Category: Strategy

Consulting Project Management: Strategy & Tactics

Strategy

When I started my first professional job in Spring 2012, I had no idea that Project Management was an entire industry with certifications, academic literature, and week-long seminars. I was fortunate (or not so fortunate) to never receive this training, and instead developed an approach through trial and error, and lots of great advice and coaching from managers over the last eleven years. This is an attempt to write down what I’ve learned so far, mostly through the lens of a consulting organization.

  • Create a project plan – even if you never update it again.
    • Where can you see there will be disruptions? For example, if your project stretches over Thanksgiving and the December holidays, you already know you’ve lost three weeks (give or take) of time to work – make sure you distribute the work accordingly.Who will miss time from the project team? Vacations, parental leave, etc. Build it in.
    • Other deadlines in other projects you are not leading? Make sure to confirm them with that engagement manager / PM and plan around them, if possible.
  • Set your milestone dates in advance, if possible, and work backwards.
    • Where possible, ask Clients or MD / Director for any natural milestones to tie our work to – i.e., council meetings, election cycles, budget cycles, etc.
  • Insist on having an internal kick-off meeting
  • Make sure you have a kick-off meeting with the client, too
  • All tasks should have a deadline, all deadlines should assume one additional round of revision.
    • For example, we need to draft an outline for a final report on tax policy recommendations; this task needs 1) due date to the client (meeting scheduled already), 2) final version sent to client ahead of time (if applicable), 3) date to be sent to “reviewer” (I.e., Director, SME, etc.), and 4) internal meeting to discuss / brainstorm (if needed)
  • Learn to love your calendar. As an analyst, meetings are few and far between. As you’ll soon read in this guide, being a great PM will require a solid number of productive meetings. At many firms, you’ll still be expected to do significant analyst-type work – often up to and including your time as a senior leader. Use the points below as a guide to get started.
    • Schedule out as far as you can – when possible, set meetings to be recurring (bi-weekly, monthly, or even quarterly in some cases).Schedule your analyst tasks as meetings with yourself. If you need three hours to write a report or ninety minutes to QC someone’s analysis, put it on the calendar. If you need to stop for lunch (Author’s note: I do my best to schedule my lunch hour a month in advance), then make sure you have an hour booked mid-day.
      • IMPORTANT NOTE: Once you get consistent at booking this time, anyone viewing your calendar will have a more accurate understanding of how “busy” you are at any given time. (Author’s note: This is why more senior members of the team regularly look at my calendar and say it looks more packed than theirs. The truth is they probably have just as much to do, but I look “busier” because I’ve actually tried to account for all the hours I need to do the work!!) This is invaluable when it comes time to honestly communicate your capacity to meet a tight deadline or add another project midstream.
    • Adopt “Power Scheduling” principals. Like all good management systems, no one follows this 100% of the time, but in general, these guidelines help with productive work flows:
      • Know yourself! When do you do your best work? Make sure you are scheduling your most important tasks / meetings for those windows whenever possible. Getting ahead and staying ahead helps here, for sure.  As an example, I often start to drag around 2PM, so I will try to schedule low-value meetings during that time since I won’t be doing much work anyway.Know your team. Don’t be inflexible, and don’t say ‘I’m doing this to follow Power Scheduling!’ Just default to these choices and the rest will fall into place.Book yourself back-to-back, but not all day. Two one-hour meetings or three thirty-minute meetings is probably the outer limit of what can be productive if you are leading each one. Schedule a break in between, then go back-to-back again if possible.Monday / Friday: Internally focused days and nights. Try to schedule as many of your internal meetings on these days as possible. Reserve your evenings for time with family, friends, etc.Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday: Externally focused days. Schedule your client meetings and internal working meetings for these days. Reserve the 9AM, Noon, and 4PM hours for yourself (sending emails, having lunch, etc). These are the target days for any after work professional / networking type events or outings. These responsibilities are very infrequent early in the PM’s career, but increase over time.Saturday / Sunday: Can be used sparingly for work. In the official Power Scheduling system, Saturday morning is reserved for closing out any items that didn’t get attention during the week. I don’t personally find this valuable except when I’m really swamped, but obviously your mileage may vary.
      • FINAL NOTE ON POWER SCHEDULING: Again, it’s not an exact science. The keys are being mindful of the things you need to do each week, and making them as repeatable and as simple as possible. Once your calendar is pre-loaded with some of these “big rocks” you can fill in around them more easily.
  • As a general rule, assume no one will do anything related to your project unless you directly tell them it is their responsibility and that it is needed by a certain date / time; even then, be sure to follow-up if you do not hear back from this person in a reasonable timeframe (silence is almost never an affirmative answer).
  • Relatedly, if you are assigned to a project and no one else is obviously the project manager, consider yourself the project manager unless and until someone else tells you not to play that role.
    • This would apply to tasks like scheduling, note taking, meeting agendas and follow-ups, etc.
  • Goals, Roles, and Budget – the most important parts of every project.
    • Goals: from the client and MD / Director – what does success look like for this project? What specifically does the client need from us (i.e., capacity, guidance, a specific deliverable, etc.)?
    • Roles: who is the project lead (“Engagement Manager”)? Who needs to sign off on major documents / presentations / etc.? Who leads the regular meetings? Who is the project manager (“second chair”)? Who is the analyst?
      • Project Roles also apply to (and may differ from) roles related to specific documents and meetings, see more on this below
    • Budget: for a given organization, this may be more about time than money – so be sure to apply your leader’s approach to this element of PM.
      • Based on the scope of work, who is expected to do the majority of the work? Who else can be involved as an expert or support if needed for extra capacity? How much is the project worth – and by extension, are we comfortable going over budget for any particular reasons (i.e., opportunity for staff training, marketing purposes, helping to win future work, etc.)?
  • Ship something every two weeks. It will probably need to be in draft form in many cases – this is a good thing! It forces the PM to play more of a role in creating templates or very early drafts for internal work.
    • If this fits your project plan, great. If not, consider how you can have some “thing” (a topic, a draft document, a key question) to bring to each bi-weekly meeting.
    • Always try to deliver your major project deliverables at these bi-weekly meetings – it saves time on scheduling and keeps your client on a rhythm of focusing on this project.
  • As a result, meet with your client once every two weeks.
    • Depending on the project, this may not be entirely necessary; meeting frequency should be agreed upon by your team and the client as part of the kick-off meeting
  • Notes on scheduling any and all client meetings, including bi-weekly meetings:
    • Always provide at least three options for dates / times
    • Always clarify the length of the meeting – 30 minutes, 60 minutes, or longer, as needed (and only with Client / Engagement Manager approval).
    • Always provide times in the time zone of the client (or most senior person on the client team, if it differs)
    • Use calendar HOLDS when scheduling for someone with a tight calendar (I.e., most MDs and Directors); this means sending calendar invitations for each meeting window clearly labeled “HOLD – PROJECT X MEETING” and sending these BEFORE you send the email to the group you are scheduling
    • Once the meeting is scheduled, delete the HOLDs you no longer need
  • Meetings must have an agenda and clearly assigned roles – who will present what, who is preparing any documents to present, who is sharing their screen, etc. The level of preparation definitely scales according to the importance of the meeting, though it should always be clear
    • If no clear agenda, reach out to those attending to ask for topics or to cancel.
    • Meetings must have an assigned notetaker, and they MUST identify the next steps and who is responsible for each.
  • Documentation must be intentional and consistent. Ideally, every activity in a project will be captured by some sort of documentation. Without this documentation, you can easily get lost or forget a critical decision. (Author’s note: This recently happened to me with a project where roles were inconsistent, and I made the mistake of not assuming notetaking responsibility. The decision I did not capture was pretty important – the date selected to launch a survey).
    • Meeting notes: Every meeting should have notes taken and saved in a central location. If there were not noteworthy items in a meeting, it should not have happened in the first place!
    • Emails: As a general rule, I try to not have something in email only, because it is unreliable and less accessible than a shared drive. However, for internal items or basic information sharing, it is of course an acceptable document. If you write a great email with lots of information in it, consider printing it as a PDF and saving to the client drive.
  • Meetings must have a follow-up email, promptly (within 24-48 hours of meeting) with clear and direct next steps, assignments, and deadlines.
    • Use bullet points to separate out the next steps
    • If scheduling a meeting is a next step, consider whether to include it in this message or send a separate email to the relevant project team members
  • Internal meetings – as needed, but assume you need more than you do. Meet too much first.
    • Again, having an agenda is critical; roles can vary by what type of meeting – if you want to brainstorm something, prompt the team so they come prepared; if you want to present a draft of something, consider whether you need to send it ahead of time (not a requirement)
    • For managing specific analysts, consider a once-per-week check-in for 15 minutes, three question agenda
      • What did you work on last week?
      • What are you working on this week?
      • Are you stuck anywhere / on anything?
  • When in doubt, send an email.
    • How are we feeling?
    • What did you think of that meeting?
    • Where should we go next?
    • Should we ask an MD / Director / Senior Advisor what they think?
    • Does the timeline still feel right? Do we need to speed up / slow down / change something?

