ganizational boundaries can help provide more comprehensive information on all aspects of the policy analysis process. Kweit and Kweit state:
In a democracy, it is the public that determines where it wants to go, and the role of its representatives and bureaucratic staff is to get them there. In other works, ends should be chosen democratically even though the means are chosen technocratically (Kweit and Kweit, 1986 p. 25).
Figure A-1. The Policy Analysis Process
This statement has important implications with respect to Forest Service decisions. The existing policy structure within the agency mandates that targets (or the ends), which are tied directly to funding, are set by Congress. This would imply that the ends are chosen democratically. The targets are implemented on the Forest and District level. Thus, traditionally the means are developed and chosen technocratically.
Congress, as elected representatives, theoretically represents the public interest in setting targets. Recent issues with respect to forest management (i.e., spotted owl lawsuits) suggest that this approach is no longer effective in managing the National Forest system. On its face, this may seem to imply that the Forest Service should apply a purely technocratic decision-making process. However, it is unlikely that a purely technocratic (top-down) approach will continue to be appropriate given the number and diversity of public interests who have a stake in forest management decisions.
Lang, suggests that traditional comprehensive and strategic planning processes are insufficient for current resource management planning and advocates a more interactive approach to planning. Lang suggests:
An integrated approach to resource planning must provide for interaction with the stakeholders in the search for relevant information, shared values, consensus, and ultimately, proposed action that is both feasible and acceptable (Lang, 1986 p 35).
Lang suggests that conventional planning tends to be dominated by a technical/analytic style where the planner is a detached value-neutral expert advising decision makers about the best way to accomplish their goals and serve the public interest. The emphasis is on data collection and analysis as the means for finding the best solutions to problems and developing a technically sound plan. The implicit assumption is that better information leads to better decisions. Success in conventional planning is measured by the extent to which the objectives of the plan are achieved (Lang, 1986 p 39).
According to Lang, interactive planning is based on the assumption that open, participative processes lead to better decisions. The planner engages directly with stakeholders to gain support, build consensus, identify acceptable solutions, and secure implementation. Success in interactive planning is measured by the extent to which balance can be achieved among competing interests and consensus is reached on appropriate actions (Lang, 1986 p 39). Table 2-1 provides a comparison of interactive versus conventional planning.
Table 2-1.Interactive Planning v. Conventional Planning
information/feedback, consultation and negotiation
Interaction occurs early on and throughout the planning process, with full range of stakeholders
Assumes that open participation leads to better decisions
Planner as value-committed advocate
Focuses on mobilization of support
Plan = what we agree to do
Success measured by achievement of agreement on action
information/feedback; maybe some consultation
Early interaction with implementers; affected interests not involved until late in process
Assumes that better information leads to better decisions
Planner as value-neutral expert
Focuses on manipulation of data
Plan = what we should do
Success measured by achievement of plan's objectives
Source: Lang, 1986 p. 39
Finally, Lang suggests that much of planning practice is dominated by a perspective that is sometimes called "technical rationality." However, three other perspectives, in addition to the technical are central to resource planning. These are organizational, 