Transforming financial planning in small and medium sized companies Dr. Peter Bunce, BBRT Director Abstract:: At the core of performance management is the planning and budgeting process. For most companies plans and budgets are negotiated, annual and fixed. Nothing is more likely to stifle adaptive and innovative management that this rigid, sterile process. That’s why companies need to move to a more continuous, rolling process and abandon annual planning and budgeting. This paper examines these issues, how small and medium sized companies that are still adaptive, responsive and innovative can avoid the sclerosis of many larger companies and how managers can implement a more continuous approach to planning. Dr Peter Bunce BBRT 745 Ampress Park Lymington, Hampshire SO41 8LW, UK Tel: +44 1590 679803 Fax: +44 870 705 8799 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.bbrt.org Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................3 2. The issues for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)..................................................3 3. Manage through continuous planning cycles.........................................................................4 4. The dangers of the fixed performance contract .....................................................................5 5. Make rolling forecasts the primary management tool ...........................................................7 5.1. Rolling forecasts in action ..............................................................................................7 5.2. Forecasting accuracy.....................................................................................................10 5.3. Making forecasts a management not a measurement process ......................................10 6. Managing costs through trends ............................................................................................11 7. Making it work.....................................................................................................................12 8. Acknowledgments................................................................................................................14 References................................................................................................................................14 1. Introduction How do you plan today? Do you spend several weeks or even months each year preparing a financial plan or budget for the following 12 months? Does this plan of budget include the targets you are required to meet at year end and are these targets and the budget linked to the incentives scheme? Do you also find that this plan is out of date only a few weeks after approval requiring frequent re-planning and re-budgeting during the year? If so, you are following the pattern of most companies. Most performance management systems involve plans, targets and resources that are negotiated, annual and fixed. These systems were designed for stable trading environments where demand exceeded supply and suppliers could thus dictate to the market. Times have changed and now competition has increased, markets have become much more unstable and customers rule. While many leaders talk about adapting to change, few know how to change their systems so that it becomes a natural response to the environment. Instead ingrained belief in rationality and ‘predict and control’ causes them to spend huge amounts of energy, time and money trying to align and re-align the strategies, structures and systems to meet a changing business climate. This inability to cope with discontinuous change is caused by hard-wired ‘plan-make-and-sell’ business models and management systems. In contrast many leading-edge organizations are undergoing an historic shift from ‘make-and-sell’ to ‘senseand-respond’ management. Make-and-sell is an industrial-age model centred on transactions, capital assets, mass production, economies of scale and product margins. Sense-and-respond is an innovation and service-age model that emphasizes client relationships, intellectual assets, mass-customization, and economies of scope and value creation (Haeckel, 1999). 2. The issues for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) New companies start out by being highly responsive and in tune with their markets – they are very much ‘sense-and-respond’. True, the founder often starts out by making all the key decisions, but the management team is usually composed a small, dedicated and highly motivated group of people. As the company grows the teams get bigger, the chain of command gets increasingly stretched, and the flexibility and adaptability diminishes. As most start-up companies grow and mature the founder often still wants to retain some degree of control so they take on board the ‘command and control’ management model they see operating in larger companies. The command and control model emerged in the early 1990s to help companies meet rising demand and maximize profitability. With its main focus on efficiency, it introduced division of labour, incentives linking pay to performance, functional organization and centralized decision-making. The annual planning and budgeting process that ties it all together is its defining characteristic and the source of many of its problems today. Most senior executives want their organizations to be more responsive and more adaptable, but few know how to turn management rhetoric into operating reality. They talk about fast response, empowerment, innovation, operational excellence, customer focus and shareholder value, their management processes remain stuck in the past. The traditional command and control management model with its annual planning and budgeting process stifles innovation, entrenched functions undermine cross-functional processes, an emphasis on product targets works against customer intimacy and short-term performance contracts fail to support long-term value creation. The millions spent each year on new tools and techniques such as re-engineering, customer relationship management, team building, Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 