National Academies Press: OpenBook

Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies (2005)

Chapter: Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results

« Previous: Chapter Two - Literature Review
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Three - Surveys Methodology and Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13819.
×
Page 19

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

12 OVERVIEW Two surveys (one random and one of selected agencies) were conducted to determine the extent of the use of strategic plan- ning in the transit industry and the nature of its use. A number of important benefits or effects of strategic planning were cited by survey respondents, such as the creation of a new vision for the agency; giving the entire agency a sense of direction; the development of a shared understanding of goals and objectives among staff, management, and the agency board; development of a stronger customer orientation; greater board ownership of overall agency initiatives; and greater support from external stakeholders. Also mentioned was its usefulness in obtaining additional public funding. Common strategic plan components are a vision and mis- sion statement, an internal and external environmental scan, an identification of strategic issues and/or initiatives, action plans, and performance measures. Several common themes were mentioned as keys to success in strategic planning: • Broad participation and involvement by management, staff, and other key stakeholders. • Making the process collaborative and cross-functional; getting broad buy-in. • Good communication about the plan so that everyone understands their role in its success. A pivotal issue explored in the survey was how effective the agencies are in implementing their plans. A key strat- egy for successful implementation is to link the strategic plans to other important organizational processes such as budgeting, capital programming, and performance measure- ment. Another key strategy is to incorporate a regular progress reporting system. METHODOLOGY The two surveys conducted as part of this project were (1) a random survey of 50 transit agencies and (2) a separate more detailed survey of 44 specific agencies recommended pri- marily by the synthesis project panel members. In addition, the agency of each of the panel members affiliated with a transit system was included. The agencies that responded to each survey are listed in Appendices A (random survey) and B (selective survey). The random survey was done primarily by means of a short (5 minute) telephone interview. (A few surveys were obtained by e-mail.) The agencies were picked at random from APTA’s directory, with one agency randomly selected from each state. The purpose of this survey was simply to determine what percentage of transit systems perform some kind of strategic planning, with the primary question being whether or not the agency performs strategic planning. A few supplemental questions were asked to confirm that they were really talking about strategic planning and not some other kind of planning, and to get a brief sense of the benefits derived and the lessons they learned. The interviews were generally with the head of the agency or a designated individual, such as the person in charge of strategic planning. Responses were obtained from transit agen- cies in 38 of the 50 states (76%). Table 1 summarizes these responses according to agency size. For purposes of this project, the transit systems were cat- egorized by size as follows: • Small—fewer than 100 vehicles. • Medium—100–500 vehicles. • Large—More than 500 vehicles. A copy of the questionnaire used in this survey is included as Appendix C. The second, more detailed, survey was sent to 44 transit agencies selected primarily on the recommendations of the synthesis panel members (a handful of these agencies were also part of the random survey). In part, these agencies were selected because they were likely to conduct strategic plan- ning. To improve the return rate, follow-up phone calls were made or reminder e-mails were sent to all recipients who did not return the surveys by the requested date. A copy of the survey questionnaire is included as Appendix D. Twenty four of the agencies (55%) responded. Table 2 summarizes the responses by size or type of agency. RESULTS—RANDOM SURVEY Use of Strategic Planning The respondents to the initial random survey were asked if they perform strategic planning (not including the federally required Transportation Development Programs/Long-Range Transportation Plans). Thirty-one (82%) reported that they do perform strategic planning and 7 (18%) that they do not. CHAPTER THREE SURVEYS—METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

