I've never dragged my feet on a term paper ever. The course is Planning Theory. It's not a planning curriculum without the study of planning theory (sadly).

But I encountered one of the most fascinating books related to the topic. How bizarre, I know. It's called Planning Theory for Practitioners by Michael Brooks. I found a neat anecdote that really helped me personally close the chapter on the merits of rational-comprehensive planning-- since I had continued to be a proponent of the rational part of rational-comprehensive planning.

Reliance on rationality may be damaging to the planning process because it contributes so readily to self-delusion. If we follow the tenets of rational planning, one might ask, aren't we simply doing what planning is all about-- regardless of whether anything comes of our analyses and plans? An exercise I often give my students posits the existence of two firms, A and B. Firm A makes all the right planning moves-- defining its mission, studying its competition, carefully analyzing the market for current and potential products, and formulating goals and strategies for its short-term future. Firm B, on the other hand, is run by a happy-go-lucky CEO who makes all decisions for the firm by flipping a coin. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Firm A, despite its good planning behaviour, goes down the tubes, while Firm B prospers and becomes an industry leader. The question is, which firm is more rational?

My students almost always answer correctly--namely, that Firm A was the more rational because it behaved in a rational manner, while Firm B was not rational at all.

This exercise illustrates the fact that "rational planning" means "planning conducted in a rational manner"; the focus is on the process, not on the results. [...] Public planning is about improving the quality of life in our communities, and we should not take comfort in methods that sooth our psyches but have little world impact.

Planning Theory for Practitioners is a definitely a must-read for all planners.