Talk:Business plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

Contents 1 Please stick to the topic 2 Suggestions for restructuring/revision 2.1 Types of BPs 2.2 Revert? 2.3 Minor points 2.4 Proposed restructuring of business plan article (2007-03-21) 2.5 Why is there a corporate finance box? 2.6 Splitting out sections 2.7 Satire section added 3 Inappropriate Links 3.1 Spam warning 3.2 External Links Section Removed 3.3 Links Removed from Main Text of Article 3.4 Links Removed from References 4 Missing Topics 5 Sections Needing Further Research 5.1 Content 6 Reversions -- please place explanations here -- 6.1 Executive summary 6.1.1 Inclusion of company history and management team 6.2 Marketing Plan 6.2.1 To be the best business among others

[edit] Please stick to the topic

This article is about what a business plan is. Please do not add links to business planning software websites, consultancies, or related online services. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Please take time to improve this article with fully-referenced and appropriate content. --SueHay 19:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for restructuring/revision

If you'd like to discuss a section that needs revising, or even a total restructuring - here's the place...

[edit] Types of BPs

The type "Electronic Plan" shouldn't be included, because it is not type of BPs but type of media. When you divide books by types in accordance to their genres you usually do not include "Paper book" and "Electronic book" as one of genres, then why we should do it in case of BPs? Dinno 09:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted that section. Perhaps something of it's nature would be better re-written (not copied as original was badly word and particularly amatuer)in a different (new) section of the article. I will attend to it when I have more time, but if anyone else can help with a media section please go ahead. Be Bold. Bennyboyz3000 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert?

This article was well-developed prior to February 21st, when the references, categories and languages were deleted. Please see the article's history for the edit that occurred at 13:57 on February 21st. Can this article be restored to the version prior to that edit? --SueHay 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored much of the deleted material. --SueHay 18:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor points

The terms Cool Working Plan and Executive Smiling Summary seem a bit buzz wordish as if they are from a particular book. Are they really standard terms?

Also, the references seem very British so adding context would help. For example "Marks And Spenser" could be changed to "Marks And Spenser, a British department store," would help your poor cousins on the other side of the pond.

---205.166.76.15 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed restructuring of business plan article (2007-03-21)

This article appears to be skeletal and missing some significant discussions.

• there is more than one way to categorize business plans. The existing categorization focuses on use, but business plans can also be categorized based on the target. There will be important differences in content depending on kind of project. For example, industrial projects have manufacturing plans. Software development projects have deployment plans.

A new product plan will need a section on intellectual property, substitute products, and research and development costs. An expansion plan for an existing business will need to focus on core competencies and a realisitic assessment of the opportunities for increased market penetration.

• the business plan content section is skeletal - it might be better to convert it into a section where each major heading in the current outline is converted to a second level topic.
  • the financial plan topics are missing a discussion of different metrics used in go-no assessment - positive NPV and internal rate of return among them. Break even analysis is a very rough measure and can often be misleading since it doesn't take into account alternative investments or the time value of money.
  • if the business plan will be used in fund raising, the financial section should include an estimate of market value based on forcasted EBITDA, comparables, real option analysis or some other commonly accepted methodology.
  • a section on risk analysis can also be helpful and is required for plans that might fall into the definition of a prospectus.
• a top level section on business plan preparation techniques is needed.
• a top level section on business plan follow-up is needed. Titling this section "Cost overruns and revenue shortfalls" limits it to only one of many business plan follow up issues. Operational plans, in particular, are in frequent need of reassessment and rewriting.
• there is no section on presentation issues. Topics to be considered: different forms of presentation (oral, slide show, written plans); impact of presentation skills, visual communication on acceptance of business plans, fund raising etc.
• a top level section on business plan interpretation is needed. Businesses plans are interpreted by various audiences - this varies by type of plan, maturity of company, and intended audience. For instance, market estimates and financials for startup companies are usually guess work and so often are treated with a very hefty grain of salt. VC's usually are more interested in qualitative factors (such as the quality of the team). On the other hand, banks generally prefer investments that can be assessed quantitatively and take financial history very seriously. Since this topic is closely related to plan project type, it could also be a subtopic under type of plan. However, the discussion will be clearer to readers if it follows the discussion of business plan preparation and content, so I'm thinking a separate section towards the end might be helpful.
• a top level section on legal and liability issues associated with business plans. If a business plan is submitted in conjunction with requests for amounts greater than 1m(?) there are restrictions on who may be solicited. Certain legal notices might also be needed. I forget the details...

