the-blues. For instance, if you have a weak cavalry, you would use them carefully at chosen points - not fling them into the main battle against superior forces. Your marketplace (battle field) should be well mapped out, so that you know where the minefields and swaps are (competitor strengths, your weaknesses) and you would also know where allies can be called on to help (friends, existing happy clients, network partners).
But having the plan is less than half the battle.
To build your team up to a point where successful attainment of the first and subsequent goals is one of the basic requirements but this is an ongoing, continuing process. The single biggest barrier to implementation of any battle plan is the non-participation of the ground troops involved. Without full support (and this means total buy-in) of the troops, you aint going nowhere.
The primary cause behind failure to achieve buy-in is being left out of the planning process - however small that participation may be. The larger the involvement in the planning phase, the greater ownership a person takes in the project and the less force and communication is needed to get them implementing their tasks.
Simply put, no-one cares about someone else's baby poop - except the parents (and even they get bored with it.)
So, how do you get buy in? How do you get the planning-involvement right down to troop level?
By simply doing just that. You structure the planning into phases, starting with top management, then rolling it down through the different layers of the army until even the guys running the latrines have had their input (no jokes, please).
The surprising thing is this - if you give the different groups within the company the same set of broad goals, and sit down with them and get them to plan their attack, there are always common threads to the results - almost irrespective of the primary function of the group itself. Sure, there are individual goals which push forward the barrow of that group, but there are always similar goals for the larger group.
When you do this, you present it in a way that is asking the individual groups within the company to provide their plans, based on some 'guidelines' from senior management. Note, these are guidelines, not objectives handed-down-from-on-highs, but some broad goals outlined, with some boundaries to work within - but the less detailed the better.
The key to the whole process is the process itself. This is not a new concept by any means, and many organisations have successfully applied this method.
But the primary failure point is to follow through with the process itself - and you end up with yet another situation of the troops jeopardising their army's activities because they were never consulted or, even worse, never informed.
But the bottom line, which cannot be repeated too much is:
The key to the process is the process itself.
1. Have a plan
2. Communicate the plan
3. Implement the plan
4. Monitor progress
5. Review and adjust the plan
Of course, some information needs to be kept close to the chest; some of the tactical information about your products, services, and targets. Too many managers and leaders keep so much of the strategy too close to their chest, so the troops cannot implement it.
So, a key question: If my competitors learned about this (product, service,
target) would they have time to do anything to prevent us achieving the goal??
Tally ho! | 
