A common framework in business writing is to refer to strategy and operations as a mutually-exclusive-collectively-exhaustive set of categories to describe what happens in an organization. Colloquially, the strategy side of the house "decides what to do", and the operations side of the house "does it".
Plenty of words have been spent declaring one "more important" than the other, but what I don't often see is an articulation of something other than the two options. Stepping outside the strict business realm, I think the way the US military describes levels of warfare can provide a helpful way to view activities within a company.
In the military, the strategic level deals with broad objectives, like being in a given region for a given purpose. The tactical level is the "boots on the ground", or the "tip of the spear". The operational level connects the two by looking at things like: what kind of boots do you need? where on the ground do you need to be when? do you have the equipment you need? are your batteries charged? are you well fed? are you able to talk with each other? are you dressed for the weather?
In other words, the operational level enables the tactical level to achieve the objectives of the strategic level. 90% of our armed forces work at the operational level. If you think about the "tip of the spear", a spear tip only becomes a truly deadly weapon when it is attached to a shaft. The operational level is that shaft; providing heft, range, and support to the tip.
As the connector between strategy and tactics, the operational level needs to be able to both speak the language of strategy as well as understand the reality of the tactics. Strategic objectives need to be deepened via specific operational contexts, and key tactical details need to be surfaced in order to make better strategic decisions.
In a company, you might think about salespeople, engineers, customer service reps, and other front line employees as the tactical level. If they are to succeed in achieving the strategic objectives of their organization, they need operational support. Supervisors, middle managers, IT departments, finance departments, HR -- these are all examples of the ways organizations support their tactical level employees, even if they're not traditionally thought of as "operational" roles. From that view, the questions flow naturally. Does your operational level understand your strategic objectives? How are operational observations informing strategic decision making? How effective is our tactical level able to be? Is the tactical level effective in a way that supports our strategy?
We don't expect Soldiers to buy their own weapons and arrange their own ride to the fight, why would we expect other front-line actors to take on burdens that will hamper their efficacy?
Plenty of words have been spent declaring one "more important" than the other, but what I don't often see is an articulation of something other than the two options. Stepping outside the strict business realm, I think the way the US military describes levels of warfare can provide a helpful way to view activities within a company.
In the military, the strategic level deals with broad objectives, like being in a given region for a given purpose. The tactical level is the "boots on the ground", or the "tip of the spear". The operational level connects the two by looking at things like: what kind of boots do you need? where on the ground do you need to be when? do you have the equipment you need? are your batteries charged? are you well fed? are you able to talk with each other? are you dressed for the weather?
In other words, the operational level enables the tactical level to achieve the objectives of the strategic level. 90% of our armed forces work at the operational level. If you think about the "tip of the spear", a spear tip only becomes a truly deadly weapon when it is attached to a shaft. The operational level is that shaft; providing heft, range, and support to the tip.
As the connector between strategy and tactics, the operational level needs to be able to both speak the language of strategy as well as understand the reality of the tactics. Strategic objectives need to be deepened via specific operational contexts, and key tactical details need to be surfaced in order to make better strategic decisions.
In a company, you might think about salespeople, engineers, customer service reps, and other front line employees as the tactical level. If they are to succeed in achieving the strategic objectives of their organization, they need operational support. Supervisors, middle managers, IT departments, finance departments, HR -- these are all examples of the ways organizations support their tactical level employees, even if they're not traditionally thought of as "operational" roles. From that view, the questions flow naturally. Does your operational level understand your strategic objectives? How are operational observations informing strategic decision making? How effective is our tactical level able to be? Is the tactical level effective in a way that supports our strategy?
We don't expect Soldiers to buy their own weapons and arrange their own ride to the fight, why would we expect other front-line actors to take on burdens that will hamper their efficacy?
No comments:
Post a Comment