I've reviewed a lot of strategic plans over the years. Some are 40-page documents with detailed SWOT analyses, competitive assessments, and multi-year roadmaps. Others are one-page frameworks with mission, vision, and a handful of strategic priorities. Some organizations use OKRs. Others use balanced scorecards. Some follow highly structured methodologies while others take a more emergent approach.
Here's what I've learned: the framework matters far less than whether your plan is actually alive. A living strategic plan is one that guides daily decisions, adapts to changing circumstances, and maintains relevance regardless of what happens in your environment. The best frameworks enable that. The worst ones create the illusion of strategic thinking while delivering shelf-ready documents that nobody references after the planning retreat.
What Makes a Strategic Plan "Living"?
A living strategic plan has three characteristics:
It connects to daily work. The idea of pulling the work that individuals are doing on a day-to-day basis and aligning it with leadership's view of the mission and vision is where connection and value starts to really build. If your strategic plan lives in a different universe than operational reality, it's not living - it's decorative.
It adapts without losing direction. Circumstances change constantly. Budgets shift. Leadership changes. Market conditions evolve. A living plan maintains the North Star - your mission and core objectives - while building in flexibility to adjust tactics, timelines, and resource allocation based on what you're learning.
It's owned by more than leadership. Our philosophy is that progress is driven by the people who are doing the work. When strategic planning is purely a leadership exercise, execution teams feel like they're working on "the boss's plan." Living plans create shared ownership where everyone understands how their contribution fits into the bigger picture.
The framework you choose should enable all three of these characteristics, regardless of whether it's a formal methodology or something you've adapted for your organization's context.
Proven Frameworks to Consider
There's no single "right" framework, but several approaches work well for different organizational contexts:
Mission-Vision-Values-Objectives (MVVO)
This is probably the most common framework and works particularly well for nonprofits, healthcare systems, and educational institutions with clear mission-driven work.
Structure:
Mission (why you exist)
Vision (where you're headed)
Values (how you operate)
Strategic Objectives (what you need to accomplish)
Key Initiatives (specific work to drive objectives)
Metrics (how you measure progress)
Why it works: At VisionSync, we like to say we focus on aspirations versus operations. MVVO frameworks naturally separate strategic work (moving toward the vision) from operational work (maintaining current capabilities). This distinction helps teams focus on transformation rather than just task completion.
Watch out for: These can become too comprehensive, trying to capture everything. Organizations need to focus on things that move the needle on their metrics. They need to stop doing many things and focus on a few things at a time. A good MVVO framework should force prioritization, not enable mission creep.
Goals, Strategies, and Initiatives (GSI)
Common in higher education and healthcare systems, this framework provides clear hierarchy from broad objectives down to executable work.
Structure:
Goals (high-level outcomes you're trying to achieve)
Strategies (approaches or methods to achieve each goal)
Initiatives (specific projects or programs that execute the strategies)
Metrics (measures of progress toward goals)
Owners (accountability for each level)
Why it works: The three-tier structure makes it easy to communicate strategic direction across large, complex organizations. A university president can talk about goals, deans can focus on strategies for their areas, and department chairs can manage specific initiatives. Everyone sees how their level connects to the others. This framework naturally accommodates the distributed ownership that healthcare systems and universities require, where multiple units need autonomy while maintaining alignment to institutional priorities.
Watch out for: The hierarchy can create silos if strategies and initiatives aren't coordinated across departments. Multiple units might launch initiatives that compete for resources or create conflicting experiences for students, patients, or stakeholders. Regular cross-functional reviews help surface these issues before they become problems. Also, be rigorous about what qualifies as a "strategic initiative" versus operational work - not every project belongs in your strategic plan.
Objectives and Key Results (OKRs)
Originally from Intel, popularized by Google, OKRs work well for organizations that value transparency, measurability, and ambitious goal-setting.
Structure:
Objectives (qualitative goals)
Key Results (quantitative measures of success)
Initiatives (work that drives key results)
Typically set quarterly with annual themes
Why it works: The quarterly cadence naturally builds in the flexibility to make adjustments along the way, which is emerging as a practical necessity for being agile with strategic planning. Rather than setting it and forgetting it for 3 years or 5 years, OKRs assume you'll adapt based on results.
Watch out for: OKRs can drift toward operational metrics if you're not careful. The framework works best when objectives remain aspirational and key results measure outcomes rather than outputs. "Launch 5 new features" is an output. "Increase user engagement by 30%" is an outcome.
Balanced Scorecard
Developed for business but widely adapted across sectors, balanced scorecards work well for organizations that need to balance multiple stakeholder perspectives.
