Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
The paradox of strategic planning is that the fact that market and industry conditions often force companies to shorten their R&D and strategic plan execution timeframes while the complexity of products and resulting coordination with suppliers, buyers and channel partners increases. This paradox of strategic planning is the pressure to drastically speed up the R&D and launch processes while at the same time ensuring the same agility, accuracy and precision of execution over the long-term that more conservatively-based plans required. The outsourcing of new product development in highly competitive industries includes Motorola and relying on Solectron and Flextronics for R&D and convergence product development is an example. In order to solve the paradox of strategic planning of long R&D cycles accentuated by short product lifecycles, brand marketers in commoditized industries rely on outsourcers as well. Clearly trying to compress the amount of time needed to create new convergence products, outsourcing partners are in the process of re-ordering the strategic planning process in commoditized industries (Crittenden, Crittenden, 2008).
As process clarification and process re-engineering are critical for financial statements to be accurate, auditable, and verifiable the same is true of the strategic planning process. The magnitude of the process clarification and re-engineering however is much greater, as peoples' roles need to be redefined in addition to systems as well (Zohar, Tenne-Gazit, 2008). This aspect of the strategic planning process which centers on gaining collaboration within an between departments is often the most problematic and one that causes the majority cost, confusion and distractions in getting plans turned into results. As a result of this need for close collaboration between departments and the resulting process re-definition often these factors create delays in even the most well-defined strategic plans. Conversely in the development of annual reports require processes that are relatively well-known and resist change due to the need for compliance and accuracy. As a result of the high need for collaboration across teams in the strategic planning process and the fact there are many unknowns being dealt with, relative to the stability and predictability of processes for creating annual reports, over time companies vary in their perception of time as well., it is common to see urgency and a more compressed view of time in accounting departments and teams, while in R&D there are much longer time horizons. In certain organizations these variations in the perception of time can be dramatic and even stressful, where accounting and finance want to get costs associated to R&D within a given period only to find the ROI of the investments made will not be available for months or even years. This variation in the perception of time often needs to be intermediated by sharing a common set of objectives so each group can concentrate on their specific area of a strategic plan.
The variations in time horizons for creating annual reports vs. strategic plans are much more systemic and process-based than many realize. Depending on the industry for example there can be significant variations in the perception of time within an accounting department relative to R&D and strategic planning departments as well. What exacerbates the time variations is the level of change required with each strategic planning iteration or cycle, as greater levels of collaboration and coordination are needed the faster the R&D and strategic planning cycles are. In addition, the perception of financial statements being short-term and strategic planning being long-term is only partially correct. For financial statements to be accurate and in compliance to the SOX Act of 2002 there are massive process and it system changes required, with many companies taking over 12 to 18 months to get these systems in place. When one considers the systemic, underlying dependencies of creating accurate and auditable financial statements relative to the strategic planning process, it becomes clear there is much more coordination and synchronization than initially is seen just from the publish date of these documents.
Jesper Banghoj, Thomas Plenborg. (2008). Value relevance of voluntary disclosure in the annual report. Accounting and Finance, 48(2), 159. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1482178641).
Victoria L. Crittenden, William F. Crittenden. (2008). Building a capable organization: The eight levers of strategy implementation. Business Horizons, 51(4), 301. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1496012171).
Martin Giraudeau (2008). The Drafts of Strategy: Opening up Plans and their Uses. Long-Range Planning, 41(3), 291. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1490797091).
Udo-Ernst Haner, John Willy Bakke. (2008). Proximity, mobility and aesthetics in strategies for innovation management. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8(2), 168. Retrieved July 26, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1515564461).
Martin Kunc (2008). Using systems thinking to enhance strategy maps. Management Decision, 46(5), 761-778. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1484419801).
Feng Li (2008). Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 45(2/3), 221. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1508255521).
Chor-Beng Anthony Liew (2008). Strategic integration of knowledge management and customer relationship management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 131-146. Retrieved July 28, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1506292431).
