Question 1

Introduction

The turn of the century XXI brought tremendous economic, social, and
political shifts to the entire world, requiring adjustments in government and
public management methods in both rich and developing countries. In this
setting, the topic of government planning and its role in guiding national
development resurfaces. Throughout the twentieth century, planning saw a
peak and a decline: from fostering industrialization and economic expansion
until the 1970s, to its abandonment with economic globalization and the
triumph of democracy and liberal capitalism over communist in the 1990s.

Government plans are made up of ideas, norms, and goals that are intended
to direct a country's development. Government planning can be
conceptualized in a variety of ways due to its strategic character. According to
De Toni (2021), it is a collection of theoretical references, administrative
processes, instruments, and organizational strategies that strive to define a
country's medium and long-term vision. It is a purposeful and systematic
endeavor, according to Bryson (2017), to make decisions and actions that
shape and govern what an entity (organizations, sectors, countries) is, what it
does, and why it does it.

Planning is a government function that guarantees that the main objectives of

this, as stated by the winning political program at the polls and/or by the
governing coalition, successfully drive the production of cohesive and
articulate public policies. As a result, it should involve the core institutions and
processes that maintain coherence and effectiveness between means and
goals.

Historically, planning has been used by developing countries to promote

industrialisation, economic progress, and social well-being. Once
industrialization was recognized as the driving force behind modernization
and economic and social transformation, the state was viewed as its
supporter, and planning began to play the function of creating and managing
structural change processes (Mattar and Cuervo,2017). This style of planning
was most prevalent in Latin America during the 1970s. Nonetheless, it was
later abandoned due to the urgencies forced by the debt crisis the following
decade and, in the 1990s, the wave of economic liberalization in the
Washington Consensus.

However, in many nations, this sort of normative, economic, and authoritarian

planning has flaws, such as a lack of materialization of the aims and
recommended means. This form of planning did not take into account the
forces or social actors, and the planner was viewed as a neutral and objective
agent who existed outside of the reality to be planned. Under these
conditions, the social and political worlds, as well as the public sector, did little
to absorb the aims, results, and procedures, affecting its potential for
implementation.

Carlos Matus stated that modern democratic society necessitates a new style
of planning that integrates technique and politics (Matus, 1993). According to
him, such societies allow for the expression of a wide range of political,
economic, and cultural interests, which can lead to conflict or cooperation with
other players while pursuing their objectives. Thus, planning would entail
creating the circumstances for processes of contested interests in a
democratic context. As a result, planning is an institutional macro-process that
politicizes the connection between numerous actors and interests with the
goal of achieving stable consensus. At the same time, it leads to a trend of
government rationalization in the formulation of public policy and the general
functioning of administrative and organizational processes (DeToni, 2021).
Thus, modern planning is dependent on the state's ability to construct a vision
of the country's future in collaboration with society, concatenating sufficient
and essential means and goals for its execution.

As a result, modern planning can be defined as a continuous element of

social deliberation that requires the constant (re)negotiation of goals and
activities in order to make technically good and politically viable choices.
National plans are thus part of a continual social "conversation," rather than
the culmination of an objective technical-analytical exercise: the planning
process is as essential as the plan's final substance (Chimhowu et al., 2019).
Thus, planning entails more than just making plans; it also entails creating the
political and technological conditions for their implementation.

Many authors (Bryson, J.M, 1995) feel that strategic planning can provide
numerous benefits to an organization, including the formulation of the
business's mission and vision, adaptation to the environment, and attainment
of established goals. Setting organizational goals, defining tasks, establishing
internal and external tasks and task forces, identifying key issues, developing
strategies for each issue, planning control and procedure adoption, planning
adoption and producing fundamental decisions, taking actions, constant
control, and communication of results are all part of strategic planning in
public organizations (Bryson, J.M, 1995). Bryson cites five advantages of
strategic planning in government and non-profit organizations: 1) encourage
strategic thought and action; 2) improve decision-making processes 3)
Organizational improvement, 4) Organizational improvement of work and
results inside an organization, and 5) Strategic planning can directly benefit all
employees within the organization ( Bryson, 1995; p.5).

