Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Study on the Manufacturing Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Study on Manufacturing Sector" investigates the impact of strategic planning on the performance of manufacturing firms in Iraq. Using data collected from 360 managers through a structured questionnaire, the study employs descriptive statistics, correlation, and multiple regression analysis via SPSS to derive its conclusions. The results indicate that strategic planning positively influences both financial and non-financial performance. There are some suggestions for the authors to consider, (1）The study uses a cross-sectional design, which cannot capture the long-term effects of causal relationships. Authors may adopt a longitudinal research design to better capture the long-term impact of strategic planning on organizational performance. （2）Authors may provide a detailed analysis of the impact of strategic technology, exploring its effectiveness in different contexts, or consider other factors that might influence non-financial performance. (3) The sample in this paper may not be sufficiently representative, particularly in terms of the distribution of industry sectors and company sizes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

"The study use a cross-sectional design, which cannot captures the long-term effects of causal relationships." changes to "The study uses a cross-sectional design, which cannot capture the long-term effects of causal relationships."

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your comments and suggestions that allowed us to improve the quality of the manuscript greatly. We agree with all your comments.

(1)The study uses a cross-sectional design, which cannot capture the long-term effects of causal relationships. Authors may adopt a longitudinal research design to better capture the long-term impact of strategic planning on organizational performance.

There is difficulty in implementing this modification because it requires conducting the research again.

（2）Authors may provide a detailed analysis of the impact of strategic technology, exploring its effectiveness in different contexts, or consider other factors that might influence non-financial performance.

a detailed analysis was conducted on the impact of strategic technology and exploring its effectiveness in different contexts.

(3) The sample in this paper may not be sufficiently representative, particularly in terms of the distribution of industry sectors and company sizes.

There is difficulty in implementing this modification because it requires conducting the research again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between strategic planning and organizational performance in the context of the Iraqi manufacturing industry, and to analyze the data using descriptive statistics, correlation and multiple regression analysis, the results show that environmental scanning has a statistically significant positive impact on the non-financial performance of companies. This work has done a lot of content, but there are still some issues that need improvement.

 

1. Please confirm the position of punctuation marks in all double quoted statements in Introduction, and whether they should be outside the quotation marks..

2. Please confirm the format of subsections 2.4 and 2.5. In addition, please check if there are any similar issues in other sections and unify the entire text.

3. Please standardize the citation format of references in the article, such as some years are preceded by “,” while others are not.

4. Please indicate the specific explanation of the framework in Figure 1 in the text.

5. The author should carefully check the problem models in the Research Design and Methodology section, namely formulas (1)-(2), and provide specific explanations for them; And check if there are any spelling issues with the words.

6. Page 12, line 479: Please confirm if there is a space between “than” and “.874”.

7. Please check if there are any duplicate formula numbers in the article.

8. Please unify the format of References.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with all your comments, and we corrected point by point the manuscript accordingly.

1. Please confirm the position of punctuation marks in all double quoted statements in Introduction, and whether they should be outside the quotation marks.

The punctuation marks have been correctly placed.

2. Please confirm the format of subsections 2.4 and 2.5. In addition, please check if there are any similar issues in other sections and unify the entire text.

The formatting in the research has been verified.

3. Please standardize the citation format of references in the article, such as some years are preceded by “,” while others are not.

The citation format of the references has been standardized.

4. Please indicate the specific explanation of the framework in Figure 1 in the text.

The explanation of the framework presented in Figure 1 has been clarified.

5. The author should carefully check the problem models in the Research Design and Methodology section, namely formulas (1)-(2), and provide specific explanations for them; And check if there are any spelling issues with the words.

The problem models in the Research Design and Methodology section have been checked and an explanation has been provided for them.

6. Page 12, line 479: Please confirm if there is a space between “than” and “.874”.

The correction has been made.

7. Please check if there are any duplicate formula numbers in the article.

Verification has been completed.

8. Please unify the format of References.

The modification has been made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability-3029-peer-review

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper titled- “Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Study on Manufacturing Sector.” 

