IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC PLANNING:

A Handbook for the Development of the 2000-2005 Plan

Advisory Committee on Strategic Planning

and

Office of Planning and Institutional Research

February 1, 2000
 TABLE of CONTENTS

Introduction

Developing the 2000-2005 Strategic Plan

The Advisory Committee on Strategic Planning
The Difference between Strategic Planning Units and Operational Planning Units
Basic Definitions
Mission Statement
Goals
Priorities
Operational Objectives
Operational Plan
Operational Worksheet
Unit Annual Progress Report
The 2000-2005 Strategic Planning Process
The Reporting and Evaluation Process
The Resource Allocation Connection
Timetable
Figure 1: ECU Strategic Planning Process, Stage I
Figure 2: ECU Strategic Planning Process, Stage II
Figure 3: Planning Unit Activities and Responsibilities

Recommended Reading

Tab 1: University Directions, 2000-2005

Tab 2: Report of External Environmental Analysis Committee
Tab 3: Report of the Internal Strengths and Challenges Assessment Committee
Tab 4: Report of the Institutional Values Committee
Tab 5: University-wide Implementation Committee Reports
A. Academic Program Development
B. Diversity
C. Enrollment Management
D. External Support
E. Facilities
F. Faculty-Staff Development
G. Financial
H. Information Technology
I. Marketing and Public Outreach
J. Organizational
K. Student Support Services
Tab 6: SACS Alternate Self-Study Proposal: Growth and Quality: Excelling as an Emerging Doctoral
University
Tab 7: Division Vision Statements and Strategic Plans
A. 1998-2000
B. 2000-2005
Tab 8: College/School/Library Vision Statements and Strategic Plans
A. 1998-2000
B. 2000-2005
 INTRODUCTION

This handbook discusses the various steps that have and will occur in the development of ECU’s
new strategic plan, its implementation, and its subsequent revision. While the basic process and
steps remain the same as during the development of the university’s previous strategic plans, some
modifications and clarifications have occurred which warrant elaboration. The materials
accompanying it are intended to provide the planning units with the materials needed to complete
their plans.

The basic steps of the process are outlined schematically in Figures 1 and 2: ECU Strategic
Planning Process, Stages I and II indicate the projected timetables and the campus groups
responsible.

The Advisory Committee on Strategic Planning (ACSP)

The primary responsibility of this committee is to advise the Chancellor on the university's strategic
planning process. As such, the committee is charged specifically, but not exclusively, with:

• recommending the guidelines for the university community as it prepares to review the
progress made each year on strategic planning and operational planning and as it prepares to
set, revise, or accomplish the operational goals and priorities for action for the academic
year in question.

• reviewing the appropriate sections of the annual unit progress reports from the various
university planning units and sub-units and advise the Chancellor on the university's
progress in meeting the established goals and objectives.

• providing overall advice regarding the university's strategic and operational planning
processes, including recommendations on advisory committee structure and function and on
the preparation for on-going cycles of planning.

Given the above responsibilities, the ACSP has an important duty to perform in the development of
the new strategic plan. It is responsible for reviewing the results of our previous effort, coordinating
the preparation for the new planning process, and for directing the process as it proceeds. The
ACSP is the primary coordinating body for the strategic planning process.

This committee began its operations in the fall of 1992. Members are chosen by the Chancellor
through nominations solicited from the vice chancellors, other members of the Chancellor's staff,
academic deans and directors, and faculty senate officers. Initially, individuals were appointed to
one and two year terms to establish a rotating membership. The director of Planning and
Institutional Research serves as the chair of the committee.

1
 The Difference between Strategic Planning Units
and Operational Planning Units

Strategic planning unit status has been assigned to various administrative units primarily on the
basis of their central role in making resource allocation decisions across other administrative units.
Therefore, each strategic planning unit administrator is responsible for making decisions that affect
resource allocations across several functionally and/or programmatically related operational
planning units. As a consequence, each strategic planning unit will develop both a strategic plan for
itself and an operational plan for the implementation of its strategic plan. This strategic plan will be
comprised of the priorities developed by the strategic planning unit as a whole.

