strategic planning research meaning

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Strategic planning in the public sector.

• John Bryson John Bryson Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
•  and  Lauren Hamilton Edwards Lauren Hamilton Edwards School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.128
• Published online: 24 May 2017

Strategic planning has become a fairly routine and common practice at all levels of government in the United States and elsewhere. It can be part of the broader practice of strategic management that links planning with implementation. Strategic planning can be applied to organizations, collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health), and to places ranging from local to national to transnational. Research results are somewhat mixed, but they generally show a positive relationship between strategic planning and improved organizational performance. Much has been learned about public-sector strategic planning over the past several decades but there is much that is not known.

There are a variety of approaches to strategic planning. Some are comprehensive process-oriented approaches (i.e., public-sector variants of the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, stakeholder management, and strategic management systems). Others are more narrowly focused process approaches that are in effect strategies (i.e., strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation). Finally, there are content-oriented approaches (i.e., portfolio analyses and competitive forces analysis).

The research on public-sector strategic planning has pursued a number of themes. The first concerns what strategic planning “is” theoretically and practically. The approaches mentioned above may be thought of as generic—their ostensive aspect—but they must be applied contingently and sensitively in practice—their performative aspect. Scholars vary in whether they conceptualize strategic planning in a generic or performative way. A second theme concerns attempts to understand whether and how strategic planning “works.” Not surprisingly, how strategic planning is conceptualized and operationalized affects the answers. A third theme focuses on outcomes of strategic planning. The outcomes studied typically have been performance-related, such as efficiency and effectiveness, but some studies focus on intermediate outcomes, such as participation and learning, and a small number focus on a broader range of public values, such as transparency or equity. A final theme looks at what contributes to strategic planning success. Factors related to success include effective leadership, organizational capacity and resources, and participation, among others.

A substantial research agenda remains. Public-sector strategic planning is not a single thing, but many things, and can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. Useful findings have come from each of these different conceptualizations through use of a variety of methodologies. This more open approach to research should continue. Given the increasing ubiquity of strategic planning across the globe, the additional insights this research approach can yield into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, is likely to be helpful for advancing public purposes.

• strategic planning
• strategic spatial planning
• strategic management
• performance management
• public organizations

Introduction

In the most widely used text in the field, strategic planning is defined as “a deliberative, disciplined effort to produce decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization or other entity [such as a collaboration, function, or community or region] is, what it does, and why it does it” (Bryson, 2011 , pp. 7–8). Defined in this manner, strategic planning consists of a set or family of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices meant to help decision makers and other stakeholders address what is truly important for their organizations and/or places. Additionally, approaches to strategic planning vary in their purposes; formality; temporal horizon; comprehensiveness; organizational, inter-organizational and/or geographic focus; emphasis on data and analysis; extent of participation; locus of decision-making; connection to implementation; and so on. Successful use of strategic planning is thus dependent on which approach is used, for what purposes, and in what context (Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ).

Strategic planning can be part of the broader practice of strategic management that links planning with implementation (Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; Talbot, 2010 ). It can be applied to organizations, collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health) and places ranging from local to national and international (Albrechts & Balducci, 2013 ). Note, however, that organizational, community, function-oriented, or place-based strategies have numerous sources besides explicit planning (Bryson, 2011 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ). This entry focuses solely on planning.

Over the past 40 years in the United States, strategic planning by governments and public agencies has become increasingly widespread. All federal agencies have been required since 1993 to engage in strategic planning as a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 ( https://www.performance.gov/ ). Surveys over the years have indicated that an increasingly large percentage of governments at the state and local levels currently use strategic planning (Poister & Streib, 2005 ; Jimenez, 2013 ). Strategic planning is also increasingly common around the globe, including in non-English-speaking countries and those with an administrative law culture, such as Italy and France (e.g., Joyce & Drumaux, 2014 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ; Balducci, Fedeli, & Pasqui, 2011 ; Albrechts, Balducci, & Hillier, 2016 ).

Yet, why strategic planning has become an increasingly standard practice is unclear. Understanding the reasons why it is used in different contexts is thus an important topic for future research, in part because those reasons are likely to affect the results of using it. Possible explanations include faddishness (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006 ), coercion (Radin, 2006 ; Tama, 2015 ), normative mimesis (DiMaggio & Powell 1983 ; Tama, 2015 ), or prior relationships and experience with potential strategic planning participants (Percoco, 2016 ). On the other hand, strategic planning also may be adopted because users think it will help them figure out what their organizations should be doing, how, and why. In other words, strategic planning in some circumstances may provide a way of sense-making, or knowing, helpful to decision makers (Bryson, Crosby, & Bryson, 2009 ), especially within the framework of what is called the New Public Management (NPM).

NPM is a reform narrative that has explicitly or implicitly guided much government reform in the United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent elsewhere (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011 ). NPM involves a significant break with (or at least a shifting of emphasis from) prior eras when government agencies were more typically organized as large, public Weberian bureaucracies in charge of direct service delivery and accountable exclusively, or at least principally, to their political masters. In contrast, NPM emphasizes: public choice; the applicability of principal-agent models to controlling government agencies, managers and those with whom they contract; the importance of customer service and focusing on results or outcomes; managers having more discretion in how they go about achieving results; and less reliance on rules and regulations.

In this context, and given the increased discretion managers and often agencies are supposed to have, strategic planning and strategic management are likely to be far more useful (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ; Hansen & Ferlie, 2016 ). On the other hand, NPM reforms also may conflict with more traditional bureaucratic controls that have been an important part of accountability requirements in a democracy (Kettl, 2013 ). For example, in one study Moynihan ( 2006 , p. 77) finds that US state governments “emphasized strategic planning and performance measurement, but were less successful in implementing reforms that would enhance managerial authority, undermining the logic that promised performance improvements.” NPM, in other words, can be yet another “tide of reform” that is layered on top of previous tides of government reform, and the interactions among these reforms are often conflictual, hard to assess, and can and do undermine agency effectiveness (Light, 1998 ).

This entry is organized into the following sections. First, we discuss the meaning of the adjective strategic in front of planning, in contrast to other adjectives such as long-range, program or project, or action planning. Second, we discuss briefly the applicability of strategic planning to organizations, collaborations, cross-boundary functions, and places. Third, we discuss how the various approaches to strategic planning have been conceptualized and what research shows, if anything, regarding their use and effectiveness. Fourth, we look at important themes in the research and implications for future research. Finally, we offer a set of conclusions.

What Makes Public-Sector Planning Strategic ?

The roots of public-sector strategic planning are originally mostly military and tied to statecraft (Freedman, 2013 ). Starting in the 1960s, however, most of the development of the concepts, procedures, tools and practices of strategic planning has occurred in the for-profit sector. Public-sector strategic planning got a serious start in the US in the 1980s (e.g., Eadie, 1983 ). This history has been documented by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 ) and Ferlie and Ongaro ( 2015 ).

Public-sector strategic planning is a subset of planning, but what exactly makes it strategic ? All or most of the following features are typically used to characterize public-sector planning as strategic (e.g., Kaufman & Jacobs, 1987 ; Poister & Streib, 1999 ; Christensen, 1999 ; Conroy & Berke, 2004 ; Chakraborty et al., 2011 ; Albrechts & Balducci, 2013 ; Bryson & Slotterback, 2016 , pp. 121–122):

Close attention to context and to thinking strategically about how to tailor the strategic planning approach to the context, even as a purpose of the planning typically is to change the context in some important way.

Careful thinking about purposes and goals, including attention to situational requirements (e.g., political, legal, administrative, ethical, and environmental requirements).

An initial focus on a broad agenda and later moving to a more selective action focus.

An emphasis on systems thinking; that is, working to understand the dynamics of the overall system being planned for as it functions—or ideally should function—across space and time, including the interrelationships among constituent subsystems.

Careful attention to stakeholders, in effect making strategic planning an approach to practical politics; typically multiple levels of government and multiple sectors are explicitly or implicitly involved in the process of strategy formulation and implementation.

A focus on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; and a focus on competitive and collaborative advantages.

A focus on thinking about potential futures and then making decisions in light of their future consequences; in other words, joining temporal with spatial systemic thinking.

Careful attention to implementation; strategy that cannot be operationalized effectively is hardly strategic.

A clear realization that strategies are both deliberately set in advance and emergent in practice.

In short, a desire to stabilize what should be stabilized, while maintaining appropriate flexibility in terms of goals, policies, strategies, and processes to manage complexity, take advantage of important opportunities, and advance public purposes, resilience and sustainability in the face of an uncertain future.

The list is extensive and approaches vary in how well they attend to each item in both theory and practice. The underlying hypothesis guiding research and much practice is that strategic planning by public-sector organizations will lead to better performance by these organizations. Two issues, however, become immediately obvious: first, how does one operationally assess the “strategic-ness” of the planning, and second, what effects do different levels of “strategic-ness” have on results of various kinds? Unfortunately, the empirical research on public-sector strategic planning in general, and especially its connection with implementation, is remarkably thin, given how widespread the use of strategic planning is (Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; George & Desmidt, 2014 ). That said, the few studies that have explored these issues have generally, though not always, found a positive causal effect of strategic planning on implementation success.

Applicability to Organizations, Collaborations, Functions, and Places

At its most basic, strategic planning involves three things: deliberations around important issues of ends and means, decisions, and actions. 1 The various approaches to strategic planning help make the process reasonably orderly, increase the likelihood that what is important is actually recognized and addressed, and typically allow more people to participate in the process. When the process is applied to an organization as a whole on an ongoing basis, or at least to significant parts of it, usually it is necessary to construct a strategic management system, or what is often called a performance management system (see the section “Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized” ). The system allows the various parts of the process to be integrated in appropriate ways, and engages the organization in strategic management, not just strategic planning.

When applied to a function or collaboration that crosses organizational boundaries, or to a community, cross-organizational sponsorship of some sort is usually necessary. Working groups or task forces probably will need to be organized at various times to deal with specific strategic issues or to oversee the implementation of specific strategies. Special efforts will be needed to engage traditionally underrepresented groups (Innes & Booher, 2010 ). Because so many more people and groups will need to be involved, and because implementation will have to rely more on consent than authority, the process is likely to be much more time-consuming and iterative than strategic planning applied to an organization. On the other hand, more time spent on exploring issues and reaching agreement may be made up later through speedy implementation (Innes, 1996 ; Bovaird, 2007 ; Innes & Booher, 2010 ). Strategic planning in an organization typically involves a mixture of lateral collaboration and vertical hierarchy. In interorganizational collaborations, lateral collaborative processes overshadow hierarchy, yet attention to the hierarchical structures and power differences that exist within the collaboration and in its participating organizations will be vital in developing and implementing a strategic plan (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2015 ).

In addition, when a community is involved, special efforts will be necessary to make sure that resulting strategic plans are compatible with the community’s spatial comprehensive plan, along with the various devices used to implement it, such as capital improvements programs, spatial subdivision controls, a zoning ordinance, and official maps (Bryson & Slotterback, 2016 ). City planners can play a crucial mediating role in linking the broadly inclusive visioning and goal-setting processes of strategic planning with the ongoing formal decision-making mechanisms of cities and regions (Legacy, 2012 ; Quick, 2015 ).

Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized

Because planning must attend to context in order to be strategic, approaches to strategic planning may be represented as generic in form but in practice are likely to be highly contingent (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 , p. 123). Generic approaches to strategic planning may emphasize process or content. A key contingency is whether the approach is being applied at the organizational or subunit level, to a boundary-crossing function or collaboration, or to a community or place. We briefly review prominent approaches below, drawing from Bryson ( 2002 , 2015 ) and Ferlie and Ongaro ( 2015 ).

Comprehensive Process Approaches

Process approaches may be characterized as comprehensive or partial in what they consider. We treat more comprehensive process approaches first, including those influenced by the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, stakeholder management, and strategic management systems approaches. Next, we consider more partial process approaches that are, in effect, strategies. These include strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation. Finally, we consider two content approaches, namely, portfolio and competitive forces analyses.

The Harvard Policy Model. The Harvard Policy Model, with suitable adaptions, has had a strong influence on the most widely used generic processes in the public sector. The Harvard model seeks the best fit between a firm or strategic business unit (SBU) and its environment (Andrews, 1980 ; Bower, Bartlett, Christensen, & Pearson, 1991 ). This is achieved via an analysis of the focal unit’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; and the values of senior management and the social obligations of the firm. Planning is separate from and precedes implementation. The model assumes there is a senior management group that is in charge and able to implement its decisions. The model does not offer specific advice on how to develop strategies.

The model can be applied in public-sector organizations, especially at the program or departmental levels, but typically a number of adaptations are necessary. First, a broader range of stakeholders must be considered, often including elected policy boards. Second a portfolio approach of some kind is often needed to allow strategic decision making for a portfolio of agencies or programs. A strategic issues management approach is needed because much public work is typically quite political, and articulating and addressing issues are at the heart of much political decision making. When applied to a collaboration or place, strategic planning should be paired with portfolio, issues management, and stakeholder management approaches, given the absence of hierarchical authority and shared-power nature of these contexts.

Public-sector adaptions of the Harvard model all draw on a roughly similar sequence of activities, while recognizing that following some sort of strict order is often not feasible, necessary, or even desirable (e.g., Nutt & Backoff, 1992 ; Bryson, 2011 ). These activities include:

Preparing for strategic planning by determining what elements should be included and a timeline. Stakeholder analysis is also valuable at this point to identify who should be involved in the process.

Creating, clarifying, or updating organizational mission, vision, values, and goals and clarifying any applicable legal statutes or mandates.

Assessing external and internal environments by analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Identifying and analyzing issues facing the organization, based on upcoming challenges and/or changes coming to the organization.

Identifying potential strategies for effectively addressing the issues.

Assessing the feasibility of strategies using reasonable criteria.

Developing and implementing plans and related desirable changes.

Evaluating, monitoring, and updating the plan continually as new information becomes available.

Reassessing strategies and the strategic planning process.

A handful of researchers has tested the assumption that pursuing all or most of these activities will lead to strategy implementation success. For example, in one of the most complete tests to date, Elbanna, Andrews, and Pollanen ( 2016 ), in a study of 188 Canadian government organizations across federal, provincial, and local levels, found that formal strategic planning had a strong positive effect on strategy implementation, that the quality of managerial involvement in the process mediates the effect in a positive way, and that formal strategic planning can be especially beneficial in the face of stakeholder uncertainty. Other studies that have operationalized strategic planning in roughly analogous ways have find roughly analogous positive effects of more formal planning on outcomes (e.g. Walker et al., 2010 ; Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2012 ; Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ). These findings are at odds with arguments put forward by Mintzberg 1994 ), Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 ) that formal strategic planning is likely to hinder strategy formulation and implementation in business organizations. This may be because “effective control in the public sector may be best exercised ex ante , that is, through formal planning, instead of ex post through organizational performance measurement” (Elbanna et al., 2016 , p. 1035).

Furthermore, the findings are also at odds with the conventional wisdom that rational approaches are untenable in the public sector because of the technical problems of acquiring necessary data and information, and because of the political problems raised by competing stakeholders, including issues between the planners and those being planned for. Boyne, Gould-Williams, Law, and Walker ( 2004 ), however, found that in a recent attempt by UK local authorities to introduce a new planning system, the statistical results suggest that the problems of rational planning are largely technical (meaning lack of resources and expertise) rather than political. The link between rationality and politics thus clearly merits additional attention.

Logical incrementalism . Quinn ( 1980 ) was critical of formal strategic planning when taken to extremes of analysis and centralization; when it failed to take politics, power, and relationships into account; and when it failed to appreciate how incrementalism is important for learning and building consensus. In contrast, he emphasized the importance of incrementalism but only in support of overall organizational purposes. The idea of incrementalism guided by a set of overall organizational purposes (even as it may lead to changing the purposes) provides the link between formal strategic planning and logical incrementalism. In other words, Quinn sees formal strategic planning and logical incrementalism as desirable complements and not as inherently antagonistic. They are antagonistic only if strategic planning is taken to extremes, or if incrementalism ceases to be logical, meaning it no longer occurs within a broader framework of purposes.

Logical incrementalism is an approach that, in effect, fuses strategy formulation and implementation, and thus strategic planning and strategic management. The strengths of the approach are its ability to handle complexity and change, its emphasis on minor as well as major decisions, its attention to informal as well as formal processes, and its political realism. Beyond that, incremental changes in degree can add up over time into changes in kind. The major weakness of the approach is that it does not guarantee that the various loosely linked decisions will add up to fulfillment of organizational purposes.

Logical incrementalism is applicable to public organizations, as long as it is possible to establish some overarching set of strategic objectives to be served by the approach. Public organizations can (and likely often do) pursue some sort of strategic planning to establish broad purposes and logical incrementalism to reach their goals. Indeed, one study found that organizations that do strategic planning improve—but do so even more when they pair it with logical incrementalism (Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ).

At the community level, there is a close relationship between logical incrementalism and collaboration. Indeed, collaborative goals and arrangements typically emerge in an incremental fashion as organizations individually and collectively explore their self-interests and possible collaborative advantages, establish collaborative relationships, and manage changes incrementally within a collaborative framework (Huxham & Vangen, 2005 ; Innes & Booher, 2010 ).

Stakeholder management. Freeman ( 1984 ) states that strategy can be understood as an organization’s mode of relating to or building bridges to its stakeholders. Stakeholder may be defined as any individual, group, or organization that is affected by, or that can affect, the future of the organization. Freeman argues, as do others who emphasize the importance of attending to stakeholders, that a strategy will only be effective if it satisfies the needs of multiple groups (Gomes, Liddle, & Gomes, 2010 ; Walker, Andrews, Boyne, Meier, & O’Toole, 2010 ; Ackermann & Eden, 2011 ). Because many interest groups have stakes in public organizations, functions, and communities, and because the approach incorporates economic, political, and social concerns, it is applicable to the public sector. In addition, some forms of stakeholder engagement such as citizen participation are often mandated in government decision-making process (Brody, Godschalk, & Burby, 2003 ; Buckwalter, 2014 ). Successful use of the model assumes that key decision makers can achieve reasonable agreement about who the key stakeholders are and what the response to their claims should be.

