92 Long Range Planning, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 92 to 99, 1987 Printed in Great Britain 0024-6301/87 S3.00 + OO Pergamon Journal Ltd. The Lost r t o f Planning T J Cartwright The purpose of this articl e is to present and illustrate planning as a generic and highly s killed activity. C entral to this approach is a clear understanding of the objective of planning as reflected in the definition of the problern to be dealt wi th. It is the ability to make this essentialj udgement of ends and means J that constitut es the lost art of planning. Four distinct types of problerns ar e identified: sim ple probl ems, compound problerns, complex problerns and meta-problems. This typology is used to show ho w the nature of w hat is to be planned determines ho w far planning can be expected to hel p and how best to go about doing it. A detailed example is provided to illustrate how a problern can be made more or less manageable and the advantages and disadvantages that this entails. Finally, four diffe rent strategies are outline d for dealing with each of the four types of problerns. It has always seemed to me that the key to good planning lies in recognizing two things. First, planning is a generic activity, just like research or design, that can be done well or badly according to criteria that are quite independent of the area in which it is applied; be it an organization, a city or even a national economy. Second, planning is an activity where judgement, intuition, creativity (in short , art) sti ll h as a major role to play, even in thi s most technocratic of ages. Thu s, in this article, I want to sho w, in simple terms, how good planning is a function not of external conditions but of subjective judgements: good planning d epends on having a clea r i dea of what you want t o accompl ish. Kno win g that and being able to communicate it to others is what makes a good planner. Four Kinds of Problems The first step is to recognize that the need for planning is subjective. We plan in order to achieve something we regard as desirable or to avoid somethi ng we regard as undesirable. Thus, planning occurs in response to what people perceive as problems . When we plan and what we plan for are matters of choice. So the first task of planning is always to review h ow the problem has bee n defined and what alternative definitions there might be. Wh at this boil s d ow n to (a s we shal l se e) is a matter of closure . Ho w far can we afford to simplify a problem by leaving out or ignoring certain factors in order to make it more manageable ? The advantage of making a problem m ore manageable is that its solution becomes more obvious. The disadvantage is that we end up wor kin g on what i s only a pale copy of the problem we were originally trying to deal wi th. This i s a dilemma planners often face. I s it better to try to deal with the real problem, knowing we are unlikely to be able to solve it? Or are we wiser to tackle only what we are confident of solving, knowing that the real problem still remains? In order to characterize the range of discretion involved in this debate, consider the following classification of fundamental planning problems: (1) simple problems, (2) compound problems, (3) complex problems and 4) meta-problems. In summary, I am going to argue that there are four There are similar distinctions using different ter- fundam ental kinds of planning problems and that it minology in many parts of the planning is this (the kind of problem) that determines both literat~re.~~ how far You can plan for i t and what is the Simple problems are problems we regard as fully rational way of doing so. closed. That is, simple problems are problems which are fully understood in both their scope and their detail. Dr. Cartwriaht is a member of the Facultv of Environmental Studies, York university, Toronto, Canada. H e is c urrentl y on leave from York and working as a Special Adviser to the United Nations Centre for For simple problems, we assume both that we can Human Settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. identify all of the relevant factors and that we can Downloaded from www.timcart. com.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
92 Long Range Planning, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 92 to 99, 1987
Printed in Great Britain
0024-6301/87 S3.00+ OO
Pergamon Journal Ltd.
The Lost rt of Planning
T J Cartwright
The purpose of this article is to present and illustrate planningas a generic and highly s killed activity. C entral to this approachis a clear understanding of the objective of planning asreflected in the definition of the problern to be dealt wi th. It isthe ability to make this essentialjudgement of ends and means
J that constitutes the lost art of planning.Four distinct types of problerns are identified: sim ple problems,compound problerns, complex problerns and meta-problems.This typology is used to show ho w the nature of w ha t is to beplanned determines ho w far planning can be expected to helpand how best to go about doing it. A detailed example isprovided to illustrate how a problern can be made more or lessmanageable and the advantages and disadvantages that this
entails. Finally, four diffe rent strategies are outline d for dealingwith each of the four types of problerns.
It has always seemed to me that the key to good
planning lies in recognizing two things. First,
planning is a generic activity, just like research or
design, that can be done well or badly according to
criteria that are quite independent of the area in
which it is applied; be it an organization, a city or
even a national economy. Second, planning is an
activity where judgement, intuition, creativity (in
short , art) still has a major role to play, even in this
most technocratic of ages.
Thus, in this article, I want to show, in simple terms,
how good planning is a function not of external
conditions but of subjective judgements: goodplanning depends on having a clear idea of what you
want t o accomplish. Knowing that and being able to
communicate it to others is what makes a good
planner.
Four K inds of Problems
The first step is to recognize that the need for
planning is subjective. We plan in order to achieve
something we regard as desirable or to avoid
something we regard as undesirable. Thus, planning
occurs in response to what people perceive as
problems . When we plan and what we plan for are
matters of choice. So the first task of planning is
always to review how the problem has been defined
and what alternative definitions there might be.
What this boils d own to (as we shall see) is a matter
of closure . Ho w far can we afford to simplify a
problem by leaving out or ignoring certain factors
in order to make it more manageable ? The
advantage of making a problem more manageable
is that its solution becomes more obvious. The
disadvantage is that we end up working on what isonly a pale copy of the problem we were originally
trying to deal with. This is a dilemma planners often
face. Is it better to try to deal with the real problem,
knowing w e are unlikely to be able to solve it ? O r
are we wiser to tackle only what w e are confident of
solving, knowing that the real problem still
remains?
In order to characterize the range of discretion
involved in this debate, consider the following
classification of fundamental planning problems:
(1) simple problems,
(2) compound problems,
(3) complex problems and
4) meta-problems.
In summary, I am going to argue that there are fourThere are similar distinctions using different ter-
fundamental kinds of planning problems and that itminology in many parts of the planning
is this (the kind of problem) that determines bothl i t e r a t ~ r e . ~ ~
how far You can plan for i t and what is the Simple problems are problems we regard as fullyrational way of doing so.
closed. That is, simple problems are problems which
are fully understood in both their scope and their
detail.Dr. Cartwriaht is a member of the Facultv of Environmental Studies,York university, Toronto, Canada . H e is c urrently on leave from Yorkand working as a Special Adviser to the United Nations Centre for
For simple problems, we assume both that we can
Human Settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. identify all of the relevant factors and that we can