The linkage between elements in the strategic planning process: a qualitative study.

Choonhaklai, Sirirat ; Wangkanond, Ratthasirin

BACKGROUND

The Thai government agencies' strategic planning resulted from the civil service reform in 2002, which was influenced by the evolution in public administration in the US from the past until the present which witnessed paradigm shifts through time in response to changing social environments. The bureaucratic system was seen as a closed, formalised, or classic organisation (Robbins, 1990: 34; Robbins, 1990: 34; Pfiffner, 2004: 443-454) whose administration focused on internal and specific factors while disregarding external environments. Its emphasis was on control, regulations and a top-down relationship. Therefore, by the late 1960s, and between 1968-1970 until the present, scholars in public administrations propose the New Public Administration (NPA) (Nigro & Nigro, 1984: 14), which aims at organisational effectiveness, focuses on people, social values, equality and public participation (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2007). The NPA, therefore, is related to the notion of transparent, performance-based, and people-centred administration. During the same period, different ways to improve public administration were offered (Ocampo, 2000: 248-255). They comprise (1) internal and external environment-oriented managerial improvement to build a high-performance organisation; (2) reengineering; (3) a new public management approach; and (4) performance-based or outcome-based administration, and democratic participatory administration.

The new paradigms in public administration contributed to changes both in processes and procedures in Thai government organisations, especially during 2001-2009 when two important acts were passed, ie The Reorganization of Ministries, Sub-Ministries and Departments Act, B.E. 2545 and Section 17 of the National Government Organization Act, B.E. 2534 revised by the National Government Organization Act (No.4), B.E. 2543 and by the National Government Organization Act (No.5), B.E. 2545. The revision was effective from October 3, 2002. Importantly, Section 3/1 of the latter Act prescribes improvement to promote people's interests, effective achievement of government's missions, social responsibility, transparency, accountability and public participation. Hence came strategic planning in government agencies. Later, the Office of Public Sector Development Commission (OPDC) was established as a mechanism to implement the reform according to the Longterm Strategic Plan to Improve the Thai Civil Service and Indicators, B.E. 2546-2550; B.E. 2551-2555; and B.E. 2556-2561.

According to the research to date, there has never been a study on the relation between elements of strategic planning in Thailand. Research findings are found on strategic planning and implementation in organisations (eg Pumipathanasuk 2010; Rachamani 2011), but not on the linkage. This is in agreement with Poister, Pitts and Edwards (2010:522), who stated that studies were rare on connections between planning process and organisational outcomes and on serious application of tools and models eg Balanced Score Card (BSC) model and McKinsey's 7-S model; and with Hansen (2011:771-772), who pointed out a lack of serious evaluation of strategic tools, eg SWOT analysis, BSC and McKinsey's 7-S.

In this paper, the researchers focus on the linkage between determinants, strategic planning and outcomes. A qualitative study was conducted on the Ministry of Justice, a pilot agency that implemented strategic planning in the levels of ministry, cluster and department. In addition, the Ministry set up a performance agreement to meet indicators according to the strategic plan in the cluster and department levels. The OPDC arranged for department heads, the Permanent Secretary and the Minister to sign the performance agreement in November/December 2003 (OPDC, 2004: 91-93).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework is developed from Poister and Streib (1999: 316319), Poister, Pitts and Edwards (2010: 525) and Hu, Kapucu, and O'Byrne (2014: 86-88). The linkage between elements in the strategic planning process comprises determinants, strategic planning and outcomes. The determinants are (1) rules and command of OCPD overseeing strategic planning in the public sector; (2) the perception and understanding of personnel, which reflects preparedness for organisational mobilisation; and (3) organisational leadership. The strategic planning consists of (1) the formation and determination of strategies in order to analyse the process in response to goals and environments, and the application of models and tools; (2) communication and transmission of vision, missions, strategic issues, goals and indicators to all levels; (3) participation by all parties in determining strategies, goals and indicators to obtain strategic issues beneficial to those involved; and (4) implementation of plans, their integration and budgeting according to priorities. The outcomes are (1) organisational competence and (2) results from the implementation of plans. On the one hand, the direction of influence flows from the determinants to the strategic planning and outcomes. On the other hand, the latter elements provide feedback to those that came before.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Meaning and significance of strategic planning

According to Porter (2008), strategic planning is a process that enables and facilitates leaders to achieve goals. The process helps determine a direction based on awareness of limits or possible obstacles, and encourages learning to become different from other organisations. Meanwhile, Gordon (2005:1) stated that strategic planning is a systematic process that helps leaders understand environments that influence their organisations and make the best decisions for their organisations to achieve their visions. Likewise, according to Bryson (2004:6), an organisation need strategic planning to build a basic way of practice for decision making since the planning inform what goals should be selected, what should be done and why these should be done. In addition, Gordon (2005:1) explains that strategic planning is a systematic process that enables executives to understand their organisational environments, and facilitates mutual agreement about how to achieve goals.

