Strategic Management Journal, Vol.

2, 1-14 (1981)

Zero Based Budgeting in the Planning Process

JAMES C. WETHERBE
UniversHy of Houston, Houston. Texas, U.S.A

JOHN R. MONTANARI
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USJi.

SUMMARY An attempt is made to integrate the zero based budgeting (ZBB) procedure into the firm's planning process. Previous studies have failed to provide an integrative framework for the application of ZBB which may account for some of the conflicting results obtained in previous ZBB programmes. Next, the results of an empirical assessment of the effectiveness of the ZBB integrative framework in ser\ice oriented organizational units are reported. Strong support is evident for the ZBB planning framework developed here using constituency oriented indicators of effectiveness.

Zero based budgeting (ZBB) has emerged in recent years as a controversial approach to planning and budgeting. The discussions and debates of the pros and cons of ZBB have generally been based on opinion rather than rigorously designed and conducted empirical research (e.g. see Wildavksky and Hammann, 1971; Pyhrr, 1977). The proliferation of these anecdotal reports of the successes and failures of ZBB programmes was primarily due to two factors: 1. 2. the failure of proponents of ZBB to integrate ZBB into the firm's overall planning process, and an absence of research designed to assess the effectiveness of ZBB in that planning process.

This paper addresses both of these factors. First, a framework is proposed which explicitly recognizes ZBB as an integral part of the planning process. Second, tbe results of a field study utilizing ZBB as a primary component of the planning process are presented and discussed. PREVIOUS PLANNING FRAMEWORKS Several authors writing on planning have provided nonnative frameworks for the plannitig process (e.g. Ansoff, 1979; Higgins, 1978; Stanford, 1979). Perhaps the most familiar is the discussion of product-market strategy formulations presented by Ansoff (1965). Since this original discussion of one important aspect of strategic planning, 0143-2095/81 /010001 -14$01.40 Received 15 February 1980 1981 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 20 May 1980

J. C. Wetherbe and J. R. Momanari several authors have proposed both normative and descriptive models of several additional facets of the planning process. For example, Mintzberg (1979) discusses the goal formulation process in detail and relates it to the decision maker's relative power. Other authors (Kahalas, 1977; King and Cleland, 1977) stress the impact of environmental forces on strategic decisions. Similarly, Bemelmans (1979) suggests that a needs analysis must be conducted concurrent with the environmental scan to establish criteria for evaluating strategic alternatives. The types and modes of strategic decision making appropriate at various hierarchical levels were discussed by Carlson (1978) and Naylor (1979). Finally, several authors incorporate the duration of the planning and review cycle into their models (e.g. Katz, 1978; Nadler, 1978). Lin (1979) incorporated budget generation into the planning process. He suggests that fixed or traditional incremental budgets (TIB) are inappropriate for firms operating in today's dynamic business environment. According to Lin, more flexible, traditional budgets should be used by managers in production and sales units where budget changes can be easily tied to volume or output variations. However, in service oriented units where quantitative output measures are not available, zero based budgeting is more appropriate.
Table I. Comparison of traditional incremental and zero based budgeting Zero based budgeting Review and justification for ;o/a/expenditures (not just incremental changes) for each programme Justification from zero for every programme, reconsidering basic funding for programmes and any incremental changes for next fiscal year No base case: defence of entire budget request, not simply changes from previous level of appropriation, must be reference point Continuation of each programme questioned and must be documented: this approach encourages reallocation of funds to new programmes when old programmes cannot be fully justified or better use of resources is identified

Traditional incremental budgeting Changes in amounts based on increments differing from prior appropriations only Justification of magnitude (amount) of increment only Reference frequently made to base case or previous level of appropriation 4. All programmes perpetuated unless clear and dramatic evidence suggests abolition from budget

Wetherbe (1976) summarized the differences between TIB and ZBB (see Table 1). He agreed with Lin that manufacturing expenses can utilize a more traditional budgeting model while support expenses require a ZBB model. However, the major thrust of these studies was developing the importance of integrating budget development into the planning process.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Regardless of the level (corjxtrate, divisional or departmental), time horizon (short, intermediate or long range) and nature (strategic, operational or developmental) of the

