LESSONS LEARNED FROM DEVELOPING INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 06974298
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: May 30, 2024
• Document Release Date: April 24, 2024
• Case Number: F-2022-00806

Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED/EDR.DEFIC4AL�E}SE-OTCY
APPENDIX B
(U) Lessons Learned from Developing Intelligence
Community Strategic Plan
Introduction
When a new agency director takes the reins,
one of the first long term actions invariably taken
is the development of a strategy to guide the
organization over that individual's incumbency.
The intent may be to move the organization in a
different direction, reinforce a current practice, or
set new benchmarks for the future. For all the
work that goes into developing them, such strate-
gies have an 80-percent failure rate regardless of
whether they are in the private sector or the US
government.a Unfortunately, few actually achieve
the vision for the future that organizations spend
massive time, effort, and energy assembling.
Most strategies have goals designed to be
reached in three to five years, which is consistent
with those of the business world, where CEOs
are expected to lead their organizations for five
to ten years. Meanwhile, in the Intelligence Com-
munity (IC) or the government sector, leaders are
in place for only two to three years. Changes in
presidential administration further complicate
tenure; consequently, IC strategies that might
take a year to develop and another year to imple-
ment see changes in leadership that necessitate
restarting the entire process. This paper
describes the processes that have been used,
sometimes successfully and sometimes not, in
the IC. The lessons learned may contribute to a
greater understanding of what is required for cre-
ating strategic plans that positions the IC for
greater success in the future.
What Is a Strategy & What Is It
Intended To Do?
Strategies are statements of major
approaches and/or the methods for attaining
broad goals and resolving specific issues. Sev-
eral methods exist to construct strategy, but gen-
erally strategy development is broken down into
two types�the 'bottom-up approach' and lop-
down approach'.
In general, the 'bottom-up' process solicits
ideas from all parts of the organization and win-
nows the many ideas into a few themes. One
positive aspect of this approach is that the work-
force is immediately engaged; however, an
important drawback is that numerous ideas are
presented and many may not conform to the
direction in which senior management wants to
move the organization. Further, this methodology
can take a long time to solicit ideas and sort
through them. A modified version of this method
was used in the development of the 2009 version
of the National Intelligence Strategy. In develop-
ing the 2014 version of the NIS, the ODNI gath-
ered a small working group together from
representatives of the IC and used their input to
help shape the document.
The 'top-down' approach uses a small group
working directly with the leader. The team takes
direction straight from the boss and articulates
his/her ideas, such as was the case in the pro-
duction of the current CIA Strategic Direction. On
the plus side, this approach is direct and has the
benefit of being able to succinctly convey the
leader's intent. Many IC elements have used this
approach.
a. Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton. "The Balanced Scorecard�Translating Strategy Into Action." Harvard Business
Review Press, 1996.
101
UNCLASSIFIED//F_GELOARetArOSMI-2(
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) Lessons Learned from Developing Intelligence Community Strategic Plan
In the best cases, agencies have combined
positive aspects of both approaches. The
agency leader organized a
strategy team which
worked directly with the
agency director and his
leadership team2. The
group met on a monthly
basis to hone ideas they
thought would best posi-
tion the organization for
successful operations in
the future. When the
themes were in a mature
state but before they were
completely refined, they
were presented to the
workforce for comment.
The comment period
lasted a few weeks.
When this phase was
completed, the leadership
team adjusted the themes
and clarified any areas
that needed better focus. In several cases, the
workforce added helpful, substantive details to
ideas that had not been fully explained. The
leadership team approved the alterations and
forwarded the document to the agency director
for approval and signature.
Research and Review � The
Price for Skipping Homework
Several steps must precede strategy devel-
opment. Too many times a new agency director
will announce, "I want to take this Agency to the
next level. I don't want to do the same thing as
my predecessor. Write me a new plan!" and, in
the rush to get the document out the door, the
writer(s) fail to do a simple literature review, risk-
ing the possibility that, within a year, the plan will
have to be 'updated' to take into account the
mandates that had been overlooked.
