ABSTRACT
This paper extends the strategic planning literature by developing four original propositions about factors that affect the conduct of strategic reviews by government agencies. The propositions highlight how a strategic review’s design, analytical tools, and content are influenced by the extent of an agency’s reliance on collaboration or capital investments, the strength of an agency’s political support, and the existence or absence of a legislative mandate for a review. A plausibility probe involving qualitative analysis of three major quadrennial reviews by US national security agencies generates evidence that is largely consistent with the propositions.
