(Ir)rational planning

Organizational-based planning, be it land use planning for which planners go to school, or in other disciplines, is typically called "rational planning" and follows a particular method.

Rational Planning Model -- lacks a step for prototyping and feedback before final implementation


The biggest problem with this method is that for the most part, the evaluative framework that planners use is relatively static, it's more backwards looking than forwards looking. We can all fall prey to this (e.g., in a study I did in a county on Maryland's Eastern Shore, while I mentioned the impact of global warming, I didn't really key in on the fact that depending on the projections, half that county could be underwater in 30 years).

Chris Argyris spent his academic career studying and working to make more effective, learning and action in organizations. This webpage discusses the basic points:

-- that people have an espoused theory of how they respond and act;
-- which usually differs from how they act in specific situations;
-- that single loop learning doesn't question the basic principles of an approach;
-- and double loop learning does.

From chris argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning:

Single-loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on ‘techniques and making techniques more efficient’ (Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87) Any reflection is directed toward making the strategy more effective. Double-loop learning, in contrast, ‘involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie actual goals and strategies (op. cit.).

This graphic from the website shows the difference between the two forms of learning. In short, in double loop learning there is a feedback and consideration loop (feedback loop is the term used in systems theory), and there is no feedback loop in single loop learning.

I think we are a single loop society, one where for the most part, our organizational systems, especially political and governance institutions, are resistant to learning and improving.

Through discussions with blog commenter and colleague Christopher, I have become much more clued into the design method combined with principles from social marketing, which is the planning method that Arlington County has been developing around its transportation-related planning activities. (See the blog entry "Social Marketing the Arlington (and Tower Hamlets and Baltimore) way.")

Design Method


The design method is more anthropological, and anthropology-based design methods are all the rage in industry. In fact, there is a developing design discipline called design anthropology.

Without the ability to go beyond constrained scopes of work, most planning efforts have the tendency to produce somewhat static results.

Some examples...

1. While not an urban issue, the problem of grizzly bear management in the Greater Yellowstone eco-region is one issue. The Post had a travel story about this on Sunday, "Into the Wild," and PBS's Nature show on Monday was about the same broad topic, The Good, the Bad, and the Grizzly.

The issue is about constraints and conflicts. These bears need a fair amount of land on which to roam. If the same lands are used for other purposes, such as running cattle on national forests, conflicts are created, and the bear generally loses out, when it comes up against people. The Dept. of Interior, under President Bush, declared that in the Yellowstone region, the grizzly bear is no longer an endangered species, meaning a management plan isn't necessary, that the bears aren't protected.

But how do you resolve the conflicts that will continue, whether or not the Dept. of Interior changed the regulations?

2. In the Sunday Post, there is a short op-ed piece, "The New Walter Reed: Less Than 'World Class'?," about the impact of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) process, which called for the merger of DC-based Walter Reed Hospital into the Bethesda Naval Center, and the failure to re-engineer processes, systems, and facilities as a result of the merger. From the article:

There is much to commend in the work that has been done so far. For example, the view of the facility from Wisconsin Avenue will be very pleasing, with the iconic 1930s tower flanked by a new outpatient building and a revamped, extended inpatient building -- and these will provide not only good but excellent care. But a master facility plan has never been done for the campus, which serves multiple functions and includes many older buildings that, over time, should be replaced in an orderly manner. During our review, we were told that such a plan was not within the scope of the BRAC budget.

Similarly, no analysis has been performed to determine needs based on future local demographic changes (the number of retired military personnel in the area is increasing), changing types of wounds (such as from improvised explosive devices) or advances in the delivery of medical care. Instead, the consolidation was planned using a static approach, whereby the functions performed at Walter Reed were simply shifted to the future facilities. Again, the rationale we were given for this was that the BRAC law did not allow for any other approach.

This is a perfect example of a planning failure resulting from static legislative and planning processes.

3. Today's Health section in the Post has an article, "Study Gives High Marks To Retailers' Clinics," about the success of for profit walk in clinics to provide low cost basic health care services.

I have been writing about this for 3+ years as an example of how communities can reengineer basic public health service provision, to move a lot of this kind of care out of hospital emergency rooms, to better manage chronic conditions at the community level, and to provide broader wellness services (which are needed, see "Obesity a Major Issue For Many Minorities" also from today's Post) within neighborhoods.

See the past blog entries "Disruptive innovation (once again)" and "Bods/Cuerpos."

This is an example of what isn't being discussed in the national "debate" about health care "reform."

Without refiguring how health services (not "health insurance") are conceived and how they are delivered, providing effective health and wellness care for all will continue to be out of reach.