Bo Strangert (RD11)

Initial project planning: Theoretical considerations 

I made some miscellaneous notes on initial project planning in RD3-10 on this website. They all concern projects about complex tasks, in particular such ones that include social practices. Brief summaries of military and civilian applications are presented in  RD1 and RD7. The present paper is a summary outline of arguments to promote theoretical considerations from the very beginning of a project. Figure 1 is an attempt to make a visual overview of major arguments. These can be verbalized as follows:

• Formal theoretical considerations are seldom put forward in initial planning about complex social practices. On the contrary, it is customary to suspend explicit theoretical reasoning in favor of soft tools and informal inductive lines of thought, presumably to nurture intuition and creative thinking. The counterargument is that this praxis is unproductive regarding complex tasks and instead introduces conventional and fuzzy reasoning.

• The use of suitably selected abstract tools makes assumptions explicit, broadens the scope of inquiry, and advances qualified analysis of theoretical consequences. In an initial stage of planning, this can be a decisive step to keep an unbiased view and freedom of choice.

• A preliminary theoretical base should be transparent, easy to advance and allow distinct comparisons between alternative ways of development. It should be possible to examine critically from a  theoretical point of view, and it should prepare for empirical application and testing.

Figure 1 illustrates some essential components of how a project commission can be transformed into an initial theoretical perspective. The term ’perspective’ is used instead of ’base’ because it also has a connotation of a cognitive point of view besides its formal content.

Figure 1. Aspects of forming a preliminary theoretical perspective.

Figure 1 may give a misleading impression of a linear sequential process from input to output. In reality, it is a frequent alternation between interpretation and attempts of structuring and design. The sequence just shows a logical order of categorized performance.

The commission or project task can be unspecific and broad or consist of precise requirement specifications. Although that kind of characteristic will influence planning, its effect is not self-evident. As the examples in RD9 and RD10 illustrate, an apparently tight set of requirement specifications may very well be interpreted quite differently, giving vastly diverging consequences.

The context of planning includes restrictions and resources of various kinds, often associated with organizational characteristics. Sometimes it is possible to renegotiate original project conditions in view of results of the initial analysis of expected difficulties or opportunities. The issue is commented on in RD3.

Structuring concerns choice of formal frames of planning and preliminary goal analysis. The choice and design of formal planning tools is not to be confused with the conceptual development of the object per se of project planning, although it is contingent on given preliminary statements of a substantial goal or task. Questions about selecting suitable formal languages and models  for theorizing are treated in RD3, RD5, RD6, RD8 and Applied Research Methods for Development Projects (Sections 3-7).

Preliminary goal analysis runs at the same time as formal choice and design of frames. It has two parallel lines of analysis. One is about identification of ultimate goals (end states). It attempts to predict contextual influences upon goal accomplishment. Thus, it involves thinking about how to attain internal and external validity requirements.  The other line of goal analysis is about the options of designing effective means-end chains. Hence, it is a question about verification of a hierarchy of means-end operations. Preliminary goal analysis is described in RD4, RD5.

An integrative effort is required to design a few candidates of theoretical perspectives, that is, possible theoretical bases for further project planning. A careful comparison between them involves analysis and judgment of consequences. This comparison is facilitated by selecting contrasting alternatives. The principle of contrasting is explained in RD8, RD10.

The design and selection of an initial theoretical perspective, as outlined here, is but one side of making a platform for project planning. Another, less underrated one, is a survey of necessary empirical knowledge and preparation of apt empirical methods.

An additional endeavor is to enquire into how ”process coordination”could evolve, while looking at it from cognitive and social perspectives (RD3).

References on the website arborg.se

RD1. A case approach to study applied research methods

RD3. Comments on context of planning

RD4. On bias in goal analysis for complex projects

RD5. Remarks on planning design and dynamics of goal analysis

RD6. On formal procedures to support inventive planning: Case examples

RD7. On choice of "perspectives" when investigating complex phenomena

RD8. Unclear reasons behind diverse perspectives in initial project plans

RD9. On forming perspectives for innovative project planning.

Examples from projects on supervision

RD10. Choice of perspectives on counteracting collateral damage:

A fictitious case of planning command and control systems

Applied Research Methods for Development Projects (Sections 3-7)