Talk:Incrementalism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mr.Haynes30, TrishaTidwell, Bobcatj15. Peer reviewers: Mrk34, Jose a cantu, Bjr70, Dng21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk

I first came across this term from a lecturer at Strathclyde University c1990 (I forget the name). At the time it seemed a curiosity rather than useful, but 15 years later I was asked to look at the software development process in a company. In order to describe this process in the report where I concluded that it was preferred to more formal planning I use the term "rapid incremental development" using the term I had learnt at University.

Later I came across the term when researching the Danish Wind Industry.

Open Paragraph

I noticed an edit on the first paragraph.

Incrementalism is a method of working using a gradual incremental approach such as adding to a project over time. <became> Incrementalism is a process of adding to a gradually to a project by series of small steps.

I may be wrong, but I think incrementalism is a methodology of work i.e. a philosophy. A process is a means of doing work. I've reverted back to "a method of working", because I think this is the simplest way to say "working methodology". However I preferred the "adding to a project" by small steps (although the idea of a project may be redundant because there is no need to plan and therefore no need to define a scope for the work beyond the immediately focus of improvement).

--Mike 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Continuous improvement

"The antithesis of incrementalism is that work must be accomplished in one single push rather than a process of continuous improvement." CI generally refers to a specific method in quality management. Although it is "incremental" it is hardly a good example of "incrementalism" in the context of planning. Quality management requires business planning. This should be clear from a cursory reading of Shewhart, Deming, Juran, and Crosby. --Suidafrikaan (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Incrementalism Wikipedia page begins with a definition of incrementalism stating that incrementalism is a method of working by adding to a project using small incremental changes instead of a few large jumps. The page later is broken down into nine categories entitled Origin, Contrasts to other planning methodologies, related concepts, pros and cons, usage, examples, references, external links and a category entitled see also. The article is easy to understand but the structure is bare and lacking details in many areas. The introduction does a good job of showing the readers different approaches to thinking about incrementalism but does not explore them in detail in their own sections. The “origin” category attempts to explain how incrementalism was established by simply stating that it is “the natural and intuitive way to tackle everyday problems” but lacks historical origins and ideas of incrementalism. This section could benefit if Lindblom’s concepts of incrementalism were included.

The article then goes on to the “contrasts to other planning methodologies” category to explain the outlook on incrementalism when it comes to different projects.  This sections needs to cover the methodologies mentioned in the intro including the “Muddling through”,”Logical incrementalism”, “rational actor model”, and “bounded rationality”.

The Pros and Cons section briefly discusses the effects on formal systems and rationality. Public policy has plenty of both and supports the lack of strategic planning that can be added to this section and references of these. The small page touches on the related concepts the usage of incrementalism and is later followed by an example.The Usage section and the Example section can be combined to create a well rounded description of how incrementalism is used and show direct examples of the process. The examples should support the claims the Usage section makes.It is concluded with references and external links that will allow the reader to gain further knowledge. Although the small page does not contain much information it does a successful job at introducing the concept of incrementalism with a small number of sources and will need a lot of work to be an illuminating article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcatj15 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Outline

• Origin Section

  * Expand on the History
  * Include Origins of Logical Incrementalism
  * Add Lindblom’s theories‘Muddling through’“but a toolkit of loosely connected heuristics”
  * Expand on the “rational actor model” and “bounded rationality” mentioned in the introduction
  * Link to Innovation, Cognitive, Limitations, Decision Making, Political Constraints

• Contrasts to Planning Methodologies

  * Define Methodology
  * Link to Methodology
  * Contrast the theories mentioned in the Origins section
  * Provide more explanation and differences between methodologies

• Pros and Cons

  Pros

• Simplicity:This type of budgeting is very simple to understand. Compared to some of the other budgeting methods used in business, it is one of the easiest to put in practice. Therefore, you do not have to be an accountant or have much experience in business to use this form of budgeting. • Gradual change:With this type of budgeting, you will have a very stable budget from one period to the next. This allows for gradual change within the company. Many managers are intimidated by large budget increases from one period to the next. With this type of budget, you will not run into this problem because it is based on the previous period's budget. • Flexibility: This type of budgeting is very flexible. You can easily do it from one month to the next. This allows you to see change very quickly when you implement a new policy or budget. • Avoid conflict: Companies with many different departments often run into conflict between departments because of their different budgets. With this method of budgeting, it is easier to keep everyone on the same page and avoid conflicts between departments

Cons • Does not account for change: This method is based on the idea that expenses will run pretty much as they did before. However, in business, this is rarely the case. There are always variables. • No incentives--Such a simple method of budgeting really does not provide your employees with much reason to be creative. They have no incentive to innovate and come up with new ideas or policies because everything is limited. • Use it or lose it--Many employees view this as a "use it or lose it" system. They know that next year's budget is going to be incrementally based on this year's. Therefore, if they do not spend everything that is allocated to them, they may not have enough money to work with next year. This creates an environment where waste is encouraged.

