The strategic planningfinance interface does

You don't have the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

Please update your flash player.

Please login or register to make a comment!

...Description...... more. less.

results, and discussion then follows. The paper concludes with managerial and future research implications. Planning sophistication and performance Several planning-performance studies have successfully examined the relationship between sophistication and performance (Bracker and Pearson, 1986; Robinson and Pearce, 1988; Bracker et al., 1988; Odom and Boxx, 1988); with the dimension of sophistication being defined in different ways. Bracker and Pearson (1986) defined four distinct levels of sophistication in the strategic planning process: 1 structured strategic plans; 2 structured operational plans; 3 intuitive plans; and 4 unstructured plans. Utilising mailed questionnaires from 188 dry cleaning companies, they found that structured strategic planners outperformed all other planning categorisations with regard to overall financial performance. The fact that the other three levels of planning failed to discriminate between themselves led the authors to the conclusion that the process, not the plan itself, is a key component in performance. A further study by Bracker et al . (1988) on the relationship between planning process sophistication and the financial performance of a select group of small firms in a growth industry also reported significant differences between firms that employ sophisticated plans and those that do not. Robinson and Pearce (1988) examined the moderating influence of planning sophistication on the strategy performance relationship in 97 manufacturing firms representing 60 different industries and found the moderating effect to be positive and significant. The authors suggested that perhaps the comprehensive planning process helps to overcome dysfunctional conditions (e.g. conflicting objectives, communication, co-ordination) that might otherwise arise in pursuit of potentially inconsistent strategic behaviours. Robinson and Pearce (1988) utilised a six- step Guttman scale that had been validated in earlier research by Wood and LaForge (1979). Responses were categorised into The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com [541] Management Decision 38/8 [ 2000 ] 541±549 # MCB University Press [ ISSN 0025-1747 ] Keywords Strategic planning, Financial planning, Hotels, Performance Abstract Improving the interface between strategic and financial planning should be an essential objective of the planning process. However, does sophistication really matter? Based on a survey of 100 hotels, the aim of this article is to explore the issue of whether a well- developed interface between strategic planning and the finance function actually provides any added value. The added value in this study is measured by enhanced performance (efficiency, effectiveness and adaptability), which is a primary objective for any enterprise. three levels of planning sophistication: high, moderate, and low. On the other hand, Odom and Boxx (1988) designated churches as informal planners, operational planners, or long-range planners. From a sample of 175 churches it was found that perceptions of the environment or, more precisely, the importance of certain environmental variables used in decision making were associated with the degree of planning sophistication. Moreover, the results indicated that planning sophistication was positively associated with the size and growth of churches. Clearly, church growth coupled with the need to co-ordinate the ministry efforts and facility utilisation would be among the reasons to subscribe to more sophisticated planning practices. There have been other studies that have addressed the concept of sophistication without necessarily undertaking an empirical examination of its relationship with performance. For instance, Harrell and Fors (1987) classified and utilised five phases of planning sophistication in an effort to develop a prescriptive model for advancement of hospital planning. An investigation into the applicability of strategic decision making in local government by Streib (1992) identified the utilisation of sophisticated planning techniques as one of four management functions that are critical for a successful strategy. Atkins and Lowe (1994), who examined the association between planning sophistication and stakeholder involvement, noticed that there was evidence of increasing stakeholder involvement with increasing planning sophistication. Furthermore, in a comprehensive study on behavioural problems compared to analytical techniques in explaining the credibility of strategic plans, Piercy and Morgan (1994) conceptualised sophistication as involving the number and rigour of use of the available techniques of planning and strategic analysis. While formalisation was conceived as a procedural behavioural construct, sophistication was perceived as an analytical conceptual construct. The results of Phillips' (1996b) study indicated that those hotel general managers (HGMs) who have developed a high level of strategic planning would perform at higher levels than their competitors in terms of overall business performance. Although his analysis was performed at the SBU level, the results are consistent