Pillsbury’s “REACH” performance system: at which planning horizon was the system principally aimed for goal accomplishment (based on classic case references)?

Introduction / Context:
Case studies in management control systems often cite proprietary frameworks companies used to deploy targets and review performance. Pillsbury’s “REACH” system is frequently referenced as an example of aligning organizational efforts with defined objectives across the enterprise. The question asks about the primary planning horizon emphasized by this system.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• We rely on classic MBO (management by objectives) and corporate planning practices where enterprise systems focus on annual goals, cascaded to departments and teams.
• Shorter horizons (weekly/monthly) exist as tracking cadences but typically roll up to yearly targets.
• “REACH” is treated in the literature as a structured approach to accomplishing corporate objectives.

Concept / Approach:
In many large firms, corporate performance systems set annual objectives that cascade through budgets, incentives, and departmental plans. Operational reviews may occur weekly or monthly, but the anchoring commitments (revenue, margin, quality, safety, innovation milestones) are commonly annual. Given the way such systems are framed in management control literature, the safest and most consistent interpretation is that REACH centered on achieving annual objectives, with shorter review cycles supporting the annual plan.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Management control frameworks (e.g., budget cycles, balanced scorecards) use annual targets as the primary anchor, with monthly/quarterly checkpoints; this aligns with the interpretation chosen here.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Weekly/monthly: important for tracking, but typically subordinate to annual targets.
• Quarterly: common for reporting, yet the central commitment is usually annual.
• None: not applicable because one horizon predominates in such systems.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating review frequency with objective horizon; assuming a case system’s brand name implies a unique cadence rather than standard corporate planning practice.

Final Answer:
annual objectives