Strategic management in PA observations from the Czech Republic David Špaček , TED, Cluj, Romania

1)STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT – POTENTIAL (what the advocating literature says?) 2)STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND PA (points for discussion/research ?) 3)STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND CZECH PA (regions and cities - views of their representatives) CONTENT

1) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT – POTENTIAL (WHAT THE LITERATURE SAYS) not a panacea..., but a tool for more effective continuously developed systematic (integrated) management more strategic thinking (for long-term management) SMARTer (more evidence-based, taylored and realistic) goals more participation of stakeholders (co-production, better communication, awareness/commitment) and therefore smoother implementation

2) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT IN PA... POINTS FOR DISCUSSION / RESEARCH? WHERE? - GOVERNMENT LEVELS central government (coordination, political and executive stability) vs. LGs (more visible practices, assymmetry of duties?) larger vs. small (organizations) WHY AND HOW? - MOTIVES AND APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION regulate it, or not? if yes, to what extent? too much rhetoric, one-size fits all (strategic management as a mere project output and one-off project, standardized strategies?) vs. managerial tool (which brings some real effects) FOR WHAT AND HOW PARTICIPATORY? management of regional development vs. internal processes... AVAILABILITY OF DATA when researches are not ordered by authorities... not to be oriented only on documents

3) STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT AND (13) CZECH REGIONS (views of their representatives, pilot survey) March 2013, questionnaires sent to 450 representatives (heads of regional offices, directors and employees of departments for strategic / regional development), 50 Qs returned (at least 2 returned questeionnaires per every region) surveyed aspects: perceived role of strategic management diffusion of SM and its instruments in regions achieved benefits implementation barriers stakeholder inclusion

CZECH PA SYSTEM + THEIR ORGANIZATIONS

Czech regions

Czech regions and regions of cohesion

Czech regions

SM AND (13) CZECH REGIONS MAIN FINDINGS Perceived role of strategic management mostly follows the literature dichotomy of SM of a region (political leadership) and of a regional office (executive leadership) Diffusion of SM and its instruments according to representatives of regions all regions have implemented SM, but only in case of 7 regions (54 %) 100 % agreement of all respondents „we have implemented something“ these 7 regions also use an internal strategy (combination of aims related to economy, processes and personnel) main instruments: vision statement, SWOT, process management, programme budgeting, CAF, ocasionally something from BSC (strategic maps)

Achieved benefits (scale: 1 strongly agree – 4 strongly disagree; Don´t know)

Implementation barriers (scale: 1 strongly agree – 4 strongly disagree; Don´t know)

Statements approval (scale: 1 strongly agree – 4 strongly disagree; Don´t know)

How do they participate in SM? (scale: 1 - not at all, 2 - participate, but rather formally as passive observers, 3 - participate actively)

WHAT OTHER STUDIES INDICATE? (MEPCO, 2012, strategic planning, views of representatives of 12 cities with inhabitants) citis with more than inhabitants started with strategic planning mostly in , smaller in given motives: 1st "to have clear long-term strategy", 2nd "to meet formal requirements of projects/to be eligible for funding"... the last "to include the public" indicators for evaluation defined - 50 % ("the question is how they work with them"), 83 %: strategic plan is not linked to financial management / budget ("action plans are all-embracing and do not reflect available funds"), political leaders do not use strategic plan for management of regional development majority of cities do not actively work with existing strategic plans (incl. updates, monitoring reports), although some paid for their preparation... still they evaluate them as beneficial

From comments on SM use in Czech PA (Conclusions?) „I think that we are afar from using the potential of strategic management. Reasons are various, from insufficient knowledge on SM methods, over unwillingness to do something above standard job duties, to incompetence of majority of politicians to think beyond their term of office.“ „Every few months we have a new minister who states that at least a half of things will be done in a better way than before, but without analyzing anything. So we do not know what was wrong, we only know that we should do it differently. And a new future minister will come with the same.“ „Strategic management is mostly used in a limited way and it is often „tolerated“, because it is required (e.g. by legislation). Only few authorities has really implemented strategic manegement... Also a willingness of newly elected political leaders to be bound by goals stipulated by those from the past is very low.“ „A fish rots from the head down. Strategies of central authorities are missing.“

Thank you for your attention. David Špaček, Ph.D. Faculty of Economics and Administration Masaryk University Brno, Czech Republic (The presentation was elaborated within the project of the Czech Science Foundation no. P403/12/0366 “Identification and evaluation of region specific factors determining outcomes of reforms based on NPM - the case of CEE)