with earlier studies (Bracker and Pearson, 1986; Robinson and Pearce, 1988; Bracker et al ., 1988; Odom and Boxx, 1988); the results indicate that opportunistic hoteliers who employ structured strategic planning processes at the hotel unit level may be better prepared to develop a framework for anticipating and coping with change. Conceptual development Incremental strategic change may be successful in fairly stable environments. However, in today's turbulent and competitive environment organisations need to be proactive so that they are able to maximise opportunities and protect themselves against threats. Strategy is a mechanism that allows managers to develop the necessary breakthrough responses. The strategy literature suggests that successful organisations are able to obtain co-alignment with their external environment. Despite the importance of strategy in the hospitality literature, and the assumed importance with business performance, there has been a paucity of empirical investigation (Olsen and Roper, 1998). Moreover, the importance of Table I The four phases in the evolution of strategic management Phase I Budgetary control Phase II Long-range planning Phase III Strategic planning Phase IV Strategic management Effectiveness of formal business planning Operational control Annual budget Functional focus More effective planning for growth Environmental analysis Multi-year forecasts Static allocation resources Increase market response to markets and competition Thorough situation analysis and competitive assessment Evaluation of strategic alternatives Dynamic allocation of resources Orchestration of all resources to create competitive advantage Strategically chosen planning framework Creative, flexible planning processes Supportive value system and climate Value system Meet budget Predict the future Think strategically Create the future Source : adapted from Glueck (1980) [542] Paul A. Phillips The strategic planning/ finance interface: does sophistication really matter? Management Decision 38/8 [2000] 541±549 carrying out hospitality accounting related work in a broader context has been highlighted by Harris and Brander Brown (1998) in their review of research and development in hospitality accounting and financial management. The study reported herein is an initial attempt to fill part of this void by exploring the strategic planning/finance relationship at the hotel unit level. The paucity of empirical evidence in the strategic hospitality management literature asserts that strategic planning produces economic value. Thus, hoteliers who are seriously seeking to uplift demand and business performance are now placing much importance in developing mission statements, key objectives, and strategies in a dynamic external environment. However, given the apparent gap between theory and practice (Phillips, 1996b), together with the fact that a good product flows only from a good process (Feltenstein, 1992), it seems relevant that the strategic planning process in hotels should be effective. As little empirical evidence has been available to date to assist hoteliers in determining the optimal strategic planning/finance interface, this study is both timely and critical to hotel planning. Phillips (1996a) posits that, within certain limits, an individual hotel unit can be viewed as a strategic business unit (SBU). He asserts that strategy formation at head office can be viewed as corporate strategy. Corporate planning will focus on similar issues as at the SBU level, with the major difference relating to product and market scope. This therefore reinforces the necessity for the hotel general manager to be responsible for developing and implementing the strategies and plans necessary for their hotel's success. Thus, the evaluation of its SPS should be an important management exercise. Phillips and Moutinho (1998), through the development of their strategic planning index (a tool created for measuring planning effectiveness), identified benchmarking and investment appraisal techniques as critical aspects of the planning system at the hotel unit level. This observation reinforced the importance of the use of strategic planning tools and techniques in the hotel sector. It would appear that a lack of use of appropriate management tools is associated with a perceived lack of planning effectiveness. This study seeks to ascertain if a sophisticated strategic planning/finance interface is really important in the UK hotel sector. This issue is currently of interest to both academics and practitioners, as recent research has indicated that there is a significant gap between the quality of current planning process and theoretical practice (Phillips and Moutinho, 1998). Research hypotheses Based on Phillips' (1996a) multi-dimensional view of business performance, the following four research hypotheses were proffered: H1 : Level of planning sophistication will be positively related to overall business performance. H2 : Level of planning sophistication will be positively related to efficiency. H3 : Level of planning sophistication will be positively related to effectiveness. H4 : Level of planning sophistication will be positively related to adaptability. Research methodology Sample Given the fragmented nature of the UK hotel sector, it was imperative that the study focused on hotel groups