Talk:Strategic planning/Archive 1

Refocus
I have tried to refocus this article on generic strategic planning. To do this I have/will moved some material to more specific articles like strategic management, marketing strategies, and military strategy. mydogategodshat 17:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a undergrad business student, this article is decent. From an English perspective though, it is riddled with problems. I've got an exam in a few hours, but it wouuld be good if the English was brought up to the level of other articles in Wikipedia.


 * This is a good start, but this article needs some heavy work from an editor and some knowledgeable individuals, which will automatically result in refocus and clarification. A major problem seems to be that every business consultancy has customized its own version of strategic planning (many pretty shallow and amateur), contributing to the confusion about what vision and mission are, and how they fit together. So, it would be a great thing to begin with a list or history of the real heros of strategic planning. I'd suggest the 1920's Harvard Policy Model,W. Edwards Deming (business analysis for quality), Lee Iacoca, and Jack Welch might be good references... each is a well known success with a book about it. I don't see anything about statistical analysis of the existing organizational processes, which is the second step of any good strategic planning. So, please suggest here any resources by proven authorities, and put in a summary paragraph on each to create a history, and then we can add a review of current functional methodologies of strategic planning with links to those articles. Caune (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work!??
Excellent article. Very well-referenced, well-written, and a good hub for a lot of other important topics. Good work. Deco 21:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the objectives page should redirect to this article. I was looking for an article on General Instructional Objectives and was suprised by the article I was redirected to. drichardson

well i really don't see any problem with the english used for the article, for me they are simple and easy to understand-the only down-side being the fact that there too many links, and these serve as a distraction of a sort for an info hungary professional like me. yomi martyns

I am sorry but I think this article needs a complete re-write. TRU 04:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"A good example of this is Enron"

 * To make the mission statement effective it needs to be aligned with the prevailing culture in that organization. Mission and Values go hand in hand. A lofty mission statement means nothing if it is not in congruence with the values practiced by the organization. A good example of this is Enron.

OK, great. But what makes Enron a good example? You can't always expect people to know what you mean. I mean, yes, we all know about the Enron scandal (although it wouldn't hurt to put a little more detail about that, either), but what exactly was Enron's incongruence between its mission statement and its values? - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mission statements and vision statements

Sloppy use of terms:

"We will be one amongst the top three transporters of goods and people in North America by 2010"

Are you claiming that this a vision or a goal, or both? Or an objective?

It doesn't at all sound like a vision statement that would paint a vivid and clear picture, nor inspir e or be remembered. It sounds most like a goal.

It is common for goals and/or objectives to be defined using SMART criteria, not visions.

Very poor.

Providing some examples would help.

ASP Puff Deleted
I deleted what follows from "Where to learn more" since it seems to be low-value publicity:ghjgh

Founded in 1999, ASP is the only not-for-profit professional association dedicated to advancing thought and practice in strategy development and deployment for business, non-profit and government organizations. ASP provides opportunities to explore cutting-edge strategy principles and practices that enhance organizational success and advance members' and organizations' knowledge, capability, capacity for innovation, and professionalism.

Our diverse membership reflects a broad range of industries. Members include:

Organizational Leaders: business, government and non-profit leaders responsible for strategy design and execution, from CEO through those leading a division, department, or team that has a critical strategy component;

Strategy Practitioners/Consultants: internal and external practitioners/consultants who provide content and process expertise for setting and implementing strategic direction; and

Academics: professors, authors and students who create and transfer new knowledge to enhance the effectiveness of strategy and further the profession --ARAJ 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Planning vs Vision Statement
This Strategic Planning wiki is well written and I find it very informatative. However, the Redirect from "Vision Statement" to this wiki is inappropriate for those interested in software development methodologies that feature the "Vision Statement" or "Vision Document" as a starting point in the software development process. Noteably, the Rational Unified Processemphasizes this document as a focal point during its Requirements work program. I propose that the "Vision Statement" Redirect to this page be eliminated and replaced with either a page that identifies the "Vision Statement" in different contexts, "Visions Statement (Software Development), "Vision Statement (Strategic Planning)", etc. or simply a wiki about a "Vision Statement" in the context of software development. In the coming weeks I will work on an appropriate wiki that defines a generalized "Vision Statement" for software development.  I welcome a discussion on this issue.  YORD-the-unknown 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that this section is well-written. It reads like a lecture given at a seminar. For example, "Which comes first? The mission statement or the vision statement? That depends." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.249.171 (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The definition is incorrect
Strategic planning is setting an appropriate course and direction for an enterprise which focuses resources, usually on optimizing survival, growth and (where appropriate) profit. It is a mistake to think of strategy as simply a set of objectives. All true strategic planning revolves around answering these three questions:

(1) What do we do? (3) How do we do this better than anyone else? (or alternately, How do we beat the competition?)

