State strategic planning: suggestions from the Oregon experience. Gerald R. Kissler; Karmen N. Fore; Willow S. Jacobson; William P. Kittredge; Scott L. Stewart.

Author's Abstract: COPYRIGHT 1998 American Society for Public Administration

Oregon developed two strategic plans for the entire state over the past decade. Its experience suggests that strategic planning can be a valuable process in helping a state adjust to a major economic and social transformation. Comparing the processes used to develop the two plans suggests that policy makers should (1) include university faculty and students in the process because it will bring new ideas to the public debate; (2) analyze benchmarks and other information to address myths and outdated beliefs; (3) use a bottom-up approach because it engages the public, increases awareness of the complexity and interrelatedness of the region`s issues, and generates new insights into the status of the state; and (4) insist that every major research finding be linked to a recommendation and benchmarks because it leads to a more logical plan and a better way to determine whether the state is moving in the right direction.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1998 American Society for Public Administration

Strategic planning "is, very simply, a method for aligning an organization with its environment," according to Meising and Andersen (1991). It is a management tool that has been used in the private sector for years as a systematic process for relating the organization to changes in the environment. Strategic planning processes typically involve assessing strengths and weaknesses, identifying opportunities and threats, determining where the organization should be going, and then establishing goals, strategies, and tactics for getting there.

However, critics have questioned the value of strategic planning (for example, Mintzberg, 1994). Hamel (1996) has argued that strategic planning processes are too costly and time-consuming for today's fast-paced, competitive environment in the corporate world. Strategic planning processes produce plans, not necessarily strategies that make a difference. Fortune magazine reports that, by downplaying the planning process, some corporations, such as Nike, Amgen, and Harley-Davidson, have created "killer strategies" or strategic initiatives that led to market dominance (Hamel, 1997). Hamel (1996) suggests that the key is to shift the emphasis from "planning" to strategizing.

Even if the critics are correct about the limited effectiveness of strategic planning in the private sector, it might still be a valuable management tool in the public sector where the pace of change is slower and where inclusive processes are essential for widespread acceptance. Indeed, Bryson emphasizes the value of strategic planning in public and nonprofit organizations because it "can help facilitate communication and participation, accommodate divergent interests and values, foster wise and reasonably analytic decision making, and promote successful implementation" (1995, 5). On the other side of the issue, Miller, Rabin, and Hildreth (1987) have argued that agreement will not last long enough for planning to be done in the public sector.

In spite of such concerns, most authors have urged the public sector to adopt strategic planning as a rational and future-oriented management technique for improving government agencies (Behn, 1980; Bryson, 1988; Bryson, 1995; Meising and Andersen, 1991; Nutt and Backoff, 1992). In fact, their advice is being followed. Berry and Wechsler (1995) found that six out of the ten government agencies responding to their national survey were doing strategic planning and another one in ten said that it intended to do so in the future. They concluded that strategic planning has been "a successful public sector management innovation."

In addition to the use of strategic planning by pubic agencies, some governors have initiated processes that produced plans for the entire state. Rather than the Soviet style, ten-year plans or attempts at social engineering on a grand scale, these state strategic plans have provided a general framework for public policy development. Because other states may consider developing their own plans, this article will (1) describe the strategic planning process used in Oregon, one of the leading states, (2) indicate the parts of that process that are most valuable, and (3) offer suggestions for future plans.

How Were Oregon's Strategic Plans Developed?

The state of Oregon has developed two strategic plans over the last decade, using somewhat different processes. In this section of the article we will present the dramatic changes in context that led to the original plan issued in the late 1980s and the update in the mid-1990s.

For most of this century, Oregon's economy was heavily dependent upon extraction and manufacturing industries. Working in the forests harvesting trees, in the fields loading grain, or in the boats catching fish was the dominant way of life for many Oregonians. Many other jobs in rural Oregon were dependent upon natural-resource-based industries, and even Portland, the state's major metropolitan area, was a distribution hub for goods produced in rural portions of the state. With the downturn in the forest products industry in the early 1980s, Oregon's natural resource-based economy went into a long and deep recession. Incomes fell, statewide unemployment reached double digit levels, and many people left the state.