The primary thesis of this paper is that organizational performance is correlated with strategic planning.  The authors develop a model of strategic thinking and use data from Iraqi firms to prove this correlation.  

 

Please see my comments by section below.

 

Introduction:

The introduction is perhaps the most important part of any paper because it ties in the reader, establishes grounding in existing literature, and develops a compelling reason to write this paper, i.e., highlighting the gaps.  It then explains what can be achieved if this research were to be done or in other words, it answers: what is the plausible impact of this research? Or what can we answer that we do not already know through this research. It would then describe the data and methodology in brief and describe the findings and contribution of the paper.

 

The authors begin this manuscript with a very high level and abstract concept of strategy, in the times of war.  It is distracting, especially because the authors’ goal is clear from the title and abstract – to explain variation in the performance of firms through firms’ strategic activity.  Why is it necessary to go into the origins of strategy? 

 

This topic – strategic management in companies – is a very well discussed topic. There are thousands of papers on strategy, and perhaps entire research divisions that discuss various nuanced aspects of strategic thinking and firm performance. The authors should begin the paper at this cutting edge of knowledge on strategic thinking, and thereby also provide attribution to the studies that exist.  My recommendations would be to study and cite the following papers to develop a strong base for strategy and performance and the idea that strategy is context-dependent:

-       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102534

-       https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1984.tb00521.x

 

Your introduction makes it seem like you are positioning to redefine the term “strategy.”  It is almost like a high-level literature review.  The introduction needs to be really compelling and to the point with regards to what your paper is trying to do, where specifically is it making contribution/s .  This is an important missing part.

 

The introduction does cover the data being used in this study, but does not cover the method used. This leaves the reader guessing what to expect.

 

Literature background:

In this section, the authors provide a laundry list of studies conducted in 9 research areas of field strategic management, viz., strategic planning. environmental scanning, planning formality, strategic techniques, management participation, organizational performance, financial performance, and non-financial performance measures.  Why these areas?  Why not 7 or 8 areas as against 9?  In essence, what is the story you are trying to build up?  So many research areas feels like a somewhat random list.  The compelling reasons for the paper are not yet being discussed, and so by this time the reader finds it really hard to make sense of where all this is going. 

 

Methodology:

Then the manuscript begins to describe the test to be conducted.  However, as the research question has not been framed convincingly, there is not much to draw from the efforts.

 

My recommendation to the authors would be to ask themselves-  “What are we really trying to answer through this research?”   “What theories in strategic management describe what we can see or are saying?”, find its underlying gaps and opportunities for a contribution.”

 

I believe this is crucial to your paper.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

 

Good luck!

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with all your comments, and we corrected point by point the manuscript accordingly.

My recommendation to the authors would be to ask themselves- What are we really trying to answer through this research?”   “What theories in strategic management describe what we can see or are saying?”, find its underlying gaps and opportunities for a contribution.

Revised according to the possibilities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

Is coherent with the content of the paper

Abstract

Concise, straightforward and understandable

Introduction

Authors introduce the topis of strategy and strategic planning from its historical beginnings and focus on the relationship with performance.

There are some typos and grammar issues (for example line 80,  85). Since it is a group of authors, it should be “researchers”. Also, a clear definition of goal is missing (you can use the one from the abstract). Also, some summary of the paper content would be advisable.

Also, I don’t understand the use of two different citation standards together number referencing and Harvard… please check the author guidelines.

Literature review

Is thorough and consist of new and older references. The gap is clear.

Figure 1 can be a bit more precisely drawn to look more professional.

The hypotheses are clear and stem from the literature review and research gap. But they are standalone in the text. Maybe one sentence to introduce them and then H1:…. Also, to end with H2 and the nothing. Some reference about how they will be tested and where in the text…

Section 3

The introduction to methodology is ok. But he equations should be written using some formula editor. Line 432 “Where” !. Also, typos, please check this part, (2) should not be standalone but part of a sentence after ”Where”.

