STRATEGIC PLANNING AND SPATIAL PLANNING

How to do strategic planning

The Good Strategic Planning Guide was published by the Commonwealth Depart-ment of Transport and Regional Services in Australia in 2001. The concept of

Successful strategic planning Environmental

scanning (trends &

issues)

Management of strategic

issues

Performance reporting

■ Figure 5.6

Strategic planning in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2005)

strategic planning in this guidance has a specific focus, which is spatial planning of the development of land and natural resources for a particular area. Spatial planning may, for instance, involve land use zoning and residential development controls.

Logically, a local government might make spatial planning part of a single uni-fied strategic planning approach. It will be seen later (in a subsequent chapter) that the Greater London Council in the early 1970s had decided that the physical development of Greater London to achieve economic viability in pleasant sur-roundings was one of its five programme areas in a single planning-programming-budgeting system. Spatial planning may also be organized through the work of a specialist department of planners in a local government; in this case there can be two separate strategic plans in the local council: one focused on strategic planning of local public services and the other focused on the physical devel-opment of the area in terms of land use and natural resources. The importance and significance of strategic planning of an area may well fluctuate over time in any given city or local government area. For example, interest in strategic plan-ning of the development of an area may increase when more attention is paid by elected politicians to working with the private sector to create economic regeneration, and when less importance is being given to public service planning generally.

Strategic planning is defined as follows in the guide (Development Assessment Forum, 2001, p.8):

Strategic planning is about deciding what the ground rules are for the use, development and/or conservation of land and natural resources. It provides the context and the basis for planning instruments (statutory plan making and plan amendments, development controls or codes) under which decisions to grant approval, conditional approval or refusal are made. Such decisions are the point at which strategic and policy issues can be effectively linked to local actions.

The importance of including this type of strategic planning in a management textbook designed for the public sector is probably a gesture towards the recog-nition of the need for a more seamless approach to government strategic plan-ning, whether that is in the form of national development planplan-ning, or planning at subnational levels of government.

The model of the strategic planning process presented in the guide resembles that of the Turkish government we have already reviewed above: there are a number of steps, each of which is linked to a question. In this model, there are eight steps, as shown in Figure 5.7.

In fact, the model of the strategic planning process that is outlined in the guide contains few surprises. As part of the first step, it advises that the necessary polit-ical support should be obtained and methods for consultation and participation should be determined. The process should be designed to involve key stakehold-ers as much as possible. The second step is to analyse the local community by

looking at social, economic, environmental and cultural factors and trends that are likely to require action. The reader is advised as part of this strategic overview there should be a review of the key external and internal influences on the plan-ning process, and there should be a mapping of existing infrastructure services and programmes and existing policies and strategies. Just as with the Canadian guidance above, problems and issues are identified on the basis of this analysis.

In answering the question ‘Where do we want to be?’ there should be an inclu-sive process which produces values, vision statements, statements of objectives and desired outcomes, criteria for assessing alternative strategies and actions and so on. Importantly, in the step in which preferred strategy is formulated, it is advised that yardsticks are created for testing the likely consequences of proposals and alternatives. Also included in this step were the determination of actions, objectives and goals of a long-term vision and confirmation of the resources associated with the chosen actions.

The work of implementation is said to include preparing a specification for the implementation of actions, identification of responsible agencies, preparing

1 Process design:

How can all stakeholders be

involved?

2 Strategic overview

& identification of key issues: Where

are we now?

3 Formulation of alternatives: Where

do we want to be?

4 Formulation of strategies: What are

our options?

5 Implementation:

How will we get there?

6 Monitoring and evaluation: How are

we going?

7 Review: Do we need to alter our

strategies?

■ Figure 5.7

Model of a strategic planning process for spatial planning

corporate plans and statutory planning instruments and setting up mechanisms and processes for coordination. It is recommended that the strategies and actions that are being implemented are monitored, evaluated and reviewed on a regular basis. This involves measuring progress in terms of delivering the outcomes set.

Finally the reader is told that strategies should be analysed to see why they may not have worked, looking at the need to change direction, and to review the need to recommence the process of strategic planning.

Clearly there are continuities in this advice with the guidance documents we have already reviewed. In addition to the model of the strategic planning process, however, the Australian guidance on spatial planning offers statements regarding the principles of strategic planning. Furthermore, these principles are shown as building on some early principles developed in the mid-1990s (Austroads, 1998).

The earlier set of principles, of which there were ten, and the eight new princi-ples from 2001 are shown in Figure 5.8.

