留學生dissertation網Introduction to Strategic Management
Susan Scribner
Section 5
Table of Contents
Figure 5.1. Facets of Strategic Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Figure 5.2. Strategic Management of One Stage of the Policy Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Table 5.1. Five Facets of Strategic Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Annex 5-A. Strategic Planning and Strategic Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
Section 5
Introduction to Strategic
Management
Health policy reforms, even ones that have been approved, decreed, or signed into law, will notnecessarily be implemented as intended without the impetus and guidance of policy champions.
留學生dissertation網The policy process, as explained and diagrammed in the introduction to this toolkit (Section1, especially Figure 1.1), includes the following stages: policy formulation and legitimation,constituency-building, resource mobilization, implementation design and organizationalstructuring, and progress and impact monitoring. However, proposed reforms are not likely toprogress through these stages without someone managing or shepherding them.
For those who want to participate in and further the process of health sector reform, strategicmanagement provides an effective approach. Strategic management is a process for developingand enacting plans to reach a long-term goal that takes into account internal variables andexternal factors. Strategic management encompasses an integrated, future-oriented managerialperspective that is

outwardly focused

forward-thinking

performance-based (see Kiggundu 1996).
Strategic managers identify long-range targets, scan their operating environments, evaluate
their organization’s structures and resources, match these to the challenges they face, identifystakeholders and build alliances, prioritize and plan actions, and make adjustments to fulfillperformance objectives over time.
Brinkerhoff (1991 and 1994) characterizes strategic management as looking out, lookingin, and looking ahead. “Looking out” means exploring beyond the boundaries of your organizationto set feasible objectives, identify key stakeholders, and build constituencies for change.“Looking in” implies critically assessing and strengthening your systems and structures for
managing personnel, finances, and other essential resources. Finally, “looking ahead” entailsmelding your strategy with structures and resources to reach your policy goals, while monitoringyour progress and adjusting your approach as needed.#p#分頁標題#e#
5-2 Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector ReformBalancing strategic management’s outward-, inward-, and forwardlooking functions helpsyou develop a vision and a strategy for where and how to move health sector reform forward.
Balancing these different perspectives is the essence of managing strategically (Brinkerhoff1991).
Strategic management comprises five key facets: goal-setting, analysis, strategy formation,strategy implementation, and strategy monitoring (see Figure 5.1). These are the integral elementsthat, when applied together, distinguish strategic management from less comprehensiveapproaches, such as operational management or long-term planning. Strategic managementis an iterative, continuous process that involves important interactions and feedback among thefive key facets, which are explained in more detail in Table 5.1.Figure 5.1. Facets of Strategic Management


Introduction to Strategic Management 5-3
As mentioned, you can use strategic management to help move health sector reformsthrough the various stages in the policy process. The framework of the policy stages can helpyou determine your location in the policy process and identify tasks to be done. By applying astrategic management approach to each subsequent stage of the policy process, you can furtherimplementation of health sector reforms. Consider each stage of the policy cycle from a strategicperspective, balancing the looking-out, looking-in, and looking-ahead issues. In so doing,you can effectively integrate a strategic management approach into the policy cycle. As anexample, Figure 5.2 illustrates how you might strategically manage your reforms through thepolicy formulation and legitimation stage.
Table 5.1. Five Facets of Strategic Management


5-4 Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reform
Figure 5.2. Strategic Management of One Stage of the Policy ProcessIntroduction to Strategic Management 5-5
Bibliography
Brinkerhoff, Derick W. 1994. “Looking Out, Looking In, Looking Ahead.” PA Times. vol. 17, no.
12, 11.
_____. October 1991. “Looking Out, Looking In, Looking Ahead: Guidelines for Managing
Development Programs.” Working Paper No. 1. Washington, DC: Implementing PolicyChange Project, for US Agency for International Development.
Kiggundu, Moses N. 1996. “Integrating Strategic Management Tasks into Implementing Agencies:
From Firefighting to Prevention.” World Development vol. 24, no. 9: 1417–1430.
