Editing Openai/69374065-ee1c-800b-89b3-c8fcdc20db1a (section)

=== User: Here's the reply I sent:  Good questions, David. ===
Here's the reply I sent:  Good questions, David.  The answers are not simple.  (Simple answers are for politicians.)

First of all, although StratML Part 1, Strategic Plans, is a duly adopted international de jure standard (ISO 17469-1), it has not yet crossed the chasm to become a widely adopted and used de facto standard.  However, there are nearly 7K plans in the prototypical StratML collection and they can all be queried at https://search.aboutthem.info/  For example, this query retrieves your foundation's about statement.  This one retrieves 733 plans with goals and objectives addressing "Policy".

Second, although Part 2, Performance Plans & Reports, was approved as an American national standard (ANSI/AIIM 22:2017), it lost that status when AIIM dropped its standards program (including the PDF standard) and stopped paying dues to ANSI.  Why  did they do that?  Because the market was not yet smart enough to recognize the need for such standards and in large measure remains willfully, artificially ignorant of that need still today.  Thus, enlightened leadership is required.

Third, while Federal agencies have been directed by law to publish their plans and reports in machine-readable format, like StratML, since FY 2012, they have ignored that key provision of law with impunity.  What could be stronger prima facie evidence of their lack of trustworthiness than that?  See the points made by ChatGPT with reference to Trustworthy Institutions. 

Fourth, on a more hopeful note, in the most recent release of Circular A-11, sec. 240.5, OMB has directed agencies to begin publishing their performance plans and reports in machine-readable format, as directed by law, and their strategic plans are due for updates in February.  So we won't have to wait to long to see what they actually do.

Fifth, since the GPRA Modernization Act was passed unanimously, you could speak to your MCs to ask what they've done about holding agencies accountable for complying with it, particularly section 10.

Sixth, with reference to charitable fundraising, you could ask Ann Mei Chang of Candid how their Platinum rating helps not only to increasing giving but also to ensure that donations are being well-spent.  You could also ask her if she thinks the ability to share performance data seamlessly across organizations and systems might help.  I've encouraged both her and Michael Thatcher of Charity Navigator to help charities publish their plans and reports on their own websites in open, standard, machine-readable format.  However, they apparently need to hear from others besides me in order to demonstrate enlightened leadership in the public interest.

Finally, with respect to the content of strategic plans, they are:
Vision
Mission
Values
Goals
Objectives
Stakeholders
To those elements, performance plans add:
Stakeholder Roles
Performance Indicators, comprised of 
inputs, 
input processing, 
outputs, 
output processing, and
outcomes
With respect to the latter, few, if any orgs fully specify in their plans the value chains leading to realization of the desired outcomes.  However, one way or another, those chains ARE eventually built out for every outcome that is achieved, even if that occurs purely by chance, i.e., CMM Level 1 process maturity.  (One of the enduring lessons of the TQM movement is that the product cannot be right unless the process is ... except by chance.)  

The question is how long taxpayers and donors should be expected to tolerate such inefficient and ineffective expenditures of their money.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions, comments, or suggestions, just let me know.