There is a growing and rather extensive literature on strategic planning. For example, the Learning Resource Center at the FBI Training Academy has compiled a ten-page bibliography on strategic planning. This bibliography lists items available at the FBI Academy Library. Melcher and Kerzner (1988,20), tracing the evolution of strategic planning theory, write that the first interest in the subject can be traced to the Harvard Business School in 1933, when top management’s ”point of view” was added to the business policy course. This perspective emphasized incorporating a firm’s external environment with its internal operations.
George Steiner’s classic work Strategic Planning: What Every Manager Must Know was published in 1979 and is generally considered to be the bible of strategic planning. Steiner asserts that strategic planning is inextricably interwoven into the entire fabric of management. Steiner lists fourteen basic and well-known management processes (for example, setting objectives and goals, developing a company philosophy by establishing beliefs, values, and so forth) that make up the components of a general management system and links them to a comprehensive strategic planning process (7-8).
There are many different models or approaches to strategic planning. Melcher and Kerzner’s topic Strategic Planning: Development and Implementation provides an excellent description and review of various models. In essence, strategic planning is a highly rational approach to the management process. It seeks to answer the following questions: Why does the organization exist? What is the organization doing today? What should the organization be doing in the future? What short-term objectives and longer-term goals must be accomplished to bridge the gap from the present to the future?
There is some debate among strategic planners as to whether this analysis can be meaningful without identifying the organizational culture, its values and norms, and the values of critical decision makers. Thus, a number of models of the strategic planning process include a values identification, audit, and analysis step. Many other models do not include this step. The writer’s experience has been that many law enforcement officials are turned off by what they see as ”mushy, touchy-feely, organizational psychology concepts” intruding into the planning process.
The writer believes that an understanding of the organizational culture is extremely important to the success of any attempt to change an organization. Strategic planning is such an effort—changing the organization from its present to its future. Nevertheless, many organizations and their members are not ready for this kind of self-examination. Strategic planning can assist law enforcement agencies in performing their mission without including the values analysis step.
Evolution of Management Thought
Up until the 1950s, organizations were governed by one set of rules. There were a variety of highly respected theories about organizations, including Henry Fayol’s classical organization theory/administrative science, Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory, and Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, but all prescribed the same set of rules. First, simplify work as much as possible. Second, organize to accomplish routine activities. Third, set standards of control to monitor performance. Finally, take no notice of any changes in the world at large that might affect the organization. There was very little expectation of change and no effort made to anticipate it.
However, these theories with their ”principles” of administration did result in dramatic gains in productivity. In fact, these ideas led to substantially enhanced profits and corresponding salary increases for workers. Why? Because they placed a premium on a rational approach to organizing work, and they stressed the importance of qualified and competent managers—a definite departure from earlier approaches that encouraged nepotism and amateurism.
Unfortunately for these ideas, the world changed. In the latter half of the twentieth century, change itself became the critical variable. Once we could safely wager that tomorrow would be like today in all important respects, today it is a fool’s bet.
Beginning around 1950, we saw the development of administrative philosophies that recognized this new pervasiveness of change. Change was viewed as a certainty, not as an anomaly. It was not to be treated normatively (that is, as either good or bad) but was seen as inevitable. Thus, organizations had to be structured to accommodate and anticipate change. Also, the focus was shifted from the routine duties that employees perform each day to the results that were expected to flow from all of this effort. The new buzz phrase was ”manage for results.” The new paradigm called for flexible or ad hoc organizational structures that organized for desired results, developed goals to direct or focus effort, and anticipated changes.
Many readers are familiar with some of these new paradigm theories: management by objectives (MBO), planning, programming budget system (PPBS), zero-based budgeting (ZBB), contingency approaches, and situational theories. For a variety of reasons these administrative efforts met with varying levels of success—mostly disappointing—when implemented by organizations. For example, the federal government tried and abandoned PPBS, then MBO, and finally ZBB. Even so, management philosophies that emphasize end results have remained popular.
As a next step managers not only wanted to know the future direction of their organizations, they also wanted to identify their strengths and weaknesses. This approach is called long-range planning. In the United States, long-range planning became a popular management philosophy in the early to middle 1970s. Long-range planning, however, also has its shortcomings, primarily because it ignores external factors that affect an organization’s performance. Some people felt that long-range planning focused too exclusively on internal factors and created an introspective mind-set. Strategic planning, by contrast, is conceived as a management-for-results philosophy that uses both an internal assessment and an environmental assessment.
A major difficulty in understanding these different managerial philosophies is that writers use different names for these ideas and they also develop unique definitions for them. Nevertheless, almost all are in agreement that strategic planning is a results-oriented philosophy that employs both an internal organizational assessment and an external environmental analysis.
Models of Strategic Planning
As detailed earlier there are a number of different approaches to strategic planning, requiring varying levels of resource commitments, and each organization needs to adapt or modify these different ideas to fit its unique situation. There is no universal ”best way.”
In this section two models will be described. The first of these, applied strategic planning, is defined as ”the process by which the guiding members of an organization envision its future and develop the procedures and operations necessary to achieve that future” (Pfeiffer et al. 1986, 1). The environmental scanning process should be continual and ongoing over the entire process because strategic planning demands that an organization keep a finger on the environmental pulse that can and will affect its future.
The performance audit step in the model includes a simultaneous study of internal strengths and weaknesses and an effort to identify significant external factors that might affect the organization. The organization may well be continually scanning its environment, but here is where the environmental information is actually analyzed in the context of internal assessment data and future goals.
A second model, developed by United Way of America, is called strategic management. United Way defines it as ”a systematic, interactive process for thinking through and creating the organization’s best possible future” (United Way of America 1985, 3). The purpose is to enhance an organization’s ability to identify and achieve specific desired results by integrating information about its external environment, internal capabilities, and overall purpose and direction.
The Essential Elements of Strategic Planning
This section provides a number of ideas and suggestions to help readers understand how to conduct strategic planning efforts in their own departments. The first element—a manage-for-results orientation— requires people to distance themselves somewhat from their daily duties and think about the big picture. What are the major issues affecting my department? What’s happening in the community? What do I want this department to look like and be doing in five to ten years?
Since this manage-for-results perspective is common to most current administrative approaches (such as MBO, PPBS, and ZBB), many individuals and departments are familiar with various methods to accomplish it. Frequently a management retreat is conducted at a nearby hotel or resort. Sometimes key managers are asked to prepare a list of those factors or results most critical to the success of the organization. A group facilitator can then lead a meeting in which a master list of these results is produced.
A couple of cautions are in order, however. First, when describing the desired future direction of the organization, people must be realistic and identify attainable results that are consistent with anticipated resources. Second, beware of a future that looks exactly like the past. It has been said that the largest impediments between humans and their future are human themselves and what they are able to imagine and conceive.
The second element is environmental analysis. The primary activities here are data gathering and analysis of relevant trends. Where do you look for these data? At a national level, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census of Population and Housing is a valuable tool. The Department of Commerce’s City and County Data topic, as well as reports of the Department of Labor and other national indicators, can also be helpful. With respect to criminal activity, Crime in America, compiled by the FBI, is an excellent source. Academic and professional journals and societies frequently focus on developments and events that will significantly affect law enforcement organizations.
At the local level, relevant and critical trend data can often be obtained at area universities—particularly business schools, economics departments, and sociology departments. The chamber of commerce, local trade associations, and municipal, county, and state governments generally are good sources of information. A survey of knowledgeable people in the community may also help identify relevant information.
A seldom-used form of environmental analysis, scenario development, is the most future-oriented approach. Scenarios attempt to integrate a number of separate trends and develop a consistent and coherent view of plausible, alternative futures. Generally, several scenarios will be developed and a few will be selected for planning purposes. This approach has special significance in university and ”think tank” institutions.
Obviously, the goals of environmental analysis are to identify the most significant trends for the organization and describe their likely implications. Contingency plans can be prepared or special monitoring arrangements can be set up to track these trends.
The third element is organizational assessment, a step that determines an organization’s capabilities (its strengths and weaknesses). Generally, a number of resource assessments (for example, human, facilities, financial) are conducted. For instance, does the organization have enough people with the appropriate education and skills to accomplish its purposes? Also, an examination can be made of an organization’s structure and culture. Are they consistent and compatible with the mission and future direction of the agency?
