Session Guide - From objectives to an operational plan
|
DATE |
|
|
TIME |
|
|
FORMAT |
Plenary participatory lecture |
|
TRAINER |
|
|
OBJECTIVES | |
|
At the end of this session, participants should: | |
|
1. Know criteria for sound programme strategic objectives. | |
|
2. Know a set of criteria for programme operational plans. | |
|
3. Be familiar with several approaches to selecting projects to compose an operational plan. | |
|
4. Be familiar with activities which influence resource attraction and allocation. | |
|
5. Be aware of questions that should be asked in reiterating a plan once a first version is prepared. | |
|
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS | |
|
Exhibit 1 |
Criteria for sound programme strategic objectives |
|
Exhibit 2 |
Strategic objectives at the programme level |
|
Exhibit 3 |
Criteria for programme operational plans |
|
Exhibit 4 |
Operational plans at the programme level |
|
Exhibit 5 |
The use of project results for projects which were stimulated by markets or by needs, compared to those stimulated by technology or by means |
|
Exhibit 6 |
Decision Theory representative method |
|
Exhibit 7 |
Economic Analysis representative method |
|
Exhibit 8 |
Operations Research representative method |
|
Exhibit 9 |
Activities for research resource attraction |
|
Exhibit 10 |
Activities determining resource allocation |
|
Exhibit 11 |
Reiteration of the plan |
|
RECOMMENDED READING | |
|
1. Baker, N.R., & Pound, W.H. 1964. R&D project selection: Where we stand. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, December: 124-134. | |
|
2. Utterback, J.M. 1975. The role of applied research institutes in the transfer of technology in Latin America. World Development, 3(9): | |
|
3. Casas, J. 1992. Long-term planning of a National Agricultural Research System in the Third World. FAO Research Development Centre - Working Paper Series, No. 11. | |
|
SPECIAL EQUIPMENT AND AIDS | |
|
Overhead projector and chalkboard | |
Review with participants the eight steps in developing an institute plan (described in EXHIBIT 1 of Module 2 - Session 2). Then note that this session deals with the steps between the development of programme strategic objectives to recycling (reiteration) of a plan. Show EXHIBIT 1. Review and discuss these criteria.
Show EXHIBIT 2. Discuss the questions in EXHIBIT 2 and ask if they are relevant to the planning process in their institutions.
Show EXHIBIT 3. Review each of these criteria with participants and ask them to suggest additional criteria for determining operational plans. Show EXHIBIT 4. Review the questions with participants. Ask them to assume they are in a planning situation, and, from this hypothetical situation, attempt to answer the questions.
Operational plans which are based upon markets or needs have often been shown to produce more utilizable results than those which were stimulated by technology or by means. Show EXHIBIT 5 to illustrate this from a case study reporting research results from Latin American institutions.
Discuss the range of project selection models which may be used in preparing an operational plan. Show EXHIBITS 6, 7 and 8 to illustrate possibilities. The trainer will find information on these models in the Background Reading.
Certain activities will attract R&D resources. Show EXHIBIT 9 and discuss the activities noted in this exhibit. Not only do these activities help obtain resources, they also determine from where resources are derived.
Show EXHIBIT 10. Ask participants if they have been involved in any such activities. The trainer should be prepared to illustrate these activities with examples from his or her experience.
The final step in the eight-step process is to reiterate an analysis of the plan contents. EXHIBIT 11 lists a number of questions that should help in such a plan review. The trainer should have prepared examples to illustrate these questions.
EXHIBIT 1 - CRITERIA FOR SOUND PROGRAMME STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
THE OBJECTIVE:
Specifies a result, not an activity.
Describes just one result that you want accomplished.
Starts with 'TO,' followed by a verb. V Specifies when the result is to be accomplished.
Emphasizes what will be done and when it will be done, but does not specify why or how it will be done.
Is feasible in the light of projections for resources available.
Is clearly related to one or more goals stated by the institute director.
Is designed with, and understood by, those responsible for its attainment.
Is specific, measurable and verifiable.
EXHIBIT 2 - STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AT THE PROGRAMME LEVEL
QUESTIONS:
HOW DOES THE PROGRAMME GENERATE OBJECTIVES FOR ACHIEVING ITS GOALS?
HOW CAN A LARGE NUMBER OF PROGRAMME STAFF BE INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING PROCESS?
HOW CAN EACH PROGRAMME RE-ASSESS EACH OF ITS RESEARCH PROGRAMMES FOR CONFORMITY TO INSTITUTE GOALS?
WHAT OLD PROGRAMMES SHOULD BE TERMINATED?
DO THESE OBJECTIVES REACH OUT FAR ENOUGH?
- TO THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR?
- TO THE GOVERNMENT?
- TO OUR OWN STAFF?
ARE THESE PROPOSED PROGRAMME STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH PROGRAMME GOALS? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
HAVE THESE PROPOSED STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE USER SECTOR (i.e., GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE, OTHERS)?
EXHIBIT 3 - CRITERIA FOR PROGRAMME OPERATIONAL PLANS
In formulating programme operational plans, the programme task team should apply the following criteria:
· Is each programme operational plan designed to contribute directly to the achievement of one or more of the programme's strategic objectives?· Is each programme operational plan feasible in the light of internal and external constraints? Are time, money, facilities, human resources and support available for achieving the plan, or can they be made available?
· Were those who are accountable for achievement involved in setting the programme operational plan? Is there a realistic basis of accountability for achieving the plan? Were those who will be affected by the programme operational plans also involved in the process of plan formulation?
· Do the programme operational plans have 'reach' and challenge? Such plans should be achievable, but they should also have a stretching quality that will inspire the best efforts on the part of those responsible for achievement.
· If the programme operational plans involve other programmes, were the plans established collaboratively? Plans involving other programmes and other government organizations should be established with the participation of those units that will be in part responsible for implementation.
EXHIBIT 4 - OPERATIONAL PLANS AT THE PROGRAMME LEVEL
QUESTIONS:
· IS THERE MORE THAN ONE OPERATIONAL PLAN TO REACH ONE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE? IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE, WHICH IS THE BEST ONE? IN RESULTS? IN COST EFFECTIVENESS?· BY WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU PRIORITIZE THESE OPERATIONAL PLANS?
· HOW CAN A LARGE NUMBER OF PROGRAMME STAFF BE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THE OPERATIONAL PLANS?
· WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW STAFF?
· WHAT FINANCIAL SUPPORT WILL BE NEEDED? FROM WHAT SOURCES?
· WHAT EQUIPMENT AND LABORATORY RESOURCES WILL BE REQUIRED? WILL NEW FACILITIES BE REQUIRED?
· CAN OTHER PROGRAMMES HELP US IN THIS PROCESS?
· HAVE THESE PROPOSED OPERATIONAL PLANS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE USER SECTOR (i.e., GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE, OTHERS)?
· ONCE AN OPERATIONAL PLAN HAS PASSED EARLY REVIEWS, WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC ACTION STEPS THAT MUST BE TAKEN? BY WHOM? WHEN?
EXHIBIT 5 - THE USE OF PROJECT RESULTS FROM PROJECTS WHICH WERE STIMULATED BY MARKETS OR BY NEED, COMPARED WITH THOSE STIMULATED BY TECHNOLOGY OR BY MEANS
|
|
Need-stimulated projects |
Means-stimulated projects |
|
Project results actually in use or which have a tangible potential for use |
9 (75%) |
3 (25%) |
|
Project results not in use |
1 (12.5%) |
7 (87.5%) |
Note: Fisher exact probability that the above distribution could occur by chance alone is <0.025.Source: based on Utterback, 1975
EXHIBIT 6 - DECISION THEORY Representative method: MOTTLEY-NEWTON MODEL
1. Subjectively score each project on the following criteria:
a. promise of technical success;
b. time to completion;
c. estimated cost;
d. strategic market need; and
e. expected market gain.
2. Rank scores.
3. Make decision, based on cumulative research costs going down the list and on budget constraints, with awareness of overall risk and desired balance.
4. Intended primary use: Applied research.
5. Does not consider:
a. sequential decisions;
b. relationships between criteria;
c. relationships between projects;
d. optimal allocation to a project;
e. skill and facility constraints;
f. competitor effects; and
g. the hierarchical nature of the decision making process.
EXHIBIT 7 - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Representative model: DISMAN MODEL
1. Requires selection of discount rate, /.
2. Calculates net present worth.
3. Apply probability of success to arrive at Maximum Expenditures Justified (MEJ)
4. Ratio of MEJ to project costs calculated.
5. Selection based on 'optimal' combination of 3 and 4 above, subject to budget constraints.
6. Primary intended use: New product development and process improvement projects.
7. Does not consider:
a. sequential decisions;
b. relationships between projects;
c. skill and facility constraints;
d. competitor effects;
e. how you are to determine the 'optimal' combination for step 5;
f. that net worth of project (including R&D) is reduced by MEJ; and
g. the hierarchical nature of the decision making process.
EXHIBIT 8 - OPERATIONS RESEARCH Representative method: HESS
1. A highly sophisticated mathematical approach requiring a great deal of data unlikely to be available in the early stages of the R&D process.
2. Requires selection of discount rate, /.
3. Requires probability of success estimates for each period or stage.
4. Requires estimates of discounted gross worth of each project for each period of time prior to achieving success.
5. Selection by maximizing 'set' of projects; expected discounted gross worth minus current R&D expenditures, subject to budget constraints.
6. Likely use: Development stage.
7. Does not consider:
a. skill and facility constraints;
b. competitor effects;
c. that sequential decisions for all projects can not be made at the same time;
d. the hierarchical nature of the decision making process.
8. Does include R&D costs in net project worth.
EXHIBIT 9 - ACTIVITIES FOR RESEARCH RESOURCE ATTRACTION
1. Joint meetings with:
· Government officials
· Users
· Other institute staff
2. Needs assessment reports
· Market analysis
· Market research
3. Proposal writing
· Capability statements
· Concept papers
EXHIBIT 10 - ACTIVITIES DETERMINING RESOURCE ALLOCATION
1. Determine the research organization's basic functions:
· Services (Mission Analysis)
· Resources (Resource Analysis)
· Clients (Market Analysis)
2. Promotion
3. Market (analysis) research
4. Extension services and follow-up
5. Service provision
· Research
· Development
· Consultation
· Technical assistance
EXHIBIT 11 - REITERATION OF THE PLAN
QUESTIONS
Will the successful execution of the programme operational plans achieve all of the institute goals?
If not, what new operational plans will have to be developed?
Are the operational plans too cautious? Too ambitious?
Can trained staff be recruited?
Are the plans too expensive?
Are the plans responsive to the broader plans of the government?
Do the plans deal fully with staff issues?