Xero Based Budgeting in the Planning Process plans generated, four basic planning activities are involved. These activities are: (1) anticipation; (2) determination; (3) formulation; and (4) assessment. Anticipation refers to the use of scanning and forecasting procedures to provide the unit with information regarding the presence of future requirements and their probability of occurrence. The second activity is the determination of the unit's existing capabilities. Third, data from the first two activities are used to formulate objectives and budgets to direct the unit in using its resources in the most expeditious manner. Lastly, the efficacy of the unit's plans and operations must be assessed using control procedures developed from previously established objectives and budgets. Aspects of
Time

Figure 1.

Planning activities

J. C. Wetherbe and J. R. Montanari

these four activities are presented in Figure 1 with their proposed implementation sequence. The major thrust of this study was to incorporate the budget development process into an operational planning framework and to empirically test the relative merits of ZBB as compared to TIB. Lin (1979) pro\^des a detailed discussion of the role of the budgeting process in corporate planning but fails to present research support for his model. The following discussion will explain the planning framework illustrated in Figure 1. Results of an empirical test of that framework are reported in a later section. Anticipation The first activity in the planning process, anticipation, involves three component tasks. Scanning, the first of these tasks, is a review of the unit's current operations and/or projects scheduled for implementation during this planning cycle. Using the TIB model, previous costs associated with these operations and projects would form the historical base on which the new budget is built. A ZBB procedure would also use these operations and projects as a base but only to describe the initial budget areas to be considered. Once this initial scan is complete and the operations clearly delineated, then the unit manager should decide on the primary operational focus of the unit during the present planning cycle. This decision is usually implicit in the TIB model since the largest budget allocation is typically given to operations that historically accounted for the largest part of the budget. ZBB forces the manager to rank order or weight operational areas or projects in order of importance to the effectiveness of the unit. For example, the data processing unit in an R & D firm may have as its primary operational focus the support of scientific projects. A less important function may be to provide programming support for the payroll department. In another type of firm the relative importance of these two operations may be different. The next task under the anticipation activity is to forecast the levels of expected changes in the operations of the unit. This would include increases or decreases in the demand for the unit's products or services. Also included here are forecasts of the economies expected from improvements in employee or operating system efficiency and the effects of inflation on unit expenses. If the manager expects a 12 f)er cent increase in the cost of providing the unit's primary service during the planning cycle, then this must be incorporated into the budget regardless of the budgeting mode! used. Determination The determination activity (Figure 1) of the planning process starts with an audit of the unit's capabilities evaluated in light of the results of the anticipation activity. That is, the audit must be structured such that it details the unit's current capability to perform the operations related to its primary focus and at the forecasted levels. An audit for the TIB model would be organized on the basis of historical operational requirements, whereas, the ZBB audit would be structured according to the rank ordering of operational areas. The manager, once having become aware of future requirements and the unit's existing capabilities to meet those requirements, must perform a requirements-capabilities comparison to determine if additional resources are needed. The comparison procedure and mechanism for procuring additional resources would be similar, regardless of the budgeting model used. It is important that a thorough and systematic approach to

2,ero Based Budgeting in the Planning Process

operational planning be followed prior to generating unit budgets. This preparatory effort will facilitate budget generation and produce more accurate and meaningful operating budgets.
Formulation

