practice, although conservancy fits the lineal progression rea-
sonably well. Two positive leavenings for the traditional-lineal
approach can be identified. These include ‘certainty to the
public’, and a mostly assured ‘review’ opportunity. The ‘cer-
tainty to the public’ aspect needs no further explanation
because it is based on the predication that legal (usually
zoning) mandates, coupled to conservative appeal mecha-
nisms, can wrap up the ‘law of the land’ and the ‘choice of the
people’ in one legally sure, simple property-protecting
package. The ‘review’ emphasis is an elaboration of the basic
utility for revisiting the sequence through ‘feedback’. Identifi-
cation of this ‘improving’ feature within the previous two illus-
trations (figures 2.5 and 2.6) is often perceived more in the
breach than in outcome. Traditional plan ‘reviews’ are mostly
notional and less than convincing; although few planning prac-
titioners would gainsay the value of ever-improved data for
the re-identification and re-expression of goals, targets and
plans – even ordinary zoning plans.
Knowledge Power Outcomes 57It is a matter of
practical utility to keep
in view that all
completeplans have
five identifiable
components:1 Title (the identifier).
2 Notation of the
authorizing,
compilation,
approving and
implementing
agency.
3 Recording of the
start-up, stage
completion, and
completion dates.plan-making progress
examples of
within-the-loop
‘feedback’Second
ProgressionFir
st
Progre
ssio
nThi
rdProgres
sion111222444333555666777999888101010111111time
1 Issue identification 2 Task definition 3 Consent to proceed
4 Team assembly 5 Data assembly 6 Diagnosis and prognosis
7 Proposal(s) formulation (creative synthesis) 8 Testing (critical reviews)
9 Approval 10 Implementation 11 Overview and re-expression
Figure 2.6 Sequential progression for traditional planning