Strategic Planning vs. Traditional Planning

Muhammad Ali Akbar Aidid URP711 Strategic Planning and Sustainable Development Spring Semester 2015 Environmental Design, KAU

Strategic Planning vs. Traditional Planning

What is Strategic Planning? What is strategic planning? Let us start this paper with this very basic question. To answer it, I would like to propose my own definition and framework on the idea of strategic planning. However, before I do so, allow me to quote some definitions that have already been state by past experts on the subject. Cannon defines strategic planning as designing today’s action to enable us to face the future on our own terms, not on those imposed from the outside (Cannon cited in Denhardt 1991). Peter Drucker defines it as what one should do today to get ready for tomorrow rather than the mere notion of what one should do tomorrow (Drucker cited in Denhardt 1991). These two definitions present the idea that strategic planning seeks to utilize the strengths and potentials within a body or organization (“one’s own terms”). Also to utilize the resources of time and opportunity that one possesses. William Glueck points out that strategic planning is unified (ties all the parts of the enterprise together), comprehensive (covers all aspects of the enterprise), and integrated (all parts are compatible with one another and fit together well) (Glueck cited in Denhardt 1991). Robert Shirley writes that strategic planning defines the relationship of the total organization to its environment and gives guidance to administrative and operational activities on an ongoing basis (Shirley cited in Denhardt 1991). These two definitions expand the meaning of strategic planning in that strategic planning consists of many elements that tie each other together. Finally Robert Denhardt puts a final last but not least flavor on the definition of strategic planning which is the element of “action and achievement.” He explains that strategic planning helps an organization match its objectives and capabilities to the anticipated demands of the environment so as to produce a plan of action that will assure achievement of objectives (Denhardt 1991). Based on the readings and literature on strategic planning, it seems to be difficult to state the definition of strategic planning in one sentence. Such attempt will not do justice to the topic as strategic planning is indeed comprehensive and covers many elements. However allow me to attempt do so and later elaborate on my definition on a couple of points: strategic planning is the process of planning and executing the plans in a way that puts great emphasis on analysis, 1


delegations, competition and out is time-restrictive and outcome-based in order to achieve a set of predetermined goals. a. Analysis In strategic planning everything must be thought through very carefully. It introduces the importance of attention to details, precision and calculation. Calculations can be of qualitative or quantitative nature. The result of such action would be decisions and policies based on careful consideration and empirical data or what is popularly known as data-based decisions or in terms of public policy: research that is based on policy or research-based policy. In this process items and considerations will be compared and weighted among each other. Consequently, a labyrinth of options may arise and yet at the same time there is a great demand to take the single right decision. It is at this point that various types of analysis and matrixes are devised and come in to play such as: the SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat) analysis matrix, PEST analysis, Balanced Score Card, The Growth–Share matrix, Scenario Planning, Cost-Benefit analysis (FCBA, ECBA, SCBA), Input-Output analysis, Matrix of Intervention, and many more. All these tool are analytical tools often utilized in the analysis process of strategic planning. b. Time-Restrictive Strategic planning is not merely time-conscious but also time-restrictive. It pushes for the idea that every activity and process in strategic planning is allocated within a specified time frame and must be completed within those time frames. Time frames can be devised into slots according to person in charge of a particular action. Subsequently, these time frames can be presented to overlap one another or to show a sequential order that fits a certain flow. There exist a start and an end. Thus scheduling is very crucial. One tool that is often used with regard to this process is Microsoft Project or the more advanced program Primavera. The figure below presents a conceptual illustration on how time frames are organized based on group of activities creating on straight flow.

A B C

c. Designations In strategic planning all the stakeholders, actors, and individuals involved in the process of the organization are clearly defined and each designated with distinctive duties and responsibilities. Further, they are grouped and categorized. The output of such categorization could be in the form of departments and sections. In any institution, organization, or company, it 2


is obvious that this is something that must exist. Finally the relations of each actors and divisions towards the other must also be specifically defined. Relations could be commanding, coordinating, reciprocal, direct or indirect, ordinal, etc. The diagram below shows a conceptual example of an organizational structure that defines the position, role and different relationship among each personnel. Notice how the different sets of categorizations, groupings, and relations among each other marked by different types of squares and line type and weight.