The Original Strategic Plan

By the mid-1980s, there were signs of modest improvement in Oregon's economy. Even though the unemployment rate was declining, per capita incomes were still about 10 percent below the national average--a particular concern to then Governor Neil Goldschmidt. In order to lift the state out of the doldrums of the early 1980s Governor Goldschmidt asked more than 150 business and community leaders to help write a strategic plan for the state, l The plan they drafted, entitled Oregon Shines: An Economic Strategy for the Pacific Century, was released in 1989 (hereafter referenced as Oregon Shines I).

The planning process they adopted included some regional meetings but was driven primarily by a series of committees that worked on detailed recommendations in designated problem areas. The plan they created described three strategic initiatives: (1) a superior workforce, (2) an attractive quality of life, and (3) an international frame of mind. In the following year the state legislature adopted several of the plan's recommendations. For example, the legislature addressed its concerns about the workforce by adopting legislation and funding programs in the following areas: the adoption of sweeping school reform, the support of school-to-work transition programs, the creation of a Workforce Quality Council to coordinate retraining programs, and the funding of community college professional/technical programs. The state legislature also created the Oregon Progress Board to monitor benchmarks to determine if the state was moving toward the Oregon Shines I vision.

The state of Oregon has received several awards for being one of the early adopters of benchmarking. The National Governors Association featured the Oregon Benchmarks in its 1993 policy paper on the redesign of state government. In 1994 the Oregon Benchmarks system was selected as one of the ten winners of the annual Innovations in Government awards presented by the Ford Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. Oregon has not only been an award-winning leader in the adoption of these innovations, it has also sustained its commitment to the concept through two changes in administration.

In the years following the release of Oregon Shines I the state's economy experienced a truly remarkable turnaround. By 1995 the state's industry mix was more diversified, unemployment was at historic lows, and population growth was twice the national average. Oregon's economy was so strong that it did not participate in the 1991 national recession.

Public policy in Oregon changed as a result of its strategic plan but it would be a considerable overstatement to attribute this remarkable turnaround solely to its public policy choices. In a report prepared for the governor's Oregon Shines Task Force, the Office of Economic Analysis (1996) attributed much of the state's recovery to external factors, such as (1) U.S. monetary policy and (2) the downturn in California's economy.

Oregon's above-average forest products and capital goods sectors contracted in response to high interest rates in the early 1980s and benefitted from the more favorable interest rates in the 1990s. California's defense sector ballooned during the Star Wars years and collapsed when the Cold War ended. With California's economy "in the tank," Oregon attracted new businesses and new citizens who moved into the state with a good education and the disposable income to help spur the state's economy.

This economic recovery, however, was not experienced evenly around the state. Some parts of the state, particularly rural communities that were dependent upon the old-style manufacturing and extraction jobs, found themselves unable to recruit new businesses, leaving many in their communities without work (Kissler and Tryens, 1997). In addition, many of the best jobs in the metropolitan areas went to the newcomers from out of state, who were better educated and had more experience than native Oregonians.

An Updated Plan

Recognizing that the economy had turned around and that other things had changed since Oregon Shines I was released in 1989, Governor John Kitzhaber formed a 46-person task force in April of 1996 to recommend changes to the state's strategic plan. The strategic planning process used in 1996 (hereafter referenced as Oregon Shines II) differed in several ways: (1) significant university involvement, (2) analysis of Oregon Benchmarks to determine measurable progress toward the state's goals, (3) a bottom-up approach involving ten regional meetings held throughout the state, and (4) the adoption of broad recommendations rather than specific strategies and tactics. After describing these four aspects of the process we will evaluate them and relate our recommendations to them.

University Involvement: One of the goals of the Progress Board has been to involve more faculty and students from the state's universities in its various projects. Examples of these collaborations include research at Oregon State University on the root causes of poverty and the ongoing support for several Progress Board activities provided by the Center for Population Research and Census at Portland State University.

Consistent with its goal of greater university involvement, the Oregon Progress Board asked Professor Gerald Kissler and his graduate students from the Public Policy and Management program at the University of Oregon, the authors of this article, to lead the regional information-gathering meetings, analyze data, and draft much of the governor's task force report. When the work of the task force was presented to the Progress Board near the completion of the project, the executive director indicated that this project had been a model for the incorporation of university faculty and students in state policy work.

