• Events
• Publications
• Directory
• separator
• Members
• separator
• Think Tank Resources
• separator
• Blog

Plan to Win in Six Steps

By Denis Calabrese
Published on Sunday, June 01, 2008
ARTICLES

Two smart think-thank directors had a successful hunt in Alaska, as they had for many years. When their pilot picks them up he warns, "If we load all your kill, we'll be too heavy and crash. The directors reply, "That's what the pilot said last year, but we convinced him to take all we had. Be brave; do the same." They take off - and promptly crash. When the directors come to, one asks, "What happened?" The other says, "We got about 100 yards further than last year."

This is the story of the conservative movement today. We get 100 yards farther, but we still crash. This should bother all of us. Winning matters. There are only two groups in this race, the collectivists and us; one will win.

The collectivist philosophy is not superior. However, socialized medicine beats nothing every time. Thus, we must innovate and sell our philosophy based on the merits, something our side is not currently doing well.

"Plan to Win in Six Steps" is actually 25 questions summarized into six categories. Study this methodology; it's what the other side is doing, and why they are ahead. Most of the mistakes we make are easy to anticipate. They are common to think tanks, campaigns and corporations alike.

Six Steps to Win

Analysis and Output	Objective Strategy Tactics
Inputs	Money Time People

The above six steps should be familiar. They support any activity you undertake - whether you're an entrepreneur, think-thank leader or CEO analyzing your organization's direction.

The trouble is, few know the difference between the first three steps. Recently I was at a meeting with a hot-shot communications guy who made the most fundamental (but common) error of all: He confused strategy and tactics. Considerable time was required to surmount this distraction and actually define their objective.

I wrote 25 supporting questions to help clarify the difference between objective, strategy and tactics, and to better plan for the money, time and people necessary to win. The first question is the hardest, and I'll elaborate on it and questions two through seven. The remainder are more self-explanatory.

1. What problem in society are you trying to address?

For example, I ask school voucher groups, "What is your objective?" They say, "To pass school vouchers." Incorrect. Next they say, "To get poor children into better schools." Wrong again, but closer. Freedom or competition in education is a strategy. So, what is the objective? To help kids.

Objectives are the net results: help kids. Strategies are how you do it: competition among schools. Tactics are what you do to support your strategy: vouchers. This is the Plan to Win methodology.

A wealthy donor's representative called me and said, "We want you to send John Stossel's ‘Stupid in America' video to every parent in the U.S." I asked, "What's the objective?" The fellow said, "He thinks if everyone sees the video, it will move education reform forward." I asked, "After I send the video, what's the plan to move education reform forward?" He replied, "That's it. That's the plan."

That is not a plan. This is a tactic, which by itself will fail to help kids, which is what the donor really wants to do. Everybody wants to discuss tactics because they are what you are going to do today. They're also a complete waste of your time, and can't be analyzed in a rational way, without the context of strategy and objective. How can you possibly evaluate any tactic without knowing the objective and strategy? It is impossible. But people insist on doing it every single day.

2. Do you propose a solution that is legislative, regulatory, legal, market-based, a combination, or another approach?

Many people default to legislative solutions, particularly those who make money off the legislature, the lobbyists. It's ironic that free-market folks are as quick to embrace changing laws to promote their agenda. I hate legislative solutions. If I can do it another way I will always try that first. The best solutions are market based. They're the future of the liberty movement. And we need the raw materials from intellectual entrepreneurs like yourselves.

3. What is/are your specific solution(s) to the problem?

In the case of "helping kids:" vouchers. But, are vouchers the best way to help kids, or even the best way to inject competition into schools?

4. Are there alternative solutions to the problem that you studied and discarded? What were they and why were they discarded?

Start anew, measure all alternatives against yours. What we think we knew, what was air tight, turns out to be wrong time and again.

5. Have you gathered and studied most, or all, of the available authoritative research on the problem and your solution?

Authoritative research is necessary to support your solutions.

