4. SP Planning Models and Process

Models

a. Planning Models

At the end of the lecture, the students

will be able to:

1. Define the concept of planning model;

2. Identify and describe the various planning

models; and

3. Compare and contrast the typologies and

focus of the different planning models

according to Hudson, Wilson, and Adams

• A model is defined as a set of variables classified as endoneous and exogenous, cause-effect relationships among these variables, and the consistency of these relations (H. Correa, 1975)

S - Synoptic model

I - Incremental model

T - Transactive Model

A - Advocacy Model

R - Radical Model

B. Hudson (1979)

• Identical to the popular rational model. It includes elements namely: goal setting, identification of alternatives, evaluation of means against ends, and implementation of decisions

Synoptic planning has roughly four

classical elements: (1) goal-setting,

(2) identification of policy

alternatives, (3) evaluation of

means against ends,

and (4) implementation of policy.

The process is not always undertaken in this

sequence, and each stage permits multiple

iterations, feedback loops and elaboration of

sub-processes. For example evaluation can

consist of procedures such as benefit cost

analysis, operations research, systems analysis,

and forecasting research.

Suggests that planning is constrained

more by available means than by the

definition of the goals. Planned

change a any level – institutional,

sectoral and national – typically

represents small adjustments from

the past

• Plans are constructed by a mixture of

"intuition, experience, rules of thumb,

various techniques (rarely sophisticated )

known to individual planners, and an

endless series of consultations“

• Lindblom calls it "the science of muddling

through

• Emphasizes interaction and

interpersonal dialogue and the

process of mutual learning in

planning

• Emphasis is given to processes of personal and

organizational development, and not just the

achievement of specific functional objectives. Plans

are evaluated not merely in terms of what they do

for people through delivery of goods and services,

but in terms of the plans’ effect on people-on their

dignity and sense of effectiveness, their values and

behavior, their capacity for growth through

cooperation, their spirit of generosity.

The advocacy planning movement grew up in

the sixties rooted in adversary procedures

modeled upon the legal profession, and usually

applied to defending the interests of weak

against strong-community groups,

environmental causes, the poor, and the

disenfranchised against the established powers

of business and government. (Alinsky 19'71;

Heskin 1977.)

Advocacy planning has proven successful as a

means of blocking insensitive plans and challenging

traditional views of a unitary public interest. In

theory, advocacy calls for development of plural

plans rather than a unit plan (Davidoff 1965). In

practice, however, advocacy planning has been

criticized for posing stumbling blocks without being

able to mobilize equally effective support for

constructive alternatives (Peattie 1968).

• Underscores the confrontational

characteristics of decision making

• Has two versions – one in which spontaneous activism is guided by self reliance and mutual aid, while the second – focuses on situational characteristics of nations or systems that inhibit the equitable distribution of goods and services

It stresses the importance of personal

growth, cooperative spirit, and freedom

from manipulation by anonymous forces.

More than other planning approaches,

however, its point of departure consists of

specific substantive ideas about collective

actions that can achieve concrete results

in the immediate future.

It draws on varying sources of inspiration-

economics and the ecological ethic (Schumacher

1913), social architecture (Goodman 19 7 1),

humanistic philosophy (Illich 1973), and historical

precedents (Katz and Bender 1976, Hampden-

Turner 19'75). This is radicalism in the literal sense

of “going back to the roots” content to operate in the

interstices of the establishment rather than

challenging the system head-on.

Criteria for comparative description and

evaluation of planning theories

No single approach is perfect, but a particular

theory can establish itself as "best“ simply because

there are no salient options kept in view.

• Table 1 presents a simple list of basic criteria

that one might use for assessing the scope,

character, and adequacy of the various planning

traditions. The six criteria have been distilled from

three independent selection processes; each

process is somewhat subjective, but they overlap

considerably in their results.

