Collaborative Planning and Execution

Have you thought about who should create your strategy and who should implement it? And do you expect cooperation or collaboration? Who should create and who should implement? There's no simple answer to this. It's nuanced. Option A is to have the same people create AND implement the strategy. If this is possible, the biggest benefit is probably the ownership and accountability it leads to, stemming from a deep understanding of the vision. It's also easier for the organization to adapt and respond to challenges that arise during execution. It's hard to argue against this Option A approach... BUT in reality, the creation and implementation of strategy require very different skill sets and it can be challenging to find people who excel in both areas. I've also seen tunnel vision arise in teams that try to do both because they are too attached to the original plan! For these reasons, among others, companies often choose Option B which is a traditional top-down approach where the strategy creators (often senior leaders) are separated from the implementors and responsibility is placed on the creators to communicate the strategy and effectively hand it over to the implementors who are expected to COOPERATE. Option B can work! But only if there is very clear communication, alignment of goals, and a shared commitment to achieving the goals. 🤔 So if Option A is perhaps ideal but not unrealistic, should we really aim for Option B? 🤔 Are our strategy creators really THAT good at communicating the strategy and will people REALLY align to and implement it when it's left to them? 🤔 Could we not look at Option C- a balanced approach that doesn't ask people to simply cooperate or coordinate. Option C allows for close COLLABORATION between two distinct roles of strategists and implementers. With Option C, the organization puts together a diverse and knowledgeable team of people who are strong influencers, whose role is to create the strategy (involving the people doing the work) and who remain involved and supportive throughout the implementation process. Which option do you think is best for your organization? Option C is my winner because it offers the best and most practical way to ensure both creators and implementors feel strong ownership of the strategy. But I'm interested to hear what you think!! Who creates your strategy? And who implements it? What has worked well? What hasn't worked well? Leave your comments below 🙏 Image Credit: Dr Sanja Kisicek #strategy #strategicplanning #collaboration #leadership #teamwork #accountability

“You must forget the daily problems to build a strategic plan.” But what if those daily problems are also the plan? S&OP (Sales and Operations Planning) promises an end-to-end approach, aligning supply chain strategy with operations. It’s necessary. But here’s the problem: Strategic plans rely only on aggregated data, blind to the ERP interdependencies that drive execution: • Open sales orders depend on production orders. • Deliveries are tied to invoices. • Invoices depend on accurate credit limits and payment terms. Without addressing these transactional realities, the plan remains disconnected from execution. Does this mean you abandon strategy? No. But it means you need both: 1. A strategic plan built on future goals. 2. An operational framework that prioritizes and resolves 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙝 & 𝘾𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙧 𝘾𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙠𝙨 in real time. Forget either one, and you’re stuck: • Focus only on the big picture, and daily 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙝 & 𝘾𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙧 𝘾𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙠𝙨 derail execution. • Fix only today’s problems, and tomorrow’s vision disappears. The Answer? Build a Two-Way Bridge. 👉 ➝ Use S&OP for strategic alignment and capacity planning. 👉 ➝ Empower teams with tools like the 𝘿𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙮 𝙒𝙤𝙧𝙠 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙧 to resolve operational bottlenecks at the frontline. 👉 ➝ Make ERP interdependencies part of your improvement plan — not an afterthought. Strategy and execution aren’t enemies. They’re partners. Success comes from bridging both, so the perfect plan meets reality, and reality shapes the perfect plan. #SOP #SupplyChain #Strategy #Execution #Bottlenecks

✈️ Aligning Network, Fleet, and Schedule: Why Planning Silos Are Costing Airlines More Than They Realize Core airline commercial planning is often divided into three domains: 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸, 𝗙𝗹𝗲𝗲𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴. Each operates across strategic, tactical, and operational phases, with different time horizons and objectives. But in reality, these domains are deeply interdependent, and when they fall out of sync, the consequences are costly. 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 isn't just a planning hiccup. It leads to: • Underutilized aircraft • Missed market opportunities • Slower recovery from disruptions • Erosion of profitability and resilience Take a common scenario: a network team designs a promising new network expansion, but the fleet team hasn't secured the right aircraft. Or schedule planners optimize utilization that clash with connection times or maintenance windows. These aren't isolated issues; they're symptoms of disconnected planning. 🧩 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Leading airlines are shifting from siloed workflows to collaborative ecosystems. They're investing in: • Integrated planning platforms that unify data across departments • Cross-functional teams that co-own decisions • Shared KPIs that reward alignment, not isolation    𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗼𝗻𝘀: • The strategic, tactical, and operational phases of each planning domain • Key outcomes across Network, Fleet, and Schedule • The interdependencies that make collaboration essential    Whether you're in route development, fleet acquisition, or schedule design, this framework empowers you to see the bigger picture and ask better, more informed questions. 𝗟𝗲𝘁'𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀: Where have you seen planning silos create the most costly disconnects, and what would it take to bridge them? 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁: 💾 Save for quick reference 🔄 Share with your aviation network #Air52Insights #aviation #airlines #aviationindustry #revenuemanagement

Most firms believe every goal requires two things: discipline and consistency. So when progress slows down, leadership usually pushes the same solution. Work harder. Stay disciplined. Be more consistent. But in most professional services firms, the team is already working hard. Execution problems are rarely about discipline. They are almost always about structure. When priorities change every week, roles are unclear, and no one owns the outcome, consistency becomes impossible no matter how disciplined the team is. Execution starts with a system: Clear priorities for the quarter. Clear ownership for every result. A weekly meeting rhythm where issues get solved. This is what allows discipline and consistency to actually compound. Without structure, effort resets every week. With the right operating cadence, progress builds week after week. Follow for practical systems that help professional services firms execute consistently without relying on constant pressure from leadership.

I Built a Perfect Plan … No One Followed It. It looked great on paper. Optimized flow. Balanced loads. Perfectly sequenced. And by noon on day one No one was following it. Operators had their own adjustments. Supervisors patched the plan mid‑shift. Maintenance rebuilt priorities on the fly. My perfect plan collapsed under reality. I’d built the plan for people but not with them. That was the mistake. A plan without participation is not a plan. It looks disciplined, but it dies once the rubber hits with the floor. Execution doesn’t fail because people resist the plan. It fails because they don’t believe it belongs to them. Here’s what I learned the hard way: 1️⃣ Plan on the floor, not just in the meeting room. 2️⃣ Let operators pull the schedule, not just receive it. 3️⃣ Make planning a design loop, not a reporting ritual. The best plans are not instructions. They are shared commitments. They build ownership. Because when people help build the plan, You don’t need to convince them to follow it. ♺ Reshare this every Operations and Planning leader will know this feeling. ► For more no‑BS manufacturing and leadership transformation stories: Join the newsletter → https://lnkd.in/dMGaUj4p

Plans are easy. Execution is rare. And leadership alignment is where most strategies quietly die. 👇 See more Most leadership teams don’t fail because of bad strategy. They fail because leaders execute in parallel, not together. Peter Drucker said it best: “Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work.” That degeneration doesn’t happen on the shop floor. It happens in the leadership team. Here’s what I see in most executive rooms: • Each leader owns their own goals • Goals aren’t visible to peers • Tradeoffs surface too late • Conflicts get escalated to the CEO • Execution gaps are explained after results miss The CEO becomes the only person who sees the full picture. That’s not a leadership flaw. That’s a broken operating system. High-performing companies fix this by building a working leadership team. Not a reporting forum. Not a ceremonial meeting. A team built on shared visibility and mutual accountability. What changes? ✔ Every executive’s goals are visible to peers ✔ Goals are aligned before they’re finalized ✔ Progress is reviewed together — openly ✔ Problems surface early, while they’re solvable ✔ Leaders feel accountable to the team, not just the CEO This is where the alignment wheel matters: Strategy → Transparent Goals → Mutual Accountability → Operating Rhythm → Execution When leaders can see how their commitments affect everyone else: • Silos collapse • Quiet reprioritization disappears • Decisions get made in the room • Execution accelerates Strategy stops being a document. It becomes a shared operating reality. So here’s the real question for every CEO and board: Is your leadership team actually working as a team — or are they talented individuals operating in parallel? Because strategy doesn’t fail in planning. It fails in how leaders work together. #Leadership #CEO #ExecutiveTeams #StrategyExecution #Alignment #Accountability #BusinessPerformance