You also mention some sections of the questionnaire, but its nowhere to be found in the text or appendices, then it is better to show it (online or as an appendix)

Line 518,519 (again please use some equation editor)

Why do you mix Research methodology with Results in one section? Section 3 should end by 3.3 or 3.4 . Then you present results that should be commented in detail (as a section 4)

Put more emphasis on H1 and H2 testing. This is getting lost in the text and it actually the most important part.

Conclusion

Well, there you summarize results but there is no discussion, however you reference some similarities with results of other or similar studies. This should be part of the discussion section. Also, in the conclusion itself I would recommend to divide suggestions for scholars and for practice. Furthermore, some limitations can be emphasized as well.

I understand that this is just an empirical study, there is some potential for citation. But without proper structure (Methodology, results and discussion) it stell neds some effort to make it better.

I dont see any relation to sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, thank you for your comments and suggestions that allowed us to greatly improve the quality of the manuscript. We agree with all your comments, and we corrected point by point the manuscript accordingly.

Introduction

The spelling errors have been corrected - The definition of the goal has been clarified - The citation standards have been checked.

Literature review

Figure 1 has been redesigned - The formulation of the hypotheses has been formatted.

Section 3

Equations have been written using a formula editor - Spelling errors have been corrected - Methodology has been separated from results.

Conclusion

The suggestions have been divided into theoretical and practical ones

There were comments that cannot be modified because they require re-conducting the research, such as the following notes:

(The study uses a cross-sectional design, which cannot capture the long-term effects of causal relationships. Authors may adopt a longitudinal research design to better capture the long-term impact of strategic planning on organizational performance.

The sample in this paper may not be sufficiently representative, particularly in terms of the distribution of industry sectors and company sizes)

Thank you once again for considering our manuscript for publication in your prestigious journal. We believe these revisions have addressed the reviewers' comments and enhanced the overall quality of the manuscript. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this research, the primary goal was to investigate the relationship between strategic planning and organizational performance in Iraq's manufacturing context. The study's primary data sources were 360 manager respondents. The structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from manufacturing firms located throughout Iraq. To analyze the result, the researcher used descriptive statistics, correlation, and multiple regression analysis. SPSS version 16 software was used to conduct data analysis. The result reveals that the process of strategic planning has a beneficial effect on financial performance. Environmental scanning has a statistically significant positive effect on a company's non-financial performance. Management participation and planning formality positively and statistically significantly affect a business's non-financial performance at the 10 percent level. The domain of strategy and technique has not impacted the company's non-financial performance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is improved as required.

Author Response

Comments: In this research, the primary goal was to investigate the relationship between strategic planning and organizational performance in Iraq's manufacturing context. The study's primary data sources were 360 manager respondents. The structured questionnaire was used to collect primary data from manufacturing firms located throughout Iraq. To analyze the result, the researcher used descriptive statistics, correlation, and multiple regression analysis. SPSS version 16 software was used to conduct data analysis. The result reveals that the process of strategic planning has a beneficial effect on financial performance. Environmental scanning has a statistically significant positive effect on a company's non-financial performance. Management participation and planning formality positively and statistically significantly affect a business's non-financial performance at the 10 percent level. The domain of strategy and technique has not impacted the company's non-financial performance.
Response: The principal aim of this study was to examine the correlation between organizational performance and strategic planning within the framework of Iraqi industrialization. The 360 participating principals were the study's main source of data. Primary data was gathered from manufacturing organizations across Iraq using a standardized questionnaire. The researcher employed multiple regression analysis, correlation, and descriptive statistics to assess the findings. Data analysis was done using SPSS version 16. The outcome shows that financial performance benefits from the strategic planning process. The company's non-financial performance is positively and statistically significantly impacted by environmental scanning. A firm's nonfinancial performance is positively and statistically significantly impacted, at the 10% level, by management engagement and planning methods.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sustainability-3029-V2-peer-review

 

Thank you for revising the manuscript titled- “Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Study on Manufacturing Sector” and providing me the opportunity to review this paper. 

