DUBAI STRATEGIC

PLANNING MATURITY SURVEY

Analysis of the Public Sector Survey
1. Executive Summary

Strategic Planning is a critical discipline in the Public Sector and one that has been established in
Dubai for a long time. TCO set out to measure the maturity of this discipline across organizations
and to gauge the level of satisfaction with the process and its outcome. As a basis for our study we
asked senior leaders and other strategy practitioners in Dubai a series of questions drawn from the
TCO Strategic Planning Maturity Model.

The model is made up of seven key factors which together contribute to a mature process and result
in an effective strategic plan. These seven factors measure the relevance, inclusiveness, dynamism,
understanding, measurability, assignment and inter-connectivity of the process.

In our survey, we found that most respondents (nearly 80%) expressed satisfaction with the strategic
planning process in their organizations. The responses overall illustrate that the process is very
mature and that it typically results in a strategic plan that: is used as the basis for decision-making
and is supported by all levels of the organization; represents all stakeholders; is updated periodically;
is supported by research; and contains measurable performance indicators. However, survey
responses also showed that there is still room for improvement in some areas. For example, when
asked whether implementation of the strategic plan is cascaded to all levels of the organization,
agreement was only 72%, and when asked whether employees understand how their work
contributes to achieving organizational goals, the level of agreement reached only 65%.

While attitudes were generally positive across the board, there were interesting and significant
nuances of opinion between management levels on the strategic planning process. C-level
Executives (Tier 1) and Mid-level Managers (Tier 3) had the highest opinion of the process (89%
satisfaction on average, compared to 69% for non C-level Executives (Tier 2) such as Directors and
Heads of Department). And when asked about the stakeholders involved in the strategic planning
process, C-level Executives were far more likely to include outside organizations, citizens and other
private actors as key stakeholders. This may indicate that interaction with these outside actors does
not occur at all levels of the organization.

Differences in responses were also noted between those working in the Strategy Department and
those outside of it. Respondents outside of the Strategy Department had a slightly more favorable
view of the maturity of the strategic planning process at almost every major point, perhaps owing to
their relative distance from the process.

To summarize then, we can say that strategic planning in the public sector in Dubai is a highly
developed and robust process. It exhibits all the characteristics associated with a mature process,
even if some of its characteristics can still be improved. In our conclusion, we have highlighted four
areas for senior public sector managers and their strategic planning departments to consider
improving going forward, namely: linking with critical internal departments, the collection and
analysis of data, strategic alignment of the organization and individual performance management.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 1


2. Introduction to the Survey
To better understand the current state of
strategic planning practices in the public
sector, TCO conducted a survey of senior
leaders and other strategy practitioners in
Dubai to learn how their organizations
approach strategic planning.
Using data collected during the survey, the
respondents can be divided into two broad
groups: Those playing specific strategy roles in
an organization (typically those within the
Strategy Department), and those in non-
strategy roles (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: Percent of total respondents, according to
their role in the responding organization
Non-
Strategy
strategy 47%
53%
The respondents can be further categorized
as five groups, according to their position, or
Tier, within each organization (Figure 2):
 Tier 1: C-level Executives (i.e., Directors
General (DGs), Assistant DG’s, CEOs, etc)
 Tier 2: Non C-level Executives (i.e.,
Directors and Heads of Department);
 Tier 3: Mid-level Management
 Tier 4: Senior Staff, and
 Tier 5: Staff Members
| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector
Figure 2: Percent of total respondents, according to
their position in the organization (i.e. Management
Tier)
Tier 3, 32%
Tier 2, 46%
Tier 4, 5%
Tier 1, 14%
Tier 5, 4%
3. Strategic Planning Maturity
Model
The survey questions were developed around
seven key factors that make up the TCO
Strategic Planning Maturity Model. According
to that model, a mature strategic planning
process should strongly exhibit these 7
specific characteristics. It should be:
 Relevant (i.e., used as the basis for
decision-making and supported by all
levels of the organization)
 Inclusive (i.e., represent all stakeholders
and all levels of the organization)
 Dynamic (i.e., not a static one-time
process, but updated periodically and
adapted to changed environmental
circumstances)
 Fact-based (i.e., informed and supported
by rigorous research and a deep
understanding of customers)
 Measurable (i.e., contain clear and
achievable performance indicators)
 Cascaded (i.e., cascade responsibility for
carrying out the strategy to all levels of an
organization)
 Connected (i.e., linked to essential
departments within the organization,
such as Human Resources, Budgeting, and
Performance Management)
2
To gauge the overall maturity of strategic Figure 4: Overall satisfaction with the strategic
planning process
planning, each multiple-choice response was
given a numerical score (depending on the
strength of agreement with the question
statement), the scores were aggregated by 5% 11%
factor to calculate an overall total for that
factor, and then the results were plotted on a 16%
radar chart (Figure 3).