→ 𝐌𝐲 𝐄𝐧𝐝-𝐭𝐨-𝐄𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢-𝐒𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐝 𝐀𝐠𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐬 • 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐕𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 & 𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 - Set a clear product vision, strategic OKRs, and measurable success metrics. Align all squads to a shared north star and establish cross-functional ownership. • 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞: 𝐒𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐝 & 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 - Organize squads around value streams with clear charters, KPIs, and defined interfaces to prevent overlaps. • 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐋𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐨𝐠 - Maintain Strategic, Program, and Squad backlogs with consistent prioritization frameworks for aligned execution. • 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐀𝐠𝐢𝐥𝐞-𝐚𝐭-𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞 - Standardize ceremonies like PI Planning, cross-squad syncs, and retrospectives while empowering local squad decisions. • 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞: 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚-𝐃𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 - Track velocity, dependencies, and risks via dashboards; base decisions on metrics, not assumptions. • 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 - Encourage open communication, psychological safety, and celebrate shared wins to foster trust. • 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 & 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 - Conduct program retrospectives, refine interfaces, and scale practices gradually without compromising agility. Follow Shraddha Sahu for more insights

Study military history and doctrine.  I’m seeing a ton of iteration happening in how people orchestrate groups of agents. What folks are converging for how to get high-quality output of agents is essentially the same way the military specifies a mission. It’s called an OPORD or operations order, and it’s a structured way of giving enough context for folks to successfully achieve a goal, and act mostly autonomously while they do it.  There’s a standard five paragraph structure. Situation, Mission, Execution, Administration & Logistics (or Sustainment), and Command & Signal, all abbreviated SMEAC.  Situation : stuff like the weather, terrain, where your friends and foes are, etc. I the context of code, this would be where documentation lives, useful libraries, pointers to relevant or prior work, computer resources or APIs available.  Mission : what needs doing. Covers who, what, when, where, why, but does not cover how.  Execution : how the operation should be carried out. This is the implementation plan.  Administration and logistics : in code, this would be issue tracking, git rebasing, protocols for compaction or session persistence.  Command and signal : how the agents should communicate with each other and when and how to ask for feedback. 

S&OP isn’t just about process and technology, it’s about people. At its core, S&OP is a cross-functional effort that thrives on communication, collaboration, and shared objectives. While systems and AI play a crucial role, the real drivers of sustainable and effective S&OP are the people behind it. A people-first approach ensures long-term success and makes the planning process more than just a routine it becomes a competitive advantage. Here’s what that looks like in action: ✔ Aligning Teams for Unified Execution – S&OP works best when teams operate with transparency, open communication, and mutual respect. Alignment isn’t just about meetings; it’s about fostering a culture where every function understands and supports the bigger picture. ✔ Investing in Skills & Leadership – Strong S&OP doesn’t happen by chance. Ongoing training and leadership development ensure that teams stay ahead of industry shifts and evolving methodologies. People driven S&OP means continuous learning. ✔ Technology & AI as Enablers, Not Drivers – AI and automation are powerful, but they should enhance human decision-making, not replace it. The best S&OP teams leverage technology to support strategy not dictate it. A well-executed S&OP process isn’t just about numbers on a spreadsheet it’s about the people who bring strategy to life. Invest in them, and the results will follow. #SnOp #Leadership #DemandPlanning

Why Is Execution So Hard? 🚩 Lack of Clarity: Many organizations struggle with execution because initiatives and goals are often vague or poorly communicated. Without clear direction, employees don’t know exactly what’s expected of them, leading to misalignment and confusion. 🚩 Inadequate Engagement: Traditional top-down strategies often fail to engage employees at all levels. When employees don’t feel involved in the planning process, they lack ownership and commitment, which hinders execution. 🚩 Poor Alignment: Without a framework that ensures consistent alignment between individual goals and organizational objectives, efforts can become fragmented. This misalignment results in teams pulling in different directions and undermines execution. 🚩 Lack of Continuous Feedback: Execution isn’t a one-time effort; it requires ongoing assessment and adjustment. Without regular progress reviews and feedback, issues go unnoticed, and performance stagnates. What Are We Doing Differently? ✅ Performance Agreement Process: We involve employees directly in defining their job responsibilities and goals. This fosters ownership, clarity, and alignment from the start. ✅ Monthly Progress Meetings: We emphasize regular, structured one-on-one progress meetings. These meetings ensure continuous feedback, allowing for course corrections and keeping everyone aligned and engaged. ✅ Focus on Individual Performance: Our approach recognizes that execution happens at the individual level. By focusing on each person’s contributions and ensuring their work aligns with the broader goals, we drive execution more effectively. ✅ Behavioral and Leadership Focus: We integrate insights on human behavior and leadership, ensuring that our methods are not just process-driven but people-centric. This helps in fostering a culture of engagement and high performance. For more information, visit KeyneInsight.com Infographic Credit: Shane Nelsen #Execution #performance #Management