(Ref:

• HCO PL 5 Jan. 83 Admin Know-How Series 46 STRATEGIC PLANNING

The CASH/BILLS statistic, when accurately computed, will tell whether an org or any company is solvent. It tells one where he stands in present time on a week-to-week basis. But viability is an entirely different concept as it deals with the future. One may have enough cash to cover his bills at this moment but will he be able to continue to survive and prosper? That is where viability comes in.

The way one would get an idea of the viability of a company would be by applying a formula of cost accounting. The formula is THE STOCKS REPLACEMENT COST PLUS THE RUNNING EXPENSES OF THE COMPANY VERSUS THE GROSS SALES OF THE COMPANY, AND THAT IS THE COST ACCOUNTING FORMULA.

This is quite simple to see for something like a Pubs Org where you are dealing with a physical universe commodity. You have books, meters, tapes and so on and it costs you a certain amount to manufacture these and a certain amount to run the organization itself to bring about a manufactured product, to promote, to take orders, deliver and to see that the product finally winds up in the hands of the consumers.

It is really no different in a public service org except that your “stocks” are auditing and training services as well as books, meters and so forth. So one would have to look at those “stocks” in terms of what it costs the organization to make those services available for public consumption, including the cost to the organization to procure and train auditors, Supervisors and so on.

Those writing strategic plans as well as those passing them have the responsibility for ensuring:

1. That strategic plans are correct and will handle what they are designed to handle.

The concept of viability directly relates to an org’s FP No. 1. A REAL FP NO. 1 GIVES YOU YOUR MAKE-BREAK POINT IN AN ORG. YOU CAN COMPARE YOUR FP NO. 1 AGAINST YOUR GI AND CGI AND TELL WHETHER THE ORG IS VIABLE BY COMPARING THESE FIGURES. I’m talking about a real FP No. 1 that covers every actual expense under the sun, moon and stars which is required to run an org and that must include what it will cost to bring about the ability to deliver training and processing in volume and with high quality. It is not just what one “can get by on this week.” All too often an org will actually limit its income and delivery potential by not spending what it should in order to increase public inflow and delivery. That doesn’t mean that one spends what one makes, as that is the sure road to insolvency; but it does mean that one must be very wise in financial planning to invest his beans into things which will result in more beans back; and by doing so continually, one builds an org bigger and bigger and increases his degree of viability.

2. That strategic planning is done to handle existing situations.

The degree of viability in an organization depends, in the main, on the degree of intelligent application of proven methods of promotion, sales and delivery by its executives and staff. In Scientology these proven methods are contained in HCO PLs, HCOBs, tapes, books and films. One could actually get a very good idea of the degree

3. That no situation or goal requiring strategic planning is left uncovered by an overall plan for its handling.

an org is running on-policy and in-tech by measuring the relationship covered in the cost accounting formula. An org that is struggling along, being dunned by creditors, having few students and pcs in the shop is an admission by its executives and staff that policy and tech are out in their org.

Additionally, those writing strategic plans have the responsibility for getting themselves trained to proficiency in the use of this vital management tool.And those passing on strategic plans have the added responsibility of correctly critiquing submitted plans, with no caprice or opinion entered into the line. With standard, in-tech criticism given, those in planning positions can be brought up to greater proficiency in their planning through cramming, additional training and, as needed, ethics.

The following checklist is therefore offered as a guide for those writing strategic plans and those whose job it is to approve such plans and authorize them for issue.

It is fairly obvious that an organization that received income and didn’t deliver could not survive for long. So when viewing viability, one must also take into account what delivery backlogs exist.

Having paid-for-but-not-delivered service is actually quite a liability for an organization as it will now cost the organization more to deliver it than if it had delivered the service at the time it was paid for. It will require additional expense to get it delivered in the way of promotional expenses to call the person in, more auditors or Supervisors to handle the backlog without disrupting current delivery plus the factor of monetary inflation related to all funds expended. What it would have cost you to deliver an intensive of auditing or a book two years ago is not what it will cost you today. Not only that — someone is also a potential repayment threat if not delivered to and so anything spent earlier or now to bring that person in could get no bean return (because the beans were already collected) and in fact cost the org any future potential income from that person. Most importantly, we’ll never clear the planet just by collecting advance donations! Delivery is a MUST!

1. a. Has the strategic plan been preceded by correct observation of the situation to be handled?

So in viewing the org’s viability and in doing an FP No. 1, the org must also take into account the paid-for-but-not-delivered service and what it will cost to get it delivered in addition to new procurement and delivery.

b. Is it a valid situation?

c. Has all the applicable data been examined?

A wise Executive Council in an org should give very careful consideration to income planning, taking into account existing and potential delivery capability as well as the handling of backlogged delivery and then do a real FP No. 1 that takes into account every single expense involved in making that income and delivery possible. They would then program out how to accomplish what is planned and get it DONE, all the while ensuring that the org never spends more than its CGI plus reserves, and by wise financial management and adherence to standard policy and tech get more and more return from the beans expended.

(These points would show up in verification of the information section of the plan.)

And to the degree that income increases above that FP No. 1 amount — well, that’s just how viable that org is.

2. Is there a clear and comprehensive statement of the situation the plan is designed to handle?

3. Is there a clear statement of the purpose to be achieved?

4. Is the purpose, as stated, based on and consistent with the situation?

5. Is the purpose broad enough and stated in sufficiently broad terms so that, when achieved, it will not only handle the situation but result in increased viability?

6. Is the strategic plan itself aligned to and consistent with the purpose?

7. Is the plan clearly expressed and understandable?

8. Does the plan include a strategy that will actually and effectively implement the purpose and swiftly get it rolling in the physical universe?

9. Is the proposed strategy actually clever and bright enough to achieve the purpose?

10. Is the plan broad enough to fully accomplish the purpose?

11. Is it doable?

12. Does it cover, in broad general terms as required in a strategic plan, the major actions and areas which need to be programed in order to accomplish the purpose?

13. Where it uses any of the other tools of management, does it use these correctly?

14. Does it take existing resources or lack of them into consideration?

15. Does it include strategic use of lines, terminals or networks where the need for this is obvious?

16. Does it include the use of surveys and/or PR handling where these are obviously indicated by the situation?

17. Does it tend to collapse purpose and tactical planning and omit the needed strategy? (If so, it needs correction.)

18. Does the strategic plan effectively bridge between purpose and tactical so that it can be used for coordination in tactical planning and serve as an orientation point for precisely targeted actions?

The above checklist is not in any way intended to be used by planning or approval terminals as a substitute for study of the references and full data on strategic planning.

While other factors than those listed might need to be taken into consideration, the checklist provides the main points upon which any strategic plan would be judged.

And it is probably safe to say that any plan which had all of the above positive points in would be worthy of the title “strategic” and highly effective when executed.