13 Of the seven that do not perform strategic planning, four had performed it previously, and six planned to do so. Table 3 summarizes the responses by the size of the system. Frequency The 31 respondents who do perform strategic planning were then asked about the frequency of their planning efforts. Their responses were: • More frequent strategic planning than annually—1 (3%). • Annual strategic planning (not an update)—9 (29%). • Annual updating of existing strategic plan—10 (32%). • Updating of strategic plan infrequently—11 (36%). It is interesting to note that the majority of respondents (64%) engage in some type of annual update or planning effort. The length of time that a strategic plan covers ranged from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 25 years. Of the agen- cies that do annual updating of their strategic plan, the aver- age number of years their plan covers is 8.5. For all respon- dents, the average number of years covered was 9.3, with the most common answer being 5 years. Components Used There are several typical components of a strategic planning document. Respondents were asked whether any of eight com- ponents were used in their strategic planning documents. The most common components were mission statement (97%), recommendations (94%), and identification of strategic issues (81%). The least common components were the internal and external environmental scans—only 52% of the respondents have them. (Many transit operators either did not know what environmental scans were or, upon explanation, called them different things. Also, some agencies perform environmental scans, but do not include them in their strategic plan docu- ments.) Table 4 summarizes the responses. Benefits Gained Transit agencies were also asked about the greatest benefit they received from strategic planning. A wide variety of responses were received. The responses can be grouped into the following five categories. 1. The most common response (19) was that strategic planning allows for the transit staff and board to have a more long-range view in decision making and day- to-day activities. Those who answered this tended to believe that strategic planning allowed them to focus on results and big picture goals instead of dwelling on the details of day-to-day tasks. 2. Fourteen respondents indicated that the strategic plan and process were used to restructure or expand exist- ing services. Specifically, nine reported that strategic planning was used for restructuring to gain a more effi- cient use of resources (including ridership increases) and five noted that it was used as a guide for the expan- sion of services. 3. Ten respondents indicated that stakeholder (local gov- ernment, the public, and local businesses) awareness was increased and input gained by the use of strate- gic planning. Specifically, seven suggested that they received more awareness and input from the public and from local government through strategic planning and three that suggested strategic planning guided them into partnerships between the private and public sector. 4. Eight respondents indicated that strategic planning helps clarify and align the thinking of the staff and board. For example, strategic planning coordinates organiza- tional objectives and allows management and staff to document what they know intuitively. It serves as a future guide for policymakers and staff and helps cre- ate consistency between the policymakers and the pol- icy implementers. 5. Finally, seven respondents indicated that strategic plan- ning was used in conjunction with funding concerns and decisions. Specifically, strategic plans were used to Agency Size Responses % of Total Responses Small 23 61 Medium 10 26 Large 5 13 Total 38 100 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES (by agency size) Size/Type No. Surveyed % of Total Survey Pool No. of Responses Response Rate (%) % of Total Respondents Small 5 11 1 20 4 Medium 19 43 12 63 50 Large 14 32 10 71 42 Commuter rail 2 5 1 50 4 Canadian agencies 4 9 0 0 0 Total 44 100 24 55 100 TABLE 2 SURVEY RESPONSES (by size and type of agency)

