Strategic Planning Plus: An Organizational Guide


Roger Kaufman

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page


    To those who have helped make this a better world: colleagues, students, professionals, friends, and family

    About this Book

    Good planning is still in demand. From management to marketing, engineering to social services, manufacturing to government, interest in improving an organization's contribution, success, and prospects for survival takes center stage. Yet in spite of this continuing concern, organizational problems and crises seem to be continuing if not increasing. In the face of this reality, rehashed data and repackaged quick-fix solutions are continually offered to planners and organizational leaders.

    Selecting Where to Go before Deciding on How to Get There

    Something important has been missing: guidance on how to select what an organization (and its parts) should accomplish in the first place. Successful planners and leaders define where to go and what to deliver before planning and crafting any response. Identifying and defining useful directions and contributions are key elements in organizational success and durability. But how do planners and executives determine where to go and how to get there? How do they separate the real opportunities and problems from those surface symptoms?

    Most current approaches assume that managers, planners, and executives already have the right goals and purposes—that they know where an organization should be heading and why. Most planning approaches (the conventional wisdom) tend to offer one simple preconceived solution no matter what the problem. Most of today's popular books provide one-shot solutions for all problems: leadership, quality circles, excellence, total quality, systems approaches, organizational development, training, or team building. Managers and executives are offered generic prescriptions instead of a detailed workup and diagnosis aimed at achieving or maintaining good corporate health and selecting proper internal activities and products. Fad books offer road atlases for getting results even though maps are useful only after the destination has been selected. As a result of applying these popular approaches, well-meaning managers often build neat, clean, and tidy solutions that fail—they end up at the wrong place.

    Planning Realities

    This book is a practical planning guide that urges a big-picture perspective. It provides three different workable levels for planning (and suggests an overarching one) and shows how to develop detailed successful plans. Building upon Peter Drucker's dictum that selecting the right job is more important than doing the job right, this book provides a practical and straightforward guide to defining what should be accomplished (and justifying why) and designing solutions and interventions that will do the job right. The suggested approach starts with a wide-angle view of the organization and its clients and uses that base to apply suitable planning methods.

    The material is for middle managers who want to deliver results expected by executives, and for top managers who want to maintain their organizational edge. It recognizes several realities:

    • Organizations are complex entities. Planning for their success requires that managers and executives account for both internal and external realities, including (a) internal partners (coworkers and employees) and (b) external partners (the clients who keep us in business and the shifting and often unforgiving outside world).
    • Setting an appropriate destination before starting out on a mission will best ensure that our solutions, will work. Just as a space vehicle's successful flight depends upon accurate initial bearings, an organization requires up-front, correct directions. Faulty initial aim won't be improved by subsequent hard work and efficiency.
    • Problems should not be warped to fit fashionable or easy solutions.
    • Microplanning—the level of planning offered in most planning and development books—is most successful when the right needs, visions, and missions have been first identified and selected.
    • No amount of planning or well-produced organizational development can make up for faulty objectives.
    Three Planning Perspectives

    This book is a primer on choosing the right results. It describes three levels of planning, each of which can serve as a legitimate focus for action: Mega-, Macro-, and Micro-level planning. The first frame of reference, Megaplanning, is a societal-based panorama—a holistic, wide-angle view of organizational opportunities and problems. Macroplanning looks at an entire organization and all of its parts, and Microplanning hones in on individual jobs, tasks, and personal competence.

    The book furnishes a series of step-by-step aids on direction-finding and problem identification and shows how to define and achieve results efficiently.

    Some Unique Aspects of This Book

    This book offers a variety of aids to planning, including algorithms, flow charts, checklists, guidelines, procedures, and menu-organized questions. You can “walk through” the important questions and related steps for defining, planning, and developing solutions that work. The main concepts, tools, and methods are accompanied by reality-based cases.

    Much of the “meat” of this book is given at the outset. It sets a frame of reference that emphasizes the importance of first defining and justifying where the individual or organization should be heading by using “hard” data, not just strategic visions or an expert's opinions. This approach not only resolves current problems but also uncovers new opportunities and challenges. The planning approach defined here begins by identifying what should be and what could be. It then works to ensure that all of an organization's parts are properly designed and focused. The first step is to define the results and payoffs that the organization and each of its parts must contribute. Many planning methods and approaches are readily available at newsstands and book stalls. This book provides the rationale for choosing the ones that will work. It provides the missing ingredients for your organization's survival, success, and meaningful social contribution.

    Often, planners seek only to improve the efficiency of their organization's current activities. They pride themselves on “being in the mainstream” and not making waves. Sometimes, however, the “mainstream” is the wrong place to be. Here's a cautionary tale.

    The Mainstream (A Fable)

    Ever since he was spawned, Sylvester seemed different. He didn't even care for his name—he thought it sounded more devious than smart. Although he was a fairly good student in school (he was often in school, for that's how fish tend to live) Sylvester was always thinking, questioning, and seeking alternatives.

    The teachers, it seemed to him, were preparing everyone for life in the Mainstream. There were courses in water temperature, bottom characteristics, velocity, sociology of fish, turbulence, plankton, predators, and cooperative swimming. Students were told it was their destiny to learn their lessons, grow up, and take their preordained place in the Mainstream.

    Sylvester wasn't completely convinced. He continued to think, puzzle, and question. Why were all of these courses being taught? What was the Mainstream? Where was it going? Why should he want to go where it was headed? His teachers were amused and patronizing. They told him that such foolish questions would pass. “Just study your lessons,” they advised. But as Sylvester got older (he developed a fine set of gills that were the envy of many of his classmates) his questions were still unanswered. Typical of his inconsistent high school career, he didn't make the high school swimming team. He even tried, unsuccessfully, to institute a swimming-up-stream event.

    Going to College

    Sylvester graduated from high school with grades good enough to get into a decent college—Aquarian University, right in his home creek. The courses were all about living, and “making it,” in the Mainstream. Fish who were experienced in the “real world” came to class and lectured on life there. Still Sylvester asked “Isn't it easier to find the Mainstream than to know where it is going? Are there any alternatives?” The professors at Aquarian were less amused than his high school teachers. They told him that to get along, he had to go along. Business, they said, was like politics: It was the art of the possible. They advised him to think about change—if he had to be concerned about it at all—as incremental. “Take small, deft slithers lest you displease the bosses or even your associates.” “Be ‘practical!’ “Sylvester grappled quietly, studied and passed. Still he thought about purpose, destination, rationality, and goal-setting, not just goal-seeking.

