Rational planning and disruptive innovation

DC1974 and I discuss the "design" approach. But if you look at the diagram of the design approach, it's not a lot different from the traditional "rational planning" framework.


Design methodology. (From Putting People First blog.)


Rational planning diagram. Image from the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.

The difference is around perspective. Rational planning tends to be highly "bounded" or constrained by thinking within traditional service delivery models.

I have written about my take on John Friedmann's work, that "Planning in the Public Domain" is focused on system maintenance for the most part, that innovation and definitely transformation, is not normally part of the consideration process, and that civic engagement processes tied into government processes are therefore constrained from the outset. (And you can see this with the techniques of public process consultants such as America Speaks, but also others, including those engaged by DC Government agencies.)

Basic Concepts from Planning in the Public Domain by John Friedmann.

If you want transformation, or world class ideas, these come at a price. They come with disruption and difficulty and challenges to traditional ways of doing things.

The difference between designers and rational planners is that designers are trying to come up with the best solution to a problem. Sure in later stages solutions are tested, and choices have to be made with regard to cost, practicality, etc. And early innovators are not always the winners in the end, i.e. Netscape, Yahoo, Sun Microsystems, etc.

Getting back to Arlington. Their primary goal in transportation planning is to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips. Sure they manage and fund infrastructure, and they do a lot of other things. But what they are trying to do is produce an environment of the most efficient mobility possible. That's a lot different goal than merely facilitating the movement of people, goods, and services.