Planning and Plan Implementation: Notes on Evaluation Criteria

Abstract

This paper concerns the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ planning. Three views of the planning process are distinguished, with their associated criteria of the quality of plans: planning as control of the future, implying that plans not implemented indicate failure; planning as a process of decisionmaking under conditions of uncertainty, where implementation ceases to be a criterion of success, but where it becomes difficult, therefore, to give stringent criteria of the quality of a plan; and a view holding the middle ground, where implementation is still important but where, as long as outcomes are beneficial, departures from plans are viewed with equanimity. Similar distinctions are drawn in the implementation literature and in the literature on programme evaluation. The authors seek to develop a rigorous approach to evaluation under conditions of uncertainty. For this purpose, the authors draw on the policy-plan/programme-implementation-process (PPIP) model developed by Alexander and give five criteria for comprehensive evaluation: conformity, rational process, optimality ex ante, optimality ex post, and utilisation. The procedure is outlined in considerable detail, by means of tables and flowcharts. The framework confronts the dilemma that, although policy and planning must face uncertainty, we must at the same time be able to judge policies, plans, and their effects.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 233 citations exist upstream.