SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Analyzing Risk-Activity-Indicator Alignment in Municipal Strategic Plans: The Participatory Governance and Institutional Capacity Targets of Avcılar Municipality

Belediye Stratejik Planlarında Risk-Faaliyet-Gösterge Uyumunun Analizi: Avcılar Belediyesinin Katılımcı Yönetişim ve Kurumsal Kapasite Hedefleri

Mustafa Gökberk Ertan(KAPADOKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9484-4463
Pages
1–1
Publication Date
2026-03-16
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings indicate that the strategic plan has a strong capacity for output-oriented performance monitoring; however, the risk-based strategic logic remains relatively limited.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to analyze the ten performance target cards included under the objective of “Enhancing Participatory Governance and Institutional Capacity” in the 2025–2029 Strategic Plan of Avcılar Municipality through the Risk–Activity–Indicator Consistency (RAIC) model.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study adopts a qualitative research design based on document analysis, and the relationships between risks, activities, and performance indicators defined in the target cards are systematically evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings indicate that the strategic plan has a strong capacity for output-oriented performance monitoring; however, the risk-based strategic logic remains relatively limited.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2025–2029 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Stratejik Planlama · Katılımcı Yönetişim · Yerel Yönetimler

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the ten performance target cards included under the objective of “Enhancing Participatory Governance and Institutional Capacity” in the 2025–2029 Strategic Plan of Avcılar Municipality through the Risk–Activity–Indicator Consistency (RAIC) model. The study adopts a qualitative research design based on document analysis, and the relationships between risks, activities, and performance indicators defined in the target cards are systematically evaluated. The analysis reveals a similar pattern across all target cards: while the risk–indicator and risk–activity relationships demonstrate a moderate level of alignment, the activity–indicator relationship exhibits a high level of consistency. These findings indicate that the strategic plan has a strong capacity for output-oriented performance monitoring; however, the risk-based strategic logic remains relatively limited. The predominantly structural and qualitative nature of the risks, in contrast with the quantitative output-focused indicators, reduces the level of alignment and makes it difficult to integrate risk management into the monitoring and evaluation system. In contrast, activity–indicator alignment is strong, and the outputs of activities are measurable. Overall, the study concludes that although the strategic plan of Avcılar Municipality is operationally applicable, it requires further improvement in terms of risk management and strategic coherence. The study also contributes to the literature by proposing the RAIC model as an analytical framework for evaluating municipal strategic plans.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Avcılar Belediyesinin 2025–2029 Stratejik Planında “Katılımcı Yönetişim ve Kurumsal Kapasiteyi Artırmak” kapsamında yer alan on hedef kartını Risk-Faaliyet-Gösterge Tutarlılığı (RFGT) modeli çerçevesinde analiz etmektir. Çalışma, doküman incelemesine dayalı nitel bir araştırma tasarımına sahiptir ve analiz kapsamında hedef kartlarında yer alan risk, faaliyet ve performans göstergeleri arasındaki ilişkiler sistematik biçimde değerlendirilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda hedef kartlarının tamamında benzer bir örüntü ortaya çıkmış; risk-gösterge ve risk-faaliyet ilişkilerinin orta düzeyde, faaliyet-gösterge ilişkisinin ise yüksek düzeyde olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu bulgu stratejik planın çıktı odaklı performans izleme kapasitesinin güçlü olduğunu ancak risk temelli stratejik mantığın sınırlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Risklerin çoğunlukla yapısal ve nitel unsurlardan, göstergelerin ise nicel çıktılardan oluşması uyum düzeyini düşürmekte ve risk yönetiminin izleme-değerlendirme sistemiyle bütünleşmesini zorlaştırmaktadır. Buna karşın faaliyet-gösterge uyumu güçlü olup faaliyetlerin çıktıları ölçülebilir niteliktedir. Araştırma genel olarak Avcılar Belediyesi stratejik planının uygulanabilir bir yapıya sahip olduğunu ancak risk yönetimi ve stratejik bütünlük açısından geliştirilmesi gereken yönler bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma ayrıca yerel yönetim stratejik planlarının değerlendirilmesine yönelik geliştirilen RFGT modeli aracılığıyla literatüre analitik bir değerlendirme çerçevesi sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ertan, M. G. (2026). Analyzing Risk-Activity-Indicator Alignment in Municipal Strategic Plans: The Participatory Governance and Institutional Capacity Targets of Avcılar Municipality. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.33712/mana.1835280