Good strategic planning always involves setting and implementing objectives, but you can do a lot of objective setting and implementation without being strategic.

RobertBradford 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Put in a definition you believe in and cite the source. DCDuring 11:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

i do no like the aritcle... normally i rely mainly on wiki for easy to understand information but i was really disapointed witht this one. i did not really get the information that i needed... the article needs some improvement... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.120.20.160 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also believe the definition of strategic planning is not correct. How about the following definition?

Strategic planning is the process of constucting an informed plan to reach a future outcome. A plan that is represented by various goals, initiatives, action plans, as well as prioritization of resources, with the intent being to navigate to one or more defined outcomes. A strategic plan is built upon the concept of effecting and directing processes, as opposed to reactive (including opportunitistic methods), or non-reactive (keep doing what we have always done) approaches.

The first three questions are off target. "What do we do?" "For whom do we do it?" "How do we excel?" They are better fit for a mission statement, not strategy. The compelling questions in defining strategy is 1. where are we going and 2. how do we get there? Maybe third question could be 3. what is the environment we may expect to encounter along the way? Tswelch

Methodologies
I have an understanding of the word ending "ologies" to mean "The study of "the word/root" that precedes it. Thus methodologies would be the study of methods.  I know that the degree Musicologist or musicology means the study of music.  Then wpouldn't the methodologies of Strategic planning be the study of the methods of Situation, Target, Path, Draw, et al? Bob Hemus [added 06 November 2006]

Help Specify StratML
See http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm & http://www.aiim.org/standards/article.aspx?ID=34121

The following, original link is relatively obsolete: https://collab.core.gov/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=6232

Owen Ambur 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Owen Ambur

Strategic planning - not constrained to business
I wanted to cross reference strategic planning in another article, where the planning entity refers to individual(s), not business. The current entry reflects 'process' relating specifically to a business entities.

Strategic planning (i.e. process) has as much value for an individual as a business.

I would propose either the following:

(1) Re-title this work to Business Strategic Planning, or

(2) Rework/generalize content to reflect the concept from any entity perspective (i.e. inclusive of business, individuals).

--Sagetele1 13:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Be bold and edit the article or change the title. Libcub (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Strategic Planning is executed in many institutions. Not only for businesses, but also for schools and organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.124.14.61 (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bias and cleanup
Hi! I added the bias and cleanup tags today because to an outsider, a lot of the material reads like it is from a commercial product about how to do a strategic plan, more than a non-biased explanation. If people could read up on what wikipedia is not and on making articles not reflect a point of view, that would be wonderful! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whereizben - it's going to be difficult to have any discussion of planning methods that doesn't have bias. Perhaps an outline of the main concepts from the reference works would be a more useful approach? RobertBradford 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)RobertBradford


 * Robert, like I said I don't know much about it, but since it does have bias, that is not acceptable for wikipedia. I think you are saying that we could remove a significant portion of the article and replace it with a more general outlining of accepted information, correct?  I am not sure if that is even far enough, since the purpose of the entry is not to tell how to do strategic planning, but rather simply explain what it is.  I do realize that this would significantly shorten the article, but it should only be encyclopedic information in the article, not a random collection of thoughts on strategic planning.  Either way, please just let me know what you, and others think.  And please just use a : to indent your replies to make them easier to read.  Thanks! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the strategic planning entry should contain a simpler definition, and note that there are multiple "strategic planning process" options, enumerating any that can be named. There are certainly people who come to Wikipedia hoping to find such information, but I gather you might prefer the "strategic planning" entry simply give a definition.  One of the problems here is that everyone thinks they are experts on strategic planning, and that their favored model is the best.  To my knowledge, there are only a handful of models in use at more than a handful of companies, and all of those are published in popular books on the subject.  Would it be acceptable to have separate articles on each of these models, when each model tends to be closely related to a commercial enterprise (such as BCG, Kaplan or SSP)? RobertBradford 13:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert, I think it might be appropriate to give a simple definition and then sections that highlight each of the major different "definitions", which would clean out a lot of the POV stuff in the article and make it more reliable and fact based. If you think you could do this, please go for it - if you do so, you might put a link in your edit summary to this discussion so that people don't think that you are just randomly making big changes!  Sorry for the delay in my response, btw! -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Mission and Vision
If one considers that organisations comprise people who want meaning and purpose in their lives then they need a vision that is important or inspiring.

Having inspired your people you need to work out how they can bring the vision about or mover closer to fulfilling it hence Mission

All this strategic stuff is about moving from the known to the unkown with conviction and some evidens that it doa'ble.

Petersofia [added 21 April 2007]

The Essence of Strategy
It is a bit frustrating that there is very little contemporary work written about the real meaning of Strategy. The following is sometimes used to describe The Essence of Strategy and is derived from:

The Essence of Strategy

The idea that strategy can be boiled down to four essential ideas seems too simple-strategy is hard isn't it. Not really, at their core, sound strategies have four components:

WHERE: Where do you want to be at some future point in time? That future state, when expressed in clear, compelling, desirable and measurement statements, is a very powerful force to align organizations and enterprises toward strategic success. A desirable, measurable future picture is a beacon for success.

WHAT: What are you going to apply your resources against? We live and work in a world of complex systems with literally 1000's of nodes and leverage points for change and no one has unlimited resources. What are those leverage points, sometimes called Centers of Gravity, that will allow the organization apply limited resources to realize its future?

HOW: How will we execute our strategy? This is not your individual tactical actions, but how your organization or enterprise will structure itself and manage actions against the WHAT to achieve the WHERE. How will you leverage the "Time Value of Action" precept to improve your overall probability of success within your resource constraints.

EXIT: How will we deal with strategic mistakes, failure and successes? Not every strategic endeavor will go as planned, and historically everything ends, sometimes sooner than we hope. When fortunes, investments, livelihoods, reputations, survival, etc. are at stake, things get emotional. Emotion leads to less than rationale strategic actions. Good strategists know this and good strategies leverage this by planning for these potential strategic mistakes, failures or successes at the beginning, not when they occur. When the WHERE, WHAT and HOW fail you, EXIT.

Although the above would need to be rewritten, it would be useful to boil down the Wikipedia Strategy article to something basic like the above.

--Mike Cline 19:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mike - My own 1999 book, Simplified Strategic Planning, devotes almost a whole chapter to the definition of Strategy. If there is interest, I can put a bit of the definition section on my website with a link.  I also really like Ben Tregoe's discussion of . RobertBradford 20:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Robert. Thanks. I would appreaciate seeing your definition of Strategy.  In my own view, Strategy is still ill-defined in WP.  Where as a Strategy, any strategy, is something that should meet an acceptable definition of Strategy, strategic planning, strategic management and related topics are merely methodologies to create and execute Strategies.  These creation and execution methodologies are varied and many, but not all subscribe to a common definition of Strategy.--Mike Cline 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Severe irony
From the article:


 * Features of an effective vision statement may include:
 * Clarity and lack of ambiguity
 * Paint a vivid and clear picture, not ambiguous
 * Describing a bright future (hope)
 * Memorable and engaging expression
 * Realistic aspirations, achievable
 * Alignment with organizational values and culture, Rational
 * Time bound if it talks of achieving any goal or objective

One of the biggest problems with corporate vision statements is when they can't manage to get all the points to share a single part of speech, and this list suffers from the same problem... We have:  Noun, imperative verb, gerund verb, noun, noun and adjective, noun and adjective, adjective.

Maybe it should be cleaned up? --Kuronekoyama 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT - More on measuring the degree of success of objectives would be useful. This is where we would like to be, this is where we are, this is how we will get there...what are the criteria by which we will know we have moved? Jeff Stanborough flying@bigpond.com

Very good class at ASU in Phoenix/Tempe, AZ
Not sure if this would help anyone, or if this is even a good thing to post ina wiki discussion page, but if you are really into strategic planning, GRA194 at ASU in Tempe is a wonderful class and we cover each of these topics in quite a bit of detail. If this is not the place for this kind of comment, please remove it with my apologies. I just thought this might help someone out who lives in the Southwest area and is looking for a great class. 68.3.214.66 (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Contrast to "strategic management"
There is the article strategic management and the Category:Strategic management. What is the relationship of "strategic planning" and "strategic management"? Are they synonymous? Or is strategic planning a part of strategic management? Thanks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia article?
This article has some good stuff in it if it were the kick-off to a college class. But it doesn't seem at all like an encyclopedia article. For instance, it recommends action, which is POV. I suspect making it encyclopedic would clear out the majority of what's there. Maybe it's better suited as the start of a strategic planning Wikibook or Wikiversity course? Cretog8 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to take the opportunity to weigh-in on this discussion as the risk of unleashing the WP:COI gods. I agree with Cretog8 on this one.  This article is not-encyclopedic and does a very poor job of explaining the concept of Strategic Planning.  The only sentence in the article worthy of keeping is the 1st sentence:

Strategic planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy, including its capital and people.
 * Even that sentence might be considered flawed by some definitions of what Strategy actually is versus how the term is routinely misused.