 

The primary thesis of this paper remains the same as before: that strategic planning and organizational performance are correlated.  The authors develop a model of strategic thinking and use data from Iraqi firms to prove this correlation, without revising the model itself, but show more details on the methodology used.   

 

The revised paper provides a lot more detail but still is not convincing in its set up. The authors add too many broad concepts on strategy that are frankly only loosely related to what is being studied.  For example:  How does what Sun Tzu said about strategy 300 years ago matter to your research question? Focus on your research questions and do not deviate from it.  I have provided a section by section review below to help you make the paper better. Please see my comments by section below.

 

Abstract:

The abstract is concisely and conveys what the authors set out to do. It provides the findings. A one line contribution to the literature statement would make the abstract even more clear.

 

Introduction:

I am reiterating what was said during the first review – The introduction is generally the most important part of a paper because it ties in the reader, establishes grounding in existing literature, and develops a compelling reason to write this paper, i.e., highlighting the gaps.  It then explains what can be achieved if this research were to be done or in other words, it answers: what is the plausible impact of this research? Or what can we answer that we do not already know through this research. It would then describe the data and methodology in brief and describe the findings and contribution of the paper.

 

The Introduction section you have written can still be improved. Specifically, the first 100 lines can be shortened.  You do not need to go so far back in history to understand the origins of strategy because there is a research field called Strategic Management, which is about the role of strategy in company performance.  You can consider shortening it to make your paper more impactful.

 

The methods used are better explained early on in the paper, which is good.

 

Literature background:

You reduce the earlier 9 areas to 4 areas, and provide a rationale for your choice. 

 

Methodology:

The detailed methodology is beneficial to the paper. I am not an expert on methodology so I cannot provide you detailed review on this section.

 

Results and

The results are intuitive.  You may benefit from discussing the results with regards to the state of strategic management scholarship.  In other words, you did all this work and found the results, so what do we (as a strategic management research discipline) learn from this effort?  This is not discussed at all, and partly links back to my point about the introduction section.  What is it about the current literature in the field that probes you to pursue this study, and then what do you learn from the findings that informs those open questions? 

 

  Conclusion:

The conclusion section does a little bit (lines 714 to 741) of what should be part of discussion.  

 

Summary:

You have improved the paper with important details, but it still lacks a solid reason for pursuing this work. Try to structure the paper in a way that gives clear reason to do an academic study on this topic, because what you find is rather intuitive, do we really need a study to know this conclusion? The answer may be ‘Yes!’, but that does not clearly come out in the start or end of the paper.  You basically need to make the paper more compelling.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

 

I wish you good luck!

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of english is decent, professional. 

Author Response

Thank you for revising the manuscript titled- “Strategic Planning and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Study on Manufacturing Sector” and providing me the opportunity to review this paper. 

Reviewer comments: The primary thesis of this paper remains the same as before: that strategic planning and organizational performance are correlated.  The authors develop a model of strategic thinking and use data from Iraqi firms to prove this correlation, without revising the model itself, but show more details on the methodology used.   

The revised paper provides a lot more detail but still is not convincing in its set up. The authors add too many broad concepts on strategy that are frankly only loosely related to what is being studied.  For example:  How does what Sun Tzu said about strategy 300 years ago matter to your research question? Focus on your research questions and do not deviate from it.  I have provided a section by section review below to help you make the paper better. Please see my comments by section below.

Response: Some paragraphs were added and deleted to the research so that the text became complete and more coherent. Many references and studies were modified and references whose study did not make any difference to our title were deleted.

Abstract:

The abstract is concisely and conveys what the authors set out to do. It provides the findings. A one-line contribution to the literature statement would make the abstract even more clear.

Response: The modification has been made.

Introduction:

I am reiterating what was said during the first review – The introduction is generally the most important part of a paper because it ties in the reader, establishes grounding in existing literature, and develops a compelling reason to write this paper, i.e., highlighting the gaps.  It then explains what can be achieved if this research were to be done or in other words, it answers: what is the plausible impact of this research? Or what can we answer that we do not already know through this research. It would then describe the data and methodology in brief and describe the findings and contribution of the paper.

