In this short paper, Rouse accomplishes two useful goals: he gives a succinct overview of planning considerations and describes how computer tools can enhance the planning process. He bases his conclusions on observing more than 2000 people, in 100 planning events, over a six-year period.

Rouse describes three different types of planning: product planning, business planning, and building consensus around plans. He shows the steps in each planning method by means of illustrations from a software advisor that can be used both to prompt questions in the planning investigations and to record the answers in a consistent, accessible place. This is especially useful, since Rouse focuses on “group-oriented” planning events. While the computer advisor itself provides a degree of guidance through the three methodologies, Rouse strongly suggests that a human facilitator be involved.

In defining what he means by achieving a good plan, Rouse notes:

It is tempting to define good plans as those that yield the desired consequences. However, consequences are usually delayed for long periods of time. Further, it is possible for good plans to fail due to unforeseeable events. Thus, goodness cannot simply be a measure applied to consequences.

He offers, instead, two measures that can be evaluated quickly: “a plan is good to the extent that a group can agree to move forward” and “a plan is good to the extent that the group can proceed with confidence.” While these two metrics are useful, I would prefer more emphasis on good outcomes. The limitations Rouse describes are real, but good planning must deal with those realities.

Rouse describes four types of support that planning groups have needed: that the planning in fact be done in groups; that the information discussed in the sessions be captured for later review; that the session be facilitated; and that the group be prompted and led in unexpected ways. He points out that computer support can assist in all these areas.

The sessions on which the author’s research is based appear to all have been “same-place, same-time” workgroups. At the end of the paper, he points out the need for study of distributed collaborative planning, an increasingly important type of work.