    He devoured the literature on planning and management, and most of it, regardless of the rhetoric, sounded, well, basically “Mainstream.” The “in” books had a few punchy phrases and were occasionally peppered with some innovative-sounding words. But at closer examination they were simply suggesting more efficient ways to swim in the Mainstream.

    On to Work in the Real World

    After graduating, Sylvester took a job in a large and prestigious Mainstream company. The pay was good (with lots of extra plankton as bonuses). One of his co-workers, Fred, was more conventional and thought that planning was best done by building on what was known and accepted. Fred and Sylvester argued, and their mutual boss decided that research should resolve the conflict; both of them were to pursue a major project, each following his method of planning. There was to be a competition based upon results, not upon talk!

    Sylvester's boss was astute. She allowed him to pursue his “curious” type of strategic planning. (He called it “Megaplanning” because it took a much more wide-angle view than the conventional methods.) It was time to go from theory to results.

    A Different Perspective

    While most fish just worked on improving their technique, swam in circles, drifted in the current, and headed downstream in unquestioning unison, Sylvester wanted to find out where the Mainstream was heading and what was there. His approach depended upon finding the gaps between the payoffs waiting at the end of the Mainstream and what would be good for fishdom. He wanted to identify the current results and contrast those to the best possible payoffs before selecting solutions.

    One day, while doing research at the edge of the Mainstream, Sylvester came upon a variety of fish he had never seen. (He thought it might be something called a salmon, but he was too discreet to ask.) The stranger told him about a new (for Sylvester) technique that would allow a fish to swim both up and downstream, to venture to the side and to go into new waters. Sylvester picked this “radical” method, which would allow him to venture all the way downstream—and to come back! With this technique, he could find out the real consequences of following the Mainstream. Fred, on the other fin, selected the traditional tail extenders to accelerate his trip downstream, noting that his approach was “practical” and “real world.”

    Finding the Real “Real World”

    Fred and Sylvester set out at the same time, with many supporters cheering for Fred and a very few wishing Sylvester well. Fred was a bit smug as he glided in the Mainstream, for he had called together all of his colleagues and got their concurrence on his means and methods. Sylvester was less self-assured, but he told himself that reason was on his side—didn't it make sense to know where you want to go before swimming there? He believed that everyone was so busy doing what fish had been doing for centuries that they didn't realize that they just might be swimming in a river of no return!

    Once downstream, Sylvester found to his horror that the revered Mainstream lead over a waterfall and into a shark pool where all of the Mainstreamers were becoming food! He watched helplessly as Fred, tail extenders and all, swept to his gastronomic fate. Sylvester, seeing the impact of simply following the “tried-and-true” Mainstream, quickly diverted into a different river, there to find a huge, fish-friendly lake, with ample food and

    opportunity. It was a different destination than the one gained by following the traditional current, but it offered much, much more. Using his newly-acquired technique, he rushed back (upstream, of course) and tried to change the conventional wisdom about swimming in the Mainstream! He told of his experience, the shark-pool, the new lake, and pointed out that Fred wasn't back—and wouldn't be.

    A guide to this book based upon asking and answering the right questions.

    It wasn't easy to convince others. It was established fish wisdom that swimming in that Mainstream was destiny. They said that the Big Fish knew what they were doing, and other small-fry should just follow their direction. Sylvester tried to change their minds. He attempted, for example, to get alternative planning courses in the schools, but the tenured fish resisted.

    The Payoffs

    Fortunately, Sylvester's company was innovative and concerned about both fish and business. They encouraged Sylvester's “big-picture” approach to planning, and used it to plan a new subsidiary, which prospered. Sylvester now is President of the offshoot (called FishFutures), which is making a major contribution from working on the new lake he discovered. Also, his employees are setting up even more new businesses in previously unfamiliar rivers and tributaries; business areas that never would have been thought of without Sylvester's new technique.

    But to make sure his approach and objectives weren't flashes in the pan (or bait on a hook), Sylvester has just hired another “questioner” to head up FishFutures’ planning department. She will make certain that any new “mainstreams” that they select will not turn out as poorly as did the old, traditional one.

    MORAL: The Mainstream has a lot of momentum, but you might not want to end up where it is going.

    Many things that happen in our organizations are useful and valuable. Even so, it is worthwhile to identify where we should be going before setting out to get there. This book is for those professionals who want to do the right things as well as much as they want to do things correctly. Just being in the Mainstream does not prove that we are correct or that we will even survive.

    Asking and answering the right questions are the keys to successful planning. The illustration on pp. xii-xiii is a guide to this book based upon important questions.


    There are many people to thank. Dennis Bowers spent many hours reviewing the several versions of this book for clarity, content, and communication. He and Melissa Van Dyke not only produced the graphics but put in that “extra something” by arguing with me until they all made sense. LaVerne Johnson turned the output of my home computer word-processing into a usable manuscript. Students at Florida State University heard much of this in lectures and informal seminars and stimulated my thinking and development. Colleagues in Tallahassee and worldwide, along with my associates at the Center for Needs Assessment and Planning, pushed me whenever informal seminars broke out. They contributed to my thoughts and held me accountable for practicing what I was preaching. In addition, I particularly wish to thank Kathyrn Ley, Paula MacGillis, Bob Gagne, Irv Sobel, Melvin Stith, Doug Windham, Hal Crosby, Bob Morgan, Bob Branson, Bob Mager, Don Watts, Keven Hardy, Tony Ryan, Garth Peters, Peter Yacopetti, Phil Hanford, Sivasailam Thiagarajan, Bruce Gould, Jerry Herman, and Larry Lipsitz along with the many organizational and human performance improvement professionals who continue to create concepts and tools for our mutual good. Thanks to Performance and Instruction Journal and Educational Technology for publishing many articles and columns that contributed, in part, to this book.

