|WikiProject Business||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Futures studies||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Merger proposal from Long range planning
- It's the Vision Thing. I came here looking for a good definition of a Vision Statement and the merger needs to have a good section on that. --dbabbitt (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Long Term Planning / Long Range Planning has to form part of strategic Planning to address Major components Change outs, even End of life Equipment. The Type of Maintenance that will not form part of your Daily maintenance Strategy. A Long Term Planning strategy should have its separate manual to identify these major components and highlights the 2 Year, 3 Year, 5 Year maintenance Plan/Strategy (How are you going to maintain the equipment). W Strauss 09:19, 05 May 2015 (Australia)
This subject is inappropriate for Wikipedia as it falls outside content criteria
See Wikipedia content criteria.
“Strategic planning” is cited by its advocates that it is a special type of planning that organisations use to provide a set of aims (or similar) for its future direction. This is of course merely a “plan” or perhaps arguably a strategy.
“Strategic” is the adjective of “strategy”, which basically means "plan" albeit a more narrowly defined type of plan (see a dictionary definition). Thus the phrase “Strategic Plan” simply means a “plan like plan” or a “strategy that is strategic” it is in fact a tautology. Tautologies are grammatical errors that although often amusing should be avoided.
One could add any number of adjectival preludes to the word “plan” such as: "alternative", "long term" or "extensive" as this would improve the description of a plan but the adjective “strategic” adds nothing to readers understanding of the nature a particular plan in the normal usage of English grammar, thus it is purely jargon at best or at worst it is a pretentious attempt to corrupt the common usage of the words “strategic” and “plan” by combining them to become a new compound word with a new meaning that is intended to give an impression that the author is more important or more worthy than he/she actually is.
Such meaningless phases such as “Strategic planning” or "Planing for the Future" have no place in Wikipedia as one cannot "plan" for any other time other than the future and if one has a plan that is like a strategy then one should just say strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudoculated (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 December 2012
- I'm not sure what criteria you're referring to. WP:N or maybe something from WP:NOT? --Ronz (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree, 'strategic' is here used to insinuate that something is 'long term', which is not accurate, since you can have a short term strategy and a long term strategy, meaning strategy is a plan. You can not have a 'planned plan', which is what 'strategic plan' really means. However, it has already been generally accepted and even worst, it has been thought at schools for a long time as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This article clearly defines words encompassed by "strategic" in regard to planning
To hatch a plan that does not adequately deal with reality is a wasted effort. And a plan ("long term or not") without a guiding strategy would seem to be prone to failure. Thus it is proposed that the "strategic" adjective is meaningless.
It would seem that the concepts of "vision" and "mission" and perhaps the word "values" are the "long term" words of strategic planning and that the words "goals", "objectives", "projects", and "actions" are the shorter term variants guided by the afore mentioned "long term" words. Words have meaning and it seems to me that the definition of these meanings and their relationship, one to the other, is an important "mission" of Wikipedia. That these relationships are sorted, discussed, and realized in the cauldron of on line democracy is fundamental to my own perceived purpose of the Wikipedia project. I would not want any further invasion of the "business" people into this article. As it now exists, the distinctions between "business" planning, and "social action" strategic planning are brought forth at least in a limited fashion.--The Trucker (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I would propose that we dispense with the term "planning", and simply go with Strategy Development and Execution (or Implementation). It takes a while for a coherent strategy to emerge, hence "development" may be more suitable, given the iterative nature of the task. The term Strategy Formulation may also work. Implementation or Execution encompasses planning. [[[Special:Contributions/18.104.22.168|22.214.171.124]] (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)]
three key questions
These aren't central to strategy. They may be useful for background, but strategy is about what a person or organisation wants to achieve in future. That may have little to do with what the person or org is presently doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- All actions one plans to take are by definition, in the future. Whether those plans are Strategic or Tactical is the key. Stragetic planning suggests that its accomplishment is hinged on multiple relatively simple, discrete actions i.e. tactics. For example, winning WWII was a vision which involved defeating Japan and Germany in each theatre of war. Defeating Germany involved multiple Strategies including breaking the stranglehold U-Boats had on the western oceans of the Mediteranean and Atlantic. It also involved a Strategy of opening up a new battle front on the French coast at Normandy. Related tactics included hundreds of discrete actions, which underpinned the success of each stragety. The discrete actions were not usually long term nor massive in scope or complexity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
ASSIMPLIER and STEER
Mentioned on the talk page for Enterprise Architecture Framework is a conversation about ASSIMPLIER. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enterprise_architecture_framework
I found that page because I was looking for some non-wikipedia information about this analysis technique and have been able to find none but the same explanation of the acronym given in wikipedia. I agree with the wikipedians on the EAF talk page that ASSIMPLIER should be removed or otherwise held in a "List of methodologies" or some such page only.
As well, I have been unable to find any external information on the STEER analysis, again, save for the acronym posted here (in articles around the web which are quoting this article verbatim). I think this, too, should be removed from this article. Thoughts? StefanijaSili (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)