Talk:Planning/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Disambiguation page
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
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
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
- The folowwing text about the planningproces is removed today
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
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)
References
This section was added to suppress red error messages.
- ^ a b c d Subpart A - Framework for Planning , United States Department of Agriculture, retrieved Oct 2007
Badly written, confused, goalless
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)
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".