The import will be continual, but also one way. If you wish to get your Microsoft Outlook Calendar over to Google Calendar, you can do so with the steps outlined below.Option 1 – URL ImportThis option will import calendar items from an Outlook 365 environment to your Google Calendar. Cozi calendar for business. This means that any changes you make in Google Calendar will not reflect in Outlook.

Buatlah algoritma untuk menentukan suatu bilangan adalah bilangan prima atau bukan. Buatlah algoritma untuk untuk menghitung akar-akar persamaan kuadrat dengan rumus D = B2 – 4. A. C Jika D.

1. Buatlah Network Planning Buatlah Gantt Chartnya Free
2. Buatlah Network Planning Buatlah Gantt Chartnya Excel

Marketing operational excellence: Planning Anaplan. beixf; phpsdk; phpsdk1.4.11. 57 ms. iy2019; im06; id29; ih14; imh09; iepoch:1.3E+12. ixf-compiler; ixf-compiler1.0.0.0. py2018; pm08; pd10; ph13; pmh16; pepoch:1.6E+12.

bec-built-in; bec-built-in1.0.1; bodystr. pntstr:Sat Jun 29 14:09:10 PST 2019; pnepoch:1.3E+12. 0 ms. beixf; phpsdk; phpsdk1.4.11.

https://www.anaplan.com/blog/marketing-operational-excellence-planning/. Marketing planning never stops—it starts with planning for the year ahead, then planning the big initiatives, then planning the next quarter or month, and, finally, planning each campaign and tactic.

The challenges presented to the marketing department by the complexities of this process are monumental.Allocating the top-down view and aggregating the bottom-up view from various field teams is a collaboration nightmare—and viewing these different plans through a wide variety of lenses or at levels of granularity are near impossible. Additionally, understanding what each team should or could achieve against the plan is often based on educated guesswork and gut feeling.With the recent, leading marketing organizations have seen this planning process become a lot less cumbersome. So what are these marketing operations folks doing that is so valuable, and how can you stop suffering from a misaligned marketing team? Have a framework to support creativityDon’t handcuff creative marketers to timelines or heavy administrative work. First and foremost, planning frameworks that structure processes without restricting creative processes should be built. Ensuring that the right-brain thinkers have the freedom to create is vital—however, compromise is also needed to ensure that this fits within a corporate framework that meets business deadlines. We’ve seen some great frameworks that facilitate the annual planning process, followed by a rolling 12-week process, and then an individual campaign cadence.

These are typically successful when all the components are consolidated into a single platform and tied together. Enable collaboration between Marketing and SalesWithin this framework, Marketing must ensure that the sales and revenue forecast is fully integrated into the marketing plan.

A recent indicated that organizations maintaining an integrated process between Sales, Marketing, and Product achieve up to 19 percent faster revenue growth and 15 percent higher profitability. There are thousands of articles about how to achieve sales and marketing alignment, but the companies that are truly succeeding are not just aligning—they are building that drives cross-team collaboration. Embed revenue criteria into the planning process to allow for a smoother prioritization processCompanies that already have an integrated sales and marketing plan are able to foster a culture of marketing performance optimization. This culture enables organizations to forecast the revenue contribution that Marketing makes to the business.

It’s not an easy process, but it’s much more accurate than just guesswork. This approach allows marketers to understand the expected revenue of any campaign based on the properties of each campaign.For example, using we know that the best Marketing teams have a 1.54% conversion rate from MQL (Marketing Qualified Leads) to Closed/Won. Combining this metric with sales figures, one can forecast the performance of a campaign: on the returns side, assume a contract length of 3 years and annual revenue of $100,000, and on the investment side assume a spend of $100,000.

The campaign will return $462,000 of revenue or 462% ROI. Figure 1 shows an example of spend to MQL and revenue generated against the varying dimensions of Forrester’s metrics.Building these metrics into the planning process has a profound effect on how to better prioritize activities and make improvements that have a dramatic increase on marketing ROI. Identify the resources required to fulfill the marketing plan and bring in additional resources as requiredAdding the final layer of metrics is vital to fulfilling the marketing plan.