• Usage Section

  * Link to Political economy of climate change,Politics of global warming
  * Create Public Policy Subsection “incremental and innovative change can occur simultaneously.”
  * Make Example section a subsection of the Usage section
  * Remove line about John McCain
  * Example subsection
  * Add and explain “The Plan 6 share-cost sharing” 
  * Add and explain how politics affects “Resource allocation in local authorities”
  * Reference “U.s. government budgeting practices” 
  *Reference “Climate change policy-making” 
  * All sources cited in References

• See also Section

  * Add Link
  * Adaptation, heuristics, Integrated Strategies, Methodology, conventional wisdom, Ipso facto, maladaptation, organization theory, gradualism 

• References

  * Micale, L. M. (1990). Policy change as innovation and incrementalism: The case of plan 6 cost-sharing (Order No. 1340711). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (303793098). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/303793098?accountid=5683
  * Williams, R. P. (1986). Incrementalism and the politics of resource allocation in local authorities (Order No. U602144). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1477359910). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1477359910?accountid=5683
  * Gray, R. E. (2014). An examination of the effects of incrementalism and annuality in U.S. government budgeting practices (Order No. 3618237). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1528557751). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1528557751?accountid=5683
  * Bendor, J. (2015). Incrementalism: Dead yet Flourishing. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 194-205. doi:10.1111/puar.12333
  * Knaggård, Å. (2014). What do policy-makers do with scientific uncertainty? The incremental character of Swedish climate change policy-making. Policy Studies, 35(1), 22-39. doi:10.1080/01442872.2013.804175 
  * Anderson, S., & Harbridge, L. (2010, June). Incrementalism in Appropriations: Small Aggregation, Big Changes. Retrieved October 2, 2015.
  * Vladeck, B. (2001, February 1). Medicare and the Politics of Incrementalism. Retrieved October 2, 2015.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Haynes30 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC) 

Mr.Haynes30 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Peer Review

Overall, a decent article and great job so far! I'm including some points below that I noticed.

Content The lead section has a good overview of what incrementalism is, but it doesn't break down any of what to expect in the article.

Representativeness Good job on showing the pros/cons in a neutral tone.

Sourcing I would find more sources if possible- I noticed the first and second sources were the same and one source was merely a link to another wikipedia page that wasn't relevant. The sources look like proper MLA format (I think it's MLA, at least) and it's consistent.

Readability Good use of third person/neutral tone throughout the article. However, I noticed some small grammatical mistakes and run-on sentences in the article that affected the overall flow and made the article a little difficult to read smoothly. The organization of the article was great, I can't think of any changes that would help it.

Overall Solid job, make the minor tweaks and it'll be A material.

147.26.109.194 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Peer Review

Content The article is pretty good, however in the earlier paragraphs it could be broken down a tad bit more before going off right into examples. The "Usage" is pretty decent, however the small paragraph that involved John McCain seemed random and not properly placed. The amount of sourcing seems appropriate for the amount of paragraphs.

Readability The writing seems pretty good, pretty understandable just a couple of small mistakes with grammar. Seemed very neutral and the formatting was pretty good, the Pros/Cons spot might look better if bolded or underlined. But having a pros/cons section is very good.

Comprehensiveness The articles points were made very clear and pretty good, however it felt as if a lot of it was examples constantly through out the whole article. The main point was pretty clear and what each section had to offer was clear as well. A variety of perspectives from studies and examples.

Overall Good article, pretty together, and just small mistakes and it will be even better.

Mrk34 (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Mrk34

Peer Review

The Article is well written with just a few grammar issues. The lead section is clear and concise and gives the reader a good understanding of what incrementalism is. For most of the sections there is a nice variety of sources but I believe there needs to be more variety of sources used when it comes to the Pro and Con section. Also, for the "Contrast to Other Planning Methodologies" there are no sources.The article is well balanced and there is not an overuse of complex language. The article also remains neutral and there are no opinions that I can see that are not cited. The article is also well organized and each section is well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dng21 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Peer Review

• The introduction provides a clear and concise explanation of Incrementalism. The authors used Wikipedia as the main example to illustrate Incrementalism. • The authors highlight the origin of Incrementalism, other planning methodologies, pros and cons of Incrementalism and the use of Incrementalism. The points provided are easy to understand, examples are provided to support information. • The authors provide sufficient amount of information to explain Incrementalism, the outline is organized and the pro and cons section highlight key debates one may have on incrementalism. • The authors provide 13 references to support their information and analysis is done by covering the pros and cons of incrementalism and provide other methods of planning methodologies

b. • The article focuses on incrementalism and expands on secondary areas of incrementalism in a clearly well-defined article • The article is supported by academic writings retrieved from the Texas State online library database c. • The authors retrieve information from various academic authors • The article is not bias and includes fair and necessary viewpoints supporting or rejecting Incrementalism. • The article is properly cited from various academic authors and academic books • The references are reliable because they were retrieved from the Texas State library database, a sufficient amount of sources were provided to support the article • The references are in the Chicago style format • The language is precise, as the sources support the specific portion of information that is cited • The article is unbiased and does not contain opinions

• The article is fair and precise on the view of instrumentalism, no inappropriate viewpoints are implemented • The facts provided are supported by academic resources • The coverage is balanced, providing a fair balance of pros and cons, the length of each portion are appropriate for the statement • The entry is written well, there are no grammatical errors, sentences are not fragmented • Active voice is used, no misspellings are found • The article is easy to understand allowing the ability to reach out to various educational levels • Complex language is avoided and words are simple and easily understandable. The idea is clear and the point is made immediately

I like the pros and cons section. The section allows me to see both sides of arguments in a clear and direct format.

I would expand on strategic implementation, provided a direct example of strategic implantation

Expand why Senator McCain believes the health care reform is a form of Incrementalism

Re: Climate change

In the case of climate change the opinions changed gradually over the years as more and more scientific evidence became clear to policy makers that it should be a prevalent policy issue

Not the slightest bit true, and the source is from 2013, and possibly has problems. As Oreskes famously demonstrated, the consensus was solid; still others have shown that the evidence has been in for many decades. Further, neither of these things had any impact on US policy makers, who are still beholden to fossil fuel interests. This statement needs to be removed or changed as it is flat out wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed it, as it is egregious in its overarching error. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)