government business planning process

Official website of the U.S. government

• Priority 1: Workforce
• Priority 2: Customer Experience
• Priority 3: Business of Government
• PMA Learning Agenda

How to Strategic Plan in 7 Steps

By Avery Collins, GSA

April 26, 2022

This is the second post in a series highlighting different aspects of strategic planning in the Federal Government. Today, we will meet Agency Alpha, a fictional agency that will help us learn more about the strategic planning process.

L ast week, we met Carson and learned how she used strategic planning to land a new job . We talked about how this same process applies to government agencies and leaders, who use strategic planning to determine their vision for the future and create a strategic plan to serve as their roadmap.

The strategic planning process that agencies follow is more in-depth than most of us use for our personal goals. Today we will be following Agency Alpha, a fictional federal agency that will help illustrate the strategic planning process. While each federal agency approaches strategic planning a little differently and there is not a single best approach, a sound strategic planning process includes the following 7 key steps.

Step 1: Environmental Scan

The first step of any strategic planning process starts with research. Agency Alpha conducts an environmental scan , a process where they identify and monitor factors that may impact the long-term direction of the agency. Agency Alpha starts by looking at the incoming administration’s priorities and potential new regulations. They identify climate change, customer experience, and equity as a few Administration priorities that they would need to incorporate into their future vision.

Step 2: Internal Analysis

Research doesn’t stop after assessing the environment outside of an agency. Agency Alpha also needs to complete an internal analysis , including a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) assessment. They utilize their annual review process to evaluate performance across the agency and engage with staff and senior leadership. They compare their operations with the Administration priorities they identified in step 1, and in this instance they focus specifically on climate.

Step 3: Strategic Direction

Agency Alpha uses what they learned from their environmental scan and internal analysis to create a strategic direction . They meet with staff and stakeholders and use that input to build a vision for the future that is both idealistic and high-impact. They theorize how to align Administration priorities like equity, customer experience, and climate with agency operations. They determine what is actually achievable and what the agency should strive for. Climate is important to the agency employees and those they serve. They see it as a big part of the future, and thus a big part of the vision for Agency Alpha.

Step 4: Develop Goals and Objectives

After determining their strategic direction and vision, Agency Alpha engages with internal stakeholders and senior leadership to create a focused set of goals and objectives . They facilitate focus groups and meet with subject matter experts to come up with strategies, indicators, and desired outcomes for each goal. They use existing processes like staff engagement, communities of practice, and quarterly reviews to get buy-in from across the agency.

Step 5: Define Metrics, Set Timelines, and Track Progress

After the goals and objectives are set, Agency Alpha adds details to their plan. They determine the responsible offices and bureaus for each goal. They identify the necessary resource allocations, create actionable timeframes, and define metrics that best measure success. Agency Alpha appoints Team Beta to lead clean energy initiatives and Team Cobra to lead climate literacy initiatives. They set milestones and timelines to ensure they stay on track.

Step 6: Write and Publish a Strategic Plan

Once Agency Alpha gathers the information in step 5, they write an informed strategic plan that captures the voice and purpose of the agency. Their engagement with staff and stakeholders in steps 2 through 5 gained agency-wide support for the plan to help ensure that the strategic plan does not end up as a stand-alone document.

Step 7: Plan for Implementation and the Future

While drafting their plan, Agency Alpha begins to prepare for how to implement it after publication. They include performance measures that track progress and create a formal system for leadership and staff to annually review the plan and update goals and objectives as needed. Every agency follows a slightly different process, but most have gone through these 7 steps over the last year and a half. Last month, federal agencies published their strategic plans for 2022 to 2026 on performance.gov .

Stay tuned as we explore the importance of strategy and performance in the Federal Government and share agency success stories. The next post in this series will feature the National Endowment for the Arts and look at how staff and external engagement shaped their overall vision for the next four years.

Back to top

Public Sector

/ focus, four steps to high-impact strategic planning in government.

By  Matt Boland ,  Troy Thomas , and  Danny Werfel

How do governments fare when it comes to strategic planning and execution ? Consider a recent session BCG conducted with a group of government leaders. To kick off the discussion, we asked for a show of hands: Who among you knows exactly what your agency’s priorities are? A few raised their hands. We then asked, Who among you believes that your agency’s strategic-planning process has had a real impact on your work? Again, just a few. Our final question: How many of you think that your agency can—and must—do better in this area? To that, everyone raised a hand. 

Smart planning and sustained execution are needed to anticipate and navigate the increasing complexity and challenges facing government leaders around the world. Governments must make the best use of limited resources and mitigate the risks of economic and political turbulence. Despite these imperatives, public-sector agencies commonly fail to value strategy, and they rarely excel at strategic planning and execution. The result: government leaders struggle to change their organization’s behavior and to drive progress toward the most important policy outcomes. 

The key to upping government’s game on this front is to understand what prevents effective strategic planning and execution and then to attack those challenges head on. On the basis of its more than 50 years of working as a leader in strategy, BCG has developed deep insight into the barriers that confront the private sector and an understanding of how they also challenge the public sector . These hurdles include a planning system that is too focused on bureaucratic processes at the expense of outcomes. In the public sector, such challenges are compounded by the frequent changes in leadership that are tied to election cycles, entrenched hierarchies and regulations, and a culture of risk avoidance. 

Drawing on 31 interviews with current and former public-sector leaders around the globe, we have identified four steps that governments can take to eliminate these obstacles: promote a strategic culture, leverage the organization’s purpose to catalyze action, transform the operating model, and build a system for execution and learning. 

Remaking the strategic-planning process is not about creating the optimal meeting schedule, metrics, or mission statements. It is about building a system that allows agency and department heads to determine priorities, put adequate resources behind those priorities, and then hold people accountable for results. It is about solving real problems. When they achieve this, government leaders find that they are fighting the right battles and delivering lasting value for their citizens.

Government’s Strategic-Planning Imperative

It is through strategic planning and execution that both private- and public-sector organizations develop and implement strategies, whether for corporate growth or for achieving a federal mandate. Through this process, organizations reconcile their responsibilities with their resources and set strategic priorities. When done well, strategic planning and execution can effectively account for and manage the numerous variables that affect their plans and programs and make the important connections within and among stakeholders, allowing them to work in concert toward critical goals. Sustainable and flexible execution of the strategy promotes the likelihood that government will deliver on its promises, improving citizens’ confidence and promoting their trust. 

Exhibit 1 illustrates one highly effective approach to strategic planning: the W-shaped model. (See Four Best Practices for Strategic Planning , BCG Focus, April 2016.) This approach starts with leadership’s definition of the organization’s vision and strategic ambition. Next, the division, field unit, or function heads are asked to respond to a series of pointed questions about the organization’s big challenges relative to this vision. Answering these questions, the unit or function heads suggest concepts or proposals for meeting the challenges. On the basis of their subsequent discussion, management selects proposals and assigns the unit or function heads responsibility for developing detailed plans for putting those proposals into action. Management drives execution of the plan, as well as a system for learning and adapting that is based on new information.

Mounting Public-Sector Challenges. The need for this sort of effective strategic-planning and execution process in government is intensifying in the face of four difficult realities. 

First, owing to the scale and pace of change, including changes driven by advancing technology, today’s operating environment is more complex than ever before. Case in point: the democratization and proliferation of advanced technologies is upending the way governments manage risks to security and their economies. Second, finding solutions to most public-sector challenges requires the involvement of more stakeholders—in and out of government—than in the past. For example, responding effectively to the risks posed by infectious diseases such as the Zika and Ebola viruses required international collaboration within and across government agencies as well as the private sector. Third, many governments are facing ongoing erosion of public confidence. A 2017 Pew Research Center survey, for example, found that only 18% of Americans trust the national government to do what is right. A 2015 survey by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, meanwhile, found that just 43% of citizens in its member countries trust their government. Fourth, many governments are feeling the squeeze on discretionary spending due to rising deficits, aging populations, and the increasing cost of government services.

Obstacles to Effective Strategic Planning. Amid such challenges, strategic planning becomes more important than ever before. However, in many public and private organizations, such planning is frequently undervalued and poorly done. 

Many of the obstacles are common to both government and the private sector. In numerous situations, the process is too bureaucratic, requiring multiple iterations and consuming too much time. It can also be too internally focused, failing to account for external factors or to learn from the experience of other sectors or similar organizations. Furthermore, in all too many cases, strategic planning excludes key stakeholders who are needed both for diagnosing challenges and for delivering outcomes. The failure to involve midlevel managers is particularly problematic because it can mean that the right issues are not elevated to the attention of senior leaders as they set strategy and that there is limited buy-in among the rank and file, weakening execution. Finally, there is a disconnect between the strategy and the incentive structure that is meant to promote follow-through on the strategic plan. 

Public-sector organizations are, of course, quite different from private-sector companies. Some challenges seen in the private sector may be magnified in the public sphere while other additional issues that exist in government have no presence in the private sector.

For one thing, government leaders—especially political appointees—generally have a more limited window of time for action than do private-sector leaders. That’s because there is high turnover among government leaders in many countries. In the U.S., for example, not only does a considerable majority of the federal government’s most senior political leaders turn over every four to eight years, but the average tenure of a federal government, Senate-confirmed appointee is only 18 to 30 months. 

At the same time, although many government leaders have solid policy expertise, a large number have little of the strategy and management expertise that comes from running a large and complex organization. As a result, it’s not unusual for them to delegate responsibility for the strategic-planning process, and they are not always personally invested in execution. This lack of engagement at the top filters down, leading to marginally engaged staff members who are not optimally committed to developing and implementing the organization’s strategy. 

Finally, many government organizations don’t perceive risk as private-sector companies do. Public-sector organizations can often be focused on short-term outcomes and compliance with rules and regulations rather than on long-term strategic results. Consequently, creating a strategy that can be adapted in the face of changing environments or new information is difficult.

Building a Strategic-Planning Process That Delivers Impact

To improve their strategic-planning and execution track record, government leaders should focus on steps that leverage four critical areas: culture, purpose, operating model, and execution. (See Exhibit 2.) Steps taken in these areas affect all stages of strategic planning—and can enhance the entire process. Of the four, culture is the most critical. It shapes and is shaped by the other three major levers for change. Changing an organization’s culture will unlock opportunity in the other three areas and help embed change in the organization.

Promote a Strategic Culture

Certainly, there are pockets of robust strategic planning in government, particularly within the defense sector : it is ingrained in the military profession. But either the culture of too many public-sector organizations does not embrace the value of strategic planning or the organizations’ leaders aren’t committed to that process.

To ensure a successful culture shift, the head of the agency or office must take a leading role in strategic planning, middle management must be involved from the start, and the risk-averse mindset inherent in government organizations must be addressed. 

“Strategy is ultimately the top leader’s responsibility,” according to one former senior government official. “You can’t delegate responsibility for leading change.” Public-sector leaders must personally drive the effort to set strategic priorities, build buy-in, align resources, communicate the strategy consistently, and hold people accountable for executing the plan. And they should make it clear to everyone in the organization that the unit responsible for strategic planning has a clear mandate from the top. 

To draw midlevel management into the strategic-planning process from the start, senior management must identify key staff throughout the organization who have responsibility for implementing policies and programs and bring them into the process through cross-functional teams. In addition, leaders should link the day-to-day work of frontline staffers to the strategy by highlighting ways that their roles and responsibilities—and the strategic-planning system itself—can help eliminate the obstacles to achieving important objectives and directly contribute to solving citizens’ real-world problems. Such steps will develop strategic thinking in personnel who are likely to be the next generation of leadership. And just as important, it will build buy-in for the strategy, making successful execution more likely.

The former head of a major operational directorate within a large government tax authority told us, “If a team is closely involved in developing the strategy, they will feel ownership of it. If they feel ownership, then they will want to make it work.”

For the head of one large government diplomatic organization, ensuring commitment to the strategy among the rank and file was critical for delivering results. She initiated and personally led a strategic-planning process when she took the helm of the organization a few years ago and involved managers from across the organization in the effort. In addition, goals were designed to drive agency-wide cooperation across various functional and regional silos. “This created a clear sense of where we were going, why, and the role each group played in achieving our goals,” she reported. 

The conservative mindset that some government organizations cultivate in employees can be a serious impediment to execution of the strategy. It’s important to find ways to reward and protect—not punish—those who take reasonable risks and achieve less than positive results. 

The head of a large transportation department understood that risk aversion could seriously undermine the progress of an extensive infrastructure project that the department was managing. The staff knew that rather than confine traffic to one lane during the many months of construction, the most cost-effective way to manage one element of the project would be to completely shut down traffic for several weeks. The head of the department knew that shutting down all traffic would generate short-term public outcry, but he was willing to take that risk. He understood the long-term public benefit and cost-saving opportunity that could be achieved in expediting the project, and he made it clear to his staff that he would own the decision should public backlash be directed at any of them. 

Leverage the Organization’s Purpose

A critical element in effective strategic planning is a clear sense of purpose, which consists of an organization’s timeless reason for being—its mission—and the strategic goals for fulfilling this mission within a set period of time. Strategic planning and execution allow organizations to deliver on that purpose by setting priorities, aligning resources, and mobilizing and measuring action. 

The following three actions help overcome the barriers to effective strategic planning and execution that stem from the organization’s overall sense of purpose: 

• Reinforce the core mission of the organization. In addition to reinforcing the core mission, which is generally rooted in law, the leaders must articulate a compelling vision for advancing the mission over a three- to five-year period. This will provide critical direction and energy for the organization and ensure that all staff members understand where the organization is moving. 
• Set clear strategic priorities to achieve the vision. This step may seem obvious, but it is rarely easy. “Deciding among top priorities is a challenge,” a former senior advisor in the U.S. executive branch told us. “Not everything can be a priority. You need ruthless prioritization.” Staff will play a key role in this area, helping to frame the inherent tensions and tradeoffs among these priorities.
• Communicate the strategy throughout the organization. Organization leaders must make strategy come alive by providing their staff a consistently vivid strategic narrative that is relevant to their day-to-day activities. This story should be related energetically throughout the organization: the top leaders communicate the strategy to their direct reports, who then communicate it to the people they manage, and so on. The cascading narrative should show workers how their actions, driven by the new strategy, directly contribute to improving the organization’s performance. Such clarity can go a long way toward improving the odds of successful execution of the strategy. 

Consistent messaging was a powerful tool for mobilizing staff behind a large government defense agency’s new strategy. To help drive change, a variety of carefully drafted messages were developed to communicate the strategy, including a short “bumper sticker” message, a three-minute elevator pitch, a series of videos from top leaders, and detailed documents and presentations. One senior leader recalled that the head of the agency “joked that the strategy bumper sticker message would end up on his tombstone.” Still, consistent communication was critical. “Absent that kind of commitment to messaging of the strategy,” she noted, “it is difficult to overcome the cultural resistance to change.”

Transform the Operating Model

Typically, the public-sector operating model—the governance, structure, and processes of a government agency—is hierarchical, rigid, and not adaptable to changing circumstances. Action in three areas can eliminate those impediments and, in so doing, enable a more effective and efficient operating model:

• Communication and Engagement with External Stakeholders. Government leaders should create a clear process for working with, for example, appropriators, authorizers, budgeting agencies, the office of the president or prime minister, citizens, and industry in order to secure the necessary resources and support for the strategic objectives.
• Integration of Risk Management in the Strategic-Planning Process. Strategic planning and risk management must be integrated so that the organization can anticipate and prepare for the full spectrum of potential problems and opportunities that could arise during execution. In many cases, the primary risks relate to insufficient statutory authority, resource constraints, and weak or unwilling external partners. And effective risk management requires looking at the organization’s entire interrelated portfolio of programs, rather than addressing only risks that are within silos or that are perceived as external to the organization. 
• Adapting Processes to Support the Strategy. New programs, policies, and the ways that their success is tracked and that resources are allocated should be directly linked to the organization’s strategic objectives. The use of agile teams—groups whose members are from functions throughout the organization and that are designed for rapid experimentation and adjustment—can provide powerful support in the design and development of these programs and policies. (See “ Taking Agile Way Beyond Software ,” BCG article, July 2017.) Such teams can generate quick insight on which initiatives are working and which are not. In addition, what success will look like for each strategic objective should be clear, with specific performance goals, indicators, and milestones identified for assessing progress. Furthermore, leaders must ensure that the disposition of resources and talent and the decision-making process are driven by the organization’s strategic priorities. The head of the large diplomatic organization mentioned previously says that more often than not, this is the exception in government. In many cases, she noted, “the strategy is not viewed as something that helps us get resources. There’s very little correlation between the strategy and budget requests.”

Leaders within the large defense organization described previously not only created multiple ways to communicate the strategy but also built a process that ensured that strategic priorities were supported with the necessary resources. During the budgeting process, one military department cut back on orders for equipment that was needed to support a crucial strategic objective. The aim was to trim purchases in order to invest in modernizing other conventional capabilities. Armed with a clear understanding of the priorities, senior defense organization leadership directed the department to fund strategically important equipment while allowing the department to determine how to offset the costs of other, less critical programs. 

Develop a System for Execution and Learning

Agencies that lack critical tools and data that can be used to measure progress cannot adjust course on the basis of new information. In addition, when strategy is not integrated into the day-to-day actions of frontline staff, employees can focus too much on programs that are not relevant to the organization’s strategic priorities. 

Doing an effective job of executing and adjusting the strategy hinges on three elements: the right data, a system that values accountability and aligns incentives, and the ability to adapt where necessary. The involvement and commitment of frontline managers is critical to success in all three areas.

The data required includes not only upfront information about what works in terms of programs and initiatives—data that can drive the initial strategic-planning process—but also timely and action-promoting data during the execution phase. Such information can come from both internal and external sources. Internal data may be the result of monthly strategy “pulse checks” with staff, quarterly or annual strategic reviews with senior managers, and evaluations of specific programs. External data can and—in many cases—should include information on the impact of certain programs in the real world. For the data to make a difference, it must be available, reliable, and timely. A senior executive in a large finance and tax agency told us that it’s important to “measure what matters—and movement will happen on things you measure.” 

The second element—accountability and incentives—is critical to successful execution. Leaders should hold regular evidence-based progress reviews with key managers, including officials who have direct oversight of programs that support each strategic objective. The sessions should focus on performance data for each program and allow in-depth discussions that include suggestions related to improving performance and mitigating risk. These sessions must be held more frequently and cover more detail than the annual or quarterly strategic reviews that many government departments and agencies already conduct. At the same time, the organization should create clear and valued incentives, including formal and informal awards and recognition for those who adopt new behaviors and contribute most to achieving objectives. 

The most effective government organizations understand that without accountability and the right incentives, even the best strategic plan will likely never become reality. One large agency responsible for managing much of the government’s real estate holdings held biweekly meetings at which staff reported progress on strategic priorities. According to the agency administrator, that “repeatable rhythm” of reporting kept the team focused on those priorities. A public-housing-and-finance organization, meanwhile, tied management’s performance evaluations to the accomplishments of the agency’s strategic objectives. This required identifying the right metrics for tracking progress against the objectives and instituting a credible and timely review process that integrated that information.

The third element—the ability to monitor performance in a way that helps the organization adapt—can result in two types of adjustments. First, data on the progress of key strategic objectives can help the organization alter the way it is executing its existing strategy. The strategic objectives may not change, but the way in which the organization tries to achieve them may. The second involves revision of the strategy itself. The need for such a shift can become evident only if the organization steps back periodically to assess whether or not things have changed in the overall operating environment. Such analysis may reveal that the assumptions on which the original strategy was based have changed, making it necessary to revisit the strategy.

Government agency and department heads worldwide can confirm that, as public-sector leaders, they are struggling to be successful in a uniquely challenging period. Political upheaval is the norm, and technology continues to alter the ways that society functions. 

In such an environment, government institutions must up their game or risk becoming irrelevant to the citizens they serve. Because confidence has slipped and must now be rebuilt, governments will be forced to take a major leap in the ways that they plan and execute strategy. Government leaders must institute a strategic-planning process that identifies the right priorities and drives decision making that supports those priorities. Taking steps in the four areas we’ve outlined—culture, purpose, operating model, and execution—can move governments from endless rounds of planning to delivery of results.

Subscribe to our Public Sector E-Alert.

Career Diplomat, Foreign Service of the US Department of State

Managing Director & Partner

Washington, DC

ABOUT BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP

Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholders—empowering organizations to grow, build sustainable competitive advantage, and drive positive societal impact.

Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range of perspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutions through leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corporate and digital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm and throughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clients thrive and enabling them to make the world a better place.

© Boston Consulting Group 2024. All rights reserved.

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at [email protected] . To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcg.com . Follow Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) .

Featured Content

BCG’s Public Sector practice joins forces with global organizations and governments to transform how they operate so they can better meet increasingly challenging and complex societal problems.

Mastering Transformation in the Public Sector

BCG’s “three peaks” framework for transformation in the public sector guides organizations through every phase of the end-to-end transformation process.

Four Best Practices for Strategic Planning

Now more than ever, companies need to devote time to strategy. But far too many strategic-planning processes fall short. It doesn’t have to be that way.

Governing in the Age of Disruption

Technological change is disrupting everything, including the competitiveness of industries and the labor market. Governments must respond and embrace new strategies.

How to Optimize Your Federal Business Development Workflow

IN THIS ARTICLE

How to Define Your Federal Business Development Strategy

Difficulties in federal business development, tools and intelligence to streamline your workflow.

[Use Bloomberg Government’s focused data sets, proprietary tools, and expert analysis to fill your pipeline and grow your business now.]

Managing federal business development workflows can quickly become an unwieldy process, especially when it involves large government contracts that need input and coordination across multiple parties. Building and monitoring the entire opportunity pipeline, from the initial draft request for proposal to winning the final contract, often requires extensive research on information that’s fragmented across multiple platforms, spreadsheets, emails, and messages.

