Strategic vs. Normative Planning Methodologies and Implementation

Comparing Normative and Strategic Planning Methodologies

The approach to planning fundamentally changes based on the underlying assumptions about reality, power, and the role of the planner.

Normative Planning (Planning Legislation)

• Starting Point: Begins with a diagnostic, often driven by a single actor.
• Subject Relevance: The subject (planner/actor) is often considered not relevant to the reality being planned.
• Planner Role: Planners are often detached, leading to unrealistic plans.
• Truth/Explanation: Assumes there is only one true explanation of reality (objective truth).
• Power Structure: Characterized by a concentration of power.
• Methodology: The methodology is rigid and cannot be easily changed in steps.
• Output Goal: Plans, programs, and projects are designed to achieve the desirable expression (what should be).

Strategic Planning

• Starting Point: Begins with a diagnostic, built collaboratively by all relevant actors.
• Subject Relevance: The subject is considered important for planning.
• Planner Role: Planners and actors are embedded in and part of the reality being planned.
• Truth/Explanation: Acknowledges that there are multiple true explanations of reality.
• Power Structure: Power is shared by all players.
• Methodology: Methodological processes can be modified.
• Output Goal: Plans, programs, and projects aim to achieve the possible expression (what can be achieved).

Underlying Assumptions of Strategic Planning

Strategic planning operates under specific assumptions regarding the relationship between the planner and reality:

1. The Subject is Distinct from the Object

   An actor cannot fully control the planned reality.

2. Multiple Explanations of Reality Exist

   Various explanations of reality are valid; diagnosis must go beyond objective truth.

3. The Social Act Creates Possibilities

   The social act creates possibilities for a creative social system that partially follows laws. Human simulation and projects require understanding interaction layers.

4. Power is Limited and Constrained

   Power is low and limits should be recognized. This approach should not be confused with normative design (focusing on what should be, or the will to do).

5. Ill-Defined Uncertainty Dominates the Social System

   There is a need to treat quasi-structured problems.

6. Quasi-Structured Problems

   These involve several competing plans or conflicting ends, leading to very different results.

Underlying Assumptions of Normative Planning

1. The Subject is Distinct from the Object

2. Only One True Explanation Exists

3. Explaining is Discovering Governing Laws

   The goal is to discover the laws governing the object.

4. Power is Not a Remedy

   Uncertainty is scarce or low.

5. Uncertainty is Structured

   Uncertainty is not poorly defined.

6. Problems Have Known Solutions

Key Stages in Planning

Normative Planning Stages

1. Diagnostic Formulation

   Investigating social reality and developing clear terms.

2. Execution

   Organizing and running the job (how to carry out the plan).

3. Evaluation

   Correction before, during, and after implementation, assuming adherence to norms.

Strategic Planning Components

Strategic planning requires defining several key elements:

• Mission

  Why do we exist? What is the rationale?

• Vision Purpose

  Where do we want to go or project ourselves?

• Synchronic Analysis

  Spatial location, covering global, sectoral, spatial, and institutional dimensions.

• Diachronic Analysis (Time Horizon)

  Projecting long and medium terms:

  • Short Term: 1 to 3 years (Project)
  • Medium Term: 4 to 9 years (Program)
  • Long Term: 10 years and beyond (Plan)

• SWOT Analysis

  Identifying internal and external factors:

  • Internal Factors: Strengths and Weaknesses.
  • External Factors: Threats and Opportunities.