$260M USE ONLY : U z.) ' ' ’5‘ ”‘3': 3-" Wm]. ‘ \.' W7 “35' “vi/5x630 2 MAY 2 6 1999 ABSTRACT AN OPERATIONAL MODEL OF THE PLANNING PROCESS DECISION-AMAKING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCEDURES IN URBAN-REGIONAL PLANNING by David Forster Parker Public planning is in the midst of a revolutionary transition where- in emerging mathematical analytic techniques are supplementing and replacw ing the traditional physical design-oriented methodology which has evolved through. the past half century of city planning efforts in this country. Howw ever. this rapid advance in technology has not been accompanied by an equivalent advance in. planning theory to coordinate and guide these new techniques in an organized and purposeful manner. Thus an urgent need exists for a comprehensive theory of planning which will provide a frame- work for guiding planning efforts at all levels of complexity. The planning process can be thought of as asequential decision mechanism in which various alternatives are developed and analyzed rel.a-~ tive to a set. of criteria. and a series of choices results which leads to action directed toward the achievement of some gOal or desired outcome. This continual decision making must. be purposive behavior guided by ob~ jectives? principles and standards. It is a series of choices among Ineans to achieve ends, which themselves have been choices. until the whole process results in the best available choice of means to achieve the best available choice of ends. As such. the planning process is becoming David Forster Parker widely recognized as a universal way of solving problems and capitalizing upon opportunities. Planning problems are, by their very nature, prob- lems in complexity, and solutions must be sought which introduce order so that a logical hierarchy of parts and wholes can be structured leading to the most satisfactory outcome. A frame of reference for the consideration of a problem can be provided through the use of models. A model represents a level of ab- straction which allows one to focus his attention on much simpler pheno- mena without. much loss from the fact that many details have been neglected. Verbal. graphic, symbolic {mathematical} and three dimensional models are all in widespread use by persons in a great variety of occupations and fields of study. The Planning Model presented herein is a diagrammatic represenw tation of the planning process. It is primarily .a normative model (jwhat ought to be done)_ but it also constitutes a descriptive model :wl‘.a.t. is done) for some of the more advanced planning operations. Inasmuch as it can be manipulated {in accordance with the nature of a particular planning problem) to guide the design of a planning program leading to a problem solution, the Planning Model can be termed an operational mode]. Essentially, the Planning Model consists of a linear series of activ- ities and events leading from problem recognition to a solution outcome; and incorporating. as subsidiary processes the basic behaviors... charac- teristic of feedback as well as a reverse feedback concept. termed ”feed- forward. " Each of the activities outlined in the Model can be viewed as a sub-planning process consisting of the same series of activities and events evident in the major process. Each of the sub-planning process activities can also be considered in this way, and so on in. hierarchical fashion. with. the level of abstraction utilized being dependent upon the David Forster Parker complexity of the problem under consideration. Once all the pertinent elements of the planning process for a spe- cific problem are clarified and organized by this means, a planning pro- gram can be readily designed for resolving that problem by translating each Model activity and event into groups of time-oriented sub-activities and sub-events, or jobs and outcomes. The resulting myriad of vertically organized jobs and outcomes can then be organized horizontally into a. dependency network by attaching each job designation to its pertinent re- sultant outcome and to its pertinent prerequisite outcome. The result- ing dependency network can be further subjected to specific programming techniques so that time, cost, manpower, and other factors can be com- puted and the planning program organized into its most effective and effi- cient form. The hypothesis presented herein conceives the planning process to consist of four major sequential stages termed Concept Formation, Re- search, Design, and Action. These form the basis for the seven linearly- organized steps of the Planning Model. The operational characteristics . of the Model are based upon problem-solving and decision-making theory and upon network analytic techniques. Systems theory is introduced as the most logical approach for the continual analysis and synthesis functions necessary for the resolution of problematic situations. In this way urban and regional phenomena can be viewed as complex systems and the planning process can be considered as a means for controlling and improving these systems. The role of the urban-regional planner is conceived as being no longer one of all-knowing expert on the design of physical land use, but rather as a specialist developing and presenting policy and design alter- natives to elected and appointed policy makers. The Planning Model David Forster Parker provides him with a tool for clarifying the planning process and delineating the many roles of other individuals and groups within this process, so that the effective participation and coordination of all persons. involved in the control and improvement of urban and regional systems might be effectively realized. In this way, planning can become a systematic means of making and implementing public choices on urban and‘reigional' development. . The planning methodology thus presented is not intended to be a panacea for all planning problems, but it does constitute a logically organ- ized approach to planning which, it is hoped, will provide a useful guide for designing meaningful planning programs. It is an .initial step toward a comprehensive theory of planning. AN OPERATIONAL MODEL OF THE PLANNING PROCESS DECISION-MAKING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCEDURES IN URBAN-REGIONAL PLANNING By David For ster Parker A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING School of Urban Planning and Lands cape Architecture 1965 PREFACE Planning is a process common to countless numbers of human activities. Housew1ves informally plan shopping trips, corporation directors plan for future investments, and city planning commissions make formal plans for the future physical growth of cities. Academicians in many diverse fields have recently been investi- gating the planning activities of both individuals and groups with the common goal of revealing the detailed nature of the planning process so that it might be formally studied and improved upon, thus leading to improved methods of making decisions, solving problems, and capital- izing upon opportunities. This thesis constitutes an attempt to pull these many investiga- tions together into a single theory of planning which is applicable to any type of planning problem. I am acutely and humbly aware of the im- mensity of this task. and I therefore make no claims as to the success of the resultant product. If it should provide a useful hypothesis for further exper1mentation in this vital area of endeavor then I shall feel well rewarded. I would like to acknowledge, in particular, the assistance and advice given me by Associate Professor Stewart D. Marquls. Without his help I would never have been able to attempt a thesis so broad in scope. I would also like to express my thanks to Professor Charles W. Barr ii and Associate Professor Carl Goldschmidt who first interested me in urban planning, and to Professor Myles Boylan who assisted me in getting started at Michigan State Univers1ty. Most importantly, I would like to acknowledge the untiring efforts of my Wife, Marilynn, who worked full time, kept house for myself and two sons, and in addition, managed to do most of my typing during our almost three years at Michigan State University. To these, and many other persons too numerous to mention by name, I shall be forever grateful. David F. Parker East LanSIng, June 1965 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE ..... . .............. . .......................... . ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ......................... . ....... vi Chapter 1. PLANNING A UNIVERSAL PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY......................... .............. 1 What is Planning ? Evolution of Contemporary Public Planning A Change in Planning Values State Planning Current Planning Techniques The Planning Process Planning for Planning -~ Programming A Look Ahead II. PLANNING PROCESS THEORY. . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . 27 Planning, Problem Solving, and DeciSion Making The Decision Problem Decision Theory The Decision Matrix Network Analysis Systems Analysis Design Planning as a Sequential Decision-Making Mechanism III. DESIGNING THE PLANNING PROCESS ................ 69 Concept Formation Research Design Action IV. RUDIMENTARY EXAMPLES OF THE PLANNING MODEL INACTIONOOOOOOOOOOOQOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ......... O... 94 The Report-Writing Problem The Shelter Problem iv Chapter V. USE OF THE PLANNING MODEL IN AN URBAN SYSTEM. . . . . . ...... . ................. The Systems Structure of Urban Communities Planning Premise Ior an Urban System A Concepts Formation Program for a Small Urban Community A Program Segment Leading to the Construction of a Highway Bypass Toward More Comprehensive Urban Planning Programs VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR URBAN~~REGIONAL PLANNERS ...... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQO. ......... .0... Analytic Diagram Methodology Uses of the Planning Model in Urban-Regional Planning Polic1es Planning VII. CONCLUSION ...... O ...... O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ..... O O O O ...... O O O O ........ BIBLIOGRAPHY OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ...... O O I O O O ........... O O O O Page 115 137 148 152 154 LIS T OF ILLUS TRATIONS Figure Page 1. Evolution of Contemporary Public Planning ........... 9 2. The Master Planning Process ....................... 19 3. Program Plan Model. ................................. 20 4. The Sequential Aspect of Technical Studies and Policy Review in the "Progressive Planning Approach" ..... 22 5. The TOTE Unit .................................... 32 6. A Sequential Decision System ........... - ............. 36 7. A Group Decision.... ................................ 36 8. Decisions and Information Feedback .................. 41 9. Multiloop Decision-Making System ................... 41 10. Kuhn's Cybernetic System ........................... 42 ll. Kuhn's Cybernetic System Restructured ............... 42 12. The Decision Matrix of Outcomes .................... 47 13. The Strategy Selector ............................... 47 14. A Network ......................................... 49 15. A Dependency Network .............................. 49 16. A Decision Tree for a Cocktail Party ................. 51 17. A PERT/CPM Network .............................. 51 18. Three Kinds of Design Process ....................... 59 19. Hierarchical Tree of Sets ............................ 60 20. A Design Tree With 3 Components, 3 Characteristics and 5184 Branches ................. . .............. 62 21. An Extensive Design Tree that Includes Three Inter- Dependent Factors ................................. 63 22. Major Elements of the Planning Process ............. . 77 23. Plan Development ................................. 79 24. Basic Planning Unit ............................... 82 vi Figure Page 25. System Control Model ............................. 84 26. The Planning Model ............................... 88 27. Second Level Planning Model Segment ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9O 28. Design of a Planning Program from the Planning Model ..... . ....... . ........................... 92 29. A Segment of a Planning Program Network for the Shelter Problem Indicating Its Derivation from the Enlarged Planning Model ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 103 30. Internal Control of Structure and Operation of Major Subsystems ............................. 119 31. Nested Hierarchy of Communities .................. 119 32. ‘ The City System as an Open System ................. 123 33. Concept Formation Segment of a Planning Program for a Small Community ........ . ................. 128 34. A Planning Program Segment Leading to the Completion of a Highway Bypass .................. 134 35. The Planning Process ............................. 153 vii CHAPTER I PLANNING: A UNIVERSAL PROBLEM SOLVING ACTIVITY What is Planning? Webster's dictionary defines planning as "a method or scheme of action, procedure or arrangement. "1‘ As individuals we plan to meet events we expect to happen, to accomplish things we want to happen, and to avoid or prevent things we do not want to happen. Thus, in planning, we attempt to consider all the possible consequences before devising or projecting a course of action to best achieve the most desired end results. It might be described simply as a way of arriving at decisions. In the typical primitive or folk society decisions are usually made impulsively or with respect to some immediate past experience. Folkways of living change very slowly and "behavior is traditional, spontaneous, un-- critical and personal. "2 But in contemporary society planning has become a general form of human behavior for both individuals and groups. People today are ceaselessly endeavoring to adopt to change or to bring about changes which they desire through this purposive, goal—directed procedure called planning. George Soule, an economist, writes that planning is "a method, a technique, a way of attacking problems. "3 As such, it is utilized by 1Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (New York: World Publishing Co. , 1960). ZRobert Redfield, "The Folk Society, " American'Journal of Soci- ology, XLII (February, 1947), 293. 3George Soule, A Planned Society (New York: Macmillan, 1932), 230. 3 countless numbers of lrlleIdU 113 and groups of all kinds w‘m: engage in ~z..r‘i'-.'i‘ies requirii g corxscirus, deliberate ind purposeful. delusions. In “his wav, planning is beconiirgg increasingly recogrized as .1 universal {1161115 of sol‘Jing problems and ii‘i:.xirriiziiig Opportunilies. ludiv1duals and both public and private grxitups of all kinds {neke plxns for future '1‘1‘1‘!ltl€§ and events. Tliev deride ll“ 5:('1‘/'-:.',’l.e wl'at to do and how to do it. In order to make such plans, irdividu—iis and groups must have goals or purposes which they desire to achieve. Planning is a process Whereliy the means for arhieving .1 desired goal ire Carefully structured so that future eficr‘s cam he directed in some logical fislion l0:517»..rd. the fulfillment of that goal. Thus all plarmirg laegizis with a problem The problem. of attaining Some desired goil and it should lr»gic_a_.llv continue un‘il t1" it prohlern has been. solved and We goal attained. All. planning, then, might. be defined as the conscious direction of effort. towards the attainment of 1. ri’ionally desirable gr;:;':.l. Stewart. Marquis has suggested a, more FY‘E‘C ise definition: "Cor”scicms, formal planning is the deliberate. rfiionzl process of defining or cl.,~:..rifying buinan purposes, stifling and evilu tirg alternative Ways to achieve them, and. choosing courses of action to achieve Them. Such forme‘. plerning is ob~ }ec*.ive,. analytical, intraiive... progective, experimental... Utopian, and irvolves aesthetic. vision, "4 Few planners would argue with such a dell” ni‘ion, and probably all would agree, ii sucl‘ a thing is really possible, that the broad goal. of 3.19. public pli ring is to promote lbe s.-,Ielf';..re of the people in the (.ornrriurxilv, by helping to create an increasingly better, . A... tum.-At-"z—l gnu—— “- a—nr“’—“-'.l-—'le ”4,453.. ... - --<>-~ .. - ,- A.’ J. n ,,n_- lr'lxr-JL.~_., . 5. s _ -... an. ,- A .i.... 4-.. ,w‘.. ._.n_.q._. . .. . -5.._.._~-~_.. u»-.—mz.=...—_ a-‘ 'I 4iSte‘Warl D. lVlarquis, ”Pl-Jnmng? lion of Collegiite Schools of Planning lib-2'5 :All’lll‘r’ll‘t 1964., 9. ... am...- .i q; .r 7‘... u.- ‘_ __. _ . . The Bulletin cf Hoe. Associa- W. -.‘ ,—_-x._---- .—----- v, more .heal?ful, convenient efficient. and. 1ftractive enii'irctrnient. Like motherhood. such. a iicble, worthy, and all encompassing goal defies c riticism. Evolution of Contemporary Public Planning - - _-,..--. - I... _.-‘s In order to understand he‘ter this prclilem of planning definition it. Inight be useful. to delve back. into tl‘e history of public ffiiltl‘ll'ig and briefly to examine its evolution. Although the course of ci'v planning is of’en fir-Jed ‘.(:- antiquity, i'. is a. mistake to assume '.h1..'. rte—3e 'iLCIE‘Ii" pl.—.nning efforts were 1RV~ ‘hirg more than vaguely Sll'nildl‘ to contempt riry public planning. Ton. day‘s public planning efforts have evolved from at less-‘- five chains of events occurring durirg the past seventy-five years. Pb 'sical Desi n Planning The first such hiin cf events had _.___-V g. ._ _.,_ A... its beginning before the turn of the century". it'stig-z’ed most rotitriv by Daniel Burnham who touched off We "City Feau‘iful Movmnen'” With his dI‘qITIillC and orderly deSigr-s for the 1893- (bis‘ igo World‘s Fair, Eben-- eezer Howard who, in 1898-, published a, ((WFII‘OVQY‘SIBl book Called Flfoin'or'row A lie-u: eful Pa‘lto Fechftrnr {Hrbpuhlisl‘ed in 1902. as 93:93.11 {liifsoftornprrovl which advoc wed satellite girder..- cities is a substitute for overcrowded ire'rg-leraibfe living renditions 11‘» large (111853 and Frederick Law Oli‘iistead. the designer of Cer'rnil 13:: rk in I‘Tew York City {and also 01 the initial Mic: 1“lg:l’l State University (a mpusl, who is often given. personal credit for in’roducing .lsrje-usrjgle parks into the, American, city. .. These several movernen‘s soon .rnerged to become the ha,«.i.l<'bone of city planning efforts in the United States. C'jlde physical desigiymoriented principles laid down by these early leaders have continued to heavily 4 influence city planning activities right. up to 1be present day. The planning of streets, p:.rl<.s, civic centers and (.‘tlr er civic features, which grew out of the movements begun ly these 8::er leaders, continued independently until the 1920’s when. the new planning pioreers reilized that, to be truly useful, planning must include ill the physical. elemen’Ls of the city in one plan. So comprehensive physic ‘1‘. city planning was born. In the early 19 30’s it became increasingly eviden‘ that: the size and character of the physical plan of a. city is de‘erniined in large Ines-sure by the city‘s desire and ability to in for it. And. so, the need for correlation of physic 11 planning with fin ancial planning became an obvious addition. to city planning theory. After World War l1. concern at the federal level for the cortinuing and increasing spread of slums in urban areas put into reality the concept. of urban reheat-:1 the re«» placement. of blighted structures rand neighborhoods througl- >1 <‘.r.nr'1.nuing improvement: plan. “These then were the events 1,»th provided the b.1363 for the great spread of planning pro-grains throughout this country during the years just before and folJoWIr-g World War ll. New citizen pl irring comm missions we re often overwhelmed by the complexity of the prs; blems con»- fronting them; so they turned to professional planrers for assistance w professional planners wl'o for the rncst pert, were heavily ii‘d(:_a(:.trinal';ed. With the srchitectural designworien'ed planning base wl‘irl had continued to dominate planning values and me‘l'odologyo Slowly, the intellectual leaders of. the planning profession began to realize that city planning is not. just a. problem. in design, net just the organization of many complex p‘iy'sic;1.1 units in’o a coordinated and efficient scheme according to traditional concepts of beauty and planning ”190”V_. but r1.tl~er it is 1 prcbleni of irterpretirg .111 «‘f "-e re:l reeds a rd desires of the people of that community irto :-r. ecorc micclefficient, bird. psychologically and. aesthetic ally pleasing 5.! l eme for cc 1 'irruing development.o Many city pl inrers beg1nto emerge from their superficigl vorld. of physical desigr; and became engrossed iv the recl cum; lewitzes 'a.~l_icl’.- nizke up the cityo They begin to strive 'ouurd new dynamic solutiors hssed, on the best. possible balsrce of all the needs of a! ‘lre citizens we social, psychological. aesthetic; prlitic 1.l_ 13 well :5 erynomir... and physical. However nnrv so-c filled city piartrers were slr=w to grnsp Wis new dVI‘ldInlC cor-Kept in its entirety and tod 1V crun’fiess rutnbers of cities are still being subiected to. physical design. pl wring theory quite out? of tune with their re al plinnirg needso .Blfliripingmfor‘trols -» ~» A se- (and if tle~e fi 'e c1 «ir- s. cf e': er'ts concerns the evolution of comnmritv developmer‘ ccr'r. ls.“ ("it's regular“ tions concerning the height, use, 3rd cor s’ructior; cf huildirge :n-«rle their appearance in :1. few 1:12.501“ American" I ities durirg the rit‘eteer'l century: lut 1.’ wrisn't urtil the early t-,x.'e.rrtiet‘.‘r» century that their use bet Hue roinr'nor‘xo The nation's first city zoning crdir :r re w:.s Gl‘w ted ir Vein \ork City in 1916 to regulate the use: l"eight ’1T‘djrein huildirgso The uti- lity of zoning or "districting" as it. was first cillerl. ‘31-) (1‘11" l".l\-’ spread to (lTIE’S throughout the land due ir: large mezsure 'o *l e work of such outstanding leaders as Edward Passe”, and Alfred. Pet’nzarto These two l—iwyers gave much, of their time and. effort to promo'ii g s‘1te1er‘1hling legislation and subsequent zoning ordinances in commurittes ‘hr' ughcut the country. Zoning“ as an exercise of the police. powe r of 11363 cmnrnuriity: was 6 f1r 5' con eived as a leggl de‘rice for promoting c. rderix .ard. s :fe develop: meat wi‘lin a community. lt qu later recognized as. the sirgle most, im» poant legal device available for c :YI'V'lr'g cut the 1:! d_»ut-e p? in of f1 comm muritv [other devic es .a re building and relited codes: suodiwsmr ordi retires; taming power; and the power of emii en‘ d«.rn.-,.iy._'° lV'r—forturfztely'; perhaps because of its more underst 1nd lble nrture or hec 11,156. of its lor-ger history; zoning l.1.S heroine an end in itself in rn-lry cc mmur itieso And its uses are often not for promoting d. comprehensive Lind use ply-ir, mi' ,r «Fer for ‘1r'llfiCiallV protectir‘g land values, for uplrldirg rzt lil segre~ gitior practlces, sand. tl“e l1lm zqmooE 24.... 995424 55% $638 E828 «238%. .m .m s .m .m e m .N ._ . . . , , omqamouommu ‘ i a does. 25.. 350%. n 85$ 21 Professor Sanford Fiarness has suggested that the essential. steps in the planning process are: concept. incl theory formation, gnarl forming. survey and de‘t gathering. analysis, plan msking, and, progr 1mming. 18 These broadly defined steps were enl—irged into a "Program Plan Model" by this writer in a. recent paper entitled "Planning for Planning for P] «.n- ning. "19 This diagrammatic model {Figure ‘5}: indicates both feedforward and, feedback effects as well 13 nine sequential steps in attempting to clarify the planning process at any level of proMenrsolvirg. Such a. model provides a. fairly realistic outline of the pl‘znning process for most straightforward problem-solving activities. However9 for la rge~-sc:al.e planning units suchs s those found in lirge cities, :metirom politsn areas and. urbinizing regions. each of these steps ind the interns relationships between. these steps involve enormously complex: procedures which. are difficult to simulate bv such a. gereralized model. More defy—.iled representations of substeps are necesssry if a. systematic prc'cess is to be developed which cam be a truly useful and meaningful planning tool. ln the Sec 0nd Edition of U.’."..E-’l.l:3ll€l.§.fi ‘Planning Stuart Chapin. views the planning process 1.8 ":1 series of evolutionary and rationally ora- gimized steps which lead to prOpc>sa.ls for guided urban. grcuu'th and. develc~p~ . H20 . . _ _ .ment. He conSiders the .mdgor purpose of this process to he "one of supplying alternatives zit. progressively more detailed. levels of. derzisionw making. with. each successive stage in. policy formulation building on p’r‘e-n n21 viously made choices of a more general ch ‘1ch tier. The general sea quence to these cycles of steps in a. m.;1._ic.»r urban planning program is Fairness. II 19David F. Parker, "Planning for Planning for Plc.13’ltg unpubw .lxishedpape‘r, East. Lansing. lune 1964. Mimeographed. l- 20, . - 31 ' Chispin. L549. lhlq -.. “*9.— .- HORIZON - YEAR SCHEMES FIRST- LEVEL W PRELIMINARY 25' YEAR PLANS SECOND - LEVEL W 458 Urban land Use Planning lEXPLORATORY GOALS STUDIES L o 5 ® SCHEME II ® 3 S 5 5 ° 3 a .9: ‘3’ § 2 a i "‘ PRELIMINARY PLANNING I ‘ INVESTIGATIONS DETAILED STUDIES 0’ er a . . w @ ® E3 82 2 “I 5 s *‘ cté 3:5 8 IL u. aASIc SURVEYS Actlvlty LAND F°"°°" TRANSPORTATION Space Use DEVELOPMENT .F°"°°" MODELS Spect- Use MODELS Distrlbutlon Cost - Bonstlt Tlme -Distonce Living Qualities /l\. EVALUATION EVALUATION EVALUATION OF ALT. A OF ALT. 8 OF ALT. C L I J GENERAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN DETAILED STUDY PLAN ALTERNATIVES Trip Production Modal Spllt TrIp DIstrib. 0 Assignment TESTS OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES THIRD- LEVEL W PLAN A D OPTION Figure 36.. The Sequential Aspect of Technical Studies and Policy Review in the “Progressive Planning Approach." As indicated in the right-hand column, this rep- resentation of the approach involves cycles of planning, each involving more de- tailed and exacting forms of analysis than the preceding one. Plans are presented in the form of alternatives, with one emerging from each level of policy review and providing the basis for consideration of alternative policies at the next more de- tailed stage of analysis. The general land use and transportation plan is the end product of this sequence. As noted earlier, this is not a straight-line but rather a circular sequence, and so, with the adoption of this plan, a new sequence is set in motion, perhaps at the first or perhaps at the second level above. Figure 4 A page copied from Urban Land Uge Planning by Stewart Chopin, 2nd ed. (Urbana, Illinois: University Of Illinois Press, 1965), 458. __A ._-;_L_‘._- _.4 A .‘.-— .4.;_’_‘__ _b_. 2 '[AJ reproduced in Figure 4. "Pl1ns 1re presen ed in tLe form ofi_1 'terr.1 ives. with one emerging from eaI h level of policy l‘r“:‘:"1t’?-A~" 1,1'd prc vidi‘ng the basis for consideration of alternative policies 1t the next more det1iled. stage of 1n‘1lvsis. "22 The end product of the sequence 1 gener1l land. use and tr'1nsportation plan ..1. is intended to form the h1sis for .1. new sequence beginning at; the first. or second level in. the di1gr1m. In this way, the di1gram is intended. to depict 1 continuous circul—ir sequence of pl'1nring .1.ctivities. Professor Ch1pin"sdi1gr1m of tie pi1nr1rg proc e-s 1%: Ni or could. be, utilized ir. a l1rge urb1n situ1tion is more inclusive in terms of current 1n'1.lytic techniques and urb1n pl1nnir.gthec,rv 'h1r. 1nv of the other descriptions. However, 1i... too suggests 1 mvri1d of substzeps and lesser activities which have. according to the author. been omitted, in. order to present. the b1sic rationfi1le in its simplest; elemer'1 form. There rem1ins the question of how to extend this element 1.! f'wrm into more det1iled sequences of ,1 ctivities leading to attainment: of the initial EdelSo FlJrrirg for _Pl1nplrg Progr.mm1rg "Tl e essence of urb1n. pl1rnirtg, ” stiles ‘i-{errv Fagin. ”is the dew liPerxfle cctordirmtion oi H e 1c'ivit1es of iuizrv lt'fll"1d‘.1:.l€ ‘l true di': ci . . - )1 . . . . plIr-ed. rese1rch :1rzd creefive 11 vent1c-r... "r“ This deliher :te r reor-ding-atlcr: is the crucial problem f'1cir:g airy group shout to 11c He 1 pl 21.-7 irg prohlern. If the emerging ccmplex p11nnirg proI‘ ess descrihed in tVe p.“e‘»..,'i.r.uus sec. tiara is to be carried out; successfully, tier... pl~:.nner s must, seek to pl1n -.'_ :rmr~:vv.v-_e.,-.~.;.-z..—s-n-._— ._ ' ~— 1 --~ 1——7 _;--.-..— Is: w é'm m.‘“m ”121315,.” 11.1; -¥ , . _ ,~,: 1 1;. 9. ~-.- 1 , .. . ,1... . .1. . - __ .--, . ._ s . 11:41.. .44... 31:44 L's»;- 2.2 l 2 L{enry F1gin ”Org1nizirg .1..d C- arrying Ou’r Pl: Trirg Ac ivit ies Witlin Ur‘r-an Governrnert. " "ourr11 of “re Amer1c 111.”erin e of P1 rrers XXZU") {.Augus’fi. 1959}, 109 l14. 1 l4 u for it. in the s_1me orderly .1nd system-Sic f15hicr. wlir‘h thev :dvocate i". Pizflhllig for complex url'1r. sys‘ernso They must, C1 refully desigr. ‘heir planning programs to '1.-:hieve p'l1rnirg gc-als it ”e s1me w1y th1t. ‘hev would have communities design pl..:1r.s 'o 1Chieve development g01ls° During the mid ‘fifties those groups ccr.cerr.ed am”: ‘he defense A 1} industry, anxious to meet. de1dlirses and. eating 1*e co: 3 in .1. higllv ccm-w pe‘i'ive business. were successful in their 'se1rch for '1 Ine'hod of p11n-1 ning 11nd scheduling which would t1lr_-—1.‘rn.;:l.. . p_.—_ 51--...A l..-.-gi _‘r5u_m2.-::.:i Z7Serge Chermayeff and Christopher Alexanden Comnmrj‘vand Privacy: Toward. a New Architecture of Humanism {New York: Doubleday? T363; 1 14° ”— M5" ”1-...“ W ' CHAPTERIt _.