For business developers, this means a lot of time spent finding and gathering both quantitative and qualitative data on individual opportunities, market trends, government spending, networks and partnerships. Optimizing this workflow is essential to building robust pipelines, closing contracts, and growing your federal business.

Winning Federal Contracts on the Top 20 Contract Vehicles

With the right strategy in place, contractors can find and win new contracts for a predictable pipeline.

Before you’re able to optimize your workflow, you must first define your business development strategy. This is the plan of action your company will use to identify new opportunities, build out their pipeline, write the proposals, and ultimately win contracts. Accomplishing this goal requires a detailed plan and an immense amount of research into market conditions, government spending trends, and competitor analysis.

To define your company’s business development strategy and optimize your workflow, consider conducting both a Black Hat and White Hat review. These assessments provide valuable insights into the current market size, your company’s current position in it, and your competitors’ strengths and weaknesses.

The Data You Need

Gain the certainty you need for your business through key information on all federal budget, solicitation, and spending activities.

Black Hat Review

A Black Hat review is all about the competition. You’ll want to write a proposal from their point of view to gain a better understanding of how they would secure the deal. Make a note of any advantages your competitors might have, either in the products or services themselves or their opportunity funnels, and keep track of their weak points.

This exercise can help you determine how your company stacks up to the competition, the right competitive price point at which to market your solution, and whether or not you can win the contract. You’ll also gain key insights on how to position your company against your competitors while building customer relationships with program managers and contracting officers.

White Hat Review

Whereas a Black Hat review focuses on your competitors, a White Hat review targets your company’s capabilities and solutions. This is when you utilize the actionable information from research and assessments to improve your win probability.

Assess and minimize your own weak spots, and explore how your market solutions compare to the competition. It might reveal that you need a partner for a contract or that a niche is oversaturated. In any case, you can use this time to tackle any internal issues, adjust pipeline goals, and target competitor pitfalls with your solutions.

[Explore the tenth annual  BGOV200 Federal Industry Leader rankings  and download the full report.]

While it might be easy to say “define your business development strategy,” taking the necessary actions to create and implement a detailed pipeline plan is no simple feat. Business developers face many challenges throughout their workflows, from time-consuming research on opportunities to qualifying partnerships and contract leads.

Some common frustrations among business development teams include:

• Identifying areas of opportunity in a niche market.
• A shortage of pipeline opportunities and inaccurate information.
• Aggregating and analyzing accurate, reliable data and contracts to win work.
• Staying up-to-date on government spending trends and market conditions.
• Finding the right agency and vendor contacts.
• Facilitating calls or meetings to gain information and expand their networks.
• Clearly communicating with contracting officers.
• Ensuring accurate release dates for RFPs.

With information buried across a multitude of channels, business developers spend most of their time tracking it down or contacting people. These difficulties often hinder strategic growth planning, resulting in companies falling short of their pipeline goals. However, there are strategies and solutions that can help you overcome these hurdles with numerous added benefits.

Bloomberg Government offers a powerful suite of features designed to optimize your entire federal contracting workflow. With BGOV, business developers can easily create viable pipelines that win task orders on contracts and close deals.

Opportunity Search is the market’s most comprehensive search tool. With fast, accurate, and reliable information and access to a vast database of 31+ million contracts, BGOV provides business developers with the resources they need to save time while pursuing government contract opportunities.

BGOV Alerts offers proactive email updates on opportunities and markets of interest. Based on recompete data, machine learning algorithms can forecast which competitors might bid on the same project. BGOV Workspaces can also help you build your pipeline, qualify potential opportunities, and collaborate with team tools.

Backed by the power of Bloomberg News and proprietary expert analytics combined with powerful market intelligence tools provide business developers with a centralized platform for reliable information on current market conditions, government spending trends, and new contract opportunities. Not only does this present valuable context for current strategies and business decisions, it also saves time researching information by organizing disparate data stored on separate systems platforms.

With enhanced pipeline visibility and access to key market insights and information, BGOV enables business developers to produce accurate forecasting and strong opportunity pipelines. This translates into more contracts won and deals closed, growing your federal contracting business and network.

Market Intelligence to Inform Business Development

Bloomberg Government is your source for news, analysis, and data that covers mission-critical developments. From purchasing trends to supply chain, with BGOV, you’re always a step ahead.

Bloomberg Government helps you streamline the process of taking an opportunity search result from potential to pipeline – and proposal ready. Unparalleled document search capabilities allow you to seek out undiscovered opportunities, gaining a competitive advantage. Track these solicitations and perform competitive analysis to better understand your current market position. Competitive and contract intelligence provides you with accurate, up-to-date information so you can save time on research and focus on business development.

With Bloomberg Government, you receive reliable, actionable data that can propel your opportunities through your pipeline and deliver results. To learn more about how BGOV can help optimize your business development workflows, request a demo .

Find the right opportunities with BGOV’s unmatched data sets.Enhance your view of the market. Opportunity Search enables you to find and exclude keywords in documents attached to solicitation notices to surface relevant opportunities in no time at all.

Request a demo

Reference Shelf

• Report: BGOV200 Federal Industry Leader rankings
• Webinar: Contracts to Watch: GWACs & MACs
• Article: Partnering with 8(a) companies as a large contracting firm
• Article: The Top 10 IT Contractors
• Article: Federal Contract Spending Trends in Five Charts
• Article: How to Build Your Pipeline With the Right Federal Contracts
• Article: How to Size Your Market to Strategically Grow Your Federal Business

How Lobbying Firms are Changing their Structures and Advocacy Strategy

Contractor impacts: fy24 defense appropriations, artificial intelligence market profile.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

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

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

• A–Z Index
• Operating Status

Strategic Planning

High performing organizations align organizational and individual performance management systems and human capital activities with the organizational strategic plan.  Creating a results-oriented, performance-based culture starts at the top and is cascaded through an agency’s management control tools.  A well designed organizational strategic plan or strategic human capital plan is essential.  OPM Consultants can assist agencies with their strategic planning process.  Given the nature of strategic planning, all projects are tailored to the specific needs of the agency and can range from assisting agencies, cradle to grave, with the step-by-step process for formulating a strategic plan, to facilitating leadership strategic planning off-sites to developing implementation plans.

When facilitating leadership off-sites, a sampling of services that can be provided include:

• Pre-session development of materials and identifying key documents to be used for strategic planning session.
• Pre-session discussions with leadership and stakeholders to refine the strategic planning session process goals and outcomes.
• A validation or development of the mission and vision statements either during the strategic planning session or prior to the session.
• A Strength Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis exercise to help agencies understand their distinctive organizational competencies and recognize strategic implications.
• A Strategic Issues Identification exercise to help agencies identify strategic issues – the fundamental challenges affecting the mission, mandates, values, structure, processes, and its management.
• A Strategic Goal and Objective Identification exercise to help agencies identify strategic goals and objectives to deal with the strategic issues identified. These goals and objectives will be the foundation of the strategic plan.
• A summary report of the strategic planning session’s activities and outcomes that can be translated into a strategic planning document.

Related Information

• Watch GovExec's Performance Management Viewcast

Get More Information

For additional information on this topic, or to learn more about implementing the best strategies today for the best workforce tomorrow, contact us via email at [email protected] .

Local Government Strategic Planning Process + Example

Strategic planning in government can be challenging. You need to ensure stakeholder input is taken into account, your strategy is aligned across all city departments, capital projects are linked to multiple plans, and all involved are bought into the strategy.

The good news is, it can be done and the process may be easier than you think. The even better news is, we'll be sharing our local government strategic planning process for achieving this here.

We've worked with a number of local governments through the process of implementing strategy in their organization. During these implementation projects we're often asked about the best way to structure and create their strategic plan.

In order to shed some light on this recurring issue, we've decided to address this in our local government strategic planning guide.

Local Government Strategic Planning Process

The local government strategic planning process should follow the steps below:

Environmental Scan

• Writing Your City Strategic Plan
• Strategy Roll-out to Divisions and Departments (We will touch on this in later articles)
• Executing Strategic Plan (We will touch on this in later articles)

While the above steps are a slightly simplified version of our local government strategic planning process, it should help give you an understanding of the phases in the strategy cycle as a basis - before you get caught up in the detail of the different things involved in each step.

We'll now look into the first two phases mentioned above and explain what it is, what the different components are, and how to go through each phase successfully to arrive at the next to create you government strategic plan.

When city/town managers and other executive leaders take on the task of strategic planning in government, an environmental scan should always be the first step. The environmental scan will require local governments to study and analyze the current and emerging forces that exist within their municipalities internal and external environment.

It provides city managers with comprehensive information on the current conditions of the city that may present potential opportunities, threats, strengths and weaknesses to take advantage of or mitigate. 

Internal Analysis

An internal analysis examines your organization’s internal environment in order to assess its resources, competencies, and competitive advantages. Performing an internal analysis allows you to identify the strengths and weaknesses of your organization, as well as the opportunities and threats that face your organization.

This knowledge aids the strategic decision making of management while they carry out the strategy formulation and execution process. We've already created a guide to conducting an internal analysis in an earlier article, so check it out , and then come on back here to continue. As a quick overview, things you'll probably want to cover in your internal analysis will include:

• A Strategy Analysis - to help you evaluate how well you performed against your current strategic plan, what you can do better, and where you should be focusing. 
• Internal Stakeholder Analysis - allows you to gather insight into the concerns and views of all internal stakeholders of your city and the impact they may have. 
• SWOT Analysis - will be beneficial in gaining a holistic view of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that face your city/town. 
• VRIO Analysis - will help you identify any competitive advantages you have, and how to turn them into sustained competitive advantages. 

External Analysis

An external analysis is the process of researching and examining the external environment your organization operates in, in order to determine where opportunities and threats to your town/city lie.

Just like any organization, local governments are affected by factors outside of their immediate control that they must prepare for. For example, changing legislation and policies, demographic changes, or climate concerns. Things you'll probably want to cover in an external analysis will include:

• A PESTLE analysis - to assist in identifying the different areas that may impact your city. 
• An External Stakeholder Analysis - allows you to gather insight into the concerns and views of all external stakeholders of your local government and the impact they may have.

Local Government Strategic Plan Example

The actual creation of your cities strategic plan can now begin. Armed with the information and insights gathered during your environmental scan, you should now be well equipped to formulate great strategies to achieve your municipalities goals.

There is one more thing you will need to consider before actually writing your strategy - and that is the 'model' (design of strategic plan structure) that you will actually use. For the purpose of this article we're going to be using 'The Cascade Model' as we have found that this approach to strategic model is simply more effective when it comes to execution than any other model we've tried.

We've slightly adapted some of the terminology in the model to work in the context of local governments. So, with that being said.. 

What is the Cascade Model?

The Cascade Model is made up of 6 components. We've put together a diagram below of what the components of The Cascade Model look like in use for local government.

Your vision statement defines  where you want to get to . Your Vision Statement is the anchor that stops you getting lost at sea. It will help to tunnel your strategy towards the outcomes that matter the most to your municipality.

Every single thing that you write into your plan from this point onward, will ultimately be helping you to get closer to your Vision. If your city needs a hand writing it's vision statement, check out this article for a complete guide.  

An example vision statement for a local government may be.. 'A safer, smarter, healthier city which allows all our citizens to thrive'

Values represent  how you'll behave as an organization as you work towards your vision. Think of Values as the 'enablers' to your Vision Statement. Don't be afraid to be honest about how you want the people in your local government organization to act and think through their day to day work contributing to the strategy. If you need a hand finding the core values of your city, check out this article for a complete guide . 

An examples of values held by a local government may include.. 'Diversity' 'Respect' 'Innovation' 'Trust'.

Focus Areas

Your focus areas are  the high level areas that you’ll be focusing your city's efforts around as you strive towards your vision. We usually suggest creating between 3 to 5 Focus Areas. Any fewer and they will probably be too vague. Any more, and well.....I for one certainly can't focus on more than 5 things at once! For a complete guide on creating key focus areas, check out this article!

Continuing on with our local government example, focus areas may include.. 'Safe & healthy community' 'Urban experience' 'Innovative infrastructure' ''Economic vibrancy and employment'. 

Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objectives represent  what your city actually want to accomplish  - they’re reasonably high level, but should still have a deadline attached. Your Strategic Objectives (also known as strategic goals) should align to one or more of your Focus Areas and should start to put some tangibility into what you think achieving your focus areas will look like. Typically you’ll have between 3-6 objectives for each focus area. Check out this article for a complete guide to creating awesome strategic objectives.

Borrowing from our example of focus areas above, if we were creating strategic objectives for the focus area 'Safe & Healthy Community', examples of strategic objectives may be

• 'Improve neighborhood safety by 31st of December 2022'   
• 'Increase housing security by 30th of June 2022'
• 'Improve services to youth and vulnerable populations by 31st of December 2022'

Work plans describe  what you will do  to accomplish your objectives (or goals). They help convert the big picture into smaller, more manageable outcomes and tasks. It is at this point in your strategic planning process that you will start to scope out exactly what actions you will take in order to achieve certain objectives, and what skills, experience and resources will be needed. If you need a hand creating your work plans, check out this resource.

Taking our strategic objective from above 'Improve services to youth and vulnerable populations by 31st of December 2021' , an example of a work plan that would fall under this may be 'Fund an collaborate with a myriad of community organizations working in human and social services' 

KPI’s are  how you will measure progress towards your strategic objectives. KPI's are measurable values that show your organization’s progress towards achieving key business objectives. 

KPIs should be developed to contribute to achieving a specific goal or objective, and are how you will know if you have achieved your strategic objective or not. If you need a hand developing great KPIs, we've created a 4 step process for creating awesome KPIs.

An example of a KPI for the strategic objective ' Improve services to youth and vulnerable populations by 31st of December 2021' may be something like 'Decrease the unmet need for mental health services to 0% by 31st of December 2021'. 

Local Government Strategic Plan

Following the steps detailed in this article should allow you to create a great city strategic plan. The strategic planning process should not stop here though, the strategy roll out is just as crucial to the planning process as writing the city strategic plan.

This is because the roll-out phase is when you'll have the opportunity to share the strategy with the rest of the departments in your municipality, in order for those departments to then create their own strategic plans based off the cities plan.

Without cascading the city strategy down through the organization, poor alignment between departments can foster, and confusion and inefficiencies are created.

Popular articles

Viva Goals Vs. Cascade: Goal Management Vs. Strategy Execution

What Is A Maturity Model? Overview, Examples + Free Assessment

How To Implement The Balanced Scorecard Framework (With Examples)

The Best Management Reporting Software For Strategy Officers (2024 Guide)

Your toolkit for strategy success.

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

Article contents

Strategic planning in the public sector.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Makes Public-Sector Planning Strategic ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applicability to Organizations, Collaborations, Functions, and Places

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

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

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

Ways in Which Strategic Planning Has Been Conceptualized

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

Comprehensive Process Approaches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identifying potential strategies for effectively addressing the issues.

Assessing the feasibility of strategies using reasonable criteria.

Developing and implementing plans and related desirable changes.

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

Reassessing strategies and the strategic planning process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Partial Process Approaches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content Approaches

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

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

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

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

Prominent Research Themes and Implications for Future Research

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

What is Public-Sector Strategic Planning?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the Outcomes of Strategic Planning?

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

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

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

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

What Contributes to Strategic Planning Success?

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and an Agenda for Future Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

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

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

date: 31 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

Character limit 500 /500

• GovTrends Blog
• Case Studies

Government Strategic Planning 2023: Examples & Helpful Tips

When it comes to getting things done as a local government, two of the most critical variables are budgets and timeframes. To be as efficient as possible, you’ll need an ironclad strategic plan for your local government that showcases how you’ll spend your local budget and how you and your subcontractors will meet timeframe deliverables on public projects.

Here, we’ll explore the key reasons that you owe it to your constituents to have a local government strategic plan, along with examples and tips for crafting the best plan possible. 

What is a Government Strategic Plan?

A local government strategic plan is the process of assessing and addressing the current situations in your area as they pertain to critical physical infrastructure, regional natural disasters, government technology, cyber-security, the health of your constituents, and other variables that will have a direct impact on your neighborhood and constituents. Once your local government identifies the largest threats for your neighborhood, the key to a high-quality government strategic planning process is forming a plan for mitigating risk and completing infrastructure projects as cheaply and quickly as possible. 

Why is a Strategic Plan Critical for a Local Government?

Without a gameplan, your locality is more likely to blow through your departmental budgets and miss deadlines for infrastructure projects. Strategic plans allow your governmental officials to give serious consideration to the future before building a roadmap that will help your team to achieve goals that matter to your constituents. 

What Should Be Included in a Government Strategic Plan? 

Your local government will need to consider national issues that pertain to town and city governments across the United States as well as regional issues that more directly impact your community than localities elsewhere. 

Here’s a look at the common features of a local government strategic plan:

1. voices across government departments & roles.

While government leadership should play a major role throughout the strategic planning process, a true risk mitigation effort needs to consider various perspectives and potential future outcomes. Working with a diverse rank of government officials across departments and leadership levels will allow you to craft a well-rounded strategy.

2. Consider Your Mission

Your local government needs to build your plan around a general mission statement. At a high-level, what are the issues your government is most determined to address? What upcoming public projects matter most to your constituents? 

Giving these questions serious thought will allow you to articulate the key components of your strategy in a simple mission statement. 

3. Holistic Risk-Assessment

Every government has risks to consider and address with policy and infrastructure projects. A holistic view of the various threats to your locality will include:

• National issues: social and economic challenges are occurring at the national level, and constituents on both sides of the aisle are frustrated with their government’s inadequacies. Consideration to which issues matter most at a national level will allow your locality to take localized efforts to address them. 
• Constituent frustrations: angered constituents equates to a failed re-election effort. Your local government needs to consider which issues matter most to your constituents, and assess these issues to prevent bad government-constituent relations. Read this guide to learn more about Why the Public is Losing Trust in Local Governments
• Economic hardship: especially as we enter a period of recession, your local government will need to consider the impact of inflation on local businesses, constituents, and budgets.
• Natural disasters: which particular natural disasters pose the largest risk to your area? What actions have / are being taken to address these disasters, mitigate risks, and communicate with the public?
• Cyber attacks: hackers have been causing local government data breaches for years, and attacks are becoming more frequent. Have you made the effort to embrace cyber secure technology and back up your government data?
• Intergovernmental challenges: are you having issues recruiting new government workers? Are your internal processes inefficient and expensive? Is your information technology strategy up to date? Failure to recognize and address these types of issues is one of the biggest causes of inefficient bureaucracy. 
• Public policy: which national and state laws are the highest priority for your locality to address in the near future? What penalties will you face for failing to address these policies?

4. A Refined List of Issues

Once you’ve considered all of the broad risks, it’s time to prioritize the most important ones and build your strategic plan to address them. The top issues should be concerning to your constituents, pose serious risks to the health, quality, safety, economy etc. of your community, and will be quintessential to the future endeavors of the local government and township as a whole. 

5. An Actionable Gameplan 

Now that you’ve collectively agreed on the major issues, it’s time to consider the course of action to address them. Your local government strategic planning needs to articulate where departmental budgets will be allocated in coming months and time frames for getting work completed along with actionable strategies for hitting these deadlines.

To save time and money, many local governments are embracing a digital transformation with government management software. This software automates government tasks and stores financial data in real time, meaning you’ll be able to regularly assess your budgets and save time on government projects. 

6. Use Measurable KPIs

To assess your performance, you’ll need to determine which key performance indicators (KPIs) matter most in your strategic plan and set measurable goals for each.

Consider the following goal types when setting your KPIs:

• How much is this public infrastructure project expected to cost?
• How long is this government project going to take?
• Are constituents happy with the efforts being taken by our locality?

Gauging timelines, public perception, project budgets, and other key aspects of a strategic plan will make it easy to see if you're nailing your goals or missing the mark. Learn more in our guide to Setting Measurable Local Government Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) 

Once KPIs are identified, outline who’s doing what and assign them a task via your local government management platform to keep everyone organized and accountable.

7. Put Your Plan Into Action

Upon the completion of your plan and approval of the policymakers for budgets and timeframes pertaining to the key projects, it’s time to take action on implementing your government projects. Release RFPs for private-sector partnerships, begin filing the key paperwork, and ensure intergovernmental communications make it explicitly clear who’s doing what and when. 

Here’s a real-life strategic planning example of How Jackson, NJ Successfully Took Action on Their Government-Wide Digital Transformation Goal .

8. Get Back to the Drawing Board

Taking strategic action to address risks obviously involves some risk in itself. You’ll need to pay key attention to your KPIs, and pivot if issues arise with meeting timeline and budgetary goals. 

If these types of issues do occur, you’ll need to consider which aspects of the process could be streamlined with government technology . Automation will save time and money to increase the success rate of projects outlined in your management planning. 

Pro Tips for Mastering Local Government Strategic Planning 

While the above section highlighted the key aspects of the government strategic planning process, this section will teach you the best practices for taking it to the next level. 