Lin (1979) indicates that budget generation should start with the setting of objectives. Consistent with this view, the formulation activity (Figure 1) in our framework starts with the objective setting task. Morasky (1977) provides an in-depth discussion of the nature of organization objectives. He defines objectives as manifest statements that describe the specific state a receiving system should attain in a specified time period. Objectives must be reasonable, measurable (desired level and range), and have a time horizon specified. They must be directed toward the operational areas described in the previous planning activities. Budgets should be numerical representations of the costs and benefits associated with the unit's operations and/or projects. Since the unit's objectives are based on a thorough analysis of the unit's operational areas in our framework, budgets should also be numerical reflections of unit objectives. This task is where the application of the appropriate budgeting model is most important. Prior activities and tasks are appropriate regardless of the budgeting model used with the major difference being the source of operational information. However, ZBB establishes a rank ordered list of operational areas from a review of unit requirements and projected demands for the unit's products or services, whereas TIB uses historical budget data to delineate operational areas. Several authors (e.g. Lin, 1979; Wetherbe, 1976) have proposed that operational areas specified in historical budget data may accurately reflect the primary focus for output oriented units since the same quantitative criteria are used to evaluate unit performance every planning cycle. Therefore, the sales department's primary focus is always to promote sales and a sales budget based on expected increases over the last planning cycle may be appropriate. However, for service units where operational areas and their relative importance are usually shifting from one planning cycle to the next, the ZBB model, which requires regular review of each operation area and its importance, should be more effective. Assessment The final activity in the planning process, assessment (Figure 1), involves the development of detailed control procedures to assess the adequacy of the planning framework and overall unit performance. These procedures must be based on the budgets developed during the formulation activity and should specify acceptable ranges around budgeted values. Control procedures should be designed to monitor the desired levels explicitly stated in the budgets as well as temporal milestones, quality and quantity checks, and all other factors which require monitoring to insure adequate unit performance. The control task emphasizes the importance of using the appropriate budgeting model for the unit of concern. For output oriented units, traditional quantitative performance measures (e.g. sales levels, production quality and quantity) may provide accurate controls for the unit's functions. However., for service units, the lack of generally accepted quantitative measures argues for the use of the current, relevant operational standards established by ZBB.

J. C. Welherbe and J. R. Montanari

Data from control measures are typically used in the form of negative feedback or exception reporting. As long as actual outcomes fall within the specified ranges, operational or planning modifications are reserved for the scheduled time in the temporal planning cycle. However, if unexpected deviations from acceptable limits appear, then an immediate review and/or modification of the appropriate planning and operational processes is required. Regardless of the type of feedback, positive or negative, it serves to guide the future activities of the operational planner as shown by the feedback arrow in Figure 1. In sum, several authors (e.g. Lin, 1979; Wetherbe, 1976) argue for the inclusion of budget generation in the operational planning process. Lin provides a partial framework for that integration in his discussion of an integrated budgeting system. Drawing on Lin's work, we have developed the expanded operational planning framework described above. Two main propositions were developed in our discussion: 1. 2. The integration of budget generation into a general planning framework will improve the quality of the planning effort. TIB is more appropriate for output oriented units while service oriented units can more effectively utilize a ZBB planning model.

TTie following section describes a field test of the second proposition while controlling for the first.

A PRELIMINARY TEST OF THE PLANNING FRAMEWORK Data used for this research are based upon a field test spanning two years. Users of separate, but very similar, computing centres at three universities participated in the study. One computing centre was used as a test group while the other two were used as control groups. The test group used ZBB as an integral part of the planning process while the control groups continued to use only incremental budget planning. AH three computing centres used an integrated planning framework. Thus, the main difference among the centres was the budgeting model used. Some relevant areas of commonality among the test and control groups are listed in Table 2. The fact that the data are based upon the use of ZBB budgeting in a university Table 2. Similarities of test and control groups Test group Control group number I 10,000 $13,600,000 $423,000 IBM 1966 Yes incremental Control group number II 7600 $23,000,000 $865,000 IBM 1962 Yes incremental

Enrollment Institutional budget Computing budget Primary hardware supplier Year computer cenu-e established Same EDP managers for last two years Budgeting approach prior to field test

