How planning and capital budgeting improve SME performance

How Planning and Capital Budgeting Improve SME Performance Michael J. Peel and John Bridge

B ASED ON A SURVEY OF 150 small

and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), the purpose of this article is to provide some new evidence relating to strategic planning in the UK manufacturing sector. More specifically, the paper examines the relationship between strategic planning intensity (detail) and business objectives, environmental change, the use of capital budgeting techniques and business performance. SMEs are commonly being viewedI>’ as the engine of economic growth and are thought to play a crucial role in technological innovation and employment creation. It has also been argued by Wind and Main3 that relative to larger firms, SMEs are well placed to react to the challenges of increasing competition and globalisation of markets as we move into the next millenium-SMEs being more innovative, flexible and entrepreneurial, which enables them to react speedily to opportunities and threats. There has been increasing interest among policymakers in the role of SMEs in competitiveness initiatives. It has been recognised by the UK government4 that economic success in the UK is linked to the vitality of the SME sector-with Germany cited as an economy with a large and successful SME manufacturing sector4 (the ‘Mittelstand’)-the size and strength of which is related to the proportion of startups which survive and grow. Of particular concern in recent competitiveness initiatives has been the productivity gap between the UK and (western) Germany which was estimated5 at 20% in 1995. One explanation put forward for this gap in a recent (1998) McKinsey” report is that management finds it more expedient and profitable in the short run to take on extra labour rather than increasing industry’s capital (investment) stock by making long-term investment Pergamon PII: SOO24-6301(98)00102-2

This paper focuses on the use of strategic planning among small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK manufacturing sector. It analyses the relationship between the intensity of strategic planning, business objectives, perceived performance, changes in the business environment and the use of capital budgeting techniques. Capital budgeting is of particular interest as an area of investigation, and is one which has seldom featured in previous studies of strategic planning behaviour. These issues were investigated via a survey of UK manufacturing SMEs carried out in the winter of 1996/97.

The key results suggest that SMEs incorporate a range of objectives into their strategic planning process, with profit improvement perceived to be the most important objective, foltowed by sales growth. SMEs engaged in detailed strategic planning are more likely to use formal capital budgeting techniques, including the net present value method, which is consistent with maximising the companys’ value. Perceived profitability and success in achieving organisational objectives were positively associated with planning detail, suggesting that strategic planning is a key component improving performance. Planning detail was also associated with a significantly higher level of perceived change in the business environment. Q 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Long Range Planning, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 848 to 856, 1998 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0024-6301/98 $19.00+0.00

commitments. The McKinsey report argues that the British labour force is less productive than Germany’s because it has smaller and older facilities and machinery to utilise. In the context of this argument, a key area of investigation in the present study is whether SMEs in the UK manufacturing sector do plan in detail for periods more than one year ahead and if in so doing they subject investment proposals to criteria employed in capital budgeting techniques which are consistent with improving long-run profitability. This article also focuses on the business objectives which SMEs adopt in formulating their strategic plans. The business objectives pursued by SMEs are of interest, partly because they help us to understand how they develop their strategic plans, but also because in the context of the theory of the firm,’ empirical work has tended to revolve around largefirm objectives and behaviour, on account of the departure from profit maximisation facilitated by such factors as market power and the divorce between ownership and control in larger companies. Studies’,’ which have included SMEs, have tended to investigate their objectives in the context of lower-level decisions, such as the pricing of products. The present research, therefore, offers further insights into the objectives pursued by SMEs in strategic decisions, particularly those involving investment. Whilst Britain has been compared unfavourably with Germany in terms of competitiveness and the strength of its SME sector, the recent UK government competitiveness report4 noted that this does not extend to the very largest UK companies which are viewed as being ‘world class’, with 16 of the 25 most profitable companies in Europe being UK-based. The spreading of best practice, including the adoption of the management techniques which are used in big business, has been seen by policy makers as a vehicle for improvement of SME performance. Rapid advances in IT have encouraged the belief that businesses of all sizes should be able to plan and control their financial and physical resources more effectively and this view has led to initiatives directed both at promoting IT in smaller businesses and in fostering the principles of strategic planning. This paper therefore examines the extent of strategic planning in the UK SME manufacturing sector and the relationship between strategic planning and the use of sophisticated capital budgeting techniques, which are commonly employed by large firms. Large corporations have long used strategic planning to integrate the objectives and activities of their diverse business units. In discussing strategy formulation in SMEs Richardson” has argued that “the theory and practice of management strategy is generic and small business can learn much from big business.” However, he has also stressed’l that the planning systems of big businesses tend to start at the corporate level, which establish a framework for

