PLANNING PROCESS by NATALINA BANJARNAHOR (15407105)

PLANNING PROCESS
The Strategic Planning Process
In the 1970's, many large firms adopted a formalized top-down strategic planning model. Under this model, strategic planning became a deliberate process in which top executives periodically would formulate the firm's strategy, then communicate it down the organization for implementation. The following is a flowchart model of this process:

The Strategic Planning Process
Mission
|
V
Objectives
|
V
Situation Analysis
|
V
Strategy Formulation
|
V
Implementation
|
V
Control

This process is most applicable to strategic management at the business unit level of the organization. For large corporations, strategy at the corporate level is more concerned with managing a portfolio of businesses. For example, corporate level strategy involves decisions about which business units to grow, resource allocation among the business units, taking advantage of synergies among the business units, and mergers and acquisitions. In the process outlined here, "company" or "firm" will be used to denote a single-business firm or a single business unit of a diversified firm.




Mission
A company's mission is its reason for being. The mission often is expressed in the form of a mission statement, which conveys a sense of purpose to employees and projects a company image to customers. In the strategy formulation process, the mission statement sets the mood of where the company should go.

Objectives
Objectives are concrete goals that the organization seeks to reach, for example, an earnings growth target. The objectives should be challenging but achievable. They also should be measurable so that the company can monitor its progress and make corrections as needed.

Situation Analysis
Once the firm has specified its objectives, it begins with its current situation to devise a strategic plan to reach those objectives. Changes in the external environment often present new opportunities and new ways to reach the objectives. An environmental scan is performed to identify the available opportunities. The firm also must know its own capabilities and limitations in order to select the opportunities that it can pursue with a higher probability of success. The situation analysis therefore involves an analysis of both the external and internal environment.
The external environment has two aspects: the macro-environment that affects all firms and a micro-environment that affects only the firms in a particular industry. The macro-environmental analysis includes political, economic, social, and technological factors and sometimes is referred to as a PEST analysis.
An important aspect of the micro-environmental analysis is the industry in which the firm operates or is considering operating. Michael Porter devised a five forces framework that is useful for industry analysis. Porter's 5 forces include barriers to entry, customers, suppliers, substitute products, and rivalry among competing firms.
The internal analysis considers the situation within the firm itself, such as:
• Company culture
• Company image
• Organizational structure
• Key staff
• Access to natural resources
• Position on the experience curve
• Operational efficiency
• Operational capacity
• Brand awareness
• Market share
• Financial resources
• Exclusive contracts
• Patents and trade secrets
A situation analysis can generate a large amount of information, much of which is not particularly relevant to strategy formulation. To make the information more manageable, it sometimes is useful to categorize the internal factors of the firm as strengths and weaknesses, and the external environmental factors as opportunities and threats. Such an analysis often is referred to as a SWOT analysis.

Strategy Formulation
Once a clear picture of the firm and its environment is in hand, specific strategic alternatives can be developed. While different firms have different alternatives depending on their situation, there also exist generic strategies that can be applied across a wide range of firms. Michael Porter identified cost leadership, differentiation, and focus as three generic strategies that may be considered when defining strategic alternatives. Porter advised against implementing a combination of these strategies for a given product; rather, he argued that only one of the generic strategy alternatives should be pursued.

Implementation
The strategy likely will be expressed in high-level conceptual terms and priorities. For effective implementation, it needs to be translated into more detailed policies that can be understood at the functional level of the organization. The expression of the strategy in terms of functional policies also serves to highlight any practical issues that might not have been visible at a higher level. The strategy should be translated into specific policies for functional areas such as:
• Marketing
• Research and development
• Procurement
• Production
• Human resources
• Information systems
In addition to developing functional policies, the implementation phase involves identifying the required resources and putting into place the necessary organizational changes.

Control
Once implemented, the results of the strategy need to be measured and evaluated, with changes made as required to keep the plan on track. Control systems should be developed and implemented to facilitate this monitoring. Standards of performance are set, the actual performance measured, and appropriate action taken to ensure success.