-1 PLANNING PR OCESS THEOR: Planning has been defined in Chapter I as a scheme of action or conscious direction of effort towards the attainment: of a rationally d.e-~ sirable goal: and. it. has been suggested that the actual process of planm ning is a. sequential. decision mechanism involving a series of choices from, increasingly complex sets of alternatives. It. has also been suggested. in Chapter I that planning is becoming widely recognized as a. systematic means for solving problems. Thus planning seems to be inextricably interwoven with both problem solving and decision making :T-d it would appear thatg to gain a comprehensive understanding of the planning pro=- cess, one must first. become familizr with. the intricacies of problem solving and decision making. Many wr iters have contributed their ideas to what. appears to be a, single theory encompassing both problem solving and. dec'i.sionin;—1king. The first part. of this chapter will. be devoted to an investigation of some of these ideas with the goal of clarifying this unified, theory and establish» ing it as a base for a detailed description of the plannirg Process. Some recent. methods and techniques from these and related. fields of study will then be briefly discussed in order that a comprehensive foundation may be laid. upon. which an operational model of. the planning process can be designed in the following chapter. Planning, Problem Solving, and Decision Making From his experiments with animals in the latter part. of the nine; 27 28 teenth century, psychologist Edward Lee Thorndyke stated a. definition ' which is still widely accepted: "A problem exists when cf. "problen‘i' the goal that is sought: is not directly attainable by the performance of a simple act available in the animal's repertory; the solution calls for a novel action or a new integration of available actions. "1 From his ex; periments grew the principle of contemporary stimulus-response psyw chology: behavior that is rewarded is remembered. and behavior that is not rewarded or punished is not remembered. The Gestalt. psychologists later argued that more is involved in problem solving than a sequence of stimuli and response; they emph sized. "the tendency of the mind to organize and integrate and perceive situations- including problems. as total structures. "2‘ Thus it would. seem th it the structure of problems, as analyzed through productive thinking. points the way to solutions to those problems. Only Within this total. framework does the problem solver draw selectively on relevant. knowledge. John Dewey points out. that the determination of 3; problems solum tion is a progressive matter growing from an. understanding of the "probw lematic situation" which in turn. is imbedded in. an "indeterminate situation“. He states that, ”inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that. is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert. the elements of the original situation into a unified whole. . . the indeterminate situation becomes problematic in. the very process of becoming subjected to inquiry. "'3 F. S. C. Northrup _.... u—-»---_-—--.u- '— 1Martin Scheerer. "Problem Solving... ” Scie_ntific Afl‘fliflifl: C'C‘Jllhu 4 {Aprih 1963)... 118-- 128.. 21bid. 3John Dewey. Logic: The theory of. Inquiry {New York: Hermy Holt. 1938}, 104m107. 29 extends this line of reasoning: "It is the problem and its cliracteristics as revealed by analysis which guides one first to the relevant facts and then, once the relevant fscts are known... to the relevart hypothesis. ”4 In the Design of Social Research. Russell Ackoff describes inquiry in terms of a. communicative process and a, problem-~301ving process. "The problemwsolving phases dinquiry are {a} the existence of a. problem; (bf) the formulation of the problem and the design of :1. method for solving it; Zc) the movement into or production of the environment in which, the observations are to be made}: f'd; the recording of the data {e} the treatment of the data; and if) the selection of a course of action directed. toward solving the problem.‘§5 These descriptions of problem solving appear to be compatible with. the descriptions of the planning process given in Chapter I. Theorists in both areas indicate an awareness of a set of sequential steps or stages which. the planner or problem solver must take in. order to arrive at a. satisfactory outcome. In his recent. book. Man. Nature and God“ Professor Northrup sugw gests how this process is explained by neural. physiologists: "human nervous systems are goal-uguided mechanisms. or. in. other words... cybernetic. selfs reguldting mechanical systems. . . the neural paths in the human nervous svstem, leading from the sensory neuron to the Inotor neuror, which pro» duces the behavioral rnusczuldr response, need not. be linear in character. They can.) in the cortex, also be ordered in a circle with these circles con-.— nect'ed to form units of circles in a hierarchy. "6 These hierarchical units .——A——n—._- ~‘-_ M——g _-_.. "V" 4F.S. C. Northrup; The Logic of the Sciences :i_n_d_th_e‘Humanities {New York: Macmillan. 1947'}. 12. 5Russell L. Ackoff. The Design of Social. ReseagrEhQZChicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953), 10. ' —--- 617.5. C. Northrup. Man Nature and God". A Quest; for Life‘s Mean-r» 30 of circles are what make memory possible. This idea was developed most. fully by Norbert Wiener in what has (mine to be know1r..as the ”cyw bernetic hypothesis". namely that the fundamental building block of the nervous system is the ”feedback loop". 7 It. would appear then. as stated bv Jay W. Forrester: that, "an informationw-feedback system exists wlenm ever the environment; leads to a decision that results in action which affects the environment. "8 In short, this activity is involved in every conscious and subconscious decision made by peOple. "Systems of infor4 rnation,---- feedback control are fundamental to all life and human endeavor. "9 Miller. Gallantzer and Pribram discuss the feedback. loop as the basic element. of behavior. and they consider stimulus and response as aspects of the feedback loop. In addition to information. they suggest that energy and control are flows involved in this basic. process which. they syrnm bolically describe as a TOTE {Tests-Opera.te-=Test~~Exit} unit. {Glee Figure 572.10 They feel this TOTE unit: to be an explanation of behavior in general... and they suggest; that planning Can be thought of as a list of tests to perform: {when we have a clear image of a desired outcome. we can use it. to pro~~ vide the conditions for which vie must; test. and those tests when arranged in sequence, provide a crude strategy for a possible Plan. "11 {They define ning {New York: Simon and Schusten 196th 380, v.12“; 7Norbert Wiener: Cybernetics {New York: John Wiley, 1948}, and? _————_ Ihe Human Use of Human-BETngs 7ZOESSton: Houghton Mifflir, 1950}. 8 . . . . Jay W. Forrester; "Managerial. Dec1s10n Making. " Management. and the Computer of the Future. ed. Martin Greenherger ZNew Ymo‘Tfk: M. I. T. Press and John Wiley. 1962);. 39. 912251.. 10C}. A. Miller; E. Galanter. and K.H. Pribram, Plans and the ..n. m—u-u“ 0 Structure of Behavior {New York: Henry Holt... 1960}; Chap‘t-e‘irl “£1192 11. .31 Plan as a hierarchy of instructions, much. the same as a program for a c cmputer.) From the foregoing it can be seen that planning and problem solving are essentially processes composed of hierarchies of decision-“making units which operate in regenerative fashion as a continuous system of human behavior. The following discussion will attempt to clarify and refine this concept. The Decision Problerri R. W. Morel]. points out that "deczision-vmaking remains the province of the individual and depends ultimately on his own abilities of analysis. dew duction and rational procedure. "12 He (and Inany other writers) defines decision as "a selection of one alternative from among two or more alte.rna--- tives. " and he states that "decicion-u'making should be purposive behavior guided by goals or objectives. " It is a "choice among means to aclieve some 1. . _ end. " This view corresponds closely to the human belt avioral concepts advanced in. the previous section. The classical conception of rationality Was defined in. terms of the ability to select. means to achieve ends r:goals}. This was sutziected to serious questioning by the positivis’rs and behaviorists in social. science who subscribe only to empirical evidence. "Rationality can‘t be identified. with purposeful selection of means to achieve desired, ends. . .«in open system will, find, equili'furum by itself. "14 This line of reasoning suggests an evolutionary problem which. is ..n -—-.--—__3‘ . .Ll—SI" <= ,- 12'Robert W. Morel}, «Minjgerigalflpecision-.Making':Milw1ukee: Bruce. 1960}, Summary. _ ”Paid“ 11. 14D. W. Miller and M. K. Starr, Executive [239131.21]...alignglléfjfiigfli Research. {New York: Prenticea-Hall. 1960}. .35. i '- _———-~———_.A 32 TEST INPUT OUTPUT (compare, fit, ? EXIT (material component, try, analyze, (when congrue t energy transfer, etc.) with requirements) information, speci- .- fications , exec- R-J utive order, etc.) If incongruity is found OPERATE (transform, reform translate, adjust. etc. ) Figure 5 The mDTE Unit An input is tested for suitability for standard actions, accepted tactics, and the strategy agreed upon earlier. If it does not fit, it is operated upon and modified. It is then retested. This recycling may be repeated several times until a satisfactory output is found or the attempt is abandoned. This element can be made a component of a hierarchy. Source: see footnote lO. 3.3 first observed and stated in general terms, analyzed, subietted to experiw rnentation relative to sonie goal: and, then. refined according to the observam tions and conclusions drawn. from the experiment. Herbert Simon states that "all behavior involves conscious and unconscious choices of actions" and that. "purposive behavior" is "oriented towards goals or objectives. . . each decision involves the selection of a goal. and .a behavior relevant to it. {this goal in turn may lead to another goal and so on to the final 11m " He suggests that decisions toward final goals involve "value judgmerts” whereas decisions toward the implementation of such goals involve "factual. judgments". 15 It. is thus postulated by these writers that problems worthy of inn quiry are complex problems which cannot be simply stated in terms of ends or objectives. These objectives never involve just one Variahle and there are usually vast numbers of different degrees of achieving them. In their excellent book, Executive Decision and Operations"Research? Miller and 4.- -—c-—. v- :uJ.a_‘:-u: Starr discuss the decision maker's "strategy" as a plan of control for these variables in. order to achieve the optimal. degree of attainment of. the objecu- tive. They point out that. although this objective is a variable, it is a particular type of variable dependent on the values of the other variables in. the system. Thus they suggest that. "the precise formulation of the ob» jettive is the first major problem facing the decision~maker. "16 The most efficient path. to this objective could then. be consmdered :15 the best solution to the initial "decision problem. " Thus in. order to find a means to achieve coordination of the activw ities of many individuals «w coordination. of. tome, manpower, skills and lsHerbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan. 1947), Chapter I. 16Miller and Starr; 33' 34 resources u- a complex network of decisional processes must be con-~ sidered. and all its variable components and pertinent inputs and out» puts must be structured in a logical sequence or lierarchy of sequences. From this general description of the problem, concepts. goals. and plans and programs for experiment can be developed which, will aid in. redefine ing the problem and its boundaries for repeated cycles until the optimal objective is achieved. This coordination of human activities is what Miller and Starr refer to as the "decision problem" which they describe as "the determinau tion of how people should proceed in order to reach satisfactory or best decisions. "17 They propose that a choice among values to be achieved must be made. and then follow a series of. rational decisions in order to obtain the objective. The entire structure might be referred to as a sequen» tial decision process in which each. decision can be corsMered as a base or premise for a new decision-~making activity as well as an erd to the preceding activity. Herbert Simon refers to this "decision premise" as the "be sic unit. for the theory of human behavior" and he suggests that a comm "is like a great river. drawing from its mar y tributaries plex decision the innumerable component premises of which it is constituted. Many in» div1duals and organizational units contribute to every large decision. and the problem. . . is a problem of. arranging this complex system into an ”18 effective sch eme. Decision Theory Having thus described. the planning process in terms of decision~= making units and the structuring of these units as the decision problem, it. now becomes important to gain some concept of how 'his sequential '«m..- a—— .—s—:—: —_ -—- Ibid. lBSimon, Preface. .35 decision process actually takes place. Alfred Kuhn. suggests that concept formation by the scientist is now generally known. as model building and that it is essentially the same thing as creating new theory: "as soon as one suggests that his model corresponds to reality. . . it. becomes a hypothesis or theory. subject to testing and to acceptance rejection. or modification... "19 Following Simon's hypothesis the decision process might be Viewed as a complex set of interrelated premises, each one forming the basis for generating a set of alternative strategies from which a. choice or decision can. be made. Clarification of these major alternatives is accomplished by examining minor alternatives which also demand decismns. These may be further clarified by an even lesser group of alternatives. and so on. The total process becomes a hierarchy of interrelated premises. alternaw- tives and decisions leading to a single major decision... Figure 6 indicates schematically the construct of such a sequential decision system, composed of premises {P}, decisions {D}, and alternatives ‘Zarrowsl. It can be readily observed that a. decision for one group of alternatives provides the decision premise for another group of alternatives. It: might be useful to consider these premises as analogous to what the computer specialists WCfllld call instructions. These instructions guide the process of generating and CV11” ua’ing the alternatives. This decision hierarchy must be guided. in some deSIred direction or toward some desired outcome M the mayor decision. The activities within the system Inust. be efficient relative to that outcome. "It is the analysis of the problem, " states Northrup, "which provides the criterion :— ——.-_ .—.- -_to_——_I—mx 1 9Alfred Kuhnp The Study of Society: A Unified A‘p‘pr‘clacr;{Homewood Illinois: IrwinaDorsey. 196.3). 12.2.. V 36 U ”U I! INITIAL -—————+ ‘33 PREMISE «———-——i [I M D INITIAL ..—————-—* N D INITIAL .._____,, D PREMISE -——————’ Figure 6 A Sequential Decision System fl ’ix/ 11V W \\ F DMLMDR DECISION ll. :8; / "U a a \éA 11\\_ ES : EJ U "U MAJOR: GROUP DECISION ’U E! /\\/\m// \u// D P ’11 /1/\\\ A / EFZFFE \xm ‘— Figure 7 A Group Decision .37 for selecting out of the infinite number of facts in the world the few that, [are relevant."20 This analysis. through inductive means of observation. description and classification. leads to a possible solution or "idea". Ideas are anticipated consequences (forecasts). . . these ideas differ in grade according to the stage of reflection reached. . . . As ideas become more appropriate. observation likewise becomes more acute. Perception and conception work together until the former locates and describes the problem while the latter represents a possible method of solution. "21 These possible solutions can then be compared as alternatives and the best. one chosen {a decision) relative to the criterion of efficiency men» t. ioned above. The basis for choosing the best. alternative; or if you prefer; the decision criteria, must, logically be generated from desired. goals. It. has been suggested earlier that. the classification of these goals constitutes an early part. of the problem-~-solving process. Goals are based on indiviru dual or group values and this valuing process might well be considered as a type of internal decision-niaking process which structures the way in which. an individual views and evaluates exterr‘ a1 objects. All behavior is dependent upon this inner decisionInakirig process, the result. of which Kenneth Boulding calls the "Image". He states that; "an image is oneis subjective knowledge. . . the image is built, up as a re» sult. of all. past experience of the possessor of the image. . . every message is likely to change the image and as it: changes the behavior patterns change also. " The image of an individual or organization includes both images of fact and images of value. "All messages must be sifted through the _ - ”L, - ~—.;-;:-.s-.—_-._nn 0N0rthrup, The Logic of the Sciences? . . , '34. 21 Morelly 22. 38 receiver’s Value system. "22 In this way Boulding is suggesting a complex interaction between inner and outer behavior. Behavior depends on the image and. ithrough a feedback process) the image depends on behavior {of both individual and group). Figure 7 is a schematic; indication of how a sequential decision system might. be structured leading from individual values to a major group decision. The discussion thus far has structured the analysis of choice in terms of decision premises which. now provides a conceptual framework for describing and explaining the process of deciding. This framework- can conceivably extend back to the basic. inner premises or primary Inotive and build forward in a series of premises. alternatives. and decisions which might be termed a sequential decision system. Information 'must continua ally flow backward within this system so that knowledge can take form and, make more refined decisions possible. Planning can be construed in terms of. this concept to be a conscious process of deliberate anticipation directed. toward bringing some expected situation. under control relative to individual and /cr group goals and objectives. It now remains to examine the micro-~- components of this system. or. put. another way. the behavioral process by which the alternatives are generated. It was suggested in the opening section of this chapter that. the feed» b3 ck loop is the fundamental building block for all forms of behavior. Some concepts of how this feedback loop operates within the sequential decision process will now be examined briefly in order to complete this Inodel of the decision process. ZKenneth Boulding. The Image {Ann Arbor: Michigan: Univ. of Michigan Press. 1956). 39 As discussed earlier, Miller; Calanter and Pribani considered a ”Plan" to be ”any hierarchial process in. the organism that can control the order in which a sequence of operations is to be performed. ”23 This concept. is very similar to Simon's concept of the premise in that they maintain that "a creature is executing a particular Plan when in fact. that Plan is controlling the sequence of operations he is carrying out. "24 They suggest that once a clear image {in Boulding's terms} of a desired outcome is formed; it can be used to provide the conditions for perform=~ ing a series of tests which; when arranged in sequence; provide a crude 25 Such Plans can be described as TOTE strategy for a possible Plan. units and more complicated Plans are built. up of. subplans th at. are them->- selves TOTE units {as illustrated in Figure 5}. Thus a micro step in the decision~making process might be conceived to consist of. a set of hierarchial TOTE units with the last test. in each TOTE hierarchy result»: ing in .a pertinent: alternative. The product of the whole set of hierarchial TOTE units would be a set of pertinent alternatives from which a choice could be made relative to the overall goals or image. If. as the authors maintain. the TOTE unit. is an explanation of been havior in general. 26 then this unit. must. also be basic: to the choice process which culminates in a single alternative being chosen as most. desirable . -- tle decision. It is not hard to visualize a testing process being formulated from the goals against which each alternative stra tegy could be measured resulting in a. single best strategy. The details of such a mechanism will be examined in the next; section. It is sufficient for this discussion simply to make clear that. such a process does consist of a series of tests and .-M- .. -..._ n——-—_--—_.—— 23Miller. Galanter and Pribram. 16. 24lbid.. 26. 25mm, 38. 261mg. 29. -._.;- .; =4¢4 4O accompanying Operations which could be visualized. as a TOTE hierarchy. Jay W. Forrester's convept of. tlre decisiorwmaking process is basically very similar to the theory discussed thus far. He visualizes the process as an informationufeedhack system in which presently available information about the past: is continuouslv being used as a ba sis for future action. 27 Figure 8 shows the structure of his basic unit and Figure 9 shows how he visualizes this unit. in a decisionarnaking system. 28 Cornpariu son of this concept with the TOTE unit. makes clear that the "decision" and, "test." steps involve the same type of activity... and that. the "a<'-.*:i()'n” and "operate" steps are also similar. Thus.) although these theorists use dif~ ferent terms and symbols. they are essentially talking about. the same phenomenon. In The Study of Society; A Unified Approigghg Alfred. Kuhn describes this process as a cybernetic; {controlled} system with three rn-ajor compo-:1 nents: {I} a "detector”, or sensor; which is sensitive to the st.1te of the variable to be controlled: '{2.) a "selector". or governor, which is capable of selecting among two or more possible resonses on the ldsis of {al the information sensed by the deteotor and Eh) the preference of the governor; ..3n:1{3:9 the "effector". which is capable of producing some (large of affairs sensed by the detector {See Figure 10}. 30 For comparative purposes it might be more useful. to re-«structure his diagram as shown. in Figure 11. From this diagram it can he seen that: the ”selector" is similar to "test." or "decision" and that the "effector" is —- Jun. 27 28 Forrester, 40. l’bid“ 41—42.. Jay W. Forrester treats this subject, in depth. in lndusgijl- Dynjflgu 1.55.. {New York: M. I. T. Press and John Wiley, 1961). O K uhn. 45. 41 l" "" "" { INFUE-IATION k— "" ""1 I 44 I. l L DECISION l— —- -— -- —- -—)l ACTION Figure 8 Decisions and Information Feedback Source: see footnote 28 //’[:("”-.“\ Figure 9 Multiloop Decision Making System Source: see footnote 28 42 G smcm eeneed (instructions) informatio DETECTOR G é‘f°°dba°k ® EFFEC'IUR Figure 10 Kuhn's Cybernetic System Source: see footnote 30 DETECflOR SELEC$OR EFFECTOR e... 9QW® ,4N\ infbrmation feedback Figure 11 Kuhn's Cybernetic System Restructured 43 similar to "operate" or "action". The "detector" is a type of pre--- selection process which filters the i::;forrnation flowing to the "selector". In TOTE terms this latter component might well be described. as a prew test and set. up separately to the other two components. By this means Kuhn’s concept can be visualized as basically the same as tlze others. Near the beginning of his exc ellent bcok, Kuhn. proposes flat "many seemingly unrelated things follow similar or identical rules of behavior. and that. knowledge of one therefore provides urderstanding of another. "31 Thus Human and social values {sha red values} might be conceived of in much the same way as personal values ---~ as backward. extensions of the group or organizational decisionmmaking model {note Figure 7). In this way they can he described as direct linear extensions rather than obtuse permeating influences. Thus a group or organization. has a "shared image" which consists of public knowledge. The group. too, has a value system which. sifts incoming informational Inessages. accepting only those which are pertinent to its goals and objectives. Such " cornpor-ent. Without a process would be analogous to Kuhn‘s "selector it. the group's information and. communicatlcm systems niiglzt soon clog up with. irrelevant niatzerial; a situation often ev1denc ed. in beginning plan» ning groups that choose to start by gathering all sorts of data without any selection guidelines to aid them. This "shared image" concept must also include the complexities associated with the fact. that human and. social values are both determined. by. and determinants of. personal. values. Personal values are determined by human and social values, and human and social values are products of aggregate personal values. Maruyama discusses these interactions as 31 32.1.9.2 4» 44 "mutual causal processes". 32 Culture is a product of all these realms of value and all must be included in a comprehensive and Inethodological model of the decision-making process. "We constitute our culture and. our world through choosing our main interests and formulating our ways ”33 of thinking in. accordance with them. The Decision Matrix The decision process requires that a single strategy must be chosen. from a number of alternatives. It was suggested in the preceding section that a testing process could be formulated from the goals against: which each alternative strategy could be measured in order to arrive at a single best strategy. The following discussion. is devoted. to the dest- cription and operation of a mechanism for performing this task. As discussed in the preceding section. alternative strategies are generated by means of the behavioral processes of the decision. maker. They have their initial derivation. in the decision maker‘s value system and their generation is controlled. by him {or by the group in the case of shared. decisions). Thus all. factors which are combined in an alternative strategy might be referred to as controllable factors. In considering a set of. altern- native strategies, the decision maker must. also be concerned with factors which are not. under his control, but. which might. affect the performance of the alternative strategies in the attainment. of the specified. goals. Examples of such factors might; include floods, temperature. clouds; earthquakes, the economic: state of the country, and so forth. Martin Starr refers to —-_.-.. —.—._..—_-_- mm-I—J— u—‘AL — _. ..--.—n 'BZMagoroh Maruyama "The Second vaernetics: Deviations Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes. " American Scientist. Ll {lune9 1963} 164 l 79 . -___--- I- ._ .- “I ‘ “fl” ., ‘3‘35anford 5. Farness "The Planning Process and Environmental Health. " unpublished paper presented at. the Conference on Environmental Health Planning for Metropolitan Areas. School of Public: Health Univerw sity of Michigan. Ann Arbor. March 23;. 1964. 45 sets of these nonconfrollable factors as "states of. nature. "‘34 He asserts: "At best we are able to make a prediction about. the probable frequencies with which the various states of nature might. occur. "35 It becomes extremely important: in considering a particular dew cision problem. to keep the number of states of nature to a minimum by ensuring that: there is direct applicability of each state of nature to the goals. Thus it would appear logical to conceptualize the generation of pertinent states of nature by a testing mechanism such as the TOTE unit; described previously. "Strategies and states of nature define the backbone of decision problems. They define the combination of things that could be. That. is. if. we arrange the elements under our control. in a specific way and then the elements not under our control happen in a. certain way. this particum lar combination produces certain results. We shall. call these cutcomes. "36 These outcomes relate to detailed goals which might, now he considered. as desired outcomes. A comparison between the outcomes and. the desired outcome will then. provide relevant. measures of effectiveness for each outcome {outcome ’measuresl. From the foregoing it. can be seen. that. the complete clarification of goals is necessary to the success of this mechanism; that is, the more detailed the goals can be made, the better the decision will be. relative to those goals. Once again. it seems logical, to conceptualize this comparison. of detailed goals with outcomes as consisting of a hierarchy of TOTE units; uni—um 3:.- ~.,>_-u -.mnu‘ ..umgu—z; 34Martin K. Starr. 33.9.5111“ Design and Decisi_o~n_l_'l_l:_egii {Engle-= wood Cliffs. N. 3. : Prentice-AHzalli. 19b3}. 16. 3511933.. 17. 36mm. 19. Luan- 1.... n 46 with the tests being dependent. upon, the nature of the goals for a specific. decision problem. As Starr points out, ”The outcome measure or mea~= sures that. will. be appropriate must depend entirely upon. the objectives and purposes of the decision problem. "37 Figure 12 illustrates how the strategies and states of nature are brought together to produce outcomes in the form of a. ”decision matrix- ”.3 Figure 13 indicates schematically this entire choice process with its inputs and output. when it is conceptualized as a unit: mechanism for aiding decision makers. Hereafter it will be referred to as the ”Strategy Selector. "'39 Network Analysis "Superior planning feeds on a greater abundance of information- Significant. advances in datamprocessing methods have put: us in a position. to obtain and synthesize much more information. than. formerly we could handle. But our decision methods must be able’ to cope with this abu‘nu- dance.”40 One of the most useful means for dealing with complex phenomena. of all. kinds is the network. A network. as illustrated in Figure .14, is . simply a set. of representative nodes and their significant. interconnecting links. Any phenomenon that can. be broken down. into its ix‘nterconnected components can be described by this means. For example. it is not. hard to visualize such a network represent---~ ing a group of cities interconnected by major highways, or even a. piece '37Lbid... 28. 38 . . . _ . . _ lbid. , 18; when competitive elements are involved. in. the dew cision system these outcomes are often. referred. to as "payoffs". and the decision matrix is then called a "payoff matrix. " 39 40 .Ibid... 20. Ibid. 6. ¢—=r—. n-n 47 P1 P2 ———————— Pd ———————— Pm N1 N2 ———————— NJ ———————— Nm 81011012 --------013 ---—--——01m 31 $21 022 ““““““ 02j ------- — 02m ' I l I I : I . ' I I I I I I I I 31 011012 "“""“"'"‘"”013 -‘ ------- 01111 I | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I 8n 0:11 0n2 ------ "" Onj ““““““““ Onm Figure 12 The Decision Matrix of Outcomes Source: see footnote 39 Desired Outcomes ___7 Alternative STRATEGY The Chosen :>> Strategies SELECTOR Strategy (plan) States of Nature Figure 13 The Strategy Selector 48 of machinery with each. component. attached to the other by some connect.» ing device. It. is Inore difficult; perhaps. to imagine the network as a description of a group or organization with the nodes being people or positions and the connecting links being control. or information. flows... or to imagine it. as a schedule in which the nodes are important sequential events and the connecting links are actions leading up to those events, but. these are equally meaningful uses of the network. It sould be noted also that the network can be conceptualized in hierarchical form, that is. the parts of the network can be visualized as being made up of lesser networks, and. so on. Dependency Networks ~~ When the network is given. directional emphasis by making the operational characteristics of nodes and links dependent upon the completion of preceding nodes and links then it is often referred to as a dependency network. as illustrated. in Figure 15. Any complex phenomenon which consists of sequential. components can. be described in this fashion. where the links not only serve to connect: nodes but also to indicate the necessary direction of cperations. This type of network has tremendous application in the “realm of de cision making and programming. New "ways of utilizing it. are constantlv being developed. The following discussion will briefly mention those ap~ P1 i Cations which appear most pertinent to this inquiry. The Decision Tree An example of a simple decision tree is Show in Figure 16. 