planning in individual business units, and at lower hierarchical levels, but for SMEs the planning system needs to start at the level of the business unit which often encompasses the firm as a whole. In this context, strategic planning, as defined by Chandler”, and as followed in the current study, is “the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals.” The value of strategic planning is argued to be dependent on the circumstances facing SMEs. For example, PiBst,13 in commenting on the relationship between strategic planning and business performance, reports conflicting results-with some studies finding no association between planning and performance14 and others reporting a positive relationship.15 However, his own research,13 designed to examine the relationship between strategic variability and planning comprehensiveness, lent only limited support to there being a positive association between these attributes, and no support was given to the contention that “when strategic variability is high, companies should have comprehensive planning processes. ” Aram and Cowen’” argue that certain preconditions should be present for strategic planning to be effective (including the existence of satisfactory reporting/financial systems), but most important is the timely commitment to strategic thinking since “in smaller organisations the motivation to think and act strategically often follows a crisis, at which time it is too late.” Richardsonl’ has also argued that there may be a ‘context misfit’, which prevents strategic planning in SMEs from functioning effectively in very turbulent or crisis situations. Accordingly, the benefits may “be greater in conditions of medium levels of change rather than rapid and discontinuous change.” McKiernan and Morris,*’ however, argue that there is a consensus that formal strategic planning facilitates survival, particularly in turbulent environments. On balance, the strategy literature suggests that there should be a positive association between environmental turbulence and planning detail. In order to test further the relationship between planning detail and environmental change in the SME manufacturing sector, this article focuses on two key strategic variables; namely environmental change and market competition, since these are often viewedI as being of particular significance for SMEs.

Planning Detail and Survey Design The sample of companies used in this study was taken from the FAME CD-Rom UK corporate database in November 1996. The criterion for selection was whether or not the company had “last updated its Long Range Planning Vol. 31

December 1998

statement” in the previous quarter. This ensured that only live (non-failed) firms with up-to-date information on the database were included in the sample. The European Commission defines small firms as having lo-99 employees and medium firms as having loo-499 employees. Thus the sample comprises firms with employment levels between lo-499 (i.e. the sample excludes micro firms) and, given this basis for classification, only those firms which reported employee numbers were included in the sample*. A total of 1012 questionnaires were mailed to the managing directors of the sample firms between November 1996-February 1997. In total, 217 questionnaires were returned (a 21.4% response rate), of which 150 were usable for analysis in the current study, that is, firms which were SMEs in the manufacturing sector. The questionnaire elicited information relating to business performance, environmental change and market competition, the business objectives used in formulating strategic plans and the capital budgeting techniques employed to appraise new investments. A key aspect of the questionnaire was concerned with formulating a measure of strategic planning detail. In quantifying strategic planning, a number of studies (see, e.g., Lyles et o1.l’) have used simple measures to classify firms according to the degree of formality in the strategic planning process. This has the advantage that the relationship between strategic planning and other firm-specific variables (e.g., performance) can be examined in unidimensional terms. Multidimensional planning scales have also been utilised, although there is usually one criterion which dominates, the most popular” being the extent to which strategic plans are written down. However, McKiernan and Morris17 regard this as inappropriate to SMEs since “effective planning systems in SMEs tend to de-emphasize the need for written documentation and formal procedures.” Robinson and PearceI also argue against the emphasis on formality measured in terms of the extent of written sophistication, since smaller firms tend to apply informal processes to enhance their strategic effectiveness. In consequence, in this study, a five point ordinal planning detail scale was utilised to measure strategic planning intensity. The managing directors of the SMEs participating in the survey were requested to indicate on this scale the degree of detail with which strategic plans, with a planning horizon exceeding one year, were worked out. Table 1 shows that at the upper and lower limits of the scale, 24.7 and 20.7% of SMEs stated that they always and never conducted detailed strategic planning. *Four companies indicated that they had fewer than 10 employees on the questionnaire returns and may, therefore, have shed employees between the date of inclusion in FAME and the date of receiving the questionnaire.

TABLE 1.

