Business Process Re-EngineeringEssay Preview: Business Process Re-EngineeringReport this essayFUNCTIONAL TACTICSFunctional tactics are the key, routine activities that must be undertaken in each functional area that is human resource management, marketing, finance, production/operations and research and development to provide the business s products and services. Hence functional tactics translate thought (grand strategy) into action designed to accomplish specific short- term objectives. Every value chain activity in a company executes functional tactics that support the businesss strategy and help accomplish strategic objectives.
Differences Between Business Strategies and Functional TacticsFunctional tactics are different from business or corporate strategies in three fundamental ways:Time horizon.Specificity.Participants who develop them.Time HorizonFunctional tactics identify activities to be undertaken “now” or in the immediate future. Business strategies focus on the firms posture three to five years out.
The shorter time horizon of functional tactics is critical to the successful implementation of a business strategy for two reasons.First, it focuses the attention of functional managers on what needs to be done now to make the business strategy work.Secondly, it allows functional managers to adjust to changing current conditions.SpecificityFunctional tactics are more specific than business strategies. Business strategies provide general direction. Functional tactics identify the specific activities that are to be undertaken in each functional area and thus allow operating managers to work out how their unit is expected to pursue short-term objectives.
Specificity in functional tactics contributes to successful implementation by:Helping ensure that functional managers know what needs to be done and can focus on accomplishing results.Clarifying for top management how functional managers intend to accomplish the business strategy, which increases top managements confidence in and sense of control over the business strategy.
Facilitating coordination among operating units within the firm by clarifying areas of interdependence and potential conflict.ParticipantsDifferent people participate in strategy development at the functional and business levels. Business strategy is the responsibility of the general manager of a business unit. That manager typically delegates the development of functional tactics to subordinates charged with running the operating areas of the business. The manager of a business unit must establish long- term objectives and a strategy that corporate management feels contributes to corporate level goals. Similarly, key-operating managers must establish short- term objectives and operating strategies that contribute to business level goals. Just as business strategies and objectives are approved through negotiation between corporate managers and business managers, so too, are short-term objectives and functional tactics approved through negotiation between business managers and operating managers.
Participantsdifferent people participate in strategy development at the functional and business levels. Business strategy is the responsibility of the general manager of a business unit. That manager typically delegates the development of functional tactics to subordinates charged with running the operating areas of the business. The manager of a business unit must establish long- term objectives and operating strategies that corporate management feels contributes to corporate level goals. Similarly, business strategies and objectives are approved through negotiation between corporate managers and business managers, so too, are short-term objectives and functional tactics approved through negotiation between business managers and operating managers.
The strategic team has an inherent set of skills and the performance of personnel. While those can not be developed, they are fully utilized and are provided across the various departments to the other team members and to the functional personnel, including the functional employees, to evaluate performance, provide direction, provide guidance, develop strategies, and to provide practical advice and advice to their counterparts outside the organization.
The strategic team has an intrinsic set of skills and the performance of personnel. While those can not be developed, they are fully utilized and are provided through the various departments to the other team members and to the functional personnel, including the functional employees, to evaluate performance, provide direction, provide guidance, develop strategies, and to provide practical advice and advice to their counterparts outside the organization..
In the event one person at a company ends up being the architect of a strategic situation, it is important to understand that as a strategic relationship continues it will take time and not simply be one man with four jobs. The time to evaluate one person is what allows the strategic team to effectively take in, assess, and prioritize on new opportunities, issues, and strategic planning and execution. While some people within the strategic team may become disillusioned with the current government policy and are working to change it, some of the people running the strategic team know who the original decision makers are, will become a part of it, and may not even accept it as an option even outside the company.
In the event one person at a company ends up being the architect of a strategic situation, it is important to understand that as a strategic relationship continues it will take time and not simply be one man with four jobs. The time to evaluate one person is what allows the strategic team to effectively take in, assess, and prioritize on new opportunities, issues, and strategic planning and execution. While some people within the strategic team may become disillusioned with the current government policy and are working to change it, some of the people running the strategic team know who the original decision makers are, will become a part of it, and may not even accept it as an option even outside the corporate structures.
In the event one person at a company ends up being the architect of a strategic situation, it is important to understand that as a strategic relationship continues it will take time and not simply be one man with four jobs. The time to evaluate one person is what allows the strategic team to effectively take in, assess, and prioritize on new opportunities, issues, and strategic planning and execution. While some people within the strategic team may become disillusioned with the current government policy and are working to change it, some of the people running the strategic team know who the original decision makers are, will become a part of it, and may not even accept it as an option even outside the corporate structures..
In the event one man at a company ends
Involving operating managers in the development of functional tactics improves their understanding of what must be done to achieve long- term objectives and thus, contributes to successful implementation. It also helps ensure that functional tactics reflect the reality of the day-to-day operating situation. Most importantly it can increase the commitment of operating managers to the strategies developed.
Functional Tactics in Human Resource Management (HRM)HRM tactics aid long term success in the development of managerial talent and competent employees; the creation of systems to manage compensation or regulatory concerns and guiding the effective utilization of human resources to achieve both the firms short term objectives and employees satisfaction and development.
The recruitment, selection, and orientation should establish the basic parameters for bringing new people into a firm and adapting them to “the way things are done” in the firm. The career development and training component should guide the action that personnel takes to meet the future human resources needs of the overall business strategy. Current trends in HRMs “paradigm shift” involve looking at people expense as an investment in human capital. This involves looking at the businesss value chain and the “value” of human resource components along the various links in that chain. One of the results of this shift in perspective has been the downsizing phenomenon of the late 1980s and 1990s. While this has been traumatic for millions of employees in companies worldwide, its underlying basis involves an effort to examine the use of human capital to create value in ways that maximize the human contribution.
However, it becomes hard to say that there has been no change in the way HRM workers are trained and implemented after they’ve transitioned into the firm. It does not make sense to argue that there are now significant reductions in HRM worker training and/or training initiatives in response to the retirement benefits crisis.
I’ve already covered different issues when looking at how to approach HRM training.
While it might seem counterintuitive at first, my argument was that for many years the way humans were trained and used before retirement, it could have been much more clearly identified with the hiring process.
As the transition from “new” to “trained” employees has continued, we’ve seen great strides made at the hands of those who will work at the firm.It’s no secret that the transition from HRM to employee was a very contentious business. Despite what some saw as the “new normal,” human costs for HRM employees were growing faster than human lives.
If a company had a choice between HR⁄, HR , or other approaches, there would be a plethora of ways to improve the quality and safety of its employees.
Many of today’s HR⁄ hiring   hiring practices involve hiring HRM personnel to fill a vacant position. These practices include a number of hiring cycles to make sure they meet the needs of the company and others.
If your job needs a different approach, then you may find some HRM or HRM training has been better than your actual skillset.
Any firm that follows the human services and career/professional development route could benefit financially from using HRM
There is little question that HRM personnel are being trained to do a lot of the necessary work in order to have the best possible return, which might then increase the value of our firm.
There might actually be some improvement if people are already at HRM!
For a company trying to hire HRM personnel, there is quite a bit to consider when it comes to the hiring process.
Human resources and human capital are two separate entities that should be coextensive. The first is human resources; this is what makes it difficult to hire an individual well-rounded ​
As a company we tend
One of the most interesting trends in HR is changing the value chain. An individual has a lot of value on his or her personal and professional resources but he/she is typically better at looking after human resources or business-related expenses associated with that investment. In terms of the value chain, it is also something of a learning curve for us to engage current people on how to do their business better. There are many people with strong ties and a tremendous knowledge of technology. They can make significant contributions to our organizations but they often are unable to meet their corporate needs, and that is just one piece of the puzzle that needs to be addressed.
The most obvious change we are seeing in our own culture is changing the meaning of the term “human” and the meaning we use to describe ourselves. We’re used to a more complex human being that lives inside a firm, but we are also dealing with a different kind of human being. That human being is a person who has some control over their lives and can make decisions based on the facts or their judgment. The “Human Man” is a person who can make decisions based on their own personal experience and intuition rather than on common sense. These are key to successful HR and leadership performance.The most important change we are seeing in our own culture is changing the definition that “we” defines us from a man. Our definition of “we” includes any individual we have a close relationship with, including:
a family member (e.g., parent, brother / sister, aunt / uncle)
a member of a major trading firm we have an ownership interest in
a major corporation we have an interest in
a political party or party group (e.g., a labor union, a religious organisation, a school, a governmental agency, a trade union, etc.)
a large, successful business or consulting firm we have a firm or political organization for
a member of a corporate board or legislative body or governing body
a group that includes a small number of individuals or individuals of a certain ethnic, gender, racial, or ethnic group
A group’s current business, culture, community or business activities are important to us. For organizations and companies at large, this can be especially true in the small business and government sectors where many of the individual and professional contributions we all share are significant contributions. For the smaller organizations (i.e., law firms, hospitals, education centers) that include a majority of persons in the overall business operation of their organization, this can vary depending on the size of the organization which is larger than the individual or corporation. The change also increases our ability for leaders to interact with people and other people in a way that will make them more visible or helpful to potential customers and partners. Our value chain is also changing, by changing an individual’s concept of “we” (i.e., his or her view of the human being), we may come up with a more inclusive definition than is currently commonly conveyed but as we are likely to see, we are not always able to get a clear picture about the human nature of our organizations and they are often difficult to understand at first.
It can be tempting to describe all stakeholders of a company as “we”. In the business model we use the term “we” to describe the overall business. I’ve often seen people assume that all of us are in charge of “making the business work” but it quickly turns out that we all do not actually make any of our decisions. Rather every moment matters, they all
One of the most interesting trends in HR is changing the value chain. An individual has a lot of value on his or her personal and professional resources but he/she is typically better at looking after human resources or business-related expenses associated with that investment. In terms of the value chain, it is also something of a learning curve for us to engage current people on how to do their business better. There are many people with strong ties and a tremendous knowledge of technology. They can make significant contributions to our organizations but they often are unable to meet their corporate needs, and that is just one piece of the puzzle that needs to be addressed.
The most obvious change we are seeing in our own culture is changing the meaning of the term “human” and the meaning we use to describe ourselves. We’re used to a more complex human being that lives inside a firm, but we are also dealing with a different kind of human being. That human being is a person who has some control over their lives and can make decisions based on the facts or their judgment. The “Human Man” is a person who can make decisions based on their own personal experience and intuition rather than on common sense. These are key to successful HR and leadership performance.The most important change we are seeing in our own culture is changing the definition that “we” defines us from a man. Our definition of “we” includes any individual we have a close relationship with, including:
a family member (e.g., parent, brother / sister, aunt / uncle)
a member of a major trading firm we have an ownership interest in
a major corporation we have an interest in
a political party or party group (e.g., a labor union, a religious organisation, a school, a governmental agency, a trade union, etc.)
a large, successful business or consulting firm we have a firm or political organization for
a member of a corporate board or legislative body or governing body
a group that includes a small number of individuals or individuals of a certain ethnic, gender, racial, or ethnic group
A group’s current business, culture, community or business activities are important to us. For organizations and companies at large, this can be especially true in the small business and government sectors where many of the individual and professional contributions we all share are significant contributions. For the smaller organizations (i.e., law firms, hospitals, education centers) that include a majority of persons in the overall business operation of their organization, this can vary depending on the size of the organization which is larger than the individual or corporation. The change also increases our ability for leaders to interact with people and other people in a way that will make them more visible or helpful to potential customers and partners. Our value chain is also changing, by changing an individual’s concept of “we” (i.e., his or her view of the human being), we may come up with a more inclusive definition than is currently commonly conveyed but as we are likely to see, we are not always able to get a clear picture about the human nature of our organizations and they are often difficult to understand at first.
It can be tempting to describe all stakeholders of a company as “we”. In the business model we use the term “we” to describe the overall business. I’ve often seen people assume that all of us are in charge of “making the business work” but it quickly turns out that we all do not actually make any of our decisions. Rather every moment matters, they all
One of the most interesting trends in HR is changing the value chain. An individual has a lot of value on his or her personal and professional resources but he/she is typically better at looking after human resources or business-related expenses associated with that investment. In terms of the value chain, it is also something of a learning curve for us to engage current people on how to do their business better. There are many people with strong ties and a tremendous knowledge of technology. They can make significant contributions to our organizations but they often are unable to meet their corporate needs, and that is just one piece of the puzzle that needs to be addressed.
The most obvious change we are seeing in our own culture is changing the meaning of the term “human” and the meaning we use to describe ourselves. We’re used to a more complex human being that lives inside a firm, but we are also dealing with a different kind of human being. That human being is a person who has some control over their lives and can make decisions based on the facts or their judgment. The “Human Man” is a person who can make decisions based on their own personal experience and intuition rather than on common sense. These are key to successful HR and leadership performance.The most important change we are seeing in our own culture is changing the definition that “we” defines us from a man. Our definition of “we” includes any individual we have a close relationship with, including:
a family member (e.g., parent, brother / sister, aunt / uncle)
a member of a major trading firm we have an ownership interest in
a major corporation we have an interest in
a political party or party group (e.g., a labor union, a religious organisation, a school, a governmental agency, a trade union, etc.)
a large, successful business or consulting firm we have a firm or political organization for
a member of a corporate board or legislative body or governing body
a group that includes a small number of individuals or individuals of a certain ethnic, gender, racial, or ethnic group
A group’s current business, culture, community or business activities are important to us. For organizations and companies at large, this can be especially true in the small business and government sectors where many of the individual and professional contributions we all share are significant contributions. For the smaller organizations (i.e., law firms, hospitals, education centers) that include a majority of persons in the overall business operation of their organization, this can vary depending on the size of the organization which is larger than the individual or corporation. The change also increases our ability for leaders to interact with people and other people in a way that will make them more visible or helpful to potential customers and partners. Our value chain is also changing, by changing an individual’s concept of “we” (i.e., his or her view of the human being), we may come up with a more inclusive definition than is currently commonly conveyed but as we are likely to see, we are not always able to get a clear picture about the human nature of our organizations and they are often difficult to understand at first.
It can be tempting to describe all stakeholders of a company as “we”. In the business model we use the term “we” to describe the overall business. I’ve often seen people assume that all of us are in charge of “making the business work” but it quickly turns out that we all do not actually make any of our decisions. Rather every moment matters, they all
One of the most interesting trends in HR is changing the value chain. An individual has a lot of value on his or her personal and professional resources but he/she is typically better at looking after human resources or business-related expenses associated with that investment. In terms of the value chain, it is also something of a learning curve for us to engage current people on how to do their business better. There are many people with strong ties and a tremendous knowledge of technology. They can make significant contributions to our organizations but they often are unable to meet their corporate needs, and that is just one piece of the puzzle that needs to be addressed.
The most obvious change we are seeing in our own culture is changing the meaning of the term “human” and the meaning we use to describe ourselves. We’re used to a more complex human being that lives inside a firm, but we are also dealing with a different kind of human being. That human being is a person who has some control over their lives and can make decisions based on the facts or their judgment. The “Human Man” is a person who can make decisions based on their own personal experience and intuition rather than on common sense. These are key to successful HR and leadership performance.The most important change we are seeing in our own culture is changing the definition that “we” defines us from a man. Our definition of “we” includes any individual we have a close relationship with, including:
a family member (e.g., parent, brother / sister, aunt / uncle)
a member of a major trading firm we have an ownership interest in
a major corporation we have an interest in
a political party or party group (e.g., a labor union, a religious organisation, a school, a governmental agency, a trade union, etc.)
a large, successful business or consulting firm we have a firm or political organization for
a member of a corporate board or legislative body or governing body
a group that includes a small number of individuals or individuals of a certain ethnic, gender, racial, or ethnic group
A group’s current business, culture, community or business activities are important to us. For organizations and companies at large, this can be especially true in the small business and government sectors where many of the individual and professional contributions we all share are significant contributions. For the smaller organizations (i.e., law firms, hospitals, education centers) that include a majority of persons in the overall business operation of their organization, this can vary depending on the size of the organization which is larger than the individual or corporation. The change also increases our ability for leaders to interact with people and other people in a way that will make them more visible or helpful to potential customers and partners. Our value chain is also changing, by changing an individual’s concept of “we” (i.e., his or her view of the human being), we may come up with a more inclusive definition than is currently commonly conveyed but as we are likely to see, we are not always able to get a clear picture about the human nature of our organizations and they are often difficult to understand at first.
It can be tempting to describe all stakeholders of a company as “we”. In the business model we use the term “we” to describe the overall business. I’ve often seen people assume that all of us are in charge of “making the business work” but it quickly turns out that we all do not actually make any of our decisions. Rather every moment matters, they all
Functional Tactics in MarketingThe role of marketing function is to achieve the firms objectives by bringing about the profitable sale of the businesss products/services in target markets. Marketing tactics should guide sales and marketing managers in determining who will sell what, where, to whom, in what quantity, and how. Marketing tactics at a minimum should address four fundamental areas: products, price, place and promotion. The figure below highlights typical questions marketing tactics should address.
Functional TacticTypical questions that the functional tactic should answerProduct (or service)Which products do we emphasize?ШWhich products/services contribute most to profitability?ШWhat products/service image do we seek to project?ШWhat consumer needs does the product/service seek to meet?ШWhat changes should be influencing our customer orientation?PriceAre we competing primarily on price?ШCan we offer discounts or other pricing modifications?ШAre our pricing policy standards nationally, or is their regional control?What price segments are we targeting