Plan Implementation, Management and Performance Evaluation

Introduction and Context

Urban and regional plans acquire practical value only when they are translated into coordinated programmes, funded projects, enforceable regulations and measurable improvements in people’s lives. Plan implementation is therefore not a concluding administrative activity; it is a continuing process of institutional coordination, resource mobilisation, project delivery, learning and adjustment.

Many plans fail not because their spatial analysis is weak, but because they do not adequately address who will act, what will be financed, when actions will occur, how responsibilities will be coordinated and how results will be assessed. Implementation must connect long-term spatial vision with annual budgets, land development decisions, infrastructure programmes, service delivery and community action.

For postgraduate civil engineering professionals, this subject is particularly important. Engineers frequently participate in infrastructure programming, development control, project appraisal, procurement, construction supervision, asset management and monitoring. Their decisions influence whether plans remain policy documents or become functioning urban systems.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, students should be able to:

1. Explain the relationship between plans, programmes, projects and budgets.

2. Design implementation frameworks involving phasing, institutions and stakeholders.

3. Apply basic tools for prioritisation, financial programming, risk management and performance monitoring.

4. Distinguish outputs, outcomes, impacts and implementation processes.

5. Develop indicators and interpret monitoring and evaluation evidence.

6. Critically assess institutional, ethical, political and technical constraints.

7. Recommend adaptive review mechanisms for uncertain and rapidly changing urban conditions.

1. From Spatial Plan to Implementable Programme

A plan expresses a desired pattern of development and a strategy for achieving it. A programme groups related interventions over a defined period, while a project is a specific investment or regulatory action with identifiable scope, cost, schedule and responsibility.

A useful implementation chain is:

Vision → objectives → strategies → programmes → projects and regulations → outputs → outcomes → impacts

For example, the objective of improving public transport accessibility may lead to a strategy of transit-oriented development. This can be implemented through a programme comprising bus-priority corridors, interchange upgrades, pedestrian improvements, parking reform, land-use amendments and institutional coordination. Individual road works or interchange construction packages are projects within that programme.

A plan should be implementation-ready. At minimum, each major proposal should identify:

• the problem and intended beneficiaries;
• the spatial area and development standards involved;
• responsible and supporting institutions;
• legal authority;
• estimated capital and recurrent costs;
• potential funding sources;
• implementation sequence;
• land, environmental and social requirements;
• risks and mitigation measures;
• indicators, targets and reporting arrangements.

A distinction must be made between plan compliance and plan performance. Compliance asks whether actions follow the adopted plan. Performance asks whether those actions produce the intended social, economic, environmental and spatial results. A project may comply with a plan yet perform poorly if it is badly designed, inaccessible to intended users or inconsistent with changing conditions.

2. Phasing, Sequencing and Prioritisation

2.1 The purpose of phasing

Urban plans commonly have horizons of 10, 15 or 20 years, whereas budgets and political mandates are shorter. Phasing converts a long-term vision into manageable time periods, such as immediate, short-term, medium-term and long-term phases. Phasing should not merely divide projects chronologically. It should reflect dependencies, urgency, affordability, institutional capacity and likely benefits.

Typical dependencies include:

• trunk infrastructure before local development;
• land acquisition before construction;
• statutory approvals before procurement;
• drainage improvements before road upgrading;
• data systems before sophisticated performance management;
• institutional reform before decentralised service delivery.

2.2 Prioritisation criteria

Projects may be prioritised using a transparent multi-criteria framework. Common criteria include:

• life and public safety;
• legal or statutory obligation;
• service deficit and population affected;
• poverty reduction and equity;
• climate and disaster resilience;
• economic productivity;
• environmental benefit;
• readiness and land availability;
• capital and operating affordability;
• interdependence with other projects.

A weighted scoring model can support, but should not replace, professional judgement. If project score \(S_j\) is calculated as

\[S_j = \sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i r_{ij}\]

where \(w_i\) is the weight assigned to criterion \(i\), \(r_{ij}\) is the rating of project \(j\) on that criterion, and the weights sum to 1, the ratings must use a consistent scale and the same direction of preference. The method assumes that criteria can be meaningfully compared and that weights represent agreed priorities. It is not a substitute for legal screening: a project failing a mandatory environmental or safety requirement should not become acceptable merely because it receives a high numerical score.

