Guidelines for Self-assessment Strategic Planning Introduction The following text should be used as inspiring guidelines for self-assessment of the strategic planning process in a Caritas organisation. It was written as a part of the SODA project on the request of the Bulgarian participants and using information from their documents. The project is aimed on the assistance to different members of Caritas Europa, the European confederation of charity organisations, in their organisational development, in strategy and policy formulation, in increase and systematic care to quality of their services. Selfassessment, in particular the EFQM Excellence Model, have been chosen to be the leading principles and sources of inspiration in this long-term process. The purpose of the document The document should enable to look back at the experience gained through the previous elaboration of the strategic plan, no matter how successful, or to review the plans for the current preparation of such document. It assist in raising questions and consideration concerning how much has the organisation been or was ready to go through the process. How satisfactorily it manages or managed to plan the process, to implement it and to monitor it in order to learn from it. It should assist to find out what might have been done rather superficially, why have different problems or even failures appeared, what are the problematic issues or bottlenecks of the process. The organisation should learn from the findings and translate them into proposals for improvement for the next round of the strategic planning and hopefully to a successful drafting and implementation of the strategic plan. It should also promote awareness of importance of good monitoring the process in order to understand it, prevent problems, react and learn from it for the next times. The guidelines should not be used rigidly. They should inspire other, own questions, considerations, discussion and seeking evidence for the answers. Considering the complexity of different organisations within the Caritas network and even within individual national Caritas it is likely that each of them would be addressed by different parts, different questions and would understand them from different perspective. The most important is that the analysis should be open, fair, involving different groups within an organisation in order to identify the traps and problematic approaches and avoid or improve them. How to run self-assessment The Caritas organisation should agree on the most adequate (and effective) way how it might achieve the realistic picture of its own situation. How to find fair answers to the questions raised and what would be the basis for such answers. It could include workshops, meetings, interviews, data analysis, records checking, specific surveys and their combination. It is wise to appoint one or more persons to be responsible for co-ordinating the selfassessment process. He/she/they should be empowered by the top management and get their formal support. It is up to these people to identify appropriate ways of data and information collection for the final analysis. These people should facilitate analysis, improvement activities. Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 1
Starting self-assessment Management commitment Appointment of co-ordinator Plan self-assessment There are a few different stages within the selfassessment process. These are shown in the scheme. The document focuses mostly on those concerning data requirements, Self-assessment, Strengths & Areas for Improvement identification and Improvement planning in the coming strategic planning process. Data and information collection Self-assessment Strengths & Areas for Improvement Improvement plans or Incorporation into new Strategic planning Action Review, Monitoring The self-assessment process should not distract the people in the organisation over the bearable limits. Different groups of people within (and outside) the organisation should be addressed accordingly to their position, potential knowledge and personal and professional background. There are not many reasons to ask a member of the governing body about his/her knowledge what would be the best way to improve communication with the drug addicts being assisted by the organisation. On the contrary, one cannot expect that the field workers or volunteers would be overconcerned about the precise formulation of the mission statement. They should be aware of its principles. It is definitely not expected that the following document would be simply copied, sent to all people in the organisation with the request to answer all the following questions. The co-ordinator(s) should be selective in order to get enough relevant information and built the organisation s picture step-by-step. They might confirm the appearing conclusions with relevant representatives, clarify potential contradictions, find other sources of information, check validity of information and seek more objective evidence. The questions should provide the guidelines on what could be the scope of investigation, the field for the final self-reflection. They should assist the co-ordinator of self-assessment to get orientation in the problem and inspire him/her what could be the problems considered in contact with different people. The answers should be supported by concrete evidence, data and information, not based only on the feelings and impressions of few people in the organisation. The entire picture should be summarised only after getting enough evidence and background information and it is wise to consult the final conclusions. It is recommended that the organisation would focus on the entire self-analysis of the problems first. Only after that and probably after consulting with the SODA project consultants it would be advisable to follow further to identification of main strengths and areas for improvement. The latter ones should be than prioritised in order to identify the most serious ones. In the final stage, related to the last part, Improvement plans, ideas on how to address the major areas for improvement should be brought together. And than translated into goals and actions to be incorporated into a new plan of the strategic planning process. Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 2