The strategic planning units and the responsible administrative officials for 2000-2005 are:

• Chancellor's Office, Chancellor

• Academic Affairs, Vice Chancellor
• Health Sciences, Vice Chancellor
• Administration and Finance, Vice Chancellor
• Research and Graduate Studies, Vice Chancellor
• Institutional Advancement, Vice Chancellor
• Student Life, Vice Chancellor
• Information Technology, Chief Information Officer
• School of Allied Health Sciences, Dean
• School of Art, Dean
• College of Arts and Sciences, Dean
• School of Business, Dean
• School of Education, Dean
• School of Health and Human Performance, Dean
• School of Human Environmental Sciences, Dean
• School of Industry and Technology, Dean
• School of Medicine, Dean
• School of Music, Dean
• School of Nursing, Dean
• School of Social Work and Criminal Justice Studies, Dean
• Office of Undergraduate Studies, Dean
• Continuing Studies, Director
• Academic Library Services, Director
• Health Sciences Library, Director

All other administrative units are Operational Planning Units. Operational planning units will
develop operational plans which state how they will implement their strategic planning unit's
priorities and, consequently, the university's goals within their area of responsibility. The
designation of departments and offices as operational planning units is not intended to diminish the
significance of their work or in any way affect their governance status. It is simply a reflection of
the fact that the resource decisions made at the departmental or office level primarily concern a
single academic discipline, function, or service activity of a single division. One of the purposes of

2
strategic planning is to help us, as a university, division, or college/school, make more effective
resource allocation decisions. That perspective is not particularly feasible at the departmental/office
level.

The responsibilities of each strategic planning unit administrator include:

• evaluating the success of his/her own strategic planning unit's efforts at meeting the previous
priorities.
• providing evaluative feedback on the previous planning efforts of his/her operational
planning units.
• developing the priorities for his/her own strategic planning unit in a manner consistent with
the priorities and goals of his/her administratively superior planning unit.
• supervising the development of the operational plans for his/her own office.
• supervising the development of the operational planning units reporting to him/her.
• reviewing critically the operational planning units reporting to him/her.
• ensuring that regular assessment and reporting on the progress of unit operational plans
occurs.

The operational planning units are, in turn, responsible for:

• evaluating the success of their previous operational planning efforts.

• establishing their operational objectives in a manner consistent with their strategic planning
unit's priorities.
• carrying out their operational plan to achieve these objectives.
• ensuring that regular assessment and reporting on the progress of unit operational plans
occurs.

Figure 3: Planning Unit Activities and Responsibilities illustrates the relationships involved in the
development of priorities and operational plans as well as the concomitant reporting steps. The
figure is intended to convey the hierarchical and overlapping relationships inherent in this process
and thereby emphasize the interdependent nature of the strategic planning process. Each planning
unit, strategic or operational, can proceed to the next step only when the administrative unit to
which it reports has fulfilled its own responsibilities in a timely manner.

Basic Definitions

Mission Statement: A university's mission statement is a concise statement of the kind of

university it wishes to be. The development of this statement calls upon the institution to assess how
its aspirations mesh with its past culture, values, strengths, weaknesses, constraints, and
opportunities. The institution must also develop a strategy for matching these factors as optimally as
possible. The resulting statement of aspirational goals is the university's mission statement.
Individual administrative units will have their own vision statements, which describes their
purpose and fit within the overall mission of the institution.

3
Goals: Once the university has refined its mission statement, it develops a set of goals to fulfill that
mission. University Directions states East Carolina University's goals for the 2000-2005 strategic
planning cycle.

Priorities: Priorities are goal-related statements of how the strategic planning unit believes it can
most effectively contribute to the accomplishment of the university's strategic plan. Goals are
university-wide in their coverage, while priorities are the means by which the strategic planning
units link their projected actions with those goals. (Priorities were previously referred to as
priorities-for-action.)

Operational Objectives: As each strategic planning unit and its related operational planning units
determine how they can work together to achieve their priorities, they will develop more specific
objectives that they will seek to complete during the planning cycle. Those specific objectives are
referred to as operational objectives. In writing these operational objectives, both strategic and
operational planning units seek to identify key aspects of their operational activities to more
effectively fulfill their own vision statements. If the appropriate linkages have been made between
the various planning levels, the fulfillment of these operational plans will lead to the university, as a
whole, achieving its goals.

Operational Plan: The operational plan is the document listing the operational objectives of the
strategic or operational planning unit. It indicates the linkage between operational objectives,
priorities, and university goals. It also contains statements as to how the strategic planning unit or
operational planning unit intends to evaluate whether or not it has accomplished its stated action,
how the results will be utilized, and the time frame within which the action will occur.

Operational Planning Worksheet: The operational planning worksheet is an Internet-based

summary of the strategic or operational planning unit's operational plan in spreadsheet-like format.
It is used to develop a database for tracking our progress in accomplishing the university's goals and
in reporting strategic and operational planning unit progress on an annual basis.

Unit Annual Progress Report: Each operational and strategic planning unit reports on the progress
which it has made toward fulfilling its stated planning objectives during the past academic year.
This reporting procedure has been incorporated into the Unit Annual Progress Report that each unit
completes. The Operational Planning Worksheet may be used to satisfy much of the necessary
reporting on operational planning progress.

The 2000-2005 Strategic Planning Process

The university's third strategic planning cycle will cover the 2000-2005 period. The interdependent
nature of the strategic planning process becomes evident in a number of ways. A reexamination of
Figures 1 and 2 as an overview of the entire strategic planning process will illustrate this point quite
clearly.

4
The Advisory Committee began the process by evaluating the factors that condition our planning
process. The process was intended to establish the "givens" from which the rest of the process
flows. Preparations began in mid-1998 with formation of committees to examine the university's
external environment, its internal strengths and challenges, and its values. A major change from
previous planning cycles was the holding of a series of external focus groups during the 1998-99
academic year. The Chancellor conducted a series of more than a dozen focus group sessions with
various external constituencies. These included alumni, the Board of Visitors, the Board of
Trustees, the city council, county commission, community college presidents, local mayors, and
public school superintendents. The findings from these reports and focus group sessions were made
public. They became the basis for revising the university's mission statement and developing a new
set of strategic planning goals.

During the spring of 1999 a review of the university's mission was conducted and a revision was
submitted to the campus for discussion during the 1999 Spring semester and to the Board of
Trustees at their May meeting. After approval the revised mission statement was submitted to the
UNC General Administration for conveyance to the Board of Governors as part of the university's
long range planning submission.

The drafting of the university's new strategic planning goals was completed over the summer of
1999 and submitted to the Board of Trustees at their October meeting. While these goals were in the
development stage, eleven implementation committees reviewed the university's operations and
made recommendations on steps needed to achieve the goals. As in previous planning cycles, each
implementation committee was asked to review the appropriate SACS criteria and to recommend
appropriate changes in policy necessary to strengthen the university's compliance with the SACS
criteria. This same instruction is being given to each planning unit as it prepares its materials. All of
these materials are included in the appendices of this Handbook. Campus participation and
comments were solicited at several junctures for the draft mission statement and goals.

University goals and results of the university-wide implementation committees' work constitute the
basis for both strategic planning unit and operational planning unit operational plans. Work on this
phase of the process began with the start of the 1999-2000 academic year. By way of preparation,
the strategic planning units could form their own strategic planning committees and conduct their
own analyses of strengths and weaknesses, values, and environmental scans prior to this date.
Similarly, strategic planning units will establish committees to oversee the development of their
operational plans and those of their operational planning units. These committees and the strategic
planning unit administrators will then become the primary actors. The steps involved in this phase
are indicated both in Figures 1-3. Once the university's priorities have been established, the other
divisional strategic planning units develop their own priorities and secure approval from the
Chancellor. After that approval has been granted for the Academic Affairs Division and Health
Sciences Division, the process will be repeated within those divisions and their lower level strategic
planning units. This additional step is not necessary for the other divisions as the division itself is
the strategic planning unit and all other departments or offices within them are operational planning
units.

5
The new priorities should thus reflect both the university's and strategic planning units' goals. Their
development should take into account what was and was not accomplished during the 1995-2000
strategic planning cycle. The aim should be to build upon the accomplishments of the past five
years as we develop our goals for the next five years. The appropriate sections of the Unit Annual
Progress Reports which detail progress on both operational planning unit and strategic planning unit
operational plans should be consulted in making these determinations. When the priorities have
been established, then all strategic planning units and their related operational planning units will
develop their operational plans. These plans should include the operational objectives on which the
strategic and operational planning units wish to focus their attention during this planning period.

