Strategic Planning Environment, Process and Performance in Public Agencies

Strategic Planning Environment, Process,
and Performance in Public Agencies:

A Comparative Study of Departments in
Milwaukee
Rebecca Hendrick
University of Illinois at Chicago
ABSTRACT
This research presents a theoretical framework for studying strategic planning in the public
sector that merges research on planning in the private sector and research on the differ-
ences between public and private organizations. The study identifies a set of variables rele-
vant to this framework and measures these variables for fourteen departments within the City
of Milwaukee using a wide range of survey questions that were tested and implemented in
extensive interviews. Correlations for these variables display consistent patterns that lend ev-
idence to key debates and direct future research in the field.
Since the 1980s governments at all levels of this country and others have been implement-
ing a series of related reforms that focus on making government more productive, respon-
sive, and focused on performance. For many governments the first stage of reform was
adopting “total quality management” or similar quality-focused innovations. Soon after-
ward governments began adopting other private-sector management practices such as strate-
gic planning, performance-based budgeting, cost accounting, and benchmarking under the
assumption that what works for business would work for government. However, numerous
scholars and practitioners have noted that significant differences exist between public and
private organizations that may preclude simply extrapolating these methods to the public
sector. At a minimum such differences may affect how the methods are implemented and,
possibly, their overall effectiveness (Bryson and Roering 1987; Nutt and Backoff 1993;
Ring and Perry 1985). Although there has been much empirical research in the past thirty
years on the effectiveness of strategic planning and how it is implemented in different en-
vironments, most studies focus on organizations in the private sector. Additionally, our the-
oretical and practical knowledge of this key reform in public organizations is primarily
defined by the case studies and descriptive surveys that constitute the majority of research
in this area (see, e.g., Berry and Wechsler 1995; Boston and Pallot 1997; Kissler et al. 1998;
Roberts and Wargo 1994; Streib 1989; Wheeland 1993).
If the academy is to help inform the debate on the public-sector reforms of the past
twenty years, we need to move our understanding of strategic management beyond knowl-
edge of how it functions in unique settings to broader-based knowledge of what works in a
DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mug031
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 491–519
© 2003 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.
492 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
range of settings. Such efforts will be facilitated if they are grounded in an accepted theo-
retical framework and are built on existing knowledge of strategic management in the pri-
vate sector. This study works toward fulfilling this larger agenda in two ways. First, it brings
together two strains of research to identify a theoretical framework within which to study
strategic planning in the public sector and a set of variables relevant to this framework. One
strain is represented by the wealth of empirical research on strategic planning and manage-
ment in the private sector. The other strain examines the differences between public- and
private-sector organizations.
Second, this research explores the application and possible relationships of key vari-
ables from this framework for fourteen departments in the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
which began implementing strategic planning at a citywide level in 1990 and the depart-
mental level in 1993. The primary purposes here are to pilot test a wide array of survey
questions and indexes and to provide preliminary information on the reasonableness of the
framework and theoretical constructs presented in step one. The survey was implemented
using focused interviews of key strategic planning personnel in all departments in the win-
ter of 1994–95, and a lengthy survey was administered through a second round of inter-
views with the same people in the winter of 1996–97. Although this research is clearly ex-
ploratory, the consistent patterns among some of the variables lend evidence to key debates
and propositions within the two strains of research and provide a good foundation for future
studies of strategic planning in government.
The next section presents the theoretical framework and summaries of relevant re-
search. Following sections present a brief history of strategic planning in Milwaukee and a
discussion of the survey, methodology, and findings.
ENVIRONMENT, PROCESS, AND IMPACT OF STRATEGIC PLANNING

Theoretical Underpinnings
The application and study of strategic planning and, more generally, strategic management
began with descriptive analyses of strategies, strategy formulation, and organizational envi-
ronment in private corporations in the early 1960s (Chandler 1962; Cyert and March 1963).
Essentially, strategic management is formalized strategic policy making that targets the or-
ganization’s primary tasks. The activity encompasses procedures for developing strategies
and monitoring their impact as feedback for the next round of planning, as well as broader
issues such as strategy implementation and strategic thinking. But the central focus of strate-
gic management is on planning or strategy making (Nutt and Backoff 1987). At its core
strategic planning requires that organizations establish objectives, scan the environment for
opportunities and threats, assess their capabilities, and match environmental opportunities
and threats to capabilities (Andrews 1980). Although the emphasis is on formal or structured
strategy making, these activities could be applied to any deliberate strategizing, as opposed
to emergent strategizing, taking place throughout an organization (Miller et al. 1996).
By the early 1970s researchers of planning were addressing whether there were signi-
ficant performance differences between firms engaged in formal planning and those that
were not (Harold 1972; Rue and Fulmer 1973). Other work in this area was more prescriptive
in proposing strategic management practices to improve corporate strategy development
and performance (for early examples, see Ansoff 1979; Mintzberg 1973, 1979). Since then
a great deal of empirical research has been conducted on how to classify strategic planning
Hendrick Strategic Planning Environment, Process, and Performance in Public Agencies 493
and management functions and the relationships among the context in which these func-
tions take place, the types of processes employed, and the impact of these activities on orga-
nizational performance (for reviews of this research, see Bourgeois 1980; Miller and Cardi-
nal 1994; Papadakis, Lioukas, and Chambers 1998; Pearce, Freeman, and Robinson 1987;
Ring 1989).
Underlying this research is a broader theoretical paradigm encompassing two processes
critical to this model: decision making or strategy making under uncertainty and adapta-
tion of the organization to its environment. With respect to decision making, strategic plan-
ning is characterized as structured problem solving by a group of individuals rather than
one person. According to this view, planning processes are often arrayed along various con-
tinuums, two of which are important here. One continuum reflects the methods of problem
solving as incremental versus synoptic. The second continuum, which is particularly rele-
vant to public organizations, refers to stakeholder participation in planning as integrative
versus exclusionary. Synoptic planning is more comprehensive, formal, and sophisticated,
but incremental planning tends to be simpler, less rational, and based more on trial and error.
Integrative approaches include a broader range of stakeholders from inside and outside the
organization throughout the planning process, which means that bargaining and agreement
can be an important factor in each stage of planning. In contrast, exclusionary approaches
concentrate planning among fewer people. The process may be centralized within top man-
agement or specialized to another part of the organization (Deyle 1994; Methe and Perry
1989; Toft 1989).
The adaptation dimension of this paradigm emphasizes that how an organization adapts
to its environment is contingent on that environment and the long-term interactions taking
place. Adaptation is defined by whether an organization’s structure fits its environment as it
moves through cycles of fit, environmental change, misfit, structural and procedural change,
and new fit. Also, the greater the fit between the organization’s environment and structure,
the better its performance. Applied to strategic planning, this conceptualization suggests
that if planning is to improve organizational performance, then the process should fit the en-
vironment or context within which planning occurs (Child 1972). Exactly how context,
planning process (or other organizational process), and organizational performance are
linked is the subject of some debate. Figure 1 (Boal and Bryson 1987, 213) presents the
range of possible relationships among the three conceptual areas that are being examined by
empirical research in this field. Although these relationships are not necessarily mutually ex-
clusive, type A specifies that context directly affects planning process, which directly affects
performance. Type B specifies that context and process may have joint or independent ef-
fects on performance. Type C, which is closest to the notion of environmental fit, specifies
that the relationship between process and performance is contingent on context.
One point of agreement in organizational and planning research is that organizational
adaptation is the result of managing uncertainty and the environment to achieve a wide
range of political and operational objectives. Thus, an organization in a rapidly changing en-
vironment would not benefit from a highly bureaucratic organizational structure (formal,
rigid, rule-based, and hierarchical) that would hinder internal change and responsiveness.
Similarly, an organization in a complex environment will tend to delegate decision making
to specialists and invest more in monitoring. In contrast, an organization in a threatening en-
vironment or under greater pressure will have more slack and tend to centralize authority
and decision making (Chakravarthy 1987; Donaldson 1996).
Applying the notion of environmental fit to problem solving and strategic planning
Figure 1
Possible Theoretical and Empirical Relationships among Conceptual Areas of Strategic Planning
A) Intervening & Direct Effects
CONTEXT PROCESS
P PERFORMANCE
P
B) Independent & Joint Effects
CONTEXT
PERFORMANCE
PROCESS
C) Interactive Effects
CONTEXT
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
suggests that organizations in more turbulent environments will tend to have less synoptic
and integrative approaches, and those in more complex environments will be more synop-
tic and specialized (which is also less integrative). Although uncertainty increases with en-
vironmental complexity and turbulence, it also is altered by how structured the organiza-
tion’s problems are (e.g., whether means-ends and cause-effect relationships are clear) and
how much information is available to the organization on its activities, environment, and
performance (Ring 1989). Given that the purpose of strategic planning is to reduce uncer-
tainty associated with ill-structured problems and a general lack of information and to in-
crease coordination, one might expect planning to be less synoptic but more integrative
when this type of uncertainty is high.
Figure 2 presents a diagram that conceptualizes the primary components of this theo-
retical paradigm and their relationships. The center of the planning system is the planning or
decision-making process, which often involves numerous stakeholders inside and outside
the organization. The uncertainty and perceptions of those involved, which are a function of
both the environment and the characteristics of the participants, are the most immediate fac-
tors affecting this process and the strategies it produces (Boulton et al. 1982; Deyle 1994;
Jauch and Kraft 1996; Papadakis, Lioukas, and Chambers 1998; Ring 1989). As an example,
consider two sets of planning participants in the same environment who have different lev-
els of familiarity and experience with strategic planning. In this case, one might expect to see
very different planning processes and strategies from each group (Simon 1969).
Additionally, the planning environment is conceptualized in two dimensions. One is in-
ternal to the organization and represents characteristics or features of the organization such
Figure 2
Detail of the Conceptual Areas of Strategic Planning
External Environment
Organization’s Internal Environment
Uncertainty S Organizational
a
t Performance
i Goal
s
Strategic Planning Process f
a Strategy
Success
c
t
i
o Organizational
& Perceptions n Performance
as its structure, technology, culture, capabilities of staff and management, leadership qual-
ities, and degree of internal change. The second dimension represents characteristics or fea-
tures that are external to the organization such as availability of resources, competitive pres-
sures, hostility, complexity, and turbulence or change. Features of both the internal and
external environments will affect the level of uncertainty decision makers face and, through
adaptation, the way in which planning occurs, who is involved in the process, and the prob-
lems it must focus on (Goll and Rasheed 1997; Grinyer, Al-Bazzaz, and Yasai-Ardedani
1986; McArthur and Nystrom 1991; Papadakis, Lioukas, and Chambers 1998; Yasai-
Ardedani and Haug 1997). Thus, a complex or rapidly changing organizational structure or
market is likely to increase uncertainty, which, in turn, may encourage more frequent and
shorter planning cycles in the long run.
The strategies developed through strategic planning are intended to help the organiza-
tion achieve its goals and solve problems in either environment. For instance, an organiza-
tion’s goal may be to improve coordination among mid-level managers or to obtain a higher
share of market sales. Although either of these objectives can be characterized as improv-
ing organizational performance, the former is associated more with improving strategic and
managerial capacity, which is an internal characteristic, than with the sales objective, which
focuses on changing the organization’s external environment. As indicated by figure 2, the
planning process may improve organizational performance directly and independently of the
strategies being developed. In this case the act of planning and strategizing may improve
communication, coordination, and shared vision within the organization even if the primary
purpose of strategic planning is to develop new marketing or sales strategies.
An important factor that can affect the impact of planning on organizational perform-
ance or strategy development is the participants’ satisfaction with the planning process and the
strategies it produces. Although satisfaction with planning is a perceptual feature that applies
to planning participants, it is often used as an indicator of planning impact or effectiveness.
In this case satisfaction with planning is considered to be a prior factor in organizational per-
formance or goal success; thus participants’ organizational performance is more likely to im-
prove and planning goals are more likely to be achieved if planning participants are satisfied
with the process (Boal and Bryson 1987; Nutt 1986; Simpson 1992). Finally, changes in or-
ganizational performance and the degree of success in achieving goals as a result of planning
and developing strategies are recognized by participants in future planning efforts, as is indi-
cated by the feedback loop in figure 2. In the long run, this continuous feedback provides the
mechanism by which an organization adapts its planning process to both the internal and the
external environments (Miller and Cardinal 1994; Ring 1989).
Evidence from the Private Sector

