ARU Strategic Plan

[Scott Allen]

In the latest G&GR podcast George Gregan told Matt that the ARU board was working on an updated strategic plan and it had been a while since the last update. In commenting on the announcement of John O’Neil’s resignation Michael Hawker said he “has achieved the key objectives of a five-year strategic plan since rejoining the ARU in 2007.”

I take it from those comments that it’s been at least five years since the ARU really took a good look at where Australian rugby should be heading. I can find nothing in the ARU’s annual reports or in press articles that suggests otherwise.

The ARU recommends that all rugby clubs have a strategic plan and in fact provide a template for clubs – click here. What the ARU don’t seem to comment on is how often that strategic plan should be updated.

I think five years is way too long and that if it is the case that Australian rugby is working from a five year old plan that would explain a lot of the issues that we currently have – after all the rugby landscape has changed significantly since 2007.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?

 

[Gagger]

I've got to listen again - I got it stuck in my head that Greegs said 1997!

 

[Braveheart81]

I've got to listen again - I got it stuck in my head that Greegs said 1997!

If we update the 1997 plan we won't be able to tick off the box saying we won a RWC during that Strategic Plan.

I hope hosting the RWC goes well. I hear that it's projected that the ARU will make a big profit out of that one.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Strategic Planning seems to be lacking at most levels within the game.

I can sympathise with the lower levels not having a strategic plan, because ultimately their plans should fit neatly into their "parent" organisations strategic plan. If the parent bodies strategic plan is not current, then what hope does the subordinate organisation have? It goes all the way up to the ARU (and arguably the IRB).

Perhaps the ARU Strategic Review/Plan is "on hold" pending completion of the oft referenced Governance review (Cosgrove/Arbib review), or maybe the Cossie report is a keystone of the ARU Strategic Plan, with the other sections of the plan to follow.

The Matt Carroll review of the Sydney and Brisbane Competitions (3rd tier proposal?) may be another part of the jigsaw.

 

[Scott Allen]

I've got to listen again - I got it stuck in my head that Greegs said 1997!

He did but I think he might have got his decades matched up - there was a bit of press coverage about a 2007 plan and the ARU annual reports talk about plans around 2003 RWC and beyond.

 

[wamberal]

I think five years is way too long and that if it is the case that Australian rugby is working from a five year old plan that would explain a lot of the issues that we currently have – after all the rugby landscape has changed significantly since 2007.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?

Strategy is about the big, long term, issues - it is not about day to day, or even year to year, detail. I would say that a five year horizon is too short.


If strategy changes too often it either means it was wrong in the first place, or those who are charged with implementing it are not up to the job. Or both.


That is not to say that strategy should be immutable, of course if major competitive or other environmental changes occur, it might need to be updated.


But any organisation that updates strategy too often (and I would say that five years is an absolute minimum) either does not know where it is trying to be in five, ten, or more years, or it is incompetent at strategic planning, or it is incompetent at execution. Or all three. In which case the organisation will not last long.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

wamberal surely that depends on what's in it and where in the 5 years of the plan the RWC falls?

 

[Scott Allen]

I agree that in a situation where there are no major changes in your organisation your plan would run 5-10 years but when an event occurs that significantly changes your organisation (planned or not) it's time to re-set the strategic plan.

That event occurred for the ARU at the end of 2009 when the Rebels were awarded the 15th Super licence and the whole Super Rugby competition format changed.

Whilst the 2007 plan would have included an aim to grow the reach of the game with one of the strategies for that being establishing another Super team in Australia and it may even have included a preference for Melbourne, I doubt it included plans around the eventual format that was agreed on with the conferences etc.

Once that major change occurred surely the ARU should have re-set the plan during 2010 with implementation to begin in 2011 to coincide with the launch of the new competition, local derbies etc.

With a new plan under development now the earliest implementation will be 2013. It seems to me that we're 2 years behind where we needed to be to be a world leader.

 

[Scotty]

My opinion is that the strategic plan should be updated each year and have short term, medium term and long term goals.

Eg 1 year, 4 year, 10 year.

For my business I normally go 1/3/5, but the aru should think further ahead than this.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

RWC timing should not drive the ARU Strategic plan reviews and updates.