    Special appreciation is extended to my editor, Amy Davis, who saw this book as a contribution to those who want to make our organizations successful, not just profitable. Particular thanks goes to a visionary force, Peter Drucker, who has given orientation, depth, and focus to rational organizational theory and practice.

    And again (and again), my appreciation to the critical “J”s in my life.

    RogerKaufmanTallahassee, Florida
  • Appendix A: Strategic Planning at Seaside Villas, Inc.: A Partial Case Study

    The following is a simulation: It shows how a strategic planning team for SeaSide Villas Incorporated (SSVI)—a hypothetical national corporation that designs and builds condominium homes on or near the water—started to scope their effort. It is in the form of a draft memo to fellow planning team members on what is required to use the strategic planning framework suggested in this chapter.

    DATE:June 4
    TO:SSV Inc. Strategic Planning Team
    SUBJECT:A strategic planning framework and preliminary examples of what might be accomplished at each step.

    Figure A.1 shows our proactive strategic planning framework, and the basic steps are used below to identify a partial strategic planning team-sponsored initiative. I have provided the basic steps and some idea of what our response might be (in bold).

    What Strategic Planning is and Contributes: Rationale

    Strategic planning is not a linear, authoritarian, lockstep process. It is a dynamic, active procedure that scans current and future realities and yields useful strategies and tactics for arriving at a better tomorrow, including SSVI. It actively involves our internal and external clients and partners in defining and then supporting purposes and missions, and provides blueprints for progress. Strategic thinking—a fortunate by-product—will probably be more important than our actual plan; it is a way of viewing our world and acting, constantly, to improve the future. Once our company has embarked on strategic planning, we all should realize that:

    • Current visions and objectives might change.
    • The control (and blame) for whatever happens (including economic conditions) moves from the hands of a few politicians, lobbyists, and executives to being shared among all of the planning partners.
    • Proactive strategic planning and thinking is a way of life—it is dynamic, changing, and changeable.
    • This approach intends to create a better future on purpose, not simply attempt to react to situational crises and problems;
    • Strategic planning pays, not costs.
    What It Costs to Plan Strategically, and What It Costs Not to

    A healthy, vigorous society and our business’ success and contribution are our organization's goals for the future. Achieving these is not simply a cost, but an investment. Change in general, and strategic planning (most of us have tried other versions which have disappointed us) in particular is difficult; we try harder, but often are frustrated with the seeming intractability of it all. We have implemented excellence programs, accountability initiatives, corporate planning, management by objectives, team building, and comprehensive plans. We have added “tough” policies and deleted others, and still these solutions (however well intended) don't seem to make a real difference. We can implement more quick-fix solutions, throw increasing dollars and people at our problems, or we can plan and think strategically—we can move from reactive planning to proactive strategic planning.

    We can be either the masters of change or the victims of it; we can be proactive or reactive. Strategic planning is the proactive option—its purpose is to create a better future. It encourages planning partners to join together to define and achieve better results and contributions. The results of our current planning-and-doing efforts have fallen short, so simply attempting to increase the efficiency of our current efforts is like choosing to work harder without working smarter. Drifting into the future without setting a proper course is to be reactive and hopeful—relying on luck to turn things around. Strategic planning, as described here, can help us all move systematically towards defining and creating a better world—one where we can be both “good neighbors” and be rewarded by deserved profits and growth.

    The Elements of Proactive Strategic Planning for SSH Corporation: Seaside Villas, Inc.—Living in Harmony with Water

    This suggested strategic planning framework has four major clusters: scoping, data collecting, planning, and implementation.

    Figure A.1 A strategic planning process model. (Kaufman 1990; Kaufman and Herman 1990.)


    1. Select the type of strategic planning from among three alternatives. Choose one of the three types of strategic planning based on who is (or should be) the primary client and beneficiary: Microplanning (for individual staff and/or small groups such as site-acquisition; legal; marina approval; construction, and rentals and sales groups); Macroplanning (for the entire SSVI organization); and Megaplanning (for society including all within the boundaries of states in which SSVI building is being contemplated or is underway, which takes into account all citizens and their economic and physical survival, health, and quality of life, and our survival and organizational health). Mega-level strategic planning is urged. Its use will improve the chances of all of SSVI's operating units (both within and between departments) integrating. When integration happens, the parts, together, will contribute to success for our employees, the entire SSVI organization, external stakeholders (e.g., builders, fishing industries, recreation industries, local municipalities, etc.), and our society. The indicator of this happening is in the levels of self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and quality of life of the clients and the environment in which we all live.

    The Mega level will target primarily the survival, self-sufficiency, self-reliance, mutual interdependence, and quality of life for all Villa residents and citizens in the states in which we build. Primary (but not exclusive) goal is the economic and physical survival of all people. By using this very basic North Star—a navigation point for all of us—collective good and payoffs will be the primary target, and special interests will become secondary.

    Data Collecting:

    2. Identify beliefs and values. Beliefs, values, and wishes constrain the ways in which our planning partners address planning. Often, having each partner state (either in writing or publicly) their responses to “I believe that…” can help identify these perceptions. The beliefs, values, and wishes can also be organized by such areas as environmental stakeholders, area organizations, government agencies, public and private-sector management, unions, planning boards, city councils, etc. These partners’ views should be formally identified and shared so as to make public the ordinarily private personal considerations and motives. Although this is not often publicly stated or personally realized, most people see themselves as the center of the world and their organization; they see everything as if it revolves around them. Such an egocentric set of beliefs will have to be exchanged for a shared, common-contribution view. Consensus among the strategic planning partners about their beliefs (or underlying assumptions and world-views) should be reached before moving ahead.

    Typical values and beliefs might include: I believe:

    • That any person should be able to use her or his land any way they want.
    • The common good, in terms of land and water use, is more important than that of any one individual.
    • Business must survive; therefore, public parks and recreation areas have to be secondary.
    • Recreation is a key to most of the state's success … its citizens have to relax and regenerate, and visitors come to be near the water… they have to want to spend their time and money here.
    • The legislature should provide primary direction, and other government agencies should strictly adhere to that direction.
    • Laws, regulations, and policies should be changed only at the initiative of the legislature.
    • Anything can be changed, and we should find out what is the right thing to do and then get changes in laws, policies and procedures.
    • Builders only look after themselves, throw up the cheapest things they can get away with, and then leave—and turn their backs on pollution, waste, and roads.
    • It is possible to build good homes, respect the environment, and leave the area in better shape than it was before.