8500 $14,700,000 $538,000 IBM 1964 Yes incremental

Zero Based Budgeting in the Planning Process

computing centre is particularly beneficial and appropriate for the proposed research. Computing efforts, especially those located in universities, are characterized as being one of the most difficult organizational entities to effectively plan and control (McFarlan, 1971; 1973; Grindlay, 1975). Computing functions tend to be very pervasive within organizations, can possess considerable power, and are usually characterized by considerable conflict (Lucas, 1973). The multiplicity of services that are generally included in a university computing centre provide a rigorous environment for field testing the relative effectiveness of the ZBB budgeting model in service oriented units. Accordingly, a successful application of ZBB in this service unit would provide strong support for proposition two above. Operationalizing the model University computing centres were created in response to the demands of academic users for rapid computing capabilities. Consequently, the major focus of a university's computing effort must be the support of instructional and research programmes. Accordingly, the effectiveness of the ZBB model is evaluated in terms of its contribution to improving, over time, the computing function's support of these activities. Objectives of the computing centre, in order to be user oriented, must focus on the services demanded by users. Services commonly required by university computing centre users can be categorized as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Keypunch machines Work areas (tables, chairs, storage facilities) Consulting assistance for students Consulting assistance for faculty User documentation (reference manuals, user's guide, newsletter, etc.) User training sessions Programming services for user projects Computing equipment Processing of computer jobs Specialized software Equipment access Computer terminals Computer plotting Optical scanning

For the test group, a ZBB model was used to establish budgets for the previously delineated services. Control groups used TIB to allocate resources to these services. Therefore, the major difference between test and control groujjjiwas the utilization of the ZBB and TIB budgeting models, resjjectively. Hypotheses Three hypotheses were developed to test the relative effectiveness of the ZBB and TIB budgeting models in the computing centres used in this study. To determine the centres' effectiveness in titilizitig limited resources, particular emphasis needs to be placed on synchronizing the importance of a specific service with the level of that service which is provided. In other words, the more important a service is to the user, the greater is the

J. C. Wetherbe and J. R. Montanari

level of that service that should be provided by the computing centre. This concept is tested via the following null hypothesis: Hpl: Two years after implementing ZBB, the improvements in the correlation between the importance and level of services offered will not be greater for the test group than for the control groups. An appropriate test of unit effectiveness must also include some indication of the differential impact of a ZBB budgeting programme versus a TIB programme on overall unit performance. Since performance is measured as the level of objective accomplishment (Steers, 1977) and objectives are user oriented, it is only reasonable to evaluate the quality of the services provided from the user's perspective. Only faculty users were included in this study. Faculty members were the only users who required both research and instructional computing support continuously during a planning cycle. Hypotheses 2 and 3 address user attitudes towards computing service efforts: Ho2: Two years after implementing ZBB, attitudes toward the computing centre's support of instructional activities will not indicate a greater improvement among faculty in the test group than among faculty in the control group. Ho3: Two years after implementing ZBB, attitudes toward the computing centre's support of research activities will not indicate a greater improvement among faculty in the test group than among faculty in the control groups. Two years represented two planning cycles for ail participating computer centres. We believed that the use of two planning cycles would help attenuate the possible effects of external and internal confounding factors such as a random surge in demand for computer services or a 'Hawthorne Effect'. Data The instrument used for data collection was a questionnaire consisting of 16 questions. Data used to test Hoi, derived from 14 questions pertaining to the difTerent services, was provided by the computing centres. Respondents indicated their assessment of both the importance and the level of service for each of the 14 services by encoding their responses onto seven point Likert type scales. A then-posttest methodology was used to tap user attributions of importance for the 14 services listed. Terborg, Howard and Maxwell (1980) discuss the merits of using this methodology rather than the traditional pretest-posttest methodology. Users were asked whether a particular service was more important two years ago or now. For example: Work areas provided (tables, chairs, storage facilities) more important then : : : : : no difference , . ^^^e important now

They were also asked how important the service was then and now. For example: How important Now Extremely low : :__: Then Extremely low : _ _ : _ _ : : : ._ ;__. , . Extremely high ^ ^ ^ Extremely high

Next, users were instructed to indicate the level of service received for the 14services.