Keith R. McFarland (2008). Should You Build Strategy Like You Build Software? MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(3), 69-74. Retrieved July 26, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1458948651).
Kannan Mohan, Peng Xu, Balasubramaniam Ramesh. (2008). Improving the Change Management Process Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 51(5), 59. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1484831341).
Don Moyer (2008). Strategy Paradox. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 144. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1485963891).
Rozhan Othman (2008). Enhancing the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard with scenario planning. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(3), 259-266. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1442674431).
Pankaj K. Jain, Jang-Chul Kim, Zabihollah Rezaee. (2008). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Market Liquidity. The Financial Review, 43(3), 361. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1509204971).
John M. Penrose (2008). ANNUAL REPORT GRAPHIC USE: A Review of the Literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 45(2), 158. Retrieved…[continue]
"Annual Reports Vs Strategic Plans" (2008, July 31) Retrieved October 26, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/annual-reports-vs-strategic-plans-28687
"Annual Reports Vs Strategic Plans" 31 July 2008. Web.26 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/annual-reports-vs-strategic-plans-28687>
"Annual Reports Vs Strategic Plans", 31 July 2008, Accessed.26 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/annual-reports-vs-strategic-plans-28687
What Sony needs to do is concentrate on creating a mobile Web-enabled series of devices, supporting services, and segmented digital content in both music-based and video content. In short, Sony needs to create an economic ecosystem that rivals the Apple ecosystem as shown in Figure 2, Apple Digital Content Ecosystem: Figure 2: Apple Digital Content Ecosystem Source: (Apple Investor Relations, 2009) The most critical objective for the three-year planning horizon for Sony
6%, versus 6.1% in 2008. The return on equity was -6.1% in 2009 and was 15.5% in 2008. The asset and equity levels were relatively stable for the two years, so most of the changes can be attributed to changes in the net income. To investigate those net income changes, the margins can be analyzed. The gross margin for 2009 was 3.14%; for 2008 it was 19.8% and for 2007
Strategic Analysis: The Coca-Cola Company This paper examines the Coca Cola Company, and whether its mission, vision, and values statements reflect the company's actual approach to business. While the paper concludes that, taken individually, the mission, vision, and values statements are insufficient to apprise stakeholders of Coca Cola's future goals; taken together they form a strong picture of where Coca Cola is and where it wants to be in the future.
Strategic and Tactical Planning- Definition Strategic Planning - Through the Years The Eight Maxims of Strategy Benefits and Costs Associated with Strategic Planning The Need for Strategic Planning Successful Implementation of Strategies The Effects of Strategic Planning - Literature Review Strategic and Tactical Planning - A Case Study of the Early 1990s Strategic Planning - The Present Scenario The Conclusions, Recommendations and Areas of Future Research STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL PLANNING A paper on the Strategic and Tactical Planning. The paper defines
Strategic Decision Making Process at Anheuser Busch This paper will take a look at the strategic decision-making process that made Anheuser Busch "King of Beers" and outline strategies needed to stay there. Beer sales are under pressure, but Anheuser-Busch executives are confident their products and marketing strategy will stimulate growth. A-B, as the company is often called, has identified four critical marketing priorities: (1) although beer is America's favorite beverage
Business Systems Development The Strategic Benefits of Adopting an Enterprise Cloud Computing Platform Cloud computing platforms are enabling enterprises to attain faster time-to-market of new products, in addition to enabling higher levels of collaboration and communication with suppliers, stakeholders and partners externally. Enabling cost reductions through consolidation of legacy IT systems while increasing process efficiencies is delivering a positive Return on Investment (ROI) while also increasing customer responsiveness. The strategic benefits of
This shift in organizational structure also required the entire corporation to shift from centralized to decentralized decision making. The approaches GE took to ensure the shift in structure and decision making would work included putting output and behavioral controls into place for each business unit. The output and behavioral controls were specifically designed to ensure each independently operating business unit shared accountability for corporate results yet also had the