The strengths of the stakeholder model are its recognition of the many claims—both complementary and competing—placed on organizations by insiders and outsiders and its awareness of the need to satisfy at least the key stakeholders if the organization is to survive. Because of its attention to stakeholders, the approach can be particularly useful in planning for cross-boundary functions, such as transportation (Neskova & Guo, 2012 ; Poister, Thomas, & Berryman, 2013 ; Deyle & Wiedenman, 2014 ) and planning for places (Brody et al., 2003 ; Edelenbos & Klijn, 2005 ).

The primary weakness of the model is that genuine collaboration is difficult to achieve, as found by Vigar in transportation planning in England ( 2006 ). Another study of spatial planning in India found an additional difficulty in broadening stakeholder engagement beyond elite participants (Vidyarthi, Hoch, & Basmajian, 2013 ). Another challenge is the absence of criteria with which to judge competing claims and the need for more advice on developing strategies to deal with divergent stakeholder interests.

Strategic management systems . These are approaches that allow public leaders and managers to strategize about, and coordinate, important decisions across levels and functions within an organization, and across organizations (Talbot, 2010 ; Clarke & Fuller, 2010 ). Strategic planning is a necessary component (Poister & Streib, 1999 ). Strategic management systems vary along several dimensions: the comprehensiveness of decision areas included, the formal rationality of the planning and decision processes, and the tightness of control exercised over implementation of the decisions, as well as how the strategy process itself will be tailored to the organization and managed. The strength of these systems is their attempt to coordinate the various elements of an organization’s strategy across levels and functions. In doing so, they can help integrate better what NPM reforms have often fragmented (Christensen & Laegreid, 2007 ). Their weakness is that excessive comprehensiveness, prescription, and control can drive out attention to mission, strategy, and innovation, and can exceed the ability of participants to comprehend the system and the information it produces (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2009 ).

Strategic management systems are potentially applicable to public organizations (and to a lesser extent, communities), because regardless of the nature of the particular organization, managers must coordinate at least some decision making across levels and functions and concentrate on whether the organization is implementing its strategies and accomplishing its mission. Some public organizations—such as hospitals, police and fire departments, and the military—often make use of relatively comprehensive formal strategic planning and implementation systems. The US federal government is moving toward a reasonably comprehensive formal system (Moynihan, 2013 ). Early assessments of the routines built into the new system show they increase performance information use and learning (Moynihan & Kroll, 2016 ). Most government organizations, however, typically use less comprehensive, less formal, and more decentralized systems (Poister & Streib, 2005 ). These systems, as well as those for collaborations and places, typically focus on a few goals and issues, rely on a decision process in which politics plays a major role, and control something other than program outcomes (e.g. budget expenditures, contracting processes, etc.) (Bryson, 2011 , pp. 323–341).

Unfortunately, there are remarkably few scholarly assessments of the strategic planning component of any strategic management systems. One of the best is Hendrick ( 2003 ), a study of Milwaukee’s strategic planning system. She found that departments with more comprehensive, formal, and rational processes had better performance, a result generally in line with other studies. The role of politics in these systems, however, cannot be ignored. Gilmour and Lewis ( 2006 ), for example, found that assessments of the efforts of US government departments that included their strategic planning were used to reward “conservative” programs and punish “liberal” ones in the George W. Bush administration.

The applicability of strategic management systems to the community level is problematic, given the shared-power nature of these domains. In a comparative case study, for example, Loh ( 2012 ) found four ways in which a community planning process can fail. These include disconnects between: residents’ true desires and stated plan goals; plan goals and implementation steps; implementation steps and actual legal devices needed for implementation; and enforcement tied to these devices.

Partial Process Approaches

Considered here are three partial process approaches. Each is, in effect, a kind of strategy. These include: strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation.

Strategic negotiations . Strategy is often viewed as a partial resolution of organizational issues through a highly political process. Pettigrew ( 1973 ) and Mintzberg and Waters ( 1985 ) helped pioneer this process approach, but its roots go back to public sector accounts of strategizing (Allison, 1971 ). Negotiations are increasingly a part of governance through a variety of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial processes (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005 ; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015 ). These processes include empowered community visioning processes that create political mandates, negotiated rule-making, and environmental dispute resolution processes.

The strength of the approach is that it acknowledges that power is shared in many public situations and that cooperation and negotiation are required in order to reach agreements. The main weakness is that though the process can facilitate agreements, questions can and often do arise about the technical quality, process legitimacy, and democratic responsibility of results (Page, Stone, Bryson, & Crosby, 2015 ). Interestingly, Innes ( 1996 ) and Innes and Booher ( 2010 ) finds that while the negotiation processes can look messy, they quite often result in extremely rational, politically acceptable, and implementable solutions.

Strategic issues management. A major shortcoming of the Harvard model was a missing step between the SWOT analysis and strategy formulation. This was remedied with the addition of the step of identifying strategic issues as part of the strategic planning process, as well as less comprehensive annual reviews. This approach is especially important for public organizations, in particular those with continually or rapidly changing environments, since the agendas of these organizations consist of issues that should be managed strategically (Ackermann & Eden, 2011 ). In addition, many organizations have developed strategic issue management processes separate from annual strategic planning processes. Many important issues emerge too quickly to be handled as part of an annual or less frequent process. The approach also applies to functions, collaborations, or communities, as long as some group, organization, or coalition is able to engage in the process and to manage the issue.

The strength of the approach is its ability to recognize and analyze key issues quickly. The main weakness is that in general the approach offers no specific advice on exactly how to frame the issues other than to precede their identification with a situational analysis of some sort. Nutt and Backoff ( 1992 , 1993 ) and Bryson, Cunningham, & Lokkesmoe ( 2002 ) have gone the furthest in remedying this defect within the context of public strategic planning. Fairhurst ( 2011 ) and Gray, Purdy, and Ansani ( 2015 ), among others, provide useful advice outside of that context.

Strategic planning as a framework for innovation. In contrast with a strategic management system approach that can decrease innovation, other approaches use strategic planning as a chance to innovate and provide creative solutions for upcoming challenges (Osborne & Brown, 2012 ). These approaches rely on many of the same components discussed above but differ in that they emphasize fostering innovation and creating a more entrepreneurial culture within the organization. This approach can be difficult to use in some public organizations, particularly those with fewer resources to test approaches or room to make potentially costly mistakes. Furthermore, public organizations are often operating in highly visible and accountable contexts making any mistakes or learning opportunities more visible and problematic.

While there is a growing body of scholarly work on innovation in public organizations, there is little research on the connection between strategic planning and innovation. An exception is Andrews et al. ( 2012 , p. 155), who found that “organizations that emphasize a strategy of innovation get an even higher payoff when they fit this strategy to a process characterized by flexibility and negotiation with powerful stakeholders” (i.e., logical incrementalism). Another exception is Borins ( 2014 , pp. 73–93), who in a large-scale study of successful public-sector innovations, found a strong reliance on strategic planning (what he calls “comprehensive planning”) by the innovators, rather than “groping along,” which is Behn’s ( 1988 ) term for a manager-focused version of logical incrementalism. The relationship was contingent, however, on who the innovators were and whether new technology was involved. If the innovators were managers, planning was favored; if the innovators were frontline staff, groping along was preferred. If new technology was involved, groping along was used more frequently.

Content Approaches

The process approaches assist planners with ways of doing strategic planning but offer little advice as to what needs to be in strategies and plans. Strategic content approaches help by providing a way to determine the content of strategies that best fit the internal and external conditions facing an organization. We consider two: portfolio approaches and competitive analysis.

Portfolio approaches. These approaches conceptualize strategic planning as a way of helping manage a portfolio of entities (e.g., departments, programs, projects, budget items) in a strategic way. The portfolio arrays the entities against dimensions deemed strategically significant (e.g., the desirability of doing something against the capacity to do it). The resulting array helps clarify decisions about what to do. The strength of the approach is that it helps organizations make sense of and manage the various entities for which it is, or might be, responsible. The weaknesses of the approach include the difficulty of deciding on the dimensions, arraying entities against dimensions, understanding how to fit the approach into a broader strategic planning process, and managing the politics of winners and losers. While many public organizations at least implicitly make use of portfolio approaches, we know of no studies evaluating use of the approach in a public-sector strategic planning context.

Competitive analysis. Another approach uses competitive analysis to determine some of what should be in a strategic plan. The language may be difficult for public sector organizations, since they may not see themselves as competing for customers. However, many public or quasi-public organizations are clearly in competitive environments. For example, many services in most countries have to compete at least in some ways with businesses for customers. Vining ( 2011 ) adapted Porter’s ( 1998 ) private sector five forces model for the public sector by adding political and economic considerations that are more appropriate for any public sector organization. Vining hypothesizes that organizational autonomy—which is necessary to have some control over strategy—depends on a modified set of Porter’s five forces. Vining’s adaptations include: the power of agency sponsors/customers, power of suppliers, threat of substitute products, political influence, and the intensity of rivalry between agencies. Autonomy is hypothesized to impact organizational performance but can also help organizations determine what strategies are best suited to their internal and external conditions. To the best of our knowledge, the usefulness of the model has not been tested.

In sum, there are a variety of approaches to strategic planning. In other words, it is not a single thing but rather a set of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices. These presumably need to be applied contingently in particular settings in order to produce useful outcomes. Indeed, hybrid applications that blend approaches are often or even typically found (Bryson, 2011 ; Favoreu, Carassus, Gardey, & Maurel, 2015 ).

Prominent Research Themes and Implications for Future Research

In this section, we look at a number of themes that have animated research on public-sector strategic planning. We also consider implications for future research.

What is Public-Sector Strategic Planning?

How strategic planning is defined makes a difference in how it is studied and what the results of those studies are likely to be. As noted above, there are a variety of approaches to strategic planning and there is a reasonably clear set of criteria for determining whether an approach is strategic or not. The various approaches may be viewed as generic—their ostensive aspect—but must be applied contingently in context—their performative aspect (Feldman & Pentland, 2008 , pp. 302–303). This interpretation is consistent with much of the contemporary literature in public administration and urban and regional planning. The view is at odds, however, with some of the work in the business management literature associated primarily with Mintzberg ( 1994 ) and Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 , pp. 49–84), who by definition limits strategic planning to a formalized, rigid, highly analytic, staff-driven exercise (i.e. an ostensive view). In other words, scholars in public administration and planning take a far more flexible view of what strategic planning is, based largely on studying what people do when they say they are doing strategic planning (i.e., how strategic planning is performed).

Does Strategic Planning “Work,” and How Does It Work?

Assessments of whether and how well strategic planning “works” depend on how it is defined and studied. 2 An important methodological distinction is between what Mohr ( 1982 ) calls variance studies and process studies (see also Van de Ven, 2007 ). In variance studies, public-sector strategic planning is essentially treated as a routine or practice that is a fixed object, not as a generative system comprising many interacting and changeable parts. Variance studies typically assume that strategic planning is an intermediary , to use Latour’s ( 2005 , p. 58) term, meaning the planning itself is essentially invariant and merely the transporter of a cause from inputs to outputs. Inputs, in other words, are assumed to predict outputs fairly well as long as the “transporter” is transporting.

Studies of strategic planning in government do report mixed results. Roberts ( 2000 ) and Radin ( 2006 ) are among public management scholars who have questioned the effectiveness of strategic planning in government, particularly mandated strategic planning in the US federal government. In both studies, the authors viewed strategic planning as essentially an invariant intermediary. On the other hand, the majority of variance studies of public strategic planning that have used linear regression methodologies, have found positive (though not necessarily large) effects (e.g., Borins, 1998 , 2014 ; Boyne & Gould-Williams, 2003 ; Andrews, Boyne, & Walker, 2006 ; Meier, et al., 2007 ; Andrews et al., 2012 ; Elbanna et al., 2016 ).

Structural equation modeling, which has been underused, could be helpful. This type of analysis would allow researchers to determine whether or not strategic planning improves intermediate outcomes such as, for example, communication and conflict management strategies and whether or not intermediate outcomes improve performance (e.g., Bryson & Bromiley, 1993 ). It would also allow researchers to analyze how much of the impact is direct or indirect.

Process studies, in contrast, generally assume that the key to understanding the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of strategic planning may lie in seeing it as a complex process approach to knowing and acting (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ). In the process, organizational (or multiorganizational) stakeholders engage with one another in a series of associations and performances over time to explore and ultimately agree on and implement answers to a series of Socratic questions. These include: What should we be doing? How should we do it? What purposes or goals would be served by doing it? And how can we be sure we are doing what we agreed we ought to do, and that we are achieving the effects we want?

Few studies have taken this approach. Exceptions include Wheeland ( 2004 ) and Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson ( 2009 ). The latter authors traced strategic planning as a complex cognitive, behavioral, social, and political practice in which thinking, acting, learning, and knowing matter and with which some associations are reinforced, others are created, and still others are dropped in the process of formulating and implementing strategies and plans. They showed that terms such as process steps; planners; stakeholder analyses; strategic plans; and mission, vision, goals, strategies, actions, and performance indicators are all relevant to any study of strategic planning in practice but not as rigidly defined terms. In short, these authors sought to understand how these terms are performed and what that meant for understanding strategic planning as a way of knowing that is consequential for organizational performance.

Our view is that the field will be advanced by pursuing a variety of variance and process studies. Variance studies can show in the aggregate what works and what does not. Detailed process studies, and especially comparative, longitudinal case studies, can help show how it works. In particular, much more knowledge is needed about what the actual process design features and social mechanisms are that lead to strategic planning success (or not) (Mayntz, 2004 ; Bryson, 2010 ). Barzelay and Campbell ( 2003 ), Barzelay and Jacobsen ( 2009 ) are among the few studies to actually focus on the importance of design features and social mechanisms for strategic planning.

What are the Outcomes of Strategic Planning?

Most studies of public-sector strategic planning have focused on performance outcomes, especially target achievement, efficiency, and effectiveness. In terms of these outcomes, strategic planning generally seems to have a beneficial effect. Some students have found that perceptions of improved performance are linked to strategic planning (e.g., Boyne & Gould-Williams, 2003 ; Poister & Streib, 2005 ; Ugboro, Obeng, & Spann, 2010 ). Others have avoided common source bias and perceptions of performance by connecting secondary performance measures with survey data (e.g., Andrews et al., 2009 ; Walker, Andrews, Boyne, Meier, & O’Toole, 2010 ; Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ; Elbanna, Andrews, & Pollanen, 2016 ). The findings have been mixed, but generally support a positive strategic planning-performance link.

However, as laid out by Poister, Pitts, and Edwards ( 2010 ), the link between strategic planning and performance needs further investigation. As noted, research indicates that strategic planning generally, though not always, leads to better performance. The mixed findings are likely due to a number of factors. First, performance in the public sector is notoriously hard to operationalize. This task can be very difficult in municipal and state governments, where departments and agencies have different purposes and different measures of performance. Obviously, many different types of performance should be taken into account beyond fiscal measures (Poister, 2003 ).

Second, a theoretical link between strategic planning and performance has not been well established. Poister, Edwards, and Pasha ( 2013 ) use goal setting theory originated by Locke and Latham (see Latham, 2004 ). However, this theoretical link needs more fleshing out, which leads to a third observation: there are likely to be a variety of direct and indirect links between strategic planning and performance.

Some studies have emphasized the importance of intermediate outcomes, such as participation (see earlier citations), visioning (e.g., Helling, 1998 ), situated learning (e.g., Vigar, 2006 ), and communication and conflict management strategies (e.g., Bryson & Bromiley, 1993 ). Very few studies have focused on equity, social justice, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, or the broader array of public values (Cook & Harrison, 2015 ; Beck Jorgensen & Bozeman, 2007 ). Clearly, attending to a range of outcomes and how they are produced would be very helpful.

What Contributes to Strategic Planning Success?

Research indicates that organizations can face significant barriers before and during strategic planning that can potentially outweigh any benefits. First, public sector organizations need to build the necessary capacity to do strategic planning. The skills and resources to do strategic planning in the public sector should match the complexity of the processes and practices involved (Streib & Poister, 1990 ). Necessary resources include, for example, financial capacity (Boyne, Gould-Williams, Law, & Walker, 2004 ; Wheeland, 2004 ), knowledge about strategic planning (Hendrick, 2003 ), and the capability to gather and analyze data and to judge between potential solutions (Streib & Poister, 1990 ).

Additionally, leadership of different kinds is needed in order to engage in effective strategic planning. Process sponsors have the authority, power, and resources to initiate and sustain the process. Process champions are needed to help manage the day-to-day process (Bryson, 2011 ). Transformational practices by sponsors and champions, as well as the groups they engage appears to help energize participants, enhance public service motivation, increase mission valence, and encourage performance information use (e.g., Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2013 ), all of which are important for strategic planning.

Broad participation generally can also improve the process, as well as the resulting plan by giving various stakeholders a sense of ownership and commitment. We know that different perspectives can enrich any analyses and the eventual implementation of the plan (Burby, 2003 ; Bryson, 2011 ). Several studies demonstrate that citizens can help throughout the process by educating government staff about issues and with decision making about solutions (Blair, 2004 ). Including citizens has the additional benefit of reducing citizen cynicism about government (Kissler et al., 1998 ). Likewise, employees from all levels of the organization may need to be included in strategic planning for their input and knowledge about their respective areas of the organization (Wheeland, 2004 ; Donald, Lyons, & Tribbey, 2001 ). That said, we also know that there is great variation in how stakeholders are included, and at least two studies show that participation of key stakeholders (internal and external) often remains shallow and elitist (Vigar, 2006 ; Vidyarthi et al., 2013 ). Moreover, inclusion and broad stakeholder participation may not always make sense (Thomas, 1995 ). There do not seem to be any strategic planning studies indicating when it might be advisable not to include stakeholders in public-sector strategic planning, but one hopes such studies will be forthcoming.