Strategic planning is an important element of strategic management, which arises together with result-oriented management (Poister & Streib, 1999:308). It is used in government agencies to promote strategic development and effective administration to reach both short- and long-term goals. The organisations need to arrange appropriate activities and resources to support the steering towards these goals (Chandler, 1962, cited by Hansen, 2001:776).

According to Mercer (1991), Gordon (2005) and Bryson (2011), strategic planning comprises (a) vision, a future expectation of what the organisation aspires to be (eg Mahidol University's vision to be one in the top one hundred world class universities); (b) philosophy and value; (c) missions, things to be done to achieve the vision (eg academic services, research and development); (d) goals or main objectives, things that are achieved after the implementation of the missions; (e) strategic issues, main points that the organisation need to develop in order to reach the goals and objectives; (f) programs and plans that the organisation needs to implement to progress towards the goals and objectives (eg plans to improve managerial systems and mechanisms); and (g) projects, things to be done to meet indicators of different programs (eg restructuring and job descriptions).

Principles of strategic planning

Explanations of the principles are covered in the following main points.

Formation of a strategic plan

Before strategic planning, a group of planners hold meetings with internal and external stakeholders according to the strategic planning procedures. An analysis of the organisational environment has to be conducted. The obtained data are used to determine a vision, philosophy and values, missions, goals, indicators and strategic issues. After that, strategic plans will be implemented and followed up as part of the process.

A SWOT analysis consists of two pats (Kriebel & Krauss, 2007):

(1) An analysis of internal factors: The organisation's actual state is analysed so that strengths (eg a clear structure, good image and competent personnel) and weaknesses (eg ineffective managerial mechanisms) are indicated. Models that are used to analyse these internal factors are, for instance, Public Sector Management Quality Award (PMQA) and McKinsey's 7-S framework. More than one model may be used to obtain a more extensive analysis. Mercer (1991: 53) indicated that any internal work can be included for analysis of internal factors.

(2) An analysis of external factors: Environments, external to but influential on, the organisation, are analysed ion two levels, ie general environments (eg the social system, culture, population quality, technology and national or global economy) and work-specific environments (eg clients, people, public and private sectors). The analysis shows opportunities, factors that the organisation can use to its advantage, and threats, factors that can lead to disadvantages or ineffectiveness. A model that can be used to analyse opportunities and threats is Porter (2008)'s Five Forces Model, which covers market trends, competitors, suppliers, partners and customers. Another useful model is PEST, which includes politics, economics, social relations and technology (Bailey 1989; Gordon 2005; Mercer 1991).

Implementation of strategic plans

To implement a strategic plan, projects under different programs are prioritised for each year so as to make an annual operational plan and budget requests. To make sure that the strategic plans are practicable, and thus achievable, every party needs to mutually determine key performance indicators that are connected to the organisation's vision and missions. Success of the implementation is to be measured against these indicators. The executives should use the cascading method to distribute these indicators to lower units to use as their missions and indicators. These indicators are useful for determining responsibilities, outcomes and performance for each individual in the form of a performance agreement. Therefore, the organisation, units and individuals are aligned to the same goals.

