ASSIGNMENT OF MIS SABA NAUREEN

Planning and Strategy which one is more volatile?

MBA SP-10

Planning means looking ahead and chalking out future courses of action to be followed .It is a preparatory step. It is a systematic activity which determines when, how and who is going to perform a specific job. Planning is a detailed program regarding future courses of action. It is rightly said Well plan is half done. Therefore planning takes into consideration available and prospective human and physical resources of the organization so as to get effective coordination, contribution and perfect adjustment. It is the basic management function which includes formulation of one or more detailed plans to achieve optimum balance of need or demand with the available resources. According to Koontz & O Donell, Planning is deciding in advance what to do. how to do and who is to do it. Planning bridges the gap between where we are to ,where we want to go . It makes possible things to occur which would not otherwise occur. "Strategy is the direction and scope of an organization over the long-term: which achieves advantage for the organization through its configuration of resources within a challenging environment, to meet the needs of markets and to fulfill stakeholder expectations" The strategy is always a long term planning and planning may be short term or long term. The words plan and strategy are used interchangeably. The meanings of the words are quiet similar; a method for achieving an end. However, there are strong differences between these words as well. A plan is an arrangement, a pattern, a program, or a scheme for a definite purpose. A plan is very concrete in nature and doesnt allow for deviation A strategy, on the other hand, is a blueprint, layout, design, or idea used to accomplish a specific goal. A strategy is very flexible and open for adaptation and change when needed. When planning for the future, which is undeniably unknown, it helps to strategize and consider the various scenarios you might be faced with and be prepared to modify your strategy so you can keep moving forward, rather than starting over at the beginning

REFRENCE 1) www.tutor2.net.com 2) Center for Management & Organization Effectiveness www.cmoe.com 3) www.managementstudyguide.com

Often times, the words plan and strategy are used interchangeably. The meanings of the words are quiet similar; a method for achieving an end. However, there are strong differences between these words as well. A plan is an arrangement, a pattern, a program, or a scheme for a definite purpose. A plan is very concrete in nature and doesnt allow for deviation. If Plan A doesnt work, you dont alter Plan A and try again. Rather, you move to Plan B; something totally different. A strategy, on the other hand, is a blueprint, layout, design, or idea used to accomplish a specific goal. A strategy is very flexible and open for adaptation and change when needed. I recently heard a great example of the difference between a plan and a strategy, using sports. This example serves to illustrate the difference between a soccer teams plan or strategy to score a goal. A soccer team with a plan to score a goal might begin with a throw-in to another specific player. The ball would then be passed to a designated offensive player who would then be responsible

for shooting the ball into the goal. The succession of moves would be deliberate and would not be adjusted when risks or obstacles to the plan were presented. A soccer team with a strategy to score a goal might also begin a play with a throw-in one of a few different teammates. The main idea would then be to move the ball forward and pass to open offensive players who would then shoot the ball at the goal. The succession of moves would be open for adaptation and change if the ball were intercepted or if other players were open for receiving the ball. When planning for the future, which is undeniably unknown, it helps to strategize and consider the various scenarios you might be faced with and be prepared to modify your strategy so you can keep moving forward, rather than starting over at the beginning

vs.
For several years, Ive argued that performance management is more than just budgeting. Ive also pointed out that the term planning was often misused by software vendors whose products were mostly limited to financial planning (aka budgeting), rather than end-to-end resource allocation and management. And finally Ive advocated outcomebased budgeting, rather than activity-based budgeting, so that the financial plan was more explicitly aligned with the strategic plan. After all, the budget isnt really the plan; instead, its how you intend to invest to achieve your objectives. A critical assessment of the current market suggests that things have improved. Most people acknowledge that performance management extends beyond budgeting to strategy management, profitability management and other performance considerations outside of finance. Most planning products support financial, headcount, and other forms of operational planning. Unfortunately, outcome-based budgeting is still rare and many organizations still dont tie planning and strategy. In How chief strategy officers think about their role in The McKinsey Quarterly, Dan Simpson, vice president, office of the chairman, at Clorox and the head of strategy and planning for 16 years echoes my sentiment: People commonly confuse strategy and planning. Planning is primarily internal resource allocation and budgeting, which is clearly tied to finance. Resource allocation has to be tied to strategy but isnt strategy in and of itself. Strategy should be focused on the marketplace and on customers and consumers. One way to remove this confusion would be to use the phrase resource allocation, rather than planning, but I suspect that this change is impractical. Dan suggests another way: At Clorox, we try to separate those conversations. One of the things weve done in the past is to bar financial components and exhibits from the first rounds of strategy meetings. That way, the conversation focuses on market competitiveness, rather than on internal resource allocation. I like this idea insofar it makes sure that financial issues dont bog down strategy development too early in the process. However, Im not sure it goes far enough. How do we ensure that financial plans are explicitly tied to our objectives? Outcome-based budgeting seems a natural answer but, other than in public sector, it seems to have limited popularity. Software vendors are starting to tie strategy management products with planning products but that only supports the concept, rather than enforcing it

According to Edmund P. Learner, the pattern of objectives, purposes or goals and major policies and plans for achieving these goals, stated in such a way as to define what business the company is in or is to be and the king of company it is or is to be. According to Haynes and Massier, the planning for unpredictable contingencies about which fragmentary information is available. The process of setting goals, developing strategies, and outlining tasks and schedules to accomplish the goals. www.investorwords.com