    3. Identify visions. Strategic planning is long-range planning with a vision. Here, our strategic planning partners will identify and define:

    • What is.
    • What should be.
    • What could be.

    Future opportunities are identified and documented. Trend analysis data and projections of critical variables (such as population, pollution, rising water levels; ozone levels, economy, sociological and psychological characteristics, and emerging technology) may be very useful. We should use several different time horizons, including a 10 to 50 year leap into the future.

    Using these data, our planning partners will identify the type of world (including our organization) in which they would like to live. Visions will be fairly detailed scenarios of “what should be.” Visions should relate to ends, not means.

    Based on all of this, agreement will be derived during a later strategic planning step.

    Typical visions for our Florida sites might be:

    VISION A: “I see a Florida where there is easy access to all of its sandy beaches; no artificial beaches or armored areas; no beach debris or oil deposits; people housed safely outside high hazard areas; a prosperous coastal economy and ecosystems that work in harmony with recreation and living; clean and safe coastal areas permanently dedicated for use as ports, marinas, and commercial fishing; protected exemplary natural resources—wetlands, salt marshes, hardwood hammocks, areas of lush tropical coastal vegetation, sea-grass beds, coral reefs, and estuaries—which will be shared with future generations; preservation and continuation of birds, fish, and coastal creatures to perpetuate the natural balance and the food chain; new seaside homes that add to the beauty and environment, not those that would be eyesores or destructive to the ecology; tourists who enjoy our coastal resources and leave them at least as clean as they find them….

    VISION B: “I see a Florida that, within ten years, will have no deaths through infectious diseases, drug overdoses, murder, suicide, or street violence; there will be an employment rate of at least 95%; at least 97% of all Florida residents (over the age of 18) will not be under the care, custody, or control of any outside agency, agent, or substance; no major industries, including fishing, marine recreation, home construction, and mineral mining, will suffer losses or reductions in income; there will be no deaths from water quality problems, including problems from marine products, storm water runoff, pollution from industry and homes; tourists will come and enjoy our water-related attractions and leave it in as good condition as they find them; beaches will not be littered with human-made products; no spills of chemicals or chemical products on beaches, rivers, and estuaries; the food chain elements will continue to produce the required constituents to cause no species to go extinct; there will be no death or loss of life from inhabiting unsafe coastal areas; there will be no further reduction of coastal resources; there will be an increase in those making contributions to the natural environment and ecological balance; state and local ecological planning will be integrated, holistic, and comprehensive and not just single-issue and fragmented; the citizenry will value cleanliness and safety, and act to support those; enough funds will be saved through cooperative planning and developing that no additional taxes will have to be spent for environmental safeguards and reclamation….

    4. Identify current missions. While doing steps 2 and 3, obtain the current organizational missions for each part of the system (each involved regulatory agency, the SSVI Corporation, local planning commissions, etc.). If necessary (and we can almost count on it) these will be rewritten in performance/results terms. Applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, and other compliance requirements must be obtained. (There will be an analysis of compatible and incompatible elements of missions done at this step.)

    Most—if not all—of the mission statements of the involved state agencies and their policies and products (e.g., State Comprehensive Plan or the Department of Natural Resources) are intentions but do not include any measurable criteria for substantive planning, management and evaluation. Each current mission statement, including our own, should be converted to a mission objective that contains measurable criteria for indicating success:

    For example, the statement”… conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty …” is of use only as a general direction. Without specific standards for “conserve,” “protect,” and “scenic beauty” there will be great differences among otherwise sensible people about the boundaries and definitions. Some possible criteria for the intentions might include: “no loss of any indigenous species through extinction,” and “no loss of life or incapacitating illnesses (certified by a state or local health officer) from unsafe water quality.”

    The mission statement for SSVI “Living in harmony with water” might be developed into: “Seaside living without damaging the environment (as indicated by no successful lawsuits or environmental violations; at least 50 percent of all our developments winning environmental awards), is attractive to buyers (with all units sold within 90 days of completion), and property values increasing at least 10 percent per year above other comparable units, a return-on-investment for the corporation which is at least 37 percent per year net, net, net.”

    Applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, and other compliance requirements will be collected.

    It might be first seen that such an addition of performance/measurable criteria would be very difficult (if not “impossible”); such an activity is both do-able and critical… sooner or later someone applies criteria, be it a judge, a regional council, a federal agency, or a legislature. VISION B (above) provides some preliminary possibilities for Mega-level criteria.

    5. Identify needs. Using the definition of a “need” as a gap in results, we will use available sources of needs information (including both “bard” from external scanning and “soft” data from the internal scanning done in steps 2 and 3). Needs data is drawn from both internal organization(s)—agencies, bureaus, both federal and state—as well as the external society and communities—citizen groups, lobbyists, external planning councils, merchants, residents, etc. Evaluation data is used to determine the “what is” condition(s).

    Soft data (personal, private, and not independently verifiable) come from the visions and beliefs obtained in steps 2 and 3 (above). Hard data (objective and independently verifiable) is available throughout the system and could include such data points as: estuary losses; river closings; pollution levels in and around marinas; loss of life from hurricanes; construction-site levels of toxicity above human tolerance levels; regulations that have been violated; successful lawsuits against government; species extinctions; species newly on the endangered list; species that have been on the endangered list for some time; boating accidents due to congestion; income levels of commercial fishermen as compared to (a) previous years, and (b) minimal support standards; fouling and polluting levels of beaches; erosion levels; number of uninhabited and inhabited endangered shelter islands; tourist income as compared to previous years and costs of doing business for associated merchants; profits for SSVI, etc.

    In each soft and hard criteria level, the gaps between “what is” and “what should/could be” may be derived … these are the “needs.”