Equity in Capital Improvement Planning Processes

Public Policy, Strategy

This white paper was a collaboration between myself, as primary writer and researcher, and Matt Stitt and Mike Nadol as editors and contributors. It was created as part of PFM’s work in the Bloomberg Results for America City Budgeting for Equity and Recovery program in 2021. The fully designed PDF can be viewed here.

Why This Matters?

Capital budgets and improvement plans present exceptional opportunities for governments to drive equitable outcomes in municipalities, particularly when budgeting for recovery. The significant spending power authorized through capital budgets – multiple billions for some jurisdictions – can allow for increased, targeted spending on geographies that historically lacked investment from the public and private sectors. In addition, the job creation necessary to complete these projects offer workforce and economic development opportunities for residents and businesses. Because the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) typically requires a multi-year plan and planning process, it provides a framework that can be adapted to equitable purposes rather than created from scratch. When taken together with the scale of funding available, the CIP presents a ready-made strategy for planning, implementing, and evaluating projects that achieve enduring equitable outcomes.

Introduction

Infrastructure is the fabric that enables community connection, economic opportunity, and civic life in the United States. Eighty percent of public spending on these vital projects (from roads and bridges to parks and recreation centers) is provided by state and local governments. Yet despite its importance to everything from commerce to public health, the national total deferred maintenance on infrastructure assets could be as high as $1 trillion.[1]

Additionally, most cities have no structured mechanisms to incorporate equity considerations into their capital investment planning. Equity-based approaches to funding, project selection, and community input are still evolving and imperfect at best – but such approaches are now developing rapidly for operating budget allocations. To next integrate equity into longer-term financial strategies, Finance Directors, City Managers, and senior Elected Officials must all double-down on their efforts, sharpening their focus on capital investment planning. While there is no single solution that works for most cities – when it comes to matters of equitable impact, the best option is one that is place-based and reflective of the needs of a specific community. Ultimately, the process for equitable capital budgeting must be developed collaboratively and implemented through a thoughtful change management strategy.

This resource outlines a few strategies and case examples (related to equity in capital planning), from across the country, that can be adapted to the local context.

Using Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) Process to Drive Equitable Outcomes

To approach the CIP process in a manner that creates consistent, measurable, equity-focused results, PFM recommends first mapping the current process being used (including a timeline for key milestones) and bucketing the tasks into phases. Each of the following examples can be considered as a potential improvement to one key phase (i.e., swapping a current practice for a new tactic) or as part of a more comprehensive effort across the full process. Depending on local readiness, needs, and priorities, government staff can choose an approach that is politically feasible while building toward maximized impact.

