The VPC's Planning Methodology (Strategic Performance Improvement Planning Process) has been primarily based on action research. This thesis attempts to externally validate the methodology by asking "has the methodology evolved consistently with the findings of others?" This was accomplished by comparing the methodology to other recent strategic planning/management methodologies and having planning practitioners and consultants compare the VPC's Methodology to their own methodologies. A second objective was to identify potential improvements to the methodology.

In most cases, the VPC's Methodology was more comprehensive than the methodologies found in the literature. The only potential shortcoming of the methodology was the lack of an explicit component for a coordinated strategy, although the methodology includes a vision of the future and strategic objectives components. The planning practitioners and consultants offered several minor suggestions for improving the methodology, but none found any significant shortcomings in the methodology. Interestingly, none of the practitioners/consultants mentioned the lack of a strategy component; however, at least two of them felt a better link was needed between strategic and tactical objectives.

This leads me to believe the VPC's Methodology has evolved consistently with the findings of others. Some of the potential improvements identified include: a relocation of planning assumptions within the process model, a revised technique for analyzing planning assumptions, the addition of a strategy component, clarification of the role of Key Performance Indicators, clarification and emphasis on under-utilized components of the methodology, and revisions to the process model.