Elements of strategic planning

The picture of a strategic administrative process painted by Stone et al. (1999 cited by Poister, Pitts, and Edwards, 2010: 524-525), together with Poister, Pitts and Edwards' (2010: 525) conceptual framework based on the application of Stone et al. (1999), enables the researcher to see the linkage of strategic planning and management defined by three elements: determinants, process and outcomes. Even though Hu, Kapucu and O'Byrne (2014: 86-88) do not mention strategic management, their explanation of strategic planning also points to these three elements. An integration of Poister, Pitts and Edwards (2010: 526) and Hu, Kapucu and O'Byrne (2014: 88) help elaborate details of each element. Firstly, in the process of strategic planning, formation and determination of strategic plans based on SWOT analysis, and their implementation should include participants in the process to determine plans, goals and indicators, communication and transmission of the vision, strategic issues, goals and indicators to all levels for them to be prepared for organisational mobilisation. Secondly, determinants cover internal working systems and laws, line of command, environments and other features (eg the organisation's size and age) that influence strategic planning, including leadership (Monahan, 2001 cited by Poister, Pitts, & Edwards, 2010: 526; Hu, Kapucu, & O'Byrne, 2014: 86-88). Thirdly, according to Poister, Pitts and Edwards (2010: 528), outcomes can be classified into two levels. On one level, they are related to an increase in organisational competence (ie having strong partners, satisfied stakeholders, adapting to changing environments, effective leadership and positive organisational culture). On the other level, outcomes are long-term performance in implementing the strategic plans, providing services, enforcing laws, etc, which can be measured from quality of service, efficiency, client satisfaction and a rate of complaints. In the meantime, Hu, Kapucu and O'Byrne (2014: 88) define outcomes as (1) abilitiy to design organisational missions, goals and prioritise plans; (2) connection between external factors and the organisation's important figures; and (3) improvement of organisational management and effectiveness.

In this study of linkage between elements in the Ministry of Justice's strategic planning, the researchers cover all three elements with varying details. Regarding the element of the strategic planning process, the study looks at (1) the formation and determination of strategies in order to analyse the process in response to goals and environments, and the application of models and tools (BSC, McKinsey 7-S, PMQA and SWOT Analysis); (2) communication and transmission of vision, missions, strategic issues, goals and indicators at all levels; (3) participation by all parties in determining strategies, goals and indicators to obtain strategic issues beneficial to those involved; and (4) implementation of plans, their integration and budgeting according to priorities. The determinants under study include (1) rules and command of OCPD overseeing strategic planning in the public sector; (2) the perception and understanding of personnel, which reflects preparedness for organisational mobilisation; and (3) organisational leadership. The outcomes under study cover organisational competence (eg empowerment through networking, and the improved understanding and performance of personnel) and results from the implementation of plans.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This qualitative research comprises the following procedures:

(1) Exploratory research was conducted to investigate determinants, strategic planning and outcomes specific to the Ministry of Justice. Main informants were purposefully sampled and selected by the method of judgment sampling based on their ability to answer questions and other characteristics, eg positions, job descriptions and working experience. These informants were 30 officers from the OPCD and 11 agencies under the Ministry of Justice (ie Office of the Policy and Strategy under Office of the Permanent Secretary, Office of Justice Affairs, Central Institute of Forensic Science, Department of Special Investigation, Legal Execution Department, Right and Liberties Promotion Department, Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection, Department of Probation, Department of Corrections, Office of the Narcotics Control Board, and Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission).

(2) Primary data were obtained through structured interviews and focus group discussions. Secondary data were studied from agencies' documents to assist the design of questions and discussion guidelines.

(3) A variety of data-collecting methods was used in response to the need of this research, which aims to explore, examine and describe data. Data were collected through (a) structured interviews designed for gathering in-depth data and (b) group interviews through focus group discussions. Data were also gathered from existing documents. Most of them were official documents, eg annual reports, strategic and operational plans, minutes, directives, regulations and laws.

(4) The data were analysed by the method of content analysis. The data were thoroughly read to find out themes and patterns related to the research questions. The procedures comprised the following steps: first, the data were managed so that all the interviews were transcribed; secondly, the transcriptions were read and re-read to find out themes for coding the sources to obtain abstract concepts (Rossman & Rallis, 1998 cited by Creswell, 2003: 192).

(5) Reliability was checked through the method of member checking. That is, results were sent to the data collectors and main informants to examine whether the interpretations corresponded with their intentions. In addition, findings were read by external experts.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The researchers present and discuss findings on each element in the strategic planning and then discuss about their linkage.

Strategic planning

The process covers formation and determination of strategic plans, communication and transmission before implementation, participation, and implementation.

Formation and determination of strategic planning

Findings showed that every agency under the Ministry of Justice appointed their strategic units to collect primary data and invite specific personnel to mutually make plans. Generally, these personnel were from their own organisations, ie director-generals, deputy director-generals, experts, department general inspectors, division directors and operational officers. Together, they conducted SWOT analyses that were limited to specific aspects and then mutually determined visions. Usually, the administrators themselves prescribed the visions that were not related to the SWOT results. The intermediate administrators (ie division directors) further conducted the SWOT analyses to obtain missions, strategic issues, goals, indicators, programs and projects.

