Most strategy documents are correct. That's rarely the problem. The problem is that a document full of good ideas and a plan that actually gets executed are two different artefacts, built to different standards — and most engagements stop at the first one.
A strategy document answers "what should we do." It's usually organised around themes: grow this segment, fix that cost base, enter this channel. It's genuinely useful thinking. It's also, on its own, almost impossible to execute, because nothing in it says who is responsible, by when, with what resources, or how anyone will know it's on track.
What a deliverable plan adds
An owner for every initiative — a named person accountable for it, not "the leadership team." A sequence, because most businesses can't run six strategic initiatives at once with the team they have, and pretending otherwise is how nothing finishes. Milestones with dates attached, specific enough that it's obvious within a month whether something is on track or quietly slipping. A resourced budget, so the plan reflects what the business can actually fund rather than what would be ideal in an unconstrained world. And a review cadence — a standing point where progress against the plan gets checked against reality, not just referenced in passing at the next strategy day.
Why this is where most engagements actually fail
Turning themes into a sequenced, resourced, owned plan is less interesting work than the strategy session that produced the themes in the first place, and it's usually where an external advisor's involvement ends — right at the point the hard part begins. The strategy gets filed, the business goes back to its existing rhythm, and six months later the same themes get raised again, sounding a little more urgent each time.
The fix isn't a better strategy document. It's treating the plan as the deliverable, and staying involved long enough to see it actually run.