    6. Identify matches and mismatches: integrating visions, beliefs, values, needs, and current missions. This step includes: identifying commonalities and differences. Because so much of the planning partners’ experiences will be important to them, a challenge of this step will be the integrating of “hard” and “soft” data. Essential to this step (as in the others) is obtaining planning partners’ active participation.

    A sorting of the responses in a content analysis is done here:

    • Beliefs and values. The items in common from each source are first identified and classified—shared beliefs, conflicting beliefs, and unique beliefs are sorted into categories.
    • Visions. The common elements of visions are identified and listed along with unique ones. Also listed are conflicting visions or vision elements.
    • Missions. After measurable criteria are added to the mission statements—thus turning them into mission objectives—the various objectives are classified as to “same,” “different,” and “antagonistic.” Overlapping jurisdictions and/or conflicting territoriality are also identified along with possible consequences of such conflict and overlap.
    • A common matrix is built showing principle elements (e.g., beaches, estuaries, marinas, construction, fisheries, recreation areas, wetlands, etc.) along one dimension and along the other listed stakeholders (SSVI, special interest groups, agencies, cities, marinas, etc.). Then a listing is made within the proper intersection of “elements” and “stakeholder” of the common, unique, and conflicting elements from the sources of beliefs and values, visions, and missions.

    7. Reconcile differences. Finding the common ground among SSVI and our partners, based on reality, is the major product of this step. Using previous data and information and negotiating to do what is right, not just what is acceptable, sometimes requires both patience and often the collection of more data. Steps 6 and 7 may be combined.

    This reconciliation will best be done by getting opinion leaders (who actually do represent each stakeholder group, including SSVI) together to hammer out a common referent. It is important to obtain consensus. Complete agreement will probably never be reached. A key tactic for this step is to refer each decision back to the Mega-level: What do all of the stakeholders achieve (survival, self-sufficiency, or mutual interdependence) by accepting or rejecting any given initiative or solution? Confine the discussion to results (or ends) and don't let it deteriorate into squabbles about means or resources. Each time there is disagreement, ask “If we implemented what you suggest, what would be the consequences and results?” Keep asking that question until they get to the Mega-level. This tactic will sort out self-seeking solutions-in-search-of-problems very quickly. Negotiating and “reasoning together” takes patience and a facilitator who doesn't impose her or his will on others but keeps the discussion focused on integrity of citizen survival, self-sufficiency, and quality of life, along with SSVI's contribution and return on investment—in measurable terms. This looks difficult, but can be done if skillfully led.

    8. Select a preferred future. Based upon the existing beliefs, visions, identified needs, and existing missions, the planning partners select their preferred future—the organizational (and social) world in which they would like to live, or which they would like to see exist. This is a commitment to a future and discourages a drift in the same directions as the organization or operation is now heading.

    Based on the agreements on what to accomplish, a joint scenario is written to reflect the type of Florida the planning partners would like to see and create. This scenario can be lengthy, and should include as much hard and soft data as possible.

    9. Identify missions. The product of this step is a written mission statement based upon the visions beliefs, and needs identified in preceding steps. This often requires some changes to the existing mission statement (as identified in step 4).

    Now the vision is turned into a mission statement: intentions plus criteria. It should state, in measurable terms, where are we going and how we will be able to measure when we have arrived.

    10. Identify SWOTs: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The organization's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are defined, and the required information is obtained and analyzed. As in all steps, agreement of the strategic planning partners is essential.

    This involves some fairly standard procedures. From existing studies and data sources list the strengths (e.g., shared values, fiscal resources, personal commitment, and organizational commitment) that exist among the stakeholders and the weaknesses (e.g., extensively damaged coastal areas, unrealistic profit motives, carelessness, and disregard for property rights). Also list opportunities (e.g., federal/state cooperation in oversight and funding, innovative and responsive building plans and procedures, and new consciousness about ecology) and threats (e.g., federal laws, values shifts in the U.S.; acid rain and pollution from elsewhere, single-issue environmental groups, and inappropriate regulations).

    Objectivity is essential.

    11. Derive decision rules. Decision rules, or policies, are necessary in order that all partners in the organizational arena have the same “marching orders,” visions, criteria, and intentions. These decision rules provide strategic goals and objectives with measurable criteria (performance requirements).

    Decision rules are really policies that may be used to make decisions (not the more usual compliance/process-oriented use). They include detailed performance requirements and criteria, ideally on an interval or ratio scale of measurement. It would be best if SSVI's functional and construction plans (which include mutually derived and agreed-upon visions and missions) were to include the decision rules derived from steps 8, 9, and 10.

    12. Develop strategic action plans. This is the last step in the “planning” cluster. The needs, visions, beliefs, and missions are integrated. Based on the SWOTs and the decision rules, this step answers the key questions: What? How? Who? When? Why? Where ? The identification of all three levels of related results (Mega, Macro, and Micro) are identified at this step. Operational, or in-process, milestones for implementation are set, along with the consideration of alternative tactics and approaches (methods-means analysis).

    Now, the development of the action plans are easy. We know where we are going (the missions), why we want to get there (common visions and the hard data about current and desired condition of coastal resources and ecology, and exactly that which SSVI's villas must and must not do, including profit), and we have the measurable criteria and policies in place. What is left is to identify the functions and tasks and select the methods and means for getting from where we are to where we want to be. The action plans might develop “trees” that move from the strategies to specific tactics to methods and materials to PERT charts, budgets, personnel loadings, and detailed schedules—including inspection criteria and times.


    13. Put the strategic plan to work. This is not planning but the actual implementation: putting the plan into action and getting the required results.

    As part of this phase, the following activities are included:

    • Design the response
    • Implement what has been planned, designed, and developed
    • Conduct formative evaluation (at the same time as implementation)
    • Conduct summative evaluation
    • Based upon the evaluation, make decisions about continuing and/or revising as required

    It is important for all planning partners to realize that the strategic plan and the resulting guidance are required throughout the life of the SSVI organizations and its concern for citizens’ survival, self-sufficiency, and mutual interdependence.

    Please review this, and let's make some decisions, based on these strategic planning steps, at our meeting in ten days.