Prioritize Projects that Align with Long-Term Strategic Goals

The Government Finance Officers Association identifies “identifying, tracking, and communicating” performance measures in budgeting, including the capital budget, to be a financial best practice.[2] To make such performance measures most impactful, city staff must align these metrics to the overall goals set by city leadership. In the City of Seattle, WA, for example, equity goals have been set by the Seattle 2035 comprehensive plan – and the City’s scorecard for capital investments uses detailed, quantifiable criteria to rank projects in terms of alignment with these goals.[3] Projects that score high on these measures (and, thus, are highly aligned to the plan) receive higher priority for funding than those with relatively lower scores.

Develop a More Impactful Community Benefit Agreement Structure

If well-designed, Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) centered on equity issues can be extremely impactful for cities. In Sacramento, CA, for example, a recent CBA developed for a multi-billion-dollar mixed use development generated $50 million in funding for affordable housing, anti-displacement investment, prioritized hiring for residents, and improved public transit infrastructure. These benefits were developed, prioritized, and supported by direct resident input. The evaluation firm highlighted dialogue with community members (versus presentations) – designing projects that not only increase revenues, but also deliver non-monetary benefits to residents and businesses. The firm also recommended reevaluating success measures (i.e., rethinking straight, or traditional, financial return-on-investment).[4]  

Formalize “% for X” Investment Goals in Major Capital Projects

The strength of the capital budget and plan as a tool to promote equity is that its spending power, especially when viewed over a multi-year time horizon, can dwarf the operating budget of a municipality. With this scale in mind, cities should consider a formal set-aside of X% in major capital projects (e.g., all projects with budgets over $2 million) – for the sole purpose of funding an equitable priority project. As an example, the City of Austin, TX, recently dedicated $300 million of a +$7 billion transit expansion program to affordable housing and anti-displacement programs for near neighbors.[5] Not only does this provide funding for an equitable priority, but also enhances the value of the transit assets themselves through potential increases in ridership.

Connect Capital Budgets and Workforce Development

All cities seek a robust, skilled workforce and a strong local economy – however, oftentimes workforce development funding is tied to imminent or even pre-existing job opportunities. By taking advantage of capital investments to drive small business growth and the development of local supply chains, municipalities that design creative programs (or partnerships) can generate a positive feedback loop of a stronger labor market, growing local firms, and increased quality and efficiency of capital projects. For example, one city in the current Bloomberg Philanthropies/What Works Cities City Budgeting for Equity and Recovery cohort is working to design a sidewalk maintenance program that would include a set amount of work conducted each year by apprentices and workers seeking employment. This helps to improve walkability and economic activity, while also training residents to work in trades that offer family-sustaining wages and add value to businesses in the City.

Seek Strategies for Co-Investment

State and federal funding can be a source of “fuel” for capital project development. Enterprising city staff can apply for grants that award funding for not-as-obvious capital investments that expand program capacity, and, in the best-case scenario, generate a return to both the city and its residents. The Philadelphia Energy Authority’s Solar Savings Grant Program, for example, leverages funding from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for green energy projects to offset the cost of installing solar panels on low- and moderate-income households’ roofs.[6] The grants lower the overall costs of the program, residents save money on their electric bills each month, and the city decreases its overall carbon footprint. 

Set a Future-Focused Investment Strategy

An additional way to better leverage capital budget dollars is to invest in growing service areas based on demographic trends, and strategies that can reallocate funding to more equitable priorities. For example, there are mobile crisis teams operating in at least 25 cities across the country, and many more around the world. In Eugene, OR, the CAHOOTS program, a pioneer in this space, cost approximately $2 million to operate (in 2019), and is estimated to have saved approximately $23 million in public safety and public health costs.[7] While models for service delivery vary depending on the local context, cities that choose to develop this capacity internally can leverage capital investment to establish facilities, and potentially to procure first-response vehicles and other durable goods, that contribute to the treatment process. With such support, mobile crisis programs have the ability to lower the needed capacity in public safety (e.g., police and/or EMS/EMT first responders) and public health (e.g., hospital beds and social worker FTEs) over time. Investments like these also create an equitable outcome of clinically appropriate care delivered to residents in need (i.e., instead of holding residents in prison or police custody without timely treatment) while diverting from corrections populations and overburdened emergency rooms.

Callout Features – Case Studies

Redefining Return on Investment (ROI) through an Equity Lens

Moving towards equitable formulas for funding CIPs will naturally raise questions regarding ROI (i.e., will projects generate a financial return). Evaluation is a critical component of all capital investments, and these examples provide a clear guide.

  • In Harris County, TX, officials recently moved away from the historical practice of using traditional ROI based on the financial value of property protected by its flood projects (which tilted investment heavily towards high-income neighborhoods) to using a social-vulnerability index created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which moves more funding to areas with the most at-risk populations.[8]
  • In Raleigh, NC, the city explicitly measures environmental and social, as well as economic, outcomes of projects (the “triple bottom-line”) in its 2030 Comprehensive Plan.[9]

Use Change Management Best Practices to Build Support

Our most successful clients take a strategic approach to engaging internal and external stakeholders who are considered potential champions or detractors to implementation.

  • For example, traditionally information is presented to community groups for comment and approval, but a fully equitable approach would be to engage the community up-front in a true dialogue to understand priorities, concerns, and opportunities for both sides while the program is still under design.
  • Tools to consider include using steps from Dr. John Kotter’s Model[10], adapted and customized for more effective “place-based” or local use.

Conclusion: Importance of Investments in a More Equitable Future

Many municipalities currently face a myriad of deferred maintenance and equity imperatives – all of which have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The path to reversing severe long-term under- and disinvestment must include large-scale, strategic capital program initiatives. Through engaging their communities, cities can address both historical disparities and identify investments that can build towards a more equitable future.

