Interactive planning is a concept developed by Russell L. Ackoff, an American theorist, early proponent of the field of operations research and recognized as the pioneer in systems thinking.
[1] Interactive planning (IP) is a procedure that prescribes how to develop and manage social systems, e.g. organizations, whether they are business or any other kind.
Ackoff (1981) expresses the intention of IP in the following terms: "The objective of interactive planning is an effective pursuit of an idealized state.
"[This quote needs a citation] Interactive planning promotes democratic control by allowing and facilitating the active participation of various stakeholders in the conceptualization and formulation of programs, projects, strategies and techniques.
Considering the strong Systems Thinking influence in interactive planning, problems are viewed in their totality and in the context of their specific details in relation to the social environment where they are situated.
By beginning to analyze the current operation of the system (State of the Organization), elements that obstruct progress become evidently visible in creating a reference projection.
In this sense the reference projection provides a means to identify potential limiting business strategies and suggest ways to avoid serious future failures.
[3] From Ocak (2015), Interactive Planning Methodology includes the identification of the Five Key Factors that can significantly influence the success of implementation of the new system redesign.
[6] The reference scenario is correlated with the idealized design in order to establish the process in filling the gaps (by resolving, solving or absolving).
For each resource type, questions to be addressed are:[citation needed] This phase is regarding anticipating and forecasting on resources—including approaches, tools, information and knowledge—that enable implementation of plans on the ground.
In the control process procedures are created to: identify expectations, monitor decisions, diagnose problems, prescribe corrective action, and providing feedback to facilitate organizational learning and adaptation.
For example, interactive planning can be used in assessing whether or not the organization's occupational safety and health goals meet their present and future needs and are seen as a vital part of a corporation's on-going success.
[citation needed] In addition, interactive planning establishes a model for evaluating, comprehending, and initiating change management within a corporation's safety and health program.
There are circumstances that corporate safety management need to re-align the prism to provide clear, concise direction to employees and/or responsible senior executives.
Moreover, VSM's primary intent is to expose losses and wastes, and although it also involves basic action-planning, it does not include a deliberate design of controls as in interactive planning.
However, OPM focuses more on the assessment and redesign of the cultural elements of an organization, while interactive planning covers the broader organizational system.
But the environment, and resources that supported the life of the previous organization still exists, and the decision to design a new system that will replace the last order “right now” subject to "two constraints (technological feasibility and operational viability) and one requirement (the ability to learn and adapt rapidly and effectively).
Also, the concept is better realized when there are virtually no constraints against the new design process; the modification towards the new system becomes more feasible and adaptable to changing internal and external conditions over time.
The present includes current laws, regulations, and approval standards, where appropriate because the new design intends to be operationally viable in the existing application and use of an organization.
The time is not maximized to seek more quality solutions, rather it is spent to harmonize the understanding of concepts and arriving at a more popular consensus (de Jong and Geerlings, 2003, p. 9).
The interactive planning process or steps can be revised by considering segregating the participants into their respective field of expertise and have them research on a given topic and have their recommendations presented in the big group.
Doing this will let the big group have more in-depth knowledge about specified area of concern and will give more substantial basis for making decision on policies (de Jong and Geerlings, 2003, p. 9).
To balance this, presenters of their recommendation must show tangible data that can back up their statements and arguments so as to produce a more informed body of decision makers.
With this, quality research and good communication skills are both important in the interactive planning process (de Jong and Geerlings, 2003, p. 9-10).
However, it is the duty of the presenters to consider their audience, their level of understanding about the technical subject, and to use terms that can be understood generally by the members of the committee.
Also, selection of the participants in the convention determines the quality of information to be delivered and the amount of contribution to be given to the Interactive planning project (Haftor, 2011).
To remedy this, the facilitator of the Interactive planning project must secure the full commitment of the members as well as the top-level managers (Leemann, 2002).
Milovanovic [16] believed that there is an entire chain of a defined process of decision making, and in interactive planning, there are various participants with various intent of actions.
Healey [18] delineated the participant groups who are significant in the conversation about the problems in community: technical experts, media, neighbours, activists, interested citizens, business and industrial team, selected officials, administration of local, regional and national level.
Applying Interactive Planning at DuPont: The Case of Transforming a Safety, Health, and Environmental Function to Deliver Business Value.