3 of 14 enterprise resource planning systems, value-based management and balanced scorecards do not seem to overcome these problems. They support the rhetoric but flounder when faced with the forces of centralised decision-making, fixed performance contracts and the immune system of the traditional planning and budgeting system. If SMEs follow this path already well trodden by larger companies they will end up in the same position of having a management model that fails to support innovation, flexibility and adaptability. SMEs need to retain their innovative approach, speed and adaptability as they grow in size. They need to adopt a management model that supports the company’s success factors. The work of the Beyond Budgeting Round Table (Hope and Fraser, 2003 and Hope, 2006) have shown that a number of successful organizations have broken free from the traditional model and created a management model that is much more in tune with today’s turbulent and complex market conditions. In making this change SMEs need to adopt a similar management model and move to a new form of financial planning that supports rather than undermining this model. 3. Manage through continuous planning cycles Adaptive organizations believe that discontinuous change is now the norm. They see financial planning as a continuous, inclusive process, driven by events (such as the launch of a new product or a competitive threat) and emerging knowledge, and not constrained by the financial year-end. Nor does it need sophisticated tools. Instead it relies on fast, relevant (actionable) information and responsible people who know what is expected of them and what to do in any given situation. In companies subject to continuous change it might be appropriate to set regular (monthly or quarterly) strategic reviews (Southwest Airlines holds them quarterly), or to make a review dependent on some significant event (Svenska Handelsbanken branch teams respond to events). These events can be positive (e.g introducing new products and services) or negative (e.g. reacting to supply chain disruptions of environmental disasters). The whole point is that these reviews are not time-dependent and thus can occur as and when needed, not once a year as with the traditional budgeting process. Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 4 of 14 Figure 1 - The Check-Aim-Plan-Act Cycle BUSINESS UNITS CORPORATE CENTRE Aspirational goals and strategic guidelines • Where are we right now? • What does the short-term future look like? Manage resources Check Reporting and control: Actuals vs prior periods Trends inc forecasts KPIs • Are we on a trajectory to meet our aspirational goals? • Does our strategy need to change? Aim Act Plan Group rolling forecasts • What actions do we need to take to improve our performance? • What impact will these actions have on our performance? Forecast • What resources do we need? • When do we execute the plan The planning cycle has four steps: check, aim, plan and act1 (see figure 1) • Check- it starts with check. Where are we right now? What does the short-term future look like? • Aim – the next step is aim. Are we on a trajectory to meet our aspirational goals? Does our strategy need to change? • Plan – the third step is plan. What actions do we need to take to improve our performance? What impact will these actions have on our performance? • Act – the fourth step is act. How should we execute the plans and manage the existing business? Note that nowhere in this check-aim-plan-act cycle has the team made a commitment to a higher authority to reach a specific target; in other words there is no fixed performance contract. All the commitment to improve is within the local team. This taps the power of intrinsic motivation (McGregor’s Theory Y). It is the team that set the goals and plans and it is the team that has the drive to make them succeed. This local check-aim-plan-act cycle is typical of many adaptive organizations. But the key to success is that it is driven locally by people who want to improve their relative performance. 4. The dangers of the fixed performance contract Most companies have some form of individual incentive scheme. Often this is built around the idea of setting fixed targets and then paying a bonus if individuals reach this 1 This sounds familiar to Dr Deming’s ‘Plan-Do-Check-Act’ (PDCA) cycle, but in fact it’s quite different. Deming was referring to a manufacturing system or sub-system, whereas we are referring to a business planning system. For example, when Deming talked about ‘plan’ he meant have an idea for improving the system; check was ‘see if the idea works’; ‘do’ was put it in the line and ‘act’ was ‘go live’. Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 5 of 14 target. This system is based on the belief that people are inherently lazy and need to be motivated by extrinsic factors, primarily money (McGregor’s Theory X). This process becomes a fixed performance contract: if you reach this target during this period we will pay you this bonus, and the resources and the targets are built into the budget. How does this work in practice? Top management sets goals and strategic guidelines (often these goals are to achieve fixed targets such as a profit of EBITDA2 number by yearend). From these individual targets are set, incentives are aligned, actions agreed, resources allocated and plans coordinated. This results in the Budget and the fixed performance contract. Variances to budget are then analysed resulting in re-budgeting. The whole system is designed to keep on track to ensure that the numbers first thought of by top management are achieved, no matter how market and world conditions have changed. The basic message is just stick to your budget and hit the numbers. This whole process results in gaming, sub-optimal performance and encourages behaviours that are not aligned with the company’s real objectives. Lengthy negotiations ensure over the targets and resources (budget). Managers are seeking to agree on the lowest target with the maximum resources, whereas top management are seeking the reverse. Eventually both sides (it is adversarial) will agree on something in the middle and both sides think that they have won. In fact no one wins and the company gets sub-optimal performance. But it doesn’t stop there, once the individual targets are agreed the manager will manage his or her own performance to ensure that they achieve the target (and hence their bonus) no matter what. If we consider the example in Figure 2 Figure 2 – the problem with incentives Total salary and bonus Incentive stops here Incentive starts here B Cap A “Move profits into next year” Hurdle “Pull next year’s profits forward” Salary “Hold profits back” 80% of Target Budget Target 120% of Target Performance outcome Adapted from HBR article “Corporate Budgeting is Broken – Let’s Fix It” by Prof. Michael Jensen, Emeritus, Harvard Business School. The budget target has been finally agreed, the company agreed to start the incentive payment if the individual gets within 80 percent of the target (the hurdle), but it also caps the incentive payment at 120 percent of the target. If the individual feels that they won’t reach the hurdle they will hold back results in case they need them next year to reach the hurdle. If they reach the cap they can’t earn any more so they will tail off their performance and move result to next year in case they don’t reach the hurdle. Such schemes encourage dysfunctional behaviour. If you don’t already have such a process, don’t introduce it. It retards fast response, it stifles innovation, it encourages a ‘spend it or lose it’ mentality, it discourages customer 2 EBITDA: earning before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization. Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 6 of 14 intimacy; it undermines team working and leads to dysfunctional or even unethical behaviour. If you already have such a system get rid of it. Separate targets from planning, consider removing the budget altogether and move to a reward system that is team and/or company-wide based on progress towards relative aspirational goals. 5. Make rolling forecasts the primary management tool How can we manage without fixed targets, budgets and fixed incentives? Most leadingedge organizations use rolling forecasts and rolling frameworks as one of their main tools. Planning is about the future and uses forecasts as its basis. Many companies have introduced rolling forecasts in addition to the budget process. However, the mistake most managers make is assuming that forecasts are about ‘predicting and controlling’ future outcomes. The result is the inevitable ‘hockey stick’ effect to the forecast where they show that the forecast will meet the fixed targets and the budget. Forecasting is only necessary because organizations can’t react instantly to changing events. That’s why fast reaction is more important than (even accurate) prediction. But accuracy is rarely achieved; the only certainty about a forecast is that it will be wrong. The only question is by how much. Narrowing that variation comes from learning, experience and decent information systems. Acting on a forecast renders it obsolete as it has changed the subsequent events and therefore a new forecast is required taking into account the new changes. Rolling forecasts, if well prepared3, form the basis of a new and much more useful information system that connects all the pieces of the organization together and gives senior management a continuous picture both of the current position and the short-term outlook. They are the aggregate of ‘business as usual’ forecasts (extrapolations of existing trends), all the action plans in progress and all the plans in the pipeline. They should be base line plus anticipated events with the effort being focused on events. An honest view (or one that avoids dysfunctional behaviours) has no bias so managers should expect to see half their forecasts to be on the high side of actual outcomes and half on the low side. The ideal forecast has ‘clean’ data that enables managers to improve decision-making. Forecasts must not be seen as commitments otherwise bias and distortion (dirty or manipulated data) will be inevitable and the process becomes corrupt. Hence implementing rolling forecasts under the umbrella of fixed targets and the fixed performance contract rarely works. Leading organizations are placing forecasting at the centre of their management process. It becomes an essential tool for business managers to support the decision-making rather than just another tool that has to be fed. These forecasts need to be light and quick, which means focusing on only a few key drivers (or key performance indicators - KPIs). It should only take a day or two each time and is best done by the businesses team itself with support from the finance team. 5.1. Rolling forecasts in action Many forecasts only roll as far as the financial year-end as they are aimed at ensuring that the organisation is on track to meet its fixed targets. These forecasts are not aimed at supporting strategy and so there is often a gap approach year-end when no one is focusing on future performance. For this reason leading-edge companies have moved to rolling forecasts (often quarterly) that roll beyond the year-end. Figure 3 shows how they work. 3 Often forecasts are not well prepared due to such factors as poor project management, ‘rational’ behaviour in an irrational system and a lack of understanding of the importance of bias and variation. Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 7 of 14 Figure 3 – A 5-quarterly rolling forecast Year x Q1 Q2 Q3 Year x+1 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 1st Review 2nd Review 3rd Review 4th Review Forecast Actuals Let’s assume that the company is approaching the end of quarter one. The management team gets the rough figures for that quarter and starts to review the next four quarters ahead. Three of those quarters are already in the previous forecast so they just need updating. However, a further quarter needs to be added (Q1 for next year). By definition the fiscal yearend is always on the 12 or 18-month rolling forecast screen. In addition the 4th review in figure 3 provides the baseline plan for the next fiscal year. Figure 4 shows a graphical representation for a KPI. It shows that at each review the previous quarter has actuals that can be compared to the forecast. The point of using both actuals for past quarters and forecasts for the coming quarters is twofold: 1. To learn if the forecasting quality is improving and how it can be further improved 2. More importantly to highlight and changes in trends between actuals and forecast which would require clarification This should not be used to attribute blame but be seen as a learning exercise both for the team and the company. The most important communication from the forecast is not the actual numbers, but the trends. Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 8 of 14 Figure 4 – Rolling framework Internal accounting presentation Cost centre Current period Quarterly costs ($000’s) Same period last year 12 month moving average Moving average 12 months Actual quarterly costs 60 Current year-todate % change Moving average over last year Medium-term KPI target 54 48 42 36 Actual Forecast 30 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Plotting the moving average totals (MATs) for the actuals and the forecasts shows the trend for each KPI and any sudden unexplained changes. It can also show progress towards aspirational goals. Figure 4 shows that the quarterly actuals and forecasts have some “noise” but plotting the MATs smoothes out this noise. Figure 5 – Constantly managing performance gaps Net Profit 20% X World Class benchmarks “Gap” Goals 10% Baseline 2000 2001 2002 Actuals Project initiatives 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Forecasts Steady state changes Figure 5 shows another example in which the performance is plotted over time. In this case a steady-state change indicates that the performance won’t reach the baseline, let alone the aspirational goal. Adding in planned improvement projects improves the performance above the baseline, but it still shows a gap to the goal. This gap can only be managed with further improvement projects, the effects of which will show up in future forecasts. Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 9 of 14 5.2. Forecasting accuracy Many companies strive for ever greater forecasting accuracy, which they believe can be achieved with greater forecasting detail. This is not rational as given that each forecast is prone to error (after all it is the future we are considering), then the more forecasts we combine the greater will be the error as one mistaken assumption impacts upon another. Many organizations fail to let go of the detail and end up with four budget-type cycles per year instead of one. The details should be left to the front-line units to manage and not escalated up the organization. 5.3. Making forecasts a management not a measurement process Forecasts must not be seen by top management as a tool for questioning or re-assessing performance targets. Nor must they be used to demand changes or improvements. If forecasts are used in this way to demand immediate improvements from front line teams, then trust and confidence will rapidly evaporate. This challenges the strong culture of “command and control” and the lack of systems thinking in many organizations. Forecasts should be used to support strategy reviews and test the impact of strategic options. Tomkins a multinational conglomerate made a number of significant changes at the corporate level. They abandoned the traditional budget at the corporate level, it made no sense anyway as the business units operate in completely different market sectors with different dynamics. They abandoned negotiated fixed targets with their business units, instead they put in place a performance framework of 10:10:10 (10% sales growth, 10% profits growth and 10% return on capital employed) They then changed their incentive scheme to one in which teams are rewarded on growth over prior years. This had a big effect on behaviour; managers now focus on improvement rather than the numbers. Rolling forecasts were implemented where monthly ‘flash’ forecasts are done in the middle of the month project to the end of the month and two months ahead. Quarterly rolling forecasts also look 18 months ahead. Rolling forecasts are now the primary management tool. Finally the reporting system was change to one of actual versus prior year plus trend analysis. When asked if the organization had become more adaptive through these changes, CFO Ken Lever remarked “Undoubtedly; we are able to respond much more quickly to whatever comes up. For example, in the third week of January 2005 we had forecasts for the first quarter. So if there are any areas where we see a weakness, we have a dialogue with those businesses about how we can address these weaknesses. Under the old system we wouldn’t have got to that point until the middle of February so we are three weeks ahead of the game. We have two-weekly management calls around the group based on current forecasts. The benefits are tangible. All business teams are now focused on delivering their strategy and dealing with threats and opportunities as they arise; it’s made us a much more dynamic organization.” Toyota is a well-known example of a sense-and-respond organization. Instead of pushing products through rigid processes to meet sales targets, its operating systems start from the customer – it is the customer order that drives operating processes and the work that people do. The point is that in sense-and-respond companies, predetermined plans and fixed performance contracts are an anathema and represent insurmountable barriers; which is why adaptive organizations like Toyota don’t have them. However, in industries such as manufacturing planning has a vital role to play as they have ensure that they will have sufficient capacity for expected levels of customer orders and they have to manage and coordinate the supply chain. Every year Toyota Motor Europe develops what it calls its Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 10 of 14 Original Business Plan (OBP). The OBP is just a forecast (or financial plan) for the year and provides a baseline for understanding actuals and changes, for communicating, discussion and reaching consensus (a key element of Toyota’s way of working) and also for management reviews. The OBP doesn’t have any of the toxic elements of a traditional budget, such as agreeing and coordinating fixed targets, rewards and resources for the year ahead, and the measuring and controlling performance against such an agreement. Nor is it a reference for bonuses etc. as it doesn’t contain any targets or goals (aspirational goals are set separately by Toyota). Toyota Motor Europe also undertakes quarterly forecast to update the OBP. These are much lighter than the OBP and don’t go into much detail. Joseph Bragdon (Bragdon, 2006) describes Toyota as having a highly decentralized and networked organizational structure; an evolved system of management by means; product leadership in terms of design for environment and life cycle assessment; a logistics management system that projects its values and production methods down its supply chain; progressive ways of connecting with and serving the communities in which it operates; and a highly evolved systems thinking capacity - all the attributes to which SMEs aspire. 6. Managing costs through trends You may ask how can we manage and ‘control’ costs. Many successful Beyond Budgeting organizations set simple cost ratios to guide the front-line teams. Take the example of Handelsbanken, a highly successful Nordic bank. Thirty years ago the then CEO, Dr. Jan Wallander realised that the only way to be successful was to devolve power and responsibility to the branches, in effect make the branches the bank (removing the traditional budget was necessary as this was seen as having a centralizing effect). Now each branch “owns” its customers and is a profit centre and report their cost-to-income ratio and profit on a monthly basis. Branch managers have a ‘standard cost to income ratio of about 40 percent. Thus managers know whether the business is growing or declining they must constantly adjust costs and revenues to remain within the guidelines. But these limits are not set in terms of “budget lines”; managers have complete discretion to over how increase revenue and/or cut costs in accordance with the level of the business. The responsibility remains with the local team. Another approach to controlling costs without fixed budgets is to give clear indications of the resources that managers can anticipate over the medium-term give the strategic priorities agreed. These indications are typically in the form of expenditure directions (e.g. three years) set in relation to the latest twelve months’ actual expenditure. This gives a message that the current spending level to follow this trend. Over the next three years (or whatever the period) the resources should be managed so that the level of spend moves in this directions. This can be done by setting ratios (e.g. cost-to-income ratios), or moving averages (e.g. a 2 percent decrease over a period) and then managing business unit or cost (or profit) centre performance by exception. In this way the local units are given the responsibility of managing their own costs and making informed decisions. Top management is no longer having to use the demotivating blunt instrument of the across the board budget cuts. At one company, accountability was devolved to operating managers who monitored trends within a medium-term target. No specific targets were set for costs (except for a “default” reduction level of between 0-2%) unless there was a step-change required. In the absence of such a step-change, costs were just tracked on a monthly moving average basis. A large Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 11 of 14 petrochemicals company used this approach successfully to reduce its fixed costs by 30 percent over 5 years. This is an important part of the reporting system. There is no “micro” picture, no drilling down, just the broad-brush view of cost trends. Nor does it require an annual review; it is a rolling system of cost management. This overcomes the “use it or lose it” mentality and the sandbagging with contingencies. The moving average picture is sufficient for most purposes; it answers the broad questions such as: “Are costs under control?” and “Are they moving in the right direction?” This approach gives leaders more control than they ever had before, point reinforced by Gary Crittenden, CFO of American Express when he said that, “paradoxically you have more control in a rolling process than in a static one. In a static process you use the plan as the reference point for control, whereas a rolling process is constantly informing and regulating itself about what’s happening.” (Hope, 2005) ALDI, arguably one of Germany’s most successful retailers has focused on removing (or not creating) the “management factory”4 so often built up with command and control and instead devolving responsibility for cost management to self-managed teams (at the store level). ALDI has a “doing without checklist” that contains the following points (Brandes, 2005): • No staff to relieve management of intellectual work • No controlling department to provide direction • No budget forecasts • No scientifically cleaned statistics that reveal all • No ISO 9000 or TQM • No differentiated price policy by sales area or store type • No differentiated product mix from store to store • No games involving qualities to optimize profits ALDI has cut out huge amounts of work and cost that exists in most organizations to control front line operations. In addition, there are no large central functions such as marketing, management accounting and information systems. Instead, responsibility for decisions and accountability for outcomes rests with the store teams. ALDI believes in keeping everything as simple as possible. Continuous improvements ensure that ‘simple’ is not only well executed but perfected. The customer is always the prime consideration in all decisions. The establishment of small autonomous units has reduced the amount of communication and coordination, and the risk of bad decisions being taken remotely. This allows closer contact with the market and the customers as well as being faster. It is also one of the best ways to reduce complexity and it enables many more people to feel that they are ‘running their own business’. 