In marketing and positioning sessions there can often be a great deal of confusion, or at the very least, discussion about the difference in definition and purpose of key business concepts such as mission, vision, and strategy.

Some of these terms may be similar, if not interchangeable, such as "mission" and "vision." But others are definitely not.

Understanding the distinction between "mission" and "strategy," for example, is crucial to develop and execute a successful plan that addresses both the organization's purpose and the needs of its target customers.

An organization's mission is a clear and concise statement of purpose, describing what a company does, what its core values are, and why it exists in the marketplace.

For instance, Google's mission is simply stated: "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." The mission of Federal Express is "to produce outstanding financial returns by providing totally reliable, competitively superior, global, air-ground transportation of high-priority goods and documents that require rapid, time-certain delivery."

On the other hand, strategy, at its core, is about setting priorities on how resources, including capital investments and operating funds, as well as human resources and organizational energy, will be allocated to achieve the mission or goals of an organization.

In other words, the mission is the what versus the how of the strategy.

By way of illustration, a university's mission may be to educate students in disciplines of higher learning in order to help them be thoughtful and perceptive future leaders. However, the strategy of the university guides its investments in academic fields with a professional orientation, such as business, nursing, and computer sciences, rather than focusing on such liberal arts fields as theater and music or philosophy.

Or, a hospital's mission may be to save lives and improve the health of the community. Yet, the hospital's strategy drives investments in an oncology unit and cardiac care as opposed to transplant and neonatal capabilities.

Since most missions are broad, strategy dictates the scope of the organization and what can be accomplished within the mission.

Therefore, one cannot justify investments in activities solely because they are consistent with the mission. Activities must be consistent with strategic priorities, which will and should be narrower than the mission. This close alignment is especially critical as resources become scarce and not everything conceived as legitimate under the mission can be achieved.

The question, then, is on what basis should the mission be narrowed? What criteria should be used to define the strategy?

The view that Kannon takes rests on setting priorities based on those endeavors that are a) most critical to the core of the mission; b) where the organization has demonstrated competitive advantage or has the potential to build competitive advantage; and c) where there are strengths to build upon in capabilities or brand or audience.

Clearly, organizations are committed to what they do. They all have deep convictions about their own mission and what it means. However, current economic and marketplace conditions demand a time for focus, discipline, and closer alignment of resources with specific strategic priorities. Most organizations want to grow in scope and influence – but for now, the focus must be on taking immediate steps to ensure that they will survive.