    Appendix B: Selecting Appropriate Needs Assessment Tools and Techniques

    For each needs assessment-related question, there is an array of models, tools, and understandings. Table B.1 provides a menu of many available choices, listed by the type of needs assessment question. The menu provides common (but sometimes inaccurate) names or labels for each question and numbers some (but not all) useful articles or books that present models, tools, approaches, and concepts related to each question. These sources are in the Reference List at the end of this appendix.

    In some needs assessments, there is a “boundary blur,” where some planning applications require more than one question to be asked and answered. Many of the tools, techniques, and approaches referenced here could be applied to more than one question (but, perhaps due to the limited vision of implementors, usually are not). In addition, many of the available tools, techniques, approaches and models address only one of the two needs assessment dimensions—what is and what should be. Care should be taken to select, and if necessary, extend the existing approaches to assure that both dimensions are formally considered and included.

    Table B.1 A menu of some methods, models, tools, and approaches for doing needs assessments and/or quasi-needs assessments.
    Needs Assessment AreasPossible Model, Tool, or Approach (Frequently Used Labels)Representative References
    Outcome/MegaExternal needs assessment, strategic management, futures’, Megaplanning1, 5, 7, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40
    Output/MacroTactical management, internal needs assessment, needs analysis, problem analysis, front-end analysis. Macro-planning, strategic market planning1, 5, 7, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 43
    Product/MicroTactical management, internal needs assessment, needs analysis, problem analysis, front-end analysis, task analysis, MicroplanningI, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 43
    ProcessCompliance analysis, quasi-needs assessment, implementation analysis, process engineering, time and motion analysis, efficiency analysis2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43
    InputAccounting, auditing, quasineeds assessment16, 21, 25, 26, 38, 41
    *See References.


    1. Abell, D.F. and HammondJ.S.. 1979. Strategic market planning: Problems and analytical approaches. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
    2. Argyris, C., PutnamR., and McSmithD.L.1985. Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    3. Banathy, B.1987. Instructional systems design. In Instructional technology: Foundations, ed. R.M.Gagne. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    4. Branson, R.K. et al. 1975. Interservice procedures for instructional development, Phases 1, II, 111, IV, V, and executive summary. (TRADOC Pamphlet 350–30). Fort Monroe, Va.: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
    5. Bryson, J.M.1988. Strategic planning for public and non-profit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    6. Bunderson, C.V. and InouyeD.K.. 1987. The evolution of computer-aided educational delivery systems. In Instructional technology: Foundations, ed. R.M.Gagne. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    7. Carter, R.K.1983. The accountable agency (Human Service Guide No. 34). Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
    8. Dick, W. and CareyL.. 1985. The systematic design of instruction (2nded.). Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.
    9. Drucker, P.F.1973. Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row.
    10. Gagne, R.1985. The conditions of learning. (4th ed.)New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    11. Gilbert, T.F.1978. Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    12. Gilbert, T.F. and GilbertM.B.. 1989. Performance engineering: Making human performance a science. Performance & Instruction (Jan.).
    13. Harless, J.H.1975. An ounce of analysis is worth a pound of cure. Newnan, Ga.: Harless Performance Guild.
    14. Harless, J.H.1986. Guiding performance with job aids. In Introduction to performance technology, Part 1. ed. M.Smith. Washington, D.C.: National Society for Performance and Instruction.
    15. Jackson, S.1986. Task analysis. In Introduction to performance technology, Part 1. ed. M.Smith. Washington, D.C.: National Society for Performance and Instruction.
    16. Janson, R.L.1987. Handbook of inventory management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
    17. Kanter, R.M.1983. The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    18. Kaufman, R.1988c. Identifying and solving problems: A management guide. 4th ed. Edgecliff, N.S.W., Australia: Social Impacts Publications.
    19. Kaufman, R.1986. Assessing needs. In Introduction to performance technology, Part 1, ed. M.Smith. Washington D.C.: National Society for Performance and Instruction.
    20. Kaufman, R.1987. A needs assessment primer. Training and Development Journal (Oct).
    21. Kaufman, R.1988a. Planning educational systems: A results-based approach. Lancaster, Penn.: Technomic Publishers.
    22. Kaufman, R.1988c. Planning for organizational success: A practical guide, (rev. ed.)Edgecliff, N.S.W., Australia: Social Impacts Publications.
    23. Kaufman, R. and ThiagarajanS.. 1987. Identifying and specifying requirements for instruction. In Instructional technobgy: Foundations, ed. R.M.Gagne. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    24. Keller, J.M.1983. Motivational design of instruction. In Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status, ed. C.M.Reigeluth. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    25. Levin, H.M.1983. Cost-ejjfectiveness: A primer. (New Perspectives in Evaluation.)Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
    26. McLagan, A. et al. 1983. Models for excellence: The conclusions and recommendations of the ASTD Training and Development Competency Study. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Training and Development.
    27. Mager, R.F.1975. Preparing instructional objectives. 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif.: Fearon.
    28. Mager, R.F.1988. Making instruction work: Or skillbloomers. Belmont, Calif.: David S. Lake Publishers.
    29. Mager, R.F. and PipeP.. 1984. Analyzing performance problems. 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif.: Pitman.
    30. Majchrzak, A.1984. Methods for policy research. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 3. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
    31. Merrill, P.F.1987. Job and task analysis. Chapter in Instructional technology: Foundations, ed. R.M.Gagne. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    32. Pascale, R.T. and AthosA.G.. 1981. The of Japanese management: Applications for American executives. New York: Warner Books.
    33. Peters, T.1987. Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a management revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
    34. Peters, T.J., and N.Austin. 1985. A passion for excellence: The leadership difference. New York: Random House.
    35. Peters, T.J., and WatermanR.H.. 1982. In search of excellence: Lessons-learned from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
    36. Reigeluth, C., ed. 1983. Instructional design theories and models. An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
    37. Reiser, R.A. and GagneR.M.. 1983. Selecting media for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publishers.
    38. Rossett, A.1987. Training needs assessment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publishers.
    39. Rummler, G.A.1986. Organizational redesign. In Introduction to performance technology, Part 1., ed. M.Smith. Washington, D.C.: National Society for Performance and Instruction.
    40. Sobel, I. and KaufmanR.. 1989. Toward a hard metric for educational utility. Performance Improvement Quarterly2(1).
    41. Stettler, H.F.1970. Auditing principles. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
    42. Tosti, D.T.1986. Feedback systems. In Introduction to performance technology, Part I, ed. M.Smith. Washington, D.C.: National Society for Performance and Instruction.
    43. Zemke, R. and KramlingerT.. 1982. Figuring things out: A trainers guide to needs and task analysis. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

    Appendix C: Hypothetical Performance Indicators for the Three Types of Results: Product, Output, Outcome1

    Following are hypothetical and simplified examples of Type I—results-oriented—performance indicators for each of the three types of results.

