Assignment 1: Planning (Any Company & Department)

Components

• Report Writing: 20 marks (≈1,500 words)
• Group Presentation: 5 marks (5–7 min, 5–7 slides)

Team size per instructor policy (Max 5 participants). Choose any company (real or hypothetical) and any department..

Project Objective

Connect management & organizational behavior theories with real practice. Visit or model an organization and analyze how Planning is implemented within one department of your choice (HR, Marketing, Operations, Finance, IT, Customer Service, R&D, etc.).

• CLO1: Knowledge & application of theories
• CLO2: Evaluate implications for structure & adaptability
• CLO3: Propose leadership strategies
• CLO4: Assess ethical dilemmas & recommend fair actions

1) Choose Context

Pick any company (real or hypothetical) and one department. Define scope in 2–3 lines and label any Assumed Scenario.

2) Access & Ethics

Gain consent, anonymize by default, avoid sensitive data. Participation is voluntary; allow withdrawal.

3) Collect Inputs

• Short interview(s): manager + one staff
• Observe one planning meeting/process
• Gather non-sensitive docs (KPIs/SOPs) if available

1) Introduction

Why planning matters, your context, one-line thesis, and how sections map to CLO1–CLO4.

2) Context & Scope

Department, boundaries, constraints; note assumptions.

3) Types of Planning

• Strategic (3–5y) — direction & big bets. Theory: Systems; Leadership: Transformational.
• Tactical (1–2y) — programs & policies. Theory: Contingency; Behavior: Participative decisions.
• Operational (6–12m) — targets, SLAs, schedules. Theory: Behavioral decision/heuristics.

4) Goals (SMART)

Give at least one short-term (6–12m) and one long-term (3–5y) SMART goal.

5) Decision-Making & Stakeholders

Rational (weighted scoring for major choices) vs Intuitive (experience-based quick calls). Add a mini-RACI.

6) Leadership & Ethics

State leadership approach (Transformational/Transactional/Servant) and one ethical tension with a fair recommendation.

7) Conclusion

Tie effectiveness & improvements back to adaptability/performance and CLOs.

HR

• Strategic: Leadership pipeline; reduce voluntary turnover 20%.
• Tactical: Revamp performance reviews; launch manager training.
• Operational: Cut time-to-hire 10%; improve offer acceptance 8%.

Marketing

• Strategic: Enter 2 regions; +25% brand awareness.
• Tactical: Pilot ABM; rebalance paid/organic.
• Operational: Publish 30 SEO articles; lower CPL 12%.

Operations

• Strategic: ISO 9001; -25% end‑to‑end lead time.
• Tactical: Dual-sourcing; introduce Kanban cells.
• Operational: 95% on‑time completion; 99.5% accuracy.

Finance

• Strategic: Rolling forecasts; strengthen capital structure.
• Tactical: New budgeting tool; controls uplift.
• Operational: Close ≤5 days; -15% late payments.

IT

• Strategic: 80% cloud; SOC2 compliance.
• Tactical: SSO rollout; DR drills.
• Operational: MTTR <2h; 99.9% uptime.

Customer Service

• Strategic: CSAT ≥ 90%; -10% churn.
• Tactical: Tiered support; knowledge base.
• Operational: First response <1h; +15% self‑service.

R&D

• Strategic: 3 prototypes/year; -15% cycle time.
• Tactical: Stage‑gate; university partnership.
• Operational: Monthly sprints; user‑test every prototype.

SMART Goal

Specific: ...
Measurable: ...
Achievable: ...
Relevant: ...
Time-bound: ...

Weighted Scoring

Cost .......... /10
Functionality .. /10
Integration .... /10
Risk .......... /10
Support ....... /10
Total ......... /50

Mini‑RACI

Decision: ___________________
Responsible (R): ____________
Accountable (A): ____________
Consulted (C): _____________
Informed (I): ______________

Interview Guide

• Top 3 planning priorities this year?
• How do strategic/tactical/operational plans connect?
• Which KPIs show planning success?
• Recent decision: data used, who involved, method?
• Leadership behaviors that helped/hindered?
• Any ethical tensions (fairness, privacy, transparency)?
• One change you’d make to planning?

Ethics Statement

All participants gave verbal consent; identities are anonymized.
No proprietary/sensitive data included. Participation was voluntary.
Notes reflect observed and self-reported practices; access can be withdrawn.