{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/43392"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/43392","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"A critique of the VPC's planning methodology","abstract":"The VPC's Planning Methodology (Strategic Performance Improvement Planning Process) has been primarily based on action research. This thesis attempts to externally validate the methodology by asking \"has the methodology evolved consistently with the findings of others?\" This was accomplished by comparing the methodology to other recent strategic planning/management methodologies and having planning practitioners and consultants compare the VPC's Methodology to their own methodologies. A second objective was to identify potential improvements to the methodology. In most cases, the VPC's Methodology was more comprehensive than the methodologies found in the literature. The only potential shortcoming of the methodology was the lack of an explicit component for a coordinated strategy, although the methodology includes a vision of the future and strategic objectives components. The planning practitioners and consultants offered several minor suggestions for improving the methodology, but none found any significant shortcomings in the methodology. Interestingly, none of the practitioners/consultants mentioned the lack of a strategy component; however, at least two of them felt a better link was needed between strategic and tactical objectives. This leads me to believe the VPC's Methodology has evolved consistently with the findings of others. Some of the potential improvements identified include: a relocation of planning assumptions within the process model, a revised technique for analyzing planning assumptions, the addition of a strategy component, clarification of the role of Key Performance Indicators, clarification and emphasis on under-utilized components of the methodology, and revisions to the process model.","abstract_html":"The VPC's Planning Methodology (Strategic Performance Improvement Planning Process) has been primarily based on action research. This thesis attempts to externally validate the methodology by asking "has the methodology evolved consistently with the findings of others?" This was accomplished by comparing the methodology to other recent strategic planning/management methodologies and having planning practitioners and consultants compare the VPC's Methodology to their own methodologies. A second objective was to identify potential improvements to the methodology. In most cases, the VPC's Methodology was more comprehensive than the methodologies found in the literature. The only potential shortcoming of the methodology was the lack of an explicit component for a coordinated strategy, although the methodology includes a vision of the future and strategic objectives components. The planning practitioners and consultants offered several minor suggestions for improving the methodology, but none found any significant shortcomings in the methodology. Interestingly, none of the practitioners/consultants mentioned the lack of a strategy component; however, at least two of them felt a better link was needed between strategic and tactical objectives. This leads me to believe the VPC's Methodology has evolved consistently with the findings of others. Some of the potential improvements identified include: a relocation of planning assumptions within the process model, a revised technique for analyzing planning assumptions, the addition of a strategy component, clarification of the role of Key Performance Indicators, clarification and emphasis on under-utilized components of the methodology, and revisions to the process model.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Coleman, Garry D."],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Industrial Engineering and Operations Research","degree_department":"Industrial Engineering and Operations Research","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Sink, D. Scott"],"committee_members":["Koelling, C. Patrick","Kurstedt, Harold A. Jr.","Monetta, Dominic J."],"year":1988,"date_issued":"1988-12-15","date_published":"1988-12-15","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:03Z","subjects":[],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-06222010-020153"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-06222010-020153","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/43392","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Sink, D. Scott"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Koelling, C. Patrick","Kurstedt, Harold A. Jr.","Monetta, Dominic J."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Industrial Engineering and Operations Research"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Coleman, Garry D."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:38:58Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:38:58Z","2010-06-22"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1988-12-15"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Industrial Engineering and Operations Research"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-06222010-020153"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/43392"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The VPC's Planning Methodology (Strategic Performance Improvement Planning Process) has been primarily based on action research. This thesis attempts to externally validate the methodology by asking \"has the methodology evolved consistently with the findings of others?\" This was accomplished by comparing the methodology to other recent strategic planning/management methodologies and having planning practitioners and consultants compare the VPC's Methodology to their own methodologies. A second objective was to identify potential improvements to the methodology. In most cases, the VPC's Methodology was more comprehensive than the methodologies found in the literature. The only potential shortcoming of the methodology was the lack of an explicit component for a coordinated strategy, although the methodology includes a vision of the future and strategic objectives components. The planning practitioners and consultants offered several minor suggestions for improving the methodology, but none found any significant shortcomings in the methodology. Interestingly, none of the practitioners/consultants mentioned the lack of a strategy component; however, at least two of them felt a better link was needed between strategic and tactical objectives. This leads me to believe the VPC's Methodology has evolved consistently with the findings of others. Some of the potential improvements identified include: a relocation of planning assumptions within the process model, a revised technique for analyzing planning assumptions, the addition of a strategy component, clarification of the role of Key Performance Indicators, clarification and emphasis on under-utilized components of the methodology, and revisions to the process model."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["BTD"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A critique of the VPC's planning methodology"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Sink, D. Scott"],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Koelling, C. Patrick","Kurstedt, Harold A. Jr.","Monetta, Dominic J."],"dc:contributor.department":["Industrial Engineering and Operations Research"],"dc:creator":["Coleman, Garry D."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:38:58Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:38:58Z","2010-06-22"],"dc:date.issued":["1988-12-15"],"dc:description.abstract":["The VPC's Planning Methodology (Strategic Performance Improvement Planning Process) has been primarily based on action research. This thesis attempts to externally validate the methodology by asking \"has the methodology evolved consistently with the findings of others?\" This was accomplished by comparing the methodology to other recent strategic planning/management methodologies and having planning practitioners and consultants compare the VPC's Methodology to their own methodologies. A second objective was to identify potential improvements to the methodology. In most cases, the VPC's Methodology was more comprehensive than the methodologies found in the literature. The only potential shortcoming of the methodology was the lack of an explicit component for a coordinated strategy, although the methodology includes a vision of the future and strategic objectives components. The planning practitioners and consultants offered several minor suggestions for improving the methodology, but none found any significant shortcomings in the methodology. Interestingly, none of the practitioners/consultants mentioned the lack of a strategy component; however, at least two of them felt a better link was needed between strategic and tactical objectives. This leads me to believe the VPC's Methodology has evolved consistently with the findings of others. Some of the potential improvements identified include: a relocation of planning assumptions within the process model, a revised technique for analyzing planning assumptions, the addition of a strategy component, clarification of the role of Key Performance Indicators, clarification and emphasis on under-utilized components of the methodology, and revisions to the process model."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:format.medium":["BTD"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-06222010-020153"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/43392"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["A critique of the VPC's planning methodology"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Industrial Engineering and Operations Research"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:03Z"}