2.3 Readiness gates

A practical programme uses gates such as:

1. strategic justification;

2. feasibility and option appraisal;

3. land, environmental and social clearance;

4. funding confirmation;

5. detailed design and procurement readiness;

6. construction and commissioning;

7. post-completion review.

Gate reviews reduce premature commitments and allow projects to be deferred, redesigned or cancelled when evidence changes.

3. Financial Programming and Budget Management

Implementation requires a realistic relationship between planned expenditure and available resources. The capital cost of a facility is only one part of its financial burden. Land, design, supervision, financing, operation, maintenance, renewal and eventual decommissioning may be significant.

A medium-term expenditure framework can classify expenditure as:

• capital investment;
• operation and maintenance;
• personnel and institutional strengthening;
• land and resettlement;
• monitoring and evaluation;
• contingencies and risk reserves.

A simple annual funding gap may be expressed as:

\[G_t = R_t - E_t\]

where \(G_t\) is the funding gap in year \(t\), \(R_t\) is realistically available revenue or finance, and \(E_t\) is planned expenditure. A negative value indicates a shortfall. This identity is useful for budget screening, but it does not assess affordability unless revenue forecasts, debt obligations, inflation and recurrent costs are properly estimated.

Cost estimates should state the price base, escalation assumptions, taxes, contingencies, currency and whether operating costs are included. Comparing projects over time may require discounted cash-flow analysis. The present value of a future amount \(F_t\) received or spent in year \(t\) at discount rate \(r\) is:

\[PV = \frac{F_t}{(1+r)^t}\]

This relationship assumes a known discount rate and a cash flow measured in consistent monetary units. It is appropriate for financial appraisal, but social and environmental benefits that are difficult to monetise require complementary assessment rather than forced conversion into unreliable monetary values.

Budget discipline requires linking physical progress to financial progress. A project reporting 70 percent expenditure but only 45 percent physical completion may indicate price escalation, front-loaded payments, poor estimation or weak contract management. Expenditure alone is therefore an inadequate performance measure.

Funding sources may include municipal revenue, intergovernmental transfers, development finance, user charges, land-value capture, public-private partnerships, grants and community contributions. Each source carries conditions and risks. Public-private partnerships, for example, do not eliminate public costs; they redistribute payment, demand and performance risks through contractual arrangements.

4. Institutional Design and Implementation Management

4.1 Institutional alignment

Plans commonly span municipal boundaries and sectoral departments. Transport, water, housing, environment, land administration and economic development may each control part of the implementation process. Institutional fragmentation produces duplicated investments, conflicting standards and delays.

An implementation framework should specify:

• political authority and accountability;
• lead implementing agency;
• supporting agencies;
• decision rights and approval thresholds;
• coordination mechanisms;
• reporting lines;
• procurement and financial controls;
• dispute-resolution procedures;
• data ownership and disclosure responsibilities.

A responsibility matrix, often called a RACI matrix, identifies who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed for each major action. It is useful only when responsibilities are supported by legal authority, staffing and budget.

4.2 Governance models

Implementation may be centralised, decentralised, networked or partnership-based. Centralised systems can provide consistency and technical capacity, but may be slow and distant from local needs. Decentralised systems can improve responsiveness, but may suffer from unequal capacity. Network governance can coordinate public, private and civil-society actors, although accountability becomes more complex.

A metropolitan transport authority, for example, may coordinate municipalities, operators and road agencies. Its effectiveness depends on defined powers, stable finance, transparent performance requirements and mechanisms for public accountability.

4.3 Capacity management

Implementation capacity includes technical skills, procurement competence, project management, data management, legal expertise and organisational learning. Capacity-building should be tied to specific implementation gaps. General training without changes to staffing, procedures or authority rarely produces sustained improvement.

5. Stakeholder Engagement and Social Legitimacy

Stakeholders include residents, landowners, informal workers, businesses, developers, utilities, transport operators, civil-society organisations, elected representatives, vulnerable groups and government agencies. Their interests and influence differ, and not all affected people possess equal resources to participate.

Effective engagement is more than public notification. It should provide:

1. accessible information;

2. sufficient time for response;

3. opportunities to influence alternatives;

4. documented feedback;

5. explanations of accepted and rejected proposals;

6. grievance and appeal mechanisms;

7. special measures for excluded groups.

Stakeholder analysis may consider interest, influence, vulnerability and likely impact. High-influence actors should not automatically dominate decision-making; low-influence groups may experience the greatest consequences. Participation must therefore be designed around procedural fairness and distributive equity.

Engagement is especially important where implementation involves land acquisition, relocation, changes in development rights, transport pricing or redevelopment of informal settlements. Ethical practice requires informed consultation, avoidance of coercion, protection of personal data and attention to gender, disability, age, income and cultural differences.

6. Risk Management and Resilience

Implementation risk is the effect of uncertainty on objectives. Risks may be financial, institutional, legal, technical, environmental, social, political, climate-related or reputational. A risk register normally records the event, cause, consequence, probability, severity, owner, response and residual risk.

A qualitative risk rating may use probability and consequence categories. A numerical risk score can be calculated as:

\[R = P \times C\]

where \(P\) is a defined probability score and \(C\) is a defined consequence score. This is a screening tool, not a precise probability model. Scores should not be compared across projects unless scales and definitions are consistent.

Risk responses include:

• avoid: change the design or cancel the activity;
• reduce: lower probability or consequence;
• transfer or share: use insurance or contractual allocation;
• accept: retain the risk with an approved contingency;
• exploit or enhance: increase beneficial opportunities.

Climate and disaster risks require scenario thinking. A road, drainage system or settlement strategy should be tested against plausible changes in rainfall intensity, sea level, heat, drought, population and land-use pressure. Resilience is not simply constructing larger infrastructure; it may involve redundancy, safe failure, maintenance, early warning, land-use controls and social preparedness.

7. Monitoring, Indicators and Performance Management

Monitoring is the systematic and continuing collection of information about implementation. Evaluation is the structured assessment of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Monitoring tells managers what is happening; evaluation investigates why it happened and whether it mattered.

7.1 Results framework

A results framework distinguishes:

• inputs: money, staff, land and equipment;
• activities: design, construction, enforcement and engagement;
• outputs: facilities, permits, trained staff or kilometres completed;
• outcomes: improved access, reduced travel time or safer public space;
• impacts: long-term changes in equity, health, productivity, resilience or environmental quality.

Indicators should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound and disaggregated where appropriate. A baseline describes the initial condition, while a target describes the intended future condition. Indicators should have a data source, frequency, responsible agency and quality-control procedure.

Examples include:

• percentage of households within a defined walking distance of public transport;
• proportion of planned infrastructure completed to specification;
• average travel time on a designated corridor;
• percentage of municipal assets with funded maintenance plans;
• flood-affected population per year;
• share of planning decisions published within the required period;
• user satisfaction disaggregated by gender, disability and income.

Indicators must not encourage perverse behaviour. Measuring only kilometres of road constructed may encourage unnecessary construction while neglecting maintenance, safety or accessibility. A balanced dashboard should combine delivery, quality, financial, social, environmental and outcome indicators.

7.2 Data quality and interpretation

Data should be assessed for validity, reliability, completeness, timeliness and comparability. Administrative records may have broad coverage but inconsistent definitions. Surveys may capture user experience but suffer from sampling and response bias. Remote sensing can support land-use monitoring but requires appropriate resolution and ground verification.

A change in an indicator does not automatically demonstrate that a plan caused the change. External economic conditions, migration, weather, national policy or private investment may contribute. Causal interpretation requires a plausible theory of change and, where feasible, comparison over time or between affected and less-affected areas.

8. Evaluation Methods and Adaptive Review

8.1 Types of evaluation

A formative evaluation supports design improvement before or during implementation. A process evaluation examines whether implementation occurred as intended. An outcome evaluation assesses near- and medium-term effects. An impact evaluation investigates longer-term changes attributable, wholly or partly, to an intervention. A cost-effectiveness evaluation compares costs with a common non-monetary result, while cost-benefit analysis compares monetised benefits and costs.

Evaluation should be proportionate. A small streetscape project does not require the same research design as a metropolitan housing programme, but both require credible evidence of performance.

8.2 Theory of change

A theory of change explains how activities are expected to produce results, including assumptions and external conditions. For a non-motorised transport programme, the logic may be: safe footpaths and crossings lead to improved perceived safety; improved safety increases walking; increased walking improves accessibility and reduces short vehicle trips. This chain may fail if destinations are poorly located, enforcement is absent or routes are inaccessible to people with disabilities.

8.3 Adaptive planning

Urban conditions are uncertain. Plans should therefore include review triggers rather than relying only on fixed calendar reviews. Triggers may include substantial population change, infrastructure failure, climate events, legal changes, persistent indicator deterioration or major technological shifts.

Adaptive review follows a cycle:

1. monitor conditions and assumptions;

2. compare results with targets;

3. investigate deviations;

4. revise projects, regulations or priorities;

5. document decisions and communicate them;

6. implement and monitor again.

Adaptation should not become arbitrary plan alteration. Changes require evidence, transparent procedures, protection of rights and consistency with higher-level law and public interest.

9. Technology, Digital Governance and Artificial Intelligence

Geographic information systems, project dashboards, building information modelling, digital twins, mobile reporting and remote sensing can improve coordination and monitoring. A digital twin may combine spatial, infrastructure and operational data to test scenarios, but its value depends on data quality, interoperability and institutional use.

Artificial intelligence may assist with land-use classification, traffic prediction, maintenance prioritisation, document review and anomaly detection. However, models can reproduce biased historical data, obscure reasoning and create privacy risks. AI should support, not replace, professional judgement and democratic accountability. Important decisions should retain human review, audit trails, explainability and mechanisms for challenge.

Digital systems also create cybersecurity and exclusion risks. Residents without reliable connectivity or digital literacy must not lose access to essential services or participation opportunities.

10. Illustrative Case: Implementing a Metropolitan Flood-Resilience Programme

Background

The illustrative Riverbend Metropolitan Region contains three municipalities and has experienced rapid peripheral growth. Seasonal storms repeatedly flood low-lying settlements, damage roads and interrupt water and health services. A metropolitan plan proposes integrated drainage corridors, wetland protection, flood-safe road design, early warning and development controls.

Problem

Previous projects were implemented independently. One municipality enlarged drains downstream without protecting upstream wetlands; another paved roads without adequate outfalls. Budgets focused on new construction, while maintenance was weak. Residents in informal settlements received warnings late and had limited influence over relocation decisions.

Analysis

The implementation team prepared a catchment-wide risk map using rainfall, topography, drainage assets, settlement exposure and critical facilities. It established that flood damage resulted from the interaction of intense rainfall, blocked drains, wetland encroachment, undersized crossings, poor maintenance and settlement in hazardous locations. A project list alone would not resolve the systemic problem.

The team developed a results framework. Inputs included municipal funds, national grants, engineering staff and community monitors. Activities included catchment planning, drain maintenance, wetland restoration, safe crossings, warning systems and risk-sensitive development control. Outputs included maintained drains, restored wetland area, functioning gauges and trained ward teams. Outcomes included reduced inundation duration and improved warning response. Impact indicators concerned avoided losses, safety and resilience of vulnerable households.

Approach and solution

A metropolitan steering committee was created with clear authority and municipal representation. A phased programme was adopted:

• Phase 1: asset inventory, emergency maintenance, community mapping and protection of remaining wetlands;
• Phase 2: priority crossings, detention areas, warning systems and enforcement of high-risk development controls;
• Phase 3: major corridor upgrades, settlement improvement and long-term catchment restoration.

Projects passed readiness gates for land, environmental approval, maintenance finance and community safeguards. A weighted prioritisation process favoured locations with high exposure, critical facilities, vulnerable populations and high readiness, but legal and environmental exclusions were applied first.

The programme created a public dashboard showing budgets, construction progress, maintenance status and flood incidents. Independent technical audits checked hydraulic assumptions and construction quality. Community representatives helped verify blocked drains and warning coverage. Relocation was treated as a last resort, with livelihood assessment, compensation and access to services required before action.

Outcome

After three years, emergency response improved and several critical crossings remained operational during major storms. The most important lesson was that maintenance, land-use control and institutional coordination produced benefits alongside physical construction. Some targets were not achieved because rainfall exceeded design assumptions and one municipality delayed land acquisition. The review consequently revised design standards, strengthened contingency planning and shifted funds toward high-risk maintenance zones.