    Example A

    Upon completion of occupational training (two courses and on-the-job apprenticeship of one week) in salad-making, at least 95 percent of those finishing will (a) demonstrate mastery on a simulated salad-making skills assessment, (b) get a job from one of their first four employer choices (as listed in guidance records), (c) hold that job for at least six months (unless terminated by their employer for reasons unrelated to performance), and (d) have an income that equals or exceeds their expenses as reported by them.

    Example B

    All of the two-way short-wave radios produced at the Gopher Junction plant will be safe and functional as indicated by (a) no injuries or deaths from use of the instruments, (b) no federally mandated changes or modifications within four years of manufacture, (c) no more than .05 percent returns as defective within the first four years of manufacture; (d) less than 1 percent consumer complaints, (e) at least 10 percent repeat sales (as indicated by warranty registration information) and (f) no successful lawsuits.

    Example C

    The military of our country will be able to neutralize or overcome any enemy threat with zero loss of life, as reported by the League of Nations Council on World Conflict. (If the zero loss of life option is not possible, then with zero loss of life on our side.)

    Example A

    At least 90 percent of all full-time students at the Gould School will meet all completion requirements and graduate after no more than three years full or three-quarters-time enrollment, as certified by the State Department of Education.

    Example B

    At least 99.2 percent of all transponders manufactured by the Perth Plant will meet quality acceptance standards without remanufacturing and be shipped to distribution points or to customers on time, as indicated by zero customer rejections upon delivery.

    Example C

    The Army Tactical Response Team, will be mobilized and ready to respond to a surprise simulated terrorist attack on the Capitol, in proper strength and with correct resources, within the designated reaction time of 13 minutes or less, as certified by the independent simulation review team.

    Example A

    At least 90 percent of all trainees enrolled in the Computer Graphics 2 training course will meet at least 90 percent of all course competency criteria, as certified by the instructor of record. Thus, at least 90 percent of the trainees in the course will receive a grade of “Acceptable” or better.

    Example B

    At least 98 percent of all transponder microprocessing delta boards will meet all quality acceptance standards, as indicated by sign-off by the quality inspector on each shift and by the quality control department on its weekly status reports. In addition, none will fail when installed in the computer mainframe assembly, as reported by the quality control department.

    Example C

    Each of the bomb-detection and diffusion experts of the Army Tactical Response Team will meet all qualification requirements of their military occupational specialty (MOS), as measured by performance tests and the report of the training officer.

    Example D

    No reports from the Company Confidential files of the manufacturing department will be missing when a surprise audit is made.

    Example E

    There will be at least a 40 percent reduction in grievances filed against the company each year for five years that involve supervisors certified as “competent” in Interpersonal Skills Program Q.

    1 Other examples may be found in Kaufman, R., “Preparing Useful Performance Indicators,” Training and Development Journal (Sept 1989).

    Applications and Additional Tools

    Comfort Zones, Paradigms, and Strategic Planning Plus

    Strategic planning and thinking at the mega/plus level often moves people outside their comfort zones. When first asked to use positive societal consequences along with organizational survival, many hit the boundaries of their existing paradigms. Paradigms are the boundaries and ground rules people use to filter reality and cope with life. Organizational survival and growth, however, depend on making appropriate paradigm shifts (Barker, 1989, 1993; Kuhn, 1970).

    Some Tools for Adopting Strategic Planning Plus

    When asked to shift out of one's comfort zone, objections and rationalizations flow (pages 75–79). Following are some tools and guides for helping shift paradigms…to learn and grow.

    A Strategic Planning Agreement Table

    Providing planning partners, including clients, with statements describing the array of possible planning consequences, you get people to commit to or opt out of each. If they don't agree to any, their decision and related consequences are a matter of record.

    Assuring Your Missions Are Appropriate

    A mission objective (Macro level)—which only deals with ends or results—states where we are headed and how to tell when we have arrived (Pages 161–165). Here is a format and procedure for better assuring that your missions are appropriately targeted:

    Using an Ideal Vision as the Basic Focus for Strategic Planning Plus

    The strategic planning framework presented earlier (Figure 4.2, Page 63) includes the independent identification of Beliefs and Values. There is a more effective 3-phase framework: Scoping, Planning, and Implementation and Continuous Improvement. By first deriving a shared Ideal Vision—the measurable statement of the kind of world we want to help create with others for tomorrow's child—during the Scoping Phase, partners have the opportunity for enlarging their strategic planning and thinking paradigms. People readily agree that an Ideal World would include zero murders, zero rapes, no starvation, no deaths from disease…

    Starting strategic planning with a results-only description of the Ideal Vision, Beliefs and Values (usually privately held and unchallenged) may be reconsidered in light of “what kind of world do we want for tomorrow's children.” If we desire a world free of murder, deaths from pollution, deaths or debilitation from infectious disease, and death or disabilities from cancer we state that and other mega-level requirements rigorously.

    Setting Ideal Visions are not unrealistic, fuzzy-headed, or impolitic. They are practical, useful, and indispensable (Senge, 1990; Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1990; Nannus, 1992; Drucker, 1993; Kaufman, 1996).

    Setting an Ideal Vision doesn't obligate your organization to achieve it all. The strategic pan identifies that portion of the Ideal Vision it will commit to deliver and move ever-closer toward. That portion becomes the mission objective (Macro level) for the organization. Based on the mission objective, contributing results (Micro level) are derived and by such cascading down, strategic alignment is achieved.

    By noting the portion of the Ideal Vision (the mega level) your and all other organizations will deliver, both synergies and empty spaces may be identified (as suggested at the macro level by Rummler & Brache, 1990).