It is important to review the previous performance of an organization and its major entities. Were previous objectives achieved? Are records and reports of a high quality? Employee or customer surveys and interviews can shed much light on perceptions of performance. In the FBI, for example, the inspection, evaluation, and audit processes tell a lot about the performance of various organizational components and programs.
The product of this step should be a precise listing of all the organization’s competencies and shortcomings. Obviously, this knowledge, coupled with relevant environmental information, will help determine the future direction of the organization.
Strategic planning in the FBI is the responsibility of the director. Early each fall the director and several top executives review, revise, and revalidate the FBI mission and the component missions. A strategic plan is prepared each year, projecting FBI activities five years into the future. The mission and components are carefully examined to ensure that they describe the major purposes toward which FBI efforts will and should be expended over the next several years.
This ”mission review” step begins the development of the new plan. It is also the place where the director and senior executives articulate their vision regarding the future direction of the FBI, focusing on exactly what the bureau wants to achieve during the next five years. At this stage the vision is broad in scope.
Subsequently, other FBI executives and program managers develop precise objectives and action strategies that give practical shape to the director’s vision. While the writer was chief of the Strategic Planning Unit (SPU) of the FBI Inspection Division, he authored a detailed reference, ”A Guide to Strategic Planning in the FBI,” to help FBI employees develop these precise objectives and action plans. Also, he prepared a pamphlet entitled ”An Overview of FBI Strategic Planning Efforts.” In an organization the size of the FBI, the planning document is quite voluminous. Still, it is critical that precise strategies and action plans be prepared that will lead to the accomplishment of the organization’s broad purposes.
The strategic planning process itself, that is, scanning the environment, assessing performance, thinking about the future direction of the FBI, and developing action plans to achieve stated goals, is more important than the document that contains the strategic plan. Still, the plan is a tremendous vehicle for communication within the bureau. One of the most common reasons for organizations failing to achieve their purposes is that many people do not know what is expected of them. They don’t understand what the organization is trying to achieve and how their work fits into the overall picture. The strategic plan assists all FBI employees in understanding their contributions to the work of the bureau.
The SPU is responsible for conducting the environmental analysis function for the FBI. This unit performs exactly the kinds of activities and analyses described earlier. With respect to the internal organizational assessment step, the SPU coordinates the activities of various FBI entities. As described previously, the inspection reports of FBI offices, program evaluation, and audits provide invaluable performance information.
The FBI has been involved in strategic planning since the spring of 1987. The process is evolving, and nobody would argue that it is perfect. Still, FBI leaders are convinced that it is the most appropriate managerial approach for the administration of the agency.
Conclusion
Strategic planning grows out of administrative philosophies that emphasize a management-for-results approach and recognize the pervasiveness of change throughout society. Although there is no standard or universally accepted definition of strategic planning, most administrators would agree that it has three primary elements:
- Management-for-results orientation
- External environmental analysis
- Internal organizational assessment
While some writers distinguish between strategic planning and strategic management, the author believes that the primary difference is one of semantics.
Ideas and theories about how best to organize will continue to evolve in the years ahead. Still, it is reasonable to expect that future concepts will be built upon many of today’s ideas. In this light, the essential elements of strategic planning— managing for results, environmental analysis, and organizational assessment—can be expected to remain important tenets of future philosophies.
This article has described the benefits of strategic planning for law enforcement agencies and outlined some of the steps necessary to perform the essential elements of strategic planning. Effective American law enforcement is a goal to which all Americans are entitled. Although there are no magic panaceas or guarantees of effectiveness, strategic planning is a straightforward administrative approach with a proven track record. All law enforcement officials are encouraged to consider this approach as they guide their organizations into the future.
References:
- Melcher, Bonita H., and Harold Kerzner. 1988. Strategic planning: Development and implementation. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: TAB Professional and Reference Books.
- Pfeiffer, J. William, et al. 1986. Applied strategic planning: A how to do it guide. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
- Steiner, George A. 1979. Strategic planning: What every manager must know. New York: The Free Press.
- United Way of America. 1985. Strategic management and United Way. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.
- University Associates Consulting and Training Services, 8380 Miramar Mall, Suite 232,San Diego, CA 92121 (619 552-8901).