Finally, integration with other strategic management practices can improve strategic planning. Poister ( 2010 ) writes that integrating strategic planning and performance management more closely will likely improve performance and decision making about planning. For example, Kissler et al. ( 1998 ) found that this link improved the strategic plan for the US state of Ohio because planners had a better idea of where the state stood in terms of social and financial performance. Plan implementation also improved because plan progress was linked to measurable outcomes making it easier to monitor progress. However, performance is not the only area for integration. It is also known that strategic planning should be integrated with budgeting, human resource management, and information technology management, although exactly how is unclear. One survey of local government practices in the United States found that many governments do some integration between strategic planning and other resource management practices but are not very sophisticated in how they do it (Poister & Streib, 2005 ). That said, there is evidence that strategic planning can help inform budgetary and human capital allocation (Berry & Wechsler, 1995 , 2010).

Conclusions and an Agenda for Future Research

Strategic planning in the public sector increasingly has been institutionalized as a common practice at all levels of government in the United States and several other countries. There is also reasonable agreement on what it means to be strategic when it comes to planning. There is also reasonably good evidence that public-sector strategic planning generally helps produce desirable outcomes and good research that provides the beginnings of an understanding of why and how that is so.

It is important to realize, however, that public-sector strategic planning is a set of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices that must be applied sensitively and contingently in specific situations if the presumed benefits of strategic planning are to be realized. In other words, there are a variety of generic approaches to strategic planning, the boundaries between them are not necessarily clear, and strategic planning in practice typically is a hybrid. In addition, it is unclear how best to conceptualize context and match processes to context in order to produce desirable outcomes. For example, should context be viewed as a backdrop for action or as actually constitutive of action (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 , pp. 121–165)?

These observations lead to a fairly robust research agenda for the field. A list of important questions includes at least the following (see also Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; George & Desmidt, 2014 ):

What are the important dimensions of internal and external context that make a difference for strategic planning, and which approaches are likely to work best, given the context? In what ways do internal and external stability or change in these dimensions make a difference? Of particular interest, what are or should be the links between public-sector strategic planning and politics, partisan and otherwise?

What difference does it make whether strategic planning is applied to organizations, subunits of organizations, cross-boundary functions, collaborations, or places?

How should the approach to strategic planning vary depending on the policy field in which it is applied and kind of issue being addressed? For example, what difference does it make if the policy area is education, health, public safety, transportation, or something else (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015 )? What difference does it make if the issues are simple, complicated, complex, or wicked (Patton, 2011 )?

What kinds of resources (e.g., leadership, facilitation, staffing, technical support, political support, and competencies and skills) are needed for strategic planning to be effective?

What are the ways in which participation by internal and external stakeholders make a difference? In other words, in which circumstances do which kinds of participation, by which kinds of stakeholders, and for which purposes make a difference?

What difference do the various artifacts (e.g., mission, vision, and goal statements; strategic plans; background studies; performance measurements; evaluations) related to strategic planning make?

What are or should be the connections both theoretically and practically between the various approaches to strategic planning and the other elements of strategic management systems, such as budgeting, human resources management, information technology, performance measurement, and implementation?

Finally, research questions should be pursued through research methodologies that conceptualize strategic planning in a variety of ways. As noted, public-sector strategic planning is not a single entity. Useful findings about strategic planning have come via multiple methodologies, including cross-sectional and longitudinal quantitative research, qualitative single and comparative case studies, and content analyses of plans. These studies have conceptualized strategic planning in a variety of ways, including as questions with Likert-scale answers, and as processes, practices, artifacts, and ways of knowing. The variety in methodologies is useful, as each helps reveal different things about strategic planning. Given the ubiquity of public-sector strategic planning, additional insights into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, are likely to be helpful for advancing public purposes.

• Ackermann, F. , & Eden, C. (2011). Making strategy: Mapping out strategic success . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Albrechts, L. , & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans. disP—The Planning Review , 49 (3), 16–27.
• Albrechts, L. , Balducci, A. , & Hillier, J. (Eds.). (2016). Situated practices of strategic planning . New York: Routledge.
• Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis . Boston: Little, Brown.
• Andrews, K. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy (Rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2009). Strategy formulation, strategy content, and performance. Public Management Review , 11 (1), 1–22.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2012). Strategic management and public service performance . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , & Walker, R. M. (2006). Strategy content and organizational performance: An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review , 66 (1), 52–63.
• Balducci, A. , Fedeli, V. , & Pasqui, G. (2011). Strategic planning for contemporary urban regions . Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
• Barzelay, M. , & Campbell, C. (2003). Preparing for the future: Strategic planning in the U. S. air force . Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Barzelay, M. , & Jacobsen, A. S. (2009). Theorizing implementation of public management policy reforms: A case study of strategic planning and programming in the European Commission. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions , 22 (2), 319–334.
• Beck Jorgensen, T. , & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration and Society, 39 (3), 354–381.
• Behn, R. D. (1988). Management by groping along. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 7 (4), 643–663.
• Berry, F. S. , & Wechsler, B. (1995). State agencies’ experience with strategic planning: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review , 54 (4), 322–330.
• Bingham, L. B. , Nabatchi, T. , & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review , 65 (5), 547–558.
• Blair, R. (2004). Public participation and community development: The role of strategic planning. Public Administration Quarterly , 28 (1–2), 102–147.
• Borins, S. (1998). Lessons from the new public management in commonwealth nations. International Public Management Journal , 1 (1), 37–58.
• Borins, S. (2014). The persistence of innovation in government . Washington, DC: Brookings.
• Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review , 67 (5), 846–860.
• Bower, J. , Barlett, C. , Chrisensen, C. , & Pearson, J. (1991). Business policy: Texts and cases . Homewood, IL: Irwin.
• Boyne, G. A. , & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2003). Planning and performance in public organizations. Public Management Review , 5 (1), 115–132.
• Boyne, G. A. , Gould-Williams, J. S. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2004). Problems of rational planning in public organizations. Administration and Society , 36 (3), 328–350.
• Brody, S. D. , Godschalk, D. R. , & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association , 69 (3), 245–264.
• Bryson, J. M. (2002). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit purposes. In N. Smelser (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 15, 145–115, 151). Oxford: Pergamon.
• Bryson, J. M. (2010). The future of public and nonprofit strategic planning in the United States. Public Administration Review , 70 (s1), s255–s267.
• Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bryson, J. M. (2015). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2d ed., pp. 515–521). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Bryson, J. M. , Berry, F. S. , & Yang, K. (2010). The state of strategic management research: A selective literature review and set of future directions. American Review of Public Administration , 40 (5), 495–521.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects. Strategic Management Journal , 14 (5), 319–337.
• Bryson, J. M. , Cunningham, G. L. , & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of Hennepin County, Minnesota, Public Administration Review , 62 (5), 568–584.
• Bryson, J. M. , Crosby, B. C. , & Bryson, J. K. (2009). Understanding strategic planning and the formulation and implementation of strategic plans as a way of knowing: The contributions of actor-network theory. International Public Management Journal , 12 (2), 172–207.
• Bryson, J. M. , Crosby, B. C. , & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaboration—needed and challenging. Public Administration Review , 75 (5), 647–663.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Roering, W. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector. Journal of the American Planning Association , 53 (1), 9–22.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Slotterback, C. S. (2016). Strategic spatial planning in the USA. In L. Albrechts , A. Balducci , & J. Hillier (Eds.), Situated practices of strategic planning . New York: Routledge.
• Buckwalter, N. D. (2014). The potential for public empowerment through government-organized participation. Public Administration Review , 74 (5), 573–584.
• Burby, R. J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association , 69 (1), 33–49.
• Chakraborty, A. , Kaza, N. , Knaap, G. , & Deal, B. (2011). Robust plans and contingent plans. Journal of the American Planning Association , 77 (3), 251–266.
• Christensen, K. S. (1999). Cities and complexity . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Christensen, T. , & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review , 67 (6), 1059–1066.
• Clarke, A. , & Fuller, M. (2010). Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics , 94 (1), 85–101.
• Conroy, M. M. , & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good sustainable development plan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development. Environment and Planning A , 36 (8), 1381–1396.
• Cook, M. , & Harrison, T. M. (2015). Using public value thinking for government IT planning and decision making: A case study. Information Polity , 20 (2–3), 183–197.
• Deyle, R. , & Wiedenman, R. E. (2014). Collaborative planning by metropolitan planning organizations: A test of a causal theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 34 (3), 257–275.
• DiMaggio P. J. , & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review , 48 (2), 147–160.
• Donald, C. G. , Lyons, T. S. , & Tribbey, R. C. (2001). A partnership for strategic planning and management in a public organization. Public Performance and Management Review , 25 (2), 176–193.
• Eadie, D. C. (1983). Putting a powerful tool to practical us: The application of strategic planning in the public sector. Public Administration Review , 43 (5), 447–452.
• Edelenbos, J. , & Klijn, E.-H. (2005). Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 16 , 417–446.
• Elbanna, S. , Andrews, R. , & Pollanen, R. (2016). Strategic planning and implementation success in public service organizations. Public Management Review , 18 (7), 1017–1042.
• Emerson, K. , & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes. Public Performance and Management Review , 38 (4), 717–747.
• Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). The power of framing . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Favoreu, C. , Carassus, D. , Gardey, D , & Maurel, C. (2015). Performance management in the local public sector in France: An administrative rather than a political model. International Review of Administrative Sciences , 81 (4), 672–693.
• Feldman, M. S. , & Pentland, B. T. (2008). Routine dynamics. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization . London: SAGE.
• Ferlie, E. , & Ongaro, E. (2015). Strategic management in public sector organizations: Concepts, schools, and contemporary issues . New York: Routledge.
• Freedman, L. (2013). Strategy: A history . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Boston: Pittman Publishing.
• Friend, J. , & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach (3d ed.). Oxford: Heinemann.
• George, B. , & Desmidt, S. (2014). A state of research on strategic management in the public sector. In P. Joyce & A. Drumaux (Eds.), Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives (pp. 151–172). New York: Routledge.
• Gilmour, J. B. , & Lewis, D. E. (2006). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration and Theory , 16 (2), 169–186.
• Gomes, R. C. , Liddle, J. , & Gomes, L. O. M. (2010). A five-sided model of stakeholder influence: A cross-national analysis of decision making in local government. Public Management Review , 12 (5), 701–724.
• Gray, B. , Purdy, J. M. , & Ansani, S. S. (2015). From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of Management Review , 40 (1), 115–148.
• Hansen, J. R. , & Ferlie, E. (2016). Applying strategic management theories in public sector organizations: Developing a typology. Public Management Review , 18 (1), 1–19.
• Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Evaluating the results of Atlanta’s Vision 2020 project. Journal of the American Planning Association , 64 (3), 335–349.
• Hendrick, R. (2003). Strategic planning environment, process, and performance in public agencies: A comparative study of departments in Milwaukee. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 13 (4), 491–519.
• Huxham, C. , & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate . New York: Routledge.
• Ingman, D. , Kersten, J. , & Brymer, T. (2002). Strategic planning that uses an integrated approach. Public Management , 84 (4), 16–18.
• Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association , 62 (4), 460–472.
• Innes, J. E. , & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality . New York: Routledge.
• Jimenez, B. S. (2013). Strategic planning and the fiscal performance of city governments during the great recession. American Review of Public Administration , 43 (5), 581–601.
• Joyce, P. , & Drumaux, A. (Eds.). (2014). Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives . New York: Routledge.
• Kaufman, J. L. , & Jacobs, H. M. (1987). A planning perspective on strategic planning. Journal of American Planning Association , 53 (1), 23–33.
• Kettl, D. J. (2013). Politics of the administrative process (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
• Kissler, G. R. , Fore, K. N. , Jacobson, W. S. , & Kittredge, W. P. (1998). State strategic planning: Suggestions from the Oregon experience. Public Administration Review , 58 (4), 353–359.
• Latham, G. P. (2004). The motivational benefits of goal-setting. Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005) , 18 (4), 126–129.
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Legacy, C. (2012). Achieving legitimacy through deliberative plan-making processes—Lessons for metropolitan strategic planning. Planning Theory and Practice , 13 (1), 71–87.
• Light, P. C. (1998). Tides of reform . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Loh, C. G. (2012). Four potential disconnects in the community planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 31 (1), 33–47.
• Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 34 (2). 237–259.
• McKinnon, R. (2010). An ageing workforce and strategic human resource management: Staffing challenges for social security administrations the ageing of social security administration workforces. International Social Security Review , 63 (3–4), 91–113.
• Meier, K. J. , O’Toole, L. J. Jr. , Boyne, G. A. , & Walker, R. M. (2007). Strategic management and the performance of public organizations. Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 17 (1), 357–377.
• Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review , 72 (1), 107–114.
• Mintzberg, H. , Ahlstrand, B. , & Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy safari (2d ed.). Philadelphia: Trans-Atlantic Publications.
• Mintzberg, H. , & Water, J. (1985). On strategies: Deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal , 6 , 257–272.
• Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform . Public Administration Review , 66 (1), 77–89.
• Moynihan, D. P. (2013). The new federal performance management system : Implementing the Government Performance Modernization Act . Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
• Moynihan, D. P. , & Kroll, A. (2016). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Administration Review , 76 (2), 314–323.
• Moynihan, D. P. , Pandey, S. K. , & Wright, B. E. (2013). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Empirical evidence of its effects. In Y. K. Dwivedi , M. A. Shareef , S. K. Pandey , & V. Kumar (Eds.), Public administration reformation: Market demand from public organizations (pp. 87–104). New York: Routledge.
• Neshkova, M. I. , & Guo, H. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 22 , 267–288.
• Nutt, P. C. , & Backoff, R. W. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector organizations: A handbook for leaders . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Nutt, P. C. , & Backoff, R. W. (1993). Organizational publicness and its implications for strategic management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 3 (2), 209–231.
• Osborne, S. P. , & Brown, L. (2012). Managing public-sector innovation (2d ed.). London: Routledge.
• Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation. New York: Guildford.
• Percoco, M. (2016). Strategic planning and institutional collective action in Italian cities. Public Management Review , 18 (1), 139–158.
• Page, S. B. , Stone, M. M. , Bryson, J. M. , & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A theory and challenges of assessment. Public Administration , 93 (3), 715–732.
• Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making . London: Tavistock.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Poister, T. H. (2005). Strategic planning and management in state departments of public transportation. International Journal of Public Administration , 28 (13–14), 1035–1056.
• Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review , 70 (s1), s246–s254.
• Poister, T. H. , Edwards, L. H. , & Pasha, O. (2013). The impact of strategic planning on organizational outcomes. Public Performance and Management Review , 36 (4), 585–615.
• Poister, T. H. , Pitts, D. , & Edwards, L. H. (2010). Strategic management research in the public sector: Synthesis, assessment, and future directions. American Review of Public Administration , 40 (4), 522–545.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (1994). Municipal management tools from 1976–1993: An overview and update. Public Productivity and Management Review , 18 (2), 115–125.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (1999). Strategic management in the public sector: Concepts, models, and processes. Public Productivity and Management Review , 22 (3), 308–325.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review , 65 (1), 45–56.
• Poister, T. H. , Thomas, J. C. , & Berryman, A. F. (2013). Reaching out to stakeholders; The Georgia DOT 360-degree assessment model. Public Performance and Management Review , 37 (2), 301–328.
• Pollitt, C. , & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis; New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Porter, M. (1998). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance . New York: Free Press.
• Quick, Kathryn S. (2015). Locating and building collective leadership and impact. leadership .
• Quinn, J. B. (1978). Strategic change: “Logical incremenaltism.” Sloan Management Review , 20 (1), 7–21.
• Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism . Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
• Quinn, J. B. (1982). Managing strategies incrementally. International Journal of Management Science , 10 (6), 613–627.
• Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Roberts, N. (2000). The synoptic model of strategic planning and the GPRA: Lacking a good fit with the political context. Public Productivity and Management Review , 23 (3), 297–311.
• Sandfort, J. , & Moulton, S. (2015). Effective implementation in practice: Integrating public policy and management . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Streib, G. , & Poister, T. H. (1990). Strategic planning in U.S. cities: Patterns of use, perceptions of effectiveness, and an assessment of strategic capacity. American Review of Public Administration , 20 (1), 29–44.
• Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance; organizational and service improvement in the public domain. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Tama, J. (2015). The politics of strategy: Why government agencies conduct major strategic reviews. Journal of Public Policy , 37 (1), 27–54.
• Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in decision making: New skills and strategies for public managers . San Francisco: John Wiley.
• Ugboro, I. O. , Obeng, K. , & Spann, O. (2010). Strategic planning as an effective tool of strategic management in public sector organizations: Evidence from public transit organizations. Administration and Society , 43 (1), 87–123.
• Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Vidyarthi, S. , Hoch, C. , & Basmajian, C. (2013). Making sense of India’s spatial plan-making practice: Enduring approach or emergent variations. Planning Theory and Practice , 14 (1), 57–74.
• Vigar, G. (2006). Deliberation, participation, and learning in the development of regional strategies: Transport policy making in North East England. Planning Theory and Practice , 7 (3), 267–287.
• Vining, A. R. (2011). Public agency external analysis using a modified “five forces” framework. International Public Management Journal , 14 (1), 63–105.
• Walker, R. M. , Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Meier, K. J. , & O’Toole, L. J. (2010). Wakeup call: Strategic management, network alarms, and performance. Public Administration Review , 70 (5), 731–741.
• Wheeland, C. M. (1993). Citywide strategic planning: An evaluation of Rock Hill’s empowering vision. Public Administration Review , 53 (1), 65–72.
• Wheeland, C. M. (2004). Empowering the vision: Community-wide strategic planning in Rock Hill, South Carolina . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

1. The next three paragraphs are drawn from Bryson ( 2011 ).

2. This section draws heavily on Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson ( 2009 ).

Related Articles

• The New Public Management and Public Management Studies
• Bureaucracy to Post-Bureaucracy: The Consequences of Political Failures

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 31 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|162.248.224.4]
• 162.248.224.4

Character limit 500 /500

What is Strategic Planning? Definition, Importance, Model, Process and Examples

By Paul VanZandt

Published on: February 2, 2023

Table of Contents

What is Strategic Planning?