A revised table of contents might look like this:

• 1. Types of Business Plans
  • 1.1. By use (Proposal, Operational, Presentation)
  • 1.2. By project type (new product, expansion, continuing operations, joint venture)
• 2. Business Plan Content
  • 2.1. Executive Summary
  • 2.2. Marketing Plan
    • 2.2.1 Market Size and Structure
    • 2.2.2 Competitive analysis
    • 2.2.3 Distribution plan
  • 2.3 Financial Plan
    • 2.3.1 Funding Plan
    • 2.3.2 Valuation
    • 2.3.3 Financial History
  • 2.4. Production Plan
    • 2.4.1 Product/project status and timetable
    • 2.4.2 Research and development plan
    • 2.4.3 Manufacturing/Deployment plan
  • 2.5. Management Team
  • 2.6. Staffing Plan
  • 2.7. Risk analysis
• 3. Business Plan Preparation
  • 3.1. Support services (e.g. electronic planners, consultants, SBA)
  • 3.2 Background information research
    • 3.2.1 Internal corporate records
    • 3.2.2 Publically accessible research materials
    • 3.3.3 Fee and subscription services
  • 3.2. Modelling
  • 3.3. Strategic analysis
• 4. Business Plan Presentation
  • 4.1 Presentation Styles
  • 4.2 The Elevator Pitch
  • 4.3 Oral presentation
  • 4.4 Written presentation
• 5. Interperation of Business Plans
• 6. Legal and Liability Issues

Since business plans potentially touch on virtually every area of business training, research, and analysis, I would further recommend that this article be treated as a summary article. It is likely that a potential entreprenuer or SME manager coming to this page for help will be using it as a gateway to other kinds of business knowledge.

I would be happy do work on this, but since this article appears to have some active editors (200.30.165.173 in particular) I don't want to do anything without some discussion. Egfrank 09:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank, I think it would be great if you would improve this article. Yesterday I tried to patch it back together after some vandalism back in February. The original outline came from 2 possible source texts, neither of which I own, and people had been messing with it for a month, without citing any references. I'd say the section on cost overruns doesn't belong in this article, but I left it in for now. If you have good references at hand and can improve this article, that would be truly helpful. One suggestion on your outline: you might want to skip getting into section 4 on presentation, because that's likely to open a can of worms (thousands of presentation methods). And I strongly suggest you do NOT create an External links section, because it attracts vandals. If you use online sources to create your article, tag them as references and they'll show up in the reference list. I'll keep this page on my watchlist and help you in any way I can. --SueHay 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got a ton of sources I can use, but I would really love feedback. I think your feedback would be especially helpful in avoiding POV - business is anything but an exact science, even if one takes a scholarly approach to the available material.

I'll follow your suggestions about external links. In any case I think free standing links generally are a sign of insufficient narrative. If the link is important enough to mention, its important enough to explain why you are mentioning it and how exactly it fits into the topic at hand.

Re: presentation. You are right - it could very quickly get out of hand - but then again so could any of the other sections. Keeping all of this down to a reasonable size is going to be as much work as the assembling of citations, if not more.

When it comes to presentation, I wasn't really thinking of listing all the different presentations - there are way too many of them. Every book on business plans has a different theory about the "best presentation".

Rather, I wanted to focus on what works and why. I want people to have the tools to judge if the latest version of "How to write a winning business plan" really does make sense or is just one person's opinion. I've noticed different authors tend to fixate on a finding and then build their whole philosophy around them. Its especially important that their readers understand that the author may not be covering all the bases.

For example, if I were to write a section on oral presentations, I might include various sources on the dynamics of oral presentations, e.g.

 - cognitive studies about how much information we really can
   absorb from a slide, pictures vs words, attention span etc.
 - imporantance of focus and repetition (also supported with
   cog pysch citations).
 - social psychology finds on first impressions

The three "presentation types" I did mention in the outline were chosen because they identify three different presentation contexts, each of which have different dynamics and priorities.

Egfrank 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the outline of a business plan - I don't think there is any one source. Pick five books and you will get five outlines.

The bottom line is that a business plan contains whatever is needed to make a business decision and carry it through. That's part of the reason why I think the content "outline" should be converted into a discussion of the kinds of content needed and why. IMHO, if we really do want to address Joe's prefered outline vs. John's it belongs in a presentation section not the contents section Egfrank 17:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at your edits - you did a lot of great work. Nixing the "smiling executive summary" etc was not at all a bad idea. But I'm puzzled - you also nixed any references to the planning process associated with business plans. Any reasons you don't consider this appropriate for a business plan topic? Egfrank 17:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Egfrank, I nixed that stuff about planning because it was jargon-filled, suddenly lept into the topic of strategic planning, and is of no use whatsoever to the reader. This article cannot describe everything, and what it does describe has to be accessible to someone who simply wants to know what a business plan is. This isn't an academic journal article, it's a general encyclopedia article. There's a separate article on strategic planning. It would be a good idea to mention it, but probably not wise to go into detail. Details can be added later in the article, or just mention the detail and link it to another article.

