From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cognitive science (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cognitive science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems engineering.
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Disambiguation page[edit]

Sent redirect to a disambiguation page in anticipation of articles expanding on plans and planning. Will duly refer to the primary Plan article where appropriate. --Rev Prez 07:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive[edit]

Time management is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want to see this article improved to featured status.--Fenice 07:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reads like a tutorial[edit]

Please review sections of the article that refer to "you" and "your" and improve the clarity and tone of the article so it reads less like a tutorial. dr.ef.tymac 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Text about the planning process removed[edit]

The folowwing text about the planningproces is removed today
The planning process[1]

The planning process provides the framework for developing conservation plans on the basis of ecological, economic, social, and policy considerations. Implementation of these plans may then be facilitated by utilizing technical, educational, and financial assistance programs from NRCS or other sources.[1]

The same planning process is used to develop conservation plans and areawide conservation plans or assessments, but different activities are required to complete each step of the process. Guidance in this handbook is separated accordingly into conservation planning and areawide conservation planning. On-site visits with the client are an integral part of the planning process.[1]

Conservation plans are normally developed with an individual decision-maker. An areawide conservation plan or assessment reflects the desired future conditions developed in conjunction with the client and other stakeholders in the area. The stakeholders may, or more likely may not, be decision-makers for implementing planned activities.[1]

Further comments[edit]

I agree with the removal. I added this text in the first place some time ago as a general introduction. But now I realize this is not so appropriate as an general introduction. It is more an example of a specific framework for planning. If this text should be replaced, this text should be better introduced. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


This section was added to suppress red error messages.

  1. ^ a b c d Subpart A - Framework for Planning , United States Department of Agriculture, retrieved Oct 2007

Badly written, confused, goalless[edit]

Planning is scheduling a coherent series of actions (that might run in parallel) in order to achieve a predetermined goal. The current article confuses the planning search process with the definition of a selected viable goal, and also intermixes some confusion with forecasting, which is rather assertments of likely outcomes based on patterns from history or other sciences. The article should describe planning, and reflect about fitting individual acts together. From AI perspectives the acts are transformations, painting a car red is an act that transforms the car from color = don'tcare to color = red. Planning is choosing sequences of plans where transformations don't counteract each other and that implies a sequence of states (such as state car is red) leading to the predetermined goal. If the plan doesn't reach the goal, it fails. If some external random event interfers with the plan, it might fail, or the interference might be anticipated with a interference-counteracting act.

For example:

A plan should be a realistic view of the expectations.

No! A plan should take into account expectations, the plan is a series of acts. "Realistic" is vague, judgemental and context-less.

It is the framework within which it must operate.

No, that framework is a set of strictures, the plan is the series of acts.

the plan is the most important document and key to growth.

No, a document is not a plan, it describes a plan. Your hat is not your head.

Preparation of a comprehensive plan will not guarantee success, but lack of a sound plan will almost certainly ensure failure.

A truism and pretty much ad-speach. This confusing language usage is shamefully sloppy!

The article should be written using some kind of research source, such as from organisational theory. The article touches the right topics, but should refer to research from within the area and neutralize the wild must-and-mustn't statements by practical case studies. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Planning (cognitive)[edit]

The psychological processes involved in planning are a subtopic of planning. Because Planning (cognitive) is a short article that would easily fit in this article, Planning (cognitive) should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Are you kidding me or what? Planning as a cognitive function is a distinct neurological process, the fact that it is a "short article" is not a reason to merge it. There is a paucity of information on cognitive aspect of planning, if and when I have the time and resources to obtain more information relevant to the subject I will do so. I didn't see the merge tag otherwise I would have "contested it".
Cognitive planning in humans: neuropsychological, neuroanatomical and neuropharmacological perspectives. PMID 9421831
Brain activation during cognitive planning in twins discordant or concordant for obsessive–compulsive symptoms. PMID 20823085

7mike5000 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Section about "The dark side of planning"[edit]

On Jan 3, 2012 the section "The dark side of planning" (see here) was added, while in July 2011 the article about this topic was deleted after this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark side of planning.