Each operational objective should be linked to a priority of the strategic planning unit and through
that to a priority of higher level strategic planning units. In addition, each operational objective
should elaborate a method by which the efforts of the unit to achieve the objective will be
evaluated, the intended use of the results, and the time frame of the activity indicating beginning
and ending dates. Beginning with the new plan, the operational objectives should also indicate who
is administratively responsible for accomplishing the objective within the unit. That may be the
dean, chair, or faculty committee, whatever the unit at hand determines.

The planning process should be seen as a tool by which we identify those aspects of our work that
need improvement and to which we will devote our efforts. It thereby forces us to carry out our own
intentions. The operational plan does not need to contain all of the activities to which efforts will be
devoted. The mission statement of the university and the vision statements of the strategic and
operational planning units should clearly delineate the basic functions of the respective units,
therefore all of the basic, continuing activities of the university and its components do not need to
be spelled out in operational objectives.

The university's mission statement and planning unit vision statements also indicate where we wish
to go in the long-term. The intention of strategic planning is to state what targeted improvements in
those basic functions we wish to make in the near-term. The linkage to the mission statement and
the vision statements is thus a critical link to which administrators, planning committees, faculty,
and staff need to give considerable attention in their review of priorities, the development of
operational plans, and, subsequently, the assessment of the operational plan progress.

In a similar vein, the operational plan should state how the unit will measure its progress in
achieving its objectives. Thus, longer term goals which require work over a number of years are
worth including in the strategic planning unit's priorities, but the operational plans should detail
how the unit will work to fulfill those priorities during this particular planning period and how
progress will be measured. This will permit worthy goals to be pursued over time, but will help
insure that they are dealt with in a meaningful and manageable manner. Academic units that
conducted their five-year unit evaluations should also look to those documents for possible
operational objectives.

If any unit desires to work on an operational objective for which it cannot find an obvious priority,
it should consult its next higher strategic planning unit administrator before including the objective
in the operational plan. If it is sufficiently important, a way will be found to include the objective.
However, the strategic planning unit administrator must agree with the inclusion of the objective.

6
Many operational objectives require the use of strategic planning unit resources and an operational
planning unit cannot commit resources to objectives outside those established by the strategic
planning unit without the concurrence of the appropriate strategic planning unit administrator. To
do otherwise would undercut the utility of the strategic plan as a mechanism for focusing university-
wide attention upon our mutual goals.

In reviewing and approving priorities and operational objective, strategic planning unit
administrators have the responsibility for building the linkage between their various operational
planning units, for raising questions about the appropriateness of objectives, and determining the
likelihood of the resources requested being available. This should not simply be a pass-through
process. This is the major opportunity available to strategic planning unit administrators to develop
a common understanding of the future of the strategic planning unit and how it will attain that
future. For Faculty Senate code units, this process will involve faculty involvement in the
development and approval of strategic planning unit priorities and operational plans, as well as
operational planning unit operational plans. For other units, the process should involve wide spread
participation from the individuals working within each respective unit.

The Reporting and Evaluation Process

Once all of the operational plans have been established, our efforts should turn to accomplishing our
objectives. Those accomplishments are reported on the Unit Annual Progress Reports that are
completed at the end of each spring term. The Operational Planning Worksheet adopted in 1993
will be continued. Each strategic and operational planning unit should submit this progress report
yearly. Even centers and institutes officially recognized by the UNC General Administration should
report on their operational planning progress annually. This process will enhance the ability of
Office of Planning and Institutional Research to report back to the planning units on the degree of
progress being made. These reports will be important indicators for decision-makers at all levels
within the university as decisions regarding resource allocations need to be made. As Figure 3
indicates, primary responsibility for assessing the degree of progress made in achieving the unit's
operational plan lies with the unit itself and its administrator. The next administrative level shares in
that responsibility as well. Thus, the interactive nature between the various levels of planning units
and sub-units is preserved. One level's efforts must be tied into those of the next level for the
process to be effective. Finally, the assessments that are made about operational progress are
themselves critical factors in the next stage of the planning process, whether for the 2003 revision of
priorities and operational plans or the drafting of the new 2005-2010 strategic plan.

