Introduction Planning is an essential process in any discipline or field. For any organization to succeed, there is a need to carry out effective planning. It entails selection of an organization s goals and objectives and subsequently developing the necessary steps of action to achieve them. Planning helps an organization to know what the future holds and, therefore, prepare with regards to resource allocation (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). The education sector requires regular improvements as the world changes. The syllabi and facilities that are in tandem with the current times need to be incorporated into the school system as time changes rapidly. To effectively these alterations, there is a need for the management to plan well and ensure that the changes result in ultimate success. With that in mind, this paper sets out to explain the usefulness of the PPBS and the CIPP models in the education system especially regarding the development of mission statements. The PPBS (Planning Programming Budgeting System) model is mainly based on the managerial decisions and actions that influence the actual operations of an organization. Therefore is majorly founded on processes of decision making. Programming refers to the process of transforming the drawn plans into specific schedules that can be followed. In simple terms, it is a breakdown of the main plan into sub-plans of schedules. Schedules give fine details to what ought to be done probably on a daily basis to finally achieve the desired objective. Budgeting, on the other hand, involves allocating resources or funds in this case to specific courses of actions from the plan and program (Rabin, Hildreth & Miller, 2006). PPBS seeks to merge the budgeting, planning, and programming process and directing them towards achieving the set objectives. For instance, formulating a program requires one to critically analyze a plan. Again, the allocation of funds greatly depends on programs and plans approved by management. Therefore, PPBS uses such correlations among the three managerial functions. Due to its insistence on details, the strengths of the PPBS model are not easily recognizable. However, the PPBS helps in cost saving through the finer details of programs that ensure resources are well allocated. Secondly, it does not only focus its attention on decision making, but also on the problems facing a given educational institution (Rabin, Hildreth & Miller, 2006). However, the model also has some weaknesses. Its demand for inclusion of fine details does not board well with bureaucratic leaderships; hence, there may be a problem in sticking to the model. Again, the compatibility of the PPBS model with other traditional organization structure and systems is low (Rabin, Hildreth & Miller, 2006). It, however, aids in the formation of a mission statement. The plans, budget, and programs give a clear overview of where the organization should find itself in a particular timespan. As a result, mission statements can capture the goals and objectives of the organization. The CIPP (Context, Input, Process, and Product) model is more of an evaluation model that arose from the need to come up with a less rigid model in comparison with the traditional model. It attempts to create a base for finding the right criteria for evaluation. The evaluation process is guided by the four components that characterize the model (Ruhe & Zumbo, 2009). It also has merits and demerits. First the model is versatile and can be used in different fields of study. Using the CIPP also gives the evaluator the option of beginning the evaluation process even before the outcomes. On the other hand, the model demands attention to detail during an assessment that in turn eats quite a lot of time (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). With regards to the development of mission statements, the CIPP complements the PPBS model by critically evaluating the past programs and actions thereby helping to come up with an improvement plan from which the mission is derived (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). In conclusion, both models are helpful not only to the educational field but also to all other disciplines. While one is concerned with the planning process, the other puts focus on the evaluation of the planned actions. As such, they complement each other and are both vital in developing mission statements. References Rabin, J., Hildreth, W., & Miller, G. (2006). Handbook of public administration (3rd Ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker. Ruhe, V., & Zumbo, B. (2009). Evaluation in distance education and e-learning. New York: Guilford Press. Stufflebeam, D., & Shinkfield, A. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.