3. Analysing and Deciding

Value Proposition

Transform evidence and perspectives into shared insight and clear strategic choices so that the National Society focuses its resources on the most critical priorities and is prepared to adapt to change.

Purpose & Strategic Importance

Data on their own are not enough. Strategic planning requires building a bigger picture of the National Society, its environment, and its needs through analysis. This means going beyond visible symptoms to explore root causes of challenges, understand what is changing in the humanitarian context, and identify where the organisation must adapt.

This sub-capability enables leaders to turn information into insight and make deliberate, informed choices that shape the National Society’s direction, structure, and impact for years to come.

Core Concepts & Definitions

• Analysis: A structured process of interpreting data and perspectives to explain why challenges exist, what is changing in the context, and what this means for the National Society.
• Strategic priority: A critical area of action that requires focused attention and resources to achieve the National Society’s humanitarian goals. Not everything can be a priority.
• Strategic choice: A deliberate decision to pursue certain directions and not others, balancing ambition with feasibility and long-term sustainability.

Principles

• Go beyond symptoms – Focus on root causes, not only visible problems.
• Think systemically – Consider how context, capacities, relationships, and services interact.
• Share the analysis – Build insight through collective discussion, not expert analysis alone.
• Choose deliberately – Make explicit trade-offs to keep the strategy focused and realistic.

Activities & Decisions

• Activity – Turning data into insight: Transform data into analysis through shared conversations across the National Society, explaining why challenges exist, what is changing in the context, and where the organisation must adapt.
• Activity – Setting priorities: Identify a limited number of strategic priorities that reflect the most critical areas of action, balancing ambition with realism and available resources.
• Activity – Developing high-level indicators: Define high-level indicators linked to each strategic priority to clarify what success looks like and enable future monitoring without overloading the strategy with detail.
• Decision – Reality check before approval: Test priorities and assumptions against organisational capacity, resources, risks, and feasibility to confirm that the strategy is realistic and implementable.
• Decision – Final drafting and adoption: Agree on final strategic choices, validate alignment with the National Society’s long-term vision, and formally approve the strategy through governance structures.

Results

• Outputs
  • Shared analytical synthesis explaining key challenges, trends, and root causes.
  • A clearly articulated set of strategic priorities.
  • High-level indicators linked to each priority.
  • Documented assumptions, trade-offs, and feasibility checks.
  • Final strategic plan approved by governance.
• Outcomes
  • Common understanding across governance, management, branches, staff, and volunteers of the National Society’s direction.
  • Stronger ownership of strategic priorities and choices.
  • Increased confidence that the strategy is realistic, focused, and implementable.
• Impact
  • A credible, focused strategy that guides decision-making and resource allocation over the medium to long term.
  • Improved organisational ability to adapt to change and respond to evolving humanitarian needs.
  • Stronger alignment between vision, priorities, and action across the National Society.

Metrics & Learning

• Enabling Resources (not consumed):
  • Existence of a documented analysis and prioritisation approach approved by leadership (Yes/No).
  • # staff, branch, and governance representatives involved in analysis workshops or discussions.
• Inputs (consumed):
  • # datasets, assessments, or evidence sources synthesised for analysis.
  • % priority areas supported by at least two evidence sources (triangulation).
• Processes:
  • # facilitated analysis sessions conducted across governance, management, branches, or staff.
  • % strategic priorities where explicit trade-offs and assumptions are documented.
• Outputs:
  • # strategic priorities formally approved.
  • % priorities with defined high-level indicators.
  • Final strategy approved by governance (Yes/No).
• Outcomes:
  • % leaders and branch representatives reporting shared understanding of strategic priorities (survey).
  • % annual or operational plans explicitly aligned to approved strategic priorities.
• Impact:
  • % organisational resources (budget/programmes) aligned to strategic priorities.
  • Trend in organisational focus or coherence index (where available).
• Learning & Adaptation (cross-cutting):
  • # strategic adjustments made following mid-term or periodic reviews.
  • % agreed follow-up actions from reviews completed on time.

Learning Questions

• Where do differences in context or capacity most influence how priorities are interpreted or implemented across branches?
• Which types of analysis and dialogue most improve the quality and legitimacy of strategic choices?
• Where are misalignments between ambition and feasibility emerging, and what signals indicate the need to adjust priorities or implementation?

Enabling Resources

• People
  • Roles:
    • Governing Board and Senior Leadership: Provide direction, test assumptions, make strategic choices, and approve priorities.
    • Strategic Planning Coordination Team: Synthesises analysis, prepares options, documents trade-offs, and supports decision-making processes.
    • Branch Leaders and Representatives: Contribute contextual insight, test relevance and feasibility of priorities, and support shared understanding.
    • Technical and Thematic Leads: Provide evidence, standards, and feasibility input linked to programmes and systems.
  • Competencies:
    • Systems thinking and analytical skills.
    • Ability to facilitate dialogue and surface root causes.
    • Strategic judgement and decision-making under uncertainty.
    • Clear communication and synthesis of complex information.
• Culture:
  • Openness to challenge and honest reflection.
  • Willingness to make trade-offs and prioritise.
  • Respect for diverse perspectives across the organisation.
  • Commitment to evidence-informed and participatory decision-making.
• Governance
  • Clear mandate for leadership and governance to make strategic choices.
  • Agreed decision points and approval mechanisms for priorities and final strategy.
  • Transparent documentation of assumptions, risks, and trade-offs.
  • Alignment with statutes, internal regulations, and General Assembly requirements.
• Data
  • Synthesised evidence from consultations, assessments, evaluations, and contextual analysis.
  • Organisational performance data (programmatic, financial, volunteer, and capacity-related).
  • Scenario and foresight inputs informing future-oriented choices.
• Tools & Technology
  • Analysis and synthesis templates.
  • Priority-setting and scoring tools.
  • High-level indicator frameworks.
  • Digital collaboration platforms for shared analysis and review.
• Facilities & Equipment
  • Meeting and workshop spaces (physical or virtual).
  • Facilitation materials and digital presentation tools.
• Financing Mechanisms
  • Dedicated budget for analysis workshops, facilitation, and documentation.
  • Provision for leadership retreats or governance sessions where strategic choices are made.
• Guidance & Learning Resources
  • National Society Strategic Planning Guideline.
  • Tools on turning data into insight and setting priorities.
  • Resources on developing high-level indicators and conducting reality checks before approval.

Implementation Notes

• Focus analysis on the decisions that need to be made, not on producing exhaustive reports.
• Limit the number of strategic priorities to maintain clarity, focus, and feasibility.
• Make assumptions, trade-offs, and risks explicit to avoid ambiguity during implementation.
• Ensure analysis and prioritisation are shared conversations, not expert-only exercises.
• Test priorities against capacity, resources, and context before final approval.
• Keep indicators high-level, using operational plans to add detail later.
• Revisit priorities through mid-term or periodic reviews to stay responsive to change.