Although there is contrary evidence, research on planning in the private sector generally
supports the larger theory that the relationship between process and performance depends on
the environment (Chakravarthy 1987). Three related characteristics of the planning process—
formality, comprehensiveness, and rationality—have been examined extensively. These
characteristics are measured by features such as the extensiveness of the planning process,
the number of written documents used, and whether the firm has a regular planning sched-
ule. The conditions of formality, comprehensiveness, and rationality in planning also ap-
pear to improve performance overall, although the evidence for these claims is mixed
(Jones, Jacobs, and Spijker 1992; Miller and Cardinal 1994; Pearce, Freeman, and Robin-
son 1987; Smith et al. 1988). There is evidence, however, that such claims may be true for
organizations in stable and munificent (growing market) environments (Fredrickson 1984;
Fredrickson and Mitchell 1984; Goll and Rasheed 1997). This research focuses on other
contingent effects on the relationship between planning process and performance: firm size,
environmental complexity, and capital intensity (level of capital assets for production and
technology) (Grinyer, Al-Bazzaz, and Yasai-Ardedani 1986; Kukalis 1991). More gener-
ally, this research shows that firm performance depends more on planning process than on
environmental characteristics (Miller and Cardinal 1994).
Other research from this vein examines the direct effects of the environment on the plan-
ning process. The evidence is inconclusive regarding one prominent variable, organizational
size, and supports the claim that larger organizations use more rational, formal, and com-
prehensive planning processes (Fredrickson and Iaquinto 1989; Hickson et al. 1986). Other
research, however, shows that the relationship between size and planning depends on other
environmental characteristics—that larger organizations have more comprehensive, so-
phisticated, and formal planning processes only if they have more complex and stable en-
vironments (Grinyer, Al-Bazzaz, and Yasai-Ardedani 1986; Lindsay and Rue 1980). On one
hand, environmental complexity is associated with more extensive planning processes, more
frequent planning, greater involvement of top management, shorter planning horizons, less
reliance on planning specialists, and more resources devoted to planning (Kukalis 1991;
Yasai-Ardedani and Haug 1997). On the other hand, organizations in competitive environ-
ments have more top management involved in planning and shorter planning horizons, but
there is no difference in formality (Yasai-Ardedani and Haug 1997).
Organizations with core technologies that are more vulnerable to environmental
change, such as those in competitive environments, also have more sophisticated planning
processes, use longer planning horizons, devote more resources to planning, and are more
likely to delegate planning to specialists (Grinyer, Al-Bazzaz, and Yasai-Ardedani 1986;
Yasai-Ardedani and Haug 1997). Other researchers find that the nature of the decision prob-
lem (crisis, familiarity and uncertainty, expected impact of problem) alters the comprehen-
siveness, formality, centralization, lateral communication, and politicalization of the plan-
ning process (Papadakis, Lioukas, and Chambers 1998).
Evidence from the Public Sector

At this date much of the research on strategic planning and management in public organi-
zations is descriptive, so there is little agreement on what variables are important among the
three dimensions of environment, process, and performance or on how these dimensions
are likely to be related. More fundamentally, there is little evidence on whether strategic
planning is useful or effective in public organizations. Contrary to this trend, Bryson and his
colleagues utilize the private-sector approach and focus on the relationships among the three
dimensions in government and nonprofit organizations (see also Roberts 1993; Roberts and
Wargo 1994).
Although many variables examined by Bryson and others are very different from those
included in private-sector research, their overall findings are somewhat similar. They find
that context (environment) is not directly related to outcomes (performance) but that some
contextual factors make certain processes more likely and other factors moderate the rela-
tionship between context and process (Boal and Bryson 1987; Bryson and Bromiley 1993;
Bryson, Bromiley, and Jung 1990). Similar to the case in research on private-sector organ-
izations, comprehensiveness is an important process variable in the research done by Bryson
and his associates, but they define it very differently. Here, comprehensiveness consists of
three components: problem and solution identification, frequency of communication, and
use of a problem-solving framework. Other process variables such as level of communica-
tion, forcing of solutions, and degree compromise are also unique to this research. Some of
the contextual variables examined here, such as environmental stability, are the same for the
private sector; others, such as the skills of the planning staff, activation of affected groups,
and level of planning resources, are distinct. In this case the distinct variables are meant to
reflect possible differences between planning in the public and private sector, including
variations in the role of planning in the organization, its politicalization, and the degree of
innovation required to implement planning processes.
Differences between Public and Private Organizations

Although Bryson and associates’ research is a good start toward understanding the relation-
ships among planning, environment, and performance in public organizations, future re-
search in this area might benefit from more systematic examination of the differences be-
tween public and private organizations. Applied to the theoretical framework of private-sector
studies, these differences could help identify environmental and process variables that might
be critical to planning and performance in public organizations but irrelevant to private
organizations. Most of this literature is theoretical or conceptual, drawing primarily from
organization theory as well as political science and economics.
One of the earliest debates on the key differences between public and private organi-
zations that could affect strategic management in the public sector focuses on the openness
of government, the ambiguity of its policies, the greater attentiveness of its stakeholders, and
the tenuous nature of its coalitions (Ring and Perry 1985). Nutt and Backoff (1987, 1993)
claim that stakeholders are a critical difference between these sectors and that government
has a much broader scope of impact on its environment. Their research emphasizes the fol-
lowing points about public organizations. First, its goals are more vague, ambiguous, and
complex and often change, and information on achieving goals is weak or unavailable—as
is information about other aspects of its internal and external environment (Bozeman and
Bretschneider 1994).Second, its goals and operations have more external influence and con-
trol that is often broadly based, is more fragmented, and requires more interaction and co-
ordination with outside groups (Bozeman and Bretschneider 1994). Somewhat later, Nutt
and Backoff (1995) argue that the private-sector variables of market volatility and compe-
tition, which define environmental turbulence in those settings, should be replaced by the
need for action and responsiveness in public settings.
Perry and Rainey (1988) review thirty-two conceptual and empirical studies that focus
on the differences and similarities of organizations in these two sectors. In addition to the
items listed above, they note that governments tend to be more bureaucratic than private or-
ganizations. They define bureaucratic organizations as having more elaborate hierarchies and
greater centralization, rigidity, standardization, and formalization and as being more resistant
to change. The empirical studies they review also support arguments made by Nutt and Back-
off regarding the two key features of government noted above, but other studies by Rainey
and his colleagues are not as supportive of these claims. Their surveys of public managers’
perceptions and reviews of more current research do not show goals to be more vague and in-
formation to be less available in public organizations, and they only partially support the
claim that public organizations are subject to more external influence and control (Lan and
Rainey 1992; Rainey 1983; Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman 1995).
One important study that deserves mention here is by Hickson and associates (1986)
and compares sixty-five top decisions in thirteen public organizations with eighty-five top
decisions in seventeen private organizations. Hickson and others find that top decision mak-
ing in public organizations, such as policy decisions associated with strategic planning,
tends to be sporadic. Consistent with claims regarding the bureaucratization of the public
sector, they note that sporadic decision making takes more time, involves more informal
interactions, has more impediments, is based more on negotiation, and requires authoriza-
tion. Contrary to surveys of managers, however, they note that sporadic decision making
also uses less accurate information and tends to occur in environments that are more com-
plex (many components that are diverse and interdependent) and more political (contentious
and externally influenced).
Variables Relevant to the Public Sector