 * The remainder of the article is a hodgepodge of stuff aimed at promoting one methodology over another. There is no single Strategic Planning Process, but a great many, all promoted by various consultants, associations and academics who make their livings selling or teaching a particular methodology.  The article might highlight these different methodologies (well cited of course), but should not lay out their processes in detail nor make comparative judgments about their effectiveness.  Any Strategic Planning Process that has legitimacy and notability ought to be mentioned in the article, but no one methodology should receive more coverage than another.  In other words, the perfect article would explain in detail what Strategic Planning is, but give fair, but limited coverage to all the various methodologies (processes employed) to accomplish strategic planning.  After reading the article, an uninitiated person would understand in gross terms was Strategic Planning was about, but wouldn’t have a lot of details about any one process used to carry it out.  On the other hand, they would have enough information on a whole range of strategic planning methodologies sufficient to conduct further research.


 * This will be a very difficult task to accomplish because of WP:COI. The most likely editors to make this article better are day-to-day practitioners of strategic planning—the academics, the consultants and corporate strategy wonks.  As such, WP:COI will assume bias before the fact and discount their edits without regard to substance.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think either of you should take a shot at it. I interpret WP:COI to mean that we watch out for NPOV, not that certain categories of people will _by default_ push their agenda. Libcub (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strategic management is a management process, strategic planning is phase 1 of this process. Phase 2: Strategic Implementation.

Phase 3: Strategic Evaluation & Control. Post by": Mfana Khuzwayo 11.01.2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.213.126.12 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it should not be here. "Strategic" is the adjective of "strategy". Strategy these days is used as a synonym for "plan" (having almost lost its original meaning eg a plan designed to deceive the enemy). Therefore "strategic plan" means a "plan like, plan" or equally accurately one could say a "strategic strategy", its simply a tautology. . "Strategic Plan" is jargon and is simply a pretentious way of saying plan. People that espouse its use often truly believe that they are being profound. But ask this simple question of its users "What makes your plan strategic?". Invariably you'll get a blank stare or a definition of their plan. eg "business plan" or a "plan to increase customers", &ect. Its just another one of those in vogue, verbose expressions that some people believe make them sound important, other examples are "at this present point in time" instead of saying "now", "planning for the future" simply means "planning" because unless you've mastered time travel that is the only time you can plan for. Wikipedia frowns upon jargon in its articles. Attempts shouldn't be made to legitimised it with whole articles.

I've made an attempt to fix this article by removing some content that seems to be very specific/technical or unsubstantiated. So far I have: ~ JenLouise (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * removed some content from the introduction that was very specific and made it more general
 * removed duplication in defining vision/mission and vision statement/mission statement, and removed excessive description of the difference between vision and mission.
 * wrapped up other sections into the Tools section

Moved to Wikibooks
I'm moving the Business Strategy articles to [Wikibooks], where the content is more suitable. This is to maintain the existing content but to allow for more encyclopedic rewriting of the articles. TheUnixGeek (talk)

Re: Merge with Strategic Technology Planning
I'm not clear about what is surely about to become a separate university study: the fine rules about linking and writing WP articles. But as a practitioner of Strategic Planning I have severe doubts about the validity of "merging" Strategic Technology Planning with this article. Linking to it makes sense but the two are so different that they need different articles.

SP (as opposed to STP) is of course the top level discipline. I thoroughly agree with the comments above making the point that much SP jargon is consultant- and methodology- specific and really is not essential to SP. Because of this loose whorl of terms and definitions (each understood by its author to be "right") it is hard to define SP and stay out of this marsh. Nonetheless, people come here looking for anything better than what they've seen out there and this article does a better job than most in spite of the fine flaws.

The comment suggesting that the idea that SP is action-oriented is a POV is amusing. SP is a business-originated approach to focusing action. True the approach has been adapted to other realms but to suggest that SP is about anything other than action needs defending, not vice versa.

A Strategic Technology Plan obviously derives its methods and goals from SP but "merging" it presumably is a euphemism for subsuming it--including a paragraph or two. But it is such a distinct animal--as different from SP as technology changes are from business changes--that it could benefit from a separate article...given a good author.

--174.7.33.239 (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the post above. It makes little sense to combine a broad topic with a more narrowly defined one even though the two share some elements. Angela.hausman

From an academic perspective, it does not make any sense to merge these two articles, and I strongly advice against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.202.227 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC) -
 * Strategic Technology Plan is just so weird. Yes, it needs to be merged into this one, urgently, as an incomprehensible embarrassment. And when it's done, please downcase all of the headings. Tony   (talk)  13:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I recommend keeping the 2 articles separate. It seems to me that they are vastly different in that one is of general nature and the other is highly specific. The 2 articles could of course be linked.

Also, while the I liked the article it was a bit like the output fom a brainstorming exercise - a bit scattered and lacking in structure.

If I were re-writing it I would start by trying to define the term "strategic plan" as I think it is easier to define than the process of "strategic planning".

I would then define "strategic planning" as the act of creating/updating a strategic plan.

I would point out that "strategic planning" is not single - or clearly defined - process, but that it is characterised by a logical process of determining how best to move from where one is to where one would like to be. (This may not be the best wording and I'd welcome any suggestions for improvement. My thought is to keep the wording simple and build meaning into it by example.)

I would then lead into the various approaches that are often used and introduce tools such as SWOT analysis where appropriate.

Finally, I would outline the key contents that one might expect to find in a strategic plan.

Throughout the article I would try to make the reader aware that the terms (e.g. misssion, vision, values) often associated with strategic plans do not have univerally accepted definitions and any definitions provided in the article should be used as a guide only and that different entities may attach different shades of meaning to the terms.

Paul Gerrard, Adelaide, Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.53.150 (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Examples
The article should list examples of mission and vision to clearly outline the difference between the two. 61.8.139.218 (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Relation to Master Plan?
Master plan disambiguation page contains a link to this page, but this page does not explain what is the link between Strategic planning and Master plan. A word about what a Master plan is would be useful in this page.--OlivierMiR (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

ASSIMPLIER and STEER
Mentioned on the talk page for Enterprise Architecture Framework is a conversation about ASSIMPLIER. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enterprise_architecture_framework

I found that page because I was looking for some non-wikipedia information about this analysis technique and have been able to find none but the same explanation of the acronym given in wikipedia. I agree with the wikipedians on the EAF talk page that ASSIMPLIER should be removed or otherwise held in a "List of methodologies" or some such page only.

As well, I have been unable to find any external information on the STEER analysis, again, save for the acronym posted here (in articles around the web which are quoting this article verbatim). I think this, too, should be removed from this article. Thoughts? StefanijaSili (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As per the above, I have deleted the reference to ASSIMPLIER and STEER. StefanijaSili (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

three key questions
These aren't central to strategy. They may be useful for background, but strategy is about what a person or organisation wants to achieve in future. That may have little to do with what the person or org is presently doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * All actions one plans to take are by definition, in the future. Whether those plans are Strategic or Tactical is the key.  Stragetic planning suggests that its accomplishment is hinged on multiple relatively simple, discrete actions i.e. tactics.  For example, winning WWII was a vision which involved defeating Japan and Germany in each theatre of war.  Defeating Germany involved multiple Strategies including breaking the stranglehold U-Boats had on the western oceans of the Mediteranean and Atlantic.  It also involved a Strategy of opening up a new battle front on the French coast at Normandy.  Related tactics included hundreds of discrete actions, which underpinned the success of each stragety.  The discrete actions were not usually long term nor massive in scope or complexity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.86.51 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This subject is inappropriate for Wikipedia as it falls outside content criteria
See Wikipedia content criteria.

“Strategic planning” is cited by its advocates that it is a special type of planning that organisations use to provide a set of aims (or similar) for its future direction. This is of course merely a “plan” or perhaps arguably a strategy.

“Strategic” is the adjective of “strategy”, which basically means "plan" albeit a more narrowly defined type of plan (see a dictionary definition). Thus the phrase “Strategic Plan” simply means a “plan like plan” or a “strategy that is strategic” it is in fact a tautology. Tautologies are grammatical errors that although often amusing should be avoided.

One could add any number of adjectival preludes to the word “plan” such as: "alternative", "long term" or "extensive" as this would improve the description of a plan but the adjective “strategic” adds nothing to readers understanding of the nature a particular plan in the normal usage of English grammar, thus it is purely jargon at best or at worst it is a pretentious attempt to corrupt the common usage of the words “strategic” and “plan” by combining them to become a new compound word with a new meaning that is intended to give an impression that the author is more important or more worthy than he/she actually is.

Such meaningless phases such as “Strategic planning” or "Planing for the Future" have no place in Wikipedia as one cannot "plan" for any other time other than the future and if one has a plan that is like a strategy then one should just say strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudoculated (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 December 2012‎
 * I'm not sure what criteria you're referring to. WP:N or maybe something from WP:NOT? --Ronz (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, 'strategic' is here used to insinuate that something is 'long term', which is not accurate, since you can have a short term strategy and a long term strategy, meaning strategy is a plan. You can not have a 'planned plan', which is what 'strategic plan' really means. However, it has already been generally accepted and even worst, it has been thought at schools for a long time as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.86.179.111 (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This article clearly defines words encompassed by "strategic" in regard to planning
To hatch a plan that does not adequately deal with reality is a wasted effort. And a plan ("long term or not") without a guiding strategy would seem to be prone to failure. Thus it is proposed that the "strategic" adjective is meaningless.

However:

It would seem that the concepts of "vision" and "mission" and perhaps the word "values" are the "long term" words of strategic planning and that the words "goals", "objectives", "projects", and "actions" are the shorter term variants guided by the afore mentioned "long term" words. Words have meaning and it seems to me that the definition of these meanings and their relationship, one to the other, is an important "mission" of Wikipedia. That these relationships are sorted, discussed, and realized in the cauldron of on line democracy is fundamental to my own perceived purpose of the Wikipedia project. I would not want any further invasion of the "business" people into this article. As it now exists, the distinctions between "business" planning, and "social action" strategic planning are brought forth at least in a limited fashion.--The Trucker (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would propose that we dispense with the term "planning", and simply go with Strategy Development and Execution (or Implementation). It takes a while for a coherent strategy to emerge, hence "development" may be more suitable, given the iterative nature of the task. The term Strategy Formulation may also work. Implementation or Execution encompasses planning. 108.173.42.224 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)]

Merger proposal from Long range planning
I propose that Long range planning be merged into Strategic planning. The former has been tagged as unreferenced and WP:OR for 2 and 5 years respectively. -- Trevj (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the Vision Thing. I came here looking for a good definition of a Vision Statement and the merger needs to have a good section on that. --dbabbitt (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Long Term Planning / Long Range Planning has to form part of strategic Planning to address Major components Change outs, even End of life Equipment. The Type of Maintenance that will not form part of your Daily maintenance Strategy. A Long Term Planning strategy should have its separate manual to identify these major components and highlights the 2 Year, 3 Year, 5 Year maintenance Plan/Strategy (How are you going to maintain the equipment). W Strauss 09:19, 05 May 2015 (Australia)

Strongly Disagree

''Mergeing serves no useful purpose. '' Although some duplication may be eliminated mergeing is no guarantee of this. Duplication is in any case a relatively trivial administrative issue rather than something affecting the value of wiki to users.

Concise articles are more valuable.

All planning is interrelated and all forms of it can in some sense be "nested" one within another. However this is a truism. Chasing up the nested hierarchy to bundle progressively longer articles reduces value. Longer articles are more difficult to edit and manage, and more importantly they are more difficult to use. Think of a book and its chapters and the paragraphs of those chapters. Think of a library's shelving system. We have evolved these systems from simpler ones that preceded them. There is a positive benefit all round in breaking information down into smaller chunks. Hot links are an advance on the linear chaining of text.

Strategic <> Long-term

Strategic planning can apply to any time scale. A short-term plan can be strategic. A plan to blow up the government and revert the country to Catholic rule (Guy Fawkes) is short term, in the sense that it's implementation takes place over a short period of time, and it is strategic. On the other hand a long-term (5 year) financial plan is not strategic but rather a set of actions and projections based upon a set of assumption. To decribe this two "scales" are used, one ranges between strategic and tactical, and the other between long and short term.

LookingGlass (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

March 2019
I have plans to add information about the Harvard Policy model, and I am working on that content in my sandbox. If you would like to see what I'm working on, please view my sandbox and comment on my talk page. OCE1772 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC) I also have plans to add a reference in the Overview section from BoardSource because the this resource elaborates more on the aspects of strategic planning OCE1772 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)