The difference between strategic management and strategic planning. Management and planning

One of the founders of strategic management, I. Ansoff, connects the primary concept of strategic management with the styles of behavior of organizations: incremental and entrepreneurial.

Incremental type– development of the organization with minimal changes relative to traditional management.

The entrepreneurial type is a purposeful desire for change, ensuring victory in the competition.

The main comparative characteristics of these types of organizations are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Comparison of organization characteristics

Characteristic	Type of behavior of the organization
	Incremental	Entrepreneurial
	Profit optimization	Optimizing Profit Potential
Ways to achieve goals	Extrapolation from the Past	Interaction of profit opportunities and quality of management
Restrictions	By external environment and internal capabilities	The ability to change the environment and oneself
Reward system	For stability, efficiency, past performance	For creativity, initiative
Problem	Repetitive	Non-repetitive, new
Leadership style	Popularity, ability to establish unity of approaches	Risk tolerance, ability to inspire change
Organizational structure	Stable, expanding, activities loosely linked	Flexible, problem-driven, activities tightly linked
Solving management problems	Reaction to problems	Active search, anticipation of problems
Search for alternatives	Focus on past experience	Creative search, many alternatives
Risk attitude	Risk minimization	Conscious risk

In addition to two types of organizational behavior, I. Ansoff distinguishes two types of management: strategic and operational (tactical). The characteristics of these types are given in Table 4.

Table 4 Comparison of management types according to I. Ansoff

	Management type
	Operational	Strategic
Culture	Focus on production, marketing, competition	Strategy orientation, flexibility, customer creation
Manager	Ability to make a profit, achieve goals, control	Entrepreneur, innovation agent, leader
Control system	Long-term planning, activity control	Strategic planning and management, strategic control
Information	Supply and Demand Trends	New challenges and opportunities
Structure	Functional, divisional, stable	Matrix, dynamic
	Focused on production and marketing	Focused on R&D, strategic planning

From a comparison of the diagrams in tables 3 and 4, it follows that there is a certain connection between the types of organizational behavior and types of management, namely: strategic management requires entrepreneurial behavior, and operational management requires incremental behavior. This dependence is presented in matrix form in Table 5.

Table 5 Matrix: organizational type of behavior / type of management

Based on I. Ansoff’s research, the following conclusions can be drawn:

– in the 1st half of the 20th century. strategic and operational behavior, as well as corresponding management, acted as alternatives for the organization;

– in the 2nd half of the century, companies increasingly need to use both types of behavior simultaneously and effectively combine the two types of management;

– organizations corresponding to different types of behavior have their own character, differ from each other and are in a certain contradiction.

The history of management development is a history of innovation success. Successful management models quickly spread from innovating companies to a wide range of other organizations.

The predecessor of strategic planning was the long-term planning system ( long- range planning). This system, which received maximum development in the West in the 50-60s, basically corresponded to the incremental development of companies. As a rule, long-term planning was used in large as well as in individual medium-sized companies. The typical situation was rapid corporate growth, accompanied by a sharp increase in the size of organizations and increasing complexity of management.

The main method of long-term planning was the extrapolation of trends and factors that determined the specific development of organizations in the past, with certain adjustments for the future.

Development of long-term planning in the USA and Western Europe in

70s led to a system of strategic planning. This was the reaction of companies to a significant change in the external environment, which manifested itself in the saturation of the relevant markets. The main difference between strategic planning and long-term planning is its fundamental focus not inside the organization, but outside. It was a transition from the model "closed organization" to the model "open organization".

Characteristic open organization is a professional strategic analysis of changes in the external environment and the development of adequate adaptive reactions.

Along with taking into account trends in the external environment, strategic planning integrates all the latest advances in the field of planning methods. The arsenal of new methods used by strategic planning includes: models of companies' investment portfolios, development of situational development plans, the use of expert procedures and assessments, the use of various analytical matrices to study strategic development alternatives, etc.

At the end of the 70s. - simultaneously with the increase in the number of organizations using strategic planning - not only subjective, but also objective difficulties in its application began to appear more and more clearly. The main disadvantage of strategic planning, as a specific approach to the problem of the future development of an organization, similar to the situation with long-term planning, is that the essential parameters of the organization, which were already set by its past, were still mainly transferred to the future.

As a result of a complex combination of determining factors,

80s In the West, a situation has developed that is marked by a transition from strategic planning to strategic management. Among the factors determining the transition, the following are usually distinguished:

– objective significant increase in variability and complexity of the organization’s external environment;

– new understanding of strategy;

– new methods for solving strategic problems of organization development, proposed by leading companies and consulting firms.