The relatively brief discussion of these three areas of research suggests a broad range of vari-
ables that might be examined in future research linking the dimensions of environment, strate-
gic planning process, uncertainty and perceptions, and the performance of public organiza-
tions. Figure 3 presents the theoretical constructs that are examined and evaluated within the
four dimensions for the fourteen departments in the City of Milwaukee. Although not com-
prehensive with respect to the entire range of variables, the constructs examined here consti-
tute factors that are important to all organizations and unique to those in the public sector.
Based on empirical research, it appears that one of the primary differences between pub-
lic and private organizations is the environmental dimension and conceptual area. Externally,
public organizations may face more diverse pressures and greater control by outside groups
Figure 3
Constructs Examined in the Primary Conceptual Areas of Strategic Planning
Strategic Environmental
Planning Context
Process
• Rationality / Comprehensiveness Internal Environment

- Process: methods & tools, frequency • Dynamism/Turbulence
of review and monitoring, • Structural Complexity & Size
sophistication • Staff planning skills/Supportive culture
- Content: # of items considered, depth • Commitment & Resistance to Planning
of analysis and problem
• Centralized/Decentralized
identification
• Technological (complexity):
• Centralization / Delegation, Exclusion
heterogeneity, tight coupling
/Inclusion of External Stakeholders
• Stakeholder Activation & Involvement: • Core Technology: routineness,
breadth of participation, commitment
to planning, degree of effort External Environment
• Monitoring of Activities (not limited to • Hostility / Munificence
stategic planning) • Conflict
• External influence
Uncertainty & Strategic Planning

Perceptions Impact: Performance
• Experience With and Knowledge of • Satisfaction & Difficulty with planning

Environment and Outcomes • Strategic Capacity: improve managerial
• Nature of Decision Problem and Goals: control, budgeting, communication
e.g. Structured vs unstructured,
ambiguity
because of their openness, their broader constituency, the greater attentiveness of their stake-
holders, and the authority of oversight entities (Bozeman and Bretschnieder 1994; Nutt and
Backoff 1987, 1993). As a result of such pressures, public organizations may also operate
under greater conflict. These characteristics constitute their political environment, which is
considered an important attribute of this sector relative to private organizations. However,
there is evidence that some political features are not more relevant or important to the be-
havior of public managers than to that of private managers (Hickson et al. 1986; Rainey and
Bozeman 2000). Including political variables in future research on strategic planning in the
public sector will be an important contribution to this debate.
Hostility or munificence is another critical element of an organization’s external envi-
ronment, although primarily for private-sector organizations, and is defined by the scarcity
or abundance of resources (Castrogiovanni 1991). Based on the argument that public-sector
organizations have a wider range of objectives than obtaining resources (e.g., market share, in-
creased profits), the concept of munificence and hostility should be defined more broadly for
public organizations. In addition to resources, economic conditions, and external organizations
(e.g., other governments), munificence or hostility in the public sector may be affected
greatly by political and social conditions that both determine objectives and constrain an or-
ganization’s ability to meet them. Other dimensions of the external environment that are
important for understanding the behavior of private-sector organizations, such as turbulence
and dynamism and the complexity of the task environment, could also be adapted to public-
sector organizations, but they are not examined here.
With respect to the internal environment, the greater bureaucratization of public or-
ganizations is a key difference between the public and private sector, and it is one that is
likely to affect the planning process (Perry and Rainey 1988). Two elements of this feature
are examined here—the centralization of the organization and its resistance to change. The
latter variable will be especially important, given that planning is relatively new to the pub-
lic sector in general and Milwaukee specifically. However, one element of bureaucratization
is not included here, which is the formalization of procedures and reliance on rules or stan-
dards (rule-based functioning), because of the failure of the instruments attempting to meas-
ure this variable.
Although the concept was developed with reference to private firms, technology is an-
other feature of the internal environment that is important to strategic planning and other or-
ganizational processes. In this case technology refers to the work being performed by the or-
ganization and encompasses many qualities beyond how work is structured and facilitated,
including the skills and knowledge of workers, the characteristics of the objects on which
work is performed, and even the cause-and-effect relations between actions and outcomes
(Thompson 1967). For private organizations, protecting their core technology from obso-
lescence and insuring its adaptability in a volatile market are the primary objective of plan-
ning and are likely to affect the design of the planning process (Grinyer, Al-Bazzaz, and
Yasai-Ardedani 1986). However, the vulnerability of the core technology does not seem as
relevant to public organizations as other dimensions of core technology, such as complex-
ity (interdependence and diversity of the work being performed) and uncertainty (lack of
knowledge regarding outcomes and the relationship between work and objectives). In this
case public organizations with more complex and uncertain technologies might have very
different planning processes or likelihoods of success in achieving objectives.
As discussed previously, the role and importance of technological uncertainty in public-
sector organizations are also the subject of much debate in the research on public–private
differences. Most authors assume that governments have broader goals that are more diffi-
cult to comprehend and measure and that this will affect such organizations in significant
ways. However, little research has been conducted on the impact of technological uncer-
tainty, and the many surveys implemented nationwide by Rainey and his colleagues do not
support the claim that public organizations have unclear and unmeasurable goals by com-
parison to private organizations. In this case, examining the impact of technological uncer-
tainty on planning processes and performance, with an emphasis on perceptions of goals and
cause-and-effect relationships, will contribute to this debate.
Inclusion of size and structural complexity in this analysis is based on the wealth of re-
search showing that organizational processes change depending on the size and complexity
of the organization (Scott 1998). Size is one component of complexity that can alter
economies of scale and affect the range of factors that must be incorporated into the plan-
ning process, how the process is conducted, and the impact of the process on the organiza-
tion. Change and turbulence in the internal environment may also affect how planning is
conducted and the difficulty organizations may experience with the process.
Three dimensions are examined in this analysis with respect to the strategic planning
process: comprehensiveness, the centralization and exclusion of external groups, and the
activation and involvement of stakeholders. Comprehensiveness is a key process variable in
much of the planning research on private organizations that is related to bureaucratization,
but it is also associated with more rational decision making and synoptic approaches to
planning (Goll and Rasheed 1997; Grinyer, Al-Bazzaz, and Yasai-Ardedani 1986; Methe and
Perry 1989; Toft 1989). Rational or synoptic processes, which may characterize decisions,
planning, or other areas of organizational behavior, are often contrasted with incremental
processes. The latter are associated with political processes involving more stakeholders,
which require more negotiation than is likely to exist in highly structured, centralized, and
bureaucratic situations. Given the political nature of planning in the public sector, it will
be important to examine these qualities of the planning process. Another feature of the plan-
ning process that is examined here—greater monitoring of organizational activities—
also is associated with rational and synoptic processes and the reduction of technological
uncertainty.
As indicated previously, three dimensions of the impact of strategic planning have
been studied in prior research: satisfaction with planning, organizational performance, and
goal success. Only the first two dimensions are examined here. Satisfaction with planning
is measured by perceptions of difficulty with the planning process, and organizational per-
formance is measured by determining whether planning improved the strategic capacity of
the organization. Technically, difficulty and satisfaction with the planning process repre-
sent the implementation of planning rather than organizational performance, but the former
are prerequisites to improving organizational performance and goal success. If planning is
not implemented adequately, or if participants are not satisfied with the process, then per-
formance is unlikely to improve. Although these variables have been used in the past to
measure the impact of strategic planning, it should be noted that their validity has been
questioned and that their use is somewhat controversial (Nutt 1986; Stone and Brush 1996).
The second dimension of planning impact, strategic capacity or the ability of planning
to improve managerial functions, represents the outputs of planning. The third dimension of
success in achieving objectives, which is not examined here, represents true performance
outcomes. This last dimension may be the most important, but assessing the performance of
public organizations may be difficult compared to assessing private organizations because
of the lack of data and the unclear goals in public organizations, as claimed by some of the
literature on differences between public and private organizations. The lack of data on public-
sector performance is apparent from private sector research that easily captures firm per-
formance from financial statements, in contrast to public organizations whose financial state-
ments indicate little about the policy objectives of government.
Keeping in mind that there are too few cases with which to examine complex rela-
tionships among variables, this research is only preliminary. Its primary focus is on testing
survey research questions and building a basis for future research. As such, a more thor-
ough discussion of the survey, the operationalization of the variables, and the methodology
is critical here. But, prior to that, the initiation and implementation of strategic planning in
Milwaukee are reviewed briefly to provide the larger context within which planning took
place.1
1 A more in-depth discussion and analysis of the initiation and implementation of strategic planning in Milwaukee
is presented in Hendrick 2000.
STRATEGIC PLANNING IN MILWAUKEE AND ITS DEPARTMENTS