justify a need to increase funding or were used in con- junction with funding decisions (five responses). Two respondents indicated that through strategic planning their agencies realized a need for more resources than they currently have to meet the needs of their region. RESULTS—SELECTIVE SURVEY Use of Strategic Planning Of the 24 agencies that responded to the second, selective survey, 2 reported that they do not perform strategic plan- ning. On closer examination, three other agencies that reported performing strategic planning appeared to be referring instead to the federally required Long-Range Transportation Plans and/or Transportation Development Programs. Two agencies that previously performed strategic planning no longer do so (see Table 5). Table 6 shows the percentage of agencies that perform strategic planning according to the size of the agency. One of the agencies that previously performed strategic planning, but no longer does so, stopped the process to focus more energy on pressing short-term problems. The other agency did not stop so much as put their process temporarily on hold. The agency had a 5-year strategic plan and intended to revisit it in 2001 for updates and revisions. However, this was abruptly interrupted by a series of financial crises, includ- ing a plummeting economy, major budget deficits, service cuts, and layoffs. The following survey results are based on the 17 agencies that currently perform strategic planning. Although there are many commonalities, as will be seen, there is also a variety of different approaches to conducting strategic planning in transit agencies. There is no single uniform model. 14 Benefits of Strategic Planning Respondents cited numerous impacts or benefits from strate- gic planning; some general, some specific. In the more gen- eral category, the following impacts were cited: • Created a new vision for the agency. • Created a shared understanding of goals and objectives among staff, management, and the board. • Helped everyone in the agency to work together. • Facilitated the prioritization of projects and programs. • Promoted greater board ownership of overall agency initiatives and less emphasis on pet projects. • Provided greater agency support from external stake- holders. • Helped agency become more customer oriented. • Allowed agency to establish budget priorities, redirect staffing levels, and create more effective workflow. • Helped define the agency’s core role and responsibili- ties to the community. More specific responses included: • Helped shift emphasis from design and construction to corporate management. • Noted that the average age of the fleet has declined, oper- ating reserves have expanded, and ridership has grown. • Led to the development of various agency initiatives such as Safety First, a return-to-work program, and a new agency logo and marketing strategy. • Cited internal process improvements, such as the accounts payable process, procurement cycle time, and recruit- ment and selection. • Enabled development of a marketing plan that dovetails with the strategic plan’s objectives. • Substantially reduced customer injuries and employee lost-time accidents. Size of System Perform Strategic Planning Do Not Perform Strategic Planning Total Small 17 (74%) 6 (26%) 23 (100%) Medium 9 (90%) 1 (10%) 10 (100%) Large 5 (100%) — 5 (100%) Total 31 (82%) 7 (18%) 38 (100%) Strategic Planning Components Percentage Who Use Them Vision statement 74 Mission statement 97 External environmental scan 52 Internal environmental scan 52 Identification of strategic issues and/or initiatives 81 Recommendations 94 Action plans, etc. 77 Performance measures 77 TABLE 3 USE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING (by size of system) TABLE 4 COMPONENTS OF STRATEGIC PLANS Status of Strategic Planning No. of Agencies % Currently perform it 17 71 Never performed it 2 8 Stopped performing it 2 8 Not really strategic planning 3 13 Total 24 100 Agency Size Yes % Yes No % No Small 1 100 — — Medium 10 83 2 17 Large 6 55 5 45 Total 17 71 7 29 TABLE 5 PERFORMANCE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE OF AGENCIES PERFORMING STRATEGIC PLANNING (by size)