Outputs It is expected that the output of the self-assessment will be presented in a brief report including conclusions. Writing the conclusions down should bring more attention to their formulation, but helps especially to communicate the conclusions throughout the organisation. It is quite important that before drafting whatever report, a profound survey and internal discussion is held, involving the entire organisation, bringing opinions of different people and groups of people from both inside and outside of the organisation if possible and meaningful particularly those who participated in strategic planning in the previous years. The discussion should be open, considering different arguments, otherwise it is problematic to learn from it. How to work with the document The proposed sequence of steps within self-assessment of the strategic planning was mentioned. It should be based either on previous experience and current plans and ideas. Therefore some formulations concern the past or current situation. It is up to the organisation to translate it according to their current situation. The self-analytical part is divided into ten chapters focused on different aspects of the strategic planning. Each of them contains a scale which helps to indicate the organisation s situation graphically. The scale s extreme limits are described as general cases which were derived from the experience from the discussions at the SODA project seminars. The organisation should place itself after considering answers to the related questions. For the purpose of easy understanding the situation a summary of ten discrete scales is included at the beginning of the chapter 1, Self-assessment. This may assist in identification of the main strengths and problems of the previous strategic planning processes. Not all chapters, not all questions must be addressed within the self-assessment exercise. The organisation may focus only on those ones or their parts which seem to be the most relevant to its needs and situation. But there should be a rational argument for doing so. The identified Strengths and Areas for Improvement may be listed in the table in the relevant chapter. In case of any troubles, unclarities, the Capacity Building Work Group office in Prague or consultants to the SODA project could be contacted. Any comments, proposals or recommendations will be welcomed there, as well. Michal Karpisek, Petr Vrzacek Prague, 16 July 2002 Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 3
Part I. Self-assessment summary You can group the individual levels of development from the following scales in the summary table in order to get better graphical picture of results of your self-assessment. This should be done only after going through self-assessment, answering the questions, coming to conclusions. Drawing the connecting line through the individual points at each sub-scale may help even more. Indicate the summary of levels of development in your organisation as identified on the following pages Aspect Maturity of the organisation Planning SP Stakeholders & Clients Involvement & participation of people Strengths & Weakness identification Opportunities & Threats identification Mission, vision, values, culture of the organisation Goals & Priorities within Strategy Implementation of the SP Leadership, role of leaders Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 4
1. Maturity of the organisation Maturity of the organisation for strategic planning reasons for strategic plan development, experience, expectations, commitment There is a feeling that the organisation should have a strategic plan. However, this feeling seems to result more from external influence, e.g. from donors. There is a limited or negative experience with strategic planning, not much was learnt from it. People in the organisation do not see much benefit in spending their time on an elaboration of a strategic plan. Key decision makers within the organisation share the reasons for developing a strategic plan and are highly committed to the process. The organisation can built on a previous experience. People in the organisation understand that the strategic plan should help the organisation, should have a positive impact on their work environment, what sort of issues they might face and are ready to contribute to the process. What are the main reasons for preparation of the strategic plan? How would they differ in the eyes of different people/groups within the organisation e.g. governing bodies, management, project co-ordinators, field workers, volunteers? How do you know that? What are expectations from the strategic plan in the organisation? Would there be any differences between different groups of people in the organisation? Why do think so? What scope should the strategic plan relate to? The entire organisation? Only some parts? Only some services? Why? And how was it in the past? If there was any previous experience with strategic planning in the organisation, how is it assessed? What was the impact of the previous strategic plan, which stage of development and implementation did the process reach? Was there any evaluation of the experience? How much would people share the reasons for the success or failure? How was the idea of strategic planning explained within the organisation? What were the tools and channels for such information? How effective they were? Could it be improved? How much do people in the organisation feel comfortable with the involvement into the strategic planning? Do they see the process as an obstacle/disturbance in their work, something bureaucratic to go through as a must, something which may help them? For what reasons? What evidence do you have? Is/was the communication planned systematically for the purpose or is/was it rather ad hoc, whoever would get/have got the information, whoever might be interested? How systematic is/was it? How can you support your statements? Should there be some survey, study of records, discussion, workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 5