Milwaukee’s reforms began in 1988, shortly after Mayor Norquist was elected as the city’s
first new mayor in almost thirty years. Upon his election, Milwaukee changed from a weak
to a strong mayoral system. This new structure greatly reduced the fragmentation of power
and authority among the other elected and appointed officials, which include seventeen dis-
trict aldermen, four elected departmental heads (noncabinet), and ten appointed department
heads (cabinet). The four departments with elected heads are the Offices of the Comptrol-
ler, the City Attorney, the City Treasurer, and the Chief Municipal Judge, who serves as the
head of the Municipal Court.
Norquist and his staff quickly took advantage of the opportunities offered by the more
centralized political structure and the new administration to make significant budgetary re-
ductions and organizational changes in the first years he was in office. This laid the ground-
work for more sweeping managerial reforms that occurred by 1990, and it upset the usual
course of politics within each department and between the departments and the executive
officers. Based on consultations with a strategic planner from a large, well-known manu-
facturing firm in Milwaukee, the Office of Strategic Planning was created in 1990. The con-
sultant was then hired to oversee the development of a citywide strategic plan and the im-
plementation of planning at the departmental level (Benson et al. 1995; Riemer 1997).
To implement the citywide plan and bring departmental operations in line with it, the
mayor and his staff realized that strategic planning would have to be implemented at the de-
partmental level and at even lower levels in some cases. They believed that requiring plan-
ning throughout the government would provide an opportunity to link lower-level plans
with the citywide plan and would encourage agencies to focus on the broader objectives of
city government. Beginning in 1993 the administration began implementing “System 94,”
which required all departments to submit strategic plans with their budgets and that the
plans be linked to their budgets and the citywide strategic plan in specific ways. By 1995 de-
partments were required to add objectives and outcome indicators to their budgets, as well
as an updated strategic plan (Benson et al. 1995; Kinney 1995a).
Most departments indicated that they used Bryson’s (1995) model as a guide for their
own planning process. However, there was a great deal of variation in the approach each de-
partment used to implement that model. Some hired outside consultants and let them direct
their planning; others sought to learn how to do it on their own. Some departments chose to
keep planning within the upper levels of management, relying on the knowledge of key
managers and decision makers to identify objectives and develop strategy; others viewed it
as a long-term process that would evolve to engage a broad range of internal and external
stakeholders. Some departments used a retreat approach, while others implemented it as
part of their regular activities over a longer period of time. It was the intention of this re-
search to capture some of this variation in the questionnaire items of the survey.
The administration also changed the budgeting process at this time in order to increase
departmental compliance with citywide objectives and departmental plans. Prior to 1994
the annual budget process was bottom-up. It commenced with departments developing their
budget requests, often in contrast to the mayor’s priorities and based more on their own ob-
jectives. Under the top-down approach of System 94, each department was given an aggregate
budget allocation by the Budget and Management Division prior to preparing its request.
The allocation is based on inflation, budgetary priorities, and other goals established by the
mayor and his staff. Departments then decide how they will distribute their allocations among
their units and objects of expenditure in accordance with objectives stated in their strategic
plans.
The final element of System 94 was to link the plans, budget, and objectives with in-
ternal management indicators and the accounting system by way of a new financial man-
agement information system. The internal management indicators were to be developed and
used by managers to monitor and measure their service delivery. Numerous measures al-
ready existed in some departments prior to 1993, which provided an infrastructure to de-
velop more comprehensive performance-monitoring systems. Development of the new
financial management information system, under the authority of the elected comptroller,
had been planned and under way for some time prior to 1994 (Benson et al. 1995; Kinney
1995b; Kreklow 1999).
METHODOLOGY AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF VARIABLES

In addition to the theoretical and empirical work on planning discussed at length here, the
choice of variables and their operationalization were based on responses to questions from
semistructured interviews conducted in the winter of 1994–95. The survey was imple-
mented in a second round of interviews in the winter of 1996–97. All interviews were con-
ducted with persons responsible for strategic planning in each department, and both sets of
interviews were conducted with many of the same people. In most cases, the departmental
heads were responsible for strategic planning in their units along with one or more top aides,
and many interviews were conducted with more than one departmental representative pres-
ent. By the second round of interviews, the departments had completed their first strategic
plans for the 1994 budget and were working on revising their plans for the 1995 budget.
Doing the survey at this juncture helped to insure that those responsible for strategic plan-
ning would have had time to reflect on the conditions, process, and impact of strategic plan-
ning in their units.
The survey consisted of an extensive sixty-two-item questionnaire developed to meas-
ure the variables identified here. One department declined to be included in this second
round of interviews, which yielded fourteen rather than fifteen completed surveys. The pri-
mary advantage of using an interview format to administer the survey is that, given its
length, the format increased the chances of obtaining completed questionnaires. This format
also improved measurement validity and reliability by insuring that the meaning of ques-
tions was clear and consistent to the interviewees, and it provided us with feedback for fu-
ture questionnaire construction.
The appendix presents the variables tested here, the questions used to construct these
indexes, a summary of how the indexes were constructed, means, standard deviations, and,
if relevant, Cronbach’s alpha measures.2 Two variables were measured with respect to the
impact of strategic planning and organizational performance: perceptions of the degree of
difficulty (A) the department had with the planning process and whether planning improved
managerial and strategic capacity (B). Difficulty of planning is measured as an average of
responses to seventeen items that represent different areas of planning, such as acceptance
and participation, conflict, integration, and communication. These areas were identified using
a content analysis of responses to questions about difficulty with planning in the first round
of interviews. Additional areas that may not have been represented in the first interviews
2 A more detailed list of the questions and items within each question can be obtained from the author.
were included in consultation with a colleague who had implemented similar questions in
a survey of strategic planning in the private sector.3 Strategic and managerial capacity is
measured as an average of nine items that represent administrative concerns, such as re-
source allocation, communication, and coordination.
Five indexes were constructed to measure different characteristics of the planning
process: the comprehensiveness of planning, the breadth of stakeholder participation, the
participation by persons who are external to the department versus those who are employed
within the department, the centralization of planning within the department, and the extent
to which the department monitors its performance in five areas. The questions included in
the comprehensiveness of planning (C) index measure the areas in which planning occurs
(C-4: capital improvement, personnel, technology), the environmental factors considered,
the depth of analysis of these factors (C-7: monitoring, forecasting, developing assump-
tions), and the tools used (C-3: documents, written plans, forms). The index also includes el-
ements of formalization (C-3 and C-4: written plans and forms), frequency (C-5: scheduled
review), and the sophistication of the planning process (C-6 and C-7), which are all factors
related to comprehensiveness.4 The tasks of monitoring, forecasting, and developing as-
sumptions in question C-7 are documented in research on environmental scanning in private
organizations (Yasai-Ardedani and Nystrom 1996). As indicated in the appendix, this index
represents the percent of positive responses for all items in C-3 through C-6 plus positive re-
sponses to all three tasks in each of the eight items of C-7 (thirty-nine total possible items).
One other aspect of comprehensiveness is the extent of monitoring (D) of objectives
and operations, but this index also includes measures of the resources and expertise avail-
able for such tasks, which are not necessarily related to comprehensiveness. Although mon-
itoring is important to planning, it might also be viewed as a dimension of uncertainty and
the perceptions of the environment rather than the planning process because it measures
the availability of information about the environment and organizational performance.
The index for breadth of stakeholder participation (E) measures the involvement of
eight stakeholder groups in four key process areas of triggering awareness and the elabora-
tion of strategic issues (E-11), generating actions to resolve these issues (E-12), evaluating
and choosing strategies (E-13), and monitoring the impact of strategies (E-14). Each area
represents a different recognized stage of the planning process, although triggering aware-
ness and the elaboration of strategic issues were combined based on analysis of responses
to the first round of interviews (Bryson 1995). Given the emphasis on public organizations
having more external influence than private ones, and the importance of stakeholder par-
ticipation to planning in government, the index external versus internal participation (F) is
calculated as a ratio of external to internal participants in the four planning stages above. In-
ternal centralization (G) of planning measures the involvement of department heads in all
four stages relative to the influence of division heads and employees. One other process
variable, commitment to planning (H), is my subjective assessment of the commitment of
the department’s leadership to strategic planning, which is based on two rounds of extensive
interviews.
Ten contextual or environmental variables are measured, as well as another indicator
of uncertainty and perceptions. Seven contextual variables target the internal environment,
3 Masoud Yasai-Ardedani contributed valuable assistance in reviewing and helping to construct questions and
response areas in the survey, especially those in the performance and planning process dimensions (see Yasai-
Ardedani and Haug 1997).
4 The C-number designations refer to the survey questions associated with variable C as presented in the appendix.
and three measure characteristics of external environment. The index clarity/measurability