By integrating the planning process into execution timelines within production management tools, you can generate a resource forecast that allows you to see the high and low points of your teams throughout the year. This creates resource agility, which enables teams to see periods of high demand to determine where third parties or freelancers can be used to fill the resourcing gap. Alternatively, the forecast might show that you’re able to build these campaigns during low points in the year and execute at a time that suits you.

This brings the “automation” component back into marketing automation, allowing the team to build and deliver campaigns and tactics in low periods and automate execution in high-demand periods.As you begin to build out this level of sophistication into your marketing planning process,you may find that there is a —which you likely have already encountered.Learn more about how Anaplan can help with its marketing solutions. Rowan Tonkin, Head of Sales and Marketing Solutions, AnaplanRowan joined Anaplan after spending the last 10 years helping marketing teams deliver great marketing campaigns through better planning and operations management. He has experience across many industries, including working with clients such as Shell, PayPal, Telefonica O2, SportsDirect.com and many more.

Rowan has a broad background working across the customer lifecycle from sales through to implementation, consulting, and customer success.

Strategic planning is one of the least-loved organizational processes. Executives at most companies criticize it as overly bureaucratic, insufficiently insightful, and ill suited for today’s rapidly changing markets.

Some even argue that strategic planning is a relic that should be relegated to the past and that organizations seeking to prosper in turbulent times should instead invest in market intelligence and agility.Although the diagnosis is largely right, the prescription is wrong.More than ever, companies need to devote time to strategy. Nearly one-tenth of public companies disappear each year—a fourfold increase in mortality since 1965. And the life span of the average company has halved since 1970. (See “,” BCG article, December 2015.) Faced with those odds, it doesn’t make sense to put all your chips on agility. Agility is great, but it’s more powerful when paired with preparedness.

And achieving strategic preparedness takes a structured, organized thought process to identify and consider potential threats, disruptions, and opportunities—which is, for want of a better term, strategic planning.In short, the problem isn’t strategic planning. It’s that most companies lack an effective strategic-planning process.Although there is no one-size-fits-all approach to strategic planning, we have found that the companies that get the most benefit from their strategic-planning activities have four things in common:. They explore strategy at distinct time horizons. They constantly reinvent and stimulate the strategic dialogue. They engage the broad organization.

They invest in execution and monitoring. It is important to think about strategy at different time horizons. Each has different goals and requires different approaches, a different frequency, and the involvement of different people. Much of the frustration expressed about strategic-planning processes arises when companies try to address the long, medium, and short terms through a single, inflexible process. Leading companies often think of strategy at three time horizons (see Exhibit 1):. The Long Term. The purpose of long-term strategic thinking should be to define, validate, or redefine the vision, mission, and direction of the company.

It’s about projecting more than five years into the future. How might megatrends, including technology advances and demographic shifts, alter the business environment? What strategic risks and opportunities are revealed when considering future scenarios?

Will the company’s traditional sources of advantage remain strong or be compromised? What new opportunities could arise and give the organization an opportunity to win? It’s the forum to challenge and redefine the boundaries of the market and the rules of the game.Philips’s decision to shift its focus from consumer electronics to the health care sector is an example of this kind of thinking. Looking forward, the company’s executives could see that an aging population and the fitness trend would provide strong tailwinds for a change in course toward the health care sector, while continuing commoditization would leave the traditional consumer electronics business at best becalmed. It was a vision for the future around which they could then align the organization for a multiyear journey. The long term is also a great perspective from which to consider how to project skills and brand into new domains.

BIC a good example: it recognized that its capabilities positioned it to be not just a pen company but a broad-based disposable-device company, a realization that created the foundation for its move into lighters, shavers, and more. The Medium Term. The purpose of medium-term strategic planning should be to enumerate the steps necessary to realize the vision—typically over a three- to five-year period. The focus is on developing clear, actionable business plans that describe the multiyear strategic initiatives required to transform vision into value. Which customer and geographic segments should we prioritize?

What is the innovation strategy and roadmap? Where will we likely need strategic partnerships and acquisitions?