41 It is a tool for decision makers, indicating for them all the possible alternative courses of action for a. particular dew Clsion. and all. the alternative branch courses of action which will grow from the primary alternatives. By this means the decision maker can .\»\ _-. -_-__r__..r. v- 41John F. Magee. ”Decision Trees for Decision Making, " BEL" ~E£d Business Review. XLII. ,. 4 :{JulymAugush 1964). 126-4138. Figure 14 A Network Figure 15 A Dependency Network 50 systematically analyze the many possible outcomes emanating from the decision and then compare these with his desired outcomes. possibly with the aid of the Strategy Selector described. in. the preceding section. in order to select a course of action and make a decision. In discussing the utility of such a tool for business managers, John F. .Magee states: "The decision tree can. clarify for managementy as can no other analytic a1 tool that I know of the choices, risks, objectives. monetary gains. and information needs involved in an investment. problem. We shall. be hearing a great deal. about decision trees in the years ahead. "42 William M. Fox. discusses this type of dependency network: in terms of the probable consequences arising from each decision. He refers to it. .as a. "consequences tree. "45 This concept appears to fit: the preceding discussion more closely. In fact. the whole concept might be further clarie fied by referring to it as an "outcomes tree. " Network Planning Techniques -- Dependency networks it ave proven to be of great value in planning programs of various kinds or. more 8 imply. programming. The establishment. of a network represents the a. (tiled. procedure to be followed. According to Thomas Sobczak: ”Network planning requires that the project be defined in terms of clearly discernible mil estones and the relationship which exists between these Inilestones. An event: is a milestone. Events are clear and unambiguous occurrences Whi Ch represent the start or end of an activity, which occur only once. and are of significance to a management system. The action “which occurs between even ts is called activity. Activities are operations "which take lmeg manpower or money. characterized by a specific. initial event: and \ ‘\ 42Ibid. F 43William M. Fox. The Management, Prpcesggjfixfilntegiate‘d ~23£tional Approach ifHomewood. Illinois: Irwin. 196.3}. BPS-#37. 51 Outdoors Decision Indoors [:1 Decision Point Chance Event (weather) Figure 16 Ruined Refreshments Damp Guests Rain Unhappiness No'Rain Very Pleasant Party Distinct Comfort Crowded But Dry Happy R31 Proper Feeling of Being Sensible No Rain Crowded, Hot liegrets About. What Might Have Been A Decision Tree for e Cocktail Party Source: see footnote 41. =§ Critical Path Figure 17 A PERT / CPM Network 52 terminal event. "44 Thus. within the previously described. concept of a dependency network. events are synonomous to nodes... and activities are directional links. By this means, then; the network actually becomes a flow diagram of those logically developed. sequential steps necessary to attain some clearly defined end. objective. Thus it can be seen that. events are dependent upon all preceding connected events through the life of a program. The final event. of course, is dependent upon all other events in the program. A path is two or more events linked by activities. If each activity is assigned a time factor for its completion, then the longest: path through the entire network. is referred to as the critical. path. Establishment of the critical path determines the total time required. and allows the prom grammer to schedule the complete project: in advance. Activities not on the critical path will have extra or slack time available for their comple» t ion. thus allowing the programmer varying degrees of. flexibility in plan-- ning the schedule. The use of dum'my activities and events i‘ also of. importance. "A dummy activity is one which does not require any manpower or time for completion. A dummy event is one inserted for the purpose of specifying Ho (3 occurrence of some specific time in which management is interested. "45 Dut‘nmy activities are used. to build constraints into the program... Thesepthen. are the major concepts intrinsic to the use of PERT ‘1’) (‘1 CPM techniques introduced in Chapter 1.. Their use gives the project. n1a.nager a dymanic basis for making decisions both. at the start and through—m 44 ¥a79£ics t: East Lansing: Michigan State University; Autumn, l—Qb-Zr‘ -- :62“ " 4 5Ibid. _—_ “—1 Thomas Sobszak "Network Planning Techniques. " Business ‘I‘ '5‘; 53 out the life of a given project. Figure 17 illustrates a PERT/CPM network with minimum estin'iite; "best estimate", and maximum estiu d mates of the necessary time for each activity shown above the activity line and an averaged Hworking estimate" indicated beneath the line. The critical path through the network. is indicated in doublewline activities. Expected dates and latest allowable dates may be computed for each. event.3 and slack (the time difference between the expected date and the latest allowable date) may then be determined for each path. in. the network ithe critical. path. of course. having zero slack). Activities shown with zero time are dummy activities. In constructing such a network the first. task. is to define carefully the parameters within which the project will. take place. This includes. most importantly, a. complete definition of the start and end points. The network then becomes a logical flow of what mu st. occur between start. and completion of a project. It is constructed by first listing all the events which must. precede each. of those listed. Time is not. considered at: this stage. but it is important to note, as stated by Sobczak_. that ”if the selected events are not properly defined. the layout of the network. is meaningless and useless for time estimating purposes. "46 Once the list of all. events with their precedents has been completed. the actual laying out of the network. can. begin. Some network theorists ad» Vocate working backward from the end objective while others suggest. start..- ing at the beginning. Whichever Inethod is preferred, the process essen—1 tially involves a slow trial and error procedure of linking events together by means of required. activities in a. diagram. The three previously mens tioned time estimates for each activity can then be ascertained and an 461bid. 54- average time factor computed for each. Each. path. through the network c .111 then be added and a critical path ascertained fr-oni which slack; times can be computed for all activities not on the critical p1tt. Man.» power and cost factors can also be computed. This has been a very brief description of a very pcwerful dec:ision.-~ making tool which is beginning to play an increasing role in programming planning activities. Its main drawback for planning purposes appears to be in the difficulty of establishing a comprehensive set of events for a complex planning program and arranging these sequentially. The next chapter is devoted to establishing a logical. set of guidelines for approach-w ing this task. System 3 Analysis Any set of interrelated or interacting components can. be referred to as a system. Kuhn classifies systems as being either "real." or "analu ytical. " He states that. "a real system can be either m.ia.r~mride or natu-n ral. Political: communications transportation; and missile systems are man.~made, while the solar system, a river system; or the c..i.rcu]atory system of the dog are natural. " He describes an analytical system as a model which "is used for the purpose of. understanding describing, anal:- yzing or planning. . . it. may or may not be intended to correspond to any» "47 He goes on to suggest that either real or thing in the real world. analytical systems can appear in. hierarchies and that a 1'11'd._101‘ use of analytical systems, or models, is to aid in the understanding of real systems {it may conie into existence either before or after the real sysu tem. depending on the need}. John Gifford defines a system. as "any specific group of elements “nu—wan...- . »- . .ua.’_ —-. . u.- 4 7Kuhn, 39. 55 which stand. in relation to one another in definable ways according to a given set of rules. " He goes on to point out that. "the meaning of a. col-‘- ,lection of elements. insofar as they constitute a system, may be taken to reside solely in their interconnections. " He too recognizes the hierar-u chical nature of systems when he suggests that. there may be a complex structure of subsystems Within :a single system; each one being increasw ineg more comprehensive. "The whole is dependent; upon the parts and anythingthat affects the whole affects the parts. "48 An increasing group of theorists from such. seemirgly diverse fields as business, biology; ecology, sociology. anthropolcgy, psychology. geography, engineering, political science. and economics have come to the realization that there may be common principles of behavior for all phenomena which. can be dealt with. in systems terms. They advocate a general. field of endeavor devoted to systems analysis whic h would provide a unified approach for the study of all. phenomena; and which would tie all. disciplines together in a me aningful. relationship. As pointed. out by Stewart Marquis; Systems theories suggest that: the total functioning urban region can. be under stood. or ”comprehended." within. a framework. which. takes into account. both the ch a.:rac.terist1cs of the many individual parts and the ways in which they are interconnected and interacting to make up the istructure‘ and. 'operations' of the total urban region. "49 Such an approach to the study of urban phenomena 48John V. Gifford, Jr. , ”The Nature of the City as a System. ” unpublished paper presented before the Bay Area Systems Group of the Society for General Systems Research. November 15. 1962.. {Mimeou- graphed.) 49Stewart D. Marquis, ”The Urban-Regional Ecosystem: .An Operational Research and Planning Approach, " rough discussion draft. Michigan State University. East Lansing: March, 1965. {Mimeographed..) 56 would lead to the construction of analytical systems or models. of real. urban systems. Such models could then- he used as a. base for analysis and design leading to suggested alterations in the real systems in order to bring about increased satisfaction of human goals. In discussing this type of approach to urban phenomena. Gifford makes clear that. "such an application would of course need to be guided by the difference between the theoretical requirements of planning. as a decision process. and of urban studies generally, as concerned with the nature of the structure and functioning of urbanized areas. . . it is suggested that this difference may be reduced through a recognition of the dependence of the first upon an understanding of the second. "50 Thus it becomes Vital: in attempting to utilize systems theory in the study of urban phenomena, that the planning process be the roughly understood as a sequential decisionwmaking process which produces change in real urban systems. The systems approach provides a framework for Visualizing inter:- nal and external environmental factors as an. integrated whole. Under such a concept the planning process can. be considered as the vehicle for accomm plishing system change. The means can, be made to satisfy the ends Eindiu vidusal and. group goals) through the decision-“making process. Thus man is seen to have the choice of adapting to the ex1sting environment or shaping a new environment. He has entered the era of conscious choice. Praise Design, according to Webster. is "the arrangement of parts, de-w tails, form, color. etc. _. especially so as to produce a. complete and w-‘h—x-‘L — 50John V. Gifford, Jr. , "The Implications of a Systems Theory of Urban Structure for Planning and Urban Studies" Department of City Planning, City and County of San Francisco. June, 1964. {Mimeo-n graphed. ) 67 artistic unit. "51 Such an arrangement takes place in response to indie vidual or social. needs 01 some kind. Thus design is an activity common to all. fields of human endeavor involving change. lit. is practised in a wide variety of ways, from the very informal. highly intuitive methods of the artisanmcraftsmam to the formal; scientific approach utilizied in today‘s space and defense industries. Within all these forms of design there exists some degree of creativity: 1a strong element of organization and a progression from the abstract. to the concrete. ln the words of Cherm mayeff and Alexander: "The designer's task is to create order. "52 In a recent. article. J. Morley English discusses engineering design in terms of the input and output of a system. He describes "analysis" as determining the output. when given an input and a system, and he describes "synthesis" as determining the system to accomplish a specified desired output when given. the input... "ln the former there is usually a unique solution; in. the latter there are many possible systems. "5‘3 A major objective of design is to find the best possible system. This concept: is treated in great: detail by Cliristiopher Alexander in his recent book. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. in Which he defines ,.:-— - -M-l AAA 4 form as the ultimate object of all design. He points out, that. "every design. problem begins with an effort to achieve fitness between two entities: in form in question and. its context. The form is the solution. to the problem; the context defines the problem. In other words, when we speak of den —_.- - .— u-e...-;-- — l Webster's New World Dictionary offhe American. Language s{New York: World Publishing Co. ;.. 1957). 52 Serge Chermayeff and Christopher Alexander. Community and Eizacy (Garden City, N. Y. : Doubleday. 1963);, 115. 53L Morley English, "Understanding the Engineering Design, Process. " The Journal of Industrial Engineering, XV" 6 (Nov. aDec. . l 9641);, 291m296. 58 sign. the real object of discussion is not the form alone. but the ensemble comprising the form and its ccntiext."54 He later states: Ike rightness cf the form depends. . . on the degree to which it fits the rest of. the ensemble. ”55 He describes form as a part of the world over which. the designer has con- trol. and. the context as that part. of. the world which puts demands on this form. "Fitness is a relation of mutual acceptability between these two. In a problem of design we want. to satisfy the mutual demands which the two make upon one another. "56 Thus it is only through. form ttat: the designer can create order in the ensemble. An analogy can be made at this point between the form and, context used by Alexander and the strategies and states of nature described. preu viously in Sta.rr*s decision matrix. Both of these writers are ( oncerned with separating controllable factors from noncontrollable factors in order to clarify the decision-~making process which is inherent to design as a basic problem-«solving form of human behavior. Figure 18 is a reproduction of Alexander‘s schematic. diagram indicating three possible kinds of. design process. The fir. st scheme represents an "unselfconscious situation" wherein the form is shaped by a "complex two~directional interaction" between the context {Cl}; and the form {F1} with the human being only acting as an. agent. in the process. He institutes change without imposing conc eptualized design or. the form. The second scheme represents a "selfconscicus Situation." in. which the design process becomes remote from the "ensemble. " The form is shaped by a "conceptual interaction between the conceptual picture of the context which the designer has learned and invented. on the one hand, 54Christopher Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form {Came bridge. Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. 1964}. 15. 55 56 .Ibid., 17. Ibid. _. 19. 59 context form ..WWW‘"; actual world context form actual world mental picture context form actual world mental picture formal picture of mental picture Figure 18 Three Kinds of Design Process Source: see footnote 57. 6] a nd ideas and diagrams and drawings which stand. for forms.) on the other. " Alexander points out that. the critical step during which the prob-- 1 em is prepared and translated into design invariably depends on some kind of intuition. Since designers' intuition is not always reliabie this process inspires very little confidence. He suggests that. an. improved n1 ethod is to make a further abstract picture of the first. picture. of the problem, "which eradicates its bias and retains only its abstract st.ruc--» turdl features? " as indicated in the third scheme. illustrated in Figure This third picture should examine the se( ond. according to pre- C i sely defined operations? in a way not subiect to the bias of language and Experience. He proposes? then? that: this third. picture be a. triatlxematical pi (ture based on set. theory. "The great power and beauty of the set.) as ‘71 1‘). analytical tool for design problems; is that its elements'c' arr be as V‘drious as they need be, and do not. have to be restricted only to require«- m ents which. can be expressed in quantifiable form. "58 These sets can be described as subsystems and can be shown as 1iI’Jear graphs or networks. A complete problem can then be described as h d- ierarchy of sets and subsets which Alexander illustrates in 1. treelike diagram reproduced in Figure 19. ”Each element. of the decomposition is '3- Subset. of those sets above it in. the hierarrhy. "59 Martin Starr describes a similar method in which he introduces all 1:)()Ssib1e alternatives for a system in one diagram which be (41.23 a ”design t 1‘ ee. " A fairly simple tree is reproduced. in Figure 20 with three compote 1dents and three characteristicsg but, a total of 5184 unique design config- L1rations. 60 In order to reduce the problem to manageable Size le \ 57Ibid., 76m78. 58129. 79. 591bid_., 82. 6051a”, 9. 1 a L T mm m .m mm m .m mm mm m mu a mm mm H mm H mm at 4V g “A Max 1., V1 ya», o .a e 6 Thickness 63 .Ho oaocpoom 0mm “meadow 930.com pamwnmmmwzhmvnH 00.58 mmusaoaH #93 00.5. gunmen obwmnopkm ad AN 933% oundfi « O O O i50.000. boo. $5130.98.me one. mo. mo. «mo. omo. ma. No. WHO. mmo. @mo. «No. mod mac. 8. ~00. NHo.mvoAmoflPdHHnHmmom NV #0 n0 M ham #0 .0 0 2w x w #0 n0 M0 m0 M0 n0 #0 .0 x0 .n0 m psononfioo .-Amduflh a. o. H. a. N m. e. m. e. m. m N e. a. a H. N. m. Ammapdflanammoo mv m0 My 00 m 00 m0 00 m0 m0 m pamnopaoo dwwhmpmz H. b. m. m. v. m. m. m. m. q. .V. m. Amofipwflfinwwmom «V H vnmnomaoo H. 0 q. -.0 N. m. Huwfiopmz E 3 E 3 64 int roduces an "extensive design tree"; as shown in Figure Zl, which depicts only the significant interconnections separated into individual 5 ets. Values can then be placed on the twenty~four unique configurations remaining, and paths with low values can be discarded until only a com~ parable number of alternatives remain. Each set must meet the criteru ion of being a separate system. Thus, "a des1gn decision may well be Composed of several different decision problems where the individual. de C. isions are clearly independent of each. other. "61 These have been very brief descriptions of highly complex pro-r- Ce(lures for formally abstracting design problems in order to approach ‘38 Sign in a systematic? objective fashion. The process desc ribed. tl‘us fd— 1‘ is an. analytical one am decomposition into a hierarchy of subsystems. I lie synthetic process of composition and fusion resulting in the complete di-‘a- gram for the form required is a. necessary following step before the de S ign process can be considered. as complete. Alexander's method includes the elimination of undeSiralle sub-t a1 fernatives, or "misfits " during the analytical proces" so that the 5VD~ lb 8 Sis simply consists of restructuring sub diagrams into the complete dia g ram for the form. Starr proposes elimination of only obviously LID-- de-‘S irable subrtalternatives; thus leaving several alterna'iye strategies to ]We independently synthesized and then fed into the pretiously described Strategy Selector inorder to arrive at. a single best: IUD-ii strategy. or form. It i S conceivable that Alexander‘s thesis might well be utilized within St'a-I‘r's broader concept to achieve more eftectively the. alternative strata» gle S. Such an investigation is beyond the scope of this work, tut. it does 1 . . . . - rl‘cilcate a Significant area for further inquiry. Much work remains to :— .E“,‘-.M;A 1.5.. . - \ — --d-—n—y—uua¥‘,—:u~.-p—— ‘1‘“.- ‘\_ 61mm... 11... i 2. 65 be done before a formalized cross-disciplinary design. process can be successfully developed. Planning as a Sequential DeciSion~Making Mechanism. -.—. ..z...- . w._.- _—...—-a_ .5: The discussion in this chapter has been aimed at. clarifying the real nature of the planning process, and at introducing some correp‘s from other areas of study which it. is hopedp will add, to this clarifir 1 tion. Planning has been compared. to problem solvmg in general and these two have been described as being composed of hierarchies of decisionumaking units which operate in regenerative fashion as a (Ontll"_"-' uous system of human behavior. Several ways of conceptualizing the basic unit of human behavior have been compared: ea ch one an _1Ldapt:a-a tion of the "feedback loop; " which is now generally acknowledged as the basic building block of the nervous system. It has been suggested that: these behavioral units are combined in a complex manner to at rive at individual, and. group decisions, and this behavioral construct. was scheu rnatically diagrammed as a dependency network composed, of premises, alternative strategies, and. decisions. It would appear logical, them to conceptualize the planning process as a complex hierarchy of decision-snaking networks. or systems. Viewed in this way, planning (an be thought of: as a. sequertial. decis1onm making mechanism within which individuals and groups are (ic‘ristantly engaged in building decision upon. decision in some rneaningfui way to produce outcomes or plans which Will guide future activities toward desirable human goals. The Strategy Selector has been proposed as a basic: planning unit, in which alternative strategies: generated from controllable factors in a particular system? can be mixed with nonc ontrc-i-llable states of nature. 66 CT constraints, to produce outcomes which can be ccmpared 4nd evalu~ ated With respect. to detailed goals; or desired outccnies. re sulting in the choice of a single best. sti ategv to guide the development of the system toward some stated goals. It is apparent that the efficiency of the Stra~ tegy Selector depends directly upon the degree to which each input. can be described in. terms comparable to the others. If all inpu‘s ( an he described in identical mathematical terms then the Strategv Selector becomes automatic. If, as is more likely, the inputs can crrlv he deal-4 cribed in verbal terms, then human decision makers mus”. do the rcmparim son and evaluation in as objec‘ive a m anner as pc-.‘sible. It tlus lfeccrnes a matter of great importance to produce Strategy Selector inputs which are describable in comparable terms for the greater the degree (if corn-4 parison., the more accurate is the resulting output. The discus31on in the preceding section sugge..—'ed H ‘N alternative strategies can be systematic allv developed by nie-irs cf. -.rs (‘J-jet'i'ye design process. But, as Russell Acknff points out: “Triidesigr. is *4.“ piat__ that. is, design is the process of III—.mlx'llig decisions before We situ 2.51431. arises in. which the decision has to be carried cut. it is a process If deliberate “6'3 anticipation directed toward brirging in expec'ed situ 4.11m: 1:1 «let cortrcl. Thus it. would appear flat the design process miglt verv well he vie-Ned as a subA-planning process? that. is; it. can l—e com-epfuaiizerl a, ‘wirvg 1.13.11". of the planning process and also as svnonmnmis tc .‘l e Pit-Tritg prccess 44-» the same pattern of activities are carried out. in each. 'TI’ is re::hz;.tion is quite compatible with. the recurring theme. of bel avirsral processes heir-g structured in hierarchies, and it. 1e ads to the lvp othesis ‘h... the planning process is composed of a hierarchy of sub -pl"~.~nning processes, in a —-4— -- .1. I.t_ ‘u “ma—”.mA-M‘-“ $4.4.au. -‘_V .v'.,; :u. . 4 -.. lua‘uv-‘-. uk 4._4 -_ :2 4r.‘m 62Ackoff, 5. 67 manner similar to Alexander‘s tree diagram «;Figure 19?. With each lesser subuprocessconsisting of a structural pattern identi ‘.al to that. of the entire planning process. Such a hypothesis suggests that. design. and thus creativity. is intrinsic to each sub-part of the planning process. It. also suggests that. the Strategy Selector occurs in each sub-pa rt rather th :1.“ just at. the climactic planwselection stage. Therefore, each of the inputs feeding into the major Strategy Selector is developed by means of a process identical to that described for arrivmg at. the maior plan, and it. would appear that each of these input. development processes cculd. then be broken down into lesser identical submprocesses, depending on the complexity of the planning problem. This concept. might be further clarified by referring once again to the planning process as a problemwsolving process, and. then treating each of its major parts as sub-problems to be resolved. by the. same process used to resolve the major problem. and so c-n- Thus planning can be thought. of as a hierarchical process of sea quential decision making organized horizontally and vertically irto parts which have identical patterns of activities and events w idcr'ical both to each other and to the whole process. In its most elemeritary form this process can be diagrammed as :a complex dependency netwoik. but, in order to specify each of the activities and everts in such .1. ne‘t-arntk. a concept. of the basic repetitive pattern must be derived. Such. a concept, or model. of the planning process would allow for the development of. an organization diagram for a specific; planning problem... ".Nl‘.lt",l_'.. would then provide a framework for the specification of detailed sequential activities and events. These sequential activities and even‘s would constitute a planning program leading to a final outcome which should 68 constitute a satisfactory solution to the initial problem. Thus problems can be solved; Opportunities can be capitalized upon, and goals can be attained through this sequential. decisioncamaking~ mechanism called planning. C HAP TE R Ill. DESIGNING THE PLANNING PROCESS .. Aka. -_a In Chapter I the planning process was described as a problem:- solving process consisting of a series of related steps moving towards the accomplishment. of a stated goal. The discussion in Chapter II led to the realization that the planning process is essentially composed of a myriad of decisionamaking activities structured in a hierarchical sequence with each subestep patterned in a manner identical to the pro- cess as a whole. Consequently it. can be hypothesized that. the planning process consists of a horizontal structure; composed. of a series of related steps. and a vertical structure, composed of hierarchies of sub- planning processes each of which has a horizontal structure identical to that of the major planning process. Thus a base has been established from which a model of the plan- ning process can be designed. 1 It. is clear from the above hypothesis that such a model must be both sequential; to indir' ate the goal ~—-di:rected nature of the process, and hierarchical. to allow for infiriteiv complex planning processes. .a—ua- . - - ..s- _ .. n- s;...-,s._—x“~_p—~ ..l... i .—..;.-m __ ., _.- - ‘Ifl4m ”‘1‘. -m-.-e mum—.m 1A model is a representation of some sort. it. may lce verbal. dia-a grammatic.., threemdimensional or symbolic i. e. niatlrernaticall. The model of the planning process to he discussed in this chapter is diagram-- matic with an accompanying verbal explanation of its operatioral charac~ teristics. However, the state model. which is described as a part of the model of the planning process may be considered in any of m:- above» mentioned forms. In its most perfect form for planning purposes the state .model would be entirely symbclicg but. as yet few problematic. situations can be expressed in this form. ’ 69 70 This chapter is devoted to the design of such a planning model; a :ncdel whi-h will prcVide a I'riearaingful guide for seeking a solution to any planning probleinv Inasmuch as the design of this model can be considered a planning problem. the approach to be followed in. this chapter will be structured as a planning process beginning with the formation of con~- cepts of both the process itself and the final outcome {the model}: and proceeding through a systematic: process of decision making to a logical solution. SSS-.59 Pena)” The efforts of several theorists to define the planning process were outlined in Chapter I, These definitions can now be summarized in terms of four general sets of activzties wtich appear basic to a com- prehensive concept of a continuing planning process° 1. The first set of activities can he referred to as Concept For~ mationo In this initial stage the planner must. gain some idea of the problem and the problem environment with which Ice must dealu To use Dewey's terminology l‘e must become aware of the problematic situation. 