1. Issue resolution with Planning & Budgeting Framework

3. Targets not always underpinned by transparent, robust assumptions

4. Limited capability in planning/ business case development

5. Lack of clear plans and targets in some areas

6. Historical lack of clear strategic direction-setting/ prioritisation in some areas

7. Examples of disconnects:

8. 5-year Fundraising strategy identified Legacies and DM as key income streams for investment, but without a clear planning link, the 2007 budget for this investment was slashed by £0.8m

9. In 2006, UKO ICS under-spent the charitable spend budget by £6m partly due to the absence of an Operating Plan underpinning the budget, and there was no onward link to performance management

10. Strategy

11. Planning and targeting

12. Perfor-mance manage-ment

13. Budgeting

14. Targets not always well-understood/ communicated or clearly cascaded

15. Lack of clear individual accountability for targets

16. Historically a lack of SMART objectives against which to manage performance

17. Staff including directors and managers not always held to account for performance against budgets/targets

18. Budgets not always underpinned by rigorous plans and targets Source: Interviews; Staff Survey

20. Select measures and targets

21. Select strategic initiatives defining;

22. directorate roles & responsibilities

23. milestones

24. strategic budget for initiative

27. Plan resource capacity

28. Prepare budgets

31. may identify a service need which ends up being retro-fitted to the corporate priorities

32. lessens credibility of the corporate planning process and the corporate priorities

33. To ensure credible corporate alignment

34. balance of BAU and new areas of focus

35. this allows stretch targets for BAU

37. internally; the directorate’s will feed their HS results into this process

38. externally; surveys etc to provide greater scope for strategic direction to be set by those affected by cancer

39. PESTLE

40. This will feed into a CSA paper to EMT recommending a number of options such as;

41. a new corporate priority

42. a change in focus for an existing priority

43. provide high level resource implications for each of the options

45. The proposed revision to the HS process and CSA will provide the benchmark;

46. to challenge existing activities and

47. test objectives against the corporate mission

49. Corporate and Directorate objectives should cascade to Individual performance assessments

50. Reward scheme around delivery of corporate priorities