Zero Based Budgeting in the Planning Process

Responses were recorded on seven point Likert type scales as before. For example: More adequate then : How adequate Now Very poor : Then Very poor : : : : : : No difference : : : :. : : : : More adequate now

: :

: _:

: :

: Excellent : Excellent

This procedure was repeated for each of the 14 services. Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested using data generated from two items designed to provide an overall assessment of the computing services available to support instructional and research activities. Specifically, users were asked to evaluate computing services available to support instructional activities. Next, users were asked the same question regarding research activities. An example of the question format is: Overall, please evaluate computing services available to support your instructional activities. More important then : : : : : : No difference : : : : : : : More important now

How Important Now Extremely low : Then Extremely low : More adequate then : How Adequate Now Very poor : Then Very poor : :

: : :

: : :

: ;

: Extremely high : Extremely high

: : : No difference : : : : : : : :

: More adequate now

_: :

: :

: Excellent : Excellent

Subjects All faculty members who had actively utilized computing services at their respective universities for the past two or more years were surveyed. Twenty-five faculty members were in the test group while control groups I and II comprised 14 and 27 faculty members, respectively (n = 66). Active users were detertnined from the computer utilization reporting system at each university. Any faculty member who had one or more active accounts for each semester over the prior two year period was surveyed. The two year mitiimimi requirement was necessary since respondents were required to indicate attitudes two years in retrosf>ect. The chairpersons of the computer services committees and the directors of the computer centres at the three institutions distributed and collected the questionnaires within their rtlpective institutions. None of the subjects were aware of their role in the research project. All faculty members returned their questionnaires, giving a 100 per cent response rate. This somewhat remarkable accomplishment was made possible because each user was accessible on campus and could be easily contacted for follow-up on non-returned questionnaires. The design of the projxssed research can be defined as a field study in which a thenposttest methodology was used (Terborg, Howard and Maxwell, 1980). The treatment consisted of the implementation of a ZBB budgeting model at one computing centre and a TIB budgeting model at the remaining two computing centres. In order for the

10

J. C. Wetherbe and J. R. Montanari

treatment to be considered actualized, the following conditions were necessary or at least desirable. 1. ZBB budgeting must be executed properly and successfully. This condition was considered to be satisfied in that the planning committee successfully completed the ZBB exercise on an annual basis for two planning cycles and was able to achieve agreement on the resources to be allocated to the different computing services. A further indication of the operational success of the programme is that after the first planning cycle using ZBB, the planning committee unanimously adopted ZBB as their ongoing approach to budget planning. Any budget increases among the test and control group should be comparable. This condition was necessary to prevent one group from being able to expand and improve computing services due to additional resources not available to other groups. This condition was met in that during the field test all three institutions were being granted budget increases of approximately 6 pier cent to cover inflation in the cost of equipment, supplies, and personnel.

2.

Results For Hfli, data analysis consisted of performing correlation analyses between the importance and service level of each service for the then-test and posttest time periods. The correlation coefficients were transformed using Fisher's Z transformation (Bruning and Kintz, ! 977). The Z values were then used to compute net improvement scores for the test and control groups by subtracting then-test Z values from posttest Z values. These scores were used to test the improvements of individual services and totalled to test the overall improvement of all services combined. The results of these computations are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The scores of the test group are higher than those of the control group. This provides support for the efficacy of ZBB in this service oriented unit. The net improvement scores were used to conduct /-tests for statistical testing (Table 5). The results of this test indicate the improvement of the test group is significantly greater than that of either control group. Therefore, support for the positive relative influence of the ZBB budgeting model on meeting user demands is evident in Table 5. A possible and understandable objection to the previous analysis may be that each of the 14 services was considered equal in importance. A second analysis was conducted which was designed to consider the relative importance of each service. An importance index was computed by dividing the mean importance score for each service by the total of all mean imponance scores. The result was a relative importance index value or weight for each service. The previously computed Z values were then multiplied by the importance index and totalled. Again, the test group's improvement exceeds both control groups (Tables 4 and 5). The test group's final score is also greater than that of both control groups. Furthermore, the results of computing a sample orientation with weighted indexes indicated statistical significance in the improvement of the test group. Thus, the weighting of Z values produced the same result as the original test. The test of Hypothesis 2 involved an evaluation by user faculty of computing services available to support their instructional activities before and after the two year period. The data in Table 4 indicate a net improvement of faculty attitudes toward computing