The essence of strategic management is revealed by the entire content of this textbook. According to one of the founders of strategic management, G. Mintzberg, the significant difference between strategic planning and strategic management is primarily characterized by the following points.

First, strategic planning ( strategic planning) is not strategic thinking ( strategic thinking), and therefore successful strategies are always a successful strategic vision ( vision).

Secondly, strategic planning actually came down to strategic programming ( strategic programming), i.e., as a rule, to the formalization and detailed elaboration of strategies that have already been adopted and implemented.

Strategic management as strategic thinking and vision is primarily a synthesis. In strategic synthesis, intuition and creativity (creative thinking) play a critical role. Strategic planning mentality: “ past through present to future" Strategic management mentality: “ from a successful future – to the present and again to the future"(Fig. 1).

Fig.1. Strategic management and planning

Strategic management- this is management that relies on human potential as the basis of the organization, orients production activities to consumer demands, reacts flexibly and carries out timely changes in the organization that meet the challenge from the environment and allows it to achieve competitive advantages, which together allows the organization to survive in the long term perspective while achieving your goals.

The objects of strategic management are organizations, strategic business units and functional areas of the organization.

The subject of strategic management is:

Problems that are directly related to the overall goals of the organization.

Problems and solutions associated with any element of the organization, if this element is necessary to achieve goals, but is currently missing or insufficient.

Problems associated with external factors that are uncontrollable.

“Strategic management problems most often arise as a result of numerous external factors. Therefore, in order not to make a mistake in choosing a strategy, it is important to determine what economic, political, scientific, technical, social and other factors influence the future of the organization.”

The core of strategic management is a system of strategies, which includes a number of interrelated specific business, organizational and labor strategies. Strategy is a pre-planned response of an organization to changes in the external environment, the line of its behavior chosen to achieve the desired result.

Thus, the essence of strategic management is the formation and implementation of an organization’s development strategy based on continuous monitoring and assessment of ongoing changes in its activities in order to maintain the ability to survive and operate effectively in an unstable external environment.

Strategic management at an enterprise is expressed in the following five functions:

Strategy planning;

Organization of implementation of strategic plans;

Coordination of actions to implement strategic objectives;

Motivation to achieve strategic results;

Control over the strategy implementation process.

Let's consider strategic planning as one of the most important functions of strategic management.

The term “strategic planning” came to us in the 70s in translated books by Western specialists. In the planning practice of those years in our country, the term “long-term long-term planning” was used. There was a fundamental difference between these two concepts. Thus, the main idea underlying the development of long-term plans was: “Today is better than it was yesterday, and tomorrow will be better than today” and any uncertainty was denied. Hence the leading principle of planning is the development of planned targets “from what has been achieved,” often within the framework of available resource capabilities, and the more the output of a particular product was increased, the better it was. At the same time, it was a priori believed that the external environment would practically not change. The emphasis was on analyzing the internal capabilities and resources of the organization. With this approach, all that an organization can determine based on an analysis of its internal capabilities is how much of a product it can produce and what costs it will incur in doing so. But the volume of production and the magnitude of costs do not answer the question of how much the created product will be accepted by the market, which at that time in the traditional sense was absent in our country. What quantity will be purchased and at what price is determined by the market. Such questions were not raised in a non-market economy.

The strategic plan that characterizes the activities of organizations operating in market conditions uses a different paradigm: “Tomorrow will not necessarily be better than today.” And if a situational analysis reveals a drop in demand for some product, even if the necessary resources are available, the management of this enterprise will not increase its production volumes, but will rather choose strategies to reduce output or switch to the production of other products. The development of a strategic plan is based on an analysis of the organization's development prospects under certain assumptions about changes in the external environment in which it operates. The most important element of this analysis is to determine the organization’s position in the competition for markets for its products. Based on such an analysis of the organization’s development goals, separate areas of production and economic activity (individual businesses) are formed and strategies for achieving goals are selected.

If the long-term and annual plans of the organization involve planning selected areas of development of the organization, then within the framework of strategic planning, questions are resolved about which new areas should be developed and which of the existing ones should be eliminated. Strategic planning aims to adapt the organization's activities to constantly changing environmental conditions and to capitalize on new opportunities.

However, strategic planning cannot provide a complete, comprehensive picture of the future. The picture of the future he forms is not a detailed description of the external and internal situation of the organization, but rather its scenario description, which is probabilistic in nature. It is obvious that even an imperfect description of the future is incomparably better than its absence. In general, strategic planning is a symbiosis of intuition and the art of the organization’s top management in setting and achieving strategic goals, based on knowledge of specific methods of pre-plan analysis and development of strategic plans.