Overall, the survey found that strategic

planning is a mature and well -defined
practice in Dubai and in most government
entities. Particularly high results were
recorded for several factors, indicating an
68%
elevated level of maturity: Relevant,
Inclusive, and Measurable were rated very Very satisfied Satisfied Not so satisfied Not at all satisfied

positively, followed only slightly behind by

Dynamic. Scores for Fact-Based were good,
yet below the level of the previous four
factors, indicating there was room for
improvement. The remaining and lowest
scoring factors were Cascaded and
Connected, which scored at just half the level
of the other factors, indicating that these are
areas that can potentially benefit from
immediate attention.
Interestingly, the lowest level of satisfaction
with the strategic planning process was found
among Tier 2 Managers, just below the C-level
Executives (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Overall satisfaction with the strategic
1
planning process (by Management Tier)

Figure 3: Strategic Planning Maturity Radar Chart

Relevant 89% 88%

100%
80%
Connected 60% Inclusive
40%
20%
69%
0%
Cascaded Dynamic
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Measurable Fact-Based

These summary findings also squared with the

perceptions of individuals: Nearly 80% of
survey respondents declared themselves
satisfied or very satisfied with the strategic
1
planning process in their organization Some Tier 4 and Tier 5 responses were
(Figure 4). received, but were too few to be able to
generalize about the opinions of those
categories
| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 3
4. The Strategic Planning
Process
At the start of the survey, participants were
asked questions regarding the efficiency and
effectiveness of the process for conducting
actual strategic planning. The overwhelming
majority (96%) of respondents indicated that
there was a dedicated strategic planning
department in their organization. Those that
answered ‘No’ were working in either sub-
units of larger entities or very small
organizations. The average length of the
strategic planning cycle overall was 3 years,
although there appeared to be some
confusion about that timeframe within some
organizations: Respondents from the same
organization often disagreed about the length
of the same planning cycle. However,
regardless of the specific cycle length, 86% of
respondents claimed that their organization
conducts a review of that strategy each year.
Responses to questions posed about the staff
that is responsible for the process indicated
that although it is not considered easy to find
qualified individuals in the UAE to fill strategy
positions, the existing strategic planning staff
was considered highly skilled by most of the
respondents (Figure 6).
Perhaps not surprisingly, those in the Strategy
Department were most negative about the
possibility of getting qualified staff with more
than 70% of those respondents disagreeing2
with the statement “It is easy to find qualified
individuals in the UAE to fill strategic planning
positions in my organization,” compared to
less than 50% of non-strategy practitioners
who disagreed with that statement.
5. Specific Questions on the
Factors
a) The Relevance Factor

By far, the highest scoring factor was

Figure 6: Responses to questions regarding the nature
Relevant, indicating that the strategic plan is
of strategic planning staff
used as the basis for decision-making and that
the strategy is supported by all levels of the
2% organization. Most respondents (86%) agreed
2.4 The 18% 17%
that new initiatives are approved based on
strategic
planning staff their contribution to achieving the overall
at my goals of the organization. 84% agreed that
organization
are highly management was committed to the strategy,
skilled while commitment was perceived to be
63%
Strongly Agree somewhat lower among employees. 88% felt
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
that the strategic planning process let them
9% 7%
2.5 It is easy to understand clearly what role their
find qualified
individuals in
the UAE to fill 35% 2
strategic For simplicity’s sake throughout this analysis,
planning
49% unless specifically noted otherwise, we will
positions in my refer to all respondents who agreed or
organization
strongly agreed with a statement as having
“agreed” with it, and likewise refer to those
who disagreed or strongly disagreed as having
“disagreed.”
| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 4
organization plays in achieving the broader Figure 7: Difference in perception between strategy
and non-strategy stakeholders
Federal and Emirate strategies. There were
certain noticeable differences here between Which of the following stakeholders are involved in the
the respondent groups although opinions of strategic planning process (Responses by Role)
non-strategy practitioners on the relevance of Residents 30%
37% Strategy
the strategy to the operation of the Non-Strategy
NGO’s 33%
organization were 10% higher than the 40%
opinions of individuals who were actually Citizens 44%
53%
working in the Strategy Departments.
The Private Sector 44%
57%
b) The Inclusiveness Factor Central Government 48%
53%
Other Government 52%
Overall, there was strong agreement among Departments 70%
Employees 82%
the respondents that the cultures of their 70%
organizations do encourage strategic planning The Strategy 96%
Departments 93%
and those who have to carry out the strategy
Senior Leadership 93%
are actually involved in setting it. Substantial 97%
minorities, however, disagreed that everyone
is encouraged to contribute to the process or When considering the differences in
that the strategy is always communicated well perception among tiers of management, the
to stakeholders (26% and 30%, respectively). picture is even more interesting. For
example, Tier 1 managers believe more
Respondents were also asked to identify the
strongly than the others that all stakeholders
different stakeholders involved in the
are involved in the process, especially
strategic planning process. On the whole,
employees (Figure 8). When considering
there was broad agreement that the Strategy
NGO’s and residents as stakeholders, the
Department and the senior leadership are
difference in perception between Tier 1 and
closely involved in the process. Beyond this
Tier 3 becomes extremely divergent. Tier 1
point, the responses diverged significantly,
managers are 15 times more likely to point to
illustrating a difference in the perceptions of
NGO’s, and almost 5 times more likely to
strategy and non-strategy practitioners and
point to residents than are those in Tier 3.
between management levels at the
organization. One plausible explanation for this discrepancy
could simply be the distance of these tiers
For example, more than 80% of strategy
from these external stakeholder groups. The
practitioners consider employees to be a key
higher that one rests in the hierarchy, the
stakeholder; yet only 70% of non-strategy
more outward looking one’s focus becomes.
practitioners do. That difference is significant.
This explanation is reinforced by the fact that
On the other hand, when compared to the
Tier 2 perceptions are situated generally
opinions of the strategy group, the non-
between Tier 1 and Tier 3. Some respondents
strategy practitioners consider every
also highlighted additional stakeholders not
remaining stakeholder group to be more
mentioned in the survey questions, such as
involved in the process, including residents,
Boards of Directors and International Expert
NGOs, government departments and the
Advisers.
private sector (Figure 7).

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 5

Figure 8: Differences in perception among management tiers on the stakeholders involved in strategic planning

Which of the following stakeholders are involved in the strategic planning process
(Responses by Management Tier)

50%
Residents 35%
11%
88%
Citizens 35%
6% Tier 1
42% 75%
The Private Sector Tier 2
44%
75% Tier 3
NGOs 50%
28%
Other Government 75%
46%
Departments 44%
88%
Central Government 58%
44%
100%
Employees 73%
72%
88%
The Strategy Department 92%
100%
88%
Senior Leadership 96%
94%

c) The Dynamism Factor

The recent global economic crisis has caused

many organizations to rethink their strategies
in light of changed circumstances. Having a
flexible and dynamic planning process makes
adapting to changes easier for an
organization, and by extension also for its
employees. It was, therefore, encouraging to
see that 86% or respondents agreed with the
statement, “Our strategy can change quickly
when faced with sudden environmental
changes.”
Less positive, but still good, were the
responses recorded when we asked about
reviewing progress against the strategy with
stakeholders and whether the strategic
planning process adequately identified the
risks that an organization faces (Figure 9).
Both of these aspects support a flexible and
adaptive strategic planning process, and the
uncertain responses indicate that more work
can be done in this area.

Among strategy practitioners as a group,

positive responses exceeded 96%! A large
proportion of respondents (79%) also felt that
negative performance results led quickly to an
investigation of the problem and corrective
actions to address it, including a rethink of the
entire strategy, if necessary.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 6

Figure 9: Responses to the question “The strategic
planning process at my organization adequately
identifies the risks we face.”
Figure 10: Factors’ influencing strategic decision-
making
Strategic decisions in my organization are made
based on: (Please select all that apply)

Reaction to crises 65%

Political bargaining between
14% powerful stakeholder groups
27%

Facts and data about issues 76%

32%
Personal interests of individuals 27%

54% Forecasts about the future 62%

External pressure from government
55%
decision makers

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree

d) The Fact-Based Factor
It is well known that compiling good data
from which to make strategic
recommendations can be difficult in Dubai;
indeed, more than 40% of the respondents
agreed that this was a problem. Yet
respondents also felt overwhelmingly that an
absence of existing data can be somewhat
compensated for by a structured and formal
strategic planning process that explores all
issues thoroughly -- 91% felt that the strategic
planning process itself helps them better
understand what drives the issues they face.
Yet as we’ve seen before, the perceptions of
the relative importance of each of the items
varied by role and position of the individual
doing the choosing. For example, with
respect to external pressure from government
decision-makers, non-strategy practitioners
were twice as likely to see this aspect as an
important factor as those in the strategy
department (Figure 11). Still, there was
unanimity of opinion among all three
management levels on the subject (Figure 12).
Figure 11: Difference in perception between
practitioners on the factors that influence strategic
decision-making
Strategic decisions in my organization are made based on:
(Responses by Role)

The net result was that 78% of respondents Personal interests of 28%
believed that their organizations were able to individuals 27%
Strategy
understand their customers and their needs Non-Strategy
Political bargaining between
well, despite the well- known absence of powerful stakeholder groups
28%
27%
precise data.
External pressure from 36%
Respondents were also asked to identify government decision makers 67%
which items had the most influence on
strategic decision-making in their Forecasts about the future 48%
67%
organizations. Overall, the most relevant
items were seen to be “facts and data,” 64%
Reactions to crises
“reactions to crises,” and “forecasts about the 63%

future” (Figure 10).

76%
Facts and data about issues 70%

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 7

Conversely, a person’s role in the organization Figure 13: Percent of respondents agreeing with the
statements (by Role)
had no impact on his or her perception of the
role played by personal interest in strategic
Our strategy defines a clear set of 96%
decision-making, yet Tier 2 managers were 6 strategic outcomes for the
90%
organization
times more likely than Tier 3 Managers to see
92%
this point as relevant. We understand what drives the
outcomes we are trying to achieve 87%

Figure 12: Differences in perception among the

We are able to satisfactorily measure 83%
management tiers on the factors that influence
our progress as an organization 80%
strategic decision-making against our strategic outcomes

Strategic decisions in my organization are made based 88%

We have selected the right
on: (Responses by Management Tier)
performance indicators to measure 83%
Personal interests of 13% progress
38% Tier 1
individuals
6% Tier 2 Performance Management is a key 87%
Political bargaining between 13% Tier 3 stakeholder in the strategic planning
31% process 77%
powerful stakeholder groups
19%
External pressure from 50% Strategy Non-Strategy
government decision makers 50%
50%
75% Tier 1 managers resoundingly lent their
Forecasts about the future 54%
69% support to this positive opinion, with an
75%
Reaction to crises
56%
65% average agreement rate in response to each
88% of these questions exceeding 97%!
Facts and data about issues 77%
69%

f) The Cascaded Factor

e) The Measurable Factor
The strategic planning process should result in
a selection of a few strategic goals for the
organization to achieve; performance targets
need to be defined for each of these goals
and performance measurement systems used
to ensure progress toward the desired
outcomes.
Our survey found that respondents believed
that their organizations do an excellent job of
defining strategic outcomes (93%),
understanding what drives them (89%),
choosing performance indicators (85%), and
measuring results (81%). Opinions within the
Strategy Department on this subject – and on
whether Performance Management is a key
stakeholder in the process – were 6% higher
here than in the rest of the organization
(Figure 13), probably because these activities
represent the core competencies of the
Strategy Department and its vision.
The results of the study become less positive
when we move to assigning ownership of
initiatives and cascading responsibility for
achieving the strategy to different levels of
the organization. While 83% of respondents
agreed that every major initiative in the
strategy has a clear owner, there is also a
perception that strategic Initiatives that
involve more than one department are not
coordinated as well. And when asked if
responsibility for achieving strategic
objectives is cascaded to all levels of the
organization, agreement fell to just 72%
overall (Figure 14), and to 70% among actual
strategy practitioners.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 8