2. Planning the strategic plan Planning the strategic planning process time, resources, milestones, monitoring of progress The design of the strategic planning process is vague. Although managers may have some idea about proceedings and a sequence of steps, there is no written plan. It is rather expected that the process will continue on a day-to-day basis up to some deadline. Therefore it is not very clear how long the planning process will last, how much it will cost and what are the necessary resources. People in the organisation have some idea that the organisation would like to introduce a strategic plan but do not know much more. The strategy development process is well planned, quite concrete. The process has been reasonably clearly and logically described. The previous experience was taken into account. There is a clear deadline, sequence of different phases including key milestones. The process is monitored and evaluated against the plan. Adjustments are discussed and agreed. Needed resources have been identified and allocated. People in the organisation have been informed and have access to needed information. Is/was there any formalised plan of the strategic planning process? How well does/did it describe what would happen during the strategic planning? Was the plan doable? If not, why? How was the plan developed? What were the roles of relevant people in this process? How far was it agreed with them? Was the plan reviewed in the end before approval? Did/does the plan contain any milestones for monitoring their completion or problems arising? Did/does it have any deadline? Did/does it have any criteria of success? What are they? How concretely were required resources planned people, time, finances, equipment, etc.? What were the main problems in doing so? Is/was there a plan to monitor the progress in order to understand the process? Was the planning of the strategic planning process evaluated? If yes, what was learnt from the evaluation of the process planning? How are/were relevant people informed about such findings? How and to what extent are/were people in the organisation informed about the plan, responsibilities, what is expected from them? Did they understand the message, are/were they aware of the process requirements, especially as concerns their involvement? How do you know that? Could there be any other, better way how to pass the information? Is/was there a plan describing how will be different people in the organisation supported to meet all requirements which arise from their involvement? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion, workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 6
3. Stakeholders & Clients Stakeholders & clients their identification, involvement in SP, communication, feedback Although the organisation understands basically who are its stakeholders and clients, there is a limited understanding of their expectations. It is based rather on personal impressions of the organisation s managers. Strategic planning is likely to be considered as a discrete, private issue of the organisation and in particular of its management. Therefore there is not much interaction with clients and/or stakeholders. The organisation has clearly identified its clients and stakeholders. Their requirements and expectations are analysed on a regular basis. The relevant key groups of clients and stakeholders have been informed about the strategic planning process, their role has been clarified and they have been invited to contribute to the process. There was established an appropriate way of communication with such groups and its effectiveness is regularly assessed. People in the organisation understand the importance of communication and feedback from clients and stakeholders. How well have you identified the organisation s clients? What are their characteristics? Do/did you know enough about them and about their needs? How does/did your strategic plan meet them? What is/was their role in the strategic planning process? How do/did they fulfil their role? Who are the organisation s stakeholders? What is importance of different groups of them as concerns organisation s development and strategy? What is/was their role in the strategic planning process? How do/did they fulfil their role? Could there be any other important stakeholders? Do/did you anyhow motivate your clients and stakeholders to participate in the strategic planning process? What were the results? Have you identified what could be the main expectations and requirements of different groups of clients and stakeholders? How have you come to such conclusions? To what extend does/did your strategic plan correspond with them? How are/were the conclusions concerning clients and stakeholders expectations achieved? Who is/was in charge of their interpretation? Was there a common agreement on that? Which tools do you use for communication with your clients and stakeholders during the strategic planning process? How do/did they work? Who are/were people responsible for communication with these groups? If there are/were more people involved, how do/did they share their conclusions and findings? Does/did anybody coordinate these activities? Do/did you invite the main clients (representatives) and stakeholders to comment on strategy, plans and services of your organisation? How is/was it done? How well does/did this way of communication function? Could there be any better, affordable way? How do people within your organisation perceive its clients? Stakeholders? Was there any internal discussion on that? Are there any problems? Was there any survey? What evidence is available? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion, workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 7
4. Involvement & participation of people Involvement of the entire organisation into strategic planning + into data/information collection throughout the organisation The strategy has been developed purely by a single person or by a small group of people. There was either a limited interaction with other people in the organisation or their opinion was not taken into account too seriously. The strategy is based more on feelings and impressions rather than resulting from concrete data. Therefore the strategy is likely to be a more subjective document, representing only the ideas of its authors. Other people had only a small chance and/or little information to influence its content. The conclusions were weakly communicated within the organisation. The strategy has been drafted by a person or a small group of people appointed by the top management. However, the draft is based on the input of a wide range of people within the organisation, including their feedback, opinions and data. It is considered whether the range of data and information is complex and adequate or whether some more should be searched for. The authors focused on summarisation, analysis and interpretation of gathered data and information. There is a consultative mechanism for strategic planning and it is reviewed regularly. The final conclusions, priorities and principles of the strategy are widely communicated throughout the organisation in an appropriate form for each relevant group in order to ensure their comprehension. What is/was the process of the strategy formulation? What are/were the responsibilities? Who are/were the people involved in drafting the strategy? How are/were they