Abstract
This chapter explores functions of planning as decision making. In order to compare and evaluate strategic planning frameworks, it is necessary to define the domains explicitly (Zutshi 1981: 18). Therefore, the following sections explain the development and interrelation of the terms strategy, planning, and process. The evolution of strategic planning is discussed. The planning process is depicted to set the stage for the next chapter on approaches to planning systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Quoted in translation from Faucheux (1977:135).
This collection of managerial tasks, as was referred to in the introductory chapter, dates back to Fayol (1916) and is one of the most used schemes in the Western management literature. Recently, this view has been challenged by Mintzberg (e.g. 1975, 1976), who distinguishes between the managers interpersonal roles (figurehead, leader, liaison), the managers informational roles (monitor, disseminator, spokesman), and the managers decisional roles (entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, negotiator). Similar arguments against Fayol (1916) can be found in Kotter (1982:156). Although this empirically derived distinction is both meaningful and appropriate, the author went along with most of the strategy and comparative management literature in using the term ‘planning’ in Fayols’ understanding.
As will be referred to in a later chapter, the task environment for strategic planning includes both the societal environment (social, cultural, political, legal, technical, economical forces), the internal environment (e.g. structure, corporate culture, size, resources, and the core task environment (e.g. stockholders, governments, customers, creditors, competitors, employees, and communities (Negandhi 1983a:21; Wheelen/ Hunger 1984:9). For task analysis, see Campbell (1988), or Haiss (1983). For planning tasks, see Szyperski/Müller (1986:306) or Freeman/Lorange (1985:18).
This distinction is important, because the wrongful application of planning as a managerial technique makes it understandable, if researchers like Tull (1979:37) find that “The greatest value of static written plans is that they make excellent bookends (last year’s plan on the left and this year’s plan on the right, in chronological order.)”
Eilon (1985:374) distinguishes further between decision making under uncertainty (with goals well defined) and decision making under ambiguity (with goals unclear). As will be explained later, both situations can pertain to strategic decision making and planning. Therefore, this distinction is not applied here.
A nice example for that view gives Lilienthal (1944:99): ‘The idea that planning and responsibility for action may and should be divorced — the maker of plans having little or nothing to do with their execution — follows the analogy of the planning of a house, an office building, any fixed structure. But the analogy is a mistaken one.’
In using the word ‘strategic,’ we need to apply some caution. As Leontiades (1986:140) noted, ‘The word strategic became a ubiquitous prefix attached to every aspect of every plan, and many subjects with no connection to planning. Would any planner admit to an unimportant or nonstrategic approach to planning?’ This clearly indicates the importance of emphasizing appropriate definitions of the terms ‘strategy’ and ‘strategic.’
For reviews of other decision making perspectives that will be applied to strategic planning in the next chapter, see Hutt et al (1988:5), or Szyperski (1974):26). Here the emphasis is on providing the normative, rational-analytical perspective of the decision process, on which much of the strategic planning literature is based.
Mintzberg et al (1976:255) could show the differences in the development phase between the search for ready-made solutions and the design or modification of custom-made ones, which they claim is exactly the distinction between convergent and divergent thinking.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Haiss, P.R. (1990). The Strategic Planning Process. In: Cultural Influences on Strategic Planning. Contributions to Economics. Physica, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-49993-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-49993-7_2
Publisher Name: Physica, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-7908-0481-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-49993-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive