6 - Plan'g Min Role Redirection

Adopting Modern Concepts of Planning and

Redirecting the Role of the Planning Ministry

This was a working memo I sent to Mr Gayyoom in 1998 preliminary to an unrealized discussion.  New material were added to it in 2013 to further explain the “Generic Model” and how it relates to “strategic planning,” which is indispensable to nations and businesses alike; this was besides a piece that underpins the necessity for systematic change that is vital for the survival of any entity faced with a fast-changing and complex world.  All what Mr Gayyoom did in response to the memo was to rename the then “Ministry of Planning, Human Resources, and Environment” “Ministry of Planning and National Development” and remove HR and Env functions from it – as if changing the name of the ministry would get things done; it never occurred to him that it is people with the motivation and relevant knowledge and experience who can get things done and not a mere name change – even if it is a more appropriate one. 

Most important in the process: understanding the proper role the Planning Ministry [PM] should be playing in the national economy, and understanding that it is a central ministry, and as such, that it should not be behaving like a line ministry, as it currently does. 

To understand what this means, we have to understand the nature of planning in our modern, fast-changing world. 

To achieve this understanding, we can look at planning thru a matrix that relates its two defining elements.  Define planning; explain matrix quadrants.

To date, there is a total neglect of tasks in quadrants II, III, and IV.  Let’s take a look at current tasks of PM: 

     Work of Statistics Section >> Bureau of Census/Stats

     Work of Planning Section >> Programming & Budgeting

It can be seen that the main functions of PM for the past 20 years fall within the first quadrant of the matrix.

But getting the functions of the other three quadrants moving is a necessary condition if we are to face and solve our increasing range of problems.  To do so, PM has to learn to play a facilitative role instead of a competitive one.

But instead of being facilitative and get the functions of other line ministries moving in the right direction, as it should be the proper role of PM, to date, it has chosen to compete with line agencies.  Examples: Physical Planning ... Environment... Reef Management... Human Resources...

This behaviour doesn't indicate a grasp / understanding of nature of planning, especially in our fast changing world. 

Because of this lack, to date, PM has not been able to play the vital facilitative / guiding role that it should be playing in the national economy. 

In the meantime, our problems keep increasing, unabated. 

Therefore, to begin moving in the right direction with planning in the Maldives, the starting point is a clear understanding of modern concepts of planning, which would lead to a new awareness, which would in turn help change the way we look at planning and the role of the Planning Ministry in the national economy.

The technical underpinnings of the relationships between Planning Ministry and line ministries on the one hand, and between aspects of planning on the other, thus the basis of the organizational concepts suggested, follow. 

Organizational Concepts

The starting point even here is the nature of planning.  Most important here is the inherent interconnectedness among various activities that are the realm of planning, and the ebb and flow among them over time.

Two relationships can be identified [diagram below left]:

That between PM and line ministries [radial arrows]

That between line ministries [concentric arrows]

The relationship between PM and line ministries describes two polar levels of planing: a strategic level [mainly at PM, aimed at identifying / sketching out appropriate policy to achieve our national goals in view of constraints and opportunities] and an operational level [mainly at line ministries, aimed at implementing those policies].  And neither end of the planning spectrum can be carried out by either party alone; cooperation between them is essential.  The implication is that the work of line ministries would have to fit under a framework determined by national goals rather than each performing independently and the outcomes compiled to form what is now called a “national plan.”

For effective/efficient organization we can also identify three core aspects: economic, social, and urban & regional [see: “OPPD Policy Memo: Objectives / Functions / Organization”].

These aspects in turn lead to several functional / sectoral / planning areas, each of which analyzable in terms of its goals and techniques used to achieve them [Generic Model].

Summarized diagrammatically, these relationships are:

Although the three aspects and their interrelationships are inherently interwoven, for implementing them, they've to be delegated to a number of line / operational agencies.  The lack of continuity arising from this necessary disruption should be compensated for by the needed coordination and integration. [Cf: “Integrative Planning,” p3/pa2]  Generating that coordination / integration should be a central task of PM, which currently isn’t even aware of that vital task. 

Where I Fit In

The essence of planning and its core aspects and levels are captured in above diagrams.  Taken together, they form the ideal guiding framework for the practice of planning.  But PM now lacks capability to execute such a framework.  Thus building the planning capability of PM and guiding the process in the right direction [within limits of what PM should and should not be doing] has to be the starting point to put planning in the Maldives on the right track.  It is to help achieve those ends that I've been preparing over so many years.  

