Planning process

The governing concept is developing planning premises. Premises are assumptions, forecasts and expected conditions about the future that provide a basis for planning. In this case, daily patient count is a demand estimate. It affects staffing, appointment capacity, room utilisation, equipment needs and the likely waiting time. If that estimate is absent, the hospital may set a target but cannot realistically judge the resources or alternatives required to meet it. Therefore, option C is correct. Option A is not the best answer because the objective has already been set; option B concerns listing possible courses; and option D concerns choosing among evaluated courses, not forecasting patient volume.

The governing concept is selection of the best alternative after evaluation. A planning alternative does not have to be a single, isolated course; management may select a combination when that combination better satisfies the objective. Here, the company has already identified three delivery possibilities and compared them. Its decision to use both a partner courier and pickup centres is the final choice made from the evaluated alternatives. Therefore, option C is correct. Option A refers to forecasting future conditions before comparison, option B refers to defining the desired result, and option D refers to reviewing performance after implementation. None of those describes the actual act of choosing the delivery mix.

The governing concept is comprehensive evaluation of alternatives. Profit is important, but it is not sufficient by itself. A manager must also examine whether the alternative is legally permissible, practically feasible, affordable, sustainable and consistent with organisational objectives. Uncertain legal approval creates compliance risk: the project may be delayed, fined, stopped or made unusable even if its projected profit is high. Therefore, option C is correct because legal risk and feasibility must be included in the comparison. Options A and D consider only one narrow factor, while option B may be relevant in some cases but ignores the decisive legal uncertainty. Evaluation should balance benefits with constraints and risks.

The governing concept is objective and evidence-based selection. Personal experience can provide useful judgement, but it should support rather than replace systematic evaluation. Data may reveal cost differences, risk, feasibility, expected returns and deviations from the objective that an individual’s memory or intuition can overlook. If the manager ignores such evidence, the chosen alternative is not based on objective analysis and may reflect bias or overconfidence. Hence option B is correct. Option A describes clarity of the objective, not the defect; option C makes an unjustified claim about premises; and option D refers to implementation, which has not been established. Sound planning combines managerial judgement with relevant evaluation evidence.

The governing concept is the feedback loop in the planning process. Follow-up compares actual performance with the target and helps identify the cause of a deviation. Once the cause is traced to an incorrect market assumption, the relevant planning premise must be reviewed and revised using better information or a new forecast. The plan, implementation or evaluation criteria may then need adjustment. Therefore, option B is correct because it combines follow-up with premises revision. Options A and C are unrelated operational activities, while option D is too narrow: merely rewriting the objective does not correct an inaccurate market assumption or explain why actual performance fell below target.

The governing concept is follow-up as a continuing control mechanism. A monthly review compares actual progress with planned standards at regular intervals. When a small error is detected early, management can investigate its cause, take corrective action and prevent the deviation from becoming expensive or difficult to reverse. This makes the planning process more responsive and strengthens timely follow-up and control, so option A is correct. Option B would remove direction rather than improve planning; option C describes confusion, not a quality; and option D wrongly suggests that alternatives should be closed. Periodic review does not replace planning; it keeps the plan aligned with changing performance and conditions.

The governing concept is learning through follow-up and causal analysis. A favourable result does not automatically prove that the entire plan is sound or sustainable. If success depended only on a temporary discount, future performance may fall when the discount ends, especially if customers were not retained through lasting value. Management should therefore identify the true cause, separate temporary effects from stable factors, and revise future premises, forecasts and alternatives accordingly. Option A is correct. Option B is wrong because objectives give direction; option C would make planning less realistic; and option D would unnecessarily eliminate choice. Follow-up should explain both failure and success so that future plans are based on dependable evidence.

Estimating reasons for customer churn develops planning premises. In exams connect planning without causes with weak premises.

Searching different routes is identifying alternative courses. In exams treat possible methods as alternatives.

Checking alternatives on many criteria is evaluation. In exams connect criteria such as time cost reliability with evaluation.

Choosing the final option according to the objective is selection. In exams treat objective fit as the basis of selection.

Schedules and responsibilities bring the plan into action. In exams connect execution arrangements with implementation.

Correcting after seeing actual results is follow up action. In exams write deviation plus correction as follow up.

The direct answer is C: doing implementation before objectives. Planning must move from direction to action. First, objectives state the desired destination; then premises and alternatives are considered; an alternative is selected; supporting plans and resources are arranged; finally the plan is implemented and followed up. In the case given, the manager allocated resources first and wrote the target later. Allocating resources is an action supporting implementation, so it came before the basic direction. Option A is wrong because the question does not say that alternatives were omitted after premises. Option B is wrong because follow-up is not mentioned and normally comes after implementation. Option C is correct because action and resource commitment were begun before the objective was established. Option D is not a mistake at all; comparing alternatives is a normal planning step. Exam cue: never spend resources blindly—decide the destination before choosing the action.

A vague target is not a good objective. In exams treat measurable target as a clue of objective quality.

Government fee is a future estimate outside the organisation. In exams treat government change as an external premise.

Cash availability is a condition inside the organisation. In exams understand internal resources as internal premises.

After alternatives are identified they are evaluated. In exams remember sequence in next step questions.

Alternatives should include new and practical routes. In exams treat ignored new technology as weak alternatives.

Evaluation is linked with objective cost and risk. In exams choose the option with relevant decision criteria.

Selection is not based only on low cost. In exams give importance to objective fit and long term effect.

Procedures make implementation clear. In exams treat missing procedures as an implementation gap.

Follow up needs correction along with review. In exams treat report plus correction as complete follow up.

The estimate about platform reach is a future assumption. In exams treat future platform assumption as a premise.

The three promotional ways are alternative courses. In exams write more than one route as identifying alternatives.