PLANNING

Decision-making and planning is said to be having the same characteristics in process however, planning is more integrative of a complex of forces and values harmonizing a breadth of goal and sub goals that is longer in term while decision-making is composite. It incorporates a statement of problem to be treated, a formulation and evaluation of imaginable alternative responses and the selection among them. Planners strive to learn of the practical difficulties awaiting their work progress. They must persuade their clients to accept their plan. Their decision must reflect consistent consideration of benefits and penalties and that it is devoted to what is good.
We have two major extreme planning models. First is the rational planning model which seeks to construct an objectively ‘best’ plan and to maximize the role of the planner as expert. Goals are defined and priorities set among the desired consequence of policy. Alternatives are analyzed and the best will be chosen, one most likely and economically attainable. The experts’ crucial role would be in acquiring and assessing technical information and in selecting alternative. While the public's function is to define the goals then the planner advises how to best reach them. Second is the advocacy model which claims that alternative policies inevitably restrict value choices, properly within the realm of politics, rather than the preserve of experts. It believes that the public should be involved throughout the planning process and that competing plans should be presented, reflecting the rival interests of a plural society. The expert planners still provides the information and analysis relevant to the client’s plan, but lacks a powerful position to designate the plan that is objectively ‘the best’.
By the increasing citizen participation, the task of the planning is not limited to the allocation of