The Resource Allocation Connection

The allocation of resources is a primary way in which university priorities are signaled and fulfilled.
Most university functions are continuous activities that require the bulk of our resources. These
activities are obviously critical to the operation of the university and must be maintained in an
appropriate manner. Strategic planning, however, concerns the identification of those functions
central to the mission of the university and the strengthening of those activities which can most
benefit the fulfillment of that mission. Hence initiatives that will lead to improvements in the
university's continuing functions may also be targeted for additional resource allocations. Also,

7
some activities must be recognized as being more critical than others to the mission of the
university and, consequently, the continuation of the less central activities must be questioned. And,
even those activities that are central to the mission of the university must be regularly assessed as to
the efficiency and effectiveness with which they are being conducted. Operational objectives should
be developed such that they reflect the prioritization of these functions.

In making resource allocation decisions, campus administrators must take into account the
connection between the strategic planning priorities developed for their units and the resources
available to them. Units should first look internally at the possibility of reallocating resources within
their operating budgets and then proceed to request additional resources from the next most
immediate strategic planning unit. The same internal evaluation of resources should occur at each
administrative level before any request is submitted to the next level. All such requests will be
evaluated in terms of the established strategic and operational plans of the respective units. This
evaluation should thus lead to an agreed upon and prioritized set of funding requests.

Timetable

Academic Affairs and Health Sciences January 1, 2000 - Complete strategic plans

Academic Library Services, Administration May 15, 2000 - Complete strategic and
and Finance, Chancellor’ Office, Continuing operational plans
Studies, Health Sciences Library, Information
Technology, Institutional Advancement, and
Student Life

Arts & Sciences and Research and Graduate February 29, 2000 - Complete strategic plan
Studies
May 15, 2000 - Offices and Departments
complete operational plans

Allied Health Sciences, Art, Business,
Education, Health and Human Performance,
Human Environmental Sciences, Industry and
Technology, Music, Nursing, Social Work and
Criminal Justice, and Undergraduates Studies
February 29, 2000 - Complete strategic plan
(if departments will be doing separate
operational plans).
May 15, 2000 - Complete both strategic and
operational plan (if school is doing a combined
operational plan).

8
 Recommended Reading

These materials are available from the Office of Planning and Institutional Research if you wish to
consult them.

Birnbaum, Robert (1988). How Colleges Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cope, R. C. (1987). Opportunity from Strength: strategic planning clarified with case examples.
Higher Education Reports (8). Washington, D.C.: ASHE-ERIC.

Denhardt, Robert B. (1993). The Pursuit of Significance: Strategies for Managerial Success in
Public Organizations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Dolence, Michael G.; Daniel James Rowley, and Herman D. Lujan (1997). Strategic Change in
Colleges and Universities: Planning to Survive and Prosper. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Dolence, Michael G.; Daniel James Rowley, and Herman D. Lujan (1997). Working Toward
Strategic Change: A Step-by-step Guide to the Planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Fountoukidis, Dona; Martin Hahn and Jane Voos (1995). Planning in Academic Departments.
Planning for Higher Education. Vol. 23, Spring: 49-52.

Harvey, Bryan C. (1998). The Perils of Planning Before You Are Ready. Planning for Higher
Education. Vol. 26, Summer: 1-9.

Katz, Richard and Julia A Rudy (1999). Information Technology in Higher Education: assessing Its
Impact and Planning for the Future. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 102. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Keller, George (1983). Academic Strategy. Baltimore: John Hopkins.

Keller, George (1999-2000). The Emerging Third Stage in Higher Education Planning.
Planning for Higher Education. Vol. 28, Winter: 1-7.

Keller, George (1997-98). Planning, Decisions, and Human Nature. Planning for Higher Education.
Vol 26, Winter: 18-23.

Keller, George (1993). Strategic Planning and Management in a Competitive Environment. In

Robert H. Glover and Marsha V. Krotseng (Eds.). Developing Executive Information Systems for
Higher Education. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 77. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Napier, Rod; Clint Sidle, and Patrick Sanaghan. (1998). High Impact Tools and Activities for
Strategic Planning: Creative Techniques for Facilitating Your Organization’s Planning Process.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

9
Norris, Donald M. and Nick l. Poulton (1991). A Guide for New Planners. Ann Arbor: Society for
College and University Planning.

