Assessing Integrated Planning

It is not enough to suggest that one can “know it when you see it” in regard to integrated planning. We need to be able to articulate, measure, diagnose, and develop interventions (actions taken to improve a situation) to increase any organization’s ability to achieve highly developed integrated planning capacities.

I have a habit of getting a bit philosophical before diving into a discussion of measurement and assessment. Not the wayward questioning of the questions life, but epistemologically philosophical. Measurement is a way to generate knowledge about something specific yet unknown. Epistemology is the study of knowledge to include methods for generating knowledge and ways to understand validity, or how well knowledge and truth overlap. If we consider truth to be what is, knowledge is a human creation of the awareness of truth along the spectrum from verified fact to belief to opinion to utter misguided dogma. Our goal in measurement is to develop a system to uncover the truth and generate a way for us to collectively talk about it and use it purposefully.

Measurement. First I will assume that integrated planning is an organizational manifestation. For a discourse on this, see Integrated Planning as an organizational Manifestation by Brodnick and Norris. To understand the degree to which an organization is planning in an integrated manner, we must explore the components of integrated planning from within and around the organization. There are several ways by which we can do this. One way is evaluation by experts where an individual or team can experience an organization through observation, interviews, and other interactions over the course of time. This kind of evaluation typically uses a framework or lens for understanding integrated planning followed by a written summary or report. This is a common form of organizational assessment, most often qualitative in nature where validity is based on the expertise of the evaluators. As a construct such as integrated planning becomes more and more refined over time, its components become quantified and we can apply counting and measuring techniques, which allow for the use of statistics and comparative analyses. In that latter stages of measurement, we can begin to apply normative evaluation, broad comparative and predictive statistics using defined criteria, and eventually we develop predictive validity. Predictive validity would allow us to measure degrees of integrated planning within and across organizations and correlate and predict important performance indicators like profit and revenue generation, efficiency and effectiveness measures, and organization success in varying environmental landscapes. We are not there yet.

My belief is that integrated planning is evolving from evaluation by experts to early measurement techniques and I hope this article and resulting framework help support this evolution. To help this along, I have developed a rubric for the assessment of integrated planning. A rubric is a framework for assessment. It has three key features. First, a rubric has the core components or dimensions that define the concept being assessed. Second, a rubric has a scale or levels of development that describe the degree of evidence or proficiency for each component or dimension. Finally, a rubric has an integrated scoring system that allows for the dimensions to be quantified and sometimes combined to produce holistic scores. Rubrics emerged from the educational assessment field in the 1990s, but the concept had been part of the evaluation sciences for several preceding decades.

Dimensions for integrated planning. My proposed dimensions of the rubric for integrated planning are:

1. Strategic Thinking (Horizons, Scanning, Nimbleness)

2. Analyzing (Data availability and integrity, Technical capability, Historical, internal, external inventories)

3. Planning (Generate plans, Achieve alignment, Manage the process)

4. Engaging (Breadth of engagement, Depth of engagement, Ability to influence)

5. Communicating (Frequency and accuracy, Transparency, Shared awareness)

6. Executing (Pursue priorities, Alter and correct course, measurement, accountability, decision making)

7. Innovating (Generate ideas, Move to action, Create value)

8. Resourcing (Free up and reallocate existing resources, Generate new funds, Fund priorities)

9. Leading (Inspire vision, Manage people and relationships, Generate results)

Levels of organizational development in integrated planning. Organizations express varying levels of mastery of any of the 9 dimensions of integrated planning. When building a rubric, it is always helpful to explore and explain these levels of mastery and define them in such a way that multiple evaluators could observe an organization and generally agree how developed a specific dimension is after observation. This leads to reliable assessment and scoring. I recommend these four levels of mastery:

1. Emerging: capacity does not yet exist or is nascent, uneven awareness

2. Functional: capacity demonstrates basic functionality but needs development     

3. Highly Developed: capacity shows strong results and is both  effective and efficient

4. Exemplary: capacity is truly an example of the best in class among peers

Developing an instrument. A next step in the process of quantifying and assessing integrated planning will be to fully develop, test, and validate a rubric along with an instrument with multiple items. Once data collection progresses, we can test for validity and reliability, item and scale properties, and internal and external dimension relationships. The final stage will include publishing the instrument with a corresponding manual and building the normative database over time. I have an instrument in the works under copyright.

What is Integrated Planning?

