Ray Wyatt Plan Prediction Which Policy is Preferred by Which People? Plan Prediction Ray Wyatt Plan Prediction Which Policy is Preferred by Which People? 123 RayWyatt Schoolof Geography TheUniversity of Melbourne Melbourne Australia ISBN978-3-319-46429-9 ISBN978-3-319-46430-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-46430-5 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016954589 ©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2017 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade. Printedonacid-freepaper ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland To my parents Preface Why would anyone want to predict people’s plans? There are several reasons. Firstly, humankind faces many problems, ranging from international conflict and globalwarming,throughcrimepreventionanddrugrehabilitation,allthewaydown to what to wear today and how to eat tonight. Secondly, although governments, companies and institutions pay professional plannershandsomelytoplanourwayoutofsociety’sproblems,theycannotdothis. Humans are too mysterious, unreliable and perverse for any planner to be able to select a plan which is perfect, or even tolerable for everyone. Thirdly, if planners could somehow predict which plans will be popular and adopted, and which plans will be unpopular and sabotaged, then they would at least havemuch more empathy with theplannedfor. Theywouldplan much more sympathetically and so their success level would skyrocket. So, in a nutshell, this book is predicated upon a few core beliefs: 1. optimal planning is impossible 2. plan prediction will bring us closer to it 3. plan prediction is probably possible, but this needs to be scientifically tested. As such, this text contrasts to most of the unscientific, strategic-planning liter- ature. The latter tends to be strong on hubris, self-boosting and hyperbole. Very little of it is ever based upon a rigorous testing of the viability of what it says. Granted, some strategic planning has proved to be informative, interesting, inspiring and useful. Indeed, I have been impressed by many dedicated, talented andsincereresearchersandpractitionerswithwhomIhaveworkedduringmytime as a planner within government, private enterprise and academia. Yet it has to be said that most of the literature gives oxygen to the huge deception that finding a “best” plan, one that suits everyone optimally, is actually possible. In fact, vast numbers of strategic planners around the world stake their careers, identities and future promotion prospects upon this fabrication being true. Massive salaries, consultancy remunerations, expert witness fees and advisory stipends hinge upon the myth that a “best” plan for everyone is actually discoverable. vii viii Preface Worse, most laypersons have accepted this myth, especially the version that is peddled by articulate “experts” who have spent their entire career exclusively within some specialized sector, be it farming, furniture, fishing, fashion or fenes- tration. Such aficionados always speak so authoritatively that it is surely they who havetheclearest perception of whathashappened inthepast, whatwill happen in the future and which plan is best for everybody right now. They are handsomely rewarded and widely sought after, simply because they sound so seductively reassuring. It is similar with academic researchers who explore human-built phenomena and/or people’s behaviour. Their findings seem to be continually expanding our insights to the point where good policy-making is just around the corner. Accordingly, the taxpayer keeps paying for their research on the dubious assumptionthatitwillequipplannerstooptimallytacklethedauntingproblemsof modern civilization. Butwheneverso-calledexpertstellyouthattheycanformulateanoptimalplanfor everyone, they are kidding both you and themselves. If, at a cocktail party, practi- tionersofesoteric,socialscienceresearchsaytheirworkwillleadtooptimalplan- ning, they are simply overstating their importance. Perhaps this is due to their understandablehankeringformakingtheirworkseemmorepracticalthanitreallyis. Iamnotdenyingthatsomestrategicplanningresearchhassometimesgenerated good heuristics for avoiding the worst types of imminent catastrophe. It has con- stituted genuine future proofing within our turbulent, complex and fast-changing world. But it is a fact that ever since the first strategic planners began to ply their trade,there havebeensomemonumentalfailures. Severalwereoutlinedinthelate PeterHall’swonderfulvolumeentitledGreatPlanningDisasters(1980),andothers will be described below whenever it suits our purpose. I will also discuss various alternative approaches to strategic planning, like that of Marxists who suggest optimal planning is simply a matter offixing the pivotal problem—class inequality. Moreover, many environmental “designers” naively believe that the optimal plan for addressing complicated, modern problems some- how resides within their own, or their favourite guru’s innate creativity. By contrast, I will argue that everyone should resist this siren call to pursue supposedlyperfectplanning.Instead,Iprefertoaimatsomethingfarmoremodest— planprediction,thesubjectofthisbookandanactivitywhich,upuntilnow,hasbeen largelyignored. Yet not everyone has neglected it. For example, the famous marathon runner DerekClaytononceclaimedthathecouldrunfastbecause hewasabletoimagine how those struggling along behind him must be suffering even more than he was. His empathizing with his opponents’ agonies, self-doubts and probable coping strategiesenabledhimtoanticipatewhattheywoulddonext—aprime exampleof how plan prediction can be turned to one’s own advantage. But alas! more common is the tendency for most of us to lose games of table tennis or chess precisely because we fail to predict our opponent’s plans. Instead, weconcentrateuponfurtherimprovingourownplan-formulationskillsinthevain hope that we will eventually win. By concentrating too much upon our own Preface ix strategies and not enough upon predicting our opponents’ plans, we frequently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Now,sincebookprefacesareconvenientplacesforconfessions,Iherebydeclare that in the past I have indulged in such self-centred planning myself. I even wrote twobooksexplaining how toplan better(Wyatt 1989,1999).Indeed,Ioncehada full time job as a hotel-location advisor for a large urban brewery. I was paid to build a mathematical, city-growth model for predicting the directions of urban expansion.Suchpredictionwouldguidethecompanytowardswheretolocatenew hotels before its corporate rivals did. But again, because of humans’ unpredictability, no technique can ever predict the exact direction(s) of any city’s expansion. People are so capricious that their deeds seldom mirror what behavioural analysts predict. As has been said before, humans are more complex than our models of them are. So the whole city-growth-prediction exercise, despite bringing superficial prestige and other transitory, spinoff benefits to the brewing company, was something of a beat up. Perhaps by way of atonement, therefore, this book is much less ambitious. It developsausableplan-predictionmethodthatcanbeimplementedbyanyonewho plans within a socially sensitiveor politically delicate environment,which isall of us. The method predicts what sorts of people will prefer which plan—in any situation. How has it been developed? Perhaps ironically, it is based upon the consider- ationswhich,for100yearsormore,writershavebeentellinguspeoplethinkabout whenevertheyplan.Italsoexploitssomeofthemethodsthatprofessionalplanners have used to throw light upon such parameters. So this book doubles as an anthology of planning methods, and by reading sequentially through it, you will gain a working understanding of the different planning approaches’ strengths and weaknesses. But our underlying purpose is to develop an accurate, plan-prediction system, and Chap. 7 duly delivers it in the form of an “app”. Those interested only in the method, therefore, might want to read Chap. 7 first, and then only dip into other parts of the book for further illumination of the app’s characteristics. Thesecharacteristics,tocrypticallysummarizeagain,stemfromtheobservation that people, to varying extents, prefer plans which are: 1. practical—safe, easy and fast. 2. productive—effective, efficient and timely, and 3. prudent—acceptable, permissive and independent. That is, our plan-prediction method involves rating alternative plans for practi- cality, productivity and prudence, as well as for safety, ease, speed, effectiveness andsoon.Then,onthebasisofhowdifferentkindsofpeopleviewtherelationships between plans’ scores for these criteria and their overall desirability levels, it pre- dicts who will see what plan as the most desirable. Hence this book falls naturally into three parts containing three chapters each. Part I, “Common Sense Plan Prediction”, describes real-world influences acting upon people whenever they plan. Part II, “Plan-Prediction Parameters” x Preface operationalizes such influences by teasing out from the literature some criteria for accurate plan-score forecasting. Finally, Part III, “A Plan-Prediction System”, describes our method and how it has fared in practice. More specifically, the first three chapters below respectively outline the importance of practicality, productivity and prudence when predicting people’s plans. The middle three chapters then