Rowley, Daniel James; Herman D. Lujan and Michael G. Dolence (1998). Strategic Choices for the
Academy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Seymour, Daniel (1993). On Q: Causing Quality in Higher Education. Washington, D.C. and
Phoenix: American Council on Education and the Oryx Press.

Shulock and Mernoy E. Harrison (1998). Integrating Planning, Assessment, and Resource
Allocation. Planning for Higher Education. 26, Spring 1998: 29-37.

Steeples. D. W. (Ed.), (1988). Successful Strategic Planning: Case Studies. new Directions for
Higher Education, No. 64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins, J. Foster (1999). Reflections on the Value of Strategic Planning. Planning for Higher
Education. Vol. 27, Summer: 18-24.

Wilcox, John R. and Susan L. Ebbs (1992). The Leadership Compass: Values and Ethics in Higher
Education. Higher Education Reports (1). Washington, D.C.: ASHE-ERIC.

Zeigler, Susan G. (1999). From Planning to Achieving. Planning for Higher Education. Vol. 28,
Fall: 29-37.

10
 Preliminary and
Advisory Process
Stage I University-wide
Implementation Plans
(August - December 1998) 2000 – 2005 Strategic Plan (March - October 1999)

External
Environment University-wide
Academic
Analysis Strategic Decisions Program
Development
(January - April 1999)
Previous Diversity
Planning Institutional
Matching
Process Values Strategic
Process
SACS Assessment Decisions Enrollment
Other “Givens” Management

Mission
Internal External
Support
Strengths & Clientele
Weaknesses
Identification
Geographic Facilities
Review and Results from
Advice from
Service University University-wide
Area Community Process
Faculty
Comparative &
Advantage Staff
Faculty Staff Development

Goals and
Objectives Financial

Program
Mix Information
Deans Chancellor Students Resources
(Assisted by Strategic
his staff) Decisions
Organizational

Board External
Marketing
of Focus &
Trustees Groups Public Outreach

Student
Support
Community Services

FIGURE 1: ECU Strategic Planning Process, Stage I Redevelopment of Strategic Plan

 Stage II
Strategic Plans 2000 – 2005 Strategic Plan
Divisions, College, Schools &
Libraries
(January - February 2000)

S. P. Unit Operational Unit Plans

Strengths
and
(January - May 2000)
Weaknesses

Review for
Previous Review for
SP & OP Units Consistency
Planning S. P. Unit S. P. Unit S. P. Unit Consistency Operational
Develop with SPU PFAs
Process Values Matching PFA with Plans
Operational &
& Process Development University-wide Completed
Plans University-wide
Other “Givens” Plans
Plans

S. P. Unit
Environmental
Analysis

Strategic Plan
Implementation
and Revision
Results from
University-wide
Process Annual
Budget
Decisions

Operational
Redevelopment of Strategic Plan Revision Plan
2002-2003 Implementation
2000-2003

Annual
Progress
Report

FIGURE 2: ECU Strategic Planning Process, Stage II

 Strategic Administrative DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION
Planning Unit Level Establishment of PFAs, Goals, and Objectives Responsibilities for PFAs, Goals, and Objectives

University PFAs & Goals Primary responsibility for University

University Chancellor Primary responsibility for Chancellor’s Office
(Chancellor’s Office PFAs,
Goals, and
Operational Objectives Secondary Responsibility for Division

Approval of Division PFAs and Operational Plans

Division Vice Chancellor Division PFAs & Goals

Primary responsibility for Division

(Vice Chancellor’s Office

Secondary Responsibility for College/School
Goals and Objectives)

Approval of College/School PFAs and Operational Plans

College/School PFAs & Goals Primary responsibility for College/School

College/School Dean/Director

(Dean’s/Director’s Office Shares, but secondary, responsibility

Goals and Objectives) for
Operational Planning Unit

Approval of Operational Unit Plans

Operational
Planning Unit Department/Office Primary responsibility for
Chair/Director PFAs & Goals accomplishment and measurement
of operational planning unit
Departments/
(Reported Through Unit Annual Progress Report)
Offices

FIGURE 3: Planning Unit Activities and Responsibilities