    Ideal Visions are that, ideal. We might not achieve it during our lifetime (or even our childrens’). We may use the ideal to set our course and decide how each person may make their unique contributions to move toward it continuously. After agreeing on the Ideal Vision, you may identify how close, each year, the organization will get to it:

    Six Critical Success Factors for Strategic Planning and Thinking

    Here are six critical success factors to guide you through practical strategic planning plus:

    Relating Quality Management to Strategic Planning

    Conventional quality management/continuous improvement intends to deliver client satisfaction (Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1982; Imai, 1956; Kaufman, 1991: Dec). Delivering quality involves three clusters: everyone on one team, a passion for quality, and data-based decision making (Joiner, 1986: May; Kaufman & Zahn, 1993). Traditional quality approaches identify client satisfaction as the “vision” so that each person contributes consistently to achieving it.

    Total quality is sensible and vital. It is also incomplete: we could design and deliver an award-winning quality management program for an asbestos insulation factory. The conventional quality management approach

    moves toward the “vision” of a satisfied client by rolling up from quality inputs and resources using motivated associates to process ingredients (or services) into a quality production unit (e.g., a transformer or chip).

    These inputs, processes, and products (see Figure 3.2, page 38 for definitions of the organizational elements) are used to deliver outputs (e.g., a delivered computer system, a discharged patient) which pleases, even delights, the client.

    By adding a mega level (“plus”) vision and mission to conventional total quality management you get quality management plus. As we have seen in this book, a mega level not only identifies a satisfied client, but also assures that the client is also well served: adding usefulness and societal contribution objectives to the quality management process delivers on this promise. A quality management plus approach links the Ideal Vision (mega), the mission objective (macro), building-block results (micro) with commitment to assure that our clients are well served and pleased. An integration of conventional quality approaches with strategic planning plus is shown in the figure on page 309.

    Quality management plus provide the talent, commitment, and motivational “glue” which allows us to move from a strategic plan to strategic and operational success. It better assures continuous improvement to best serve our clients and our shared world.

    Barker, J.A. (1989) The Business of Paradigms: Discovering the future. Videotape. Bumsville, MN.: ChartHouse Learning Corp.
    Barker, J.A. (1993) Paradigm Pioneers. Discovering the Future Series. Videotape. Burnsville, MN.: ChartHouse Learning Corp.
    Crosby, P.B. (1979) Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
    Deming, W.E. (1982) Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
    Drucker, E.F. (1993) Post-Capitalist Society. New York: HarperBusiness.
    Imai, M. (1956) Kaizen: The Key to Japan's Competitive Success. NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
    Joiner, B.L. (1986: May) Using Statisticians to Help Transform Industry in America. Quality progress.
    Kaufman, R. (1991: Dec.) Toward total quality “plus.” Training.
    Kaufman, R. (1996) Strategic Thinking. Wash., D.C.: International Society for Performance Improvement and American Society for Training and Development.
    Kaufman, R. & Zahn, D. (1993) Quality management plus: The continuous improvement of education. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
    Kuhn, T. (1970) The structure of scientific revolution. Second Edit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Naisbitt, J. & Aburdene, R. (1990) Megatrends 2000: Ten new directions for the 1990's. New York: William Morrow & Co.
    Nanus, B. (1992) Visionary Leadership. San Francisco: Josscy-Bass.
    Rummler, G.A. & Brache, A.P. (1990) Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday-Currency.
    Toffler, A. (1990) Powershift: Knowledge, wealth, and violence at the edge of the 21st century. New York: Bantam Books.

    About the Author

    Roger Kaufman, Ph.D., is Professor and Director, Center for Needs Assessment and Planning at Florida State University, where he received a Professorial Excellence Program award. He is also Research Professor of Engineering Management at the Newark College of Engineering of the New Jersey Institute of Technology and is additionally associated with the faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems at the University of Central Florida.

    Prior to entering higher education, he held the following positions: Assistant to the Vice President for Engineering, Assistant to the Vice President for Research at Douglas Aircraft Company, Director of Training System Analysis at US Industries, and he served two terms on the U.S. Secretary of the Navy's Advisory Board on Education and Training.

    His clients—working in the areas of strategic planning, quality management, needs assessment, and organizational improvement—have (or do) included: Andersen Consulting (world headquarters and Australia); Chase Manhattan Bank, the Los Alamos National Laboratories; AT&T; Pontifical Catholic University of Chile; Polytechnic University of Ecuador (ESPOL); MIM Holdings, Ltd.; World Bank; Australian Public Service Commission and Merit Protection Commission; Florida Power & Light, the Australian Department of Defence; the Leon County (Florida) School Board; Central Statistical Office (UK); EastConn Regional Education Service Center; Unisys of Australia; Florida Department of Education; Niagara Wires Division of NiagaraLockport; American Association of School Administrators (AASA)—National Academy of School Executives (NASE); IBM; Valencia (Florida) Community College; Equifax; Box Hill Institute of TAFE (Australia); US Department of Veterans Affairs; American Society for Curriculum and Development (ASCD); Parke-Davis; Pioneer Cement; M&M Mars; Sydney Water Board; the US Coast Guard, the Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services; Institute of Educational Technology/Ministry of Culture and Education of Argentina; Texas Instruments; Otago Polytechnic (New Zealand); Florida Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; Sun Microsystems; Fireman's Fund Insurance; Wellington (New Zealand) City Council; Moran Towing; Bankers’ Institute of New Zealand; Boatmen's Bancshares; New Zealand Department of Health; McDonnell-Douglas; Council of Chief State School Officers; US Centers for Disease Control, BellCanada, Wellington (New Zealand) City Council; Florida Department of Corrections, to name a few.

    He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, a Fellow of the American Academy of School Psychology, and a Diplomate of the American Board of Professional Psychology. He has been awarded the highest honor of the International Society for Performance Improvement by being named “Member for Life” and he was also awarded the Thomas F. Gilbert Professional Achievement Award.

    He has published 32 books on strategic planning, performance improvement, quality management and continuous improvement, needs assessment, management, and evaluation, and has authored 167 articles on those topics.

    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website