I’ve had the opportunity to work on several strategic assessments over the years, and have been surprised by a key theme that typically surfaces at the beginning of client conversations. It deals with the current state assessment phase of the strategy—which is often undermined and judged to be a lot of work for little value. I argue this is one of the most important phases of the project—where one can truly assess the health of the current state and identify the real key issues and gaps to address.
When I arrive for my annual physical, the first thing to occur is a detailed review of my background and health history. The doctor examines my charts, takes my vital signs, and then proceeds to ask of any issues/concerns. In essence, this is my current state assessment. A doctor should never prescribe remedies without assessing the current state of my health, and organizations should not proceed with “future state” design and recommendations without undertaking a detailed current state assessment.
So why do clients tend to downplay the value of a current state assessment? Reasons I’ve heard include: “We already know where our problems lie,” “We expect our current state to drastically change, so why focus here?” and “We’d rather spend our efforts focusing on future state than dwelling on the current state.” While I agree efforts to over-analyze current state are not prudent, I do believe a baseline level of understanding is required—with deeper dives into high risk or problematic areas.
In my experience, the client’s perception of key issues and gaps can oftentimes be symptoms of underlying problems. An inefficient process may be the result of a technology gap, which could be attributable to a system or resourcing gap. Also, inefficient upstream processes may impact the efficiency of downstream processes, so a current state assessment would uncover these types of dependencies too. Identifying symptoms are typically easier and faster than finding problems. However, problems tend to resurface if the root cause is not addressed. Allocating proper time to assess current state issues will only reap benefits down the line.
The current state assessment must align key stakeholders on the real issues, prior to delving into the future state needs. I can recall situations where a client thought new systems were needed, when in fact the “systems” were fine but the associated data and integration points were flawed. As another example, a client believed specific functional processes were in need to change, but upon closer inspection the issues were more “resource” related.
A current state assessment also highlights the good areas, which are just as important to identify. There may be functions currently aligned with good practices, so classifying these areas appropriately will allow a greater focus on the problem areas.
In summary, the current state assessment should be considered an integral part of any strategic assessment. It’s hard to fix something without knowing the true root cause of an issue. The best place to diagnose those issues is by looking at the current state. A rush to the “future state” may, in fact, lead you “back to the future” at some point down the road.
Comments