Conclusions

Generally speaking, two schools of thought exist on the structure of the planning and design process. In the simplest formulation of the traditional model, the process flows from analysis to synthesis to evaluation. More complex versions break down the three phases into substeps and introduce feedback loops, but the procedural dependence remains intact – analysis is done before synthesis, and synthesis is done before evaluation.

The conjectural/evaluative model challenges the lockstep relationship of the phases. In this version, ideas are generated and evaluated as they take form. Advantages are that ideas are less likely to be lost and that mistakes can be detected earlier. In a large project, this may mean avoiding massive redesign. To use this approach, however, there must be effective means of evaluation along the way. An appropriate model is the apprentice under continuous review by the master – the master not only reviews the work incrementally, but possesses the sum of experience and information necessary for judgment on a global as well as local basis. For a process to work in like fashion for a planning team acting as its own master, information should be explicit, available in detail, insightful enough to provide bases for both invention and evaluation, and richly cross-related.

Not coincidentally, the Structured Planning process has the means to take advantage of the conjectural/evaluative approach. First, there must be a way of knowing what to work on: the information base produced by Action Analysis provides that. Second, there must be a way to know whether an idea is contributing to a good solution: the Design Factors in the information base provide that at a local level, and the Defining Statements provide it at a global level. Third, there must be a mechanism to ensure that the planning team is not “climbing the wrong hill” in the parlance of optimization theory – creating piecemeal solutions that will be less than optimal once other Functions are considered. The structuring induced with the RELATN and VTCON programs reduces that danger significantly by tying together those Functions which ought to be considered concurrently.

The best approach to structure for the planning process, however, should use the best of both schools of thought. Good design philosophy refutes the folk adage, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” – in fact, creative thinking quite often finds a way to blend seemingly independent or even opposing ideas into a single, better solution. A perceptive planner tries never to be placed in the position of having to choose among goods; it is far better to think a bit harder and create one more alternative that integrates the best features of the competing choices. So, too, in this case.

The good in the traditional process model maximizes incubation time, holding off final ideas and evaluation of them until the last possible minute. As any planning or design project leader knows, more becomes known as the project proceeds, and the most is known at the end. The longer decisions can be responsibly delayed, the better is the chance that a more creative, higher-quality end result will be achieved.

The conjectural/evaluative model optimizes situational creativity, encouraging ideas when they occur and significantly reducing the likelihood that good ideas will be forgotten before they are considered “at the proper time”. It also directs the progress of a project earlier because it encourages evaluation and, therefore, selection of ideas, as information is uncovered. Projects developed in this way are less likely to swing widely from concept to concept in later stages of synthesis.

Structured Planning draws from both models. Action Analysis dynamically juxtaposes discovery and invention in the creation of Design Factors, pressing early in the project for insights and ideas for how to use them. The virtues of the conjectural/evaluative early-action model are incorporated in that process. The strength of the traditional model appears when the information from Action Analysis, structured for optimal order of consideration, is finally arrayed for synthesis. The selection, modification and invention of ideas takes place then in an information environment rich in ideas – and steeped in the seasoning of incubation.

Planning and design are complex tasks. Products and systems can be made without good planning and design, but excellent products and systems cannot. Today, quality standards and development cycles do not permit the luxury of random success. The planning process must be reliable and predictable; reliable in that it can be depended upon to produce excellent concepts, predictable in that it can be expected to produce them on demand. Structured Planning is designed to meet those constraints.