Failure to plan is planning to fail

Post 2: Strategy as precondition for goal achievement

The purpose of strategic planning

In distinction from a detailed plan a strategy (from Greek στρατηγία stratēgia, "art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship") is the general action plan to achieve one or more long-term or overall goals under conditions of uncertainty. It is based on a joint vision and describes strategic themes, goals, quantifiable objectives, tactics and success measures for goal achievement with the resources available. Corporate and military strategies are often not public to prevent the competitor or enemy from taking counteractions. In peaceful international cooperation this is not possible. Instead, where a contribution and own initiative is expected from a large number of stakeholders including member states, UN system entities, governmental and non-governmental stakeholders it is a must that they not only share the same vision but also understand and support the strategy and make their own commitments accordingly.

It's not clear what's the strategy behind the Report and how influential the Doha Report and other initiatives will be. It will depend among others on pandemic and political developments in upcoming months. However, a review, update and even a substantial dismantling of the current agendas is possible in coping with new and old crises. And since decision making in context of the UN can be very slow or even blocked there is also the option that no real decision is taken and officially nothing changes. But since the 2030 Agenda is already off track now review could mean its slow death. 

The positive effect of a challenge of the 2030 Agenda would be that the tabling of alternative proposals will generate strategic choices.

For those who invested since 2015 in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and NUA this is a chance to improve the framework of agenda implementation. In this context, it certainly will be helpful if they make up their case, add a compelling narrative and strategy. All stakeholders could win if the expected dialogue in the coming months would generate a vision, strategy and reliable commitments.

In preparation of this process it also may be helpful if supporters of the 2030 Agenda could better carve out the estimated and other anticipated gains of agenda implementation.

To give an example: National Urban Policies (NUP) and UN-Habitat’s Guidelines of Urban and Territorial Planning (IG-UTP) are already mentioned in the NUA. They aim at better cross sector and multi-level policy coordination to make the best use of limited sources in cities and territories. In principle such means of implementation can be of benefit for the entire 2030 Agenda and in response to COVID-19 and other crises. Better cross sector and multi-level coordination is at the heart of the interrelated web of SDGs. UN-Habitat is offering them on there service list and is ready to do depending of funds available.

The question is: Are such means of implementation really just some tools among many others and one shouldn't bother too much. Or, are these tools raw diamonds with the potential to boost the entire agenda implementation? I cannot give a final answer because nobody is doing a stress test. And without a stress test the real value remains unknown. Imagine, the UN has developped thousands of studies and hundreds of tools. I wonder how many are just sitting on some shelf because they never were assessed from a strategic point of view. The interns, short term staff and consultants who did the bulk work may have left the institution since long with their institutional memory and the managers still in charge are flooded with emerging and ongoing tasks, faced with budget challenges, high staff turnover and since one year also by the pandemic and lockdown. I understand that the Secretary General comes to very drastic descriptions of the situation (see my blog post on the Importance of Vision of 18 February 2021). However, the good thing is that the UN with its staff has still a pretty good institutional memory, shelves full of studies and tools, and with its country and project offices the UN is present throughout the world. It's time to become more strategic, count the assets and demonstrate to the world the UN's strategic value.

For the above mentioned means of implementation this requred that they should be assessed and offert as a stratgic choice. Listed on shopping lists (often called toolbox etc) they are no real strategic choices because the potential cot and benefits of their implementation are not yet well analysed and estimated. Yes, decision makers e.g. from national or local governments like project shopping lists to pick from and they tend to take offers backed by donor funding. This is the way much of traditional development cooperation works. A more modern approach would be that the UN and other international organizations (being aware of the potential value of their tools and services) explain to member states and other partners what's potentially in it if they use the tools, approaches and services. For instance, how much more effective and efficient a government could deliver services if they would follow principles of integrated and multi-level planning. This would give them an idea on cost and benefits and on the own commitment they would have to make. Yes, and only now they would have a strategic choice.

Now look again at the many 'We commit' phrases in the 2030 Agenda and NUA and imagine member states would reconfirm them based on a strategy with strategic choices. It might generate a much more realistic but not necessarily less ambitious agenda. It's just that the vision, strategy and related strategic choices would make commitments easier.

_____

If you have any questions, comments or a request for advisory services please contact Ulrich Graute via ulrich.graute@ugraute.de

All posts on the subject Failure to plan is planning to fail will be available on the blog “With burning patience”: https://www.ugraute.de/blog-1