>
>Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:07:24 EST
>From: Alonzo Villarreal <
AlonzoV@AOL.COM>
>Subject: Re: Word definitions
>
>In a message dated 1/24/99 1:45:30 AM Central Standard Time,
jring@AMUG.ORG
>writes:
>
><< The key aspects of the situation.
> (There is no such thing as a Strategic Plan). >>
>
>I agree with you on this point, but I am wondering if you can elaborate
>further on this point.
>
>Does it relate to the use of one word with the other? Does the same apply
>with "planning"? Finally, in your mind, is their such a thing as "strategic
>decision-making".
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alonzo Villarreal, Jr.
Alonzo,
1) Regarding strategic plan, consider the following question and my response:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Question: >I thought that a plan for bombing strategic military targets
was a strategic plan.
JRing Response: Your example is an Operational Plan for a bombing sortie.
The nature of the target is not the adjective for the plan. A Plan
describes a programme for doing X to Y. Better call it an X Plan, not a Y
Plan.
Strategy is Plan (the pattern of resource deployment toward some objects in
the interest of an outcome).
Thusly, the only time you could have a strategic plan would be a plan for
going about changing your strategy.
I belabor this because too many managers intermix the notions of long range
and strategic, thus are led away from the important realization that
strategy factors will not wait -- that they have to be attended to NOW and
always until the outcome is achieved or until the strategy is changed.
Also, strategic is too often used to denote the more important or key
factors -- the "top ten" on the list -- whereas strategic has more to do
with the underlying factors.
At the risk of seeming a hair splitter I have noted over the 40 years I
have been a manager that most of our problems stem from inadequate
communication and the latter stems from lack of semantic preciseness.
Consider, for example, how Goal and Objective have become reversed in
management literature.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Regarding strategic decision making: Yes. Strategic decision making
would be concerned with making decisons about strategy. It should not be
taken to mean making decisions about long range goals.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At the risk of boring you, pls consider the following input to Fred
Nickols. You may also want to visit Fred's web page for his thoughts on
strategy.
>Jack:
>
>What did you mean when you said there ain't no such thing as strategic
>planning?
>
>Fred Nickols, Executive Director
>Strategic Planning & Management Services
>Educational Testing Service [01-D]
>Princeton, NJ 08541
>Tel = 609.734.5077 Fax = 609.734.5590
>e-mail =
fnickols@ets.org
>
>Views expressed are the author's, not ETS's.
Fred,
I appreciated your excellent survey of Strategy and have not had time to
offer my two cents worth. And this is only one cent worth because I am
responding to your question, only, and not about other aspects of strategy.
In my view there is strategy and there is planning.
There is operations planning, also called short term planning and tactical
planning. And there is long range planning. All these are concerned with
describing scenarios of activity over time and space. Operational plans
used to have a horizon of one to two years (when technology half life was
three to five) but are now being updated every few months. In fact there
is a growing field of event driven planning and control where the plan, and
especially the budget, is updated with every revenue event and every
commitment event. This is a step beyond accounting. It is Activity Based
Budgetting.
Many people intermingle the notions of strategy with time and use
"strategic planning" interchangeably with "long range planning." This is
improper.
In systems speak the distinctions become quite clear:
+ Strategy is concerned with describing a structure -- an architecture --
the elements and interrelationships of a system.
+ Planning is concerned with describing a process -- the behavior of a
system.
Strategy is not just long range. Strategy has clear implications on
immediate decisions, actions and plans. Vince Lombardi's strategy to
Strength against Strength (until you wear them down) was immediate from the
first whistle. Tom Landry's strategy of diversity (confuse hell out of
them) was immediate from the first whistle. General Sherman's (??)
strategy; "be there fustest with the mostest" was surely not long range.
The only guy I know of who had a Strategic Plan was Gen. George Custer!
Strategy has to do with resources and especially the commitment of
resources (where the lead time and irreversibility of the commitment are
key distinctions).
Accordingly, a long range plan is not the same as a strategic plan.
Here is the reducto absurdum part --
A strategic plan would be, firstly, a plan and secondly, about strategy. A
strategic plan would have to describe the scenario of strategy setting
activities over time and space. A strategic plan would be of the form "we
are going to use Strategy X until Situation Y, then change to Strategy X1."
But, of course, this is not a strategic plan because it is, perforce, an
operations plan albeit not at the level of the worker bees but at the level
of the Rule makers and the Policy makers. At best it could only be called
a Strategy Plan.
I am not playing with words, here. I think it is important to clarify that
strategy is structure and plan is process.
Now leave it to the Brits to maximally confuse things by adopting the
strategy of Muddling Through which many people take to mean, don't bother
to plan, go with the flow, and Just Do It, when all it really means is Be
Reactive rather then Proactive.
Enough.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) I hope this has been worth your time. Good luck.
Jack Ring
32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
sendmail:
jring@amug.org
602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
Better make your New Year's Eve reservations early.