There is a direct coordination between the clarity and doability of the targets of a program and any increase in stats.
If one can write good, simple, doable programs on matters important to get done, they can get done. If the program is cloudy or the targets too general, little comes of it. It does not show up in stats and can even clutter up lines and impede production.
So it is very important to an exec and to staffs that the exec be able to write clean, concise programs and staffs to recognize when they are not and plead for correction.
Strategic planning gets bugged most often because middle management does not put it in target form or if they do, put it in such cloudy or general targets it cannot be done and does not achieve the desired result.
Faults in this can cost — factually — millions in unmade income or actual losses and overwork.
But now today another factor is entering the scene. The world has gone computer.
This does not mean computers can do actual work — they can’t. But it does mean they can keep track of things and operate to catch things which, undone, wreck things.
In a very short while, at this writing, computers will exist at management echelons to keep track of stats, demand programs and keep track of their effectiveness. The computer will be able to detect very early noncompliance both in writing and getting done programs.
Life will be much smoother as debugs will be demanded more quickly and bad targets or line jams or staff overloads will be detected sooner and remedied, resulting in more income, more service and more pay.
But all this will depend on three things:
1. The existence and soundness of the strategic planning and evaluation. (This has never much been in doubt.)
2. The clarity with which planning can be programed. (This is currently not good at all.)
3. The execution of targets called for at various echelons and staff level. (This depends, to a large measure, on 2 above.)
To a computer, which cannot really think, a target is a target. If not done in the expected time, it will squawk. If still not done, it will demand a debug.
The debug will find: (a) the organization ordered did not give it to a correct or the right staff member to do, (b) had no one there to do it or (c) the target was simply
neglected at staff level or (d) the target was undoable in its existing form. The right one will be found, action will be taken and the overall scene will advance once more.
So it is very important, whether one is writing major, minor or mini programs, that they be written absolutely on-policy from here on out.
This starts now, not waiting for computers, as it is valid in its own right and Programs Ops are on the line. With computers, there will still be Programs Ops to run them but the precision and speed will increase amazingly.
The organizations in the world are getting bigger. They have to be more efficient to also pay well. And this all comes down to the 1, 2, 3 above.
It is a miserable thing to be hit with a lot of confused, undoable orders. And dangerous to one at staff level for one can be charged with noncompliance when there was really nothing precise to comply with!
So the ability to coordinate programs and write excellent target-policy targets is vital to the ability of all to work.
And when computers get on the job, electronic sparks will be flying all over the place if target policy is not adhered to carefully and precisely.
So this policy is vital, computers or no computers.
OPERATING TARGETS MUST HEREAFTER BE WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY ARE FINITE AND NOT A GENERALITY SO THEY ARE PRECISELY DOABLE. Targets like “Keep stats rising” or “Be nice to Joe” are not doable targets from a computer’s viewpoint or anybody else’s.
But, computers aside, the one that does the target is NOT a computer and with target clarity can do it far more easily.
Hear me, the 1, 2, 3 above are the make-break point of expand or not expand.
So heed it.