The Strategy That Never Reached the Roadmap
Northwind Retail has 210 stores and a five-year strategic plan whose headline commitments are: grow online sales from 18% to 35% of revenue, cut store operating cost per transaction by 20%, and launch a loyalty programme within 18 months. The IT department's three-year roadmap, approved by the same executive committee, is dominated by an ERP upgrade (60% of project capacity), data-centre consolidation, and a workplace refresh. The CIO sits on the executive committee but the roadmap was built bottom-up from infrastructure end-of-life dates. Six months into year one, the marketing director discovers that the CRM platform needed for loyalty is not funded, and the online growth target is being pursued by a separate digital unit reporting to the CMO with its own vendors. The board asks why IT is 'not aligned with strategy'.
1. Identify the specific failures in the strategy-to-IT translation process, distinguishing them from a simple resourcing shortfall.
Read the worked answer
This is a translation and prioritisation failure, not merely a shortage of money.
- No strategy-driven investment filter. The roadmap was built from asset end-of-life dates, so it answers 'what is breaking?' rather than 'what does the strategy require?'. Nothing in the process forced each strategic commitment to be traced to funded initiatives.
- Two plans, one committee. The business strategy and the IT roadmap were approved by the same body but never reconciled. Approval without reconciliation is a governance gap: the executive committee did not test whether the portfolio could deliver the stated outcomes.
- Fragmented ownership of digital. A separate digital unit under the CMO with its own vendors means the 'online growth' outcome has no single accountable owner and IT has no visibility of the architecture it must eventually integrate. This creates duplication and integration debt.
- Missing capability and demand planning. The loyalty programme needs CRM capability that was never assessed against the roadmap, so a committed outcome has no funded delivery path.
- Absent investment decision rights. If the CIO cannot veto or rebalance the portfolio against strategy, the CIO's committee seat is symbolic.
The resourcing shortfall is real (60% of capacity is locked into ERP), but it is a consequence: with no filter, legacy replacement consumed the capacity by default.
2. Propose a mechanism that would have caught the loyalty funding gap before approval, and explain how it changes decision-making.
Read the worked answer
Mechanism: a strategy-to-portfolio traceability gate, applied before the roadmap is approved.
- Outcome decomposition. Each strategic commitment is broken into measurable outcomes with a named business owner (e.g., loyalty live in 18 months, owned by the CMO, with IT accountable for platform delivery).
- Investment mapping. Every proposed initiative is tagged to the outcome it serves, or marked 'run/sustain' if it serves none. The portfolio is then presented as a table: outcome, owner, initiatives, funding, capacity, confidence.
- Capacity reality check. Total demand is compared with available delivery capacity. Any outcome without funded initiatives, or with initiatives exceeding capacity, is a visible red flag rather than a discovery six months later.
- Forced trade-off decision. The committee must explicitly choose what to defer to fund the gap - for example, phasing data-centre consolidation - and record that decision with its rationale and risk acceptance.
- Quarterly re-trace. The gate repeats each quarter so drift is caught early.
How it changes decisions: it converts the roadmap from a bottom-up maintenance list into a strategy-funded portfolio; it makes the cost of legacy work visible against strategic outcomes; and it forces executives to own trade-offs rather than delegate them to IT. The loyalty gap would have appeared at approval as an unfunded outcome, triggering a decision instead of a post-hoc dispute.