Usefulness of Planning Support Systems : Conceptual perspectives and practitioners' experiences

Abstract

This dissertation starts by observing (Chapter 1) that the question of supporting planning and policy making with dedicated information is an old and important one. In the end of the 1980s a research field emerges dedicated to specifically cater instruments to the needs of practitioners, so called Planning Support Systems (PSS). PSS can be defined as ‘geo-information based instruments that incorporate a suite of components that collectively support some parts of a unique professional planning task’. PSS is often software, which supports understanding and evaluating planning decisions.

While the instrumental characteristics of PSS have improved significantly over the last two decades, this has not resulted in intensive usage in planning and policy practice. Earlier research has shed light on the bottlenecks preventing this higher frequency of usage. It has hardly been studied, however, what it means for planning practice if a PSS is indeed used.

How can the usefulness of Planning Support Systems for planning practice be conceptualized and how do practitioners experience this?

The following six chapters answer different aspects of this research question.

Chapter 2 has a chiefly conceptual focus. It emphasizes the collaborative and communicative nature of contemporary planning, whereas PSS traditionally come from a scientific-analytical approach to planning. This chapter argues that a better role of PSS can particularly be found in a careful conceptualization of knowledge.The role of PSS in planning particularly lies in gathering and testing the knowledge claims that are brought forward by different stakeholders.

Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 report about the added value of PSS applications as perceived by practitioners. A conceptual framework is developed, in which added value is measured on the individual, group and outcome level. In a Group Decision Room workshop particularly communication and collaboration are emphasized as important added values of PSS.The questionnaires indicate that particularly learning is as an important added value of PSS.

Chapter 5 focuses in detail on interdisciplinary learning (part of of learning about others), which is conceived as ‘frame reflection’ by stakeholders three disciplinary frames about planning and PSS: an analytic frame, a design frame, and a negotiation frame. The two case studies reveal that a PSS can both have a positive and a negative effect on interdisciplinary communication.

Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 focus on the planning tasks that are supported by the application of the PSS. In both chapters the concept of task-technology fit is used, which refers to the extent to which the support capabilities of a PSS (i.e. the ‘technology’) influence the extent to which planning tasks are successfully conducted. The findings indicate that a PSS is particularly useful when applied selectively.

In the conclusion (Chapter 8) the overarching finding is discussed that PSS are to be particularly useful when applied selectively. Facilitation could play a key role in achieving this. In future research it is important that the perspective of practitioners is kept in mind, particularly since the recent attention for smart cities and big data tends to have a chiefly technological focus.