The Introduction section you have written can still be improved. Specifically, the first 100 lines can be shortened.  You do not need to go so far back in history to understand the origins of strategy because there is a research field called Strategic Management, which is about the role of strategy in company performance.  You can consider shortening it to make your paper more impactful.

The methods used are better explained early on in the paper, which is good.

Response: As for the introduction, the introduction is generally the most important part of the paper because it connects the reader, establishes a grounding in the existing literature, and develops a compelling reason for writing this paper, i.e., highlights the gaps. Regarding the introduction, several paragraphs were changed and more than 100 sentences that did not advance the goals and benefits of the study were cut. The study's history was nearly eliminated in order to keep the title concise. This is because strategic management is a discipline of study that focuses on the function that strategy plays in business success, therefore understanding the roots of strategy does not need studying history.

Literature background:

You reduce the earlier 9 areas to 4 areas, and provide a rationale for your choice. 

Response: We reduced the previous 9 regions to 4 regions, providing the most appropriate rationale that serves the title of the study.

Methodology:

The detailed methodology is beneficial to the paper. I am not an expert on methodology so I cannot provide you detailed review on this section.

Response: The modification has been made.

Results and

The results are intuitive.  You may benefit from discussing the results with regards to the state of strategic management scholarship.  In other words, you did all this work and found the results, so what do we (as a strategic management research discipline) learn from this effort?  This is not discussed at all, and partly links back to my point about the introduction section.  What is it about the current literature in the field that probes you to pursue this study, and then what do you learn from the findings that informs those open questions? 

Response: As for the question: What is the reasonable impact of this research? Or what can we answer that we don't already know through this research? A special paragraph has been added that explains the importance of the study, its purpose, and what are the benefits derived from it through our study.

following are some important insights and recommended readings for the future:

Important Takeaways:

Strategic Planning's Effect:

The impact of strategic planning on multiple performance indicators, including market share, profitability, and productivity.

The function of strategic planning in matching the objectives of an organization with the needs of the market and emerging technologies.

Effective Strategic Planning's Components defining the essential components that, in the manufacturing industry, enable strategic planning to be successful. The best strategies and approaches for manufacturing-specific strategic planning.

Evaluation of Performance:

Methods and resources for gauging the performance of organizations.

The relationship between enhanced performance outcomes and strategic planning procedures.

Obstacles and Difficulties:

Typical obstacles to strategic planning implementation faced by manufacturing companies. Techniques for getting beyond these obstacles.

Case Studies with Verifiable Data:

Defining the essential components that, in the manufacturing industry, enable strategic planning to be successful. The best strategies and approaches for manufacturing-specific strategic planning.

Evaluation of Performance:

Methods and resources for gauging the performance of organizations.

The relationship between enhanced performance outcomes and strategic planning procedures.

Obstacles and Difficulties:

Typical obstacles to strategic planning implementation faced by manufacturing companies. Techniques for getting beyond these obstacles.

Case Studies with Verifiable Data:

Factual evidence and real-world examples demonstrating the advantages of strategic planning for the manufacturing industry. A comparison of businesses using and not using strategic planning. factual evidence and real-world examples demonstrating the advantages of strategic planning for the manufacturing industry. A comparison of businesses using and not using strategic planning.

Conclusion:

The conclusion section does a little bit (lines 714 to 741) of what should be part of discussion.  

 Response: The modification has been made.

Summary:

You have improved the paper with important details, but it still lacks a solid reason for pursuing this work. Try to structure the paper in a way that gives clear reason to do an academic study on this topic, because what you find is rather intuitive, do we really need a study to know this conclusion? The answer may be ‘Yes!’, but that does not clearly come out in the start or end of the paper.  You basically need to make the paper more compelling.

Response: As for the conclusion and summary, it has been changed and modified to become more powerful and give a complete idea of the study in a somewhat brief and complete manner.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the proposed changes.

Author Response

Improved the quality of English

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf