Planning and firm performance: effects of multiple planning activities and technology policy

Abstract

Our concern in this paper is a longstanding one in the field of strategic management-the effect of strategic planning on firm performance. However, we argue that strategic planning is best examined in context of both its formal and informal aspects, as well as with operational planning and technology policy. From a survey of 150 manufacturing firms, planning and performance data were obtained from top managers. Our results provided support for the general argument that both formal and informal planning pay, and that both operational planning and technology policy have significant associations with firm performance. Our concern in this paper is a longstanding one in the field of strategic management-the effect of strategic planning on firm performance. However, we argue that strategic planning is best examined in context of both its formal and informal aspects, as well as with operational planning and technology policy. From a survey of 150 manufacturing firms, planning and performance data were obtained from top managers. Our results provided support for the general argument that both formal and informal planning pay, and that both operational planning and technology policy have significant associations with firm performance.

Formal strategic planning: annual raindance or wheel of success?

“…This is significantly higher than the incidence of formal planning among SMEs reported by McKiernan and Morris (1994). The increase in the number of SMEs deploying formal strategic planning is in line with the recent evidence from the USA encompassing large organizations as well as SMEs (Shrader et al, 2004;Rigby, 2001). It is also in line with Pearce et al's (1987b) findings that the incidence of strategic planning among SMEs is increasing as SME Managing Directors increasingly look to strategy in their quest for competitive advantage.…”

“…It provides contemporary evidence on the degree of diffusion of strategic planning and the nature of the planning practice among a group of firms hitherto under-researched. It also supplements the recent empirical evidence from the USA (Shrader et al, 2004). Furthermore, it highlights the differences between formal and nonformal planners in terms of the significance they place on the determinants of strategy and the difficulties encountered in implementing strategic change.…”

Strategic positioning and grand strategies for high‐technology SMEs

“…As it proved impossible to locate a relevant data set, and in any event, archival measures cannot measure internal organizational processes precisely (Boyd et al , 1993), we choose a self‐reporting postal survey. The literature indicates strong support for the use of self‐reporting data collection (Pearce and Robinson, 1987; Ramanujam and Venkatraman, 1987; McKiernan and Morris, 1994; Kargar and Parnell, 1996; Shrader et al , 2004). Pugh et al (1968) argue that self‐reporting measures are superior in this type of research to alternative data collection methods because they elicit the informed opinion of organizational insiders.…”

Technology outsourcing in manufacturing small‐ and medium‐sized firms: another competitive resource?

“…The rationale for this approach was based on the requirement for a large number of observations in our data set in order to examine the research questions outlined earlier. The literature provides strong underpinning for the use of self-reporting survey constructs (Pearce and Robinson, 1987;Ramanujam and Venkatraman, 1987;McKiernan and Morris, 1994;Kargar and Parnell, 1996;Shrader et al, 2004). A survey approach was used Technology outsourcing in manufacturing SMEs r 2010 The Authors R&D Management r 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd as it was more cost effective, given the large and geographically widespread number of potential respondents.…”