Figure 14: Responses to the question: “Responsibility
for achieving strategic objectives cascades to all levels
of the organization.”
2%
13%
26%
58%
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
g) The Connected Factor
The last factor we considered in the survey
was whether the strategy is connected to the
rest of the organization in a meaningful way.
For example, do employees in the Budgeting
and HR departments understand, and are
they rewarded for, how their work
contributes to achieving the overall strategy?
The results in this area were the most
problematic of all of them.
Given the positive sentiment around the
measurability of the strategic plan, we should
expect that the Performance Management
Department is considered a key stakeholder in
a strategic planning process -- and that is
indeed what we found: 81% of respondents
believed so. Finance and Budgeting were
also seen as important stakeholders, but not
by as high a margin: this time only 72%
agreed. And as for Human Resources, the
picture became more mixed: fully 45% of
respondents disagreed with the notion that
HR is closely linked to the strategic planning
process (Figure 15). Tier 2 managers had the
least positive perception of any on this issue.
| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector
Figure 15: Opinion of respondents on whether HR is
closely linked to the strategic planning process in their
organizations.
8%
11%
38% 43%
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Agree
This result leads us finally to the questions of
whether employees understand the role they
play in achieving the strategic goals of their
organization and if they are in fact rewarded
for a positive contribution. Agreement on the
first aspect reached only 65% among survey
respondents, indicating that improvements
could be made to individual performance
management processes within organizations.
If employees are unaware of how their work
contributes to achieving organizational
outcomes, they can be improved through a
structured performance management system
that sets goals according to the role each
individual plays in that strategy.
Moreover, this lack of awareness by
employees is tightly bound to a perception
that employees whose work does help
achieve the strategic objectives are not
rewarded well enough. Survey respondents
were the least positive on this subject of any
in the entire survey, (Figure 16), and this was
one of only two survey questions where a
majority of respondents disagreed with the
statement (see Section 3: Strategic Planning
Process for the other).
9
 Figure 16: Percent of respondents agreeing with the statement

Employees understand how

their work contributes to 65%
achieving corporate goals

Employees are rewarded for their

contribution to achieving the 35%
strategic objectives

6. How organizational roles affect perceptions of strategic planning

One of the most interesting findings of our survey was the difference in perception that was found
between the Strategy Department and the rest of the organization on the subject of strategic
planning. In addition to the areas we have already discussed, the Strategy Department overall had a
measurably less positive outlook for the overall process (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Percent of respondents agreeing with the question (based on Role in the organization)

It is easy to find qualified individuals in the UAE to Non- Strategy

53
fill strategic planning positions in my organization 30 Strategy
There is a lot of good data available to accurately 63
understand the current situation we face 52
Employees understand how their work contributes 73
to achieving corporate goals 54
We hold regular meetings with stakeholders to
80
review progress against the strategy 56
Employees at my organization are committed to
80
the corporate strategy
59
Negative performance results are used to drive
corrective action 83
74
Our strategy is used as a guide for management
decision making 83
70
Howsatisfied
I am satisfiedwith
are the
youoverall
overallstrategic
with the planning
strategic
planning process in your
process in myorganization?
organization 83
74
My organization understands well our customers
and their needs 87
The culture of my organization encourages 68
strategic planning 90
New initiatives are approved based on their 70
contribution to achieving the strategic objectives 93
78

This finding begs the question of whose perception is the correct one. However, perhaps the
opinions are nothing more than a reflection of the expectations of the groups, rather than an exact
measure of fact. Taking this approach, opinion in the Strategy Department may be lower since
employees here begin with higher expectations. For the non-strategy practitioners, the opposite
may be true. Whatever the cause, it is likely that the real answer lies somewhere between the two
positions.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 10

7. Recommendations

To summarize then, we can say that strategic planning in the public sector is a highly developed and
robust process. It exhibits all the characteristics associated with a mature process, even if some of
its characteristics can still be improved.