There is a widely-recommended outline for a business plan on the US Small Business Administration website, with some variations for different types of businesses/organizations. You might want to start with that. I think Australia also has a government website with info on how to structure a business plan. --SueHay 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a good point. A brief mention of the role of business plans in strategic planning and a link to related wikipedia pages should be more than sufficient. Egfrank 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the SBA and Austrailian site. I realize that just about anything by the SBA is "well recommended", but it is also focused on the needs of small businesses, particularly those in established industries. For example, the outline has a lot of items that are entirely appropriate for the business plan accompaning a loan application from the SBA or the bank. On the other hand, items quite important for equity based financing (e.g. valuation) are absent.

I also note, that the only financial decision making tool is a break-even analysis. However, current best practice in corporate finance is to use NPV or IRR. I presume that break even analysis is suggested because it can be helpful in determining an appropriate payback period for a loan. Also NPV and IRR tests require a fairly mature understanding of finance - one not likely to be accessible to your average small business person without the help of expensive consultants or ... wikipedia :-). Egfrank 04:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there a corporate finance box?

Any ideas? If we have that, why not a marketing box, a human resources box, an operations management box, etc? A business plan is a cross-functional document. Egfrank 17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a corporate finance box because Business Plan is one of the main topics in corporate finance. A reader can run through the main topics in corporate finance by clicking on each link in the box to go to each article. Marketing plan, production plan and HR plan go into the business plan, if applicable to the business.

Here's that SBA link -- http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/plan/writeabusinessplan/SERV_ESSENTIAL.html. Might be good to start with that, then add complexity later in the article to reflect larger businesses, non-profits, etc. Just an idea. Many readers will just want the basics, not all the complex variations.

Don't forget that you're writing for the uninformed, at least for the first page. --SueHay 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm still not satisfied. Bizplan is also one of the main topics in marketing management, operations management, strategic planning, etc... Whether you see a business plan primarily as a financing vehicle or a marketing/organizational development tool really depends on what your functional focus is.

I have no problem with Corporate Finance being in the See Also list. And bizplan should definitely be part of any corporate finance category. It is the huge sidebar that is concerning. The box is quite large and most of the topics would only be relevant if one were a fairly sophisticated CFO. If the goal is to keep this article high level, then these topics don't belong any more than do details of strategic planning or operations management. Egfrank 08:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting out sections

I have split the business plan content section out into a separate article Business Plan - Content. The section was so long it was making it hard to see other parts of the table of contents. Also, I think it may help control vandalism. The hypen in the name makes it unlikely that one will reach the article without first visiting and reading the business plan article. Egfrank 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Since a business plan is a document with certain typical content, I think you should include at least the main topics in an outline within this article. You can cut back on vandalism by enforcing the use of tagged references. --SueHay 00:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satire section added

In response to a recent vandalism attempt that replaced phrases like "a business plan is a decision making tool" with "a business plan is a waste of money", I've added a section on business plan satire. Hopefully if someoene wants to vent their frustration they now have a legitimate place to do it....and may be they will add content to the article rather than destroy it. Egfrank 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask for satire, you'll get it by the truckload. I'd stay away from satire if I were you. This is supposed to be a serious article. --SueHay 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to experiment and see what happens. I don't think satire is something we should be afraid of and satire is too important a part of business education to pretend it doesn't exist.

Satires of business practices are frequently used as leads in serious lectures - both independent and university based - and provide important lessons as to what not to do, but in a way that sometimes drives the point home *far* more effectively than straight prose. For this reason alone, I think we need this section.

As for "satire by the truckload" I think we can decide on an editoral policy that will allow us to prune the section and keep it down to size. There is no reason for more than a few good samples, as with any other section. Egfrank 06:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Links

[edit] Spam warning

Not sure who looks here, but the link you have for powerhomebiz, links to a page that has a) adsense and b) affiliate links to bplans.com - just go through them on www.powerhomebiz.com/bplan/sampleplans.htm

That is a commercial website - if you have a commercial free policy then you should follow it.

Some of the external links in the business plan entry are to commercial "we'll write your plan" for you sites. I personally feel that it sheds a negative light on the article as a whole.

I'm not a wikipedia regular, so I'm not sure of the convention around here? Could someone fill me in?

Thanks, Anon.

