In the Ricky Stuart blog there's a bit of discussion right now about five-year plans and quite frankly the five-year plan is getting a bad wrap. Actually, in Ricky's case, this time it was a ten-year plan. So let's just say that I think long-term planning is copping what I feel is unfair criticism.
Long-term planning is essential to any organisation, but let's be quite clear it does not have to be at the expense of short-term planning. It's not one or the other, you should be doing both.
In fact, best practice management generally involves three kinds of plans. A short-term, medium-term and long-term plan. The appropriate number of years that you base these plans around are whatever makes sense to the forecasting and cyclical nature of your business.
I would suggest in Rugby League, your short-term plan is annual - it's a focus on the season ahead. The people who should be responsible for the short-term play is on the football side of things, the coach and in the office, the division managers. Short-term is about execution. It's about working with what you've got and achieving the best short-term outcome possible.
In Rugby League medium-term planning should probably revolve around a three-year model. Three-years gives you long-enough to turn over your playing roster entirely. It gives you enough time to make significant shifts in commercial outcomes. The people primarily responsible for medium-term outcomes should be your Director of Football and your Chief Executive Officer, both of whom should be mandated to think over and beyond immediate execution and to be ensuring adequate structures and processes are in place so that the short-term managers can be successful within each dedicated short-term period.
Long-term planning in Rugby League is probably a decade. This is your big-picture stuff, it should be setting the direction your sailing and broadly plotting the route you're going to get there with. This is the board's responsibility and it needs to be tweaked continuously based on your short-to-medium term results but it should also give you some organisation stability and a vision to unite behind.
So within that framework, let's look at the Ricky Stuart problem. The problem here is you have a manager who needs to be operationally-focused seemingly setting his goals around medium-term results. This causes all manner of problems. It means your execution is likely to be flawed, because responsibility is absolved under the rationale of mid-term planning. Mid-term planning is compromised by the pressure that comes with failing in the short-term.
We can also use it to look at Parramatta's problem. Parramatta's constitutional set-up forces the club to work within two-year cycles. This awkward timeline that sits between the ideal short-term and mid-term planning cycles allows no real period for medium-term planning because each sitting board is judged only on short-term outcomes.
One area, I believe we finally have right is the Director of Football position, which I argued in favour of, for a long-time because it demands your coach be short-term focused and let's someone else think about the bigger picture. Ricky Stuart has often talked about Penrith as a club that has thought in the longer-term and turned itself around, but that ignores the fact that Penrith brought in Phil Gould as the mid-term manager and Ivan Cleary was responsible for year-on-year gains.
When Stuart was hired here, I suggested his better role would be as a Coaching/Football Director and everything that has transpired since, reinforces that. He demands the kind of control and vision-setting responsibility, but at the same time wants to keep hold of the operational head-coach responsibility. Stephen Kearney wanted it all, as well.
In Rugby League, there will always be, and there should only ever be short-term expectations of the players and coaches. Those expectations must be realistic, but all supporters and members will expect year-on-year improvements and gains. A coach who makes excuses for year-on-year decreasing performance, is doing exactly that. Making excuses. A club moving forward towards sustainable success should also have managers thinking medium-term, and a strong stable board thinking long-term. I hope (and believe) Parramatta is moving towards that. We've re-established a strong operational team and now there's the scope to move forward into the longer-term strategic thinking. That's what will make us a consistently successful and sustainable club.
Replies
I also like the fact that we've been able to keep on Anthony Field as junior director. He was brought in by Peter Nolan and has done a fairly good job now that he's taken over from Nolan, he's selected good Under 16's and Under 18's squads that have a chance at doing well next year. It also appears that he's a good scout and is able to get a deal done with external players, recently he's signed Jesse Cronin (16) from Newcastle to a 4 year contract for us as well as Reimis Smith (18) from South Sydney. I'm not sure who signed on Travis Turnbull from QLD but there were a few clubs after him and it appears we've got a pretty good player on our hands.
Very good long term planning. It also allows Peter Sharp to solely focus on first grade recruitment so that BA doesn't have to take time out of his day to chase players and their managers.
Thanks Phil, i have quietly sat hear shaking my head at people bagging the "5year plan", i never could have explained it in a business sense the way you have hence my silence on the matter. If people still don't get the need for a long term plan then they never will.
we eels supporters are sick of 5 year plans that never work.
we need to finish in the top 8 this year,other wise we are gone no where.
We won't improve our place on the table without Hayne and you are kidding yourself if you think we will be a stronger team without Hayne.
But in saying that I still have hope BA can turn the team into a competitive outfit. Looking forward to what lays ahead.
The real question involves the teams above us, not us. We might not be a better team but teams above us may decline.
For example, the Roosters and Rabbits have lost big name players; Manly have lost big name players; Melbourne have injury concerns to their two best players and the Cowboys have lost some depth. Broncos have probably lost more then they have gained and Boyd is gone for most of the season. The Boncos have also lost 3 NRL frontrowers and have not replaced these guys with NRL quality and if they get injuries to their middle players they will struggle.
The Bulldogs and Panthers are two teams that haven't lost big name players and have improved on their squads. If they have a good run with injuries they should dominate.
Cronulla should be the big improvers and should push for top 8 as they have been decimated over the past two years with injury and investigation. Cronulla also have a lot more depth this season and will probably be a top 4 to 6 team if their forwards stay injury free.
The Tigers could also be a big improver if their young half's go to that next step. Like Cronulla they have had significant injury issues and if they get a good run with injuries they will be far more competitive.
I reckon with stronger defence we will be a better team and given the team has had the entire pre-season to train together I don't think there will be much difference. I think the biggest difference that we'll see is that we won't get the amazing stuff that we saw with Hayne on the field, instead we'll be a bit more "boring" but BA will still encourage the squad to "play footy".
Plus without Hayne it gives other players the opportunity to stand up and display their worth.
I think that is because they've had Hayne as a fall back. They've known that if they can't think of anything to do they'll be able to throw it to Hayne and he can come up with something. Now that Hayne isn't there, and we've trained without him, it will push others to step-up in his place.
As I said I don't think we'll have the same flair but I honestly think we'll be a better team.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next