The question missing from many 90-day plans

A five-year ambition may be clear: build a stronger management team, grow profitably or prepare for succession. The difficulty begins when that ambition reaches a management team whose diaries are already full.

Adding three priorities to the next quarter does not create the capacity to deliver them. The question I would ask is: what will we stop, defer or delegate to make room?

Put the trade-off beside the priority

Suppose better contract profitability information is a priority. Someone must define the measures, improve the underlying data and review the results. If that person is already handling every urgent customer request, the plan needs a change in responsibilities as well as a completion date.

In that situation, management must either release capacity, reduce the scope or accept that progress will be slower. Leaving the conflict unnamed makes the plan look more achievable than it is.

Agree the evidence before the quarter starts

For each priority, I would want a defined result, one accountable owner and a measure that shows whether the result is improving. “Introduce a dashboard” describes an activity. “Use contract margin information to review pricing on the next renewals” connects the work to a decision.

The measure need not be complicated. It must be credible, available and reviewed often enough to prompt action.

A shorter plan can be more demanding than a long one because it forces management to choose. The aim is to connect long-term direction to work the business can actually complete.

At your next planning meeting: put a stop, defer or delegate decision beside each new priority. If there is no room for the work, the priority still needs resolving.

Further reading: Connecting five-year ambition to a 90-day plan.