I’ve written many strategies for organisations, and while my practice has improved year on year through research and evaluation, there’s one thing that remains static: my understanding of the unique organisational context.
That’s not just true of me; it’s true in most cases where strategy is written.
Our understanding of an organisation is based on what we have experienced, seen, and been given access to. Often, that access is limited to a small number of people in positions of power. The result is not just partial understanding, but strategies that risk reflecting those perspectives rather than the organisation as a whole. Over time, this can lead to misaligned priorities, weak delivery, and work that struggles to land in practice.
The best strategies I have written have been done in wide consultation across the organisation. The ones that have delivered most effectively have involved coproduction.
Let’s look at three approaches to strategy writing so we can start to see the risk and the difference in outcomes.
The lone wolf
This is where an expert is called in to create a strategy based on what is known about the organisation from existing documentation.
A good strategy can be created here, but it has clear limits. The data gathered is often general in nature, making it difficult to understand how it applies to the organisation’s specific context or starting point.
This means we are often working from assumption. If we are unclear on where we are starting from, there is an increased chance that the initiatives we design will not land as intended. In practice, this can lead to rework, slow delivery, and difficulty demonstrating progress against organisational goals.
The welcome voice
The next step is to be granted access to focus groups to address the specifics of the strategy. Ideally, these groups span the organisation, including those with power and those with more restricted access to it.
This enables a stronger understanding of how the organisation is currently aligned with its goals and where the key challenges sit. It reduces the risk of doing too much too soon and helps anticipate where resistance may occur.
It is a strong starting point, but it still has limits. While it improves understanding, it does not always translate into solutions that can be delivered smoothly. Strategies can still face resistance at implementation, particularly where trade-offs have not been fully explored or understood.
The active design
This is where things start to become more effective in practice.
Here, we move beyond understanding where the organisation is and begin to work through how it will move forward. This is where coproduction comes in.
It works best in this context when a group is brought together to tackle a specific problem, first to understand the root cause, and then to design an initiative that can move the organisation from where it is to where it wants to be.
Designing solutions with a range of voices allows you to see where work may fall down in practice, where power supports or hinders progress, and where unintended consequences may emerge. This reduces the likelihood of rework, increases the chances of initiatives landing, and creates a clearer line between strategy and delivery.
However, this is not without challenge. Without effective facilitation and clear structure, there is a risk that the most powerful voices shape the outcome, or that the process slows decision-making without improving it. Done well, it strengthens delivery. Done poorly, it can replicate the same issues it is trying to solve.
Shifting the question
We need to shift our thinking from who you involve to why you involve them.
Effective coproduction brings the right people into the room, including those with decision-making authority, and is facilitated in a way that ensures contributions are heard, tested, and used. It requires clarity on purpose, scope, and how decisions will be made.
Importantly, marginalised individuals should not be asked to solve problems alone, particularly where those problems are structural. This can place responsibility in the wrong place and undermine trust in the process.
Why it matters for delivery
Coproduced strategies are often easier to implement, not because they are simpler, but because the challenges have already been worked through.
Involving people in the design of solutions increases understanding of the trade-offs involved, creates clearer expectations, and makes it more likely that individuals will support and champion the work in practice.
This does not happen automatically. It depends on how the process is structured and how decisions are made. But when done well, it can reduce resistance, limit rework, and strengthen the likelihood of achieving intended outcomes.
Three points of contact
To make this practical, there are three key points to work through:
Where are we
In line with the organisation’s overall goals, where are you now? For example, if a goal is research excellence, how do different groups experience this? Is there consistency, or do some groups experience this differently? This enables you to prioritise work and set clear, realistic ambitions.
Why are we here
This is about understanding root cause. Not just what people experience, but why they experience it. For example, feedback may identify challenges with the implementation of reasonable adjustments. A root cause approach might reveal that the issue sits between departments, suggesting that structural changes, such as a single point of contact, are more effective than additional policy.
How do we get there
This is where groups come together to engage with solutions. It is important to include those with decision-making authority as well as those who experience the impact of decisions. Without effective facilitation, there is a risk that agreement defaults to the most powerful voice, so the process needs to be structured carefully to ensure meaningful input and clear outcomes.
Where next
If this reflects your experience, the next step is not to add more activity, but to reconsider how strategy is developed and delivered.
For those at an early stage, building a clearer understanding of context and coproductive approaches can help create more focused and deliverable strategies. Our Progress in Practice or Masterclasses can help you get to grips with coproductive techniques.
For those ready to go further, FIELDS provides a structured, step-by-step approach to developing a context-driven, evidence-led strategy, alongside action planning, communications, and governance. The focus is not just on designing the work, but on ensuring it can be delivered effectively in practice.
As ever, we use Fairness, Inclusion and Equity (FIE) in our practice because we are clear on what each term means and why they need to be applied in that order. We use EDI terminology here as it is more widely recognised.