Importance and benefits of strategic planning, strategic planning models, strategic planning process: 6 key steps, what makes an effective strategic plan example, strategic planning example.

Strategic planning is defined as a pivotal organizational endeavor, meticulously charting the mission, goals, and objectives over a strategic timeframe, typically spanning 2-5 years. This comprehensive roadmap takes into meticulous consideration the current organizational landscape, navigating through the intricacies of prevailing legislation, the dynamic business environment, product portfolios, departmental dynamics, and the judicious allocation of budget resources. By weaving together these critical elements, a strategic plan becomes a guiding compass, steering the organization towards its vision with adaptability and foresight.

Strategic planning first entered business environments in the post-war period of the 1950s, and has been so effective that it is still widely used and applied across organizational spectrums, including non-profits.

While a strategic plan is the final outcome of the strategic planning process, here are the key factors and components that feed into creating this plan:

• Profitability and balance sheet management

For any business, profitability and the adjacent balance sheet management is and always should be a key factor to be taken into consideration during strategic planning, depending on the size of the business. Both these factors are in fact co-dependent. For example, one of the key outcomes of a strategic plan is to set the revenue growth percentage to be achieved each year for, say, 3 years. This in turn will require an evaluation of the balance sheet, including any debt payments, dividend payout, shareholder expectations, etc.

Even if the business is a startup and is rich with investor cash to spend in acquiring customers in the short to medium term, it is still aspiring to be profitable and must lay out a larger strategic path to profitability.

• SWOT analysis outcomes

Strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats – these are the outcomes and full terms of the abbreviated term, SWOT analysis. Strength refers to the business factors that indicate key factors that are contributing to the achievement of business outcomes. These may be factors related to sales, employee and talent retention, software stack, business efficiency, etc. Similarly, weakness refers to factors that are holding back the growth and achievement of business outcomes, such as poor margins, lack of company data management, employee attrition, etc.

Opportunity refers to areas in the business environment that the business can potentially explore. For example, one of the opportunities identified could be sales in a new market, implementing a better human resources management model, branching into new products and/ or services, etc.

• Operations management

Operations management pertains to the cohesive movement of all moving and communicating parts to produce the company’s products or services. While creating a strategic business plan, management needs to take into account how each department and team will need to interact with each other to produce the results desired as outcomes in the strategic plan. This includes ensuring the right technology stack needed for each team including communication and collaboration technology needed for remote and on-premise task execution.

• Human resource management

Strategic planning involves taking into account all aspects of HR and employee-related spending and policies. One of the key aspects of a strategic plan must be to ensure a harmonious work experience for employees such that it increases employee retention and helps build an environment that enhances employee productivity and workplace satisfaction.

A strategic plan is more than just a business tool, it also plays a key role in defining operational, cultural, and workplace ethics. Here are some of the key aspects of the importance of strategic planning:

1. Provides a unified goal

A strategic plan is like a unified action plan for the whole company in order to achieve common outcomes. For example, a strategic plan to achieve a certain revenue growth each year requires sales, account management, product development, and marketing teams to work together to ensure a seamless lead pipeline, customer upsells and account retention, meet customer expectations, etc.

2. Adds to management transparency

Strategic planning is more than just for direct business growth, it also helps shine clarity to employees and shareholders as to what their mid-to-long-term objectives are and how their actions are derived from these larger goals. Such a plan must always be referenced for citation and justification for key business moves and decisions to make it apparently justified and based on logic and reason. This also encourages team leads and employees to in turn be more transparent with their team members and peers with their plans and goals.

One of the issues most dreaded by investors and employees alike is management that seems to make random decisions without any clear guidance on how they help meet requirements for the final business objectives or tackle the challenges of the day. A strategic plan helps build investor and employee confidence in the management and adds to building a culture of transparency in day-to-day business operations.

3. Identifies hidden strengths and weaknesses

Many strengths and weaknesses in a company may be contributing, yet hidden factors in the path to meeting or hindering the meeting of business goals. A strategic plan’s primary input is a SWOT analysis of the company, which is conducted by auditing the firm to recognize and list strengths and weaknesses within the company. These may be a competitive product, a better monetization model, a weak employee incentive policy, etc.

The important step here is the actual deep analysis and listing down of these strengths and weaknesses and how they can be leveraged or minimized.

4. Leads to better financial health

A company with a clear strategic plan is able to better plan expenses and set the right expectations on return on investment (ROI). It takes into account balance sheets, profitability, accounting and expense management, all of which contribute to better bookkeeping and financial health of the company.

5. Improves management-employee relations

Employees and teams work in silos when the management works in silos. But when a company shares a strategic plan with employees and lays out exactly how each team will be working towards contributing to this larger plan, it gives each team and its members a sense of belonging and importance within the larger company, In today’s environment of hybrid or remote work cultures, it is a key step to ensuring that the company remains cohesive and collaborative in getting work done and meeting final objectives.

Learn more: What is Tactical Planning?

Strategic planning inputs may require one of many of the following business analysis models:

• SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis is the process and visual template for identifying and listing a company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. These are cornerstone considerations for any leadership team and play a key role in the strategic planning process.

• Business model canvas

A business model canvas is a process used to identify and represent existing business models of an enterprise and develop new models to better meet company goals and objectives. Like SWOT analysis, the business model canvas is also a standard business template.

• PESTEL analysis

PESTEL is an abbreviation for political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal, and PESTEL analysis aims to identify the impact of these external factors on a business.

• Cost-benefit analysis

A cost-benefit analysis is a method of evaluating an investment in the business based on the benefits it would bring to the table. This is a good method for ensuring a healthy financial balance sheet where spending and budgeting are carefully analyzed to ensure only those investments bring back reasonable ROI.

Most companies have 2 or more product/service streams or even 2 or more businesses. A BCG matrix is a visual process of managing an enterprise’s portfolio by prioritizing profitable companies with good market share and growth.

An effective strategic planning process requires the following key steps:

1. Identify core business objectives

Strategic planning begins with first identifying your business objectives- what does it produce? What does it do better than the competition? What is the quality-profitability balance? These are examples of the questions that need to be asked to identify core business objectives. The strategic planning tools can be applied at any stage of the planning process to help answer these questions.

2. Identify the objectives of each department

Once the core business objective is ready, it needs to trickle down to an execution plan that involves each department. This in turn will result in breaking down of the core objectives into smaller objectives for the teams. This needs to be laid out with clarity and precision since the team leaders will further use this team goal to assign individual targets for members.

3. Identify potential roadblocks

Before formulating the final strategy, it is important to discuss it with relevant leaders in the company to ensure an error-free process that is achievable with minimal roadblocks. Of course, as the execution work begins, the management should be flexible enough to absorb unforeseen and small issues that are inevitable. The goal here is to avoid any big boulders which may cripple the strategy at a later stage, such as data security, pricing estimations, hiring new employees or expansion to new departments/ teams, investment in new product development, mergers and acquisition plans, etc.

4. Formulate the final strategy

Once the objectives and goals have been scanned for potential roadblocks and alterations/ safeguards have been accommodated, this is the first draft of the final strategic plan for the company. This strategy may be applicable for the foreseeable future or have a specific deadline, it should however be pulled up for revision annually. Small companies or startups who have much to learn on the way, need to keep an active eye on the larger strategy based on changing business realities.

5. Re-evaluate based on feedback

Before you iron out the processes and policies that will enable the execution of the new strategic plan of the company, it is important to hear back from your employees. This doesn’t have to be every single employee, especially if you have a large team, but to the extent possible. You may at first discuss the strategy with team leaders, who if needed, may take it further down the chain to their own team members and absorb their feedback. Complete agreement may not be possible, but it is important that both sides remain flexible while discussions are on but must be prepared to execute once the discussions are over.

6. Set or revise adjacent policies and processes

Now that the strategic plan for the business is complete and sealed, the leadership team needs to start the execution with necessary changes to the processes and policies as the need may be. This may need to include data management process changes, technology stack updates, issue escalation matrix, etc. In some cases, it may not require any change, and the right processes may already be in place with just a new direction based on the strategic plan.

Learn more: What is SWOT Analysis Framework?

Crafting a good example of a strategic plan involves several key elements. Here’s a breakdown of what makes a strategic plan exemplary:

• Clear Mission Statement: A strong strategic plan starts with a clear and concise mission statement that defines the organization’s purpose and the value it aims to provide.
• SMART Objectives: The plan should include specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) objectives. This ensures that goals are well-defined and actionable.
• Environmental Analysis: A good strategic plan conducts a thorough analysis of the internal and external environment, taking into account strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). This provides a foundation for strategic decision-making.
• Alignment with Vision: The plan should clearly articulate how each objective contributes to the overall vision of the organization. There should be a cohesive alignment between the strategic goals and the long-term vision.
• Resource Allocation: Effective resource allocation is crucial. The plan should outline how financial, human, and other resources will be distributed to support the strategic goals.
• Actionable Steps: Each objective should be broken down into actionable steps or initiatives. This helps in practical implementation and provides a roadmap for achieving the goals.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: A good strategic plan includes mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Key performance indicators (KPIs) should be defined, and regular assessments should be conducted to track progress.
• Flexibility and Adaptability: The plan should acknowledge the dynamic nature of business environments. Flexibility and adaptability are essential to adjust strategies in response to changes in the internal or external landscape.
• Communication Strategy: A strategic plan should include a communication strategy to ensure that stakeholders are well-informed about the goals, progress, and any adjustments made to the plan.
• Inclusivity: Involving key stakeholders in the strategic planning process fosters a sense of ownership and commitment. A good plan considers input from various departments, employees, and external partners.
• Risk Management: Anticipating and addressing potential risks is a vital aspect of a strategic plan. Contingency plans should be in place to mitigate unforeseen challenges.
• Continuous Improvement: A strategic plan should not be static. There should be a commitment to continuous improvement, with regular reviews and updates to ensure its relevance and effectiveness.

By incorporating these elements into your example of a strategic plan, you can demonstrate a comprehensive and thoughtful approach to organizational planning, which may resonate well with both practitioners and those seeking to understand the principles of strategic planning.

A strategic plan is a detailed document that outlines an organization’s goals, objectives, and the actions required to achieve them. While the specific details of a strategic plan will vary depending on the organization, its industry, and its unique circumstances, here’s an example of a strategic plan for a fictional company:

Company: Visionary Tech Solutions (VTS)

Mission Statement: “To empower businesses through innovative technology solutions, fostering growth and sustainability in an ever-evolving digital landscape.”

Strategic Goals: Presented below are ten strategic goals that serve as excellent examples to enhance the functionality of a company.

1. Market Leadership in Tech Solutions:

Objective: Capture a 20% increase in market share within the next three years.

Action Steps:

• Launch two new cutting-edge products catering to emerging market demands.
• Strengthen strategic partnerships with key industry players.
• Implement aggressive marketing campaigns highlighting VTS’s technological prowess.

2. Operational Efficiency:

Objective: Improve operational efficiency by 15% over the next two years.

• Streamline internal processes through the implementation of advanced project management tools.
• Invest in employee training programs to enhance skills and productivity.
• Conduct regular process audits for continuous improvement.

3. Customer-Centric Innovation:

Objective: Introduce at least three customer-centric innovations annually.

• Establish a dedicated R&D team focused on anticipating and addressing customer needs.
• Implement customer feedback loops to gather insights for product enhancements.
• Launch a customer loyalty program to foster long-term relationships.

4. Global Expansion:

Objective: Expand operations to two new international markets within the next four years.

• Conduct thorough market research to identify viable expansion opportunities.
• Establish local partnerships to navigate regulatory and cultural nuances.
• Develop customized marketing strategies tailored to each target market.

5. Resource Allocation:

Budget allocation:

• 30% for research and development.
• 25% for marketing and promotional activities.
• 20% for employee training and development.
• 15% for operational improvements.
• 10% for international expansion initiatives.

6. Monitoring and Evaluation:

• Quarterly performance reviews with key performance indicators (KPIs) tracked against predefined targets.
• Annual comprehensive evaluation of the strategic plan’s effectiveness and adjustments as needed.

7. Communication Strategy:

• Regular updates through internal newsletters, town hall meetings, and an interactive company intranet.
• External communication through press releases, social media updates, and a dedicated section on the company website.

8. Risk Management:

• Identification of potential risks such as technological disruptions, market fluctuations, and geopolitical challenges.
• Development of contingency plans and regular risk assessments.

9. Inclusivity:

• Cross-functional teams involved in the strategic planning process, ensuring diverse perspectives and expertise.

10. Continuous Improvement:

• Commitment to regular reviews and updates to the strategic plan based on industry trends, technological advancements, and feedback from stakeholders.

This example of a strategic plan for Visionary Tech Solutions outlines a roadmap that integrates the company’s mission, strategic goals, resource allocation, monitoring mechanisms, and a commitment to adaptability and continuous improvement. Adjustments should be made as needed based on ongoing evaluations and changes in the business environment.

Learn more: What is Enterprise Planning?

IdeaScale Whiteboard

Turn abstract ideas into visual and actionable plans

Enhance Your Ideas Visually With Your IdeaScale Whiteboard!

IdeaScale is an innovation management solution that inspires people to take action on their ideas. Your community’s ideas can change lives, your business and the world. Connect to the ideas that matter and start co-creating the future.

Copyright © 2024 IdeaScale

Privacy Overview

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Strategic planning

• Strategy formulation

Reimagining the Balanced Scorecard for the ESG Era

• Robert S. Kaplan
• David McMillan
• February 03, 2021

Strategies to Crack Well-Guarded Markets

• David J. Bryce
• Jeffrey H. Dyer
• From the May 2007 Issue

Every CEO Should Write an Annual Memo to the Board

• Anthony K. Tjan
• November 12, 2009

Managing for the Long Term

• Joseph L. Bower
• Lynn S. Paine
• Sarah Cliffe
• Dominic Barton
• James Manyika
• Sarah Keohane Williamson
• From the May–June 2017 Issue

The Forecasting Sweet Spot Between Micro and Macro

• Jeremy Bartlow
• August 26, 2016

Can a Tiny Hedge Fund Push ExxonMobil Towards Sustainability?

• Robert G. Eccles
• Colin Mayer
• January 20, 2021

The Different Approaches Firms Use to Set Strategy

• Raffaella Sadun
• April 10, 2017

Fast Heat: How Korea Won the Microwave War

• Ira C. Magaziner
• Mark Patinkin
• From the January–February 1989 Issue

Coupling Strategy to Operating Plans

• John M. Hobbs
• Donald F. Heany
• From the May 1977 Issue

Leading for Value

• Brian Pitman
• From the April 2003 Issue

CFOs and Strategists: Forging a Common Framework

• Alfred Rappaport
• From the May–June 1992 Issue

Link Manufacturing Process and Product Life Cycles

• Robert H. Hayes
• Steven C. Wheelwright
• From the January 1979 Issue

Trend to Watch: Shifting Consumption Patterns

• Eric Beinhocker & Elizabeth St
• August 27, 2009

The Two Choices to Make in Strategy

• Roger Martin
• January 29, 2013

Crowded Places Make People Think More About the Future

• Alison Beard
• From the July–August 2017 Issue

The Strategic Side Gig

• Orlan Boston
• From the May–June 2020 Issue

The Innovation Value Chain

• Adrian Beggan
• April 01, 2011

Climate Business/Business Climate

• Michael E. Porter
• Forest L. Reinhardt
• Peter Schwartz
• Daniel C. Esty
• Alyson Slater
• Christina Bortz
• Andrew J. Hoffman
• Auden Schendler
• Vicki Bakhshi
• Alexis Krajeski
• Theodore Roosevelt
• John Llewellyn
• Maria Emilia Correa
• Britta Rendlen
• From the October 2007 Issue

How to Design a Strategic Planning System

• Peter Lorange
• Richard F. Vancil
• From the September 1976 Issue

A Better Way to Set Strategic Priorities

• Derek Lidow
• February 13, 2017

Evolving Kiva's Impact: Introduction of Kiva Labs and Kiva Zip

• Sabrina C. Manville
• Russell Siegelman
• April 05, 2014

Aiding or Abetting? The World Bank and the 1997 Judicial Reform Project

• Kirsten Lundberg
• Philip Heymann
• March 31, 2005

Zee Entertainment and Essel Group: A Quest for Legacy and Beyond (A)

• Nandil Bhatia
• Kavil Ramachandran
• November 30, 2020

R&D Management at Universal Luxury Group - Perfumes and Cosmetics Division (A)

• Cyrille Balmes
• Manuel Sosa
• July 01, 2005

Shell: A Company of Opportunity?

• Joseph B. Fuller
• Emer Moloney
• September 12, 2019

Reshaping Apple Computer's Destiny--1992 (Abridged), Supplement I

• Clayton M. Christensen
• Tara Donovan
• April 11, 2000

Argentina's Telecommunications Industry and the Economic Crisis of 2002

• Jose Gomez-Ibanez
• Santiago Urbiztondo
• December 16, 2002

BlueOrchard Finance: Connecting Microfinance to Capital Markets

• Jean-Philippe de Schrevel
• Jay K. Rosengard
• June 01, 2004

"GEnron"? Markopolos versus General Electric (B)

• Jonas Heese
• May 03, 2021

BiC Pen Corp. (A)

• C. Roland Christensen
• Elizabeth L. Rachal
• April 01, 1974

Marriott International: Hospitality's Uncertain Future

• Jared D. Harris
• Scott Snell
• Katharine Harrison
• October 04, 2022

R&D Management at Universal Luxury Group - Perfumes and Cosmetics Division (B)

Polaroid-kodak (b2).

