The paper "Strategy in the Public Sector - Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Business School" is a great example of a management case study. Public services are funded by the taxpayers’ money and hence are subject to democratic accountability (Benington & Moore 2011, p. 12). This implies that the public has to be involved in service delivery. This is through deliberative governance. Moore calls for managing the authorising environment which is external. This implies that the mandates must be responsive to public preferences. The public must have trust in the public realm.
The mandates can be developed further by engaging all stakeholders. The public must decide what the objectives should be. This would eliminate the management being solely involved in drafting a policy. In this case, there are claims that the idea was based on a single person opinion. There is a lack of public view, police, industry players and the health sector opinions. Lack of involvement makes the policy susceptible to poor accountability. The public among the rest of the stakeholders does not own the idea and there is a lack of legitimacy.
To further develop the mandate, it would be important to carry out market research. This is through the use of focus groups and market surveys. Before the plan was executed, there was no appropriate research which exposed the problem to the possibility of failure. The mandate can also be improved through the use of devolved responsibility. This is through the use of community partnership and participatory budgeting. Based on the public value, it is suggestible that the management uses the outside in frame of reference (Prebble 2012, p.
397). This is through the use of keener appreciation to what the public values genuinely. The views of the citizens and other stakeholders must be addressed. Public value gives a framework that helps in making the final decision. It requires a constant dialogue between the public and the public managers. The mandate requires to be based on responsiveness to the refined preferences (Moore 2013, p. 47). 2 am lockout policy implementation strategies and tactics To ensure 2 am lockout policy will create social value, there is a need to use the Kennedy school strategic triangle.
The three areas contained in the strategic triangle are; public value, source of legitimacy and support and operational capabilities. Public value idea is supposed to be shared by all stakeholders (Benington & Moore 2011, p. 11). This is especially those in positions that can help in offering legitimacy. The policy to combat the alcohol problem in Victoria must be able to address all issues in the strategic triangle. This is through commanding legitimacy and support, operationally doable and ability to create public value. Legitimacy and support The first step is gaining legitimacy and support in the new policy.
The idea of legitimacy and support is based more on social and political legitimacy. This is through the policy having the right to be applied to the social and political setting and the economic viability. The society must authorize the idea for it to be operative. The policy must be to the public interests. Alcohol abuse leads to loss to the society and in some cases can be fatal. The state and federal governments report loss of a lot of revenues. If the policy being implemented does not get legitimacy and support, it is bound to lead to a loss (Williams & Shearer 2011, p.
1371). The individuals involved who include the stakeholders must be willing to put their resources in the implementation of the policy. For the policy to gain legitimacy, there is a need to involve the stakeholders while drafting it. This will make it possible for them to own the policy. The 2 a. m. lockdown plan was not owned by stakeholders. The citizens who are the taxpayers are the main secure of legitimacy (Ospina, Kersh & Saz-Carranza 2012, p.
152). The taxpayers are analogous to the investors in the private sector. The politics that surround policy drafting and implementation must be resolved first. Politics in the public sector threatens the drafting of vital policies. The differences that arise on the public based on the best use of public resources are great (Jacobs 2014, p. 483). This is due to the fact that they have to debate on the best way to attain the results on the alcohol problem and the number of resources that are to be allocated.
When developing a policy, it is important to look at the legal, moral and its practicability. The proposed policy is based on the laws and is meant to instil morality. The policy is also highly practical since it targets violence hotspots. It would be unfair to draft a policy that punishes all levellers without determining those responsible for the violence. This ensures that the policy does not risk losing its legitimacy and support (Williams & Shearer 2011, p. 1373). Building legitimacy and support is a key aspect of a successful firm.
Benington, J., & Moore, M. H. 2011. “Public value in complex and changing times.” Public value: Theory and practice, p.1-30.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. 2014. “Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management.” Public Administration Review, Vol.74, no.4, p.445-456.
Fisher, J., & Grant, B. 2012. “Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility: Public Value and the Business of Politics.” International Journal of Business and Management, Vol.7, no.7, p2.
Jacobs, L. R. 2014. “The Contested Politics of Public Value.” Public Administration Review, Vol.74, no.4, p.480-494.
Moore, M. H. 2013. Recognizing public value. Harvard University Press.
Ospina, S. M., Kersh, R., & Saz-Carranza, A. 2012. “The quest for public value.” Public Administration Review, Vol.72, no.1, p.152-153.
Prebble, M. 2012. “Public value and the ideal state: Rescuing public value from ambiguity.” Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol.71, no.4, p.392-402.
Spano, A. 2014. How Do We Measure Public Value? From Theory to Practice. Public Value Management, Measurement and Reporting (Studies in Public and Non-Profit Governance, Volume 3) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 3, p.353-373.
West, K., & Davis, P. 2011. “What is the public value of government action? Towards a (new) pragmatic approach to values questions in public endeavours.” Public Administration, Vol.89, no.2, p.226-241.
Williams, I., & Shearer, H. 2011. “Appraising public value: Past, present and futures.” public administration, Vol.89, no.4, p.1367-1384.