Sutiyoso's strategic plan, a product of bureaucrats

Marco Kusumawijaya, Consultant, Urban Development, Jakarta, marcokw@centrin.net.id

The editorial of The Jakarta Post on Nov. 15 criticized Governor Sutiyoso and his strategic plan presented on Nov. 12 to the City Council. While most of the critique is reasonable, it might not be very revealing to focus on Sutiyoso alone.

He created the strategic plan, not necessarily in the sense normally understood in schools of management as, for example, discussed in the Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning by Henry Mintzberg (1994), but in the format as dictated by government regulation 108/2000. This requires that a governor present his "strategic plan" within a month after he has been elected to office. We could even offer our sympathy to the governor. Worse, since the governor supposedly controls and is supported by a bureaucracy that has served him before, the "strategic plan" is seen as no less than a product of the whole bureaucratic machinery of the city.

Most mayors I work with in cities throughout Indonesia readily excuse themselves by saying that they submitted such "strategic plans" simply to fulfill the requirement of the law, knowing full well that they are unable to contribute much valid, or legitimate, substance into the plan. Ironically, the plans must be sufficiently vague too, as the mayors' accountability will be checked against their performance at the end of their terms.

Usually I have suggested a compromise, that they simply include the "formulation of a real strategic plan" as part of the plan outlining the mayor's strategic tasks. I did not at all mean to be cynical, either.

A real strategic plan would mean a committed and prioritized concerted plan of action aimed at achieving a long-term vision. A vision is not a dream as it must be based on valid facts (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; or SWOT), and legitimate the aspirations and the commitment of its multiple stakeholders. It can be analyzed, and actions can be designed to achieve its goals. It must be specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART). As Mintzberg wrote, the plan must be "not to our fantasies -- may they mostly fall as fast as they rise -- but to the wonders of reality."

No doubt Jakarta needs such a strategic plan.The longer we wait to solve its problems -- such as environmental sustainability, transportation, land use and poverty, few, the more impossible they will become.

They are indeed strategic issues by excellence: They are long- term, requires concerted (or synthesized) efforts from many interrelated sectors, and commitment from different stakeholders and levels of government and, most importantly, is that what is done about them will fundamentally determine the basic long-term appearance and appeal of Jakarta.

Jakarta, despite its seemingly impossible situation, must have a long-term committed plan in order to be competitive at all in the future.

The vision spelled out in the Governor's "strategic plan" is to "realize Jakarta as Indonesia's capital city that is humane, efficient, and globally competitive, inhabited by a participatory, moral, prosperous and civilized society living in a safe and sustainable milieu".

The strategic matrixes missed three important columns: Specific actions for each program, indicated resources and time frame for each action. These three columns are important to support one basic proposition of strategic management; a close link between planning and implementation.

These columns must be seen as integrated parts of a strategy and not to be detailed only later, because their contents will determine the likelihood of achieving the strategic goals. Two other problems with the plan are about ownership and time-frame.

The Jakarta administration's annual budget is merely 5 percent of the city's Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP). Of course, the administration's annual budget has a lot of impact, as it should, if used wisely and with clear objectives in mind. The rest of the city, however, including its economic power as represented by the GRDP, has a lot more impact on the city's long-term future.

A strategic plan, therefore, must also include action plans outside the city's administration annual budget. This is a city development strategy must be comprehensive and inclusive of participation of all the city's stakeholders. A city strategic plan should begin with, and belong to, the population and the stakeholders of the city, not to the government. This latter might be mandated to initiate it, but instead must make it to the point that the population and the stakeholders feel obliged and committed to the plan.

On the question of time frame, a five-year period is hardly strategic, as it is only medium- instead of long-term. Exactly how long is long term? In the past, a 50-year period had once or twice been perceived as being appropriately long-term, especially by authoritarian regimes that assume the complete responsibility over the destiny of their subjects and lands, and think that they can monopolize the market.

Nowadays, a period of 10-20 years is considered reasonable. This number correlates to the time-frame required to solve most strategic issues at hand and to implementing infrastructural investment, which requires 10-15 years. More importantly, a city's strategic plan requires trans-generational commitment beyond short-term political exigency.

Otherwise, the plan can easily be corrupted, as in the case of the New Order's use of Repelita as a tool to create projects, retain power, and justify a single majority and its re-election -- to "finish the job". A "strategic plan" that is framed within a political term of office contradicts the concept of the strategic plan itself.

Short-term (1-3 years) and medium-term (3-5 years) action plans are meaningful and strategic only when they are logically linked to a long-term plan and clearly show how they will contribute towards achieving a long-term vision. This means a strategic plan must go beyond the mandate of any political term of office, and requires that whoever is in office ensures the popular support necessary to make the strategy work both during and beyond his or her term.

Yet can Jakarta be strategically planned?

We know that she (Jakarta) deserves a strategic plan. The technology and instruments are there, and funding will come when there is good will. The matter rests with leadership.

Experience from participatory City Development Strategy programs around the world shows that leadership is an absolute factor. In Indonesia, where the program is still ongoing, the leadership factor already indicates the likelihood of success.

Leadership not only refers to the capacity to consolidate shared vision, to lead concerted multi-stakeholder efforts towards common goals, and to be committed in delivering -- but also to have a conciliatory outlook towards all, especially the marginalized people.