The strategic planning process consists of several stages:

1. Defining the mission and goals of the organization.

2. Environmental analysis, which includes collecting information, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the company, as well as its potential capabilities based on available external and internal information.

3. Choice of strategy.

4. Strategy implementation.

5. Evaluation and control of implementation.

Defining the mission and goals of the organization. The target function begins with establishing the mission of the enterprise, expressing the philosophy and meaning of its existence.

A mission is a conceptual intention to move in a certain direction. Typically, it details the status of the enterprise, describes the basic principles of its operation, the actual intentions of management, and also defines the most important economic characteristics of the enterprise. The mission expresses aspirations for the future, shows where the organization’s efforts will be directed, and what values ​​will be a priority. Therefore, the mission should not depend on the current state of the enterprise, it should not be affected by financial problems, etc. It is not customary in the mission to indicate making a profit as the main goal of creating an organization, although making a profit is the most important factor in the functioning of the enterprise.

A goal is a specification of the mission of the organization in a form accessible to manage the process of their implementation. The main characteristics of the goal are as follows:

clear orientation to a certain time interval;

specificity and measurability;

consistency and consistency with other missions and resources;

targeting and controllability.

Based on the mission and goals of the organization's existence, development strategies are built and the organization's policies are determined.

Strategic Analysis or as it is also called “portfolio analysis” (in the case of analyzing a diversified company) is the main element of strategic planning. The literature notes that portfolio analysis acts as a strategic management tool, with the help of which enterprise management identifies and evaluates its activities in order to invest funds in its most profitable and promising areas.

The main method of portfolio analysis is the construction of two-dimensional matrices. With the help of such matrices, production, divisions, processes, and products are compared according to relevant criteria.

There are three approaches to forming matrices:

A tabular approach in which the values ​​of varying parameters increase as the names of these parameters move away from the column. In this case, the portfolio analysis is carried out from the upper left corner to the lower right.

A coordinate approach in which the values ​​of varied parameters increase with distance from the coordinate intersection point. The portfolio analysis here is carried out from the lower left corner to the upper right.

A logical approach in which the portfolio analysis is carried out from the lower right corner to the upper left. This approach has become most widespread in foreign practice.

Environmental Analysis necessary when carrying out strategic analysis, because its result is the receipt of information on the basis of which assessments are made regarding the current position of the enterprise in the market.

Environmental analysis involves the study of its three components:

external environment;

immediate environment;

internal environment of the organization.

Analysis of the external environment includes the study of the influence of the economy, legal regulation and management, political processes, natural environment and resources, social and cultural components of society, scientific, technical and technological development of society, infrastructure, etc.

The immediate environment is analyzed according to the following main components: buyers, suppliers, competitors, labor market. Analysis of the internal environment reveals those opportunities, the potential that a company can count on in competition in the process of achieving its goals. The internal environment is analyzed in the following areas: the company’s personnel, their potential, qualifications, interests, etc.; management organization; production, including organizational, operational and technical and technological characteristics and research and development; company finances; marketing; organizational culture.

1. The desire of top management to stay away from the creation and execution of strategic planning, delegating these functions to a specific official or division. If the first person is not involved in strategy, no one is doing it.

2. Refusal of strategic planning due to the fact that the implementation of the system failed in the past, that is, it did not lead to the results that representatives of senior management expected to receive.

3. The assumption that strategic planning will require too much financial and time investment.

4. The belief that a little effort is enough for fantastic results to appear with the wave of a magic wand.

5. The assumption that direct copying of the successful experience of other companies without any changes is sufficient to achieve similar results.

6. The assumption that the strategic planning system can be implemented without re-evaluating existing management technologies, management decision-making and control systems.

7. Inability to find a person or group of people at the highest level of management who will be the “engine” of the project.

8. Lack of basic knowledge among project participants in the field of change management skills and technical knowledge to see development prospects, as well as the lack of personal qualities necessary to bring the project to completion.

9. Failure to take into account that planning is a political, social and organizational reform of the company, but at the same time it is a rigid structured process.

10. Assumption that strategic planning is a process separate from operational activities. The error is in contrasting the processes of planning and execution of the plan for daily activities. The reason is a lack of understanding that the strategic plan should be the foundation of operational activities.

11. The assumption that senior and middle management understand the essence of the strategic planning procedure, and that this procedure will always coincide with their personal interests.

