This case study was developed in partnership with the City of Raleigh’s Office of Strategy and Innovation, a department dedicated to reshaping strategy and fostering innovation in service delivery.

Cities often produce strategic plans that look polished on paper but struggle to inspire meaningful action. Without clear priorities, measurable goals and genuine community engagement, these plans risk becoming static documents rather than tools for change.

This case study examines how the City of Raleigh in North Carolina overhauled its strategic planning process to make it more human-centred, data-driven and collaborative. It explores the city’s journey from a top-down, sprawling plan to a streamlined, actionable framework — one shaped by resident input, staff expertise and a phased approach to testing and scaling solutions. The insights shared here offer practical lessons for other local governments looking to turn planning into real-world impact.

What prompted the strategic planning overhaul in the City of Raleigh?

The City of Raleigh wanted to bring a more human-centred approach to strategic planning, covering everything from setting priorities to implementing and measuring success.

Many traditional strategic plans tend to become documents that just sit on a shelf. They aren’t built for action or designed with people in mind. The new plan was intended to change that, serving as a more active and dynamic tool for alignment, impact and collaboration, shaped by input from a broader range of stakeholders.

What specific problems or challenges was the new plan meant to address?

For context: Raleigh’s first strategic plan, released over a decade ago, marked a milestone in organisational maturity and professionalism. However, in the ten years since, the city, its community and the tools available to meet residents’ needs have evolved significantly.

While the original plan was ambitious and comprehensive, its lack of specificity limited its usefulness in guiding day-to-day decisions. This vagueness had a ripple effect on overall delivery and many intended outcomes were not achieved. The need for a more intentional, structured approach became clear.

A new resource in this planning cycle was the Office of Strategy and Innovation, established midway through the previous plan. The office inherited the prior system’s processes and priorities but was tasked with taking ownership of the strategic planning process, introducing greater innovation and adopting a forward-looking approach.

What did the strategic planning process look like before the overhaul?

Prior to the overhaul, the process was largely top-down. It would begin with the City Council setting priorities, which were then translated into objectives by council committees for each major service area. The City Manager’s Office and department directors developed initiatives in response to those objectives, with leadership involved even in the finer details of the plan.

While the intent was to be both responsive and comprehensive, the result was a sprawling plan with more than 25 objectives and nearly 100 initiatives — an approach that proved difficult to manage and implement effectively.

Why was it important to fix this process? What were the consequences of leaving it as-is?

Keeping the previous process intact risked producing a strategic plan that generated work and reporting without driving meaningful impact. Redesigning the approach was an opportunity to be more intentional: identifying specific areas where innovation and enhancement could truly improve outcomes for residents.

In the 2021–2025 plan, some intended outcomes included improving access to alternative modes of transportation and providing support for housing costs. However, a review conducted near the end of the plan’s cycle found that over half of the initiative project teams did not meaningfully contribute to the work that the City was carrying out in this area.

“Throughout the process, the guiding principle remained consistent: determine what residents need and what staff require to meet those needs successfully.”

In response, the Office of Strategy and Innovation initiated a six-month evaluation involving more than 250 participants, including staff, departmental leadership and strategic planning experts. This process identified several barriers to effective implementation, including overly complex language, unclear roles and inadequate feedback structures. Feedback also revealed that some staff felt underequipped, lacking the skills, support and a clear path to funding needed to deliver on the initiatives.

The findings from this evaluation were extremely valuable and directly informed the design of the new strategic plan.

How was the new approach developed and what principles shaped its design?

The redesign was guided by a human-centred design lens that prioritised the needs of a diverse group of users: staff, department leadership, council members and residents. This approach required the team to integrate new elements into the development process and reimagine both the process and the final product.

Empowering staff was another central principle. As the individuals directly responsible for delivering strategic initiatives, their insight and expertise were considered a critical asset. To better activate this expertise, the team reviewed academic research on best practices, including the importance of defining initiatives with greater clarity — specifying goals and desired outcomes to support successful delivery.

The team also examined strategy design models from other cities and sectors, including corporate strategy approaches, to identify adaptable methods. External experts were engaged at key stages, particularly for data processing. Throughout the process, the guiding principle remained consistent: determine what residents need and what staff require to meet those needs successfully.

How does this approach differ from past models?

A key objective of the redesign was to move away from a top-down model. The new process was built to encourage genuine collaboration between residents, staff and the city council — focusing not only on gathering feedback but also on co-creating priorities and potential solutions.

The first step involved analysing feedback from a previous citywide community survey and launching a series of topic-specific resident focus groups. Recruitment was based on residents’ connection to the issues being discussed — for example, partnering with the arts department to reach individuals already active in the arts community. This ensured that participants brought relevant, lived experience. Efforts were also made to include diverse perspectives by engaging subgroups identified in earlier consultations.

Insights from these sessions helped refine the plan’s objectives before moving into staff work sessions. The residents’ input also reframed discussions with the city council. Given the city’s wide range of essential services, prioritisation is inherently difficult. However, resident stories and supporting research enabled clearer identification of areas requiring additional investment, while reinforcing that other critical services would continue to be supported. This input shifted council conversations away from open-ended priority lists toward issues most critical to the community.