5-6 Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reform
Annex 5-A
Strategic Planning and Strategic
Management
By Benjamin L. Crosby1
The following is an excerpt from Crosby, Benjamin L. 1991. “Strategic Planning and Strategic
Management: What Are They and How Are They Different?” Technical Note No. 1.
Published by the Implementing Policy Change Project, Management Systems International,
Inc., for the US Agency for International Development.#p#分頁標題#e#
Why Strategic Management?
Strategic planning and management are more than a set of managerial tools. They constitute amind-set, an approach to looking at the changes in the internal and external environment thatconfront the manager. Using planning and management tools strategically, then, involvesessentially a way of thinking, a mental framework or approach, as well as a set of analytic tools.
For strategic management to be effectively used the manager must develop a strategic mentalityor outlook. The problem for the consultant is how to help the manager acquire that mentality.
The Strategic Approach
The strategic approach or mentality consists of four main elements:

First, the strategic approach is oriented toward the future. It recognizes that the environmentwill change. It is a long range orientation, one that tries to anticipate events rather than simplyreact as they occur. The approach leads the manager to ask where his/her organizationwants to be after a certain period, what it will need to get to where it wants, and how to developstrategies and the means to get there, and finally, how to manage those strategies toachieve the organization’s goals and objectives. It is recognized that the future cannot be
1. Benjamin L. Crosby is a Director of MSI; he holds a Ph.D. from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri,and manages the Implementing Policy Change project.
Annex 5-A 5-7controlled, but the argument can be made that by anticipating the future, organizations can
help to shape and modify the impact of environmental change.
Second, the strategic approach has an external emphasis. It takes into account several componentsof the external environment, including technology, politics, economics and the sociadimension. Strategic thinking recognizes that each of these can either constrain or facilitatean organization as it seeks to implement policy. Politics will determine the policies thatare to be implemented, economics will determine the organization’s level of resources, andsocial factors might well determine who the organization’s beneficiaries will be. In particular,strategic thinking recognizes and emphatically takes into account politics and the exerciseof political authority. Managers are not free to do anything they decide. Managers mustbe sensitive to the needs and respond to demands of constituents over whom they have littleor no control. Among those constituents, political actors are perhaps the most important.

Third, the strategic approach concentrates on assuring a good fit between the environmentand the organization (including its mission and objectives, strategies, structures, and resources)and attempts to anticipate what will be required to assure continued fit. Under conditionsof rapid political, economic and social change, strategies can quickly become outmodedor no longer serve useful purposes; or the resources traditionally required by theorganization to produce its goods and services may suddenly become unavailable. The strategicapproach recognizes that to maintain a close fit with the environment, the different elementsof the organization will need to be continuously re-assessed and modified as the environmentevolves.#p#分頁標題#e#

Finally, the strategic approach is a process. It is continuous and recognizes the need to beopen to changing goals and activities in light of shifting circumstances within the environment.
It is a process that requires monitoring and review mechanisms capable of feeding informationto managers continuously. Strategic management or planning are not one-shotapproaches, they are ongoing.
When all taken together, these attitudes and behaviors are really a way of approaching orthinking about how to manage or how to implement policy change. Strategic management (orplanning) is not something that can be applied only once and then forgotten about or ignored.
In that sense it is more than a tool; it is a mental framework.
The Strategic Management Process
What does a strategic management process look like? The approach described below is suggested
as a guide:
1. Agreement on and initiation of the strategic management process.
2. Identification and clarification of the organization’s mission, objectives, and currentstrategies.
3. Identification of the organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses.
5-8 Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reform
4. Assessment of the threats and opportunities from the external environment.
5. Identification of key constituents/ stakeholders and their expectations.
6. Identification of the key strategic issues confronting the organization.
7. Design/analysis/selection of strategy alternatives and options to manage issues identifiedin step 6.
8. Implementation of strategy.
9. Monitoring and review of the strategy’s performance.
There is much similarity in the approach described here and that of others (see Appendix
http://www.ttc-switch.com/thesis_sample/guanlileizuoye/One for a description of three). If one were to stop after Step number 7, the process would besimply a strategic planning exercise. Frequently, this is exactly where the process does stop, especially
when management and the strategic planning functions have been de-linked. Thisoccurs when there is no attempt to develop a strategic mentality among line management;instead, the organization attempts to set up a special department, division, or “guru” for strategicplanning rather than integrate the functions into normal line management. Without theexpressed linkage it is often difficult for the line manager to see the value of the strategic plan,
and there will therefore be less interest and incentive in strategically managing. In contrast, ifthe strategic approach is employed, or the organization is imbued with a strategic mentality,then strategic planning will be done as part of the course of normal (strategic) managementfunctions.
Step One: Agreement on the process.
The first step in the strategic management process is to get agreement—not only to carry outthe process but also to get agreement on how and when and by whom it will be carried out.Since the strategic management process is not a one-shot exercise, commitment to the longhaulis vital; without commitment, the exercise will be sterile and likely regarded as a waste oftime.#p#分頁標題#e#
Who should be included in the strategic management process? At least three different types ofindividuals should be considered for inclusion: the organization’s top decision-makers andthose officials who will have direct responsibility in implementation of policy; those who have amajor stake in the outcome of the policy, whether from within or outside the organization,whether supportive or oppositional, clients or resource suppliers; and those with specializedknowledge that can add to the analysis of the policy to be decided or implemented. Although relativelybroad involvement in the process should beencouraged, care must be taken that suchgroups not be expanded to the point of incapacity to make agile decisions.
How should the process be initiated? First, agreement to carry out and commitment to theprocess of strategic management must be obtained from one or more of the organization’s key
decision makers. Once such agreement and commitment is accomplished, then decisions aboutwhat should be considered and who should be involved can be addressed. If issues are complexand there is a need to involve a relatively wide spectrum of actors and stakeholders, then workAnnex
5-A 5-9shops might be considered. If the issues are less complex or fewer actors need to be involved,then direct consultations or small group arrangements might prove more efficient.Step Two: Identification and clarification of the organization’smission, objectives and current strategies.
Once an organization has agreed to engage in a strategic process, the first task is to determinewhat and where the organization is. What are the needs that the organization attempts to satisfy,whose needs are they, and what is the value of satisfying those needs? All too often organizationsdevelop a service or a product and then fail to periodically examine whether or not thatproduct actually satisfies a demand or whether satisfaction of that demand actually matters.
Who are the people that compose the organization, what are their values, and what needs doesthe organization satisfy for them? (In resource-poor environments, agencies that satisfy onlymarginal or peripheral demands are vulnerable to budget cuts, abolishment, or absorption byother organizations.) What are the objectives of the organization and how well do they meshwith the needs and demands of clients, stakeholders and constituents? What strategies does theorganization employ to achieve the objectives it has set for itself? Is the organization beingasked to make fundamental changes in what it does, or in the kinds of clients it benefits? If so,
what are those changes?
At this point, Louise White, whose framework is incorporated in the IPC [Implementing PolicyChange] project paper, argues that the policy in question should be examined with respect to
its compatibility with the organization’s mission, objectives and strategy. To accomplish this it isnecessary to state the objectives of the policy, the nature of the service or activity intended, thebenefits to be produced and the beneficiaries, and describe the complexity of the policy. (White1989)#p#分頁標題#e#
Clarification of the mission, objectives, and strategies is fundamental to initiation of thestrategic process. It amounts to a statement of where the organization is, what it does and how itgoes about its business. It should also help clarify which policies or demands can be facilitatedby the organization and which will be impeded.Step Three: Identification of the organization’s internal strengthsand weaknesses.
One way to examine these is to look at the organization’s resource base (skill base, capital orfinancial resources, etc.) Does the organization have the wherewithal to achieve its stated objectivesor to put into motion its strategies? What are the levels of internal resources possessed bythe organization? How available are they?