which possessed the resources that strategic planning requires. It was also felt that strategic planning would more likely take place in hotel groups than in independents. Therefore, the sampling frame used for this study was the top 50 UK hotel groups (Hotel and Catering Research Centre, 1993). Survey instrument and procedure The data used for this paper were collected as part of an ongoing research study (Phillips, 1996a). A 17-page questionnaire was developed which sought information on organisational strategy, strategic planning systems characteristics and business performance at the SBU level. The questionnaire was pre-tested through structured interviews with academics and practitioners, who were asked a series of closed and open-ended questions. An initial letter was mailed to a contact or the managing director of each hotel group, introducing the researchers, explaining the study, and requesting their HGMs' participation in the study. Fifteen groups agreed to participate in the study (30 per cent). The final questionnaire was then mailed to 130 HGMs and 100 were completed and returned (77 per cent). The average hotel group sales turnover was £18.8 million. The average hotel unit in the sample consisted of 137 rooms with an average sales turnover of £2.82 million. [543] Paul A. Phillips The strategic planning/ finance interface: does sophistication really matter? Management Decision 38/8 [2000] 541±549 Measures and scoring Independent variable The sophistication dimension in this study was measured using 19 financial and marketing tools and techniques which were considered important for hotel strategic planning. A seven-point Likert scale was used (1 = of no importance, 7 = extremely important). The level of planning sophistication was categorised into high, medium and low. The procedure utilised using SPSS was as follows: . The lower and upper quartile points were calculated for each design parameter. . Hotels falling below the lower quartile were classified as low, and hotels falling above the upper quartile were classed as high. . Firms falling between the upper and lower quartile were classed as medium. Dependent variable Objective performance data were difficult to obtain due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the industry. Therefore, business performance was measured by the HGMs' own assessment of performance in relation to those of their major direct competitors. This approach has been widely used in previous management studies (e.g. Dess and Robinson, 1984; Narver and Slater, 1990; Chang, and Chen, 1998). Pearce et al. (1987) reported that actual and perceived measures of performance are strongly correlated based on empirical data. It was felt necessary to use performance indicators that were meaningful to hoteliers. Therefore, the following performance indicators using seven-point scales, with +3 = much better and ±3 much worse, were used: 1 Effectiveness: . occupancy percentage; . average room rate; . growth in sales per room; 2 Efficiency: . return on investment; . profit margin. 3 Adaptability: . number of successful new services/ products introduced; . percentage of sales accounting for new services/products. Respondents were asked how they rated the performance of their hotel operation over the past year in comparison with primary competitors. For example, efficiency (1) means the efficiency of their hotel operation over the past year in comparison with primary competitors. The study also noted the issue of the time lag that exists between implementation and the resulting improvement in performance. Respondents were asked how they expected their hotel to perform relative to primary competitors over the next two years. For example, efficiency (2) means the expected efficiency of their hotel operation over the next two years in comparison with primary competitors. Results This section first presents descriptive information pertaining to the 19 financial and marketing tools and techniques (Table II), then the results obtained from the testing of the four research hypotheses (Table III). The mean scores and standard deviation were calculated for each financial and marketing tool and technique. The overall planning sophistication mean score was 58.47, which is 44 per cent of the maximum of 133. Interestingly, according to the respondents, market segment analysis (MSA) was the most important tool used in strategic planning. This may reflect the realisation by hoteliers that they need to move from a cost orientation to market orientation. On the other hand, the least used technique, zero- based costing, shows the reluctance of hoteliers to use modern accounting techniques. This gap between theory and practice is well illustrated by the scant use of NPV and ARR that are taught on most hospitality management accounting courses. In addition, the relatively low score of benchmarking shows the general reluctance of hoteliers to ascertain and adopt best practice. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was undertaken to analyse all hypotheses, as the objective was to assess the effect of a category variable (level of planning sophistication) on a quantitative dependent variable (business performance). The reliability of the scale used to measure planning sophistication was appraised using Cronbach's co-efficient alpha (Churchill, 1979). The overall coefficient alpha was 0.80, which reflects the reliability of the scale. Table II presents the means and ANOVA summary results. It can be seen that five out of seven performance measures were significant at a level p < 0.05. Overall, one may conclude that there is support for the hypothesed relationships. The four hypotheses will now be discussed individually below. H1 : Level of planning sophistication will be positively related to overall business performance. [544] Paul A. Phillips The strategic planning/ finance interface: does sophistication really matter? Management Decision 38/8 [2000] 541±549 The primary research question involved the relationship between planning sophistication and performance. More specifically, it was hypothesised that hoteliers who utilised a higher level of planning sophistication would out-perform those with lower levels of planning sophistication. The ANOVA results showed a statistically significant difference ( F = 3.20, p < 0.04) between high level sophisticated planners (mean 5.32) and low level sophisticated planners (4.63). These results therefore support H1 . This study adopts a multi-dimensional view of performance; therefore the following three hypotheses were tested. H2: Level of planning sophistication will be positively related to efficiency. This hypothesis was tested in two parts. An ANOVA was conducted with planning sophistication and the performance indicator of efficiency (1). Interestingly, the mean scores were not in the expected order. Low level planning sophisticators obtained the highest mean score 10.25, while high level planning sophisticators obtained the lowest mean score of 10.18. More encouragingly, the hypotheses were supported by the relationship between planning sophistication and performance indicator of efficiency (2). The ANOVA procedure showed a statistically significant difference ( F = 3.71, p < 0.03) between high level sophisticated planners (mean 11.07) and low level sophisticated planners (9.38). These results therefore support H2 . H3 : Level of planning sophistication will be positively related to effectiveness. This hypothesis was tested in two parts. An ANOVA was conducted with planning sophistication and performance indicator of effectiveness (1). The results indicate a statistically significant difference ( F = 5.98, p < 0.004) between high level sophisticated planners (15.82) and both medium (14.96) and low level sophisticated (13.21). These results therefore support our assertions. H3 was again supported by the relationship between planning sophistication and performance indicator of effectiveness (2). The ANOVA procedure showed a statistically significant difference ( F = 8.4, p < 0.004). Again, high- level sophisticated planners (16.89) were statistically significant from both medium (15.44) and low-level sophisticated planners (13.58). These results therefore support H3 . H4 : Level of planning sophistication will be positively related to adaptability. This hypothesis was tested in two parts. An ANOVA was conducted with planning sophistication and performance indicator of adaptability (1). Although high planning sophisticators (9.79) obtained the highest mean, it was not statistically significant. However, more encouragingly, the hypotheses were supported by the relationship between planning sophistication and the performance indicator of adaptability (2). The ANOVA procedure Table II Descriptive results of planning sophistication dimension Mean a Standard deviation Market segment analysis 6.03 1.47 Annual budgets 5.97 2.18 Strength, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis 5.60 1.71 Yield management 5.26 2.42 Variance analysis 4.17 2.78 Standard costing 3.89 2.52 Statistical techniques 3.73 2.82 Flexible budgets 3.29 3.16 Rolling budgets 2.88 3.22 Payback 2.43 2.82 Break-even analysis 2.41 2.55 Activity-based costing 2.29 2.84 Benchmarking 2.11 2.69 Internal rate of return (IRR) 1.82 2.70 Profit-sensitivity-analysis (PSA) 1.67 2.56 Cost-volume-profit (CVP) analysis and uncertainty 1.53 2.46 Accounting rate of return (ARR) 1.40 2.47 Net present value (NPV) 1.15 2.16 Zero-based costing 0.84 1.86 Note : a Mean scores were determined from Likert scales (1 to 7) Table III Means and ANOVA results of planning sophistication and business performance Level of planning sophistication Performance variables High (28) Medium (48) Low (24) F Significance of F Overall 5.32 5.06 4.63 3.20 0.04 Efficiency (1) 10.18 10.23 10.25 0.01 Not significant Efficiency (2) 11.07 10.48 9.38 3.71 0.03 Effectiveness (1) 15.82 14.96 13.21 5.98 0.004 Effectiveness (2) 16.89 15.44 13.58 8.40 0.004 Adaptability (1) 9.79 8.79 9.0 2.36 Not significant Adaptability (2) 10.32 8.89 8.17 7.80 0.01 [545] Paul A. Phillips The strategic planning/ finance interface: does sophistication really matter? Management Decision 38/8 [2000] 541±549 showed a statistically significant difference ( F = 7.8, p < 0.01) between high level sophisticated planners (10.32) and both medium (8.89) and low level sophisticated (7.80). These results therefore support H4 . Discussion The results presented in the previous section have three important themes. First, is the notion of a multi-dimensional perspective of performance. Second is the relationship between planning sophistication and performance. Third, the identification of some