To repeat, each of the following alternatives operates with these planning assumptions. They differ according to how the planning process would be organized. For example, those interested in assessment or those interested in revamping the subfields would simply begin to work on these issues and come to the department with recommendations if necessary. In the past as well as today much of the departments business gets done this way. That is its advantage.
People are familiar with it, and it has worked well at times in the past.
There are at least two pitfalls. First, this approach has not worked well in dealing with more encompassing changes. Second, the approach leaves very little room for the kinds of coordinated responses that were mentioned frequently in the planning meeting. For example, if the department wants to consider the feasibility of certain changes in terms of the resources and staff available five years from now, Alternative One has limitations because each community of interest is operating on its own. Alternative Two relies less on informal, individual initiative.