Table 4 Presence of enablers and barriers to effective resource allocation
| Â | Â | % (#) | Â | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | N= | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree | Mean, out of 5** |
Resource allocation is closely aligned with other key processes, e.g., strategic planning, budgeting | 92 | 2.2 (2) | 8.7 (8) | 9.8 (9) | 54.3 (50) | 25.0 (23) | 3.82 |
We have a learning culture | 92 | 1.1 (1) | 9.8 (9) | 14.1 (13) | 58.7 (54) | 16.3 (15) | 3.79 |
We have strong leadership, including the presence of a champion for resource allocation processes | 92 | 2.2 (2) | 7.6 (7) | 16.3 (15) | 59.8 (55) | 14.1 (13) | 3.76 |
Management personnel have appropriate skills, knowledge, and capacity to implement the resource allocation process as intended | 91 | 2.2 (2) | 11.0 (10) | 22.0 (20) | 54.9 (50) | 9.9 (9) | 3.59 |
We have effective process management/facilitation | 92 | 2.2 (2) | 9.8 (9) | 33.7 (31) | 51.1 (47) | 3.3 (3) | 3.43 |
‘Politicking’ among participants, unwillingness to engage in ‘honest’ argumentation, efforts to ‘game the system’, [etc.] are [rare]* | 92 | 3.3 (3) | 23.9 (22) | 27.2 (25) | 28.3 (26) | 17.4 (16) | 3.33 |
There is […] trust among stakeholders* | 92 | 0.0 (−−-) | 22.8 (21) | 33.7 (31) | 33.7 (31) | 9.8 (9) | 3.30 |
The process is […] perceived as fair by affected stakeholders* | 89 | 0.0 (−−-) | 24.7 (22) | 33.7 (30) | 32.6 (29) | 9.0 (8) | 3.26 |
There is […] buy-in from key internal stakeholders* | 91 | 0.0 (−−-) | 29.7 (27) | 31.9 (29) | 31.9 (29) | 6.6 (6) | 3.15 |
Time and resource commitment required for our resource allocation process are manageable | 90 | 5.6 (5) | 26.7 (24) | 20.0 (18) | 44.4 (40) | 3.3 (3) | 3.13 |
We guarantee that no part of the organization will suffer disproportionate losses | 92 | 1.1 (1) | 37.0 (34) | 38.0 (35) | 23.9 (22) | 0.0 (−−-) | 2.85 |
We [have] sufficient data to make evidence-informed decisions* | 92 | 13.0 (12) | 34.8 (32) | 20.7 (19) | 27.2 (25) | 4.3 (4) | 2.75 |