Analysis of Oregon Benchmarks: Analysis of progress made towards the three goals in Oregon Shines I was a joint effort of the University of Oregon team and the Progress Board staff. Some of the more important economic findings from our analysis of the Oregon Benchmarks and other data included the following:

* Oregon companies have been creating tens of thousands of good professional and managerial jobs but Oregonians are not qualified for them.

* Oregon's economy is more diversified but not in the technology sector.

* Oregon is a net importer of high-end professional services.

* Industry spending on research and development (R&D) as a percent of gross state product (GSP) is well below average and suggests that the state is not well positioned for twenty-first-century competitiveness.

* While rural Oregon has experienced a painful loss of jobs in its natural resource-based industries, this state's experience is not unique. In fact, per capita incomes in rural Oregon continue to be higher than the national average for nonmetropolitan counties in the United States.

A Bottom-Up Approach: Prior to each of the regional meetings, University of Oregon students gathered information about major trends, community issues, and local initiatives by talking to knowledgeable individuals in the region and asking them to complete a short questionnaire. They also scanned local newspapers for relevant stories and reviewed state reports on trends in the region.

A worksheet containing information collected prior to the regional meeting was used to guide a small group process that was the primary information-gathering tool. Participants were asked to (1) modify the information on the worksheet, (2) identify local initiatives that would address trends and issues, (3) suggest statewide strategies and actions, and (4) synthesize their ideas into a new vision for Oregon. Having completed this individual process, participants were engaged in a facilitated dialogue with others at their table. Finally, a spokesperson reported on the group's discussion to the reassembled gathering.

The governor's task force valued the comments and suggestions from the community leaders who attended the regional meetings but they also wanted to check the pulse of the general public. Therefore, we looked at several polls and commissioned focus groups on what "quality of life" means to Oregonians.

Broad Recommendations Rather Than Specific Tactics: We started the process intending to update an economic plan but the regional meeting participants wanted a broader vision that addressed social issues and environmental concerns. The consensus of these regional meetings formed around three new goals for Oregon Shines II: 1) quality jobs for all Oregonians, 2) safe, caring, and engaged communities, and 3) healthy, sustainable surroundings.

Oregon Shines I contained hundreds of specific recommendations but what endured were the general concepts, rather than the specific tactics. Drawing upon past experience, we decided to include only general strategies in Oregon Shines II and to relate them to the new economic, social, and environmental goals. For example, the general strategies for the economy were to improve education and training, and to increase the competitiveness of Oregon business in the global economy. The strategies for the social goals were to minimize preventable social costs and build strong communities that support families and help restore hope. In the environmental area the strategies were to develop a better understanding of the underlying issues and to utilize a cooperative visioning process to work toward consensus in order to avoid confrontation and costly litigation.

Is the Strategic Planning Process Valuable?

The governor's task force was in operation for almost one year and the pace of activities left us with less time than we would have liked for evaluation. In the months following the release of Oregon Shines II we have had an opportunity to reflect on our contributions, but admittedly from a biased point of view.

The Process Itself

Even though the Progress Board's staff had continued to speak to service clubs and work with community progress boards since the release of Oregon Shines I, Governor Kitzhaber felt that it was time to reinvigorate the process. Oregon has not escaped voter cynicism and the general loss of trust in government. Therefore, one very important function of Oregon's strategic planning process was to demonstrate that state leaders were doing something to address the major issues and concerns of citizens through a participatory process.

In contrast with the 1989 process, this approach included a larger number of citizens from a wider range of backgrounds in more parts of the state. However, our process was less effective in engaging business leaders than its predecessor had been. Still, there has been support for strategic planning and benchmarking from the business community.

The governor's task force was chaired by Fred Buckman, CEO of PacifiCorp--a midsized Fortune 500 company in the utilities industry. Speaking on behalf of the business leadership, Mr. Buckman (1996) remarked at the final governor's task force meeting:

I want to say just a couple of words about the importance

of Oregon Shines to the business community. And

I want to say it in the context of someone who is a relatively

new Oregonian .... I admit to being quite enamored

by the fact that Oregon was willing to step out and

actually write down what it intended to achieve and

then to measure its performance against those goals ....

From a business person's perspective I find it very

refreshing and reassuring that in a place we choose to do

business that there is on the radar screen fairly hard

measures of what it is we are trying to achieve.