Strew&

planning: the degree of detail

Strategic plans worked out in detail Always 5

4

3

24.7% (n=37)

22.0% (n=33)

25.3% (n=38)

2 7.3% (n=ll)

Never 1

Mean

20.7% (n=31)

3.23 (n= 150)

Following previous research,” and in order to examine the link between strategic intensity, capital budgeting techniques, environmental change and business performance (below), the sample of SMEs was divided into ‘low’ planners and ‘high’ planners. High planners are therefore categorised as those giving responses above the mid-point of the planning detail scale. Table 1 also reveals that the mean planning score is 3.23, so that all high planners are partitioned above, and all low planners below, the mean planning score.

Business Objectives Planning

and Strategic

It has been stressed in the planning literature that a key element of strategy formulation involves the setting of business objectives (see, e.g., Luffman et al.,” Bracker and Pearsonzo) Previous researchz3 has reported that larger companies tend to adopt a wide range of objectives, rather than focusing on a single goal. In this context, Johnson and Scholesz4 have noted that, although corporate objectives are often expressed in financial terms (e.g., profits and sales organisations use corporate growth), “increasingly, objectives of a non-financial nature. It is becoming increasingly recognised that there should be formal statements of objectives to be met on behalf of a variety of stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, employees and the community at large.” As outlined above, a key aim of the current study is to examine the objectives pursued by SMEs in the strategic planning process. Respondents were therefore asked to indicate how important they considered a range of objectives to be in formulating their firm’s strategic plans. In terms of mean importance, Table 2 shows that ‘improving profitability’ was the highest ranked objective with 74.6% of respondents who engaged in strategic planning indicating that they considered this was a very important objective-and with only 1.7% intimating that they considered it an unimportant objective-a result which is consistent with previous empirical studiesz5 of large companies. ‘Sales growth’ is the second highest ranked objective

How Planning and Capital Budgeting Improve SME Performance

/

TABLE 2.

851 \

Importance of objectives in strategic planning

Objectives Improve profitability Sales growth Improving quality Improving relationships with customers Reducing business costs Technological improvements Market share growth Return on capital Reducing risk of business failure Employee working conditions/welfare Diversifying product base Social responsibility and protection of environment (green issues) Asset growth

Of no importance

Correlation with planning detail’

Very important

Mean importance’

Rank

N

1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 5.0% 1.7% 1.7% 2.5% 2.5% 5.0% 1.7% 3.4% 6.0%

74.8% 52.9% 50.4% 48.7% 47.5% 37.0% 36.1% 37.8% 37.0% 20.3% 15.5% 9.5%

4.61 4.34 4.27 4.23 4.17 3.94 3.90 3.85 3.76 3.66 3.29 3.18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

119 119 119 119 118 119 119 119 119 118 116 116

0.165” 0.101 0.283”“” 0.237”“” 0.150* 0.178”” 0.198”” 0.066 0.120 0.275*** 0.081 0.239”“”

13.0%

6.1%

2.77

13

115

0.154’

’ Mean relate to a five point scale ranging from 1 =of no importance, to 5=very important ‘Correlations are between importance of corporate objectives and degree to which strategic plans are worked out in detail (Table I). ***, **, * Indicates Spearman correlation coefficients are significant at the 1, 5 and 10% levels, respectively (two-tailed tests).

followed by ‘improving quality’, ‘improving relationships with customers’ and ‘reducing business costs’. The lowest ranked objectives, in terms of formulating ‘employee working constrategic plans, include ditions/welfare’ and green issues. The result that ‘improving profitability’ was the highest rated objective, gives some support to the traditional theory of the firm in which maximisation of profits is assumed to be the goal of business, and in which SMEs would be expected to retain a strong interest. The fact that it is followed by ‘sales growth’ suggests that the latter remains an important strategic objective, but that the ‘managerial’ theory of the firm developed by Baumo1,“6 in which larger businesses may give priority to expanding sales (subject to a profit constraint), may not be applicable to SMEs. Nevertheless, the results of the current study suggest that SMEs do pursue multiple objectives, and that the two most prevalent are in line with prior expectations. Table 2 also reports the level of correlation between the degree of strategic planning detail (Table 1) and the importance attached to the various business objectives. It shows that there is a positive association between all the objectives and the degree of strategic planning-that is, SMEs which were more intensive (detailed) strategic planners attached more importance to the various business objectives in the strategic planning process. More specifically, the table reveals particularly strong positive associations between the intensity of strategic planning and the degree of importance attached to the objectives of improving

quality, improving relationships with customers, employee working conditions/welfare and social responsibility and protection of the environment. The latter is consistent with recent arguments in the strategy literature2’ that “failing to consider the environmental impact of strategic decisions may affect the financial stability of the firm and the ability of that firm to compete relative to others in the industry.” To examine the relationship between business objectives and strategic planning in more detail, respondents were requested to indicate the extent to which they used quantitative objectives (market share, turnover, return on investment, etc.) and qualitative objectives (quality, image, technological status, environmental concern etc.) in the strategic planning process. Table 3 shows than quantitative objectives are ranked higher than qualitative ones. However, although the table shows that there are strong positive correlations between the intensity of strategic planning (Table 1) and the use of quantitative and qualitative objectives in the strategic planning process, the strongest association is with qualitative objectives. This result is consistent with the findings reported in Table 2. Overall, the results in Tables 2 and 3 show that SMEs give cognisance to a number of business objectives in formulating their strategic plans, but that more intensive strategic planners place higher import on a range of corporate objectives-particularly qualitative objectives and those which are more consistent with the stakeholder view of the firm. Long Range Planning Vol. 31

December

1998

/

852

\

Never 1

2

3

4

5

6

Always 7

Mean’

Correlation with planning detail2

Quantitative objectives (market share, turnover, return on investment, etc)

2.5% (n=3)

2.5% (n=3)

7.6% (n=9)

17.6% (n=21)

23.5% (n=28)

16.0% (n=19)

30.3% (n=36)

5.26 (n=119)

0.413*** (n= 119)

Qualitative objectives (quality, image, technological status, environmental concerns

2.5% (n=3)

5.1% (n=6)

6.8% (n=8)

19.5% (n=23)

24.6% (n=29)

22.0% (n=26)

19.5% (n=23)

5.03 (n=118)

0.421*** (n= 118)

Objectives

etc)

’ Means relate to a seven point scale ranging from I= never use, to 7 = always use. Xorrelations are between use of objectives and the degree to which strategic plans are worked out in detail (Table 1). ***indicates Spearman correlation coefficients are significant at the 1% level (two-tailed tests).

Strategic Planning Appraisal

and Investment

A key aspect of strategic (long-range) planning, as opposed to operational (short-term) planning, relates to capital investments. For example, Kargar” has stressed the importance of the analysis of investment opportunities, together with the use of financial models, in the strategic planning process. In this context, a number of standard capital budgeting techniques are available to help managers reach investment decisions. These are broken down into traditional techniques (the payback and accounting rate of return methods) and the more recent (and technical) discounted cash flow (DCF) techniques (the net present value and internal rate of return methods). In terms of maximising the value of the firm (or owners’ wealth), which is the assumed objective of the firm in the finance literature,” DCF techniques have been demonstrated3’ to be superior to the less technical traditional methods. To investigate whether the use of capital budgeting techniques is associated with strategic planning detail, respondents were requested to state which investment techniques were used to appraise new capital projects. Consistent with previous evidence,31 Table 4 shows that the payback method is the most popular capital budgeting technique used by SMEs in the sample-with 80.9% of respondents stating they used this method, falling to 48.2% for the accounting rate of return (ARR) method, 38.7% for the internal rate of return (IRR) method, and to only 35.6% for the net present value (NPV) method. Hence traditional investment appraisal methods are used more frequently than the more sophisticated DCF techniques. However, Table 4 reveals that high planners (see above) use significantly more capital budgeting techniques than low planners. In all cases, the proportion of high planners using each method is

higher than for low planners. Furthermore, the largest differences relate to the use of the NPV method (alone) and the NPV and IRR methods (used in combination). Given that the strategy and finance literature3’ suggests that managers find the NPV method is the most difficult to use in practice-but that it is also the best method to value corporate investments-the finding that high planners in the current SME sample use the technique to a significantly greater extent than low planners is a key one. It suggests that more intensive strategic planners tend to adopt a more sophisticated approach to capital budgeting-an approach which is consistent with improving business performance.

Environmental Competition

Change and Market

As discussed above, although it has been argued” that very rapid environmental change may limit the effectiveness of strategic planning, the strategy literature (both in its empirical evidence and from a normative perspective)17 suggests that formal planning can improve the survival prospects of businesses in turbulent environments. To investigate the association between strategic planning detail and the external business environment in the context of UK manufacturing SMEs, three questions were included in the questionnaire The first requested respondents to indicate how large they considered the rate of change had been in their business environment over the previous five years. The second and third requested respondents to indicate how aggressive/competitive they considered the markets in which they operated were. Table 5 reveals that, on average, high planners are associated with a significantly of environmental change

However,

How Planning and Capital Budgeting Improve SME Performance

on average,

higher perceived level than low planners.

the intensity

of market

com-

Proportion

(%I using

High planners

Low planners

All firms

45 5%“” cn= 66) 45.5% (n=66) 56 1%” (nl66) 86.4% (n=66) 36 4%*** (A=661 2.33ttt (n=66)

26 I%** (;= 69) 32.4% (n=71) 40 8%" (nL71) 75.7% (n=70) 159%""Y (i=69) 1.72ttt (n=68)

35.6% (n=135) 38.7% (n=137) 48.2% (n=137) 80.9% (n=136) 25.9% (n=135) 2.02 (n=134)

NPV IRR ARR Payback NPV and IRR Total number’

of techniques

(mean)

’ Number = NPV+IRR+ARR+Payback ***, **, * indicates Chi-square tests between high and low planners are significant at the 1, 5 and 10% levels, respectively. ttt Indicates means are signifcantly different at the 1% level (two-tailed t-test).

TABLE 5.

En~ir~~m~~tal change and market competition

0

Environmental Market

High planners: means

Low planners: means

5.29*** (n=70) 5.93 (n=70) 5.56 (n=70)

4.77”“”

change’

competition*

Aggressive

competition3

(n=80) 5.84 (n=80) 5.45 (n=80)

All firms: means 5.01

(n=150) 5.88 (n=150) 5.50 (n=150)

‘Means relate to a seven point scale ranging from 1 =no change in business environment, to 7=very large change in business environment. * Means relate to a seven point scale ranging from I= the market is not at all competitive, to 7 = the market is very competitive. 3Means relate to a seven point scale ranging from 1 =competitors are not at all aggressive, to 7 =competitors are very aggressive. ***Indicates significant difference between the sub-sample distributions at the 1% level (two-tailed Mann-Whitney test).

petition (together with the perceived aggressiveness of competitors), does not differ significantly between low and high planners in the SME manufacturing sector. Overall, the results in Table 5 suggest that the intensity (detail) of strategic planning in SMEs is strongly associated with environmental change, but that planning intensity is not significantly associated with the intensity of market competition in which businesses participating in the survey operated.

Strategic Planning Performance

and Business

Previous studies which have examined the relationship between strategic planning and business performance have reported mixed results-with some finding a positive and significant impact” and others finding no relationship.‘l One potential reason for

this, is that most studies use performance measures derived from accounting data. Indeed, Bracker and Pearson” observe that accounting based performance measures suffer from two key drawbacks: (i) the nonhomogeneity of data (e.g., resulting from the use of different depreciation and stock evaluation methods); and (ii) the non-availability of data for smaller firms. The latter is particularly pertinent in the UK, where SMEs may file modified accounts which, inter alia, do not contain revenue (sales) and profit data. In this study, and following Machin and Stewart,3” we therefore assess performance using ordinal scale questions completed by the managing directors of the SMEs participating in the survey. As noted by Machin and StewarF, “given the anomalies associated with accounting measures this type of information has . In particular, it reflects what managers advantages.. actually consider to be financial performance.” The first performance measure focuses on relative perLong Range Planning Vol. 31

December

1998

[

TABLE 6,

854

\

Profitability and success in achieving objectives’

Success2 Profitability3 ’ Perceived profitability and achieving primary company ‘Means relate to a five point 3Means relate to a five point *** **Indicates significant Wh;tney tests).

High planners: means

Low planners: means

All firms: means

3.87** (n=68) 3.60*** (n=67)

3.53** (n=79) 3.06”“” (n=79)

3.69 (n= 147) 3.31 (n= 146)

success were specified with reference to other firms with which the business competes. objectives. scale ranging from 1 = not at all successful, to 5=very successful. scale ranging from 1 = not at all profitable, to 5=very profitable. difference between the sub-sample distributions at the 1% and 5% levels respectively

ceived profitability. Respondents were requested to indicate how profitable they considered their business was relative to other competing businesses. However, the use of financial performance measures (e.g., profitability) to evaluate planning effectiveness have been criticised in the strategy literature for being too narrowly focused. For example, McKiernan and MorrisI argued that ‘overall’ performance measures are more appropriate; and Kargarz8 suggests that performance should be assessed with reference to organisational goals. In consequence, a second, wider ranging, goal-centred performance measure is also used in this study. Managing directors of the SMEs participating in the survey were requested to indicate how successful they considered their business was, relative to competing businesses, in achieving its primary objectives. Table 6 shows that, on average, high planners considered they were significantly more profitable than low planners. In addition, high planners also perceived themselves to be significantly more successful in achieving their primary objectives than low planners. These results are consistent with theoretical expectations and suggest that the intensity (detail) of strategic planning is positively and significantly associated with both perceived profitability, and perceived success in achieving organisational objectives, in the sample of manufacturing SMEs participating in the current study. Given that both performance measures were ascertained with reference to competing businesses, and that the perceived level of competition in the markets within which high and low planners operate does not differ significantly (Table 5), these performance differentials strongly support the contention that strategic planning pays.

Conclusion The purpose of this paper has been to provide new empirical evidence relating to the strategic

some plan-

Success relates to

(two-tailed

Mann-

ning practices of SMEs operating in the UK manufacturing sector. The results of the study suggest that: l

l

l

l

l

SMEs incorporate a range of objectives into the strategic planning process, with profit improvement perceived to be the most important objective, followed by sales growth. More intensive (detailed) strategic planning was found to be positively associated with the importance attached to a range of business objectives which were used to formulate strategic plans. Particularly strong correlations were found between the intensity of strategic planning and the importance attached to stakeholder objectives, such as employee welfare and green issues. Strategic planning intensity (detail) was positively associated with the use of formal investment appraisal techniques. SMEs engaging in detailed strategic planning also employed the more sophisticated net present value capital budgeting technique to a significantly greater extent than their counterparts who worked out their strategic plans in less detail. Although the perceived level and aggressiveness of market competition did not differ significantly between ‘high’ and ‘low’ strategic planners, high planners were associated with a significantly higher level of perceived environmental change. Relative to competing businesses, perceived profitability, and success in achieving primary objectives, were positively and significantly associated with strategic planning intensity.

Overall, the results of this study are in line with theoretical expectations. In particular, the evidence presented in this article indicates that SMEs engaged in detailed strategic planning are more likely to utilise formal capital budgeting techniques, including the net present value method, which is consistent with maximising firm value. In line with this, perceived profitability and success in achieving organisational

How Planning and Capital Budgeting Improve SME Performance

/

855

\

policy towards the sector. . . public policies have been developed, jettisoned and often reintroduced on a piecemeal basis.” Strategic planning offers an integrating device in which the purpose of these initiatives can be more readily appreciated and in which the need to adopt technically sound principles of investment appraisal can be demonstrated as an aid to improving profitability and business performance in the long term.

objectives was positively associated with planning detail, suggesting that strategic planning is a key component of performance enhancement. In terms of policy implications for SMEs, a compelling case can be made from these findings for fostering a strategic planning methodology to improve the performance of this sector. Hitherto, efforts have lacked coherence but have included such initiatives as support for IT, advice on raising finance, training in the use of marketing techniques and so on. As Storey3“ has commented, “whilst there is a wide range of policy initiatives to assist small firms, governments throughout Europe have yet to formulate a coherent

We are grateful to the University of Klagenfurt for partial funding of the survey from which the results of the present article are derived, and for the collaborative efforts of Dietrich Kropmerger and Gernot Moedritscher in the design of the survey.

References 1. M. Sharp, Technology Policy. In T. Buxton, P. Chapman Economic Performance, Routledge, London (1998). 2. D. Deakins,

Entrepreneurship

and P. Temple

and Small Firms, McGraw-Hill,

Maidenhead

3. J. Wind and J. Main, Driving Change: How the Best Companies Century, Kogan Page, London (1998). 4. HMSO Competitiveness: 5. R. Chote, International 6. R. Chote, Preliminary

Forging Productivity

Statistics,

Financial

The Economics

Pricing Objectives in British 29(4), 429-43 (1981).

9. D. Jobber and G. Hooley, Managerial and Decision

for the 27st

(1995).

Times, p.10. 15th May (1998).

