REPRESENTATION, TESTING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF PLANNING PROCESSES

Various way.s to represent planning processes lo test and draw policy implications from them are presented. We argue that three kinds of variables should he included: context, process and outcome. Four different models which incorporate these three variables are proposed, and data from a large public sector planning .study are fitted to these four models. The findings suggesi that the process-outcome link is the key to understanding the effectiveness of planning processes.

[1]  L. Beach,et al.  A Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies , 1978 .

[2]  Howard E. Aldrich.  Organizations and Environments , 1979 .

[3]  Andrew H. Van de Ven,et al.  Problem Solving, Planning, and Innovation. Part II. Speculations for Theory and Practice , 1980 .

[4]  THE POLICY PROCESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL FORM , 1984 .

[5]  Paul C. Nutt,et al.  Hybrid Planning Methods , 1982 .

[6]  Robert W. Backoff,et al.  Comparing Public and Private Organizations , 1976 .

[7]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[8]  H. Cleveland.  The Future Executive , 1972 .

[9]  John M. Bryson,et al.  A Contingent Approach to Strategy and Tactics in Project Planning , 1979 .

[10]  John M. Bryson,et al.  A contingent approach to strategy and tactics in formative and summative evaluations , 1984 .

[11]  R. Freeman.  Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , 2010 .

[12]  D. R. Saunders.  Moderator Variables in Prediction , 1956 .

[13]  André L. Delbecq,et al.  A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning , 1971 .

[14]  Michael B. McCaskey,et al.  A Contingency Approach to Planning: Planning with Goals and Planning Without Goals , 1974 .

[15]  J. Harrigan,et al.  Governing the Twin Cities region , 1978 .

[16]  Paul C. Nutt,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Planning Methods , 1977 .

[17]  John W. Payne,et al.  Contingent decision behavior. , 1982 .

[18]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes , 1976 .

[19]  L. E. Jones,et al.  Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal variables are measured with error. , 1983 .

[20]  Peter Smith Ring,et al.  Strategic Management in Public and Private Organizations: Implications of Distinctive Contexts and Constraints , 1985 .

[21]  V. Vroom,et al.  Leadership and decision-making , 1975 .

[22]  Amitai Etzioni.  Mixed-Scanning: A 'Third' Approach to Decision-Making , 1967 .

[23]  H. Rainey,et al.  Public Agencies and Private Firms , 1983 .

[24]  Paul C. Nutt.  FIELD EXPERIMENTS WHICH COMPARED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DESIGN METHODS , 1976 .

[25]  Ernest R. Alexander,et al.  After Rationality, What? A Review of Responses to Paradigm Breakdown , 1984 .

[26]  Andrew H. Van de Ven,et al.  Problem Solving, Planning, and Innovation. Part I. Test of the Program Planning Model , 1980 .

[27]  S. Seashore.  Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group , 1955 .

[28]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structuring of Organizations , 1979 .