Downloads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt.2018.06.001Keywords:
Communicative interactions, facilitation, planning support systems, preliminary modelling, sketching, social systemsAbstract
This paper introduces an alternative means of evaluating the performance of planning support systems. These systems that were originally developed to support the professional tasks of planners have been assessed primarily based on their task-technology-user fit. During the tasks of early planning phases, planning actors attempt to adapt planning issues out of their ‘wicked’ state and into clear directions for action by means of communication. The search for better support of adaptations that result from these complex, multi-actor communications requires a more dynamic means of evaluating planning support. To gain a deeper understanding of planning support use during actor communications, we conducted a strategy-making session using preliminary modelling, sketching, facilitation and traditional support tools. We visualized the session as a network of communicative interactions and identified planning support involvement during key issue adaptations. Findings show that preliminary modelling and sketching were often used when identifying planning issues and adapting them into attributes for scenario development and that unsupported dialogue was used to communicate in depth about project objectives. We conclude that introducing planning support as needed in formats that are both visual and easy-to-understand may add value to strategy making in workshop settings.
Published
Issue
Section
References
Al-Kodmany, K. (2001). Visualization Tools and Methods for Participatory Planning and Design. Journal of Urban Technology, 8(2), 1-37. doi:10.1080/106307301316904772
Albrechts, L., & Balducci, A. (2013). Practicing Strategic Planning: In search of critical features to explain the strategic character of plans. Disp, 49(3), 16-27.
Baskerville, R. L. (1999). Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2(19), 1-32.
Batty, M. (1995). Planning Support Systems and the New Logic. Regional Development Dialogue, 16(1), 1-17.
Bishop, I. D. (1998). Planning Support: Hardware and software in search of a system. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 22(3), 189-202.
Castells, M. (1989). The Informational City. Oxford: Blackwell.
Champlin, C., te Br mmelstroet, M., & Pelzer, P. (2018). Tables, Tablets and Flexibility: Evaluating Planning Support System Performance under Different Conditions of Use. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 1-25. doi:10.1007/s12061-018-9251-0
Connick, S., & Innes, J. E. (2003). Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(2), 177-197. doi:10.1080/0964056032000070987
Couclelis, H. (2005). Where has the Future Gone? Rethinking the role of integrated land-use models in spatial planning. Environment and Planning A, 37(8), 1353-1371.
de Roo, G., Hillier, J., & Van Wezemael, J. E. (Eds.). (2012). Complexity and Planning: Systems, assemblages and simulations. Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
de Roo, G., & Rauws, W. S. (2012). Positioning Planning in the World of Order, Chaos and Complexity: On perspectives, behaviour and interventions in a non-linear environment. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk, & E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An overview with implications to urban planning and design. Berlin: Springer.
de Roo, G., & Silva, E. A. (2010). A Planner’s Encounter with Complexity. Surry: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Dennis, A. R., & Wixom, B. H. (2002). Investigating the Moderators of the Group Support Systems Use with Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 235-257.
Engestr m, Y. (2011). From Design Experiments to Formative Interventions. Theory Psychology, 21(598-628).
Ford, D. N., & Sterman, J. (1997). Expert knowledge elicitation to improve mental and formal models.
Geertman, S. (2006). Potentials for Planning Support: A planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 33, 863-880.
Geertman, S. (2008). Planning Support Systems: A planner’s perspective. In R. K. Brail (Ed.), Planning Support Systems for Cities and Regions (pp. 213-230). Cambridge MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
Geertman, S. (2013). Planning Support: From systems to science. Institution of Civil Engineers- Urban Design and Planning, 166(DP1), 50-59.
Geertman, S., & Stillwell, J. (2004). Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(4), 291-310. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0198-9715(03)00024-3
Gephi. (2017). Gephi: The open graph viz platform. Retrieved from https://gephi.org/
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R., L. (1995). Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213-236.
Goodspeed, R. (2013). Planning Support Systems for Spatial Planning through Social Learning. (Dissertation), Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Harris, B. (1989). Beyond geographic information systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(1), 85-90.
Hayne, S. C. (1999). The Facilitators Perspective on Meetings and Implications for Group Support System Deisgn. ACM SIGMIS Database, 30(3-4), 72-91.
Healey, P. (1996). The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory and its Implications for Spatial Strategy Formation. Environment and Planning B, 23(2), 217-234.
Healey, P. (1999). Institutionalist Analysis, Communicative Planning, and Shaping Places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), 111-121. doi:10.1177/0739456X9901900201
Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London and New York: Routledge.
Hirokawa, R. Y., & Gouran, D. S. (1989). Facilitation of Group Communication: A critique of prior research and an agenda for future research. Management Communication Quarterly, 3(1), 71-92.