However, at the department level, the process was different. Some departments employed academics or private companies, while others made the plans by themselves. Most agencies used data of performance in previous years. Whereas some departments invited external stakeholders, most relied on their own personnel in the process of the SWOT analysis. Data were not adequately prepared for the SWOT analyses; some strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (eg survey results of clients' satisfaction and reports of civic participation) were left out when the strategic plans were made. The interviews showed that, in the SWOT analysis sessions, participants expressed their impressions about the organisations without supporting evidence. Moreover, most of the participants shied away from expressing their views. Brainstorming was also lacking which would have allowed participation of personnel from all levels to share their views about their organisation's direction. As a result, the process to form and determine strategic issues was not appropriate and also not based on the organisation's environmental needs.

According to Bryson (2004:123), to effectively respond to changing environments, organisations need to understand both internal and external environments so as to build strategies related to the contexts. Therefore, it can be concluded that, as a whole, the processes conducted by these agencies were not completed according to the standard of strategic planning because they did not draw upon the SWOT results to design visions, missions, strategic issues, objectives and indicators. Moreover, reviewing the contents of the strategic plans, the researchers found that, even though all the elements (eg vision, missions, objectives) were available, they were not designed according to the principles.

Vision

A vision is vital to the success of strategic planning since it gives common direction to the organisation's members, eg what the organisation aspires to be and what kind of improvement is necessary. Missions, goals, objectives and other elements are designed to achieve the vision. Every agency has its own missions as prescribed by law. Only some of them developed their own strategic missions. However, none of the 11 agencies appointed units to be in charge of each mission. An interviewee voiced an interesting point:

   The strategic unit tends to include missions prescribed by laws as
   part of the strategic plan and then adds some strategies that are
   related to the Department and Ministry to make it challenging.

Goals, objectives and strategic issues

Even though all agencies indicated their goals, objectives and strategic issues, these were simply a compilation of those belonging to projects and the strategic issues were not prioritised for annual operation planning. These objectives and indicators did not result from the SWOT analyses, neither were they allocated to different units and performance agreements. As a whole, they were not related to the organisation's strategic plans and performance indicators. Informants gave the following descriptions.

   The OPCD has the same way of practice with every Ministry. The
   Ministries sign performance agreements mainly to obtain bonus
   rewards, not to improve their organisations. Some Ministries
   received high bonus scores. Some received four from the total
   scores of five. In some Ministries, their personnel were given
   bonuses of 1,000 or 2,000 baht. But, their problems remain. Their
   high scores like four or five are, therefore, not related to their
   performance. They, for example, designed indicators that enabled
   them to make easy scores. If a meeting is held, they get three
   scores. But, if they can provide the meeting's minutes, they get
   four scores.

   The strategic plan and performance agreement are related only on
   the document. No goals is indicated in the form that the plan is
   successfully implemented. As a result, the performance evaluation
   does not reflect the strategic plan's success or failure.

Tools and models

The study showed that the Departments and Ministry used tools and models, ie SWOT analyses, BSC, McKinsey 7-S, and PMQA. Most of them used the McKinsey 7-S model to analyse internal environments and PEST to analyse external environments. Some agencies also included C (Customers). However, only the Right and Liberties Promotion Department used PMQA when data were collected for analysis.

BSC was used for strategic mapping between vision, missions, strategic issues and objectives (ie efficiency, service quality, effectiveness and organisation development) due to requirements in the OPCD's Strategic Planning Toolkit. Also, the OPCD included BSC in performance agreements. This showed that government agencies conform to regulations and orders rather than aim to achieve outcomes.

Communication and transmission

In practice, the operational officers in charge of strategic planning submitted plans for the director-generals to approve and circulate to units under the departments for them to use as a guideline for their strategic planning. Some agencies put the plans on their websites. However, most of them held no formal meeting to communicate information about the plans and create common direction among personnel. The plans were usually communicated in executive meetings, or emphasised by general inspectors. Exceptions were the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection, the Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission and the Department of Special Investigation. However, a commitment to successfully implement the plans was never made.