When DCI George Tenet developed
his first Strategic Direction in 1998, he
chose a single, trusted individual to
approach agency leadership individually,
solicit their ideas, record their thoughts,
and consolidate their ideas. The individual
had to revise each section several times
as each directorate leader and the DCI
made changes to drafts; the process took
over nine months before anyone outside
the small group had an opportunity to look
at the document. Another drawback was
that it required the workforce to under-
stand, accept, and adjust to new ideas
about which they themselves had provided
little or no input. In addition, this approach
required extra communication effort up and
down the chain of command, increasing
the likelihood that, in any given level of
management that did not understand or
agree with the goals and objectives, resis-
tance to change would result.
Prior to putting pen to paper, the first under-
taking is to conduct a review of the current mis-
sion, the operating
environment, tasks, obli-
gations, and authorities.
The review must exam-
ine the organization's
mission and vision. Have
they changed? Has
something been added or
altered? Has the new
leader changed or does
he or she want to adjust
the mission, vision, and
core values? If so, this is
the time to do it.
For the IC, the higher
level strategies that pro-
vide guidance and direc-
tion are the National
Security Strategy,
National Defense Strat-
egy, National Strategy for
Homeland Security,
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and
the National Intelligence Strategy.
"Influencing documents" should also be
reviewed; these are Executive Orders and Direc-
tives, established law, statutory and delegated
authorities, Congressionally Directed Actions
that prescribe roles and responsibilities and
measures the agency is required to take. Also
reviewed are any Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) and Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs)
with other agencies and departments whose
missions regularly interface with one's own, that
delineate roles and responsibilities. The direc-
tion of these documents may affect strategic
goals or objectives; they should be read and
understood by those developing the strategy, as
they show the underpinnings and foundation on
which government organizations operate. A thor-
ough understanding of these documents will go
a long way towards getting buy-in from stake-
holders and will assist with future communication
efforts to the workforce.
102
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Leadership Discussions � What's the Focus?
The review should also examine all facets of
administration, finance, operations, acquisition,
and governance. This includes reviewing how
the organization has performed to see whether
there are any known deficiencies, areas for
improvement, or opportunities to downsize and
take risks.
(b)(3) CIAAct
(b)(6)
In developing the ODNI's Vision
2015�A Globally Networked and
Integrated Intelligence Enterprise,
staff reviewed all of these docu-
ments, subordinate operational
directives, strategies, and implemen-
tation plans, as they currently
existed. Since the ODNI had been in
existence less than three years,
planners examined every study of
the IC since the inception of the
National Security Act of 1947 and
every blue ribbon panel and com-
mission that mentioned problems or
provided recommendations.a That
review provided planners with an
'as-is' and a realistic baseline of the
a.
US Intelligence Community Reform Stud-
ies Since 1947. CIA: Center for the Study of
Intelligence, April 2005 [14
Next, the team conducted an open literature
review of trends, technology advances, and sup-
positions on future development in the IC. Team
members talked with advanced technology tech-
nicians, social media experts, marketing person-
nel, and futurists, conducting research on
government, industry, and intelligence organiza-
tions to learn about the future environment, not
limited to just current mission areas. Worldwide
drivers and trends will affect operations just as
significantly as advances in technology in our
particular arenas, and the team needed to exam-
ine how globalization; innovation and technology
issues; energy and the environment matters;
political, military, social, and cultural factors;
demographic and health numbers; and economic
and financial factors would reinforce or amplify
the effects of change on the IC.5 This effort
helped articulate a potential future environment
in which the IC would operate.
In the end, these considerations populated
the four domains of a Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis of
the intelligence enterprise. Taken together, these
attributes paint a picture of the resources, capa-
bilities, and investments needed for the future. To
ensure future success, organizations need to
understand possible environments; this, then,
becomes the substance of the leadership team's
discussion.
Leadership Discussions �
What's the Focus?