“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second-best time is now.”

A common theme across the strategies documented here is the importance of change management to creating sustainable change. Whether starting from a top-down directive (e.g. executive order) or a bottom-up approach (e.g. employee-led, department level change), understanding the stakeholders involved and the relevant processes is critical to designing a more equitable approach. Another factor embedded in each of these strategies is the availability and monitoring of disaggregated data to ensure that all residents benefit from the changes implemented.

As equitable considerations take hold and begin to shift the balance of capital investment dollars to the previously neglected corners of the local map, municipalities should become better places to live, work, and enjoy for all residents. When combined with strong community engagement, data-driven project criteria, and thorough measurement and evaluation, funds that seemed too limited will deliver results above and beyond their scale. With the first American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds arriving to cities, states, and counties in the last month, and recent, additional infrastructure spending discussed at the federal level – now is the time to prepare stakeholders to rise and meet the moment.

[1] Zhao, Jerry Zhirong, et al. The Volcker Alliance, 2019, pp. 1–40, America’s Trillion-Dollar Repair Bill.

[2] Performance Measures, http://www.gfoa.org/materials/performance-measures.

[3] City of Seattle, Office of Planning & Community Development. Community Planning: Practice + Prioritization, pp. 4–32.

[4] Hackler, Darrene. Smart Incentives, 2021, pp. 1–5, Community Benefit Agreements: An Equitable Tool for Innovation District Development.

[5] Young, Harrison. “Austin Transit Partnership OKs Anti-Displacement Funding.” Austin Monitor, 18 Mar. 2021, http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/03/austin-transit-partnership-oks-anti-displacement-funding/.

[6] Philadelphia Energy Authority, “Solar Savings Grant Program.” https://solarizephilly.org/solar-savings-grant-program/

[7] Reach out Response Network, November 2020, pp. 1-91. Final Report on Alternative Crisis Response Models for Toronto.

[8] Wallace, Don. “A Climate Plan in Texas Focuses on Minorities. Not Everyone Likes It.” The New York Times, 24 July 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/climate/houston-flooding-race.html.

[9] City of Raleigh, Office of City Planning. 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Update, pp. 123-124.

[10] “The 8-Step Process for Leading Change: Dr. John Kotter.” Kotter, 7 May 2021, http://www.kotterinc.com/8-steps-process-for-leading-change/.

How to change behavior in advocacy campaigns

Strategy

This post is a summary of work and ideas developed for a foundation in Southeastern Pennsylvania while I was employed at Message Agency in 2019. Part of my role was to conduct secondary research on models of behavior change to use in our strategy for engaging the local community.

How does behavior change happen?

One of the most considered questions of philosophy is that of free will. Do you choose how you move through your day? Or is it all predetermined? Or, are others determining things for you? With the amount of external influence on you through media, the internet, and your peers there are endless stimuli able to nudge you in a new direction.

“I’m convinced that ideas and behaviors and new products move through a population very much like a disease does. This isn’t just a metaphor, in other words. I’m talking about a very literal analogy. . . . Ideas can be contagious in exactly the same way that a virus is.”

Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point

Research shows that the information that sticks with us most does not simply hang in the air like a virus. Instead, it is very deliberately passed to us by those we interact with on a regular basis and those we hold in high esteem. In this post I’ll attempt to provide an overview of some evidence-based models related to behavior change and how they can be operationalized in campaigns.

Dr. Damon Centola’s Models for Behavior Change

In his latest book, How Behavior Spreads, Dr. Centola uses a combination of research and narrative to help the reader understand the means by which information leads to behavior change. To illustrate the basic premise of his research Dr. Centola uses the example of Korea in the early 1960s when they were attempting to increase adoption of contraceptives among rural populations. Instead of buying billboards and radio ads, the Korean campaign provided a menu of contraceptive options to each village in the nation. At the local level, Koreans were able to select the methods that they were most comfortable using – not the one pushed on them by a spokesperson. Peer-to-peer discussion of the options led to further adoption by those with overlapping social ties. Eventually Korea surpassed all of its policy goals for the initiative, and the theory of social influence was born. Instead of a network effect of loose ties leading to a “viral diffusion,” it was instead spatial interactions that emerged as the most successful pathways.

While the viral model suggests that radiating networks
of weak ties would lead to successful dissemination, it was instead
overlapping patterns of spatial interaction that were the key to widespread adoption.

Dr. Damon Centola, How Behavior Spreads

Another line of Dr. Centola’s research involves “tipping points” for adoption of behaviors and ideas. Using online chatrooms, Dr. Centola and his team were able to measure how much of a group needed to agree with a non-mainstream idea before more and more of the participants flipped to embrace it. They found that once about 25% of a group have adopted the more extreme view, adoption accelerates among the rest of the group until it reaches a saturation point.

What does this mean for your campaign to change behaviors? It helps to give you a more realistic goal. Imagine a County in your state and how the residents might feel about a certain policy. You might estimate that 20% are strongly in favor, 20% are strongly against, and the other 60% undecided. If you are leading a campaign to get the policy passed in the legislature, you need to increase your number of residents in favor. But by how much? In order to get and keep the momentum, you can target 25% of the undecided population. Once your polling indicates you’ve moved roughly that many residents towards your side, you can be more confident that the tide is truly turning.

How can I leverage spatial patterns in my campaign?

In the case of our campaign in Southeastern Pennsylvania, we relied on what we called an “opportunity map” to help guide our decisions. We used the free Google MyMaps software to build our initial map. Many jurisdictions with Open Data platforms offer file types that are easy to upload directly, which saves time. If you are building your data set manually, it is very easy to add new locations, but cant take quite a bit of time to add everything you’d like to track. This map should include several layers depending on your goals – some we included were non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, public housing developments, and schools, libraries, and recreation centers.

