This almost old-fashioned discussion about efficiency and effectiveness. Doing the right things right.
Let's just imagine that we want to drive from Munich to Hamburg by car. Let's start on the Munich ring road, slip road to the A8 freeway, we race south. After about 1:15 hour we are already in Salzburg, tank only half full.
Well, that then had neither effect nor was it efficient. On the one hand, it did not help our goal of getting to Hamburg. So not effective at all. We already did something wrong or just not the right thing with the wrong slip road to the highway to reach our goal.
Neither lacked efficiency, because we did not conserve our resources, so what we did, we additionally did not do in the right way. So in that case, doubly bad.
Strategy starts one step before - a planning, so to speak, but with an unpredictable core in it. The strategy thus has a rather long-term character - what do we want to achieve. In our example very strongly simplified transferred: Hamburg and as economically and nevertheless as fast as possible, want to spend there two weeks. We try to make a plan as reliable as possible, so it is almost inevitably much shorter in terms of time. For our trip, for example, we "plan" to choose the train as a means of transportation (here there may already be a conflict with the speed, waiting times and changes, etc.). It can be broken down to strategy gives the direction, tactics as the intermediary the tools and methods and the plan is the execution or operational level.
Now we have seen - it is a matter of doing the right things right, but what if we do the right things wrong? So, for example, we are effective but not efficient?
So we decided to take the car after all and head north towards Hamburg - with a lead foot, i.e. full throttle. After all, we're going in the right direction, so we're doing the right thing. But there is no trace of efficiency with regard to the goal of economy. Of course, the example is hackneyed and superficial, but in essence it illustrates what is important in strategy and planning, namely the correct orientation.
If we now transfer our thoughts to entrepreneurial levels, e.g. in business development, another perspective becomes apparent, which is no less important. An example: We have set ourselves a strategic (long-term) goal, we would like to complement our portfolio in the area of customer relationship management consulting, with another software product, thus a brand. In this way, we would like to position ourselves more broadly in terms of competence and range of solutions, and also become more visible on the market as a consulting company, emerge from our hidden champion existence, and have a top player in the area of marketing and sales in addition to our niche products. A big "brand" definitely helps here - oh, you also consult in the area of Microsoft, Salesforce, SAP, Oracle, and so on.
The long-term goal has been set, now it's time for the business plan and the short-term view. What can and should we do to be perceived as a consultant for the new brand, how do we reach customers and gain their trust so that they will consider us as a project partner? Equally important is the reflection, how does the own company look like and which culture does it carry. Why this is relevant? An example: If one's own company is rather risk-averse and not yet structured in terms of sales, progressive approaches to the market will be lost - and it is precisely these that are relevant to the top software houses in the highly competitive partner market. The big issue here is networking, and this can be done with people who are not necessarily always operationally involved in the project and are therefore cost-covering (in the overall context, this must be viewed differently - average cost effect).
Out of all the ideas and possibilities: Partner management, cold calling, trade show visits, body leasing, networking, advertising, subcontracting, etc., the focus must be sharpened and aligned on the basis of efficiency and effectiveness. It is possible to try to do something in all areas at the beginning, but then it is important to evaluate all measures honestly.
This means that you can also get lost in this area. Let's take the trade fair visits here, where you can visit trade fair after trade fair over the year and perhaps even be an exhibitor yourself, but in the end build up neither projects, nor visibility, nor a useful network. Maybe it was the wrong fairs (orientation of visitors), wrong booths, bad customer approach etc. - only in the area one could spend accordingly time and visit first the fairs and become acquainted with, so that one recognizes their relevance and plans thereupon attendance and own operational readiness level. But then only for this already again several weeks and months have passed by.
In other areas, the situation may be similar, and then it also depends on one's own commitment, i.e. how much am I willing to place personnel and their deployment in business development. This means that one or two employees do not serve the measures, as more people could do (but the increase is not arbitrary here either, organic growth on the subject).
Ultimately, we can pursue our strategy with plans in many areas and let the individual sub-plans become as complex and detailed as we want. For this, however, it is important to set quality gates or milestones at which we reflect on ourselves and correct the measures or leave them alone. This is where the third level of the strategy comes into focus.
Strategy also means consciously not doing things. You can try to jump after many colored balls and try to reach them. In the end, you don't catch them all, you burn energy and you are exhausted. It is similar with the measures in projects or in our example, you have to keep a critical eye on the strategy - which does not mean that you constantly look insecurely at your own long-term goals. But rather, always take a constructive view of the short-term actions in light of the long-term approach. So even colorful balls that fly in the wrong direction, just let them fly.
There is a rule of thumb here: The colder the acquisition approach, the less relevant it often is. In other words, the more effort and resources required to achieve the goal - compared to other possible ideas - the more likely it is that these measures should be deprioritized.
It is not easy to find the right things and then immediately do them right. On this way one will inevitably also attack wrong things or just do right things wrongly. But exactly therein lies the formula for success of a profitable strategy and planning, to recognize the wrong things and leave the wrong actions - to consciously not do everything, even if it would be possible.