Strategic planning focuses attention on critical issues and challenges in

organizational structures and assists key decision-makers in determining how
to address them. Strategic planning can thus assist businesses in defining
their strategic goals and making decisions today in light of their future effects.
Strategic planning organizations pay greater attention to important
organizational challenges and are better equipped to adapt to internal and
external demands and pressures, dealing with the repercussions of any
changes. Strategic planning can directly help employees by allowing those
who establish policies and make crucial choices to perform more efficiently
and fulfill their responsibilities. It can also assist them in developing teamwork
and competence ( Bryson, 1995; p.5).
Planning ensures that the objectives are clearly stated so that they may be
used to determine what action should be taken and in what direction.
Employees are aware of what the organization needs to do and what they
need to do to achieve those goals if the objectives are adequately defined.

Planning is an activity that allows a management to look ahead and forecast

changes. Planning notes the technique to deal with changes and
unanticipated effects by determining the activities to be accomplished in
advance.

Planning serves as the framework for organizing the actions and goals of
various branches, departments, and individuals. It aids in the avoidance of
chaos and confusion. Because planning ensures precision in knowledge and
action, work is completed quickly and without delays.

Since management is the key function, innovative approaches can take the
form of genuine plans. It is the most difficult project for management because
it directs all planned actions aimed at corporate growth.

It helps the manager to consider the future and choose between numerous
potential strategies of action. The manager must evaluate each idea and
select the most viable plan.

Conclusion

Planning entails determining what to accomplish and how to do it ahead of

time. It is one of the most important managerial responsibilities. Before acting,
the manager must have an opinion on how to carry out a specific task. As a
result, planning is strongly linked to discovery and creativity. However, the
management must first establish objectives. Planning is an important step that
all managers take. It is necessary to hang on to the decisions because it
comprises making a choice between other ways of performing.
Question 2

Introduction

Three fundamental elements comprise the decision-making process. Goals

and standards, personality, and environment are examples of these
influences. Given these three principles, the public sector decision maker
follows identifiable processes. Some of these processes are more beneficial
than others and produce better results.

Group decision-making procedures are several approaches to making a

choice with your team during a group discussion. The group decision-making
process doesn't have to be time-consuming or exhaustive—all it's about
selecting the best approach for the scenario at hand and one that fits well with
your team culture. When an outcome will influence your entire team, you can
form decision-making groups to ensure that everyone's perspective is
considered and everyone's points of view are valued so that you can reach a
final decision together. Using a group decision-making technique will increase
engagement, productivity, and ease of resolution, especially among a group
of specialists.

A brainstorming session is a sort of group decision making that may be

extremely useful when it comes to generating prospective ideas and solutions.
This provides a free-flowing structure to the discussion and allows the entire
team to contribute their opinions on how to address a certain scenario. The
basic purpose of brainstorming is to generate as many ideas as possible and
then determine which idea is the best strategy. These discussions are more
focused on generating ideas than making final decisions, yet one concept
often stands out from the crowd and can be chosen as the most effective
answer.
When you need to obtain a group consensus on a critical decision, the Delphi
technique is a suitable solution. This group decision-making procedure
combines all of your team's ideas and compiles them for the group leader to
break down into a smaller list of alternative approaches. Those few ideas are
then presented to the group for further discussion and deliberation.
Essentially, the options are reduced until a majority decision can be reached.
The notion is that when there are fewer options accessible, you and your
team members can reach a conclusion with much greater simplicity and
consensus.

Weighted scoring is suitable for usage when your team has several
suggestions for viable solutions but has not thoroughly explored the
ramifications of each decision. The weighted scoring technique is based on
the notion that some ideas or approaches are riskier than others, and hence
their ramifications must be examined. Each item is assessed based on
characteristics such as business value, cost, risk, and adoption. Each of these
criteria is given a score depending on its weighting (effect). You want a
method that is high in business value, high in adoption, low in cost, and low in
risk. You can total the scores after weighing each suggestion to make an
informed team decision.