What new business models are required?. The Short Term. The purpose of short-term strategic planning should be to challenge the current strategy, evaluate progress, and explore options to accelerate execution. Is execution above, at, or below plan—and why?

Do the plan’s strategic assumptions remain valid? How should the company adapt to changes in the business environment? What are management’s best new ideas to strengthen or adjust the plan? What’s critical is to encourage creativity and real dialogue—and to avoid a budget-centric process that focuses mostly on the numbers. The best companies break the process into stages that progress from a review of the critical and emerging strategic issues toward a detailed plan for the year and beyond. Clearly, long-term vision, medium-term strategy, and short-term plans need to be revisited with different frequencies—and those frequencies need to reflect the particulars of the sector. The key is to match the rhythm of the process to the “body clock” of the sector.

For a sector like mining, a ten-year horizon for the long term could be just right. In a fast-moving tech sector, five years could be too long even for the long term.Forums in which strategy can be discussed outside the rhythms of these three processes are also important; they can allow for real-time adjustments throughout the year. Increasingly, we see companies pursuing an approach we call “always-on strategy,” which typically takes the form of monthly strategy reviews by the executive committee. Some sessions may focus on a deep dive into a critical initiative, for example, whereas others may concentrate on exploring an emerging threat, a new competitor, or a disruptive business model. With strategic planning—unlike sports or music—repetitive practice doesn’t make perfect.The classic story goes as follows.

A new chief strategy officer is appointed. He or she interviews the executive team and hears about the pain points in the process: too much work, not enough big ideas; too financially oriented, too inward looking. A new process is designed that calls for new analyses to describe the market, competitors, and external trends. In the first year, it is a big, painful effort. But it is also quite useful because the new analyses uncover new ideas and stimulate valuable dialogue. In the second year, the process is less painful, because most analyses can simply be adjustments of last year’s analysis—but, typically, it is also much less useful. The same inputs lead to similar conclusions.

After a few years, the new process feels just as uncreative and bureaucratic as the old one.Breaking out of this kind of cycle is challenging. Some companies have attempted to change the process every year, designing different exercises for managers. One year—to use a famous dot-com-era example from General Electric—it’s “destroy-your-business.com.” The next, it’s a search for underleveraged assets.

The year after that, it’s a business-model-reinvention exercise. These can certainly be useful, but learning a new process each year adds a lot of overhead and repeating any exercise too soon is pointless.A more sustainable solution is to follow the same process year to year but to refresh it with different questions each year. Such an approach breaks the compromise between process efficiency and fresh thinking. By focusing a standard process on new questions, the strategic dialogue will remain rich, because participants will have new analyses to consider and fundamentally different ideas to discuss. Of course, the success of this approach depends heavily on the quality of the questions. As noted management consultant and writer Peter Drucker once said, “The most common source of mistakes in management decisions is the emphasis on finding the right answer rather than the right question.”Great strategists—and great business leaders—have to learn the “art of questioning.”The right questions should be neither too broad (“How do we save the world?”) nor too narrow (“How do we price the next new product?”).

Rather, they should help managers stretch their thinking beyond the current boundaries of their day-to-day activities. Good practices abound. One is to have the leadership team engage in a strategic workshop to articulate and prioritize—but not debate—the key questions that the company will have to answer in the next three to five years. Another good approach is to ask the leaders of the business units to identify the most important questions that the center should be asking them—being clear that the business unit leaders will be judged on the quality of the questions that they propose. It’s important to limit the number of questions to two or three per business unit or department.Once the right questions are selected, the leadership team can let go, knowing that the teams are working on the right issues. The teams will design novel relevant analyses, amass new knowledge, and develop new recommendations.

Question-driven strategic dialogue is inherently an iterative process—even when it occurs on an annual basis. One highly effective approach is known as the “W-shaped model,” and it begins with the center communicating the critical questions for the year to divisional and functional managers, who are charged to return with the answers, along with an update on progress against plan and a series of ideas—some bold and disruptive—for consideration. (See the left side of Exhibit 2.) After a constructive dialogue (shown at the middle of the W in the exhibit), the leadership team selects from among the options and sends management back to develop detailed plans, which are then discussed and approved in a second meeting. It may take more than one cycle to address a question fully. The process can lead to refreshed long-term visions, adapted or new medium-term strategies, and decisive short-term actions.Another emerging approach is to leverage big data and advanced analytics for systematic market intelligence, including information that is hidden in unstructured data or local languages.

This allows companies to explore weak and emerging signals of opportunity and risk—such as subtle changes in customer or competitive behavior—in core markets as well as in peripheral or adjacent markets. As a general rule, organizations that engage a broad group of internal and external stakeholders in their strategy development efforts yield better results than organizations that leave strategy in the hands of a small, central team. When going broad, the strategy team still has a critical role as orchestrator. It should drive the process, set timelines, coach teams on methodology, ensure the sanctity of proprietary information, and generally facilitate and coax the dialogue toward an organizational consensus.Going broad prevents groupthink. By involving people from different backgrounds, generations, and geographies, an organization is more likely to surface alternative ideas and perspectives. Some companies even engage outsiders, among them customers and suppliers, in the process.

Nonexecutive directors—who are charged with bringing an outside perspective to evaluating and approving the company’s strategy—can play a powerful role too. However, the most common complaint we hear from nonexecutive directors (and boards in general) is that they are not sufficiently engaged in the strategy process to play a truly valuable governance role. One good practice is to include directors in the questioning phase and in specific conversations along the “W” process described above.Leveraging a diverse group of stakeholders improves an organization’s strategic “peripheral vision.” The best strategists are adept at spotting both opportunities and risks early—which provides a valuable head start over rivals. Particularly in today’s turbulent competitive environments, a well-chosen extended strategy team can be a powerful early-warning system. It makes it easier to spot the emerging competitors, new business models, and changes to customers’ economics that could undermine the long-term vision or challenge key strategic assumptions.Engaging stakeholders early also increases buy-in and smooths implementation.

When key managers at multiple levels are involved in the strategy process, they are more aware of the strategy and they feel ownership of it. Even if their personal ideas aren’t adopted, they will feel heard, understand the rationale for the chosen strategy, and be prepared to support its execution. Having a great strategic-planning process is only half the challenge. The other half—translating the strategy into results—can be even harder, particularly when the new strategy involves moves outside the core.

(See the right side of Exhibit 2.)An all-too-familiar story: A company spends productive time exploring exciting strategic options and making clear choices. A few months later, managers look back and realize that, despite best intentions, the pressure of day-to-day operations and organizational inertia have kept them from making measurable progress on the new strategy.Investments in several areas can help avoid that fate. (For a glimpse of scenarios that require special consideration, see “Three Special Cases.”). The best practices outlined in this report may need adjusting in certain special situations.Matrix Organizations.

Buatlah Network Planning Buatlah Gantt Chartnya Free

Many companies have at least a three-dimensional matrix: for example, brands or product lines, geographies, and functions. Each needs to build a multiyear strategy, but how can the company ensure that the dots connect in the end?

The cascading memo can help, but it’s often helpful to “linearize the matrix”—that is, to start with one dimension and use its output as input for the next dimension. One common order is product plans (with input from key countries), geography, and then function. Some iteration will inevitably be necessary, but in our experience linearizing simplifies the process.Conglomerates. Multibusiness companies need, of course, to go through a thoughtful strategy development process for each business. But they also need to orchestrate a complementary thought process about the value each business adds to the overall corporation. This thought process needs to cover issues like the balance of the portfolio—and the synergies across the group, whether soft synergies such as training and talent sharing or hard ones like cross-selling and shared services.Family Businesses.

In many ways, family businesses are businesses like any other, but inevitably their strategic-planning process needs to include the family dimension. What are the goals and long-term aspirations of the family? And how can the business strategy best be harmonized with them? Generally, it is important to include key family shareholders in the planning process.

Buatlah Network Planning Buatlah Gantt Chartnya Excel

© 2019 Boston Consulting Group.Boston Consulting Group is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity / expression, national origin, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected under federal, state or local law, where applicable, and those with criminal histories will be considered in a manner consistent with applicable state and local laws.