Once the literature review research has been
presented to the organization's leadership, areas
for discussion should focus on those matters that
pose a shift in the strategic landscape and their
implications for the organization and its parent
organization (e.g., the Defense Intelligence
Agency would look to the Department of Defense
and the Office of the Director of National Intelli-
gence (ODNI); the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion would look to the Department of Justice and
the ODNI; the ODNI would look to the White
House). Topics should include persistent threats,
new opportunities, evolving and emerging mis-
sions, technological innovations, uncertainty, and
risk. At this point, leadership must recognize and
develop consensus around the idea that the
future strategic environment will require certain
capabilities. The leadership then conducts an
analysis of the current state of operations, high-
lighting gaps the agency needs to narrow or elim-
inate in order to conduct its missions effectively,
or to reinforce those areas that are already work-
ing well.
In developing the 100 Day Plan for Integra-
tion and Collaboration6 (100 Day Plan; 11 April
2007), the 500 Day Plan for Integration and Col-
laboration (500 Day Plan; 10 October 2007)7,
and an agency strategy, there was considerable
debate about what was important. Over a period
103
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) Lessons Learned from Developing Intelligence Community Strategic Plan
of several months in each case, the leadership
team debated ideas about what organizational
structures and processes needed to remain the
same, be altered, stopped, or expanded upon.
What was the impetus for change? What were
those processes, procedures, tools, and tech-
niques that worked now, but would not work in
the future? When would the agency need to
make changes? How long could the agency
wait? What capabilities would be needed? How
would these changes affect the workforce? How
would the changing mission affect an agency's
partners? If the agency or the IC stopped doing
some particular work, how would it affect peers,
foreign partners, and the business community?
This is an important debate: change is dis-
ruptive but necessary. Organizations cannot
change everything they want nor can they afford
not to improve. Deciding what needs to change,
what can wait for a later time, and what does not
need to change has tremendous ramifications.
While working on an IC agency strategic
plan, prior to each discussion, the strategy
development team provided the leadership an
agenda and suggested language for the related
section of the strategy. During leadership's delib-
erations, the agency strategy team took notes
and afterward honed the language to depict
themes that emerged during the leadership
team's subsequent discussions.
During each of those subsequent discus-
sions, leader-
ship examined
in detail the
potential
effects the
future environ-
ment might
place on partic-
ular mission
areas the
agency wanted to improve or change. The lead-
ership examined one discipline, function, prac-
tice, or capability at a time. They discussed
realistically the current state of practice in the
During the development of Vision 2015, DNI McConnell held a
series of off-sites with the directors of each of the IC's agencies,
leadership of the ODNI, and the leaders of the intelligence over-
sight committees. After each session, the note takers refined the
essence of the discussion and used the material to kick off the next
session. In turn, the material formed the framework for the docu-
ment.
agency and how the agency should operate in
this area in the future. They also shared
thoughts about the tools, processes, policies,
procedures, or structures that the agency
needed to introduce in order to work more effi-
ciently, while maintaining the agency's agility,
flexibility, and ability to respond quickly to new
challenges.
In the development of an agency strategic
plan, the document generated from each discus-
sion became an overall concept of operations
(CONOPS). It outlined the way the agency oper-
ated and how the agency desired to operate in
the future, with the description of the future
state's serving as a rough outline for the
agency's goals and objectives. In addition, the
CONOPS served as the roadmap for achieving
the end state of the plan. The leadership would
be able to look at resources required over the
entire budget cycle and could plan to position
more resources in one area over another as nec-
essary. At the same time, they could adjust goals
to be realistically achievable over the course of
the budget cycle or designated time frame of the
plan.
Goals and Objectives�Being
SMART
Strategic plans have goals and objectives,
where goals are defined as broad statements of
what the organization hopes to achieve in a
specified time frame and objectives are specific,
concrete,
measurable
statements of
what will be
done to
achieve a
goal. It is very
difficult to
measure
impact with just numbers: the organization also
needs qualitative information to be able to com-
municate impact. A best practice is to have a mix
of quantitative and qualitative measures.
104
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Goals and Objectives�Being SMART
In most cases, organizations discuss goals
and objectives as if they were lofty ideals that
may or may not be accomplished. Leadership
needs to emphasize the necessity and urgency
of achieving the goals; they should be described
almost as imperatives. The importance of goals
and objectives is to ensure that the agency or
department is positioned for success in the
future, and there can be no hope involved�they
must be accomplished. Objectives should also
be written as if they are mandated requirements.
In much the same manner as goal imperatives,
objectives are requirement statements that
describe the outcome that must be achieved.
The criteria for developing goals and objec-
tives are very similar to the criteria used in per-
formance reporting. Here, the SMART acronym
is not only relevant but very useful: SMART
stands for specific, measurable, achievable, rele-
vant, and time-specific:
� specific objectives are observable or verifi-
able: there must be a physical element tied to
the accomplishment and there must be a
deliverable item as the final result (e.g., the
creation of a device or a written policy or
report;
� measurable objectives describe an observ-
able or verifiable result that can be compared
against an established standard;
� achievable objectives can be successfully
accomplished with available resources, within
the time available;
� relevant objectives are aligned to the goals of
the agency; and
� time specific objectives include realistic time
frames for completion; they have a specified
start and/or end dates.
A generic example in the Human
Resources area may be the following. With
the goal, "All employees will maintain con-
tinuous learning for professional develop-
ment," objectives might include:
� integrated inter-departmental online
and classroom training platforms that
build occupational skills and leadership
development;
� academic, business, and other govern-
mental intern programs that expand
expertise in agency core skill sets; and
� cross-directorate assignment options
that allow employees to apply their
diverse talents and perspectives to
solve complex agency challenges.
105
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) Lessons Learned from Developing Intelligence Community Strategic Plan
Time Frame � A Year at a Time
A main element of a strategy is determining
the time frame for achieving the needed capabil-
ities. Depending on the industry, strategies have
different time frames. In the nuclear power gen-
eration field, a strategy may have a time period
involving decades; in the electronics industry, it
may be as little as 18 months. In the private sec-
tor, some heads of organizations usually are in
their positions for several years�in some cases,
decades. They are able to set long term goals
and adjust after an initial period of implementa-
tion.
In the IC, strategies generally are written for
a three to five year period, but this is also one of
the reasons federal government strategies
susceptible to failure: the strategy
may be written for the three to
five year period, but the agency
head is only in the job an average
of 18-24 months. It is a vicious
cycle: a new director takes over
an organization, and at some
point commissions a team to
develop a strategic plan. The
development phase lasts six to
nine months and the strategy is
promulgated around one year
after the director has been in
place. Strategy plans are imple-
mented just around the time the
director is about to turn the posi-
tion over to his or her replace-
ment.
There are some exceptions in
the national security field, nota-
bly the FBI, where the director has a fixed tenure
and may manage implementation over the long
term. The best chance for success, of course, is
to have the agency head in position for a lengthy
period and actively supervise progress. If that is
not possible, the next best outcome is to involve
the senior leaders of the organization who will
remain and have them assist in the development
of the strategic plan and articulate the case to
are
the next leader, in order to continue implement-
ing the previous plan. The new leader can make
adjustments to the implementation plan based
on his or her priorities; however, most new lead-
ers want to emphasize a new direction or new
ways to operate an organization and will insist
on developing a new strategy. The best practice
then, is to develop a strategy with goals and
objectives that are specific, measurable, achiev-
able, and aligned to the budget execution year.
IC budgets are rarely stable, but in the current
environment of fiscal austerity, aligning the
implementation of the strategic plan to an annual
cycle allows initiatives associated with the plan
to be adjusted to available resources and
achievable during the one fiscal year.
Because of the short time frame of the 100 Day Plan,
weekly meetings were held to monitor progress. As time
passed, there was overlap between a number of initiatives:
projects slowed progress until decisions were made about
direction and priority. As Day 100 approached, there were a
number of initiatives that were in jeopardy of not being com-
pleted by the designated date. At Day 97, the DNI stopped by
the plan coordination center and asked how it was going. He
was informed that there were a couple of initiatives that would
make the deadline, but about three that would not. He then
asked what he could do to make it happen and was advised
that the greatest single thing he could do was attend the weekly
progress meetings to show that his plan was important and to
make decisions when conflicts arose. When the 500 Day Plan
started, biweekly progress meetings were held. The DNI
attended every one, unless he was travelling or at the White
House. When he was not able to attend, the PDDNI chaired the
meeting.
Governance & Oversight�No
Chance for Success without It
An effective governance structure begins
with strong leadership, to establish direction and
hold the organization accountable. In today's
complex environment, leadership must provide
effective governance in support of business
needs and mission effectiveness. This gover-
nance includes the structures and processes for
106
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Strategic Implementation Plan � The Hardest Part
setting direction, establishing standards, and pri-
oritizing investments.
Proper governance enables the agency or
department to leverage a framework for account-
ability. In many cases, organizations allow each
directorate or subordinate element to implement
its own portion of the strategic goals and objec-
tives, exclusive of the other elements of the orga-
nization. Generally this decentralization of the
effort causes unnecessary work. Some subordi-
nate elements move faster than others. Some do
not realize their solution affects others until the
resolution is announced, and, in almost all cases,
the elements do not coordinate with one another.
However, in this increasingly interdependent
world, leadership must realize that strategic plan
goals and objectives affect all elements of an
agency. In many cases, solutions require more
than one element of the organization to be
involved in the solution and its implementation.
Problems cannot be worked independently as
they had in the past. The outcome that a particu-
lar unit devises and implements generally affects
all other operations in the organization.
During the 100 Day Plan, the initiative man-
agers were designated as 'leads.' Because they
were 'leads,' they felt ownership of the initiatives
and made decisions on priorities and directions
that unduly affected a large portion of the organi-
zation. As a lesson learned, for the 500 Day Plan
initiative managers were rechristened 'stewards.'
As such, they were not seen as owning the par-
ticular initiative, but were accountable to the DNI
to manage the initiative's progress for the benefit
of the entire organization. In addition, initiatives
were designed to involve at least two or more
directorates; if an initiative could be only done
within a single directorate, it did not rise to the
level of importance for the overall plan.
A better way to ensure cross-organizational
integration is to assign more than one steward or
champion to oversee the work on a specific goal
or objective. Stewards and champions, while
they do not own or lead the effort, are responsi-
ble and accountable to leadership for progress
on the goal or objective. They are required to
work with their co-stewards and champions in
developing solutions, implementing actions, and
coordinating across organizations. Because they
do not 'own' the particular effort, cross-organiza-
tional partnerships arise, together with greater
cognizance of the effects of the actions on the
goals and objectives are having on the entire
organization.
The steward or champion should be an
agency senior manager in charge of a major
directorate or office. He or she should not be
able to delegate this responsibility down to sub-
ordinates who will not have the organizational
influence that the senior manager does. Stew-
ards or champions foster collaboration between
initiative stakeholders and monitor and report on
initiative and task progress. They also resolve
issues and assist in communicating purpose and
impact of the goals and objectives throughout the
agency or department.
Strategic Implementation Plan �
The Hardest Part
Stewards or champions need to develop
CONOPs describing how each of the agency or
department goals for which they are accountable
operates and the steps the agency or depart-
ment must take to reach that goal. Individual
CONOPs should fall neatly within the overall
CONOPs that were developed from the initial
leadership discussions. The stewards or champi-
ons must then conduct�for each goal�a gap
analysis between the current state and the capa-
bilities desired by end of specified time frame.
This gap analysis identifies the work and
resources needed to achieve the stated capabili-
ties, which will then translate into initiatives to
achieve the capabilities. These initiatives are
then consolidated into one document to make up
the framework for the agency or department's
annual implementation plans.
107
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) Lessons Learned from Developing Intelligence Community Strategic Plan
A best practice also used in indus-
try is associating the names of stew-
ards or champions with the initiatives
for which they are accountable; mak-
ing monthly/quarterly progress reports
available to the organization work-
force; and making this work an objec-
tive in their performance appraisals.
No leaders like to have their name and
a yellow or red notation for the work-
force to see if the progress of the initia-
tive is behind schedule. It forces a
personal responsibility for ensuring the
tasks are completed.
With the mandate of this type of interaction,
communication on executing strategy between
and among staffs and organizations accelerated
collaboration and increased cross-department
contact. It was possible to see interaction
between different initiatives in the implementa-
tion plan and significant interaction between ini-
tiatives in any given objective or imperative. This
was intentional, and it accelerated integration
between organizations. Coordinating comple-
tion of initiatives and tasks in the implementation
plan required constant communication between
groups while providing better understanding of
and visibility into agency capabilities and work-
force expertise.
Review of progress on the implementation
initiatives should take place at least monthly dur-
ing a regular leadership meeting, with the
agency's strategy support team's assisting stew-
ards or champions with the monthly reporting on
initiative progress. The overall status is then pro-
vided to the workforce on a monthly or quarterly
basis. The system for reporting progress on the
strategic plan must be kept simple: the work-
force has regular missions to perform, after all.
In most cases, the changes required from the
strategic plan will be new work, and if the report-
ing structure is onerous, the information pro-
vided will be incomplete or�worse�it will be
ignored.
Synchronization�A Force
Multiplier
While a lot of time and effort is put into
developing the strategy and the mechanism for
its implementation, equally critical are synchro-
nizing efforts of change management and com-
municating the plan. Change management
begins the moment there is a decision to
develop a new strategy. Communication is the
means of delivery. After the leadership formu-
lates the main themes and achieves alignment
on the approach, the strategy support team
should meet with the agency or department's
communications team to lay out a plan of action
to communicate the plan to the workforce,
attempting to answer questions like, "Why now?
Who is involved? What is the difference between
the strategy and the strategic implementation
plan? How is this strategic plan different from
past agency or departmental strategic planning
efforts? How will the agency or department
implement the strategic plan?"
While the main focus of the strategy is the
agency or department workforce, there are other
groups who will also be very interested in the
details of the plan: public influencers and jour-
nalists who report on the agency or department
are interested in how this strategy affects the
public or changes the direction of the agency or
department. Other government agencies and
departments will look to see how changes in a
given organization's operations or focus may
affect them. Congressional oversight commit-
tees are interested in the agency or depart-
ment's direction, any new funding needs, and
the impact of these on constituents. Staffers ask
whether the strategy complies with existing man-
dated actions or intent.
The strategy support team works with the
agency leadership on developing products and
briefings about the strategy for internal mem-
bers, organizational affinity groups, external
partners, other governmental organizations, and
the organization's congressional affairs staff.
This must be done in the final phases of writing
108
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Change Management�It Is About Culture
the strategy and the implementation plan is being
crafted. Congress will expect to be notified by a
Congressional Notification before a new strategy
is announced publicly and, depending on the
time of year, the strategy will need to be incorpo-
rated in budget briefings and other conversations
or hearings in which the direction of the agency
or department is under consideration.
During the 100 Day Plan and the 500 Day
Plan, the initiative teams provided status to the
strategy team using a simple electronic form
that consisted of a single drop down button
and a text box. The drop down menu reported
progress as
� white: not started
� green: on track
� yellow: minor issues
� red: late or major issues
� black: task completed
The strategy team compiled the informa-
tion in a single graphic or handout and distrib-
uted it at the leadership meeting. This was the
first item on the agenda and was addressed
quickly, generally in less than 30 minutes. The
strategy team lead provided an overall prog-
ress report on and highlighted the initiatives
that had issues.
For the initiatives that were experiencing
issues, the steward provided the information to
the other leadership team members and the
agency director. The only time the strategy
team lead member addressed the assembled
group was to request the agency director make
a decision during an impasse between two ini-
tiatives. When an impasse occurred between
initiatives, the strategy team lead worked with
both stewards to obtain their viewpoints and
then presented these, along with the strategy
team's unbiased recommendation to the
agency director for a decision.
Change Management�It Is
About Culture
An agency or department change manage-
ment plan paints a clear picture of what change
must occur, creates a realistic and inspiring
vision of the future state, and provides the path
for getting there. Critical for any strategy is a
change management plan designed to gain the
support for and commitment to the vision and the
initiatives of the change from all levels of man-
agement. The change management plan is a crit-
ical element of explaining the strategy to the
workforce, outside influencers, and others inter-
ested in the business of the agency or depart-
ment.
Every organization has its own culture. Cul-
ture can be defined as the accepted practices,
processes, procedures, structure, and mores of
the organization. A strategic plan represents
change to that culture and must address the rea-
sons why the culture should accept the new
ways of doing business. For the agency or
departmental strategy and implementation plan,
the leadership ensures implementation through
stewards or champions; stewards or champions
are seen as change leaders who endorse the
plan through personal involvement, visible
action, and participation in the change process.
There are common barriers to change man-
agement. Overcoming these obstacles can bring
an organization a very long way towards accep-
tance of the changes that the organization's
leaders desire. They are:
� Agency processes prevent cross-talk and
overregulate communication conduits about
needed change.
� There is little or no regular management
encouragement for the changes.
� Some communication vehicles are difficult to
access.
� The agency's conduits and vehicles cannot
support the desired information content in the
109
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) Lessons Learned from Developing Intelligence Community Strategic Plan
manner in which the change information
needs to be provided.
� Neither the current nor the desired state of
operations can be articulated by the leader-
ship and change agents.
The ways to overcome common barriers are
for leadership to lead by example. Collaboration
starts at the top: management must be serious
and accountable for promoting collaboration.
They must implement and utilize every available
vehicle for more effective communication, and
leadership must audit the message regularly.
Managers and leaders must engage with the
workforce on a regular basis to strengthen the
message, train and communicate regularly, and
tell the staff what's expected in regular written
and electronic communications, following this up
with verbal discussions. Lastly, they must listen
to critics who are able to identify what is wrong
with the message, and then respond quickly and
appropriately.
Leaders should obtain initial buy-in to a major strategic plan before the ini-
tial publication of the document. On one such occasion, the agency director
called a meeting for all senior officers of the organization and explained what
the strategy was, how it was a change for the organization, and that�as the
leaders of his agency�they were being asked for their support and active
participation. Just as the military regularly have general/flag officer meetings
to announce major campaign efforts, in this instance the agency director used
his 'generals' to support the action and communicate it personally to the work-
force.
The agency or department communication
plan portion of the change management plan
takes into account when the strategy will be pre-
sented to each group and the manner in which it
will be presented. The intent is initially to provide
an awareness of the plan and how it will affect
each individual and group. Continuous commu-
nication about the strategy�what it means and
why it is necessary�must be provided to work-
force, partners, and agency supporters. Later
communication efforts gradually move from
awareness to understanding, acceptance, adop-
tion, and ownership. As the workforce begins to
understand, communication efforts finally mature
into commitment to the plan and action, once
implementation of the strategy takes place.
Groups and individuals internal to the orga-
nization may not see elements of the strategy
from the same viewpoint: leaders, managers,
and the workforce may perceive the various
aspects of the plan differently. Senior managers
have divergent interpretations from junior man-
agers and workforce members. Disciplines and
functions (collection, analysis, counterintelli-
gence, enterprise management, security, and
other specialties) will scrutinize it through a
wholly different prism. Diversity and affinity
groups also will have their own interpretations.
Finally, each individual and group will analyze
the plan according to their own biases and con-
cerns.
The agency or department communication
plan ensures there is a clear and compelling
business case for
the change includ-
ing 'hard' and 'soft'
benefits and
ensures that the
case for change is
clearly articulated in
language under-
standable to all.lt
makes clear what
priority should be
placed on the strat-
egy in relation to other initiatives being con-
ducted by the agency or department.
Communication products and briefings should
continually refer to the compelling business case
in discussions with stakeholders. The agency or
department communication plan designs various
multimedia avenues�print, audio, visual, etc.,�
to resonate with the audience. While many
"know" about the strategy, it takes several ses-
sions to help individuals see how the strategy
benefits them in the long term and what roles
they may play in making agency or department
strategy happen.