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. ANDREWS, Rhys ve BOYNE, George A. (2010), “Capacity, Leadership, and Organizational Performance: Testing the Black Box Model of Public Management”, Public Administration Review, S.70(3), ss.443-454.
  2. ARMSTRONG, Michael (2014), Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, Kogan Page Press, London, 13. Baskı.
  3. BECKER, Gary S. (1993), Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 3. Baskı.
  4. BOVAIRD, Tony ve LÖFFLER, Elke (2009), Public Management and Governance, Routledge Publishing, London, 2. Baskı.
  5. BOVENS, Mark (2007), “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”, European Law Journal, S.13(4), ss.447-468.
  6. BOUCKAERT, Geert ve HALLIGAN, John (2008), Managing Performance: International Comparisons, Routledge Press, London.
  7. BRYSON, John M. (2018), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Jossey-Bass Publishing, San Francisco, 5. Baskı.
  8. BRYSON, John M., CROSBY, Barbara C. ve BLOOMBERG, Laura (2014), “Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management”, Public Administration Review, S.74(4), ss.445-456.
  9. COSO (2013), Internal Control - Integrated Framework, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, New York, 2. Baskı.
  10. DOUGLAS, Mary ve WILDAVSKY, Aaron (1982), Risk and Culture, University of California Press, Berkeley.
  11. FOX, Jonathan (2007), “The Uncertain Relationship between Transparency and Accountability”, Development in Practice, S.17(4-5), ss.663-671.
  12. HATRY, Harry P. (2006), Performance Measurement: Getting Results, Urban Institute Press, Washington DC, 2. Baskı.
  13. HEIFETZ, Ronald A. (1994), Leadership without Easy Answers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  14. HOOD, Christopher (2006), “Gaming in Targetworld: The Targets Approach to Managing British Public Services”, Public Administration Review, S.66(4), ss.515-521.
  15. HOWLETT, Michael (2011), Designing Public Policies, Routledge Publishing, London.
  16. KALKINMA BAKANLIĞI. (2018). Kamu İdareleri İçin Stratejik Planlama Kılavuzu. Ankara: Kalkınma Bakanlığı.
  17. KETTL, Donald F. (2015), The Transformation of Governance, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2. Baskı.
  18. MERGEL, Ines (2019), Digital Service Teams, Georgetown University Press, Washington DC, 4. Baskı.
  19. MOELLER, Robert R. (2014), Executive’s Guide to COSO Internal Controls, Wiley Publishing, New Jersey.
  20. MOORE, Mark H. (1995), Creating Public Value, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  21. MOYNIHAN, Donald P. ve PANDEY, Sanjay K. (2005), “Testing How Management Matters in an Era of Government by Performance Management”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, S.15(3), ss.421-439.
  22. MORGAN, Peter (2006), The Concept of Capacity, European Centre for Development Policy Management, Maastricht, 2. Baskı.
  23. PETERS, B. Guy (2019), Institutional Theory in Political Science, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 4. Baskı.
  24. POISTER, Theodore H., PITTS, David W. ve EDWARDS, Lauren H. (2010), “Strategic Management Research in the Public Sector”, The American Review of Public Administration, S.40(5), ss.522-545.
  25. POISTER, Theodore H. ve STREIB, Gregory (1999), “Strategic Management in the Public Sector”, Public Productivity & Management Review, S.22(3), ss.308-325.
  26. POLLITT, Christopher ve BOUCKAERT, Geert (2011), Public Management Reform, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 3. Baskı.
  27. VAN DOOREN, Wouter, BOUCKAERT, Geert ve HALLIGAN, John (2015), Performance Management in the Public Sector, Routledge Press, London, 2. Baskı.
  28. 5018 sayılı Kamu Mali Yönetimi ve Kontrol Kanunu (24.12.2003 tarih ve 25326 sayılı Resmî Gazete).