popular models and techniques that enhance the planning process. The results are discussed below in the context of these three broad themes. This study suggests that if a hotelier is to measure performance then, at a minimum, indicators should ideally cover three performance dimensions, namely: 1 efficiency; 2 effectiveness; and 3 adaptability. Then, if performance were to be compared across the three dimensions the user would have to make trade-offs. The results show that there is a positive relationship between planning sophistication and performance. However, on closer inspection it can be seen that not all cases were statistically significant. For example, planning sophistication did not significantly affect efficiency (1) and adaptability (1). However, it significantly affected efficiency (2) and adaptability (2). This perhaps illustrates the gap between strategic planning and enhanced performance. Conversely, planning sophistication significantly affected effectiveness (1) and effectiveness (2). This illustrates the importance of planning sophistication to effectiveness. Several studies (notably in Japan) have shown how growth in market share can be ultimately more important than profitability (Morishima, 1982; Tsuruni, 1984; Prestowitz, 1988; Van Wolferen, 1989). There have been various explanations for these phenomena, but the most widely cited appears to relate to the Japanese philosophy of having a job for life (albeit in a growing economy). In most western companies short-term profits drive corporate objectives. This results in market share (long-term objective) being in conflict with profitability (short-term objective). Thus, when earnings are under pressure, it is normal to see market share building investments reduce to boost profits. Moreover, in a declining market, some western companies take pleasure in boasting of their significantly better efficiencies in operating profits, compared to their foreign competitors. Matters are further complicated if one considers that during turbulent times a business's success may be largely dependent upon its ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions. This third dimension of business performance, adaptability, is of primary importance to top corporate and business unit managers (Walker and Ruekert, 1987). The results indicate that high planning sophisticators were able to obtain a higher level of innovation. As some organisations thrive on innovation such as Miles and Snow's (1978) prospectors, these findings have major implications for strategic orientation. Strategic performance improvement is one of the primary objectives of managers. Nevertheless, despite some hoteliers now realising that there are better ways to improve strategic performance than by simply cutting costs, there is scant empirical research in the UK to show how this can be achieved. This study highlights several ways how this can be achieved. Market segment analysis (MSA) can help bring benefits to the bottom line. This strategic management accounting technique destroys the illusion that the same level of profit is obtained from all customers. Nordling and Wheeler (1992) developed what was, for Hilton Hotels, a radically different approach to hotel accounting. Their method, called market segment accounting, was designed in an attempt to account fully for revenues, costs, and profits. They argued that few operators measure all the relevant costs in obtaining and servicing each segment, together with the non-room profit (or loss) produced by each segment. Quain (1992), in developing the approach by Dunn and Brooks (1990), included the marketing team's knowledge of buying behaviour into their analysis. Quain's (1992) MSA technique, called profit analysis by segment (PABS), uses a combination of marketing information and cost analysis. The technique involves two steps: 1 identifying average revenue generated by differing market segments; and 2 calculating the contribution margin (sales less variable costs) for each segment. In his conclusion, Quain (1992) posits that PABS will provide hoteliers with a better [546] Paul A. Phillips The strategic planning/ finance interface: does sophistication really matter? Management Decision 38/8 [2000] 541±549 understanding of customers' buying habits and the true cost of serving those customers. The third most popular managerial tool used by hoteliers was SWOT analysis. This is hardly surprising since it is one of the simplest and most robust managerial techniques. However, herein lies the weakness. While SWOT analysis is widely used, it would appear that many hoteliers are not obtaining the full benefits. Table IV shows that existing SWOT analyses failed to provide a better understanding of primary and secondary competitors, and failed to provide a better understanding of the hotel's external environment. These findings vindicate those of Phillips (1996a). He observed that many users were myopic, failed to draw on a cross-functional team, and make use of the customer-oriented approach as advocated by academics (see, for example, Piercy and Giles (1990)). Clearly, the use of planning tools and techniques should enable managers to identify critical information gaps more easily and with more certainty, thus enabling them to seek internal and external sources of information that are considered to be