Stakeholder involvement

The study found that, in most of the agencies, only those personnel in charge of making strategic plans participated in the process. Representatives from different levels of personnel were lacking. Some told that they did not participate because it was not in their field of expertise. Only one agency was found to invite external people to participate in the SWOT analysis.

   The participation level is low. The process is not open much for
   participation. Many personnel do not want serious participation.
   They simply want to express their opinions.

   When it came to participation, people would rather not express
   their views because they thought the strategic planning was an
   academic work. Most did not pay attention. Though people showed up,
   a few expressed their views.

   ......... Important obstacles are a) the administrators do not pay
   attention; b) people think only a certain group of personnel is
   responsible for it; c) people think that it is academic,
   complicated and painstaking; d) it does not make any difference;
   and e) many believe that, without the strategic plan, the
   Department can go on with the legal authority that it has.

The findings showed that most personnel and administrators did not consider participation to be as important as it should have been. Allison and Kaye (1997: 35) point out that strategic planning that is based on participation is of better quality. Stakeholders should be aware when they should play a part in the process. According to Bailey (1989: 170), the environmental analysis is important and the analysis should regularly draw upon stakeholders to examine and adjust the plans. Many organisations, especially government agencies, are obsessed with routine work so that planning and evaluation are difficult. To solve this problem, a timeframe should be set up and it should be ensured that stakeholders participate in the planning and evaluating process. Likewise, Mercer (1991: 140) states that stakeholder participation is vital in the planning and implementing processes.

Implementation

Since the SWOT results were not taken seriously, the strategic plans lacked credibility. Although every agency had its own operational plan, the plan was not connected to the planning and budgeting processes, but to the performance agreement, which was taken from the Ministry's four-year operational plans. In practice, government agencies have to submit annual operational plans for the Minister to approve before they can submit budget plans to the Bureau of the Budget. Meanwhile, the OPDC used indicators in the annual operational plans to set up the performance agreements.

The implementation of strategic plans was a weakness in these government agencies' strategic planning. When strategies were set up, as already mentioned above, no unit was appointed to be responsible for the missions and strategic issues. Bryson, (2004: 50) confirmed that providing human and financial resources is an important duty of administrators for implementation. Moreover, organisations have to provide units and persons responsible for undertaking activities to meet the requirements of the plan. The findings showed that the administrators never made a commitment to successfully implement the strategies. In addition, the indicators in the four-year operational plans, which are translated into each annual operational plan, cannot be used to measure strategic performance because they are predetermined by the OPDC in its preparation of the performance agreements.

Determinants

The determinants include the OPDC's rules and regulations, personnel perception and understanding and leadership.

The OPDC's rules and regulations

Unlike those organisations in the private sector, government agencies conform to rules and orders. Although strategic planning should respond to each agency's specificity, these agencies cannot set up and implement their own strategies because they need to perform their routine missions as prescribed by laws, and also their commitments to higher authorities (Melkers & Willoughby 1998, cited by Poister, Pitts, & Edwards 2010:526). This situation is also the case for the Ministry of Justice. The strategic planning was conducted because it was required by the OPDC's rules and regulations. Its agencies also need to produce outcomes as prescribed by these rules and regulations. Therefore, the analysis shows that these determinants are formally related to the strategic planning and outcomes although they are not connected to the process of implementing the agencies' strategic plans to achieve the objectives and indicators.

Perception and understanding

The findings showed that the number of personnel responsible for strategic planning was not sufficient. These personnel needed to fulfil other duties so that they could not allocate time to the strategic planning. For instance, each probation officer had to supervise 500-1800 probationers a year, and this was not the only responsibility they had. Also, most of them were annual-contract employees and thus lacked job security. Transfer of personnel was frequent, so not many were continuously responsible for the strategic planning. In the Central Institute of Forensic Science the Department of Special Investigation, the Legal Execution Department, the Department of Corrections, the Office of the Narcotics Control Board, and the Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission, most personnel devote themselves to the organisation's prescribed missions (eg crime scene investigation, law enforcement.) so that the strategic planning was relegated to supporting staff. Personnel improvement was not systematic and continuous so that the level of understanding about the strategic planning was low. Personnel need to be trained so that they can use and connect tools and models (such as BSC and PMQA) and thus effectively work as part of the strategic planning team. Therefore, the quality of personnel was an obstacle to the strategic planning.