15 Name of Process Most agencies call their process strategic planning, although several respondents use the term strategic business planning or refer to their documents as strategic business plans. This is particularly true for the two agencies under the MTA in New York, which prescribes the name and nature of the process for its subsidiary agencies. The use of the term “strategic business planning” may reflect one or both of two sentiments. It may be an attempt to merge the somewhat different concepts of strategic planning and business planning or it may simply reflect a movement that began a few years ago in an attempt to make public-sector agencies more “businesslike.” Duration of Process Eight agencies take fewer than 6 months to complete their planning processes. Five agencies take from 9 to 12 months. Two of the agencies regard their processes as continuous or ongoing. Table 7 summarizes these responses. Time Period Covered by Plan The range of time periods covered by strategic plans overall was between 1 and 30 years. The average number of years was eight, with the most common answer being five. Table 8 shows the distribution of responses over the various time periods. Impetus for Starting Strategic Planning For the most part, the impetus for conducting strategic plan- ning was an internal decision by either management or the transit board. For four of the agencies the primary impetus was state law (two agencies each in New York and Washing- ton State). For one agency, it was required by the metropoli- tan government. The responses are summarized in Table 9. Responsibility for Strategic Planning Three organizations did not have specific departments or individuals charged with the responsibility for strategic plan- ning (one was a small agency and two were medium in size). Of the 14 organizations that did assign specific responsibil- ity, there was quite a variety of where and to whom it was assigned. In terms of organizational location, five agencies indicated that the responsibility was primarily in the execu- tive office. Three agencies indicated that the responsibility was in some kind of strategic planning department (e.g., strate- gic organizational planning). Two agencies cited more gen- eral planning departments (e.g., planning and development or transit planning). The administration and human resources departments were cited by two other agencies. With regard to who was responsible for the function, three agencies indicated that the general manager, executive direc- tor, or assistant executive director was the key person. Three agencies indicated an executive vice president or vice presi- dent, and three more indicated a director of a strategic plan- ning unit. Other managers cited were a strategic business manager and a senior transit manager. In three cases, staff level positions were cited—a human resources specialist, a transit planner, and a principal management analyst. Usefulness of Strategic Planning Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of strategic planning at their agency on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being “not at all useful” and 5 being “extremely useful”). Overall, the respondents rated usefulness as a 4, or “very useful.” The responses are summarized in Table 10. Duration No. % 2 months 1 6 3–6 months 7 41 9–12 months 5 29 Ongoing 2 12 Other 2 12 Total 17 100 Time Period No. % 1–3 years 2 12 5 years 7 41 6–10 years 2 12 11+ years 2 12 Undefined 4 24 Total 17 100 Impetus No. % Internal decision 12 71 External requirement 5 29 Total 17 100 Rating No. % 1 (not at all useful) 0 0 2 (somewhat useful) 1 6 3 (fairly useful) 2 12 4 (very useful) 10 59 5 (extremely useful) 4 23 Total 17 100 Average rating 4.0 TABLE 7 DURATION OF PLANNING PROCESS TABLE 8 TIME PERIOD COVERED BY PLAN TABLE 9 IMPETUS FOR STARTING STRATEGIC PLANNING TABLE 10 USEFULNESS OF STRATEGIC PLANNING

Note that 82% of respondents rated strategic planning as “very useful” or “extremely useful.” Respondents were also asked about the reason for their ratings. Typical answers included: • Our annual goals and budget are driven by goals that come from the strategic plan. • Strategic initiatives set forth by the board help manage- ment and staff to set priorities. • It puts the board and staff on the same page and makes it easier to get the board to agree with our annual goals and objectives. • It focuses our energies. • It increases interdepartmental coordination. • It is used as a management tool—performance metrics are linked to the strategies, thus holding departments accountable for results. • It helps to identify areas for improvement and the need for additional funds. • Performance indicators associated with the strategic plan are an important means for measuring progress. • It caused us to recognize the importance of our role in the region. • It was useful in the agency’s successful sales tax ballot initiative. • It outlined a vision for how we want transit to develop in the region for the foreseeable future. Involvement in the Planning Process Respondents were asked about who was involved in their internal planning process. All of the agencies indicated that “executive management” was involved. Approximately three- fourths of the agencies also involved other management, the board, line and staff departments, and strategic planning staff. Table 11 summarizes this involvement. The “other” category primarily included external stakeholders such as taxpayers, elected officials, and citizen and community groups. Involvement by External Agencies Respondents were also asked about the involvement by exter- nal agencies such as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), a regional transit agency, or local municipalities or 16 counties. There was no clear pattern here. For the most part, external agencies do not have to approve the strategic plans. They are more likely to be involved in their development. This was particularly true in the case of MPOs—they are sometimes involved in the development but usually not in approval. A common role of the MPO was to provide demo- graphic and environmental types of information. (In two cases, the transit agency is the MPO.) Table 12 summarizes the involvement by other agencies. Use of Retreats Three-fourths of the respondents use board and/or manage- ment retreats as part of their process. Most of the retreats are done annually. One agency has a mid-year retreat to review with the board the overall priorities that the executive man- agement team would like to pursue in the next year, and another retreat late that year to update the board on the bud- get implications. Another agency uses quarterly planning workshops involving both board and management. The duration of the retreats ranged from one-half day to 1 week. (The 1 week retreat, at the Metropolitan Transit Authority in Nashville, was with all levels of staff repre- sented on a rotating basis.) The retreats included a variety of activities such as an environmental assessment (or scan), a SWOT analysis, development of annual goals and objec- tives, generation of a “strategic portfolio” (a set of strategic initiatives or priorities), and creation of a strategic vision. Use of Consultants Two-thirds of the agencies used a consultant at some stage to assist them with the process. Many of these agencies only used a consultant when they began strategic planning and cur- rently do not. Consultants were sometimes used for substan- tive purposes (e.g., designing a strategic planning process or conducting an environmental scan); however, many agencies used them primarily as professional facilitators at meetings; for example, at planning retreats. Plan Approval The agency board approves the strategic plan in more than one-half of the agencies. It is approved by top management in approximately 20% of the agencies. In one-fourth of the Who Is Involved? No. % Board of directors 13 76 Executive management 17 100 Strategic planning staff 12 71 Other management 13 76 Line and staff departments 12 71 Other 6 35 Development Approval Agency No. % No. % MPO 8 47 4 24 Regional transit agency 3 18 3 18 Municipalities and/or counties 9 53 5 29 Other 4 24 1 6 TABLE 11 INVOLVEMENT IN THE PLANNING PROCESS TABLE 12 INVOLVEMENT BY EXTERNAL AGENCIES