2 He must. also identify the gcals to be attained in resolving this problem; that. is; he must. gain a. concept of the desired outcome to be achieved through tl‘e planning process a problem solution. In addition, there are a number of serial events wlrich must be realized within The planning pro.» cess before tile solution outcome can be achieved, These goals of the planning program must also be conceptualized. at. this initial stage if the remainder of the process is to take place in some systematic: fashion. kl firms, in this beginning stage; the planner chooses his way of thinking about the planning” problem; he formulates concepts of the prcblematic —..—..__:.n - - __ _-_'-.~ul- - ~1 - - 4 ~ — ———:' 2.5.1325: 38~ 71 situation and the solution outcome as well as the major planning events leading from the problem to the solution. 3 2. These concepts can then provide a base or set of guidelines for conducting the second general set of planning activities which might be termed Research. This stage consists of first, a detailed investiga— tion leading to a complete description or model of the problematic situa- tion. It has been suggested in Chapter II that such a description can be most fruitfully structured by means of systems theory. The result would thus be a state model of the system which comprises the problematic situation. The needs of later steps in the planning process, as outlined in the previously derived concepts, must be? considered and allowed for in the model design. A second phase of the Research stage is concerned with the de- lineation of existing policies (objectives, principles and standards) which influence the system, the analysis of these policies with respect to both the desired goals and the controllable factors in the system (as clarified in the system model), and the design of new or revised policies for an improved system according to the goals. These new or revised policies must be designed to serve as detailed decision criteria for the concept- ualized future steps in the planning process. They are made realistic by being directed towardponly the controllable factors in the system. A third phase of the Researchstage is concerned with pertinent . Problem solvers are constantly formulating, testing, and revis- ing concepts or ideas, in their Search for solutions. Thus concepts are 'evident at every stage of the planning process. Models, plans, and pro- grams can all be termed concepts, and there can be little doubt that some initial concepts are present before the formal planning process even begins. However, this beginning stage of the planning process, wherein ideas are formulated to guide the remainder of the process, seems most analogous to the general meaning of the term, and hence shall be formally referred to as Concept Formation. 72 sets of noncontrollable factors in the system. These should include all factors in the system which are not controllable. Once again, these factors should be clarified first in the state model of the system. An investigation can then be directed toward discovering how and to what degree these noncontrollable factors or constraints influence the real system, followed by an analysis of their role to ascertain how they might influence the system in the future. 4 Thus the set of activities within the Research stage is directed towards deriving a systematic description of the problematic situation or real system, the design of policies to guide an improved system de- sign according to the goals, and ascertaining the probable future effects of noncontrollable factors, or constraints, upon the improved system. 3. These three major outcomes, or events, (state model, poli- cies, c0nstraints) from the Research stage can then be utilized in the design of a plan and program for changing the system in order to achieve the desired goals. This third general set of planning activities can be referred to as the Design stage. It consists of, first, synthesizing the controllable factors from the system model to form alternative strategies or plans which can then be fed into the Strategy Selector5 wherein they are combined with sets of constraints, or states of nature, to provide outcomas' which can be evaluatedWith respect to.,the detailed‘pmicies. or desired outcomes, resulting in the choice of a single plan. The chosen plan then provides the basis for designing alternative program strategies which are also combined with constraints and the outcomes evaluated with respect to the detailed policies by means of the 4This phase of the Research stage was discussed more fully in Chapter II, supra,4f4.—45. ‘ ssupra 4e. 73 Strategy Selector to arrive at a single best. program. It. should be noted that the constraints and detailed polic1es utilized in. the program design will likely be somewhat different from those used in the plan design. As discussed in Chapter ll, this design stage involves a good deal of creativity on the part. of the planner if the best possiltle plan and pro- gram are to be realized. The creative element is especially critical. to the synthesis of controllable factors into alternative strategies, for it. is at this point in the process that. a limited selection of alternative combinations must be decided upon. It. is hard to imagine a design problem in which time, expense and technological criteria would allow every conceivable alternative to be investigated. Objective methodology for generating and selecting alternatives is still in the pioneer stage of development, 6 but even when perfected, it seems likely that the creative element w1ll continue to play an important role. 4. If planning is to be realistically visualized as a behavioral 7 it must include a. feedback process, then, as pointed out in Chapter II. element; that. is to say, the effectiveness of a plan and program must be evaluated relative to the goals to insure that they [plan and program} have achieved their purpose; and, if they have not, a revised planning program can then be instituted leading toward an improved plan and program. In this way planning can be seen to be :a continuing behavioral. process. Thus, in order to incorporate a meaningful. feedback element, a complete planning process must be conceived to include a fourth. general set of activities which can. be referred. to as the Action stage. This final stage includes the effectuation of the plan according to the program r.—‘_- ‘ ..u-n— :— ,___,__ — ——._-. . VA Reference is here made to the work. of such theorists as Alexa lander and Starr, supra, 56—65. ' 7§EEE~° 29 ... 30. 74 and the evaluation of the outcome relative to the goals. This evaluation can be conceptualized as taking place within the framework of a continua» ing planning process, thus leading directly to improved plans and programs, and so on. Stewart Marquis. writing on the urbanuregional ecosystem, views this complete process as the "management process", which, he suggests, includes planning "as the complete strategy for design and control of the ecosystem", and he feels that "the necessary action to achieve the designed components, subsystems and ecosystem, the continuing control, and the continuing evaluation of consequences" are necessary postmplanning acti- vities leading to ”development" and "performance" which he defines as ”the actual structural and operational outcomes. "8 This Viewpoint sug- gests, then. that planning ends with the selection of a. plan and program. This concept. of planning. as being a part of the ”management. process, " is probably much more compatible with contemporary plane: ning theory than is the previously described Viewpoint th at. the planning process must encompass the Action stage. However- if planning is to culminate in a plan, or a plan and an. accornpanyirg prograrn then it would appear that the planner'stask is finished. To be sure, there can be feedback. from the plan to the goals, but this will only result in what computer programmers call ”looping, " wherein the plan is compared to the goals over and over in constant repetition witl. no useful result emerge ing. Thus, if planning is to be a continuous process. it Inust include an effectuation and evaluation phase to allow the process to begin again with new information. 8Stewart D. Marquis, ”The Urba.n-2.Regional Ecosystem: An Opera-n tional Research. and Planning Approach, " rough discussion draft; Michigan State University, East Lansing, March 1965. 75 Engineering designers often work toward the design and construc- tion of a prototype which they test and then evaluate. The evaluation of the test results is then utilized in improving the design for the real world. This test and evaluation step in engineering design is analogous to the Ac— tion stage in planning. The plan and program are tested in the system {or possibly: in a. model of the system}. and the results; or outcomes, can then be evaluated with. respect, to the desired goals in a continuing planning process. This is not to suggest. that. the planner must play an integral role in effectuating the plan. on the contrary; just as he often relies on the aid of experts from other fields in the Research and Design stages he often relies on experts to implement the plan. Certainly this is the case in planning for urban systems, in which the planner is very often visualized as performing a service function for the many action agencies influencing the system. 9 Thus in referring back to Marquisls "management process". it can be seen that the planner really becomes a manager if he is involved in the E23323}. of all stages of the complete planning process. As a planner he is only involved in, the control of plan development, and even then: under the overriding control of the manager. {The manager of an urban system in a democracy. of course. is the elected governing body and their appointed administrators.) However; even though he is involved only in the control of plan development, this does not preclude his 9Davidoff and Reiner discuss this facet of. the planners role at some length. concluding: ”we pose for the planner the role of an overa seer. one who aids‘policy makers by observing the direction. programs are given and by suggesting means for redirecting these toward their intended goals. ” Paul Davidoff and. Thomas A. Reiner. "A Choice Theory of Planning. " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. XXVIl-LZ {Maw 1962). 103-115. __ “‘“'"”*”"“' 76 interest and active involvement (assistance, observation, and evalua- tion) in the plan effectuation phase. In fact, he must be involved in this phase to judge the effectiveness of the plan and to collect data from which he can structure a new and improved plan (assuming that the ideal solution is never reached). This involvement in the developmental pro-4 cess is an essential part of planning. It makes possible a continuing planning process. This comprehensive view of the planning process is not only nec- essary to the continuity of the planning function; it is also intrinsic to the hierarchical concept of the planning process suggested at the begin- ning of this chapter. For, in order to structure the parts of the planning process as sub-planning processes, structural outcomesa‘mustbeiormu- lated. For example, it is not sufficient for the plan design step to cul- minate in a plan for the plan, or a program for arriving at the plan. What isneeded is the plan itself -- the solution outcome of the plan design step sub-planning process. Thus these four general sets of planning activities, taken sequen- tially, constitute an initial concept of the planning process. Figure 22 illustrates them in sequential order with the major elements of each indicated as serial sub-parts under each major planning stage. It now remains to investigate the relationships between the major elements to determine how they fit together as a single process, and then to design and test a model of this process which can be used as a framework for structuring planning programs of any degree of complexity. Research As has been suggested in the preceding section, the Research stage consists of three phases: model design, policies design, and con- straints development. Because of the dependence of the latter two phases 77 00000.5 gm on... «0 3358 Hand: BEBE 0.35 # 0.356 «0 00.35 00000.5 mag: «303.000 0 M0 9302 ha. anoagoamaH Bowman Hwfig find «Bovmhm wobonmaH an no.“ no H0 ..d—”om 05. 3 gfluaom momma"? «0 00.3315 _ # _ _ 3050.5 3. $50,834 sopmhm 5.. newsman 0098.3 H0 nofiuugoommm y— onBd 1 Emma no.3 magma IOHQBH .3.“ .mowmo $0.3m ho 5&3»on ”#3088de .Ho swam—on _ _ no.3 pmmm ofinfim «0 032.8 _ _ aopmhm mngOHQaH Ha .oowmggum .n0 .303 . gflufifid .8 .938 1 «0 9330.359 #0053.»wa 933.3300 mmome 353038 ofiulfipnoo Inoz mo 8.300309 fi _ 5&8m 3258 no 9900000 339nm cabana—H H09 uoaofinom m0 nmwmom 8099?. 025.55“ M0 advance _ _ «Quench aopmhm MO 50556 8383383 3.08 mafia—8.3 _ L _ H aovmhm no Hopes 003m «0 0030390000 ”H0300 33.83 mdwoo 839mm _ _ _ _ 3305.3.“ aopmhm Gofiwfifim 5393* 05a33m 538m _ a _ _ w; d g $33.3 838348, aopmhm a h g _ _ - Au zen—”egg agar/4.8 78 on irforms‘ion from the model; it. would appear that the model. must. be constructed first followed bv the policies design and constraints develw opmento However, as with most. rules there are some exceptions and the sequential order of these three phases shculd he considered to be quite flexible depending completely on the problem it hand“ For most purposes it will be convenient to consider model design first fcllowed bv policies design and then constraints development but with generous allowance for considerable feedback and interaction among all three phases. Thus the first task within this stage is to conduct research and anslvsis leading to an adequate description or model of the ccmplete plsnnir-g process corceptuslized in the preceding section. This model csn then be used as a base from which to build an improved. H10d€l_ relax- tive to the purposes, or goals. set out at the beginning of this Chapter. As an initial step toward the construction of a 'model of the plan-l ning process. it might be well to exsmine the development. of the plan onlv. Figure 23 illustrates a schematic information flow diagram of the previously conceptualized major elements leading to the development of «3. plan. It begins with a survev of the problematic situaticn to provide prelirnir-arv data for the first set of activities which ras been pretriously described as Concept Formation. From the concepts thus formed search criteria can be deduced which provide guidelines for conducting research and analvsis resulting in model elements which (:11 then be cornbired into a model which is expressed in terms of CODTI‘C‘:llle‘le ard noncortrollsble frictors. The controllst'le factors serve along with goals expressed as cor cepts of the solution outcome as inputs to the policies formstion steps which result in the specification of criteria for a set of desired outcomes and a set of less specific decision criteria which are used in the selection of pertinent. sets of controllahle fartorso This exsn'iina l 7 pauEQOHoon swam mm Paafl 33,34 ill... azaaBEmm 28825sz 35% a . EHéemzoo Bamwwmwmmwwé ammo: Hogan? mufimmfi “33.328 mo upwmv ohupaz mo u¢pmpm “303$ @305 , $33.8» «£320 88 $333 mommuwbm mamas?“ 3&5?”an fiéom obfivwchmwfid uoaoopso canopfiho A 8.389 8338 fillu! zousapm i 28.328 r £858 380 $328 80 tion and combination of controllable factors into a limited number of selected pertinent sets, or strategies, is referred to as synthesis. It might well be called design, but this term shall be reserved for the more complete process which includes the choice of a single best alternative strategy (the Action stage). Concurrently with these policies-formation and synthesis activities, the noncontrollable factors from the model are being examined and their future influence assessed in terms of proba- bilities. They are then also combined in alternative sets. ‘ In this way, then, the three major inputs to the Strategy Selector are developed. Within this mechanism the alternative strategies are. then combined with the alternative sets of constraints, or states of nature, within the model framework to provide a matrix of outcomes which are then compared and evaluated with respect to the desired out- comes to result in the choice of a single best strategy. This single strategy is the plan. It was pointed out in the preceding section that the Strategy Selector (along with the generation of its inputs) also plays a major role in determining the single best program. Furthermore, - it seems rea- sonable to assume that it can also be used in determining the concepts, state model, policies and constraints. Viewed in this way, each of these major steps in the planning process is composed of sub-steps which are identical to the steps in the complete planning process, and each culminates in the choice of a single best outcome which is arrived at by means of the Strategy Selector. Thus the Strategy Selector becomes the essen- tial ingredient of the Action, or testing and evaluation, stage. This implies that not one, but several, alternative plans and programs may be developed in each sub-step for testing in the Strategy Selector, whereas at the major level (leading to action in the real world) only 81 one plan and program is combined with one actual state of nature, or set of constraints to produce a single real outcome for evaluation. From this hypothesis a diagrammatic representation .Iinformau tion flow diagram) can be derived for a basic planning unit which can be applied at any level of the planning process. Such a diagram is illus- trated in Figure 24. It indicates separate policies inputs for plan den sign and program design as well as for the action step. Each of these steps also has separate constraints inputs. In addition, the program design step has a direct input. from the model which includes controllable factors peculiar to program design. It should also be noted that. feedback is to be considered an inherent. element of. each step; that. is, the process in any step can refer back to any of the preceding steps; and, if neces-« sary, a complete rem-cycling process can take place by this means should a basic flaw be discovered in a preceding step. With. this basic planning unit in hand, a description of. the planning process in action as a control mechanism for a real system can be struc- tured. Such a description is illustrated in Figure 2.5, entitled ”System Control Model". Data from the real system are fed into the planning process by means of an initial survey of the system and these data serve as a basis for concept formation and system evaluation which, in turn, provides criteria for conducting research and analysis leading to construc- tion of a state model of the system. The model then provides controlw lable factors for guiding the formation of policy and for generating alter» native strategies leading to the plan, and noncontrollable factors for the development of sets of probable constraints which; together with the policies, are inputs to the plan design and program design steps, thus providing all of the necessary information for choosing a plan and pro» gram by means of Strategy Selectors. The plan is then implemented, , ZOHHQ< +m page mfiafifl 03am HzmzmQHERRH mBZHdemzoo «magma .ZOHBDntmzoo ammo: mHmHHd24 momdmmmm 20Hadxmom — mHHUHAom E. 20Hamzm , ammoz Om 00 . according to the program, in the action step; and. changes result, in the real system which can then be noted and evaluated in a second. cycle of the planning process which then, of course. includes revamping the model and re~examining the policies, followed by the design of a new plan and program for an improved system, and so on. An alternative scheme would be to test the plan, according to the program, in an analytic system {model of the real system), and then evaluate the results in a seCond cycle of the planning process. This pro~ cedure is referred to as simulation. It allows the plan and program to be tested in a synthetic situation before expending time and money in a real system test. The use of simulation has obvious advantages for planners working with complex systems such as thoseexperienced in urban and regional situations. 10 A more detailed diagram illustrating the operation of the planning unit subwsteps within each step of the System Control Model is shown in the Appendix. This enlarged version indicates more specifically how the flows of information are connected within each step of the model. The System Control Model thus prcvides a basis for formulating a model of the planning process. To it must be added policies and con» straints to be used as decision. criteria in developing the planning model and in judging its merit. The major criteria evident from earlier discussion are that the model must be sequential, it must. be capable of beirvg expressed hier— archically, and it must. be behavioral (exhibit feedback and continuity, or rewcycling capability). It is also evident. that. if the planning model 10See Britton Harris, "Plan or Projection: An Examination of the Use of Models in Planning, ” Journal of thetAmericgan lniitutepi Plannelg, Vol. XXVlmél {November 1960) 265-272. 84 Hung: Honvnoo aupmhw mm ohnwfim ampmhm o» wmmwwso HzmzmQHERHH 2.225928 33528 . 33.5.88 5E awAmOHm _ zOHHUDKBmzoo ongomh Hang Anouawasawmv _ zmamwm UHHMH¢Zd — 4 oHpaHHOHpnoonoz- L unapomm maweamhmohm Mofieoom mHmwmazd , «3320 £33 .szmmn whovouh 5&on “as 95 ofiaflobaou undefiaom nowaaaom wcwaaunwOAm mnfiqncdm ZOHdemom mMHoHAom nfiwoo 20Hadqu>m zmammm Gad 20He¢zmom smmozoo undone aoo avvnhm 85 is to provide a guide to constructing a planning program, then it. must lead direc'ly into a dependency ne'work. For as preViously noted. the dependency network has become the most meaningful tool for expressing programs of all types. A breakdown of the System Control Model :Figure 25': into a hierarchy of sub. planning units would require a, three dimensional model for accurate presentation. The use of three dimensions is not convenient. or practical for most planning studies so a constraining factor in the design of a planning model is to maintain its construct in two dimensions at any degree of complexity. This suggests that the basic planning model must be one-dimensional; or linear so that any breakdown irf‘o lesser parts can occur as a second dimension. Pesi n In the foregoing; planning has been described in its simplest form as problem solving in not only seeking; but achieving the solution to a problem. The planning process has been discussed as a series of hierm archical steps leading from the problem to the solution. The process has as its starting point. a particular problem which is irnbedded in a particu~= lar problematic situation. 11 This initial basis for beginnino the planning process might} be referred to as the planning premise and the end point or result of the planning process can be termed the solution outcome. Each. one of the sequential steps leading from the planning premise to the solu‘-- tion outcome can also be viewed, as a problem—solving process leading from a sub splanning premise to a sub-“solution outcome. Thus each of these steps could be broken down into sub steps which could then. be des~ cribed as subw-submplanning processes, and so on, depending on the ._ A- _ g... u .-g-.—_ _,_;_-—_.._-.-—rx~n ..u— MIzg—a—Iréafin-‘A‘—a 86 complexity of the problem and problematic situation being investigated. Such a construct is analogous to the decisionamaking network illustrated in Figures 6 and 712 in which each event in the network is both an outcome from the preceding set of activities and a premise for the following set of activities. Thought of in this way. the planning process can be modelled as a hierarchical sequence of activities and events. It was pointed out in the preceding section that this rncdel should be one~dimensiona1 or linear if it is to be conveniently broken down. into a detailed program network. But, it is clear from the System Control Model {Figure 25) that all information flows do not take place in a con- venient linear fashion. Therefore, in constructing a linear model of the planning process: an initial assumption must. be that the premise for each set of activities automatically includes all of the events which have pre- ceded it rather than just the outcome from the immediate preceding set of activities. A review of the System Control Model in light: of the foregoing discussion reveals that the concept formation and systetn evaluation step can be conveniently combined with the initial survey to provide a single event consisting of concepts of the problem premise and the solution outcome. as well .as concepts of all other intermediate events in the planning process. This event would then. include such popular planning terms as the problem statement. planning program; and statement. of goals. A second logical combination would put, the research and analy«- sis step together with the model construction s‘ep to provide a single event. consisting of the state model of the system. This event might be 4 . 2 @233» 36- >- 87 more loosely defined as a detailed— systematically organized descrip» tion of the existing situation. However in order to stress the increas-- ing need for more objectivity in planning research: this event. will hereafter be referred to as the "state model" and the activities leading up to it will be termed ”model design. " The complete model. of the planning process termed "The Plan- ning Model"; is diagrammed in Figure 26. In. addition to the two steps already described, it consists of policies design and policies? constraints development and constraints, plan design and plan: program design and program, and action resulting in the solution outcome. Except for the solution outcome which was explained above: all of these activities and events have been described in the preceding Research Section. There is no need to elaborate upon them further at this point except to reiterate that the activities {indicated by arrows: are hierarchical. and that each event includes each preceding event as a premise for the followirg set of activities. It is also important to note that a preview of all follownmg :acti-- vities and events must be available to each. activity in the process. This constant preview is indicated by the feedforward mechanism in the diagram. In similar fashion; a review of preceding activities and. events must be made available to each activity. This is indicated by the feedback mechan- ism; which also includes a complete or partial re~-cvcling at. ary step in which previous information and/or decisions are foundto be faulty or lacking in some way. The hierarchical nature of the model is illustrated in Figure 27, which depicts one segment of the model blown up to a second level of investigation indicating sub-sets of activities and events of. two major sets of activities. This blow up could, of course, be repeated for a 88 :\ n\..8 Juno: 2:331... us... on go: 223° 2280 2.850 ,V .. so. a 20:3 3:3,... 3:32... 25.. 25.. fl 2. a o 4 a < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ “7+. HWWIHLLHHHEHHEHHHWWHHWHHWTHHHHHAIWHU T 08¢.COKOHHK 832: 2:523. Q 67 third level of n.'est..gation. and so on, depending on the complexity of the problem and problematic situation being investigated. Once the model has been enlarged to a level at which all sig ni- ficant sets of planning activities and events can be adequately expressed, the design of a planning program can commence. Increased clarity might be gained at this point by referring to the Planning Model as an outcome plan, to which now must be added an action plan, or program, which consists of a network of specific jobs (activities), each of which culminates in some desired result (event). This action plan, or program, constitutes an organized sequential network of specific elements of the planning pro- ' cess for some particular planning problem. It is the working tool which guides the planner systematically through the myriad of activities and events leading to a solution to the problem. Thus, the major purpose of the Planning Model is realized in the successful design of a comprehen- sive planning program for a particular planning problem. The breakdown of the Planning Model into a comprehensive plan- n-ing program is accomplished by listing all the specific jobs which constitute each activity'in the (enlarged) Planning Model. andthén speci- fying the result or outcome to be achieved by each job. All of these job outcomes emanating from a single Model activity must then constitute the Model event terminating that activity. If they do not, then more jobs must be added, or those existing jobs must be revised, until the Model event is satisfactorily described by the set of job outcomes. These job outcomes then provide premises or starting points for jobs or dummy jobs (equiva- l3) lent to dummy activities comprising the following Model activity. By this means a complete network of jobs and outcomes (activities l3 Sugra,52. 9O kzmiomm Juno: 02—22(41 Aw)“; 0200mm NN mania—k III. MWIIHILIIIIIIILIIlvqT 1%.... A_ _ -__ - u u _ a i _ _ lllv $44.44 .1. limit: ..Ha t. we 9. w m a , n < mpzagmzoo #4 m E mfiméfia m E m ¢< 3630.... m 4 It: It. 1:: It _II.E m m _ v4 _ ¢ m _ a _ _ 4 _ _ _ _ \T _/ F_ t _ JR. l w //u| HA '4. 4 / \ / \ ll . l l. /| l I lv I. N .l mullflldnlfllmfllihll l.l_.ll_l+ l ULHHjII .l ljflfljllflfilulhmj _ _ r _ __ __ __ __ __ __ .: _ _ t __ __ x i __ _ \ : . } F_1LJ __ _i , _ LII _ i . mm m4 mm sq m... 04 mm ¢< cm nmv meooudo rd hm H802 $35me 23 scam awhmonm mugam a mo nmwmon _ _ 7Mfi>305 non 4} mm —"—_ .