Strategic Planning in Urban Animal Management

In 1995, the PIAS published a report entitled, Guidelines for Developing an Integrated Urban Animal Management Strategy, prepared by PIAS and Laysell Consulting Pty Ltd. The report was prepared in response to a perceived need by local government to supplement local knowledge of the urban animal management (UAM) environment with strategic planning expertise. The report provides a checklist of things to think about along with sample formats. It has been reproduced in this compendium because of its relevance to the overall content. Preparation of specific strategies for Domestic Animals Management is now much more common. The reasons for this vary from state to state but relate mostly to the changed local government environment:

• Performance measurement and monitoring of all local government services via the strategic planning process is now a fact of life; n Animal control has widened into a wider array of contexts following community demands for greater control over domestic pets;
• The new issues are more complex. Clear cause and effect relationships are not always available, requiring careful analysis and reasoned debate;
• There is growing recognition that regulatory enforcement will not, on its own, result in lasting, voluntary changes in behaviour. It needs to be supplemented by a range of non-regulatory approaches such as public education and pet-friendly design for housing and public open space;
• Those involved in domestic animals management now need to liaise with other departments and organisations, whose policies affect and/impinge on their operations; and
• There is now a wealth of evidence to support our understanding of the benefits of owning pets. This could imply a new role for local government to foster the benefits of pet ownership or at least maintain the ability of the community to continue to own dogs and cats in the future.

Strategic planning in local government is not without its problems, particularly since it was originally designed for use by the private sector. A significant number of people don't understand the process. Others can't see its value. Still others can't see the benefit of developing a specific strategy for domestic animals. There is confusion over terms and methodology and what the strategy should represent. As a result, many local government strategies have, in the past, ended up as a glossy document with little practical value.

Methodologies have improved dramatically over the past decade however it is important to remember that there is no one right way to prepare strategic plans. The report reproduced in this compendium makes a significant contribution. Councils can use the report verbatim or as a starting point, even a checklist for writing their own Domestic Animals Strategies.

Mission or Vision?

A point of common confusion is the relative meanings of mission and vision. They are often used interchangeably although differences do exist.

There are two schools of opinion about the meaning of mission. Broadly speaking, one approach describes the mission in terms of business strategy, while the other expresses mission in terms of philosophy and ethics. The first approach views mission as the first step in strategic planning. It exists to answer two fundamental questions. 'What is our business and what should it be?' The second views a mission as the cultural 'glue' which enables a department to function as a collective entity. This cultural glue consists of strong norms and values that heavily influence the way in which peoplebehave, how they work together and how they pursue the goals of the department.

A vision relates more to some mental image of a possible and desirable future state. This image may be as vague as a dream or as precise as a goal or mission statement. The critical point is that a vision articulates a view of a realistic, credible, attractive future; a condition that is better in some important ways than what now exists and which motivates people to bring it about.

A mission and a vision can be one and the same but they are not fully overlapping. A vision refers to a future state, whereas a mission refers to the present. When a vision is achieved, a new vision needs to be developed, but a mission can remain the same. If a vision is so ambitious that is not likely to be achieved in the next 5 to 10 years, it tends to lose its power to motivate and stimulate. There are no rules about whether to use a mission or vision, it will depend to a large extent on local circumstances and personal opinion of those involved.

Having a mission or a vision does not guarantee a strategy's success. Nor does the lack of one guarantee failure. Nevertheless there are five characteristics that successful statements of purpose share: clarity, coherence, communications power, consistency and flexibility. (We have used the term mission, but the following discussion applies to the vision concept as well.)

Clarity:

A clear mission is in part a simple one. Often complex analyses and execution lie behind seemingly simple mission statements. But to generate understanding, support and commitment, the mission should be clear - and relatively simple - emphasising basic principles and a driving force. Many corporate mission statements are too long, too detailed and too bland.

Coherence:

A successful mission 'makes sense'. Coherence is vital if the mission is to stand up to critical analysis. The message must relate to the needs of the intended audience, if the words are to 'come alive'.

Communications power:

If a mission is to shape the future and drive the strategy, then it must be communicated broadly, consistently and continuously, until it becomes an integral part of the corporate culture. Only through communication can the mission become a shared mission. Effective communication requires effort, commitment, time and courage.

Consistency:

Actions must be - and people must perceive them to be - consistent with the mission statement.

Flexibility:

A mission must remain flexible and open. A flexible mission might seem to be an oxymoron, because a mission calls for defined direction and goal setting, whereas flexibility implies a more opportunistic approach to strategy. However, in times of uncertainty and rapid change, inflexible adherence to a strategic plan is a prescription for disaster.

By effectively communicating organisational goals and philosophies in an inspirational way the strategy can improve a department's performance. More importantly perhaps, it can provide managers with an opportunity to resolve internal conflicts about the future direction of the department, reaching a consensus that results in progress in the desired direction.

NEXT

[INDEX] [AUTHOR] [HOUSING DESIGN] [PLANNING FOR DOGS] [COMPLIANCE] [PETNET]