Description
Planning (also called forethought) is the process of thinking about and organizing the activities required to achieve a desired goal.
PLACE OF FEASIBILITY TESTING IN THE PLANNING PROCESS THE CONCEPT OF FEASIBILITY Feasibility testing as discussed in this unit is closely related to, but not identical with, the concept of plan evaluation that we shall take up later. Both concepts have the critical assessment & possible revision of an educational plan as their main objectives. But they differ in that they come to be applied at different stages in the planning process. The planning process consists of the following stages: (1) (2) (3) (4) Collection & processing of data with regard to certain phenomenon, Diagnosis of situation. Formulation of policy in the light of diagnosis of situation. Assessment of future needs in terms of materials & manpower etc. to implement the policy as per (3) above, (5) Costing of future needs as determined at No (4) above, (6) Target setting i.e. fixing a time point for achieving the objectives, (7) Testing the feasibility of plan, (8) Formulation of plan in light of experience & feedback gained through feasibility testing. (9) Plan implementation, (10) Plan evaluation, (11) Revision & replanning etc. Planning is a circular activity. These stages can be presented graphically as shown below.
Feasibility testing occurs somewhere between the target setting & the plan formulation stages of the planning cycle. It is a working step that can be completed within a rather shorter period of time, as opposed to the continuing activity of plan evaluation which accompanies the planning process over a substantial portion of the total plan period.
THE NEED FOR FEASIBILITY TESTING
The concise Oxford Dictionary defines feasible as practicable, possible, manageable, serviceable & plausible. It is obvious that any educational plan should possess all these properties. But this is not to claim that, through feasibility testing or any other device; we can make our educational plans completely watertight. No amount of feasibility testing can exclude the eventuality of failure in part or whole altogether. Too many factors, which an educational plan incorporates, lie out side the jurisdiction & control of educational authorities. The points of contact between education & the world around it are too numerous to permit the kind of precise planning that is possible with the “closed systems” we encounter in the natural sciences & in this we are fortunate, despite the headaches it causes the planners ! Thus educational plans are based on a vast set of assumptions – on future conditions & situations, which we anticipate on the actions & reactions of groups & individuals on which we count to achieve our plan targets, on resources we believe will be available, on support & co-operation we expect to mobilize, etc. If our plan is a bad one, we will probably not be aware all these assumptions & make sure that these are possible, if it is a good plan, they will for the most part be plausible & practicable. Feasibility testing may therefore be defined as the systematic scrutiny of all those built-in assumptions on which the achievement or non-achievement of the plan targets will depend. For a plan to be feasible it s not enough to spell out objectives & targets, while leaving the whole range of management, logistics, & personal problems, as well as the public’s likely views & reactions shrouded behind the general assumptions that everything is going to work out.
EXTERNAL & INTERNAL ASPECTS OF PLAN FEASIBILITY
The questions that we must examine when testing a plan for its feasibility fall into two broad categories: (1) On the one hand, one would examine the interface between the educational systems & its environment. How ill the educational plan targets affect the different systems “surrounding” educational i.e. the political, economic, sociocultural sub-system of society? Are we reasonably sure that there won’t be adverse feed-back reactions from those other systems which might impede the
achievement of plan targets? Perhaps the very achievement of one or the other educational target may trigger off undesirable political, economic or social? The question that we have to examine in this connection may be called external aspects of plan feasibility. (2) On the other hand, an educational plan may in itself contain a number of inconsistencies and bottlenecks that went undetected at the target setting stage. Even if there are no adverse feedback reactions from outside, these inconsistencies within a plan may cause serious failures. Are we sure that our targets from curriculum reform and teacher training tally? Is what we try to achieve in secondary education consistent with our targets for primary education? Such questions are concerned with the relationship among different elements of the plan; they deal with the internal aspects of plan feasibility.
The element of surprise will be hard to eliminate but it may be reduced if the planners may consider four dimensions of external plan feasibility: 1. 2. 3. 4. Reactions which stem from socio cultural attitudes and values Pressure from political interest and power group Lack of support from the administrative bureaucratic machines Incompatibility with economic conditions and market forces.
FEASIBILITY & TESTING: A SIMULATED PER-RUN OF THE PLAN
In the CLOSED APPROACH discussion & brainstorming session among, the staff of an educational planning unit are the chief modality of tackling feasibility problems. There purpose is to clear up & rectify any inconsistencies between different elements or sub-programmers of the plan, and to anticipate the reactions of the public, once the plan is presented for implementation. As for the first of these two purpose, i.e. the clearing up of internal plan. inconsistence the ‘closed’ approach usually gives good results. But it is much weaker in correct anticipate the reactions of that very wide spectrum of groups & people that we call ‘the public’. Discussions behind closed doors only serve to further accentuate the isolation or planners, & leave them in the false belief that citizens are ready to accept any change, or undergo any reorganization, if the resultant system is more ‘efficient’ in technical or economic terms. An ‘OPEN APPROACH’ to feasibility testing is therefore to be advocated: All those affected plan, those benefiting along with those expected to make sacrifices, those who political support for the plan will be vital & those who are to carry the burden of its implementation, should be brought together in order to “ TEST OUT” their reactions.