Based on the results of our survey, we propose four recommendations for consideration to assist
senior public sector managers and their strategic planning departments to enhance performance:

 Improve links with critical internal departments:

The strategy department is not the only department responsible for developing a strategic plan;
there is an entire planning value chain that includes Budgeting, Human Resources, Performance
Management, and many other units.

A collaborative mindset must be fostered where all concerned departments work together to
align with a common strategy to achieve the organizational objectives. Achieving this goal
means that barriers must be broken down between departments and business units that have
historically performed their work in isolated silos. Senior management especially has a critical
role to play in creating this culture of collaboration.

One successful strategy to encourage a collaborative mindset could be to develop a permanent

Strategic Planning Advisory Committee that includes senior managers from each of the critical
departments and meets periodically to review performance and consider new directions. This
committee should be convened by the Strategy Department and would ensure that all voices are
heard in the process.

 Improve the collection and analysis of data:

Accurate information is critical to defining a successful strategy. Better data can reveal
more information about the risks your organization faces and improve forecasting about
the future. Trying to build a strategy in the absence of precise data carries the risk that
your initiatives will not be the right ones.

One immediate way to improve the collection of useful data is to bring more
stakeholders into the planning process and enhance the interactions with them – for
example, through periodic reviews of the strategy and dialogue with outside entities.

Household surveys are another excellent way to collect data and also include residents
in the process at the same time. Making use of central statistical departments can
greatly facilitate these studies. Scenario planning is another successful tool for
forecasting and preparing for various alternatives. The data generated will ultimately
reduce the reactive nature of strategy and allow strategic planners to place more of
their emphasis where it belongs – on planning.

 Improve strategic alignment:

Your strategic plan should be the engine that drives the activities of your organization. The work
of each department must be linked directly to achieving the mission of the organization. To do

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 11

 this, the organization may need to be restructured if your strategy has changed substantially in
the last 18 months. You cannot expect to deliver a new strategy with an old organization.

Make sure that each strategic initiative has a clear owner, especially if the initiative spans
departments. One effective tool for managing cross-cutting initiatives is to formalize the
responsibilities of each department in a Memorandum of Understanding or “Performance
Agreement,” and then assign one owner who is responsible for managing tasks.

Assigning ownership of initiatives and cascading responsibility to all levels will give your
organization better clarity of purpose that can invigorate even the oldest and most conservative
of public sector entities.

 Improve the individual performance management process:

Organizations are ultimately made up of individuals, not departments and business units; so in
the end, the achievement of any strategic objectives will depend on the performance of
individuals. If employees understand the role their work plays in the larger structure and believe
that good performance will be recognized, the outcomes for the entire organization are likely to
improve.

Employees can be shown how their work contributes to achieving the organizational objectives
through the application of a structured performance management system that explicitly links
individual performance goals to specific initiatives and activities that then become a part of the
full organizational strategy.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 12

TCO’s Strategic Planning Maturity Survey

The survey took place between the 6th and 17th of June, 2010, and included more than 200
individuals working in 31 public sector entities in Dubai, both large and small. The anonymous
survey was conducted online in both Arabic and English, and the responses received were
divided roughly 50/50 between the two languages.

Most of the questions were presented in multiple-choice format, allowing respondents to either
strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. There was no option for neutral or “Don’t
Know” responses.

The response rate for our survey was excellent: 60 individuals took the time to answer the
questionnaire, and we received at least one response from more than 70% of the entities
surveyed.

TCO Management Consulting is an initiative born out of the need for first-class consulting support in
the delivery and implementation of strategic initiatives across all forms of government. We provide
advisory services to public sector organizations in Dubai, other Emirates, and the MENA region.
Through our precise focus on the quality of service delivery, capability development, and knowledge
management, TCO aspires to be a Strategic Partner in Public Sector Innovation.

This survey and White Paper were prepared by Daniel Whitehead, a Management Consultant with TCO
based in Dubai. Daniel leads TCO’s Public Sector Strategy & Policy Practice and has managed numerous
strategic planning engagements across the Middle East, Europe, and North America.

Support for this White Paper was provided by Turan Malik, a Principal Consultant with TCO.

For more information please contact:

Daniel Whitehead, +971 (0)50 189 7263 or

daniel.whitehead@tco.gov.ae

Visit www.tco.gov.ae to learn more about TCO

©2010 TCO. All rights Reserved.