The discipline of focus, what makes a digital strategy work

In many cultural organisations, digital exists in a slightly awkward space. It's obviously connected to priorities like audience growth (and experience), revenue and funding, and operational efficiency - yet it's rarely fully integrated into how these challenges are approached.

Instead, digital often sits alongside these priorities as a separate concern where it exists as something that is important, but rarely urgent.

This structural confusion is, I think, one of the reasons why digital strategies often underdeliver.

All of this is compounded by the fact that strategies are often developed in environments where attention, money, and sometimes digital expertise, are scarce.

I’ve seen a lot of digital strategies over the years. Often they’re either so vague they could apply to any organisation (and are quickly shelved and left to gather dust), or so overloaded with initiatives they become little more than a wish list (causing widespread overwhelm and stress).

These failures aren’t just down to poor drafting, they often also reflect sector-wide structural pressures. The result is that strategy documents then balloon under these external expectations as much as any internal confusion.

Maybe part of the problem is the word digital itself - in cultural organisations it has become so broad and poorly defined, that it ends up meaning everything and nothing (this is something I've written about before).

When 'digital' is expected to cover websites, ticketing, cybersecurity, data, content, marketing, innovation, future-proofing, and more, it’s no wonder strategies sprawl out of control and coherence.

Richard Rumelt argues in Good Strategy / Bad Strategy that bad strategies are often “a dog’s dinner of goals and wishful thinking”.

The best digital strategies I’ve seen avoid this by being ruthlessly selective, they make clear what matters most and, just as importantly, what can wait.

Strategy isn’t about piling up objectives, the value of this work lies in the act of focus i.e. choosing a direction and sticking to it even if that means letting go of other attractive-sounding ideas.

So what is a strategy?

Roger Martin says strategy is making an integrated set of choices, working out 'where to play and how to win' - he also explains that, notably, 'a plan is not a strategy'.

Richard Rumelt frames strategy as 'a clear response to a challenge, built from diagnosis, a guiding policy, and coordinated actions'.

Elsewhere, I've seen good strategists being defined by their ability to notice.

Together, these definitions emphasise that strategy isn’t a lofty vision but a discipline of focus and coherence that defines a clear path forward.

It's worth being clear about what strategy isn't. Strategy documents aren't comprehensive lists of everything an organisation does digitally. Keeping key systems and platforms running, maintaining security, supporting day-to-day operations - these are all operational necessities that belong in team plans and budgets. Strategy is specifically about where you focus effort for change, where you invest (time, energy, money) to move from where you are to where you need to be.

Of course, in practice the line between operations and strategy is rarely that neat. Political realities, funder conditions, and legacy systems can blur the distinction, forcing leaders to juggle long-term direction and short-term fixes at the same time. A good strategy acknowledges this messiness but still has to set boundaries, otherwise everything ends up being labelled “strategic” and nothing really is. This distinction matters especially in resource-constrained organisations (which is most cultural organisations) where compromises and trade-offs must regularly be made.

In practice, good digital strategies are as much about what not to do as what to do. That might mean they give you the steer (and permission) to pause on a shiny new platform, resist the urge to spread resources too thin, or back away from initiatives that don’t build on organisational strengths and priorities. Good strategy gives you the basis to protect what matters most, even when resources are tight.

Common positive characteristics

If strategy is about focus and trade-offs, what does that look like in practice? I thought it might be helpful to share some observations about the characteristics that seem to be present in the strategies - formalised and informal - in the most digitally successful organisations I've worked with.

What follows isn’t a checklist to tick off, but a set of lenses you can use to interrogate your current strategy. If your document, or the way you describe it, struggles under these tests, that’s perhaps a sign that it’s not as clear or useful as it needs to be.

The best digital strategies are:

1. Focused - they don't waffle on. A good strategy can be summed up in a single, clear sentence (Rumelt calls this “kernel” thinking - a summary of why are we doing this? what is the plan? how will we accomplish this?). A good strategy sharpens attention on one or two decisive challenges, rather than scattering effort.
2. Distinctive - they specifically look to create and explore spaces where you can thrive, not compete head-on with everyone else 'just because everyone else is doing it'.
3. Tangible - strategy isn’t abstract. It should describe choices in a way that people across the organisation can recognise in their own work so they can see when they are (or aren’t) acting in line with it.
4. Relevant - they directly (and credibly) link to organisational mission and priorities. They answer the questions Why this? Why now? and How does this move us closer to the outcomes that matter most?
5. Practical - they don't just state ambitions, they provide a steer on how things will be done. This perhaps includes examples or principles for decision-making.
6. Selective - they make it very clear what not to do. This protects focus and resources by actively de-prioritising.
7. Memorable - short, clear, and easy to recall. It’s meaningful enough to stick in people's minds, simple enough to repeat, and obvious enough that people recognise its value when they see it.
8. Consequential - if followed, something important and material changes, 'if we do this, with these resources and activities, we expect that there will be an outcome of x'. There is a clear sense of what needs to be committed and what success will look like.

