Diagramas de clases de los Services

Strategic planning represents the extent to which decision makers look into the future and use formal planning methodologies. Planning is something we do in advance of taking action. It is anticipatory decision making. We make decisions before actions are required. According to Mintzberg (1994), planning is future thinking, it is about controlling the future, it is decision making, and it is a formalized procedure to produce an articulated result in the form of an integrated system of decisions. The result of strategic planning manifests itself in a strategic plan, such as in the document National Strategy for Intelligence and Analysis (POD, 2007).

Zhao et al. (2008, 3) argue that:

Strategic planning in police departments represents a significant departure from a traditionally reactive orientation to one that is more proactive in nature.

This chapter belongs to the planning school of strategy, where strategy is documented as a plan. According to Mintzberg (1994), planning has these characteristics:

Planning is future thinking

• . It is taking the future into account. Planning denotes thinking about the future. Planning is action laid out in advance.

Planning is controlling the future

• . It is not just thinking about it, but

achieving it—enacting it. Planning is the design of a desired future and of effective ways of bringing it about. It is to create controlled change in the environment.

Planning is decision making

• . Planning is the conscious determina-

tion of courses of action designed to accomplish purposes. Planning is those activities which are concerned specifically with determin- ing in advance what actions and/or human and physical resources

Developing Intelligence Strategy 41 are required to reach a goal. It includes identifying alternatives, ana- lyzing each one, and selecting the best ones.

Planning is integrated decision making

• . It means fitting together of

ongoing activities into a meaningful whole. Planning implies getting somewhat more organized; it means making a feasible commitment around that which already available courses of action get organized. This definition may seem close to the preceding one, but, because it is concerned not so much with the making of decisions as with the conscious attempt to integrate different ones, it is fundamentally dif- ferent and begins to identify a position for planning.

Planning is a formalized procedure to produce an articulated result •

in the form of an integrated system of decisions. What captures the notion of planning above all—most clearly distinguishes its literature and differentiates its practice from other processes—is its emphasis on formalization, the systemization of the phenomenon to which planning is meant to apply. Planning is a set of concepts, procedures, and tests. Formalization here means three things: (1) to decompose, (2) to articulate, and (3) to rationalize the process by which decisions are made and integrated into organizations.

Given that this is planning, the question becomes: Why do it? Mintzberg (1994) provides the answers:

Organizations must plan to coordinate their activities. •

Organizations must plan to ensure that the future is taken into •

account.

Organizations must plan to be rational in terms of formalized •

planning.

Organizations must plan to control. •

Zhao et al. (2008, 20) found in a survey of strategic planning in U.S. police forces:

A second dimension refers to the number of ranks involved in the strategic plan- ning process. In some departments, only top administrators (the chief or deputy chief) were involved in the plan. Alternatively, there were law enforcement agen- cies in which patrol officers were expected to also fully participate in strategic planning. Hierarchical involvement reflects the extent of employee involvement.

Zhao et al. (2008, 23) compared four models of strategic planning, as illustrated in Figure 3.1, and found model 4 to be the best one because:

The strategic plan becomes the driving force for departmental •

change. Every organization needs to change to adapt to a changing environment. It is reasonable to argue that planned and proactive change is better than unplanned and reactive change. In this sense, strategic planning under this model represents planned change in an organization. The implementation of this model requires a fun- damental change in many areas, such as planning, organizational change, and performance evaluation.

Sworn officers at every rank are held accountable for their assign- •

ments. New evaluation methods are developed to hold employees accountable. For example, problem-solving activities can be incor- porated into performance evaluation. Community surveys can also be used to indicate the performance of patrol beats, etc.

The community is familiar with the agency’s strategic plan. •

Organizational change can be formally documented and updated in •

accordance with the plan. There is a good fit between strategic plan- ning and community policing because they share very similar prin- ciples of organizational change.

Consensus exists among employees with regard to where the depart- •

ment is headed. If the plan is written with the participation of employees in the development of goals, objectives, and specific mea- sures, the plan derives legitimacy from employees.

Hierarchical involvement in strategy work Top executives All managers Some All Inter-organizational involvement in strategy work

Model 1 Model 4 Model 2 Model 3 In-Depth Plan Model With Limited Application Total Implementation Model Top Leadership in Charge Model Management Model

Figure 3.1 Four models for strategic planning in policing. (Adapted from Zhao et al. 2008. Police Quarterly 11 (1): 3–26.)

Developing Intelligence Strategy 43 The level of change is significant and risks associated with conflict •

and turmoil and even failure are elevated because substantial change (and especially cultural change) is difficult.