Can we at least agree on what we are trying to achieve?

Thomas Friedman writes of the need for Obama to define a "a clear, simple, repeatable narrative to explain his politics." Friedman refers to this needed statement as a "rubric" (a statement of purpose or function).  It is this latter label that reveals the true value of such a statement.

A context or purpose is essential to a plan or strategy.  As a framework for suggested actions, it allows one to see clearly the actions' relative value in terms of achieving higher level objectives. It is more than just a means for "spinning" messages, or of preventing the possibility that actions will be "easily obstructed, picked off or delegitimized by opponents and lobbyists."  Although these may be some side benefits of having a clear purpose to frame one's actions, they should not be the primary intent.

Friedman has actually roughed out a good starting point for organizing the thinking in Obama's national plan.  Its purpose (depicted on the left in the illustration), the broad brush strokes of fairly high level objectives (in the mid section), and a general reference to tactical actions suggested to achieve the objectives (depicted on the right).

This outline should be taken a step further.  The key would be to weight the objectives (those in the middle).  Many people would argue that "All are needed.  They are all important."  This is not disputed. All objectives are on the list because of this very truth...they are all needed.  Health care, energy independence, education, infrastructure, national competitiveness.  However, there is still a relative priority, a relative importance to undertaking improvements to them.  Determination of this relative importance comes by comparative analysis of each against all others, in terms of the context and additionally considering in that comparison the current known status of each as well as the time frame of the plan.

Once relative priority of the objectives is defined, the next step is to assess the more tactical actions being suggested against all objectives.  Typically, one action will have been developed in terms of one objective. However, an action could serve multiple objectives. The critical nature of any action is determined by its influence upon supporting the achievement of more than one objective, factoring in the relative importance of each of those objectives.  It is the cumulative merit that makes some actions those that are the "king pins" of one's plan.

Most persons might think that this type of prioritization work would take days.  It doesn't.  It can be done in hours. Others will argue that politics will never allow this to work.  One can understand the frustration of Senator Evan Bayh leading to his recent resignation.  The key is of course, to have a willingness by a group to commit that time (hours), to be open for reasonable discussion, and to be respectful of others' thoughts.  We have seen the most divided groups find common ground, and elevate their work because of their ability to serve a greater purpose. Agreement on purpose is the beginning of the execution of a plan in which everyone is functioning as a team, which is why having such a statement is vital.

The Wall Street Journal recently blogged about changes at e-Bay. Criticism of e-Bay centers on the apparent shift in vision for the company. Tough economic times will rightly prompt a review of strategy. Rethinking a long-term direction (a vision) for a company, one that also helps an organization survive during an immediate crisis, is important. Copying successful competition is not always the answer. So, it appears that e-Bay’s CEO John Donahoe has taken a key step in thinking about change. The WSJ confirms that Donahoe has deliberately moved away from copying amazon.com. 

Business Week lays out Donahoe’s three-year vision: "The overall goal: to create a one-stop shop where customers can make purchases in a wide variety of ways—from bidding in auctions to clicking on ads, scanning classifieds, or making outright purchases. And he promised the site would be easier to use, offer even better deals, and provide a more satisfying experience. "

Key to the formulation of any strong strategy, is the identification of all Objectives in terms of a compelling and clear vision. Objectives should include others beyond merely increasing revenues, although increasing revenues is clearly an important objective for any business. With a full set of defined Objectives, e-Bay’s tactical action of “selling of overstock items,” along with all other potential actions, could have been assessed as to its strategic merit (how well does it satisfy the full set of prioritized Objectives?). Please note: by itself this action is not a strategy.

If potential actions were also assessed against risks (the only risk mentioned was “antagonize many longtime small eBay sellers”), a strategy would be even more robust. Actions to mitigate risks, both in terms of probability of their occurring as well as the degree of negative impact if they were to occur, could have been anticipated and built into the strategy.

We might not have read such a damning headline “E-Bay changing its strategy – again.” While the CEO of e-Bay must have winced reading this title with its inference of e-Bay being rudderless, or without direction, I confess, my initial wincing was due to the depiction of one action defining a strategy. One action, or even an accumulation of actions, does not make a strategy. Assess them, align them in terms of a long-term vision with prioritized Objectives, assess them against risks, develop mitigation plans, then you have a strategy.