• January 01, 1978

paREDI: Regional Economic Development and Strategic Planning

• Gina Grandy
• W. Glenn Rowe
• December 03, 2014

RBC Investments: Portfolio Planning Initiative

• Derrick Neufeld
• April 11, 2005

HBR Guide to Setting Your Strategy

• Harvard Business Review
• August 11, 2020

KITEA (B): Getting Ready to Face IKEA

• Ramon Casadesus-Masanell
• Gamze Yucaoglu
• March 18, 2019

MGM Mirage's Bid for Mandalay Resort Group (A): Communicating During the Merger Process

• Gregory S. Miller
• Michael D. Kimbrough
• August 23, 2004

Lyric Dinner Theater (A)

• Richard G. Hamermesh
• James M. Sharpe
• July 26, 2012

Guidant Corp.: Shaping Culture Through Systems

• Robert Simons
• Antonio Davila
• April 01, 1998

Frank Cornelissen: The Great Sulfite Debate (A) & (B), Teaching Note

• Tiona Zuzul
• January 31, 2024

Finding New Markets for New and Disruptive Technologies: Managing Innovation, Overview Teaching Note for Module 2

• April 01, 1999

Transforming Business and Career with the BSC

• March 15, 2002

Enhancing Mining Sector Sustainability with AI

• Mark Hollingworth
• June 26, 2023

Focusing Your Organization on Strategy--with the Balanced Scorecard, 3rd Edition (HBR Article Collection)

• David P. Norton
• October 01, 2005

Popular Topics

Partner center.

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

How to Set Strategic Planning Goals

• 29 Oct 2020

In an ever-changing business world, it’s imperative to have strategic goals and a plan to guide organizational efforts. Yet, crafting strategic goals can be a daunting task. How do you decide which goals are vital to your company? Which ones are actionable and measurable? Which goals to prioritize?

To help you answer these questions, here’s a breakdown of what strategic planning is, what characterizes strategic goals, and how to select organizational goals to pursue.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Strategic Planning?

Strategic planning is the ongoing organizational process of using available knowledge to document a business's intended direction. This process is used to prioritize efforts, effectively allocate resources, align shareholders and employees, and ensure organizational goals are backed by data and sound reasoning.

Research in the Harvard Business Review cautions against getting locked into your strategic plan and forgetting that strategy involves inherent risk and discomfort. A good strategic plan evolves and shifts as opportunities and threats arise.

“Most people think of strategy as an event, but that’s not the way the world works,” says Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen in the online course Disruptive Strategy . “When we run into unanticipated opportunities and threats, we have to respond. Sometimes we respond successfully; sometimes we don’t. But most strategies develop through this process. More often than not, the strategy that leads to success emerges through a process that’s at work 24/7 in almost every industry."

Related: 5 Tips for Formulating a Successful Strategy

4 Characteristics of Strategic Goals

To craft a strategic plan for your organization, you first need to determine the goals you’re trying to reach. Strategic goals are an organization’s measurable objectives that are indicative of its long-term vision.

Here are four characteristics of strategic goals to keep in mind when setting them for your organization.

1. Purpose-Driven

The starting point for crafting strategic goals is asking yourself what your company’s purpose and values are . What are you striving for, and why is it important to set these objectives? Let the answers to these questions guide the development of your organization’s strategic goals.

“You don’t have to leave your values at the door when you come to work,” says HBS Professor Rebecca Henderson in the online course Sustainable Business Strategy .

Henderson, whose work focuses on reimagining capitalism for a just and sustainable world, also explains that leading with purpose can drive business performance.

“Adopting a purpose will not hurt your performance if you do it authentically and well,” Henderson says in a lecture streamed via Facebook Live . “If you’re able to link your purpose to the strategic vision of the company in a way that really gets people aligned and facing in the right direction, then you have the possibility of outperforming your competitors.”

Related: 5 Examples of Successful Sustainability Initiatives

2. Long-Term and Forward-Focused

While strategic goals are the long-term objectives of your organization, operational goals are the daily milestones that need to be reached to achieve them. When setting strategic goals, think of your company’s values and long-term vision, and ensure you’re not confusing strategic and operational goals.

For instance, your organization’s goal could be to create a new marketing strategy; however, this is an operational goal in service of a long-term vision. The strategic goal, in this case, could be breaking into a new market segment, to which the creation of a new marketing strategy would contribute.

Keep a forward-focused vision to ensure you’re setting challenging objectives that can have a lasting impact on your organization.

3. Actionable

Strong strategic goals are not only long-term and forward-focused—they’re actionable. If there aren’t operational goals that your team can complete to reach the strategic goal, your organization is better off spending time and resources elsewhere.

When formulating strategic goals, think about the operational goals that fall under them. Do they make up an action plan your team can take to achieve your organization’s objective? If so, the goal could be a worthwhile endeavor for your business.

4. Measurable

When crafting strategic goals, it’s important to define how progress and success will be measured.

According to the online course Strategy Execution , an effective tool you can use to create measurable goals is a balanced scorecard —a tool to help you track and measure non-financial variables.

“The balanced scorecard combines the traditional financial perspective with additional perspectives that focus on customers, internal business processes, and learning and development,” says HBS Professor Robert Simons in the online course Strategy Execution . “These additional perspectives help businesses measure all the activities essential to creating value.”

The four perspectives are:

• Internal business processes
• Learning and growth

The most important element of a balanced scorecard is its alignment with your business strategy.

“Ask yourself,” Simons says, “‘If I picked up a scorecard and examined the measures on it, could I infer what the business's strategy was? If you've designed measures well, the answer should be yes.”

Related: A Manager’s Guide to Successful Strategy Implementation

Strategic Goal Examples

Whatever your business goals and objectives , they must have all four of the characteristics listed above.

For instance, the goal “become a household name” is valid but vague. Consider the intended timeframe to reach this goal and how you’ll operationally define “a household name.” The method of obtaining data must also be taken into account.

An appropriate revision to the original goal could be: “Increase brand recognition by 80 percent among surveyed Americans by 2030.” By setting a more specific goal, you can better equip your organization to reach it and ensure that employees and shareholders have a clear definition of success and how it will be measured.

If your organization is focused on becoming more sustainable and eco-conscious, you may need to assess your strategic goals. For example, you may have a goal of becoming a carbon neutral company, but without defining a realistic timeline and baseline for this initiative, the probability of failure is much higher.

A stronger goal might be: “Implement a comprehensive carbon neutrality strategy by 2030.” From there, you can determine the operational goals that will make this strategic goal possible.

No matter what goal you choose to pursue, it’s important to avoid those that lack clarity, detail, specific targets or timeframes, or clear parameters for success. Without these specific elements in place, you’ll have a difficult time making your goals actionable and measurable.

Prioritizing Strategic Goals

Once you’ve identified several strategic goals, determine which are worth pursuing. This can be a lengthy process, especially if other decision-makers have differing priorities and opinions.

To set the stage, ensure everyone is aware of the purpose behind each strategic goal. This calls back to Henderson’s point that employees’ alignment on purpose can set your organization up to outperform its competitors.

Calculate Anticipated ROI

Next, calculate the estimated return on investment (ROI) of the operational goals tied to each strategic objective. For example, if the strategic goal is “reach carbon-neutral status by 2030,” you need to break that down into actionable sub-tasks—such as “determine how much CO2 our company produces each year” and “craft a marketing and public relations strategy”—and calculate the expected cost and return for each.

The ROI formula is typically written as:

ROI = (Net Profit / Cost of Investment) x 100

In project management, the formula uses slightly different terms:

ROI = [(Financial Value - Project Cost) / Project Cost] x 100

An estimate can be a valuable piece of information when deciding which goals to pursue. Although not all strategic goals need to yield a high return on investment, it’s in your best interest to calculate each objective's anticipated ROI so you can compare them.

Consider Current Events

Finally, when deciding which strategic goal to prioritize, the importance of the present moment can’t be overlooked. What’s happening in the world that could impact the timeliness of each goal?

For example, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and the ever-intensifying climate change crisis have impacted many organizations’ strategic goals in 2020. Often, the goals that are timely and pressing are those that earn priority.

Learn to Plan Strategic Goals

As you set and prioritize strategic goals, remember that your strategy should always be evolving. As circumstances and challenges shift, so must your organizational strategy.

If you lead with purpose, a measurable and actionable vision, and an awareness of current events, you can set strategic goals worth striving for.

Do you want to learn more about strategic planning? Explore our online strategy courses and download our free flowchart to determine which is right for you and your goals.

This post was updated on November 16, 2023. It was originally published on October 29, 2020.

About the Author

• Product overview
• All features
• App integrations

CAPABILITIES

• project icon Project management
• Project views
• Custom fields
• Status updates
• goal icon Goals and reporting
• Reporting dashboards
• workflow icon Workflows and automation
• portfolio icon Resource management
• Time tracking
• my-task icon Admin and security
• Admin console
• asana-intelligence icon Asana Intelligence
• list icon Personal
• premium icon Starter
• briefcase icon Advanced
• Goal management
• Organizational planning
• Campaign management
• Creative production
• Content calendars
• Marketing strategic planning
• Resource planning
• Project intake
• Product launches
• Employee onboarding
• View all uses arrow-right icon
• Project plans
• Team goals & objectives
• Team continuity
• Meeting agenda
• View all templates arrow-right icon
• Work management resources Discover best practices, watch webinars, get insights
• What's new Learn about the latest and greatest from Asana
• Customer stories See how the world's best organizations drive work innovation with Asana
• Help Center Get lots of tips, tricks, and advice to get the most from Asana
• Asana Academy Sign up for interactive courses and webinars to learn Asana
• Developers Learn more about building apps on the Asana platform
• Community programs Connect with and learn from Asana customers around the world
• Events Find out about upcoming events near you
• Partners Learn more about our partner programs
• Support Need help? Contact the Asana support team
• Asana for nonprofits Get more information on our nonprofit discount program, and apply.

Featured Reads

• Business strategy |
• What is strategic planning? A 5-step gu ...

What is strategic planning? A 5-step guide

Strategic planning is a process through which business leaders map out their vision for their organization’s growth and how they’re going to get there. In this article, we'll guide you through the strategic planning process, including why it's important, the benefits and best practices, and five steps to get you from beginning to end.

Strategic planning is a process through which business leaders map out their vision for their organization’s growth and how they’re going to get there. The strategic planning process informs your organization’s decisions, growth, and goals.

Strategic planning helps you clearly define your company’s long-term objectives—and maps how your short-term goals and work will help you achieve them. This, in turn, gives you a clear sense of where your organization is going and allows you to ensure your teams are working on projects that make the most impact. Think of it this way—if your goals and objectives are your destination on a map, your strategic plan is your navigation system.

In this article, we walk you through the 5-step strategic planning process and show you how to get started developing your own strategic plan.

How to build an organizational strategy

Get our free ebook and learn how to bridge the gap between mission, strategic goals, and work at your organization.

What is strategic planning?

Strategic planning is a business process that helps you define and share the direction your company will take in the next three to five years. During the strategic planning process, stakeholders review and define the organization’s mission and goals, conduct competitive assessments, and identify company goals and objectives. The product of the planning cycle is a strategic plan, which is shared throughout the company.

What is a strategic plan?

A strategic plan is the end result of the strategic planning process. At its most basic, it’s a tool used to define your organization’s goals and what actions you’ll take to achieve them.

Typically, your strategic plan should include: 

Your company’s mission statement

Your organizational goals, including your long-term goals and short-term, yearly objectives

Any plan of action, tactics, or approaches you plan to take to meet those goals

What are the benefits of strategic planning?

Strategic planning can help with goal setting and decision-making by allowing you to map out how your company will move toward your organization’s vision and mission statements in the next three to five years. Let’s circle back to our map metaphor. If you think of your company trajectory as a line on a map, a strategic plan can help you better quantify how you’ll get from point A (where you are now) to point B (where you want to be in a few years).

When you create and share a clear strategic plan with your team, you can:

Build a strong organizational culture by clearly defining and aligning on your organization’s mission, vision, and goals.

Align everyone around a shared purpose and ensure all departments and teams are working toward a common objective.

Proactively set objectives to help you get where you want to go and achieve desired outcomes.

Promote a long-term vision for your company rather than focusing primarily on short-term gains.

Ensure resources are allocated around the most high-impact priorities.

Define long-term goals and set shorter-term goals to support them.

Assess your current situation and identify any opportunities—or threats—allowing your organization to mitigate potential risks.

Create a proactive business culture that enables your organization to respond more swiftly to emerging market changes and opportunities.

What are the 5 steps in strategic planning?

The strategic planning process involves a structured methodology that guides the organization from vision to implementation. The strategic planning process starts with assembling a small, dedicated team of key strategic planners—typically five to 10 members—who will form the strategic planning, or management, committee. This team is responsible for gathering crucial information, guiding the development of the plan, and overseeing strategy execution.

Once you’ve established your management committee, you can get to work on the planning process. 

Step 1: Assess your current business strategy and business environment

Before you can define where you’re going, you first need to define where you are. Understanding the external environment, including market trends and competitive landscape, is crucial in the initial assessment phase of strategic planning.

To do this, your management committee should collect a variety of information from additional stakeholders, like employees and customers. In particular, plan to gather:

Relevant industry and market data to inform any market opportunities, as well as any potential upcoming threats in the near future.

Customer insights to understand what your customers want from your company—like product improvements or additional services.

Employee feedback that needs to be addressed—whether about the product, business practices, or the day-to-day company culture.

Consider different types of strategic planning tools and analytical techniques to gather this information, such as:

A balanced scorecard to help you evaluate four major elements of a business: learning and growth, business processes, customer satisfaction, and financial performance.

A SWOT analysis to help you assess both current and future potential for the business (you’ll return to this analysis periodically during the strategic planning process). 

To fill out each letter in the SWOT acronym, your management committee will answer a series of questions:

What does your organization currently do well?

What separates you from your competitors?

What are your most valuable internal resources?

What tangible assets do you have?

What is your biggest strength? 

Weaknesses:

What does your organization do poorly?

What do you currently lack (whether that’s a product, resource, or process)?

What do your competitors do better than you?

What, if any, limitations are holding your organization back?

What processes or products need improvement? 

Opportunities:

What opportunities does your organization have?

How can you leverage your unique company strengths?

Are there any trends that you can take advantage of?

How can you capitalize on marketing or press opportunities?

Is there an emerging need for your product or service? 

What emerging competitors should you keep an eye on?

Are there any weaknesses that expose your organization to risk?

Have you or could you experience negative press that could reduce market share?

Is there a chance of changing customer attitudes towards your company? 

Step 2: Identify your company’s goals and objectives

To begin strategy development, take into account your current position, which is where you are now. Then, draw inspiration from your vision, mission, and current position to identify and define your goals—these are your final destination. 

To develop your strategy, you’re essentially pulling out your compass and asking, “Where are we going next?” “What’s the ideal future state of this company?” This can help you figure out which path you need to take to get there.

During this phase of the planning process, take inspiration from important company documents, such as:

Your mission statement, to understand how you can continue moving towards your organization’s core purpose.

Your vision statement, to clarify how your strategic plan fits into your long-term vision.

Your company values, to guide you towards what matters most towards your company.

Your competitive advantages, to understand what unique benefit you offer to the market.

Your long-term goals, to track where you want to be in five or 10 years.

Your financial forecast and projection, to understand where you expect your financials to be in the next three years, what your expected cash flow is, and what new opportunities you will likely be able to invest in.

Step 3: Develop your strategic plan and determine performance metrics

Now that you understand where you are and where you want to go, it’s time to put pen to paper. Take your current business position and strategy into account, as well as your organization’s goals and objectives, and build out a strategic plan for the next three to five years. Keep in mind that even though you’re creating a long-term plan, parts of your plan should be created or revisited as the quarters and years go on.

As you build your strategic plan, you should define:

Company priorities for the next three to five years, based on your SWOT analysis and strategy.

Yearly objectives for the first year. You don’t need to define your objectives for every year of the strategic plan. As the years go on, create new yearly objectives that connect back to your overall strategic goals . 

Related key results and KPIs. Some of these should be set by the management committee, and some should be set by specific teams that are closer to the work. Make sure your key results and KPIs are measurable and actionable. These KPIs will help you track progress and ensure you’re moving in the right direction.

Budget for the next year or few years. This should be based on your financial forecast as well as your direction. Do you need to spend aggressively to develop your product? Build your team? Make a dent with marketing? Clarify your most important initiatives and how you’ll budget for those.

A high-level project roadmap . A project roadmap is a tool in project management that helps you visualize the timeline of a complex initiative, but you can also create a very high-level project roadmap for your strategic plan. Outline what you expect to be working on in certain quarters or years to make the plan more actionable and understandable.

Step 4: Implement and share your plan

Now it’s time to put your plan into action. Strategy implementation involves clear communication across your entire organization to make sure everyone knows their responsibilities and how to measure the plan’s success. 

Make sure your team (especially senior leadership) has access to the strategic plan, so they can understand how their work contributes to company priorities and the overall strategy map. We recommend sharing your plan in the same tool you use to manage and track work, so you can more easily connect high-level objectives to daily work. If you don’t already, consider using a work management platform .  

A few tips to make sure your plan will be executed without a hitch: 

Communicate clearly to your entire organization throughout the implementation process, to ensure all team members understand the strategic plan and how to implement it effectively. 

Define what “success” looks like by mapping your strategic plan to key performance indicators.

Ensure that the actions outlined in the strategic plan are integrated into the daily operations of the organization, so that every team member's daily activities are aligned with the broader strategic objectives.

Utilize tools and software—like a work management platform—that can aid in implementing and tracking the progress of your plan.

Regularly monitor and share the progress of the strategic plan with the entire organization, to keep everyone informed and reinforce the importance of the plan.