The Findings

We believe that the analytical work will lead to better informed public policy if the Progress Board is effective in disseminating the findings. By comparing the information collected at the regional meetings with polling data and focus group results, we concluded that the community leaders were more optimistic than the general public. In short, the average person at the coffee shop knows that the economy is more diversified and that the state will never again be as dependent upon its natural-resource-based industries. However, there is a poor understanding of the role of high-end professional services and the nature of the state's new technology-generating industries. Transformations without a clear vision of the future often lead to confusion and fear.

The text of the final report was intended to help reduce confusion and fear, but it will take years to reach large numbers of leaders and general citizens. The governor's task force disbanded after its report was submitted, but one of the important functions of the Oregon Progress Board is to make presentations to community groups throughout the state. In fact, the executive director was scheduled to make at least one presentation per week for the last six months of 1997 to service organizations, city dubs, chambers of commerce, and local progress boards.

The Recommendations

It is too early to know whether the recommendations in Oregon Shines II will be followed or whether they will make a difference. We do know, however, that the reaction from community leaders has been very positive. Their feedback indicates that the new plan contains valuable information in an easily understood format that helps them see the relationships among economic, social, and environmental issues. In addition, state agencies and nonprofits are referencing the new state strategic plan in discussing their programs and initiatives. The reaction from the media and state political leaders has also been very positive. Newspaper editorials have praised the vision. Some politicians who had expressed skepticism about state strategic planning and benchmarking also became strong supporters of the concepts during the legislative session.

Both houses of the state legislature overwhelmingly approved the bill reauthorizing the Progress Board. This bill not only declared that an Oregon Progress Board is needed to encourage the discussion and understanding of critical global and national trends, but it also required the Progress Board to develop "a strategy that addresses the economic, social, cultural, environmental and other needs and aspirations of the people of Oregon." In addition, the Progress Board was directed to develop a series of goals with measurable indicators of attainment and to prepare a report at least once each biennium on Oregon's progress.

What Can We Offer To Other States?

We believe that there is considerable value in state strategic planning and that the plan should be updated every five to ten years as changes in the context indicate. For us, it is less a matter of "whether" than "how." Therefore, the suggestions offered below are derived primarily from the changes in the process used for Oregon Shines II, the update in 1996.

Include University Faculty and Students to Bring New Ideas at the Cutting Edge

One of the benefits of having university involvement in the state strategic planning process was the background research done by faculty and students on the large forces producing an economic and social transformation at the end of the twentieth century. While every state is different, all are affected by the same large forces. New technologies and global competition are reshaping the economy. There is more stress on families but less trust and support in communities for those in need. Population growth and natural resource limitations have caused more citizens to worry about an erosion of quality of life and have led to confrontation between economic interests and environmental concerns.

During the university/agency drafting of Oregon Shines II, we attempted to give equal treatment to the economic, social, and environmental areas but found that there was a much better understanding of the factors underlying the economic issues than the social issues, which in turn were often much better understood than the environmental issues. As a result, it is fair to say that our recommendations had less "punch" as we moved from the economic, to the social, and then to the natural surrounding goals.

Analyze Benchmarks and Other Information to Address Myths and Outdated Beliefs

If strategic planning is a rational approach to realigning the state with changes in its context, then planners and policy makers must have a good understanding of the trends and their impacts. Oregon's many years of experience with benchmarking gave us a good place to begin the analysis of the changes that had occurred since the previous plan was issued.

In the process we discovered that the relationship between economic and social issues is much more complex than the authors of Oregon Shines I believed it to be. They knew that social problems, like abuse, had increased in the 1980s and assumed that the rise was caused by a weak economy. They believed that Oregon's social problems would decline if the state's economy turned around. Oregon's economy has turned around in the 1990s but there has been no change in the poverty rate and other indicators, such as juvenile arrests and teenage drug use, have risen.

Utilize a Bottom-Up Process to Engage the Public, Increase Awareness, and Generate New Insights

Governor Kitzhaber is committed to the concept of participatory democracy. Therefore, he wanted the 1996 update to be developed with more of a bottom-up approach, relying upon citizen input and the analysis of regional information. As a result, Oregon Shines II is a more thorough and thoughtful document than it would have been if it had simply been developed by government policy "wonks." This approach worked well in a state with only three million people but would undoubtedly be much more difficult in a larger state.

In the course of meeting with hundreds of Oregonians from different walks of life in all parts of the state, we came to appreciate many different perspectives. Clearly, the public mood is more positive than it was in the 1980s. Still, many Oregonians are having a difficult time making ends meet and a third are worried about their financial security.

To illustrate the differences in attitude found in different parts of the state we developed Figure 1. In a Maslow-like fashion these stair steps illustrate the way that aspirations rise as the economy improves. Aspirations rise as the economy improves. When a region experiences a long and deep recession, people simply want more jobs to replace those that have been lost. As unemployment rates decline, the focus shifts to better jobs--higher salaries; insurance, retirement, and other benefits; and better working conditions. When salaries approach expectations the public interest rises to better lives.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Community leaders in different regions were at different stair steps. In some parts of the state where unemployment was still in double digits, the participants in our regional meetings were still at the first step--trying to diversify the local economy to create new jobs. Most of our regional meeting participants, however, were either on the second or third step. They were concerned about economic issues but were unwilling to sacrifice their quality of life for economic development.

In general the community leaders at our regional meetings were more optimistic than the general public. Community leaders knew that the economy had improved and were anxious to move up to the next stair step. Our review of the polling data, which was confirmed by our focus groups, indicated that most people are aware that the state's economy is better but they do not see any improvement in their personal situation.

Our experience with the regional meetings and the Progress Board's other efforts to engage the citizenry indicate that it is very difficult to get them to use data to develop informed recommendations about public policy tradeoffs. However, these forums do provide an important source of information about citizens' beliefs and values. When the process forces them to discuss their views with others around the table, as they did at the regional meetings, they gain a better appreciation for the complexity and interrelatedness of the issues facing the region.

Link Every Major Finding from Research to a Recommendation and Benchmarks to Ensure a More Logical Plan and to Monitor Progress

Other states have strategic plans, but what sets Oregon apart is its considerable experience with benchmarks as measurable indicators of progress toward the state vision. With many years of experience with outcome-based measurements, we were able to write a different kind of strategic plan--one with clear linkages among major research findings, recommendations, and benchmarks.

Oregon's benchmarks report represented a whole new approach to outcome-based assessment and accountability in the early 1990s. However, the benchmarks were developed after Oregon Shines I was written in 1989, and there was no way to link the two documents. Now, the benchmarks are incorporated in Oregon Shines II. Every major finding is linked to a recommendation and benchmarks for monitoring progress. The result is an approach to state strategic planning that could be helpful to leaders in other states who intend to develop their own plans.

One example of the linked structure relates to the diversification of the economy. It is generally recognized that the technology sector is increasingly important to twenty-first-century competitiveness with the shift to a knowledge-based or information economy (Gilder, 1989; Thurow, 1992; Toffler, 1980). While the technology sector in Oregon is growing, it is not diversified. Therefore, the governor's task force recommended a shift in public policy from recruiting manufacturing facilities to becoming one of the top ten states in the nation for starting and growing a technology company. The benchmark the Progress Board will be monitoring is total research and development spending by industry as a percentage of gross state product.

Conclusion

Some authors have questioned the value of strategic planning in general (Hamel, 1996; Mintzberg, 1994) and its use by government in particular (Miller, Rabin, and Hildreth, 1987). Miller, Rabin, and Hildreth (1987) based their conclusion that "strategists have committed themselves to the road in the public sector that leads nowhere" upon their finding that government financial managers feel vulnerable to a liability suit, are constrained by political concerns, and are less willing to use financial tools with greater associated risk. This conservative, risk-averse behavior by financial managers in the public sector runs counter, they argued, to the values and assumptions of rational decision making and strategic planning.

However, proponents could counter that leaders should urge the public sector to adopt strategic planning and other rational decision-making practices precisely to override those risk-averse tendencies and thereby make better use of public funds for social purposes. Indeed, the Oregon experience leads us to concur with those who have encouraged the public sector to adopt strategic planning as a rational and future-oriented technique for adjusting to changes in context (Behn, 1980; Bryson, 1988, 1995; Meising and Andersen, 1991; Nutt and Backoff, 1992).