Here are some key tips for mastering strategic planning:

• Don’t be late to making a digital transformation: states like NJ and FL are setting the tone by passing electronic permitting and inspection laws for a reason: because it saves governments time and money and boosts the local economy. To mitigate risk across the board before you even get to strategic planning, going digital will make future endeavors more efficient and timely (and mitigate cybersecurity threats!.)
• Correspond with constituents constantly : your constituents elected local leadership because they believed you’d make serious strides towards improving their local quality of life. To make that happen, you’ll need to truly understand which issues are most concerning to them. Having a firm grasp on constituents’ takes on major issues and where public funds should be allocated will make it easier to make a strategic plan that positively benefits the people in your neighborhood. 
• Give government officials time to think about the strategic plan: Government leadership should let government workers know in advance that they’ll be asked for input on the government strategic plan. That will give them time to truly ask big questions when it comes to the biggest issues in your locality to prioritize. 
• Check in on your financial dashboards: knowing where your taxpayer dollars and federal grants (from recent legislation like the American Rescue Plan and Infrastructure Investments & Job Acts) are being allocated is quintessential to seeing a government strategic plan through. With GovPilot, data across departments is pulled into financial dashboards in real time, allowing you to see where money is being spent and how cost per project is lining up against your budget. 
• Use automated RFP notifications for local business partners: efficient and cost effective private-sector partners will be critical to seeing your highest priority physical & digital infrastructure projects through. With automated RFP software, you can send email blasts / texts out to local private sector businesses and collect proposals in a simple online platform. Learn more in our guide to the Best Software for Government Procurement . 

Understanding the Government Strategic Planning Process

Failure to prepare is preparing to fail. Your constituents deserve a well-thought out gameplan for how their tax dollars are being spent and how their elected officials are bringing about meaningful change. Take the time to strategic plan across the entirety of your municipal or county government by considering the largest risks and how you’ll address them. Answer big questions regarding costs and timelines, and set actionable KPIs to turn your plan into action. And use government technology to automate workflows, track budget allocation, and get paperwork filed quickly.

Learn more about how GovPilot government software can transform your local government processes with a free demo. 

Real Life Government Strategic Plan Examples & Success Stories

GovPilot takes pride in being the operating system for local governments. Here are some case study examples of challenges that localities were facing, and how shifting online helped them to hit their strategic planning goals across departments:

• Big Bear Lake, CA’s Economic Goal: Increase Vacation / Short-Term Rentals With Online Applications 
• How Galloway, NJ Improved Their Public Records & Document Request Processes
• How Bexar County, TX Streamlined the Permitting Review Process
• How Atlantic City, NJ Maintained Zoning Processes During the Pandemic Lockdowns
• Atlantic City Had a Goal to Modernize IT. Here’s How They Did It in Weeks
• Local Government Accountability: Operating a Truly Ethical Local Government
• How Do Online Permitting Systems Work?
• Government Data Breach Prevention: Preventing Data Loss & Leaks
• What is GovTech? Everything to Know About Government Technology
• Modern Government Trends, Events, & Technology
• Tornado Mitigation & Disaster Plan
• Wildfire Mitigation & Disaster Plan
• Local Government Disaster Preparedness Guide
• Continuity of Government: Government Procedures During a Crisis
• Best Software for Government Procurement
• How to Build a 15-Minute City
• Building Inspections 101: How Municipalities Can Improve Public Safety
• Government Cybersecurity: How to Prevent Ransomware Attacks
• Municipal Planning: Reclaiming Your City Streets
• Government Blockchain: How Local Government Can Use Crypto
• How Local Governments Can Encourage Civic Engagement

Tags: Constituent Engagement , Government Efficiency , Constituent Experience , Digital Transformation , Blog

Related Articles

How to run a city-wide clean up in your municipality.

Topics: Constituent Engagement , Government Efficiency , Constituent Experience , Digital Transformation , Blog

Local Government Cybersecurity Standards: Assessing Your Network Security 

Why are government workers hesitant to embrace ai, subscribe to the chronicles of marketing newsletter.

Key Features & Apps

• Revenue Source Ideas for Governments
• Modern Government Challenges & Solutions
• Budgeting Planning Tips for Local Governments

U.S. Department of the Treasury

How to use the strategic plan, what is this plan, and how do i use it.

The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires federal agencies to publish new strategic plans one year after each presidential inauguration. Treasury’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022–2026 describes long-term goals the agency aims to achieve during this administration. We organized it into three main parts: Agency and Mission, Strategic Goals and Objectives, and Accountability Processes. This is how different audiences can use the Strategic Plan:

Within the strategic plan, “goals” articulate broad societal impacts that Treasury aims to achieve, while “strategic objectives” support goals and reflect more focused policy or operational areas where we plan to make significant improvements. Accountable officials are designated for each goal and strategic objective and are responsible for overseeing and monitoring progress towards achieving strategic objectives and goals, coordinating with internal and external stakeholders to execute goals and strategic objectives, and delivering status updates and progress reports regularly. Each Strategic Objective within this document has a consistent layout and components vital to making this a useful guide for decision-making.

Learning Agenda and Evidence-building Capacity Assessment 

Consistent with the expectations outlined in the Foundations for Evidence-based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), Treasury continues its commitment to incorporate data and evidence into Departmental decision-making.  For this Strategic Plan, the Department identified a set of research questions that were most pertinent to the new group of strategic objectives.  Called a “Learning Agenda,” this set of research questions outlines the activities that Treasury aims to undertake during the next four years to build evidence in these priority areas.  Treasury also developed an assessment (Capacity Assessment) to better understand the Department's ability to build and use evidence. For the full Learning Agenda questions and Capacity Assessment results, see page 49 and the Appendix.

Elements of a Strategic Objective 

This page will help readers navigate the Strategic Plan by identifying the elements of a strategic objective. 

• Objective Short Name and Statement provides the scope of the objective and identifies the specific, measurable, and achievable change the Department aims to make. 
• Who’s Involved identifies the lead and supporting Treasury organizations that are responsible for implementing the strategic objective. It also identifies the external partners Treasury intends to collaborate with and the customers Treasury will serve in implementing the objective. 
• Why Does This Matter? makes the case for why Treasury should focus attention on this issue. It describes the scope of the problem, its impact on the American public, Treasury’s proposed solutions and role in solving the problem, and the risk if Treasury does not act. 
• Desired Outcomes describes how the Department defines success for the objective. It lists what measures or indicators the Department will internally monitor or externally report to understand whether Treasury is making progress in achieving the strategic objective.
• Cross-cutting themes are priorities for the administration that impact multiple goals and objectives.
• Strategies identify the specific approaches Treasury bureaus and offices will take to achieve and track progress towards the strategic objective. 
• Learning Agenda Questions are research questions that Treasury aims to answer to better understand the subject area and improve the effectiveness and impact of its key programs, policies, and strategies. These questions are further discussed in Treasury’s full Learning Agenda, an Appendix to this plan. 
• Critical Management Initiatives are specific priority human capital, data, and information technology (IT) initiatives that the Department needs to implement to effectively execute the identified strategic objectives. These initiatives help drive management priorities, inform enterprise IT, data, and Human Capital plans, and enhance Treasury’s capacity for evidence-building activities supporting the Department’s priorities.   

Build plans, manage results, & achieve more

Learn about the AchieveIt Difference vs other similar tools

We're more than just a software, we're a true partner

• Strategic Planning
• Business Transformation
• Enterprise PMO
• Project + Program Management
• Operational Planning + Execution
• Integrated Plan Management
• Federal Government
• State + Local Government
• Banks + Credit Unions
• Manufacturing

Best practices on strategy, planning, & execution

Real-world examples of organizations that have trusted AchieveIt

Ready-to-use templates to take planning to the next level

Research-driven guides to help your strategy excel

Pre-recorded & upcoming webinars on everything strategy & planning

• *NEW!* Podcast 🎙️

How to Create a Strategic Plan for Your Government Department or Agency

RELATED TAGS:

Budgets and deadlines are two of the most crucial elements when it comes to getting things done in a local government. To be as efficient as possible, you’ll need a robust strategic plan for your government department that outlines how you’ll spend your provincial budget and how you and your subcontractors will achieve public project deadlines. Building a long-term and multiyear strategic plan with goals and objectives can be challenging. We also understand how complicated it is to transform your ideas into tangible results for your community, and we’re here to help. 

In This Article

Why Government Departments and Agencies Need Strategic Plans

Why current government strategic processes and tools fall short, conduct internal and external analysis, consider the vision and mission , perform a holistic risk-assessment , list the focus areas , develop strategic objectives, set up an actionable game plan , utilize measurable kpis , put the plan into action , evaluate the results , transform government strategic planning and execution with achieveit, ready to accelerate your planning and execution efforts let’s actually do this..

Why should the state and municipal governments consider strategic planning? Isn’t having a yearly budget sufficient? After all, things may change when heavy rains overflow the city sewers or roadway repairs exceed the budget. What difference does additional planning make? What exactly is department strategic planning? 

A department strategic plan is a comprehensive and systematic management tool that assists governmental departments, agencies and organizations in assessing their current environment, anticipating changes and responding appropriately to issues. Strategic planning involves envisioning the future, improving effectiveness, developing commitment to the department’s mission and reaching a consensus on strategies and objectives for achieving that mission. It involves influencing the future rather than merely preparing for or responding to it. 

While combining community vision with available resources is critical, the resources should not stifle the vision. The objectives of a departmental strategic plan will involve identifying how the resources available may be linked to future ambitions. A long-term financial plan, created with the department strategy plan, is crucial to the departmental strategic planning process. A government should have an established financial planning mechanism that evaluates the long-term economic consequences of current and planned policies and programs. A financial plan depicts the expected financial repercussions of certain activities. 

Regarding strategic planning in government positions, the notion is that leaders must be good strategists if their departments and agencies are to achieve their goals, accomplish their mandates and, most importantly, satisfy their communities in the coming years. The strategic planning department must lay out effective strategies to deal with changing conditions and governmental leaders must create a cohesive and defensible framework for their judgments. Ultimately, a department strategy provides a big-picture document that directs resources and activities toward a well-defined vision. 

A state department strategic plan is a long-term commitment to various governmental objectives. Selecting the correct solutions to support the department’s strategic plan is critical to attaining them. The strategic planning department requires integrated and holistic systems and tools to increase productivity and improve the overall management of the various objectives while keeping operations running smoothly. An adequate system also keeps communication channels open between different departments. 

Many procedures and systems on the market can help manage a department’s strategic plan but mainly focuses on short-term success. Business intelligence, project management, strategy development tools and other mainstream options focus on something other than integrated plans that span departments and locations. Each focuses on a specific function of planning, developing, executing or reporting strategies, so finding a single system that keeps everything in one secure place is challenging. 

Taking an analytical look into these traditional options, we can see some pros to utilizing them. Still, some cons can lead to your government’s strategic processes falling short: 

• Business intelligence tools: Although business intelligence tools provide visual dashboards, reports and a data-driven understanding of how the government is performing, they miss the “why” behind the strategic plan — the vision and future forecasts. 
• Project management tools: These tools are excellent for providing detailed project statuses but lack the big-picture view and are typically challenging to use and connect with other projects. 
• Strategy management tools: Strategy development tools can most certainly help organize plans and foster project alignment. However, these tools are less proficient at enabling the effective execution of these plans. They have limited flexibility and make it difficult to manage multiple plans across the agency. 
• Mainstream tools: You might recognize mainstream and user-friendly tools like PowerPoint and Excel. Despite being customizable, these tools lack format and version control. 

Strategic planning in government can be challenging. You must include stakeholder input, ensure that your department’s strategy is consistent across all municipal agencies, connect capital projects to multiple plans and ensure that everyone engaged is on board with the strategy. The good news is that it’s possible and the approach may be more straightforward than you think. 

Follow these tips for creating your government agency’s strategic plan: 

Conduct an environmental scan, where the local government can investigate and assess the current and developing factors within their own area’s internal and external environments. The internal and external analysis provides detailed information on the government’s existing conditions, including prospective opportunities, strengths, threats and weaknesses to control or prevent. 

An internal analysis looks at the government’s internal environment to analyze its abilities, resources and competitive advantages. An internal analysis helps you identify strengths and weaknesses and the opportunities and threats that government departments or agencies face. This information assists government officials in making strategic decisions as they carry out the strategy development and implementation process. In a nutshell, the following topics should be included in your internal analysis: 

• SWOT Analysis: Conducting a SWOT analysis can help you comprehensively understand your area’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. 
• Strategy analysis: This analysis assists you in evaluating how well you performed against your current department strategy plan, what you can improve on and where you can focus your efforts. 
• Internal stakeholder analysis: This analysis enables you to gain insight into the issues and perspectives of your area’s internal stakeholders and their influence. 
• VRIO Analysis: A VRIO analysis can assist you in identifying any competitive advantages you may have and how to convert them into long-term competitive advantages. 

An external analysis investigates and evaluates the government’s external environment to understand possibilities and risks in its area. Forces outside a local government’s immediate control affect them, and they need to be able to plan accordingly. For example, changes in legislation and policies, demographic shifts or climate concerns can influence a government’s decisions. An external analysis should usually consider the following: 

• PESTEL analysis: Conducting a PESTEL analysis can help you discover the many scopes that may influence an area. 
• External stakeholder analysis: This analysis enables you to gain insight into the issues and perspectives of your local government’s external stakeholders and their influence. 

The government’s vision statement defines where they want to go — it’s the anchor that keeps them from being stranded at sea. A clear vision statement will aid in directing the strategic plan toward the best results for the community. Everything written into the plan will eventually help the government department or agency get closer to its vision. Additionally, your local government should base its department’s strategic plan on its mission statement. Consider asking the following questions to articulate the critical components of the strategy: 

• What are the top concerns that your government must address?
• Which forthcoming public projects are most important to your constituents? 

Every government has risks that require attention through policy and infrastructure developments. A comprehensive assessment of the different risks to your community may include the following:

• National issues: At the federal level, social and economic concerns arise and citizens on both sides may be dissatisfied with their government’s shortcomings. Considering which issues are most essential at the national level can enable your community to make localized efforts to address them. 
• Constituent dissatisfaction: Angry constituents equals a poor reelection campaign. To avoid unfavorable government-constituent relations, your local government should examine which topics are most beneficial to your community and analyze these concerns. 
• Economic hardship: Local governments must examine the impact of inflation on local companies, citizens and budgets. 
• Natural disasters: Which natural disasters are the greatest threat to your area? What steps have been taken or are being made to address these events, reduce risks and communicate with the public? 
• Cybercrime: Cybercriminals have been creating data breaches in municipal governments for years, and attacks are increasing daily. Have your local government invested in cyber-safe technologies and backed up its data? 
• International challenges: Do you need help attracting new government employees due to intergovernmental challenges? Do your internal procedures need to be more effective and costly? Do you have an up-to-date information technology strategy? One of the leading reasons for inefficient bureaucracy is a failure to recognize and handle such difficulties. 
• Public policies: Which national and state legislation are the most important for your municipality to handle in the near future in terms of public policy? What consequences will you face if you do not address these policies? 

After reviewing all the significant risks, it’s time to prioritize the most critical ones and develop a strategy to manage them. List the top focus areas that are crucial to your citizens or represent significant risks to your community’s health, safety, quality and economy. Your focus areas should also align with the local government’s and community’s future aspirations. Although it would be ideal to address all areas immediately, it could be more realistic. Try to prioritize a few critical issues. 

Strategic objectives indicate what your city genuinely wants to achieve — they’re quite high-priority and should have a date attached. Your strategic goals should align with one or more of your focus areas and provide some tangibility to how you envision attaining your focus areas. Similar to selecting a few focus areas at a time, you can develop a few realistic and achievable strategic objectives. An example of a strategic objective can be to “improve the community’s safety by implementing a new reporting system by June 30, 2023.” 

Now that you’ve decided on the primary focus areas and objectives, it’s time to consider how to execute them. A game plan defines what the government will need to do to achieve its goals. An actionable game plan assists in breaking down the bigger picture into smaller, more attainable results and activities. At this phase in your strategic planning process, you will begin to define the steps you will take to attain specific goals and the talents, expertise and resources required. 

KPIs track progress toward your strategic goals. KPIs are quantitative metrics that demonstrate your government’s progress toward essential strategic objectives. KPIs tell you whether or not you have met your strategic target. Once KPIs have been determined, describe who is responsible for what and give them a job using your local government management tool to keep everyone organized and accountable. 

Following your department’s strategy’s completion and policymakers’ approval of budgets and deadlines for major projects, it’s time to begin implementing your government initiatives. File requests for proposals (RFPs) for private-sector partnerships, fill out the necessary documentation and clarify who is doing what and when. 

Taking strategic action to address concerns entails some risk in and of itself. You’ll need to pay close attention to your KPIs and adjust if problems with fulfilling timelines and budgets develop. If such problems arise, you must assess whether parts of the process may be expedited using government technology. Automation will save you time and money while increasing the likelihood of project success in your management planning. 

A government strategic plan is the first vital step toward achieving governmental goals. The execution of these plans also plays a pivotal role in the goals’ success. A government runs high-level plans that cascade down and across multiple departments — which can make managing the execution of strategic plans more challenging. This is because different departments work with tools that support their specific work and role. As a result, information is stockpiled across these departments, making planning and organization a manual process. 

Transform your strategic planning and execution process with strategic planning software built for your organization. AchieveIt is a  FedRAMP-authorized cloud-based platform  that connects, manages and executes mission-critical plans and activities for federal government agencies. AchieveIt is a platform that easily tracks the performance of all your integrated plans while automating time-consuming update collection. Managing all these moving parts goes from multiple spreadsheets to a single, easy-to-use platform. 

By utilizing AchieveIt, federal government agencies can: 

• Establish uniformity in data collection and reporting. 
• Create visibility across plans and initiatives to know what needs attention. 
• Promote accountability for mission execution. 
• Make informed decisions with real-time data and proper context. 
• Monitor the performance of long-term initiatives with dashboards and reports. 
• Connect all its plans and strategies in one single place. 

Do you need help developing and aligning your plans? Since planning and executing is more than just software, AcieveIt’s expert team will partner with you. Our strategy experts can ensure you stay on track and offer advice on how other federal agencies approach planning and execution. Allow AchieveIt to make your agency more efficient, so you can better serve the public while focusing on achieving mission-critical objectives.  Request a demo  or give us a call at  1-800-535-1559  today. 

Meet the Author   Chelsea Damon

Chelsea Damon is the Content Strategist at AchieveIt. When she's not publishing content about strategy execution, you'll likely find her outside or baking bread.

Related Posts

How to Run a Successful Strategic Planning Session

The Differences Between Long-Term, Mid-Term, and Short-Term Planning

How to Align Company Goals with OKRs: A Step-by-Step Approach

Hear directly from our awesome customers

See first-hand why the world's best leaders use AchieveIt

See AchieveIt in action 

Stay in the know. Join our community of subscribers.

Subscribe for plan execution content sent directly to your inbox.

Everything you need to deliver your plans, manage strategy and report progress.

• Customizable plan structure
• Automated and on-demand progress reports
• Save time with AI features

Centralize, analyze and visualize your performance data. Align performance measures with plans.

• Centralized performance data
• Scorecards and interactive dashboards
• Slice and dice for new insights

Manage, deliver, and communicate projects. Align projects with plans for end-to-end visibility and reporting.

• Gantt view of projects, tasks and dependencies
• Interactive maps and dashboards
• Plan alignment and reporting

Share your strategy story with external stakeholders via customizable public dashboards.

• Progress dashboards with roll-up reporting
• Matched to your branding
• Fully ADA Compliant

Strategy and Performance Management Integrations Learn More

Strategic Planning

The heart of all strategic planning models.

By Kevin Knutson

11 march 2020.

• 1 The underlying framework of strategic planning models—goals, strategy and delivery
• 2.1 Outcome clarification
• 2.2 Strategy formulation
• 2.3 Plan implementation and reporting
• 3 Leadership matters more than the strategic planning model
• 4 Get the template ↓

The purpose of developing a strategic planning process is to align organizational resources to achieve long-range goals, and there are dozens of effective ways to accomplish this result. Although you’ve likely used a couple of them and heard of others, some may sound like something off a menu in Kyoto. It’s easy to get stuck on trying to figure out the right approach for your organization.

Some common types of strategic planning models used in local government, healthcare and education include:

• Standard strategic planning —This is the most common approach used by local governments and school districts and involves identifying a long-term (20-50 year) vision, mid-term goals (3-5 Years) and short-term strategies and actions (1-2 years) to achieve them, based on research about the community.
• Community-based strategic planning/visioning —A process that engages residents in a discussion about their hopes and dreams for the community and what it will look like in the future, with specific action steps developed to get there.
• Council goal-setting —A stripped-down version that involves working with elected officials to determine the organization’s top policy priorities over the next few years to align resources and staff effort.
• Strategic gap/need analysis —In this approach, the organization defines its ideal outcomes and compares it against current performance. Actions are then identified to close the gaps.
• Issue-based strategic planning —Where traditional strategic planning starts with a vision for the future and works back to what we need to do today to get there, issue-based planning takes a careful look at the current environment, identifies problems and asks the question “What are we going to do to improve in these areas?”

Many local governments have also used private sector approaches to good effect, such as Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) , Hoshin Kanri , Balanced Scorecard (BSC) , scenario planning , self-organizing planning and others.

With so many choices, it can be hard to figure out which one will help you deliver results.

It doesn’t really matter which strategic planning model you use, it turns out, because selecting an approach is about leadership style and corporate culture rather than relative effectiveness of the different models.

The reason for this is that all strategic planning models share several key characteristics, and the differences have more to do with the way leaders prefer to talk about and visualize the issues and challenges that they must address, rather than the way they are going to do it.

The underlying framework of strategic planning models—goals, strategy and delivery

All strategic planning processes have the following in common:

• Goals —Clarify what you want to accomplish
• Strategy —Identify what actions you need to take to get there, and
• Delivery —Implement, monitor, control and report on progress and results

If it seems simple, it’s because it is.

Strategy is how you are going to mobilize resources to achieve an outcome. The plan is just the road map for your team to follow and the measure of your success.

The foundation for a rock-solid strategy development process

Let’s have a look at each of these three areas to see how they work together. While many of the strategic planning approaches cited above have additional tools or activities, they are all based on the three foundational ideas.

