Identifying and structuring strategic objectives: a case study of a major energy utility
Before a company can develop good strategic alternatives, it has to be clear about what it actually wants to achieve. After Germany’s nuclear phase-out, Ralph Keeney and I worked this out for a major European energy utility: all of the company’s strategic objectives, condensed onto a single page.
Client: major European energy utility (anonymised)
Period: from early 2013
Method: Value-Focused Thinking
Participants: all members of the executive board, the chair of the supervisory board, around a dozen managers in key positions
Outcome: objectives network with three main areas, developed from around 450 identified objectives
Background
After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011, German energy policy underwent a paradigm shift: the government led by Angela Merkel decided at short notice to phase out nuclear power. The major utilities operating nuclear plants were caught unprepared, and the economic consequences were substantial. The company we worked with estimated its long-term profit losses at around EUR 1 billion per year.
The pressure to develop high-quality strategic alternatives was correspondingly high. But that first requires the company’s strategic objectives to be identified and structured systematically.
Approach
I took on this task in early 2013 together with Ralph Keeney, professor emeritus at Duke University and originator of Value-Focused Thinking. We conducted individual interviews with every member of the executive board, the chair of the supervisory board and around a dozen managers in key positions, who together covered all relevant business units. We also systematically analysed publicly available documents and internal planning documents for potential objectives.
This produced an initial set of around 450 objectives. We categorised them, eliminated redundancies, organised the remaining objectives into a network and visualised it in a single clear diagram.
Outcome: an objectives network with three areas
Laying the foundations for future success. This area contains objectives on good leadership, on building and developing a highly qualified workforce, and on consistently making good decisions.
Running the business smartly and with an eye on the future. Here it became clear that two different objective systems coexisted within the company. In the traditional, regulated business, “increase efficiency” and “minimise costs” were central. In the new, unregulated fields such as renewable energy, the focus was on “develop new products”, “enter new markets” and “win new customers”.
Not just surviving but thriving in an uncertain market. The core question is what value the company aims to create for its stakeholders: for customers, a secure and reliable energy supply at reasonable prices; for shareholders, an appropriate and stable dividend; for the region, strong local engagement; and for employees, secure jobs on fair terms that they enjoy doing.
The key insight
The company was operating in two business areas with fundamentally different objectives. In the regulated area, “operate effectively and efficiently” was central; in the unregulated area, “create and market new products and processes”. Behind these lie different management philosophies. Among other things, this explained why employees who had spent many years in the traditional business often struggled in the new one.
When we presented the results to the executive board, the CEO, then 100 days in office, said he was impressed that everything that mattered to the company could be condensed onto one page. The clear distinction between the regulated and unregulated areas, he said, had been the missing piece he needed to communicate his vision for the company clearly to his staff.
What carries over
This approach suits organisations facing a strategic reorientation: when their environment changes fundamentally, new leadership takes over, or established and new businesses have to work under one roof. An explicit objectives network makes visible what really matters, uncovers conflicting objective systems and lays the groundwork for developing and evaluating better alternatives.
Originally published in April 2015, updated in September 2026.