12. Failure to understand that strategic planning is a symbiosis of rigid procedures and intuition, complementary to each other. Assuming that a hired group of outside consultants or a specially created department can independently develop a strategic plan for line managers.

13. Ignoring the fact that the strategic plan is a process of understanding the external environment and internal state of the organization, i.e. a learning process combined with implementation.

14. The assumption that strategic planning will immediately pull the company out of its current crisis.

15. The assumption that strategic planning is a tool for determining the prospects for a particular product or modifying an existing product. In other words, non-perception of the strategic planning system as an integrated management system.

Crisis of strategic planning

A detailed analysis of the history of the emergence and decline of strategic planning was carried out by the Vice-Rector of St. Petersburg State University, Head of the Department of Strategic and International Management V.S. Katkalo.

The limited capabilities of formalized planning systems in developing strategic decisions became obvious already in the mid-1970s. The entire subsequent history of the theory and practice of strategic management is marked by the recognition of the decline in the effectiveness of the classical concept of strategic planning.

Strong catalysts for these processes were the oil shock of 1973 and the subsequent global economic crisis, which cast serious doubt on the very ideology of planning. In the era of floating exchange rates, high inflation and increasing international competition (especially painful due to the unforeseen successes of Japanese and Chinese firms), the authority of technically sophisticated planning models has noticeably declined. They found themselves disconnected from understanding real competitive advantages.

This problem had two manifestations in practice. On the one hand, leading companies in the United States and Europe, which spared no resources on planning departments, found that they degenerated into peculiar “ivory towers”, sophisticated in methods of defining long-term goals that were increasingly difficult to actually achieve. According to some reports, in the early 1980s. less than 10% of American corporations have successfully implemented their carefully crafted strategies. On the other hand, recent world business history is replete with examples of companies making unsuccessful decisions based on supposedly perfect strategic planning models.

An audit of strategic planning was also carried out by G. Mintzberg, a professor of management at McGill University in Montreal. On the one hand, the premise that an organization’s strategy is always the result of rational planning was recognized as unlawful, and, on the other hand, it was argued that developing strategies can be no less successful than deliberate strategies that result from formal planning.

The belief in the unsurpassedness of the strategic planning model for ensuring the prosperity of firms, theoretically substantiated by the American mathematician and economist of Russian origin I. Ansoff and his followers, has generally not received convincing confirmation in empirical studies of the impact of planning on financial results. If initially at the turn of the 1970s. Although such studies still drew encouraging conclusions, dozens of similar studies carried out in the 1970s and 80s did not find obvious evidence of these expectations or completely dispelled them. Already in the 1980s. leaders of various sectors of the world economy, without completely abandoning the phraseology of planning, have finally and radically revised its basic principles in favor of more flexible methods of managing their long-term development.

Particularly indicative here are the stories of Royal Dutch Shell and General Electric (GE). Both did achieve tangible competitive advantages through excellent strategic planning, but they interpreted it differently.

Shell rejected the usual form of complex and inflexible 10-year plans created by a team of corporate strategists widely removed from actual operations. The instead proposed understanding of planning involved the development of a set of situational scenarios, the purpose of which was to force general managers at all levels of the corporate hierarchy to think strategically about their business environment. Scenarios could be used to test the viability of alternative strategies, either to inform the strategy formulation process or in the evaluation of specific capital-intensive investment projects. Serious increase after the global economic crisis of the mid-1970s. uncertainties in the external business environment and the increasing importance of political and social factors in corporate decisions have contributed to the spread of the scenario approach among companies in different industries. By the mid-1980s, according to one survey of Fortune 500 companies in the United States, more than 50% were using scenario planning.

GE's success under J. Welch provided another compelling alternative to the classic concept of strategic planning and evidence that the ability to learn faster than competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage. Although GE since the 1960s. has been known as one of the most committed leaders in the active implementation of sound planning systems since the early 1980s. the new head of the company radically revised its approaches to its strategy. Jack Welch dismantled the strategic planning department of more than 200 specialists and formulated the company's strategy simply, concisely and clearly: “We must be first or second in every business (and General Electric is a diversified and diversified company). If we are third and then this business must be sold.”

The era of the planning school was drawn to a close in 1994 by G. Mintzberg in his book “The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning.” The main idea was to clearly differentiate the concepts of planning and strategy. According to G. Mintzberg, planning is a formalized system of codification, clarification and operationalization of the strategies that the company already has, and strategy is either a “spontaneously” developed model of the company’s behavior, or its deliberate “perspective”.