Outcome clarification

The basis of setting goals is understanding what the community or organization wants to achieve in a concrete way. A useful way to look at it is that you are defining success so that when you reach your destination, you know it was the one you intended. It’s the most important step, because, as Yogi Berra noted: “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might not get there.”

For many communities, this means establishing a long-term vision for what it will be like in 20,30, 50 or even 100 years. It could also mean establishing a mission statement, defining why the organization exists. For self-organizing planning, you might start with a set of values that will define appropriate actions. It doesn’t matter so much what you call it—what matters is that you have a big-picture outcome you want to achieve.

Next, you narrow your focus by identifying three to six goals or priorities that you can reach over the mid-term, say three to five years, that reflect what the community needs to do to achieve the long-term vision. For goal-based or issue-based planning, it’s helpful if you have a good understanding of the current conditions in the community and organization to select goals that will be effective in making progress. Again, the name doesn’t matter as much as the function. Some organizations call them strategic priorities, pillars, critical success factors, or focus areas.

For example, if part of your vision is to be the safest city in the state, the goals should include improving public safety, communications, building codes, or transportation. Whatever is needed to make the vision a reality for your community.

There are a lot of tools to help you develop your vision and goals. Many communities opt to engage residents, businesses, students and parents in workshops designed to gather input around their vision for the community. Others use surveys, online platforms, focus groups, and charrettes to gather intelligence from stakeholders.

Taking stock of current conditions is important too. What services do you provide and to whom? How are the service delivery mechanisms affected by changes in technology, legislation, or demographics? What changes are on the horizon for the community? What economic impacts could help or hinder you on your path? Conducting an environmental scan provides a baseline to plan from.

Some other tools that can be used to help develop your vision and priority goals will help identify goals include:

• Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis
• Political-Economic-Social-Technological (PEST) analysis
• Political-Economic-Social-Technological-Legal-Environmental (PESTLE) analysis
• Service-demand analysis

Any information you gather can help you refine the vision and goals you establish.

Lastly, it is also helpful to identify key performance indicators (KPIs) for each goal area that provide quantitative measures of the outcomes you hope to achieve. This allows you to set targets and measure success against objective standards.

Strategy formulation

Once you have the high-level, long- and mid-term goals established, you’ll want to get even more concrete about how you’re going to achieve them, by identifying strategies and actions. This stage is critical in that it takes the big picture thinking behind the vision and goals and injects a bit of reality. What resources will it take to achieve our goals? How long will it take? What are the things we need to do differently?

Strategies are the short-term approaches you’re going to apply to achieve the goals. In the same way that the goals define the path toward the vision, strategies map the path to the goal. They usually have a shorter time frame, one to three years, and can be framed as objectives for the organization to achieve.

In the public safety example above, strategies might include reducing property crime, minimizing crashes at high-risk intersections, or improving traffic signalization.

For each strategy, staff should identify actions that will be taken in the next 12 to 18 months to implement the strategy. The actions are included in departmental work plans and have assigned owners and timelines, to ensure accountability.

Each action should be “ SMART ,” that is, Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timebound. That means we need to have performance metrics that track the action, a schedule or work plan to follow, and the resources necessary to make it happen.

Examples of actions that support the strategy to minimize crashes could include such things as conducting traffic studies, targeted traffic enforcement, dynamic positioning of emergency vehicles, or optimizing signal timing.

Plan implementation and reporting

Once the plan has been developed, most strategic planning approaches include tools for executing the plan. Common tools include:

• Monitoring progress and status of actions
• Identifying disruptions
• Allowing for adaptability in response to external impacts
• Reporting structure and cadences
• Sharing information with stakeholders
• Celebrating wins

Implementing the actions that support strategic plans is often an exercise in project management, with action plans and timelines, key milestones, and performance metrics.

When establishing a planning approach, it’s important to understand who will use information about the plan and progress and when they need it. Our blog post “ How to Build a Local Government Performance Reporting Framework ” provides more detail, but the key is that different audiences (e.g., staff, your leadership team, your governing body, and the public) have different needs, both in the type and frequency of information.

By tracking progress and status on plan elements, you are able to identify where disruptions are occurring and assess what actions you will take in response. Whether you change the due dates, assign more resources, or even discontinue the action, reacting quickly can help both mitigate adverse consequences and help make decisions based on data.

Most strategic planning models also have a review period for multi-year planning horizons. Being able to adapt the plan to changing circumstances or absorb the impact of major events, such as hurricanes or earthquakes, keeps the plan relevant and the timeline realistic.

Lastly, the structure of most models allows for sharing data about plan progress, status and performance to your elected body and public on a regular basis. Annual reports, workshops and public dashboards allow you to tell the story of the organization’s journey toward achieving the goals and vision, celebrate success, and engage the community around a common purpose.

No matter what strategic planning approach you decide to use, if you get these three essential things right, your plan can be a success.

Leadership matters more than the strategic planning model

We noted at the start that the strategic planning model was really a function of leadership style, which means that the right approach is the one that best fits the organizational culture. One of the key reasons for this is that the main cause of failing to execute strategic plans is lack of follow-through. A manager, administrator or superintendent may be instrumental in developing the plan, but unless they thread it into the management processes, it becomes the proverbial “plan on the shelf.”

Leaders make a difference in each of the fundamentals. They:

• Provide a framework for plan development
• Organize staff to identify strategy
• Mobilize the organization to execute the plan

The last item is often the most difficult, but also the most important. At the end of the day, for a plan to be successful, there must be a commitment to seeing it through on a day-to-day basis.

The best plan in the world is useless if you’re not using it to move the organization forward.

Developing the plan is just the beginning. The real work comes when we put it into action.

In a future post, we’ll explore how senior leaders can bring strategy to life.

Get the template ↓

• First Name *
• Last Name *
• Organization *
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Kevin Knutson

Kevin has spent more than 20 years working for the cities of Coral Springs, Florida and Reno, Nevada, specializing in administration, budget, strategic planning, performance management, process improvement and communications. He also served as a local government consultant, where he provided more than 200 strategic planning, performance management and organizational assessment projects to 142 cities, counties and districts across the US.

KEEP READING

Related articles you might like.

March 28, 2024

The Power of Community Visioning: What It Is, Why You Should Start, and Local Government Examples

Community visioning engages your community to better align strategic priorities with the goals of your residents. Here's some tips to excel in the process!

February 2, 2024

5 Key Takeaways and Next Steps from Local Government 2030: Action for the Future

Commitments from Envisio, as well as some suggested next steps for those who gathered for a few bright days of hope, inspiration, and cross-sector collaboration in the desert.

January 16, 2024

Affordable Housing Plans in Local Government: Example Plans, Performance Measures, and Dashboards

Examples of real performance measures and actionable strategies for achieving affordable housing in a community.

Psst! Join 10,000+ of your peers and get the best from our blog direct to your inbox.

Roughly once a week, we’ll send you the very best from our blog and other Envisio resources. We’ll be respectful of your inbox and you can unsubscribe anytime.

Mission critical: Improving government workforce planning

Worker burnout is rife, and the public sector is no exception. Across many government agencies throughout the world, leaders are telling us that workloads are growing and their employees are increasingly overtaxed—especially the core teams they have entrusted with the most mission-critical priorities. But reallocating positions (also known as billets) to where they are most needed is a constant struggle. Many agencies have time-consuming, complex processes that can make it difficult for leaders to identify where teams need to grow and where workloads may in fact be shrinking or have room to shrink. Managers often tell us that they have little faith that their workforce requests will be approved, so they inflate requirements in the hope of getting what they need. This is called a “plus-up” mentality: every year’s request simply includes the current team plus some personnel inflation.

Our conversations with government agency managers have conveyed, in a broad sense, that workforce planning is broken, despite the significant time devoted to it. To compound the problem, the public sector has long struggled to compete with the private sector for top talent and to retain workers—a trend that has only intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. 1 Adi Kumar and Megan McConnell, “Governments have full budgets—and not enough workers,” The Hill , May 27, 2022. Moreover, our experience with supporting leaders at large national agencies has revealed that they rarely believe strategic priorities receive the time and resource investments required to deliver on key goals. And that risk can be distributed unevenly, because leaders are often unaware of where the workload is truly far beyond the capacity of the team.

These challenges to effective workforce planning are difficult to overcome—even in the private sector where leaders can have more direct control over budgets and hiring flexibility. But cutting-edge com­panies are evolving their workforce planning to include data-driven practices that public-sector leaders could adapt to help them move beyond a plus-up mentality and strategically align positions with priorities.

With this in mind, we’ve designed five steps that could help government agencies more accurately estimate the workload required to deliver on their mission, improve how they analyze their teams and capabilities, and get a better handle on where the workload is likely to increase or decrease. These steps can also be adapted to a three-, five-, or ten-year planning horizon.

The examples cited in these steps are based on McKinsey research.

Step 1: Build a data-driven list of demand drivers. The first step is to identify and catalog the factors that make an organization’s workload increase or decrease. While government budgets may serve as a rough guide for the volume of work or the types of outputs and outcomes that may change over the next three to five years, public-sector workforces could benefit from going a layer deeper to identify the factors that accompany those top-line figures. Using the United States as an example, are any of the outputs becoming more complex, such as Department of Defense platforms that need to be built or Medicaid requests that need to be processed? In military contexts, this complexity might be measured by variants of a particular technology on a plane or ship, or the length of time a system spends in R&D.

When some agencies embark on this initial step to strategic workforce planning, they might find that they lack a unified inventory of their investments and that building this catalog is a necessary starting point. Other factors to consider: Are any previous requirements being sunset? Is there a growing variety of requirements that necessitate a broader range of expertise? And how might maintenance and sustainment needs increase?

During this process, some organizations can get stuck trying to build a baseline of exactly how many hours and full-time employees (FTEs) are required to meet current requirements. To help clear this hurdle, workload demand estimates could focus on year-over-year changes, as opposed to an exact estimate of how many people the agency needs today. For example, if processing a particular type of agency request is likely to increase by 20 percent over the next five years, the baseline allocation of resources to workload may not be perfected in a single year. But focusing on how workloads might change may help leaders make more informed decisions about where to assign new positions and enable the organization to rebalance over time.

Focusing on how workloads might change could help leaders to make more informed decisions about where to assign new positions and enable the organization to rebalance over time.

Step 2: Estimate how variable the workload is for different parts of the organization . Once agencies have a good idea of how their workload may increase or decrease, they can estimate how variable each team’s workload is. The relationship between output and workloads can differ tremendously across agency teams. For example, for supporting functions such as the comptroller or HR, there may be very little correlation between the two. Circumstances can also alter the equation. Consider a department that needs to purchase twice as many goods or services over a three-year period. That may only require increasing the order with an established supplier, resulting in a negligible impact on workload. But it’s also possible that the department will need to find and manage multiple suppliers and double oversight to fulfill its remit, adding significantly to the team’s workload.

One common tactic used in the private sector is to categorize roles as either front office or front line, middle office, or support and then to estimate the demand drivers that could create more workload for each.

Front-office workloads tend to scale most closely with demand drivers. The private-sector analogy would be jobs that are customer facing and therefore can vary heavily depending on customer numbers. In the public sector, it could encompass roles such as public-sector doctors whose workloads increase with the number of patients they need to treat, consular-affairs officers processing passports, or government contractors working in a manufacturing facility.

Middle-office roles are strategic, but their work­loads may not correlate as closely to demand drivers as front-office roles. In the private sector, these positions could fall under marketing or R&D. Program managers, for instance, often coordinate design and implementation of key outputs, such as new aviation technology, but the number of orders does not necessarily drive their workload. Support roles encompass many back-office functions that keep the lights on in an organization, such as HR, finance, and IT. Here, too, the workload may not correlate as closely to demand drivers as front-office functions.

Beyond the tactic of categorizing roles, it may be helpful to analyze the maturity of the processes required to deliver the outputs. For example, if the processes are already highly standardized, they are less likely to require excessive problem solving, iteration, and managerial input. The estimates could incorporate a review of whether team members are performing unique tasks that require in-depth coordination, or if tasks are repeated frequently and can be done with few additional meetings and oversight.

Finally, depending on the organization, these estimates may need to blend quantitative and qualitative data—gleaned from surveys or interviews—to determine fixed versus variable workloads. While some leaders may envision a model derived entirely from quantitative data, qualitative inputs may be necessary to gain a truly holistic view. Such blended models could also help focus any discussions or debates about workload on the precise inputs, as opposed to relying on a leader’s gut instinct.

Blended models of quantitative and qualitative data could help focus any discussions or debates about workload on the precise inputs, as opposed to relying on a leader’s gut instinct.

Step 3: Assess the capabilities required to meet workload demand. From our experience serving government agencies in this area, some have recently tested a pioneering strategy in which each office outlines a set of technical capabilities that is the unique responsibility of that office. Negotiating among offices to determine exactly what this set will include could help mitigate overlap and help officials stay on top of technological advances or national circumstances that may impact require­ments. Other potential benefits of greater coordination include helping to identify new roles and new jobs, enabling leaders to gain greater clarity on exactly what talent is required. For example, by identifying the exact capabilities needed for an IT support role, an agency could update the job description, rather than rely on an old, possibly dated one. Limiting the set of technical capabilities to 150 or less could lend greater support to agency-wide decision making. And once the list is agreed upon, the organization can ask leaders to assess the current levels of expertise and the state of readiness for each capability, which can also be rated to highlight the more important ones. Many agencies choose to do this on a biannual basis, with a clear process coordinated by a headquarter-based individual in charge of strategic priorities (rather than relying on HR).

Step 4: Identify how many people are actually working for the organization—and in what capacity. Personnel gaps in government are often filled by contractors or people on loan from other agencies. Yet workforce planning processes do not always assess total team size to include such external employees who augment staff. Interim team support is often necessary—and even healthy 2 In our experience, interim support can be healthy when there is a specific short-term need for external expertise that would not warrant creating a permanent government position. For more, see Elizabeth Foote, Nick Osborne, and Aly Spencer, “ How to create win-win public outsourcing contracts ,” June 7, 2018. —because workloads can fluctuate, and sometimes outside expertise is needed. By assessing the whole team and what they do, workforce plans could help analyze the costs associated with bringing in contractors versus seeking internal support, and assess the risks of outsourcing critical knowledge or core roles.

Step 5: Review supply–demand gaps and make decisions. Pair estimates of workload demand and volatility to inform decisions. The next step is to review where the workload is likely to grow or shrink relative to the capabilities required, and to identify the teams that will be most affected by those shifts. A central coordinating group could conduct this review, and then make the team or office leaders aware of the results and their implications (a masked output that only includes the specific team’s results could help avoid competitive responses across groups). Then comments and additional context can be gathered during a follow-up period (for efficiency, this is ideally a narrow window) to allow for corrections. Finally, the coordinating group could include a full suite of options leaders could consider for addressing any mismatches between workload and capabilities—upskilling/reskilling to hiring to “renting” talent (via contractors).

Make hiring decisions through a clear, mutually agreed-upon process. Though hiring decisions may seem relatively straightforward—expand teams where an increase in workload is likely to endure, or tap external support when a spike in workload is likely to be temporary—the stakes surrounding government hiring decisions are extremely high. Some commitments can last decades. They can impact people’s careers, which argues for a hiring process that is clear and transparent to office managers. Decisions could be based on memos where each team lead has had a chance to weigh in, and then office/team leads can be notified afterward. Or decisions could be announced in a large group meeting where there are opportunities to offer comments in real time.

In some cases, hiring decisions may be only the first step. The agency leader might need to make the case for realigning positions in the upcoming budget cycle (ensuring the decision is data driven could bolster the case for change). HR and finance teams may also need to rally around the decision to translate it into action (and, therefore, may need to be part of the decision-making process). For example, in some cases, one funding stream may be associated exclusively with materials costs, while another is more flexible.

Hard choices, pressing priorities

Strategic workforce allocation involves hard choices—especially when hiring leeway is often dictated by legislative bodies. But a thoughtful, data-driven, methodological approach to strategically align supply to demand could help agencies to better deliver on their priorities and missions. One government agency that we supported in building a data-driven approach was able to explain—for the first time—what was driving its workload growth. Moreover, the agency learned that it actually needed five times fewer new positions than what it had requested previously using a plus-up mentality.

From agency leaders to midlevel managers, down to frontline workers writing justifications for additional positions, almost no one we’ve talked to is satisfied with the legacy government workforce planning processes in place. New processes won’t be perfected overnight, but government entities that are starting to move toward a new data-driven approach are starting to see success.

Megan McConnell and Sarah Kleinman are partners in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office, where Isabella Bennett is an alumna.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Lessons in leadership: Using data to drive public-health decisions

Care for the caretakers: Building the global public health workforce

Mission not meetings: How government leaders could avoid self-sabotage

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

Here's how you know

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

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

Strategic Planning and Business Case

Justice Information Sharing

Global Justice

Global Information Sharing Toolkit

National Initiatives

Privacy and Civil Liberties

Policy and Implementation

Policy and Implementation Resources

Funding and Legislation

Project Planning and Management

NISS IEPD and Justice Standards Clearinghouse

Justice Information Sharing Practitioners

Training and Technical Assistance Opportunities

Requesting Assistance

Project Planning and Management Resources

Project Management and Governance

Collaboration and Sample MOU's

Strategic planning is a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it-all with a focus on the future. Getting members of the same organization to agree on a strategic direction is difficult, but getting multiple organizations with different purposes and views to work together is a daunting task. The Strategic Planning page provides information on the strategic planning process and how this fundamental tool for information sharing and technology integration initiatives can help establish a unified project.

Business Case Examples

Justice information sharing: a 2010–2012 strategic action plan, u.s. gao - agencies strategic plans under gpra: key questions to facilitate congressional review.

This document is designed to assist federal employees in improving agency strategic plans and to better support congressional and agency decision making. It describes six components identified in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the purpose of each, including a definition, and suggests key questions for consultation. The key questions are then integrated into a table for each of the six component areas, and space is provided to write in comments or answers to each of the questions.

Arizona Judicial Branch - Information Technology Strategic Planning

This website contains the strategic plan of the Arizona Judicial Department Information Technology program. It gives updates on completed plans, scheduled development, and organization of IT planning in the Judicial Branch.

Arizona, Maricopa County, Integrated Criminal Justice Information System Bi-Annual Strategic Business Plan

The purpose of the Maricopa County, Arizona, Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) Bi-Annual Strategic Business Plan is to provide a clear focus and strategic direction for the ICJIS Project initiative. The plan provides for prioritization by using cost-beneficial analysis and includes an implementation strategy and budget plan.

Arkansas Integrated Justice Information Systems (IJIS) - A Preliminary Strategic Plan for Improving Public Safety and the Administration of Justice with Information Sharing

This document serves as the strategic plan and systems requirements for the Arkansas Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS), including existing statewide systems.

California Department of Finance - Strategic Planning Guidelines

This document was created to assist California State agencies in understanding the planning process for strategic plan development and in defining performance measures that emphasize meaningful results.

Illinois Integrated Justice Information System (IIJIS) Strategic Plan

This page provides a link to the latest Illinois Integrated Justice Information System Strategic Plan revision.  It includes the framework for development of a justice information sharing capability in Illinois, with a primary goal of getting the right information to the right people at the right time.  Additionally, an outreach brochure and supporting documentation are available at the site.

Iowa Criminal Justice Information System Integration Plan

This document is the strategic plan for Criminal Justice Information Systems Integration in the state of Iowa.

Missouri Office of the CIO - Strategic Plan for Justice Integration and Related Documents

This page provides a link to  Missouri's  Strategic Implementation Plan for Justice Integration  of 2001, as well as past Missouri State IT Strategic Plans and reference materials.

Vermont Criminal Justice Integration System - Information Technology Strategic Plan

This document was developed as the guide for improving public safety in the state of Vermont through the development of a cost-effective, integrated justice information system.

Virginia Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) - Strategic Implementation Plan

This information technology integration implementation plan describes priorities for the Commonwealth of Virginia Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) program and how the program proposes to organize and fund the achieving of those priorities.

Center for Technology in Government - And Justice for All: Designing Your Business Case for Integrating Justice Information

This guide provides advice and tools to help the justice professional design and present a strong, persuasive business case to public officials, community leaders, and other justice professionals. A companion document entitled '' And Justice for All: Designing Your Business Case for Integrating Justice Information - An Executive Briefing for Leaders of Justice Organizations '' highlights information that is covered in the larger document and provides concise, useful information for justice organizations that are beginning to plan for a justice integration project. An interim report entitled '' Reconnaissance Study - Developing a Business Case for the Integration of Criminal Justice Information '' describes the types of initiatives studied, along with their objectives and progress, and provides information for the understanding of business case development for justice information technology integration.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority - An Enterprise Approach to Justice Information Systems

This document summarizes the business case for justice systems integration in Illinois, details current issues, and proposes that integration of current systems will reduce redundant data and will provide more timely, accurate, and complete information.

Virginia Integrated Justice Business Case

This document presents justice integration in the state of Virginia, including history, business process analysis, functional concept of operations, functional system architecture requirements, and an implementation plan.

Document Library

News Archive

• Scroll to top

•   / Sign Up
• HOW WE HELP CLIENTS
• schedule your conversation

Strategic Planning Process Definition, Steps and Examples

Published: 03 January, 2024

Social Share:

Digital Strategy

Table of Contents

Organizations use Strategic Planning to gather all their stakeholders to evaluate the collection of current circumstances and decide upon their ongoing goals and benchmarks. They decide upon long-term objectives and establish a vision for the company’s future.

The efforts behind an organization’s Strategic Planning Processes are vital to its success, and yet, while many organizations acknowledge they need to do this kind of planning, they often don’t understand how to make it a reality. In this article, we explain the reasons behind Strategic Planning and how to make your Strategic Planning Process as powerful as possible.

What is a Strategic Plan

Strategic planning is a systematic process wherein the leaders of an organization articulate their vision for the future and delineate the goals and objectives that will guide the trajectory of the organization.

What is the Strategic Planning Process

Strategic planning is a process of defining an organization’s direction and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this direction . It involves creating a long-term plan that outlines the organization’s vision, mission, values, and objectives, as well as the strategies and tactics that will be used to achieve them.

Strategy is often misunderstood, which is surprising because fundamentally it’s a pretty basic concept. Strategy is a clearly expressed direction and a verified plan on how to get there. Your Strategic Planning Process formalizes the steps you’ll take to decide on your plan. The Strategic Planning Process facilitates using a Strategic Execution Framework that articulates where you’ll invest in innovation and where you can cut costs.

As far as business development planning is concerned, your Strategic Execution Framework is a vital tool for driving innovation, but first you must define the process you’ll undertake to determine how you and your team see the future of your organization. In this article, we discuss how to create your Strategic Plan and define its relationship to other concepts and documents that direct your business and its activities.

While it’s true that every business is different and must develop their own processes, we believe there are some process  of strategic planning stepsthat benefit all organizations.

Below are our recommendations for the steps to take when undergoing your Strategic Planning Process, along with the questions we suggest you answer during each specific step.

Step One: Analyze your Business Environment

• Who are your competitors?
• What relevant market data do you have, and what do you still need?
• What technology has emerged that impacts your business model?
• How have customer expectations changed since your last Strategic Plan?
• What advantages do you have over competitors?
• Where is your company weaker compared to competitors?
• What predictable complications are on the horizon?
• Which unpredictable complications seem most likely or most potentially impactful?

Step Two: Set your Strategic Direction

• What is your overall Business Purpose ?
• How have your operations reflected your Purpose and Goals recently?
• How should your operations reflect your Purpose and Goals?
• Where do you see your business going in the next year?
• In two years? In three years?
• What are the metrics you’ll use to measure success?
• What are your make-or-break necessities?

Step Three: Set and develop Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives

• Have you considered short-, mid-, and long-term business goals , and what are they?
• How do your Strategic Goals reflect your Mission Statement?
• How do your Strategic Goals reflect your company values and vision?
• What daily operations must be completed to work toward your Strategic Objectives?
• How will you communicate your Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives?
• Who is responsible for reporting on success?
• How will strategic data be collected?

Related: Strategic Goals: Examples, Importance, Definitions and How to Set Them

Step Four: Drill down to Department-Level Objectives

• What are specific department concerns?
• How will your budget influence and be influenced by your Strategic Goals and Objectives?
• Which departments have resources that could be shared to better advantage?
• What roles do individual departments play in your overall Strategic Goals?
• What ongoing projects become a priority because of your new Strategic Goals?
• Are Departmental Objectives complementing each other and the overall Business Model?

Step Five: Manage and Analyze Performance

• Who is on the Strategic Planning team?
• Are tasks and job descriptions properly aligned to ensure the right work is getting completed?
• What is the schedule for the meeting for Strategic Planning?
• What are your metrics for measuring performance and success?
• Have you clearly articulated and shared KPIs?
• Who is responsible for gathering data?
• How will data be collected?
• How will data be reported?
• What’s at stake for strategy success or failure?

Step Six: Review and develop your Strategic Plan

• How should your Strategic Plan look on paper?
• What is your Strategy Execution Framework —how will you guarantee the Strategic Plan Team’s decisions are respected and executed?
• What is the review process?
• How often do you evaluate your Strategic Plan?
• How will you communicate your final Strategic Plan?

Strategic Planning Process Examples

1) apple strategic plan process.

• Vision and Mission: Apple’s strategic planning begins with a clear vision and mission. Apple’s vision is to create innovative products that inspire and enrich people’s lives.
• Environmental Analysis: Apple conducts thorough environmental analyses, considering technological trends, market demands, and competitive landscapes. This includes staying at the forefront of cutting-edge technologies.
• SWOT Analysis: Apple evaluates its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. For example, one of Apple’s strengths is its strong brand image, while a weakness might be dependence on a limited product line.
• Setting business Goals and Objectives: Apple sets specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals. This could include objectives like maintaining a certain market share, launching new products, or achieving specific financial targets.
• Strategies and Tactics: Apple develops strategies based on its goals. For instance, a strategic move might be expanding its ecosystem by integrating hardware, software, and services. Tactics could include aggressive marketing campaigns and product launches.
• Implementation and Execution: Apple’s strategic plans are meticulously executed. The launch of iconic products like the iPhone, iPad, and Mac series demonstrates effective implementation of their strategies.
• Monitoring and Adjusting: Apple constantly monitors its performance metrics, customer feedback, and market dynamics. If necessary, adjustments are made to the strategic plan to stay responsive to changing conditions.

2) Tesla Strategic Plan Process

• Vision and Mission: Tesla’s strategic planning revolves around its mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. The vision includes producing electric vehicles and renewable energy solutions.
• Market Analysis: Tesla analyzes global markets for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and energy storage. This involves understanding regulatory environments, consumer behaviours, and technological advancements.
• Risk Assessment: Tesla conducts risk assessments related to manufacturing, supply chain, and market volatility. For instance, it considers risks associated with battery production and global economic conditions.
• Setting Bold Objectives: Tesla is known for setting ambitious objectives, such as achieving mass-market electric vehicle adoption and establishing a robust network of charging stations worldwide.
• Innovative Strategies: Tesla’s strategic planning involves innovation in technology and business models . For instance, the “Gigafactories” for mass production of batteries and the “Autopilot” feature in vehicles reflect innovative strategies.
• Agile Adaptation: Due to the rapidly changing automotive and energy sectors, Tesla maintains an agile approach. The company adapts its plans swiftly to capitalize on emerging opportunities, as seen in the expansion of its energy products.
• Continuous Improvement: Tesla places emphasis on continuous improvement. The iterative development of electric vehicle models, software updates, and advancements in battery technology showcase a commitment to refinement.

These examples demonstrate how strategic planning is a dynamic and integral part of the business processes of leading companies. They highlight the importance of a well-defined vision, rigorous analysis, adaptability, and innovation in the strategic planning process.

Tactical vs. Strategic Planning Process

An easy way to distinguish your company’s Tactical Planning from your Strategic Planning is to separate your wants from your HOWs.

In your Strategic Planning, you identify what you WANT for the company. These are big-picture dreams (achievable, but big ) that are your definition of success. In your Tactical Planning, you identify the HOW for reaching those dreams, including the smaller necessary steps.

Each kind of planning is vital for securing the organization’s future, but they require different sorts of attention and philosophy, and teams that are good at planning one way may not necessarily be good at the other kind of planning.

Strategic Planning vs. Your Business Purpose

Your Strategic Planning Process will of course be deeply connected to your Business Purpose .

We like to think of Business Purpose in broad terms, choosing especially to think of a business’s role in massive transformation. Embedded within a Business Purpose is the Business Plan that directs operations and how a company delivers value to its customers.

What is the relationship between your Strategic Planning and your Business Purpose? One feeds into the other. Your Business Purpose must point to a larger impact you’ll have on the people who purchase your goods and services, and your Strategic Planning takes into account how you’ll grow and expand that Purpose as you reach more customers more successfully.

Strategic Planning vs Business Planning

Strategic planning and business planning are two distinct processes that are often used interchangeably, but they have some key differences.

Strategic planning is a top-level process that focuses on determining the direction of an organization over the long term. It involves setting goals, determining the key resources and actions necessary to achieve those goals, and allocating those resources in a way that best serves the organization’s future. The outcome of strategic planning is typically a long-term strategic plan that outlines the organization’s vision, mission, values, and objectives.

Business planning , on the other hand, is a more tactical process that focuses on the implementation of specific initiatives and projects to support the organization’s long-term goals. Business plans typically outline the steps necessary to launch a new product, enter a new market, or achieve a specific objective. They may also include budgets, marketing plans, and other operational details.

In short, strategic planning is about setting the direction for an organization, while business planning is about implementing specific initiatives to support that direction. Both processes are important for the success of an organization and should be used in conjunction to ensure that resources are allocated effectively and that the organization is moving in the right direction.

Why is Strategic Planning Important?

Imagine this scenario: A warehouse full of goods sits, unsold and unmoved. A collection of brilliant people languishes at desks all day. Outside, the world spins and changes. It’s ready for what these people could do, can do, and yet nothing happens. Needs remain unmet. Progress is halted. Everyday life takes several backwards steps. This is what your business will look like without proper Strategic Planning.

Strategic Planning forces you to consider your Strategic Objectives and critically compare them to the resources you have available. As you continuously evaluate the circumstances of your business and your customers, your Strategic Plan evolves to match your goals and business capabilities.

The process involved pushes decision-makers to practice Strategic Thinking . It limits wasteful spending, especially when upper-level managers are willing to forgo pet projects in favor of operations with a broader use and appeal.

Strategic Planning is important because it directs your resources to efficiently meet your overall Business Goals. Without Strategic Planning, you are likely to waste resources, make conflicting decisions, or fail to grow your business to its greatest potential.

When Do You Create a Strategic Plan?

Most businesses find value in reviewing their Strategic Plan every three years. This allows enough time to pass that you can evaluate the success of previous plans, reflect on the achievement of your Strategic Goals, consider developments outside your organization that affect your business, and begin formulating new goals that will become the next version of your plans.

When businesses first begin, they often have too many fires burning at once. They remain focused on existing today rather than planning for tomorrow. Most entrepreneurs remember those stressful early days of starting their businesses and can understand why formalities like Strategic Plans can fall by the wayside. We believe if your business lasts longer than a year it’s important to develop a plan for the future. Think of Strategic Planning as a celebration of a first anniversary—a sign that you’re poised to continue moving forward for years to come.

However, Strategic Planning is not a one-off event that is over once the cookies are all gone and the room clears. Your Strategic Planning team should meet regularly to measure how effective the plans are at helping you reach your Strategic Goals. Ad hoc subcommittees can play a role in gathering evidence to ensure that your plans remain appropriate, especially if conditions change.

For example, we recommended a close review of Strategic Plans and Strategic Goals once the COVID-19 pandemic made it clear that business was going to be affected at least short- to mid-term. We continue to recommend teams regularly revisit their Strategic Plans with global circumstances in mind to recognize opportunities and prepare for challenges.

The Benefits of Strategic Planning

As we’ve mentioned, there are many benefits of Strategic Planning . Some of those benefits include:

• Shared sense of power and importance
• United direction
• Clear path and purpose for decision-making and operations
• Boosted operational effectiveness
• Responsible, efficient use of available resources
• Meaningful work done on a daily basis
• Tracking of progress
• Ability to adjust to changing circumstances

What is a business without Strategic Planning? In most cases, it’s not much, nor is it long for the world. While it’s possible to accidentally find success without much planning, most successful businesses are a result of careful thought mixed with the urge to pounce on the opportunity.

What prepares you to pounce?

Your Strategic Planning and the processes that make it possible.

The UNITE Business Model Framework: A Framework for Innovation Success

Examples and Types of Effective Functional Level Strategy for Business Support

A key objective of any business strategy is to improve operational efficiencies...

The Three Levels of Strategy: Corporate Strategy, Business Strategy, and Functional Strategy

Understanding the intricate levels of strategy is crucial for any organization aiming...

• FREE LIVE TRAINING

How To Overcome The 90% Failure Rate in Innovation

Learn the winning formula from over 80+ successful innovation projects

SAVE MY FREE SPOT NOW

Thanks, We’ve Received Your Updated Details

Register For Your FREE 
Innovation Show Seat Now!

Learn how to overcome the 90% failure rate in innovation from a master innovator and best-selling author.

Expert tactics to boost your innovation odds.

Insights on capturing customer needs for innovation.

Tools that turn your ideas into triumphs.

First name *

Last name *

Professional E-mail *

I want to be kept up-to-date and accept the privacy statement *

By signing up, you agree to receive news and accept the privacy statement (mandatory)

Already have an account? Log in

Verify your e-mail address now by entering the 6-digit code we’ve just sent to your inbox

Don't receive Code? Resend code

Last one step

Help us better understand our innovation Show members

Country * Please Select Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin (Dahomey) Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Brunswick and Lüneburg Bulgaria Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Central African Republic Central American Federation Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Free State Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czechia Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Grand Duchy of Tuscany Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Namibia Nassau Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papal States Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Piedmont-Sardinia Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Congo Republic of Korea (South Korea) Republic of the Congo Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Schaumburg-Lippe Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland Syria Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Württemberg Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Industry * Please Select Automotive, mobilty & transport Financial Services Chemical & agriculture Construction & Real Estate Consulting Education Energy Banking, insurance & FS FMCG Food Gov / Public Industry Health & lifestyle Logistics, Aero & Shipping Media & Entertainment Natural resources & mining Pharma & Biotech Retail & trade Tech & E-Commerce Telco Tourism design Information technology & services Management consulting Retail Pharmaceuticals International trade & development Professional training & coaching luxury goods & jewelry Automotive Insurance Mechanical or industrial engineering Company Size * XS - 1-10 S - 10-100 M - 100-1000 L - 1000-5000 XL - > 5000

Seniority * Please Select Junior Consultant Senior Consultant Manager Senior Manager Director VP SVP Partner CXO Board Member

Areas of interest * Innovation Digital Transformation Culture & Organization IT Strategy & Bus. Alignment Customer Experience

Learn how to overcome the 90% failure rate in innovation from a master innovator & bestselling author!

Your e-mail address: * Your first name: *

One Last Step..

Help us better understand the UNITE community

Free guide to improve your innovation success rate*

Our 35-page comprehensive innovation guide covers the key areas why innovation fails. While it cannot cover all the solutions (that would take books to fill), it provides you with a convenient starting point for your analysis and provides further resources and links to the corresponding UNITE models, ultimately allowing you to work towards a doubling and tripling your chances of success.

Discover the largest library of innovation & transformation tools on the entire Internet!

LOG IN VIA E-MAIL

Forgot password?

New to Digital Leadership? Create your account

Get access to the UNITE Models now!

Discover the largest library of innovation & transformation tools on the internet!

Choose Your Password *

Confirm Your Password *

Country * Please Select Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin (Dahomey) Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Brunswick and Lüneburg Bhutan Bulgaria Burkina Faso (Upper Volta) Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cayman Islands Central African Republic Central American Federation Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Free State Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czechia Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Eswatini Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Grand Duchy of Tuscany Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nassau Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papal States Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Piedmont-Sardinia Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Congo Republic of Korea (South Korea) Republic of the Congo Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Schaumburg-Lippe Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Sweden Switzerland State of Palestine Syria Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United States United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Württemberg Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Industry * Please Select Automotive, mobilty & transport Financial Services Chemical & agriculture Construction & Real Estate Consulting Education Energy Banking, insurance & FS FMCG Food Gov / Public Industry Health & lifestyle Logistics, Aero & Shipping Media & Entertainment Natural resources & mining Pharma & Biotech Retail & trade Tech & E-Commerce Telco Tourism design Information technology & services Management consulting Retail Pharmaceuticals International trade & development Professional training & coaching luxury goods & jewelry Automotive Insurance Mechanical or industrial engineering Company Size * XS - 1-10 S - 10-100 M - 100-1000 L - 1000-5000 XL - > 5000

Editable UNITE models (PowerPoint) included

Most of our models and canvases are designed to be applied! 


To help you personalize them to your exact business requirements, you can download fully editable versions of the UNITE models available (PowerPoint format)!

They are straightforward to work with, and you can directly incorporate them into your presentations as you need…thus saving countless hours of replication!

PS: did you know that you are also getting hi-res print-ready versions for your workshops?

Monthly live webinars

Each month we host our exclusive, invitation-only webinar series where one of our industry-leading experts updates our members on the latest news, progress and concepts around business strategy, innovation and digital transformation, as well as other related topics. 



You will receive the book in PDF and EPUB formats, ideal for your computer, Kindle, Tablet or other eReading device.

Bi-weekly live group Q&A sessions

These sessions are your opportunity to bring any questions or challenges you’re facing and receive expert guidance on the spot. 


Come and be a part of engaging discussions where your unique concerns are heard and addressed.

1x personal coaching session / month

If you are occasionally looking for a sparring partner or you need limited support, then this option will be ideal for you. Coaching sessions are 1-2 hours where we can discuss any challenge or opportunity you are currently facing.

If you need a few more hours outside of this provision, then these could be billed transparently.

Unlimited video call support! – it’s like always making the right decision!

We believe support shouldn’t be limited. Because we typically find that the occasional hour just doesn’t cut it – particularly if you and your team are in the midst of a large and complex project.

Your time with Stefan is therefore unlimited (fair usage applies) – in his function as coach and sparring partner. That does mean that you will still have to do the work – we cannot take that off you, unless you hire us as consultants. But you will get valuable strategic insight and direction to make sure you are always focusing your efforts where they will lead to the best results.

One personal coaching session / month 
+ unlimited support via e-mail & WhatsApp

We believe support shouldn’t be limited. If you generally know what you are doing but want a sparring partner to frequently raise questions to, this is the perfect choice!

In addition to your monthly 1-1 live coaching sessions with Stefan, you will also get unlimited support from him via email and WhatsApp messaging (fair usage applies). This not only allows you to get valuable strategic direction in your calls, but also gives you instant access to expert help as you work through your plans each month.



The fact that support is text-based means that we can speed up our responses to you while keeping the overall cost of support down.

Welcome gift of our book 
 “How to Create Innovation” 
 (digital + physical editions)*

As a welcome gift, you will receive the both the digital and physical version of our book “How to Create Innovation”, which covers numerous relevant resources and provides additional deep dives into our UNITE models and concepts.


The print version will be shipped out to you on sign-up. The digital version will be emailed to you, and comes in PDF and EPUB formats, ideal for your computer, Kindle, Tablet or other eReading device.

1x major workshop or 2x smaller workshops / month

1x major or 2x smaller workshops based on the UNITE models.

• Topics covered: almost any challenge under the header of #strategy, #innovation or #transformation, leveraging the UNITE models.
• Hands-On Learning: solve your challenges while learning the practical application of the UNITE models and walk away with concrete plans and tools to take your next steps.
• Industry thought leadership: facilitated by Stefan, the founder of Digital Leadership and the main author of the UNITE models, ensuring top-tier guidance and knowledge sharing.
• Collaborative approach: engage in interactive sessions that foster collaboration, idea exchange, and real-time problem-solving among peers and industry leaders.
• Continuous Improvement: Regular workshops ensure ongoing development in your organization staying ahead of industry trends and customer needs.

Access all of our UNITE models, 
 (incl. editable & print versions)

All of our Professional plans offer full access to the following:

• 6x UNITE model package downloads are included per month, if you need something in addition to these however, please let us know!
• Hi-res, print-ready versions you can use in your workshops
• Fully editable PowerPoint versions where applicable – personalize to your needs.
• Exclusive access to our vault of never-before-published strategic materials. We have much more to share – a lot of our concepts have never been published!

Exclusive access to our private UNITE community (upcoming)

We are currently in the process of launching our brand new community., we are designing our community to specifically help you:.

• Get answers to questions (“How do I …”)
• Share leading practices & knowledge
• Jointly develop new models
• Network amongst a highly qualified group of peers

Please, select the reason

Cancelling your plan will deactivate your plan after the current billing period ends. You will not be charged further, but also won’t be able to access [exclusive features/services].

• Cost-related issues
• Unsatisfied with the service
• Features I need are missing
• Switching to a different service
• Other (Please specify)

Book Your Initial Blueprint Session Now

Simply fill out the below form and book in a time for our initial session that works for you. This initial session is free, no strings attached, and is where we can discuss your Blueprint needs more in-depth before moving forward.

Stefan F. Dieffenbacher

Founder of digital leadership.

Adam D. Wisniewski

Partner for it strategy & business alignment.

Get in touch with Digital Leadership

Speak to our team today to find the best solution for your business to grow and scale.

We are here to support you across the entire lifecycle in all topics related to #digital, #innovation, #transformation and #marketing!

Stefan F. Dieffenbacher Founder of Digital Leadership

Contact Us!

Contact form, contact details, book a call.

Title, first name & last name * Email address * Phone number Please let us know how we can best support you! *

By clicking “Send”, I agree to Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Let’s have a conversation!

“Please be invited to reach out! We are happy to help and look forward to a first meeting!”

+41 (0) 44 562 42 24

[email protected]

Schedule Your Call With Our Team

Find a time on our calender that best suits you !

Founder and CEO of Digital Leadership

SCHEDULE YOUR INITIAL CALL

A Quick Survey!

What is the main challenge you're currently facing in your business?

You Want To Drive Change?

Let’s find the best solution for your business to grow and scale sustainably!

Let’s kick start it!

We will uncover your current business situation and goals and provide you with a bespoke solution that helps you drastically grow your business working with us.

Stefan F. Dieffenbacher, M.B.A.

Feedback about our consulting that we are proud of

Read the reviews and make sure that this is not a waste of time, but a super effective tool.

You want to drive change?

Schedule your free business assessment call with our founder.

On this call, we will uncover your current business situation and goals and talk about how to drive change and solve your need.

Choose the meeting type that applies to your needs and schedule a time to meet with someone from our team. We look forward to speaking with you soon!

Schedule Your Free Business Assessment

Schedule Your Free Business Assessment Call With Adam D. Wisniewski

Welcome to our scheduling page.

Let’s Design your Customer Experience Blueprint !

In a uniquely designed 60 or 90 minute session* , we will …

• > identify where to start with near-certainty
• > define what approach it takes to create success in your organization

Based on the Blueprinting session, you will receive a tailored blueprint that aligns with your objectives, vision and goals, ensuring that your initiative is a success from start to finish.