The forum on which this OPEN APPROACH to feasibility testing can be practiced is usually that of a public hearing. Representatives of all those sections of the public concerned with the acceptance & implementation of plan should be invited to such hearings. In their presence, the plan will be put on the test stand for a simulated pre-run. If these are the objectives & targets of our new education plan, are the representatives of parents associates, employers, teachers unions, political parties, etc. ready to accept & support them? If these are the new curricular guidelines, will the leaders of religious organizations, representatives of private schools, parents, etc. cooperate? If these are our requirements in new text-books the representatives of the paper & printing industry, have the capacity to produce them? If these are the additional administrative & supervisory task which our plan requires, are the educational administrators ready to take them? FORMULATIONAL OF AN EDUCATIONAL PLAN The concepts we have so far discussed, the techniques studied, should ultimately help use in gaining skills for the circular function of formulating an educational plan. This is a crucial function because it represents the logical presentation of all the analysis the thinking, the evaluation of problems, & choices among alternatives solutions, which the policy-makers, planners, administrators & their advisers had been engaged in for month or even years. This brief document, called the educational plan, has also to set out the principal arguments, constraints, and strategies & polices as well as the basic reasons for major policy decision. This has to be done with such comprehensiveness as to enable the legislators of the country to evaluate the appropriateness of what is proposed & the justification for the resources requested. Finally, it must also be clear enough for the implementers to know how the action proposed in it is to be initiated & executed. The preparation of a document, comprehensive & clear, to serve all these purposes requires great care & expertise. We shall consider some of the basic factors, which the educational planner should take into consideration when formulating an educational plan. BREVITY AND CLARITY By the time an educational planner settles down to formulate his plan weather it be for the entire nation, a state, province, region or even an institution – he has completed all the major steps in the planning process; he would have:
a. Collected & processed the data, b. Diagnosed the present situation & identified problems to be solved, c. Assisted the policy-makers in the formulation of the policy & obtained the necessary policy directions from the appropriate authority, d. Assessed the future needs to accomplish the set objective according to the prescribed policy.
doc_397260773.doc
Planning (also called forethought) is the process of thinking about and organizing the activities required to achieve a desired goal.
PLACE OF FEASIBILITY TESTING IN THE PLANNING PROCESS THE CONCEPT OF FEASIBILITY Feasibility testing as discussed in this unit is closely related to, but not identical with, the concept of plan evaluation that we shall take up later. Both concepts have the critical assessment & possible revision of an educational plan as their main objectives. But they differ in that they come to be applied at different stages in the planning process. The planning process consists of the following stages: (1) (2) (3) (4) Collection & processing of data with regard to certain phenomenon, Diagnosis of situation. Formulation of policy in the light of diagnosis of situation. Assessment of future needs in terms of materials & manpower etc. to implement the policy as per (3) above, (5) Costing of future needs as determined at No (4) above, (6) Target setting i.e. fixing a time point for achieving the objectives, (7) Testing the feasibility of plan, (8) Formulation of plan in light of experience & feedback gained through feasibility testing. (9) Plan implementation, (10) Plan evaluation, (11) Revision & replanning etc. Planning is a circular activity. These stages can be presented graphically as shown below.
Feasibility testing occurs somewhere between the target setting & the plan formulation stages of the planning cycle. It is a working step that can be completed within a rather shorter period of time, as opposed to the continuing activity of plan evaluation which accompanies the planning process over a substantial portion of the total plan period.
THE NEED FOR FEASIBILITY TESTING
The concise Oxford Dictionary defines feasible as practicable, possible, manageable, serviceable & plausible. It is obvious that any educational plan should possess all these properties. But this is not to claim that, through feasibility testing or any other device; we can make our educational plans completely watertight. No amount of feasibility testing can exclude the eventuality of failure in part or whole altogether. Too many factors, which an educational plan incorporates, lie out side the jurisdiction & control of educational authorities. The points of contact between education & the world around it are too numerous to permit the kind of precise planning that is possible with the “closed systems” we encounter in the natural sciences & in this we are fortunate, despite the headaches it causes the planners ! Thus educational plans are based on a vast set of assumptions – on future conditions & situations, which we anticipate on the actions & reactions of groups & individuals on which we count to achieve our plan targets, on resources we believe will be available, on support & co-operation we expect to mobilize, etc. If our plan is a bad one, we will probably not be aware all these assumptions & make sure that these are possible, if it is a good plan, they will for the most part be plausible & practicable. Feasibility testing may therefore be defined as the systematic scrutiny of all those built-in assumptions on which the achievement or non-achievement of the plan targets will depend. For a plan to be feasible it s not enough to spell out objectives & targets, while leaving the whole range of management, logistics, & personal problems, as well as the public’s likely views & reactions shrouded behind the general assumptions that everything is going to work out.
EXTERNAL & INTERNAL ASPECTS OF PLAN FEASIBILITY
The questions that we must examine when testing a plan for its feasibility fall into two broad categories: (1) On the one hand, one would examine the interface between the educational systems & its environment. How ill the educational plan targets affect the different systems “surrounding” educational i.e. the political, economic, sociocultural sub-system of society? Are we reasonably sure that there won’t be adverse feed-back reactions from those other systems which might impede the
achievement of plan targets? Perhaps the very achievement of one or the other educational target may trigger off undesirable political, economic or social? The question that we have to examine in this connection may be called external aspects of plan feasibility. (2) On the other hand, an educational plan may in itself contain a number of inconsistencies and bottlenecks that went undetected at the target setting stage. Even if there are no adverse feedback reactions from outside, these inconsistencies within a plan may cause serious failures. Are we sure that our targets from curriculum reform and teacher training tally? Is what we try to achieve in secondary education consistent with our targets for primary education? Such questions are concerned with the relationship among different elements of the plan; they deal with the internal aspects of plan feasibility.
The element of surprise will be hard to eliminate but it may be reduced if the planners may consider four dimensions of external plan feasibility: 1. 2. 3. 4. Reactions which stem from socio cultural attitudes and values Pressure from political interest and power group Lack of support from the administrative bureaucratic machines Incompatibility with economic conditions and market forces.
FEASIBILITY & TESTING: A SIMULATED PER-RUN OF THE PLAN
In the CLOSED APPROACH discussion & brainstorming session among, the staff of an educational planning unit are the chief modality of tackling feasibility problems. There purpose is to clear up & rectify any inconsistencies between different elements or sub-programmers of the plan, and to anticipate the reactions of the public, once the plan is presented for implementation. As for the first of these two purpose, i.e. the clearing up of internal plan. inconsistence the ‘closed’ approach usually gives good results. But it is much weaker in correct anticipate the reactions of that very wide spectrum of groups & people that we call ‘the public’. Discussions behind closed doors only serve to further accentuate the isolation or planners, & leave them in the false belief that citizens are ready to accept any change, or undergo any reorganization, if the resultant system is more ‘efficient’ in technical or economic terms. An ‘OPEN APPROACH’ to feasibility testing is therefore to be advocated: All those affected plan, those benefiting along with those expected to make sacrifices, those who political support for the plan will be vital & those who are to carry the burden of its implementation, should be brought together in order to “ TEST OUT” their reactions.
The forum on which this OPEN APPROACH to feasibility testing can be practiced is usually that of a public hearing. Representatives of all those sections of the public concerned with the acceptance & implementation of plan should be invited to such hearings. In their presence, the plan will be put on the test stand for a simulated pre-run. If these are the objectives & targets of our new education plan, are the representatives of parents associates, employers, teachers unions, political parties, etc. ready to accept & support them? If these are the new curricular guidelines, will the leaders of religious organizations, representatives of private schools, parents, etc. cooperate? If these are our requirements in new text-books the representatives of the paper & printing industry, have the capacity to produce them? If these are the additional administrative & supervisory task which our plan requires, are the educational administrators ready to take them? FORMULATIONAL OF AN EDUCATIONAL PLAN The concepts we have so far discussed, the techniques studied, should ultimately help use in gaining skills for the circular function of formulating an educational plan. This is a crucial function because it represents the logical presentation of all the analysis the thinking, the evaluation of problems, & choices among alternatives solutions, which the policy-makers, planners, administrators & their advisers had been engaged in for month or even years. This brief document, called the educational plan, has also to set out the principal arguments, constraints, and strategies & polices as well as the basic reasons for major policy decision. This has to be done with such comprehensiveness as to enable the legislators of the country to evaluate the appropriateness of what is proposed & the justification for the resources requested. Finally, it must also be clear enough for the implementers to know how the action proposed in it is to be initiated & executed. The preparation of a document, comprehensive & clear, to serve all these purposes requires great care & expertise. We shall consider some of the basic factors, which the educational planner should take into consideration when formulating an educational plan. BREVITY AND CLARITY By the time an educational planner settles down to formulate his plan weather it be for the entire nation, a state, province, region or even an institution – he has completed all the major steps in the planning process; he would have:
a. Collected & processed the data, b. Diagnosed the present situation & identified problems to be solved, c. Assisted the policy-makers in the formulation of the policy & obtained the necessary policy directions from the appropriate authority, d. Assessed the future needs to accomplish the set objective according to the prescribed policy.
doc_397260773.doc