We should agree with G. Mintzberg’s statement that strategy cannot be planned. The scientist rightly believes that the traditional model of strategic planning has proven unsuccessful in creating new and effective strategies, since it was based on three “fundamental misconceptions”:

• about the predetermination of the future,
• about separating planning from strategy development,
• about the possibility of comprehensive formalization.

He concludes that the process of strategy formulation is, unlike planning, a creative synthesis rather than a formal analysis. In this regard, G. Mintzberg, calling on corporations not for a total rejection of planning, but for its transformation, correctly noted that strategic planning could more accurately be called strategic programming.

The problem, G. Mintzberg wrote, is that strategic planning is not at all the same as strategic thinking. In fact, the first is sometimes replaced by the second. “Planning,” noted G. Mintzberg, “always has to do with analysis—the division of a goal or set of intentions into stages, the formalization of these stages in such a way that they can be carried out almost automatically, and the formulation of the expected consequences or results of each stage. Strategic thinking, on the other hand, is about synthesis. It is associated with intuition and creativity. The result of strategic thinking is an integrated vision of the future of the enterprise and a not too precisely expressed direction of movement.

Strategic planning, wrote G. Mintzberg, suffers from three types of sophisms.

Firstly, experts in the field assume that the world will remain unchanged for the many months it takes them to develop a plan, and then, while this plan is implemented, will develop in strict accordance with it. But this is a mistake, says G. Mintzberg, the world is not so obedient to the prophecies of strategic planners.

Secondly, they proceed from the assumption that it is possible to step back from real life and work with verified, “hard” data, without personally touching the practical, routine work of implementing plans. Thinkers and practitioners supposedly can and should stay away from each other. Managers never have to leave their luxurious offices. Planners have the right to sit in their offices. However, the problem with any accurate, verified data that planners rely on is that its reliability needs to be improved, which often takes a lot of time. By the time this data reaches planners' desks, it may be out of date. In addition, “hard” data often hides, if not the essence of the matter, then at least important nuances. Some data that is presented as the best is not verified at all and is a mishmash of rumors and gossip. However, new strategies often arose as a result of random, unpredictable events rather than careful analysis.

In the world specialized literature, there is an established understanding that in the 1980s. Strategic planning (both in theory and in management practice) has been replaced by strategic management, and therefore the discussion on this subject is no longer relevant. For more than 20 years, strategic management has been interpreted as a broader concept: in addition to strategic planning itself, it includes issues of implementing strategies and strategic control.

It is characteristic that the application of the classical theory of strategic planning for the needs of modern business is rejected by many well-known Russian specialists in the field of firm strategies [Efremov, 2001; Zub, Loktionov, 2001; Popov, 2003; Petrov, 2005], and in a number of the main domestic textbooks on strategic management these issues are not even discussed in detail [O.S. Vikhansky, 1998; I.B. Gurkov, 2004].

Strategic management

Strategic management is a chain consisting of four key links:

1. Strategic diagnostics(to make strategic decisions, an accurate diagnosis and forecast of the state of the external environment and the internal state of the company is necessary).

2. Selection of strategic goals(they arise as a compromise of ambitions, opportunities and limitations, and then are tested for “strength” by analyzing strategic alternatives (ways to achieve strategic goals), assessing the benefits and risks associated with the implementation of a particular strategic alternative).

3. Strategic planning as the task of reducing the gap between the current state and the one that the company strives to achieve, which is solved by the implementation of projects that ensure the implementation of changes that lead the company to its intended goal.

4. Strategic controlling— monitoring and control of strategy implementation (the company’s top management should be able to track the process of strategy implementation using key indicators and adjust strategic plans or revise strategic goals if necessary).

1. In Russian organizations, compared to Western ones, localism is strong. Quite often, the management apparatus is a conglomerate of competing clans of deputies, constantly proving to each other and the head of the organization that they are more competent than their colleagues, and on this basis demanding more authority and resources (but not always responsibility). The interests of different groups may not coincide, each of them may pursue its own goals, and this contradicts the ideas of the strategic management system, focused on uniting different characters into a single team, collective efforts in generating ideas and implementing the plan.

2. In the CIS countries, managers, unlike Western European and American ones, are more focused on ready-made recipes. Consultants are often faced with requests for ready-made forms that trainees want to fill out. In the US, the opposite trend exists. Managers often strive to understand the principle and then independently develop management procedures and forms of documents, negatively perceiving the teacher’s attempts to impose ready-made recipes on them.

3. Russian managers are literally drowning in current affairs. The strategic planning system is a powerful weapon in the fight against organizational chaos. A leader who decides to implement it must be ready to change, first of all, himself and his working methods. Only then will the system be effective. Strategic plan activities should ideally be equal in importance to operational issues.