Dynamic and Continuous Process
The strategic management process is dynamic and continuous. A change in one component can necessitate a change in the entire strategy. As such, the process must be repeated frequently in order to adapt the strategy to environmental changes. Throughout the process the firm may need to cycle back to a previous stage and make adjustments.

Drawbacks of this Process
The strategic planning process outlined above is only one approach to strategic management. It is best suited for stable environments. A drawback of this top-down approach is that it may not be responsive enough for rapidly changing competitive environments. In times of change, some of the more successful strategies emerge informally from lower levels of the organization, where managers are closer to customers on a day-to-day basis.
Another drawback is that this strategic planning model assumes fairly accurate forecasting and does not take into account unexpected events. In an uncertain world, long-term forecasts cannot be relied upon with a high level of confidence. In this respect, many firms have turned to scenario planning as a tool for dealing with multiple contingencies.

SWOT Analysis
SWOT analysis is a simple framework for generating strategic alternatives from a situation analysis. It is applicable to either the corporate level or the business unit level and frequently appears in marketing plans. SWOT (sometimes referred to as TOWS) stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. The SWOT framework was described in the late 1960's by Edmund P. Learned, C. Roland Christiansen, Kenneth Andrews, and William D. Guth in Business Policy, Text and Cases (Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1969). The General Electric Growth Council used this form of analysis in the 1980's. Because it concentrates on the issues that potentially have the most impact, the SWOT analysis is useful when a very limited amount of time is available to address a complex strategic situation.
The following diagram shows how a SWOT analysis fits into a strategic situation analysis.

Situation Analysis
/ \
Internal Analysis External Analysis
/ \ / \
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
|
SWOT Profile

The internal and external situation analysis can produce a large amount of information, much of which may not be highly relevant. The SWOT analysis can serve as an interpretative filter to reduce the information to a manageable quantity of key issues. The SWOT analysis classifies the internal aspects of the company as strengths or weaknesses and the external situational factors as opportunities or threats. Strengths can serve as a foundation for building a competitive advantage, and weaknesses may hinder it. By understanding these four aspects of its situation, a firm can better leverage its strengths, correct its weaknesses, capitalize on golden opportunities, and deter potentially devastating threats.

Internal Analysis
The internal analysis is a comprehensive evaluation of the internal environment's potential strengths and weaknesses. Factors should be evaluated across the organization in areas such as:
• Company culture
• Company image
• Organizational structure
• Key staff
• Access to natural resources
• Position on the experience curve
• Operational efficiency
• Operational capacity
• Brand awareness
• Market share
• Financial resources
• Exclusive contracts
• Patents and trade secrets
The SWOT analysis summarizes the internal factors of the firm as a list of strengths and weaknesses.

External Analysis
An opportunity is the chance to introduce a new product or service that can generate superior returns. Opportunities can arise when changes occur in the external environment. Many of these changes can be perceived as threats to the market position of existing products and may necessitate a change in product specifications or the development of new products in order for the firm to remain competitive. Changes in the external environment may be related to:
• Customers
• Competitors
• Market trends
• Suppliers
• Partners
• Social changes
• New technology
• Economic environment
• Political and regulatory environment

Multiple Perspectives Needed
The method used to acquire the inputs to the SWOT matrix will affect the quality of the analysis. If the information is obtained hastily during a quick interview with the CEO, even though this one person may have a broad view of the company and industry, the information would represent a single viewpoint. The quality of the analysis will be improved greatly if interviews are held with a spectrum of stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, customers, strategic partners, etc.

SWOT Analysis Limitations
While useful for reducing a large quantity of situational factors into a more manageable profile, the SWOT framework has a tendency to oversimplify the situation by classifying the firm's environmental factors into categories in which they may not always fit. The classification of some factors as strengths or weaknesses, or as opportunities or threats is somewhat arbitrary. For example, a particular company culture can be either a strength or a weakness. A technological change can be a either a threat or an opportunity. Perhaps what is more important than the superficial classification of these factors is the firm's awareness of them and its development of a strategic plan to use them to its advantage.