Strategic Planning Maturity in the Public Sector in Dubai

8/3/2019 Strategic Planning Maturity in the Public Sector in Dubai

1/16

STRATEGIC PLANNINGMATURITY IN DUBAI

Analysis of the Public Sector Survey


2/16


3/16

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 1

1.Executive SummaryStrategic Planning is a critical discipline in the Public Sector and one that has been established in

Dubai for a long time. TCO set out to measure the maturity of this discipline across organizations

and to gauge the level of satisfaction with the process and its outcome. As a basis for our study weasked senior leaders and other strategy practitioners in Dubai a series of questions drawn from the

TCO Strategic Planning Maturity Model.

The model is made up of seven key factors which together contribute to a mature process and result

in an effective strategic plan. These seven factors measure the relevance, inclusiveness, dynamism,

understanding, measurability, assignment and inter-connectivity of the process.

In our survey, we found that most respondents (nearly 80%) expressed satisfaction with the strategic

planning process in their organizations. The responses overall illustrate that the process is very

mature and that it typically results in a strategic plan that: is used as the basis for decision-making

and is supported by all levels of the organization; represents all stakeholders; is updated periodically;is supported by research; and contains measurable performance indicators. However, survey

responses also showed that there is still room for improvement in some areas. For example, when

asked whether implementation of the strategic plan is cascaded to all levels of the organization,

agreement was only 72%, and when asked whether employees understand how their work

contributes to achieving organizational goals, the level of agreement reached only 65%.

While attitudes were generally positive across the board, there were interesting and significant

nuances of opinion between management levels on the strategic planning process. C-level

Executives (Tier 1) and Mid-level Managers (Tier 3) had the highest opinion of the process (89%

satisfaction on average, compared to 69% for non C-level Executives (Tier 2) such as Directors and

Heads of Department). And when asked about the stakeholders involved in the strategic planning

process, C-level Executives were far more likely to include outside organizations, citizens and other

private actors as key stakeholders. This may indicate that interaction with these outside actors does

not occur at all levels of the organization.

Differences in responses were also noted between those working in the Strategy Department and

those outside of it. Respondents outside of the Strategy Department had a slightly more favorable

view of the maturity of the strategic planning process at almost every major point, perhaps owing to

their relative distance from the process.

To summarize then, we can say that strategic planning in the public sector in Dubai is a highly

developed and robust process. It exhibits all the characteristics associated with a mature process,

even if some of its characteristics can still be improved. In our conclusion, we have highlighted four

areas for senior public sector managers and their strategic planning departments to consider

improving going forward, namely: linking with critical internal departments, the collection and

analysis of data, strategic alignment of the organization and individual performance management.


4/16


2.Introduction to the SurveyTo better understand the current state of

strategic planning practices in the public

sector, TCO conducted a survey of senior

leaders and other strategy practitioners in

Dubai to learn how their organizations

approach strategic planning.

Using data collected during the survey, the

respondents can be divided into two broad

groups: Those playing specific strategy roles in

an organization (typically those within the

Strategy Department), and those in non-

strategy roles (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: Percent of total respondents, according to

their role in the responding organization

The respondents can be further categorized

as five groups, according to their position, or

Tier, within each organization (Figure 2):

Tier 1: C-level Executives (i.e., Directors

General (DGs), Assistant DGs, CEOs, etc)

Tier 2: Non C-level Executives (i.e.,Directors and Heads of Department);

Tier 3: Mid-level Management

Tier 4: Senior Staff, and

Tier 5: Staff Members

Figure 2: Percent of total respondents, according to

their position in the organization (i.e. Management

Tier)

3.Strategic Planning MaturityModel

The survey questions were developed around

seven key factors that make up the TCO

Strategic Planning Maturity Model. According

to that model, a mature strategic planning

process should strongly exhibit these 7specific characteristics. It should be:

Relevant (i.e., used as the basis for

decision-making and supported by all

levels of the organization)

Inclusive (i.e., represent all stakeholders

and all levels of the organization)

Dynamic (i.e., not a static one-time

process, but updated periodically and

adapted to changed environmental

circumstances) Fact-based (i.e., informed and supported

by rigorous research and a deep

understanding of customers)

Measurable (i.e., contain clear and

achievable performance indicators)