Let us look at some of the new principles added by the Good Strategic Planning Guide. One of these is the principle of developing a holistic long-term vision, which could be 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or more into the future. This rep-resents a more ambitious stance towards the future, no longer just trying to cope

Ten principles from mid 1990s

• Focus on outcomes

• Tailor the strategic planning process to the problem

• Generate possible futures

• Consider the full range of means available to achieve intended outcomes

• Consider all stakeholders

• Reveal the choices in the light of anticipated consequences

• Use iterations (review and modify the results of earlier stages in the light of subsequent stages)

• Decide when to commit to strategic choices and avoid rejection of options too soon

• Support transparency and accountability (being transparent about how, why and by whom decisions are made and making sure responsibilities and accountabilities are clearly allocated)

• Monitor strategies and actions by checking the achievement of desired outcomes

Eight principles from 2001

• Identify the spatial area

• Develop a holistic long-term vision

• Integrate economic, environmental, social, cultural and equity factors

• Undertake social and environmental research and analysis

• Respect the capacity of the environment for present and future generations (avoid irreversible damage)

• Involve the community throughout the process and recognize its diversity

• Apply the principle of subsidiarity

• Identify suitable benchmarks and performance indicators for monitoring and evaluation

■ Figure 5.8

Principles of strategic planning (for spatial areas)

with the uncertainties of the future implied in the mid-1990s principle of gen-erating possible futures. A second new principle is that of integrating economic, environmental, social, cultural and equity factors. The argument in this case was that there was a need to bring together information about all factors and address opportunities and resolve conflicts between economic, social, environmental and cultural necessities. Arguably the guide is alluding here to a commitment to pursue sustainable economic growth and social progress, while not pursuing economic growth at the expense of environmental and social outcomes. This is possibly linked to a third new principle, which is ‘undertake social and envi-ronmental research and analysis’. This research and analysis is seen as crucial for sound policy development. And we might presume that policy development will not be sound if it fails to research and analyse ‘inextricably linked’ factors.

A fourth principle is to involve the community in the strategic planning process and to recognize its diversity. In the earlier set of principles it had been enough to consider all stakeholders. In the later set of principles the involvement of the community is justified on the basis that a strategic plan must be responsive to community use and values in order that it is successful. This is quite a shift in the orientation of strategic planning. The implication is that delivering the benefits of strategic planning (that is, being responsive) requires community involvement in the planning process (that is, participatory planning). A fifth new principle is

‘apply the principle of subsidiarity’, which means that lower levels of govern-ment should do the things that they can do for themselves and should support the strategies of higher levels of government. In fact, this principle is concerned with getting effective coordination in strategy formulation and delivery in the context of the reality of multilevel governance while avoiding centralization on one hand and fragmentation of governance on the other.

Why did new principles need to be added in 2001? Had the earlier attempt at identifying the principles of strategic planning been done badly and key prin-ciples overlooked? Or had things moved on so that ideas of how to do strategic planning had changed and there was a need to update the list by adding to it?

From the mid-1990s onwards there was a trend towards reconsidering the role of the state and how the state could be effective, and the importance of working in partnership with others. There was also a new interest in integration and joining things up. So, it is plausible that things had actually moved on and this caused a need to update the list of principles.

The Good Strategic Planning Guide provided outline details of a number of case studies of strategic planning. One of these was ‘Tasmania Together’, a community plan for the State of Tasmania in Australia, which was a twenty-year plan address-ing physical, social, economic, environmental and cultural factors in Tasmania.

It was intended that the State of Tasmania would work in partnership with the non-government sector to achieve the goals and benchmarks in the plan. Local government would also be involved in delivering the plan by aligning their policies, plans and programmes to it. The plan had a community consultation phase that involved the formation of a ‘Community Leaders Group’ comprising 24 community representatives and this group worked on a draft of the vision

for Tasmania. The guide described this as a community driven strategy at State Government level. As can be seen, this case study illustrated some of the principles being promoted by the guide.

The idea of developing a set of principles for strategic planning as well as a model of strategic planning as a process with steps to be followed is interesting.

In some ways they might seem to be overlapping. Both are supposed to be fol-lowed by those doing the strategic planning. However, it might be argued that the Good Strategic Planning Guide sees the principles as more important and less open to variation. The guide suggests that the strategic planning model could be followed according to the steps shown. However, it is argued that it may not be necessary to follow the process precisely as shown and some of the steps could be shortened. The guide quotes approvingly the view that strategic planning is a repetitive process, that there may be backtracking in following the process, and that steps may be rerun using different techniques.

It is claimed in the guide that thinking strategically and coming to an agree-ment with stakeholders on the outcomes to be achieved are important. The guide quotes the following statement from an earlier publication (Austroads, 1998, p.11):

There may be circumstances where clear, intuitive strategic thinking, applied within the framework of the principles of strategic planning, will be a more appropriate or a realistic response than a full-scale planning exercise. This might include situations where you [don’t] want to ‘use a sledgehammer to crack a nut’, or where the scarcity of resources and time mean that there is no alternative.

If we were to seek to define the theory implicit in the guide, we could concen-trate on the added new principles for the elements of the theory. Therefore, the theory could include the importance of sound policy development to address the interconnected nature of key factors (economic, social, environmental and so on), community involvement in the planning process, and effective coordination of multilevel governance as three key causal factors in the successful formulation and delivery of strategy. See Figure 5.9.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has focused on analysing three examples of practical guidance about how to do strategic planning in the public sector. This might well be very valuable for any civil servant or public manager trying to understand or use stra-tegic planning in his or her own organization. It has been possible in each case to suggest some of the implicit theories contained in practical guidance. Civil servants and public managers in the course of practice can test out these implicit theories and we can check them against existing or future research carried out by academics.

A lot of different things were found in the three examples of practical guid-ance (see also Figure 5.10). First, process questions (Where are we now?, Where

Successful formulation and

delivery of strategy Community

involvement in the strategic planning

process

Research and analysis, leading to sound policy development

(in face of interconnected

factors)

Effective coordination of

multi-level governance

■ Figure 5.9

Implicit theory in the guide of the Development Assessment Forum (2001)

do we want to be? and so on) are used to explain the strategic planning process, and they are probably useful in helping to make a strategic planning process more intelligible very quickly. Second, guidance documents use process models set out as a series of steps; such models can also be used to structure the guidance document. Third, advice is supplemented by requiring or encouraging more completeness, more thoroughness and more quality in the process of strategic planning. For example, the guide produced by the State Planning Organization set out how to do strategic planning in the right way, and ministries and other public sector organizations were under pressure to comply with the guidance because of an assessment procedure under a by-law that was based on an article in a 2003 law. The guidance document produced for the Government of New-foundland and Labrador made extensive use of checklists, which seem to be aiming at encouraging completeness, thoroughness and consistency. The guide produced by the Development Assessment Forum extolled sets of principles of strategic planning, which we might guess was because they thought principles would convey the idea of rules or a code that should be followed. The key point here is that stating the rules as principles indicates that the rules should be followed and not merely that they could be followed. Fourth, in two of the examples there was an emphasis on using the strategic planning process to dis-cover strategic issues. As a result, the strategic planning was both goal directed planning and strategic issue management. Fifth, while there was some attention

to the techniques of strategic planning, it was clear in all cases that the guidance was more concerned with strategic planning as a process (either as a process with steps or as a process in accordance with principles). This seems to put techniques in their place: they are there to support the strategic planning process, not supplant it. Nor are techniques the essence of the strategic planning process.

Sixth, in all cases there was enough material in the guidance to allow inferences to be drawn about the causal theories assumed by the providers of guidance.

The theories that have been inferred include the importance of involving stake-holders (sometimes the intended beneficiaries, sometimes the community) in the planning process. The message seems to be that strategic planning needs to be participative. Other causal factors inferred include: realism in the planning process; recognizing the need to take account of interest groups; environmental scanning to identify issues; coordination of multilevel governance; and addressing

Strategic planning process in

context Process questions (Where are we now?, Where do

we want to be?

and so on)

Issues discovered during planning

(e.g. from environmental

scanning)

Checklists

Techniques Models

showing steps in a process Implicit theory

of what causes successful

strategic planning

Guidance reinforced through

by-laws, statements of principles, etc.

■ Figure 5.10

Some of the things to be found in practical guidance

the interconnected nature of the world through research and analysis. Attention to these implicit theories could be seen as useful in helping practitioners to be more skilful in their application of the models of the strategic planning process.

Seventh, there were striking variations between the three examples of practi-cal guidance, which it has been suggested is a reflection of the importance of context in the actual design of strategic planning processes. One illustration of this point, which has been referred to above, is the variation in attention given to costing and resource planning as part of the planning process; only in the Turkish example was significant space given to this in the guidance document.

This might be attributed to the emphasis on public financial management in Turkey’s political setting at the time, which in turn probably reflects the effects of the 2001 crisis in Turkey’s public administration.

GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1 This chapter examined three different guides on doing strategic planning.

Which did you like best? Why did you prefer it?

2 To what extent do you think guides like these three can be substantiated by academic research and theory?

3 What theories do you think were embedded in the guides?

4 How could practical guidance be improved?

5 Are guides like these useful for practitioners? If yes, why? If no, what do practitioners actually need?

FURTHER READING

Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit. 2004. Strategy Survival Guide. London: Cabinet Ofﬁ ce. [online]. [13 June 2014]. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.

gov.uk/+/http:/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/downloads/survivalguide/

downloads/ssgv2.1_overview.pdf

This document provided ideas about how to do strategy in government and became very well known following its publication in 2004. It suggested that strategy development involved answering a series of questions: What is the issue?, Where are we now?, Where are we going?, Where do we want to get?, How do we get there?, Who do we have to involve – and how?, What tools and techniques should we use? The Strategy Unit’s model of a strategic approach

In document Strategic Management in the Public Sector (2015) (Page 145-155)