Now it seems to me the argument given by User:DGG is still valid:

Little used academic coinage. The vey article itself admits as much in the 2nd paragraph. "The term "dark side of planning" was coined by Flyvbjerg...Yiftachel (1995) similarly talked about a 'dark side of modernism' " from which, by Original Research and Synthesis, the writer of the article concludes "Taken together, and independently of each other, these works introduced the "dark side" as a concept " -- not even "dark side of planning," just "dark side"! The article then goes on to talk how it "draws and expands upon" various famous concepts by other people. The references in the article indicate also there is no fixed terminology, just people talking about a very general way of looking at things, that could be called by a great variety of vague names, such as the coinage used here. In other words, I agree with Arthur Rubin. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The section is OR. It should not have been merged here after the AfD debate, and should be deleted here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This section duplicates a similar one in Urban planning. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead section needs help![edit]

The lead section of this article does not adequately reflect its current contents.DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of preparation[edit]

The new article Preparation (principle) duplicates the idea of this article, but with a different seed word—"preparation"—used to find references. It's the same concept. I think the preparation article contents should be merged into this article as appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Appian Way near Rome
Preparation is a different concept than planning and is something that comes before planning. The article on Outline of food preparation explains the difference. It describes food preparation as preparing foodstuffs for eating, which generally requires the selection...of ingredients The plan as a later step is combining of ingredients in an ordered procedure to achieve a desired result. It includes but is not limited to cooking. The definition of preparation is "a making ready" or to prepare before the plan of action that will take place next. The preparation is getting together the ingredients. The plan is putting the ingredients together and possibly cooking. These are two different concepts. One (preparation) happens before the other (plan). Two very different unique things. A plan is typically any diagram or list of steps with timing and resources. The preparation is the gathering together beforehand of the parts, items, or resources.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Another difference between preparation and a plan is explained in this article I created under the Modern Uses section. The preparation is to find a place of your own personal space where you would feel comfortable to write .... to have available the tools of the trade such as books, laptop computer, printer, internet access, pens and pencils (optional colored pencils), paper, index cards, office desk with appropriate chair, fax / copier, and a notepad or voice recorder. The plan, in this instance, is to write up a novel. The plan of action of writing a novel, a long process, happens AFTER you are prepared with all the Tools of the Trade.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The little bird prepares his wings before he takes on the Plan of Flight.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The Appian Way preparation was to gather together a bunch of rocks and sand. The plan was to create a paved path to move troops quickly from one part of the country to another part. You can't create a paved path ("plan") until you make ready and gather together first the stones and sand needed ("preparation").--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The preparation is the checklist to make sure you have all the things you need for a trip. The plan is the journey.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
One usually is planning on being a professional, but can only be done by the preparation of gathering together the correct knowledge and making ready appropriate skills first.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
A plan is a trip or journey in a course of action. A packing list is the preparation components of traveling, so one is ready with the needed materials.
Planning is the act of formulating of a course of action. Preparation is the act of preparing or getting ready.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Homeland Security and Defense: Planning is the act or process of formulating a program for a definite course of action. page 358. Preparation is for example military forces in a state of preparedness. page 83 --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The concepts of planning and preparation overlap in some ways and can be firmly separated in other contexts. I have reached out the profession of dietetic science for a cited example of word usage that firmly separates the two concepts. Bigturtle (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is any separation. Linguistically, the words "plan" and "prepare" in all their forms are thrown around in speech and in writing without any regard for the effective difference. Authors have written that one must prepare a plan, or plan the preparation. For instance, Dr. Eusebio F. Miclat, Jr. writes in Strategic Planning in Education: Making Change Happen: "Preparing the Plan: The preparation and formulation of a plan is by no means a mean and an easy task." This shows the confusion which is possible with these words. Miclat continues by telling the reader that first step in "strategic planning" is conceptual—thinking about the plan.
Another point is that Doug has focused on the sources which describe the planning stage as following the preparation stage. I acknowledge that these exist! One example is Juha Korhonen writing that "The preparation phase sets the principles for the planning process." However, there are many, many sources which instruct the reader that the planning stage comes first:
  • FEMA says that emergency management has three steps: Plan, Prepare, Mitigate.
  • The CDC says that "Preparing for a Tornado" starts with planning.
  • A book for teachers says that taking the children on a nature walk involves planning then preparation. "After planning" is when preparation begins. The book continues: "Execution... is the third stage after planning and preparation."
  • A book on gardening says "After planning your garden, you need to prepare the area..."
  • A book for educators says that the use of various instructional media "require careful planning before preparation—some more than others."
  • An academic book on Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) says that someone being coached should be encouraged by the coach to enter a powerful emotional state which focuses on "planning then preparation".[1]
  • A book for teachers discusses planning and preparation in detail, citing previous studies to conclude that "planning and preparation" have "four major elements": 1) deciding the objective, 2) deciding on the type of activities and timing, 3) preparing the physical elements such as classroom materials, and 4) deciding how to assess whether the lesson has been learned. So this book puts the order as planning, more planning, preparation, some more planning.
  • Another academic book for training educators says that planning comes before preparation: "Successful instruction requires planning and preparation. A competent instructor plans... A skilled instructor also must prepare... Preparation involved readying oneself, as well as learners, material and equipment." The book goes on to describe in detail "Competency 5" which is planning. It continues with "Competency 6" which is preparation.
  • A search for the phrase "first comes planning" gives this result in Google Books. A search for the phrase "first comes preparation" gives this result in Google Books. These two results cannot be reconciled.
A further sense of how confused the two words can become is offered by Sanford Kaye writing about the "Quick Writing Process", which "depends on two different kinds of planning. First, you prepare to write by making an assessment of what is involved in answering the question or fulfilling the requirement. Then you plan the time and structure to get the job done." Kaye is describing a conceptual process that comes before the actual writing, and he calls it a form of preparation. Others call the conceptual stage a planning stage. Tessa Woodward writes for teachers' instruction that planning involves "everything a teacher does when she says she is planning! For example, listening to students, remembering, visualising, noting things down, flicking through magazines, rehearsing, or drinking tea while staring into space and deciding." For Woodward, the conceptual steps are what constitute the planning. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I can see at the current version of the article that my suggested references have not been incorporated, despite a great deal of article development that has taken place since this merge discussion. At the very least, if a merge is not performed, the preparation article should address the questions raised here, such that the reader is told that planning and preparation are often intermixed in the sources.
It appears that Doug Coldwell is entrenching his position-that preparation always precedes planning. This despite high quality reliable sources which say the opposite. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Text copied from DYK discussion[edit]