4. Russian managers often exaggerate the importance of short-term successes. The scale of the organization and the habit of the company's monopoly position in the market often prevent managers at various levels from objectively assessing reality, stimulate the solution of immediate problems rather than strategic thinking, and lead to underestimation or even neglect of competitors.

5. Compared to Western companies, Russian organizations pay less attention to the analysis of corporate culture and its systematic promotion among staff and clients; strategic thinking leads to underestimation or even neglect of competitors. The result is passivity instead of studying competitors and intercepting their achievements; excessive optimism, a calm drift until, as they say, “thunder strikes.”

6. Russian organizations often ignore client needs or limit themselves to slogans.

7. Widespread application of the old principle of planning “from what has been achieved.”(“Last year growth was 5%, so this year we need to plan for 6%.”)

Today's business world operates according to uniform standards developed on the basis of more than a century of experience in different parts of the globe. There is already strong economic integration and a tendency to standardize management procedures and principles. However, those who overemphasize the exceptionality of their circumstances risk dropping out of the competition and ultimately ending up on the bankrupt list. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you always remember that the business world has been using the described principles of strategic management for several decades, and has been doing it successfully.

If the captain of a ship does not know where to sail, then the probability of a crash is very high. Companies in the CIS countries are entering a phase of fierce and systematic struggle for the client, and the time of “easy” money is gradually passing. Today, the winner is the one who is able to focus his resources on key areas, who systematically and in detail analyzes the external and internal environment, objectively assesses his strengths and weaknesses, knows how to adopt other people's strengths and eradicate his own shortcomings.

At the end of the 60s, the economic situation in many industrialized countries changed significantly. As the crisis increases and the international competition Forecasts based on extrapolation began to diverge increasingly from real figures, with the most typical phenomenon being the setting of optimistic goals that did not match the real results. The firm's senior management usually assumed that future performance would improve, but often firm did not achieve the planned results. Thus, it turned out that long-term planning does not work in a dynamically changing external environment and fierce competition.

Crystallization of the fundamental elements of the concept strategic planning is largely related to the search for ways to overcome the limitations of the long-term planning system, clearly manifested in the uncertainty of the parameters of overall economic development. The strategic planning system does not assume that the future must necessarily be better than the past, and the premise that it is possible to study the future by extrapolation is rejected. Actually, managers’ different understanding of the role of external factors is the main difference between long-term extrapolative planning and strategic planning. The main thing in strategic planning is the analysis of both the internal capabilities of the organization and external competitive forces and the search for ways to use external opportunities, taking into account the specifics of the organization. Thus, it can be said that the purpose of strategic planning is to improve the organization's response to market dynamics and behavior competitors.

Strategic management

By the 90s, most corporations around the world began the transition from strategic planning to strategic management. Strategic management is a set of strategic management decisions that determine the long-term development of the organization, and specific actions that ensure the organization's rapid response to changes in external factors that may entail represents the need for strategic maneuver, revision of goals and adjustment of the general direction of development.

I. Ansoff recommends considering strategic management as consisting of two complementary subsystems: analysis and selection of a strategic position and operational management in real time. Thus, strategic management, in contrast to strategic planning, is an action-oriented system that includes the process of strategy implementation, as well as evaluation and control. Moreover, the implementation strategies- this is a key part of strategic management, since in the absence of implementation mechanisms, the strategic plan remains just a fantasy 7.

To paraphrase P. Drucker, I. Ansoff writes: “Strategic planning is management according to plans, and strategic management is management according to results,” thus placing emphasis in strategic management on constant monitoring of the external environment and the results obtained, since in modern conditions the uncertainty of the external environment while simultaneously weakening signals about changes in it, which leads to the need to have sensitive subsystems for monitoring changes in the external environment. The emergence of strategic surprises such as sequestration The Russian budget is forced to make strategic decisions outside of planning cycles. To catch such surprises, systems for collecting and analyzing information are created in real time (online).

In our opinion, the differences between strategic management and strategic planning are characterized by the commonality of the following important factors:

strategic management is characterized by a quick dual response to changes in the external environment: long-term and operational at the same time. Long-term response is included in strategic plans, operational response is implemented outside the planning cycle in real time;

strategic management considers ways to change the external environment, and not just adapt to it; Strategic management also means that the management process must be proactive rather than reactive. With a proactive strategy, managers try to influence events in the external environment, rather than simply react to them. These factors explain the desire of big business to influence the adoption of political, economic, legislative and other changes at the macro and micro levels;

strategic management includes elements of all previous management systems, i.e. it involves drawing up budgets, the use of extrapolation to estimate relatively stable factors, the application of elements of strategic planning, and adaptation strategic decisions carried out in real time.