— \in /_ #m mm carp fl} 4 f Nd NM H4 ’ ‘93 to three successively more complex planning problems; and then, in a final chapter, attempting to illustrate how it can be utilized to improve comtemporary urban and regional planning operations. CHAPTER IV RUDIMENTARY EXAMPLES OF THE PLANNING MODEL IN AC TION Planning has been discussed throughout this work as a universal means of solving problems. Thus the Planning Model should be applicable to problem-solving approaches at any level 'of complexity. This is not to suggest that every problem should be tackled by this means. On the contrary, most problems which individuals and groups face in daily living can be, and are, resolved in a much less invol» ed manner. They do not demand, nor do they need, a systematic step-by-step-approach in order to attain a satisfactory solution. However, there are a great many problem situations which could benefit considerably from such an approach. This chapter. and the next will briefly examine the Planning Model approach to three successively more complex problems which exemplify situations in which a systematic methodology might prove fruitful in obtaining consistently good solutions. A description of three actual situations in which the model had been used would obviously provide more conclusive evidence of its worth. However, no such real examples are yet available; so these hypothetical examples are proposed to indicate the utility of the Planning Model in a variety of problem situations, with the hope that they might promote Planning Model experiments by the reader. Further investigation may well reveal that the Planning Model is not only "normative" (what ought 94 / J to be done) but also "descriptive" {what is done\ in the case of a few ad— vanced planning operations. The Report-Writing Problem Report—writing is a task familiar to planners as well as to persons in a great variety of occupations and voluntary endeavors. For some it may simply involve sitting down and writing about facts which they have mentally organized in advance. But for most, especially those who write reports as a regular part of their occupational duties, the actual writing of a report is preceded by ,1 ,— in :33 ~.:"««‘1\'(‘(11;.1‘llht‘ . - M Hu- contents of the report. The following will indicate briefly how the Plan- ning Model can be utilized as a rational guide for accomplishing this report-writing task in a systematic manner. In order to lend perspective, a specific problem of writing a report on the selection of a school site 1 has been arbitrarily chosen as a realistic example. Planning Premise - A series of studies has been conducted by an education-planning committee to determine the best site for a proposed new (school. From the research and analysis carried out the committee has agreed on the selection of a single best site. It now remains for a chosen member of the committee to summarize their findings in terms of a report which can be presented to the Board of Education and other interested groups. Concepts - An initial review of the work and findings of the educa- tion-planning committee provides the writer with sufficient information to form an idea, or concept, of the form and contents of the site selection 1The steps in this first example are listed according to the eight events of the Planning Model. In the second example (Shelter Problem), both events and activities are described, due to the increased complexity of the second problem over the first. 96 report. He is able to list some goals to be achieved which he can use as criteria to guide the construction, or design, of the report. Further- more, he is able to formulate a concept of the steps which he must fol- low in order to outline and write the report (the planning program). State Model - With the concepts in hand he is able to.) search through the original purposes and constraints, the compiled data, analytic results, selection criteria, and conclusions of the committee to develop an organized description of the material upon which the report is to be based. In this example the (problem-solving process which the committee went through to select a site can be viewed as a system, and the organized description of that process can thus be considered a state model of that system. Many of the factors involved in the model are controllable (with respect to the‘report) insofar as they can be dealt with in a variety of ways depending on the report policies. ‘ Other factors can be considered non- controllable in that they are inflexible with regard to their influence on theireport. Policies - The committee will not doubt have laid down afew guide- lines concerning the report which the writer must use. He should also be- come cognizant of the expectations of the audience for when the report is intended. These specific report-writing goals and objectives can then be noted carefully along with generally accepted report-writing principles ‘ and standards. A formal listing of all such policies will provide criteria for design of the report outline as well as: for judging the finished product. Constraints - Many kinds of limitations are imposed on a project of this kind; limitations such'as time and size-limits, budget considera- tions, available technical aids, expected audience reading capabilities, comprehension capabilities of possible additional, audiences, other sources of information (against the choice of this site, for example). Some of 97 these may often be expressed more in the nature of policies than con- straints. But in any event, these more inflexible items must be researched and organized so that they may be combined with the alternative outline strategies (plans) to provide a set of outcomes which can be compared and evaluated with respect to the detailed policies. Plan - All of the controllable factors from the model can now be examined and alternative means of dealing with each formulated. Some, of course, may be such that they can only be handled in one way. Others will lend themselves to a variety of report-writing techniques (i. e. explanatory terminology,tables, graphics, format, etc.). The writer can then, with the aid of the policies he has noted, select the most pertinent sets of al- ternatative report-outline strategies. Each of these alternatives should consist of a different pattern of combined factors, but all should be com- patible with the stated. report-writing policies. These alternative outline strategies (plans) can then be combined with the report-writing constraints to produce a set of comparable outcomes which the writer can evaluate with respect to the desired outcomes (detailed policies) in order to choose the most desirable outline strategy to guide the actual formulation of the report. ' Program - Having settled on an outline strategy (plan) it now remains for the writer to' decide how he will implement it. With the aid of the poli- cies and some additional information from the model, he can quickly struc- ture a few selected alternative means (program strategies) of putting the plan into action (formulating the report). These alternatives can then be 2 combined with the‘afore‘men‘tioned constraints providing outcomes which 2In some cases the program constraints will differ from the plan constraints, but it would appear that they are the same in this case. 98 can be compared and evaluated with respect to the detailed policies by the writer so that he can choose the best possible program for implementing his plan, or writing the report. Action - The writer can now proceed directly to the compilation of the report (implementing the plan) according to the chosen program. Pro- viding he has carefully constructed each event in the Planning Model, and providing he has some writing aptitude, the resulting report should pro- vide an extremely satisfactory solution to the initial problem. The Shelter Problem The problem of providing shelter has been with man since the begin- ning of time. Today, however, instead of building his own house, American man usually buys a ready-built one or contracts with a house builder to have one built for him. One type of house builder, often referred to as a designer-builder, contracts to design and build a distinct house for each 'client. Such builders account for a continually-decreasing percentage of this country's total new house construction, but they do have the distinction of providing a unique comprehensive solution to each client's housing problem. 3 The designer-builder is repeatedly faced with the problem of design- ing and building a house to fit the needs, desires, and budget of a specific client. The degree of success which he attains in providing repeated solu- tions to this recurring problem determines, to a large degree, his success in business. Consequently, most such designer-builders develop a fairly standardized approach to the process of solving the shelter problem for individual families. This approach does not seem to vary significantly amongst successful designer-builders. In general, it consists of: (l) inves- 3'This writer was an active designer-builder for several years and thus professes to considerable firsthand knowledge of the shelter problem- solving process. 99 tigating the client's family characteristics, housing needs and desires, available resources, and other housing determinants; (2) developing a sketch plan of a proposed dwelling which will best satisfy the major goals and constraints clarified in the investigation; (3.) formulating detailed working drawings and specifications for the construction of the house; and (4) proceeding with the actual construction, resulting in the comple- tion of a house which constitutes a satisfactory solution to the client's shelter problem. It would appear that, within the broad framework suggested by these four steps, each designer-builder varies his approach considerably, depending on the particular client and shelter problem characteristics with which he must deal at any one time. Some clients come prepared with their functional housing goals already translated into structural drawings of varying quality; others begin with nothing more than their desire for a new house; but the majority fall somewhere in between these “extremes, coming equipped with a few pictures and rough concepts of what they would like in their new house coupled with some fairly de- finite ideas of what they dislike in their present house. The designer-builder appears to approach each client situation as a separate problem and he seems to seek a solution by means of an in- tuitive trial-and-error process based on his past experience. 'This pro- cess consists essentially of formulating ideas or concepts of possible solu- tions to various parts of the overall problem and presenting them to the client to gain his reaction, and then revising or discarding unfavorable ideas, and combining favorable ideas to eventually achieve first a concept, or sketch plan, and eventually detailed working drawings and specifica- tions of the proposed house- Once these and the construction schedule I l and costs have been formally approved by the client, then the designer- 100 builder proceeds with the actual construction of the house. As the designer-builder gains experience in the field he is able to improve his ability to analyze client needs and desires and thus in- crease his efficiency in formulating ideas which will appeal to his clients. - In fact, it would appear that, as a designer-builder becomes more suc- cessful, his method of approach becomes (perhaps unconsciously) more standardized, thus allowing him increased time both for the creative as- pects of design and also for attending to a greater number of clients. The four general steps of the desgmrr-bu'ilder approach which were outlined above are analogous to parts of the Planning Model. It can be reasonably hypothesized that, as the builder-designer continues to refine his approach, he may well consciously include other steps which are analogous to those of the Planning Model. The following discussion will briefly attempt to apply the Planning Model to the shelter problem faced by the designer-builder to indicate the utility of a systematic approach in this area of endeavor. Planning Premise - As suggested previously, the client may approach the designer-builder with a well-formed concept of how his housing needs and desires might be satisfied or he may come equipped with nothing more than the desire for a new house. In any event a decision must be reached by both parties to proceed with a search for a solution to this particular shelter problem before any detailed investigative activities take place. Survey - Once a decision has been reached to proceed the designer- builder begins his preliminary investigation of the problematic situation leading to the formation of concepts which, in this case, include a con- cept of the solution, or sketch plan4 of the completed house, as well as 4When referring to diagrams of the proposed house, ”plan" will be used throughout this shelter problem discussion to include vertical as well as horizontal elements. 101 concepts of each of the steps leading from the planning premise to that solution - the planning program. This initial sub-step of forming an idea as to the nature or the completed concept thus culminates in concepts of the concepts. These then form the basis for a bifurcated sub-planning process leading to a concept of the solution (sketch plan) on the one hand and a concept of the steps leading to that solution on the other hand. Arriving at a final sketch plan is a process requiring a great deal of insight and creativity on the part of the designer-builder, and it usually requires several meetings between him and his client. These meetings, coupled with a searCh through his own knowledge and experience, allow him to gain an initial understanding of the controllable and noncontrollable factors which will determine the sketch plan. The controllable factors then serve as a guide for a delineation of the goals which must be satis- fied in the sketch plan, and these goals then serve to guide the designer- builder in the design of sketch plan alternatives from the controllable factors. Noncontrollable factors -- such things as climate, site location, and dimensions, adjacent buildings, city services and ordinances, lending institution rules, and the like -- and any probable changes which might OCCur in these factors before construction commences serve as constraints to the alternative sketch plans (strategies), and these must be combined with each alternative in the Strategy Selector5 and the results compared and evaluated with respect to the goals (desired outcomes) in order that the designer- builder and his client might choose the best possible sketch plan. The designer-builder's actual method of involving the client in the choice process may vary from client to client (and also between different designer-builders). He may choose the best alternative himself and pre- 5Supra, 46. 102 sent it to the client for approval, or he may present several alternatives at once and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each with the ‘ client, resulting in a joint decision. But in either case, the end result is a single final sketch plan -- a concept of the solution outcome. By utilizing the Planning Model as a guide, the designer-builder can considerably reduce the task of conceptualizing the planning program. Figure 29 illustrates how the Planning Model can be used for this purpose. It is first enlarged to a second level of abstraction to allow for the com- plexity of this problem and then the program network is constructed from the model to indicate all pertinent jobs (activities) and events leading to the solution. It is quite likely that the entire program cannot be constructed at this preliminary stage (especially that part concerned with the action step) and in this case the designer-builder simply programs as much as he can foresee at this point, leaving the remainder to be completed when more information is available. It should also be noted that the activities and events shown in the program may vary considerably depending on. the particular shelter problem being resolved. Thus, each problem must have its own unique planning program, but all can be structured according to the Planning Model guidelines. By this means, then, the designer-builder develops alternative programs, subjects them to, program constraints and evaluates the outcomes with respect to planning program goals to arrive at a concept'of the steps leading to the solution of the shelter problem. Concepts - The designer-builderand his client now have agreed upon a preliminary design for the client's new house. In addition, the designer-builder has developed a planning program which will guide his remaining activities in a logical, systematic manner. If the designer— builder has done his work methodically up to this point, the translation H0002 935“me womuwdum 05. scum nowpmbahoa mpH mcwpwoficaH 8030.5 90.50am on» you £925.02 Sacha mngfim 0 mo anoamow < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ u _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ “ _____ _ _ L _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ : ll. ___ -_____ nn_““" L - \l a A. {flan 0N 095mg J_____ ___ _____ . m 104 of the sketch plan into detailed working drawings and specifications, and from thence to the completed house, should be a reasonably straightfor— ward task. Thus the completion of this event provides the premises for the more detailed steps to follow. Model Design - In dealing with the shelter problem, there are many controllable and noncontrollable factors which must be clarified and their interconnections understood by the designer-builder before he can proceed with a rational design process. A meaningful description of these factors (i. e. site, materials, client family charactieristics, etc) and their interconnections can be considered a model of the existing situation, or system. For example, the future house must include sleeping areas, dining areas, entertaining areas, a food preparation area, bath and toilet areas, etc. , and these so-called static zones must be connected by circulation paths which allow people to move easily from one zone to another without unncessary hindrance, but, at the same time barriers must'be erected around certain zones. to ensure privacy and to contain noise and odors. The future house must include provision for light and air from, and human egress to, the outside; but it must also provide a barrier between inside and outside to protect the inhabitants from inclement weather, un- wanted intruders, and street noise. The future house must include me- chanical systems for heating and possibly cooling, electrical systems for lighting and cooking (or even heating), pipe systems for water and possibly gas, and for sewage disposal; it must include structural elements, covering elements and utility elements (i. e. kitchen cupboards, bathroom cabinets, closets of various kinds); and it may include several elements included simply for psychological or aesthetic satisfaction. All of these 105 constitute controllable factors which must be researched and analyzed to provide a clear description of the system components for which alter- natives can be developed, providing guides for the policies design step and inputs for the plan design step. Coupled with each of these controllable factors are related sets of noncontrollable factors which must also be included in the description. Such factors as climate, site orientation and topography, adjoining struc- tures, city services, codes and ordinances, material limitations, lend- ing institution policies, and human tolerances of various kinds are all examples of constraints on the controllable factors (which must be expressed . in the model. Having thus gained some concept of what is required in the model the designer-builder can refine the model concept by a search process aimed at measuring these factors and describing how they interconnect. A policies sub-step allows him to define the alterable parameters for the model and, by means of a model design sub-step, he can combine them and then test the resulting model for accuracy. State Model - The complete description of interconnected control- lable and noncontrollable factors pertinent to a particular shelter problem constitutes a state model of the system of factors (including the function- ing household and its present house) which form a basis for the design of the proposed house. To be sure, this is rather an intangible system and some will, no dOubt, object to this type of description being referred to as a state model. Perhaps these objectors would prefer such a description being termed a collection of planning elements. But, no matter what it is called, such a description is a necessary preliminary step to the methodical design of a solution to the shelter problem. Policies Design - With the controllable factors from the state 106 model as a guide, the designer-builder next must refine the design guide- lines set out in the concepts to the point where they will serve adequately as decision criteria for the detailed formulation of (the final plan. A logical starting point for this step is to survey the concepts and state model in order to gain some impression of what detailed guidelines are necessary. He attempts to gain a concept of the required policies. It would appear that most designer-builders feel no great need to get involved in many second-level planning activities to resolve the policies problem. They are mainly concerned with translating the con- cept of the solution outcome (final sketch plan) into more detailed plans ' as quickly as possible and then revising or reworking this plan as often as is necessary to achieve a satisfactory final detailed plan. The concen- sus seems to be that architectural design is a graphic art and graphics are therefore the best working and communication tool. However, it seem s likely that many costly changes on the final detailed plan and even in the partially completed house could be avoided, or at least significantly reduced, if the designer-builder would take more care with this step. of the planning process. If it were treated with the same detail and precision evidenced in the development of the concepts, then it would seem highly probable that both designer-builder and client might benefit considerably. ‘ In solving a more complex design problem, especially where a team of designers is involved, the policies step takes on far greater significance. In fact, it would appear that the extent of the policies step is directly proportional to the complexity of a planning problem, as trans- lated into such terms as number of people involved in the process, to‘tai budget, number of alterable parameters and constraints involved, etc. At any rate, by means of an organized search and design process, 107 goals can be specified, policies constraints identified, and a set of house design objectives, principles and standards developed which constitute functional desired outcomes and which can be utilized as decision criteria in the actual (design of the detailed drawings. These, then, are the policies for the shelter problem. ‘ In contemporary practice these policies are not often presented, discussed and agreed upon by designer-builder and client, but rather they are brought up point-by-point as the major research and design steps pro- gress, and a concensus is then reached on each point as it happens to occur. The lack of systematic procedure at this stage would seem to result in many more drawings and discussions than might be the case if the designer-builder recognized the importance of a policies plan and would thereafter take the time and effort to follow it through before getting into too great detail on the working drawings. But, no matter how structured, the policies do exist as a set of objectives, principles, and standards, providing a detailed framework within the broad directional emphasis suggested by the (major goals. Policies - Whether in segmented or organized-form, a set of de- tailed policies are formed and the designer-builder uses these, perhaps in an almost subconscious way, as criteria upon which to base specific decisions in designing the detailed plans. In addition, these detailed policies have, or should have, priorities attached to them in order that possible conflicts might easily "be resOlved. Examples of some of the general policies categories would include such objectives as detailed space needs, special aesthetic features, special functional needs and desires (i. e. a fireplace), and budgetary goals; such principles as good building practice, . accepted design principles and quality building 108 materials and mechanical elements; and such standards as local building code minimums, architectural design fundamentals, and specific materials standards. An expanded detailed listing of such interrelated policies con- stitutes an important step in the design and construction of any successful building, even though they are seldom listed together as a single separate step for a simple shelter problem. Constraint Development - In addition to formulating policies to guide the synthesis of controllable factors, the designer-builder must gain an understanding of the noncontrollable factors which interact with the con- trollable factors and which act as constraints on the detailed plans. These noncontrollable factors must be identified in the state model and analyzed as to their probable affect on the detailed plans. Once again, this process can be viewed as a sub-planning process, beginning with a review of pre- vious events leading to a concept of ‘what these sets of constraints will be, from which further detailed research can be carried out in a purposeful manner leading to the development of constraints choice criteria and prob- abilities for each constraint. Sets of constraints which will influence the detailed plans can then be designed and combined with probabilities to produce outcomes from which the single most probable set of constraints can be chosen with reference to the previously developed choice criteria. This process is largely overlooked by contemporary designer- builders. They are undoubtedly very much aware of constraints such as climate, site characteristics, code restrictions, and even such factors as flexibility for expansion and future saleability, but they deal with them in a very disorganized intuitive fashion. Most of these constraints are built into their fund of knowledge accumulated through years of experience in the field and, although the constraints play. a definite role in shaping the detailed plans, it is an unexpressed, often subconscious role to which 109 . , ‘ the designer-builder rarely assigns much importance in his design work. A conscious awareness of how constraints influence the house design might well help to make his task a more effective and efficient one, with benefits both to himself and his client. Constraints - For many planning problems. there are several al- ternative sets of constraints which can be developed and a probability of occurrence computed for each set. Plans for resolving the shelter prob- lem are intended for immediate action and therefore the probable occur- rence of constraints can be predicted with fairly definite accuracy. In all likelihaodfi single set of constraints can be developed with a proba- bility of occurrence of almost one hundred per cent- This is probably a major reason why the designer—builder pays so little attention to the systematic development of constraints. But even though only a single set of constraints exists with an almost certain probability of occurrence, there still seems much to be gained by clarifying them so that they can be systematically combined with alternative detailed plans to aid the choice process in the Strategy Selector. Plan Design -- In designing preliminary sketch plans, the designer— builder was guided byia’ few given parameters and some generalized policies, but he relied most heavily on his own sense of creativity, imagination, and design and building experience. Now, at the detailed plan design step, the situation is reversed -- the problem premise consists of a wide range of decisions already reached on various facets of the design so that the reliance on the designer—builderls design‘ creativity is greatly reduced. It is limited mainly to details within the agreed-upon components of the final sketch plan. It now remains for the designer-builder and his client to make the multitude of lesser (but nevertheless equally important to the total plan) design decisions within the broad framework already structured. 110 It is quite possible, however, that serious conflicts will arise in this detailed design step which cannot be resolved within the agreed-upon framework, in which case it may be deemed necessary to reconsider some of the earlier decisions. Such a feedback process will necessitate carry- ing the reconstructed premise up through all the previous steps and sub- steps to ensure that all related parts are in accordance with the revision. The complexities of such. a revision process are, of course, greatly re- duced when the designer-«builder has kept a systematic record of how all the subsparts were originally structured in relation to one another. This climactic. design step in the planning process can be also structured as a sub-planning process. The designer-builder must first conduct a review of previous events to formulate a concept of the solution or detailed plan (including both working drawings and specifications). It is not difficult to visualize this first sub~«step as consisting of a third level planning process in which the designer'sbuilder first develops an initial scheme, describes its environment, sets up policies and develops constraints for it, designs a plan and test program, and then tests it against similarly derived schemes before an adequate concept of the final detailed plan can be reached. In other words, he runs through. all the plan design sub-steps to follow in order to ensure a workable concept. This might be referred to as a pro-[test or feedforward phase. The detailed sub-steps to follow then become tests of the validity of this concept in much the same way that the derivation of the detailed plan constitutes a series of tests on the validity of the hypothetical final sketch plan. The completed plan design concept thus includes both an idea of the detailed plan and a conceptual scheme for deriving that plan. Once this detailed. plan concept has been developed the- designer-1 builder can proceed to a detailed investigation of each of the conceptual 111 components. This sub-step involves feedback to the state model and the constraints to describe the planning elements properly. The following policies design sub-step also involves a feedback process, in this case to the previously derived detailed policies, {which can then be refined by reference to the controllable planning elements to provide detailed plan design decision criteria. Noncontrollable planning elements are then developed for later use in the Strategy Selector. The designer-builder is then prepared to. proceed to the design of the final detailed working drawings and specifications. This sub-step is a lengthy one but generally proceeds without hesitation, providing all the necessary decisions have been foreseen and dealt with at an earlier point in the process. Very often architectural designers jump into this sub-step at an earlier point and are consequentlyforced to make many time-consuming corrections and deletions involving repeated feedback trips to fill in decision gaps left at an earlier stage. However, the ex- perienced designer-builder has usually consolidated all the plan elements by this point and he is able to Complete working drawings'and specifications, confident that the clients will request few change-s. In order to accommodate the remaining detail decisions which must be made, the designer-builder uSually formulates alternative ideas and chooses one himself or presents them to the client for a. combined decision. Each of these detail alternatives can be visualized as complete alternative detailed plans (strategies) and systematically combined with the constraints, and the outcomes compared and evaluated with respect to'the detailed poli- cies in order to arrive at a more rational decision through the use of the Strategy Selector. The program sub—step (as in the other steps) consists of organizing a means for carrying out the activities Within the Strategy Selector and the action sub-step consists of the actual selection process itself. 112 flafi - By this means, then, a plan is derived which consists of the detailed working drawings and specifications for the construction of the house. Formal ratification of the plan by the client includes contract- ing with the designer-builder for the actual construction of the house -- the action step. All is now in readiness for construction to begin, but first the designer-builder must fit this new job into his construction schedule. Thus the plan becomes the premise for the design of a program or work schedule. for the actual construction of the building. Program Design - The design of a program for achieving the plan includes several policies, controllable factors and constraints which have not previously entered into the plan design step -- such policies as com- pletion objectives and acceptable work-scheduling standards, such control- lable factors as material shipments and labor force, and such constraints as seasonal weather conditions, availability of sub-contractors and the designer-builder's existing overall work schedule. All of these program design inputs (including the plan itself) must be investigated during the ‘ survey and research sub-steps before the design of alternativelprograms (strategies) can take place, followed by the choice of asingle best program by means of the Strategy Selector. The program design is a fairly short process because of the designer-builder's extensive experience at program- ming. Program - Successful designer-builders are very much concerned with programming techniques and much experimentation has produced many ingenious schemes for designing and maintaining dynamic work schedules. Most of these stem from the simple bar chart which is still the most com- monly used method of portraying a program. Each segmented part of the construction is portrayed as a bar, the length ofwhich indicates the time allotted for that operation. Total running time is marked off from left 113 to right across the top of the sheet and operation sequence moves from top to bottom of the sheet. Thus the bars begin at the upper left and are positioned horizontally in a diagonal pattern until the final operation is complete at the lower right corner. Larger builders have recently begun to use network techniques which provide a much more comprehensive il- lustration of the program. But by some method or other, all successful designer-builders do design and make use of programs to assist them in managing their construction operations. Action - Few operations in the construction of a custom-built house proceed simultaneously. Many sub-contractors will not even set foot on the job until every last bit of the preceding sub-contractor's work has been completed. This type of linear activity has played a large part in making the small custom builer a rapidly vanishing breed. He just cannot build houses as efficiently or effectively as large merchant builders who are able to control all phases of their construction opera- tions. Custom builders (including designer-builders) seem to lack the ability to understand and/or utilize more efficient parallel operational techniques to replace their traditional cumbersome linear methods, and this fact is playing a major role in effectuating their demise. For each segment of the construction process the designer-builder and the sub-contractor (or employees) involved in that segment should agree on a concept of the job to be accomplished, investigate and analyze materials and methods of procedure, derive policies and constraints based upon the working drawings, specifications and program, devise a plan and program for getting the work accomplished, and then carry out the necessary activities at the points indicated in the overall program. In this way the planning process is utilized several times over in carrying out the actual construction of the house. 114 Solution Outcome - The completion of the house according to the agreed-upon plan constitutes the solution outcome for the specific shelter problem outlined initially. This final event should satisfy the initial major goals according to the detailed policies formulated to guide the achievement of the solution. If the solution outcome is later found to be lacking, it may well become part of the problem premise for another similar set of activ- ities and events leading to the construction of a more satisfactory solution outcome. However, of all the goals and subsequent policies relative to the realistically appraised values (and projected values) of the clients have been methodically formulated, and the other steps have been methodically formed, then the solution outcome should provide maximum satisfaction to the clients within the limiting constraints. Thus the complex process of designing and constructing a house as a solution to a spe cific shelter problem has been fully outlined in terms of the Planning Model enlarged to a second level of abstraction. A complete network diagram constructed from the model, as partially suggested in Figure 29, could provide an accurate description of all the major inter- related activities and events which take place in solving a particular shelter problem. It now remains for this approach to be attempted in a real ex— periment to test the suggested utility of this method. CHAPTER V USE OF THE PLANNING MODEL IN AN URBAN SYSTEM Perhaps the most complex planning problems occur in the gener- al field of urban-regional planning. As discussed throughout Chapter I, urban-regional planning problems have been approached in the past mainly through intuitive means garnered from the traditional problem-solving approaches of architecture and related fields. During the past few years urban-regional planners have become aware of more systematic approaches to planning problems deveIOped by private industry and federal government space and weapons experts. Emerging concepts and methods in the fields of operations research, traffic engineering, and the combination of econ- omics and geography in regional science have injected new life into urban and regional planning approaches. However, most of these new concepts and methods were originally developed for application to problems within well-defined areas of concern. Applications in the field of urban-regional planning have tended to be restricted to those aspects of a problem area which are more readily susceptible to quantification in a model, or to a problem which appears to fit a modeling technique which is already highly developed. Thus urban researchers have tended to concentrate on particular well-defined elements of the urban system rather than being concerned with the manner in which all of the elements are interrelated and integrated to make up a total functioning system. But, as suggested by John Gifford, 115 116 "until we are able to describe the city fully we can't presume to derive a theory into which we can fit our descriptions in a fully consistent way. "1 A meaningful approach toward providing a total description of the city and region is the field of systems analysis, which is primarily concerned with the analysis of systems into their relations between the parts as necessary for the effective functioning of the total system. It involves both systems research and systems design; that is the creation of new systems as Well as the investigation of existing ones. 2 It would appear, then, that systems analysis, aided by the methods of operations research and the efficiency of the computer, provides the urban-regional planner with the means for generating valid urban theory. The Planning Model is designed to play a vital role in this emerging urban theory. The following discussion will attempt briefly -te‘ describe urban communities in systems terms, and then to indicate how the Planning Model can be utilized to structure a planning program leading to the management of a continually improving urban community. Time limitations do not allow for the elucidation of a comprehensive planning program example, but it is hoped that the segmented example presented will be sufficient to clarify the methodology and utility of the Planning Model, and thus inspire more complete experiments. The Systems Structure of Urban Communities "We need other, more economical, means for conveying an image of community organization than those which already 1John V. Gifford, Jr. , "The Implications of a Systems Theory of Urban Structure for Planning and Urban Studies, " Department of City Planning, City and County of San Francisco, June 1964. (Mimeographed). A more complete discussion of systems analLsis was presented in Chapter II, supra, 117 exist. In particular the political, economic, social, cultural, esthetic and physical features of large communities need to be integrated, because the gravest difficulties lie in visual- izing how action in one of these aspects has consequences in others. " Ecologists describe the combination of plant and animal communi- ties along with their natural abode as ecological systems, or ecosystems. Human communities can also be described as ecosystems, including not only the peOple but the natural and manmade components, as well as the actual space occupied by the community. Stewart Marquis suggests that "the human community is a complex ecosystem of human, man-made, and natural components interacting through flows of materials, energy, people, and information in 'man-machine- resource' subsystems and the central place and contiguous space within which the components and flows are located. "4 He has developed a language for describing the flows between systems and between subsystems, by which he refers to the abstract flow characteristics of a system in a spatial sense as moving point components flowing between fixed point com- ponents, and the inputs and outputs of a system as composed of people, materials, energy and information, in varying combinations. Subsystems can be described in terms of their major components and the interactions or flows between them. Marquis's approach indicates how urban communities naturally tend to build up from smaller specialized subsystems within urban agglo- merates, in a hierarchical fashion. He shows the hierarchical structure 3Richard L. Meier, 'fThe Organization of Cities - A Research Pros- pectus, ” Ann Arbor, January 1962. (Mimeographed, ). 4Stewart D. Marquis, "A Systems Approach to Communities, Com- munity Centers, and Planning Areas, " Institute for Community Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, September, 1963. 118 and functional interrelationships both within the individual sybsystems on each system level and from level to level. He emphasizes control, which implies the ability to make plans and carry them out, as an important ele— ment in defining communities and planning areas for planning purposes. Thus plans are made and executed, and control exercised, at all levels of the community system. Some subsystems are controlled externally (by people outside of the community) and thus planning for these takes place at another greater planning level. These externally controlled subsystems influence locally, or internally, controlled subsystems, but only the latter are actually planned for within that community system, and the major subsystem control boundaries do, in fact, determine the inter- nal control area and thus the planning area. Figure 30 is a reproduction of his diagram indicating the structure of a community system. Marquis further argues that the range of uncontrolled major sub- systems determines the interaction area with other community systems and thus the boundaries of these uncontrolled major subsystems determine the necessary planning study area. In this way he is able to describe entire regions as a "nested hierarchy" of communities, each with its internal con- trol area (planning area) based on the uncontrolled major subsystems. Fig- ure 31 illustrates such a "nested hierarchy" of communities. Thus it can be seen that this type of description can be used to en- compass systematically the complexities of urban systems organization and the flow characteristics of interaction between the system elements as the links relating them. In a more recent monograph, Marquis enlarges his concept to include a more specific manner of dealing with the paths con- necting both fixed and moving point components. 5 Such a precise method 5Stewart D. Marquis, "The Urban-Regional Ecosystem: An Opera- tional Research and Planning Approach, " rough draft, Michigan State Uni- versity, East Lansing, March, 1965. (Mimeographed.). COMMUNITY SYSTEM CONTROLS CHOICE — PLANS - EXECUTION INPUTS > OUTPUTS > MAJOR SUBSYSTEMS Figure 30 Internal Control of Structure and Operation of'Major Subsystems Source: see footnote 4 n \ $222“ C] DISTRICT LOCAL ) 1 comm l [:1 A__ ggr :::]( [:1 [:1 l [::j [:1 1 Regional [:1 Central Place 11 C' :1 [j \E...» / ,_, i.z"”' Figure 31 Nested Hierarchy of Communities Source: see footnote 4 120 for describing urban activities might well be expressed in terms of the network techniques discussed in Chapter II, 6 thus making possible a uni- fied diagrammatic technique for both urban theory and planning theory. John Gifford points out that, in addition to formulating a means of describing the structure of urban phenomena, as part of an urban system, some means must be developed for recognizing the purpose for which the system exists. It can be generally stated that the city exists to serve the public and private needs of the users of the city. Private need is satis- fied by means of a system of private enterprise which operates on a decen- tralized basis, whereas the public system operates on a centralized basis under the control of public legislators and administrators. 7 These primary productive and distributive need-satisfaction inter- 8 actions require space in which to conduct their activities, and the arrange- ment of this space (land use) is what gives the city its characteristic form. Thus the city land use interactions consist of private land use interactions and public land use interactions. The primary industries in a community are those whose principal markets are outside of that community. They serve to bring both money and materials into the community, thereby sustaining its secondary indus- tries and service industries. The primary industries provide the economic fuel to support and unite all of the urban subsystems and interactions of the community. They are really a part of the private need-satisfaction interactions of the city. Other channels of communication exist for the supply of public need 6Supra, 50-52. 7Gifford, ”The Implications of a Systems Theory. . . ". 8Gifford refers to these interactions as subsystems, but since his use of subsystems in this context is somewhat incompatible with Marquis's concept, they will henceforth be referred to as "interactions" occurring within Marquis's community systems concept outlined above. 121 resources between the community and its environment via such means as the voting mechanism or elected and appointed representatives from the community to metropolitan, county, state and federal governments. Urban subsystems and interactions are effected in turn by the public in- puts in the form of taxing, subventions and grants, public services of various kinds, and a variety of controls and regulations. In this way the community can be viewed as a complex structure for the satisfaction of individual need and this purpose permeates and catalyzes all of the structural elements of the city for the support and sustenance of the community user. Gifford further suggests that the city, as an open system, can be analyzed in terms of the flows between subsystems and the forces which activate these flows. 9 He argues that the market system is the principal mechanism which has evolved for the initiation and regulation of the primary flows between the productive elements of the city. It acts to bind the individual interactions and subsystems together and pro- vide a kind of self-regulation for the overall system, in response to in- dividual user need, which tends to balance the direction and rate of pro- ductivity in a general systems kind of steady-state equilibrium. The space-use interactions of the city provide a necessary locus for system activities and, consequently, they too respond to market de- mand in a constant striving toward a steady-state equilibrium of optimum efficiency. However, the form of the space-use is also subject to other flows, most notably those of zoning controls and other public regulations. In this view of the city the individual is at the center of the urban system with his own personal dwelling being a sub-part of the residential H 9Gifford, ”The Implications of a Systems Theory. . . . 122 part of the space-use which is then connected with the community sub- system by transportation, monetary, and product flows. The public in- teractions are superimposed on these primary productive interactions as an over-all external regulatory control to ensure the public welfare in the op- eration of private interactions systems. Gifford's diagram of the city as an open system is reproduced in Figure 32, showing both these internal functional flows and the city's links with its exterior environment. 10 By this means, then, the city can be conceptualized as an open system undergoing constant change brought on by both internal and exter- nal, private and public, influences of various kinds. Insight into the nature of cities and their functioning can be gained by identifying urban functions with the particular system organizations which support them, and thus ascertaining the effect of relative size and complexity upon the execution of the function. Urban phenomena can, in this way, be system- atically examined and explained through the concepts of general systems theory. Planning Premise for an Urban System With the groundwork established for conceptualizing the city (or region) as an urban system, the possibility of constructing an analytic urban system, or model, can be visualized, and thus a basis exists for utilizing the Planning Model to organize a systematic planning program for improving the urban system relative to the individual and collective needs and desires of the citizens of a community. The discussion thus far seems to indicate that the bulk of con- temporary planning programs go no further than the outcome concepts event in the planning model, which is usually referred to as the master loIbid. .OH 30308 00m "ovum—om aopmhm demo no on amumhm 5.5 05. NM chroma .o 3058p 8. term . oofirnom one H9350 gnoagoboo Al -.llll .: [#:ggbou \\ III— garg§ilu7 fis.l-l- ..I- gown.“ and 3.3% $230.33?» 3.33m .Hdofimba .505 pom one 3&5? 539nm hpfio on». noosvop pave—93.5..” mo 33H «ahead Mao: 3.. hogan ATIITTTT... 3.230332 Hwnosoqa 05. 38.38.. 3 9508 m.“ one 598 afloaamhwmflc a.“ 0.39...“ «a «0902 mooflrHon one 300» no 309 A —| - _ - x .z - w _ bvmsocHl Howohoasoo .gaooom Hod—“2.6 baa no swank» poonkonnwaoz _ Hwnomuom mo Amaofiohomo - . no omen. m3 gasonxv \1 . 539mm \ . . some 334.535” _ / no .8326 5.50 no mdofiwhoao mo omen no I Hofianogmom . 8.5 A _ + - \ - 0mg 3033 _l_ _ _ \ Banana 305 a H838 A33 beaflm , . umam Hfipcuo 388.5 a .2an _VUJqIH / \ - goals—oz _ 124 plan, general plan or comprehensive plan. To this schematic design for the future community is often added a capital improvements program, which indicates priorities and expenditures for some of the more iminent public improvements, a set of land use controls (zoning, subdivision regu- lations), a transportation plan for guiding the spatial growth of the com- munity, and some, quite often vague, outlines for a continuing planning function defined as conducting more detailed research and analysis in various aspects of the community and updating the master plan. Many leading planners have come to the realization that this itera- tive concept formation approach (re-cycling within the concept formation step) is both inefficient and insufficient to meet the planning needs of urban and regional areas. They recognize the necessity for a more scientific planning methodology dependent upon explicit analytic techniques to supple- ment the traditional approach based on professional judgments and accepted planning standards. This is not to suggest that traditional planning principles no longer have any merit, nor does it imply that creativity and aesthetic con.- siderations have not place-in anne.w:p1ann1ngt.theory. On thexOntrary," a revi- talized planning approach must include valid qualitative planning concepts now made possible by recent technological and intellectual achievements. 11 The construct of the Planning Model is designed to include all of these in a single coordinated and systematic approach. Thus the planner can now View the problem of planning for a communi- ty from a fresh perspective. With the Planning Model as a guide, ‘he can outline a planning program which will lead purposefully and systematically toward a solution to the myriad of community development problems. He 11In addition, it may be a very long time before all important things can be handled by these new methods and, in the interim, traditional tech- niques must suffice. 125 no longer need begin by collecting data in a random or intuitive fashion, for he is aware from the start what kinds of data are needed and in what form this data must be structured in order to provide meaningful inputs for the preconceived later stages of the planning program. In short, with the aid of the Planning Model, he is able to proceed from start to finish in a purposeful systematic manner. A Concepts Formation Program for a Small Urban Community Time and budget limitationsdo not allow for the construction of a complete comprehensive community-planning program in this study. So, in order to illustrate how such a program can be structured by use of the Planning Model, this section will be devoted to the depiction of a concepts formation program (step one of the Planning Model) for a small urban com- munity, 12 and in the following section, a single component of the solution outcome of the complete planning process will be hypothesized and the activ- ities and events leading up to that outcome component will be hypothetically programmed, in order to indicate a segment of the planning program emanat- ing from the remaining six steps of the Planning Model. Figure 33 illustrates a dependency network for the concepts forma- tion program. It indicates twenty-nine events and sixty-nine activities lead- ing from the initial planning premise to the concepts of the problematic situ- ation, the solution outcome, and the planning program necessary to achieve the solution outcome. Upon investigation it can be seen that the structure of the first step in the planning program is based upon the second level sub-steps of the 12A major portion of this program was developed and utilized by a Michigan State University student planning team in the study of the city of Eaton Rapids, Michigan. A complete report on the programming aspects of this study appears in a paper by this writer entitled ”An Experiment in Planning for Planning, " January 1964, unpublished. Planning Model: 126 activities 101 and 102 constitute the survey, 103 to 136 the model design, 137 to 144 the policies design, 145 to 152 the constraints development, 154 to 161 the plan design, 162 to 165 the program design, and 166 to 169 constitute the action sub-step. Following is a reference list of the activities and events shown on the diagram so that the reader may examine the program in more detail. Events (Numbers 1-99 are reserved for events): (”PURE-”5"" 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Planning Premise Sub-Concepts Formal Political Study Report Physiography Report Historical Background Report Reports on Laws, Informal Political Study, Public Services, and Public Resources Reports on Land Use, Preliminary Population Data, Economic History and the Regional Setting Reports on Political Plans and Trends, Preliminary Industrial Survey, Preliminary Commercial Survey, and Final Population Data Reports on Education Study, Religious Study, Labor Data, Public and Institutional Buildings, Parks and Recreation, Housing, Vacant Land Study, Circulation Study, and Visual Amenities Survey Final Political Report, Final Social Report, Central Business District Study Report, River Study Report, and Reports on Other Miscellaneous Studies Completion of Graphics, Special Problems Report, and Final Economic Report Conceptual State Model Program Research Report Reports on Preliminary Attitude Survey, Government Policies, Industrial Policies, and Commercial Policies Reports on Community Goals and Controllable Model Factors Report on Program Goals Physical Constraints Report Social Constraints Report Internal and External Political Constraints Report Constraints Probabilities Report on Alternative Plan Strategy Factors Report on Alternative Program Strategy Factors Plan Strategy Alternatives Program Strategy Alternatives Testing Program for Plan Strategies Testing Program for Program Strategies Chosen Plan Chosen Program Concepts of Existing System, Outcome Solution,, and Planning Program 127 Activities (numbers 100 and up are reserved for activities): 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. .Reconnaissance Concepts Formation Program Design Formal Political Study Physiography Study Historical Background Study Regional Setting Study Laws Survey Informal Political Study Public Services Survey Public Resources Survey Land Use Survey Population Preliminary Study Economic History Study Political Plans and Trends Study Industrial Preliminary Study Commercial Preliminary Study Population Final Study Public and Institutional Buildings Survey Parks and Recreation Study Housing Study Vacant Land Survey Circulation Study Visual Amenities Education Study Religious Study Labor Study Graphics Political Final Social Final Study Central Business District Study River Study Other Miscellaneous Studies Special Problems Economic Final Study Conceptual State Model Formulation System Concept Report Preliminary Attitude Survey Government Policies Survey Industrial Policies Survey Commercial Policies Survey Goals Identification Test Program Policies Development Program Goals Identification Desired Program Outcome Development Program Constraints Development Physical Constraints Study Socio-Economic Constraints Study Internal and External Political Constraints Study 149. - .151. Constraint Probabilities Development 152. 153. 154. 157. States of Nature Development Controllable Factors Delineation - 156. Plan Strategies Design Plan Alternatives Generation 136 on egment of a Planning Program I Dance 0 f pt F mati S or a Small Communit Figure 33 129 Activities (Continued) 158. - 160. Program Strategies Design 161. Program Alternatives Generation 162. Test Program Criteria Development 163. Testing Program Design 164. Test Program Criteria Development 165. Testing Program Design 166. Testing 167. Outcome Concept Report 168. Testing 169. Program Concept Report A Program Segment Leading to the Completion of a Highway Bypass In order to illustrate a segment of a program emanating from the re- maining six steps of the Planning Model, a single component of the solu- tion outcome for a small urban community has been arbitrarily chosen, and this section will be devoted to attempting to structure the necessary program activities and events leading up to the completion of that com- ponent. The arbitrarily chosen component is a highway bypass which, of course, is a capital improvement component of the thoroughfare plan, which, in turn, is a part of the overall community plan. The thorough- fare plan is designed mainly from controllable factors in that part of the transportation state model concerned with thoroughfares (aided, of course, by pertinent policies and constraints). The transportation state model is one part of the overall community system state model. The dependency network illustrated in Figure 34 depicts that segment of the overall planning program which leads directly to the choice of a thoroughfare plan alternative including a bypass, and from thence to the program and construction of the bypass itself. Upon investigation the program segment can easily be broken down into six sets of activities and events stemming from the six remaining steps of the Planning Model: activities 101 to 152 (and their connected events) constitute the model design step, 13 153 to 173 the policies design step, 174 to 189 the cons- 13The components of this model design step of the planning program 130 straint 5 development step 190 to 200 the plan. design step 201 to 212 the program design step and activities 213 to 22$ constitute the action step. Each of these sets of activities and. events could easily be further broken down and related to pertinert sut ~~steps of the Planning Model, if desired, to validate this approach more completely. It is interesting to note that in both of these examples. the very shape of the program diagram illustrates the two basic planning elements of analysis and synthesis. Those steps in the Planning Model comprising the Research phase {model design, policies design and constraints develop- ment) are essentially composed cf analytic; activities which can. be generally defined as the separation of a whole into its constituent parts so as to inves- tigate their nature. proportion, function relationship. etc. During these steps the planning program diagram grows increasingly larger. The de« sign steps in the Planning Inodel consist. Inainly of synthesis activities, which may be defined as the putting together of parts or elements so as to form a whole, and during these steps the shape of the diagram becomes increasingly smaller. Thus the planning program di-r:..gra.m developed from the Planning Model schematically illustrates the very essence of the plan~ ning process .-.. taking a system apart to investigate its specific details followed by the re-~combination of the parts to form an improved system. 14 segment are drawn primarily from the recent work. of Alan M. Voorhees and Associates Inc. for the Connecticut. lnterregional Planning Program, unpublished. 14 . The systems modeling theory recently proposed by Herman Koenig and his associates provides a specific rigorous method for analysis {model- ing separate components) and for synthesis {combining these components) of any system which can be described in quantitative terms. See Herman E. Koenig. Yilmag Tohad, Hiremaglur K. Kesavan. "Analysis of Discrete Phy- sical Systems. " Department. of Electrical Engineerirg_. Michigan State Unis- versity, East Lansing, unpublished not dated; Herman E. Koenig. "A Sysa- tems Concept and Its Implications, " unpublished, not dated; and Jack B. Ellis, Herman E= Koenig and David N, Milstein. ”Physical Systems Analw 1.31 In order that the planning program segment shown in Figure 34 can be examined in detail, a reference list of the hypothetical activities and events included in it is given below. Events: 1. Major Concepts 2. Modeling Concepts .3. Screen Line Boundary 4. State Weekend Traffic Data 5. State Weekday Traffic Data 6. Weekend Interview Report 7. Weekend Roadside Interview Report 8. Weekday Interview Report 9. Truck Interview Report 10. Road Classification 11. Coded Network 12. Truck Movement Matrix by Purpose and Completed Road Trees 13. Reports on State Interview Data and Weekday Roadside Interviews 14. Completion of Trip Assignment and Trip Cards Assignment 15. Selected Screen Line Count Locations 16. Report on Weekend Trips Production and Attraction Indices, Trip Length Distribution, Trip Production and Attrac- tion Rates, and Through Trip Matrix 17. Report on Weekday Trip Length Distribution, Trip Production and Attraction. Car Occupancy, and Work Trip Model, as well as the Total Screen Line Volume, and Trip Production and Attraction Rates and Trip Length Distribution for Trucks 18. Weekend Trip Purpose Groupings 19. Weekend Trip Productions and Attractions 20. Weekend Trip Distribution 21. Weekday Trip Purpose Groupings 22. Weekday Trip Productions and Attractions 23. Weekday Trip Distribution 24. Road Network Assignment, Through Travel Matrix, and External Station .Base and Purpose 25. Screen Line Count. Summary 26. Revised Road Network Assignment 27. Reports on Weekend Trip Distribution, Weekday Trip Distribution and. Detailed Volume Flow 28. State Model of Existing Road System 29. Policies Concepts 30. Reports on All. Policies Pertinent to Thoroughfare Plan y51s of Socio--Economic Situations, " text of a paper delivered to the Joint National Meeting of the Operations Research Society of America, and The Institute of Management Science, Minneopolis. Minnesota, October 7, 1964. (Mimeographed.) 1.32 Events: iZContinued) 31. Thoroughfare Goals 32. Alternative Controllable Policies Factors 33. Combined Sets of Controllable Policies Factors 34. Selected Sets of Alternative Policies Strategies 35. Test Program :Strategy Selector) 36. Test Outcomes 37. Thoroughfare Policies 38. Thoroughfare Constraints Concepts .39. Reports on Pertinent Thoroughfare Constraints 40. Sensitivity Testing Results 41. Constraints Choice Criteria 42. Constraints Alternatives 43. Test Program {Strategy Selector) 44. Test Outcomes 45. Set of Thoroughfare Constraints 46. Plan Design Concepts 47. Thoroughfare Planning Elements 48. Thoroughfare Planning Policies 49. Alternative Thoroughfare Plans 50. Test Program {Strategy Selector) 51. Test Outcomes 52. Thoroughfare Plan {including Bypass) 53. Thoroughfare Programming Concepts 54. Program Planning Elements 55. Program Policies 56. Program Alternatives 57. Test Program {Strategy Selector) 58. Test Outcomes 59. Thoroughfare Program 60. Bypass Construction Program Concepts 61. Bypass Construction Program Planning Elements 62. Bypass Construction Program Policies 63. Bypass Construction Program Alternatives 64. Test Program (Strategy Selector) 65. Bypass Construction Program 66. Completed Bypass Activities: 101. Model Design Outcome Concept Formation 102. Model Design Program Concepts Formation 103. Screen Line Selection 104. State Weekend Traffic Data Survey 105. State Weekday Traffic Data Survey 106. Road Classification 107. Roadside Interviewing 108. State Interview Data. Survey 109. Screen Line Count Locations Selection 110. Weekend Interviewing 111. Weekend Roadside Interviewing 112. Weekday Interviewing 113. Truck. Interviewing 114. Development of Truck Movement Matrix by Purpose 133 Activities: {Continued}. 115. Code and Assembly Network 116. Test Trees 117. Weekend Trip Production Indices Development 118. Weekend Trip Attraction Indices Development 119. Weekend Trip Length Distribution 120. Weekend Trip Length Distribution (from Roadside Interview) 121. Weekend Trip Production Rates Development 122. Weekend Trip Attraction Rates Development 123. Through Trip Matrix Development 124. Weekday Trip Length Distribution 125. Weekday Trip Production Deve10pment 126. Weekday Trip Attraction Development 127. Car Occupancy Data Compilation 128. Work Trip Model Development 129. Assignment of Trip Cards 130. Trip Assignment 131. Check Screen Line Volume 132. Trip Attraction Rates Development 133. Trip Production Rates Development 1.34. Trip Length Distribution 135. Through Travel Matrix Development 1.36. External Station Base and Purpose Development 1.37. Compile Count Location Data and Summarize 1.38. Weekend Trip Purpose Groupings 139. Weekday Trip Purpose Groupings 140. Weekend Trip Productions and Attractions Compilation 141. Weekend Trip Distribution 142. Weekday Trip Productions and Attractions 143. Weekday Trip Distribution 144. Assign Road Network. for Weekdays 145. Check Trip Attractions 146. Check Screen Line Volumes 147. Check Trip Distribution 148. Check. Origin-JDestination Movements 149. Check Screen Line Trip Lengths 150. Prepare Volume Flow Maps 151. Distribute Vehicle Trips 152. Adjust and Calibrate State Model 153. Review and Policies Concepts Formation 154. Federal Highway Policies Research 155. State Highway Policies Research 156. County Road Policies Research 157. City Street Policies Research 158. Public. and Private Carrier Policies Survey 159. Local Driver Policies Survey 160. Through Driver Policies Survey 161. Thoroughfare Goals Specification 162. Thoroughfare Policies Constraints Development 163. Desired Outcomes Specification 164. Alternative Controllable Policies Factors Development 165. Synthesis 166. - 168. Policies Alternatives Specification IIO H7 e Hg ”‘1 145 1040 I20 I6 I389 mom IAI 20 I46 I2I ‘ 147 m 7 12a 4 K .23 12.4 _ :25 k 126 H2 9 ‘27 128 10! I48 0&9039 1059126; @ 676,423? I43@l44@E@151@152 23 Isomm (r3q H4 ,2 I32 loam us mug, :33 IO? :35 9 I36 :09 ® 137 ' . 25 I50 174 @&@ I6! @ I649 165% 127$ 170$ I7] @ 172 ii} OVERALL PLANNING POLICIES :54 1 I63 [66 t I62. I90 I75 I82. ~ I7?®180 m mmw I86 w I87@ I88 w I87 202 ._ . I OVERALL- PLANNING CONSTRAINTS- I73 W4 I75 46 I41W172I7?200201203 204 a m a @ZI'I @ aIEMZB 214@ZI5 ["13 FIGURE 34 206 205 A PLANNING THE PROGRAM SEGMENT LEADING TO COMPLETION OF A HIGHWAY BYPASS 8V7 EM: @551 @ 222@223 ® 135 Activities: {Continued} 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 221. 222. 223. Test Program Design 'Testing Policies Choice Thoroughfare.Polnjes.Report Policies Review Review and Constraints Concepts Formation IPhysiography'ConstrahnslResearch Budgetary Constraints Research Political Constraints Research. Socfifl Constranns.Research Sensitivity Testing Constraints Choice Criteria Specification Constraints Probabilities Development Desired Outcomes Specification -- 185. Constraints Alternatives Specification Test Program Design rTesting Thoroughfare Constraints Choice Thoroughfare Constraints Report Controllable Transportation Factors Specification Thoroughfare Plan Elements Development Thoroughfare Planning Policies Specification Thoroughfare Planning Constraints Development Thoroughfare Planning Desired Outcomes Specification - 197. Alternative Thoroughfare Plans Development Test Program Design Simulation. Choice of Thoroughfare Plan (including Bypass) Thoroughfare Plan Report State Model Review ThoroughflareIProgrannliesearch Thoroughfare Program Policies Specification Thoroughfare Program Constraints Development Thoroughfare Program Desired Outcomes Specifications - 209. Thoroughfare Program Alternatives Development Test Program Design Testing Thoroughfare Program Choice Thoroughfare Program Review and Bypass Construction Concepts Bypass Construction Program Research Bypass Construction Policies Specification Bypass Construction Constraints Development Bypass Construction Program Desired Outcome Specification - 220. Bypass Construction Program Alternatives Development Test Program Design Choice of Detailed Bypass Construction Program Bypass Construction Toward More Comprehensive Urban Planning Programs These examples constitute an attempt to clarify the utility of the 136 Planning Model as a working guide to the design of comprehensive urban planning programs. Although the examples are hypothetical, much atten- tion has been given in their construction to advanced analytic techniques now being used in numerous real urban and regional planning operations. Application of the Planning Model in the construction of a complete com- prehensive urban planning program would appear to be a reasonably straightforward task, although naturally involving a great deal of time and effort. Such an experiment must be conducted before the complete utility of this theory can be judged, but it seems reasonable to conclude at this point that the Planning Model constitutes an efficient problem- solving aid which is worthy of further experimentation in the field of urban planning. Its most important attribute is that it has the built- in flexibility required for application to planning problems at any level of complexity. CHAPTER VI IMPLICATIONS FOR URBAN PLANNERS It was suggested in the opening chapter of this work that planning is becoming widely recognized as a universal way of solving problems. It is now commonly utilized by industry, commercial enterprises, the military, public agencies, and innumerable individuals and groups en- gaged in every conceivable type of activity. In short, it is a behavioral process engaged in by persons and organizations who must make decisions. For many, this planning process simply involves the formation of some goal to be realized and intuitively arriving at decisions which support this idea; but for others, especially those who are responsible for solv- ing complex problems, the planning process is much more involved and its construction demands their careful attention. It is to the latter group that this thesis is directed; especially to those who are concerned with planning for the improvement of urban and regional systems. ”Since the war, we have seen increasingly widespread recognition of the need for more scientific approaches to planning problems. This is due, in large part, to a change in the scale and character of these problems. . . . The planner today confronts a dynamic, complex and ratpidly changing world which he can scarcely understand or control with techniques developed under more stable conditions. "1 New analytic 1Frederick O'R. Hayes, "Operations Research: A Statement of Re- quirements, " a paper presented at the ASPO National Planning Confer- ence, Boston, Massachusetts, April 5-9, 1964, reproduced in Planning 137 138 techniques are being rapidly developed to meet this need. Many of them have been mentioned in previous chapters. But planning theory has not kept pace with technological advancement. No comprehensive method- ology has been developed to coordinate all these diverse analytic tech- niques into a single unified approach for solving complex urban-regional planning problems. The Planning Model has been developed to help fill this gap. It is not proposed as a panacea for all planning theory failings, but it is advanced as a simple, straightforward guide for assisting- planners in approaching planning problems in a rational, systematic manner. In this chapter the possible uses of the Planning Model in urban- regional planning will be summarized and its special significance for aiding policies planning will be briefly elaborated upon. But prior to these major observations, some deductions of secondary importance can be drawn from the several diagramming techniques used and dis- cussed throughout the foregoing chapters. Analytic Diagram Methodology Graphic representations of various kinds are commonly used for a multitude of purposes by persons in all fields of study and areas of endeavor. Perhaps the most obvious use of graphic representation occurs in the field of art . Graphic artists devote all of their efforts to producing graphic representations. Although their productions are classified in many ways, the major distinction is usually made between realistic and abstract art. The former consists of graphic representa- tions of real phenomena whereas the latter art forms are divorced from any particular reference to material objects -- abstract art is not re- presentational. However, inasmuch as they are only representative 1964, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, 1964, 68-76. 139 of real phenomena, all graphic representations can be considered ab- stractions. Drawings of natural and cultural objects, schematic dia- grams of objects and processes, graphs and charts, and even theoretical mathematical diagrams can be included in such a definition. Graphic representations used and discussed in this work are predominantly diagrams of objects (including all culturally derived arti- facts) and processes. Such diagrams can, and have been, referred to as diagrammatic models. They are of two basic kinds: stationary and operational. Examples of stationary diagrammatic models are Marquis's "Nested Hierarchy of Communities" (Figure 30) and Starr's "Design Tree" (Figure 20). "The Planning Model" (Figure 26) and the "Tote Unit" (Figure 5) constitute examples of operational, or behavioral, diagrams. It should be noted that any of these diagrammatic models can be either descriptive (what is) or normative (what ought to be). All are analytic in the sense that they reduce an object or process to its basic components and interconnections to provide increased understanding of its composition. Viewed in this way, a problematic situation can be thought of as a collection of interacting components and greater understanding of the problematic situation (and thus of the problem) can be realized by re- ducing it to an analytic diagram. It was suggested in Chapter II that a collection of interacting components constitutes a system, and thus, any problematic situation can be considered a system and, providing it can be described quanti- tatively, it can be analyzed by means of systems analysis. Henry Koenig describes one approach to systems analysis as 140 consisting essentially of developing a mathematical model of a system of interacting components from (1) mathematical models of the components themselves and, (2) their prescribed interconnection pattern. He utilizes linear graph theory to express a diagrammatic model of the topology of a system which can then be reduced to mathematical symbols, and a sym- bolic system model can be realized. Basically this approach consists of defining a system in terms of its discrete components and of establishing the points of contact or interfaces between components which are called "terminals". Each component must have at least two interfaces and these interfaces, or terminals, are jomed by straight- lines, called "edges", into a "terminal graph". A pair of directional complementary variables, measured "across" and "through" the terminals, is then utilized to define each edge symbolically, and, in this way, each component terminal graph can be described in symbolic terms. All of the component terminal graphs in a system can then be combined into a single "system graph", and this final diagrammatic model of the system provides the basis for formulating a specific symbolic system model. 2 The system graph is essentially composed of a set of interconnected nodes and links which constitute a network diagram. In constructing a program segment leading to the construction of a highway bypass in Chapter V3, it became necessary first to design a program for the design of a state model of the existing system. The model used for this purpose is a "gravity model" which is a trip distribution technique in rather widespread use today.4 One of the results of this technique is a 2Herman E. Koenig, Yilmag Tokad, Hiremaglur K. Kesavan, "Anal- ysis of Discrete Physical Systems, " Department of Electrical Engineering, Michigan State University, not dated. (Lithographed. ). 3 Supra, 129. 4For a complete history and explanation of the gravity model, see 141 transportation network, or tree, diagram which consists of nodes, repre- senting travel attraction and production zones, and links, representing travel between these zones. Thus the network diagram derived from the gravity model is very similar in appearance to the network diagram constituting the system graph, and both of these are similar to the appearance of the program net- work diagrams illustrated in Chapters III, IV and V. However, each of these diagrams is utilized in a manner quite different from the others. The nodes and links in each can be expressed mathematically and results are commonly obtained from each by use of the computer, but the manipu- lations and purposes associated with each of these three network diagrams are quite distinct from each other. Thus, the major conclusion to be drawn from this discussion is that the network diagram constitutes the most basic form of graphic re- presentation. Many kinds of phenomena can be ultimately broken down into a set of nodes and linké for a variety of purposes. The network diagram constitutes a fundamental diagrammatic tool to which must be added an analytic methodology designed to achieve some Specific purpose. The diagram by itself is meaningless without an accompanying methodology. Uses of the Planning Model in Urban-Regional Planning Up to this point the Planning Model has been discussed as a guide to the development of comprehensive planning programs. This in itself is reason enough for the design and continuing use of the Planning Model, for there exists today a great deal of uncertainty on the part of many planners as to what constitutes a comprehensive planning program and as to how such Calibrating and Testing a Gravity Model with a Small Computer, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, Office of Planning, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, October, 1963. 142 a program can be efficiently and effectively structured. Use of the Plan- ning Model could go a long way in reducing much of this uncertainty. To it must be added considerable substantive theory (of the city, region, business, etc.) before a complete systems theory of urban-regional plan- ning can emerge“ But the Planning Model has other uses in urban-regional planning which may well be of equal importance. In addition to the design of new planning programs, it can be used in the analysis of existing programs. Planning programs already under- way, or even completed, can be broken down into their constituent parts and transposed into a sequential set of activities and events. These activ- ities and events can then be grouped under the pertinent step or sub-step of the Planning Model, thus revealing any significant gaps and sequential errors in the program. Major discrepancies may necessitate a complete program revision. Lesser ones may only require a few study program changes. In any event, the Planning Model used in this way provides the planner with a meaningful mechanismwfor evaluating a planning program. It might be likened to the desired outcomes discussed in connection with the Strategy Selector. 5 A third use of the Planning Model in urban-regional planning is concerned with the coordination and evaluation of the efforts of the pro- fessional staff. Once the Planning Model is proclaimed as the planning program guide, each member of the staff can become specifically aware of how his work fits into the overall program, and of what kind of results will be demanded from him for the next program phase. He will know exactly what each of the other staff members' responsibilities are and 5 Supra, 46. 143 he will be cognizant of how their tasks are related to his own. Overall staff meetings and critiques should prove much more fruitful when each member of the staff is intimately acquainted with all other aspects ,_ ' of the planning program. Obviously this use of the Planning Model is much more critical to large planning operations than to small ones. But it would appear to have more than a little merit even in the very small operations, especially for the education of those staff members who are not professional planners. A fourth use of the Planning Model in urban-regional planning con- cerns its utility as an education and information tool for the benefit of planning commission members, elected policy makers, administrators, and even in some cases for the general public. As a simplified general- ized description of the planning process, the Planning Model can be used by the planner to help him explain planning theory, and in its more enlarged forms it can be used by him to clarify the details of the planning process and help him justify the need for various planning studies. Closely connected with this information and education use of the Planning Model is the large area of concern involving the interrelation of planning with management, or more simply, the involvement of policy makers in the planning process. This is a problem of increasing concern for urban-regional planners as well as for policy makers. It will be dealt with in some detail in the following final section. Policies Planning "The unique contribution of the planning profession is that the planner's entire focus is to assist in the evaluation, planning and develop- ment of a better urban environment. "9 (underlining added). In large and 6Robert L. Williams, "The Planner and His Profession: A Mid- Century Profile", a paper presented at the ASPO National Planning Con- ference, Boston, Massachusetts, April 5-9, 1964, reproduced in Plan- 144 complex urban and regional systems specialized planning takes place in a hierarchy of centers and policy decisions are made at many levels, the most important ones hopefully at the elected representatives level. If the professional urban-regional planner -is to coordinate all these plans in a unified comprehensive planning program, he must incorporate, as a critical element of this program, the many policy decisions which are made by those elected representatives and appointed administrators not directly involved in the planning function. The traditional approach to city planning included a program of research, analysis, and design carried out by professional planners whose purpose it was to study the needs and resources of the city, project its future growth, and then design a plan for the best future physical structure of the city. This plan was then approved (perhaps with modifications) by a lay planning commission and by elected representatives as a guide for the physical growth of the city. The plan was intended to constitute a coor- dinative mechanism for all of those persons entrusted with making policy decisions concerning the physical growth of the city. In some cases this approach fulfilled its desired purpose, but in a great many instances it did not. For example, the projections upon which the plan was based often proved inaccurate and the plan for future growth consequently became insuf- ficient. For many planners the obvious remedy for such a situation was to re-examine the city in light of the new trends, and to design a new plan based on a new, updated set of projections. This process has been repeated several times in many cities throughout the world. But for many planners the traditional planning approach seemed nigg 1964, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, 1964, 93-95. 145 inadequate, and new, more dynamic planning approaches appeared neces- sary -- approaches which would integrate planning with the continuous policy-making functions of government in order that plans for the future C ity growth could be kept constantly up to date. The objectives of these contemporary planning theorists were typified in a 1959 paper by Henry Fagin in which he stated: "The purpose of organizing and carrying out planning activities within the framework of urban government is to enable the urban community to make intelligent and coherent decisions about its Own physical, social, and economic evolution". 7 Coupled with this transition in city planning theory was the emer- g ence of well-financed planning operations at metropolitan and regional l evels, especially those recently focussed on transportation planning. These planners found that they had to deal with a multiplicity of planning arid policy-making bodies at several levels of government, and so, they t00 became cognizant of the need for a comprehensive dynamic planning approach which would respond to the policies and plans of many varied 1 egislators, admininstrators and specialized planners. Many of the tools for instigating this dynamic planning approach have already been discussed in earlier chapters, and all are included in the Planning Model framework. The integration of these tools with the Policy-making function has been purposely left until the end in order that the workings of the Planning Model might be thoroughly understood before this most important concept is introduced. Policies design has been included as a major step in the Planning Model. It is also, of course, included in each sub-step and in lesser 7Henry Fagin, "Organizing and Carrying out Planning Activities within Urban Government", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXV-3 (August, 1959). 146 sub-steps, depending on the level of enlargement of the Model. It con- sists essentially of investigating all past and existing policies, or de- cision rules (objectives, principles, standards), pertinent to the system under study, resolving conflicts, and designing an improved, coordinated set of policies (objectives, principles, standards) relative to the desired This step, by definition, involves the planning function with These 3 ystem goals. all of the policy-making groups active in the system under study. groups must not only specify their own policies but they must also reach a concensus on a combined single set of policies for that system, or, in the case of sub-steps, for some particular sub-system. The activities involv- ing these policy-making groups can be delineated on the program network diagram so that all may gain a complete understanding of their role in the overall planning planning process. This concensus on sets of objectives, principles, and standards for each of the steps and sub-steps of the Planning Model by all pertinent sys- tem policy-making groups constitutes the basic framework for what can now be termed the "policies plan". However, such a process would be incom- Plete if it did not include further assurance that the chosen sets of policies a. re consummated in the chosen plan for an improved system. Consequently, i in addition to playing a major role in the policies design step, policy makers lit-lust also be involved in the choice of the final plan; that is to say, they be- Qome an integral part of the Strategy Selector mechanism. Of course, if the desired outcomes which they agree upon could be expressed in quantita- t ive terms and if the outcomes in the decision matrix could also be expressed i n comparable quantitative terms, then their role in the choice process would become automatic, but such a prospect is highly unlikely for urban—regional Systems in the near future. By this means, then, the policies plan can be seen to be an integral 147 part of the Planning Model. The policy maker's role in the planning pro- cess is clearly defined in the policies design and plan selection activities programmed as a critical segment of the network diagram. For further Clarification, the actual policies plan could easily be lifted out of the Ove rall network and diagrammed separately. Perhaps a more meaningful de 3 ignation in actual practice would be to use a color key on the program network indicating the activities and events comprising the policies plan. FL). rther detail could be added by assigning different colors for each of the several policy-making groups involved, thus delineating each group's r Ole in the program. CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION The foregoing constitutes an attempt to clarify the inconsistencies and inadequacies of contemporary urban-regional planning methodology, to investigate the emerging theory of problem solving and decision making as a framework for planning procedures, and to develop a procedural theory upon which to base systematic urban-regional planning operations. As was suggested in Chapter 1, many cities are still being sub- jected to physical design planning theory which does not satisfy their real planning needs, whereas the planning problems of other cities and regions are being tackled by means of advanced analytic techniques which, however, are not coordinated into comprehensive planning approaches designed to facilitate the making and implementing of public choices on urban development. A great transition is taking place in public planning techniques, but a detailed methodology for guiding the overall process in a systematic and purposeful manner has been sadly lacking. It was pointed out in Chapter II that planning and problem solving are essentially similar processes composed of hierarchies of decision- making units which operate in regenerative fashion as a. continuous system of human behavior. These processes are guided by goals which are based on individual or group values. The individual valuing process is a type of internal decision-making process which structures the way in which an individual views and evaluates external objects. Human and social values are products of aggregate personal values. 148 149 These processes were described as hierarchical dependency net- works of interrelated premises, alternatives, and decisions with a con- tinuous feedback element built in as an integral part of every step at every level of each process. Thus planning is visualized as a hierarchical process of sequential decision making, organized horizontally and verti- cally into parts which have patterns of activities and events identical to each of the other parts and to the process as a whole. The Planning Model is hypothesized as this basic repetitive pattern common to the planning process and to each of its parts and sub-parts. It provides the planner with an organized framework which he can utilize as a guide for designing and conducting a systematic planning program, as well as for the analysis of existing planning programs and for educating and informing others of the intricacies of complex planning programs. This last use has special significance for the delineation of the roles of various policy makers in an overall planning program. The com- prehensive integration of these elected and appointed representatives of the citizenry into the planning process constitutes a means of translating individual and group values, needs and desires into developmental changes in urban and regional systems. Thus, upon the clarification and utiliza- tion of such a policies component as an integral part of the overall plan- ning program, the planner no longer assumes the role of all-knowing expert on physical development, but rather, his task becomes one of clarifying and presenting (to designated policy makers) policy and design alternatives at progressively more detailed levels of decision making. It might be assumed, from the description of the steps and sub- steps of the Planning Model, that this theory is based upon the necessity of describing the existing system, desired policies and probable constraints 150 in comparable quantifiable terms. There can be little doubt that the choice process, described as the Strategy Selector, would be most effec- tive under such circumstances, and in fact, the Planning Model has been designed to take full advantage of this sort of situation, for the quantifica- tion of components and interconnections is an essential ingredient of a complete systems approach. However, in spite of the rapid advances in urban-regional analytic techniques, it will, in all probability, be a long time before urban and regional systems can be completely described in terms of mathematical models. And even then, it is not at all clear how all planning goals and constraints might be reduced to mathematical symbols. This task may well turn out to be impossible for most urban and regional systems, and consequently, an intuitive decision element may well be included in even the most scientifically refined planning programs of the future. In fact, many forceful arguments have been presented in support of the intrinsic continuing value of selected intuitive decision elements Within the planning process. Thus these elements may not only turn out to be unavoidable, but they may well become desirable parts of a com- prehensive theory of planning. One of the possibilities of the approach taken in the development Qf this Planning Model is that of narrowing down and clarifying those Specific steps or substeps in the process where intuitive elements are rnost critical. In other words, it may be possible through such an ap— proach to aid in the understanding and inclusion of the necessary intuitive elements. This fact does not reduce the basic utility of the Planning Model. It has been carefully conceived to guide planning programs for very crudely defined systems as well as for those systems which can be ulti- 151 mately expressed entirely in mathematical symbols. A state model of an existing system can be expressed verbally and/or graphically, as well as mathematically. Of course, it cannot then be subjected to symbolic manipulations of various kinds, nor can its basic construct be as precisely defined and communicated;.'but4.‘.the fact remains that a state model can be expressed in terms other than mathematical. This is also true of the outcomes produced in the Strategy Selec- tor (via the decision matrix, Figure 12). Alternative strategies (plans) and sets of constraints can be expressed in verbal and/or graphic out- comes, which then can be subjectively compared and evaluated with :respect to verbal and/or graphic desired outcomes (detailed policies). Such a process obviously requires a tremendous amount of intuitive judgment on the part of trained professionals to assist the policy makers in arriving at their decision. But at least the choice process is systema- tically organized and the policy makers can be made aware of the deriva- tion of alternative strategies (plans), sets of constraints, and the resultant probable outcomes. This would apprear to be a tremendous improvement Over many contemporary planning operations wherein only a single plan 1 3 presented (sometimes) for approval. In sum, the planning profession is in great need of a systematic methodology for guiding planning efforts at every level of complexity. The Planning Model is proposed as an initial step toward fulfilling this heed for a systematic methodology with the hope that it can play a useful role in a dynamic planning theory devoted to the improvement of man's Continuous search for a better life. APPENDIX THE PLANNING PROCESS The following dlagram illustrates the activities, major events, and interconnecting flows of information necessary to the complete concept of the planning process presented in Chapter III. It can be considered an enlarged and more detailed version of the planning portion of the "System Control Model” (Figure 25), with each of the rnajor steps portrayed as a separate ”Planning Unit" (Figure 24). This same process can, of course, be visualized in terms of the Planning Model enlarged to a second level of abstraction, which then provides an operational guide for the des1gn of a detalled plan- ning program. 152 ICTIDI 9% ‘ i GR‘TTP k x . ACTIOF ___. _ SETUP ' 1mm: "’* or PLAN, ~— 1’me r J _ (DNCH’T POLICE ”NATION ' SPECIFIC. ‘ _ Rm. 7; '_ 523m , sinus"— Pm ORA.“ PR‘GRAH _LJ' C(\ IISTRAINT RESEA'RCH )‘DDEL (X‘NSTRAINTB VELCPMEINT AJALl SIS I ‘ mus'mucrj WHEN? Acne“. 4,.— REVIEW OF PLAN [ Efli‘fi. a<— DAVID F PARKER 5/65 T——_——\ REmNN- AISSANCE CONCEPT FOMTION M RESEARCH M WNCEPT RMATION \ CONCEPT REAL / SYSTEM / / \ /T \ y \I CONCEPTUAL s CONSTRAINTS SYSTEM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ( SURVEY MODEL . CONSTRUCTION / ‘ PRELIM PLAN PROGRAM TEST DESIGN DESIGN ‘ L SYSTEM _I GOALS IDENTIEI- - PRELIM. a CATION SYSTEM CONCEPT CONCEPTS FORMATION PLANNING PmGW PROGRAM GOALS IDENTIF. L PRELIM PROGRAM ‘ PLAN r DESIGN TEST DESIGN _ L CONCEPTUAL PROG 12%ng CONSTRAINT SURVEY MODEL DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION & NDDEL REVIEW POLICIES RESEARCH -—-l MODEL ANALYSIS L GOALS SPECIFICATION / , MPOLICIES __h PROGRAM TEST DESIGN DESIGN \ L POLICIES poLICIES ‘ CONSTRAINT mNSTR'N DEVELOPMENT \ \ DESIGN W POLICIES] MDDELING ALTERASLE CONCEPT PARAMETERS FORMATIO SPECIFICATION L L RECONN. CONCEPT MODEL PROGRAM —+ REVIEw "’l DESIGN DESIGN TEST L ' \ VARIAR RESEARCH PAmmfi‘EEISé CONSTRAINT ANAI:SIS mm & DEVEIDPMENT MEASUREMENT / LII§‘ ,z/ \ \ \ CONSTRAINTS CONCEPT CHOICE FOMTION CRITERIA L ‘ CONCEPT, DESIGN OF PROGRAM TEST MODEL SETS OR DESIGN , REVIEw CONSTRAINTS L L ‘1 V RESEARCH SENSITIVITY DEVELOPMENT — — ANALYSIS TESTING OF PROBABILITIES PmGRAM DESIGN _1 L TEST PLAN PLAN UTICEPT POLICIES F0 PG'IATION SPECIFIC . L V CONCEPT , ‘ TD DEL , , POLICIES , H PLANS CTNSTRAINTS , DESIGN REVIEW ‘ N RESEARCH FEMTION ANALYSIS 01““ PMN ELEMENTS (Ill-ISTRAINT , DEVELOPMENT r r PROGRAM DESIGN FEES L (DNSTRAINTS RECYCLE PROCESS PROGRAM PROGRAM CONCEPT POLICIES FORMATION SPECIFIC ‘ L CONCEPT, MODEL, POLICIES, CONSTRAINTS, DESIGN —* & PLAN L . RESEARCH FORMATION ANALYSIS OF PHTGRAM ELETENTS CONSTRAINT DEVEICPl/DEI‘I T T PK‘CRAM ACTION M ETC . i ACTION SPF-UP E’EVIW CF PLAN, PROGRAM (DNCEPT FORMATION POLICIES ) SPECIFIC . RESEA RC‘I ATI ALYS IS ) __,. PROJECT DESIGN PROS. DESIGN r} ACTION (TEST) MO DEL : CONSTRUCT-t ACTIC‘ .‘1 GR? TTP REV I lu'W OF PLAN P ROGPJW THE PLANNING PROCESS ‘ (X‘NSTRAINTS DEVEIPPHH‘JT OUTmME DAVID F PARKER 5/65 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ackoff, Russell L. The Design of Social. Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Alexander, Christopher. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1964. Alger, John R. M. and Hayes, Carl V. Creative Synthesis in Design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1964. Assimow, Morris. Introduction to Design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-.Hall, Inc., 1962. Bennis, Warren G., Benne, Kenneth D., and Chin, Robert. (ed.) The Planning of Change; Readings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Berlo, David K. The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19a). Boulding, Kenneth E. The Image. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1961. Braybrooke, David and Lindblom, Charles E. A Strategy of Decision. New York, Free Press of Glencoe (Macmillan), 1963. Bredemeier, Harry C. and Stephenson, Richard M. The Analysis of Social Systems. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1962. Bross, Irwin D. J. Design for Decision. New York: Macmillan "Co. , 1953. Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Commerce. Calibrating and Testing a Gravity Model with a Small Computer. Washington: U.S. Government Printlng Office, October, 1963. Chapin, F. Stuart, Jr. Urban Land Use Planning. 2nd ed., revised. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1965. Chermayeff, Serge and Alexander, Christopher. Community and Privacy. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1963. Dean, Burton V. , ed. Operations Research in Research and Development. New York: Wiley, 1963. Dewey, John. Lo_gic,’ The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt, 1938. 154 155 BMW: Richard D. (ed.) Automatic Data Processing, Its Application to Urban Planning. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 196]. Fondahl, John W. A Non~Computer Approach to the Critical Path Method for the Construction Industry. Stanford, California: StarYord University, 1962. Forrester, Jay W. Industrial Dynamics. New York: John Wiley and Sons and The M. I. T. Press, I961. Fox, William M. The Management Process, An Integrated Functional Approach. Homewood, Illinois: Richard Irwin, Inc. , I963. Gagne, Robert M. (ed.) Psychological Principles in System Development. New York: Holt, 1962. Gore, William J. Administrative Decision Making: A Heurist'ic.Mode1.. New York: Wiley, 1964. Gosling. W. The Design of Engineering Systems. New York: John Wiley &. Sons, Inc. , 1962. Greenberger, Martin (ed. ) Management and the Computer of the Future. New York: John Wiley 8: Sons, Inc. and The M. I. T. Press, 1962. Hall, Arthur D. A Methodology for Systems Engineering. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc. , 1962. Hearle, Edward F. R. , and Mason, Raymond J. A Data Processing System for State and Local Governments. Englewood, N. J. : Prentice-Hall, 1963. Jacobs, Jane. The Death. and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961. Johnson, Richard A. , Kast, Fremont E. , and Rozenzweig, James E. The Theory and Management of Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Kent, T. J. Jr. The Urban General Plan. San Francisco: Chandler Publish- ing Co. , 1964. Koontz, Harold and O‘Donnell, Cyril. Principles of Management; An Analy- sis ot Managerial Functions. New York: McGraw-Hill Co. , Inc. , 1959. Kuhn, Alfred. The Study of Society, A Unified Approach. Homewood, Il- linois: Richard Irwin Inc. and The Dorsey Press, Inc. , 1963. Loomis, Charles P. Social Systems, Essays on Their Persistence and Shah. e. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand Co. Inc., I960. March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958. 156 McDonough., Adrian M. Information Economics and Management Sistems. New York: McGraw---Hill, 196.3. McLean, Mary (ed.) Local Planning Administration. 3rd ed. , revised. Chicago: The International City Managers' Association, 1959. McMillan, C. , and Gonzalez, R. F. Systems Analysis; A Computer Pifi' proach to Decision Models. New York: Irwin, 1965. Meier, Richard L. _A_Communi_c_ation Theory of Urban Growth. Cambridge; Mass. : M. I. T: Press, 1962. Miller, David W. and Starr, Martin K. Executive Decisions and Opera- tions.Research. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1960. Miller, G. A. Galanter, F. , and Pribram, K. H. Plans and the Structure of Behavior. New York: Henry Holt, 1960. Morell, R. W. Managerial Decision~Making, A Logical Approach. Mil- waukee, Bruce Publ. Co., 1960. Neutra, Richard. Survival Through Design. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. Northrup, F. S. C. Man. Nature and God; A Quest for Life's Meaning New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962. Northrup, F. S. C. The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities. New York: Macmillan Co. , 1947. Olmstead, Michael S. The Small Group. New York: Random House, 1959. Optner, Stanford L. Systems Analysis for Business and Industrial Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Perloff, Harvey S. (ed.) Planning and the Urban Community. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1961. PERT Coordinating Group. PERT Guide for Management Use. Washington, U.S'. Government Printing Office, June, 1963. Polya, G. How to Solve. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Press, 1945. Sherwood, Thomas K. A Course in Process Design. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I. T. Press, 1963. Shuc nman, Abe (ed.) Scientific Decision Making in Business; Readings in Operations Research for Non-mathematicians. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1963. Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1947. Simon, HerbertrA. The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper, 1960. 157 Sorokin, Pitirim A. Society, Culture and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics. New York: Harper and Bros. , 1947. Starr, Martin Kenneth. Product De51gn and Decision Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. The Editors of Fortune. The Exploding Metropolis. Garden City, N. Y. : Doubleday, 1957. Webster, Donald H. Urban Planning and Municipal Public Policy. New York: Harper and Bros. , 1958. Wiener, Norbert. Cybernetics. New York: John Wiley, 1948. Wiener, Norbert... The Human Jse of Human Beings.: Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950. Articles and Periodicals Ackoff, Russell, "Towards a Behavioral Theory of Communication, " Management Science, IV (April, 1958), 218-234. Arensberg, Conrad M. , "American Communities, " American Anthropo- logist, LVII (Fall, 1955), 1143-1162. Bebout, John E. , and Bredemeier, Harry C. , "American Cities as Social Systems," ’ournal of the American Institute of Planners, XXI.Xm2 (May, 1963), 64-76'. Bertalanffy, Ludwig Von, "General Systems Theory, " General Sptems, I~1 (January, 1956), l---10. Branch, Melville C. , "Comprehensive Planning: A New Field of Study, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXX-2 (May, 1964), 9U~IOO. Branch, Melville C. , "Planning and Operations Research, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXIII-4 (November, 19 57), 168-175. Clark, Robert A. ”New Techniques for City Planning, " Public Manage- ment, XLIV-ll (November, 1962), 249-253. "Critical. Path Method -- the New Way to Take Guesswork Out of Sche- duling, " House and Home, XXIII-4 (April, 1963), 106-109. Darland, Robert, "Organization for Urban Planning: Some Barriers to Integration, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXIII-4 (Fall, 1957). Davidoff, P. , and Reiner, T. A. , "A Choice Theory of Planning, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVIII-Z (May, 1962), 103-115. 158 Dyckman, John W. , "Plannirg and Decision Theory, ” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVII~4 (November, 1967, 333-.345. English, J. Morley, ”Understanding the Engineering Design Process, " The Journal of Industrial Engineering, XV-6 (November-Decem- ber, 1964), 29l~296. Fagin, Henry., "Organizing and Carrying Out Planning Activities Within Urban Government, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXV~3 (August, 1959). General Systems. Vols. I - X (1956-65). T Harris, Britton, "Plan or Projection: An Examination of the Use of Models in Planning, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVI —4 (November, 1960), 265-272. Harris, Britton, guest ed. , "Urban Development Models: New Tools for Planning, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, special issue, XXXI-Z (May, 1965), entire issue. Heikoff, Joseph M. , "Urban Planning and the Professional Planner, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVI - 3 (August, 1960), 242-244. Licklider, J. C. R. , "The System System, " in Bennett, E. , Degan, J. , Spiegal, J. (editors), Human Factors in Technology, New York: McGraw---Hi11, 1963, 627—641. Magee, John F. , "Decision Trees for Decision Making, " Harvard Busi- ness Review. XLII—4 (July-August, 1964), 126-138. Meier, Richard L. _. "Systems and Principles for Metropolitan Planning, " Centennial Reviewainter, 1959), 79~94. Miller, Robert W. , "How to Plan and Control with PERT, " Harvard Business Review, XL-2(March-Apri1, 1962), 48. Mitchell, Robert B. , "The New Frontier in Metropolitan Planning, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVIII-3 (August, 1961), 169-175. Perloff, Harvey S. , Wingo, Lowden, Jr. , ”Planning and Development in Metropolitan Affairs. " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVIII-Z (May, 1962), 67-90. Rossi, Peter H. , "Community Decismn Making, " Administrative Science Quarterly, I—4 (March, 1957), 415-443. Scheerer, Martin, "Problem Solving, " Scientific American (April, 1963), 118-128. Simon, Herbert A. "On the Concept of Organizational Goal, " Administra- tive Science Quarterly, IX-l (June, 1964), 1-22. 159 Simon, Herbert. A. , "Theories of Decision Making in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, " American Economic Review, XLIX-3 (June, 1959); 253—283. Sobczak, Thomas, "Network Planning Techniques. " Business Toflcs (Autumn, 1962), Michigan State University, East Lan51ng, l7-26. Thompson; Victor A. , "Administrative Objectives for Development Administration," Administrative Science Quarterly, IX-l (June, 1964), 91-108. Voorhees, Alan M. , special editor, "Land Use and Traffic Models: A Progress Report, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, special issue, XXV-2 (May, 1959), entire issue. Wheaton, William L. C. , "Operations Research in Metropolitan Plan- ning, " Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXIX-4 (November, 1963),. 250-259. Reports and Published Papers Ackoff, R. L. , and Harris, B. Planning, Operations Research and Metropolitan Systems, paper presented at the 1964 National Conference of the American Institute of Planners, Newark, N. J. , August 1964, available in Proceedings of the 1964 Annual Con- ference, American Institute of Planners, Washington, January, 1965, 92-96. Alexander, Christopher, and Manheim, Marvin L. The Desijn of High- way Interchanges: An Example of a General Method for Analyziig Engineering Design Problems. Research Report R 62-1. Cam- bridge, Mass.: M. I. T. Department of Civil Engineering, March, 1962. American Management Association, Establishing an Integrated Data Processing System, Spec1a1 Report #11, 1956. Aschman, Frederick T. , "The 'Policy Plan' in the Planning Program, " paper presented to the 1963 National Conference of the American Society of Planning Officials, Seattle, May 5-9, 1963, available in Planning 1963 , American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, November, 1963—, 105-111. Breuer, Robert, A Statement of Objectives for Transportation Planning, Upstate New York Transportation Studies, Albany, Report No. O6OR1, November, 1962. Creighton, Roger L. , "Perting a Transportation Study, " Upstate New York Transportation Studies, Albany, N. Y. , prepared for pre- sentation at the annual meeting of the Highway Research Board, Washington, January 7—11, 1963. 160 Creighton, Roger L. Harris, Britton, and Hearle, Edward F. R. , "Have We Learned Anything From Transportation Studies ?" panel pre- sentation to the 1963 National Conference of the American Society of Planning Officials, Seattle, May 5-9, 1963, available in Plan- ning 1963, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, Novem- ber, 1963, 175-191. Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, Study Design for a Comprehensive Transportation and Land Use Program for the Detroit. Region, October, 1964. Ducey, John M. , "Citizen Participation on the Planning Process, " paper presented at 1964 Annual Conference of the American Institute of Planners. Newark, N.J., August 16-20, 1964, available in A Report on the Newark Proceedings, American Institute of Planners, Washington, 1964, 228-233. Farness, Sanford S. , ”Perspectives on Environmental Planning and Re- source Development. " A paper presented at the Illinois Confer- ence on Water Resource Development, Chicago, September 15, 1964. Reproduced in Water Resources Planning in Illinois, pre- pared by: Illinois Board of Economic Development, 1964. Fischer, Victor A. , "The New Dimensions of Transportation Planning, " paper presented at 1964 Annual Conference of the American Insti- tute of Planners, Newark, N.J. , August 16-20, 1964, availabe in A Report on the Newark Proceedings, American Institute ofyPlan- ners, Washington, 1964,. 97-«105. "1 Hamburg, M. , and Langford, T. W. , Jr. , Selected Methods of Analysis for Urban Economic Planning and Development in Pennsylvania: Commentary on Regional Economic Accounting Systems, Benefit- Cost Analysis and Statistical Decisions Theory, Department of Internal Affairs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, February, 1964. Hayes, Frederick O'R. , "Operations Research: A Statement of Require- ments, " paper presented to the 1964 National Conference of the American Society of Planning Officials, Boston, ‘April 5-9, 1964, available in Planning, 1964, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, November, 1964, 68-77. Heikoff, Joseph M. , ”The Planning Profession in Search of Itself, " paper presented to the 1964 National Conference of the American Society of Planning Officials, Boston, April 5-9, 1964, available in Plan- ning1964, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, Novem- ber, 1964. Marquis, Stewart, A Systems Approach to Communities, Community Cen- ters, and Planning Areas, Institute for Community Development, Michigan State University, East Lan31ng, September, 1963. Marquis, Stewart, Communities and Planning Areas: A Systems Approach to Spatial Community, Paper No. 10 in series on "Spatial Patterns of Development in the Lansing Region, " prepared for the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission by the Institute for Community De- velopment, Continuing Education Service, Michigan State University, February, 1962. 161 Marquis, Stewart, Development of Community Centers, 1830-1960: An Analysis of the Evolution of Human Community Sistems in the Lansing Tri-CountLRegion, Paper No. 7 in series on ”Spatial Patterns of Development in the Lansing Region, " prepared for the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission by the Institute for Community Development, Continuing Education Service, Michigan State University, May, 1963. Mayor's Committee for Community Renewal, City of Detroit, ”Community Renewal Program,"Detroit, October, 1963. Mayorls Committee for Community Renewa1,'~.City of Detroit, ""Area Screen- ing Model, ” Technical Report II, Detroit, February, 1964. '- -!"H"-‘71 McDougal, Myres S. , ”Outline of Talk on 'Legal Question', ” The Prob- lems of Cities and Towns: Report of the Conference on Urbanism, edited by Guy Greer, Harvard University, March 5-6, 1942. Optner, Stanford L. , "Looking at the City as a System, " excerpted from: Report on the Feasibility of Electronic Data Processig in City L Planning to the Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles, 2 by Stanford L. Optner and Associates, January, 1959, 197-213. Optner, Stanford L. , "Systems Analysis as a Planning Tool, " paper pre- sented to the Annual Conference of the American Institute of Plan- ners, Philadelphia, October 26, 1960, available in Proceedings of the 1960 Annual Conference, American Institute of Planners, June, 1962. Stuart, Robert C. , and Creighton, Roger L. , Central Organization for Urban Transportation Planning, New York Upstate Transportation Studies, Albany, N. Y. , prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Highway Research Board, Washington, January 15, 1964. Voorhees, Alan M. , ”Applications of Model Techniques in Metropolitan Planning, " paper presented at 1964 Annual Conference of the American Institute of Planners, Newark, N. J. , August 16-20, 1964, available in A Report on the Newark Proceedings, Ameri- can Institute of Planners, Washington, 1964, 110-119. Wegner, Robert L. , ”The Metropolitan Data Center: New Tool for Decision Making, " paper presented to the 1964 National Confer- ence of the American Society of Planning Officials, Boston, April 5-9, 1964, available in Planning 1964, American Society of Planning OffiCials, Chicago, November, 1964, 81-87. Williams, Robert L. , ”The Planner and His Profession: A Mid-Century Profile, " paper presented to the 1964 National Conference of the American Society of Planning Officials, Boston, April 5-9, 1964, available in Planning 1964, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago, November, 1964. 162 Wood, Charles R. "Decision—-Making A Governmental Responsibility, " paper presented. at 1964 Annual Conference of the American Insti- tute of Planners, Newark. N.J. , August 16-20, 1964, available in Report on the Newark Proceedings, American Institute of Planners, Washington, 1964, 244~247. Unpublished Material Banfield, Edward C. , "The Field of Planning, " University 01 Chicago, not dated. (Mimeographed.) Connecticut Interregional Planning Program, "Program Design" (not for release). January, 1964. (Mimeographed.) Ellis, J. B. , Koenig, H. E. , Milstein, D. N. , 'fPhysical Systems Analysis of Socio--Economic Situations, " paper delivered to the Joint National Meeting of the Operations Research Scoeity of America and the Insti- tute of Management Science, Minneapolis, October 7, 1964. (Lithographed.) Farness, Sanford S. "The Planning Process and Environmental Health, " a paper presented at the Conference on Environmental Health Planning for Metropolitan Areas, School of Public Health, Univer- sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, March 23, 1964. (Mimeographed.) Gifford, John V.,~ Jr., "The Implications of a Systems Theory of Urban Structure for Planning and Urban Studies, " Department of City Planning, City and County of San Francisco, June, 1964. (Mimeographed. ) Gifford, John V., Jr. "The Nature of the City as a System, ” a paper presented before the Bay Area Systems Group of the Society for General Systems Research, November 15, 1962. (Mimeographed.) Gifford, John V. , JIZ’. , "The Systems Requirement for an Urban Planning Information System, " paper presented at the 1963 Conference on Information Systems and Programs, University of Southern Cali- fornia, June 7, 1963. (Mimeographed.) Grecco, W. L. ”The Application of Systems Engineering Techniques to Urban Traffic Forecasting. " Unpublished PhD dissertation, Depart- ment of Civil Engineering, Michigan State University, 1962. Harris, Britton, ”Organizing the Use of Models for Metropolitan Planning, " paper presented to Seminar on Metropolitan Land Use Models, Berkeley, March 19~20, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Haworth, Lawrence, "The Good City and Urban Design, " a paper presented at the Ohio Valley Chapter meeting, American Institute of Planners, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, February 26, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Koenig, Herman E. , "A Systems Concept and its Implications, " Department of Electrical Engineering, Michigan State University, not dated. (Lithographed.) 163 Koenig, H. E., Kesavan, H. K., and Tokad, Y. Analysis of Discrete Physical Systems. East Lansing: MichiganState University, 1962. (Bound Notes, lithographed.) Marquis, Stewart D. , "Design of a Planning-Search System Model, " rough draft, Michigan State University, September, 1964. (Typewritten. ) Marquis, Stewart D. , "Notes on the Image - Plan - Action - Evaluation Model in Community Development, " Michigan State University, March 22, 1963. (Mimeographed.) Marquis, Stewart, "The Urban-Regional Ecosystem: An Operational Research and Planning Approach, " rough discussion draft, Michigan State University, East Lansing, March, 1965. (Mimeographed. ) Meier, Richard L. , "Open Systems for Growth and DeveIOpment, " preliminary draft of Chapter 3, Developmental Planning, Ann Arbor, Michigan, not dated. (Mimeographed.) Nelson, Stephen Craig, "The Policy Planning Approach in Urban and Regional Planning. " Unpublished Masters dissertation, School of Urban Planning, Michigan State UniverSity, 1964. New Jersey Bureau of Statewide Planning, "The New Jersey Statewide Planning Program -— Expanded Work Outline, " Trenton, N. J. , September, 1964. (Mimeographed.) Parker, David F. , "An Experiment in Planning for Planning: A Report on the Initial Programming of a Study Group in the School 01 Urban Planning at Michigan State University, " East Lansing, January, 1964. (Typewritten.) Parker, David F. , "Planning for Planning for Planning, " Michigan State University, East Lansing, June, 1964. (Mimeographed.) Schlager, Kenneth J. l'A Systems Engineering Methodology for Planning, " Systems Engineering Memorandum #10, Southeastern Wisconsin Planning Commission, Wauhesha, Wisconsin, August 13, 1963. (Mimeographed. ) Wise, Harold F. , "The Emerging Role of State Planning, " paper pre- sented at the 1963 National Annual Conference of the American Institute of Planners, Milwaukee, October 28, 1963. (Mimeographed.) HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES Ill 1 312930 1071002