Simply put, planning can be defined as the process of creating and executing plans. Often these plans are directed and focused and contain established goals and destinations. To integrate is to combine one thing with another so that they form a connected whole. While strategic planning focuses on the future and how to adapt and operational planning focuses on resourcing actions in the short term, integrated planning looks at how an organization can plan across multiple functions, levels, locations, and other natural or artificial divisions. Integrated planning is not solely an effort internal to an organization as it also has the objective of examining external economic, social, political, and environmental costs and benefits. Combining internal and external integration provides the ability to evaluate the best courses of all options and to plan suitable courses of action. It also has multiple social dimensions and depends on the engaged participation of all stakeholders and affected entities.

There are a number of similar and related activities worth noting: Participatory planning – Emerging from the urban planning paradigm, participatory planning emphasizes involving entire community, or communities, in the design, development, strategic, and administrative processes of planning. Comprehensive planning – While now a broad concept, comprehensive planning showed early practice in community development, and sought to merge and inform community goals and action with public policy in the areas of transportation, utilities, land use, recreation, and housing. Collaborative planning – Collaborative planning arose in the educational sector to align student performance with teaching and professional practice, both being tied to organizational or school improvement goals. It is based on the practice of teaching and learning and depends on extensive dialogue.

Integrated business planning (IBP) – IBP is a methodology or approach for connecting the planning functions of multiple business units or departments in an organization with a focus on aligning operations, strategy, and financial performance. Integrated strategic change (ISC) – This is an example of the many ways planning intersects with organizational development. ISC is an integrated approach to organizational intervention, sustained execution, planned change, and strategy. ISC adds a temporal component considering the past, present, desired future, and transitions among all three.

While any of these one veins is of interest to the development of integrated planning, none of them fully explain the complexity of the topic nor do they give a prescriptive approach to developing a culture of integrated planning. From my experience, there are a number of key characteristics in evidence in an organization practicing integrated planning. Let me summarize these in three key components.

First, the organization practices awareness to action. This is permeated by strategic thinking based on good analytics and methodical planning practices. Foremost, integrated planning should include sound strategic thinking. If we view strategy as focused behavior over time adapting to changing conditions, it requires that we are continually monitoring and scanning internal and external conditions and that we have the ability to do things differently as these conditions change. Additionally, we need to understand what is happening through analysis and synthesis. Good analytics require the availability of data with integrity, so that the results of the analyses are sound. Given the exponential rate at which data are being generated, most analyses require technical capabilities well beyond paper and pencil to make sense of the inputs, trends, and complex patterns. Most organizations need strategic repositories of data (I’ll write more later about the three kinds of data inventories I recommend). A third component to practicing awareness to action is strong planning capacities. Organizations need to be able to generate plans, constantly seek and achieve alignment, and manage the process of generating actions based on the plans. All of this should be generated with broad engagement of multiple stakeholders and collaborative partnerships and through shared vision, reinforced values, and a common language.

Second, there is a high degree of collective organizational effort. To do so, constituents must be engaged by getting people involved. Considerations are the breadth of engagement – across boundaries, functions, or other groupings – and the depth of engagement by ensuring deep vertical alignment. Supporting engagement and collective effort is constant communication where key information is kept flowing. Here it is important to attend to the frequency and accuracy of communication, the transparency of decision making processes, and continual building of shared awareness within the organization. Finally, collective effort hinges on the ability to make things happen through execution. Good execution allows the organization to collectively pursue priorities in activities that contribute to a shared strategy. Measurement, accountability, and evidence based decision making also help the organization alter and correct course when conditions change or outcomes are not meeting expectations. Good execution shows a high degree of coordination with plans and actions informing each other.

Lastly, a third bucket of integrated planning characteristics has efforts focused on transforming and strengthening rather than maintaining the status quo. Organizations need to be able to innovate to gain or maintain ground in a shifting world. The ability to innovate includes but is not limited to generating ideas, moving to action, and creating value – three key requirements for innovation. One of the most important characteristics of integrated planning is the ability to manage resources well enough to drive appropriate action. This is exhibited by the capacity to free up and reallocate existing resources, generate new funds, and prioritize resources during ever-shifting needs and conditions. Strengthening and transforming organizations with intent is never accomplished without good leadership. The final characteristics I’ll identify for integrated planning relate to leadership’s ability to inspire vision, manage people and relationships, and generate results. With a keen eye focused on adaptive management in planning, using appropriate performance measures, and long-term alignment of organization with its environment, leaders can guide organizations through integrated planning to reach difficult destinations.