Copyright 2004 Monash University IMS5042 Information Systems Strategic Planning Week 9-10: Combining...

Copyright 2004 Monash University

IMS5042Information Systems Strategic Planning

Week 9-10: Combining Philosophies of Planning with Theories of Planning and the

Conduct of Planning in Practice

Copyright 2004 Monash University2

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


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


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


Some aspects of planning philosophy

Formalised

Unified

Comprehensive

Utopian

Rational

Deterministic

Directed

Dictatorial

Democratic

Emergent

Political

Contingent

Pluralist

Pragmatic

Ad hoc

Incrementalist


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


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?)


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


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


3. 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


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


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


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


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?


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)


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


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


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?)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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?


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


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?)


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


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


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


Relevant theories and philosophies for IS planning

See next week for continuation

Copyright 2004 Monash University IMS5042 Information Systems Strategic Planning Week 9-10: Combining...

Documents

Transcript of Copyright 2004 Monash University IMS5042 Information Systems Strategic Planning Week 9-10: Combining...