selected? What were the steps in developing the written strategy document? How much are/were the conclusions based on information on organisation s performance, learning from experience, experience of other organisations, SWOT analysis? What is/was the scope of information and data required from people within the organisation? How difficult and successful is/was data and information collection? Problems? Do/did people in the organisation understand what is/was expected from them? Are/were people informed about the emerging conclusions of the strategy? How? Does/did it bring any feedback? If so, how much are/were these reactions incorporated in the final version? To which extent do/did the authors communicate with the rest of the organisation, external subjects? What is the experience and lessons learned? Could be anything done in a better way? What is/was the process of the final document approval? How is the strategy accepted within the organisation? Do/did people find the strategy concrete enough to address them? How much do people know about its principles? How much do they agree with it, how do they own the strategy? Or do they not care at all? How does the strategy acceptance correspond with former expectations? How do you know that? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion, workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 8
5. Strengths & Weaknesses identification Ability to understand the developments within the organisation, data interpretation, formulation of Strengths/Weaknesses The development within the organisation is rarely monitored. There is not much documented evidence of progress and achievements. The conclusions on the organisation s strengths and weaknesses are rather subjective, based on impressions from daily work and subjective experience. It is possible that such conclusions were imposed by strong personalities. The overall feeling is that other people do not have to be involved as their contribution would be minimum. The development of the organisation is monitored and assessed regularly. The key decision makers use relevant, systematically collected indicators in order to understand and agree on the organisational strengths and weaknesses. Employees are regularly consulted, informed about key strengths and problems and have the possibility to comment on them. What data/information are/were collected for understanding the organisation s state and development? How concrete they are/were? Does/did the range of data/information allow that or should anything additional be collected? How and how often is the organisation s situation or development assessed? Who is responsible for that? How are the criteria selected? What are the key indicators? Does/did it result in a formal identification of strengths and weaknesses? Are/were these really supported by data/information or are/were they based rather on feelings and impressions? Who and how has formulated a list of strengths/weaknesses and group them according to their importance and impact? Which other people and to which extend are/were going to take part in it? Did it happen? Does it allow enough consulting and screening throughout the organisation? Are/were people informed about the final conclusions on strengths/weaknesses in an understandable way? How? Does/did it bring any feedback? If so, does it fit in the picture provided by the analysis? Does/did it bring any proposals how to improve? How do people agree on the identified strengths and weaknesses? Do they perceive them as realistic and openly stated? Or is it rather felt as a formal, problem avoiding formulation? Would different groups within the organisation agree with final conclusions? What is/was done for reaching some level of consensus? Do/did the managers encourage people to comment on the analysis and come with proposals? Have there been any changes in formulation or ranking strengths and weaknesses over the time? Which and why? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion, workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 9
6. Opportunities & Threats identification Reliability and accuracy of environmental analysis - Opportunities/Threats, complexity, adequacy, scope and measurability of input data/information The analysis of external environment is rather shallow. It is based on limited range of information; it is a rather subjective interpretation of the situation. It represents a sort of fatalistic approach, contains mostly comments on obstacles and barriers (e.g. legislation, lack of finances). Threats and opportunities are quite generally identified with a weak link to environmental analysis. The organisation has developed a system of regular analysing external environment and its changes. This is done in a way that eliminates a risk of purely subjective interpretation. Someone is responsible for screening the external environment and data gathering. Its analysis is logically translated into threats and opportunities. These are reviewed on a regular basis. Have any threats and opportunities been identified? How concrete and complex have they been? Has their identification helped anyhow the organisation to get ready for them? If not, why? What data/information are/were used for external environment analysis? How concrete these inputs are/were? Does/did the range of data/information allow to understand the organisation s environment or should anything additional be collected? Are there any other sources of information to be considered? What is/was the process of external environment analysis and how often does it take place? Which people and to which extend are/were going to take part in it? Does/did it happen? Have the previous threats/opportunities been reviewed over the time? How often does that happen? Have any changes appeared? What has been learnt from reviewing threats/opportunities and assessing adequacy of their formulation? Is there anybody responsible for gathering data/information, for monitoring the situation? If it is more people for different areas, how is the process and data/information co-ordinated? Who and how has formulated a list of threats/opportunities and group them according to their importance and impact? How do different (groups of) people agree on the identified threats/opportunities? Do they perceive them as realistic and describing the situation? Or is it rather felt as a formal, it-must-bedone exercise? What is/was done for reaching some level of consensus? Are/were people informed about the final conclusions on threats/opportunities in a rational and understandable way? How? Does/did it bring any feedback? If so, does it fit in the picture provided by the analysis? Do/did the managers encourage people to comment on the analysis and come with proposals? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion, workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 10
