Episode 35 — Build a strategic planning process with cadence, inputs, and decision gates (1B2)
In this episode, we focus on something that sounds simple but is often the hidden reason strategies fail: the process used to create and refresh the strategy. Beginners tend to imagine strategic planning as a single meeting where leaders decide priorities, but in practice it needs to function more like a living system with a rhythm, clear information feeding into it, and moments where decisions are deliberately made and recorded. Without that structure, planning becomes reactive, where priorities shift based on the latest problem, the loudest voice, or the newest idea, and teams are left guessing what actually matters. A strategic planning process is not just paperwork; it is the mechanism that turns leadership intent into coordinated action across a complex organization. When the process has a cadence, it means planning happens on a predictable schedule rather than only during crises. When the process has defined inputs, it means decisions are made using shared facts rather than assumptions. When the process has decision gates, it means the organization knows when choices are finalized, how tradeoffs are handled, and what must be true before moving forward.
Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.
Cadence is the first piece, and it simply means the timing and repetition that makes planning reliable. Many organizations have an annual budget cycle, but strategic planning should not be limited to a once-a-year event, because the world changes faster than that. Cadence often includes a longer cycle for major direction, such as annual or multi-year horizon setting, and shorter cycles for refinement, such as quarterly reviews that adjust based on new information. The point of cadence is not to create meetings for their own sake, but to ensure that planning is not constantly reinvented and that decisions are revisited with intention. When cadence is missing, people either cling to an outdated plan because changing it feels chaotic, or they change it constantly because there is no structured moment to evaluate reality. Beginners can think of cadence like a heartbeat, because a steady rhythm keeps the organization alive and coordinated. A predictable cadence also improves trust, because teams can anticipate when priorities might shift and when they should expect clarity. In governance, that predictability is valuable because it reduces confusion and allows resources to be managed more deliberately.
Inputs are the second piece, and inputs are the information and context that should be brought into planning so leaders are not deciding in the dark. Inputs should include organizational goals, performance results, risk information, capacity information, and known constraints, because these are the factors that shape what is possible and what is wise. For example, if the organization has struggled with outages, reliability metrics and incident trends should be inputs so planning addresses resilience rather than ignoring it. If there are major regulatory changes on the horizon, compliance requirements and timelines should be inputs so the plan reflects unavoidable commitments. Inputs also include technology landscape information, such as architecture direction, major dependencies, and the health of core platforms, because plans that ignore technology reality often fail during execution. Beginners sometimes assume leaders already know these details, but leaders often rely on governance processes to surface them in a clear, comparable way. A planning process with strong inputs creates shared situational awareness, meaning everyone is looking at the same reality. That shared awareness is one of the most practical benefits of formal governance.
Good inputs must also be shaped into a format leaders can use, because raw data alone does not support decision-making. If you hand leaders a pile of reports, they will default to intuition or to whatever is easiest to interpret. Effective planning inputs are summarized, translated into outcomes, and framed in consistent categories so leaders can compare options. For example, instead of listing technical issues, an input might describe operational risk trends in terms of impact on customer experience, revenue disruption, and recovery time. Instead of listing dozens of project requests, an input might group demand by capabilities or strategic themes so leaders can see where pressure is building. Inputs should also include lessons learned, such as what initiatives delivered value and which ones struggled, because that history improves future decisions. Beginners can think of this as learning from past games to play the next one better, rather than repeating the same mistakes. Another critical input is organizational change capacity, which is often overlooked but determines how many initiatives can realistically be executed without overload. When inputs include capacity, planning becomes honest rather than aspirational.
Decision gates are the third piece, and they are where planning becomes real because they define moments when choices are made and commitments are set. A decision gate is not just a checkpoint, it is a controlled point in the process where leaders review inputs, consider options, and either approve, reject, defer, or request changes. Decision gates reduce confusion because they clarify when a proposal is still being shaped versus when it is officially part of the plan. Without decision gates, organizations often drift, where initiatives start informally, gather momentum, and consume resources without a clear approval. That drift is one of the main causes of initiative overload and solution sprawl. Decision gates also support accountability because they record who approved what and why, which matters when tradeoffs become controversial later. Beginners sometimes think governance is about saying no, but a good decision gate is about making a clear choice and aligning people around it. It is a tool for speed as well, because it reduces the endless loop of revisiting decisions that were never finalized.