Cascaded (i.e., cascade responsibility for

carrying out the strategy to all levels of an

organization)

Connected (i.e., linked to essential

departments within the organization,

such as Human Resources, Budgeting, andPerformance Management)

Strategy

47%

Non-

strategy

53%

Tier 1, 14%

Tier 2, 46%

Tier 3, 32%

Tier 4, 5%

Tier 5, 4%


5/16


To gauge the overall maturity of strategic

planning, each multiple-choice response was

given a numerical score (depending on the

strength of agreement with the question

statement), the scores were aggregated by

factor to calculate an overall total for that

factor, and then the results were plotted on a

radar chart (Figure 3).

Overall, the survey found that strategic

planning is a mature and well -defined

practice in Dubai and in most government

entities. Particularly high results were

recorded for several factors, indicating an

elevated level of maturity: Relevant,

Inclusive, and Measurable were rated very

positively, followed only slightly behind by

Dynamic. Scores for Fact-Based were good,

yet below the level of the previous four

factors, indicating there was room for

improvement. The remaining and lowest

scoring factors were Cascaded and

Connected, which scored at just half the level

of the other factors, indicating that these are

areas that can potentially benefit fromimmediate attention.

Figure 3: Strategic Planning Maturity Radar Chart

These summary findings also squared with the

perceptions of individuals: Nearly 80% of

survey respondents declared themselves

satisfied or very satisfied with the strategic

planning process in their organization

(Figure 4).

Figure 4: Overall satisfaction with the strategic

planning process

Interestingly, the lowest level of satisfaction

with the strategic planning process was found

among Tier 2 Managers, just below the C-level

Executives (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Overall satisfaction with the strategic

planning process (by Management Tier)1

1Some Tier 4 and Tier 5 responses were

received, but were too few to be able to

generalize about the opinions of those

categories

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Relevant

Inclusive

Dynamic

Fact-BasedMeasurable

Cascaded

Connected

11%

68%

16%

5%

Ver satisfied Satisfied Not so sat isfied Not at a ll sat isfied

88%

69%

89%

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3


6/16


4.The Strategic PlanningProcess

At the start of the survey, participants were

asked questions regarding the efficiency and

effectiveness of the process for conducting

actual strategic planning. The overwhelming

majority (96%) of respondents indicated that

there was a dedicated strategic planning

department in their organization. Those that

answered No were working in either sub-

units of larger entities or very small

organizations. The average length of the

strategic planning cycle overall was 3 years,although there appeared to be some

confusion about that timeframe within some

organizations: Respondents from the same

organization often disagreed about the length

of the same planning cycle. However,

regardless of the specific cycle length, 86% of

respondents claimed that their organization

conducts a review of that strategy each year.

Figure 6: Responses to questions regarding the nature

of strategic planning staff

Responses to questions posed about the staff

that is responsible for the process indicated

that although it is not considered easy to find

qualified individuals in the UAE to fill strategy

positions, the existing strategic planning staff

was considered highly skilled by most of the

respondents (Figure 6).

Perhaps not surprisingly, those in the Strategy

Department were most negative about the

possibility of getting qualified staff with more

than 70% of those respondents disagreeing2

with the statement It is easy to find qualified

individuals in the UAE to fill strategic planning

positions in my organization, compared to

less than 50% of non-strategy practitioners

who disagreed with that statement.

5.Specific Questions on theFactors

a) The Relevance FactorBy far, the highest scoring factor was

Relevant, indicating that the strategic plan is

used as the basis for decision-making and that

the strategy is supported by all levels of the

organization. Most respondents (86%) agreed

that new initiatives are approved based on

their contribution to achieving the overall

goals of the organization. 84% agreed that

management was committed to the strategy,

while commitment was perceived to be

somewhat lower among employees. 88% felt

that the strategic planning process let them

understand clearly what role their

2For simplicitys sake throughout this analysis,

unless specifically noted otherwise, we will

refer to all respondents who agreed or

strongly agreed with a statement as having

agreed with it, and likewise refer to those

who disagreed or strongly disagreed as having

disagreed.

17%

63%

18%

2%

7%

35%

49%

9%2.5 It is easy to

find qualified

individuals in

the UAE to fill

strategic

planning

positions in my

organization

2.4 The

strategic

planning staff

at my

organization

are highly

skilled

Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree


7/16


organization plays in achieving the broader

Federal and Emirate strategies. There were

certain noticeable differences here between

the respondent groups although opinions of

non-strategy practitioners on the relevance of

the strategy to the operation of the

organization were 10% higherthan the

opinions of individuals who were actually

working in the Strategy Departments.

b) The Inclusiveness FactorOverall, there was strong agreement among

the respondents that the cultures of their

organizations do encourage strategic planningand those who have to carry out the strategy

are actually involved in setting it. Substantial

minorities, however, disagreed that everyone

is encouraged to contribute to the process or

that the strategy is always communicated well

to stakeholders (26% and 30%, respectively).

Respondents were also asked to identify the

different stakeholders involved in the

strategic planning process. On the whole,there was broad agreement that the Strategy

Department and the senior leadership are

closely involved in the process. Beyond this

point, the responses diverged significantly,

illustrating a difference in the perceptions of

strategy and non-strategy practitioners and

between management levels at the

organization.

For example, more than 80% of strategypractitioners consider employees to be a key

stakeholder; yet only 70% of non-strategy

practitioners do. That difference is significant.

On the other hand, when compared to the

opinions of the strategy group, the non-

strategy practitioners consider every

remaining stakeholder group to be more

involved in the process, including residents,

NGOs, government departments and the

private sector (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Difference in perception between strategy

and non-strategy stakeholders

When considering the differences in

perception among tiers of management, the

picture is even more interesting. For

example, Tier 1 managers believe more

strongly than the others that all stakeholders

are involved in the process, especially

employees (Figure 8). When considering

NGOs and residents as stakeholders, the

difference in perception between Tier 1 and

Tier 3 becomes extremely divergent. Tier 1

managers are 15 times more likely to point to

NGOs, and almost 5 times more likely to

point to residents than are those in Tier 3.

One plausible explanation for this discrepancy

could simply be the distance of these tiers

from these external stakeholder groups. The

higher that one rests in the hierarchy, the

more outward looking ones focus becomes.

This explanation is reinforced by the fact that

Tier 2 perceptions are situated generally

between Tier 1 and Tier 3. Some respondents

also highlighted additional stakeholders not

mentioned in the survey questions, such as

Boards of Directors and International Expert

Advisers.

Residents

NGOs

Citizens

The Private Sector

Central Government

Other Government

Departments

Employees

The Strategy

Departments

Senior Leadership

96%

97%93%

70%52%

93%

70%82%

40%

53%48%

57%44%

53%44%

33%

37%30%

Non-StrategyStrategy

Which of the following stakeholders are involved in the

strategic planning process (Responses by Role)


8/16


Figure 8: Differences in perception among management tiers on the stakeholders involved in strategic planning

c) The Dynamism FactorThe recent global economic crisis has caused

many organizations to rethink their strategies

in light of changed circumstances. Having a

flexible and dynamic planning process makes

adapting to changes easier for an

organization, and by extension also for its

employees. It was, therefore, encouraging to

see that 86% or respondents agreed with the

statement, Our strategy can change quicklywhen faced with sudden environmental

changes.

Among strategy practitioners as a group,

positive responses exceeded 96%! A large

proportion of respondents (79%) also felt that

negative performance results led quickly to an

investigation of the problem and corrective

actions to address it, including a rethink of the

entire strategy, if necessary.

Less positive, but still good, were the

responses recorded when we asked about

reviewing progress against the strategy with

stakeholders and whether the strategic

planning process adequately identified the

risks that an organization faces (Figure 9).

Both of these aspects support a flexible and

adaptive strategic planning process, and the

uncertain responses indicate that more work

can be done in this area.

88%

88%

100%

88%

75%

75%

75%

88%

50%

11%

6%

44%

28%

44%

44%

72%

100%

94%

35%

35%

42%

50%

46%

58%

73%

92%

96%

Residents

Citizens

The Private Sector

NGOs

Other Government

Departments

Central Government

Employees

The Strategy Department

Senior Leadership

Which of the following stakeholders are involved in the strategic planning process

(Responses by Management Tier)

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3


9/16


Figure 9: Responses to the question The strategic

planning process at my organization adequately

identifies the risks we face.

d) The Fact-Based FactorIt is well known that compiling good data

from which to make strategic

recommendations can be difficult in Dubai;

indeed, more than 40% of the respondents

agreed that this was a problem. Yet

respondents also felt overwhelmingly that an

absence of existing data can be somewhatcompensated for by a structured and formal

strategic planning process that explores all

issues thoroughly -- 91% felt that the strategic

planning process itself helps them better

understand what drives the issues they face.