Once objectives were set, cross-departmental meetings and work sessions were held to identify existing work aligned with these priorities, define meaningful outcomes and capture what mattered most to staff. Acknowledging that not all answers were available from the outset, the approach aimed to strike a balance between providing direction and maintaining flexibility to adapt as new information emerged.

To frame long-term ambitions — spanning four to five years — the team adopted a theory of change model. Drawing on council discussions and departmental input, meaningful outcomes were identified that both aligned with current capabilities and advanced future goals. Projects were then selected to drive these outcomes, with each initiative linked directly to a strategic objective. This provided a clear roadmap for change, supported by more consistent use of data to measure impact and progress.

How is the redesigned plan being implemented and what does that process look like in practice?

The plan is being rolled out through a phased implementation model, which gives staff clarity on what progress should look like and how it will be assessed.

In the first phase, teams investigate the nature of the issue by analysing data, conducting research and gathering stakeholder feedback to understand the problem from the perspective of those most affected. The aim at this stage is to establish an accurate picture of needs and opportunities for intervention.

In the second phase, staff test one or two potential solutions on a small scale to assess feasibility and determine whether the intervention addresses the intended need. Robust data gathered at this stage supports informed recommendations—whether to scale, adjust or discontinue the initiative. All outcomes are considered valid, as the process prioritises evidence-based decision-making over pushing initiatives forward at all costs.

Successful pilots then advance to the final phase, where a sponsoring department works to embed them into operations and workflows.

Looking ahead, the goal is to establish a permanent structure for implementing and integrating high-value projects into the organisation.

**What challenges came up during implementation and how were they addressed? **

As this was the unit’s first time leading the strategic planning process, there was, inevitably, a learning curve.

One key challenge was prioritisation. With so many essential services, determining which areas should receive extra attention was difficult. It was important to communicate that inclusion in the strategic plan did not diminish the value of other work. Rather, the selected areas were those identified as most likely to benefit from increased investment or focus within the plan’s limited timeframe. Priority was also given to projects that could foster cross-departmental collaboration, achieve citywide impact and extend beyond the scope of individual teams. This approach created clear criteria, encouraging a shift away from routine operations and prompting staff to explore opportunities for innovation.

Another major challenge involved resource concerns. Some departments were hesitant to commit to ambitious goals they didn’t feel equipped to meet. To address this, the department hosted discussions focused on existing work and that explored how teams might stretch slightly beyond current efforts in ways that remained feasible, impactful and achievable.

While large group sessions were valuable for gathering a broad range of perspectives, one-on-one discussions proved most effective for addressing specific concerns and finding mutually beneficial solutions. Across these conversations, the emphasis remained on incremental progress—moving one step forward rather than five.

Finally, as this was the third iteration of the plan, many stakeholders had ingrained expectations. Managing this required helping people understand that the new version would look and feel different for good reasons, while reassuring them that the changes were both intentional and beneficial.

How did you ensure the new plan was grounded in evidence and measurable outcomes?

A data-driven approach was central to the redesign. During the planning phase, existing data was reviewed and the new plan was aligned with past and ongoing initiatives across the city to create a coherent strategy. Resident feedback from focus groups and survey results was then mapped directly to the planned initiatives, ensuring that lessons from previous efforts informed future work.

To support delivery, every strategic initiative now begins with a tailored data packet for its specific topic area. These packets provide teams with a solid evidence base when they start their phase-one research, helping to guide decision-making and set clear benchmarks for measuring progress.

What lessons emerged from this process and what guidance could support others undertaking a similar strategic planning reform?

First, enlist allies early. Some individuals are naturally energised and motivated by this kind of work. Involving them from the outset allowed the team to tap into their enthusiasm and position them as champions throughout the journey.

Second, embrace tension. Resistance was important in encouraging the team to pause and re-examine our approach. By the end, the strategy had evolved significantly from its initial form — an evolution that ultimately made it more resilient and robust.

Third, build on what people already care about and are working towards. It’s essential not only to help people envision what’s possible but also to inspire them to see what can be achieved. Often, people can become so focused on the day-to-day that it becomes difficult to imagine what that future state could look like. By connecting to their existing priorities, the team helped them see that a different, more ambitious path forward was possible.

Finally, be strategic in communication. It's essential to be clear about both the ask and the message, depending on the audience. With elected officials, for example, the team used resident stories and supporting data to ground conversations in community needs. This was key to maintaining a sharp focus on the priorities and needs of their residents.

What changes have emerged, publicly and internally, since the new plan was adopted?

The council formally adopted the new plan in June and it’s written in clear, accessible language that outlines both what the city is doing and why. It’s also now published on the city website for residents to review.

The new plan is far more focused than the previous version. The number of strategic objectives has been cut in half and the initiatives reduced from 95 to about 35, enabling a more concentrated effort and impact. Internally, roles and expectations are now well-defined, giving staff greater clarity about their responsibilities and how their work contributes to the city’s goals.

The shift from planning to active implementation is already underway. That process is no longer a theoretical exercise — progress is happening on the ground, bringing new energy and momentum across the organisation.