1. Different Outputs – Perhaps the biggest difference between continuous strategy development and batch strategic planning is in the outputs. The output of strategic planning has traditionally been – as one might expect – a strategic plan. The outputs of continuous strategy development are quite different. Under a continuous approach, "strategy" isn’t a plan, it is a direction for the company and an agenda of issues and opportunities to drive change in that direction. This process focuses top management on what matters most – setting the right strategic direction – and allows decisions to be considered in the context of that direction, in real time.

   Take Cadbury Schweppes, for example. The UK-based food and beverage company has long held a strong position in carbonated beverages – owning the 7 UP and Dr Pepper brands. Facing relatively slow growth and stiff competition in carbonated beverages, Cadbury acquired Snapple for $1.45 billion in 2000. Was this transaction spelled out in any grand strategic plan? No. Rather, senior management made the decision to move into non-carbonated beverages as part of a broad strategic direction to extend its position into related food and beverage markets. As a result, one of the issues on their agenda had been how best to enter the U.S. refreshment beverages market. When the Snapple opportunity arose, they carefully evaluated the deal knowing it was consistent with the company’s strategic direction.

   In our view, the notion that strategy is something that can be planned well in advance and then executed is out of step with today’s rapidly changing world. Since no executive (not even the most brilliant strategist) is clairvoyant, strategic planning today should produce different outputs than in the past – not a plan, but a direction and an agenda.

2. Clearer Accountabilities – Ironically, as elaborate as most strategic planning processes are, they establish few real accountabilities. After all, no one individual can be held responsible for ensuring that a multi-year strategic plan is effectively executed. Even if everything were to go according to plan, most executives move on before any multi-year plan can be realized, and few control all elements of plan implementation during their tenure.

   While managers can’t be held accountable for carrying out a multi-year strategic plan, they can be held accountable for addressing important strategy issues. Each item on the agenda should have an individual accountable for addressing the issue and a timetable for resolving it. At the end of the year, if an issue remains on the company’s agenda – that is, no decision has been reached and no action taken – top management can incorporate this fact into its evaluation of the appropriate manager’s performance.

   Because accountabilities are clearer under a continuous strategy development model than under traditional strategic planning, we find that the approach frequently accelerates the pace of strategic decision making and, therefore, fuels value growth.

Concluding Remarks
Many executives have grown skeptical of strategic planning. And is it any wonder? After all, if the purpose of strategic planning isn’t to drive a company’s strategy, then what is its purpose? And if driving a company’s strategy isn’t about influencing top management’s decisions, then what is it about? For strategic planning o be worthwhile, the process needs to be redesigned – focused not on developing a static plan, but on continuously addressing the issues and opportunities that will have the greatest impact on long-term value for shareholders.