  • Symbol question.svg There is a merge discussion underway regarding the article, the discussion taking place at Talk:Planning#Proposed_merge_of_preparation. I get the impression that this "preparation" article was thrown together from odd bits and pieces, a WP:Synthesis of sources, and does not merit its own topic. The merge question should be answered before this article is taken to DYK. If no merge is performed, the SYNTH problem will need to be sorted, most likely through AFD. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet, Doug, what's happening with this? Is a merge or a deletion LOOOOOMING? Will the article be SAVED? Will RESCUE arrive in time? Who is the MYSTERIOUS Miss Kitka? Belle (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Haha... Classic radio show. Teeth.png
I think the article "Preparation (principle)" was assembled without looking at sources which would not conform to the idea held by the page creator. As such, the article is a very poor representation of Wikipedia, and I don't think we should tell the world about it by way of DYK. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
In the ongoing discussion there seems to be just one editor that is against the article. The discussion and the sources confirm the idea of the principle of preparation. The article is well written and researched. Most every line is referenced and there is a complete Bibliography of about 2 dozen sources. For example, Ronald M. Shapiro’s book of Dare to Prepare: How to Win Before You Begin (a book I read from cover to cover) is entirely devoted to the principle of preparation. For the objecting editor to say I think the article "Preparation (principle)" was assembled without looking at sources is speculation and an opinion on his part. If one will check out the inline references, it is obvious I have looked at the sources in order to get the information to write on. These principles are not something I dreamt up, but derived for all the various authors in the Bibliography. My reputation I have developed with my 300 DYKs shows I do not just dream up these articles. I get the idea that the objecting editor is suppressing the information by his remark "I don't think we should tell the world about it by way of DYK." It’s not secret information nor guarded by Homeland security. Is the objecting editor then saying its O.K. to tell the world, but not by way of DYK? What's unique about telling the world by DYK? I don't see how exposing it through DYK changes the information in the article. The management principle whereby people get ready for a final product or for a successful experience is not a controversial item, except perhaps for those that don’t prepare for things. Most of the world already knows about it to one degree or another. Rather it is applied by most of the world or some of the world is another issue. The benefits of applying the principle are in the sources I listed in the Bibliography. I get the idea that the objecting editor is conveying his principles of belief by his remark "is a very poor representation of Wikipedia." I thought if there was such a thing as a "representation of Wikipedia" that it was a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project - not what one person feels should be represented as Wikipedia. Even Robert Louis Stevenson acknowledges the principle as I show in the hook line.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Chronology note: this section was copied from the DYK nomination at 16:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC) by‎ Doug Coldwell, about an hour and a quarter after I suggested that it belonged here rather than at DYK; in the interim, Binksternet had posted the comment just above this section (at 15:48). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead Section[edit]

I have worked to help improve the lead section of this article. It now has more internal links to help direct readers to similar topics as well as topics that are also mentioned. I've also added in sentences that give a better overview of the article as a whole, as well as more key and basic information about planning.JulieEng2000 (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)