Once your map is built, you should immediately begin to notice patterns in where the points fall in relation to one another. Remember, space is the key here, so if you see certain points “out on an island”, do some research or engage your community in that area to find out what you might be missing. The goal is to find the clusters of organizations and individuals who might or might not talk to one another because of proximity, and get them to be on the same page and engaged in your work. For example, the librarian and the fire chief might be next door to one another, but not have much need to speak on a regular basis. However, if the county receives a grant that could fund joint public safety work by both groups, you’d find it very valuable that they could be easily brought together in a physical location.

The map can also be used as both a communication and organizing tool. You can share access easily among your peer group, and encourage them to add points to the map they think would be relevant to your goals. It can also be used in organizing to divide responsibility for certain areas of a larger county or city. For example, the Census (in addition to tracts at the micro level) often uses larger divisions to break down counties in the US. These can be valuable in identifying demographic trends, deputizing others to lead outreach efforts, and help limit travel over longer distances for meetings or other activity.

Conclusion

Behavior change doesn’t just happen by having a celebrity record a PSA. The most effective models for change involve social influence, and are driven by overlapping spatial relationships. The “tipping point” means you can more effectively target ambivalent people in your geography. You can use GIS and mapping tools to create a clear picture of your target geography and the assets available to you. Use the map to guide your strategic interventions and gain adoption of your campaign messages.

Strategies for Engaging Governments

Public Policy, Strategy

This post was inspired by Mr. Timothy Richards, who I had the pleasure of studying under while attending the University of Pennsylvania. His graduate-level course, “Strategic Engagement with Governments,” was among my favorite I’ve taken at any academic level.

Government is good

I don’t think Gordon Gecko would ever say it, but even he would have to admit that government and business are inseparable. There are myriad ways that the two intersect, interact, and interject in one another’s day-t0-day operations. Sometimes the relationships are pleasant partnerships meant to solve problems for people in their jurisdictions. Sometimes they are bitter battles between powerful groups who want very different – even opposite – things.

Given that government is a requirement in modern society, one would assume that businesses are investing heavily in the areas where they come in direct contact with these important stakeholders. Reader, they do not. For several years, McKinsey conducted an annual survey among executives to measure how important government involvement was to their business and industry and how well those executives feel their firms perform. What they found was fairly shocking given the conventional wisdom around this topic.

The value of engaging government

In 2013, McKinsey estimated that the value at stake from government intervention for most industries was 30% of earnings, except in banking which could be as much as 50%. This is an enormous figure – in some cases adding up to tens of millions of dollars per employee working in the government relations function. And yet fewer than 30% of executives reported that they had the government relations talent and organizational setup to succeed. Only 20% felt they were successful in influencing government policy that was critical to their business.

In the 2010 study, executives were asked to estimate how government activity in their industry would change over the next few years. Overwhelmingly they reported it would increase or at least stay the same (86%), and 52% felt government would be the stakeholder with the greatest economic impact on the firm. The story was similar as it relates to operating income – executives were mostly in agreement that there would be a change (72%), but split on the whether that would be an increase or decrease. Selected data is shown in the charts below.

Via McKinsey
Via McKinsey

While this study is from 2010, the many experienced, senior government relations officials we heard from in class confirmed it is still the case a decade later. In short, there is a gulf between where business knows it must be and where it currently sits as it relates to government relations work.

Improving government relations

Despite the data being a few years old, it would seem one doesn’t need to say much to convince leadership of the impact of government intervention. But how does one go about improving the function so that this value is not lost? Or ideally, leveraged into growth opportunity for your firm?

Start by understanding the current and likely future states of government intervention

You must map the current ways in which government impacts your business. This can be across several dimensions: government as partner, as customer, as regulator, or as policy maker. Once you understand the relationships, you can begin to evaluate the various touch points using your internal goals, metrics, and strategies.

For example, in class we learned about an American manufacturing firm that, after researching emerging tax credits for renewable energy technologies, made a strategic shift in their business to build out their green technology vertical. This would have been a missed opportunity without deliberate, proactive work by the government relations team.

Prioritize the issues that can be pursued

Using your map, rank your issues that you’ve uncovered by their relative impact on your business (high, medium, low) and the relative effort and/or cost required to influence them (high, medium, low). You can use a simple two-by-two matrix to draw this out visually. Are there obvious winners (High Impact, Low Cost) or losers (High Cost, Low Impact)? Note them as such and move to the “stickier” issues (High Impact, High Cost; etc). Which of these align most strongly with your goals internally? Asking these questions is essential, as you won’t be able to pursue all of the issues at the same time.

Create campaigns around each issue to make a dent

Once you have your top issues identified, you must think strategically about how to influence the relevant government officials and departments. Your government relations and external affairs staff should be able to organize the resources, tasks, and target stakeholders to support your goals. Be sure to build some flexibility into your strategy – tactics will be your saving grace if you experience any friction.

In another example, we learned about a potential production facility that would be built in a Southeast Asian nation by an American multinational firm. The firm planned to get a US Senator from their home state to make a personal call to the leader of the Southeast Asian nation, but when the Senator declined, they instead produced a joint letter signed by all of the Congresspeople from their state. This is an example of achieving the same goal, without following the strategy verbatim.

Conclusion

Government has a constant and likely growing role in every sector of the economy. In Macroeconomics 101, you are taught that government is the biggest consumer and usually the biggest producer in every country. It makes sense that 30% of earnings would be at stake, and likely much, much more indirectly as well. By creating strong processes internally to research, plan, and implement influence campaigns, companies can flip the script and proactively engage government in ways that benefit both parties.

Understanding Strategy vs. Tactics

Strategy

This post was inspired by Mr. Timothy Richards, who I had the pleasure of studying under while attending the University of Pennsylvania. His graduate-level course, “Strategic Engagement with Governments,” was among my favorite I’ve taken at any academic level.

