Copyright 2004 Monash University IMS5042 Information Systems Strategic Planning Week 9-10: Combining Philosophies of Planning with Theories of Planning and the Conduct of Planning in Practice

Copyright 2004 Monash University 2 Agenda (for weeks 9 &10) Recap of philosophies of planning Combining planning philosophy, planning theory and planning practice Examples of philosophies of planning in action Planning philosophy and ISP theory

Copyright 2004 Monash University 3 1. Recap of philosophies of planning Philosophy = the general set of principles, ideas or beliefs on which action is based All conscious human actions are based on some set of beliefs (philosophies) of how that action should be done Explicit vs implicit philosophies Individual vs shared philosophies

Copyright 2004 Monash University 4 Importance of philosophies for planning Planning is a complex human activity - much scope for variation Planning practice has been based on many different philosophies (with varying degrees of success!) These philosophies are often not made explicit Your ability to understand and evaluate a particular planning approach depends heavily on your ability to understand the philosophy behind it

Copyright 2004 Monash University 5 Some aspects of planning philosophy Formalised Unified Comprehensive Utopian Rational Deterministic Directed Dictatorial Democratic Emergent Political Contingent Pluralist Pragmatic Ad hoc Incrementalist

Copyright 2004 Monash University 6 2. Combining philosophy, theory and practice All practice has some basis in a theory (articulated or implicit) All theory has some basis in a philosophy (articulated or implicit) All practice has some basis in a philosophy (articulated or implicit) The linkages between these things are often not articulated The linkages affect both plan content and planning practice

Copyright 2004 Monash University 7 Linking Philosophy to Practice Philosophies of IS Theories of IS Theories of Planning Philosophies of Planning Theories of IS Planning Practice of IS Planning Plan Content (What do we plan about?) Planning Process (How do we plan?)

Copyright 2004 Monash University 8 Combining philosophy, theory and practice In my opinion good planning practice is: Partly about understanding relevant theories Partly about understanding relevant philosophies A lot about understanding which theories and philosophies are relevant to the situation in which the planning is being done New ideas about practice and new ideas about theory need to be understood in relation to one another and to the philosophies which underpin them

Copyright 2004 Monash University 9 The Next Few Weeks Understanding the inter-connectedness of practice, theory and philosophy First in regard to planning in general Second, retrospectively examining these connections for existing theory Considering specific aspects of planning and IS in relation to one another

Copyright 2004 Monash University Examples of some well-known philosophies for planning Six examples of well-known philosophies upon which many approaches to planning have been based: Planning by decree Utopianism Comprehensive rationality Bounded rationality Disjointed incrementalism Advocacy planning Not the only ones; but useful to highlight some key elements of possible planning approaches

Copyright 2004 Monash University 11 Example 1: Planning by Decree Ultimate power and decision-making authority lies with a single central individual or group Motivations of the controlling group may be benevolent or self-serving (perhaps depending on your perception!) Decisions by the controlling individual/group are accepted and implemented without question; they need no discussion, explanation or justification Resistance or opposition to the authority of the central individual/group is not accepted and is likely to be seen as a direct threat to be put down immediately

Copyright 2004 Monash University 12 Planning by Decree: Origins and frequency of usage For thousands of years, the only form of planning Started to decline in intellectual acceptability in western civilisation in the 18th and 19th centuries Provoked revolutionary resistance (French Revolution, American war of independence, etc) and strong philosophical opposition (Marx, Engels, etc) Still a very common form of planning and control

Copyright 2004 Monash University 13 Strengths of planning by decree? Unity of vision Clarity and stability of command and control structures Decisiveness Speed of planning and decision-making process Charismatic leadership can inspire great loyalty and commitment from followers

Copyright 2004 Monash University 14 Weaknesses of planning by decree? Quality of plans is dependent on ability of the controlling individual or group Can lead to narrowness of vision or ideas; lack of questioning of accepted practices Maintenance of the power base tends to be a dominant end at the expense of all others Encourages apathy/passivity from within the ranks Resistance to change; lack of acceptance/exposure to innovation Can provokes resistance from those who are subject to the power structure; query long-term sustainability?