A good example

To see how these characteristics work together in practice, here's a (fictional) example of a strategy that embodies them:

"Our nationally recognised schools program is undermined by a broken booking process: teachers abandon at twice the rate of other visitors. Our strategic focus is to compete on ease-of-access, not breadth of offering - we'll succeed by being the easiest major institution for schools to visit, not the one with the most programs. For the next 12 months, our one digital priority is clear - make booking easy for teachers. We’ll dedicate the entire digital team and 60% of the development budget here. All other digital expansions (e.g. new platforms, new website features) are paused. We'll focus on rebuilding the journey with a focus on what we know matters to teachers - single-session completion with instant confirmation, and we will re-engage schools who abandoned bookings. Success means teachers book in one go, we hear positive feedback from them, and 40% more school groups (8,000 extra students) visit which directly advances our education mission. We'll review progress quarterly and if teacher abandonment hasn't dropped by 25% after 6 months, we'll reassess whether this is the right continued focus."

This works not because it ticks every box, but because it sets one clear priority, ties it to a distinctive strength, makes explicit trade-offs, and defines success.

A plausible but flawed example

Here’s an example of a strategy outline that looks tidy on paper but still misses the mark:

“Over the next two years, our digital priorities are to (1) grow our online audiences through new partnerships, (2) upgrade our CRM to improve donor engagement, and (3) enhance the visitor journey through better digital wayfinding and interpretation. These goals will help us expand our reach, build stronger supporter relationships, and improve the visitor experience both on-site and online.”

Why it seems good:

• The goals are clearly stated and easy to understand.
• Each is linked to a meaningful organisational aim (audiences, donors, visitors).
• It avoids jargon and overpromising.

Why it’s still weak:

• No prioritisation: all three goals appear equally important, so resources will inevitably be spread too thin. If budget or capacity falters, it’s unclear which goal to protect.
• No explicit trade-offs: nothing is paused or deprioritised, so staff won’t know what can wait.
• No success criteria: “grow” and “improve” are vague without numbers or tangible outcomes.

The danger with this kind of “grey zone” strategy is that it feels credible but doesn’t create clarity for decision-making. Everyone can nod along, but when choices get tough and compromise has to be made staff are still left guessing.

A bad example

Here's an example of a (entirely made up but perhaps familiar) strategy outline that ignores all 8 of these principles.

“Over the next three years, we will strengthen our digital presence by improving our website, launching a new app, building audiences on all major social media platforms, and embracing emerging technologies such as VR and AI. We will aim to be innovative in everything we do, while also growing online ticket sales, reaching more schools, producing more digital content, and ensuring we stay up to date with trends. By investing in a wide range of digital initiatives, we will demonstrate our ambition to lead in the digital space and ensure no opportunity is missed.”

Why it’s bad:

• Unfocused: a laundry list of initiatives.
• Not distinctive: generic promises that any organisation could make.
• Not tangible: “embrace innovation” and “stay up to date” say nothing.
• Not relevant: no link back to mission or audiences.
• Not practical: no steer on how decisions will actually be made.
• Not selective: tries to do everything to avoid missing out.
• Not memorable: too long, too bland, no 'sticky' phrases.
• Not consequential: no real outcomes described, just activity.

The consequences of bad strategy

When strategy is vague or overloaded, it creates confusion rather than clarity.

Leaders are left without the basis for making trade-offs, so everything feels equally urgent (and therefore ends up equally under-resourced) and staff don’t know what to prioritise. The result is that digital becomes lots of activity, but little in the way of progress or impact.

In the worst cases, it reduces digital to surface polish - new channels, shiny tools, or campaigns that look good in a report but are rarely delivered in a way that changes the organisation’s ability to deliver on its mission or deliver real impact for the people who matter most. In these examples, this digital activity is often first on the list of things that can be cut when times get tough - because none of it was actually ever that necessary.

For leaders, the risk is that digital becomes busywork - activity that drains resources (and focus) but doesn’t strengthen your impact or effectiveness. That’s why a clear, selective strategy is as much a leadership tool as it is a digital one.

Aim for clarity

Digital strategy isn’t about having the longest document, the cleverest-sounding language, or the most comprehensive list of platforms and technologies. It’s about giving your people clarity.

The best digital strategies I’ve seen can often be expressed on a single page not because they lack detail, but because they capture a clear diagnosis, a guiding policy, and the big choices that shape what comes next. The plan will follow, but without this focus, all you really have is a to-do list.

This piece was, in part, inspired by reading this post from SMK's Jonas Heide Smith (specifically the section where Jonas says "what you’re offering needs to be actually relevant, extremely clearly communicated and utterly easy to use") and my recent conversation with Paula Bray at State Library Victoria (in which Paula described the strategy that guides the work and priorities of her directorate, and the 'obvious' link to broader organisational goals).