On writing strategies

With a new government will come new strategies. Every new minister with new responsibilities will wish to make their mark by showing how they can bring new thinking to policy areas that the previous government had found uninteresting or intractable and had allowed to drift. Sometimes these will be internal exercises but if intended for external consumption they will need to be published in an attractive format, to be rolled out at a media event or presented to parliament as providing a guide to government action over the coming years.  Outside bodies will seek to influence these strategies by offering their own versions, and then, once a new government strategy has been promulgated, affected organisations will ponder their meaning and start to respond.

This new strategy production will give a boost to an activity that is always underway to some degree, in and out of government.  As few speak up for complacency and continuity, there is a constant demand for radicalism, reform, and reappraisal. Change is considered good. Nobody in charge of any organisation wishes it to be thought that have run out of ideas or that they only move forward in ways that are largely reactive and improvised, essentially making things up as they go along, though that is what they may be doing. Carry on this way and critics will soon warn of policy drift, pointing to gathering storm clouds and lights flashing amber that may soon turn to red.

Governments therefore have any number of strategy documents in circulation at any time, dealing with individual departments (‘a strategy for health’), the implications of new technologies (‘a strategy for AI’) or a dangerous international environment (‘a strategy for national security’). Big companies publish them to explain reorganizations or new market initiatives. Startups need to convey their potential to appeal to new investors. Universities must show how they will manage the twin challenges of teaching and research. Charities need them to explain how they will raise funds and disburse them responsibly.

Those writing these documents face a challenge. They are likely to have multiple audiences and it will be hard to satisfy everyone. If they cover too much the treatment of individual topics will be dismissed as superficial, but a laser-like focus on one topic and the accusation will be one of missing the bigger picture. If they deal with immediate problems the thinking is too short-term; look far into the future and its all speculation. Too bold is synonymous with losing touch with reality; too timid and then what’s the point?

In my time I have been involved in writing such documents and I have studied many more. I have sympathy with those tasked with producing them, although I have become sceptical about their value for reasons I will explain. Some of the strategies produced can be truly foundational, genuinely charting a new course and standing the test of time. But many turn to have short half-lives and are quietly forgotten or even become an embarrassment because of unfulfilled promises and flawed assumptions.

The best strategy documents have a clear audience in mind, address a real problem and show a way forward. That may seem simple enough but the process can easily go awry. For the benefit of those who find themselves tasked with the job of preparing one here are some of the potential pitfalls.