Analysis of resources by itself is not sufficient, the organization must also look at its task performance.What tasks does it do well, which does it not? This will give a better idea of how the
organization’s resources are organized and how effectively those resources are put to use. Anorganization may well have excellent research skills, but if its primary tasks are in service delivery,then such skills may be more a weakness than a strength. However, one should not auto5-10 Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reformmatically make the assumption that since idle capacity exists, it should be dispensed with. Suchskills may well be quite useful if the organization should need to make changes in order to bemore compatible with its environment.
In addition to skills and resources, other elements of the internal organization need to beexamined: what is the nature of the organizational climate (are there cleavages, are they conflictive?),how adaptable are the participants (would they readily take on new tasks, how longhave they been doing the same thing?), what is the nature and flexibility of the organizationalstructure (is it rigid, have significant changes been made in the past, and what has been thereaction?), is there an informal structure (how does it work and is it more cogent than the formal
structure?), what is the nature of the incentive structure (is it designed to encourage innovativebehavior, can it recruit and maintain a sufficiently high level of personnel?)? Which elements
facilitate and which impede performance of the organization’s tasks and which mightfacilitate or impede organizational change?
Step Four: Assessment of threats and opportunities in the external
environment.
While there is frequently a tendency on the part of managers to focus on the internal dimensionsof the organization, policy change and the often volatile nature of politics in countriesundergoing major policy changes requires conscious exploration of the environment outsidethe organization.
Political, economic, social, and technological changes will influence the direction andshape of an organization’s policies and objectives. What are the major trends that can bedetected in each of these areas that will have some bearing on the activities of the organization?#p#分頁標題#e#
How might macro-economic measures being instituted affect the financial resources of theorganization? What is the nature of political support for the policy under consideration? How
politically stable is the current regime? Is policy leadership about to change? Will key officialswithin the cabinet be changed and what will that mean to the development and implementationof the proposed policy change? To what extent have the government’s primary political coalitionsbegun to change? Does this signify impending changes in policy priorities? How effectiveis the political opposition? What role do international forces or actors play in the determinationof policy? To what extent has the social composition of the organization’s primary clientelegroup changed? Has it outgrown the resources of the organization? Have its needs changed overthe years?
An important factor in the organization’s external environment is its bureaucratic and institutionalsetting. Is the organization autonomous? Or is it linked to a ministry, or must it coordinate
its actions with other entities and what is the nature of those mechanisms? Are other organizationsinvolved in the same activity, what are their roles? Are there incentives forcooperation?
Annex 5-A 5-11
Step Five: Identification of key constituents and stakeholders,
their expectations and resources.
The expectations and demands of constituents are key ingredients for decisions about what anorganization will do and how it goes about carrying out its tasks. Stakeholders or constituents
are those who have a direct interest in and are capable of influencing in some measure the outcomesor actions of the organization. Stakeholders provide the primary base of political supportfor the organization, and in a significant way are its raison d’être. A rather wide range of actorsmight be included: competitors, beneficiaries, directors, employees, political parties, consumers,international donors, etc. What do these particular groups want from the organization? Are
they satisfied with the current array of services and level of performance? Are their interests shifting?In which direction? And if so, will the organization be able to react favorably?In examining the interests of stakeholders, a cautionary note is in order. There can be atemptation to try to consider every actor who might have some interest or influence in the organization.
That temptation ought to be avoided and the analyst should take care to assure thatonly those that can have a realistic and reasonably significant impact are considered in the
stakeholder analysis.
Step Six: Identification of key strategic issues.