In this session, you will be working together with Patrick Zimmermann, Associate Partner for Customer Experience

Let’s Design your Culture & Org-Change Blueprint !

In this session, you will be working together with Dr. Andreas Rein, Partner at Digital Leadership for Culture & Org Change

Let’s Design your Innovation Blueprint !

In this session, you will be working together with Sascha Martini, Partner at Digital Leadership for Innovation and Digital Transformation

Let’s Design your Transformation Blueprint !

In this session, you will be working together with Stefan F. Dieffenbacher, Founder of Digital Leadership Stefan is a global thought leader in the innovation space

Let’s Design your IT Strategy & Business Alignment Blueprint !

In this session, you will be working together with Adam D. Wisniewski, Partner for IT Strategy & Business Alignment

Patrick Zimmermann

Sascha Martini

Dr. Andreas Rein

Write a personalized review! Log in

Create Review

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

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

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

Business Continuity Planning

Organize a business continuity team and compile a  business continuity plan  to manage a business disruption. Learn more about how to put together and test a business continuity plan with the videos below.

Business Continuity Plan Supporting Resources

• Business Continuity Plan Situation Manual
• Business Continuity Plan Test Exercise Planner Instructions
• Business Continuity Plan Test Facilitator and Evaluator Handbook

Business Continuity Training Videos

The Business Continuity Planning Suite is no longer supported or available for download.

Business Continuity Training Introduction

An overview of the concepts detailed within this training. Also, included is a humorous, short video that introduces viewers to the concept of business continuity planning and highlights the benefits of having a plan. Two men in an elevator experience a spectrum of disasters from a loss of power, to rain, fire, and a human threat. One man is prepared for each disaster and the other is not.

View on YouTube

Business Continuity Training Part 1: What is Business Continuity Planning?

An explanation of what business continuity planning means and what it entails to create a business continuity plan. This segment also incorporates an interview with a company that has successfully implemented a business continuity plan and includes a discussion about what business continuity planning means to them.

Business Continuity Training Part 2: Why is Business Continuity Planning Important?

An examination of the value a business continuity plan can bring to an organization. This segment also incorporates an interview with a company that has successfully implemented a business continuity plan and includes a discussion about how business continuity planning has been valuable to them.

Business Continuity Training Part 3: What's the Business Continuity Planning Process?

An overview of the business continuity planning process. This segment also incorporates an interview with a company about its process of successfully implementing a business continuity plan.

Business Continuity Training Part 3: Planning Process Step 1

The first of six steps addressed in this Business Continuity Training, which detail the process of building a business continuity plan. This step addresses how organizations should “prepare” to create a business continuity plan.

Business Continuity Training Part 3: Planning Process Step 2

The second of six steps addressed in this Business Continuity Training, which detail the process of building a business continuity plan. This step addresses how organizations should “define” their business continuity plan objectives.

Business Continuity Training Part 3: Planning Process Step 3

The third of six steps addressed in this Business Continuity Training, which detail the process of building a business continuity plan. This step addresses how organizations should “identify” and prioritize potential risks and impacts.

Business Continuity Training Part 3: Planning Process Step 4

The fourth of six steps addressed in this Business Continuity Training, which detail the process of building a business continuity plan. This step addresses how organizations should “develop” business continuity strategies.

Business Continuity Training Part 3: Planning Process Step 5

The fifth of six steps addressed in this Business Continuity Training, which detail the process of building a business continuity plan. This step addresses how organizations should define their “teams” and tasks.

Business Continuity Training Part 3: Planning Process Step 6

The sixth of six steps addressed in this Business Continuity Training, which detail the process of building a business continuity plan. This step addresses how organizations should “test” their business continuity plans. View on YouTube

Last Updated: 12/21/2023

Return to top

• RateHawk World
• Travel Services
• Empowering Insights

Strategic Planning: Steps to Achieve Your Business Goals

The process of strategic planning is the core element of any business or other organization. In fact, strategic plans can even be applied to your own career and personal life. Despite being one of the most important elements of a business, strategic planning is often neglected by businesses, which tend to focus on a win-now approach. 

Each year, companies typically gather together a team to discuss strategy and plan for the next year. What comes out of that strategic planning meeting is key for what your company is going to be doing in the year to come and beyond and the goals that everyone will be working towards.

Strategic planning and management done right, can help lead you to success. On the other hand, weaker plans or those with less drive from the top can result in teams working at cross-purposes and significant market share losses…or worse. 

What is strategic planning?

Strategic planning is the process by which an organization establishes and revises its core long-term goals and creates a plan to achieve those goals. Strategic planning involves multiple review periods and continuous revisions to establish that the business is on the right strategic track. 

What is strategic management?

Strategic management is the overall control of the direction of your company based on current and planned capabilities to achieve a set of planned goals. In essence, this means that strategic planning is a part of the overall process of strategic management, which is a broader concept that includes implementation and review. For our purposes, we’ll look at strategic planning as encompassing the entire process of strategic management. Internally at your organization, you’ll also want to appoint some people to manage the strategy implementation, which is separate from the strategic planning process. 

Popular tags

• Sales Manager
• Account Manager
• Uzakrota Travel Awards
• RateHawk Week
• Job offer Spain
• for corporate clients
• Philippines
• Area Manager
• Job offer Australia
• Job offer Romania
• Job offer Oman
• Job offer Bahrain
• Job offer Mexico
• Job offer Italy
• Job offer UAE
• Job offer UK
• black friday

Follow us for the latest news

• Hotel search
• Offline order

• Professional Services
• Multiple Users
• Admin Console
• White Labeling
• Local Data Residency
• Single Sign-On
• Jotform Sign
• Business Services
• Field Service Management
• Financial Services
• Lunch & Learn Sessions
• White Papers
• Contact Sales
• Sign Up for Free

• Business Process Management

What is a business process? A complete guide

Whether you’re a line manager or individual contributor, you’ve undoubtedly heard the term business process thrown around in meetings and emails. Chances are you have a pretty good idea of what the term refers to, but this guide will ensure you have a definitive, clear understanding of its meaning.

We’ll go beyond simply defining what a business process is (and is not) to explore related terms and give examples of how each concept plays out in real life.

You’ll also hear from two business leaders, Aaron Alpeter and Stephen Roethe, on how they regularly create, refine, and implement processes at their companies to keep work on track, employees on task, and customers happy. Alpeter is the founder of izba , a supply-chain consulting, outsourcing, and technology firm. Roe is the founder and head of digital strategy at Grow Atom , an SEO agency for e-commerce stores.

Here’s an in-depth look at five key business-process terms and how to apply business-process concepts to your organization.

1. Business process

A business process is a set of connected tasks that an organization performs to achieve a specific goal, such as manufacturing a product or delivering a service.

“Business processes require you to create workflows and systemic methods to handle recurring tasks that give you a desired result,” says Roe. Consider what it takes to write an article or deliver an invoice to a customer. To produce those results, you have to take certain steps.

“When creating or refining a process, I recommend working backward,” says Roe. “Define the end result you want and walk through what it takes to get there.”

A process may be formal or informal. Organizations often record formal processes and perform them in the same manner every time. Informal processes are rarely codified, and their exact steps tend to vary depending on who’s performing them.

“Many people don’t realize that the work they do, even if it’s not formalized, is part of a process,” says Alpeter. “If there’s a defined outcome the person is trying to achieve, how they achieve that outcome is the process, regardless of whether it’s written down or performed differently by a coworker.”

Sometimes, informal processes may become formalized after a manager, external consultant, or other authority reviews them. For example, let’s say two employees, Janet and David, both have the same job and create the same work outputs every day. However, Janet routinely completes her work more quickly than David, making her more productive.

Their manager takes note of this discrepancy and calls for a review of how both employees complete their work. The review reveals that the set of steps Janet takes — her informal process — is more efficient than David’s.

Subsequently, the manager asks Janet to record her process and walk through it with David and the rest of the team. Janet’s informal process then becomes the team’s formal business process.

Types of business processes

The term business process is broad and encompasses many kinds of outcomes, so it can be helpful to categorize processes into these three types.

This type of process is tied directly to how you generate value for customers (and income for your company). Consider the products and services your customers purchase. How you create and deliver these items and experiences are your core processes.

For example, Alpeter’s company provides consulting expertise on matters related to supply chains. Clients pay for this expertise in the form of consultations, negotiations, strategic planning, forecasting, and other services. The activities that go into developing and delivering these services to clients are core processes.

“Clients buy our experience and problem-solving capabilities — our ability to resolve their issues and educate them on the why and how to avoid the same types of pitfalls as they scale,” Alpeter explains. “Each process that results in generating value for our clients is core to our business.”

Consider another example. Let’s say your company produces a software as a service (SaaS) product. After customers make a purchase, you need to onboard them so they know how to use the product effectively — which ensures they’ll maintain their subscription. “This is a core process because it’s generating value for customers and aiding in continued revenue generation,” Alpeter explains.

You can also find core processes in fast-casual restaurants, like those offering burritos or sandwiches. There’s a clear production line — a process — for making these food items that you can watch take place. “The steps for making the burrito or sandwich are a clear-cut core process, as customers will purchase the food item immediately after it’s created,” says Alpeter.

Unlike core processes, support processes do not generate income or direct value for customers — though that’s not to say they don’t have value. Most support processes are internal and tied to areas that are cost centers, such as HR and IT. The activities of these departments may not make money, but they’re important for supporting the company’s ability to do so — that is, they support core processes.

For example, talent management is an important aspect of any successful organization, and HR typically leads these efforts. They have to find the right people to fill the roles you’ve identified as necessary for sales, operations, and other key functional areas.

They accomplish this by posting job openings, asking current employees to refer friends and professional connections, reviewing applicants, and eventually hiring and training approved candidates. All these actions are considered support processes.

Similarly, IT provides technical leadership and support to all areas of the organization. They help implement and maintain software that employees use in their work, fix these tools when they break, and troubleshoot when employees have technical difficulties. Again, the internal nature of these actions means they don’t directly generate client value or revenue — hence, they’re support processes.

3. Management

Like support processes, management processes don’t generate revenue for the company or direct value for customers, but they’re necessary. These processes are high-level activities that set the direction of the company and focus on planning, monitoring, and controlling core and support processes.

For example, company executives regularly perform strategic planning and goal-setting, which helps guide the organization down the desired path. They also keep track of company results and report to a board or shareholders. These activities are management processes.

Consider also how an organization improves processes over time. There’s typically a process in place for identifying and addressing activities that aren’t generating revenue, result in poor customer perception, lead to errors, or negatively affect employees performance. This type of process controls core and support activities, which makes it a management process.

2. Business process management

Business process management (BPM) is the practice of reviewing, analyzing, measuring, and identifying opportunities to automate and optimize business processes. You can think of it as the discipline behind management-type processes.

“With BPM, you’re taking a high-level view of processes, considering how they work both independently and together,” Roe explains. Instead of allowing employees to haphazardly accomplish tasks in whatever way they deem fit, practicing this management discipline ensures your organization is creating and maintaining processes that consistently deliver desired outcomes.

Alpeter recommends a few ways to ensure effective BPM:

• Define clear success criteria for each business process.
• Ensure core and support processes tie together well.
• Formalize processes whenever possible by creating templates and standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Roe notes that many small business owners forgo practicing BPM, mostly because it takes time away from other priorities. But he says it’s important for any organization, regardless of size, to ensure its processes are in order. For busy owners, his recommendation is to loop in other employees and assign them process areas to manage.

“Too many business owners abdicate when they need to delegate,” Roe explains. “Someone needs to be accountable for keeping processes in line and up to date. But you don’t have to do it all yourself. Lean on your workforce to lighten the load and ensure your company’s processes are working as intended.”

How often to review business processes

While organizations should certainly review their business processes regularly, the exact time frame will vary based on several factors: the importance and complexity of the process, available time and resources, and so on.

“For example, we review some of our core processes — such as writing articles — every week to ensure our customers are receiving the value we promise,” says Roe. “However, nonessential processes like vacation requests don’t get nearly the same level of attention.”

Clearly, Roe takes BPM seriously. In fact, he blocks out time every business day to review one or more processes, depending on the priority level he’s assigned to them and what his schedule will allow.

“I keep a tight schedule,” he says, “so I like to batch tasks to limit mental fatigue from switching back and forth between dissimilar to-do items. So I do all my process reviews at once.”

Revising a process

Keep an eye out for indications that your business may need to review and revise a process. For example, a particular process might be prone to human error. A review may find that a step of the process is ambiguous and leads to different interpretations, depending on the person using the process.

“If a problem happens once, it’s most likely a people issue,” says Roe. “However, if a problem rears its head consistently, chances are it’s a process issue that needs to be addressed. Even a few occurrences of a problem may indicate the process should be thoroughly reviewed.”

3. Business process modeling

Business process modeling is a structured approach to recording a set of expected activities, including who is responsible for performing them. It’s a map of what’s happening in a company — a set of living documents that define how work gets done.

Modeling is essentially how you create or develop your processes from beginning to end. “It helps you see the big picture,” says Roe.

“In business process modeling, you’re figuring out and recording interdependencies — the inputs and outputs needed to move from step to step,” Alpeter explains. “It’s a value stream map that shows how something is created. For example, you could produce a product flow that illustrates how a product goes from the factory to the warehouse to the customer.”

There are a number of techniques you can use for business process modeling. Roe likes to use kanban boards because they allow him and his team to quickly grasp the order of steps from a visual representation of tasks.

“The boards tie nicely to our writing phases,” he says, “and we can easily add columns and cards to represent new phases in the process. For example, we recently reviewed our process and determined that having the writer review their article a second time helped improve output quality. So we added an extra column to the board to capture the new step.”

Returning to the burrito-making example, Alpeter notes how fast-casual restaurants have created processes that reflect the need for efficiency. After all, speed is important in these businesses.

“For example,” he says, “you often see that employees will start with a tortilla, move to proteins, then vegetables, and pass off the finished product to the cashier. There’s obviously solid reasoning for this specific set of steps because many burrito places model their building process in the same order.”

4. Business process improvement

Business process improvement is the practice of using different methods to analyze, redesign, and optimize existing processes to reduce task completion time, improve quality, reduce friction, or some combination of these.

“It’s about determining how you can complete a process faster, cheaper, and better,” says Roe. “Just keep in mind you need someone leading the improvement effort, or it won’t get done.”

Process improvement falls under the umbrella of business process management, with the focus on optimization being the key differentiator. BPM says which processes need review and optimization. Business process improvement says how to optimize them.

“What you optimize for depends on what’s important to your company,” says Alpeter. “We try to optimize for client value because that’s one of our primary focuses. We want to ensure we’re doing something better — not just different — than competitors.”

By comparison, Alpeter notes that other consulting companies may optimize processes for profit, which may result in companies billing as much as possible without delivering as much value in their work. “Clients may still achieve their goals,” he says, “but with some drawbacks. The work may take longer, they may not be as informed, the experience may be less than ideal, and so on.”

He cites another example: “Everyone knows Chick-fil-A and Popeyes — they both sell chicken, but the customer experience is different. Chick-fil-A regularly has long lines, but customers happily wait because the restaurant has clearly reviewed its processes and determined that ‘improvement’ for them means optimizing around the customer experience. In contrast, Popeyes tends to be quicker, but the experience can be less than ideal because they’re optimizing for something else.”

5. Business process automation

Business process automation is the practice of using technology to automate repeatable tasks to save time and effort, increase scalability, minimize human error, and reduce costs.

While many have lauded automation in recent years as a beneficial practice, especially for larger organizations where scale is important, Alpeter cautions against automating every part of a business process just because you can.

“Too many business leaders get caught up in automation because of the promised benefits — which are often very real — but neglect to first identify whether automation is even necessary,” Alpeter explains. “You may find there are parts of your process that need to be changed or eliminated altogether, rendering automation an unnecessary task.”

Alpeter provides three examples where business process automation often occurs.

• Meeting scheduling

Everyone knows the headache of trying to wrangle schedules to see what time works for a meeting. SaaS products such as Calendly, ScheduleOnce, and Jotform provide the tools to automate how organizations schedule meetings .

“Instead of emailing back and forth, you can just provide a link for someone to find a time that works for them,” Alpeter explains. “These solutions automatically sync with your calendar to ensure that invitees can only choose times when you’re available.”

• Email drip campaigns

Automation also comes in handy in the marketing realm, where marketers value the ability to connect with a large number of customers automatically. Take email drip campaigns — software solutions can automatically send emails to customers based on certain events. “For example, you may want to send customers a thank-you email immediately after they make a purchase or an exclusive offer X days later,” says Alpeter.

• Ridesharing

The rideshare space has been transformed by automation. Previously, the manual process of calling a taxi led to long wait times and ambiguous fares. Popular apps like Uber and Lyft brought automation into the picture, remedying these inconvenient aspects of the rideshare experience.

“Now you can simply request a ride on your smartphone and be notified when it arrives,” Alpeter explains. “Plus, fares are presented up front so you have a clear estimate of how much you’ll pay.”

Organizational success depends heavily on your business processes. Refining those processes requires taking a multifaceted, thoughtful approach. For best results, your organization should evaluate its processes on an ongoing basis to truly reap the benefits.

Photo by cottonbro studio

Thank you for helping improve the Jotform Blog. 🎉

RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

Business Process Management (BPM): A Guide

Business activity monitoring

How to use process mapping symbols

BPM vs RPA: Which should you use to boost efficiency?

Process vs procedure: How they differ and why it matters

Workflow vs process

Business process reengineering guide: Tools and examples

How BPI enhances employee performance

Business process automation

A brief, tactical guide to agile business process management

11 Laserfiche alternatives to achieve maximum productivity for 2024

Business process model and notation (BPMN) diagrams tutorial

9 benefits of business process automation

Business process reengineering vs continuous improvement

10 ways to improve interdepartmental communication

The 4 best enterprise BPM solutions

5 benefits of process mapping

BPM vs workflow

10 best BPM software programs and tools

5 best business process improvement software tools

Low-code vs BPM: What’s the difference?

Send Comment :

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Register to vote Register by 18 June to vote in the General Election on 4 July.

• Government reform
• Civil service reform
• Election guidance for civil servants
• Cabinet Office
• Civil Service

General election guidance 2024: guidance for civil servants (HTML)

Updated 23 May 2024

© Crown copyright 2024

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] .

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/election-guidance-for-civil-servants/general-election-guidance-2024-guidance-for-civil-servants-html

1. General elections have a number of implications for the work of departments and civil servants. These arise from the special character of government business during an election campaign, and from the need to maintain, and be seen to maintain, the impartiality of the Civil Service, and to avoid any criticism of an inappropriate use of official resources. This guidance takes effect from 00:01 on 25 May 2024 at which point the ‘election period’ begins. The Prime Minister will write separately to Ministers advising them of the need to adhere to this guidance and to uphold the impartiality of the Civil Service. 

2. This guidance applies to all UK civil servants, and the board members and staff of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and other arms’ length bodies.  

General Principles 

3. During the election period, the Government retains its responsibility to govern, and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. Essential business (which includes routine business necessary to ensure the continued smooth functioning of government and public services) must be allowed to continue. However, it is customary for Ministers to observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long term character. Decisions on matters of policy on which a new government might be expected to want the opportunity to take a different view from the present government should be postponed until after the election, provided that such postponement would not be detrimental to the national interest or wasteful of public money.   

4. Advice on handling such issues is set out in this guidance. This guidance will not cover every eventuality, but the principles should be applied to the particular circumstances.  

5. The principles underlying the conduct of civil servants in a general election are an extension of those that apply at all times, as set out in the Civil Service Code

• The basic principle for civil servants is not to undertake any activity that could call into question their political impartiality or that could give rise to criticism that public resources are being used for party political purposes. This principle applies to all staff working in departments.  
• Departmental and NDPB activity should not be seen to compete with the election campaign for public attention. The principles and conventions set out in this guidance also apply to public bodies.  
• It is also a requirement of the Ministerial Code that Ministers must not use government resources for party political purposes and must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service.  

Election queries 

6. For any detailed queries on this guidance, or other questions, officials should in the first instance seek guidance from their line management chain, and, where necessary, escalate to their Permanent Secretary who may consult the Cabinet Secretary, or the Propriety and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office. 

7. The Propriety and Ethics Team handle general queries relating to conduct during the election period, provide advice on the handling of enquiries and any necessary co-ordination where enquiries raise issues that affect a number of departments (through their Permanent Secretary). 

8. In dealing with queries, the Propriety and Ethics Team will function most effectively if it is in touch with relevant developments in departments. 

Departments should therefore: 

• draw to their attention, for advice or information, any approach or exchange that raises issues that are likely to be of interest to other departments; and 
• seek advice before a Minister makes a significant Ministerial statement during the election period. 

Section A: Enquiries, Briefing, Requests for Information and attending events 

1. This note gives guidance on: 

• the handling by departments and agencies of requests for information and other enquiries during a general election campaign; 
• briefing of Ministers during the election period;  
• the handling of constituency letters received from Members of Parliament before dissolution, and of similar letters from parliamentary candidates during the campaign; and 
• the handling of FOI requests. 

2. At a general election, the government of the day is expected to defend its policies to the electorate. By convention, the governing party is entitled to check with departments that statements made on its behalf are factually correct and consistent with government policy. As at all times, however, government departments and their staff must not engage in, or appear to engage in, party politics or be used for party ends. They should provide consistent factual information on request to candidates of all parties, as well as to organisations and members of the public, and should in all instances avoid becoming involved or appearing to become involved, in a partisan way, in election issues. 

Requests for Factual Information 

3. Departments and agencies should provide any parliamentary candidate, organisation or member of the public with information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Local and regional offices should deal similarly with straightforward enquiries, referring doubtful cases through their line management chain and, where necessary to their Permanent Secretary for decision. 

4. Other requests for information will range from enquiries about existing government policy that are essentially factual in nature, to requests for justification and comment on existing government policy. All requests for information held by departments must be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The handling of press enquiries is covered in Section I.  

5. Where the enquiry concerns the day-to-day management of a non-ministerial department or executive agency and the chief executive would normally reply, he or she should do so in the usual way, taking special care to avoid becoming involved in any matters of political controversy. 

6. Enquiries concerning policies newly announced in a party manifesto or for a comparison of the policies of different parties are for the political party concerned. Civil servants should not provide any assistance on these matters. See also paragraph 14.  

7. Officials should draft replies, whether for official or Ministerial signature, with particular care to avoid party political controversy, especially criticism of the policies of other parties. Ministers may decide to amend draft replies to include a party political context. Where this is the case, Ministers should be advised to issue the letter on party notepaper. The guiding principle is whether the use of departmental resources, including headed paper, would be a proper use of public funds for governmental as opposed to party political purposes, and could be defended as such. 

Speed of Response 

8. The circumstances of a general election demand the greatest speed in dealing with enquiries. In particular, the aim should be to answer enquiries from parliamentary candidates or from any of the political parties’ headquarters within 24 hours. All candidates should be treated equally. 

9. Where a request will take longer to deal with, the requester should be advised of this as he/she may wish to submit a refined request. 

FOI requests 

10. Requests that would normally be covered by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must be handled in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the deadlines set therein. Where the application of the public interest balance requires more time, that is permitted under the Act but there is no general power to defer a decision.   

11. Where a request needs to be considered under FOIA it will not normally be possible to get back to the parliamentary candidate, or others, within 24 hours and he or she should be advised of this as they may wish to submit a request more in line with paragraph 8 above. 

Role of Ministers in FOIA decisions 

12. Ministers have a number of statutory functions in relation to requests for information. They are the qualified person for the purpose of using section 36 of the FOI Act for their departments. During the general election period, Ministers will be expected to carry out these functions.  

13. Where there is any doubt, requests should be referred to the FOI Policy team in the Cabinet Office. 

Briefing and Support for Ministers 

14. Ministers continue to be in charge of departments. It is reasonable for departments to continue to provide support for any necessary governmental functions, and receive any policy advice or factual briefing necessary to resolve issues that cannot be deferred until after the election. 

15. Departments can check statements for factual accuracy and consistency with established government policy. Officials should not, however, be asked to devise new arguments or cost policies for use in the election campaign. Departments should not undertake costings or analysis of Opposition policies during the election period.  

Officials attending public or stakeholder events 

16. Officials should decline invitations to events where they may be asked to respond on questions about future government policy or on matters of public controversy. 

Constituency Correspondence 

17. During the election period, replies to constituency letters received from Members of Parliament before the dissolution, or to similar letters from parliamentary candidates, should take into account the fact that if they become public knowledge they will do so in the more politically-charged atmosphere of an election and are more likely to become the subject of political comment. Outstanding correspondence should be cleared quickly. Letters may be sent to former MPs at the House of Commons after dissolution, to be picked up or forwarded. Departments and agencies whose staff routinely deal directly with MPs’ enquiries should ensure that their regional and local offices get early guidance on dealing with questions from parliamentary candidates. Such guidance should reflect the following points: 

a. Once Parliament is dissolved, a Member of Parliament’s constitutional right to represent his or her constituents’ grievances to government disappears, and all candidates for the election are on an equal footing. This doctrine should be applied in a reasonable way. In general, replies should be sent by Ministers to constituency letters that were written by MPs before dissolution. Where there is a pressing need for Ministers to reply to letters on constituency matters written after the dissolution by former Members, this should be handled in a way that avoids any preferential treatment or the appearance of preferential treatment between letters from the governing party and those from other candidates. It will normally be appropriate to send a Private Secretary reply to letters on constituency matters from prospective parliamentary candidates who were not Members before the dissolution. 

b. The main consideration must be to ensure that the citizen’s interests are not prejudiced. But it is possible that a personal case may become politically controversial during the election period. Departments should therefore make particular efforts to ensure, so far as possible, that letters are factual, straightforward and give no room for misrepresentation. 

c. Replies to constituency correspondence to be sent after polling day should, where there has been a change of MP, normally be sent direct to the constituent concerned. It should be left to the constituent to decide whether or not to copy the letter to any new MP. Where there is no change in MP, correspondence should be returned to the MP in the normal way.

Section B: Special Advisers 

1. Special Advisers must agree with the Cabinet Office the termination of their contracts  on or before 30 May (except for a small number of Special Advisers who may remain in post, where the express agreement of their appointing Minister and the Prime Minister to continue in post has been given).     

2. An exception to this is where a Special Adviser has been publicly identified as a candidate or prospective candidate for election to the UK Parliament, in which case they must instead resign at the start of the short campaign period ahead of the election. 

3. Special Advisers who leave government for any reason will no longer have preferential access to papers and officials. Any request for advice from a former Special Adviser will be treated in the same way as requests from other members of the public.  

4. On leaving government, Special Advisers should return all departmental property e.g. mobile phones, remote access and other IT equipment. Special Advisers may leave a voicemail message or out of office reply on departmental IT with forwarding contact details.  

5. Special Advisers receive severance pay when their appointment is terminated, but not where they resign. Severance pay for Special Advisers is taxable as normal income and will be paid as a lump sum. The amount an individual is entitled to will be determined by their length of service as set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Special Advisers are required to agree that if they are reappointed, they will repay any amount above that which they would have been paid in salary had they remained in post. Any excess severance will be reclaimed automatically through payroll on reappointment.  

6. If the Prime Minister agrees exceptionally that a Special Adviser should remain in post during the election period, their appointment will be automatically terminated the day after polling day. In those cases, Special Advisers may continue to give advice on government business to their Ministers as before. They must continue to adhere to the requirements of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and may not take any public part in the campaign. Section A is also relevant in relation to the commissioning of briefing. 

7. Different arrangements can be made for Special Advisers on, or about to begin, maternity leave when a UK general election is called. These arrangements are set out in the Maternity Policy for Special Advisers, and Special Adviser HR are best placed to advise on specific circumstances.

8. If there is no change of government following the election, a Special Adviser may be reappointed. The Prime Minister’s approval will be required before any commitments are made, and a new contract issued, including for any advisers who have stayed in post.

Section C: Contacts with the Opposition Party 

1. The Prime Minister has authorised pre-election contact between the main opposition parties and Permanent Secretaries from 11 January 2024. These contacts are strictly confidential and are designed to allow Opposition spokespeople to inform themselves of factual questions of departmental organisation and to inform civil servants of any organisational or policy changes likely in the event of a change of government.  

2. Separate guidance on handling such contacts is set out in the Cabinet Manual.

Section D: Contact with Select Committees 

1. House of Commons Select Committees set up by Standing Order continue in existence, technically, until that Standing Order is amended or rescinded. In practice, when Parliament is dissolved pending a general election, membership of committees lapses and work on their inquiries ceases.  

2. House of Lords Select Committees are not set up by Standing Orders and technically cease to exist at the end of each session. 

3. The point of contact for departments continues to be the Committee Clerk who remains in post to process the basic administrative work of the committee (and prepare for the re-establishment of the Committee in the next Parliament).  

4. Departments should continue to work, on a contingency basis, on any outstanding evidence requested by the outgoing committee and on any outstanding government responses to committee reports. It will be for any newly-appointed Ministers to approve the content of any response. It will be for the newly-appointed committee to decide whether to continue with its predecessor committee’s inquiries and for the incoming administration to review the terms of draft responses before submitting to the newly appointed committee. 

5. It is for the newly-appointed committee to decide whether to publish government responses to its predecessor reports. There may be some delay before the committee is reconstituted, and an incoming government may well wish to publish such responses itself by means of a Command Paper. In this event, the department should consult the Clerk of the Committee before publication of the report response.

Section E: Political Activities of Civil Servants 

1. Permanent Secretaries will wish to remind staff of the general rules governing national political activities. These are set out in the Civil Service Management Code and departmental staff handbooks. 

2. For this purpose, the Civil Service is divided into three groups: 

a. the “politically free” – industrial and non-office grades; 

b. the “politically restricted” – members of the Senior Civil Service, civil servants in Grades 6 and 7 (or equivalent) and members of the Fast Stream Development Programme; and

c. civil servants outside the “politically free” and “politically restricted” groups  

3. Civil servants on secondment to outside organisations (or who are on any form of paid or unpaid leave) remain civil servants and the rules relating to political activity continue to apply to them. Departments should seek to contact individuals on secondment outside the civil service to remind them of this. Individuals seconded into the Civil Service are also covered by these rules for the duration of their appointment. 

Civil Servants Standing for Parliament  

4. All civil servants are disqualified from election to Parliament (House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975) and must resign from the Civil Service before standing for election. Individuals must resign from the Civil Service on their formal adoption as a prospective parliamentary candidate, and must complete their last day of service before their adoption papers are completed. If the adoption process does not reasonably allow for the individual to give full notice, departments and agencies may at their discretion pay an amount equivalent to the period of notice that would normally be given. 

Other Political Activity 

5. “Politically restricted” civil servants are prohibited from any participation in national political activities.  

6. All other civil servants may engage in national political activities with the permission of the department, which may be subject to certain conditions.  

7. Where, on a case by case basis, permission is given by departments, civil servants must still act in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code, including ensuring that they meet the Code’s values and standards of behaviour about impartiality and political impartiality. Notwithstanding any permission to engage in national political activities, they must ensure that their actions (and the perception of those actions) are compatible with the requirements to: 

• serve the government, whatever its political persuasion, to the best of their ability in a way which maintains political impartiality and is in line with the requirements of the Code, no matter what their own political beliefs are; and 
• act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers, while at the same time ensuring that they will be able to establish the same relationship with those whom they may be required to serve in some future government. 

Reinstatement 

8. Departments and agencies must reinstate former civil servants who have resigned from “politically free” posts to stand for election and whose candidature has proved unsuccessful, provided they apply within a week of declaration day.  

9. Departments and agencies have discretion to reinstate all other former civil servants who have resigned to stand for election and whose candidature has proved unsuccessful. Former civil servants in this category seeking reinstatement should apply within a week of declaration day if they are not elected. Departments are encouraged to consider all applications sympathetically and on their merits. For some individuals, it may not be possible to post them back to their former area of employment because, for instance, of the sensitivity of their work and/or because their previous job is no longer vacant. In these cases, every effort should be made to post these staff to other areas rather than reject their applications.

Section F: Cabinet and Official Documents 

1. In order to enable Ministers to fulfil their continuing responsibilities as members of the Government during the election period, departments should retain the Cabinet documents issued to them. Cabinet documents refers to all papers, minutes and supplementary materials relating to Cabinet and its committees. This is applicable to meetings of and correspondence to Cabinet and its committees. 

2. If there is no change of government after the election, Ministers who leave office or who move to another Ministerial position must surrender any Cabinet or Cabinet committee papers or minutes (including electronic copies) and they should be retained in the department in line with guidance issued by the Cabinet Office.  Ministers who leave office or move to another Ministerial position should also not remove or destroy papers that are the responsibility of their former department: that is, those papers that are not personal, party or constituency papers. 

3. If a new government is formed, all Cabinet and Cabinet committee documents issued to Ministers should be destroyed. Clearly no instructions can be given to this effect until the result of the election is known, but Permanent Secretaries may wish to alert the relevant Private Secretaries.  

4. The conventions regarding the access by Ministers and Special Advisers to papers of a previous Administration are explained in more detail in the Cabinet Manual. Further guidance to departments will be issued by the Cabinet Office once the outcome of the election is known.  

5. More detailed guidance on managing records in the event of a change of administration will be held by your Departmental Records Officer. The Head of Public Records and Archives in the Cabinet Office can also provide further advice and written guidance can be found here: 

Guidance management of private office information and records

Section G: Government Decisions 

1. During an election campaign the Government retains its responsibility to govern and Ministers remain in charge of their departments. Essential business (including routine business necessary to ensure the continued smooth functioning of government and public services) must be carried on. Cabinet committees are not expected to meet during the election period, nor are they expected to consider issues by correspondence. However there may be exceptional circumstances under which a collective decision of Ministers is required. If something requires collective agreement and cannot wait until after the General Election, the Cabinet Secretary should be consulted.  

2. However, it is customary for Ministers to observe discretion in initiating any action of a continuing or long term character. Decisions on matters of policy, and other issues such as large and/or contentious commercial contracts, on which a new government might be expected to want the opportunity to take a different view from the present government, should be postponed until after the election, provided that such postponement would not be detrimental to the national interest or wasteful of public money. 

Statutory Instruments 

3. The principles outlined above apply to making statutory instruments. 

Departmental lawyers can advise in more detail, in conjunction with the Statutory Instrument Hub.  

4. The general principle that Ministers should observe discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or long-term character applies to the making of commencement orders, which during the election period should be exceptional.  As is usual practice, statutory instruments are required to go through the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee process before they can be laid.

Section H: Public and Senior Civil Service Appointments

1. All appointments requiring approval by the Prime Minister, and other Civil Service and public appointments likely to prove sensitive (including those where Ministers have delegated decisions to officials or other authorities) should be frozen until after the election, except in exceptional circumstances (further detail below). This includes appointments where a candidate has already accepted a written offer (and the appointment has been announced before the election period), but where the individual is not due to take up post until after the election. The individual concerned should be told that the appointment will be subject to confirmation by the new Administration after the election. 

2. It is recognised that this may result in the cancellation (or delay) of an appointment by the new Administration, and that the relevant department could be vulnerable to legal action by a disappointed candidate. To reduce the risk of this, departments might wish to: 

• recommend to their Secretary of State the advisability of bringing forward or delaying key stages in the process, where an appointment would otherwise likely take effect just before or after an election; 
• issue a conditional offer letter, making it clear that the formal offer of the appointment will need to be confirmed by a new Administration. 

3. In cases where an appointment is due to end between dissolution and election day, and no announcement has been made concerning the new appointment, it will normally be possible for the post to be left vacant or the current term extended until incoming Ministers have been able to take a decision either about reappointment of the existing appointee or the appointment of a new person. This situation is also likely to apply to any appointments made by Letters Patent, or otherwise requiring royal approval, since it would not be appropriate to invite His Majesty to make a conditional appointment. 

4. In exceptional cases where it is not possible to apply these temporary arrangements and there is an essential need to make an appointment during the election period, departments may wish to advise their Ministers about consulting the Opposition before a final decision is taken. Departments should consult the Public Appointments Policy Team in the Cabinet Office. 

5. In the case of public and Senior Civil Service appointments, departments should delay the launch of any open competition during an election period, to give any incoming Administration the option of deciding whether to follow the existing approach.  

6. In those cases where an appointment is required to be made, it is acceptable, in the case of sensitive Senior Civil Service positions, to allow temporary promotion.  

Section I: Communication Activities during a General Election

1. The general principle governing communication activities during a general election is to do everything possible to avoid competition with parliamentary candidates for the attention of the public, and not to undertake any activity that could call into question civil servants’ political impartiality or that could give rise to criticism that public resources are being used for party political purposes. Special care must be taken during the course of an election since material produced with complete impartiality, which would be accepted as objective in ordinary times, may generate criticism during an election period when feelings are running high. All communication activity should be conducted in line with Government Communication Service (GCS) guidance on propriety and propriety in digital and social media .  

2. Departmental communications staff may properly continue to discharge their normal function during the election period, to the extent of providing factual explanation of current government policy, statements and decisions. They must be particularly careful not to become involved in a partisan way in election issues.  

3. During the election period, access to departmental briefing systems will be restricted to permanent civil servants who will produce briefing, and answer requests for information, in line with the principles set out in Section A of the election guidance. Any updating of lines to take should be confined to matters of fact and explanations of existing government policy in order to avoid criticism of serving, or appearing to serve, a party political purpose.  

News Media  

4. In response to questions departments should, where possible, provide factual information by reference to published material, including that on websites. Specific requests for unpublished material should be handled in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. 

5. Routine factual press notices may continue to be issued – for example statistics that are issued on a regular basis or reports of publicly-owned bodies, independent committees etc., which a department is required to publish. 

6. There would normally be no objection to issuing routine factual publications, for example health and safety advice, but these should be decided on a case by case basis, in consultation with the Director or Head of Communications, who should take account of the subject matter and the intended audience. A similar approach should apply to blogs and social media. 

7. Press releases and other material normally sent to Members of Parliament should cease at the point at which this guidance comes into effect. 

8. Statements that refer to the future intentions of the Government should not be handled by a department and should be treated as party political statements. Where a Minister considers it necessary to hold a governmental press conference to make clear the Government’s existing policies on a particular subject prior to the election, then his or her department should provide facilities and give guidance. Ultimately, each case must be judged on its merits, including consideration of whether an announcement needs to be made, in consultation with the Director or Head of Communications.  

9. The Propriety and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office must be consulted before a Minister makes an official Ministerial statement during the election period. 

10. Statements or comments referring to the policies, commitments or perceived intentions of Opposition parties should not be handled by departments. 

Press Articles, Interviews, and Broadcasts and Webcasts by Ministers  

11. During the election period, arrangements for newspaper articles, interviews and broadcasts by Ministers, including online, will normally be made on the political network. Care should be taken by communications staff in arranging any press interviews for Ministers during this period because of the possibility that such interviews would have a strong political content. They should not arrange broadcasts through official channels unless they are satisfied there is a need to do so and that the Minister is speaking in a government, not party, capacity. 

Paid Media 

12. Advertising, including partnership and influencer marketing. New campaigns will in general be postponed and live campaigns will be paused (across all advertising and marketing channels). A very small number of campaigns (for example, relating to essential recruitment, or public health, such as blood and organ donation or health and safety) may be approved by the Permanent Secretary, in consultation with GCS and the Propriety and Ethics Team.

a. International activity. Where marketing is delivered outside the UK and targeting non-UK citizens, the campaign can continue during the election period, subject to Permanent Secretary approval and as long as consideration has been given to the potential for the campaign to garner interest within the UK and to reach UK diaspora. If continuing the campaign is likely to generate domestic interest, it should be paused.

b. Official radio ‘fillers’ will be reviewed and withdrawn unless essential.

13. Films, videos and photographs from departmental libraries or sources should not be made available for use by political parties.  

14. Printed material should not normally be given any fresh distribution in the United Kingdom during the election period, in order to avoid any competition with the flow of election material. The effect on departments that distribute posters and leaflets to the public is as follows: 

a. Posters. The normal display of existing posters on official premises may continue but efforts should not be made to seek display elsewhere. Specific requests by employers, trade unions etc for particular posters may, however, be met in the ordinary way. 

b. Leaflets. Small numbers of copies of leaflets may be issued on request to members of the public and to parliamentary candidates, in consultation with the Director or Head of Communications, who should take account of the subject matter and the intended audience. Bulk supplies should not be issued to any individuals or organisations without appropriate approval. 

c. Export promotion stories and case studies for overseas use may continue to be sought  in the UK but it must be made clear on each occasion that this information is needed for use abroad, and permission must be sought from the Permanent Secretary before proceeding. 

d. The use of public buildings for communication purposes is covered in Section L. 

15. Exhibitions. Official exhibitions on a contentious policy or proposal should not be kept open or opened during the election period. Official exhibitions that form part of a privately sponsored exhibition do not have to be withdrawn unless they are contentious, in which case they should be withdrawn. 

Social Media and Digital Channels 

16. Official websites and social media channels will be scrutinised closely by news media and political parties during the election period. All content must be managed in accordance with GCS propriety guidance.

Publishing content online  

17. Content Design: planning, writing and managing content guidance   should be consulted when publishing any online content.

18. Material that has already been published in accordance with the rules on propriety and that is part of the public domain record can stand. It may also be updated for factual accuracy, for example a change of address. However, while it can be referred to in handling media enquiries and signposting in response to enquiries from the public, nothing should be done to draw further attention to it. 

19. Updating the public with essential factual information may continue (e.g. transport delays) but social media and blogs that comment on government policies and proposals should not be updated for the duration of the election period.  

20. Ministers’ biographies and details of their responsibilities can remain on sites, no additions should be made. Social media profiles should not be updated during this period. 

21. Site maintenance and planned functional and technical development for existing sites can continue, but this should not involve new campaigns or extending existing campaigns.  

22. News sections of websites and blogs must comply with the advice on press releases. News tickers and other mechanisms should be discontinued for the election period. 

23. In the event of an emergency, digital channels can be used as part of Crisis Communication  activity in the normal way. 

Further Guidance 

24. In any case of doubt about the application of this guidance in a particular case, communications staff should consult their Director or Head of Communications in the first instance, then, if necessary, the Chief Executive, Government Communication Service, Chief Operating Officer, Government Communication Service, or the departmental Permanent Secretary who will liaise with the Propriety and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office.

Section J: Guidance on Consultations during an election period 

1. In general, new public consultations should not be launched during the election period. If there are exceptional circumstances where launching a consultation is considered essential (for example, safeguarding public health), permission should be sought from the Propriety and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office. 

2. If a consultation is on-going at the time this guidance comes into effect, it should continue as normal. However, departments should not take any steps during an election period that will compete with parliamentary candidates for the public’s attention. This effectively means a ban on publicity for those consultations that are still in process. 

3. As these restrictions may be detrimental to a consultation, departments are advised to decide on steps to make up for that deficiency while strictly observing the guidance. That can be done, for example, by: 

a. prolonging the consultation period; and 

b. putting out extra publicity for the consultation after the election in order to revive interest (following consultation with any new Minister). 