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, Massachusetts: Helix Books.
Holland, J. H. (2006). Studying Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 19, 1-8.
Hopkins, L. D. (1999). Structure of Planning Support Systems for Urban Development. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 26, 333-343.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423.
Janssen, M. A., Goosen, H., & Omtzigt, N. (2006). A Simple Mediation and Negotiation Support Tool for Water Management in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 71-84.
King, S., Conley, M., Latimer, B., & Ferrari, B. (1989). Co-design: A process of design participation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on Self-Reference. New York: Columbia University Press.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems (J. J. Bednarz & D. B cker, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mazhelis, O., Lehto, J. A., Markkula, J., & Pulkkinen, M. (2006). Defining Complexity Factors for the Architecture Evaluation Framework. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences Hawaii.
Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex Adaptive Systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Pelzer, P. (2017). Usefulness of planning support systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical illustration. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 104, 84-95.
Pelzer, P., Arciniegas, G., Geertman, S., & Lenferink, S. (2015a). Planning Support Systems and Task-Technology Fit: A comparative case study. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 8(2), 155-175.
Pelzer, P., Goodspeed, R., & Te Brömmelstroet, M. (2015b). Facilitating PSS Workshops: A conceptual framework and findings from interviews with facilitators. In S. Geertman, J. Ferreira, R. Goodspeed, & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities (pp. 355-369). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Portugali, J. (2012). Introduction. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk, & E. Tan (Eds.),
Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An overview with implications to urban planning and design (pp. 1-2). Heidelberg: Springer.
Portugali, J., Meyer, H., Stolk, E., & Tan, E. (Eds.). (2012). Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An overview with implications to urban planning and design. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
Samoilenko, S. (2008). Information Systems Fitness and Risk in IS Development: Insights and implications from chaos and complex systems theories. Information Systems Frontiers, 10, 281-292.
Sengupta, U., Rauws, W. S., de Roo, G., & (Eds.). (2016). Planning and Complexity: Engaging with temporal dynamics, uncertainty and complex adaptive systems. Environment and Planning B, 43(6).
Shiffer, M. J. (1992). Towards A Collaborative Planning System. Environment and Planning B, 19, 709-722.
Shim, J. P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J. F., Power, D. J., Sharda, R., & Carlsson, C. (2002). Past, Present, and Future of Decision Support Technology. Decision Support Systems, 33(2), 111-126.
Sijmons, D. (2012). Simple Rules: Emerging order? A designer’s curiosity about complexity theories. In J. Portugali, H. Meyer, E. Stolk, & E. Tan (Eds.), Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age: An overview with implications to urban planning and design. Berlin: Springer.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage. te Brömmelstroet, M. (2010). Equip the Warrior instead of Manning the Equipment: Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 3(1), 25-41.
te Brömmelstroet, M. (2012). Transparency, flexibility, simplicity: From buzzwords to strategies for real PSS improvement. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 36(1), 96-104. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.06.002
te Brömmelstroet, M. (2016). PSS are More User-friendly, but are They Also Increasingly Useful? Transport Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 104, 96-107.
te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Developing Land Use and Transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transport Policy, 15, 251-259.
te Brömmelstroet, M., Pelzer, P., & Geertman, S. (2014). Commentary: Forty Years after Lee’s Requiem: Are we beyond the seven sins? Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 41(3), 381-387.
te Brömmelstroet, M., & Schrijnen, P. M. (2010). From Planning Support Systems to Mediated Planning Support: A structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and design, 37, 3-20.
van de Riet, O. (2003). Policy Analysis in Multi-Actor Policy Settings: Navigating between negotiated nonsense and superfluous knowledge. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology.
van den Belt, M. (2004). Mediated Modeling: A systems dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Washington: Island Press.
Vennix, J. A. M. (1992). Model-Building for Group Decision Support: Issues and alternatives in knowledge elicitation. European Journal of Operational Research, 59, 28-41.
Voinov, A., & Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with Stakeholders. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 1268-1281.
Vonk, G. (2006). Improving Planning Support: The use of planning support systems for spatial planning. Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Vonk, G., Geertman, S., & Schot, P. P. (2007). A SWOT Analysis of Planning Support Systems. Environment and Planning A, 39, 1699-1714.
Webster, C. (2010). Emergence, Spatial Order, Transaction Costs and Planning. In G. de Roo & E. A. Silva (Eds.), A Planner’s Encounter with Complexity (pp. 123-138). Surry: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Yamu, C. (2014). It Is Simply Complex(ity) Modeling and Simulation in the Light of Decision-Making, Emergent Structures and a World of Non-Linearity. disP-The Planning Review, 50(4), 43-53. doi:10.1080/02513625.2014.1007662