Copyright 2004 Monash University 15 Example 2: Utopianism Term is based on the book of that name written by Sir Thomas More in 1516 describing an ideal country called Utopia (from the Greek for ‘No place’) A Utopian plan expresses a vision of the ideal future environment; this then becomes the target to aim for Vision is totally idealised and has no connection or basis in current conditions, and no implementation path towards its achievement (An alternative (but generally less widely-used) form is the Dystopia, which describes a state which is to be avoided; eg George Orwell’s 1984)

Copyright 2004 Monash University 16 Utopianism: Origins and frequency of usage Utopias may focus on the physical, the social, the political, etc Utopianism is a regular recurring theme; 3 periods in western society when it achieved particular prominence and influence as a planning approach: the Greeks over 2000 years ago - Plato’s Republic, etc; the European Renaissance in the 15th and 16th centuries the 19th and early 20th centuries

Copyright 2004 Monash University 17 Strengths of Utopianism? Consistency and clarity of vision Usually makes clear the values and beliefs upon which actions should be based Lifts the focus from immediate problems and short- term needs Helps to stimulate debate and interest in where we are headed and why, etc Has the ability to motivate and inspire - sets ideals

Copyright 2004 Monash University 18 Weaknesses of Utopianism? No connection to current reality - how realistic and achievable is the utopia? No implementation path - how do we set about achieving it? Utopian visions can be very simplistic - selective and biased in their presentation Utopias (and utopians) tend to be very ‘all or nothing’ in their beliefs/values A utopian vision assumes a high degree of agreement about goals/objectives (your ‘ideal world’ = my nightmare?)

Copyright 2004 Monash University 19 Example 3: Comprehensive Rationality Planning based on the use of reason, logic and scientific methods Planning and decision-making is based on a rational and comprehensive analysis of the current situation and the desired future end state Typically involves several steps: Survey existing situation Identify desired ends/objectives Identify all possible courses of action Identify and evaluate outcomes of all courses of action Identify outcome which best approximates desired end state, and choose course of action accordingly

Copyright 2004 Monash University 20 Comprehensive Rationality: Origins and frequency of usage Rationality (the use of logic and analysis) originated with the Greeks over 2000 years ago It has been a dominant feature of Western civilisation for several hundred years Began to grow in strength as a formal approach in the early 20th century Grew extremely rapidly to become the dominant paradigm after the second world war; greatly assisted by development of computer-based analysis

Copyright 2004 Monash University 21 Strengths of Comprehensive Rationality? Provides a logical basis for identification, analysis and evaluation of alternatives Provides a clear framework for action and a logical justification for decisions Enables use of ‘independent’ expert analysis to eliminate personal bias and sectional interests Adds thoroughness and rigour

Copyright 2004 Monash University 22 Weaknesses of Comprehensive Rationality? Emphasis on quantification; how to deal with the unquantifiable? Difficulty in reaching agreement about goals, values, priorities, evaluation criteria, etc Problems in reconciling irrational human behaviour with rational analysis Difficulty of implementation in the complexity of real world environments (all courses of action? all outcomes? etc) Amount of resources required

Copyright 2004 Monash University 23 Example 4: Disjointed Incrementalism Formulated as a direct response to the problems of the rational philosophy of decision-making Seen as being more in step with actual planning and decision-making processes in organisations Main features: Do not distinguish between actions and goals; they are closely inter-linked Focus only on actions/policies which differ by a small amount from existing actions/policies Consider only a small number of action/policy alternatives Evaluate only a small number of important outcomes The best action/policy is that which gets widest agreement

Copyright 2004 Monash University 24 Disjointed Incrementalism : Origins and frequency of usage The term and the planning approach was first formalised by Charles Lindblom (1959) Lindblom suggested that although the approach was neglected in the literature, it was widely used in practice Still not very popular in some academic literature (sounds too non-rational), but the extent of its use in practice makes it very important