Often strategic management called market strategic management (strategic market management). Inclusion in the definition of the word “ market" means that strategic decisions should take into account the development of the market and the external environment to a greater extent than internal factors. A company implementing strategic management must have an external orientation (towards consumers, competitors, the market, etc.). This is the so-called marketing, or market, approach to organizing management, in contrast to the production approach, focused on internal production capabilities.

TOPIC 6. STRATEGIC PLANNING

The purpose of studying the topic “Strategic planning” is to study strategic planning, its place and role in strategic management, study its typology, as well as the formation of a strategic plan.

6.1. The essence of strategic planning and its options

6.1.1. The place of strategic planning in management

Strategic planning is the most important function of strategic management and its central link in relatively stable external environmental conditions. The structure of the strategic management process, characteristic of such conditions, is presented in Fig. 6.1.

Rice. 6.1. The structure of the strategic management process in relatively stable conditions

Unfortunately, in the economic literature, when covering the problem of strategic management, strategic planning as an integral element is not given due attention. In addition, in most cases, the issues of forming a plan and its indicators as specific guidelines for the proposed activity, which are very important for the foreseeable period (it may vary depending on the degree of instability of the external environment), are not considered at all. Also, some scientists include an element of strategic planning in the strategy implementation stage, while forgetting that planning is in the nature of foresight, and implementation is already the translation of foreseeable results into reality.

6.1.2. Concept of strategic planning

The concept of strategic planning is interpreted differently by many scientists. There are several definitions of strategic planning.

A.I. Ilyin believes that strategic planning is “a tool with the help of which a system of goals for the functioning of an enterprise is formed and the efforts of the entire team are combined to achieve it.” This definition indicates the purpose of strategic planning (and strategic management in general), and not its essence.

L.P. Vladimirova believes that strategic planning “is a set of actions and decisions taken by the company’s management in order to develop functional strategies and assist the company in solving the problems of its development.” This definition also does not distinguish between strategic planning and strategic management in general.

According to L.E. Basovsky, strategic planning “is a set of decisions and actions to develop a strategy necessary to achieve the goals of an organization or enterprise.” This formulation equates planning with strategy development, which cannot be considered correct, since “plan” is a broader concept than “strategy”, since a plan includes both the development of a strategy and a program of measures for its implementation for a certain period.

Domestic economists D.D. Vachugov and V.R. Vesnin define strategic planning as “a set of specific goals that must be achieved by a certain period. They cover the most general problems of production development and resource distribution for many years to come and are developed independently in various directions, but at the same time they are subject to a certain hierarchy.” V.P. Gruzinov writes the following: “Planning is a vision of an enterprise in the future, its place and role in the economy and socio-political structure of the country, as well as the main ways and means of achieving this new state. ...strategic planning is entirely the prerogative of the top management of the enterprise.” In these definitions, in our opinion, the planning process is identified with its result.

Scientists T.P. Lyubanova, L.V. Myasoedova, Yu.A. Oleinikov give the following definition of strategic planning: “This is the process of modeling the effective activities of an enterprise for a certain period of operation, establishing its goals and their changes in conditions of uncertainty in the market environment, as well as determining the way to implement these goals and objectives in accordance with its capabilities.” Probably, with this definition, strategic planning does not differ from any dynamic model of enterprise functioning, which is also not entirely correct.

E.A. Utkin understands strategic planning as “a special type of practical activity of people - planned work, consisting in the development of strategic decisions (in the form of forecasts, projects, programs and plans), providing for the promotion of such goals and strategies for the behavior of relevant management objects, the implementation of which ensures their effective functioning in long term, rapid adaptation to changing environmental conditions.” This definition is most correct from the point of view of considering strategic planning as a management function. Probably, by clarifying the relationship of the category under study with strategic management, on the basis of this definition, the concept of “strategic planning” can be formed.

We use two approaches for this.

According to the first approach, which is quite common in connection with the genetically determined relationship and continuity of strategic management and strategic planning as types of strategic management, in fact, no distinction is made between them as between part and whole, but speaks of their applicability to various conditions of the organization’s functioning, different level of instability of the external environment (see Table 6.1).