7. Mission, vision, values, culture of the organisation Formulating and sharing the mission, vision, values and culture of the organisation The organisation has some mission, but it is either too general, not shared by all employees or has not been written down at all. Different people in the organisation have different understanding of mission, no or different ideas on the visions of the organisation s future. The stakeholders have limited information on the mission of the organisation. The organisation internal culture and values are not clear and therefore weakly cared of. The organisation has developed a clear mission that is recognised by all employees and by relevant stakeholders. People understand the principles of the mission, how does it influence their role in the organisation and work. They have relevant ideas about the agreed future position, role and function of the organisation. That contributes to their commitment and understanding their contribution to the organisation s performance and development. The organisation s internal culture and values correspond with its mission and are systematically cultivated. To what extent is your organisation s mission formulated in order to answer who you are, what needs/problems you are here to address, how do you respond to these needs/problems, how do you respond to your stakeholders, what is your philosophy, values, culture and what does make you distinctive or unique? Who and how has formulated the mission statement? On basis of what? What would be the organisation s policy principles as concerns people s awareness of the mission, vision, values and principles of the organisation s culture? What are reasons for such approach? How well have people been aware of the mission principles? Do they own it? How? Have they understood it? Have they considered it to be helpful for understanding their organisation, its culture and services? Do people in the organisation act consistently with its mission? How is the vision of the organisation formulated, if any? Who and how has formulated it? Based on what? How well is it consulted and/or communicated throughout the organisation? Do people know in principle where would the organisation like to be in the future, how would it like to function? Would they consider it useful? How are such issues monitored? Do the findings have any impact on the formulation of mission, vision and ways of their communication/explanation to different groups of people? How are the people informed about changes? Would it be possible to identify some specific values or culture of the organisation? Have that been even formulated in any code? If so, what was the purpose? How is it monitored? What are the conclusions? Does the organisation care of its internal culture? How and with what results? Would different (groups of) people perceive the organisation s culture and values similar way? Why? What can you state about that? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion, workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 11
8. Goals & Priorities within Strategy Setting goals and priorities prioritising, formulation measurable, concrete, achievable, realistic, time-bound, unambiguous, understandable Although strategic lines were identified, their formulation is ambiguous, their number is too high to allow addressing them all, but no clear priorities have been selected among them. Different people and/or different units in the organisation have different understanding of its priorities. The goals corresponding to the strategic lines are missing or have been formulated too superficially, unrealistically or without consideration of available resources. A realistic number of achievable strategic guidelines have been selected in a consultative process. All key decision makers share these priorities. Staff members have been informed adequately about them. The consequent goals corresponding to strategic lines are concrete and SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, resources available and time-bound). What is/was the total number of different strategic lines formulated within the strategy? How were these brought and formulated? By who? What was the process? How do the strategic lines correspond with the analysis of the organisation and its environment? Have the strategic lines been prioritised? Who are/were people involved and how was this done? What criteria were used? Who had set them? Have the priorities been agreed mutually? Was there a consensus? How was it achieved and how real is it? What is perceived as a realistic number of priorities which the organisation could focus on? Why? Has this target been met in the process? How? What are the reasons for such result? Would the managers own the priorities? Other people in the organisation? How and to which extent are they informed about them? Is there any feedback? Are people invited and supported to comment on the proposed priorities? Why? Have the comments been anyhow taken into account? Have the previous priorities been reviewed/assessed? How? By who? What are the conclusions? Has the process of strategic lines setting been reviewed, changed or improved? How are/were the prior strategic lines translated into goals? Who does/did that and how? How concretely are the goals formulated? How realistic is it to meet the selected number of goals? Have the deadlines, responsibilities and resources been considered during the goals formulation? Have the goals been agreed with those concerned with them? Did the stated goals change during the implementation? If yes, what were the reasons? How were people in the organisation informed about the goals, their roles and expected contribution? Have they understood it? Have they agreed? If no, what were the main reasons? What is the system of the progress monitoring? What are results? What is an impact on further plans? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion or workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 12