crucial to the effective operation of the planning process. Conclusions Implications for practitioners A number of interesting managerial implications can be derived from the results. First, as several HGMs indicated that they were not fully satisfied with their current planning processes, it was hardly surprising that the overall mean score (44 per cent) was relatively low. These observations therefore highlight that the planning processes among the participants need to be re-engineered. Second, as a starting point to re-engineer the planning process, and thereby improve business performance, hoteliers could establish and run benchmarking programmes in the hotel firm planning processes against its external peer groups. This should ensure that the strategic planning process achieves the right balance between various models and techniques to remain relevant and consistent with the overall strategic objective. Third, although each respective profile represents the outcome for the hotel of their planning sophistication processes, a caveat needs to be expressed when considering quality. To determine best practice within the hotel sector necessitates all major hotel firms participating. However, given the reluctance of hoteliers to co-operate in applied strategy research, it is extremely difficult to find firms which not only will agree to participate, but also are willing to co-operate and compare profiles. Moreover, even if this were achieved, firms operating in the same sector may approach strategic planning in different ways, so direct comparison may not be meaningful in all situations. To encourage the development of more sophisticated planning processes in the UK hotel sector, initiatives that could be undertaken include the: . formation of benchmarking focus groups with an independent intermediary mediating the data gathering, interpretation, and reporting; . development of courses and training in the area of finance, marketing and strategic planning, with the content tailored to the needs of hotel executives at the hotel unit level; and . hiring of marketing-oriented accountants, who can assist managers to develop and improve the strategic planning process in their business unit. Implications for further research The primary goal of this study was to examine the relationship of planning sophistication and performance. The results indicate that hoteliers need to move quickly from Phillips' phases I/II to phases III/IV. Being an exploratory study, only a moderate, convenience sample was employed. It is suggested that a similar study can be undertaken based on a much larger sample of hotels in other sectors in order to strengthen the generalisation of our findings. Furthermore, since this research was conducted over a limited period of time, it would be expedient to undertake similar studies on a longitudinal basis to identify the effects of time lags and Table IV Benefits of strategic planning at the hotel unit level Top five planning benefits for HGMs 1 Provides greater control over this hotel's future 2 Provides objective measures of hotel performance 3 Sets priorities for myself for the future 4 Focuses my attention on long-term activities 5 Identifies potential hotel weaknesses and problems Bottom five planning benefits for HGMs (1 = bottom benefit) 1 Improves the deployment of scarce resources in my hotel 2 Provides me with a better understanding of my local primary and secondary competitors 3 Improves internal communication in my hotel 4 Provides me with a better understanding of the external environment to my hotel 5 Improves co-ordination in my hotel [547] Paul A. Phillips The strategic planning/ finance interface: does sophistication really matter? Management Decision 38/8 [2000] 541±549 different economic cycles on the model or results. Despite the fact that previous research has found that self-reported performance measures are highly correlated with objective measure (Pearce et al ., 1987), the self-report measure of business performance is an inherent limitation of the study. Finally, comparative studies are required to examine the construct of planning sophistication among different sectors within the service industry. References Atkins, M. and Lowe, J. (1994), ``Stakeholders and the strategy formulation process in small and medium enterprises'', International Small Business Journal , Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 12-24. Bracker, J.S. and Pearson, J.N. (1986), ``Planning and financial performance of small, mature firms'', Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 7, pp. 503-22. Bracker, J.S., Keats, B.W. and Pearson, J.N. (1988), ``Planning and financial performance among small firms in a growth industry'', Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 9, pp. 591-603. Chang, T.Z. and Chen, S.J. (1998), ``Market orientation, service quality and business profitability: a conceptual model and empirical evidence'', The Journal of Services Marketing , Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 246-64. Churchill, G.A. (1979), ``A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs'', Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73. Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. (1984), ``Measuring organisational performance in the absence of objective measure: the case of the privately- held firm and conglomerate business unit'', Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 5, pp. 265-73. Dunn, K.D, and Brooks, D.E. (1990), ``Profit analysis: beyond yield management'', The Cornell Hotel Restaurant Administration Quarterly , Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 80-90. Feltenstein, T. (1992), ``Strategic planning for the 1990s: exploiting the inevitable'', The Cornell Hotel Restaurant Administration Quarterly , June, pp. 50-67. Gluck, F., Kaufman, S. and Walleck, A.S. (1982), ``The four phases of strategic management'', Journal of Business Strategy , Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 9-21. Glueck, W.F. (1980), ``Strategic management for competitive advantage'', Harvard Business Review , May/June, pp. 154-61. Harrell, G.D. and Fors, M.F. (1987), ``Planning evolution in hospital management'', Health Care Management Review , Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 9-22. Harris, P.J. and Brander Brown, J. (1998), ``Research and development in hospitality accounting and financial management'', International Journal of Hospitality Management , Vol. 17, pp. 161-81. Hotel and Catering Research Centre (1993), UK Hotels Group Directory , The University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield. Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organisational Strategy, Structure and Process , McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Morishima, M. (1982), Why Has Japan Succeeded? , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Narver, J.C. and Slater,S.F. (1990),``The effect of a market orientation on business profitability'', Journal of Marketing , Vol. 55, pp. 50-57. Nordling, C.W. and Wheeler, S.K. (1992), ``Building a market segment accounting model to improve profits'', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly , Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 57-62. Odom, R.Y. and Boxx, W.R. (1988), ``Environment, planning processes, and organisational performance of churches'', Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 9, pp. 197-205. Olsen, M. and Roper, A. (1998), ``Research in strategic management in the hospitality industry'', International Journal of Hospitality Management , Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 111-24. Pearce, J.A., Freeman, E.B. and Robinson, R.B. (1987), ``The tenuous link between formal strategic planning and financial performance'', Academy of Management Review , Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 658-75. Phillips, P.A. (1996a), ``Strategic planning and business performance: results of an exploratory study'', International Journal of Hospitality Management , Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 347-62. Phillips, P.A. (1996b), ``Organisational strategy, strategic planning systems characteristics, and business performance in the UK hotel sector'', unpublished PhD thesis, Cardiff Business School. Phillips, P.A. (1997), ``A review of strategic planning and performance: challenges for hospitality managers'', in Teare, R., Faber Canziani, B. and Brown, G. (Eds), Global Directions , Cassell, London, pp. 66-104. Phillips, P.A. and Moutinho, L. (1998), Strategic Planning Systems in Hospitality and Tourism , CAB International, Oxford. Piercy, N.F. and Giles, W. (1990), ``Revitalising and operationalising the SWOT model in strategic planning'', University of Wales Review, Business and Economics , Vol. 5, pp. 3-10. Piercy, N. and Morgan, N. (1994), ``The marketing planning process: behavioural problems [548] Paul A. Phillips The strategic planning/ finance interface: does sophistication really matter? Management Decision 38/8 [2000] 541±549 compared to analytical techniques in explaining marketing plan credibility'', Journal of Business Research , Vol. 29, pp. 167-78. Prestowitz, C.V. (1988), Trading Places , Free Press, New York, NY. Quain, W.J. (1992), ``Analysing sales-mix profitability'', The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly , Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 57-62. Robinson, R.B. and Pearce, J.A. (1988), ``Planned patterns of strategic behaviour and their relationship to business-unit performance'', Strategic ManagementJournal , Vol. 9, pp. 43-60. Streib, G. (1992), ``Applying strategic decision making in local government'', Public Productivity and Management Review , Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 341-54. Tsuruni, Y. (1984), Multinational Management: Business Strategy and Government Policy , Ballinger Press, Cambridge, MA. Van Wolferen, K. (1989), The Enigma of Japanese Power , MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Walker, O.C. Jr and Ruekert, R.W. (1987), ``Marketing's role in the implementation of business strategies: a critical review and conceptual framework'', Journal of Marketing , Vol. 51, July, pp. 15-33. Wood, D.R. and LaForge, R.L. (1979), ``The impact of comprehensive planning on financial performance'', Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 516-26. Application questions 1 What are the barriers to implementing more sophisticated planning regimes? 2 Who needs to be influenced to ensure that an adequate level of planning is implemented? How? [549] Paul A. Phillips The strategic planning/ finance interface: does sophistication really matter? Management Decision 38/8 [2000] 541±549

less