Strategic Decisions

There are three central characteristics of strategic decision making:

  1. Strategic decisions that affect the very survival of the firm;
  2. The effects of a decision last a long time, perhaps five to ten years;
  3. The long range effects of a decision are very hard to forecast.

Actually, the first characteristic is really the definition of a strategic decision. The other two characteristics follow from it. If we could correct a bad decision of any size within a year or two, then it would be less likely to harm the firm permanently. And it should be clear that any decision whose effects last for many years will be extremely difficult to forecast.

Difficulties of long-range forecasting include:

  1. Long-range forecasts are usually ill-structured; that is, it is impossible to make a really good mathematical model of what is being forecasted.
  2. Forecasting accuracy drops off rapidly as one looks further into the future. This is essentially because unforeseeable change accumulate as we peer further and further ahead.
  3. Forecasts need to mix subjective and objective information, since different kinds of information are being captured.
  4. The longer the horizon, the less objective information is available, the worse models will be, and the more we must rely on subjective forecasts.

Given that huge financial stakes are involved and that strategic decisions have a long horizon with poor forecasts available, it is hardly surprising that most Operations Management texts do not delve deeply into this problem. Many methods which are in practical use are not deeply quantitive, and are, in any event, difficult to describe and justify. Nevertheless, manufacturing executives do not have the luxury of ignoring strategic decision making and must be careful consumers of the best available methods.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit, Line of Sight

Employee Training vs. Employee Development

Every organization needs to have well-adjusted, trained, and experienced people to perform the activities that must be done. As jobs in today’s dynamic organizations have become more complex, the importance of employee education has increased. When jobs were simple, easy to learn, and influenced to only a small degree by technological changes, there was little need for employees to upgrade or alter their skills. But that situation rarely exists today. Instead, rapid job changes are occuring, requiring employee skills to be transfomed and frequently updated. In organizations, this takes place through what we call employee training.

 Training is a learning experience in that it seeks a relatively permanent change in an individual that will improve the ability to perform on the job. We typically say training can involve the changing of skills, knowledge, attitudes, or behavior. It may mean changing what employees know, how they work, their attitudes toward their work, or their interaction with their coworkers or supervisor.

 Although employee training and employee development are similar in the methods used to affect learning, their time frames differ. Training is more present-day oriented; its focus is on individuals’ current jobs, enhancing those specific skills and abilities to immediately perform their jobs.

 Employee development, on the other hand, generally focuses on future jobs in the organization. As your job and career progress, new skills and abilities will be required. As you are groomed for positions of greater responsibility, employee development efforts can help prepare you for that day.

 Irrespective of whether we are involved in employee training or employee development, the same outcome is requirewd. That is, we are attempting to help individuals learn. Learning is critical to everyone’s success, and it’s something that will be with us throughout our working lives. But learning for learning’s sake does not happen in a vacuum. Rather, it is a function of several events that occur, with the responsibility for learning being a shared experience between the teacher and the learner.

 My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit, Line of Sight

Behavior Products

Behavior products essentially refer to measurements of the effects or results of behaviors rather than the behaviors themselves. That is, rather than directly monitoring the actual behavior of the client, you would monitor any temporary or permanent effect (product) that can be seen as the result of a specific behavior. When the behavior product is simply deposited or left over from some ordinary set of client/system interactions, the “product” is synonymous with a type of “physical traces.”


Behavior products can be used when a more direct measure of the behavior might interfere with the behavior directly, or when the behavior itself is not available for measurement. Since the observer is not ordinarily present when behavior products are used, there is less chance for the measurement process to interfere with the natural occurrence of the behavior.


There are a number of advantages of using products. First, a product readily lends itself to precise counting and quantification for evaluation purposes. Second, the observer does not have to be present when a behavior is being performed. Third, using behavior products generally does not disturb or interrupt the ongoing flow of the client’s behavior. Finally, use of behavior products is relatively easy to implement, requires little or no special equipment, and can easily be taught to the client or relevant others.


My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit, Line of Sight

Project Financing

Project Financing (PF) has emerged as an innovative and timely financing technique and is being used in many high-profile infrastructure projects. Employing a carefully engineered financing mix, it is used to fund large-scale projects, from communications, to telecommunications, and power to energy projects. It is a preferred alternative today. It will be foremost option of future.

PF holds great promise, which is just beginning to be realized as a means of financing projects designed to help meet the enormous infrastructure needs that exist in a developing countries.

Most infrastructure projects in developing countries are being funded by exchequer and thus in nearly all cases the construction of much desired projects are delayed due to lacking funds and deficient resources. Particularly when local governments are functioning full swing developing countries need to consider PF as a preferred choice.

PF can be arranged when a particular facility or a related set of assets is capable of functioning profitably as an independent economic unit. City governments (sponsors) of such a unit may find it advantageous to form a new legal entity to construct, own, and operate the project. If sufficient profit is predicted, the project organization can finance construction of the project on a project basis, which involves the issuance of equity securities (generally to the sponsors of the project) and of debt securities that are designed to be spell-liquidating from the revenues derived from project operations.

The intricacies of PF are formidable, and can easily be misunderstood and consequently, misused. While PF structures share certain common features, by necessity, they require tailoring the package to the particular circumstances of the project. That is where both the benefits and the challenges lie.

What distinguishes PF from conventional direct financing is that in PF, the project is a “distinct legal entity” and the financing is tailored to the cash flow characteristics of the project assets. Such a structure can yield a more efficient allocation of risks and returns than conventional financing, but careful financial engineering is critical.

It is a form of asset-based financial engineering. It is asset-based because each financing is tailored around a specific asset or related pool of assets. It involves financial engineering because, in so many cases, the financing structure cannot simply be copied from some other project. Rather, it must be crafted specifically for the project at hand.

PF is the raising of funds to finance an economically separable capital investment project in which the providers of the funds look primarily to the cash flow from the project at the source of funds to service their loans and provide the return and a return on their equity invested in the project. The terms of the debt and equity securities are tailored to the cash flow characteristics of the project. For their security, the project debt securities depend, at least partly, on the profitability of the project and on the collateral value of the project’s assets.

PF is not a means of raising funds to finance a project that is so weak economically that it may not be able to service its debt or provide an acceptable rate of return to equity investors. In other words, it is not a means of financing a project that cannot be financed on a conventional basis.

At the center is a discrete asset, a separate facility, or a related set of assets that has a specific purpose. This can include trash collecting trucks, toll roads, water supply and sewer projects, or some other item of infrastructure. This facility or group of assets must be capable of standing alone as an independent economic unit. The operations, supported by a variety of contractual agreements, must be organized so that the project has the unquestioned ability to generate sufficient cash flow to repay its debts.

PF can be advantageous to Pakistan when it has a valuable resource deposit, other responsible parties would like to develop the deposit, and it lacks the financial resources to proceed with the project on its own.

Commercial banks and life insurance companies have traditionally been the principal sources of debt for large projects. In the typical financing structure, commercial banks would provide construction financing on a floating rate basis, and life insurance companies would then provide “permanent financing” on a fixed rate basis by refinancing the bank loans following project completion. For infrastructure projects have become a high priority, commercial banks, having adjusted to the tighter capital standards, have expanded their role in PF. They advise as well as lend.

Multilateral agencies, such as the World Bank and IDB, and various agencies, such as Eximbank and OPIC, have also stepped up their funding of private infrastructure projects. Developing countries’ capital markets can also be a useful source of funds. Raising funds locally can reduce a project’s political risk exposure.

Most recently, through the financing of hundreds of independent power projects, it has become evident that PF is suitable for relatively low-risk projects that involve standardized nonproprietary technology.

PF has attracted growing interest as a means of obtaining capital. Its potential is perhaps greatest for the many large infrastructure capital investment projects that are on the drawing boards of many local governments. The projects are large and expensive, and the risks are great. But the potential benefits are enormous. Project financing could be the answer to the financial needs of such local governments.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact, Line of Sight

Next Newer Entries