By integrating a vote process at the end, the nominal group technique

expands on the brainstorming session. Not only does each group member
cast a vote, but they are also given the opportunity to explain why they voted
for whichever conclusion or alternative they believe is the greatest choice.
There are a few various methods to apply the nominal group technique
depending on the topic of conversation. If the subject is more delicate or
contentious, you may wish to conduct a survey with the option to stay
anonymous. Otherwise, this strategy might be employed in an open
discussion during your meeting.

Possibility ranking entails identifying the best option by using a voting

mechanism or developing a team list to prioritize ideas and methods. This can
be a wonderful group decision-making strategy to use when trying to reach a
collective choice about a question or issue with multiple potential outcomes.
This method can be utilized in an email, a survey, or a live meeting. You can
start by asking everyone to produce a personal list of how they would rank
different possibilities or approaches, and then combine the lists to see if there
are any similar viewpoints within the group so that you can reach a
consensus. You can use that method knowing that the majority supports and
agrees with it after determining the average of the best option.

The stepladder methodology, like the Delphi method, encourages each team
member to express their personal opinion on a topic before being affected by
the rest of the group. This avoids groupthink and promotes authenticity and
honesty in your team members' responses. This method necessitates the
following steps:

Step 1: Before your group meeting, convey the task to your team. Allow ample
time for everyone to consider their viewpoint or decision on how to best
complete the task at hand.

Step 2: Form a core group of two people to discuss the task or issue.

Step 3: Bring in a third group member to round out the core group. This third
person proposes ideas to the first two members before they hear the
previously discussed ideas. They review their alternatives collectively once all
three members have brought out their answers and thoughts.

Step 4: Repeat the process by adding a fourth, fifth, sixth, and so on member
to the group. Make sure there is ample time for discussion after each new
person has given their point of view.

Step 5: After everyone has been brought in and discussed their thoughts,
make a final choice.

A pros and cons list is sometimes referred to as Dialectical Inquiry in business

and can be highly useful. Dialectical inquiry is a group decision-making
method that attempts to combat groupthink. This group decision-making
process is philosophical in character and is thought to have originated with
Plato. It invites group members to evaluate both the thesis and antithesis of
any proposal. When adopting this strategy, divide people into two groups:
those who support a notion and those who oppose it. Each group gets the
opportunity to explain and highlight why they believe their option will result in
the best business outcomes and why the other viewpoint may not make as
much sense.

Didactic interaction is comparable to making a pros and cons list or

conducting dialectical inquiry, but it evolves in a different way. This strategy is
only appropriate in certain situations, but it works really effectively when the
correct opportunity presents itself. The problem should be of the type that has
a "yes" or "no" solution. These are often substantial decisions that will have a
significant impact on how the firm works and will touch every employee. Such
judgments necessitate lengthy and sometimes exhaustive conversations,
which can be time-consuming. Using this method, you may streamline the
inquiry process, save time, and go right to the point without requiring any
elaboration.

References

Bryson, J.M. (1995) : Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Bryson, John, & Edwards, Lauren Hamilton (2017) "Strategic Planning in the
Public Sector." Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and
Management. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.128.
Detoni, J. (2021) Reflexões Sobre O Planejamento Estratégico No Setor
Público.Brasília: Enap. 154 p. (Cadernos Enap, 84)

Chimhowu, A. O., Hulme, D., & Munro, L. T. (2019). The ‘New’ national
development planning and global development goals: Processes and
partnerships. World Development, 120, 76–89.

Máttar, J. & Cuervo L. M. (2017) Planificación para el desarrollo en

AméricaLatina y el Caribe Enfoques, experiencias y perspectivas.
Santiago: ComisiónEconómica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).

Matus, C. (1993). Política, planejamento e governo. Brasília: Ipea.