Criteria Characteristics and applications

Public

interest

Explicit theory of the public interest, along with methods

to articulate significant social problems, and pluralist

interests in outcomes. May include principles of

distributive justice, and procedures for dealing with

conflict.

Human

Dimension

Attention to the personal and spiritual domains of policy

imp acts, including intangible outcomes

beyond functional-instrumental objectives -for example,

psycho-social development,

enhancement of dignity, and capacity for self-help

Feasibility

Ease of learning and applying the theory. Implies the

theory is practical to translate into policy

implications, and adaptable to varying types of problems,

scales of action and social settings

Table 1. Criteria for describing and evaluating planning

traditions

Action

Potential

Provision for carrying ideas into practice, building on

experience underway and identifying

new lines of effective solutions to problems.

Substantive

Theory

Descriptive and normative theory of social problems and

processes of social change. Predictive capacity based on

informal judgments, not just trend extrapolation; ability to

trace long range and indirect policy consequences;

historical perspectives on opportunities and constraints on

action.

Self-

Reflective

Capacity for laying analytical assumptions open to

criticism and counter -proposals; provision

for learning from those being planned for; capacity for

depicting concrete experience in

everyday language, as well as conceptual models using

aggregate data.

Table 1. Criteria for describing and evaluating

planning traditions

Major

Criteria

Synoptic

planning

Incremental

planning

Transactive

planning

Advocacy

planning

Radical

planning

Public

interest

Human

Dimension

Feasibility

Action

Potential

Substantive

Theory

Self-

Reflective

Table 2. Relative emphasis of SITAR theories

based on selected criteria

With color indicates partial or one-sided treatment

blank cells indicate characteristic weaknesses

• is more realistic than the rational

model and less passive than the

incremental model

• The mixed scanning model tries to

involve the strengths of the rational planning

model and the incremental planning model

and to eliminate the weaknesses (Mitchell

2002). It is based on ‘bounded’ instrumental

rationality (Larsen 2003).

D.E. Wilson, 1980

Attempts to use the idea of a system

as a unifying scientific paradigm

Learning from doing; learning comes through

the implementation of policies and strategies,

so adaptive management complements

research-based learning

Allan, 2007

• treats planning as a process of

social learning built on individual

psychosocial development that is

best realized in a small, non

hierarchical groups

D.E. Wilson, 1980

General systems concepts were applicable, e.g.

theories in the field of sociology from a modern

systems approach that included “the concept of

general system, of feedback, information,

communication, etc.” The theorist critiqued

classical “atomistic” conceptions of social

systems and ideation “such as ‘social physics’

as was often attempted in a reductionist spirit.”

Synoptic Political System

Resource Allocation Incremental

Manpower OD

Rate of return Advocacy

Satisficing Learning Adaptive

Mixed Scanning

General System

D. Adams 1991

• is expert driven, assumes a linear

process of decision making, tends to

treat the organization as a ‘black box’

and severely limits the number of

variables examined to quantifiable

indicators of education’s effect.

Views planning as dynamic,

shifting process of interaction

and exchange. It rejects the

assumption of rational –

decision-making

An open human system located

in social environment too

indefinite and inconstant to

allow easy generalization

Table 3

Comparison of Three Planning Models

Technicist Analytical and

administrative

activities by

oligarch of

specialist

Centralized planning

offices, clear lines of

authority

System analysis,

cost benefit studies;

programming

techniques, MIS

Political Exchange,

negotiation,

cooptation by

various

stakeholding

groups

Centralized goal and

policy mechanisms,

diffuse means of

articulations and

aggregation of

interests

Combination of

formal analytical and

information system

and less formal

information system

Consensual Dialogue,

consciousness-

raising

Decentralized small

face to face groups

Delphi, team

intervention

Miclat Jr., Eusebio F. (1998) Instructional Modules in Strategic

Planning

APA (1979) Comparison of Current Planning Theories:

Counterparts and Contradictions. Barclay M. Hudson

with comments by Thomas D. Galloway and Jerome L.

Kaufman