9. Implementation of the Strategic Plan Transfer of the strategic plan into reality implementation, resources, operational plans, monitoring, adjustments (irrelevant issue if there is no strategic plan) The strategic plan exists and it is broken down into corresponding, agreed operational plans. Responsibilities of different people in the organisation are clearly stated and introduced to relevant employees. The organisation has reserved or is ready to allocate sufficient resources to implement the strategy. The organisation s system allows appropriate data collection for the monitoring the progress in meeting the goals and their adjustments where appro- priate. The strategic plan exists, it includes some goals. However, hardly anybody in the organisation knows what do they mean, what is expected to happen and how it could affect his/her work. Different people have no or different ideas about the plan s implementation. It is not clear who and how is responsible for implementation of (the part of) the strategy. Things happen uncoordinated, based either on personal initiative or on ad hoc orders. It is hard to speak about any monitoring system or it is not functional enough to assess the achievements as concerns the goals. Are/were the operational plans formulated adequately in order to meet the strategic goals? Are/were they concrete enough? Understandable? Specifically addressing the problems? Are/were clear responsibilities and ownership of tasks/processes agreed on? Are/were people in the organisation informed properly about the operational goals, their linkage to the planned organisation s development, rationale? About responsibilities, roles, expected outputs? Benefits? How? Do they follow it? How successful are/were you in implementing the operational plans? What have been/were the main problems? Why? Are/were there enough resources planned, including people, time, finances, equipment, etc.? Is/was there set a reasonable deadline, respectively any milestones? How well does/did the plans (goals, time, resources, etc.) respond to the later reality? Should the planning process be reviewed? Is there any experience from such assessment? Do others share the experience? How is/was the achievement monitored/assessed? How often? Who is/was responsible? Who are/were the people involved? Which data are/were used as a basis for the assessment? Have any criteria for assessing the progress been identified? By whom? Are/were they reasonably set? Does/did assessment result into a review of the plans? How and what is/was the process? Should anything be adjusted? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion or workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 13
10. Leadership, role of leaders Leadership, background and role of leaders in the strategic planning process Organisation s leaders have no or weak experience with strategic planning process. They do not understand their role in the process clearly and leave the process rather uncoordinated. They have different interests and different visions about further organisational development. Organisation s leaders understand the complexity of the strategic planning process, have previous experience or are reasonably trained. They are personally involved in activities promoting the acceptance of the process throughout the organisation, required participation and involvement of people in the organisation and its outputs. In order to promote the process, they act as a unified team sharing the same values and vision. What is the leaders experience in strategic planning? What have they learnt from previous activities? Are the leaders motivated to participate in strategic planning? What is their motivation? What are the leaders expectations from the strategic plan? From the process of strategic planning? Would these differ from the ones of the other people in the organisation? Why? What is going to happen about that? What is the planned role of the leaders in the process? Do the leaders have skills, capacity to fulfil their roles in the strategic planning process and its implementation? How successfully is it met? How do the other people see that? What would be the differences? Which activities are the leaders involved in? How do they assure sufficient communication and feedback from the others? How and by which tools are people in the organisation promoted to get contribute actively to the strategic planning and its improvement? How do the leaders act as a team? Is their message clear and coherent or do they act differently, casing confusion? What is people s perception? What is possible to document? How can you support your statements? Should there be some study of records, survey, discussion or workshop in order to know more details? In the future? Would it be possible to ask even those who do not work for the organisation anymore? Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 14
Part II. Strengths/Areas for improvement List your strengths and areas for improvement concerning the strategic planning which you have identified during the previous self-assessment. Organisation s strengths in strategic planning: Areas for improvement in organisation s strategic planning: Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 15
After identification and agreement on organisation s main strengths and areas for improvement, try to prioritise the areas for improvement and select a limited number of the main ones. The number should be realistic to deal with. Take into consideration that expect the regular work you may focus of improvement actions also in some other spheres of organisation s management that only strategic planning. During prioritising you may take into account importance of areas for improvement from the point of view of: the survival for your organisation, their potential to influence the organisation s success, their significance for clients/stakeholders, the urgency of improvement, the resources available for improvement action, the availability of properly skilled people, the risk of ignoring the problem, the difficulty/easiness to improve. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Selected main areas for improvement Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 16
Part III. Improvement plans Think of goals which would address the identified areas for improvement the best. Keep in mind that the goals should be SMART: specific measurable achievable resources available time-bound OR come with proposals for the Strategic planning process improvement including specific actions for improvement will be required. Think of what should not be omitted when preparing the plan for the next round of the strategic planning. Priority Area for Improvement: 1 Goal: 2 Specific objective: 3 Measure/s necessary a) to check progress b) to know the goal has been achieved: 4 Achievable (factors) 5 Resources: 6 Time: Self-evaluation, Strategic Planning Process, pg. 17