research on strategic planning

How to improve strategic planning

In conference rooms everywhere, corporate planners are in the midst of the annual strategic-planning process. For the better part of a year, they collect financial and operational data, make forecasts, and prepare lengthy presentations with the CEO and other senior managers about the future direction of the business. But at the end of this expensive and time-consuming process, many participants say they are frustrated by its lack of impact on either their own actions or the strategic direction of the company.

This sense of disappointment was captured in a recent McKinsey Quarterly survey of nearly 800 executives: just 45 percent of the respondents said they were satisfied with the strategic-planning process. 1 1. “ Improving strategic planning: A McKinsey Survey ,” The McKinsey Quarterly , Web exclusive, September 2006. The survey, conducted in late July and early August 2006, received 796 responses from a panel of executives from around the world. All panelists have mostly financial or strategic responsibilities and work in a wide range of industries for organizations with revenues of at least $500 million. Moreover, only 23 percent indicated that major strategic decisions were made within its confines. Given these results, managers might well be tempted to jettison the planning process altogether.

But for those working in the overwhelming majority of corporations, the annual planning process plays an essential role. In addition to formulating at least some elements of a company’s strategy, the process results in a budget, which establishes the resource allocation map for the coming 12 to 18 months; sets financial and operating targets, often used to determine compensation metrics and to provide guidance for financial markets; and aligns the management team on its strategic priorities. The operative question for chief executives is how to make the planning process more effective—not whether it is the sole mechanism used to design strategy. CEOs know that strategy is often formulated through ad hoc meetings or brand reviews, or as a result of decisions about mergers and acquisitions.

Our research shows that formal strategic-planning processes play an important role in improving overall satisfaction with strategy development. That role can be seen in the responses of the 79 percent of managers who claimed that the formal planning process played a significant role in developing strategies and were satisfied with the approach of their companies, compared with only 21 percent of the respondents who felt that the process did not play a significant role. Looked at another way, 51 percent of the respondents whose companies had no formal process were dissatisfied with their approach to the development of strategy, against only 20 percent of those at companies with a formal process.

So what can managers do to improve the process? There are many ways to conduct strategic planning, but determining the ideal method goes beyond the scope of this article. Instead we offer, from our research, five emergent ideas that executives can employ immediately to make existing processes run better. The changes we discuss here (such as a focus on important strategic issues or a connection to core-management processes) are the elements most linked with the satisfaction of employees and their perceptions of the significance of the process. These steps cannot guarantee that the right strategic decisions will be made or that strategy will be better executed, but by enhancing the planning process—and thus increasing satisfaction with the development of strategy—they will improve the odds for success.

Start with the issues

Ask CEOs what they think strategic planning should involve and they will talk about anticipating big challenges and spotting important trends. At many companies, however, this noble purpose has taken a backseat to rigid, data-driven processes dominated by the production of budgets and financial forecasts. If the calendar-based process is to play a more valuable role in a company’s overall strategy efforts, it must complement budgeting with a focus on strategic issues. In our experience, the first liberating change managers can make to improve the quality of the planning process is to begin it by deliberately and thoughtfully identifying and discussing the strategic issues that will have the greatest impact on future business performance.

Granted, an approach based on issues will not necessarily yield better strategic results. The music business, for instance, has discussed the threat posed by digital-file sharing for years without finding an effective way of dealing with the problem. But as a first step, identifying the key issues will ensure that management does not waste time and energy on less important topics.

We found a variety of practical ways in which companies can impose a fresh strategic perspective. For instance, the CEO of one large health care company asks the leaders of each business unit to imagine how a set of specific economic, social, and business trends will affect their businesses, as well as ways to capture the opportunities—or counter the threats—that these trends pose. Only after such an analysis and discussion do the leaders settle into the more typical planning exercises of financial forecasting and identifying strategic initiatives.

One consumer goods organization takes a more directed approach. The CEO, supported by the corporate-strategy function, compiles a list of three to six priorities for the coming year. Distributed to the managers responsible for functions, geographies, and brands, the list then becomes the basis for an offsite strategy-alignment meeting, where managers debate the implications of the priorities for their particular organizations. The corporate-strategy function summarizes the results, adds appropriate corporate targets, and shares them with the organization in the form of a strategy memo, which serves as the basis for more detailed strategic planning at the division and business-unit levels.

A packaged-goods company offers an even more tailored example. Every December the corporate senior-management team produces a list of ten strategic questions tailored to each of the three business units. The leaders of these businesses have six months to explore and debate the questions internally and to come up with answers. In June each unit convenes with the senior-management team in a one-day meeting to discuss proposed actions and reach decisions.

Some companies prefer to use a bottom-up rather than top-down process. We recently worked with a sales company to design a strategic-planning process that begins with in-depth interviews (involving all of the senior managers and selected corporate and business executives) to generate a list of the most important strategic issues facing the company. The senior-management team prioritizes the list and assigns managers to explore each issue and report back in four to six weeks. Such an approach can be especially valuable in companies where internal consensus building is an imperative.

Bring together the right people

An issues-based approach won’t do much good unless the most relevant people are involved in the debate. We found that survey respondents who were satisfied with the strategic-planning process rated it highly on dimensions such as including the most knowledgeable and influential participants, stimulating and challenging the participants’ thinking, and having honest, open discussions about difficult issues. In contrast, 27 percent of the dissatisfied respondents reported that their company’s strategic planning had not a single one of these virtues. Such results suggest that too many companies focus on the data-gathering and packaging elements of strategic planning and neglect the crucial interactive components.

Strategic conversations will have little impact if they involve only strategic planners from both the business unit and the corporate levels. One of our core beliefs is that those who carry out strategy should also develop it. The key strategy conversation should take place among corporate decision makers, business unit leaders, and people with expertise essential to the discussion. In addition to leading the corporate review, the CEO, aided by members of the executive team, should as a rule lead the strategy review for business units as well. The head of a business unit, supported by four to six people, should direct the discussion from its side of the table (see sidebar, "Things to ask in any business unit review").

Things to ask in any business unit review

Are major trends and changes in your business unit’s environment affecting your strategic plan? Specifically, what potential developments in customer demand, technology, or the regulatory environment could have enough impact on the industry to change the entire plan?

How and why is this plan different from last year’s?

What were your forecasts for market growth, sales, and profitability last year, two years ago, and three years ago? How right or wrong were they? What did the business unit learn from those experiences?

What would it take to double your business unit’s growth rate and profits? Where will growth come from: expansion or gains in market share?

If your business unit plans to take market share from competitors, how will it do so, and how will they respond? Are you counting on a strategic advantage or superior execution?

What are your business unit’s distinctive competitive strengths, and how does the plan build on them?

How different is the strategy from those of competitors, and why? Is that a good or a bad thing?

Beyond the immediate planning cycle, what are the key issues, risks, and opportunities that we should discuss today?

What would a private-equity owner do with this business?

How will the business unit monitor the execution of this strategy?

One pharmaceutical company invites business unit leaders to take part in the strategy reviews of their peers in other units. This approach can help build a better understanding of the entire company and, especially, of the issues that span business units. The risk is that such interactions might constrain the honesty and vigor of the dialogue and put executives at the focus of the discussion on the defensive.

Corporate senior-management teams can dedicate only a few hours or at most a few days to a business unit under review. So team members should spend this time in challenging yet collaborative discussions with business unit leaders rather than trying to absorb many facts during the review itself. To provide some context for the discussion, best-practice companies disseminate important operational and financial information to the corporate review team well in advance of such sessions. This reading material should also tee up the most important issues facing the business and outline the proposed strategy, ensuring that the review team is prepared with well-thought-out questions. In our experience, the right 10 pages provide ample fuel to fire a vigorous discussion, but more than 25 pages will likely douse the level of energy or engagement in the room.

Adapt planning cycles to the needs of each business

Managers are justifiably concerned about the resources and time required to implement an issues-based strategic-planning approach. One easy—yet rarely adopted—solution is to free business units from the need to conduct this rigorous process every single year. In all but the most volatile, high-velocity industries, it is hard to imagine that a major strategic redirection will be necessary every planning cycle. In fact, forcing businesses to undertake this exercise annually is distracting and may even be detrimental. Managers need to focus on executing the last plan’s major initiatives, many of which can take 18 to 36 months to implement fully.

Some companies alternate the business units that undergo the complete strategic-planning process (as opposed to abbreviated annual updates of the existing plan). One media company, for example, requires individual business units to undertake strategic planning only every two or three years. This cadence enables the corporate senior-management team and its strategy group to devote more energy to the business units that are “at bat.” More important, it frees the corporate-strategy group to work directly with the senior team on critical issues that affect the entire company—issues such as developing an integrated digitization strategy and addressing unforeseen changes in the fast-moving digital-media landscape.

Other companies use trigger mechanisms to decide which business units will undergo a full strategic-planning exercise in a given year. One industrial company assigns each business unit a color-coded grade—green, yellow, or red—based on the unit’s success in executing the existing strategic plan. “Code red,” for example, would slate a business unit for a strategy review. Although many of the metrics that determine the grade are financial, some may be operational to provide a more complete assessment of the unit’s performance.

Freeing business units from participating in the strategic-planning process every year raises a caveat, however. When important changes in the external environment occur, senior managers must be able to engage with business units that are not under review and make major strategic decisions on an ad hoc basis. For instance, a major merger in any industry would prompt competitors in it to revisit their strategies. Indeed, one advantage of a tailored planning cycle is that it builds slack into the strategic-review system, enabling management to address unforeseen but pressing strategic issues as they arise.

Implement a strategic-performance-management system

In the end, many companies fail to execute the chosen strategy. More than a quarter of our survey respondents said that their companies had plans but no execution path. Forty-five percent reported that planning processes failed to track the execution of strategic initiatives. All this suggests that putting in place a system to measure and monitor their progress can greatly enhance the impact of the planning process.

Most companies believe that their existing control systems and performance-management processes (including budgets and operating reviews) are the sole way to monitor progress on strategy. As a result, managers attempt to translate the decisions made during the planning process into budget targets or other financial goals. Although this practice is sensible and necessary, it is not enough. We estimate that a significant portion of the strategic decisions we recommend to companies can’t be tracked solely through financial targets. A company undertaking a major strategic initiative to enhance its innovation and product-development capabilities, for example, should measure a variety of input metrics, such as the quality of available talent and the number of ideas and projects at each stage in development, in addition to pure output metrics such as revenues from new-product sales. One information technology company, for instance, carefully tracks the number and skill levels of people posted to important strategic projects.

Strategic-performance-management systems, which should assign accountability for initiatives and make their progress more transparent, can take many forms. One industrial corporation tracks major strategic initiatives that will have the greatest impact, across a portfolio of a dozen businesses, on its financial and strategic goals. Transparency is achieved through regular reviews and the use of financial as well as nonfinancial metrics. The corporate-strategy team assumes responsibility for reviews (chaired by the CEO and involving the relevant business-unit leaders) that use an array of milestones and metrics to assess the top ten initiatives. One to expand operations in China and India, for example, would entail regular reviews of interim metrics such as the quality and number of local employees recruited and the pace at which alliances are formed with channel partners or suppliers. Each business unit, in turn, is accountable for adopting the same performance-management approach for its own, lower-tier top-ten list of initiatives.

When designed well, strategic-performance-management systems can give an early warning of problems with strategic initiatives, whereas financial targets alone at best provide lagging indicators. An effective system enables management to step in and correct, redirect, or even abandon an initiative that is failing to perform as expected. The strategy of a pharmaceutical company that embarked on a major expansion of its sales force to drive revenue growth, for example, presupposed that rapid growth in the number of sales representatives would lead to a corresponding increase in revenues. The company also recognized, however, that expansion was in turn contingent on several factors, including the ability to recruit and train the right people. It therefore put in place a regular review of the key strategic metrics against its actual performance to alert managers to any emerging problems.

Integrate human-resources systems into the strategic plan

Simply monitoring the execution of strategic initiatives is not sufficient: their successful implementation also depends on how managers are evaluated and compensated. Yet only 36 percent of the executives we surveyed said that their companies’ strategic-planning processes were integrated with HR processes. One way to create a more valuable strategic-planning process would be to tie the evaluation and compensation of managers to the progress of new initiatives.

Although the development of strategy is ostensibly a long-term endeavor, companies traditionally emphasize short-term, purely financial targets—such as annual revenue growth or improved margins—as the sole metrics to gauge the performance of managers and employees. This approach is gradually changing. Deferred-compensation models for boards, CEOs, and some senior managers are now widely used. What’s more, several companies have added longer-term performance targets to complement the short-term ones. A major pharmaceutical company, for example, recently revamped its managerial-compensation structure to include a basket of short-term financial and operating targets as well as longer-term, innovation-based growth targets.

Although these changes help persuade managers to adopt both short- and long-term approaches to the development of strategy, they don’t address the need to link evaluation and compensation to specific strategic initiatives. One way of doing so is to craft a mix of performance targets that more appropriately reflect a company’s strategy. For example, one North American services business that launched strategic initiatives to improve its customer retention and increase sales also adjusted the evaluation and compensation targets for its managers. Rather than measuring senior managers only by revenue and margin targets, as it had done before, it tied 20 percent of their compensation to achieving its retention and cross-selling goals. By introducing metrics for these specific initiatives and linking their success closely to bonus packages, the company motivated managers to make the strategy succeed.

An advantage of this approach is that it motivates managers to flag any problems early in the implementation of a strategic initiative (which determines the size of bonuses) so that the company can solve them. Otherwise, managers all too often sweep the debris of a failing strategy under the operating rug until the spring-cleaning ritual of next year’s annual planning process.

Some business leaders have found ways to give strategic planning a more valuable role in the formulation as well as the execution of strategy. Companies that emulate their methods might find satisfaction instead of frustration at the end of the annual process.

Renée Dye is a consultant in McKinsey’s Atlanta office, and Olivier Sibony is a director in the Paris office.

This article was first published in the Autumn 2007 issue of McKinsey on Finance . Visit McKinsey’s corporate finance site to view the full issue.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Distortions and deceptions in strategic decisions

Tired of strategic planning.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 03 December 2019

Co-designed strategic planning and agile project management in academia: case study of an action research group

• Enric Senabre Hidalgo 1 &
• Mayo Fuster Morell 2  

Palgrave Communications volume  5 , Article number:  151 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

6803 Accesses

6 Citations

12 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Strategic planning, a standard activity for project management in different areas and types of organisations, can contribute to improving the dynamics of collaboration in academia, and specifically in research processes. This paper joins the still scarce studies on strategic planning within research groups, contributing to the field of both team science and organisational management from a social sciences perspective and “strategy-as-practice” paradigm. Through the case study of an action research group, after the experimental co-creation of its long-term strategy involving different participatory design methodologies, we quantitatively analyze how this process influenced communication and group relations, both internally and in relation to its participation in the ecosystem with other stakeholders. Thus, as a result of a detailed content analysis in the different communication channels and tools of the group, we address its impact on the team’s agile project management (APM), adopted in a novel way by its members. Data compared between periods, once the strategic plan was co-created, suggest that this type of approach to co-created strategic thinking can improve coordination, cohesion and joint vision among participants. In agreement with emerging academic literature in this field, pertaining to the need to understand strategic planning as a process of socialization and dialogue, other relevant results of the study point to the particular suitability of this type of planning in research environments interested not only in its academic, but also social and ecosystemic impact. The results obtained and discussed also provide elements of assessment when considering the applicability of this type of strategic co-creation process in other areas of knowledge and disciplines.

Similar content being viewed by others

Uncovering the failure of Agile framework implementation using SSM-based action research

A framework for developing team science expertise using a reflective-reflexive design method (R2DM)

Linking public leadership and public project success: the mediating role of team building

Introduction.

Despite the current competition among academic institutions for resources and prestige in the adoption of evaluation systems, ranking mechanisms and performance indicators (Ordorika and Lloyd, 2015 ), regarding current challenges in the organisational dynamics of academic systems there’s little evidence of successful strategies and practices for research project management (Derrick and Nickson, 2014 ). This is especially the case when it comes to the additional need to adapt the production of scientific knowledge to collaborative and interdisciplinary teamwork (Wuchty et al., 2007 ), connecting networked academic organisations and researchers (Wang and Hicks, 2015 ), in a new context that Jasanoff ( 2003 ) defined as the “participatory turn of science”. From the fields of social studies of science and science of team science, authors like Jeffrey ( 2003 ) or Bozeman and Boardman ( 2014 ), describe how collaboration across teams and disciplines also requires progressive adaptation of a shared language and different types of tools. For these reasons, strategic planning seems to be one of the elements that could possibly contribute to better management practices in academia (Wilbon, 2012 ), which is usually a complex and ever-changing process (Eccles et al., 2009 ). On the other hand, when considering alternative modes of knowledge production in academia, as well as the paradigmatic transition of universities in the global context (Santos, 2012 ), strategic thinking usually emerges in research groups oriented to achieve impact beyond the academic domain, like in the cases of action research (Fuster Morell, 2009 ) or mission-driven research (Holm et al., 2013 ). This article provides an analysis of how far co-creation could have a role in the application of strategic planning in academic contexts, in this case through an action research group, and its impact at the levels of management and interrelationships.

Strategic planning in the field of project management

With its foundations in the principles of action research and organisational development (Argyris and Schön, 1997 ), project management is generally considered as the practice of planning and executing the work of a team, based on specific control models and theories, to achieve specific goals and success criteria (Kerzner and Kerzner, 2017 ). From a social science perspective, however, project management has also been studied and applied in understanding projects as social processes, focusing on human behavior and actions within groups and organisations (Blomquist et al., 2010 ). Strategic planning, on the other hand, as applied in project management, can be defined as “deliberative, disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organisation (or other entity) is, what it does, and why” (Bryson, 2011 , pp. 4–5). Strategic planning, in this sense, is one of the most widely used strategy tools in business, but is also used in public and non-profit organisations (Ferlie and Ongaro, 2015 ).

Besides the fact that empirical evidence of a positive relationship between strategic planning and organisational performance remains inconclusive (Wolf and Floyd, 2017 ), after Mintzberg’s ( 1994 ) critique of the fallacies of rational and centralized strategic planning as a top-down process, from the field of organisational studies it has also been analysed as a key mechanism for team integration and coordination, and as a basis for both centralizing and decentralizing organisational decision making (Spee and Jarzabkowski, 2011 ). In this regard, influenced by the mentioned social science perspectives, in recent years there has been a shift in the field of project management research on strategic planning (Wolf and Floyd, 2017 ), pointing to its benefits from the perspective of participative and socialized process models (Andersen, 2004 ). From this second perspective, strategic planning can be studied more as a “process” than a “product”, and strategy development, therefore, as an evolutionary and integrative activity (Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009 ), within a strategy-as-practice paradigm (Whittington, 1996 ). However, even considering how strategic planning has evolved towards these more integrated and process-oriented approaches, there has been little focus in management literature on addressing to what extent and, specifically, how it could be co-created using participatory methodologies.

State of the art on strategic planning applied to research

Again, with regard to the current challenges of academic systems and research activity from an organisational perspective, although there is scarce academic literature about strategic planning for research organisations, studies in this area show how it has gained some popularity in the general operation of universities (Srinivasa et al., 2015 ; Dooris et al., 2004 ), and also with open and participative approaches (Amrollahi and Rowlands, 2017 ). More specific studies about the application of strategic thinking in research examine its implementation in R&D processes in firms (Bemelmans, 1979 ), in industry-academic collaboration (Burke et al., 1985 ), in research teams in the health sector (Leischow et al., 2008 ), in global initiatives of medical research (Berkley et al., 2010 ), in strategic collaboration within scientific centers (Boardman and Gray, 2010 ), or for the administrative management of research (Drummond, 2003 ).

In this respect, focusing on scholarly activity and academic organisations, relevant case studies on achieving collaborative and participative consensus for strategically planned research agendas address how to combine online tools and offline sessions during the process (Wilbon, 2012 ), or how to engage iteratively different academic communities of practice around research strategic planning (Best et al., 2015 ). Sá and Tamtik ( 2012 ), on the other hand, highlight the diversity of the approaches and perceptions of academics about the research mission, usually constrained by broader social and organisational structures of universities, and by the complex nature of the research enterprise itself. In all cases, however, there is still scarce literature on how to collaboratively develop strategic plans in academic research organisations, and its effect on group dynamics.

The co-creation approach: participatory design and agile project management

Co-creation (or co-production), which refers to processes of collective creativity, is a very broad term, with its applications ranging from the added value of customer participation in the definition of a product or service (Ranjan and Read, 2016 ), to public participation, collaborative governance or community involvement in civic-oriented projects (Voorberg et al., 2015 ). Within this broad concept, participatory design (or co-design) refers to a specific instance of co-creation that occurs when designers and people not trained in design work together in a design development process, with participants as “domain experts” of their own needs and experience (Visser et al., 2005 ). Some key principles of co-design, in this sense, connect with the perspective of iterative and participative strategic planning, as defined above, especially when it comes to the involvement of diverse stakeholders (Flood and Jackson, 1991 ). This points to the opportunity for adopting visualization techniques derived from co-design (Sanders and Stappers, 2008 ) in order to integrate different perspectives, mutual understanding, inspiration and engagement between participants in the research strategic thinking process (Eppler and Platts, 2009 ), thereby enhancing visual and textual representations of contexts and strategies (Giraudeau, 2008 ).