Establish regular check-ins to monitor the progress of your strategic plan and make adjustments as needed. 

Step 5: Revise and restructure as needed

Once you’ve created and implemented your new strategic framework, the final step of the planning process is to monitor and manage your plan.

Remember, your strategic plan isn’t set in stone. You’ll need to revisit and update the plan if your company changes directions or makes new investments. As new market opportunities and threats come up, you’ll likely want to tweak your strategic plan. Make sure to review your plan regularly—meaning quarterly and annually—to ensure it’s still aligned with your organization’s vision and goals.

Keep in mind that your plan won’t last forever, even if you do update it frequently. A successful strategic plan evolves with your company’s long-term goals. When you’ve achieved most of your strategic goals, or if your strategy has evolved significantly since you first made your plan, it might be time to create a new one.

Build a smarter strategic plan with a work management platform

To turn your company strategy into a plan—and ultimately, impact—make sure you’re proactively connecting company objectives to daily work. When you can clarify this connection, you’re giving your team members the context they need to get their best work done. 

A work management platform plays a pivotal role in this process. It acts as a central hub for your strategic plan, ensuring that every task and project is directly tied to your broader company goals. This alignment is crucial for visibility and coordination, allowing team members to see how their individual efforts contribute to the company’s success. 

By leveraging such a platform, you not only streamline workflow and enhance team productivity but also align every action with your strategic objectives—allowing teams to drive greater impact and helping your company move toward goals more effectively. 

Strategic planning FAQs

Still have questions about strategic planning? We have answers.

Why do I need a strategic plan?

A strategic plan is one of many tools you can use to plan and hit your goals. It helps map out strategic objectives and growth metrics that will help your company be successful.

When should I create a strategic plan?

You should aim to create a strategic plan every three to five years, depending on your organization’s growth speed.

Since the point of a strategic plan is to map out your long-term goals and how you’ll get there, you should create a strategic plan when you’ve met most or all of them. You should also create a strategic plan any time you’re going to make a large pivot in your organization’s mission or enter new markets. 

What is a strategic planning template?

A strategic planning template is a tool organizations can use to map out their strategic plan and track progress. Typically, a strategic planning template houses all the components needed to build out a strategic plan, including your company’s vision and mission statements, information from any competitive analyses or SWOT assessments, and relevant KPIs.

What’s the difference between a strategic plan vs. business plan?

A business plan can help you document your strategy as you’re getting started so every team member is on the same page about your core business priorities and goals. This tool can help you document and share your strategy with key investors or stakeholders as you get your business up and running.

You should create a business plan when you’re: 

Just starting your business

Significantly restructuring your business

If your business is already established, you should create a strategic plan instead of a business plan. Even if you’re working at a relatively young company, your strategic plan can build on your business plan to help you move in the right direction. During the strategic planning process, you’ll draw from a lot of the fundamental business elements you built early on to establish your strategy for the next three to five years.

What’s the difference between a strategic plan vs. mission and vision statements?

Your strategic plan, mission statement, and vision statements are all closely connected. In fact, during the strategic planning process, you will take inspiration from your mission and vision statements in order to build out your strategic plan.

Simply put: 

A mission statement summarizes your company’s purpose.

A vision statement broadly explains how you’ll reach your company’s purpose.

A strategic plan pulls in inspiration from your mission and vision statements and outlines what actions you’re going to take to move in the right direction. 

For example, if your company produces pet safety equipment, here’s how your mission statement, vision statement, and strategic plan might shake out:

Mission statement: “To ensure the safety of the world’s animals.” 

Vision statement: “To create pet safety and tracking products that are effortless to use.” 

Your strategic plan would outline the steps you’re going to take in the next few years to bring your company closer to your mission and vision. For example, you develop a new pet tracking smart collar or improve the microchipping experience for pet owners. 

What’s the difference between a strategic plan vs. company objectives?

Company objectives are broad goals. You should set these on a yearly or quarterly basis (if your organization moves quickly). These objectives give your team a clear sense of what you intend to accomplish for a set period of time. 

Your strategic plan is more forward-thinking than your company goals, and it should cover more than one year of work. Think of it this way: your company objectives will move the needle towards your overall strategy—but your strategic plan should be bigger than company objectives because it spans multiple years.

What’s the difference between a strategic plan vs. a business case?

A business case is a document to help you pitch a significant investment or initiative for your company. When you create a business case, you’re outlining why this investment is a good idea, and how this large-scale project will positively impact the business. 

You might end up building business cases for things on your strategic plan’s roadmap—but your strategic plan should be bigger than that. This tool should encompass multiple years of your roadmap, across your entire company—not just one initiative.

What’s the difference between a strategic plan vs. a project plan?

A strategic plan is a company-wide, multi-year plan of what you want to accomplish in the next three to five years and how you plan to accomplish that. A project plan, on the other hand, outlines how you’re going to accomplish a specific project. This project could be one of many initiatives that contribute to a specific company objective which, in turn, is one of many objectives that contribute to your strategic plan. 

What’s the difference between strategic management vs. strategic planning?

A strategic plan is a tool to define where your organization wants to go and what actions you need to take to achieve those goals. Strategic planning is the process of creating a plan in order to hit your strategic objectives.

Strategic management includes the strategic planning process, but also goes beyond it. In addition to planning how you will achieve your big-picture goals, strategic management also helps you organize your resources and figure out the best action plans for success. 

Related resources

How to create a CRM strategy: 6 steps (with examples)

What is management by objectives (MBO)?

Write better AI prompts: A 4-sentence framework

What is content marketing? A complete guide

How to improve strategic planning

In conference rooms everywhere, corporate planners are in the midst of the annual strategic-planning process. For the better part of a year, they collect financial and operational data, make forecasts, and prepare lengthy presentations with the CEO and other senior managers about the future direction of the business. But at the end of this expensive and time-consuming process, many participants say they are frustrated by its lack of impact on either their own actions or the strategic direction of the company.

This sense of disappointment was captured in a recent McKinsey Quarterly survey of nearly 800 executives: just 45 percent of the respondents said they were satisfied with the strategic-planning process. 1 1. “ Improving strategic planning: A McKinsey Survey ,” The McKinsey Quarterly , Web exclusive, September 2006. The survey, conducted in late July and early August 2006, received 796 responses from a panel of executives from around the world. All panelists have mostly financial or strategic responsibilities and work in a wide range of industries for organizations with revenues of at least $500 million. Moreover, only 23 percent indicated that major strategic decisions were made within its confines. Given these results, managers might well be tempted to jettison the planning process altogether.

But for those working in the overwhelming majority of corporations, the annual planning process plays an essential role. In addition to formulating at least some elements of a company’s strategy, the process results in a budget, which establishes the resource allocation map for the coming 12 to 18 months; sets financial and operating targets, often used to determine compensation metrics and to provide guidance for financial markets; and aligns the management team on its strategic priorities. The operative question for chief executives is how to make the planning process more effective—not whether it is the sole mechanism used to design strategy. CEOs know that strategy is often formulated through ad hoc meetings or brand reviews, or as a result of decisions about mergers and acquisitions.

Our research shows that formal strategic-planning processes play an important role in improving overall satisfaction with strategy development. That role can be seen in the responses of the 79 percent of managers who claimed that the formal planning process played a significant role in developing strategies and were satisfied with the approach of their companies, compared with only 21 percent of the respondents who felt that the process did not play a significant role. Looked at another way, 51 percent of the respondents whose companies had no formal process were dissatisfied with their approach to the development of strategy, against only 20 percent of those at companies with a formal process.

So what can managers do to improve the process? There are many ways to conduct strategic planning, but determining the ideal method goes beyond the scope of this article. Instead we offer, from our research, five emergent ideas that executives can employ immediately to make existing processes run better. The changes we discuss here (such as a focus on important strategic issues or a connection to core-management processes) are the elements most linked with the satisfaction of employees and their perceptions of the significance of the process. These steps cannot guarantee that the right strategic decisions will be made or that strategy will be better executed, but by enhancing the planning process—and thus increasing satisfaction with the development of strategy—they will improve the odds for success.

Start with the issues

Ask CEOs what they think strategic planning should involve and they will talk about anticipating big challenges and spotting important trends. At many companies, however, this noble purpose has taken a backseat to rigid, data-driven processes dominated by the production of budgets and financial forecasts. If the calendar-based process is to play a more valuable role in a company’s overall strategy efforts, it must complement budgeting with a focus on strategic issues. In our experience, the first liberating change managers can make to improve the quality of the planning process is to begin it by deliberately and thoughtfully identifying and discussing the strategic issues that will have the greatest impact on future business performance.

Granted, an approach based on issues will not necessarily yield better strategic results. The music business, for instance, has discussed the threat posed by digital-file sharing for years without finding an effective way of dealing with the problem. But as a first step, identifying the key issues will ensure that management does not waste time and energy on less important topics.

We found a variety of practical ways in which companies can impose a fresh strategic perspective. For instance, the CEO of one large health care company asks the leaders of each business unit to imagine how a set of specific economic, social, and business trends will affect their businesses, as well as ways to capture the opportunities—or counter the threats—that these trends pose. Only after such an analysis and discussion do the leaders settle into the more typical planning exercises of financial forecasting and identifying strategic initiatives.

One consumer goods organization takes a more directed approach. The CEO, supported by the corporate-strategy function, compiles a list of three to six priorities for the coming year. Distributed to the managers responsible for functions, geographies, and brands, the list then becomes the basis for an offsite strategy-alignment meeting, where managers debate the implications of the priorities for their particular organizations. The corporate-strategy function summarizes the results, adds appropriate corporate targets, and shares them with the organization in the form of a strategy memo, which serves as the basis for more detailed strategic planning at the division and business-unit levels.

A packaged-goods company offers an even more tailored example. Every December the corporate senior-management team produces a list of ten strategic questions tailored to each of the three business units. The leaders of these businesses have six months to explore and debate the questions internally and to come up with answers. In June each unit convenes with the senior-management team in a one-day meeting to discuss proposed actions and reach decisions.

Some companies prefer to use a bottom-up rather than top-down process. We recently worked with a sales company to design a strategic-planning process that begins with in-depth interviews (involving all of the senior managers and selected corporate and business executives) to generate a list of the most important strategic issues facing the company. The senior-management team prioritizes the list and assigns managers to explore each issue and report back in four to six weeks. Such an approach can be especially valuable in companies where internal consensus building is an imperative.

Bring together the right people

An issues-based approach won’t do much good unless the most relevant people are involved in the debate. We found that survey respondents who were satisfied with the strategic-planning process rated it highly on dimensions such as including the most knowledgeable and influential participants, stimulating and challenging the participants’ thinking, and having honest, open discussions about difficult issues. In contrast, 27 percent of the dissatisfied respondents reported that their company’s strategic planning had not a single one of these virtues. Such results suggest that too many companies focus on the data-gathering and packaging elements of strategic planning and neglect the crucial interactive components.

Strategic conversations will have little impact if they involve only strategic planners from both the business unit and the corporate levels. One of our core beliefs is that those who carry out strategy should also develop it. The key strategy conversation should take place among corporate decision makers, business unit leaders, and people with expertise essential to the discussion. In addition to leading the corporate review, the CEO, aided by members of the executive team, should as a rule lead the strategy review for business units as well. The head of a business unit, supported by four to six people, should direct the discussion from its side of the table (see sidebar, "Things to ask in any business unit review").

Things to ask in any business unit review

Are major trends and changes in your business unit’s environment affecting your strategic plan? Specifically, what potential developments in customer demand, technology, or the regulatory environment could have enough impact on the industry to change the entire plan?

How and why is this plan different from last year’s?

What were your forecasts for market growth, sales, and profitability last year, two years ago, and three years ago? How right or wrong were they? What did the business unit learn from those experiences?

What would it take to double your business unit’s growth rate and profits? Where will growth come from: expansion or gains in market share?

If your business unit plans to take market share from competitors, how will it do so, and how will they respond? Are you counting on a strategic advantage or superior execution?

What are your business unit’s distinctive competitive strengths, and how does the plan build on them?

How different is the strategy from those of competitors, and why? Is that a good or a bad thing?

Beyond the immediate planning cycle, what are the key issues, risks, and opportunities that we should discuss today?

What would a private-equity owner do with this business?

How will the business unit monitor the execution of this strategy?

One pharmaceutical company invites business unit leaders to take part in the strategy reviews of their peers in other units. This approach can help build a better understanding of the entire company and, especially, of the issues that span business units. The risk is that such interactions might constrain the honesty and vigor of the dialogue and put executives at the focus of the discussion on the defensive.

Corporate senior-management teams can dedicate only a few hours or at most a few days to a business unit under review. So team members should spend this time in challenging yet collaborative discussions with business unit leaders rather than trying to absorb many facts during the review itself. To provide some context for the discussion, best-practice companies disseminate important operational and financial information to the corporate review team well in advance of such sessions. This reading material should also tee up the most important issues facing the business and outline the proposed strategy, ensuring that the review team is prepared with well-thought-out questions. In our experience, the right 10 pages provide ample fuel to fire a vigorous discussion, but more than 25 pages will likely douse the level of energy or engagement in the room.

Adapt planning cycles to the needs of each business

Managers are justifiably concerned about the resources and time required to implement an issues-based strategic-planning approach. One easy—yet rarely adopted—solution is to free business units from the need to conduct this rigorous process every single year. In all but the most volatile, high-velocity industries, it is hard to imagine that a major strategic redirection will be necessary every planning cycle. In fact, forcing businesses to undertake this exercise annually is distracting and may even be detrimental. Managers need to focus on executing the last plan’s major initiatives, many of which can take 18 to 36 months to implement fully.

Some companies alternate the business units that undergo the complete strategic-planning process (as opposed to abbreviated annual updates of the existing plan). One media company, for example, requires individual business units to undertake strategic planning only every two or three years. This cadence enables the corporate senior-management team and its strategy group to devote more energy to the business units that are “at bat.” More important, it frees the corporate-strategy group to work directly with the senior team on critical issues that affect the entire company—issues such as developing an integrated digitization strategy and addressing unforeseen changes in the fast-moving digital-media landscape.

Other companies use trigger mechanisms to decide which business units will undergo a full strategic-planning exercise in a given year. One industrial company assigns each business unit a color-coded grade—green, yellow, or red—based on the unit’s success in executing the existing strategic plan. “Code red,” for example, would slate a business unit for a strategy review. Although many of the metrics that determine the grade are financial, some may be operational to provide a more complete assessment of the unit’s performance.

Freeing business units from participating in the strategic-planning process every year raises a caveat, however. When important changes in the external environment occur, senior managers must be able to engage with business units that are not under review and make major strategic decisions on an ad hoc basis. For instance, a major merger in any industry would prompt competitors in it to revisit their strategies. Indeed, one advantage of a tailored planning cycle is that it builds slack into the strategic-review system, enabling management to address unforeseen but pressing strategic issues as they arise.

Implement a strategic-performance-management system

In the end, many companies fail to execute the chosen strategy. More than a quarter of our survey respondents said that their companies had plans but no execution path. Forty-five percent reported that planning processes failed to track the execution of strategic initiatives. All this suggests that putting in place a system to measure and monitor their progress can greatly enhance the impact of the planning process.

Most companies believe that their existing control systems and performance-management processes (including budgets and operating reviews) are the sole way to monitor progress on strategy. As a result, managers attempt to translate the decisions made during the planning process into budget targets or other financial goals. Although this practice is sensible and necessary, it is not enough. We estimate that a significant portion of the strategic decisions we recommend to companies can’t be tracked solely through financial targets. A company undertaking a major strategic initiative to enhance its innovation and product-development capabilities, for example, should measure a variety of input metrics, such as the quality of available talent and the number of ideas and projects at each stage in development, in addition to pure output metrics such as revenues from new-product sales. One information technology company, for instance, carefully tracks the number and skill levels of people posted to important strategic projects.

Strategic-performance-management systems, which should assign accountability for initiatives and make their progress more transparent, can take many forms. One industrial corporation tracks major strategic initiatives that will have the greatest impact, across a portfolio of a dozen businesses, on its financial and strategic goals. Transparency is achieved through regular reviews and the use of financial as well as nonfinancial metrics. The corporate-strategy team assumes responsibility for reviews (chaired by the CEO and involving the relevant business-unit leaders) that use an array of milestones and metrics to assess the top ten initiatives. One to expand operations in China and India, for example, would entail regular reviews of interim metrics such as the quality and number of local employees recruited and the pace at which alliances are formed with channel partners or suppliers. Each business unit, in turn, is accountable for adopting the same performance-management approach for its own, lower-tier top-ten list of initiatives.

When designed well, strategic-performance-management systems can give an early warning of problems with strategic initiatives, whereas financial targets alone at best provide lagging indicators. An effective system enables management to step in and correct, redirect, or even abandon an initiative that is failing to perform as expected. The strategy of a pharmaceutical company that embarked on a major expansion of its sales force to drive revenue growth, for example, presupposed that rapid growth in the number of sales representatives would lead to a corresponding increase in revenues. The company also recognized, however, that expansion was in turn contingent on several factors, including the ability to recruit and train the right people. It therefore put in place a regular review of the key strategic metrics against its actual performance to alert managers to any emerging problems.

Integrate human-resources systems into the strategic plan

Simply monitoring the execution of strategic initiatives is not sufficient: their successful implementation also depends on how managers are evaluated and compensated. Yet only 36 percent of the executives we surveyed said that their companies’ strategic-planning processes were integrated with HR processes. One way to create a more valuable strategic-planning process would be to tie the evaluation and compensation of managers to the progress of new initiatives.

Although the development of strategy is ostensibly a long-term endeavor, companies traditionally emphasize short-term, purely financial targets—such as annual revenue growth or improved margins—as the sole metrics to gauge the performance of managers and employees. This approach is gradually changing. Deferred-compensation models for boards, CEOs, and some senior managers are now widely used. What’s more, several companies have added longer-term performance targets to complement the short-term ones. A major pharmaceutical company, for example, recently revamped its managerial-compensation structure to include a basket of short-term financial and operating targets as well as longer-term, innovation-based growth targets.