States strategic planning has been a valuable process in helping Oregon adjust to a major economic and social transformation. And, consistent with Bryson's (1995) views, the process chosen to update Oregon's strategic plan facilitated communication and participation. The regional meetings were useful not only for gathering information from participants but also for "myth busting." Over the next few years we hope that the information in Oregon Shines II will increase public understanding and help to reduce confusion and fear.

Even if one grants that the analysis of the benchmarks and the plan's strategies could provide a useful framework for decision makers at the state and local levels, there is still no guarantee that the strategic plan would actually be used. We believe that it will be used for two reasons. First, the original plan led to legislation in the early 1990s and it is happening again with the updated plan. For example, several pieces of legislation were directed at the workforce issue raised in Oregon Shines I. Moreover, following the release of Oregon Shines II, the legislature called for a plan to reorganize the Economic Development Department to meet the needs of those regions of the state that had not benefitted from the economic turnaround. Second, agencies and non-profit organizations are already relating their initiatives to issues raised in the updated plan, as they did when Oregon Shines/was released.

Therefore, we conclude that state strategic planning has been a valuable process in Oregon. While each state must tailor its own process, we recommend that state policy makers:

* include university faculty and students because it will bring new ideas at the cutting edge to the public debate;

* analyze benchmarks and other information to address myths and outdated beliefs;

* utilize a bottom-up approach involving regional meetings, because it engages the public, increases awareness of the complexity and interrelatedness of the region's issues, and generates new insights into the status of the state;

* insist that every major research finding be linked to a recommendation and benchmarks because it leads to a more logical plan and a better way to determine whether the state is moving in the right direction.

Gerald R. Kissler is associate professor of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon. His work is in state public policy, strategic planning and benchmarking, and in higher education governance and finance.

Karmen N. Fore is completing a masters degree in public affairs in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon.

Willow S. Jacobson is completing a masters degree in public affairs in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon.

William P. Kittredge has completed a masters degree in public affairs in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon. He is now a research associate in the Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute and a doctoral student in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

Scott L. Stewart has completed a masters degree in public affairs in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management at the University of Oregon.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Jeffrey Tryens, Deidre Molander, and Zoe Johnson from the Oregon Progress Board for their assistance in preparing this article. Three other University of Oregon graduate students, Kathrine Richardson, Greg Doss and Jeff Grieve, were also members of the team that led the regional meetings, analyzed data, and drafted much of the final report.

Note

(1.) Copies of Oregon's state strategic plans and other related materials are available on the web site for the Oregon Progress Board at www.econ.state.or.us/opb/

References

Behn, Robert (1980). "Leadership for Cut-Back Management: The Use of Corporate Strategy." Public Administration Review 40(6): 613-620.

Berry, Francis Stokes and Barton Wechsler (1995). "State Agencies' Experience with Strategic Planning: Findings from a National Survey." Public Administration Review 55(2): 159-166.

Bryson, John M. (1988). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

-- (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Revised Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Buckman, Fred (1996). "Minutes from the Governor's Oregon Shines Task Force Meeting, September 30, 1996." Salem, OR: Oregon Progress Board.

Gilder, George (1989). Microcosm: The Quantum Revolution in Economics and Technology. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Hamel, Gary (1996). "Strategy as Revolution." Harvard Business Review 74(4): 69-82.

-- (1997). "Killer Strategies That Make Shareholders Rich." Fortune 135(12): 70-84.

Kissler, Gerald R. and Jeffrey L. Tryens (1997). Oregon Shines II: Updating Oregon's Strategic Plan. Salem, OR: Oregon Progress Board.

Meising, Paul and David F. Andersen (1991). "The Size and Scope of Strategic Planning in State Agencies: The New York Experience." American Review of Public Administration 22:119-137.

Miller, Gerald J., Jack Rabin, and W. Bartley Hildreth (1987). "Strategy, Values, and Productivity." Public Policy Review 43:(11.1): 81-96.

Mintzberg, Henry (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. New York: Free Press.

Nutt, Paul C. and Robert W. Backoff (1992). The Strategic Management of Public and Third Sector Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Office of Economic Analysis (1996). Oregon Shines Update: An Assessment of Oregon's Economy. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Administrative Services.

Thurow, Lester (1992). Head to Head.' The Coming Economic Battle among Japan, Europe, and America. New York: William Morrow.

Toffler, Alvin (1980). The Third Wave. New York: William Morrow.