ABSTRACT
This chapter takes up the topic of plan evaluation. I compare two approaches. One approach uses ‘Rational’ analysis, the other pragmatic reasoning. I argue that planners should place less emphasis on rational analysis and adopt a distinctly pragmatic approach when evaluating plans. Analysis may offer objectivity and precision, but it sacrifices context and continuity. A pragmatic outlook embraces context and seeks continuity among diverse viewpoints. It avoids the separation between analysis and action, providing a useful rationale for what some practitioners might call common sense practical judgment. I analyze four types of planning evaluation to make the differences explicit.
