One of my TEC members – a manufacturing company headquartered in a suburb north of Milwaukee – initiated their annual business planning process recently. The eventual expected outcomes of the planning process will be the establishment of a new annual operating plan for 2011, with a significant recalibration of their longer term strategic plan.
As a long time TEC member, the CEO typically engages his management team in a no-nonsense version of SWOT analysis during the initial phases of the process. Classic SWOT analysis generally includes an evaluation of 1) Strengths – internal, company oriented; 2) Weaknesses – internal again, unique to the organization; 3) Opportunities – external, “out there” someplace usually focusing on changes or the new normal; 4) Threats – external, “out there,” change orientation.
A new item surfaced on the opportunities list and survived the culling process. The team determined that known competitors in California and Michigan would be at a distinct, long term disadvantage due to overzealous regulations and out of proportion tax increases on businesses and owners. More money spent on compliance and more money paid to state and local governments begets less money for capital expenditures, less cash for growth and less profit for owners. Subsequent phases of the planning process will determine how to attack their relatively wounded competitors.
Unfortunately, when the team considered threats, the same people were forced to include Wisconsin’s gratuitous regulatory environment and high tax climate as significant external “new normal” problems. They reasoned that known competitors in Indiana and Texas were probably targeting them just as they were targeting market share advances against companies in California and Michigan. Phase two for this managment team will be to identify alternatives for mitigating this emerging external threat.
This type of planning is going on now in companies around the world. One can only wonder how many competitors will be targeting Wisconsin companies because it is increasingly more difficult to do business, make money and keep it here.
As a long time TEC member, the CEO typically engages his management team in a no-nonsense version of SWOT analysis during the initial phases of the process. Classic SWOT analysis generally includes an evaluation of 1) Strengths – internal, company oriented; 2) Weaknesses – internal again, unique to the organization; 3) Opportunities – external, “out there” someplace usually focusing on changes or the new normal; 4) Threats – external, “out there,” change orientation.
A new item surfaced on the opportunities list and survived the culling process. The team determined that known competitors in California and Michigan would be at a distinct, long term disadvantage due to overzealous regulations and out of proportion tax increases on businesses and owners. More money spent on compliance and more money paid to state and local governments begets less money for capital expenditures, less cash for growth and less profit for owners. Subsequent phases of the planning process will determine how to attack their relatively wounded competitors.
Unfortunately, when the team considered threats, the same people were forced to include Wisconsin’s gratuitous regulatory environment and high tax climate as significant external “new normal” problems. They reasoned that known competitors in Indiana and Texas were probably targeting them just as they were targeting market share advances against companies in California and Michigan. Phase two for this managment team will be to identify alternatives for mitigating this emerging external threat.
This type of planning is going on now in companies around the world. One can only wonder how many competitors will be targeting Wisconsin companies because it is increasingly more difficult to do business, make money and keep it here.
RSS Feed
No comments:
Post a Comment