The focus of my efforts would be mainly in the neglected three quadrants of the diagram above, known as innovative functions of planning; first quadrant involves allocative functions.  As the description of the functions of the work in these four quadrants shows my work will be characterized by a high level of fluidity.

Significantly, there's no strict separation between allocative and innovative functions; each flows into the other dynamically and continuously.  Moreover, it is the way the innovative side is handled that will transform the quality of the allocative side into effective outputs. 

My job has to be functionally with PM, but symbolically separate from it.  For while help build planning process [its strategic side would be mainly in PM and operational side mainly in line ministries], I have to repair the damage done and overcome the negative feelings created by the competitive attitudes of PM to date.  And most innovative functions, which is the area of my main focus, are also generally beyond current perceptions of "planning" for most people in the Government circles; their having come to understand planning as tackling the allocative functions [which lend themselves to programming and budgeting].  The redirection of the process therefore calls for a change of perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour.  Thus the issue has as much psychological connotations as it does have technical ones.  Moreover, while the fruits of innovative functions are generally realizable in medium- and long- term horizons, they should be begun at present.  This is similar to someone having to undertake lower education at present if higher education is hoped for in the future. 

It can be seen that while the task is essentially one of planning, it goes way beyond the perceptions of planning, both at present and also likely near future.  For this and above reasons, I suggest my job be located at the Office of the President while my work has to be stationed at the Planning Ministry.  Needless to say that all I do would be in full consultation with the Planning Minister. 

Explaining the Generic Model of Planning (added in 2013) 

Planning can be defined simply as the sum total of techniques used to achieve desired goals (within a given timeframe).  The Generic Model is the matrix that results when looked at these two defining elements of planning as to whether they are known or unknown.  The four quadrants of the resulting matrix describe the following four states (which can be called “planning environments” or circumstances under which the planning would take place): Q-I: in it both goals and techniques are know; Q-II: goals are unknown but techniques known; Q-III: goals are known but techniques unknown; and Q-IV: both goals and techniques unknown.  The planning function in the last three quadrants focuses on clarifying the unknown goals and/or techniques.  When goals are clarified and techniques developed, the task in question would take on characteristics of Q-I and is dealt with accordingly. 

In quadrant one (Q-I) both goals and techniques are know and the planning behaviour in it would be routine or “business as usual,” mostly involving the allocation of resources to designated purposes – including "system-maintenance" functions and extrapolating existing practices into the near future with no significant changes.  This represents the allocation function of planning.  But in the other three quadrants (Q-II, Q-III, & Q-IV) the planning behaviour has characteristics that are very different from those in Q-I, since either goals or techniques, or both, have to be newly discovered.  The work in these three quadrants would thus be characterized by innovation, and represents the innovation functions of planning. 

The Generic Model provides a framework for systematically facing the challenges of our fast-changing world, as opposed to our currently haphazard Yehya-like behaviour. 

Planning Behaviour in Quadrants II, III, & IV:    The nature of the prime planning task in these three quadrants would render the process highly dynamic and "mobilizing" characteristics, since this would involve bringing people and/or expertise together to facilitate the definition of goals and developing techniques.  It is not an easy task; it is by and large an uncertain process.  And it demands a large amount of reading and research to discover theoretical underpinnings of range of problems at hand; it calls for knowledge of similar cases in other countries and requires reading about them or going to where they originated; it necessitates discussions with professionals knowledgeable of similar cases; it needs interactions with the public to discover the social and/or political interests involved, thus help make the outcomes sustainable; and it mandates laborious search for funds to finance the endeavours.  In short, planning in uncertain environments involves much effort and time for thinking and discussions, and is pervaded by trial and error.  Therefore how haphazard or efficient the planning efforts in uncertain environments would be will depend upon a number of factors, political and/or public support being key factors in determining their success or failure. (edited)

Quoted from “On the Nature of Planning in a Changing World,” p 3 (1993)

The functions of these three quadrants constitute strategic planning – aligning the nation to the demands of a changing world; action to bring about the functioning of the nation closer to the realities of its new setting.  If it is not thus aligned, it will experience a host of problems which might endanger its very survival.  (Corporations go bankrupt for this very reason: their failure to align themselves to new realities of their business environments.)   Such alignment mandates the replacement of outdated thinking, practices, and behaviours (which would have been effective in bygone times) with those suited to the new circumstances.  And such alignment cannot be generated by individual agencies acting on their own and out of synch with each other, but only by a central agency which has the capacity to identify and set the right direction, bring disjointed elements on board, create functional harmony among them, and attain unity of purpose – in short, a well-functioning integrated system of effective planning.