We delete spam. If you feel a link is spam, feel free to erase it. mydogategodshat 01:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

As there are no spam links remaining (the two current links are to government websites), I have removed the spam notice. --81.168.72.184 08:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, the Spam notice has returned. The only links are to the US Small Business Administration (a government site) and the Australian equivalent. I'm removing the SPAM notice. Morbid88 19:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that this is a frequent target of spammers. It has been my experience (with other articles, Master of Business Administration for instance) that putting up the spam notice is an effective deterent against future attacks; but it is necessary to leave the notice up for a few months. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above indicates that spam problems with this article are not a new thing. I've fixed what looked like obvious problems, and I've put a spam warning at the top of the article in hopes of discouraging more useless links. The article has room for improvement and needs references, but it's a good start. --SueHay 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

External links section as removed, as per suggestion of SueHay. The existing link to http://www.howtowriteabusinessplan.org/ was not integrated into the text. It added no new information and was a thinly disguised lead in to a specific vendor's commercial business planning software. Egfrank 11:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links Removed from Main Text of Article

www.bplans.com link In the discussion it states that the remaining two links are government links. Just because PaloAlto supports SCORE and the SCORE program benefits from affiliate links to the Business Plan Pro website does not mean it is an appropriate link. Sure the sample business plans are useful but still supporting a commercial enterprise (through a government agency). I have seen more useful links removed because they have ad space in them. I don't think this is any different...just a more indirect method of advertising.

Personally, I believe the restrictions are too strict. There is no such thing as a free lunch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.221.19.101 (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

www.bplans.com provides numerous samples of complete start-up business plans. This information is freely available online, no registration required. It's a website that the USA Small Business Administration (SBA) links to. The pages DO include advertisements for Business Plan Pro software. Should the link be removed? Please comment. --SueHay 15:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While they are freely available (without registration) every single link is a affiliate link for the SBA volunteer program SCORE (check the embedded links) which I assume supports a volunteer program of great value...but it is at the promotion of Business Plan Pro Products. I am not passing judgment on the specific links (the other one also has Google AdSense Ads once you click past the first page). I am only commenting on Wikipedia policy that seems nonsensical at times.

For example, you allow a website that there specifically used to support Business Plan Pro, a clearly commercial enterprise. However, you don't allow online business plan programs because they require registration...but how else would a user save their data to a business plan program if not by registering a unique account?

Anyway...there are literally thousands of articles, tools, and resources available online that would be beneficial for users to view and have access to online...the only problem is that they don't meet the editorial requirements because they are ancillary to a commercial product or service. I think proof of this is reflected in the quality of the information for this category. As I said before…there is no such thing as a free lunch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.221.19.101 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Links Removed from References

One Page Business Plan This is a vanity publication by a consulting firm Egfrank 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

James T. Horan, Jr. (2004), The One Page Business Plan (Berkley: The One Page Business Plan Company).

[edit] Missing Topics

If you notice a topic that you feel should be covered by this page, and want to discuss it with others first, please add it here.

[edit] Sections Needing Further Research

If you have relevant knowlege, please feel free to contribute anything to these sections - We'd like to see this article filled out as soon as possible.

[edit] Content

• Cost allocation. Research is needed for when cost allocation is typically required and when it is recommended. I believe it is traditionally expected in manufacturing plans. Also I think certain kinds of proposals for government contracts and grant funding require fixed and variable costs because reimbursement for certain expenses is calculated as a percentage of fixed costs. Egfrank 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Risk analysis. Research is needed on when risk analysis needs to be included in a business plan as a separate section, when it can be integrated in each of the functional area discussions, and when it can be left out (!). I seem to recall that business plans that are used as prospectus's must have a separate section ennumerating all the ways the investment could fail. Egfrank 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions -- please place explanations here --

[edit] Executive summary

[edit] Inclusion of company history and management team

I have returned these to the organizational background section. Full discussions of these topics are not normally included in executive summaries which are typically limited to 1-3 pages and must discuss the entire business. At most a line or two about the team is included and readers who want to know more look up details in the main body of the business plan or in an appendix. Egfrank 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marketing Plan

[edit] To be the best business among others

I have removed this as a goal of the marketing plan - although many business plans include this as part of their mission statement, it should not be in this article's list of "main points" for the marketing plan.

• it is inconsistent with other items in the list - the bullet items focus on the decision making criteria for including something in the marketing plan, not on the specific content of the plan. "being best" is a specific marketing goal, and not even a universally accepted goal.
• "best" is not necessary for a go-no go decision. Even GE only strives to be in the top 3, not "best" and accepts business plans with that in mind. And what about Avis who turned being number 2 into a marketing campaign "We try harder!"?
• as a practical matter: including a line like "we aim to be best" generally is a red flag that the plan is marketing mush and likely to be poorly thought out. At best it is read past and ignored. A better way of stating such a goal is to come up with quantifiable and measurable benchmarks - "We aim to have a customer statisfaction rate of 99%" or "We aim to have the largest market share in our market segment" - and then explain why those are reasonable goals and not pipe dreams.

Egfrank 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)