respectively break down these three criteria into more detail parameters, and the last three chapters present, in turn, our Plan Predictionapp,thenatureofpeople’sresponsestoitanditsgrowingusefulnessasa research tool. But our plan-prediction method, which is actually a new form of Decision Support System (DSS), has a deeper agenda. It is, at heart, an attempt toputsome much-needed scientific rigour into the DSS discipline. It constitutes a giant experiment to see whether or not we really can predict people’s plans accurately, and to this end it self monitors via fairly straight forward, statistical methods. It automatically,continuously,clearlyandunambiguouslytestshowaccurateitsown plan predictions are. Our app can be run on computers or smart ‘phones by users everywhere. This means that, users can “teach” it to become more and more accurate as more and morepeopleuseit—itis,theoretically,self-improving.Whetherornotitimproves in practice can, of course, be tested by observing whether or not its predictions’ errormarginsdecrease,and/orthereisanincreaseinthetestableprobabilitythatits predictions are correct. Inotherwords,weherepresentaDSSwhich,perhapsunlikeanyother,doesnot insist that its predictions be accepted on faith alone. Instead, it self-tests in an entirely transparent way. Preliminary investigations with earlier versions suggest that its predictions are accurate at least 70 % of the time, but only additional users will allow us to see whether or not it learns to achieve greater levels of accuracy than this. It is important to realize that if good plan prediction really does prove to be possible we will have achieved it for the first time. Disciplines like Psychology, BehaviouralEconomics,CognitiveScience,PhilosophyandEnvironmentalDesign have all made attempts, but none has come up with a workable plan-prediction method. Either they have generated vague principles that are of little practical use, or they have formulated very exact predictions which only work within research laboratories rather than in the real world. I am fairly confident that our method will be a success because it has some powerfulandunusualfeatures.Oneoftheseisitsavoidanceofaperennialproblem that has always dogged conventional multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM)— how to assign importance weights to plan-evaluation criteria. Such weights grad- ually evolve naturally from our app’s aggregating and, hopefully, increasingly precise, group-specific relationships between criterion scores and plan desirability. Anotherimportantfeatureisourapp’sdeterminationnottobecomeamysterious “blackbox”.Itgoestogreatlengthstobefullyexplanatory.Itusesmyoriginaland innovative “face charts” method in an attempt to succinctly clarify why different sorts of people are likely to prefer different plans. Preface xi Suchattemptedexplanationshavealwaysgeneratedproductivediscussionatthe several stakeholder workshops, underpinned by our method, which others and I have conducted over the years. Workshop participants usually progress quickly to the stage of speculating about what modifications to mooted plans might be nec- essaryinordertomakethemmorepalatabletocertainkindsofpeople.So,evenifit transpires that our method is less accurate than anticipated, our app still functions, right now, as a useful circuit breaker and insight generator for focus groups. This book is narrated through the eyes of two fictional characters. We trace through their respective life journeys and their frequently fraught attempts to uncoverpeople’skeyplan-evaluationcriteriaonwhichtobaseaviable,plan-score forecasting method. Such humanization is an attempt to make the book more readable and plausible, although all assertions are still supported with references wherever possible. Moreover, our two characters’ markedly different personalities serve to emphasize how accurate plan prediction needs to be both quantitative and qualitative. Plan prediction is both a science and an art. If you truly empathize with our two characters’ beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, aims and achievements, you will think deeply about the nature of plan prediction. Andtheexercisesattheendofeachchaptershouldmakeyouthinkevenmore.At minimum,they willpromptextensiveclass discussionsincourseswherethis book is obligatory reading. Finally, understanding the text below does NOT require any pre-knowledge of difficult philosophical, mathematical and computerized concepts, despite some of the latter being discussed both profoundly and incisively. This book has been written for less technical, but mature and intelligent readers—senior undergradu- ates, postgraduates, savvy practitioners and curious laypersons. Enjoy. Melbourne Ray Wyatt 2016