The information generated by the preceding steps should identify a set of fundamental questionsor key problems regarding the fit of the organization with its environment. These problemsmight concern the organization’s mission, its products or services, its clients, financingmechanisms, management, or relationship to certain stakeholders. Strategic issues are theprincipal problems that must be dealt with effectively or the organization can expect undesirableresults. The effective treatment of strategic issues can signify fundamental change in how#p#分頁標題#e#
the organization goes about its business. Such issues may generate conflict within the organizationsince their resolution will produce winners and losers both internally and externally. Theorganization must be prepared to deal with that conflict.In identifying strategic issues or problems, care must be taken in specifying exactly what the
problem or issue is, why it is a problem for the organization, and the organizational consequences
of inaction. All too often insufficient attention is given to problem identification resulting
in misallocated resources and lost opportunities. It is also important to determine whether
or not the organization can do anything about the problem—if not, it is not an issue. Managers
must also recognize that it will be impossible to tackle all issues at once; therefore, problems
should be identified according to short-, medium- or long-run importance and the urgency of
action needed. Managers will find that energy expended in problem and issue identification and
clarification will have payoffs in the development of strategies for their treatment.
5-12 Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reform
Step Seven: Design, analysis, and selection of strategy alternatives
and options to manage issues identified in Step 6.
Once issues and problems have been identified, strategies to solve those problems need to be
identified. Generally, more than one option for dealing with the problem will be identified; then
options must be examined for their comparative viability, feasibility, and desirability. Can the
strategy work from a practical as well as theoretical stance? Is the organization capable of carrying
out the strategy? Is the strategy acceptable to those carrying it out and to those to whom it is
directed? Does the organization have the human and material resources, does it have the
know-how necessary, and is the appropriate organizational structure available for implementing
the strategy? Will the strategy accomplish what the manager wants and benefit those
intended? Can the strategy be sustained, and can it adapt to the projected changes in the environment?
Is flexibility built into the strategy? Can the necessary resource base be sustained over
the life of the strategy?
Desirability has to do with the fit of organizational and environmental values and objectives
with the strategy. Is the strategy compatible with the implementing institution’s mission or its
fundamental objectives, and/or with the mission and objectives of collaborating organizations?
Is the strategy targeted to the most appropriate beneficiaries? Is it compatible with the legal and
bureaucratic setting? How well will the strategy adjust to forecast trends in the medium and in
the long term? How will key stakeholders be affected, how compatible is the strategy with their
values and expectations?
Step Eight: Implementation of the strategy.#p#分頁標題#e#
Implementation of a strategy is not an automatic process; there are two major parts to the process.
The first step is the development of an action plan, which is a statement of what, who,
when, and how the actions necessary to carry out the strategy will be done. Performance goals
and objectives will also be specified. Much of the information needed to develop the action plan
will have been generated in Step Seven.
The second part of implementation consists of actions aimed at marshaling and applying
resources. In the context of policy change these actions may consist of (but are not limited to),
changes in organizational structures, shifts and reclassification of personnel, the establishment of
new routines, tasks, and procedures; installation of new incentive systems; retooling production
for new products or services; marketing of new services or creation of demand among new beneficiaries
or consumers; development of new financing mechanisms; organizing coalitions to maintain
political, budgetary, and beneficiary support; and developing collaborative mechanisms with
cooperating organizations. It should be noted that the managers’ task is more than just the internal
operation of his organization, they must also manage its fit with the environment.
Step Nine: Monitoring and review of performance.
Strategic management assumes continual change. Therefore mechanisms must be developed
for monitoring and analyzing the performance of the organization with respect to achieving the
Annex 5-A 5-13
goals and objectives set in the action plan. As the environment undergoes changes, as ministers
change, elections occur, or budgets go up or down, priorities will also change. Resource flows
may be uneven. All of these elements can alter performance, priorities, and the desirability of
certain policies. If the organization wants to maintain a good “fit” with the environment, it
must first be able to track these changes in order to adjust.
The monitoring process should be continuous, regular, and capable of feeding into the decision-
making process. The manager should develop control mechanisms to gauge the efficiency
of resources used and impact mechanisms to gauge the effectiveness of its actions. Finally, it is
vital that the monitoring process be timely and usable.
Appendix One: Different Approaches to Strategic Planning
and Management
Much attention in the literature has been devoted to strategic management and strategic planning—
but with most emphasis on the private sector. Nevertheless, in the last several years,
there has been a growing interest and literature (eg., Ring and Perry, 1985, and Samuel Paul,
1983) on applications in the public sector. Three recent approaches are briefly described in this
appendix.
Two recent books on strategic planning and strategic public management illustrate the overlap#p#分頁標題#e#
between the two concepts. Each develops a strategic “process” consisting of several steps.
Drawing on Nutt and Backoff (1987), Bozeman and Straussman (1990) outline six steps for
putting strategic management to work. These steps amount to a basic framework for strategic
management:
1. Dealing with history: an analysis of the history of the organization, its mission and its
mandate.
2. Stock Taking: an evaluation of the organization’s current internal financial, organizational,
and human resources.
3. Evaluating Issues: identification of the significant issues that will affect the performance
or capacity of the organization.
4. Developing Strategies: development of strategic alternatives to respond to and manage
the issues identified.
5. Assessing Feasibility: evaluation of the capacity of the organization to carry out the strategic
alternative within the context.
6. Implementation: the actual carrying out of the strategy selected.
It is easy to recognize several parallels between Bozeman and Straussman and the eight-step
process for strategic planning laid out by John Bryson (1988):
1. Initiating and agreeing on a strategic planning process.
2. Identifying organizational mandates.
5-14 Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reform
3. Clarifying organization mission and values.
4. Assessing the external environment opportunities and threats.
5. Assessing the internal environment: strengths and weaknesses.
6. Identifying the strategic issues facing an organization.
7. Formulating strategies to manage the issues.
8. Establishing an effective organizational vision for the future.
Louise White (1989) establishes a slightly shorter but similar strategic process:
Step 1. Agree on a process for developing an implementation strategy.
Step 2. Map or assess the situation (this includes analysis of the external and internal environments,
the content of the policy, and stakeholder expectations and resources).
Step 3. Identify the strategic issues.
Step 4. Design an implementation strategy.
Step 5. Design a process for monitoring results and making ongoing adjustments.
Where do these “processes” differ? Is it really only at the ends of each process? Bryson concludes
with the formulation of strategies and the establishment of an effective organizational
vision for the future; Bozeman and Straussman conclude the process with implementation of
the strategies formulated. Planners in Bryson’s model, are not directly responsible for the implementation
of what they have planned, except insofar as those same persons also will be tasked
with implementation (not all organizations can readily separate the planning and management
functions). But in all fairness, Bryson is adamant in insisting that the alternatives developed
to cope with strategic issues be both workable and acceptable. Assuring that could well be#p#分頁標題#e#
considered tantamount to implementation.
White, on the other hand, goes further than either of the other two. Whereas Bozeman and
Straussman end with “implementations,” White concludes her model of strategic management
with suggestions for the development of mechanisms for monitoring to feed the ongoing process
of adjustment and corrections. This last step is a vital one, and deserves emphasis. The LDCs
undergoing adjustment tend to be characterized by environmental volatility—to assume that a
single strategy is not subject to either revision or modification (and often rather extreme revision
or modification) would be short[-sighted]. Therefore, mechanisms to monitor the organization’s
continuing fit with the environment as well as progress toward objectives are critical.
Another difference lies in each’s treatment of the external environment. White and Bryson
put considerable specific emphasis on the environment in the steps they describe as part of the
strategic process. Bozeman and Straussman certainly recognize the importance of the external
environment as can be seen in the following excerpts from their work:
One purpose of strategic management is to mediate between the organization and the
environment.
Annex 5-A 5-15
Public management necessarily requires attention to the organization’s environment
because the influence of external political authority emanates from the environment
[for this reason, effective public management requires attention to strategy.
...an external perspective emphasizing not adapting to the environment] but anticipating
and shaping of environmental change. Strategic public management adds an additional
ingredient: strategic thinking must be cognizant of the exercise of political
authority.
However, unlike either White or Bryson, Bozeman and Straussman do not describe a specific
step for analysis of the external environment within their recommended framework. Analysis of
the environment is left as an implicit task. The danger of this approach is that such analysis
might simply be overlooked as being too hard to do or as being too tenuous to add anything.
Given the impact of the environment on public organizations, explicit and direct analysis is
imperative.
Not surprisingly, the fact that both approaches employ the term “strategic” gives the two a
great deal in common. Strategy, or the strategic outlook signifies a forward looking mentality.
Strategy does not concern the past except for the lessons and input that can be extracted from
past experience. Strategy concerns the future, and to the extent that the future is unknown, the
greater its uncertainty. Tasks that concern the very short run are generally not grist for the strategic
mill. The further the horizon of time involved in the task, the greater the level of uncertainty.#p#分頁標題#e#
Inasmuch as strategy involves the future, and particularly the mid- to long-run future,
uncertainty then becomes a part of the strategic problem. The strategy mounts to a bet that the
future will evolve in a particular way and that the manager’s particular vision of the future
implied in the selection of a strategy will be the correct one.
5-16 Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reform
References
Barry Bozeman and Jeffrey D. Straussman, Public Management Strategies: Guidelines for
Managerial Effectiveness. Oxford: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990.
John M. Bryson, Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Oxford:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1988.
Hayes, Robert H., “Why Strategic Planning Goes Awry.,” The New York Times, April 20, 1986.
Nutt, P.C., and Backoff, R.W. “A Strategic Management Process for Public and Third-Sector
Organizations.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 1987, 53, pp.44–57.
Paul, Samuel, Strategic Management of Development Programmes: Guidelines for Action.
Geneva: International Labor Office, Management Development Series, No. 19, 1983.
Ring, P.S., and Perry, J.L., “Strategic Management in Public and Private Organizations: Implications
of Distinctive Contexts and Constraints.” Academy of Management Review,
1985, 10, pp.276–86.
Louise G. White, Managing Policy Reform in the LDCs. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Reinner
Publishers, 1990.
________, “Implementing Policy Changes” (unpublished paper attached to USAID Project
Paper for Implementing Policy Change Project.) September, 1989.
Annex 5-A 5-17
IPC Technical Notes is a publication of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) Implementing Policy Change Project (#936-5470, Contract #AEP-5470-I-00-
5034-00), which is managed by the Agency’s Global Bureau, Center for Democracy and
Governance. The Center for Democracy and Governance is USAID’s focal point for democracy
and governance programming. The Center’s role is to provide USAID and other development
practitioners with the technical and intellectual expertise needed to support democratic
development. It provides this expertise in the following areas:
Rule of Law
Elections and Political Processes
Civil Society
Governance
The Center publishes a number of technical documents designed to indicate best practices, lessons
learned, and guidelines for practitioner consideration. They are also intended to stimulate
debate and discussion. For further information regarding these Center-specific publications,
please contact the Center’s Information Unit at (202) 661-5847.
The IPC project’s contract team consists of Management Systems International (prime contractor);
Abt Associates Inc.; and Development Alternatives. The IPC Project Office is located at MSI,#p#分頁標題#e#
600 Water Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20024. Telephone: (202) 484-7170; Fax: (202)
488-0754.
US Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20523-5900
Tel.:202.712.5859 ˆ Fax: 202.216.3262
Pan American Health Organization
525 23rd Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037-2895
Tel.:202.974.3832 ˆ Fax: 202.974.3613
Partnerships for Health Reform
Abt Associates Inc.
4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite 600, Bethesda, MD 20814-5341
Tel.:301.913.0500 ˆ Fax: 301.652.3916
Family Planning Management Development
留學生戰略管理dissertationManagement Sciences for Health, Inc.
165 Allandale Road, Boston, MA 02130-3400
Tel.:617.524.7799 ˆ Fax: 617.524.2825
Data for Decision Making
Harvard School of Public Health
665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115
Tel.:617.432.4610 ˆ Fax: 617.432.2181
The Latin America and Caribbean Regional Health Sector Reform Initiative is a joint effort of the following organizations:
Latin America and Caribbean Regional Health Sector Reform Initiative website: