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.