As part of the team that developed the fair tax - the alternative to a flat tax - we discovered that no one ever actually developed a national retail tax plan. We talked to the best economists in the world. They had made assumptions about a retail tax that were incorrect. They were as shocked as anybody, because no one had taken the time to study it. Why? Because it was assumed to be politically impossible. The research unearthed a treasure trove of tax policy data, much of it applicable to other tax plans as well.

6. Have you communicated with experts in the field to test your solution and your plan to achieve it?

7. Have you gathered any market research on the problem or your solution?

Skipping this question can have disastrous results. The top objective of market research is often to figure out how to sell something. In doing so, the key questions are:

1. What is the best thing you can say about your thing?
2. What is the best thing they can say about their thing?
3. What is the worst you can say about theirs?
4. What is the worst they can say about yours?
5. What is your best response to their most effective criticism?

8. Have you made an inventory of others groups or individuals working on this problem or your solution?

9. Have you communicated with these other groups or individuals?

10. Have others tried your solution? What were the results?

11. Have you quantified the benefits that would accrue from enacting your solution?

How do you quantify the benefits that accrue from your solution? We think it's obvious: freedom. But this isn't obvious to the average guy, who will give up some freedom to help kids or save sick people. You have to do better than that. For example, show how your solution actually helps kids and sick people.

12. What is your strategy to achieve your objective?

13. What tactics do you believe will be needed to achieve your objective?

We finally arrive at tactics. This is where most meetings begin: Should we run TV ads or create a website? Note that this is question number 13 - not question number one.

14. Have you committed your strategy and tactics to writing?

This is critical: Go back to your strategy and plan for the application of inputs or resources.

15. How long do you think it will take to achieve your objective?

16. How much money will it take to achieve your objective?

17. Have you created an expenditure budget?

18. Have you created a fundraising plan?

19. What human resources will you need to complete your objective?

20. Do you have a volunteer leader who can devote most or all of his/her time to this endeavor?

In public policy campaigns I like to have a public leader, preferably with lots of life experience. This person is not paid and has a different profession, and thus is a more credible spokesperson, and can serve as an excellent "control group."

21. Do you have a respected, influential, diverse advisory board that is in agreement with your objective and will work for it?

22. Is it necessary to educate the general public on your issue and/or solution?

You are in the business of ideas. Did you get into this field to make sure that everybody thought the way you do? I hope not.

We are here to change 50.1 percent of minds - or in some cases, even less. As many minds as it takes to win. That's it. Had there been a socialist at the buffet this morning who engaged in a conversation about an issue you knew a lot about, would you have spent 30 minutes in a heated debate, or would you have come in here to learn how to win? Most of us couldn't resist the debate. If you just had some money to send "Stupid in America" to every parent...

My point: A lot of time what motivates us emotionally is not the smart thing to do to win. The smart thing is to achieve 50.1 percent and win.

23. Is it necessary to create broad public action to achieve your objective?

Sometimes it is necessary to do this, but it's malpractice if you spend your resources trying to do it when you don't need to. The collectivists make this mistake too. They can't stand it when people think like we in this room do. It is a moral issue for them.

24. Who are the primary and secondary opponents to your objective?

This means getting inside your opponents' heads and figuring out what they are likely to do and say. Where do they get their information? What is their objective, strategy and tactics? Do as detailed a plan on them as you do on yourself.

25. What are the opponents prepared to do to thwart your success?

If somebody gets an edge, then somebody has to fight back from a position of weakness. In education reform, climate change, health care, and tax and budget issues, we are fighting from the position of weakness. It is time to learn and plan for what our opponents will do to thwart freedom.

Conclusion

Take this process and make it your own. Put it in terms and a format with which you are comfortable. Next, take the hard step: Go through it with your staff, force yourself to work through what you do and how you do it. I think you will find there are some things you do that you don't need to, and there are things you are not doing that you should. You will probably even have a few chuckles at your own operation and activities once you subject them to organized scrutiny. The methodology is a powerful tool. Try to use it at least once.

Top

Copyright © 2008
State Policy Network
Privacy Policy