Although these changes help persuade managers to adopt both short- and long-term approaches to the development of strategy, they don’t address the need to link evaluation and compensation to specific strategic initiatives. One way of doing so is to craft a mix of performance targets that more appropriately reflect a company’s strategy. For example, one North American services business that launched strategic initiatives to improve its customer retention and increase sales also adjusted the evaluation and compensation targets for its managers. Rather than measuring senior managers only by revenue and margin targets, as it had done before, it tied 20 percent of their compensation to achieving its retention and cross-selling goals. By introducing metrics for these specific initiatives and linking their success closely to bonus packages, the company motivated managers to make the strategy succeed.

An advantage of this approach is that it motivates managers to flag any problems early in the implementation of a strategic initiative (which determines the size of bonuses) so that the company can solve them. Otherwise, managers all too often sweep the debris of a failing strategy under the operating rug until the spring-cleaning ritual of next year’s annual planning process.

Some business leaders have found ways to give strategic planning a more valuable role in the formulation as well as the execution of strategy. Companies that emulate their methods might find satisfaction instead of frustration at the end of the annual process.

Renée Dye is a consultant in McKinsey’s Atlanta office, and Olivier Sibony is a director in the Paris office.

This article was first published in the Autumn 2007 issue of McKinsey on Finance . Visit McKinsey’s corporate finance site to view the full issue.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Distortions and deceptions in strategic decisions

Tired of strategic planning.

The Strategic Planning Process in 4 Steps

To guide you through the strategic planning process, we created this 4 step process you can use with your team. we’ll cover the basic definition of strategic planning, what core elements you should include, and actionable steps to build your strategic plan..

Free Strategic Planning Guide

What is Strategic Planning?

Strategic Planning is when a process where organizations define a bold vision and create a plan with objectives and goals to reach that future. A great strategic plan defines where your organization is going, how you’ll win, who must do what, and how you’ll review and adapt your strategy development.

A strategic plan or a business strategic plan should include the following:

• Your organization’s vision organization’s vision of the future.
• A clearly Articulated mission and values statement.
• A current state assessment that evaluates your competitive environment, new opportunities, and new threats.
• What strategic challenges you face.
• A growth strategy and outlined market share.
• Long-term strategic goals.
• An annual plan with SMART goals or OKRs to support your strategic goals.
• Clear measures, key performance indicators, and data analytics to measure progress.
• A clear strategic planning cycle, including how you’ll review, refresh, and recast your plan every quarter.

Overview of the Strategic Planning Process:

The strategic management process involves taking your organization on a journey from point A (where you are today) to point B (your vision of the future).

Part of that journey is the strategy built during strategic planning, and part of it is execution during the strategic management process. A good strategic plan dictates “how” you travel the selected road.

Effective execution ensures you are reviewing, refreshing, and recalibrating your strategy to reach your destination. The planning process should take no longer than 90 days. But, move at a pace that works best for you and your team and leverage this as a resource.

To kick this process off, we recommend 1-2 weeks (1-hour meeting with the Owner/CEO, Strategy Director, and Facilitator (if necessary) to discuss the information collected and direction for continued planning.)

Questions to Ask:

• Who is on your Planning Team? What senior leadership members and key stakeholders are included? Checkout these links you need help finding a strategic planning consultant , someone to facilitate strategic planning , or expert AI strategy consulting .
• Who will be the business process owner (Strategy Director) of planning in your organization?
• Fast forward 12 months from now, what do you want to see differently in your organization as a result of your strategic plan and implementation?
• Planning team members are informed of their roles and responsibilities.
• A strategic planning schedule is established.
• Existing planning information and secondary data collected.

Action Grid:

Step 1: Determine Organizational Readiness

Set up your plan for success – questions to ask:

• Are the conditions and criteria for successful planning in place at the current time? Can certain pitfalls be avoided?
• Is this the appropriate time for your organization to initiate a planning process? Yes or no? If no, where do you go from here?

Step 2: Develop Your Team & Schedule

Who is going to be on your planning team? You need to choose someone to oversee the strategy implementation (Chief Strategy Officer or Strategy Director) and strategic management of your plan? You need some of the key individuals and decision makers for this team. It should be a small group of approximately 12-15 people.

OnStrategy is the leader in strategic planning and performance management. Our cloud-based software and hands-on services closes the gap between strategy and execution. Learn more about OnStrategy here .

Step 3: Collect Current Data

All strategic plans are developed using the following information:

• The last strategic plan, even if it is not current
• Mission statement, vision statement, values statement
• Past or current Business plan
• Financial records for the last few years
• Marketing plan
• Other information, such as last year’s SWOT, sales figures and projections

Step 4: Review Collected Data

Review the data collected in the last action with your strategy director and facilitator.

• What trends do you see?
• Are there areas of obvious weakness or strengths?
• Have you been following a plan or have you just been going along with the market?

Conclusion: A successful strategic plan must be adaptable to changing conditions. Organizations benefit from having a flexible plan that can evolve, as assumptions and goals may need adjustments. Preparing to adapt or restart the planning process is crucial, so we recommend updating actions quarterly and refreshing your plan annually.

Strategic Planning Phase 1: Determine Your Strategic Position

Want more? Dive into the “ Evaluate Your Strategic Position ” How-To Guide.

Action Grid

Step 1: identify strategic issues.

Strategic issues are critical unknowns driving you to embark on a robust strategic planning process. These issues can be problems, opportunities, market shifts, or anything else that keeps you awake at night and begging for a solution or decision. The best strategic plans address your strategic issues head-on.

• How will we grow, stabilize, or retrench in order to sustain our organization into the future?
• How will we diversify our revenue to reduce our dependence on a major customer?
• What must we do to improve our cost structure and stay competitive?
• How and where must we innovate our products and services?

Step 2: Conduct an Environmental Scan

Conducting an environmental scan will help you understand your operating environment. An environmental scan is called a PEST analysis, an acronym for Political, Economic, Social, and Technological trends. Sometimes, it is helpful to include Ecological and Legal trends as well. All of these trends play a part in determining the overall business environment.

Step 3: Conduct a Competitive Analysis

The reason to do a competitive analysis is to assess the opportunities and threats that may occur from those organizations competing for the same business you are. You need to understand what your competitors are or aren’t offering your potential customers. Here are a few other key ways a competitive analysis fits into strategic planning:

• To help you assess whether your competitive advantage is really an advantage.
• To understand what your competitors’ current and future strategies are so you can plan accordingly.
• To provide information that will help you evaluate your strategic decisions against what your competitors may or may not be doing.

Learn more on how to conduct a competitive analysis here .

Step 4: Identify Opportunities and Threats

Opportunities are situations that exist but must be acted on if the business is to benefit from them.

What do you want to capitalize on?

• What new needs of customers could you meet?
• What are the economic trends that benefit you?
• What are the emerging political and social opportunities?
• What niches have your competitors missed?

Threats refer to external conditions or barriers preventing a company from reaching its objectives.

What do you need to mitigate? What external driving force do you need to anticipate?

Questions to Answer:

• What are the negative economic trends?
• What are the negative political and social trends?
• Where are competitors about to bite you?
• Where are you vulnerable?

Step 5: Identify Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths refer to what your company does well.

What do you want to build on?

• What do you do well (in sales, marketing, operations, management)?
• What are your core competencies?
• What differentiates you from your competitors?
• Why do your customers buy from you?

Weaknesses refer to any limitations a company faces in developing or implementing a strategy.

What do you need to shore up?

• Where do you lack resources?
• What can you do better?
• Where are you losing money?
• In what areas do your competitors have an edge?

Step 6: Customer Segments

Customer segmentation defines the different groups of people or organizations a company aims to reach or serve.

• What needs or wants define your ideal customer?
• What characteristics describe your typical customer?
• Can you sort your customers into different profiles using their needs, wants and characteristics?
• Can you reach this segment through clear communication channels?

Step 7: Develop Your SWOT

A SWOT analysis is a quick way of examining your organization by looking at the internal strengths and weaknesses in relation to the external opportunities and threats. Creating a SWOT analysis lets you see all the important factors affecting your organization together in one place.

It’s easy to read, easy to communicate, and easy to create. Take the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats you developed earlier, review, prioritize, and combine like terms. The SWOT analysis helps you ask and answer the following questions: “How do you….”

• Build on your strengths
• Shore up your weaknesses
• Capitalize on your opportunities
• Manage your threats

Strategic Planning Process Phase 2: Developing Strategy

Want More? Deep Dive Into the “Developing Your Strategy” How-To Guide.

Step 1: Develop Your Mission Statement

The mission statement describes an organization’s purpose or reason for existing.

What is our purpose? Why do we exist? What do we do?

• What are your organization’s goals? What does your organization intend to accomplish?
• Why do you work here? Why is it special to work here?
• What would happen if we were not here?

Outcome: A short, concise, concrete statement that clearly defines the scope of the organization.

Step 2: discover your values.

Your values statement clarifies what your organization stands for, believes in and the behaviors you expect to see as a result. Check our the post on great what are core values and examples of core values .

How will we behave?

• What are the key non-negotiables that are critical to the company’s success?
• What guiding principles are core to how we operate in this organization?
• What behaviors do you expect to see?
• If the circumstances changed and penalized us for holding this core value, would we still keep it?

Outcome: Short list of 5-7 core values.

Step 3: casting your vision statement.

A Vision Statement defines your desired future state and directs where we are going as an organization.

Where are we going?

• What will our organization look like 5–10 years from now?
• What does success look like?
• What are we aspiring to achieve?
• What mountain are you climbing and why?

Outcome: A picture of the future.

Step 4: identify your competitive advantages.

A competitive advantage is a characteristic of an organization that allows it to meet its customer’s need(s) better than its competition can. It’s important to consider your competitive advantages when creating your competitive strategy.

What are we best at?

• What are your unique strengths?
• What are you best at in your market?
• Do your customers still value what is being delivered? Ask them.
• How do your value propositions stack up in the marketplace?

Outcome: A list of 2 or 3 items that honestly express the organization’s foundation for winning.

Step 5: crafting your organization-wide strategies.

Your competitive strategy is the general methods you intend to use to reach your vision. Regardless of the level, a strategy answers the question “how.”

How will we succeed?

• Broad: market scope; a relatively wide market emphasis.
• Narrow: limited to only one or few segments in the market
• Does your competitive position focus on lowest total cost or product/service differentiation or both?

Outcome: Establish the general, umbrella methods you intend to use to reach your vision.

Phase 3: Strategic Plan Development

Want More? Deep Dive Into the “Build Your Plan” How-To Guide.

Strategic Planning Process Step 1: Use Your SWOT to Set Priorities

If your team wants to take the next step in the SWOT analysis, apply the TOWS Strategic Alternatives Matrix to your strategy map to help you think about the options you could pursue. To do this, match external opportunities and threats with your internal strengths and weaknesses, as illustrated in the matrix below:

TOWS Strategic Alternatives Matrix

Evaluate the options you’ve generated, and identify the ones that give the greatest benefit, and that best achieve the mission and vision of your organization. Add these to the other strategic options that you’re considering.

Step 2: Define Long-Term Strategic Objectives

Long-Term Strategic Objectives are long-term, broad, continuous statements that holistically address all areas of your organization. What must we focus on to achieve our vision? Check out examples of strategic objectives here. What are the “big rocks”?

Questions to ask:

• What are our shareholders or stakeholders expectations for our financial performance or social outcomes?
• To reach our outcomes, what value must we provide to our customers? What is our value proposition?
• To provide value, what process must we excel at to deliver our products and services?
• To drive our processes, what skills, capabilities and organizational structure must we have?

Outcome: Framework for your plan – no more than 6. You can use the balanced scorecard framework, OKRs, or whatever methodology works best for you. Just don’t exceed 6 long-term objectives.

Step 3: Setting Organization-Wide Goals and Measures

Once you have formulated your strategic objectives, you should translate them into goals and measures that can be communicated to your strategic planning team (team of business leaders and/or team members).

You want to set goals that convert the strategic objectives into specific performance targets. Effective strategic goals clearly state what, when, how, and who, and they are specifically measurable. They should address what you must do in the short term (think 1-3 years) to achieve your strategic objectives.

Organization-wide goals are annual statements that are SMART – specific, measurable, attainable, responsible, and time-bound. These are outcome statements expressing a result to achieve the desired outcomes expected in the organization.

What is most important right now to reach our long-term objectives?

Outcome: clear outcomes for the current year..

Step 4: Select KPIs

Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are the key measures that will have the most impact in moving your organization forward. We recommend you guide your organization with measures that matter. See examples of KPIs here.

How will we measure our success?

Outcome: 5-7 measures that help you keep the pulse on your performance. When selecting your Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), ask, “What are the key performance measures we need to track to monitor if we are achieving our goals?” These KPIs include the key goals you want to measure that will have the most impact on moving your organization forward.

Step 5: Cascade Your Strategies to Operations

To move from big ideas to action, creating action items and to-dos for short-term goals is crucial. This involves translating strategy from the organizational level to individuals. Functional area managers and contributors play a role in developing short-term goals to support the organization.

Before taking action, decide whether to create plans directly derived from the strategic plan or sync existing operational, business, or account plans with organizational goals. Avoid the pitfall of managing multiple sets of goals and actions, as this shifts from strategic planning to annual planning.

Questions to Ask

• How are we going to get there at a functional level?
• Who must do what by when to accomplish and drive the organizational goals?
• What strategic questions still remain and need to be solved?

Department/functional goals, actions, measures and targets for the next 12-24 months

Step 6: Cascading Goals to Departments and Team Members

Now in your Departments / Teams, you need to create goals to support the organization-wide goals. These goals should still be SMART and are generally (short-term) something to be done in the next 12-18 months. Finally, you should develop an action plan for each goal.

Keep the acronym SMART in mind again when setting action items, and make sure they include start and end dates and have someone assigned their responsibility. Since these action items support your previously established goals, it may be helpful to consider action items your immediate plans on the way to achieving your (short-term) goals. In other words, identify all the actions that need to occur in the next 90 days and continue this same process every 90 days until the goal is achieved.

Examples of Cascading Goals:

Phase 4: Executing Strategy and Managing Performance

Want more? Dive Into the “Managing Performance” How-To Guide.

Step 1: Strategic Plan Implementation Schedule

Implementation is the process that turns strategies and plans into actions in order to accomplish strategic objectives and goals.

How will we use the plan as a management tool?

• Communication Schedule: How and when will you roll-out your plan to your staff? How frequently will you send out updates?
• Process Leader: Who is your strategy director?
• Structure: What are the dates for your strategy reviews (we recommend at least quarterly)?
• System & Reports: What are you expecting each staff member to come prepared with to those strategy review sessions?

Outcome: Syncing your plan into the “rhythm of your business.”

Once your resources are in place, you can set your implementation schedule. Use the following steps as your base implementation plan:

• Establish your performance management and reward system.
• Set up monthly and quarterly strategy meetings with established reporting procedures.
• Set up annual strategic review dates including new assessments and a large group meeting for an annual plan review.

Now you’re ready to start plan roll-out. Below are sample implementation schedules, which double for a full strategic management process timeline.

Step 2: Tracking Goals & Actions

Monthly strategy meetings don’t need to take a lot of time – 30 to 60 minutes should suffice. But it is important that key team members report on their progress toward the goals they are responsible for – including reporting on metrics in the scorecard they have been assigned.

By using the measurements already established, it’s easy to make course corrections if necessary. You should also commit to reviewing your Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) during these regular meetings. Need help comparing strategic planning software ? Check out our guide.

Effective Strategic Planning: Your Bi-Annual Checklist

Never lose sight of the fact that strategic plans are guidelines, not rules. Every six months or so, you should evaluate your strategy execution and strategic plan implementation by asking these key questions:

• Will your goals be achieved within the time frame of the plan? If not, why?
• Should the deadlines be modified? (Before you modify deadlines, figure out why you’re behind schedule.)
• Are your goals and action items still realistic?
• Should the organization’s focus be changed to put more emphasis on achieving your goals?
• Should your goals be changed? (Be careful about making these changes – know why efforts aren’t achieving the goals before changing the goals.)
• What can be gathered from an adaptation to improve future planning activities?

Why Track Your Goals?

• Ownership: Having a stake and responsibility in the plan makes you feel part of it and leads you to drive your goals forward.
• Culture: Successful plans tie tracking and updating goals into organizational culture.
• Implementation: If you don’t review and update your strategic goals, they are just good intentions
• Accountability: Accountability and high visibility help drive change. This means that each measure, objective, data source and initiative must have an owner.
• Empowerment: Changing goals from In Progress to Complete just feels good!

Step 3: Review & Adapt

Guidelines for your strategy review.

The most important part of this meeting is a 70/30 review. 30% is about reviewing performance, and 70% should be spent on making decisions to move the company’s strategy forward in the next quarter.

The best strategic planners spend about 60-90 minutes in the sessions. Holding meetings helps focus your goals on accomplishing top priorities and accelerating the organization’s growth. Although the meeting structure is relatively simple, it does require a high degree of discipline.

Strategy Review Session Questions:

Strategic planning frequently asked questions, read our frequently asked questions about strategic planning to learn how to build a great strategic plan..

Strategic planning is when organizations define a bold vision and create a plan with objectives and goals to reach that future. A great strategic plan defines where your organization is going, how you’ll win, who must do what, and how you’ll review and adapt your strategy..

Your strategic plan needs to include an assessment of your current state, a SWOT analysis, mission, vision, values, competitive advantages, growth strategy, growth enablers, a 3-year roadmap, and annual plan with strategic goals, OKRs, and KPIs.

A strategic planning process should take no longer than 90 days to complete from start to finish! Any longer could fatigue your organization and team.

