This Week, Our Readings And Viewings Focus On The Final Four

This week, our readings/viewings focus on the final four steps of the

This week, our readings and viewings focus on the final four steps of the strategic planning process, specifically emphasizing how to measure the performance of the strategic plan to evaluate whether organizational goals have been achieved. The assignment requires selecting a public sector strategic plan with explicitly labeled goals and performance measures. If the initially chosen plan lacks clearly labeled performance measures, an alternative plan should be selected, such as one from the StrategicSlam database, provided it includes performance measures. The task involves selecting two goals from the plan and identifying two associated performance measures for each goal. Subsequently, the discussion entails analyzing whether these measures are SMART—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound—and whether they effectively enable the organization to determine success. If the measures are not SMART, they should be rewritten accordingly. The analysis should also consider the efficacy of the measures in providing accurate success indicators for the organization.

Paper For Above instruction

Strategic planning in the public sector is a critical process that ensures organizations align their activities with their mission, meet stakeholder expectations, and effectively allocate limited resources. An essential aspect of strategic planning is establishing performance measurement systems that enable organizations to evaluate progress toward their goals. This paper examines a real-world public sector strategic plan, analyzes selected performance measures, assesses their SMART criteria, and discusses their effectiveness in measuring organizational success.

For this analysis, the City of San Diego’s Strategic Plan (2020-2024) was selected, as it clearly articulates organizational goals and associated performance measures. Two prominent goals from this plan are "Enhance Public Safety" and "Improve Quality of Life." Under each goal, two performance measures are identified: for "Enhance Public Safety," the measures are "Number of Patrols per Shift" and "Crime Rate Reduction." For "Improve Quality of Life," the measures are "Public Satisfaction Ratings" and "Average Response Time to Emergency Calls."

Evaluation of Performance Measures

The first goal, "Enhance Public Safety," aims to reduce crime and improve police presence. The corresponding measures—"Number of Patrols per Shift" and "Crime Rate Reduction"—appear relevant. The patrols per shift measure provides a quantitative indication of police visibility, while crime rate reduction directly indicates safety improvements. However, the patrols measure may not be entirely SMART, as it lacks specificity regarding target levels or timelines. The crime rate reduction is more quantifiable but should specify a percentage reduction goal within a specific timeframe to meet SMART criteria.

The second goal, "Improve Quality of Life," sees measures like "Public Satisfaction Ratings" and "Average Response Time to Emergency Calls." Public satisfaction is subjective but can be quantified through surveys, making it a useful indicator if properly defined. Response time is a precise, measurable metric directly impacting quality of life. Nonetheless, these measures require detailed targets and timeframes to ensure they are SMART. For instance, setting a goal such as "Achieve a 10% improvement in satisfaction ratings within 12 months" and "Reduce average response time to under 6 minutes within one year" would enhance specificity and measurability.

Are the Measures SMART?

Assessing the original measures against SMART criteria reveals partial conformity. "Number of Patrols per Shift" lacks a specific target or deadline, making it not fully SMART. "Crime Rate Reduction" may be SMART if paired with a specific percentage and timeline. Similarly, "Public Satisfaction Ratings" needs a defined target percentage increase, and "Average Response Time" should specify the desired time frame and reduction percentage.

Effectiveness in Indicating Success

Despite some measures needing refinement, they collectively provide the organization with valuable insights into progress. Quantitative measures like patrol counts and response times offer clear benchmarks, while satisfaction ratings provide perception-based feedback. When well-developed and SMART, these measures enable the organization to track progress accurately, identify areas requiring intervention, and adjust strategies accordingly.

Rewriting Non-SMART Measures

To align with SMART criteria, the measures can be rewritten as follows:

• "Increase the average number of patrols per shift from 20 to 30 within 12 months."
• "Reduce the overall crime rate by 15% within two years."
• "Improve public satisfaction ratings from 70% to 80% within 12 months."
• "Reduce the average response time to emergency calls from 8 minutes to 6 minutes within 12 months."

Conclusion

Measuring progress through well-defined, SMART performance measures is vital for the success of strategic plans in the public sector. The selected measures from the City of San Diego’s plan, once refined, can accurately gauge organizational effectiveness and guide strategic adjustments. Clear targets, timelines, and rigorously defined indicators ensure organizations can determine whether they are on track to achieve their goals, thereby enhancing accountability and continuous improvement.

References

• Bryson, J. M., & Alston, F. K. (2011). Creating your strategic plan (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• City of San Diego. (2020). San Diego Strategic Plan 2020-2024. Retrieved from https://www.sandiego.gov/strategicplan
• Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. Jossey-Bass.
• Fitzgerald, J., & Schaefer, S. (2018). Performance measurement in government: Challenges and opportunities. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 488-496.
• Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization: How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Harvard Business Press.
• Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Challenging the tyranny of measurement. Georgetown University Press.
• Public Safety Performance Measures (2019). International Association of Police Chiefs. Retrieved from https://www.theiacp.org
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2016). Using performance information to monitor the achievement of results. GAO Reports.
• World Bank. (2010). Performance measurement in the public sector: A guide for managers. World Bank Publications.
• OECD. (2014). Performance Budgets and Performance Management in the Public Sector. OECD Publishing.