Learning points

1. Flood resilience is a catchment and governance issue, not only a drainage construction issue.

2. Phasing should begin with information, maintenance and institutional readiness.

3. Vulnerable groups require representation and safeguards, not merely technical protection.

4. Outputs such as drains constructed do not prove reduced flood risk.

5. Monitoring and adaptive review allow programmes to respond to observed failure and changing hazards.

11. Challenges, Limitations and Professional Responsibilities

Implementation is affected by political turnover, fragmented authority, fiscal constraints, corruption, land speculation, weak procurement, inaccurate data and resistance from affected interests. Technical plans may also contain unrealistic assumptions about behaviour, revenue or institutional capacity.

Performance systems have limitations. Indicators can oversimplify complex urban outcomes, encourage gaming and privilege what is easy to count. Attribution is difficult because urban change has multiple causes. Participation may be symbolic if decisions are already fixed. Cost-benefit methods may undervalue ecological, cultural or unpaid care benefits. Digital tools may intensify surveillance and exclusion.

Professionals should respond through transparent assumptions, independent review, conflict-of-interest declarations, accurate reporting, protection of whistle-blowers and willingness to disclose uncertainty. Engineers and planners have a duty to protect public safety, respect rights, avoid discriminatory outcomes and consider long-term environmental consequences. Regulatory compliance is necessary but not always sufficient for ethical practice.

Best-Practice Principles

Effective implementation generally follows these principles:

• align every major project with an explicit objective and theory of change;
• prioritise life safety, equity, resilience and legal compliance;
• match responsibilities with authority, finance and capability;
• integrate capital investment with operation and maintenance;
• use transparent criteria and publish decisions;
• engage affected groups early and continuously;
• combine quantitative indicators with qualitative evidence;
• distinguish outputs from outcomes and impacts;
• audit data, costs, procurement and construction quality;
• review assumptions and adapt without weakening accountability;
• protect privacy, accessibility and procedural fairness;
• preserve institutional memory through documentation and learning.

Chapter Summary

Plan implementation converts spatial strategies into funded, sequenced and accountable programmes. Effective implementation requires clear distinctions among plans, programmes, projects, outputs, outcomes and impacts. Phasing must reflect dependencies, readiness, urgency, affordability and institutional capacity. Prioritisation can use weighted criteria, but legal, environmental and safety requirements remain essential conditions.

Financial programming must include capital, land, operation, maintenance, monitoring and risk costs. Institutional design should allocate authority, accountability and coordination responsibilities. Stakeholder engagement must be inclusive, influential and supported by grievance mechanisms. Risk management should address technical, financial, social, environmental, climate and governance uncertainties.

Monitoring uses indicators and baselines to track implementation, while evaluation investigates relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, outcomes and impacts. A theory of change helps connect interventions with expected results and exposes assumptions. Adaptive review enables plans to respond to evidence and changing conditions without abandoning transparency or public accountability. Technology and AI can strengthen implementation, but only when supported by reliable data, ethical safeguards, human oversight and digital inclusion.

Key Terms

Plan implementation: The process of converting an adopted plan into coordinated actions, regulations, investments and services.

Programme: A group of related projects and actions managed to achieve strategic objectives.

Project: A defined intervention with scope, cost, schedule, outputs and responsibility.

Phasing: The division of implementation into logical time periods.

Prioritisation: The process of ranking interventions according to agreed criteria.

Readiness gate: A formal decision point at which evidence is checked before proceeding.

Capital expenditure: Spending on assets or infrastructure with long-term use.

Recurrent expenditure: Continuing spending required for operation, staffing and maintenance.

Implementation capacity: Institutional ability to plan, finance, procure, deliver and manage actions.

Stakeholder: A person, group or institution affected by or able to influence a plan.

Risk register: A structured record of risks, causes, consequences, owners and responses.

Indicator: A measurable variable used to assess progress or condition.

Baseline: The condition against which future change is assessed.

Output: A direct product of an activity.

Outcome: A short- or medium-term change resulting from outputs.

Impact: A longer-term significant change associated with an intervention.

Theory of change: An explanation of how activities are expected to produce results.

Adaptive planning: Revising actions or policies in response to monitoring, evaluation and changed conditions.

Plan evaluation: Systematic assessment of a plan’s relevance, performance, effects and sustainability.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. Distinguish between a plan, programme and project.

2. Why is operation and maintenance expenditure important in implementation planning?

3. What is the purpose of a readiness gate?

4. Differentiate an output from an outcome.

5. Identify four qualities of a useful performance indicator.

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how phasing and prioritisation can translate a long-term metropolitan plan into a medium-term investment programme.

2. Discuss the institutional arrangements required to implement a plan involving several municipalities and sectoral agencies.

3. Explain the relationship between stakeholder engagement, legitimacy and distributive justice in urban plan implementation.

4. Describe a comprehensive risk-management process for a climate-sensitive infrastructure programme.

5. Discuss how monitoring, evaluation and adaptive review should be integrated throughout the planning cycle.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A municipality has funding for only four of ten proposed transport projects. Develop a prioritisation framework, identify mandatory screening conditions and explain how you would communicate the final decision.

2. A drainage programme reports 80 percent budget expenditure but only 50 percent physical completion and no measurable reduction in flooding. Diagnose possible causes and propose a performance review.

3. Design a results framework for an affordable housing programme, including inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, impacts, indicators, data sources and major assumptions.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which statement best distinguishes an outcome from an output?

A. An outcome is a budget allocation, whereas an output is a revenue source.

B. An outcome is a longer-term change resulting from outputs, whereas an output is a direct product of activities.

C. An outcome is always a physical structure, whereas an output is always a social benefit.

D. An outcome is a project schedule, whereas an output is a risk register.

Correct Answer: B. An outcome is a longer-term change resulting from outputs, whereas an output is a direct product of activities.

Question 2

Which item should normally be treated as a mandatory screening condition rather than merely a weighted scoring criterion?

A. Environmental and legal compliance

B. Aesthetic preference

C. Political visibility

D. Ease of media promotion

Correct Answer: A. Environmental and legal compliance

Question 3

In the weighted scoring equation S = Σwᵢrᵢⱼ, what does wᵢ represent?

A. The project cost

B. The project completion time

C. The weight assigned to criterion i

D. The risk consequence

Correct Answer: C. The weight assigned to criterion i

Question 4

What is the main purpose of a readiness gate?

A. To guarantee that a project will never exceed its budget

B. To check evidence before allowing a project to proceed to the next stage

C. To replace all public consultation

D. To measure only final social impacts

Correct Answer: B. To check evidence before allowing a project to proceed to the next stage

Question 5

Which response changes a design or cancels an activity to eliminate a risk?

A. Accept

B. Transfer

C. Avoid

D. Enhance

Correct Answer: C. Avoid

Question 6

A project spends 70 percent of its budget but achieves only 45 percent physical completion. What does this most directly suggest?

A. Financial progress alone is sufficient evidence of success

B. There may be cost, payment, estimation or contract-management problems requiring investigation

C. The project has necessarily achieved its intended impact

D. The project should automatically be expanded

Correct Answer: B. There may be cost, payment, estimation or contract-management problems requiring investigation

Question 7

Which evaluation examines whether implementation occurred as intended?

A. Process evaluation

B. Impact evaluation

C. Purely financial audit

D. Land suitability analysis

Correct Answer: A. Process evaluation

Question 8

Why should indicators be disaggregated where appropriate?

A. To eliminate the need for baseline data

B. To conceal differences between population groups

C. To identify unequal effects on groups such as women, people with disabilities or low-income households

D. To ensure every indicator becomes qualitative

Correct Answer: C. To identify unequal effects on groups such as women, people with disabilities or low-income households

Question 9

Which statement about artificial intelligence in plan implementation is most appropriate?

A. AI removes the need for professional judgement and public accountability

B. AI should be used without audit trails if predictions are accurate

C. AI can assist analysis but requires human oversight, data-quality checks and safeguards against bias

D. AI is unsuitable for all planning and infrastructure applications

Correct Answer: C. AI can assist analysis but requires human oversight, data-quality checks and safeguards against bias

Question 10

What is the central purpose of a theory of change?

A. To calculate construction quantities

B. To explain how activities are expected to produce outcomes and impacts, including assumptions

C. To replace the municipal budget

D. To determine property titles automatically

Correct Answer: B. To explain how activities are expected to produce outcomes and impacts, including assumptions