On the other hand, some approaches analyse strategic planning from the perspective of how it can be improved by adapting agile project management (APM) (Cervone, 2014 ; Rand and Eckfeldt, 2004 ). APM, which can also be considered as a co-creation practice (Spinuzzi, 2015 ), consists of a set of methods and principles originally conceived for flexible and participative software development, but currently adopted in many other different domains (Ciric et al., 2018 ). This wider adoption of APM is due to its attributes of adaptive teamwork, transparency, continuous improvement and small and frequent releases for early delivery (Cao et al., 2009 ). APM, more so than other project management frameworks, emphasizes teamwork by focusing on the social aspects of project development, channelling co-creation between participants in self-organized, cross-functional teams (Hoda et al., 2013 ), with collective ownership and collective responsibility as key attributes (Robinson and Sharp, 2003 ). Among the different practices within APM, some typical ones are the regularity of short feedback meetings (“standups”) and the use of kanban boards for visualizing the workflow and team tasks from conception to completion (Polk, 2011 ).

Research questions

The arguments exposed above justify the interest in an analysis connecting such diverse bodies of literature, in order to fill the gap and contribute to the questions about how strategic planning could be based on co-creation methodologies. And also, from a meta-research perspective (Ioannidis et al., 2015 ), how such an approach could be applied to research processes. More concretely, to what extent participatory design could be used for articulating the research planning phase, and afterwards integrated with the APM for the research development phase. This leads to the following two research questions, which form the basis of this study:

How can co-creation methods be used to lead the strategic planning process of a research group?

What would be the impact of co-created strategic planning on the agile project management of research?

Answering these two questions requires, in the first case, to describe in some detail how participatory design can be combined with strategic planning principles, explaining the integration of both approaches. In relation to the second question, a quantitative approach is needed considering the general lack of empirical evidence, especially in the fields of social studies of science and team science, on how strategic planning can impact research management. In this regard, our analysis of the co-creation approach to research strategic planning is applied to the participants, sequence and methods used in the entire process.

Methodology

In order to address the two research questions, a distinctive methodological design has been applied to each one of them. Articulated around a specific case study on the Dimmons research group, this methodological approach is twofold. The first part is based on participatory design, utilised to conceptualize and prototype the Dimmons strategic planning according to co-creation principles. The second part analyses the impact of co-created strategic planning on the group’s day-to-day APM, through content analysis of the online tools used for coordinating teamwork. On this basis, the results allow us to discuss which insights of the study could be generalized to current challenges in research project management.

Background of the Dimmons case study

Created in 2016, Dimmons ( http://dimmons.net/ ) is one of the eleven research groups of the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), the research center of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) based in Barcelona. Following the development of strategic planning of the IN3 Footnote 1 , which took place after the main strategic planning exercise of the UOC Footnote 2 in 2016, the Dimmons group developed its own strategic planning with the aim of establishing its strategic objectives for the period 2018 to 2023. On the one hand, the selection of the Dimmons research group as a case study is due to how it is immersed in a strategic planning context that crosses several levels of the academic institution to which it belongs, reflecting an increasingly recurring but still little studied trend. On the other hand, Dimmons also represents a paradigmatic example due to its diversity, since it is composed of members with a consolidated scientific career, but also of PhD students, external collaborators and management-oriented profiles. Since the beginning of its activity, in that sense, Dimmons operates in a framework of competitive evolution between universities and research centers, and at the same time in new collaboration dynamics to achieve not only academic impact but also social impact, as we will see. In that sense, therefore, the case study reflects a way of addressing a series of current challenges and complexities that research groups experience between long-term strategic vision and day-to-day project management.

The Dimmons research group is focused on transdisciplinarity and action research for the study of socioeconomic innovation and the collaborative economy, from the perspectives of economic and public policy analysis. The group’s composition since its beginning has evolved into a networked structure (Spinuzzi, 2015 ) which consists of different “layers” of participation (all of them involved with its strategic planning, as we will see in the results section). The action-oriented character of the research group, and its specialization in collaboration dynamics, makes it a case study particularly adapted to develop a novel approach, concretely in terms of opening up its strategic planning process by applying co-creation methods. This was seen early on as an opportunity to engage with its core team members and network of close collaborators, as well as with other representative stakeholders from the Dimmons community and ecosystem. In sum, the coincidence that the research group had to develop its own strategic planning, has an experimental and action-oriented approach, which added to its expertise on collaborative dynamics, made the Dimmons group a good case for the study. Regarding the first research question on how co-creation methods could be adapted for strategic planning, Dimmons was a good choice due to the group’s regular adoption of participatory design techniques. On the other hand, Dimmons’ novel adoption of APM (Senabre Hidalgo, 2018a ) also favours addressing the second question, regarding the impact of the co-created strategic planning on the group’s day-to-day management.

As a general result of the co-creation of the strategic plan, in which more than 40 people participated, there were a total of 38 actions defined in accordance with 6 strategic goals for the period 2018–2023, each one with an average of three key performance indicators (KPI) associated (97 in total). Its final version was published online on the Dimmons research group webpage. Footnote 3 After one year of implementation, by the end of 2018, 24 of the 97 KPIs were accomplished satisfactorily. This result represents an accomplishment of 24%, and considering that a 5-year period is envisaged for full implementation of the plan, suggests satisfactory performance in terms of achieving the co-defined goals during the first year.

Participatory design for how to apply co-creation in strategic planning

Regarding the first research question (“How can co-creation methods to be used in leading strategic planning process of a research group?”) the methodological approach was qualitative, based on participatory design. Departing from the key consideration that participatory design is indeed a methodology of action research (Spinuzzi, 2005 ), and benefiting from co-creation derived from design thinking methodologies (Kimbell, 2012 ), which have proven to improve participant engagement in research (Senabre Hidalgo et al., 2018 ), we established different visual and discussion techniques at each stage of the process for the effective participation in a transdisciplinary context. The participatory design was developed and data collected from the fall of 2016 through 2018. The methodology applied is consistent with the participatory design notions of user-centered co-creation, in detailed stages and techniques such as those described by Naranjo-Bock (2012) for (1) self-reflection of research methods (focusing on research goals and questions, who the participants are and what tools they can use, the stage of the project, etc.); (2) running co-design activities onsite, with techniques and “placements” like context mapping, storyboards, inspiration cards, diagrams or paper prototyping; (3) pilot testing and results, where the data obtained is generally visual and tangible, accompanied by the important debrief of the results of each participatory design session or process.

Following that approach, and adopting the framework of Spinuzzi ( 2005 ), through different qualitative techniques the co-creation process was structured around the three key phases of: (1) Initial exploration of work, where participants meet each other and commonalities are identified, as well as for preliminary discussions; (2) Discovery processes, when design facilitators employ various techniques to understand and prioritize work organisation, clarifying the participant’s goals and values; and (3) Prototyping, a final stage for iteratively shaping outputs and assessing results. The data came from a range of sources, including offline co-creation sessions and team meetings, meetings and interviews with some researchers and collaborators, as well as documentation resulting from the different phases and sessions of the strategic planning. Outputs of each participatory design stage were recorded in detail as they took place, through documents shared online.

Content analysis for the impact of a co-created strategic planning on APM of research

Regarding the second question (“What would be the impact of co-created strategic planning on the agile project management of research?”), the approach was based on quantitative data collection and text analysis, in order to address how far the co-creation methodologies had an impact on the group’s project management, focusing on the researchers’ discussions and behavior through digital channels. The analysis was based on extensive content analysis of two of the main online coordination tools for the AMP of the group: a chat group for daily communication and an online kanban board platform for task management.

Telegram chat content analysis

The “Dimmons al dia” Telegram chat group was adopted from February 2016 until the end of 2018 as a first approach to daily standup meetings, inspired by the Scrum method derived from APM for software development (Cervone, 2011 ). Scrum, which is one of the most adopted agile frameworks for managing knowledge work, facilitates the coordinated activity of participants who break their work into small tasks that can be completed within fixed duration cycles or “sprints”, tracking progress and re-planning in regular meetings in order to develop projects incrementally (Senabre Hidalgo, 2019 ). Via Telegram, on a daily basis from Monday to Friday each Dimmons team member (a total of 15 users, through different periods over time), via a short message during the morning period, informed others about the planned tasks for the day (Fig. 1 ), among other coordination discussions that took place regularly on that chat tool between team members.

Screenshot of the Telegram chat group for daily updates about tasks.

A combination of computer-assisted massive text analysis and comparative visualizations Footnote 4 for these chat discussions on the Dimmons Telegram group was used, after dumping and extracting to plain text the full history of the “Dimmons al dia” chat group since its creation (a text corpus mainly in Catalan, which is the normal language of team members). The data gathered consisted of the complete history of messages from 2 September 2016 to 27 December 2018 (28 months of activity). This represented a corpus of 6520 messages, with a size of 794,464 characters in 6941 lines of text.

Afterwards, in order to compare the different flows of communication in relation to the co-designed strategic plan of the research group, it was decided that the date on which the first strategic planning team workshop took place (20 December 2017) would be used as the key date for dividing the chat history in two plain text documents: “Xat Telegram Dimmons al dia 2017” (pre-strategic plan period, until 20 December 2017, with 78,644 total words) and “Xat Telegram Dimmons al dia 2018” (post-strategic plan period, after 20 December 2017, with 83,200 total words).

As a first step in the analysis, prior to coding, the plain text obtained from each document was processed as a tabular view of terms frequently used in the entire corpus. That is, a list of the most used terms for the period 2017 and a list of the most used terms for the period 2018. This facilitated an initial overview of recurrent terms, which could then be filtered and coded, identifying multiple stop words to exclude (non-relevant meaning, numbers, ambiguous terms, etc.) and on the other hand selecting specific words related to categories to include in the analysis. The coding of data obtained in this way consisted of the clustering of words relevant to the following two categories:

Coordination-related terms : data about terms related to time periods or days (today, tomorrow, now, etc.), general work-related keywords (meeting, call, document, task, pending, etc.), as well as specific verbs (preparing, sending, finishing, etc.).

Strategy-related terms : data about terms related to the six main goals of the Dimmons strategic plan (as described in the results section), for (1) academic impact (paper, data, review, survey, specific projects, etc.); (2) open tools (platform or toolkit-related); (3) ecosystem (specific partners mentioned, dissemination or projects); (4) team care and empowerment (words related to good climate among members, greetings, gender topics, etc.); (5) sustainability (new proposals, specific projects for new funding); and (6) university shift (references to the university or research center).

Kanban board content analysis

In January 2017 (when the strategic planning was co-designed) the Dimmons team adopted an open source project management software ( https://kanboard.org/ ) for additional APM practice, such as the use of an online kanban board for visualizing the flow of tasks accomplished by core team members (Fig. 2 ).

Kanban board reflecting the workflow of tasks of team members, related to strategic goals and specific projects.

For this, in connection with the six strategic goals defined in the co-design phase, each planned task could be properly tagged (selecting “academic impact”, “open tools”, etc.) according to the researchers criteria. In addition, tasks could be classified by selecting from a dropdown menu the corresponding project or category (specific projects, management tasks, dissemination, publications, events or initiatives related to networking, etc.). An analysis of this workflow-related data on the Dimmons online kanban board during the mentioned period (with different levels of participation among the nine core team members, depending on their familiarity with digital tools and perception of utility) allows for an understanding of the evolution of planned and achieved tasks in relation to the Dimmons strategic plan, as well as among team members.

Data obtained from the Kanboard log comprised details about a total of 166 user-defined tasks, in relation to tags selected (for the six strategic goals), category of project selected (among the 11 existing projects and initiatives during 2018), user activity, level of accomplishment, due dates and task description, among others. In this case, the coding related to the strategic goals was self-generated by each user at the moment of naming and defining the task, by selecting the most appropriate tag in relation to the strategic goals.

This results section is divided into two parts, which address the research questions with the methodologies described above. First, we outline how the co-design process of the Dimmons research group planning unfolded, describing the methods used, as well as its internal and management implications, based on the participatory design process itself. Secondly, we summarise the main results of the impact of the process on the group’s project management and regular communication in relation to its experimental co-creation approach, derived from the content analysis of the main coordination channels used during the regular activity of Dimmons.

How can co-creation techniques and principles be used in leading the strategic planning process of a research group? Insights from the participatory design of the Dimmons strategic planning

In relation to the first research question, about how can the strategic planning process of a research group can adopt co-creation methods, the participatory design practices and principles adopted resulted in an iterative, dialogic and eminently visual approach to strategic planning. Questions related to participants (“who”), sequence (“when”) and methods (“how”) were of critical importance since the beginning of the process (Table 1 ).

“Who”: Participation as ecosystem

In contrast to the traditional strategic planning process, developed by the group’s core team only (i.e., those with strong ties to it), Dimmons adopted a broader perspective in which the basic principle for co-creation that emerged was the concept of “participation as ecosystem” (Fuster Morell, 2010a ). That is, the Dimmons research group could be considered a research ecosystem with diverse forms and degrees of involvement, following the structure of a “power law dynamic” (or “1/9/90”) in online collaborative production (Fuster Morell, 2010b ). This reflects the composition of the participation that took place when articulating the strategic planning process, according to the three layers of the Dimmons research ecosystem:

Core Team: Director, postdocs and PhDs with grants, and research assistants (9 people).

Dimmons “Community”: University professors, former visitors, external researchers, experts and practitioners on Dimmons areas (12 people).

Dimmons “Ecosystem”: Representatives of a network of institutions with further collaborative relations, target impact or audience (10 participants from a total of 32 private and public organisations).

In relation to this, a first observation regarding how to apply co-creation in strategic planning has to do with the suitability of adopting a broad, open and participative approach, as well as decentralised approaches for higher engagement and performance in dynamic environments (Andersen, 2004 ). For this reason, who to involve in the process became a critical aspect, considering that ecosystemic participation is also meant to engage the research group community and stakeholders in the process (not only highly involved team members). In this case, the open invitation to all members of each layer of the ecosystem, as defined above, resulted in the “power law” distribution, of which only a small representation were engaged in the process but with a high level of involvement through the different co-creation sessions. Defined as a modular sequence, with the possibility of joining the process at different times, also allowed for a wider participation than if following a rigid and traditional strategic planning approach.

“When”: Iterative sequences of convergence and divergence

The iterative unfolding of the co-creation process was another main characteristic. That is, rather than a predefined sequence of steps, the guiding principles were based on the participatory design notions of “convergence” and “divergence” (Sanders et al., 2010 ). This allowed for several divergence instances (during which a considerable number of possibilities regarding goals, ideas, SWOT factors Footnote 5 , etc. were generated by participants), followed by intense convergence stages of synthesis (where the main options were presented, discussed and finally selected via different mechanisms).

Departing from that key consideration in co-creation, and its adaptation of a sequence guided by participatory design methods (Spinuzzi, 2005 ; Sanders and Stappers, 2008 ), the overall approach of the participatory design integrated key notions in literature for effective strategic planning (Wilson, 1994 ). In this respect, the organic and iterative development of the process as a co-creation sequence was consistent with the four stages of a strategic plan, as defined by Eppler and Platts ( 2009 ): analysis, development, planning and implementation (Fig. 3 ).

Stages followed in the co-creation of the strategic plan of the research group, connecting co-creation approaches (Spinuzzi, 2005 ; Sanders et al., 2010 ; Spinuzzi, 2015 ) with visual strategic planning (Eppler et al., 2006 ; Eppler and Platts, 2009 ).

As reflected above, a key consideration derived from the case study in relation to its temporal sequence is that it was possible to establish a clear coherence between the literature of co-creation and participatory design (Spinuzzi, 2005 ; Sanders et al., 2010 ; Spinuzzi, 2015 ) and of visualization techniques for strategic planning (Eppler and Platts, 2009 ; Eppler et al., 2006 ).

“How”: Integrating°co-creation methods in strategic planning

The co-creation process unfolded by connecting the different participatory design stages to specific phases of strategic planning, via a combination of five sessions in total and the adoption of nine co-creation methods (in offline but also online formats), and with the regular participation of diverse participants from the Dimmons research ecosystem (Table 2 ).

In this way, the first co-creation workshop (Fig. 4 ) focused on mapping personal attitudes and strengths, experience in methods and research approaches, which contributed to visualizing methodological affinities within the group.

Different moments and materials used for the workshop sessions with the research team.

Following the mentioned co-creation principles of “convergence” and “divergence” (Sanders et al., 2010 ), the second co-creation workshop departed from the first survey results to engage in a broader discussion about the mission and guiding principles of the group, which were discussed and re-edited offline during the debate. That second session also adopted a card-sorting technique for clustering the survey results of the SWOT. During the second co-creation workshop, a first version of the map of the Dimmons ecosystem was also drafted and discussed. An important part of this participative analysis stage of the planning was the collective identification of the “ecosystem” or external environment in which the group operates. For this, a key activity was the collective mapping of the different institutions and agents with which Dimmons collaborates or has a relevant relationship, bringing the concept of ecosystemic research closer to the perspective of the Quadruple Helix for innovation systems (Carayannis and Campbell, 2012 ). In contributing to the generation of an internal environment of transparency and openness, it is important to consider that all the dynamics took place in a context of action research where the majority of participants were familiar beforehand with similar methodologies and processes to integrate diversity and explicit points of view. Also noteworthy is the general absence of conflict situations during the whole process, and that initial discussions about methodologies and specific theoretical perspectives were activated early on. This was probably due to the fact that it was based on a small core of participants who were already cohesive around the Dimmons team, joined by other actors with diverse theoretical backgrounds and experience, and for that reason each session was oriented towards the search for synergies and learnings, making explicit the knowledge, expectations and opinions of the majority of the group. However, it should also be pointed out that sometimes during the discussion, the opinion of those with a consolidated academic profile tended to weigh more and took more preeminence, in contrast to predoctoral researchers or participants with a profile not linked to academic research.

As another important element of the group’s strategic thinking in this case, the final stages of the process not only had as benchmark reference the IN3 research center’s strategic goals, but also the potential connection with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) principles. The SDGs are a collection of 17 global goals set by the United Nations for addressing urgent issues like poverty, education, gender equality, energy, environment or social justice, among others (Griggs et al., 2013 ). RRI is a multidisciplinary approach promoting the involvement of stakeholders and civil society in scientific activities for developing more inclusive innovation processes (Owen et al., 2012 ). This element of strategic planning around external indicators represented for all participants a first approach to new principles and a series of values, leveraging perspectives and discussions around the key aspect of social impact of research beyond the academic context.

As a final result, among the different key elements that are usually integrated into a strategic plan (Eppler and Platts, 2009 ), the definition of six strategic goals were incorporated into the first draft of the document (considered as a “prototype”) of six strategic goals: (1) Academic impact (“generate a high-quality research corpus of theoretical framework on socio-economic innovation”); (2) Open tools (“contribute to processes in action for the resolution of social challenges by developing research-based resources”); (3) Ecosystem building (“consolidate a ‘glocal’ network of partner organisations for quadruple helix collaboration to favour social impact and resilience”); (4) Empowered team (“consolidate the team with complementary backgrounds, healthy environment and gender-balanced talent”); (5) Catalytic sustainability (“obtain funding for action research from competitive calls with high impact and visibility”); and (6) University shift (“engage with open access, “commonification” processes, transdisciplinarity, agile principles and other changing paradigms in the academic culture”).

What would be the influence of co-created strategic planning on the agile project management of research? Insights from the analysis of impact in Dimmons coordination

Once the strategic plan was finished and shared online as a definitive version, it was incorporated into the day-to-day activities of the research group, both explicitly (by incorporating the strategic goals as categories in the group’s agile kanban board for task management) and implicitly (by guiding topics of conversation, and being in the background when regularly communicating online and offline). In order to analyse it and answer the second research question of this study, on what would be the influence of a co-created strategic planning on the APM of research, a series of content analysis on the main coordination digital channels provides different elements for discussion, especially from an action research perspective.

Dimmons Telegram chat content analysis

The evolution of user’s daily participation on the Telegram chat during 2017 and 2018 suggests that once the strategic planning was co-designed and adopted (at the end of 2017), the communication dynamics evolved from being relatively asymmetric (with just a few very active users) to a much more balanced distribution where all members contributed, following the “standup” meetings and derived conversations (Fig. 5 ).

Evolution of user participation in “Dimmons al dia” Telegram group chat during 2017 and 2018.

More specifically, from a medium used by nine participants over a timeframe of approximately two years, the co-design and implementation of the Dimmons strategic plan between December 2017 and January 2018 seems to set a landmark between a relatively unequal distribution of messages among team members (where only a few of them contributed, at very different levels) to a regular pace and volume of interventions by the majority of participants. This probably derived from applying the strategic planning as a co-creation sequence, thereby as an integrative and socialization process. In this sense, it should be noted that among the observations about the daily communication of the group through the Telegram channel, most messages and discussions focused on the planning and execution of tasks, both academic (writing articles, organisation of workshops, data collection, etc.) as administrative (agenda management, budgeting, event logistics, etc.). In contrast, during the day-to-day of the group and outside of the co-creation process itself, theoretical or conceptual discussions normally took place in other spaces and moments, normally during the development of face-to-face meetings between two or more members of the group (before and after the strategic planning process).

On the other hand, if we look at data from the content analysis of the daily update “standup” messages in 2017 (again, prior to the strategic plan) compared to the corpus of terms used in 2018 (once the strategic planning was in place) patterns also demonstrate a coincidence with a significative increase of terms related to the different strategic goals, and therefore a probable influence of the strategic planning on the daily communication of the group (Fig. 6 ).

Comparison of mentions to Dimmons strategic plan related terms in Telegram between 2017–2018.

This reflects a relative imbalance in how the different goals were addressed during both periods. While, according to these results, the attention to the group’s ecosystem and to academic impact where at the center of activity, there was much less activity, in terms of percentage, related to others such as the generation of open tools or team care. This imbalance simply demonstrates that after year one, of the five goals covered by the strategic plan, the group gave priority to tasks and processes related to its ecosystem (specific partners, collaborators or events), as well as pertaining to academic impact (publications, data, surveys, specific projects under development). What seems significant from this data, apart from how it can serve as a parallel indicator to the group’s agreed KPIs, is the increment and diversity of terms related to the strategic plan in the regular conversations and update messages on the Telegram chat for the 2018 period (and to what extent they were more relevant than in the previous year, before the co-design of the strategic plan took place).

In relation to the adoption of APM methods (in this case, establishing additional regular weekly meetings and the use of a digital kanban board, beyond the daily updates via Telegram), the increment there between 2017 and 2018 in vocabulary related to coordination tasks, timing and other key terms is also significative. Specially the preeminence of messages containing words like “today”, “pending”, “version”, “tasks” or “meeting”, which doubled in general compared to 2017.

Again, patterns show a wider use of vocabulary in coordination-related communications, with reference to tasks informed on a daily basis, once the co-creation process around the strategic planning of the research group took place. This suggests not only that team communication incorporated more perspectives related to the Dimmons strategic goals, as observed above, but also more references to general coordination and therefore the operative awareness of the group.

Finally, if we focus on 2018 (the period of the co-designed strategic plan), another relevant analysis of the content data gathered via the daily updates and conversations on the Telegram group chat, is the extent to which it reflects a very similar proportion of conversations about specific areas of the strategic goals (Fig. 7 ) for the tasks defined on the kanban board. In both cases, the majority of references during 2018, coincidentally, focus on academic impact and ecosystem building, followed by a corpus of team-related and university shift terms.

Percentage of terms related to Dimmons strategic goals on Telegram chat during 2018.

Dimmons kanban board content analysis

“As mentioned above, the results of the tags used most on the kanban board related to the strategic goals, when informing the regular tasks of team members, point to a very similar distribution as in the previous analysis of the Dimmons main Telegram chat, where academic impact and ecosystem creation are the most selected ones, followed by a smaller proportion of the other four categories”.

This suggests that both patterns coincide as an indicator of the most influencing priorities for the team derived from the strategic plan, but more importantly points to a coherence on a shared vision as an action research group derived from the co-design process. Also, this result when comparing content on the coordination channels, suggests a consistent integration of the strategic goals with the APM methods, ensuring an interconnection between the strategic plan goals and the daily activities.

Another result from the task-related data gathered via the kanban board is to what extent there’s a good balance of members contributions to the projects and initiatives connected to the strategic goals. Instead of a specialization pattern or “monolithic” distribution of projects to researchers, despite the different levels of participation informing planned tasks between users, results show a relevant quality of teamwork in terms of shared projects and cross-functionality.

In addition, the extent to which specific projects not only comprehended tasks related to different researchers but also to the various strategic goals, suggests a coherent and transversal categorization when researchers classified their regular activity in relation to the strategic plan. Data obtained from activity on the kanban board, when compared with activity on the Telegram chat informing about planned tasks for each day, also shows a clear correlation between the content generated in both channels and terms related to the different strategic goals. As already indicated, however, not all the core team members used the kanban board with the same level of regularity (as opposed to the Telegram daily updates, where participation followed the same volume and pace for all team members), with the main reason probably related to the difference in the levels of familiarity with digital tools for management.

With this study a prototype and analysis of a co-creation methodology for the strategic planning process of an action research group was developed. Regarding participation, guided by a ‘strategy-as-practice’ approach in project management and the concept of ecosystemic research, the case study integrated the diversity of perspectives and voices of more than 20 participants in total. This way of proceeding generated a key mechanism for team integration and coordination within the group, and also with its external layers of collaborators and stakeholders, which were also represented through the process. As data indicate, this required a combined approach of co-creation methods and iterations, which followed principles of participatory design and online participation. As a consequence, besides a fully defined document for the strategic roadmap of the group activity, the different actions co-defined by the core team and its ecosystem of collaborators achieved a satisfactory level of accomplishment after the first year of implementation.

In relation to the first research question, on how co-creation methods can lead the strategic planning of a research group, our study points to the possibility of developing strategic planning processes with such methods. In this respect, our contribution reflects the key methodological aspect of integrating participatory design techniques for structuring the process. This aligns with theories connecting principles of action research in social sciences, and especially co-design in the context of organisational learning, in terms of tacit and explicit knowledge transfer processes, as well as constructivist approaches to addressing complexity and uncertainty in teamwork (Argyris and Schön, 1989 ). The analysed case study of Dimmons, in this sense, seems coherent with a wider consideration of design thinking as a practical approach for enabling transdisciplinary collaboration and as a process for “shaping processes” (Lindberg et al., 2010 ). In our opinion, as addressed in this case, this connects to the need to adapt strategic planning to co-creation practices as a decentralized, integrative and iterative dialogue (Wolf and Floyd, 2017 ). Our analysis also suggests the opportunity for the utilization of academic strategic planning as a means of integrating the values of the social impact of research, such as those derived ones from SGD and RRI, which can be adopted as a landmark when addressing academic and scientific activity from a collaborative and ecosystemic perspective. Observations and outputs from this process reflect that it allowed for deeper insight into discussions and comparisons about research methods, in many cases for the first time among team members. By “voting” for preferences and visualizing expertise in such explicit ways, and selecting a wide range of possible methods, the iteration and parallel discussion allowed for the identification (later on the strategic planning process) of several areas of improvement and implications for the group composition in the mid and long term. All the data generated and shared as open documentation during this first initial exploration stage of the strategic planning, concerning the group’s composition, allowed on the one hand, the identification and mapping of opinions, basic assumptions and implicit understandings around research that needed to be surfaced, and on the other one the initiation of the co-creation of the strategic planning with the needed openness and implication of all participants.

Regarding the applicability of the model to managing research projects in other scientific research contexts, the type of participatory co-design described and the degree of involvement of the different layers of stakeholders probably require departing from reduced, cohesive teams and familiarity with principles of action research or community-based research, frequent in the social sciences. In this sense, it is important to highlight that, as detailed in the first part of the study, the concept of impact of research was regularly taken into account beyond the academic context, as a requisite to integrating in the strategic planning other perspectives that do not come from the scholarly context. As another relevant element derived from the results of the study, when prototyping the co-design process in connection with previous research on visual strategic planning (Eppler et al., 2006 ; Eppler and Platts, 2009 ), it should be noted that the iterative sequences of convergence and divergence of each phase allowed the described levels of participation and integration of perspectives. Again, considering it a strategic thinking process that is likely to be generalizable in research contexts in which, beyond academic and administrative tasks, there are conditions for the consideration of different types of research impact for initiatives in the medium and long term.

Regarding the second research question, the results pertaining to the impact of the co-created strategic planning on the group’s APM coordination and communication routines (and specifically data about terms related to the strategic plan) suggest that it contributed significantly to a shared vision and helped to deal with the inherent complexity of research activity (Fuster Morell, 2012 ). In this sense, with respect to the positive influence of a co-created strategic planning on the APM of research, our method provided results complementing previous studies (Rand and Eckfeldt, 2004 ). Specifically, we described how the integration of strategic goals with the agile management of daily tasks can serve as a parallel indicator to KPI used in strategic planning, and how such integration can provide immediate user-generated information for assessing the implementation of the plan (as compared to the usual retrospective checking of KPI over longer periods of time). Taking into account the need to connect strategic plans with managerial practices during the implementation phase (Poister, 2010 ), this combination of co-design techniques and AMP practices for the strategic planning of the Dimmons research group reflected the importance of design features and social mechanisms for successful strategic planning (Barzelay and Jacobsen, 2009 ). The data compared between the period prior to the strategic plan and its co-creation process suggest, on the one hand, an increase in the group’s cohesion through its daily communication and coordination channels, and on the other, an alignment in terms of discourse and follow-up of the objectives set. Again, in relation to being able to extrapolate the results of this process to other contexts, it is probably key to start with some previous experience with basic principles and practices of project management, and especially those based on AMP. However, as we reflect in the first part of the study, on the state of the art in social studies of science and team science with respect to the management of research projects, as well as the progressive need for mechanisms of efficiency and collaboration in academia, it is likely that this type of approach could be useful and produce similar results in other types of scientific and research initiatives.

Despite the above, the results also show a relevant imbalance between the accomplishment of some of the strategic goals after the first year of implementation of the strategic planning, with a significant dedication of efforts to “ecosystemic activity”. This suggests that, from an action research perspective, after the participative design process there was a greater priority given to the perceived need for addressing tasks related to community events, meetings with stakeholders, institutional agreements or online dissemination. In contrast, according to the data derived from the combination of KPI compared with the volume of specific tasks defined in the APM coordination channels, critical aspects of research management related to team building or open tools did not receive as much attention and effort in comparison. In our view, besides the experimental character of the case study (and the novelty of its research group focus), this result also relates to the current context of pressure and complexity within “accelerated” academic organisations (Vostal, 2016 ), which represents a challenge in front of competition for excellence (Sørensen et al., 2016 ) and the “projectification” of university research (Fowler et al., 2015 ). In this sense, in relation to the day-to-day activity of the group connecting strategic planning with co-creation principles of APM in research, it was observed that the experience also increased the need for the project management role or main facilitator of the entire co-creation process. In this regard, it was usually complicated to separate that function, as the guide of the participatory design of the strategic plan, from the wider role of APM coordinator.

This study’s limitations and potential mainly have to do with two areas. On the one hand, the content analysis of the kanban board covered an early stage of its adoption, but in comparison to the Telegram chat activity not all participants used the system with the same level of intensity and engagement. As explained in the results section, however, the relative coincidence with percentages of strategic-related terms between both channels suggests it worked as a relevant source of data for assessing the implementation of the strategic plan. In relation to the co-creation process, this limitation (related to an unequal adoption of APM coordination by the majority of the group), represented a challenge for some participants, and probably affected its impact during the implementation stage of some of the strategic goals. As mentioned, the degree of familiarity with digital tools for project coordination, as well as with internal discussion processes and personal positioning in research projects, seems a key factor that also requires future analysis in other academic contexts, to determine to what extent similar processes of co-creation and strategic thinking can be applied in the field of social sciences and in other disciplines. On the other hand, following this type of exploratory analysis, the need to observe and compare data generated by other research groups that apply similar (or different) methods for project management and strategic planning creates in our opinion a potential for future research, and would allow for further understanding of such an important area of meta-research. In this line, another analysis based on the case study of the Dimmons research group for a different period in the near future, in order to compare the evolution of KPI in parallel to communication and coordination related to tasks until 2023, would be needed to confirm some of our initial results.

Through this study we have described how strategic planning could be applied to research in order to confront current challenges in academic collaboration, and how to do so through the opportunities offered by co-creation methodologies applied to project management. Our analysis has identified potential benefits and challenges in this respect, suggesting further development of this field in the social sciences and action research, and proposing it as a possible area of research and development in parallel to other documented and studied efforts to deal with innovative and agile management of scholarly work. Besides an analysis of its impact at the communication and relational levels, our study also offers a detailed description about how co-creation for strategic planning in research could be applied, which could be of practical interest for scientific institutions in relation to their project management practices.

Data availability

Due to privacy reasons, the datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

IN3 strategic plan: https://www.uoc.edu/portal/en/in3/coneix/pla-estrategic/index.html

UOC strategic plan: https://www.uoc.edu/portal/en/universitat/pla-estrategic/index.html

Dimmons strategic plan: http://dimmons.net/strategic-plan-2018-2023/

Via https://voyant-tools.org/ (web-based text reading and analysis open source environment) and https://rawgraphs.io/ (open source data visualization framework).

SWOT analysis is a strategic planning technique used to help an organisation identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats related to project development (Osita et al., 2014 ).

Amrollahi A, Rowlands B (2017) Collaborative open strategic planning: a method and case study. Inform Technol People 30(4):832–852. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2015-0310

Article   Google Scholar  

Andersen TJ (2004) Integrating decentralized strategy making and strategic planning processes in dynamic environments. J Manag Stud 41(8):1271–1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00475.x

Argyris C, Schön DA (1989) Participatory action research and action science compared: “A commentary”. Am Behav Scientist 32(5):612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764289032005008

Argyris C, Schön DA (1997) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reis 77/78:345–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/40183951

Barzelay M, Jacobsen AS (2009) Theorizing implementation of public management policy reforms: A case study of strategic planning and programming in the European Commission. Governance 22(2):319–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01437.x

Bemelmans T (1979) Strategic planning for research and development. Long Range Planning 12(2):33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(79)90071-2

Berkley S, Bertram K, Delfraissy JF, Draghia-Akli R, Fauci A, Hallenbeck C, Piot P (2010) The 2010 scientific strategic plan of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. Nat Med 16(9):981. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0910-981

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Best KM, Jarrín O, Buttenheim AM, Bowles KH, Curley MA (2015) Innovation in creating a strategic plan for research within an academic community. Nurs Outlook 63(4):456–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2015.01.005

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Blomquist T, Hällgren M, Nilsson A, Söderholm A (2010) Project‐as‐practice: In search of project management research that matters. Project Manag J 41(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20141

Boardman C, Gray D (2010) The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations. J Technol Transfer 35(5):445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9162-y

Bozeman B, Boardman C (2014) Assessing research collaboration studies: a framework for analysis. In: Bozeman B, Boardman C (eds) Research collaboration and team science. Springer, Cham, pp 1–11

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bryson JM (2011) Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: a guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco

Google Scholar  

Burke WW, Richley EA, DeAngelis L (1985) Changing leadership and planning processes at the lewis research center, national aeronautics and space administration. Human Res Manag 24(1):81–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930240107

Cao L, Mohan K, Xu P, Ramesh B (2009) A framework for adapting agile development methodologies. Eur J Inform Syst 18(4):332–343. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.26

Carayannis EG, Campbell DF (2012) Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. In Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. Springer, New York, pp 1–63

Cervone HF (2011) Understanding agile project management methods using scrum. OCLC Syst Services 27(1):18–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650751111106528

Cervone HF (2014) Improving strategic planning by adapting agile methods to the planning process. J Library Admin 54(2):155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2014.903371

Ciric D, Lalic B, Gracanin D, Palcic I, Zivlak N (2018) Agile project management in new product development and innovation processes: Challenges and benefits beyond software domain. In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (TEMS-ISIE). IEEE, pp 1–9

Derrick G, Nickson A (2014) Invisible intermediaries: a systematic review into the role of research management in university and institutional research processes. J Res Admin 45(2):11

Dooris MJ, Kelley JM, Trainer JF (2004) Strategic planning in higher education. New Direct Institut Res (123):5–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.115

Drummond CN (2003) Strategic planning for research administration. J Res Admin 34(2):4

Eccles K, Schroeder R, Meyer ET, Kertcher Z, Barjak F, Huesing T, Robinson S (2009) The future of e-research infrastructures. In Proceedings of NCeSS International Conference on e-Social Science, Cologne, pp 24–26

Eppler MJ, Platts K, Kazancioglu E (2006) Visual strategizing. Università della Svizzera italiana

Eppler MJ, Platts KW (2009) Visual strategizing: the systematic use of visualization in the strategic-planning process. Long Range Planning 42(1):42–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2008.11.005

Ferlie E, Ongaro E (2015) Strategic management in public services organizations: concepts, schools and contemporary issues. Routledge

Flood RL, Jackson MC (1991) Iterative planning. In:Flood RL, Jackson MC (eds) Creative problem solving: total systems intervention. Wiley, New York, pp 143–65

Fowler N, Lindahl M, Sköld D (2015) The projectification of university research: a study of resistance and accommodation of project management tools and techniques. Int J Manag Projects Business 8(1):9–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2013-0059

Fuster Morell M (2009) Action research: mapping the nexus of research and political action. Interface 1(1):21–45

Fuster Morell M (2010a) Participation in online creation communities: ecosystemic participation. Vol. 1. In Conference Proceedings of JITP 2010: The Politics of Open Source, pp 270–295

Fuster Morell M (2010b) Governance of online creation communities: provision of infrastructure for the building of digital commons. European University Institute

Fuster Morell M (2012) E-Research collaboration of international scope in social and political sciences: scale and complexity linkage with the requirement of physical encounters. In Collaborative and distributed e-research: Innovations in technologies, strategies and applications. IGI Global, pp 330–346

Giraudeau M (2008) The drafts of strategy: opening up plans and their uses. Long Range Plan 41(3):291–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2008.03.001

Griggs D, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O, Rockström J, Öhman MC, Shyamsundar P, Noble I (2013) Policy: sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495(7441):305. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hoda R, Noble J, Marshall S (2013) Self-organizing roles on agile software development teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39(3):422–444. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.30

Holm P, Goodsite ME, Cloetingh S, Agnoletti M, Moldan B, Lang DJ, Scholz RW (2013) Collaboration between the natural, social and human sciences in global change research. Environm Sci Policy 28:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.010

Ioannidis JP, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN (2015) Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol 13(10):e1002264. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3):223–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320

Jarzabkowski P, Spee AP (2009) Strategy-as-practice: a review and future directions for the field. Int J Manag Rev 11(1):69–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00250.x

Jeffrey P (2003) Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Soc Stud Sci 33(4):539–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312703334003

Kerzner H, Kerzner HR (2017) Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

MATH   Google Scholar  

Kimbell L (2012) Rethinking design thinking: Part II. Design Cult 4(2):129–148. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470812X13281948975413

Leischow SJ, Best A, Trochim WM, Clark PI, Gallagher RS, Marcus SE, Matthews E (2008) Systems thinking to improve the public’s health. Am J Prev Med 35(2):S196–S203

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lindberg T, Noweski C, Meinel C (2010) Evolving discourses on design thinking: how design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative collaboration. Technoetic Arts 8(1):31–37. https://doi.org/10.1386/tear.8.1.31/1

Mintzberg H (1994) The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Rev 72(1):107–114

Naranjo-Bock C (2012) Creativity-based research: The process of co-designing with users. UX Magazine 4

Ordorika I, Lloyd M (2015) International rankings and the contest for university hegemony. J Educ Policy 30(3):385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.979247

Osita C, Idoko O, Justina N (2014) Organization’s stability and productivity: the role of SWOT analysis. Int J Innovat Appl Res 2(9):23–32

Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science Public Policy 39(6):751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093

Poister TH (2010) The future of strategic planning in the public sector: linking strategic management and performance. Public Admin Rev 70(s1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02284.x

Polk R (2011) Agile and kanban in coordination. In Agile Conference (AGILE). IEEE, pp 263–268

Rand C, Eckfeldt B (2004) Aligning strategic planning with agile development: extending agile thinking to business improvement. In Agile Development Conference. IEEE, pp 78–82

Ranjan KR, Read S (2016) Value co-creation: concept and measurement. J Acad Market Sci 44(3):290–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0397-2

Robinson H, Sharp H (2003) XP Culture: Why the twelve practices both are and are not the most significant thing. In Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference, 2003 ADC 2003 (12–21) IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ADC.2003.1231448

Sá CM, Tamtik M (2012) Strategic planning for academic research. Higher Education Management and Policy 24(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-24-5k9bdtj6b0r6

Sanders E, Brandt E, Binder T (2010) A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference. ACM, pp 195–198

Sanders E, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

Santos BDS (2012) The university at a crossroads. Hum Archit 10(1):3

Senabre Hidalgo E (2018a) Management of a multidisciplinary research project: a case study on adopting agile Methods. J Res Practice 14(1):2

Senabre Hidalgo E, Ferran-Ferrer N, Perelló J (2018) Participatory design of citizen science experiments. Comunicar 26(54):29–38. https://doi.org/10.3916/C54-2018-03

Senabre Hidalgo E (2019) Adapting the scrum framework for agile project management in science: case study of a distributed research initiative. Heliyon 5(3):e01447

Sørensen MP, Bloch C, Young M (2016) Excellence in the knowledge-based economy: from scientific to research excellence. Eur J Higher Educ 6(3):217–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1015106

Spee AP, Jarzabkowski P (2011) Strategic planning as communicative process. Organization Stud 32(9):1217–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611411387

Spinuzzi C (2005) The methodology of participatory design. Technical Commun 52(2):163–174

Spinuzzi C (2015) All edge: Inside the new workplace networks. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226237015.001.0001

Srinivasa Rao AB, Kumar PM, Aithal PS (2015) Strategic planning in higher education institutions: A case study of SIMS-VISION 2025. International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR), pp 2249–6947

Visser FS, Stappers PJ, Van der Lugt R, Sanders EB (2005) Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign 1(2):119–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880500135987

Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJ, Tummers LG (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag Rev 17(9):1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505

Vostal F (2016) Accelerating academia: the changing structure of academic time. Palgrave Macmillan, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137473608

Book   Google Scholar  

Wang J, Hicks D (2015) Scientific teams: self-assembly, fluidness, and interdependence. J Informat 9(1):197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.12.006

Whittington R (1996) Strategy as practice. Long Range Plan 29(5):731–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(96)00068-4

Wilbon AD (2012) Interactive planning for strategy development in academic-based cooperative research enterprises. Technol Analysis Strat Manag 24(1):89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.643564

Wilson I (1994) Strategic planning isn’t dead—it changed. Long Range Plan 27(4):12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(94)90052-3

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Wolf C, Floyd SW (2017) Strategic planning research: toward a theory-driven agenda. J Manag 43(6):1754–1788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313478185

Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria

Enric Senabre Hidalgo

Internet Interdisciplinary Institute, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

Mayo Fuster Morell

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enric Senabre Hidalgo or Mayo Fuster Morell .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Senabre Hidalgo, E., Fuster Morell, M. Co-designed strategic planning and agile project management in academia: case study of an action research group. Palgrave Commun 5 , 151 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0364-0

Download citation

Received : 06 April 2019

Accepted : 28 October 2019

Published : 03 December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0364-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Agile by accident: how to apply agile principles in academic research projects.

• Katharina Biely

SN Social Sciences (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

Why Is Strategic Planning Important?

• 06 Oct 2020

Do you know what your organization’s strategy is? How much time do you dedicate to developing that strategy each month?

If your answers are on the low side, you’re not alone. According to research from Bridges Business Consultancy , 48 percent of leaders spend less than one day per month discussing strategy.

It’s no wonder, then, that 48 percent of all organizations fail to meet at least half of their strategic targets. Before an organization can reap the rewards of its business strategy, planning must take place to ensure its strategy remains agile and executable .

Here’s a look at what strategic planning is and how it can benefit your organization.

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Strategic Planning?

Strategic planning is the ongoing organizational process of using available knowledge to document a business's intended direction. This process is used to prioritize efforts, effectively allocate resources, align shareholders and employees on the organization’s goals, and ensure those goals are backed by data and sound reasoning.

It’s important to highlight that strategic planning is an ongoing process—not a one-time meeting. In the online course Disruptive Strategy , Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen notes that in a study of HBS graduates who started businesses, 93 percent of those with successful strategies evolved and pivoted away from their original strategic plans.

“Most people think of strategy as an event, but that’s not the way the world works,” Christensen says. “When we run into unanticipated opportunities and threats, we have to respond. Sometimes we respond successfully; sometimes we don’t. But most strategies develop through this process. More often than not, the strategy that leads to success emerges through a process that’s at work 24/7 in almost every industry.”

Strategic planning requires time, effort, and continual reassessment. Given the proper attention, it can set your business on the right track. Here are three benefits of strategic planning.

Related: 4 Ways to Develop Your Strategic Thinking Skills

Benefits of Strategic Planning

1. create one, forward-focused vision.

Strategy touches every employee and serves as an actionable way to reach your company’s goals.

One significant benefit of strategic planning is that it creates a single, forward-focused vision that can align your company and its shareholders. By making everyone aware of your company’s goals, how and why those goals were chosen, and what they can do to help reach them, you can create an increased sense of responsibility throughout your organization.

This can also have trickle-down effects. For instance, if a manager isn’t clear on your organization’s strategy or the reasoning used to craft it, they could make decisions on a team level that counteract its efforts. With one vision to unite around, everyone at your organization can act with a broader strategy in mind.

2. Draw Attention to Biases and Flaws in Reasoning

The decisions you make come with inherent bias. Taking part in the strategic planning process forces you to examine and explain why you’re making each decision and back it up with data, projections, or case studies, thus combatting your cognitive biases.

A few examples of cognitive biases are:

• The recency effect: The tendency to select the option presented most recently because it’s fresh in your mind
• Occam’s razor bias: The tendency to assume the most obvious decision to be the best decision
• Inertia bias: The tendency to select options that allow you to think, feel, and act in familiar ways

One cognitive bias that may be more difficult to catch in the act is confirmation bias . When seeking to validate a particular viewpoint, it's the tendency to only pay attention to information that supports that viewpoint.

If you’re crafting a strategic plan for your organization and know which strategy you prefer, enlist others with differing views and opinions to help look for information that either proves or disproves the idea.

Combating biases in strategic decision-making requires effort and dedication from your entire team, and it can make your organization’s strategy that much stronger.

Related: 3 Group Decision-Making Techniques for Success

3. Track Progress Based on Strategic Goals

Having a strategic plan in place can enable you to track progress toward goals. When each department and team understands your company’s larger strategy, their progress can directly impact its success, creating a top-down approach to tracking key performance indicators (KPIs) .

By planning your company’s strategy and defining its goals, KPIs can be determined at the organizational level. These goals can then be extended to business units, departments, teams, and individuals. This ensures that every level of your organization is aligned and can positively impact your business’s KPIs and performance.

It’s important to remember that even though your strategy might be far-reaching and structured, it must remain agile. As Christensen asserts in Disruptive Strategy , a business’s strategy needs to evolve with the challenges and opportunities it encounters. Be prepared to pivot your KPIs as goals shift and communicate the reasons for change to your organization.

Improve Your Strategic Planning Skills

Strategic planning can benefit your organization’s vision, execution, and progress toward goals. If strategic planning is a skill you’d like to improve, online courses can provide the knowledge and techniques needed to lead your team and organization.

Strategy courses can range from primers on key concepts (such as Economics for Managers ), to deep-dives on strategy frameworks (such as Disruptive Strategy ), to coursework designed to help you strategize for a specific organizational goal (such as Sustainable Business Strategy ).

Learning how to craft an effective, compelling strategic plan can enable you to not only invest in your career but provide lasting value to your organization.

Do you want to formulate winning strategies for your organization? Explore our portfolio of online strategy courses and download the free flowchart to determine which is the best fit for you and your goals.

About the Author

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Strategic planning in the public sector.

• John Bryson John Bryson Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
•  and  Lauren Hamilton Edwards Lauren Hamilton Edwards School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.128
• Published online: 24 May 2017

Strategic planning has become a fairly routine and common practice at all levels of government in the United States and elsewhere. It can be part of the broader practice of strategic management that links planning with implementation. Strategic planning can be applied to organizations, collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health), and to places ranging from local to national to transnational. Research results are somewhat mixed, but they generally show a positive relationship between strategic planning and improved organizational performance. Much has been learned about public-sector strategic planning over the past several decades but there is much that is not known.

There are a variety of approaches to strategic planning. Some are comprehensive process-oriented approaches (i.e., public-sector variants of the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, stakeholder management, and strategic management systems). Others are more narrowly focused process approaches that are in effect strategies (i.e., strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation). Finally, there are content-oriented approaches (i.e., portfolio analyses and competitive forces analysis).

The research on public-sector strategic planning has pursued a number of themes. The first concerns what strategic planning “is” theoretically and practically. The approaches mentioned above may be thought of as generic—their ostensive aspect—but they must be applied contingently and sensitively in practice—their performative aspect. Scholars vary in whether they conceptualize strategic planning in a generic or performative way. A second theme concerns attempts to understand whether and how strategic planning “works.” Not surprisingly, how strategic planning is conceptualized and operationalized affects the answers. A third theme focuses on outcomes of strategic planning. The outcomes studied typically have been performance-related, such as efficiency and effectiveness, but some studies focus on intermediate outcomes, such as participation and learning, and a small number focus on a broader range of public values, such as transparency or equity. A final theme looks at what contributes to strategic planning success. Factors related to success include effective leadership, organizational capacity and resources, and participation, among others.

A substantial research agenda remains. Public-sector strategic planning is not a single thing, but many things, and can be conceptualized in a variety of ways. Useful findings have come from each of these different conceptualizations through use of a variety of methodologies. This more open approach to research should continue. Given the increasing ubiquity of strategic planning across the globe, the additional insights this research approach can yield into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, is likely to be helpful for advancing public purposes.

• strategic planning
• strategic spatial planning
• strategic management
• performance management
• public organizations

Introduction

In the most widely used text in the field, strategic planning is defined as “a deliberative, disciplined effort to produce decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization or other entity [such as a collaboration, function, or community or region] is, what it does, and why it does it” (Bryson, 2011 , pp. 7–8). Defined in this manner, strategic planning consists of a set or family of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices meant to help decision makers and other stakeholders address what is truly important for their organizations and/or places. Additionally, approaches to strategic planning vary in their purposes; formality; temporal horizon; comprehensiveness; organizational, inter-organizational and/or geographic focus; emphasis on data and analysis; extent of participation; locus of decision-making; connection to implementation; and so on. Successful use of strategic planning is thus dependent on which approach is used, for what purposes, and in what context (Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ).

Strategic planning can be part of the broader practice of strategic management that links planning with implementation (Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; Talbot, 2010 ). It can be applied to organizations, collaborations, functions (e.g., transportation or health) and places ranging from local to national and international (Albrechts & Balducci, 2013 ). Note, however, that organizational, community, function-oriented, or place-based strategies have numerous sources besides explicit planning (Bryson, 2011 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ). This entry focuses solely on planning.

Over the past 40 years in the United States, strategic planning by governments and public agencies has become increasingly widespread. All federal agencies have been required since 1993 to engage in strategic planning as a result of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 ( https://www.performance.gov/ ). Surveys over the years have indicated that an increasingly large percentage of governments at the state and local levels currently use strategic planning (Poister & Streib, 2005 ; Jimenez, 2013 ). Strategic planning is also increasingly common around the globe, including in non-English-speaking countries and those with an administrative law culture, such as Italy and France (e.g., Joyce & Drumaux, 2014 ; Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ; Balducci, Fedeli, & Pasqui, 2011 ; Albrechts, Balducci, & Hillier, 2016 ).

Yet, why strategic planning has become an increasingly standard practice is unclear. Understanding the reasons why it is used in different contexts is thus an important topic for future research, in part because those reasons are likely to affect the results of using it. Possible explanations include faddishness (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006 ), coercion (Radin, 2006 ; Tama, 2015 ), normative mimesis (DiMaggio & Powell 1983 ; Tama, 2015 ), or prior relationships and experience with potential strategic planning participants (Percoco, 2016 ). On the other hand, strategic planning also may be adopted because users think it will help them figure out what their organizations should be doing, how, and why. In other words, strategic planning in some circumstances may provide a way of sense-making, or knowing, helpful to decision makers (Bryson, Crosby, & Bryson, 2009 ), especially within the framework of what is called the New Public Management (NPM).

NPM is a reform narrative that has explicitly or implicitly guided much government reform in the United States, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent elsewhere (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011 ). NPM involves a significant break with (or at least a shifting of emphasis from) prior eras when government agencies were more typically organized as large, public Weberian bureaucracies in charge of direct service delivery and accountable exclusively, or at least principally, to their political masters. In contrast, NPM emphasizes: public choice; the applicability of principal-agent models to controlling government agencies, managers and those with whom they contract; the importance of customer service and focusing on results or outcomes; managers having more discretion in how they go about achieving results; and less reliance on rules and regulations.

In this context, and given the increased discretion managers and often agencies are supposed to have, strategic planning and strategic management are likely to be far more useful (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ; Hansen & Ferlie, 2016 ). On the other hand, NPM reforms also may conflict with more traditional bureaucratic controls that have been an important part of accountability requirements in a democracy (Kettl, 2013 ). For example, in one study Moynihan ( 2006 , p. 77) finds that US state governments “emphasized strategic planning and performance measurement, but were less successful in implementing reforms that would enhance managerial authority, undermining the logic that promised performance improvements.” NPM, in other words, can be yet another “tide of reform” that is layered on top of previous tides of government reform, and the interactions among these reforms are often conflictual, hard to assess, and can and do undermine agency effectiveness (Light, 1998 ).

This entry is organized into the following sections. First, we discuss the meaning of the adjective strategic in front of planning, in contrast to other adjectives such as long-range, program or project, or action planning. Second, we discuss briefly the applicability of strategic planning to organizations, collaborations, cross-boundary functions, and places. Third, we discuss how the various approaches to strategic planning have been conceptualized and what research shows, if anything, regarding their use and effectiveness. Fourth, we look at important themes in the research and implications for future research. Finally, we offer a set of conclusions.

What Makes Public-Sector Planning Strategic ?

The roots of public-sector strategic planning are originally mostly military and tied to statecraft (Freedman, 2013 ). Starting in the 1960s, however, most of the development of the concepts, procedures, tools and practices of strategic planning has occurred in the for-profit sector. Public-sector strategic planning got a serious start in the US in the 1980s (e.g., Eadie, 1983 ). This history has been documented by Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 ) and Ferlie and Ongaro ( 2015 ).

Public-sector strategic planning is a subset of planning, but what exactly makes it strategic ? All or most of the following features are typically used to characterize public-sector planning as strategic (e.g., Kaufman & Jacobs, 1987 ; Poister & Streib, 1999 ; Christensen, 1999 ; Conroy & Berke, 2004 ; Chakraborty et al., 2011 ; Albrechts & Balducci, 2013 ; Bryson & Slotterback, 2016 , pp. 121–122):

Close attention to context and to thinking strategically about how to tailor the strategic planning approach to the context, even as a purpose of the planning typically is to change the context in some important way.

Careful thinking about purposes and goals, including attention to situational requirements (e.g., political, legal, administrative, ethical, and environmental requirements).

An initial focus on a broad agenda and later moving to a more selective action focus.

An emphasis on systems thinking; that is, working to understand the dynamics of the overall system being planned for as it functions—or ideally should function—across space and time, including the interrelationships among constituent subsystems.

Careful attention to stakeholders, in effect making strategic planning an approach to practical politics; typically multiple levels of government and multiple sectors are explicitly or implicitly involved in the process of strategy formulation and implementation.

A focus on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; and a focus on competitive and collaborative advantages.

A focus on thinking about potential futures and then making decisions in light of their future consequences; in other words, joining temporal with spatial systemic thinking.

Careful attention to implementation; strategy that cannot be operationalized effectively is hardly strategic.

A clear realization that strategies are both deliberately set in advance and emergent in practice.

In short, a desire to stabilize what should be stabilized, while maintaining appropriate flexibility in terms of goals, policies, strategies, and processes to manage complexity, take advantage of important opportunities, and advance public purposes, resilience and sustainability in the face of an uncertain future.

The list is extensive and approaches vary in how well they attend to each item in both theory and practice. The underlying hypothesis guiding research and much practice is that strategic planning by public-sector organizations will lead to better performance by these organizations. Two issues, however, become immediately obvious: first, how does one operationally assess the “strategic-ness” of the planning, and second, what effects do different levels of “strategic-ness” have on results of various kinds? Unfortunately, the empirical research on public-sector strategic planning in general, and especially its connection with implementation, is remarkably thin, given how widespread the use of strategic planning is (Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; George & Desmidt, 2014 ). That said, the few studies that have explored these issues have generally, though not always, found a positive causal effect of strategic planning on implementation success.

Applicability to Organizations, Collaborations, Functions, and Places

At its most basic, strategic planning involves three things: deliberations around important issues of ends and means, decisions, and actions. 1 The various approaches to strategic planning help make the process reasonably orderly, increase the likelihood that what is important is actually recognized and addressed, and typically allow more people to participate in the process. When the process is applied to an organization as a whole on an ongoing basis, or at least to significant parts of it, usually it is necessary to construct a strategic management system, or what is often called a performance management system (see the section “Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized” ). The system allows the various parts of the process to be integrated in appropriate ways, and engages the organization in strategic management, not just strategic planning.

When applied to a function or collaboration that crosses organizational boundaries, or to a community, cross-organizational sponsorship of some sort is usually necessary. Working groups or task forces probably will need to be organized at various times to deal with specific strategic issues or to oversee the implementation of specific strategies. Special efforts will be needed to engage traditionally underrepresented groups (Innes & Booher, 2010 ). Because so many more people and groups will need to be involved, and because implementation will have to rely more on consent than authority, the process is likely to be much more time-consuming and iterative than strategic planning applied to an organization. On the other hand, more time spent on exploring issues and reaching agreement may be made up later through speedy implementation (Innes, 1996 ; Bovaird, 2007 ; Innes & Booher, 2010 ). Strategic planning in an organization typically involves a mixture of lateral collaboration and vertical hierarchy. In interorganizational collaborations, lateral collaborative processes overshadow hierarchy, yet attention to the hierarchical structures and power differences that exist within the collaboration and in its participating organizations will be vital in developing and implementing a strategic plan (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2015 ).

In addition, when a community is involved, special efforts will be necessary to make sure that resulting strategic plans are compatible with the community’s spatial comprehensive plan, along with the various devices used to implement it, such as capital improvements programs, spatial subdivision controls, a zoning ordinance, and official maps (Bryson & Slotterback, 2016 ). City planners can play a crucial mediating role in linking the broadly inclusive visioning and goal-setting processes of strategic planning with the ongoing formal decision-making mechanisms of cities and regions (Legacy, 2012 ; Quick, 2015 ).

Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized

Because planning must attend to context in order to be strategic, approaches to strategic planning may be represented as generic in form but in practice are likely to be highly contingent (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 , p. 123). Generic approaches to strategic planning may emphasize process or content. A key contingency is whether the approach is being applied at the organizational or subunit level, to a boundary-crossing function or collaboration, or to a community or place. We briefly review prominent approaches below, drawing from Bryson ( 2002 , 2015 ) and Ferlie and Ongaro ( 2015 ).

Comprehensive Process Approaches

Process approaches may be characterized as comprehensive or partial in what they consider. We treat more comprehensive process approaches first, including those influenced by the Harvard Policy Model, logical incrementalism, stakeholder management, and strategic management systems approaches. Next, we consider more partial process approaches that are, in effect, strategies. These include strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation. Finally, we consider two content approaches, namely, portfolio and competitive forces analyses.

The Harvard Policy Model. The Harvard Policy Model, with suitable adaptions, has had a strong influence on the most widely used generic processes in the public sector. The Harvard model seeks the best fit between a firm or strategic business unit (SBU) and its environment (Andrews, 1980 ; Bower, Bartlett, Christensen, & Pearson, 1991 ). This is achieved via an analysis of the focal unit’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; and the values of senior management and the social obligations of the firm. Planning is separate from and precedes implementation. The model assumes there is a senior management group that is in charge and able to implement its decisions. The model does not offer specific advice on how to develop strategies.

The model can be applied in public-sector organizations, especially at the program or departmental levels, but typically a number of adaptations are necessary. First, a broader range of stakeholders must be considered, often including elected policy boards. Second a portfolio approach of some kind is often needed to allow strategic decision making for a portfolio of agencies or programs. A strategic issues management approach is needed because much public work is typically quite political, and articulating and addressing issues are at the heart of much political decision making. When applied to a collaboration or place, strategic planning should be paired with portfolio, issues management, and stakeholder management approaches, given the absence of hierarchical authority and shared-power nature of these contexts.

Public-sector adaptions of the Harvard model all draw on a roughly similar sequence of activities, while recognizing that following some sort of strict order is often not feasible, necessary, or even desirable (e.g., Nutt & Backoff, 1992 ; Bryson, 2011 ). These activities include:

Preparing for strategic planning by determining what elements should be included and a timeline. Stakeholder analysis is also valuable at this point to identify who should be involved in the process.

Creating, clarifying, or updating organizational mission, vision, values, and goals and clarifying any applicable legal statutes or mandates.

Assessing external and internal environments by analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Identifying and analyzing issues facing the organization, based on upcoming challenges and/or changes coming to the organization.

Identifying potential strategies for effectively addressing the issues.

Assessing the feasibility of strategies using reasonable criteria.

Developing and implementing plans and related desirable changes.

Evaluating, monitoring, and updating the plan continually as new information becomes available.

Reassessing strategies and the strategic planning process.

A handful of researchers has tested the assumption that pursuing all or most of these activities will lead to strategy implementation success. For example, in one of the most complete tests to date, Elbanna, Andrews, and Pollanen ( 2016 ), in a study of 188 Canadian government organizations across federal, provincial, and local levels, found that formal strategic planning had a strong positive effect on strategy implementation, that the quality of managerial involvement in the process mediates the effect in a positive way, and that formal strategic planning can be especially beneficial in the face of stakeholder uncertainty. Other studies that have operationalized strategic planning in roughly analogous ways have find roughly analogous positive effects of more formal planning on outcomes (e.g. Walker et al., 2010 ; Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2012 ; Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ). These findings are at odds with arguments put forward by Mintzberg 1994 ), Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 ) that formal strategic planning is likely to hinder strategy formulation and implementation in business organizations. This may be because “effective control in the public sector may be best exercised ex ante , that is, through formal planning, instead of ex post through organizational performance measurement” (Elbanna et al., 2016 , p. 1035).

Furthermore, the findings are also at odds with the conventional wisdom that rational approaches are untenable in the public sector because of the technical problems of acquiring necessary data and information, and because of the political problems raised by competing stakeholders, including issues between the planners and those being planned for. Boyne, Gould-Williams, Law, and Walker ( 2004 ), however, found that in a recent attempt by UK local authorities to introduce a new planning system, the statistical results suggest that the problems of rational planning are largely technical (meaning lack of resources and expertise) rather than political. The link between rationality and politics thus clearly merits additional attention.

Logical incrementalism . Quinn ( 1980 ) was critical of formal strategic planning when taken to extremes of analysis and centralization; when it failed to take politics, power, and relationships into account; and when it failed to appreciate how incrementalism is important for learning and building consensus. In contrast, he emphasized the importance of incrementalism but only in support of overall organizational purposes. The idea of incrementalism guided by a set of overall organizational purposes (even as it may lead to changing the purposes) provides the link between formal strategic planning and logical incrementalism. In other words, Quinn sees formal strategic planning and logical incrementalism as desirable complements and not as inherently antagonistic. They are antagonistic only if strategic planning is taken to extremes, or if incrementalism ceases to be logical, meaning it no longer occurs within a broader framework of purposes.

Logical incrementalism is an approach that, in effect, fuses strategy formulation and implementation, and thus strategic planning and strategic management. The strengths of the approach are its ability to handle complexity and change, its emphasis on minor as well as major decisions, its attention to informal as well as formal processes, and its political realism. Beyond that, incremental changes in degree can add up over time into changes in kind. The major weakness of the approach is that it does not guarantee that the various loosely linked decisions will add up to fulfillment of organizational purposes.

Logical incrementalism is applicable to public organizations, as long as it is possible to establish some overarching set of strategic objectives to be served by the approach. Public organizations can (and likely often do) pursue some sort of strategic planning to establish broad purposes and logical incrementalism to reach their goals. Indeed, one study found that organizations that do strategic planning improve—but do so even more when they pair it with logical incrementalism (Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ).

At the community level, there is a close relationship between logical incrementalism and collaboration. Indeed, collaborative goals and arrangements typically emerge in an incremental fashion as organizations individually and collectively explore their self-interests and possible collaborative advantages, establish collaborative relationships, and manage changes incrementally within a collaborative framework (Huxham & Vangen, 2005 ; Innes & Booher, 2010 ).

Stakeholder management. Freeman ( 1984 ) states that strategy can be understood as an organization’s mode of relating to or building bridges to its stakeholders. Stakeholder may be defined as any individual, group, or organization that is affected by, or that can affect, the future of the organization. Freeman argues, as do others who emphasize the importance of attending to stakeholders, that a strategy will only be effective if it satisfies the needs of multiple groups (Gomes, Liddle, & Gomes, 2010 ; Walker, Andrews, Boyne, Meier, & O’Toole, 2010 ; Ackermann & Eden, 2011 ). Because many interest groups have stakes in public organizations, functions, and communities, and because the approach incorporates economic, political, and social concerns, it is applicable to the public sector. In addition, some forms of stakeholder engagement such as citizen participation are often mandated in government decision-making process (Brody, Godschalk, & Burby, 2003 ; Buckwalter, 2014 ). Successful use of the model assumes that key decision makers can achieve reasonable agreement about who the key stakeholders are and what the response to their claims should be.

The strengths of the stakeholder model are its recognition of the many claims—both complementary and competing—placed on organizations by insiders and outsiders and its awareness of the need to satisfy at least the key stakeholders if the organization is to survive. Because of its attention to stakeholders, the approach can be particularly useful in planning for cross-boundary functions, such as transportation (Neskova & Guo, 2012 ; Poister, Thomas, & Berryman, 2013 ; Deyle & Wiedenman, 2014 ) and planning for places (Brody et al., 2003 ; Edelenbos & Klijn, 2005 ).

The primary weakness of the model is that genuine collaboration is difficult to achieve, as found by Vigar in transportation planning in England ( 2006 ). Another study of spatial planning in India found an additional difficulty in broadening stakeholder engagement beyond elite participants (Vidyarthi, Hoch, & Basmajian, 2013 ). Another challenge is the absence of criteria with which to judge competing claims and the need for more advice on developing strategies to deal with divergent stakeholder interests.

Strategic management systems . These are approaches that allow public leaders and managers to strategize about, and coordinate, important decisions across levels and functions within an organization, and across organizations (Talbot, 2010 ; Clarke & Fuller, 2010 ). Strategic planning is a necessary component (Poister & Streib, 1999 ). Strategic management systems vary along several dimensions: the comprehensiveness of decision areas included, the formal rationality of the planning and decision processes, and the tightness of control exercised over implementation of the decisions, as well as how the strategy process itself will be tailored to the organization and managed. The strength of these systems is their attempt to coordinate the various elements of an organization’s strategy across levels and functions. In doing so, they can help integrate better what NPM reforms have often fragmented (Christensen & Laegreid, 2007 ). Their weakness is that excessive comprehensiveness, prescription, and control can drive out attention to mission, strategy, and innovation, and can exceed the ability of participants to comprehend the system and the information it produces (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, & Lampel, 2009 ).

Strategic management systems are potentially applicable to public organizations (and to a lesser extent, communities), because regardless of the nature of the particular organization, managers must coordinate at least some decision making across levels and functions and concentrate on whether the organization is implementing its strategies and accomplishing its mission. Some public organizations—such as hospitals, police and fire departments, and the military—often make use of relatively comprehensive formal strategic planning and implementation systems. The US federal government is moving toward a reasonably comprehensive formal system (Moynihan, 2013 ). Early assessments of the routines built into the new system show they increase performance information use and learning (Moynihan & Kroll, 2016 ). Most government organizations, however, typically use less comprehensive, less formal, and more decentralized systems (Poister & Streib, 2005 ). These systems, as well as those for collaborations and places, typically focus on a few goals and issues, rely on a decision process in which politics plays a major role, and control something other than program outcomes (e.g. budget expenditures, contracting processes, etc.) (Bryson, 2011 , pp. 323–341).

Unfortunately, there are remarkably few scholarly assessments of the strategic planning component of any strategic management systems. One of the best is Hendrick ( 2003 ), a study of Milwaukee’s strategic planning system. She found that departments with more comprehensive, formal, and rational processes had better performance, a result generally in line with other studies. The role of politics in these systems, however, cannot be ignored. Gilmour and Lewis ( 2006 ), for example, found that assessments of the efforts of US government departments that included their strategic planning were used to reward “conservative” programs and punish “liberal” ones in the George W. Bush administration.

The applicability of strategic management systems to the community level is problematic, given the shared-power nature of these domains. In a comparative case study, for example, Loh ( 2012 ) found four ways in which a community planning process can fail. These include disconnects between: residents’ true desires and stated plan goals; plan goals and implementation steps; implementation steps and actual legal devices needed for implementation; and enforcement tied to these devices.

Partial Process Approaches

Considered here are three partial process approaches. Each is, in effect, a kind of strategy. These include: strategic negotiations, strategic issues management, and strategic planning as a framework for innovation.

Strategic negotiations . Strategy is often viewed as a partial resolution of organizational issues through a highly political process. Pettigrew ( 1973 ) and Mintzberg and Waters ( 1985 ) helped pioneer this process approach, but its roots go back to public sector accounts of strategizing (Allison, 1971 ). Negotiations are increasingly a part of governance through a variety of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial processes (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O’Leary, 2005 ; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015 ). These processes include empowered community visioning processes that create political mandates, negotiated rule-making, and environmental dispute resolution processes.

The strength of the approach is that it acknowledges that power is shared in many public situations and that cooperation and negotiation are required in order to reach agreements. The main weakness is that though the process can facilitate agreements, questions can and often do arise about the technical quality, process legitimacy, and democratic responsibility of results (Page, Stone, Bryson, & Crosby, 2015 ). Interestingly, Innes ( 1996 ) and Innes and Booher ( 2010 ) finds that while the negotiation processes can look messy, they quite often result in extremely rational, politically acceptable, and implementable solutions.

Strategic issues management. A major shortcoming of the Harvard model was a missing step between the SWOT analysis and strategy formulation. This was remedied with the addition of the step of identifying strategic issues as part of the strategic planning process, as well as less comprehensive annual reviews. This approach is especially important for public organizations, in particular those with continually or rapidly changing environments, since the agendas of these organizations consist of issues that should be managed strategically (Ackermann & Eden, 2011 ). In addition, many organizations have developed strategic issue management processes separate from annual strategic planning processes. Many important issues emerge too quickly to be handled as part of an annual or less frequent process. The approach also applies to functions, collaborations, or communities, as long as some group, organization, or coalition is able to engage in the process and to manage the issue.

The strength of the approach is its ability to recognize and analyze key issues quickly. The main weakness is that in general the approach offers no specific advice on exactly how to frame the issues other than to precede their identification with a situational analysis of some sort. Nutt and Backoff ( 1992 , 1993 ) and Bryson, Cunningham, & Lokkesmoe ( 2002 ) have gone the furthest in remedying this defect within the context of public strategic planning. Fairhurst ( 2011 ) and Gray, Purdy, and Ansani ( 2015 ), among others, provide useful advice outside of that context.

Strategic planning as a framework for innovation. In contrast with a strategic management system approach that can decrease innovation, other approaches use strategic planning as a chance to innovate and provide creative solutions for upcoming challenges (Osborne & Brown, 2012 ). These approaches rely on many of the same components discussed above but differ in that they emphasize fostering innovation and creating a more entrepreneurial culture within the organization. This approach can be difficult to use in some public organizations, particularly those with fewer resources to test approaches or room to make potentially costly mistakes. Furthermore, public organizations are often operating in highly visible and accountable contexts making any mistakes or learning opportunities more visible and problematic.

While there is a growing body of scholarly work on innovation in public organizations, there is little research on the connection between strategic planning and innovation. An exception is Andrews et al. ( 2012 , p. 155), who found that “organizations that emphasize a strategy of innovation get an even higher payoff when they fit this strategy to a process characterized by flexibility and negotiation with powerful stakeholders” (i.e., logical incrementalism). Another exception is Borins ( 2014 , pp. 73–93), who in a large-scale study of successful public-sector innovations, found a strong reliance on strategic planning (what he calls “comprehensive planning”) by the innovators, rather than “groping along,” which is Behn’s ( 1988 ) term for a manager-focused version of logical incrementalism. The relationship was contingent, however, on who the innovators were and whether new technology was involved. If the innovators were managers, planning was favored; if the innovators were frontline staff, groping along was preferred. If new technology was involved, groping along was used more frequently.

Content Approaches

The process approaches assist planners with ways of doing strategic planning but offer little advice as to what needs to be in strategies and plans. Strategic content approaches help by providing a way to determine the content of strategies that best fit the internal and external conditions facing an organization. We consider two: portfolio approaches and competitive analysis.

Portfolio approaches. These approaches conceptualize strategic planning as a way of helping manage a portfolio of entities (e.g., departments, programs, projects, budget items) in a strategic way. The portfolio arrays the entities against dimensions deemed strategically significant (e.g., the desirability of doing something against the capacity to do it). The resulting array helps clarify decisions about what to do. The strength of the approach is that it helps organizations make sense of and manage the various entities for which it is, or might be, responsible. The weaknesses of the approach include the difficulty of deciding on the dimensions, arraying entities against dimensions, understanding how to fit the approach into a broader strategic planning process, and managing the politics of winners and losers. While many public organizations at least implicitly make use of portfolio approaches, we know of no studies evaluating use of the approach in a public-sector strategic planning context.

Competitive analysis. Another approach uses competitive analysis to determine some of what should be in a strategic plan. The language may be difficult for public sector organizations, since they may not see themselves as competing for customers. However, many public or quasi-public organizations are clearly in competitive environments. For example, many services in most countries have to compete at least in some ways with businesses for customers. Vining ( 2011 ) adapted Porter’s ( 1998 ) private sector five forces model for the public sector by adding political and economic considerations that are more appropriate for any public sector organization. Vining hypothesizes that organizational autonomy—which is necessary to have some control over strategy—depends on a modified set of Porter’s five forces. Vining’s adaptations include: the power of agency sponsors/customers, power of suppliers, threat of substitute products, political influence, and the intensity of rivalry between agencies. Autonomy is hypothesized to impact organizational performance but can also help organizations determine what strategies are best suited to their internal and external conditions. To the best of our knowledge, the usefulness of the model has not been tested.

In sum, there are a variety of approaches to strategic planning. In other words, it is not a single thing but rather a set of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices. These presumably need to be applied contingently in particular settings in order to produce useful outcomes. Indeed, hybrid applications that blend approaches are often or even typically found (Bryson, 2011 ; Favoreu, Carassus, Gardey, & Maurel, 2015 ).

Prominent Research Themes and Implications for Future Research

In this section, we look at a number of themes that have animated research on public-sector strategic planning. We also consider implications for future research.

What is Public-Sector Strategic Planning?

How strategic planning is defined makes a difference in how it is studied and what the results of those studies are likely to be. As noted above, there are a variety of approaches to strategic planning and there is a reasonably clear set of criteria for determining whether an approach is strategic or not. The various approaches may be viewed as generic—their ostensive aspect—but must be applied contingently in context—their performative aspect (Feldman & Pentland, 2008 , pp. 302–303). This interpretation is consistent with much of the contemporary literature in public administration and urban and regional planning. The view is at odds, however, with some of the work in the business management literature associated primarily with Mintzberg ( 1994 ) and Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel ( 2009 , pp. 49–84), who by definition limits strategic planning to a formalized, rigid, highly analytic, staff-driven exercise (i.e. an ostensive view). In other words, scholars in public administration and planning take a far more flexible view of what strategic planning is, based largely on studying what people do when they say they are doing strategic planning (i.e., how strategic planning is performed).

Does Strategic Planning “Work,” and How Does It Work?

Assessments of whether and how well strategic planning “works” depend on how it is defined and studied. 2 An important methodological distinction is between what Mohr ( 1982 ) calls variance studies and process studies (see also Van de Ven, 2007 ). In variance studies, public-sector strategic planning is essentially treated as a routine or practice that is a fixed object, not as a generative system comprising many interacting and changeable parts. Variance studies typically assume that strategic planning is an intermediary , to use Latour’s ( 2005 , p. 58) term, meaning the planning itself is essentially invariant and merely the transporter of a cause from inputs to outputs. Inputs, in other words, are assumed to predict outputs fairly well as long as the “transporter” is transporting.

Studies of strategic planning in government do report mixed results. Roberts ( 2000 ) and Radin ( 2006 ) are among public management scholars who have questioned the effectiveness of strategic planning in government, particularly mandated strategic planning in the US federal government. In both studies, the authors viewed strategic planning as essentially an invariant intermediary. On the other hand, the majority of variance studies of public strategic planning that have used linear regression methodologies, have found positive (though not necessarily large) effects (e.g., Borins, 1998 , 2014 ; Boyne & Gould-Williams, 2003 ; Andrews, Boyne, & Walker, 2006 ; Meier, et al., 2007 ; Andrews et al., 2012 ; Elbanna et al., 2016 ).

Structural equation modeling, which has been underused, could be helpful. This type of analysis would allow researchers to determine whether or not strategic planning improves intermediate outcomes such as, for example, communication and conflict management strategies and whether or not intermediate outcomes improve performance (e.g., Bryson & Bromiley, 1993 ). It would also allow researchers to analyze how much of the impact is direct or indirect.

Process studies, in contrast, generally assume that the key to understanding the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of strategic planning may lie in seeing it as a complex process approach to knowing and acting (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 ). In the process, organizational (or multiorganizational) stakeholders engage with one another in a series of associations and performances over time to explore and ultimately agree on and implement answers to a series of Socratic questions. These include: What should we be doing? How should we do it? What purposes or goals would be served by doing it? And how can we be sure we are doing what we agreed we ought to do, and that we are achieving the effects we want?

Few studies have taken this approach. Exceptions include Wheeland ( 2004 ) and Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson ( 2009 ). The latter authors traced strategic planning as a complex cognitive, behavioral, social, and political practice in which thinking, acting, learning, and knowing matter and with which some associations are reinforced, others are created, and still others are dropped in the process of formulating and implementing strategies and plans. They showed that terms such as process steps; planners; stakeholder analyses; strategic plans; and mission, vision, goals, strategies, actions, and performance indicators are all relevant to any study of strategic planning in practice but not as rigidly defined terms. In short, these authors sought to understand how these terms are performed and what that meant for understanding strategic planning as a way of knowing that is consequential for organizational performance.

Our view is that the field will be advanced by pursuing a variety of variance and process studies. Variance studies can show in the aggregate what works and what does not. Detailed process studies, and especially comparative, longitudinal case studies, can help show how it works. In particular, much more knowledge is needed about what the actual process design features and social mechanisms are that lead to strategic planning success (or not) (Mayntz, 2004 ; Bryson, 2010 ). Barzelay and Campbell ( 2003 ), Barzelay and Jacobsen ( 2009 ) are among the few studies to actually focus on the importance of design features and social mechanisms for strategic planning.

What are the Outcomes of Strategic Planning?

Most studies of public-sector strategic planning have focused on performance outcomes, especially target achievement, efficiency, and effectiveness. In terms of these outcomes, strategic planning generally seems to have a beneficial effect. Some students have found that perceptions of improved performance are linked to strategic planning (e.g., Boyne & Gould-Williams, 2003 ; Poister & Streib, 2005 ; Ugboro, Obeng, & Spann, 2010 ). Others have avoided common source bias and perceptions of performance by connecting secondary performance measures with survey data (e.g., Andrews et al., 2009 ; Walker, Andrews, Boyne, Meier, & O’Toole, 2010 ; Poister, Edwards, & Pasha, 2013 ; Elbanna, Andrews, & Pollanen, 2016 ). The findings have been mixed, but generally support a positive strategic planning-performance link.

However, as laid out by Poister, Pitts, and Edwards ( 2010 ), the link between strategic planning and performance needs further investigation. As noted, research indicates that strategic planning generally, though not always, leads to better performance. The mixed findings are likely due to a number of factors. First, performance in the public sector is notoriously hard to operationalize. This task can be very difficult in municipal and state governments, where departments and agencies have different purposes and different measures of performance. Obviously, many different types of performance should be taken into account beyond fiscal measures (Poister, 2003 ).

Second, a theoretical link between strategic planning and performance has not been well established. Poister, Edwards, and Pasha ( 2013 ) use goal setting theory originated by Locke and Latham (see Latham, 2004 ). However, this theoretical link needs more fleshing out, which leads to a third observation: there are likely to be a variety of direct and indirect links between strategic planning and performance.

Some studies have emphasized the importance of intermediate outcomes, such as participation (see earlier citations), visioning (e.g., Helling, 1998 ), situated learning (e.g., Vigar, 2006 ), and communication and conflict management strategies (e.g., Bryson & Bromiley, 1993 ). Very few studies have focused on equity, social justice, transparency, legitimacy, accountability, or the broader array of public values (Cook & Harrison, 2015 ; Beck Jorgensen & Bozeman, 2007 ). Clearly, attending to a range of outcomes and how they are produced would be very helpful.

What Contributes to Strategic Planning Success?

Research indicates that organizations can face significant barriers before and during strategic planning that can potentially outweigh any benefits. First, public sector organizations need to build the necessary capacity to do strategic planning. The skills and resources to do strategic planning in the public sector should match the complexity of the processes and practices involved (Streib & Poister, 1990 ). Necessary resources include, for example, financial capacity (Boyne, Gould-Williams, Law, & Walker, 2004 ; Wheeland, 2004 ), knowledge about strategic planning (Hendrick, 2003 ), and the capability to gather and analyze data and to judge between potential solutions (Streib & Poister, 1990 ).

Additionally, leadership of different kinds is needed in order to engage in effective strategic planning. Process sponsors have the authority, power, and resources to initiate and sustain the process. Process champions are needed to help manage the day-to-day process (Bryson, 2011 ). Transformational practices by sponsors and champions, as well as the groups they engage appears to help energize participants, enhance public service motivation, increase mission valence, and encourage performance information use (e.g., Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2013 ), all of which are important for strategic planning.

Broad participation generally can also improve the process, as well as the resulting plan by giving various stakeholders a sense of ownership and commitment. We know that different perspectives can enrich any analyses and the eventual implementation of the plan (Burby, 2003 ; Bryson, 2011 ). Several studies demonstrate that citizens can help throughout the process by educating government staff about issues and with decision making about solutions (Blair, 2004 ). Including citizens has the additional benefit of reducing citizen cynicism about government (Kissler et al., 1998 ). Likewise, employees from all levels of the organization may need to be included in strategic planning for their input and knowledge about their respective areas of the organization (Wheeland, 2004 ; Donald, Lyons, & Tribbey, 2001 ). That said, we also know that there is great variation in how stakeholders are included, and at least two studies show that participation of key stakeholders (internal and external) often remains shallow and elitist (Vigar, 2006 ; Vidyarthi et al., 2013 ). Moreover, inclusion and broad stakeholder participation may not always make sense (Thomas, 1995 ). There do not seem to be any strategic planning studies indicating when it might be advisable not to include stakeholders in public-sector strategic planning, but one hopes such studies will be forthcoming.

Finally, integration with other strategic management practices can improve strategic planning. Poister ( 2010 ) writes that integrating strategic planning and performance management more closely will likely improve performance and decision making about planning. For example, Kissler et al. ( 1998 ) found that this link improved the strategic plan for the US state of Ohio because planners had a better idea of where the state stood in terms of social and financial performance. Plan implementation also improved because plan progress was linked to measurable outcomes making it easier to monitor progress. However, performance is not the only area for integration. It is also known that strategic planning should be integrated with budgeting, human resource management, and information technology management, although exactly how is unclear. One survey of local government practices in the United States found that many governments do some integration between strategic planning and other resource management practices but are not very sophisticated in how they do it (Poister & Streib, 2005 ). That said, there is evidence that strategic planning can help inform budgetary and human capital allocation (Berry & Wechsler, 1995 , 2010).

Conclusions and an Agenda for Future Research

Strategic planning in the public sector increasingly has been institutionalized as a common practice at all levels of government in the United States and several other countries. There is also reasonable agreement on what it means to be strategic when it comes to planning. There is also reasonably good evidence that public-sector strategic planning generally helps produce desirable outcomes and good research that provides the beginnings of an understanding of why and how that is so.

It is important to realize, however, that public-sector strategic planning is a set of concepts, procedures, tools, and practices that must be applied sensitively and contingently in specific situations if the presumed benefits of strategic planning are to be realized. In other words, there are a variety of generic approaches to strategic planning, the boundaries between them are not necessarily clear, and strategic planning in practice typically is a hybrid. In addition, it is unclear how best to conceptualize context and match processes to context in order to produce desirable outcomes. For example, should context be viewed as a backdrop for action or as actually constitutive of action (Ferlie & Ongaro, 2015 , pp. 121–165)?

These observations lead to a fairly robust research agenda for the field. A list of important questions includes at least the following (see also Bryson, Berry, & Yang, 2010 ; Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010 ; George & Desmidt, 2014 ):

What are the important dimensions of internal and external context that make a difference for strategic planning, and which approaches are likely to work best, given the context? In what ways do internal and external stability or change in these dimensions make a difference? Of particular interest, what are or should be the links between public-sector strategic planning and politics, partisan and otherwise?

What difference does it make whether strategic planning is applied to organizations, subunits of organizations, cross-boundary functions, collaborations, or places?

How should the approach to strategic planning vary depending on the policy field in which it is applied and kind of issue being addressed? For example, what difference does it make if the policy area is education, health, public safety, transportation, or something else (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015 )? What difference does it make if the issues are simple, complicated, complex, or wicked (Patton, 2011 )?

What kinds of resources (e.g., leadership, facilitation, staffing, technical support, political support, and competencies and skills) are needed for strategic planning to be effective?

What are the ways in which participation by internal and external stakeholders make a difference? In other words, in which circumstances do which kinds of participation, by which kinds of stakeholders, and for which purposes make a difference?

What difference do the various artifacts (e.g., mission, vision, and goal statements; strategic plans; background studies; performance measurements; evaluations) related to strategic planning make?

What are or should be the connections both theoretically and practically between the various approaches to strategic planning and the other elements of strategic management systems, such as budgeting, human resources management, information technology, performance measurement, and implementation?

Finally, research questions should be pursued through research methodologies that conceptualize strategic planning in a variety of ways. As noted, public-sector strategic planning is not a single entity. Useful findings about strategic planning have come via multiple methodologies, including cross-sectional and longitudinal quantitative research, qualitative single and comparative case studies, and content analyses of plans. These studies have conceptualized strategic planning in a variety of ways, including as questions with Likert-scale answers, and as processes, practices, artifacts, and ways of knowing. The variety in methodologies is useful, as each helps reveal different things about strategic planning. Given the ubiquity of public-sector strategic planning, additional insights into exactly what works best, in which situations, and why, are likely to be helpful for advancing public purposes.

• Ackermann, F. , & Eden, C. (2011). Making strategy: Mapping out strategic success . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Albrechts, L. , & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing strategic planning: In search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans. disP—The Planning Review , 49 (3), 16–27.
• Albrechts, L. , Balducci, A. , & Hillier, J. (Eds.). (2016). Situated practices of strategic planning . New York: Routledge.
• Allison, G. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis . Boston: Little, Brown.
• Andrews, K. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy (Rev. ed.). Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2009). Strategy formulation, strategy content, and performance. Public Management Review , 11 (1), 1–22.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2012). Strategic management and public service performance . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , & Walker, R. M. (2006). Strategy content and organizational performance: An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review , 66 (1), 52–63.
• Balducci, A. , Fedeli, V. , & Pasqui, G. (2011). Strategic planning for contemporary urban regions . Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
• Barzelay, M. , & Campbell, C. (2003). Preparing for the future: Strategic planning in the U. S. air force . Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Barzelay, M. , & Jacobsen, A. S. (2009). Theorizing implementation of public management policy reforms: A case study of strategic planning and programming in the European Commission. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions , 22 (2), 319–334.
• Beck Jorgensen, T. , & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration and Society, 39 (3), 354–381.
• Behn, R. D. (1988). Management by groping along. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 7 (4), 643–663.
• Berry, F. S. , & Wechsler, B. (1995). State agencies’ experience with strategic planning: Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review , 54 (4), 322–330.
• Bingham, L. B. , Nabatchi, T. , & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review , 65 (5), 547–558.
• Blair, R. (2004). Public participation and community development: The role of strategic planning. Public Administration Quarterly , 28 (1–2), 102–147.
• Borins, S. (1998). Lessons from the new public management in commonwealth nations. International Public Management Journal , 1 (1), 37–58.
• Borins, S. (2014). The persistence of innovation in government . Washington, DC: Brookings.
• Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review , 67 (5), 846–860.
• Bower, J. , Barlett, C. , Chrisensen, C. , & Pearson, J. (1991). Business policy: Texts and cases . Homewood, IL: Irwin.
• Boyne, G. A. , & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2003). Planning and performance in public organizations. Public Management Review , 5 (1), 115–132.
• Boyne, G. A. , Gould-Williams, J. S. , Law, J. , & Walker, R. M. (2004). Problems of rational planning in public organizations. Administration and Society , 36 (3), 328–350.
• Brody, S. D. , Godschalk, D. R. , & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association , 69 (3), 245–264.
• Bryson, J. M. (2002). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit purposes. In N. Smelser (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 15, 145–115, 151). Oxford: Pergamon.
• Bryson, J. M. (2010). The future of public and nonprofit strategic planning in the United States. Public Administration Review , 70 (s1), s255–s267.
• Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Bryson, J. M. (2015). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2d ed., pp. 515–521). Oxford: Elsevier.
• Bryson, J. M. , Berry, F. S. , & Yang, K. (2010). The state of strategic management research: A selective literature review and set of future directions. American Review of Public Administration , 40 (5), 495–521.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation of major projects. Strategic Management Journal , 14 (5), 319–337.
• Bryson, J. M. , Cunningham, G. L. , & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of Hennepin County, Minnesota, Public Administration Review , 62 (5), 568–584.
• Bryson, J. M. , Crosby, B. C. , & Bryson, J. K. (2009). Understanding strategic planning and the formulation and implementation of strategic plans as a way of knowing: The contributions of actor-network theory. International Public Management Journal , 12 (2), 172–207.
• Bryson, J. M. , Crosby, B. C. , & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaboration—needed and challenging. Public Administration Review , 75 (5), 647–663.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Roering, W. D. (1987). Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public sector. Journal of the American Planning Association , 53 (1), 9–22.
• Bryson, J. M. , & Slotterback, C. S. (2016). Strategic spatial planning in the USA. In L. Albrechts , A. Balducci , & J. Hillier (Eds.), Situated practices of strategic planning . New York: Routledge.
• Buckwalter, N. D. (2014). The potential for public empowerment through government-organized participation. Public Administration Review , 74 (5), 573–584.
• Burby, R. J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association , 69 (1), 33–49.
• Chakraborty, A. , Kaza, N. , Knaap, G. , & Deal, B. (2011). Robust plans and contingent plans. Journal of the American Planning Association , 77 (3), 251–266.
• Christensen, K. S. (1999). Cities and complexity . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Christensen, T. , & Lægreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review , 67 (6), 1059–1066.
• Clarke, A. , & Fuller, M. (2010). Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics , 94 (1), 85–101.
• Conroy, M. M. , & Berke, P. R. (2004). What makes a good sustainable development plan? An analysis of factors that influence principles of sustainable development. Environment and Planning A , 36 (8), 1381–1396.
• Cook, M. , & Harrison, T. M. (2015). Using public value thinking for government IT planning and decision making: A case study. Information Polity , 20 (2–3), 183–197.
• Deyle, R. , & Wiedenman, R. E. (2014). Collaborative planning by metropolitan planning organizations: A test of a causal theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 34 (3), 257–275.
• DiMaggio P. J. , & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review , 48 (2), 147–160.
• Donald, C. G. , Lyons, T. S. , & Tribbey, R. C. (2001). A partnership for strategic planning and management in a public organization. Public Performance and Management Review , 25 (2), 176–193.
• Eadie, D. C. (1983). Putting a powerful tool to practical us: The application of strategic planning in the public sector. Public Administration Review , 43 (5), 447–452.
• Edelenbos, J. , & Klijn, E.-H. (2005). Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: A comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 16 , 417–446.
• Elbanna, S. , Andrews, R. , & Pollanen, R. (2016). Strategic planning and implementation success in public service organizations. Public Management Review , 18 (7), 1017–1042.
• Emerson, K. , & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes. Public Performance and Management Review , 38 (4), 717–747.
• Fairhurst, G. T. (2011). The power of framing . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Favoreu, C. , Carassus, D. , Gardey, D , & Maurel, C. (2015). Performance management in the local public sector in France: An administrative rather than a political model. International Review of Administrative Sciences , 81 (4), 672–693.
• Feldman, M. S. , & Pentland, B. T. (2008). Routine dynamics. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization . London: SAGE.
• Ferlie, E. , & Ongaro, E. (2015). Strategic management in public sector organizations: Concepts, schools, and contemporary issues . New York: Routledge.
• Freedman, L. (2013). Strategy: A history . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach . Boston: Pittman Publishing.
• Friend, J. , & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach (3d ed.). Oxford: Heinemann.
• George, B. , & Desmidt, S. (2014). A state of research on strategic management in the public sector. In P. Joyce & A. Drumaux (Eds.), Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives (pp. 151–172). New York: Routledge.
• Gilmour, J. B. , & Lewis, D. E. (2006). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration and Theory , 16 (2), 169–186.
• Gomes, R. C. , Liddle, J. , & Gomes, L. O. M. (2010). A five-sided model of stakeholder influence: A cross-national analysis of decision making in local government. Public Management Review , 12 (5), 701–724.
• Gray, B. , Purdy, J. M. , & Ansani, S. S. (2015). From interactions to institutions: Microprocesses of framing and mechanisms for the structuring of institutional fields. Academy of Management Review , 40 (1), 115–148.
• Hansen, J. R. , & Ferlie, E. (2016). Applying strategic management theories in public sector organizations: Developing a typology. Public Management Review , 18 (1), 1–19.
• Helling, A. (1998). Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution! Evaluating the results of Atlanta’s Vision 2020 project. Journal of the American Planning Association , 64 (3), 335–349.
• Hendrick, R. (2003). Strategic planning environment, process, and performance in public agencies: A comparative study of departments in Milwaukee. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 13 (4), 491–519.
• Huxham, C. , & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate . New York: Routledge.
• Ingman, D. , Kersten, J. , & Brymer, T. (2002). Strategic planning that uses an integrated approach. Public Management , 84 (4), 16–18.
• Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association , 62 (4), 460–472.
• Innes, J. E. , & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality . New York: Routledge.
• Jimenez, B. S. (2013). Strategic planning and the fiscal performance of city governments during the great recession. American Review of Public Administration , 43 (5), 581–601.
• Joyce, P. , & Drumaux, A. (Eds.). (2014). Strategic management in public organizations: European practices and perspectives . New York: Routledge.
• Kaufman, J. L. , & Jacobs, H. M. (1987). A planning perspective on strategic planning. Journal of American Planning Association , 53 (1), 23–33.
• Kettl, D. J. (2013). Politics of the administrative process (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
• Kissler, G. R. , Fore, K. N. , Jacobson, W. S. , & Kittredge, W. P. (1998). State strategic planning: Suggestions from the Oregon experience. Public Administration Review , 58 (4), 353–359.
• Latham, G. P. (2004). The motivational benefits of goal-setting. Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005) , 18 (4), 126–129.
• Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Legacy, C. (2012). Achieving legitimacy through deliberative plan-making processes—Lessons for metropolitan strategic planning. Planning Theory and Practice , 13 (1), 71–87.
• Light, P. C. (1998). Tides of reform . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Loh, C. G. (2012). Four potential disconnects in the community planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 31 (1), 33–47.
• Mayntz, R. (2004). Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 34 (2). 237–259.
• McKinnon, R. (2010). An ageing workforce and strategic human resource management: Staffing challenges for social security administrations the ageing of social security administration workforces. International Social Security Review , 63 (3–4), 91–113.
• Meier, K. J. , O’Toole, L. J. Jr. , Boyne, G. A. , & Walker, R. M. (2007). Strategic management and the performance of public organizations. Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 17 (1), 357–377.
• Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review , 72 (1), 107–114.
• Mintzberg, H. , Ahlstrand, B. , & Lampel, J. (2009). Strategy safari (2d ed.). Philadelphia: Trans-Atlantic Publications.
• Mintzberg, H. , & Water, J. (1985). On strategies: Deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal , 6 , 257–272.
• Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform . Public Administration Review , 66 (1), 77–89.
• Moynihan, D. P. (2013). The new federal performance management system : Implementing the Government Performance Modernization Act . Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
• Moynihan, D. P. , & Kroll, A. (2016). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Administration Review , 76 (2), 314–323.
• Moynihan, D. P. , Pandey, S. K. , & Wright, B. E. (2013). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Empirical evidence of its effects. In Y. K. Dwivedi , M. A. Shareef , S. K. Pandey , & V. Kumar (Eds.), Public administration reformation: Market demand from public organizations (pp. 87–104). New York: Routledge.
• Neshkova, M. I. , & Guo, H. (2012). Public participation and organizational performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 22 , 267–288.
• Nutt, P. C. , & Backoff, R. W. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector organizations: A handbook for leaders . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Nutt, P. C. , & Backoff, R. W. (1993). Organizational publicness and its implications for strategic management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 3 (2), 209–231.
• Osborne, S. P. , & Brown, L. (2012). Managing public-sector innovation (2d ed.). London: Routledge.
• Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation. New York: Guildford.
• Percoco, M. (2016). Strategic planning and institutional collective action in Italian cities. Public Management Review , 18 (1), 139–158.
• Page, S. B. , Stone, M. M. , Bryson, J. M. , & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public value creation by cross-sector collaborations: A theory and challenges of assessment. Public Administration , 93 (3), 715–732.
• Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making . London: Tavistock.
• Pfeffer, J. , & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Poister, T. H. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Poister, T. H. (2005). Strategic planning and management in state departments of public transportation. International Journal of Public Administration , 28 (13–14), 1035–1056.
• Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review , 70 (s1), s246–s254.
• Poister, T. H. , Edwards, L. H. , & Pasha, O. (2013). The impact of strategic planning on organizational outcomes. Public Performance and Management Review , 36 (4), 585–615.
• Poister, T. H. , Pitts, D. , & Edwards, L. H. (2010). Strategic management research in the public sector: Synthesis, assessment, and future directions. American Review of Public Administration , 40 (4), 522–545.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (1994). Municipal management tools from 1976–1993: An overview and update. Public Productivity and Management Review , 18 (2), 115–125.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (1999). Strategic management in the public sector: Concepts, models, and processes. Public Productivity and Management Review , 22 (3), 308–325.
• Poister, T. H. , & Streib, G. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in municipal government: Status after two decades. Public Administration Review , 65 (1), 45–56.
• Poister, T. H. , Thomas, J. C. , & Berryman, A. F. (2013). Reaching out to stakeholders; The Georgia DOT 360-degree assessment model. Public Performance and Management Review , 37 (2), 301–328.
• Pollitt, C. , & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis; New public management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Porter, M. (1998). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance . New York: Free Press.
• Quick, Kathryn S. (2015). Locating and building collective leadership and impact. leadership .
• Quinn, J. B. (1978). Strategic change: “Logical incremenaltism.” Sloan Management Review , 20 (1), 7–21.
• Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism . Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
• Quinn, J. B. (1982). Managing strategies incrementally. International Journal of Management Science , 10 (6), 613–627.
• Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Roberts, N. (2000). The synoptic model of strategic planning and the GPRA: Lacking a good fit with the political context. Public Productivity and Management Review , 23 (3), 297–311.
• Sandfort, J. , & Moulton, S. (2015). Effective implementation in practice: Integrating public policy and management . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Streib, G. , & Poister, T. H. (1990). Strategic planning in U.S. cities: Patterns of use, perceptions of effectiveness, and an assessment of strategic capacity. American Review of Public Administration , 20 (1), 29–44.
• Talbot, C. (2010). Theories of performance; organizational and service improvement in the public domain. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Tama, J. (2015). The politics of strategy: Why government agencies conduct major strategic reviews. Journal of Public Policy , 37 (1), 27–54.
• Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in decision making: New skills and strategies for public managers . San Francisco: John Wiley.
• Ugboro, I. O. , Obeng, K. , & Spann, O. (2010). Strategic planning as an effective tool of strategic management in public sector organizations: Evidence from public transit organizations. Administration and Society , 43 (1), 87–123.
• Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Vidyarthi, S. , Hoch, C. , & Basmajian, C. (2013). Making sense of India’s spatial plan-making practice: Enduring approach or emergent variations. Planning Theory and Practice , 14 (1), 57–74.
• Vigar, G. (2006). Deliberation, participation, and learning in the development of regional strategies: Transport policy making in North East England. Planning Theory and Practice , 7 (3), 267–287.
• Vining, A. R. (2011). Public agency external analysis using a modified “five forces” framework. International Public Management Journal , 14 (1), 63–105.
• Walker, R. M. , Andrews, R. , Boyne, G. A. , Meier, K. J. , & O’Toole, L. J. (2010). Wakeup call: Strategic management, network alarms, and performance. Public Administration Review , 70 (5), 731–741.
• Wheeland, C. M. (1993). Citywide strategic planning: An evaluation of Rock Hill’s empowering vision. Public Administration Review , 53 (1), 65–72.
• Wheeland, C. M. (2004). Empowering the vision: Community-wide strategic planning in Rock Hill, South Carolina . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

1. The next three paragraphs are drawn from Bryson ( 2011 ).

2. This section draws heavily on Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson ( 2009 ).

Related Articles

• The New Public Management and Public Management Studies
• Bureaucracy to Post-Bureaucracy: The Consequences of Political Failures

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 08 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.39.149.46]
• 185.39.149.46

Character limit 500 /500

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

• 12 Dec 2023
• Cold Call Podcast

Can Sustainability Drive Innovation at Ferrari?

When Ferrari, the Italian luxury sports car manufacturer, committed to achieving carbon neutrality and to electrifying a large part of its car fleet, investors and employees applauded the new strategy. But among the company’s suppliers, the reaction was mixed. Many were nervous about how this shift would affect their bottom lines. Professor Raffaella Sadun and Ferrari CEO Benedetto Vigna discuss how Ferrari collaborated with suppliers to work toward achieving the company’s goal. They also explore how sustainability can be a catalyst for innovation in the case, “Ferrari: Shifting to Carbon Neutrality.” This episode was recorded live December 4, 2023 in front of a remote studio audience in the Live Online Classroom at Harvard Business School.

• 12 Sep 2023

Can Remote Surgeries Digitally Transform Operating Rooms?

Launched in 2016, Proximie was a platform that enabled clinicians, proctors, and medical device company personnel to be virtually present in operating rooms, where they would use mixed reality and digital audio and visual tools to communicate with, mentor, assist, and observe those performing medical procedures. The goal was to improve patient outcomes. The company had grown quickly, and its technology had been used in tens of thousands of procedures in more than 50 countries and 500 hospitals. It had raised close to $50 million in equity financing and was now entering strategic partnerships to broaden its reach. Nadine Hachach-Haram, founder and CEO of Proximie, aspired for Proximie to become a platform that powered every operating room in the world, but she had to carefully consider the company’s partnership and data strategies in order to scale. What approach would position the company best for the next stage of growth? Harvard Business School associate professor Ariel Stern discusses creating value in health care through a digital transformation of operating rooms in her case, “Proximie: Using XR Technology to Create Borderless Operating Rooms.”

• 07 Jan 2019
• Research & Ideas

The Better Way to Forecast the Future

We can forecast hurricane paths with great certainty, yet many businesses can't predict a supply chain snafu just around the corner. Yael Grushka-Cockayne says crowdsourcing can help. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 30 Nov 2018
• What Do You Think?

What’s the Best Administrative Approach to Climate Change?

SUMMING UP: James Heskett's readers point to examples of complex environmental problems conquered through multinational cooperation. Can those serve as roadmaps for overcoming global warming? Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 04 May 2017

Leading a Team to the Top of Mount Everest

In a podcast, Amy Edmondson describes how students learn about team communication and decision making by making a simulated climb up Mount Everest. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 15 Mar 2017
• Lessons from the Classroom

More Than 900 Examples of How Climate Change Affects Business

MBA students participating in Harvard Business School’s Climate Change Challenge offer ideas on how companies can negate impacts from a changing environment. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 07 Apr 2014

Negotiation and All That Jazz

In his new book The Art of Negotiation, Michael Wheeler throws away the script to examine how master negotiators really get what they want. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 04 Sep 2013

How Relevant is Long-Range Strategic Planning?

Summing Up: Jim Heskett's readers argue that long-range planning, while necessary for organizational success, must be adaptable to the competitive environment. What do YOU think? Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 16 Jul 2012

Are You a Strategist?

Corporate strategy has become the bailiwick of consultants and business analysts, so much so that it is no longer a top-of-mind responsibility for many senior executives. Professor Cynthia A. Montgomery says it's time for CEOs to again become strategists. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 21 Dec 2011

The Most Common Strategy Mistakes

In the book, Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition and Strategy, Joan Magretta distills Porter's core concepts and frameworks into a concise guide for business practitioners. In this excerpt, Porter discusses common strategy mistakes. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 09 May 2011

Moving From Bean Counter to Game Changer

New research by HBS professor Anette Mikes and colleagues looks into how accountants, finance professionals, internal auditors, and risk managers gain influence in their organizations to become strategic decision makers. Key concepts include: Many organizations have functional experts who have deep knowledge but lack influence. They can influence high-level strategic thinking in their organizations by going through a process that transforms them from "box-checkers" to "frame-makers." Frame-makers understand how important it is to attach the tools they create to C-level business goals, such as linking them to the quarterly business review. Frame-makers stay relevant by becoming personally involved in the analysis and interpretation of the tools they create. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 22 Nov 2010

Seven Strategy Questions: A Simple Approach for Better Execution

Successful business strategy lies not in having all the right answers, but rather in asking the right questions, says Harvard Business School professor Robert Simons. In an excerpt from his book Seven Strategy Questions, Simons explains how managers can make smarter choices. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 02 Jun 2010

How Do You Weigh Strategy, Execution, and Culture in an Organization’s Success?

Summing up: Respondents who ventured to place weights on the determinants of success gave the nod to culture by a wide margin, says HBS professor Jim Heskett. (Online forum now closed. Next forum opens July 2.) Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 22 Mar 2010

One Strategy: Aligning Planning and Execution

Strategy as it is written up in the corporate playbook often becomes lost or muddled when the team takes the field to execute. In their new book, Professor Marco Iansiti and Microsoft's Steven Sinofsky discuss a "One Strategy" approach to aligning plan and action. Key concepts include: The book combines practical experience at Microsoft with conceptual frameworks on how to develop strategies that are aligned with execution in a rapidly changing competitive environment. "Strategic integrity" occurs when the strategy executes with the full, aligned backing of the organization for maximum impact. The chief impediment to strategy execution is inertia. The One Strategy approach is less about formal reviews and more about one-on-one conversation. Blogs can be a powerful asset in managing an organization. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 11 Aug 2008

Strategy Execution and the Balanced Scorecard

Companies often manage strategy in fits and starts, with strategy execution lost along the way. A new book by Balanced Scorecard creators Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton aims to make strategy a continual process. Key concepts include: An excellent strategy often fades from memory as the organization tackles day-to-day operations issues. The operational plan and budget should be driven from the revenue targets in the strategic plan. The senior management team needs to have regular, probably monthly, meetings that focus only on strategy. The Office of Strategy Management is a small cadre of professionals that orchestrate strategy management processes for the executive team. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 11 Apr 2007

Adding Time to Activity-Based Costing

Determining a company's true costs and profitability has always been difficult, although advancements such as activity-based costing (ABC) have helped. In a new book, Professor Robert Kaplan and Acorn Systems' Steven Anderson offer a simplified system based on time-driven ABC that leverages existing enterprise resource planning systems. Key concepts include: The activity-based costing system developed in the 1980s fell out of favor for a number of reasons, including the need for lengthy employee interviews and surveys to collect data. The arrival of enterprise resource planning systems allows crucial data to be pumped automatically into a TDABC system. Managers must answer two questions to build an effective TDABC system: How much does it cost to supply resource capacity for each business process in our organization? How much resource capacity (time) is required to perform work for each of our company's transactions, products, and customers? Profit improvements of up to 2 percent of sales generally come in less than a year. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 24 Apr 2006

Managing Alignment as a Process

"Most organizations attempt to create synergy, but in a fragmented, uncoordinated way," say HBS professor Robert S. Kaplan and colleague David P. Norton. Their new book excerpted here, Alignment, tells how to see alignment as a management process. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 02 Feb 2004

Mapping Your Corporate Strategy

From the originators of the Balanced Scorecard system, Strategy Maps is a new book that explores how companies can best their competition. A Q&A with Robert S. Kaplan. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 12 Oct 1999

A Perfect Fit: Aligning Organization & Strategy

Is your company organizationally fit? HBS Professor Michael Beer believes business success is a function of the fit between key organizational variables such as strategy, values, culture, employees, systems, organizational design, and the behavior of the senior management team. Beer and colleague Russell A. Eisenstat have developed a process,termed Organizational Fitness Profiling, by which corporations can cultivate organizational capabilities that enhance their competitiveness. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• History, Facts & Figures
• YSM Dean & Deputy Deans
• YSM Administration
• Department Chairs
• YSM Executive Group
• YSM Board of Permanent Officers
• FAC Documents
• Current FAC Members
• Appointments & Promotions Committees
• Ad Hoc Committees and Working Groups
• Chair Searches
• Leadership Searches
• Organization Charts
• Faculty Demographic Data
• Professionalism Reporting Data
• 2022 Diversity Engagement Survey
• State of the School Archive
• Faculty Climate Survey: YSM Results
• Strategic Planning
• Mission Statement & Process
• Beyond Sterling Hall
• COVID-19 Series Workshops
• Previous Workshops
• Departments & Centers
• Find People
• Biomedical Data Science
• Health Equity
• Inflammation
• Neuroscience
• Global Health
• Diabetes and Metabolism
• Policies & Procedures
• Media Relations
• A to Z YSM Lab Websites
• A-Z Faculty List
• A-Z Staff List
• A to Z Abbreviations
• Dept. Diversity Vice Chairs & Champions
• Dean’s Advisory Council on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Affairs Website
• Minority Organization for Retention and Expansion Website
• Office for Women in Medicine and Science
• Committee on the Status of Women in Medicine Website
• Director of Scientist Diversity and Inclusion
• Diversity Supplements
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Recruitment
• By Department & Program
• News & Events
• Executive Committee
• Aperture: Women in Medicine
• Self-Reflection
• Portraits of Strength
• Mindful: Mental Health Through Art
• Event Photo Galleries
• Additional Support
• MD-PhD Program
• PA Online Program
• Joint MD Programs
• How to Apply
• Advanced Health Sciences Research
• Clinical Informatics & Data Science
• Clinical Investigation
• Medical Education
• Visiting Student Programs
• Special Programs & Student Opportunities
• Residency & Fellowship Programs
• Center for Med Ed
• Organizational Chart
• Leadership & Staff
• Committee Procedural Info (Login Required)
• Faculty Affairs Department Teams
• Recent Appointments & Promotions
• Academic Clinician Track
• Clinician Educator-Scholar Track
• Clinican-Scientist Track
• Investigator Track
• Traditional Track
• Research Ranks
• Instructor/Lecturer
• Social Work Ranks
• Voluntary Ranks
• Adjunct Ranks
• Other Appt Types
• Appointments
• Reappointments
• Transfer of Track
• Term Extensions
• Timeline for A&P Processes
• Interfolio Faculty Search
• Interfolio A&P Processes
• Yale CV Part 1 (CV1)
• Yale CV Part 2 (CV2)
• Samples of Scholarship
• Teaching Evaluations
• Letters of Evaluation
• Dept A&P Narrative
• A&P Voting
• Faculty Affairs Staff Pages
• OAPD Faculty Workshops
• Leadership & Development Seminars
• List of Faculty Mentors
• Incoming Faculty Orientation
• Faculty Onboarding
• Past YSM Award Recipients
• Past PA Award Recipients
• Past YM Award Recipients
• International Award Recipients
• Nominations Calendar
• OAPD Newsletter
• Fostering a Shared Vision of Professionalism
• Academic Integrity
• Addressing Professionalism Concerns
• Consultation Support for Chairs & Section Chiefs
• Policies & Codes of Conduct
• First Fridays
• Fund for Physician-Scientist Mentorship
• Grant Library
• Grant Writing Course
• Mock Study Section
• Research Paper Writing
• Establishing a Thriving Research Program
• Funding Opportunities
• Join Our Voluntary Faculty
• Child Mental Health: Fostering Wellness in Children
• Faculty Resources
• Research by Keyword
• Research by Department
• Research by Global Location
• Translational Research
• Research Cores & Services
• Program for the Promotion of Interdisciplinary Team Science (POINTS)
• CEnR Steering Committee
• Experiential Learning Subcommittee
• Goals & Objectives
• Issues List
• Print Magazine PDFs
• Print Newsletter PDFs
• YSM Events Newsletter
• Social Media
• Patient Care

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

Research Strategic Planning

In 2018, the University Science Strategy Committee identified the most promising opportunities for university-wide investment across scientific disciplines. Building on this effort in 2020, Yale School of Medicine has developed a strategic plan for scientific research that aligns with the broader plan and builds on key strengths in the school.

The plan recommends three areas for cross-cutting themes, eight focused areas of research, and ongoing investments in institutional infrastructure essential to meet this vision.

Table of Contents

• Cross-cutting themes
• Focused areas of research
• Institutional infrastructure
• Download YSM's Research Strategic Planning report as pdf

Cross-Cutting Themes

Data science - 2020 plan.

• Create a new section/department in biomedical informatics and data science as a home for faculty experts in all areas ranging from clinical informatics to bioinformatics and data science
• Expand in areas that may include Biomedical/health record data, Image processing, or Next generation “omics”
• Develop infrastructure for core support in this area

Data Science - Progress

• The section of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science was created with Lucila Ohno-Machado, MD PhD , as the first chair and also Deputy Dean for Biomedical Informatics
• This work is ongoing with several recent faculty recruitments into BIDS as well as new hires. Ohno-Machado is leading efforts to build new computing infrastructure and data workflow.

Team Science - 2020 Plan

• Set up organizational structure to facilitate teams in large initiatives/team science
• Provide pilot funding program to support nascent teams to develop high impact projects
• Facilitate exposure of faculty new to the YSM and Yale community via research-in-progress presentations and networking

Team Science - Progress

• Created the Office of Team Science , led by Kakie Mashburn , to facilitate the organization of large grant submissions by teams.
• Provided pilot funding to 10 projects for $200k via our program for the promotion of interdisciplinary team science (POINTS) program .
• Young “rising star” faculty have presented to the YSM leadership group in monthly meetings.

Support for Graduate Students & Postdocs - 2020 Plan

• Create new opportunities for endowed slots for students and postdocs
• Create new paths for training PhD students in clinical departments
• Enhance postdoctoral training
• Expand and enhance our culture of inclusive excellence

Support for Graduate Students & Postdocs - Progress

• All new fundraising initiatives include requests for endowed student slots.
• YSM has also covered >30 unbudgeted PhD students on an annual basis.
• Megan King, PhD and Dick Kibbey, MD, PhD have been tapped to lead the new PhD Program in Translational Biomedicine (PTB) .
• Developed a process for faculty in clinical departments to be directly appointed as trainers by the Graduate School.
• The clinical departments have been proactive in requesting the addition of pre-doctoral slots to long-standing post-doctoral T32 training programs.
• Erin Heckler, PhD has been recruited to Direct the new Office of Postdoctoral Affairs , supported by Faculty Director Elias Lolis, PhD . In addition to improvements to recruitment and process, the office has rolled out wholesale programs to advance career development, led by Victoria Hallinan, PhD .
• Through the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion we support several initiatives to support our PhD students and postdocs .

Focused Areas of Research

Inflammation - 2020 plan, inflammation - progress.

• Launched the Center for infection and Immunity , under the direction of Akiko Iwasaki, PhD .
• Launching the Tananbaum Center for Theoretical and Analytical Human Biology under the direction of Ruslan Medzhitov, PhD .

Single Cell Biology--2020 Plan

• Build on strengths in nuclear cell biology, epigenetics, and single cell biology
• Recruit cohort with a concentration of expertise in single cell biology
• Support groups already working together on program project-type applications
• Synergize with investments in key technologies and data science
• Seize opportunities for collaborative team projects that span departments and disciplines

Single Cell Biology - Progress

• Centrally supported single cell users group meets regularly and started an annual symposium in 2021. View the agenda from the heavily-attended 2022 annual symposium on single cell approaches .
• Developed core services for key technologies in the single cell space and are currently piloting several leading/bleeding edge new technologies for single cell ‘omics and multi-omics

Metabolism - 2020 Plan

• Establish the Yale Center for Molecular & Systems Metabolism
• Integrate with Diabetes Research Center, Liver Center, and Vascular Biology & Therapeutics

Metabolism - Progress

• Established the Yale Center for Molecular & Systems Metabolism with Anton Bennett, PhD as the inaugural director. Two new recruits join the center in the fall of 2023.
• Key faculty from across the school, including the Diabetes Research Center , Liver Center , and Vascular Biology & Therapeutics , have joined the center to broaden and deepen collective knowledge and research areas .

Developmental Brain Disorders - 2020 Plan

• Bring together strength distributed across many departments and centers

Developmental Brain Disorders - Progress

• One multi-disciplinary team received a POINTS award for a team-based effort to understand how genes underlying neurodevelopmental disorders impact brain circuit development and function.
• Center for Brain & Mind Health established
• Multiple collaboration initiatives in progress

Health Equity Research - 2020 Plan

• Leverage appointment of Marcella Nunez-Smith, MD, MHS, as inaugural associate dean of health equity research to coordinate efforts across the school and create common tools
• Enhance positions in YCCI and Yale Cancer Center devoted to health equity research
• Support the SEICHE Center for Health and Justice (Yale School of Medicine plus Yale Law School)
• Include as a targeted area for cluster hiring in our FIRST Award application

Health Equity Research - Progress

• Marcella Nunez-Smith, MD, MHS has leadership positions in both the Yale Center for Clinical Investigation (the Yale CTSI) and the Yale Cancer Center (NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center) with infrastructure in both to enhance career development and pilot funding in health equity research .
• New funding has been successfully obtained to develop methodologies to enhance diverse participation in clinical trials through decentralization and other approaches.

Technology and Biomedical Engineering - 2020 Plan

• Facilitate joint hires in data science, biomedical engineering, and computer science
• Recruit faculty in cutting edge technologies (mass spec, FIB-SEM, imaging)

Technology and Biomedical Engineering - Progress

• Made first fully joint appointment between Computer Science and Genetics .
• Recruited C. Shan Xu, PhD and Song Pang to lead new initiative in FIB-SEM .
• Held Dean’s Workshop on promising new approaches in mass spectrometry
• Several recent hires in mass spectrometry

Biomedical & Biological Imaging - 2020 Plan

• Recruit new PET Center director; continue the transformative initiative that the PET Center has been, and simultaneously enhance its service role
• Organize and brand an umbrella center to facilitate collaboration and serve as a home for program/center grants and training grants
• Identify opportunities to better connect biomedical and basic biological imaging (example: FIB-SEM)

Biomedical & Biological Imaging - Progress

• Recruited Georges El-Fakhri as new head of PET Center .
• Fib-Sem Collaboration Core (F-SCC) created
• Strategic planning with key stakeholders begins Fall, 2023
• Work is ongoing

Translational Medicine/Clinical Trials - 2020 Plan

Translational medicine/clinical trials - progress.

• A YCCI team has been formed to address the diversity of clinical trials and has successfully received major funding to explore new templates from FDA and PhRMA Foundation
• A new Faculty Advisory Committee for YCCI has been formed and a strategic planning process will move forward in fall 2023.

Institutional Infrastructure

Office of team science - 2020 plan, biorepository - 2020 plan, biorepository - progress.

• Created YSM Biobank , a coordinated biorepository that allows for the alignment of collected tissue, plasma, serum and genetic samples, and clinical data, using common processes and information systems. Led by Chen Liu, MD, PhD.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Big Lie of Strategic Planning

• Roger L. Martin

A detailed plan may be comforting, but it’s not a strategy.

Reprint: R1401F

Strategy making forces executives to confront a future they can only guess at. It’s not surprising, then, that they try to make the task less daunting by preparing a comprehensive plan for how the company will achieve its goal. But good strategy is not the product of endless research and modeling; it’s the result of a simple process of thinking through how to hit a target and whether it’s realistic to try. Discomfort is part of the process. If you are entirely comfortable, you’re probably stuck in one or more of the following traps.

Strategic planning.

Planning arguably makes for more thorough budgets, but it must not be confused with strategy.

Cost-based thinking.

Costs lend themselves wonderfully to planning, because the company controls them. But for revenue, customers are in charge. Planning can’t make revenue magically appear.

Self-referential strategy frameworks.

Even managers who avoid the first two traps may end up using a framework that leads them to design a strategy entirely around what the company controls.

A company can avoid those traps by focusing on customers, recognizing that strategy is about making bets, and articulating the logic behind strategic choices.

All executives know that strategy is important. But almost all also find it scary, because it forces them to confront a future they can only guess at. Worse, actually choosing a strategy entails making decisions that explicitly cut off possibilities and options. An executive may well fear that getting those decisions wrong will wreck his or her career.

• Roger L. Martin is a former dean of the Rotman School of Management, an adviser to CEOs, and the author of A New Way to Think (Harvard Business Review Press, 2022).

Partner Center

Research Strategic Plan

In 2019, the Department of Medicine invested considerable effort and resources to devising a strategic plan that will provide a roadmap for our research mission today and into the future.

This work was guided by a Research Planning Committee that convened throughout the first half of 2019, reviewing the current state of research in the Department, generating recommendations for strengthening our research efforts, and developing the following plan. Many of our faculty and research administrators participated and contributed ideas as part of this process—through interviews, a survey, and robust discussions at the 2019 Research Retreat.

The result of this combined effort is the clear, direct, ambitious, and ultimately achievable research strategic plan that follows.

We identified five strategies for achieving our vision.

We will foster the success of our current faculty by enhancing our faculty development, mentoring, and funding programs while also strengthening the pipeline of the next generation of outstanding investigators in Medicine.

Lead: Andrew Alspaugh, MD

Initiatives:

• Strengthen faculty career development programs (Xunrong Luo, Matthew Crowley)
• Build a diverse and inclusive Department of Medicine (Laura Svetkey, Julius Wilder)
• Foster a culture of outstanding mentorship in the Department (Alspaugh, Cathleen Colon-Emeric)
• Expand physician-scientist recruitment and programmatic support (Rodger Liddle, Matt Hirschey)
• Launch a Department partnership hires program (Xunrong Luo, Chris Holley)
• Expand cadre of independent PhD investigators (Scott Palmer, Amy Porter-Tacoronte)

We will enhance our partnerships with other departments, centers, institutes, schools, and programs across Duke University.

Lead:  David Simel, MD, vice chair for veterans affairs

• Duke Clinical Research Institute
• Duke Cancer Institute
• Durham VA Medical Center
• Duke Molecular Physiology Institute
• Pratt School of Engineering and MEDx
• Duke Human Vaccine Institute
• Duke Global Health Institute
• Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine

We will solidify a leadership position in data science by leveraging the clinical disease expertise of our faculty; building our data assets; and improving our data collection, storage and analytics resources.

Lead: Chetan Patel, MD, vice chair for clinical affairs

• Cultivate DOM data assets into open science platform
• Augment biostatistics & bioinformatics resources
• Create new leadership role for data science
• Implement learning health units
• Continue implementation of Science Culture and Accountability Plan

We will foster a community and culture of rich scientific investigation by making research easier while achieving the highest levels of research integrity.

Lead: Erica Malkasian

• Provide outstanding grants and administrative support to investigators
• Position Duke as a leader in site-based research
• Develop next-generation biorepository capabilities
• Catalyze innovation and entrepreneurship
• Expand international research efforts

We will invest in emerging research content and method areas that leverage our strengths and address important unmet patient-centered medical needs.

Lead: Heather Whitson, MD

Cross-cutting themes:

• Immunology, inflammation & fibrosis
• Aging, resilience & pain
• Energy, obesity & metabolic disease
• Precision medicine
• Population health & disparities research

To learn more about our research strategies and initiatives, contact

• Scott Palmer, MD, MHS, Vice Chair for Research
• Saini Pillai, MBA, Senior Program Coordinator, Research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Oncol Pract
• v.5(3); 2009 May

Strategic Planning: Why It Makes a Difference, and How to Do It

Short abstract.

Take action before problems reach crisis level. Strategic planning provides the structure to make day-to-day decisions that follow a larger vision, creates a direction for your practice, and maximizes your options for influencing your environment.

In oncology practice, where dramatic changes in reimbursement, technology, and the marketplace are just a few of the driving forces, “the future,” as Yogi Berra once said, “ain't what it used to be.” You may not be able to control the future, but strategic planning can create a direction for your practice and maximize your options for influencing your environment. Without it, your group will likely take action only to address immediate problems—a kind of crisis management approach. Strategic planning gives a practice the structure to make day-to-day decisions that follow a larger vision. This article presents the principles of strategic planning and outlines processes that your practice can adapt for short- or long-term planning. Strategic decision making is needed now more than ever for success in oncology practice.

A strategic plan is a tool that moves your practice toward a goal you have set. However, the definition of a strategic plan differs among different people, according to management consultant Teri Guidi, MBA. Guidi, chief executive officer of Oncology Management Consulting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, points out that although there is “no wrong idea” of what a strategic plan encompasses, people often do have misconceptions about it. “Some expect a strategic plan to be precise—it's not. Some think that it will take you forward forever—it won't. The biggest mistake people make is already having the end result in mind when they start.”

Of all the compelling reasons for your group to engage in strategic planning, perhaps the most critical is the speed at which forces in your environment are changing. “Physicians who try to keep practicing as they have in the last five years will be at a disadvantage,” says Dawn Holcombe, MBA, president of DGH Consulting in South Windsor, Connecticut. “The world swirling around oncologists is changing, and things they may not even know about will affect their practice.”

Engaging in the process of strategic planning has benefits in addition to the plan that comes out of it. For starters, having everyone in the same room fosters collegiality and creates a milieu in which you can focus on the direction of your practice, away from patient care and other duties. In addition, the process promotes the open and creative exchange of ideas, including putting disagreements on the table and working out effective solutions.

Short- and Long-Term Planning

Establishing the direction of your practice and identifying overarching goals provide the foundation for strategic planning, whether short or long term. In the field of health care today, a long-term plan will likely address no more than the next 3 years. After the strategic course is determined in the initial planning session, the group should meet at least annually. During these sessions, the partners should revisit the practice goals, update the environmental assessment with new data, and identify strategies needed to address issues that will arise within the next 12 months. For example, as the retirement of one or more partners approaches, a succession plan may need to be developed (as described in related article on page 136). Meanwhile, growth in patient volume may call for recruitment strategies for both physicians and midlevel providers.

Should You Use a Consultant?

Although use of an outside facilitator entails expense, turning to a strategic planning professional has a number of advantages that can contribute greatly to success, especially if you are undertaking strategic planning for the first time. A professional has done this before—many times—and thus can direct the process efficiently. He or she knows how to collect and analyze diverse information—opinions, practice data, and market reports, for example—and present it in a concise way, thereby saving you and your administrator many hours of work. As a moderator, a consultant knows how to keep a group moving forward, prevent it from getting bogged down in side issues, and objectively help participants resolve disagreements and develop effective solutions.

Perhaps the biggest value added by a consultant is guidance in assessing your environment. A well-qualified strategic planning consultant should have a thorough and current knowledge of national trends in medicine as well as detailed knowledge about oncology practice. Regarding your community, although your group naturally knows the local marketplace well, an outsider can provide a fresh and objective perspective; in fact, the familiarity of physicians with the local scene may create blind spots. Similarly, in assessing the strengths and limitations of a group, a consultant can contribute objectivity and should be able to provide national benchmarks for objective comparison.

In choosing a consultant, look for an individual or firm that will contribute valuable knowledge about national reimbursement, patient care, and business initiatives and trends affecting oncology practice. Many management consultant firms offer strategic planning services, but you will be best served by a consultant who has worked with physician practices and has significant recent experience with oncology practice.

Scheduling a Strategic Planning Session: Who, When, and Where

Just as there is no one way to define strategic planning, there is no single way of doing it. Examples and guidelines are presented here that you may draw on to implement a process that makes sense for your practice.

The decision makers of the practice should be the ones who conduct strategic planning. If your practice is so large that including all partners could make a meeting unwieldy, it might make sense to have a smaller group, such as the executive board, do the planning. In addition to shareholders, you may want physician associates and key managers to participate. Inclusion of individuals who are not partners, at least for some parts of the meeting, may also have advantages. This can foster buy-in to the strategic direction, thereby contributing to the success of the resulting action plan. The oncology group at the Toledo Clinic, a large multispecialty center in Toledo, Ohio, found it beneficial to include the executive director of the clinic. By participating, the director gained valuable insight into the special administrative and practice needs of oncology.

Setting aside at least one day for strategic planning is recommended, especially if this is the first time your group has undertaken it. Distribute an agenda ahead of time, and use a moderator to keep the meeting on track. The location should be comfortable and private. The participants must be able to focus solely on strategic planning, without interruption, so arrange to have patient-related calls covered. Members of the Toledo Clinic used a consultant to guide them through strategic planning, and the consultant facilitated a one-day retreat at a country club. The meeting began around 9 am , after physician rounds, and the nurse practitioners of the group provided patient coverage. Other oncology groups may have conference space available in their office. A half-day meeting can be adequate for groups that have been doing strategic planning for many years.

Starting Point: Mission and Values

Developing a mission statement for your practice—a statement of its basic purpose—is the first step of strategic planning and provides the foundation for the entire process. You may think that putting your mission in writing is a bureaucratic waste of time, but in fact, determining how to articulate your mission is a productive experience. It sets the stage for later prioritization, and the process compels the shareholders to reflect on and express the purpose of the practice. Is providing high-quality care to patients with cancer your entire mission? What about research? Does your practice have a mission to serve the community through education? Answering questions such as these helps spell out the core mission of the group.

Once you succinctly define the mission of your organization, you should develop value statements expressing your core beliefs regarding issues such as patient care, interaction with the community, and how members of the practice work together. In the framework of a traditional strategic plan, the mission statement is concisely expressed in not more than one or two sentences, with value statements articulated separately. However, some organizations combine the mission and values into a narrative of one or more paragraphs. The format used is inconsequential; most important is that your group express the enduring elements of your practice, which will form the foundation on which the practice direction and strategies are expounded.

For a practice that is hospital based or part of a larger organization, the mission and values of the group should be consistent with those of the larger organization. Your group may want to state its own distinct mission or simply adopt that of the larger organization, as did the group of nine oncologists affiliated with the Toledo Clinic. “In practices like ours, which are within a larger organization, it's important to support the larger organization's mission,” says Peggy Barton, group manager. “It could lead to confusion if the broad organization and the practice are going in different directions.”

Vision: Where Do You Want to Go?

With the mission and values defined, the next step for the group is determining what kind of practice you want in the future. Again, the words of Yogi Berra apply: “If you don't know where you're going, you'll wind up somewhere else.” A vision statement—whether just a few words or a longer document—creates the desired image of the future state of your practice. Do you want to be recognized for treatment of a certain type of cancer? Is your vision to be the leader in clinical research in your state? Do you want to grow larger and have a network of practice sites? The vision of the group must complement your practice environment, so you may find that your review of internal and external information (described in SWOT Analysis) leads you to revise your vision statement to some extent as you continue planning strategically.

The vision statement for your group should be painted in broad strokes, not in detail, and it should represent the end point, not the strategy for achieving it. For example, your vision may be to provide multidisciplinary services to your community, but your vision statement would not include a specific strategy, such as merging with a certain radiology group or recruiting two physicians. When developing a vision statement, an atmosphere of openness should prevail to encourage creativity and thinking beyond current boundaries.

As in all stages of strategic planning, disagreements may surface. “Different opinions about the direction of a practice are very healthy,” says Guidi. “The ideas might be in conflict, but getting them out on the table helps [you] to see what is really important.”

Barton agrees. “One purpose of the strategic planning meeting was to get everyone in the room at the same time to identify where we agree and disagree and to reach compromise. The process encouraged input from everyone, and the group made some important decisions that have helped them over the past year.”

SWOT Analysis

The SWOT analysis—an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of your practice—is a staple of strategic planning. This analysis uses a mix of quantitative and qualitative information, most of which should be gathered and analyzed before the planning meeting. The process for gathering information and performing a SWOT analysis varies greatly, and there is no single correct method. The size of the group, the frequency of strategic planning meetings, and how fast changes are taking place both nationally and locally are all significant factors affecting the process.

Internal Assessment: Strengths and Weaknesses

In identifying internal strengths and weaknesses, include hard data such as the number of new consults, cost of drugs per full-time-equivalent physician, and financial reports. It is useful to benchmark aspects of the quality and efficiency of the practice against data on other oncology practices (Sources for Benchmarking Data provides references for locating this information).

If possible, investigate the perceptions of individuals outside the practice—patients, hospital administrators, and referring physicians, for example. A consultant naturally has an advantage in gathering candid assessments from such individuals, unless an anonymous survey is used. How others view the practice can be critical to performing an accurate SWOT analysis, as demonstrated in an experience reported by consultant Guidi. In one practice that had rather long wait times, the physicians believed that the patients did not mind, because “they know that when it's their turn, they'll get just as much attention as the patient before.” But the patients interviewed by Guidi cited long wait times as a top complaint and said they would mention it to others considering the practice for treatment.

Gather qualitative information and opinions from physicians and staff. What do they see as the top issues facing the practice, and what do they consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of the practice? These perspectives can be provided during the meeting, but it is useful to collect information ahead of time, so a larger group can be polled, and anonymity can be assured. Holcombe distributes a questionnaire to solicit information from each physician and also interviews key individuals. Her summary is then reviewed and discussed during the strategic planning retreat.

Sources for Benchmarking Data

• ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI). http://qopi.asco.org
• Medical Group Management Association: Performance and practices of successful medical groups. www.mgma.com/surveys or call 877-275-6462
• American College of Physicians: Practice management check up: Examining the business health of your practice. www.acponline.org/pmc/new_checkup.htm
• Akscin J, Barr TR, Towle EL: Benchmarking practice operations: Results from a survey of office-based oncology practices. J Oncol Pract 3:9-12, 2007
• Akscin J, Barr TR, Towle EL: Key practice indicators in office-based oncology practices: 2007 report on 2006 data. J Oncol Pract 3:200-203, 2007
• Barr TR, Towle EL, Jordan W: The 2007 National Practice Benchmark: Results of a national survey of oncology practices. J Oncol Pract 4:178-183, 2008

Oncology Associates in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, uses its face-to-face planning meeting to share personal perspectives about the practice. The group is small—currently five oncologists—and has been doing strategic planning for many years. SWOT data for analysis is gathered ahead of time, but at the beginning of the meeting, each physician discusses how he feels about his own practice, including his workload, his satisfaction with the schedule, and other aspects of practice. “With everyone in the room, they all hear each other's perspective, which helps later on when we are talking about the practice as a whole and making decisions about issues such as expanding services or recruiting a new provider,” says Carole Dzingle, practice manager.

A third method is used at the Mark H. Zangmeister Center in Columbus, Ohio. The executive board of the 16-oncologist practice holds an annual strategic planning session. Glenn Balasky, executive director, obtains input from six or seven staff managers and works with the managing partner to complete a SWOT analysis that is presented at the meeting.

External Assessment: Opportunities and Threats

Data about the marketplace of the practice, such as demographics, economic trends, referral patterns, and competition, should be analyzed in light of whether they represent threats or opportunities. In addition to the local picture, the broader environment, including the regional health care system and approaching changes in reimbursement and regulation, should also be assessed. Although the physicians and staff in some groups stay abreast of local, regional, and national trends, a consultant knowledgeable about oncology market forces is often needed to provide an analysis of the environment. The Toledo Clinic found the report on the national picture prepared by the consultant significantly helpful.

Some groups work to keep up with trends on their own through active involvement in state and national oncology societies. The physicians of Oncology Associates are active in ASCO as well as in the Iowa Oncology Society, and the staff managers are involved with organizations such as the Association of Community Cancer Centers and the Medical Group Management Association. Physicians and staff leaders at the Zangmeister Center are involved with the Community Oncology Alliance and other oncology organizations at both national and state levels, and each staff manager actively participates in a professional organization. Monitoring the environment takes energy and commitment, but it produces advantages, according to Balasky. “It pays off in the raw market intelligence we get, and we stay in touch continually rather than having a once-a-year report.”

Developing Strategies

Once a clear picture of the practice and its environment has been established, the group should develop strategic options for moving the practice from its current status toward the desired future position. Be alert to the pitfalls of discussing operational issues and trying to decide on tactics instead of identifying strategies. For example, a strategic decision may be to go forward with implementing an electronic medical record system, but the strategic planning meeting is not the place to discuss available systems, preferred data fields, or training required. Managing these kinds of details will be the responsibility of individuals assigned in the action plan.

In some cases, the SWOT analysis can reveal weaknesses that call for implementing one or more strategic priorities before pursuing others. Practices sometimes realize they need to create the infrastructure necessary to reach their goals. For example, they may not have systems in place to provide data that will be needed to remain competitive.

In other cases, the group may come up with many strategies that need to be prioritized during the meeting or at a subsequent meeting. To narrow down big lists, Guidi describes two approaches that work well when groups meet more than once. One mechanism she uses is to put all the strategies in writing after the first meeting; she then asks individuals via e-mail to score the importance, difficulty, and cost of each strategy on a scale of one to five. In another approach, after one or two brainstorming sessions, Guidi boils down the information to three or four overarching goals for additional discussion by the group. Guidi finds that several short strategic planning sessions are often more productive than is a full- or half-day retreat, and in the end, the shorter sessions call for about the same total hours of physician time.

More Information About Strategic Planning

• Soper WD: The meeting you won't want to miss: Annual strategic planning. www.aafp.org/fpm/20010200/28them.html
• Holcombe D: Strategic planning and retreats for practices. www.dghconsulting.net/images/holcombe_strategic_planning_0908.pdf
• McNamara C: Strategic planning (in nonprofit or for-profit organizations). www.managementhelp.org/plan_dec/str_plan/str_plan.htm

Action Plan

The outcome of developing strategies should be the prioritization of a few (ie, two to five) achievable strategies and creation of related action plans. Many strategic plans have faltered or failed because they were too ambitious or too complex. Do not try to take advantage of every opportunity or address every limitation identified in your SWOT analysis. Some goals may be important but can be scheduled for implementation in a year or two. By having an annual strategic planning meeting to update your plan, these goals will stay in sight and can be addressed successfully.

Create an action plan to address each strategic priority within the next 12 months. Spell out steps to be taken, who will have the lead responsibility, and the milestones that will show progress. For example, a strategy of adding midlevel providers might have a work plan with dates and assignments for finalizing a position description, creating a compensation package, recruiting, hiring, and conducting orientation. A strategy of building a new facility or merging with another practice will ultimately involve complex actions, but initially, the work plan might specify only the steps involved in finding and retaining a consultant to present a business plan by a certain date. Make sure the action plan is in a format that can and will be used by those with responsibility for implementation.

Communicate the strategic goals and action plan to all clinical and administrative staff. Everyone in the practice should know the goals and clearly understand his or her role in implementing strategies to achieve them. Effective communication and cultivation of a team culture are especially important if your strategic planning results in changes or begins moving the practice in a new direction.

Keep in mind that a strategic plan does not have to involve a lot of paperwork or a big report. The mission, values, and vision of the practice should be documented, and the group should revisit them at the beginning of subsequent strategic planning meetings to validate them or make revisions if appropriate. A summary of the SWOT analysis should be included, but this may be brief, with the data that went into it provided as appendices or even stored elsewhere while remaining easily available for updating. The action plan must be available for tracking progress. Your strategic plan must be a living document—a roadmap that guides what happens in your practice on a day-to-day basis—not a report that sits on a shelf.

ORWH Launches Strategic Plan for Women’s Health Research

NIH’s Office of Research on Women’s Health (ORWH) unveiled the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for Research on the Health of Women 2024-2028 during National Women’s Health Week, marking a significant stride in NIH’s commitment to prioritize and advance research on women’s health. 

In a video announcing the new plan, NIH Director Dr. Monica Bertagnolli underscores the pivotal roles of NIH and ORWH in elevating women’s health research. She emphasizes the significance of ensuring access to research and its benefits for all individuals. The plan’s release coincides with a pivotal moment for women’s health research, aligning with the recent White House Executive Order on Advancing Women’s Health Research and Innovation. 

The plan outlines five goals to guide and inform NIH-supported research on women’s health over the next five years, leveraging a data-driven, iterative approach with robust community input. ORWH developed the comprehensive plan with contributions from various stakeholders, including representatives from NIH institutes, centers and offices; and federal and community partners. 

Recognizing the critical roles sex and gender play in research, the plan emphasizes the importance of understanding and addressing disparities in disease prevalence and severity affecting women uniquely. The plan also underscores NIH’s commitment to advancing the careers of women in biomedical research. By fostering a supportive environment and investing in workforce development initiatives, NIH aims to empower women scientists who can help pave the way for groundbreaking discoveries in women’s health. 

To watch the video announcement, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W9lWlGsI_Q . For plan details, visit https://go.nih.gov/1c2W5qv .

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

About the National Institute of Justice

Check out the nij 2023 year in review.

Animation shows NIJ's listen, learn, and inform model.

NIJ is the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice.

We are dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science. We provide objective and independent knowledge and tools to inform the decision-making of the criminal and juvenile justice communities to reduce crime and advance justice, particularly at the state and local levels.

We accomplish our mission through the "Listen, Learn, Inform" model — we "listen" to the needs of the field; "learn" ways to meet those needs by funding research, development, and evaluation projects; and then "inform" the field of what we learned. Download and share a handout .

Improving our ability to understand and respond to crime and justice challenges begins with listening to the people closest to the issue — community members, crime survivors, criminal justice practitioners, people who have experienced incarceration, and business leaders. Input about crime control and prevention successes, failures, and needs gathered directly from these groups and researchers helps guide our research investments and standards development.

The research objectives for each of NIJ’s portfolios are determined also by:

• Existing research.
• The successes and struggles of programs undertaken by other federal agencies, including other Office of Justice Programs bureaus and offices.
• Administration priorities.

Learn more:

• Identifying the Technology Needs of Public Safety Agencies .
• Research Meetings and Workshops .
• Forensic Science Technology Working Group: Operational Requirements .
• Developing Technology Standards .

We invest in research across scientific disciplines to provide evidence-based knowledge to strengthen the justice system. Researchers, students, and justice professionals have the opportunity to apply for research and development funding through NIJ solicitations, fellowships, and challenges.

To support our strategic and overarching research goals, we develop strategic research plans on topics within crime and justice that span our three science offices. These plans build off of existing research; input from practitioners, policymakers, and researchers; and the priorities of Congress and the Administration.

We use two main mechanisms to implement research: funding external research and conducting intramural research.

Throughout this process, we follow widely accepted scientific processes and procedures to help ensure the validity and integrity of our research.

• Lists of current and past funded projects .
• Forthcoming , Current , and Expired solicitations.
• Strategic Research Plans .
• Strategic Challenges and Research Agenda .
• NIJ's Research and Development Process .
• Research Validity and Integrity .

NIJ’s scientific investments inform the national conversation on issues of criminal and juvenile justice and public safety. Evidence-based knowledge can lead to more effective justice policy and practices, new technologies, and better scientific techniques. We are committed to providing the justice community with the knowledge and tools necessary to reduce crime and advance justice.

The results of research projects are evaluated by external peer reviewers and NIJ’s own science staff.

After NIJ has evaluated the results of the funded research, it is disseminated through multiple channels as part of our mission to (1) give policymakers and practitioners the best available evidence to make decisions and (2) build knowledge that advances both science and practice.

In addition, awardees and NIJ scientists are encouraged and expected to publish results of their work in peer-reviewed journals.

Data resulting from research typically is submitted to National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. Making data available allows researchers to test each other's conclusions and possibly provide new conclusions.

NIJ-funded program evaluations also may be reviewed, rated, and posted to CrimeSolutions — an NIJ-funded project that uses rigorous research to determine what works, what doesn’t, and what’s promising.

We also strive to ensure eligible entities take advantage of our laboratory enhancement programs and the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs).

• Publications .
• Datasets resulting from NIJ-funded research .
• Program and Practice Ratings on CrimeSolutions .
• National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

Why and How — Strategic Planning and the Research and Development Process

Our long-term research agenda is founded on these strategic challenges. At the heart of our planning process is the need to balance the state of current research knowledge with the pressing needs of criminal justice practitioners and policymakers.

Learn about our Strategic Challenges and Research Agenda .

Our research and development process helps ensure that projects are relevant to the field and produce valid, actionable results.

Learn about our Research and Development Process .

• Kansas State University
• K-State Online

Status of ITS resources

• » Division of Communications and Marketing
• » K-State Today
• » From Provost Mendez: Next-Gen K-State strategic enrollment planning initiative launched

K-State Today

• Current Issue

Other publications

• K-State Olathe newsletter
• Global Campus' WorldWide Wildcats
• K-State Research and Extension newsletter

Other resources

• In the news
• Job opportunities
• Professional development
• Wildcat Watch

June 5, 2024

• From Provost Mendez: Next-Gen K-State strategic enrollment planning initiative launched

Submitted by Jesse Perez Mendez

Dear colleagues, 

As K-State continues to implement key elements of the Next-Gen K-State strategic plan , the university is acutely focused on the work needed to support the achievement of two strategic imperatives: Growing our total student enrollment to 30,000 learners by 2030 and making meaningful improvements in our graduation and retention rates across all student populations. Coupled with this growth in headcount will be an increased focus on opportunities to grow net tuition revenue — a key revenue source for the university. 

As part of this important work, the Office of the Provost is partnering with a dedicated team of enrollment experts at Huron Consulting Group to support the development a new comprehensive five-year strategic enrollment plan. Our goal is to have the new plan in place in October 2024, with work taking place over the summer and into the fall. 

The strategic enrollment plan will be directly informed by the imperatives in the Next-Gen K-State strategic plan and will focus on further refining priorities and year-over-year enrollment goals for all student and learner populations. The plan will outline specific strategies and tactics that support our ability to achieve 2025 and 2030 enrollment, retention and graduation rate success metrics and to realize additional tuition revenue.

While the university's most recent strategic enrollment plan, implemented beginning in 2018, was primarily focused on undergraduate students, this planning initiative will take a more comprehensive, integrated approach, in line with the operational excellence framework and provost's office organizational redesign . The objectives of this planning process include:

• To facilitate a data-informed assessment and conversations on the current state of Kansas State University's enrollment and retention, focused on identifying areas of opportunity across undergraduate, graduate and alternative credential-seeking learners, inclusive of online students and all other populations.
• To develop a comprehensive, five-year strategic enrollment plan to define and drive institutional priorities for student/learner enrollment. 
• To establish a planning and implementation structure and associated working groups to develop the strategic enrollment plan and subsequently drive its execution.

Initial work is already underway, including data collection that will inform the current state diagnostic work and interviews with university leaders and their teams engaged in enrollment work. A strategic enrollment planning structure has been put into place, including an executive planning committee, four advisory planning groups and a data and information collection team. The Huron team will work in close consultation with all these groups as well as the Deans Council. 

The executive planning committee will provide guidance throughout the planning process and help set forth the strategic priorities and critical enablers that will help drive enrollment growth, tuition revenue generation and student success at K-State. 

The four advisory groups include university leaders from both central and academic units who have deep contextual knowledge and functional responsibility for K-State's current enrollment, retention and student success environment. These groups will help the Huron team build out initiatives and action items, bringing their expertise and knowledge of the effort necessary to implement any recommended initiatives related to enrollment and net tuition revenue growth. The advisory planning groups are:

• Undergraduate, inclusive of transfer and international
• Graduate, inclusive of international
• K-State Online, primarily fully online students across our campuses, inclusive of undergraduate and graduate
• Retention and Student Success, inclusive of undergraduate and graduate

The data and information collection team provides data, information and documentation to support diagnostic assessment of our current strategic enrollment environment and the development of the comprehensive strategic enrollment plan.

I thank the more than 40 K-Staters who have already begun the work of supporting the planning process. To be successful, we will also need to hear from many of you across our university community to ensure all voices and perspectives are represented. This may take the form of focus groups, open forums and surveys, including a review process seeking K-State community feedback on the draft plan as we begin the fall semester.

I invite you to visit the strategic enrollment planning website to learn more about the planning process, where we are and what's next. Please send in questions or suggestions to [email protected] .

Our enrollment planning effort is a proactive response to an increasingly complex and competitive market for prospective students and learners at the undergraduate, graduate and alternative credential levels. Additionally, it responds to our need to improve our operational infrastructure to support larger student and learner populations and success outcomes related to retention, the student/learner experience, academic success and graduation rates.

Growing enrollment is a top priority for the university, and it's foundational to achieving our vision of becoming the next-generation land-grant university by 2030. It will require a fierce focus across the university. I am confident that together, we will create a plan to guide our actions and set a course for the coming years that will strengthen our enrollment and ensure we continue to serve the students of Kansas State University, both now and in the future. 

Go 'Cats, Jesse Perez Mendez Provost and executive vice president 

In this issue

From the provost.

• From Provost Mendez: Joining the K-State family

From the administration

• Inaugural cohort of University Outstanding Scholars announced

News and research

• K-State researchers announce clinical study for improved lung cancer treatment
• National Strategic Selling Institute awards $38,500 in student merit awards at annual benefit auction
• Men's and women's basketball season tickets are on sale now
• Attend candidate open forum for director of University Printing
• Attend Scheherazade Music Festival June 11-13
• 'Getting Started' webinars for incoming graduate students

Human resources, benefits and training

• Building Your Conflict Management Toolkit offered June 17
• Collaborative Communication for Supervisors offered June 17

Personnel changes

• Associate Registrar Susan Cooper retiring after 32 years of service

Health and safety

• Researchers asked to review inventories, notify university select agent program if using listed toxins

Kudos, publications and presentations

• K-State Salina faculty and staff members celebrated with annual awards
• HRIS, KSIS and DARS maintenance scheduled for June 9
• Enhance your Excel spreadsheets with tables, images and icons
• Statements and disclosures
• Manhattan, KS 66506
• 785-532-6011
• © Kansas State University
• Updated: 3/16/16