Financial

of the firm,

Manufacturing

(1996).

are Planning

Cmnd 2867, HMSO, London

Report on UK Productivity,

7. R. Clarke and T. McGuiness, 8. D. Shipley, Economics,

Ahead,

(Eds) Britain’s

Times, p.10. 15th May (1998). Basil Blackwell,

Industry,

Pricing Behaviour in UK Manufacturing Economics, 8(2), 167-71 (1987).

Journal

Oxford

(1987).

of industrial

and Service

Industries,

10. W. Richardson, Spreading Strategic Skills in SMEs. In R. Welford (Ed), Small Business and Small Business Development, European Research Press, Bradford (1991). 11. W. Richardson, In Defence of Business Planning: Why and how it Still Works for Small Firms and Corporations of Small Business Units, Small Business and Enterprise Development, 2,41-57 (1995). 12. A.D. Chandler, Strategy and Structure: MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Chapters (1962).

in the History

13. B. Pi&t, Planning Comprehensiveness 6, 387-395 (1994).

and Strategy

of the industrial

in SMEs, Small Business

Enterprise, Economics,

14. R.B. Robinson and J.A. Pearce, The Impact of Formalised Strategic Planning on Financial Performance in Small Organisations, Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 197-207 (1983). Boundary Spanning and Information 15. M.J. Dollinger, Environmental on Organisational Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 16. J.D. Aram and S.S. Cowen, Strategic Planning Long Range Planning, 23(6), 63-70 (1990).

for Increased

Processing Effects 27(2), 351-368 (1984).

Profit in the Small Business,

17. P. McKiernan and C. Morris, Strategic Planning and Financial Performance Does Formality Matter, British Journal of Management, 5, 31-41 (1994).

in UK SMEs:

of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign 18. J.G. Covin and D.P. Slevin, Strategic Management Environments, Strategic Management Journal, 10,75-87 (1989). 19. M.A. Lyles, J. Baird, B. Orris and D.F. Kuratko, Formalised Planning in Small Business: Increasing Strategic Choices, Journal of Small Business Management, April, 38-50 (1993). 20. J. Bracker and J. Pearson, Planning and Financial Performance Strategic Management Journal, 7(6), 503-522 (1986). 21. G. Greenley, Does Strategic Planning Planning, 19(2), 101-109. (1986). 22. G. Luffman, Introduction,

Improve

E. Lea, S. Sanderson and B. Kenny, Blackwell, Oxford (1990).

Corporate Strategic

of Small Mature

Firms,

Performance?,

Long Range

Management:

An Analytical

Long Range

Planning

Vol.

31

December

1998

23. R. Pike and R. Dobbins, (1986). 24. G. Johnson Cambridge

Investment

and K. Scholes, (1993).

Exploring

25. R. Pike and B. Neale, Corporate Hall, London (1993). 26. W.J. Baumol,

Business

Decisions

Corporate

Value and Growth,

Developing

Strategy,

Philip Allan,

Strategy-Text and

Finance and Investment:

Behaviour,

27. A. lllinitch and S. Schaltegger, Planning, 28(2), 29-38 (1995).

and financial

Decisions Macmillan,

a Green Business

28. J. Kargar, Strategic Planning System Characteristics Mature Firms, The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business,

Cases, Prentice and Strategy,

P. Kaur, S. Maugham Certified Accountants,

and J. Rendal, Financial London (1995).

New York (1959).

Portfolio,

30. S. Lumby, (1994).

/nvestmentAppraisal

and Financial

Strategy,

Decisions,

Chapman

Long Range

Association

32. T. Grundy,

Corporate

Strategy

and Financial

34. D.J. Storey,

Understanding

Decisions,

and Hall, London

Kogan Page, London

and the Financial Performance of British Econometrics, 5, 327-350 (1990).

the Small Business

Sector,

Routledge,

in Small of

31. M. Peel and NC. Wilson, Working Capital and Financial Management Practices Small Firm Sector, international Small Business Journal, 14(2), 52-68 (1996).

33. S. Machin and M. Stewart, Unions Establishments, Journal ofApplied

Hall,

Prentice

and Planning Effectiveness 32(l), 19-23 (1996).

29. N. Brown, Chartered

Oxford

London

in the

(1992). Private

Michael J. Peel is a Oistinguished Senior Research Fellow at Cardiff Business School, UK.

Sector

(1994).

Dr John Bridge is a Senior Lecturer at Cardiff BusineSs School, UK. ’

How Planning and Capital Budgeting Improve SME Performance