Strategic planning that gets you nowhere

The CHCC’s CEO announced a few days ago the launch of CHCC’s Strategic Plan 2015-2020, and invited stakeholders to submit comments. The 16-page document may be a mistaken understanding of the CEO because this phase (initial publication) as it appears is only an “outline.” There is no plan in what was published, as the actual numbered operating strategies are subject of plans spanning the period of time extending to year 2020. So the stakeholders or consumers (as a term used in the narrative of the document) could not know what the plan is until it is actually formulated and known, and the planning process takes over.

Second, as a stakeholder and a guarded consumer of past CHC, it is commendable that CHCC seeks to renew itself by way of a strategic plan but many unfortunate stories are told of organizations that started this noble idea and ended up exiting the process faster than when the idea was conceived. It is with extreme suspicion that this may be just another fad that would end up as a wasted effort, and it may take five years before we know it is a bad idea.

The concept “indeterminacy of translations” is richly embedded in the language content of the strategic plan outline. The meaning of words used in the document is couched in concepts that do not have common understanding and strict interpretation. This is a challenge for those unfamiliar with the lingo of professionals in the healthcare arena. The problem is when professionals and principals disagree with what term and meaning stands for. So, is this initial exercise only good for the experts, and the novice are to be drafted to the side as observers, including the “advisory board” that is being portrayed as only there for ceremonial purposes? In order for CHCC to prosper, it must have a “governing board.” This is a strategic issue, and it must be resolved before the next effort is entertained.

The strategic plan outline makes specific note of finding threats, opportunities, weaknesses, and strengths. But it did not elaborate what these are. In a strategic plan, the focus is to remove threats and pursue and perpetuate opportunities. Weaknesses are to be reduced and strengths are nurtured and cared for. Did CHCC finally find the chaos it is dealing with and the strategic plan is the panacea to get itself out of the storm’s center? In addition, the term “efficiency” (do things right) and “effectiveness” (do the right things) are part of the scheme that will result in all these efforts. But the only best measure that makes sense to ordinary stakeholders is when full revenues are greater than least costs. And there is no way that CHCC anticipates a bottomless pit for funding to match all the scheme of things it is portraying by its initial strategic plan outline. There has to be some measure to limit the ambitious mode that is being established by the outline. Targeting infinity is just impossible; this is the issue.

Indeed as a stakeholder, the only way to get answers is not by being a principal in what CHCC is attempting to justify by its proposed strategic plan outline, but only by asking questions would draw reasons and logic to the point all these unfolding itself. The first set of inquiries is to set the foundation for subsequent questions.

1. Is CHCC not doing anything new that they should be doing?

2. Is CHCC doing things now that they should not be doing?

3. Is CHCC doing some things that they should continue to do, but in a different way?

The emphasis of the strategic plan outline places significant attention to the human resources CHCC is currently paying for. Before any serious effort to move forward with the outline, CHCC should commit its human resources capacity to ask the same questions:

1. In order to make the maximum contribution, what is this person not doing now that he or she should be doing? Note that I only mention “person” here. Positions in CHCC are a total mess. And that is a matter for further discussions.

2. In order to make the maximum contribution, what is this person doing now that he or she should not be doing?

3. In order to make the maximum contribution, what is this person doing now that he or she should continue to do in a different way?

As you can see, the scheme or idea is too simple because the CEO could ad lib in rhetoric and would be convincing that this has a happy ending. If she or the consultant is new to this business, things are not going to work out in a silver platter. In this process you will find “change initiators” but at the same time you would count just as many “change resisters,” and that is just the nature of the beast. The bottom line is “leadership” and that belongs to the CEO. Strategic plan and its cohorts belong to the CEO. The politics is a given and that is what it boils down to in which the rule of the game one plays. Honesty and integrity are all relative. If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. This is strategic plan gone without intended scores.

Francisco R. Agulto
Kannat Tabla, Saipan