A1 A2

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

d. Competition Competition is an important aspect as it provides one with the understanding that any organization or company implementing strategic planning does not work in a vacuum; rather it exists within an environment. Within this environment the organizations co-exists with other organizations which might have the same goals. Those goals may be scarce, therefore rivalry is created. The second important reason for introducing competition is that competition enhances productivity and creativity which is the underlying goal of strategic planning. e. Results-Based Any visions, missions, goals, objectives and/or purposes must be attainable, doable, and feasible. The idea of the result-based imbeds the idea that strategic planning distinguishes itself from objectives that are merely general goals. Result-based eliminates the idea of wishful thinking and simple fanaticizes. It creates the urgency to attain the goals being set rather than an attitude that would say “if we get it that’s good, if not, well maybe some other time.” Results-based is focal because the success of the organization is determined by the results.

3


Strategic Planning as an Integral Part of Our Daily Lives. Strategic planning, historically, is a planning that developed only recently during the 196080s in corporate companies. It emerged due to the growing complexities of the economy, demand, and competition among the private companies and the need to enhance production and services in order to gain a greater profit and revenue which is the indicator of success for any commercial company. Within a longer historical context, strategic planning traces its root to the notion of the strategy of war in which players and entities within a certain conflicts is put to the task of winning and defeating the other side. However, without looking into the historical backgrounds of strategic planning, logically, one can assess that strategic planning has been in existent even before its emergence in the corporate sphere during the 1980. For example, a person who would make a journey from one place to another, say, to a certain city for business purposes for a couple of days, for instance, would be required to make plans and calculations for his journey. He would have to take into considerations the amount of money he has, schedule the most convenient flight ticket, book the most suitable hotel, and take a taxi from the airport to the hotel and back etc. During this process he would have to make analysis of which items (flight, taxi, hotel) would be most suitable on the basis and considerations of his finances, conveniences and the restrictions he has. This process, whether he realizes it or not, could be regarded as strategic planning. Therefore I believe that essentially strategic planning is integral within the day to day human activity. What is Traditional Planning? There seems to be a lesser number of literature with regards to traditional planning; certainly not as much as strategic planning. Perhaps this due to the fact that the concept of traditional planning is indefinite. However, after understanding some of the concepts on strategic planning as we have explained above, we may understand the meaning of traditional planning because strategic planning is often compared against traditional planning. That is so since strategic planning came at a time when traditional planning was at its declining moments. Strategic planning was presented – by its proponents at the time – to be a replacement and cure for traditional planning. Even if traditional planning was to be regarded as the opposite of strategic planning; it should not be implied that traditional planning does not considered some of the points of strategic planning as mentioned above. It rightly does, however, it is important to understand that it does not put as much emphasis on those points as strategic planning does. Thus traditional planning was seen to be somewhat more of a wish list. It would usually be written in a longer form and would cover a longer time frame. For this reason, traditional planning is often considered as long-range. The result of such approach is that fewer targets would be accomplished and outcomes and production is less.