7. Making it work As an SME grows the increase in volume of data and the capability to deal with the data becomes a major challenge for senior management. They find their in-trays and email 4 The management factory is the whole industry that builds up in command and control organizations around tools and techniques such as targets and incentives, budget contracts, balanced scorecards, ABC systems, ISO 9000, six sigma etc. Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 12 of 14 systems increasingly overloaded. They can’t be all-knowing in every aspect of the business and make sensible decisions on a day to day basis. Thus they are always reacting and reacting again and the stress builds up. A powerful way of managing this increasingly complex situation is to devolve planning and decision-making to the front-line teams (this was already foreseen by Prof Hans-Jürgen Warnecke back in the early 1990s (Warnecke, 1993)). If senior managers create the capacity for people lower down the organisation to make the right decisions and act on them, they can filter out a lot of data that would otherwise end of on the desks of top management. Top management doesn’t need to get involved in the detail of the front line units; they just need to monitor the whole unit and react if they see patterns and trends change in a way that riggers an alert on the senior management radar screen. This leads to fewer people handling data and therefore less scope for error and misreporting. The organizations studied by the Beyond Budgeting Roundtable (BBRT) show time and again that continuous planning and forecasting can only work effectively when power and authority is devolved to the front line units. All the time it remains at the centre it is in danger of becoming a quarterly budget process and all the bad behaviours continue. The only way to make the change is through devolution. All the commitment to improve is then within the local team, which taps the power of intrinsic motivation (McGregor’s Theory Y). It is the team that sets the goals and plans and it is the team that has to drive to make them succeed. The role of corporate centre is to set strategic direction together with clear operating guidelines, governance procedures and performance standards. They also have a clear monitoring role. Corporate centre use the rolling forecasts and trends to check that each unit is ‘within bounds’ in terms of agreed performance indicators and then only interfere if they are not. This local check-aim-plan-act is typical of many adaptive organizations, but the key to success is that it is driven locally by people who want to improve their relative performance. Leading organizations share some common attributes that enable the devolution of strategy: 2. They make accountability for strategy clear down the line. Teams know their scope of authority and the results for which they are accountable. 3. Teams share a common language for discussing strategies and a common process for developing them 4. They have skilled strategic thinkers who engage in a continuous dialogue about strategy 5. They actively encourage and support free, rigorous and fact-based debate. There is a ‘no blame’ culture that enables ideas to circulate freely. Mistakes are recognised as a learning opportunity both for the individual and the organization 6. They provide a climate where people can pursue long-term performance goals. Thinking strategically requires more extended perspective than managing for quarterly results. The policies, style and incentives of an organization must reward this kind of outlook but most often they do not. Removing the fixed performance contract, replacing the traditional annual planning and budgeting process with continuous planning cycles and devolving power and authority to front line teams enables a company to achieve a much higher degree of adaptability and responsiveness and hence higher and sustainable profitability than would otherwise have been possible. It enables the company to re-create the benefits of an SME by effectively allowing each and every unit to act like its own small business, but the some coordination from the top to achieve the common goals. Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 13 of 14 If you are a small or medium sized company and have not yet adopted the traditional budgeting process with its fixed performance, then DON’T. It will only lead to loss of adaptability and responsiveness, and loss of customer intimacy, the very attributes that make you successful today. Instead move to a form of financial planning that will enable you to manage your business more effectively as it grows whilst still retaining the attributes of a small company. 8. Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by his fellow BBRT Directors in the preparation of this paper: Jeremy Hope, Robin Fraser, Franz Röösli and Steve Player. References Bragdon, J.H. (2006) Profit for Life: How capitalism excels. Cambridge, MA: Society for Organizational Learning Haeckel, S. (1999) The Adaptive Enterprise. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Hope, J. and Fraser, R. (2003) Beyond Budgeting: how managers can break free from the annual performance trap. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Hope, J. (2005) Interview with Gary Crittenden, 14 February 2005 Hope, J. (2006) Reinventing the CFO: How financial managers can transform their roles and add greater value. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press Warnecke, H-J. (1993) The Fractal Company: A revolution in corporate culture. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Transforming financial planning in SMEs June 2007 © BBRT 2007 – All rights reserved Page 14 of 14
© Copyright 2024