ARU has responsibility for the game across the board. This includes 7's, juniors, womens, village clubs, suburban, colts, Schools, university, services, and grade rugby, referees, coaching, administering rugby, rugby development.

RWC is just about the Open Males 15 aside version of the game (ie the Wallabies). Timings of RWC could/should drive Wallabies Strategic planning.

 

[I like to watch]

Strategic plan in 2007?
There was a 3rd tier in existence then wasn't there?
The 3rd tier is abolished in the first year of the plan, with no new focus on junior development or greater priority to Shute Shield, or any mention of a introducing a low cost imitation of the 3rd tier for another 5 years.
Strategic plans are too often a box to tick, then filed away and forgotten.It certainly looks what has happened in this instance.

 

[rugbyisfun]

Strategic plan in 2007?
There was a 3rd tier in existence then wasn't there?
The 3rd tier is abolished in the first year of the plan, with no new focus on junior development or greater priority to Shute Shield, or any mention of a introducing a low cost imitation of the 3rd tier for another 5 years.
Strategic plans are too often a box to tick, then filed away and forgotten.It certainly looks what has happened in this instance.

Bravo, and here-in lies the issue.....

 

[rugbyisfun]

I can't stomach Gregan either....the bloke is about as inspirational as an Ikea product manual.

The bloke just ain't got it.

WE NEED LEADERS. Hawker has made a great start. Follow his lead.

 

[wamberal]

wamberal surely that depends on what's in it and where in the 5 years of the plan the RWC falls?

The RWC happens every four years, the only time that it would be a strategic issue is if the ARU decided to bid for one. Otherwise, it is just part of the scenery.

The RWC cycle matters at the level of execution, not strategy.


The whole point of developing strategy is to ensure that there is a long term vision, which is genuinely achievable, and which will take the organisation from where it is now, to where it wants to be at the end of the planning period.


There is no point having a strategic vision which cannot be implemented, of course. And obviously strategy needs to be updated periodically, especially when a major change occurs (for example, a RWC bid that is successful would require very different execution, than a bid that is unsuccessful).

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The RWC cycle matters at the level of execution, not strategy.

Surely you cannot just say that RWC is about execution - what about a plan to win 2019? Which plan started (say) now - the approach to be taken to RWC 2015 could be strategically vital to the 2019 plan.
God forbid that Australian rugby would dare to think that far ahead.

 

[FiveStarStu]

We had a strategic plan?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

We had a strategic plan?

We had a plan?

 

[wamberal]

Surely you cannot just say that RWC is about execution - what about a plan to win 2019? Which plan started (say) now - the approach to be taken to RWC 2015 could be strategically vital to the 2019 plan.
God forbid that Australian rugby would dare to think that far ahead.

Please read my post again. Particularly the first sentence. Of course the decision to bid for a World Cup would be a huge strategic issue, in fact, probably the most significant strategic issue that the ARU could envisage.


However, the fact that there is a four year cycle of World Cups is not in itself strategic, it is just part of the ebb and flow of the game and its calendars. Of course, there could be strategic implications, in terms of positioning the game here vis a vis other codes who do not have World Cups, and so on. But on the whole, World Cups are just part of the scenery, as I said. They are important at the tactical, operational, level, but not particularly in strategic terms.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Please read my post again. Particularly the first sentence. Of course the decision to bid for a World Cup would be a huge strategic issue, in fact, probably the most significant strategic issue that the ARU could envisage.


However, the fact that there is a four year cycle of World Cups is not in itself strategic, it is just part of the ebb and flow of the game and its calendars. Of course, there could be strategic implications, in terms of positioning the game here vis a vis other codes who do not have World Cups, and so on. But on the whole, World Cups are just part of the scenery, as I said. They are important at the tactical, operational, level, but not particularly in strategic terms.

Well, perhaps the ARU need to have a board meeting to decide what's strategic and what merely has strategic implications and whether a strategy should be developed to deal with things that are not strategic but have strategic implications - leaving to one side those matters having strategic implications which are, in themselves, no more than tactical or operational matters to do with the ebb and flow of implications and not, per se, bound up in strategic limitations of a merely technical kind.
A committee should be set up to investigate the implementation of this new strategic course - much like the one JON claims to have "initiated" in 2008 and which is yet to report.
Steady as she goes - Aye Aye skipper.

 

[FiveStarStu]

We had a plan?