A strong strategic planning process usually includes multiple decision gates that match the lifecycle of ideas. Early gates might focus on alignment, asking whether an idea supports strategic objectives and fits architectural direction. Later gates might focus on readiness, asking whether there is a clear scope, a realistic timeline, and identified dependencies. Later still, gates might focus on ongoing value, asking whether the initiative is delivering outcomes and whether adjustments are needed. The point is not to create bureaucracy, but to prevent costly mistakes by ensuring certain questions are answered at the right time. Beginners can relate to this by thinking about writing a research paper: you first choose a topic, then you validate sources, then you create a draft, and you do not wait until the final day to discover your topic is wrong. Decision gates create that same structure for enterprise initiatives. When gates are designed well, they reduce rework and prevent initiatives from reaching expensive stages before problems are detected. This is especially important in governance because large I T efforts can lock in costs and risks quickly.
Cadence, inputs, and decision gates also need to connect to each other, because they are not separate parts, they are interdependent. Cadence sets when planning activities happen and when decisions are revisited, inputs ensure those decisions are informed, and decision gates ensure outcomes are clear and recorded. If cadence is present but inputs are weak, you get regular meetings that produce poor decisions. If inputs are strong but decision gates are weak, you get analysis without commitment and the organization still drifts. If decision gates are strong but cadence is missing, you get decisions that are made in crisis and never revisited thoughtfully. Beginners often learn best when they see that process design is about balancing these elements so the organization can adapt without losing coherence. Another important connection is that planning outputs should inform execution processes, like portfolio management and resource planning, so the plan becomes operational rather than symbolic. A planning process that ends with a document but does not influence resource allocation is not really a planning process, it is a narrative exercise. Governance aims to ensure the plan changes what the organization does, not just what it says.
A strategic planning process also needs a clear role for different stakeholders, even when the details vary by organization. Leaders set direction and make tradeoffs, governance bodies ensure alignment and oversight, and operational teams provide reality checks about feasibility and dependencies. For beginners, it helps to understand that planning is not purely top-down, because top-down plans can be disconnected from execution. At the same time, planning cannot be purely bottom-up, because bottom-up lists often reflect local needs rather than enterprise direction. A well-designed process creates a structured conversation between these levels, where ideas and constraints flow upward and priorities and decisions flow downward. This conversation works best when information is presented consistently, so different proposals can be compared fairly. It also works best when decision gates are respected, so stakeholders know when to contribute and when to execute. This reduces the emotional conflict that can arise when people feel decisions are being made behind closed doors or changed unexpectedly. In governance, transparency and predictability are often as important as the decisions themselves.
Another concept beginners should grasp is that planning should explicitly manage uncertainty, because strategies are built with imperfect information. A process can handle uncertainty by using scenario thinking, by setting assumptions clearly, and by planning incremental commitments rather than all-or-nothing bets. Decision gates can incorporate this by approving a limited first stage to learn and reduce risk before scaling. Inputs can incorporate uncertainty by showing ranges or confidence levels rather than pretending every estimate is exact. Cadence can incorporate uncertainty by ensuring the plan is revisited regularly with updated information. This helps leaders make decisions that are robust, meaning they still work reasonably well under different future conditions. It also prevents the organization from freezing, because waiting for perfect information can become an excuse for inaction. A good planning process makes it normal to adjust based on learning, while still keeping commitments clear enough for teams to act. That balance is one of the most practical marks of mature governance.
Finally, it is important to connect the planning process back to the idea of governable execution, because planning is not successful if it produces a nice story but chaotic delivery. A process with cadence, inputs, and decision gates supports execution by preventing overload, clarifying sequencing, and ensuring initiatives have the prerequisites they need. It also supports accountability because decisions are made visibly and revisited intentionally, which helps leaders track whether outcomes are being delivered. For beginners, the simplest way to think about it is that a good planning process creates a reliable path from goals to action, so people are not constantly improvising. When the process is strong, teams can focus on delivering because they trust that priorities are stable enough to plan, and leaders can adjust responsibly because they have structured moments to do so. In governance terms, this is how strategic planning becomes an operational discipline rather than an occasional event. By designing cadence, inputs, and decision gates intentionally, the organization reduces confusion, improves decision quality, and makes it far more likely that strategy will turn into real progress rather than just good intentions.