17 agencies, the plan is approved by a regional transit agency or local government. Table 13 summarizes the approving bodies. Plan Content The plan documents contain a number of common elements of a strategic plan, such as a vision and/or mission statement, an internal and external environmental scan, and an identifi- cation of strategic issues and initiatives. The most common plan element (in 100% of the agencies) was the identification of strategic issues and/or initiatives. Table 14 indicates the prevalence of the various types of plan elements as reported by the survey respondents. Respondents were also requested to provide copies of their strategic planning documents. Fourteen agencies did so. Following are some key observations from a review of these documents: • Six of the plans were called “Strategic Plans.” Six oth- ers were titled “Strategic Business Plans.” The remain- ing two were named “Destination 2010” and “Strategic Initiatives.” • Several of the plans contained statements about organi- zational values. This is a relatively new development in strategic planning that has been more common in the private sector. The general intent is to define the orga- nization’s core values so that they can serve as a con- text or framework for its plans and activities.) • Some agencies have well fleshed-out plans, but their yearly updates were sparse. Conversely, some agencies had detailed yearly updates and a sparse plan. It appears that the more detailed the plan, the less need for detailed annual updates, and vice versa. • Four agencies combined their strategic planning docu- ments with their financial plans/capital improvement programs. • Two agencies used a balanced scorecard approach, an approach being used in many private-sector companies. • Three agencies’ plans contained educational pieces either describing the terms of strategic planning and/or the process, or explaining why the organization is conduct- ing strategic planning. • Two plans were as brief as a board meeting document outlining strategic initiatives or a four-page outline of goals and strategies for the year. One agency, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), has an interesting strategic plan. Known as the Transit First Strategic Plan, it contains only a few of the spe- cific elements identified previously. Instead, it lays out a visionary strategy for increasing the role that public trans- portation plays in meeting the region’s mobility needs over the next 20 years. It focuses on three areas that will be key to the success of the Transit First strategy: 1. An increased regional funding commitment to both transit operating and capital improvements. 2. Close integration of land use and transportation plan- ning (“Smart Growth”). 3. Implementation of transit priority measures to bypass congested areas to improve travel times and reliability. Adopted in October 2000, development of the Transit First strategy was a collaborative effort between the Metro- politan Transit Development Board, the California Depart- ment of Transportation, the North County Transit District, SANDAG, and local jurisdictions. (Note that in January 2003, SANDAG assumed many of the transit planning, fund- ing allocation, project development, and construction respon- sibilities of the Metropolitan Transit Development Board and the North County Transit District.) Although not a traditional strategic plan, it is certainly strategic (in terms of its time frame, number of agencies involved, and changes that will be necessary for it to succeed, and it is a clearly a plan. It cre- ates a strategic vision for transit in the region. Therefore, it has been included in this analysis. From Planning to Implementation Many of the comments about moving from planning into implementation centered on the need to translate the plan into annual goals and objectives and to implement them through the budgetary and capital programming processes. Several agencies have monthly or quarterly progress reviews that might include presentations to the board. A few agencies go an additional step by linking the accomplishment of goals and objectives with individual performance appraisals. In several cases, the evaluation of the general manager or exec- utive director by the board is tied directly to the achievement of strategic plan goals. Approving Body No. % Agency board 9 53 Agency top management 3 18 Local government 2 12 Regional transit agency 2 12 Other 1 6 Total 17 100 Plan Elements No. % Vision statement 10 59 Mission statement 14 82 External environmental scan (e.g., opportunities and threats) 12 71 Internal environmental scan (e.g., strengths and weaknesses) 12 71 Identification of strategic issues and/or initiatives 17 100 Recommendations 10 59 Action plans, etc. 15 88 Performance measures 13 76 Other 7 41 TABLE 13 PLAN APPROVAL TABLE 14 PLANNING DOCUMENT ELEMENTS

A common theme regarding implementation was the need for good communication. This included holding meetings with various groups to explain the plan and their role in it, regular discussion at senior management team meetings, regular reporting to the board, and the posting of goals and results on the agency website. One agency, LACMTA, reported a very comprehensive process. In addition to the communication strategies described previously, this agency forms teams tied to each strategic goal. These teams meet monthly or bi-monthly with facili- tators from the Organizational Development and Training Department, whose job it is to coach the goal “owners” as they work on achieving their goals. In addition, the executive management team holds quarterly reviews with the teams to ensure that they are recognized for their accomplishments and for meeting their milestones. Finally, the agency uses key performance indicators (KPIs) that are reported to the chief financial officer as part of the operating management and budget process. For fiscal year (FY) 2005, the agency is developing monthly performance monitoring using key, high- level indicators. Effectiveness of Implementation Respondents were asked to rate their effectiveness at imple- menting strategic plan recommendations on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “not at all effective” and 5 being “extremely effective.” Overall, they rated implementation at 3.6, between “fairly effective” and “very effective.” Table 15 summarizes the responses. Respondents were also asked to explain their answers. A number of the respondents remarked on the difficulties involved in implementation; for example, overcoming years of stagnancy with entrenched staff, the need for “hand-holding” to keep people moving in the right direction, and the reality of new circumstances that redirect energies. Several systems pointed out that they were just getting started or were still in a learning phase. A key aspect of making strategic planning effective is link- ing it to other important organizational processes, not con- ducting it as an isolated planning exercise. This includes link- 18 ing it to operational planning, the annual operating budget, capital planning and programming, financial planning, and performance measurement. Most agencies have made these linkages, as summarized in Table 16. Use of Performance Measures Most systems reported using some kind of performance mea- sure in connection with their strategic planning process. They are developed or identified in a variety of ways. Generally, they are developed at a management level, sometimes with guidance from the board. Sometimes they are developed jointly between a manager or executive and the units that report to that individual. Some systems let the responsible individuals develop the measures and these are then reviewed and approved at the next level. One system reported that the measures were identified as part of one of their planning retreats. At MTA New York City Transit, the performance indica- tors are selected by the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority), the regional transit agency, and specific targets for those indicators are established by responsible depart- ments in each subsidiary agency. These are then approved by the agency’s president and by the MTA board. Mechanisms for Evaluating Success Several respondents use monthly or quarterly reports to man- agement and/or the board. Similarly, several use some kind of quarterly management review process that assesses progress on goals or performance measures. Most agencies have at least an annual report or review of some kind. In addition, many agencies formally update their plans each year and this involves a review of progress against the plan. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority uses a Corporate Alignment Plan, a tool for managing progress much like a business plan. The Corporate Alignment Plan “aligns” annual performance targets with the strategic plan. It contains annual goals, objectives, and performance metrics that are set by management, and that allow the organization to track its accomplishments. The plan also uses the balanced scorecard concept described earlier in the literature review. Rating No. % 1 (not at all effective) 0 0 2 (somewhat effective) 1 6 3 (fairly effective) 8 47 4 (very effective) 5 29 5 (extremely effective) 3 18 Total 17 100 Average rating 3.6 Process No. % Operations/service planning 15 88 Budgeting 15 88 Capital planning/programming 13 76 Financial planning 13 76 Information technology planning 14 82 Performance measurement 13 76 Organization development 12 71 Other 4 24 TABLE 15 EFFECTIVENESS AT IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE 16 LINKAGE TO OTHER PROCESSES

19 Keys to Success Several common themes ran through the responses to the ques- tion about the “keys to success” in their planning processes: • Support and commitment by the board and/or top management. • Broad participation and involvement by management, staff, and other key stakeholders. • Making the process collaborative and cross-functional; getting broad “buy-in.” • Good communication about the plan so that everyone understands their role in its success. Other more specific responses regarding keys to success by particular agencies included: • Discussing budget implications at the same time as strategic initiatives. • Having one person dedicated to facilitating the process to ensure continuity. • Using the plan as a business tool. • Basing the plan on good data. • Holding departments accountable. • Continuously reviewing the plan. • Using it to develop annual goals. • Making reference to the plan in initiatives throughout the year. • Narrowing topic areas down to manageable goals and objectives that can be achieved in a year or less. One agency, LACMTA, cited two interesting features of its planning process. First, it uses a “Leadership Model” to communicate the strategic plan to middle management and frontline supervisors. Second, each business unit is given a video presentation in which the chief executive officer (CEO) stresses the importance of achieving the business goals of the agency. [This is described in more detail in the Case Study section (chapter four).] Challenges Several challenges were cited in response to the question about pitfalls or obstacles typically encountered in the strate- gic planning process. • The difficulty of staying focused on strategic issues throughout the year in light of pressing day-to-day issues. • The difficulty of working with numerous individuals, dealing with differing opinions, and getting all of the information needed in the time frame available. • External factors such as severe funding problems that delay or derail the process. • The use of goals that were too broad and that did not provide enough guidance for priority setting. • Media scrutiny of the process. • The reluctance of some individuals to set ambitious tar- gets for which they are willing to be held accountable. • Inadequate communication and participation. In regard to how the challenges were overcome, support from the top was frequently mentioned as an important fac- tor. In one case, the “willpower” of the board chairman and executive director was cited as crucial. In another case, the agency president distributes a “guidance” memo at the begin- ning of the strategic planning process, which outlines where he wants to see more programmatic emphasis. He also reviews the draft plan before it goes to the board to see that it includes appropriate programs and performance targets. Good communication was cited by many respondents as a key ingredient in overcoming obstacles. Similarly, giving employees significant input into the process was cited as important. One agency revised its employee appraisal form to include accomplishment of goals developed in the plan- ning process as a factor in performance appraisal. Lessons Learned In addition to the items mentioned previously under keys to success or overcoming challenges, other lessons learned were: • Integrate the strategic plan outcomes into typical oper- ating documents such as service plans and budgets. • Make the plans and goals ambitious, but not so much so that they are unattainable. • Recognize that change will be difficult and that it will take time and effort. • Involve not just the organization but the community too. The effort will not be successful without the sup- port of community partners, as well as local, state, and federal governments. Finally, one respondent advised “Take a deep breath, make a complete break from the tactical, and focus on the strategic. Celebrate accomplishment.”

Next: Chapter Four - Case Studies »
Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Synthesis 59: Strategic Planning and Management in Transit Agencies examines the value and benefits of strategic planning and management in transit agencies. The report also provides case studies from five transit agencies based on the comprehensiveness of process or presence of innovative or noteworthy practices.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!