of objectives (I) estimates the extent to which departments have a clear understanding of
how to achieve their objectives and whether objectives can be measured easily. This di-
mension of uncertainty and perceptions is considered to be a critical difference between
public and private organizations, and it represents participants’ general knowledge of cause-
and-effect relationships in solving the problems they face. Scope of operations measures
(K) gauges two areas of technological complexity related to the breadth of the department’s
mission and the number of services it delivers. Need to coordinate technology (L) combines
another area of technological complexity, that of the interdependency or coupling of serv-
ices, with the extent to which service delivery is organized in a specific way. A third inter-
nal, context variable, routine and structured processes (M), measures the extent to which the
department’s core technology is routine and standardized. Internal change (P) measures
turbulence within the department.
Data for constructing the size and complexity (J) index, which is another internal vari-
able, were obtained from organizational charts and documents indicating the number of em-
ployees and positions in the department. Size was merged with the other dimensions of
complexity because of their high correlation both here and in other studies of organizational
planning. Culture and training (N) in strategic planning measures the department’s non-
monetary support for planning and the capacity of the department to accept and implement
innovation, which is one aspect of bureaucratization. This variable also indicates the ease of
implementing strategic planning in the department. Centralization/decentralization (O)
measures another aspect of bureaucratization within the department, but the actual index
was not constructed or utilized in the analysis because of the difficulty respondents had in
answering the questions and the problems of finding a logical way to combine them. Given
that bureaucratization is such an important construct in the literature on public and private
differences, it will be necessary to resolve these issues and develop a means of measuring
this characteristic in future research.
One of the external environmental characteristics examined here is goal conflict and
congruence (Q). This variable measures stakeholders’ agreement with the department’s mis-
sion and objectives, the strength of their opinions about the department, and how attentive
the public is to the department’s actions. Favorableness or hostility of the environment (S),
which is an important variable in research on private organizations, examines the effect of
fifteen external conditions (e.g., legislation, resources from other governments, political and
social conditions, media) on the ability of departments to meet their objectives. Finally, ex-
ternal influence (R), which is a key external factor for research on public organization, is a
measure of a department’s autonomy in conducting its affairs (e.g., developing objectives
and mission, types of programs and services delivered, workload and service standards)
and the influence of five external groups (e.g., mayor, council, unions).
Two issues relevant to the validity of the variables should be mentioned here. One is
that the strategic planning process is not well developed or institutionalized in Milwaukee,
or in other public-sector organizations for that matter, which presents the problem that some
of these variables may be measuring attributes of innovation rather than attributes of strate-
gic planning. Additionally, Milwaukee had experienced significant political and institutional
changes in the years prior to the surveys. Thus, the effects of these events may also be con-
founding the measures reported here. The second issue, which is a central debate in much
of the research on strategic management, is the weak measurement validity of subjective as-
sessments of goal success and the improvement of strategic capacity (Pearce, Freeman, and
Robinson 1987). However, the same concern applies to the responses to other questions in
the survey. In fact, based on my years of observing the departments and the city as a whole,
it was apparent that some departments’ responses were biased in their favor.
DATA ANALYSIS
Although there are not enough cases to perform an analysis of three-way relationships
among the different dimensions of planning, the data do allow for simple correlations and
the presentation of scatterplots to determine if observed trends are reasonable and worth
exploring in future research. Consistent with the theoretical framework, correlations were
examined for each performance variable with all contextual and process variables and for all
process variables with all other process and contextual variables. Table 1 presents correla-
tions for all variables; however, those in boldface type are not relevant to the theoretical
framework presented here.5
Figures 4 and 5 present scatterplots of the dependent variable strategic capacity with
two key-process variables (independent) as visual examples of the kinds of relationships
present in table 1. However, scatterplots for all sets of variables were examined to determine
where individual departments fit along these trends and if any one department might be re-
sponsible for the high correlations, as is prone to happen with a few cases.
With respect to organizational performance, the correlations show that strategic ca-
pacity (B) is higher in departments with more comprehensive planning (C), more extensive
monitoring practices (D), a greater need for coordination (L), and clearer and more easily
measurable objectives (I). The correlations also show that planning is more difficult (A) in
departments that have a more decentralized planning process (G) and greater commitment
to planning within the organization (H). The former findings are consistent with evidence
from the private sector that firm performance is improved in organizations with more formal,
comprehensive, and rational planning processes. The latter findings make sense from the
perspective that strategic planning is more difficult to implement than bureaucratic (top-
down command and control) means of determining objectives and resolving strategic is-
sues because those who are committed to planning put more effort into it and, as a result,
have more problems implementing it.
Examining figure 4 shows how specific departments are arranged with respect to strate-
gic capacity and the comprehensiveness of planning. In this case, most of the departments
that indicated that they had comprehensive planning were the same as those identified
throughout the interviews with other departments and top administrative personnel as hav-
ing a reputation for good planning or a long-term commitment to the process. Moreover,
many of these departments were known for monitoring their environments and having rel-
atively clear or narrow objectives (e.g., the Health Department, Fire Department, and As-
sessor’s Office).6
The surprising outcome among the performance relationships was in the City Trea-
surer’s Office. This department ranked high on comprehensiveness of planning, monitor-
ing, and capacity but had no clear mandate to implement strategic planning because its
5 The table also indicates which correlations have probabilities less than or equal to .1 and .05 as an indication of
the reliability of the relationships.
6 The Milwaukee Assessor’s Office maintains an extensive property file that is used by other departments and
many researchers in the area, and it has been on the forefront of developing geographic information system applica-
tions using these data.
Table 1
Pearson’s Correlations
Standard
Average Deviation A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P Q R
Organizational performance
A) Difficulty with planning 1.44 .55
B) Strategic & manager capacity 1.43 .57 .09
Strategic planning process
C) Comprehensive planning .63 .21 .20 .73**
D) Extent of monitoringa 4.0 .72 –.31 .60** .31
E) Broad participation in planning 2.2 .32 .46* –.25 –.08 –.63**
F) External / internal participants .53 .20 –.06 –.43 –.17 –.51* .63**
G) Internal centralization 14.0 4.3 –.58** .03 –.04 .39 –.36 .33
H) Commitment to planning .50 .52 .51* .23 .57** .05 .34 .01 –.30
Uncertainty and perceptions
I) Clear & measurable objectives 2.1 .45 –.02 .55** .60** .58**–.64**–.66**–.03 .07
Context: internal environment
J) Size & structural complexity .06 1.0 .11 –.39 –.24 –.24 .40 .04 –.34 .29 –.30
K) Scope of operations 3.3 1..4 .46* –.41 –.17 –.73** .65** .28 –.61** .25 –.43 .51*
L) Need to coordinate technology 3.0 1.1 –.03 .60** .17 .63**–.57**–.69**–.13 –.08 .63**–.14 –.29
M) Routine and structured process 2.1 1.1 .23 –.24 .00 –.26 –.12 –.27 –.19 –.15 .21 –.26 –.05 –.33
N) Strategic planning culture
and training 3.2 .59 .36 .20 .16 .24 .35 .08 –.15 .37 –.05 –.26 –.06 –.09 .11
P) Internal change 3.3 .57 .14 –.34 –.09 .01 .14 .19 –.01 .27 –.23 .16 .22 –.33 .14 .49*
Context: external environment
Q) Goal conflict and congruence 4.0 .51 .16 .34 .23 .12 –.07 –.04 .32 .20 .02 –.09 –.34 .06 –.11 –.26 –.50*
R) External influence .34 .17 .10 –.17 .01 –.24 .13 –.04 –.14 .39 –.15 .63** .26 –.03 –.14 –.51* –.21 .52*
S) Favorable-hostile environment .10 .47 –.02 –.10 –.12 .03 .17 .10 .03 –.15 .15 –.19 –.16 –.10 .23 .31 –.40 –.03 –.19
Note: Correlations in boldface type are not relevant to theoretical framework.
a
Also a component of Uncertainty and perceptions.
*p ≤ .10; **p ≤ .05.
507
Figure 4
Dependent Variable Strategic Capacity, Comprehensiveness of Planning
2.50 -
assessor
r = .73
2.00 - court
comptroller treasurer
Strategic Capability
fire
library
health
1.50 - employ relatn
port
econ develop
1.00 - public works
police
administration
.50 -
build inspct
.00 -
.10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00
Comprehensiveness of Planning
Figure 5
Dependent Variable Strategic Capacity, Clarity and Measurability of Objectives
3.00 -
r = .55; .59 without

