Closing the Planning-Performance Gap: Planning Process Outcomes and Their Relationship with Process Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite various accounts of the practical benefits for nonprofits that implement strategic planning, vs. those that do not, such as survival, growth and access to resources (Stone et al., 1999; Hwang & Bromley, 2015), the value of strategic planning in the nonprofit spaces remains highly disputed. Key concerns for this include the relevance of for- profit tools for the specific needs of the nonprofit organization, whether the benefits gained in efficiency and effectiveness can cause mission drift and greater interest in economic objectives, as well as the relevance of planning tools in the sector beyond their legitimating properties. This paper addresses the question of value of strategic planning for the nonprofit organization by examining the first-order proximal outcomes of strategic planning process in nonprofits and their contribution to long-term objectives such as successful strategic adaptation and performance. The findings indicate that effective planning processes in nonprofits contribute to four major groups of outcomes, including cognitive, operational, social and emotional outcomes that can serve as core resources for strategic adaptation and performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".