4


Traditional planning is also associated with public planning as the traditional planning was the approach employed within the government institutions; as opposed to strategic planning is associated with the corporate world. Hence, this further adds to the gloomy reputation associated with traditional planning since government institutions and bureaucrats are often viewed by the public as a long and winding process. Strategic Planning vs. Traditional Planning: Is there really a Difference? Denhardt explains that there are three differences between strategic planning and traditional planning: (1) that strategic planning is more geared to short-term; on the other hand traditional planning is geared to long-term goals and objectives. Thus strategic planning concerns more on specific steps and that traditional planning is less concerned. (2) That strategic planning has attention to environmental complexity; and last (3) that strategic planning is a process that involves many individuals at many levels. Jerome Kaufman and Harvey Jacobs on the other hand argue that there is not much distinction between strategic planning and traditional planning. They state, “We contend that most of the principle distinction that most of the strategic proponents draw between their approach and public planning are, as evidenced by contemporary public planning literature, are much less pronounced or do not exists” (Kaufman and Jacobs 1987). They argue that many public planners which are of the traditional planning do not consider that public planning to be “long-range comprehensive” or “master planning” meaning that it is may well be short-range likened strategic planning. Kaufman and Jabobs elaborates one by one on points: (1) Action and result orientation, (2) participation, (3) Environmental scanning, (4) competitive behavior, and (5) Community strength and weakness (all four strong features associated with strategic planning) are also features existent in public planning i.e. traditional planning. As an example they disputed Robert Denhardt when he called for a wider participation in planning as a move toward strategic planning. Kaufman and Jacobs states that “wider participation” has been in fact experimented in planning for more than 20 years at the time strategic planning proponents presented its importance (Kaufman and Jacobs 1987). Pal Baross makes a distinction between what he calls “analytical planning” against “action planning.” It is not quite clear which side strategic planning falls into as strategic planning includes emphasis on both analysis and action. I can only assume that strategic planning is closer to Baross’s “Action Plan” as it represents the new way of approach which he advocates for. Conclusion and the Future for Strategic Planning. In conclusion to the discussion on strategic planning vs. traditional planning, I believe that the essence of strategic planning is not really something new, in the sense if one would regard strategic planning only to come about during the 1980s. I believe strategic planning has existed for 5


many years before, whether it was used in the strategies of war, governance, and any other activities in the planning field. I believe it is a type of a new branding or packaging or as Kaufman and Jacobs describe it as “the same wine put into a different bottle” (Kaufman and Jacobs 1987). It is a new paradigm or way of thinking, the same way it is on the concepts of “sustainability” and “resiliency.” However, I do not perceive it through the skeptical eye. In fact I am in favor of the new branding; I regard it as necessary because it gives planning a fresher approach. It gives structure and “grammar” to planning, thus planning becomes more organized and guided. The best element about strategic planning is that one can utilize it in ones day to day activity such as study objectives, daily shopping and groceries, and everyday problems within ones neighbor such as how to overcome a broken elevator within one’s building apartment. It can even be used as a life tool and life management for one whole purpose of life and existence. Since strategic planning’s first inception as a new planning approach, debate between the champion and opponents of strategic planning has been lively. Considering strategic planning’s first inception during the 1970’s and that it has played a key role in public and even more so in corporate organizations until the present time, which would equal almost half a century by now, history indeed has proven that strategic planning is more than what it’s critics have expressed in the past. The discussion on strategic planning is certainly organic and an ongoing debate. Strategic planning as perceived today as the best approach might be outdated in futures to come. This is inevitable as it a paradigm. As paradigms continuously shift, so too will strategic planning. An example of this is what is proposed by Mrs. Glenda Eoyang. She proposes a concept she termed as “traditional strategic planning” as the old way and proposes a new way of approach: “Adaptive Action Planning.” (Eoyang 2003).

6


References Aboulfotouh, Hossam. 1997. "Chapter 6." In Final Report Rehabilitation of Historic Cairo, 41-58. UNDP Supreme Council for Antiquities. Baross, Pal. 1991. Action Planning. Rotterdam: IHS Publications. Denhardt, Robert B. 1991. "Public Administration An Action Orientation." 234-265. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Eoyang, Glenda. 2003. Comparison Between Traditional Strategic Planning and Adaptive Action Planning. Human System Dynamic Institute. Kaufman, Jerome L., and Harvey M. Jacobs. 1987. "A Public Planning Perspective on Strategic Planning." Journal of the American Planning Association 23-33. Samuelson, Paul A., and William Nordhaus. 2010. Economics 19e. New York: McGraw-Hill.

7

Strategic Planning vs. Traditional Planning

Recommend Documents