Planning Models by Dr. Eusebio F. Miclat Jr. Development Planning & Budgeting, PSU (2004)


Published on

Planning Models: SITAR, General System, Technicist Model, etc

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Planning Models by Dr. Eusebio F. Miclat Jr. Development Planning & Budgeting, PSU (2004)

  1. 1. 4. SP Planning Models and Process Models a. Planning Models
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. • 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)
  4. 4. S - Synoptic model I - Incremental model T - Transactive Model A - Advocacy Model R - Radical Model B. Hudson (1979)
  5. 5. • Identical to the popular rational model. It includes elements namely: goal setting, identification of alternatives, evaluation of means against ends, and implementation of decisions
  6. 6. 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.
  7. 7. 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.
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. • 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
  10. 10. • Emphasizes interaction and interpersonal dialogue and the process of mutual learning in planning
  11. 11. • 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.
  12. 12. 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.)
  13. 13. 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).
  14. 14. • Underscores the confrontational characteristics of decision making
  15. 15. • 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
  16. 16. 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.
  17. 17. 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.
  18. 18. 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.
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. • 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).
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. • 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
  25. 25. 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.”
  26. 26. Synoptic Political System Resource Allocation Incremental Manpower OD Rate of return Advocacy Satisficing Learning Adaptive Mixed Scanning General System D. Adams 1991
  27. 27. • 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.
  28. 28. Views planning as dynamic, shifting process of interaction and exchange. It rejects the assumption of rational – decision-making
  29. 29. An open human system located in social environment too indefinite and inconstant to allow easy generalization
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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