Structure:
Four perspectives (Financial, Customer, Internal Process, Learning & Growth)
Strategic objectives within each perspective
Measures and targets
Strategic initiatives
Why it works: It prevents over-indexing on any single metric. Healthcare systems, for example, need to balance financial sustainability, patient outcomes, operational efficiency, and workforce development. The framework forces you to consider all dimensions.
Watch out for: Can become overly complex with too many metrics. Focus, simplicity, and ROI are big trends in strategic conversations. A good balanced scorecard should clarify priorities, not create a dashboard with 40 different metrics that nobody can actually manage.
Agile Strategic Planning
Adapted from software development, agile approaches work well for organizations in rapidly changing environments or those managing significant uncertainty.
Structure:
Vision and strategic themes (12-18 months)
Quarterly planning cycles
Sprint-like execution periods (2-4 weeks)
Regular retrospectives and course corrections
Backlog of potential initiatives
Why it works: It treats strategic planning as an ongoing practice rather than an annual event. Rather than talking about gathering information in meetings, you're empowering people to move progress forward in those meetings. The framework assumes change and builds in mechanisms to respond quickly.
Watch out for: Can feel chaotic without strong facilitation and process ownership. Usually there's an individual on the team, or maybe two people, that help guide and manage this process. That's critical with agile approaches where the framework itself is lighter weight.
Choosing and Adapting Your Framework
Here's the thing: you don't need to choose one of these frameworks exactly as designed. The best strategic plans often blend elements from multiple approaches based on organizational context.
Start with your constraints and capabilities:
How much capacity does your team have for strategic planning processes?
What reporting requirements do you face from boards, funders, or parent organizations?
How much alignment do you already have around mission and priorities?
How quickly does your environment change?
Consider your organizational culture:
Do people respond better to structured frameworks or emergent practices?
Is there appetite for transparency around progress and failures?
How much top-down direction versus bottom-up input works in your context?
Build in the essentials regardless of framework:
Whatever framework you choose, make sure it includes:
Clear prioritization. You can't execute everything. The framework should force choices about what matters most right now.
Distributed ownership. Each strategic initiative needs someone accountable for driving progress. This can't all roll up to the CEO or strategic planning committee.
Regular review cadences. Monthly or quarterly checkpoints where you assess progress, surface blockers, and make adjustments. The consistency of how you manage data matters more than the tools you're using.
Connection to operations. There should be clear line of sight from strategic objectives down to team and individual work. The organizations that successfully engage their team members typically have better retention and operate more efficiently because individuals know their work contributes to something bigger.
Space for learning. Your framework should accommodate failure and course corrections. Some initiatives won't work. Some assumptions will prove wrong. You need mechanisms to capture those learnings and adjust accordingly.
Making Your Framework Live
The framework itself is just structure. Making it live requires ongoing practice:
Facilitate transparency. Make strategic priorities, progress, and blockers visible across the organization. This might be dashboards, all-hands presentations, monthly updates, or whatever fits your communication patterns. The key is that people can see how strategic work is progressing without being in leadership meetings.
Celebrate tangible progress. Don't wait for annual reviews to recognize wins. When a key milestone is hit, when an initiative delivers unexpected value, when a team solves a critical blocker - celebrate it publicly. This builds momentum and reinforces that strategic execution is everyone's work.
Preserve your history. Keep track of what you decided, why you decided it, and what resulted. This isn't about documenting everything exhaustively - it's about maintaining institutional memory so you can learn from what worked and what didn't.
Adjust the framework itself as needed. If quarterly reviews aren't surfacing the right conversations, change the format. If your OKRs are drifting toward operational metrics, refine the definitions. The framework should serve your strategic work, not constrain it.
Enable the process owner. Give someone explicit responsibility and authority to facilitate strategic execution. This person isn't necessarily doing all the strategic work, but they're maintaining the system, surfacing misalignment, ensuring data is current, and helping teams stay connected to priorities.
The Framework Is the Starting Point, Not the Destination
You should not rely on any framework or methodology to generate your strategic plan. That's a fallacy. Frameworks provide structure, but you still need the genuine strategic thinking about your organization, your context, your capabilities, and your aspirations.
What frameworks do is give you a repeatable way to capture that thinking, communicate it across your organization, and maintain focus as you execute. They turn strategic planning from an annual leadership retreat into an ongoing practice that guides decisions throughout the year.
The best framework is the one that your team will actually use. That might be a formal methodology adopted wholesale. It might be a hybrid approach adapted to your specific context. It might be something you build from scratch based on what works in your culture.
The key is that it keeps your plan alive - connected to daily work, adaptive to change, and owned by the people responsible for execution. That's what turns strategic planning documents into strategic execution results.
This is part of a series on practical approaches to strategic execution. For more on how quarterly planning cycles and distributed ownership drive better outcomes, see the other posts in this series.
About the Author