Zero Based Budgeting in the Planning Process

1 1

2 c

000000000(

ifSrn<Nf^r*^vo^^r^t^\OoO '1^ 3 O

oooooooocoooooo

oo Oo o o o o o o I
00 I

oooooooooooo-^-^

u&
o oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo m

L. D. TT

g g T (J M -

'*

r^l

rN O
^ 0 0 I ^

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . I I

mputiingei

E o. '5 cr
g
o u

Hi

E pun OJEtU

' BQ

.S

S .

o
</3

I i I I I fu

-2

.a a. O

12

J.C. Wetherbe and J. R. Montanari

Summary of results Hypothesis Group N Mean score (before) Mean score (after) Net improvement (after - before) 7-5705 2-5946 2-4621 5-8069 2-2332 1 7685 2-8 1-3 1-3 2-2 1-2 1-3

Table 4.

7-0864 14-6569 Test See HQI : Importance and adequacy Control I Table 3 5-7099 8-3045 of service 6-7146 9-1767 Control 11 Indexed Analysis Test Control I Control 11 25 14 27 24 14 27 4-5856 10-3925 3-4899 5-7231 4-6114 63799 3-1 3-5 3-4 3-4 3-5 3-5 5-9 4-8 4-7 5-6 4-7 4-8

Test Ho2: Attitudes towards support for instructional activities Control 1 Control 11 Ho3: Test Attitudes towards support Control I for research activities Control 11

Table 5. Significance between test and control groups Hypothesis Hgl: Importance and adequacy of service Groups Test and control group I Test and control group 11 Indexed Analysis Test and control group 1 Test and control group H Ho2: Attitudes towards support for instructional activities Test and control group I Test and control group 11 Ho3: Attitudes towards support for research activities Test and control group I Test and control group 1! ; value Degrees of Significance level freedom 26 26 26 26 37 50 32 + 44 + *** * * *

1-75 1-92 2-45 3-30 2-55 3-22 1-97 + 1-90 +

'* p<00\ ' p<0OOl

+ Sample variance was not equal, therefore, I and degrees of freedom based on separate variance estimate (Hays, 1963).

p < 0-05

Zero Based Budgeting in the Planning Process

13

support for instructional programs at ail three institutions. The test group with an improvement of 2-8 does, however, demonstrate a greater improvement than that of control groups I and 11. Also of interest is that although the test group started with the lowest score, 3-1, it finished with the highest score 5-9. Table 5 indicates that the test group's relative improvement is significant at the 5 pwr cent level. Therefore, these data also provide support for Hypothesis 2. Lastly, faculty members were asked to evaluate computing services available to support their research activities before and after the two year period (Hypothesis 3). Again, the test group scores indicate greater improvement than that of either of the two control groups (Table 4). As in the previous discussion, the test group started with the lowest score 3 4 and finished with the highest score 5-6. Table 5 indicates significant (p < 005) differences between the test group and both control groupw which provides substantial support for the third hypothesis.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The results presented in Tables 4 and 5 are, perhaps, deceptively straightforward. The three null hypwtheses which cover three primary areas of user demand in this research setting were strongly rejected. One may conclude that in this service oriented unit, the ZBB model applied in an integrated planning framework resulted in higher quality user service when compared to the standard TIB model. Thus, Proposition 2 received strong support and Proposition 1 received indirect support. However, a caveat is in order here. The results obtained may be due to factors other than the ZBB methodologj' (e.g. interpersonal and technical skills of computer centre personnel). Since only three organizations were considered and the sample was selected by convenience, the results must be viewed in that light. An effort was made to control for several factors which could confound the results (Table 2); however, many other factors were beyond the control of these researchers. Given the limits of this study, the results provide strong support for the use of ZBB which is incorporated into an integrated planning framework for service oriented organizational units. The implications for a practicing manager are important. These results should help reduce some of the confusion surrounding ZBB by outlining the conditions necessary for a successful ZBB programme. The initiation of a ZBB programme without consideration of the other activities associated with the planning process could result in failure. Next, the manager can have some confidence that a well developed and implemented planning programme using ZBB should result in superior performance for the firm's service functions. The planning framework herein described is certainly not a panacea but, if implemented properly, it can contribute to improved effectiveness. REFERENCES
AnsolT, H. Igor. Corporate Strategy: An Analytical Approach to Business Policyfor Growth and Expansion, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965. AjisolT, H. Igor. 'The changing shape of the strategic problem' in Schendel, D. E. and C. W. Hofer (editors), Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1979.