4. Some consultations, for instance those aimed solely at professional groups, and that carry no publicity, will not have the impact of those where a very public and wide-ranging consultation is required. Departments need, therefore, to take into account the circumstances of each consultation. Some may need no remedial action – but this is a practical rather than propriety question so long as departments observe the broader guidance here. 

5. During the election period, departments may continue to receive and analyse responses with a view to putting proposals to the incoming government but they should not make any statement or generate publicity during this period.   

Section K: Statistical Activities during a General Election 

1. This note gives guidance on the conduct of statistical activities across government during a general election period.  [footnote 1]

2. The same principles apply to social research and other government analytical services.  

3. Under the terms of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, the UK Statistics Authority, headed by the National Statistician, is responsible for promoting and safeguarding the integrity of official statistics. It should be consulted in any cases of doubt about the application of this guidance.  

Key Principles 

4. Statistical activities should continue to be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and the UK Government’s Prerelease Access to Official Statistics Order 2008, taking great care, in each case, to avoid competition with parliamentary candidates for the attention of the public. 

Statistical publications, releases, etc. 

5. The greatest care must continue to be taken to ensure that information is presented impartially and objectively. 

6. Regular pre-announced statistical releases (e.g. press notices, bulletins, publications or electronic releases) will continue to be issued and published. Any other ad hoc statistical releases should be released only in exceptional circumstances and with the approval of the National Statistician, consulting with the Propriety and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office where appropriate. Where a pre-announcement has specified that the information would be released during a specified period (e.g. a week, or longer time period), but did not specify a precise day, releases should not be published within the election period. The same applies to social research publications

Requests for information 

7. Any requests for unpublished statistics, including from election candidates, should be handled in an even-handed manner, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. Guidance on handling FOI requests can be found in Section A.  

Commentary and Briefing 

8. Special care must be taken in producing commentary for inclusion in announcements of statistical publications issued during the election period. Commentary that would be accepted as impartial and objective analysis or interpretation at ordinary times, may attract criticism during an election. Commentary by civil servants should be restricted to the most basic factual clarification during this period. Ultimately the content of the announcement is left to the discretion of the departmental Head of Profession, seeking advice from the National Statistician as appropriate. 

9. Pre-election arrangements for statistics, whereby pre-release access for briefing purposes is given to Ministers or chief executives (and their appropriate briefing officials) who have policy responsibility for a subject area covered by a particular release, should continue, in accordance with the principles embodied in the UK Government’s Pre-release Access to Official Statistics Order 2008.  

10. In general, during this period, civil servants involved in the production of official statistics will not provide face to face briefing to Ministers. Only if there is a vital operational need for information, (e.g. an out of the ordinary occurrence of market-sensitive results with significant implications for the economy, or some new management figures with major implications for the running of public services), should such briefing be provided. Any such briefing should be approved by the National Statistician.  

11. Requests for advice on the interpretation or analysis of statistics should be handled with care, and in accordance with the guidance in paragraphs 6 and 7.  

12. Requests for factual guidance on methodology should continue to be met. 

13. Requests for small numbers of copies of leaflets, background papers or free publications that were available before the election period may continue to be met but no bulk issues to individuals or organisations should be made without appropriate approval. Regular mailings of statistical bulletins to customers on existing mailing lists may continue. 

Censuses, Surveys and other forms of quantitative or qualitative research enquiry  

14. Regular, continuous and on-going censuses and surveys of individuals, households, businesses or other organisations may continue. Ad hoc surveys and other forms of research that are directly related to and in support of a continuing statistical series may also continue. Ad hoc surveys and other forms of research that may give rise to controversy or be related to an election issue should be postponed or abandoned. 

Consultations 

15. Statistical consultations that are on-going at the point at which Parliament dissolves should continue as normal, but any publicity for such consultations should cease. New public consultations, even if preannounced, should not be launched but should be delayed until after the result of the election is officially declared.  

Further Advice 

16. If officials working on statistics in any area across government are unsure about any matters relating to their work during the election period, they should seek the advice of their Head of Profession in the first instance. Heads of Profession should consult the National Statistician in any cases of doubt. Queries relating to social research, or other analytical services should similarly be referred to the relevant Head of Profession or departmental lead and Permanent Secretary’s office in the first instance. Further advice can be sought from the Propriety and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office.

Section L: Use of Government Property 

1. Neither Ministers, nor any other parliamentary candidates, should involve government establishments in the general election campaign by visiting them for electioneering purposes. 

2. In the case of NHS property, decisions are for the relevant NHS Trust but should visits be permitted to, for example, hospitals, the Department of Health and Social Care advise that there should be no disruption to services and the same facilities should be offered to other candidates. In any case, it is advised that election meetings should not be permitted on NHS premises. NHS England publishes its own information to NHS organisations about the pre-election period.

3. Decisions on the use of other public sector and related property must be taken by those legally responsible for the premises concerned – for example, for schools, the Governors or the Local Education Authority or Trust Board, and so on. If those concerned consult departments, they should be told that the decision is left to them but that they will be expected to treat the candidates of all parties in an even-handed way, and that there should be no disruption to services. The Department for Education will provide advice to schools on the use of school premises and resources.  

4. It is important that those legally responsible for spending public funds or the use of public property ensure that there is no misuse, or the perception of misuse, for party political purposes. Decision-makers must respect the Seven Principles of Public Life when considering the use of public funds or property during the election period. The principles include an expectation that public office holders take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit and maintain their accountability to the public for their decisions and actions.

Section M: International Business 

1. This guidance specifically addresses the principles that will apply to international business.  

2. International business will continue as normal during the period of the general election.  

International meetings 

3. Decisions on Ministerial attendance and representation at international meetings will continue to be taken on a case by case basis by the lead UK Minister. For example, Ministers will be entitled to attend international summits (such as meetings of the G20).  

4. When Ministers speak at international  meetings, they are fully entitled to pursue existing UK Government policies. All Ministers, whether from the UK Government or the Devolved Administrations, should avoid exploiting international engagements for electoral purposes. Ministers should observe discretion on new initiatives and before stating new positions or making new commitments (see Section G for further advice on Government decision-making).

5. Where a Minister is unable to attend an international meeting that has been assessed as of significant interest to the UK, the UK may be represented by a senior official. In this case, where an item is likely to be pressed to a decision (a legislative decision, or some other form of commitment, e.g. a resolution, conclusions), officials should engage in negotiations and vote in line with the cleared UK position and in line with a detailed brief cleared by the lead UK Minister. Officials should engage actively where there will be a general discussion or orientation debate, but should seek to avoid taking high profile decisions on issues of domestic political sensitivity. If decisions fall to be taken at an international summit that risk being controversial between the UK political parties, departments should consult their Permanent Secretary about the line to follow who may in turn wish to consult the Cabinet Secretary. 

Changes to International Negotiating Positions

6. There may be an unavoidable need for changes to a cleared UK position that require the collective agreement of Ministers. This may arise, for example, through the need for officials to have sufficiently clear negotiating instructions or as a result of the agreed UK position coming under pressure in the closing stages of negotiation. If collective agreement is required, the Cabinet Secretary should be consulted (see Section G). The Cabinet Secretariat can advise departments where they are unsure whether an issue requires further collective agreement. 

7. Departments should note that the reduced availability of Ministers during the election period means that it will be necessary to allow as much time as possible for Ministers to consider an issue. 

Relations with the Press 

8. Departmental Communication staff may properly continue to discharge, during the election period, their normal function only to the extent of providing factual explanation of current government policy, statements and decisions. They must be particularly careful not to become involved in a partisan way in election issues. 

9. Ministers attending international meetings will no doubt wish to brief the press afterwards in the normal manner. But where officials attend meetings in place of Ministers, they should be particularly circumspect in responding to the press on any decision or discussion in the meeting that could be regarded as touching on matters of domestic political sensitivity. If departments wish to issue press notices following international meetings on the discussions or decisions that took place, they should be essentially factual. Any comment, especially on items of domestic sensitivity, should be made by Ministers. In doing so, consideration will need to be given as to whether such comment should be handled by the department or the party. This must be agreed in advance with the Permanent Secretary.  

International Appointments 

10. The UK should not normally make nominations or put forward candidates for senior international appointments until after the election. It remains possible to make nominations or put forward candidates for other positions. Departments should consult their Permanent Secretary and the Propriety and Ethics Team in Cabinet Office on appointments that risk being controversial between the UK political parties.

Section N: The Devolved Administrations

1. The general election does not affect the devolved administrations in the same way. The devolved legislatures are elected separately to the House of Commons. Devolved Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will continue to carry out their devolved functions in those countries as usual.

2. Under the Civil Service Code, which also applies to all civil servants, civil servants in the devolved administrations serve Ministers elected through elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and do not report to the UK Government. Accordingly, this guidance does not apply to them. They will continue to support their Ministers in their work. 

3. However, the devolved administrations acknowledge that their activities could have a bearing on the general election campaign. While the devolved administrations will continue largely as normal, they are aware of the need to avoid any action that is, or could be construed as being, party political or likely to have a direct bearing on the general election. Staff in the devolved administrations will continue to refer requests for information about reserved issues from MPs, parliamentary candidates and political parties to the relevant UK department. Requests for information about devolved issues will be handled in accordance with relevant FOI legislation, taking account of the need for prompt responses in the context of an election period. 

4. Officials in the devolved administrations are subject to the rules in Section E as regards their personal political activities, in the same way as UK Government officials. 

5. Discussions with the devolved administrations during the election period should be conducted in this context. For more general details on how best to work with the devolved administrations see the Cabinet Office guidance: Devolution guidance for civil servants

Section O: Public Bodies 

1. The general principles and conventions set out in this guidance apply to the board members and staff of all NDPBs and similar public bodies. Some NDPBs and ALBs employ civil servants.  

2. NDPBs and other public sector bodies must be, and be seen to be, politically impartial. They should avoid becoming involved in party political controversy. Decisions on individual matters are for the bodies concerned in consultation with their sponsor department who will wish to consider whether proposed activities could reflect adversely on the work or reputation of the NDPB or public body in question.

This includes departments and their agencies and other relevant public bodies including all public bodies deemed to be producers of official statistics by dint of an Order in Parliament.  ↩

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

Student loan refinancing process

Student loan refinancing pros: potential benefits of refinancing, student loan refinancing cons: weighing the trade-offs, student loan refinancing: what changes after you refinance a student loan.

Affiliate links for the products on this page are from partners that compensate us (see our advertiser disclosure with our list of partners for more details). However, our opinions are our own. See how we rate student loans to write unbiased product reviews.

• Student loan refinancing involves restructuring your current loan and getting a new one. 
• You can refinance a student loan as long as you meet a lender's eligibility requirements. 
• Make sure you consider the drawbacks, like the loss of protections, before you refinance a loan. 

Student loan refinancing is the process of reworking and replacing the terms of your loan with new terms. This may involve switching your loan servicer. There are several things to consider before deciding to refinance your student loans. 

Application and pre-approval

Be sure you fully understand all the terms of your current loans before you consider refinancing. This way, you'll be able to effectively compare your rates and term length with other options from competing lenders. Research different companies and check your personalized terms with each lender. From there, gathering all relevant documents, prepare for credit checks, and choose a lender. 

You'll complete applications with companies you're interested in and probably need to hand over documents that prove your financial situation and identity. You may be familiar with this part of the the process of how to refinance your student loans from when you first applied for a loan. 

Loan disbursement  

You'll will have a new loan servicer when you refinance your student loan, unless you choose to refinance a private loan with the same private lender, and your new lender will pay off your old loans. This new servicer will have a different portal for payments, distinctive customer service, and potentially unique perks. 

Depending on what you negotiated when you refinanced your loan, you'll also have new loan terms. This could include a different interest rate or repayment term length, or possibly lower fees. You also may switch from a fixed-rate loan to a variable-rate loan, or vice versa. Make sure you understand how your new loan works so you can stay on top of your financial obligations.

New terms take effect

After the lender you prefer gives you its final offer, you'll have to officially accept the terms and sign a binding document promising to repay the loan. Then your new lender will pay off your existing lender and your new term will begin.  

Lower interest rates  

Whether you're going for a variable or fixed-rate loan, you can sometimes get a better interest rate than your current one. Advertised rates on lenders' websites are often only available to those with exceptional credit, though. So make sure you see your personalized rates before you commit to taking out a loan from a company. 

Simplified repayment

When you took out your student loans, you may have ended up with several different federal or private loan servicers. That can make it difficult to keep track of your debt. You can refinance and consolidate these loans into one payment and may be able to get a lower rate or a different repayment term length.

If you prefer a different process that allows you to keep a federal loan servicer, you can lump your federal loans into a singular payment with a Direct Consolidation Loan, but you can't include any private loans. 

Lower monthly payments

You can pay less per month when you refinance by choosing a longer term length, but you'll pay more over the life of the loan because you'll be paying interest for longer. If you'd like to pay less overall, you can choose a shorter term length. 

Loss of federal loan benefits

The biggest downside of refinancing a federal loan is losing the protections that accompany them. This includes federal student loan relief programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness , which forgives the debts of graduates working in the public sector after a minimum of 10 years of service and eligible payments.

You won't be able to take advantage of repayment options like Income-Driven Repayment plans , which use your income and family size to figure out your monthly payments. Depending on those factors, you pay back 10% to 20% of your income for 20 to 25 years — and you may pay as little as $0 per month. Income-Driven Repayment plans offer a safeguard if you happen to lose your job because your payments would scale down as a result. 

Interest rates may rise

Variable rates might seem like a more attractive option than fixed rates, as they often start lower. However, variable rate loans fluctuate based on various factors, and you may end up with a rate that's higher than the one you had with your previous loan. 

Not for everyone

You might not be a suitable refinancing candidate if you have a shaky income or are close to forgiveness under a federal program. To get a loan with a private lender, you may have to meet lofty qualifications, like a great credit score — especially to get a loan with a top-notch rate. If you don't meet these requirements, your lender choices may be limited.

With a federal loan, you can alter your repayment plan. For example, you can switch from a standard repayment plan to an Income-Driven Repayment plan. With a private loan, unless you refinance your loans a second time, you don't have that option.

The best time to refinance student loans is when you have strong credit and when interest rates are low compared to your existing loans.

Yes, you can often refinance both federal and private loans into a single new loan.

Initially, yes, refinancing your student loans will affect your credit score due to the credit inquiry. However, responsible repayment can improve your score over time.

Editorial Note: Any opinions, analyses, reviews, or recommendations expressed in this article are the author’s alone, and have not been reviewed, approved, or otherwise endorsed by any card issuer. Read our editorial standards .

Please note: While the offers mentioned above are accurate at the time of publication, they're subject to change at any time and may have changed, or may no longer be available.

**Enrollment required.

• Main content

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Older Americans often don’t prepare for long-term care, from costs to location to emotional toll

Nancy Gag Braun points to a small urn holding the ashes of her late husband Steve Braun, in her Mankato, Minn., bedroom on May 13, 2024. After caring for Steven at home became too much for her to handle, he was at the hospital while they waited on a long-term care placement. “I cried many nights,” Braun said. “I felt so guilty.” (Casey Ek/CNHI News via AP)

• Copy Link copied

MANKATO, Minn. (AP) — Seven tough weeks passed with her husband in the hospital before Nancy Gag Braun found long-term care for him.

From 2019 up until that point in 2022, Braun had cared for Steven at their Mankato home. A traumatic brain injury in February 2019, followed by his progressive dementia, eventually led to the need for professional help and the hospital stay.

By then, there were episodes when he didn’t recognize that the woman trying to care for him was his wife. He started showing fear and aggression toward this person he thought was a stranger in his home.

“I knew that wasn’t him; it was the disease,” Braun said. “It was very sad that he had to go through all this.”

Not knowing where to turn, she began calling long-term care facilities , one after another. But his advanced condition made it difficult to secure a spot. She eventually got him in at BridgeWater, a skilled nursing, memory care and assisted living facility in Janesville.

While she’s grateful for the care he received there, it wasn’t the long-term stay she expected. Steven died at the age of 78 on Nov. 23, 2022, six weeks after coming to the facility.

But Braun’s scramble to find long-term care for a loved one is an experience shared by many families. And many of them are unprepared for what can be an emotional, costly and guilt-inducing process.

Advance planning helps, but an AP-NORC poll in 2021 showed most Americans don’t discuss the possibility of long-term care, let alone prepare for it.

Braun, a retired county worker, was aware of select resources for people in her situation and had some savings to go toward this care. Still, during that fraught time, she said she wishes there had been more help available.

“I don’t think there’s enough information out there for people so they do know,” she said.

Where to turn

The resources Braun found helpful included a social worker at her health care provider, Mankato Clinic, who put her in touch with the Minnesota Senior LinkAge Line. The statewide service connects seniors to local resources, including long-term care facilities.

Finding the right long-term care option, in many cases, comes down to who has an open slot and can accommodate a particular person’s needs. As Braun found out, not many places would take her husband because of his complex behavioral condition.

Data at the state and federal levels can guide families toward one facility over another. Minnesota’s nursing home report-card system, for example, lists star ratings searchable by location. Want to know how the last state inspection went? What families said in recent surveys? How many single-bed rooms a facility has? Check the report cards.

Staff retention, temp-staff usage and hours of direct care are factored in as well. People should consider other sources, the site advises, along with visiting a facility and discussing specific needs with staff.

Nationally, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services maintains a five-star quality rating system. Here, consumers can find ratings based on health inspections, staffing and quality measures by location.

Companies offer similar services to help people search for the right fit. One site, A Place for Mom, uses a mix of residents, resident families and industry experts to rate facilities on a variety of metrics.

Long-term care insurance

John Landas’ hunt for long-term care for his parents started with an online search. From there, he visited facilities, sought information from friends and used his intuition to inform the choice that he and his parents made.

Jake and Joan Landas moved from what had been their West Mankato home since 1970 to New Perspective Senior Living about two years ago. She had lost her vision by then and he was dealing with dementia, qualifying them for insurance benefits covering much of their care. Their son is an insurance agent and he helped them set it up.

Paying the insurance premiums for 25 years quickly proved worth it once they needed long-term care.

For John, their only child, it removed a burden from what was otherwise an emotional time.

“It was a huge blessing to have that financial strain not being salt in the wound,” he said.

His father paid about $3,500 per year in premiums starting at age 60 through 85, adding up to about $87,000 total. It took nine months in long-term care to break even, Landas said, and he’s been receiving long-term care now for more than two years. His mother paid similar amounts in premiums and broke even as well before her death on March 23.

They bought “unlimited benefit period” policies, meaning benefits for long-term care would be provided to them until death as long as they had qualifying conditions. These plans aren’t offered anymore, Landas said, with providers instead doing hybrid plans covering long-term care costs over a certain number of years.

Premium costs may seem high, he said, until you need to pay for long-term care.

“Compared to nothing, long-term insurance is expensive,” he said. “Compared to pulling out the checkbook and paying for long-term care, it’s not.”

Being prepared and making the right decision doesn’t mean seeing your parents age is any less taxing, he added.

“I’ve said a thousand times, they don’t prepare you for this,” he said. “I’ve lost my mom. She passed away a month ago. My dad has dementia. Until you’ve lost a loved one, a parent, you don’t realize how hard it is.”

The move was the right call for them, though. His parents’ home would’ve made it unsafe for them to remain there.

Both Braun, as a wife, and Landas, as a son, were able to play the roles of advocates for their loved ones.

Landas talked about being at the facility regularly to build relationships with staff in an industry where the turnover can be high. His wife would bring baked goods to show appreciation for staff members, recognizing the care they give their loved ones.

Balancing guilt

In Braun’s case, she kept pushing for a place for her husband even as few places seemed willing to take him. Limited space at geriatric psychiatric facilities in Minnesota brought her attention to a facility in North Dakota, but she ruled it out because of the distance.

Even if long-term care seems like the logical choice, the decision can still elicit feelings of guilt, as Braun learned. After caring for Steven at home became too much for her to handle, he was at the hospital while they waited on a long-term care placement.

“I cried many nights,” Braun said. “I felt so guilty.”

She visited him at the hospital one day and, while she was leaving, he kept trying to follow her home. Nurses held him back as her elevator doors closed. Tears poured out as she sat in the car.

Steven may have already been dealing with dementia, but the traumatic brain injury from a fall on ice in front of their home triggered the start of a marked decline. One minute he seemed fine, the next he couldn’t do the most straightforward of tasks.

During one of his good episodes, Braun remembers him saying he should’ve just died when he fell because it would’ve been easier than what the two were going through.

“He hated what was happening to him,” Braun said.

She thinks about how unfair it was for a man who had such a thirst for knowledge to lose so many pieces of himself in those final years. Steven earned a master’s degree in biology before teaching classes at Minnesota State University. He took pride in teaching himself calligraphy and was an avid reader, photographer and loved to listen to jazz music.

Braun cried while reminiscing about this Steven. At the home they long shared, she has a teddy bear sitting in his favorite spot on the couch as a remembrance of him.

As rough as those final years were, and those final weeks looking for long-term care, Braun said she cherished having as much time together with him as they did.

At least the time he had left allowed them to celebrate their 30th wedding anniversary at BridgeWater on Nov. 6, 2022, just 17 days before he died.

For Braun, reaching that milestone was meaningful.

“I kept telling him how happy I was and how excited I was that we made 30 years,” she said. “I just kept letting him know that so he’d know.”

The share of the U.S. population older than 65 keeps rising — and will for decades to come. Since nearly half of Americans over 65 will pay for some version of long-term health care, CNHI News and The Associated Press examined the state of long-term care in a series called the High Cost of Long-Term Care , looking at everything from adult day cares to assisted living facilities to understand the challenges in affordability, staffing and equity that exist today and lie ahead.