Whether you are reading about sport, politics, movement building, or are just mindlessly scrolling your social media feed – you are engaging with strategy almost constantly. Though it is ubiquitous, it is also often misunderstood or misapplied within organizations. Many of my clients came to us with problems that were merely symptoms of deeper issues. “We need to rebrand because the restaurant down the block is crushing us.” “Our website is outdated, so our online donations are down this year.”

It is important to address these surface-level issues in most cases, but in others, you need to start at the beginning. Is that other restaurant really more crowded because of its logo? Are you asking enough supporters to donate to make your goals? These questions move you beyond your presenting symptoms to your central issue. They lead you to strategy.

What is strategy?

In simple terms, strategy is your plan to get from A to B under ideal conditions. With zero friction, changes, or challenges your strategy would lead you on the most direct path to success. It represents why, how, and what for your organization, your team, or a campaign.

For example, your strategy for getting your car washed might be:

  1. Get in the car
  2. Drive to the car wash
  3. Wash the car
  4. Return home

While it is not the most complex strategic approach, it does fit our definition, and it isn’t the only path forward. For example, an alternative strategy might be to simply walk out to your driveway and wash your car at home. This would still get you from A to B – your current state to your desired future state – just in a much different way from the first strategy.

Knowing which approach is best for you will require three pieces of data – knowledge of the past, observation of the present, and forecast of the future. Historically, have you been happy with your local car wash? Do you have time to drive across town and back? Are there other services (waxing, vacuuming, etc) that you will need that can’t be done at home easily? You can imagine applying this to your organization, department, or individual contributions as well.

What are tactics? And how do they interact with strategy?

Once you decide you’d prefer to go out to the car wash, you can begin implementing your strategy. Go outside. Get in your car. Start driving to the car wash. But what happens if something external interferes with your strategy? Let’s say, even though it wasn’t forecast, you notice rain clouds rolling in as you drive to the car wash. No one wants to wash their car right before a storm that will muck it up again. In this situation, you might want to abandon your strategy.

But you have a goal! You want to get your car washed. Do you continue following your strategy? Or do you need to make a change? This is where tactics come in to play. A tactic can be thought of as a tool to use in case your strategy doesn’t work out exactly as it should. You will be reading and reacting to the environment as your strategy unfolds, and tactics are how you course correct or take advantage of opportunities. In the case of the car wash, your tactic might be “retreat” for now, and go back out after the rain clears. This way you still get from A to B, but you are not sacrificing reaching your goal of a clean car (for more than a few hours).

Organizations don’t always do the best with tactics. Oftentimes, leadership promotes their goals over all else. The strategic plan either reigns supreme or sits on a shelf and is replaced with the desires of executives. Tactics can be viewed as “failures” or “abandoning the strategy,” when in reality they are simply a pivot or, to borrow from the negotiation field, the BATNA. If your strategy is to increase turnout at your events, but volunteers aren’t responding well to your free t-shirts, you might consider changing tactics. Maybe diverting that funding to food, entertainment, or childcare would help to bump up your numbers. It doesn’t mean that you were failing, it just means a new tactic was needed.

Conclusion

Your strategy is your plan A – what you would do if there was zero friction and no change in the wind. Tactics are what you need when you rollout your strategy in the real world, and you find that your strategy runs into blockers. Knowing the difference is helpful, but its even more important to get comfortable with moving between the two as you approach your mission.

Smarter Government: Why the best strategy for governing fails

Public Policy, Strategy

What is Smarter Government?

Governor Martin O’Malley wrote Smarter Government in collaboration with ESRI in November 2019 as a capstone on his political experience. In it, Mr. O’Malley outlines his career-long pursuit of more effective government through “Stat” programs. He was initially inspired by Jack Maple and his CompStat program in New York City’s Police Department. Eventually, the two would collaborate on what might soon become known as the single most effective strategy to govern a city or state.

CompStat was a revolutionary idea at the time – it was originally known as Charts of the Future and involved sticking colored pins into a paper map to display data on the intersection of crime and police activity. While it was significantly upgraded in terms of technology, the core tenets remained: timely and accurate information or intelligence, rapid deployment of resources, effective tactics, and relentless follow-up. The result was a major shift in the success of the police department to not only solve but also prevent crime by strategically deploying officers and other resources across the city.

Over the first few chapters, Mr. O’Malley tells the story of working with Mr. Maple to bring CompStat to the city of Baltimore when Mr. O’Malley became Mayor. They called the new system “CitiStat.” There are six main elements of the CitiStat strategy for performance management:

  • Performance management and data-driven processes
  • GIS technology
  • Customer service technology (like a 311 call number for city services)
  • Collaborative, informed decision-making
  • Openness and transparency
  • Getting things done by bringing people together regularly (and optimizing the meeting space and project management process)

Mr. O’Malley’s administration made extremely impressive progress during his time in office – both as Mayor of Baltimore and then as Governor of Maryland. He reduced crime and blight, reduced healthcare costs, and quite possibly saved the Chesapeake Bay Watershed from total destruction. His book includes several contributors, but it is obvious from the language and the content that Mr. O’Malley is a true expert in this area. He now teaches the concepts at Universities in the region, and consults on bringing Stat programs to the Federal Government level and beyond.

Why won’t it work in my city?

If there is a “secret sauce” for effective city and state government, why is this not the standard operating procedure for all public administrators? The truth of the matter is performance management in general, and CitiStat in particular, can be controversial and difficult to implement. Not everyone is on board with showing their peers “how” they work, and getting potentially a dozen departments aligned on a schedule and goals is challenging, which creates significant barriers to entry. I believe that it can work anywhere, but it will only work where an administration can manage these three risks.

Leadership

One thing that becomes clear through Mr. O’Malley’s war stories is his indisputable strength as a leader. This is not a boast or exaggeration by someone telling his own story. By highlighting both his wins and losses, Mr. O’Malley reveals much about the thinking behind his actions. His ability to see the opportunity that CitiStat offered, rally his colleagues to the cause, and consistently participate in the process at the appropriate level made the success of his subordinates possible.

You cannot implement one half or one third of CitiStat – you have to dive in head first and stick with it through your time in office. Not all leaders are prepared to take that plunge, but if they can believe in the fundamental value of the system, it can lead to massive successes.

Capacity

Similar to the leader’s capacity, the administration must have sufficient capacity to establish the processes needed to establish CitiStat. They must be the ones to conduct the meetings, measurement, and implementation of improvements to their service area. To be clear: any administration has the ability to choose CitiStat as a framework for performance management, but not all administrations will succeed in its total adoption.

Mr. O’Malley talks about the crucial first few months of an administration. It is here, he says, that you must move confidently and completely towards CitiStat or else you will miss the opportunity entirely. Without the buy-in and quick action taken to make these changes, too many in the administration will have the built in excuse that changing how we work will reduce velocity.

Ego

The final risk is maybe most existential to the CitiStat methodology. For an incoming administration, it is just the last politician’s shiny object. Any executive entering a political office will be most concerned with their priorities and promises from the campaign trail, as well as their own legacy that they must begin to write.

When Mr. O’Malley left Baltimore, his successor did keep CitiStat in place, but without the same zeal. Gradually the interest and urgency eroded, and eventually there were departments going months without the customary bi-weekly meetings. The succeeding Mayor did not view the CitiStat process as their own, and they did not give it the same attention or resources that they lavished on their own projects. Unfortunately, their ego kept them from embracing a strategy that may have helped them achieve exactly what they were setting out to do.

Conclusion

Despite being a very systematic and data-driven approach to management, CitiStat absolutely needs enthusiastic leadership and shared sense of responsibility to carry out. Many cities use data to make decisions, and some might even have transparency across departments. There are many fewer though that perform the rituals associated with CitiStat that cement it as the overarching framework for how governing gets done.

Cities that want to make CitiStat the standard must ensure that there is a process in place that can make it viable with or without strong executive leadership and that make it more durable than a political project would normally need to be. To achieve this, administrators might consider:

  • Establish a cabinet-level position to manage CitiStat.
  • Create administrative policies, or if possible legislation, requiring Departmental CitiStat meetings to take place regularly.
  • Limit the discussion of or praise for CitiStat in public – the more it is associated with one administration or individual, the less durable it becomes!

Kotter’s Model: How a change management approach improves digital projects

Strategy

This post was originally written in September 2019 for the Message Agency blog.

Digital projects usually seek to both decrease costs and increase efficiency through the use of technology. If the choice was “either-or,” these projects might not be as attractive to decision-makers. Most want to understand the “both-and” proposition.

John Kotter spent nearly three decades on the faculty at Harvard Business School. His 1996 book, Leading Change, was an international best seller. In 2011, TIME® magazine listed it as one of the “Top 25 Most Influential Business Management Books” of all time.

While it is most commonly taught in leadership and management contexts, I find his 8-step process for managing change to be invaluable for managing projects with our clients. To paraphrase Kotter on the topic, there are two fundamental goals at the heart of most digital projects:

  1. Increase revenue / equity or decrease costs
  2. Become more effective / efficient

Many astute managers would ask the question:  Why not both? Digital projects, in particular, usually seek to both decrease costs and increase efficiency through the use of technology. If the choice was “either-or,” these projects might not be as attractive to decision-makers. Most want to understand the “both-and” proposition.

Fortunately, by following some of the key steps in Kotter’s eponymous model, you can manage costs and increase the effectiveness of your digital project.  Achieving this goal is particularly important for nonprofit organizations and others with limited budgets, who need to ensure a substantial return on their organizations’ investments.

Urgency, Urgency, Urgency!

Like the famous rallying cry of real estate agents everywhere regarding location, the one thing your project simply can’t do without is Urgency. The unfortunate reality is that some projects will fail for one reason or another. You’ve probably been part of projects that got off the ground but couldn’t stay the course. Or maybe one decision maker’s flavor of the week replaced a more sustained effort from years past.

Regardless of the context you find yourself in when embarking on a new digital project, it is imperative that you find a source of urgency. This can come in many forms, including:

  • Executive sponsorship and support (e.g., your new ED recognizes a need to improve the website);
  • Alignment with a key milestone (e.g., your organization is celebrating its 50th year in operation);
  • Acknowledgement of the danger in maintaining the status quo (e.g., your website is end-of-life next year, and you need to raise funds for a redesign). 

Wherever you find your sense of urgency, Kotter recommends that you should do what you can to protect it!  We agree, as 50% of transformations fail at this first crucial step. Maintaining a sense of urgency means your project will be more likely to get prioritized by you and your colleagues.

Great Guiding Coalition

Your project team is another major variable in the success of your new digital strategy, website, or public education campaign. While you need dedicated resources to manage the day-to-day of your project, you also need to go beyond the usual suspects in order to ensure success. 

A great guiding coalition will include:

  • Diversity in diverse forms (e.g., level, tenure, ideas, and departments);
  • A strong project manager to consolidate communication; and
  • Accountability to the project goals.

Accountability in this case goes beyond attending meetings and checking boxes. The project team should have the goals aligned with their own department or functional goals. Digital projects can often be considered “internal work,” but should be prioritized in the same way as serving end users. 

Generating Quick Wins

During project planning, it is imperative that milestones are agreed upon early. At the same time, coalition members should be asking:  “What can we show (or implement) at the end of each phase?” This evidence of change could be as simple as a list of actions taken, lessons learned, or an immediate process improvement. Quick wins build credibility and generate support for the digital project across relevant teams. 

For example, if your user research uncovers that most donors are donating online, but you don’t have a link to donate on your homepage, could you simply add a donate button today? If so, you can address a specific, evidence-based need and demonstrate to colleagues that you are focused on tangible outcomes.  

Sustain Acceleration, Institute Change

Your coalition is collaborating at a high level. You’ve maintained your sense of urgency along the way. The quick wins are piling up, and your digital project has become the envy of the office. So, you’re good right?

Not yet.

During the project, you’ve surely bumped up against a few barriers, or found elements of your internal processes to be restrictive. Now is your chance to consider how they might be improved. Use your success so far to address a new goal that fits the overall project vision. 

For example, in creating a content strategy to drive more volunteer sign-ups through your site, you realize the intake form is not very user-friendly. To maximize the effectiveness of your website redesign, work with your volunteer coordinator to make improvements that can launch with the new site. 

Getting the additional input from their department while making an update that improves user experience is a win-win. As you build momentum in your digital project, don’t overlook opportunities to fuel further positive change. 

On the path to digital transformation

Kotter’s model can be applied to any change management process, but it is especially helpful for digital projects, where multiple stakeholders, complex technologies, and competing interests can quickly hamper progress. Change is always challenging, but if you follow some of these simple steps to help build trust and maintain momentum, it doesn’t need to be painful. 

Using geometry to build better strategies

Strategy

This post was originally written in November 2019 for the Message Agency blog.

For nearly three decades, consultant Dr. Robert W. Keidel has been asking his Fortune 500 clients somewhat of an odd question: “Is your team playing baseball, football, or basketball?”

Dr. Keidel’s research revolves around strategies for organizations and how employees work together. These patterns are aligned to geometry—parabolas, coordinate planes, and triangles—to visually communicate with a great deal of efficacy. In the sports team question, he reveals a triangle that balances autonomy (baseball), control (football), and cooperation (basketball). Complex organizations will have different “games” being played on different teams and at different levels of the hierarchy, but understanding which is which can frame challenges and opportunities in a new way. 

Since our clients are almost exclusively pursuing digital strategy and digital impact in nonprofit organizations, they can benefit from using these patterns in their organization, whether it’s a foundation, a university, or a small direct service provider. 

How can these patterns help your team become better strategists? 

  • You can create very powerful visuals that communicate effectively
  • Aid colleagues in thinking more strategically about projects
  • Help unearth other patterns in your work more organically every day

The geometries of strategy

There are several different patterns Dr. Keidel uses to describe teams and strategies. We’ll focus on three in this post to get you started. 

Curvilinear thinking (parabola)

Take the example of your organization’s development or fundraising team. When coming up with a strategy for contributions they must make a determination on how often they will communicate with a given prospective donor via digital channels. Too little outreach and they won’t know anything about your organization. Too much outreach and they’ll unsubscribe, unfollow, and cancel their monthly gift. Finding the sweet spot is key.

A graph showing donor success on the y-axis and frequency of outreach on the x-axis with a parabola graphed on it​

Angular thinking (the 2×2 grid)

Dr. Keidel likes to joke that when two strategy consultants meet, the first question is always “What’s your matrix?” The 2×2 matrix is extremely prevalent in strategic thinking as a way to present two variables that must be balanced (or maximized) to achieve a goal.

For example, let’s say your executive director wants to redesign your annual report template this year. They meet with the design team and push them to be as creative as possible with the format to capture the attention of donors and supporters. After the meeting, the marketing team discusses their concern about users understanding the content of the report if there are too many bells and whistles. Their mandate shifts to maximize both form and function, not trading off one for the other.

A two by two matrix comparing relative levels, from low to high, of creative design and ease of understanding. The potential outcomes are Not Viable for Release in the lower left, Positive Public Perception in the upper left, High Level of Understanding in the lower right, and the best outcome is the top left - Highest Impact on Readers.​

Triangular thinking (autonomy, control, and cooperation)

There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of this pattern across nearly every discipline – from nonprofit strategy to architecture to psychology to finance. 

ExampleAutonomyControlCooperation
Sports teamsBaseballFootballBasketball
Team characteristicsTalentProcessCulture
Performance measureQualityCostTime
Ways to add valueProductOperationsCustomer service

A classic example that applies to any team or organization is the balance of Talent (autonomy), Process (control), and Culture (cooperation). Talent refers to capabilities:  Do you have the right resources to build a digital strategy? Process refers to the “how” of what you do: Do you have a consistent set of steps to follow to achieve your goals? Culture refers to the connections among your team and between teams:  Can you effectively collaborate or are you simply passing tasks back and forth.

A triangle with vertices labeled talent, process, and culture. A three circle Venn diagram is within the boundaries of the shape with various points marked based on their relative viabilities as strategies.​

The red Xs are important to note here.  By ending up in the center, you don’t have a true priority for your strategy. By ending up in the corners, you are “under-doing” your bottom priority. As long as you’re in a green circle, you’re in the clear!

You can place your organization in one of these positions based on your perspective. Doing so opens up a host of questions:

  • How might we add the skills or resources we need to implement our digital strategy?
  • What processes can be developed or updated to improve our work product?
  • Who should be part of planning or developing a given program or service? (Hint: You should always be talking to your audience)

Why does this matter?

It’s a fair question! These concepts are abstract and meta (thinking about thinking), but when honed and applied can be very powerful. Picking up these patterns and describing them to your colleagues and collaborators can add value to your conversations—whether you are developing a digital strategy or a strategic plan for your nonprofit. 

Next time you find yourself unsure of how to make a decision, consider whether or not you’re looking for a sweet spot (parabola), an “and” versus an “or” (2×2), or balancing three variables (triangular). If nothing else, you’ll spend less time going in circles!