14

J. C. Wetherbe and J. R. Montanari

Bemelmans, T. 'Strategic planning for research and development'. Long Range Planning, 12 April 1979, pp. 33-41. Bruning, James L. and B. L. Kintz. Computational Handbook of Statistics. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview. Illinois, 1977. Carlson, Thomas S. 'Long-range strategic planning; is it for everyoner. Long Range Planning, II, June 197B, pp. 54-61. Grindlay, Andrew. "Long range planningsome do's and don'ts or what the books on planning don't tell you'. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Seminar for Directors of Academic Computing Services, 1975, pp. 13-19. Higgins, James M. 'Strategic decision making: an organization behavioral perspective'. Managerial Planning, 26 March-April 1978, pp. 9-!3. Kahalas, Harvey. 'Long range planning-, an open systems view'. Long Range Planning, 10 October 1977. pp. 78-82. Katz, Abraham. 'Planning in the IBM Corporation', Long Range Planning, 11, June 1978, pp. 2-7. King, William R. and David 1. Cleland. "Information for more effective strategic planning'. Long Range Planning, 10, February 1977. Lin, W. Thomas. 'Corporate planning and budgeting: an integrated approach'. Managerial Planning, 27. May-June 1979, pp. 29-33. Lucas, Henry C , Jr. 'A descriptive model of information systems in the context of the organization'. Database, Winter 1973, pp. 27-39. McFarlan, Warren F. 'Management audit of the EDP department'. Harvard Business Review, May-June 1973. pp. 131-142. McFarlan, Warren F.' Problems m planning the information system'. Harvard Business Review, March-April 1971, pp. 75-89. Mintzberg, Henry. 'Organizational power and goals: a skeletal theory', in Scbendel, D. E. and C. W. Hofer (editors). Strategic Management: A New yiew of Business Policy and Planning, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1979. Morasky, Robert L. 'Defining goalsa systems approach'. Long Range Planning, 10, April 1977, pp. 85-89. Nadler, Gerald. 'Corporate planning: a systems view". Long Range Planning, 11, December 1978, pp. 67-78. Naylor, Thomas H. 'Organizing for strategic planning'. Managerial Planning, 28, July-August 1979, pp. 3-17. P*yhrr, Peter A. 'Zero-base budgeting: Peter Pyhrr defends his brainchild', MBA, April 1977, pp. 25-31. Stanford, Melvin J. Management Policy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.. 1979. Steers, Richard M. Organizational Effectiveness, Goodyear Publishing Company, Santa Monica, 1977. Terborg, James R., G. S. Howard and S. E. Maxwell. 'Evaluating planned organizational change: a method for assessing alpha, beta and gamma change'. Academy of Management Review, 15, 1980, pp. 109-121. Wetherbe, James C. 'A general purpose strategic planning methodology for the computing effort in higher edtication: development, implementation and evaluation'. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas Tech. University, 1976. Wildavksky, A. and A. Hammann.'Comprehensive vs. incremental budgeting in the department of agriculture', Planning-Programming-Budgeting, Mackham Publishing Company, Chicago, 1971, p. 141.