110
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Addressing Lessons Learned�Upfront
Addressing Lessons Learned�
Upfront
Strategies fail when they do not address four
basic barriers:
� the vision barrier
� the people barrier
� the management barrier, and
� the resource barrier
The vision barrier takes place because less
than five percent of the workforce usually under-
stands the strategy, and the rest may not see
how they are integral to its success. The people
barrier takes place when managers do not see a
link between what they are tasked to do on a
daily basis and the goals and objectives of the
strategy. The management barrier takes place
because 85 percent of senior executives in orga-
nizations spend less than one hour a month dis-
cussing their strategy. Lastly, the resource barrier
takes place when the strategy is not given the
resources necessary to carry it out. But there are
ways to overcome these barriers.
To overcome the vision barrier, the organiza-
tion must:
� Develop a clear, actionable vision of the strat-
egy describing core concepts and desired
end-state;
� Communicate the vision of the strategy using
multiple channels and tailored messages to
both the agency or department and key exter-
nal stakeholders;
� Translate the strategy's vision into agency
terms and activities; and
� Identify success criteria (e.g., how do we
know when we did it right?).
To overcome the management barrier, the
organization must:
� Identify the top internal management priorities
and link them to the concepts of the strategy;
� Place the strategy and priorities at top of the
management agenda (leadership meetings);
and
� Link strategy, priorities, and budget to perfor-
mance reviews.
To overcome the resource barrier, the orga-
nization must:
� Reflect the strategy in planning and program-
ming guidance;
� Translate the strategy into implementation
plans;
� Align current budget and initiatives to key
themes and concepts in the strategy; and
� Create performance measures and link them
to higher level critical success factors.
To overcome the resource barrier, the orga-
nization must:
� Assign stewards or champions for completion
of initiatives aligned to strategy;
� Post progress on agency websites and other
media;
� Link personnel evaluation reviews to progress
against the strategy at the manager and work-
force level, for those involved in tasks and ini-
tiatives; and
� Ensure that recognition and rewards reflect
the priorities of the strategy.
As the strategy is being written, leadership
needs to understand that translating the vision of
the strategy into fielded capabilities requires
communication, leadership commitment, align-
ment of resources, and the right mix of incen-
tives. The agency or departmental
communication plan is geared towards ensuring
that the workforce is aware and understands its
role in the strategy. The leadership commits to
the strategy by actually signing the document,
being responsible for the goals and objectives as
stewards or champions, and having regular
meetings solely focused on progress of the strat-
111
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(U) Lessons Learned from Developing Intelligence Community Strategic Plan
egy. Tying the budget to the strategy through
planning, programming, budgeting, and evalua-
tion makes the strategic plan real in the eyes of
the members of the organization.
Value Proposition�The Logic
Chain for Change
There is always the question, "Why do this
strategy now?" A strategic plan value proposition
reflects the main building blocks of any strategy
in the IC. The particulars can be added to or
made more specific. At the base, improving the
work environment, learning, and skill sets
increases the quality of the workforce as a
whole. As the workforce improves, individuals
are more able to work together both within and
outside the organization. This in turn helps inte-
grate the agency or department, and improving
integration removes barriers that degrade mis-
sion performance and creates favorable condi-
� 4,:�
tions for cross-directorate collaboration on
mission needs. Implementing the strategic plan
drives integration and fosters collaboration, and
ultimately leads to better mission performance.
In turn, the agency or department's strategic
plan supports the government by linking the
agency or department to its customers and opti-
mizing its operations and operating systems in
support of its missions.
Conclusion
The guidelines suggested in this paper will
allow organizations in the IC the flexibility to con-
centrate on the areas they believe need special
attention. Following these steps and guidelines
can increase the chance of success and pro-
vides a structure in which to build a successful
strategy, avoiding the pitfalls to which many
organizations succumb in the process of devel-
oping and implementing strategic plans.
112
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2024/04/23 C06974298