Copyright 2004 Monash University 25 Strengths of Disjointed Incrementalism? Plan-making is seen as a continuous and adaptive process with flexibility built in to respond to circumstances Focus is on getting achievable outcomes Incrementalism encourages a high degree of implementability Significant reduction in cost and complexity of analysis compared to comprehensive rationality

Copyright 2004 Monash University 26 Weaknesses of Disjointed Incrementalism? Disjointedness of actions can lead to inconsistency, lack of any coherent pattern; uncertainty over policy and direction Focus tends to be on short-term at expense of long- term considerations No sense of vision or direction There are some actions/decisions which are fundamental and which are not/cannot be incremental Major disagreements over values/objectives/etc are never addressed, which may limit scope for organisational learning

Copyright 2004 Monash University 27 Example 5: Limited Rationality (Bounded Rationality/Mixed Scanning) Approach is similar to comprehensive rationality, but does not try to deal with ALL circumstances (outcomes, goals, evaluation, etc) Aim is either: to identify a satisfactory outcome, rather than an optimal one - Satisfice, don’t optimise (bounded rationality); or to carry out a two-level process in which there is a broad-scale overall analysis to identify key areas of concern, followed by a detailed ‘rationalist’ analysis of these areas(mixed scanning)

Copyright 2004 Monash University 28 Limited Rationality: Origins and frequency of usage As a formal approach, the various forms of limited rationality date to the early 1960s See Simon (1955) for bounded rationality See Etzioni (1967) for mixed scanning Widely used, but often seen as an interim stage until fully rational analysis becomes possible

Copyright 2004 Monash University 29 Strengths of Bounded Rationality? Enables focus on key areas for analysis Utilises strengths of rational analysis in these areas Minimises resource and scope problems associated with fully rational analysis

Copyright 2004 Monash University 30 Weaknesses of Bounded Rationality? How do you set the boundaries? How do you decide how much rationality is enough and how much is too much? To what do the problems of the rational approach still apply?

Copyright 2004 Monash University 31 Example 6: Advocacy planning There are no such things as ‘universal’ values/goals/objectives; any purported universal goals/etc are in fact the goals of the ruling elite. Communities are fundamentally pluralist Planning is a political process in which groups fight over resource allocation Planners are not neutral; they belong to or support one of the groups involved. Planners can only find out the real interests of one of these groups by becoming a part of it Planners should not pretend to be neutral; they should declare their allegiances and become advocates for their constituency

Copyright 2004 Monash University 32 Advocacy planning : Origins and frequency of usage Approach grew out of the backlash of minority groups against the ‘paternalist’ planning policies of the US government in the 1960s Planners were seen as supporting the status quo (disguised as ‘the community interest’) against the interests of minority groups (eg Davidoff, 1965) The approach stirred considerable debate in planning circles, but it is unclear how widely it has been accepted and implemented in practice (perhaps for obvious reasons?)

Copyright 2004 Monash University 33 Strengths of Advocacy planning? Reflects the diversity of interest groups and values which apply within any collection of human beings Encourages and enables participation in the planning process by all those affected Enables free expression of the needs and interests of everyone affected by the planning process

Copyright 2004 Monash University 34 Weaknesses of Advocacy planning? Tends to highlight conflict and encourage disunity and self-interest Developing shared goals and values becomes difficult, if not impossible If all planners are advocates for their group, who oversees the planning process? ie Who is the judge? How do you identify the groups whose views can be represented? Who ensures that all groups are represented? Etc, etc Planning and decision-making tend to become bogged down in legalistic arguments and in- fighting

Copyright 2004 Monash University 35 Some bodies of theories associated with these planning philosophies Planning by decree: Military, theology Utopianism: Ideology, environment (built or natural), theology Comprehensive rationality: Systems theory, cybernetics, mathematics, economics Disjointed incrementalism: Decision Sciences, Organisation behaviour, psychology Bounded rationality: Mixture of previous two Advocacy: Politics, sociology, political economy

Copyright 2004 Monash University 36 Relevant theories and philosophies for IS planning See next week for continuation