The net result was that 78% of respondents

believed that their organizations were able to

understand their customers and their needs

well, despite the well- known absence of

precise data.

Respondents were also asked to identify

which items had the most influence on

strategic decision-making in their

organizations. Overall, the most relevant

items were seen to be facts and data,

reactions to crises, and forecasts about the

future (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Factors influencing strategic decision-

making

Yet as weve seen before, the perceptions of

the relative importance of each of the items

varied by role and position of the individual

doing the choosing. For example, with

respect to external pressure from government

decision-makers, non-strategy practitioners

were twice as likely to see this aspect as an

important factor as those in the strategy

department (Figure 11). Still, there was

unanimity of opinion among all three

management levels on the subject (Figure 12).

Figure 11: Difference in perception between

practitioners on the factors that influence strategic

decision-making

14%

54%

32%

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree

76%

27%

65%

27%

62%

55%

Reaction to crises

Political bargaining between

powerful stakeholder groups

Facts and data about issues

Personal interests of individuals

Forecasts about the future

External pressure from government

decision makers

Strategic decisions in my organization are made

based on: (Please select all that apply)

70%

63%

67%

67%

27%

27%

76%

64%

48%

36%

28%

28%

Strategy

Non-Strategy

Personalinterests of

individuals

Political bargaining between


External pressure from

government decision makers


Reactions to crises

Facts and data about issues

Strategic decisions in my organization are made based on:

(Responses by Role)


10/16


Conversely, a persons role in the organization

had no impact on his or her perception of the

role played by personal interest in strategic

decision-making, yet Tier 2 managers were 6

times more likely than Tier 3 Managers to see

this point as relevant.

Figure 12: Differences in perception among the

management tiers on the factors that influence

strategic decision-making

e) The Measurable FactorThe strategic planning process should result in

a selection of a few strategic goals for the

organization to achieve; performance targets

need to be defined for each of these goals

and performance measurement systems used

to ensure progress toward the desired

outcomes.

Our survey found that respondents believed

that their organizations do an excellent job of

defining strategic outcomes (93%),

understanding what drives them (89%),

choosing performance indicators (85%), and

measuring results (81%). Opinions within the

Strategy Department on this subject and on

whether Performance Management is a key

stakeholder in the process were 6% higher

here than in the rest of the organization

(Figure 13), probably because these activities

represent the core competencies of the

Strategy Department and its vision.

Figure 13: Percent of respondents agreeing with the

statements (by Role)

Tier 1 managers resoundingly lent their

support to this positive opinion, with an

average agreement rate in response to each

of these questions exceeding 97%!

f) The Cascaded FactorThe results of the study become less positive

when we move to assigning ownership of

initiatives and cascading responsibility for

achieving the strategy to different levels of

the organization. While 83% of respondents

agreed that every major initiative in the

strategy has a clear owner, there is also a

perception that strategic Initiatives that

involve more than one department are not

coordinated as well. And when asked if

responsibility for achieving strategic

objectives is cascaded to all levels of the

organization, agreement fell to just 72%

overall (Figure 14), and to 70% among actual

strategy practitioners.

Personal interests of

individuals

Politicalbargaining between


External pressure from

government decision makers


Reaction to crises

Facts and dataabout issues

13%38%

13%31%

50%

50%

6%

19%

50%

69%

56%

69%

54%

65%

77%

75%

75%

88%

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Strategic decisions in my organization are made based

on: (Responses by Management Tier)

Our strategy defines a clear set of

strategic outcomes for the

organization

We understand what drives the

outcomes we are trying to achieve

We are able to satisfactorily measure

our progress as an organization

against our s trategic outcomes

We have selected the right

performance indicators to measure

progress

Performance Management is a key

stakeholder in the strategic planning

process

96%

92%

83%

90%

87%

80%

83%

77%

88%

87%

Non-StrategyStrategy


11/16


Figure 14: Responses to the question: Responsibility

for achieving strategic objectives cascades to all levels

of the organization.

g) The Connected FactorThe last factor we considered in the survey

was whether the strategy is connected to the

rest of the organization in a meaningful way.