There are four overarching phases to the strategic planning process that include: determining position, developing your strategy, building your plan, and managing performance. Each phase plays a unique but distinctly crucial role in the strategic planning process.

Prior to starting your strategic plan, you must go through this pre-planning process to determine your organization’s readiness by following these steps:

Ask yourself these questions: Are the conditions and criteria for successful planning in place now? Can we foresee any pitfalls that we can avoid? Is there an appropriate time for our organization to initiate this process?

Develop your team and schedule. Who will oversee the implementation as Chief Strategy Officer or Director? Do we have at least 12-15 other key individuals on our team?

Research and Collect Current Data. Find the following resources that your organization may have used in the past to assist you with your new plan: last strategic plan, mission, vision, and values statement, business plan, financial records, marketing plan, SWOT, sales figures, or projections.

Finally, review the data with your strategy director and facilitator and ask these questions: What trends do we see? Any obvious strengths or weaknesses? Have we been following a plan or just going along with the market?

Join 60,000 other leaders engaged in transforming their organizations.

Subscribe to get the latest agile strategy best practices, free guides, case studies, and videos in your inbox every week..

Leading strategy? Join our FREE community.

Become a member of the chief strategy officer collaborative..

Free monthly sessions and exclusive content.

Do you want to 2x your impact.

• RateHawk World
• Travel Services
• Empowering Insights

Strategic Planning: Steps to Achieve Your Business Goals

The process of strategic planning is the core element of any business or other organization. In fact, strategic plans can even be applied to your own career and personal life. Despite being one of the most important elements of a business, strategic planning is often neglected by businesses, which tend to focus on a win-now approach. 

Each year, companies typically gather together a team to discuss strategy and plan for the next year. What comes out of that strategic planning meeting is key for what your company is going to be doing in the year to come and beyond and the goals that everyone will be working towards.

Strategic planning and management done right, can help lead you to success. On the other hand, weaker plans or those with less drive from the top can result in teams working at cross-purposes and significant market share losses…or worse. 

What is strategic planning?

Strategic planning is the process by which an organization establishes and revises its core long-term goals and creates a plan to achieve those goals. Strategic planning involves multiple review periods and continuous revisions to establish that the business is on the right strategic track. 

What is strategic management?

Strategic management is the overall control of the direction of your company based on current and planned capabilities to achieve a set of planned goals. In essence, this means that strategic planning is a part of the overall process of strategic management, which is a broader concept that includes implementation and review. For our purposes, we’ll look at strategic planning as encompassing the entire process of strategic management. Internally at your organization, you’ll also want to appoint some people to manage the strategy implementation, which is separate from the strategic planning process. 

Popular tags

• Sales Manager
• Account Manager
• Uzakrota Travel Awards
• RateHawk Week
• Job offer Spain
• for corporate clients
• Philippines
• Area Manager
• Job offer Australia
• Job offer Romania
• Job offer Oman
• Job offer Bahrain
• Job offer Mexico
• Job offer Italy
• Job offer UAE
• Job offer UK
• black friday

Follow us for the latest news

• Hotel search
• Offline order

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Science and Technology Directorate
• IRD Strategic Plan Prepares DHS for Future Homeland Security Challenges

News Release: Innovation, Research and Development Strategic Plan Prepares DHS for Future Homeland Security Challenges

For immediate release s&t public affairs , 202-286-9047.

Plan will prepare DHS to meet emerging technological needs and maximize strategic impact.

WASHINGTON - The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the first-ever department-wide Innovation, Research and Development (IRD) Strategic Plan , articulating key investment goals over the next seven fiscal years. Developed at the direction of Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Strategic Plan serves as a blueprint for DHS to keep pace with technology by leveraging research and development to address homeland security challenges.

“This visionary roadmap, informed by scientific efforts, will empower DHS and its components to reduce risks to the homeland through optimized innovation, research and development investments,” said Dr. Dimitri Kusnezov, DHS Under Secretary for Science and Technology. “The technologies resulting from our IRD investments play a critical role in equipping the Department’s front-line operators with necessary tools to outpace our adversaries and enhance our preparedness and response capabilities.”

In 2022, Secretary Mayorkas tasked the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) with examining DHS’s execution of research and development (R&D), including through developing a coordinated strategy focused on areas for long-term Departmental research. The resulting IRD Strategic Plan will help the Department and its partners make coordinated, integrated investments. In addition to capturing current IRD efforts already underway – compiling data from every DHS component and office – it provides an overview of complementary efforts led by federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental and private sector entities.

From this analysis of common research fields, the plan highlights eight Strategic Priority Research Areas (SPRAs) and future capabilities that DHS needs across its missions. The SPRAs will enhance the coordination of R&D across DHS while giving a demand signal for industry, interagency, academic, and international communities about future partnership opportunities. The Strategic Priority Research Areas for Fiscal Years 2024-2030 are:

• Advanced Sensing – next-generation sensor capabilities to provide enhanced detection performance against a broad spectrum of threats.
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Systems – automated technologies to provide predictions, recommendations, or decisions across a wide variety of operating environments, including means to deal with adversarial AI.
• Biotechnology – augmented capabilities to predict, detect, and defend against current and emerging bioagents and biotechnologies of concern.
• Climate Change – technologies to strengthen climate adaptation/resilience, improve equity, protect critical infrastructure, and reduce carbon emissions.
• Communications and Networking – enhanced communications and networking capabilities, while maintaining security and resiliency.
• Cybersecurity – enhanced resiliency, protection, and operational assurance across data, software, hardware, and communications networks.
• Data Integration, Analytics, Modeling and Simulation – enhanced, integrated data ecosystems, analytics, and modeling to enable better and more accurate data-driven insights, predictions, and decisions.
• Digital Identity and Trust – enhanced capabilities to establish and verify both individuals’ identities and the validity, integrity, and privacy of associated data.

In collaboration with stakeholders from across DHS, S&T is advancing implementation of the Strategic Plan by developing IRD investment roadmaps for each SPRA. These roadmaps will inform the Department’s budget process for FY 2027 and beyond. 

More information about the IRD Strategic Plan and its priorities can be found at DHS IRD Strategic Plan FY24-30 | Homeland Security .

• Science and Technology
• Strategic Plan

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

OS-PCORTF Strategic Plan for 2020-2029

HHS’s Strategic Plan for the OS-PCORTF (2020–2029) charts a course to advance data capacity for patient-centered outcomes research over the next decade. To achieve the vision of better data to generate stronger evidence and foster informed decisions, HHS has prioritized four goals that reflect high-priority opportunities to address critical data challenges for patient-centered outcomes research. The four goals, along with their corresponding outcomes, set forth what HHS expects to accomplish over the next decade through the OS-PCORTF portfolio of data projects. The Strategic Plan provides both high-level vision and action-guiding directives for HHS’s efforts to ensure the availability and suitability of data and analytic resources for addressing important PCOR questions.

The Strategic Framework captures the core elements in the architecture of the Strategic Plan. The foundational elements—mission, guiding principles, and communities—inform the aspirational elements—goals, outcomes, objectives, and vision—and the work that must be accomplished over the next decade to achieve them.

• OS-PCORTF Strategic Plan: 2020-2029
• OS-PCORTF Strategic Plan: 2020-2029 Infographic

Stakeholder Engagement

The Strategic Plan was developed through a comprehensive review of literature; interviews with agency leaders, program officials, and data stewards; a series of public meetings; and close collaboration with a committee of HHS agency representatives.

Findings and reports from these efforts include:

• Initial Listening Session (2020): Challenges and Improvements for PCOR Data Infrastructure: Results from a Stakeholder Prioritization Activity
• Research Data Network Report (2021): Patient Centered Outcomes Research Trends and Opportunities: Scan and Interviews with Key Informants Report
• National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) study group and public workshops: Building Data Capacity for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: An Agenda for 2021 to 2030

Public Workshops

May 3,  2021: Building Data Capacity for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: Looking Ahead at Data Needs - Workshop 1 May 24, 2021: Building Data Capacity for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: Data Standards, Methods, and Policy - Workshop 2 June 14, 2021: Building Data Capacity for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: A Comprehensive Ecosystem for PCOR - Workshop 3

Previous OS-PCORTF Strategic Planning Resources

• Building Data Capacity for Patient-Centered Outcome Research: Portfolio Highlights (2016-2019): Impact, Opportunities and Case Studies : This report summarizes the impact of the OS-PCORTF portfolio in terms of products, tools and lessons learned for future work. The report is based on an assessment of portfolio awards funded from Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 through FY 2019.
• Building Data Capacity for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research in HHS: A Formative Evaluation of 2012-2016 Projects : This report is a formative evaluation of the OS-PCORTF portfolio of projects from 2012 to 2016. It summarizes achievements as well as considerations for future work to build data capacity for clinical comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcome research.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

Market Research

Business planning, website development, product or service selection, marketing and promotion, is it a good idea to start an online business, can i start an online business with $100, what are different types of online marketing strategies, the bottom line.

• Small Business
• How to Start a Business

Starting an Online Business: A Step-by-Step Guide

Crafting a Winning Business Plan: Setting Goals and Strategies

Katie Miller is a consumer financial services expert. She worked for almost two decades as an executive, leading multi-billion dollar mortgage, credit card, and savings portfolios with operations worldwide and a unique focus on the consumer. Her mortgage expertise was honed post-2008 crisis as she implemented the significant changes resulting from Dodd-Frank required regulations.

• How to Start a Business: A Comprehensive Guide and Essential Steps
• How to Do Market Research, Types, and Example
• Marketing Strategy: What It Is, How It Works, How To Create One
• Marketing in Business: Strategies and Types Explained
• What Is a Marketing Plan? Types and How to Write One
• Business Development: Definition, Strategies, Steps & Skills
• Business Plan: What It Is, What's Included, and How to Write One
• Small Business Development Center (SBDC): Meaning, Types, Impact
• How to Write a Business Plan for a Loan
• Business Startup Costs: It’s in the Details
• Startup Capital Definition, Types, and Risks
• Bootstrapping Definition, Strategies, and Pros/Cons
• Crowdfunding: What It Is, How It Works, and Popular Websites
• Starting a Business with No Money: How to Begin
• A Comprehensive Guide to Establishing Business Credit
• Equity Financing: What It Is, How It Works, Pros and Cons
• Best Startup Business Loans
• Sole Proprietorship: What It Is, Pros & Cons, and Differences From an LLC
• Partnership: Definition, How It Works, Taxation, and Types
• What is an LLC? Limited Liability Company Structure and Benefits Defined
• Corporation: What It Is and How to Form One
• Starting a Small Business: Your Complete How-to Guide
• Starting an Online Business: A Step-by-Step Guide CURRENT ARTICLE
• How to Start Your Own Bookkeeping Business: Essential Tips
• How to Start a Successful Dropshipping Business: A Comprehensive Guide

Oscar Wong / Getty Images

If you want to get into the online business game, it’s a good time to start. The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped online consumer spending, including how people shop online and how they research products.

Today, 76% of Americans buy products online. Furthermore, roughly a third of people purchase items online weekly. From setting up an ecommerce business to offering web design services, there are countless avenues to explore as an entrepreneur.

Below, we’ll walk through each step to building an online business.

Key Takeaways

• When starting an online business, comprehensive market research is critical for identifying your target audience and learning how to resonate with your customers and understand their needs.
• Creating a business plan is an important step for outlining your business goals. It also includes your product description, target market, and financial projections, among other core components.
• Building your website involves setting up a domain name, finding a hosting company, and designing a strong website with consistent branding that allows your customers to navigate it intuitively.
• Choosing the right product or service to sell is essential. It’s important to think about how you’re addressing an unmet need.
• Several digital marketing strategies can be utilized, from content marketing to paid advertising, to help your business grow.

Successful online entrepreneurs study hard in order to have a thorough understanding of their market. This is important for knowing exactly how to reach your target market , because these are the people who will buy your products and drive your business growth.

At its core, market research is about understanding your customers’ needs, pain points, and solutions. It is designed to help your business better meet these needs.

Steps to Conduct Market Research

Market research involves understanding key aspects of your current and future customers. To get a clear sense of your target market, outline the characteristics of your audience—for example, age, location, gender, income, job title, and key pain points.

Once you have identified your target audience, conduct research on the following topics, which will tell you about how they make decisions and how you can better position your business:

• What are the challenges that your target market faces?
• Where do they research a given product or service?
• What are their views on pricing for this product or service?
• What factors influence their decision to make a purchase?
• Who are your competitors?

To put this market research into action, there are a number of different avenues you can take:

• Focus groups
• Competitive analysis
• Brand awareness research
• Market segmentation research

Consider the following questions that may be asked in an interview or focus group to learn more about your audience:

• “How do you search for that product?”
• “How useful was it?”
• “What words do you use when you search on Google?”

When you have completed your market research, identify what you have learned as well as your next steps based on these insights.

Creating a business plan is a key first step for all business owners . It is important for companies looking to secure funding resources. It also serves as a blueprint to summarize your key business objectives and goals.

To write a business plan , incorporate these eight main sections, which are often found in traditional templates:

• Executive summary : This is typically a one-page section that explains your objectives and includes your mission statement, core team, and why your company is positioned for success.
• Company description : This describes what you offer, your competitive advantages, and your business goals.
• Market analysis : This is where you explain your target market, market size, market trends, and competitive landscape.
• Organization and management : Explain who is working on your team and their professional background and experience.
• Service or product line : Describe the product or service you are offering, including any copyright or plans for patenting.
• Marketing and sales : Discuss your marketing and sales strategy. Discuss your pricing, key metrics, and sales plan.
• Funding request : If you are a company looking for funding, here is where you outline the capital you are requesting and where it will be allocated.
• Financial projections : Include projections for your company’s revenue and expenses. Consider including an income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement in this section.

A business plan is important because it helps clarify your action points, who you are, and what you offer, all in a coherent template.

Getting your business online is the next key step. In an ever-changing environment, it is important to know the tools, trends, and strategies for building a strong online presence to allow your business to grow.

Registering Your Domain

The first step is registering your name, or your website address. This can be in the form of your business name “.com.” To purchase your domain name, you can go to sites like GoDaddy or Namecheap . If you decide to build your website using WordPress, you will need to use a site such as these to host your website.

Web Hosting Companies

Alternatively, you can buy your domain name at a hosting company. These are companies like Shopify , Wix , or Amazon Web Services , that may also offer tools to build your website and release content on them. 

Website Design

A well-designed website is important for many reasons. Using a website builder, such as Mailchimp or Squarespace , can allow you to choose a theme, customize your pages, create relevant content, and set up a payment page.

Other key aspects of your website design include its functionality, simplicity, and ease of use. Allowing your potential customers to navigate the site intuitively will be key to their experience. Brand consistency—in your logo, colors, and typeface, for example—is also key to creating a unified brand.

Another essential part of website design is its mobile application. You’ll want to ensure that your website runs smoothly on mobile, that images load properly, that the text is legible, and that buttons are intuitive to click.

This step focuses on how to choose the right product or service to sell. At the heart of this choice is the goal of solving a customer’s problem. But there are a number of strategies you can use to identify your product idea.

For example, you might consider analyzing companies with high-profit margins, products that align with your passion, burgeoning trends, items trending on online marketplaces, and/or customer reviews.

With this in mind, analyze how this product will get to your customers. Additionally, you may consider products that are not available in stores in your local market but are offered in communities such as Europe or Japan, for example.

Marketing strategy and promotion is an essential driver of business growth. As the digital landscape evolves, it’s important to have an effective marketing plan that resonates with changing consumer preferences and needs.

Here are questions that companies can consider as they create their marketing strategy, navigating today’s environment:

• Impact, value, and growth : What are the goals and key performance indicators (KPIs) that will measure success for your business? How will you explain the value that the business provides to its customers and/or society? Create an “elevator speech”—a 30-second description of what you offer and why it’s special.
• Customer need and brand promise : How does the brand meet a customer’s need through its products and services?
• Customer experience : How will the business deliver the best experiences at each stage of the customer journey?
• Organizational model : How will the business operate to serve the customer with the most impact?

These will help you understand what types of strategies can have real impact.

Types of Marketing Strategies

Consider the following digital marketing strategies that can be used for your online business:

• Email marketing
• Social media marketing
• Paid advertising
• Search engine optimization (SEO)
• Content marketing
• Influencer marketing

Each of these presents a different way to reach your target audience, drive conversions, or build brand awareness, depending on your marketing goals.

You need to determine that for yourself. But before starting an online business, it’s important to assess the time, investment, and resources you’ll need to get it off the ground. While the barrier to entry can be quite low, it’s worth considering your goals and strategies for making it a reality.

However, compared with starting up a traditional brick-and-mortar business, the risks of launching an online business may be reduced due to lower upfront costs such as rent, staff, and materials, among others.

The short answer: yes. While it depends on the type of business you hope to pursue, there are many ways to set up an online business at very little cost. For example, you could offer your services doing freelance work, photography, bookkeeping, or personal training. The primary costs involved include setting up your business website, which can cost as little as $2 to $20 each year with companies such as GoDaddy.

There are a number of digital marketing strategies that online businesses can use, such as content marketing, email marketing, paid advertising, SEO, and influencer marketing. Each of these strategies can be useful, depending on your product and goals.

Starting an online business can be a powerful way to launch a new product or service while reaching a wider audience. With market research, a solid business plan, a strong website, and a digital marketing strategy, you can get started in growing your company effectively. As customers increasingly make decisions virtually, building an online business is vital to any business owner’s success.

Pew Research Center. “ For Shopping, Phones Are Common and Influencers Have Become a Factor—Especially for Young Adults .”

U.S. Small Business Administration. “ Market Research and Competitive Analysis .”

U.S. Small Business Administration. “ Write Your Business Plan .”

Ogilvy. “ Getting Future Ready with Marketing Transformation ,” Page 15.

GoDaddy. “ How Much Does a Domain Name Cost? Find Out! ”

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices