Bo Strangert (RD8)

Unclear reasons behind diverse perspectives in initial project plans

In a previous text (RD7) on how to describe complex phenomena, I used the term ’perspective’ to characterize the uncertain structure of many initial project plans. This term is frequently used in conversation and texts to indicate a special point of view or selective description of a phenomenon. Its  metaphorical sense is quite lax and different from the precisely defined origin in optics.

My intention was to raise questions about how vague ideas and insufficient knowledge about a phenomenon or task in early project planning can or should be framed into a clear project strategy – in brief, transformation from an unclear perspective to an explicit, structured description in a plan, that is, a productive perspective. This is of course what most initial project planning is about, although my point is that the associated reasoning or its consequences is not always transparent at an early stage.

Another way of expressing the issue is to say that the initial planning to achieve a common project goal or plan does not clearly disclose all potential Impediments to project development. This is an understatement when complex tasks are concerned.

Diverse perspectives and framing of projects

The variety of project approaches to a complex task is immense. Figure 1 below is an attempt to schematically illustrate the development of three categories A_1-3 of perspectives and framing. The first perspective, A₁, implicates a spontaneous process of unclear framing and structuring. Its intuitive character does not change over time, though it is directed towards an expected goal or end of achievements.

Figure 1. Development of perspectives in planning

  (See text for explanation.)

The second perspective is structurally dynamic and entails a recursive process from a primary frame and structure A₂ to a conceptual state (B) as a platform for further focussed development into (C) and (D) towards an expected end state E. Thus, the states (B), (C) and (D) are all recursively contingent on A₂  – that is, conceptually implicated by A₂  but also refining it.

In my view, this second perspective seems to have some similarity to the examples of productive planning called ”administrative perspective” and ”effect-based perspective," and mentioned in RD7.

The development of a third perspective A₃  is illustrated as a non-recursive process with three consecutive conceptual states which all are influenced directly or indirectly by the structure of the initial perspective state as well as by feedback through all possible follow-up circuits. This logical structure of contingencies could be an elaborate model for systematical planning, or it could be used for model-based analysis of data from observations of planning attempts. Note that the end state D is not necessarily congruent with the E-state at the start of planning or data analysis.

If planning is designed to be based on such an elaborate structure of contingencies, the logical conditions for sound modeling are maximized. Although a logical design of conceptual development and experimentation is important, the great challenges turn up with selection of relevant content categories, because human perspectives cannot completely comprehend complex phenomena. For example, people miss crucial aspects, use biased selection, have difficulties with multiple causality and interaction, prefer stable conditions to dynamic ones, misjudges probabilities, etc. Such deficits are case-sensitive, therefore it’s difficult to make anything but general suggestions about the functions of perspectives.

Functions of perspectives as indicating purpose, explanation or tools in initial project planning

It’s not easy to analyze how a perspective happens to develop when the only cue indicates an expectation of a goal, as in example A₁. Any conclusion about a possible structured perspective would only be speculative and case-specific.

The situation is different for data from a linear development of perspective A₂. It’s possible to interpret the ordered set of states A, B, C and D as a consequence of a purposeful function to attain an expected goal E. The proof hinges on valid identification of the states and their directed interrelations. The purposeful function could represent a personal motive or a construction of a subgoal structure to reach a general goal E.

A simple recursive trend of data may indicate a course of development that is easy to predict or make — it’s perhaps better described as use of a tool function, (e.g., guidance through an established procedure). Yet, the simplicity could be deceiving, for example if data about the process have been revised deliberately by eliminating leads that indicate complexities and unsolved problems.

Such a simplification is not implied with a strict development of perspective A₃. An advantage is that the feedback circuits can qualify that the concept development is internally consistent — not just by selective focussing and stipulation as in case A₂. This is realized by constructing a structure of means-end relations according to a purposeful function. Through feedback about the contingencies it’s possible to test and adjust the structure to become consistent and purposeful. Hence, a hypothetical conceptual structure is formed that should be logically consistent.

If the development of a perspective involves a causal structure, then it can fulfill an explanatory function, too.

Finally, recurrent use of a certain type of efficient ”perspective clarification” would probably give rise to a generic procedure of planning (i.e., according to a tool function).

Contrasting perspectives makes testing possible and defines diversity

One important logical addition remains. By forming a contrasting structure to the original one, it will be possible to generate testable consequences. The simplest way of conceiving this is to introduce a logical contrast to each state, e.g., not-A₃ to A₃, not-B to B etcetera. (This can of course be generalized to exhaustive classifications with more than two mutually exclusive classes or measures of states.)

Generating logical or measurable contrasts specifies also ways of defining diversity of perspectives. Two perspective differ if they have different structures in all or in detail (specific relations between states).

In a previous paper (RD7) I suggested that two perspectives could be compared by analyzing their framing and internal structure. That suggestion used systems specification of perspectives, which is not necessary. Any structural description is possible.

As notified in T17, this approach to examine perspectives of planning will be applied to some finished projects.

References

Papers  on this website  arborg.se:

A2 – Applied research methods for development projects

RD1 – A case approach to study applied research methods

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