2.50 - assessor
treasury
Strategic Capability
2.00 - court
comptroller treasurer
library fire
1.50 - employ relatn health
port
1.00 - econ develop

public works
police administration
.50 -
build inspct
.00 -
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Clarity/Measurability of Objectives
head is elected and not subject to the authority of the mayor. However, the City Treasurer
has many characteristics similar to the Port of Milwaukee (an enterprise), which also has
relatively high scores on these variables. The Port of Milwaukee also was noted for im-
plementing innovative management methods that greatly improved its profitability in the
face of a dramatically declining market for port facilities in Milwaukee. Both departments
are small, which may make it easier to implement comprehensive planning, and are man-
aged by persons with more experience in and a stronger identity with the private sector. Ad-
ditionally, much of the City Treasurer’s mission encompasses, by statute, monitoring and
data collection.
However, figures 4 and 5 and the descriptive statistics for the capacity variable reveal
issues about the capacity variable that undermine these findings. First, none of the fourteen
departments indicated that planning had any negatives effects on managerial or strategic
capacity. Thus, the range of values for this variable is low—from 0 (none) to 2 (highly pos-
itive). This raises the possibility that a more broadly and appropriately ranged response
scale of 0 (none) to 5 (highly positive) might yield a different set of correlations. Addition-
ally, it was apparent from discussions with respondents that additional items such as setting
priorities, generating strategies, and linking actions with objectives should be added to this
question. Most organizations also claimed to have very comprehensive planning processes.
In fact, half of the fourteen departments answered yes to at least 70 percent of the seventy
comprehensiveness items, which seems inflated.7
The correlations for difficulty with planning (A) indicate that departments that involved
more people, both inside and outside the organization, in planning (E) and gave them greater
control over the process (G) were more likely to perceive the process as difficult. These de-
partments included the Department of City Development, the Department of Public Works,
the Health Department, and the Department of Employee Relations, which is consistent
with information obtained from the first interviews and discussions with other departments.
In this case the Department of City Development expressed much frustration over the plan-
ning process because of the number of different constituencies involved in its operations, the
department’s responsibility for many goals in the citywide plan, and pressure from the
Mayor’s Office on the content of the its plan. Both the Department of Public Works and the De-
partment of Employee Relations were noted for their attempts to implement a more bottom-
up approach to strategic planning, especially during the second or third round of strategic
planning.
Examining the correlations for the process variables shows that departments with more
comprehensive planning (C) tend to have clearer and more measurable objectives (I) and
greater commitment toward planning (H). These departments also monitor their environ-
ments (D) more. This is consistent with the impact of these variables on strategic capacity
(B) and involves the same departments: the Fire Department, Assessor’s Office, Health De-
partment, Port of Milwaukee, and City Treasurer have high values for these variables; the
Police Department, Building Inspection, Department of Administration, and Department of
City Development have low values for these variables. It must be noted, however, that the
relationships among the process variables of monitoring (D) and comprehensiveness of
planning (C) with the performance variable of strategic capacity (B) may be spurious and
7 Figure 5 suggests that the City Treasurer’s Office may account for much of the correlation between strategic
capacity and the clarity and measurability of objectives, given its outlying location on the scatterplot. However,
removing the City Treasurer and recalculating the Pearson’s r increases the value slightly from .55 to .59, showing
that this department is not defining the relationship between these two variables.
can be explained by the clarity and measurability of objectives (I), which is characteristic of
uncertainty. This claim is supported by the correlations of clarity and the measurability of
objectives (I) with monitoring (D) and the comprehensiveness of planning (C); the theoret-
ical framework in figure 2 shows that uncertainty and perceptions should have a direct im-
pact on the planning process in comparison with the process variables. However, past re-
search indicates that performance is determined by process more than other dimensions,
and determining the existence of such complex relationships requires more cases and other
methods of analysis beyond the simple correlations presented here. Monitoring (D) also is
higher in departments with a smaller scope of operations (K), which is a dimension of tech-
nological complexity and may represent another aspect of uncertainty.
Other conditions associated with monitoring among the fourteen departments are a
greater need for coordination (L) and more exclusionary planning practices (B). Likewise,
the clarity and measurability of objectives (I) are associated with fewer external partici-
pants in the planning process (F) and fewer participants overall (E). However, the latter cor-
relation is explained to some extent by the Office of the City Treasurer, and the former is re-
duced from r = –.66 to r = –.51 when this department is removed from the analysis. There
is also a trend toward fewer external participants (F) and less overall participation by stake-
holder groups in the planning process (E) when the need for coordination (L) is high, but ob-
servation of the scatterplot also shows that the City Treasurer may explain the relationship
with overall participation. This outcome is confirmed when the correlation drops to .25
when this case is removed from the analysis.
Examining the scatterplots for the variables of participation, monitoring, coordination,
and clarity of objectives also does not show much consistency among the placement of de-
partments. For instance, the Department of Public Works is high on participation and low on
the clarity and measurability of objectives, but it is moderate on coordination and monitoring.
Additionally, there are some departments whose scores for the participation and coordination
variables are not consistent with responses from the interviews, such as Building Inspection,
which should have a high need for coordination, and the Comptroller’s Office, which should
have a lower level of participation by stakeholder groups in its planning process.
If extent of monitoring (D) is viewed as an uncertainty variable rather than a process
variable, then it becomes apparent that the variables representing uncertainty about the en-
vironment, decision problems, and the means-ends relationships between activities and out-
comes have the most consistent relationships with different features of the planning process
in Milwaukee. In this case departments with more uncertainty have planning processes that
are less comprehensive and may exclude most stakeholders except top managers. It is also
interesting that the two internal environmental variables with the strongest correlations with
the organizational performance and planning process variables are scope of operations (K)
and the need to coordinate technology (L). Both variables represent different features of
the services and activities of the department.
One very surprising result here is the consistently low correlations for the external en-
vironmental variables in table 1. In this case, none of the three external variables, each with
numerous items, appears to have an effect on the strategic planning process or perform-
ance. This is also true for the associations between individual questions comprising the ex-
ternal variables and the process and performance variables. This is contrary to findings from
research on strategic planning and management in the private sector, and it may indicate
that Milwaukee’s departments are paying more attention to their internal environments than
their external environments during planning, which is a relatively new procedure for them.
Once departments become more experienced with planning and it becomes more institu-
tionalized, they may use it more to manage their external environments. The weak or non-
existent relationships between the combined size and complexity variable (and the separate
variables) and any process variable is also surprising given the importance of this variable
in private sector research.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The primary contributions of this research are (1) its elaboration of a theoretical framework
that merges research on private sector strategic planning with research on the differences be-
tween public and private organizations; (2) its development and testing of a wide range of
survey questions and indexes that measure various features of planning performance, plan-
ning process, and environmental context; and (3) its findings that some planning processes
may improve organizational performance and that certain features of organizations’ activi-
ties and services and their uncertainty about objectives may influence the planning process.
Particularly interesting is the importance of clear goals and objectives and monitoring to
strategic planning processes and organizational performance, especially in light of the de-
bate surrounding whether public and private organizations differ on these dimensions.
Although research on private organizations does incorporate uncertainty in its analy-
sis, it does not examine goals, objectives, means-ends relationships, and monitoring as its
source. For this reason future research might focus more on the role of this area of uncer-
tainty in planning and other rational-based activities, such as performance measurement,
that are becoming more predominant in the public sector. Additional emphasis also should
be given to measuring bureaucratization of both the organization and the planning process,
given the significance of this variable in past research and the tenuous findings here re-
garding exclusionary planning practices.
Finally, special attention should be paid to the impact of the external environment and
the size and complexity variable. Although, as suggested, the absence of the impact of ex-
ternal variables may be a function of the newness of planning, it is also possible that both
of these variables and size and complexity have more complex and contingent relationships
with process and performance variables than can be evaluated here. Much of the research on
private-sector organizations that incorporates these variables finds that they have these types
of relationships, but many more cases are required to perform the analyses required to de-
tect such relationships. Thus, future qualitative research might incorporate departments from
different local governments that have implemented strategic planning. It might also make
sense to focus on governments or other public organizations in which strategic planning
has become more institutionalized to avoid confounding the effects of planning with inex-
perience with a new management technique.
Alternatively, a nationwide survey that incorporates some of the variables from this
survey would yield many cases, but it would limit the number of variables that could be
tested. However, the results presented here suggest that many of the survey questions have
enough validity to encourage testing in other settings. Some questions and indexes, such as
those measuring the centralization of the organization and strategic capacity, obviously re-
quire alteration or additions as suggested. Other variables, which have relatively low alpha
levels, such as those measuring change culture and goal conflict, need to be reconsidered.
Using the model and theoretical framework presented here will help to guide all of these
future efforts in a systematic way.
APPENDIX
VARIABLES AND INDEXES
Performance Indexes
(A) Difficulty with Planning: average of responses to seventeen items below; = .76;
= 1.44; = .55
1. How much difficulty do you encounter with strategic planning in the following
areas?
seventeen items represent different areas where planning may be difficult, e.g.,
communication, participation; five-point scale: (0) none, (2) some, (4) great deal
(B) Strategic and Managerial Capacity: average of responses to nine items below;
= .85; = 1.43; = .57
2. How does your strategic planning process impact your organization with respect
to the following?
nine items represent general managerial areas, e.g., coordination, communica-
tion, awareness of problems; five-point scale: (-2) highly negative, (0) none, (2)
highly positive
Process Indexes
(C) Comprehensiveness of Planning: total percent of yes responses to questions 3–7
plus all three activities circled in question 7; = .79; = .63; = .21; thirty-nine total
items
3. Do you use the following in strategic planning? (Please circle all that apply.)
five items represent areas of formalization, e.g., documents, written schedules,
preprinted forms: yes/no
4. Does your department develop written plans, either separate or as part of the
strategic plan, for each of the following areas? (Please circle all that apply.)
eight items represent areas where planning may occur, e.g., capital improvement,
technology: yes/no
5. Are plans relating to each of the following areas reviewed on a scheduled basis?
eight items represent same areas as in question 4: yes/no
6. What inputs and/or techniques are used in developing your plans? (Please circle
all that apply.)
ten items represent techniques such as forecasting, cost-benefit analysis, surveys:
yes/no
7. Please circle (M) if your department monitors, (F) if your department produces
forecasts, and (A) if your department develops assumptions with respect to each
area indicated.
eight items represent conditions such as government legislation, labor market,
media, technology; M (monitor), F (develop forecasts), A (develop assumptions);
all three circled
(D) Extent Monitoring: average of responses to seven items in questions 8–10; = .84;
= 3.96; = .72 (also relevant to dimension of uncertainty and perceptions)
8. To what extent does the department monitor the following items to evaluate its
performance or effectiveness?
five items represent monitoring areas, e.g., performance, workload, efficiency;
five-point scale: (1) not at all, (3) somewhat, (5) to a great extent
9. To what extent are resources and infrastructure available to the department to

properly monitor its performance and effectiveness?
five-point scale: (1) not at all, (3) somewhat, (5) to a great extent
10. To what extent do employees and managers have the training or expertise to
properly monitor the department’s performance and effectiveness?
five-point scale: (1) very little, (3) some, (5) great deal
(E) Broad Participation in Planning: average response to eight items in questions

11–14; = .77; = 2.21; = .32
(F) Ratio of External/Internal Participation: average ratio of four items in questions

11–14 and three items in questions 11–14; = .53; = .20
(G) Internal Centralization: measured as the average of the following for questions
11–14: [(item c / item d) + (item c / item f)] * item c; = 13.97; = 4.3
Questions 11–14 have the same eight items and possible responses; eight items
represent different stakeholder groups such as council, mayor’s office, employees,
client groups; five-point scale: (0) none, (2) some, (4) extensive
11. To what extent are the following groups involved with triggering awareness of
issues that can significantly affect departmental operations (called strategic
issues) and consideration and elaboration of these issues?
12. To what extent are the following groups involved with generating policies,
programs, or services aimed at resolving strategic issues?
13. To what extent are the following groups involved with evaluating and choosing
strategic proposals?
14. To what extent are the following groups involved with monitoring the implemen-
tation of the strategic plan?
(H) Commitment to Planning: my subjective assessment regarding the commitment of

the department to planning and the effort given to the tasks, based on two sets of exten-
sive interviews over a three-year period
Uncertainty and Perceptions

(I) Clarity and Measurability of Objectives: average of four items in questions 15–16;
= .84; = 3.91; = .46
15. In your opinion, to what extent does your department have a clear understanding
of the following?
three items represent relationship between services and objectives, objectives and
mission, validity of measurement; five-point scale: (1) not at all, (3) somewhat,
(5) to a great extent
16. To what extent can your department’s program objectives be quantified and
measured?
five-point scale: (1) very few, (3) some, (5) most
Context Indexes: Internal Environment

(J) Size and Structural Complexity: = .062; = 1.0
Calculated (Z-score average) from three components obtained independent from the
survey:
1. number of employees
2. geographic dispersion in delivery of services: 1 = yes; 2 = no
3a. number of levels of management; 3b. average number of sections in each level
(K) Scope of Operations: average response to questions 17–18; = .78; = 3.3;

= 1.35
17. Relative to other departments within the city, how broad or comprehensive is
your departmental mission?
five-point scale: (1) very narrow, (3) about equal, (5) very broad
18. Relative to other departments within the city, how many different programs or
services does your department implement or administer?
five-point scale: (1) very few, (3) about equal, (5) many
(L) Need to Coordinate Technology: average response to five items in questions 19–22;
= .68; = 3.0; = 1.05
19. To what extent must your department coordinate with or is your department
dependent on the following to achieve its objectives or departmental mission?
two items (broad mission, number of programs and services); five-point scale:
(1) very little, (3) some, (5) great deal
20. How interdependent are the services in your department? In other words, to what
extent must departmental services be coordinated?
21. To what extent are the services delivered to clients or constituents by the depart-
ment organized sequentially (e.g., one service cannot be delivered to a client
until a prior one is implemented)?
22. To what extent are the services delivered to clients or constituents by the depart-
ment organized by case (e.g., case management in health or welfare services)?
five-point scale: (1) very little, (3) some, (5) most
(M) Routine and Structured Processes: average response to questions 23–24; = .92;
= 2.1; = 1.02
23. To what extent are the work and duties performed by the employees within your
department routinized or performed regularly?
24. To what extent are the work activities and duties performed by employees within
your department codified or standardized?
(N) Change Culture and Strategic Planning Training: average of five items in ques-
tions 23–24; = .43; = 3.0; = .59
25. To what extent have your department’s managers and supervisors had training or
exposure to the following concepts and processes through education, past experi-
ence, or attendance at professional meetings?
four items represent different technical areas, e.g., strategic planning, perform-
ance measurement; five-point scale: (1) few, (3) some, (5) all
26. In your opinion, how easy is it to get employees within your department to do
the following (assuming that it does not increase the number of tasks they per-
form or their workload)?
five-point scale: (1) very easy, (3) moderate, (5) very hard (direction of measures
is reversed)
(O) Centralization/Decentralization: not used because respondents had difficulty in

answering both questions
27. If the department head or chief administrator is the first level of management in
your department, what are the titles of managers at each level along the longest
chain of command?
28. At what levels of management are the majority of the following decisions made?
six items represent different decisions, e.g., workload targets, objectives, mission
(P) Internal Change: average response to seven items; = 3.3; = .57
29. To what extent has your department experienced any of the following changes in
the past five years?
seven items represent different types of change, e.g., employee turnover, major
policies, technology use; five-point scale: (1) none, (3) some, (5) great deal
Context Indexes: External Environment

(Q) Goal Conflict and Congruence: average of twelve items in questions 30–32;
= .50; = 4.0; = .51
30. To what extent do the following groups agree with the department’s mission and
established programmatic objectives? (direction of measures is reversed from
what is given below)
four items represent different stakeholder groups, e.g., elected officials, employ-
ees, clients; five-point scale: (1) not at all, (3) somewhat, (5) to a great extent
31. What is the visibility of your department to the following groups?

four items, same as in question 30; five-point scale: (1) not visible, (3) somewhat
visible, (5) highly visible
32. What is the strength of the opinions of the following groups (either positive or
negative) regarding your department, its services, its objectives, or its mission?
four items, same as in question 30; five-point scale: (1) very weak, (3) moderate,
(5) very strong
(R) External Influence: percent of all cells checked; = .34; = .17
33. For Cabinet Departments Only: Which of these groups have a major influence
on the following areas (A–H)? (Check all groups that apply.)
seven areas + five groups = thirty-five cells; areas include objectives, mission,
budget priorities; groups include mayor’s office, council, unions
(S) Favorableness/Hostility of Environment: average of fifteen items: = .77; = .09;

= .47
34. What has been the effect of the following external conditions on the ability of
your department to meet program objectives in the past five years?
fifteen items represent conditions such as legislation, resources from other
governments, media, economy; five-point scale: (–2) very adverse, (0) neutral,
(2) very favorable
REFERENCES
Andrews, Kenneth R. 1980. The concept of corporate strategy, 2d ed. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
Ansoff, Igor H. 1979. Strategic management. New York: John Wiley.
Benson, Deana, James Gultry, Steve Kreklow, David Metz, and Stephen Agostini. 1995. Performance
budgeting: The Milwaukee experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association
of Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Berry, Frances Stokes, and Bart Wechsler. 1995. State agencies’ experiences with strategic planning:
Findings from a national survey. Public Administration Review 55, no. 2:159–68.
Boal, Kimberly B., and John M. Bryson. 1987. Representation testing and policy implications of
planning process. Strategic Management Journal 8, no. 3:211–31.
Boston, Jonathan, and June Pallot. 1997. Linking strategy and performance: Developments in the New
Zealand public sector. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 16, no. 3:382– 404.
Boulton, William R., William M. Lindsay, Stephen G. Franklin, and Leslie R. Rue. 1982. Strategic
planning: Determining the impact of environmental characteristics and uncertainty. Academy of
Management Journal 25, no. 3:500–9.
Bourgeois, L. J., III. 1980. Strategy and environment: A conceptual integration. Academy of Management
Review 5, no. 1:25–39.
Bozeman, Barry, and Stuart Bretschneider. 1994. The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: A test
of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 4, no. 2:197–223.
Bryson, John M. 1995. Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations, 2d ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, John M., and Philip Bromiley. 1993. Critical factors affecting the planning and implementation
of major projects. Strategic Management Journal 14, no. 5:319–37.
Bryson, John M., Philip Bromiley, and Yoon Soo Jung. 1990. Influences of context and process on
project planning success. Journal of Planning Education and Research 9, no. 3:183–95.
Bryson, John M., and William D. Roering. 1987. Applying private-sector strategic planning in the public
sector. American Planning Association Journal 53, no. 1:9–22.
Castrogiovanni, Gary J. 1991. Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of
Management Review 16, no. 3:542–65.
Chakravarthy, Bala S. 1987. On tailoring a strategic planning system to its context: Some empirical
evidence. Strategic Management Journal 8, no. 6:517–34.
Child, John S. 1972. Organizational structure, environment, and performance. Sociology 6, no. 1:1–22.
Chandler, Alfred D. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cyert, Richard M., and James G. March. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Deyle, Robert E. 1994. Conflict, uncertainty, and the role of planning and analysis in public policy
innovation. Policy Studies Journal 22, no. 3:457–73.
Donaldson, Lex. 1996. The normal science of structural contingency theory. In Handbook of
organization studies, edited by Clegg et al., 57–76. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Fredrickson, James W. 1984. The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extensions,
observation, future directions. Academy of Management Journal 27, no. 5:445–66.
Fredrickson, James W., and Anthony L. Iaquinto. 1989. Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic
decision process. Academy of Management Journal 32, no. 4:516– 42.
Fredrickson, James W., and Terrence R. Mitchell. 1984. Strategic decision processes:
Comprehensiveness and performance in an industry with stable environments. Academy of
Management Journal 27, no. 3:399– 423.
Goll, Irene, and Abdul M. A. Rasheed. 1997. Rational decision-making and firm performance: The
moderating role of environment. Strategic Management Journal 18, no. 7:583–91.
Grinyer, P. H., S. Al-Bazzaz, and Masoud Yasai-Ardedani. 1986. Towards a contingency theory of
corporate planning: Findings in 48 U.K. companies. Strategic Management Journal 7, no. 1:3–28.
Harold, D. M. 1972. Long range planning and organizational performance. Academy of Management
Review 15, no. 1:92–102.
Hendrick, Rebecca. 2002. Comprehensive management and budgeting reform in local government: The
case of Milwaukee. Public Performance and Management Review 23, no. 3:312–37.
Hickson, David J., D. C. Wilson, D. Cray, G. R. Mallory, and R. J. Butler. 1986. Top decisions: Strategic
decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jauch, Lawrence R., and Kenneth L. Kraft. 1996. Strategic management of uncertainty. Academy of
Management Review 11, no. 4:777–90.
Jones, R. E., L. W. Jacobs, and W. Van’t Spijker. 1992. Strategic decision processes in international
firms. Management International Review 32, no. 1:219–36.
Kinney, Anne Spray. 1995a. Interview, Director of Administration, City of Milwaukee, 24 January.
———. 1995b. Mission, management, and service delivery: Integrating strategic planning and
budgeting in Milwaukee. Government Finance Review 11, no. 5:7–11.
Kissler, Gerald R., Karmen N. Fore, Willow S. Jacobson, William P. Kittredge, and Scott L. Stewart.
1998. State strategic planning: Suggestions from the Oregon experience. Public Administration
Review 58, no. 4:353–59.
Kreklow, Stephen. 1999. Interview by author. Milwaukee, Wisc. 7 April.
Kukalis, Sal. 1991. Determinants of strategic planning systems in large organizations. Journal of
Management Studies 28, no. 2:143–60.
Lan, Z., and Hal G. Rainey. 1992. Goals, rules, and effectiveness in public, private, and hybrid
organizations: More evidence on frequent assertions about differences. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 2, no. 1:5–28.
Lindsay, William M., and Lesley W. Rue. 1980. Impact of the organizational environment on the long-
range planning process: A contingency view. Academy of Management Journal 23, no. 3:385– 404.
McArthur, A. W., and P. C. Nystrom. 1991. Environmental dynamism, complexity, and munificence:
Moderators of strategy–performance relationships. Journal of Business Research 23, no.
12:349–61.
Methe, David T., and James L. Perry. 1989. Incremental approaches to strategic management. In
Handbook of strategic management, edited by J. Rabin, G. Miller, and W. B. Hildreth, 35–53. New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Miller, C. Chet, and Laura B. Cardinal. 1994. Strategic planning and firm performance: Synthesis of
more than two decades of research. Academy of Management Journal 37, no. 6:1649–65.
Miller, Susan J., David J. Hickson, and David C. Wilson. 1996. Decision-Making in Organizations. In
Handbook of Organization Studies, edited by Stewart Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord,
293–312. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1973. Strategy making in three modes. California Management Review 16, no.
1:44–53.
———. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Nutt, Paul C. 1986. Tactics of Implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 29, no. 2:230261.
Nutt, Paul C., and Robert W. Backoff. 1987. A strategic management process for public sector and third-
sector organizations. American Planning Association Journal 53, no. 1:44–57.
———. 1993. Organizational publicness and its implications for strategic management. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 3, no. 2:209–31.
———. 1995. Strategy for public and third-sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 5, no. 2:189–211.
Papadakis, Vassilis M., Spyros Lioukas, and David Chambers. 1998. Strategic decision-making process:
The role of management and context. Strategic Management Journal 19, no. 2:115– 47.
Pearce, John A., Elizabeth Freeman, and Richard Robinson. 1987. The tenuous link between formal
strategic planning and financial performance. Academy of Management Review 12, no. 4:658–75.
Perry, James L., and Hal G. Rainey. 1988. The public–private distinction in organizational theory:
Critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review 13, no. 2:182–201.
Rainey, Hal G. 1983. Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and individual roles.
Administration and Society 15, no. 2:207– 42.
Rainey, Hal G., and Barry Bozeman. 2000. Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research
and the power of a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10, no. 2:447–69.
Rainey, Hal G., S. Pandey, and Barry Bozeman. 1995. Research note: Public and private managers’
perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review 55, no. 6:567–74.
Riemer, David. 1997. Interview, Director of Administration, City of Milwaukee, July 9.
Ring, Peter Smith. 1989. The environment and strategic management. In Handbook of strategic
management, edited by J. Rabin, G. Miller, and W. B. Hildreth, 55–87. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Ring, Peter Smith, and James L. Perry. 1985. Strategic management in public and private organizations:
Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. Academy of Management Review 19, no.
2:276–86.
Roberts, Nancy C. 1993. Limitations of strategic action in bureaus. In Public management: The state of
the art, edited by Barry Bozeman, 153–72. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, Nancy C., and Linda Wargo. 1994. The dilemma of planning in large-scale public organizations:
The case of the US Navy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4, no. 4:469–91.
Rue, Leslie W. and Robert M. Fulmer. 1973. Is Long-Range Planning Profitable? Proceedings of the
Academy of Management, 66–73. Boston: Academy of Management.
Scott, W. Richard. 1998. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J: Prentice Hall.
Simon, Herbert A. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simpson, Kit. 1992. Strategic planning for public health: Cancer control in North Carolina. Evaluation
and Program Planning 15, no. 3:383–93.
Smith, Ken G., Martin J. Gannon, Curtis M. Grimm, and Terence R. Mitchell. 1988. Decision making
behavior in smaller entrepreneurial and larger professionally managed firms. Journal of Business
Venturing 3, no. 3:223–32.
Stone, Melissa Middleton, and Candida Greer Brush. 1996. Planning in ambiguous contexts: The
dilemma of meeting needs for commitment and demands for legitimacy. Strategic Management
Journal 17, no. 8:633–52.
Streib, Gregory. 1989. Strategic decision making in council–manager governments: A status report. The
Municipal Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association.
Thompson, James. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw Hill.
Toft, Graham S. 1989. Synoptic (one best way) approaches to strategic management. In Handbook of
strategic management, edited by J. Rabin, G. Miller, and W. B. Hildreth, 3–33. New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Wheeland, Craig M. 1993. Citywide strategic planning: An evaluation of Rock Hill’s empowering the
vision. Public Administration Review 53, no. 1:65–72.
Yasai-Ardedani, Masoud, and Ralph S. Haug. 1997. Contextual determinants of strategic planning
processes. Journal of Management Studies 34, no. 5:729–67.
Yasai-Ardedani, Masoud, and Paul C. Nystrom. 1996. Designs for environmental scanning systems:
Tests of a contingency theory. Management Science 42, no. 1:187–204.

Strategic Planning Environment, Process and Performance in Public Agencies

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Strategic Planning Environment, Process and Performance in Public Agencies

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Strategic Planning Environment, Process,

and Performance in Public Agencies:

ENVIRONMENT, PROCESS, AND IMPACT OF STRATEGIC PLANNING

A) Intervening & Direct Effects

B) Independent & Joint Effects

Organization’s Internal Environment

Evidence from the Private Sector

Evidence from the Public Sector

Differences between Public and Private Organizations

Variables Relevant to the Public Sector

• Rationality / Comprehensiveness Internal Environment

Uncertainty & Strategic Planning

• Experience With and Knowledge of • Satisfaction & Difficulty with planning

STRATEGIC PLANNING IN MILWAUKEE AND ITS DEPARTMENTS

METHODOLOGY AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF VARIABLES

and three measure characteristics of external environment. The index clarity/measurability

r = .55; .59 without

1.00 - econ develop

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

9. To what extent are resources and infrastructure available to the department to

(E) Broad Participation in Planning: average response to eight items in questions

(F) Ratio of External/Internal Participation: average ratio of four items in questions

(H) Commitment to Planning: my subjective assessment regarding the commitment of

Uncertainty and Perceptions

Context Indexes: Internal Environment

(K) Scope of Operations: average response to questions 17–18; = .78; = 3.3;

(O) Centralization/Decentralization: not used because respondents had difficulty in

(P) Internal Change: average response to seven items; = 3.3; = .57

Context Indexes: External Environment

31. What is the visibility of your department to the following groups?

(R) External Influence: percent of all cells checked; = .34; = .17

(S) Favorableness/Hostility of Environment: average of fifteen items: = .77; = .09;

Potrebbero piacerti anche