Leadership

The administrators in the department and division levels are significant to the success of strategic planning. The findings showed that these administrators had visions and creativity. However, no process existed to communicate these to the operational level. Many administrators, especially those in the intermediate level, conform to the principle of practicality so that they focus only on practice, but ignore outcomes that could meet the organisation's key indicators.

The factor of leadership. It can be seen that once all administrators shared the same concept as the government leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, who paid attention to strategies. Performance agreements were quickly endorsed because the ministers, permanent secretaries, director-generals all paid attention. Then, the permanent secretaries designed indicators together with lower officers. Now, that picture is no more.

The factor of leadership influences a success. If the leaders pay attention and join meetings to make plans, and pay attention to implementation, the plans will be effective.

Outcomes

The study on outcomes covers organisational competence (ie empowerment through networking, personnel having knowledge and understanding of strategic planning, and performance improvement) and implementation outcomes.

Organisational competence

According to the findings, no agencies had a strategy of empowerment through networking. These agencies preferred to work on their own in their fields of specialisation and strictly conform to rules and regulations. Therefore, they focus on fulfilling the legally prescribed missions, rather than strategic planning.

Implementation outcomes

Outcomes from the implementation of plans (eg services, law enforcement, quality of service and efficiency) were rarely documented by research. Although all agencies enjoyed positive responses from clients and personnel, these could not be counted as outcomes of strategic plan implementation because the implementation of the plans as a whole was never followed-up and evaluated. A main reason for this failure is the lack of key indicators for each agency and allocation of missions to lower levels.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSIONS

The linkage between the determinants, strategic planning and outcomes is weak, which can be analysed as follows.

Bureaucratic culture

Many government agencies have high degree of bureaucratic culture ie focus on formalities (Sun & Xu 2012:70). In this case, the outcomes realised in response to the OPDC's orders were not related to the strategic plans. This had both advantages and disadvantages. However, the emphasis here is on those obstructing the process of strategic planning.

Leader centeredness

Success depends on organisational leaders. Strategic planning is not an exception. A comparison showed that strategic planning became important in organisations whose leaders understood and paid attention to the process; for example, after the reform of the civil service in 2002, the then prime minister, Taksin Shinawatra, paid attention to the policies to improve civil service in response to social needs and also to promote organisational effectiveness. Consequently, every government agency adopted strategic planning as an administrative tool. The process was continuous. However, after Taksin's term, the strategic mission was no longer seriously implemented (Choonhaklai, 2012:214). The lack of seriousness and continuity leads to limited success of strategic planning, inadequate improvement of the knowledge and understanding of personnel and insufficient participation. As a result, the strategic mission becomes part of routine work (Choonhaklai 2012:214).

Top-down administration

The bureaucratic system according to the classical theory, eg Max Weber, Frederick W. Taylor and Henri Fayol, is very influential to the Thai system, in which organisations are closed and centralised systems with command-line administration and without participation from internal and external stakeholders. This explains why the participants in the strategic planning, especially lower ranks, shied away from expressing their views. It was found in many places, not only Thailand, where strategies were determined by higher administrators (Poister, Pitts, & Edwards 2010:539). When strategic planning is caught in the command line, the resulting plans are not connected to the planning process and do not lead to outcomes that meet the organisations' needs, but the requirements of external organisation, the OPDC.

Work characteristics

Most agencies under the Ministry of Justice are required to perform as prescribed by laws, regulations and orders. They share common missions that are their routine work. For example, the Central Institute of Forensic Science, the Department of Special Investigation, the Legal Execution Department, the Department of Corrections, the Office of the Narcotics Control Board, and the Office of Public Sector Anti-Corruption Commission do not seek satisfaction from clients. The characteristics of their work prevent creation of new missions or strategies to compete with other organisations and therefore obstruct the system of strategic planning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy recommendations

Although the linkage between the three elements-determinants, strategic planning and outcomes was weak, partly due to the cultural and organisational constraints, the strategic planning processes by the agencies under the Ministry of Justice can, in practice, be separated from routine work. To do so, these agencies need to improve the quality of personnel so that they are goal-oriented and can contribute to the organisational development to adapt to changes and accomplish their goals and missions. Hellriegel et al (2001 cited by Sun & Xu 2012:70) suggest that organisations should communicate with their personnel about personal and organisational values, promote team working and recognition, and implement a reward-and-punishment system for desired behavioural outcomes. Many organisations can develop the outcome-oriented system and culture by building common understanding in their personnel so that they realise the importance of strategic planning. In some organisations, for example, strategic missions are on the agenda of monthly meetings. Some organisations require that new projects are aligned with missions and strategies (Hu, Kapucu, & O'Byrne 2014:93). Organisations need to create common understanding that strategic planning is a systematic way that helps the leaders to understand future environments in different dimensions and see how to achieve goals and visions. The strategic planning comprises methods and activities that inform how the achievements can take place (Gordon 2005:1). It is also a process whereby stakeholders share opinions and reach agreements about missions and priorities (Allison & Kaye 1997:1). In addition, organisations should show that strategic planning can benefit individuals, groups, the organisations and communities and that it can help the organisations achieve their goals and create a better future for younger generations (Bryson 2004:8)..

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the Ministry of Justice and others have extensively implemented the policy of strategic planning, the findings of the weak linkage between elements in the process point to an urgent need to conduct a study to find out how to strengthen the connection between these elements. It is important that the research focuses on the whole picture of the planning process, which has been missed by other studies that pay attention to specific elements, eg leadership, perception and understanding and organisational competence.

REFERENCES

Allison, M. & Kaye, J. (1997). Strategic Planning for Nonprofit Organizations: A Practical Guide and Workbook. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Bailey, R.W. (1989). Strategic Planning and Large-City Governance. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 37(3): 167-179.

Bryson, J.M. (2004). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Choonhaklai, S. (2012). Organizational Administration According to Public Administration Theory. Nakon Pathom: Mistercopy.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Denhardt, J.V. & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The New Public Services (Expanded Edition): Serving not Steering. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Gordon, G.J. (2005). Strategic Planning for Local Government. Washington, DC: ICMA.

Hansen, J.R., (2011). Application of Strategic Management Tools after NPM Inspired Reform: Strategy as Practice in Danish Schools. Administration & Society 43 (7) 770-806.

Hu, Q., Kapucu, N., & O'Byrne, L. (2014). Strategic Planning for CommunityBased Small Nonprofit Organizations: Implementation, Benefits, and Challenges. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 1 (83-101).

Matzke, P., Kriebel, N. & Krauss, D. (2007). Four Steps To Derive More Strategic Value From Your SWOT Analysis. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from http: //www.forrester.com/rb/

Research/four_steps_to_derive_more_strategic_value/q/id/41537/t/2

Mercer, J.L. (1991). Strategic Planning for Public Managers. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Nigro, F.A. & Nigro, L.G. (1984). Modern Public Administration. 4th ed. New York: Harper & Row Publisher.

Ocampo, Romeo B., (2000). Models of Public Administration Reform: "New public management (NPM)". Asian Review of Public Administration, vol. XII, no. 1, pp. 248-255.

Office of Public Sector Development Commission. Annual Report: 2004. Bangkok: Author.

Pfiffner, J. P. (2004). Traditional Public Administration versus the New Public Management: Accountability versus Efficiency. Fairfax, VA: School of Public Policy, George Mason University. Pp: 443-454.

Poister, T.H., & Streib, G.D. (1999). Strategic Management in the Public Sector: Concepts, Models, and Processes. Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, March 1999. 308-325.

Poister, T.H., Pitts, D.W. and Edwards, L.H. (2010). Strategic Management Research in the Public Sector: A Review, Synthesis and Future Directions.

The American Review of Public Administration 40(5) 522-545.

Porter, M. E. (2008) The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy, Harvard business Review, January 2008.

Pumipathanasuk, S. (2010). A Study of FM 93.5 Yes Radio Retro Program's Strategic Management. Independent Study. Master of Arts Program in Public and Private Administration, Silpakorn University.

Rachamani, Y. (2011). Implementation of Strategic Plans by Primary Schools in the South. Master of Science Thesis in Applied Statistics, National Institute of Development Administration.

Rehfuss, J. (1973). Public Administration as Political Process. New York: Charles Scribnew's Sons.

Robbins, S.P. (1990). Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Applications.

3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Schein, Edgar H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist 45 (2): 109-119.

Sun, S. & Xu, Z. (2012). Cultural Values and their Challenges for Enterprises. International Journal of Business administration. March 2012. Vol. 3 No. 2 (68-73).

Sirirat Choonhaklai, Ratthasirin Wangkanond

Mahidol University, Thailand