Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water ...

CORE PLANNING PROCESSES
In the 4003 survey process, drinking water utilities were asked: How well do the
following core processes support your organization’s mission? The results are provided in Table
A.5 below.
Table A.5
Core planning processes support of the Utility’s mission.
6 Items N Mean Min Max SD Median
Q6A Strategic business planning 187 3.60 1 5 .851 4.00
Q6B Operational planning 199 3.79 1 5 .740 4.00
Q6C Capital improvement planning 202 3.94 1 5 .818 4.00
Q6D Human resource development 196 3.18 1 5 .800 3.00
Q6E Life cycle planning 177 3.09 1 5 .861 3.00
Q6F Information technology master planning 185 3.19 1 5 .975 3.00
Source: Project 4003 survey process
There are a number of observations that can be made regarding this response.
First, note that there is a range from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) in response to each core
planning process and its support of the Utility’s mission. Thus the standard deviations are quite
broad for each set of responses.
Second, note that the median is 4 (high) for strategic business planning, operational
planning, and capital improvement planning, indicating that the majority of responses are 4
(high) or 5 (very high). These three processes are historically those that fall under the direct
purview of leaders and managers.
Third, note that out of the 207 survey responders, the number of responses to each of the
six core planning processes ranges from 177 to 202. The instructions on the survey read: “This
survey looks at your organization as a whole ... should be filled out by a senior manager.” Thus
for each of the core processes there were 5-30 responders who chose not to enter a value for that
core process, indicating either no judgment or an unfamiliarity with the core processes they were
asked to assess. In the order of those processes more readily assessed, the planning processes
are: Capital improvement planning, operational planning, human resource development,
strategic business planning, information technology master planning and life cycle planning.
This would indicate, for example, a higher level of familiarity and opinion on capital
improvement planning than life cycle planning. Yet capital improvement planning is directly
correlated to life cycle planning. In an uncertain and changing economic and political
environment—where new requirements and issues emerge without adequate resources to quickly
and effectively respond to those requirements and issues—long-term planning must often take a
second seat to short-term needs. While this juxtaposing occurs in a large number of
organizations, the aging infrastructure faced by a large number of drinking water utilities is
rapidly bringing long-term into the sphere of short-term urgency. In other words, funding needs
that could previously be delayed can no longer be delayed.
The data for Q6F in Table A.5 indicates that information technology master planning has
the second lowest response rate, the second lowest mean (by .01), the broadest standard
Appendix A 38
©2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.