For example, do employees in the Budgeting

and HR departments understand, and are

they rewarded for, how their work

contributes to achieving the overall strategy?

The results in this area were the most

problematic of all of them.

Given the positive sentiment around the

measurability of the strategic plan, we should

expect that the Performance Management

Department is considered a key stakeholder in

a strategic planning process -- and that is

indeed what we found: 81% of respondents

believed so. Finance and Budgeting were

also seen as important stakeholders, but not

by as high a margin: this time only 72%

agreed. And as for Human Resources, the

picture became more mixed: fully 45% of

respondents disagreed with the notion that

HR is closely linked to the strategic planning

process (Figure 15). Tier 2 managers had theleast positive perception of any on this issue.

Figure 15: Opinion of respondents on whether HR is

closely linked to the strategic planning process in their

organizations.

This result leads us finally to the questions of

whether employees understand the role they

play in achieving the strategic goals of their

organization and if they are in fact rewarded

for a positive contribution. Agreement on the

first aspect reached only 65% among survey

respondents, indicating that improvements

could be made to individual performance

management processes within organizations.

If employees are unaware of how their work

contributes to achieving organizational

outcomes, they can be improved through a

structured performance management system

that sets goals according to the role each

individual plays in that strategy.

Moreover, this lack of awareness by

employees is tightly bound to a perception

that employees whose work does help

achieve the strategic objectives are not

rewarded well enough. Survey respondents

were the least positive on this subject of any

in the entire survey, (Figure 16), and this was

one of only two survey questions where a

majority of respondents disagreed with the

statement (see Section 3: Strategic Planning

Process for the other).

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly DisagreeAgree

58%

26%

13%

2%

Strongly AgreeDisagreeAgreeStrongly Agree

43%38%

11%8%

Disagree


12/16


6.How organizational roles affect perceptions of strategic planningOne of the most interesting findings of our survey was the difference in perception that was found

between the Strategy Department and the rest of the organization on the subject of strategic

planning. In addition to the areas we have already discussed, the Strategy Department overall had a

measurably less positive outlook for the overall process (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Percent of respondents agreeing with the question (based on Role in the organization)

This finding begs the question of whose perception is the correct one. However, perhaps the

opinions are nothing more than a reflection of the expectations of the groups, rather than an exact

measure of fact. Taking this approach, opinion in the Strategy Department may be lower since

employees here begin with higher expectations. For the non-strategy practitioners, the opposite

may be true. Whatever the cause, it is likely that the real answer lies somewhere between the twopositions.

Employees understand how

their work contributes to

achieving corporate goals

Employees are rewarded for their

contribution to achieving the

strategic objectives

35%

65%

It is easy to find qualified individuals in the UAE to

fill strategic planning positions in my organization

There is a lot of good data available to accurately

understand the current situation we face

Employees understand how their work contributes

to achieving corporate goals

We hold regular meetings with stakeholders to

review progress against the strategy

Employeesat my organization are committed to

the corporate strategy

Negative performance results are used to drive

corrective action

Our strategy is used as a guide for management

decision making

How satisfied are you overall with the strategic

planning process in your organization?

My organization understands well our customers

and their needs

The culture of my organization encourages

strategic planning

New initiatives are approved based on their

contribution to achieving the strategic objectives 93

90

87

83

83

83

80

80

73

63

53

78

70

68

74

70

74

59

56

54

52

30

Non-Strategy

Strategy

Figure 16: Percent of respondents agreeing with the statement

I am satisfied with the overall strategic planning

process in my organization


13/16


7.RecommendationsTo summarize then, we can say that strategic planning in the public sector is a highly developed and

robust process. It exhibits all the characteristics associated with a mature process, even if some of

its characteristics can still be improved.

Based on the results of our survey, we propose four recommendations for consideration to assist

senior public sector managers and their strategic planning departments to enhance performance:

Improve links with critical internal departments:

The strategy department is not the only department responsible for developing a strategic plan;

there is an entire planning value chain that includes Budgeting, Human Resources, Performance

Management, and many other units.

A collaborative mindset must be fostered where all concerned departments work together toalign with a common strategy to achieve the organizational objectives. Achieving this goal

means that barriers must be broken down between departments and business units that have

historically performed their work in isolated silos. Senior management especially has a critical

role to play in creating this culture of collaboration.

One successful strategy to encourage a collaborative mindset could be to develop a permanent

Strategic Planning Advisory Committee that includes senior managers from each of the critical

departments and meets periodically to review performance and consider new directions. This

committee should be convened by the Strategy Department and would ensure that all voices are

heard in the process.

Improve the collection and analysis of data:

Accurate information is critical to defining a successful strategy. Better data can reveal

more information about the risks your organization faces and improve forecasting about

the future. Trying to build a strategy in the absence of precise data carries the risk that

your initiatives will not be the right ones.

One immediate way to improve the collection of useful data is to bring more

stakeholders into the planning process and enhance the interactions with them for

example, through periodic reviews of the strategy and dialogue with outside entities.

Household surveys are another excellent way to collect data and also include residents

in the process at the same time. Making use of central statistical departments can

greatly facilitate these studies. Scenario planning is another successful tool for

forecasting and preparing for various alternatives. The data generated will ultimately

reduce the reactive nature of strategy and allow strategic planners to place more of

their emphasis where it belongs on planning.

Improve strategic alignment:

Your strategic plan should be the engine that drives the activities of your organization. The work

of each department must be linked directly to achieving the mission of the organization. To do


14/16


this, the organization may need to be restructured if your strategy has changed substantially in

the last 18 months. You cannot expect to deliver a new strategy with an old organization.

Make sure that each strategic initiative has a clear owner, especially if the initiative spans

departments. One effective tool for managing cross-cutting initiatives is to formalize the

responsibilities of each department in a Memorandum of Understanding or PerformanceAgreement, and then assign one owner who is responsible for managing tasks.

Assigning ownership of initiatives and cascading responsibility to all levels will give your

organization better clarity of purpose that can invigorate even the oldest and most conservative

of public sector entities.

Improve the individual performance management process:

Organizations are ultimately made up of individuals, not departments and business units; so in

the end, the achievement of any strategic objectives will depend on the performance of

individuals. If employees understand the role their work plays in the larger structure and believethat good performance will be recognized, the outcomes for the entire organization are likely to

improve.

Employees can be shown how their work contributes to achieving the organizational objectives

through the application of a structured performance management system that explicitly links

individual performance goals to specific initiatives and activities that then become a part of the

full organizational strategy.


15/16


16/16

TCOs Strategic Planning Maturity Survey

The survey took place between the 6th

and 17th

of June, 2010, and included more than 200

individuals working in 31 public sector entities in Dubai, both large and small. The anonymous

survey was conducted online in both Arabic and English, and the responses received weredivided roughly 50/50 between the two languages.

Most of the questions were presented in multiple-choice format, allowing respondents to either

strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. There was no option for neutral or Dont

Know responses.

The response rate for our survey was excellent: 60 individuals took the time to answer the

questionnaire, and we received at least one response from more than 70% of the entities

surveyed.

TCOManagement Consulting is an initiative born out of the need for first-class consulting support in

the delivery and implementation of strategic initiatives across all forms of government. We provide

advisory services to public sector organizations in Dubai, other Emirates, and the MENA region.

Through our precise focus on the quality of service delivery, capability development, and knowledge

management, TCO aspires to be a Strategic Partner in Public Sector Innovation.

This survey and White Paper were prepared by Daniel Whitehead, a Management Consultant with TCO

based in Dubai. Daniel leads TCOs Public Sector Strategy & Policy Practice and has managed numerousstrategic planning engagements across the Middle East, Europe, and North America.

Support for this White Paper was provided by Turan Malik, a Principal Consultant with TCO.

For more information please contact:

Daniel Whitehead, +971 (0)50 189 7263 or

[email protected]

Visit www.tcoconsulting.com to learn more about TCO

2010 TCO. All rights Reserved.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Strategic Planning Maturity in the Public Sector in Dubai

Documents

Transcript of Strategic Planning Maturity in the Public Sector in Dubai