Table 6.1

Stages of development of control systems

The second approach is based on considering management as a set of management functions: goal setting, planning, organization, motivation, control, analysis, regulation, etc. (depending on the degree of detail or enlargement of the management process at different enterprises). In this case, planning as a function is an obligatory part of the management process, and in order for the organization as a system to be manageable, all functions must be performed. At the same time, the question remains open: how necessary are comprehensive plans for the entire period of strategy implementation to achieve strategic goals? And what kind of planning is considered strategic: only the development of these complete plans or plans for a shorter period that ensure the implementation of a long-term strategy can also be considered strategic?

When answering these questions, we proceeded from the assumption that strategic plans should be considered only those plans whose time horizon coincides with the horizon of the strategy itself, and which are designed to determine with a certain probability all the necessary parameters for its implementation (main criteria and resources  labor, material, financial, technological, information).

Consequently, strategic planning as the process of developing a strategic plan, with this understanding of it, is not always mandatory in the full sense of the word. The implementation of the strategy can be ensured by the development of tactical plans for a period of time shorter than the strategy horizon, during which the result of the activity can be predicted with a sufficient degree of certainty. This understanding of strategic planning coincides with the historically conditioned attitude towards it as a previous stage in the development of strategic management, and with the general theoretical understanding of the place of the planning function in the management process.

The differences between strategic planning and strategic management are as follows:

strategic planning  is a narrower concept;

strategic planning is a tool for managing information, and strategic management is a tool for managing people;

strategic planning is an analytical process, and strategic management is an organizational and analytical process;

strategic planning uses economic and technological variables. In strategic management, in addition, psychological, sociological and political factors are taken into account.

Thus, strategic planning This is the process of developing and concretizing the organization's strategy in the form of a strategic plan for a period of time equal to the period of strategy implementation. The main goal of strategic planning is to model the future successful activities of the enterprise (for the entire period of strategy implementation).

The main task of strategic planning is to ensure the flexibility and innovation in the organization's activities necessary to achieve its goals in a changing environment.

6.2. Typology of strategic planning

According to the point of view given in the textbook by E.A. Utkin, strategic planning is characterized by: 1) a degree of uncertainty; 2) time orientation of the planning process; 3) a certain planning horizon.

The degree of uncertainty at domestic enterprises is determined both by market conditions and the present historical moment.

6.2.1. Characteristics of forms of strategic planning by degree of uncertainty

Depending on the degree of uncertainty in planned activities, planning systems in an organization can be divided into two types. The first is those that operate in a completely predictable environment and do not lack information. Consequently, events in such systems have complete certainty: one can give a 100% guarantee that if an event A happens, then it will be followed by an event IN. This type of planning system is called deterministic systems. Is it possible for deterministic systems to exist in practice? If we talk about planning at the level of the organization as a whole, then, of course, no, since every organization in a market economy operates in an uncertain, changing environment and cannot be sure of any definite outcome of the events taking place. But routine and departmental planning, such as production planning, tend to have high certainty and predictive power.

The second type of planning systems involves a lack of certainty in the external environment and a lack of information. Thus, it is impossible to foresee a certain value of the decision result X accepted by the manager if this result can be realized with 80% probability.

Planning systems that do not provide complete predictability of the result are called probabilistic (stochastic). Almost every economic organization, when carrying out general planning of its activities, is faced with uncertainty of results. However, the degree of uncertainty may vary depending on the level of economic development, historical period and other factors. Thus, in developed countries of the world, the transition from an industrial economy to the next, higher type of development  post-industrial economy has led to increased uncertainty due to the complication of the economy and the acceleration of changes in it. In the Russian economy, the decline in business certainty is determined by the current historical moment, which is characterized by global shifts in various areas of social and human life.

The options for probabilistic planning systems are as follows.

Planning based on a system of strict commitments. Such planning is suitable for situations in which there is a high degree of confidence in the outcome of events. An example of this type could be planning a contract with a well-known, trusted partner, when only sudden, force majeure circumstances can change plans.

Planning under personal responsibility. This planning is acceptable for the opposite of the first type of situation - a situation of complete uncertainty. In this case, the manager cannot be sure of anything at all and acts at his own peril and risk, taking all responsibility upon himself. This type of planning is less typical for sustainable, stable enterprises with experience in economic activity and a complex internal structure, and to a greater extent for small, newly created business organizations that do not have the necessary knowledge of the environment and established relationships with their counterparties.

Planning adapted to random circumstances. This type of planning is intermediate between the first two: on the one hand, it faces constant uncertainty in the company’s activities, on the other hand, it takes into account possible options for action in an uncertain environment and thereby increases their predictability. In practice, there are no more than three or four main options for the possible development of events. Thus, planning may consist, for example, in determining actions in the event that the prices of the most important types of raw materials increase by 15, 20, 25% instead of the expected 10%.