آغاز برنامه ریزی استراتژیک

A raft of commentators has observed that too little is known of the contingencies that precede the instigation of formal planning. The objective of this paper is to explore, describe, and explicate the processes, factors, and dynamics that relate to the initiation of formal planning efforts within organizations. This article uses the following structure. First, a conceptual model of the antecedents of planning initiation is presented that identifies and describes ten antecedent factors. Thereafter, the research design, methodology, and the approach adopted is described and justified. After tests to gauge the reliability and validity of the measures employed (including confirmatory factor analysis), 237 responses to a mailed survey are analyzed and the presented framework evaluated. The paper culminates with a discussion of implications.

Many aspects of the scholarly investigation of planning within organizations form a source of academic debate and conceptual division (e.g. see Mintzberg, 1994a, Ansoff, 1994, Heracleous, 1998 and Kaplan and Beinhocker, 2003). However, theorists seem broadly in agreement that the development or emergence of a coherent and implementable plan is beneficial to firms (Aram and Cowen, 1990, Wooldridge and Floyd, 1990, Miller and Cardinal, 1994, Floyd and Wooldridge, 1997 and Hopkins and Hopkins, 1997) and involves or should involve a process (Pettigrew, 1977, Judson, 1996, Smith, 1998 and Rowden, 1999), albeit founded on an often misunderstood dynamic process of strategizing (see Mintzberg, 1994b, Mintzberg, 1994c and Hamel, 1996) that is not necessarily rational or logical (see Piercy and Giles, 1989 and Butel and Watkins, 2000). In this sense, researchers from a wide range of perspectives agree that planning only yields superior returns for an organization, if such efforts are implemented successfully (e.g. Noble and Mokwa, 1999, Dibb and Simkin, 2003 and Taylor and Wright, 2003). Nevertheless, while insights have been generated into the consequences of strategizing and planning processes (Miller and Cardinal, 1994, Berman et al., 1997, Hopkins and Hopkins, 1997 and Ferrier, 2001), and Menon et al. (1999) have examined the factors that affect the nature and form of the planning process, the factors that antecede such formal planning remain obscure. Indeed, while much is known about the nature, dynamics, and consequences of the planning process, comparatively few insights have been generated into the forces that impede ‘strategic thinking’ prior to the formal initiation of planning (see Harris, 1996a and Harris, 1996b) and a range of theorists have argued that too little is known of the contingencies that precede the instigation of formal planning (e.g. Bracker and Pearson, 1986, Harris, 1996a, Harris, 1996b and Menon et al., 1999). In these regards, generating a greater understanding of the process of planning initiation is of interest and importance to both theorists and practitioners. This study aims to contribute insights into these issues through explicitly concentrating on the exploration and description of the factors that antecede the initiation of strategic planning. As such, the focus of the paper is not on the success of plans or the forces that shape the form of the planning process, but rather this research centers on the contingencies that affect whether strategic thinking is translated into subsequent formal planning efforts. In this way, the objective of this research is to explore, describe, and explicate the processes, factors, and dynamics that relate to the initiation of formal planning efforts within organizations.

While much is known of the consequences of planning processes (e.g. Miller and Cardinal, 1994 and Ferrier, 2001), and Menon et al. (1999) contribute insights into the factors that affect the form of the planning process (after initiation), comparatively little is known of the factors that antecede the successful initiation of formal planning. The present article builds on existing theory to identify ten factors that may relate to planning initiation. After analyses of survey data, the evidence supports eight of the hypothesized links. The originality and novelty of the empirical work undertaken represent the first contribution of this study. Empirical evaluations of this ‘initiation’ phase of planning (or preplanning) were lacking prior to the current study. This lacuna in extant theory and knowledge is, perhaps, all the more surprising since a number of commentators have observed that more organizations do not plan than those that generate plans (see for example Harris, 1996a), let alone achieve genuine strategizing. In this regard, the findings of the current study provide insights into the reasons why firms fail to begin the planning process, or fail to sustain early planning efforts. In this respect, a contribution of this study is the identification and evaluation of a range of factors that are argued to be antecedents to the successful initiation of formal planning. Therefore, the findings suggest that an incomplete understanding of planning dynamics will persist without an appreciation of all of the phases of planning (including initiation). This study also contributes insights into the management-related factors that are associated with the successful initiation of formal planning. Strong evidence supports the view that firms adopting a long-term perspective are more likely to initiate planning in an effort to understand and become more responsive to long term opportunities and threats. A number of earlier studies (Aram and Cowen, 1990 and Harris, 1996a) support this conclusion. Similarly, consistent with extant theory (for instance Thurston, 1983 and Orpen, 1993), this study indicates that where executives perceive immediate past performance to be successful, the instigation of planning is less likely. Overall, these findings appear to support the view that planning initiation is strongly reliant on the characteristics of firm management (see Harris, 1996a). No evidence supports the view that either executives' planning skills or the extent of managerial intrapreneurship are directly related to planning initiation. These findings are contrary to the suggestions of a number of earlier commentators (see for example Gibb and Scott, 1985, Hart, 1992 and Carter et al., 1996). However, the uncovering of a link between skills and planning initiation moderated by age, highlights the need for further descriptive and causal research to examine the potential for associations moderated by institutional, managerial, and industry factors not measured in the current study (see suggestions for future studies). The findings showing links between firm dynamics and planning initiation forms the third contribution of the study. Strong empirical evidence support the arguments that a competitor orientation and resource richness were positively linked and cultural entrenchment, and political behavior was negatively associated with planning initiation. As firms' become oriented toward the activities of competitors, the need for and benefits of planning become prioritized and actioned. Further, the results indicate that the greater the management investment in financial and time resources, the more likely the success of planning initiation. This reflects the resource requirements of planning efforts and is intuitively logical, in that it seems commonsense to suggest that poorly resourced efforts are more likely to fail. However, this finding may provide a central explanation for the failure of many firms (particularly small businesses) either to initiate planning or to instigate planning successfully. Some support is found for the contention that planning activities are only really suited for larger or more resource-rich organizations. The findings of the study also raise a number of implications for practitioners. First, through identifying eight significant factors linked with successful planning initiation, the findings of the current study suggest that practitioners embarking on planning efforts should evaluate the firm and environmental contingencies prior to beginning the process. Second, in the case of firms where planning efforts have failed to succeed, the results of this study suggest that a critical evaluation of the context of planning may provide useful insights and explanations for planning failure. Further, given the difficulties that executives, managers, and organizations appear to face on planning initiation, the findings of the current study support the view that training programs should incorporate a broader conceptualization of the planning process that reflects not only the critical importance of plan generation and implementation but also the crucial ‘phase’ of planning initiation as the most tangible evidence of strategic thinking. Important limitations suggest caution in interpreting the findings and indicate future avenues for research. First, although efforts have been made to ensure that this study focuses on the key factors linked with planning initiation, further efforts should be made to identify, explore, and describe additional or associated exogenous factors. In particular, future studies should explore the potential moderating effects of control variables not measured in the current study (such as technological turbulence, relative cost, market growth, market concentration, market entry barriers, buyer power, seller power, technological change, competitor hostility, and market turbulence). Second, while the current study has utilized regression analysis to explore associations, the use of structural equation modeling and path analysis could assist in exploring potential indirect associations and generate a more complete view of dependent factors. Third, while recognizing the practical and methodological difficulties of longitudinal research, such a design may clarify the extent that independent factors found associating with planning initiation causally affect such behavior.