Conduct a detailed review and evaluation of the strategic plans for two peers.
The new evaluation posts should contain at least two paragraphs of detailed feedback for each peers’ plan. This is not the same as a peer response. Make sure your evaluation captures the following categories of analysis and feedback. You will be graded on the quality of constructive feedback you provide to both peers. If you find a strategic plan component that could be improved, provide an example of how they might revise it.
Alignment: Were the concepts of vision, mission, values, and objectives consistent in addressing the safety and security needs of the organization? Why or why not? What suggestions for improvements can you provide?
Persuasion: How compelling is the argument? Does the strategic plan provide enough confidence in a solid mission and vision that would enable the organization’s leadership to provide funding to support the objectives with appropriate levels of staffing and resources? Why or why not?
Format and Organization: Was the strategic plan presented in an easy-to-read format? Was there enough context to help the reader understand why these concepts make sense for the organization?
Assertions and Credibility: Was the central argument for the strategic objectives supported by credible sources? Did you find yourself asking, why is that a top priority? Why should I believe the writer? Include suggestions for other credible sources that would help substantiate the writers’ claims.
In addition to the categories above, address the following questions:
Did they provide enough background to understand the environment and strategic issues?
Was their purpose and long-term agenda clear?
Are there any improvements or revisions you can suggest?
Was the additional research resource they provided relevant to their plan? Why or why not?
Support your statements with at least three references from the required studies, other research, and experiences. You are required to respond to comments or questions about your posts.