IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v46y2019i4p777-796.html

Lessons for developing a planning support system infrastructure: The case of Southern California's Scenario Planning Model

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Goodspeed
  • Cassie Hackel

Abstract

Although planning support systems are being more widely adopted by professional planners, there are very few examples of planning support system infrastructures designed to support planning practices on an ongoing basis. This paper reports the result of an exploratory qualitative study of the Southern California Association of Governments' Scenario Planning Model, an innovative new planning support system infrastructure. Interviews with professionals who served as participants in a two-year development process were conducted to explore the six dimensions that theories from the planning support systems, innovation diffusion, and organizational information technology fields suggest are important to understanding the adoption and use of a planning support system infrastructure: user considerations, perceived benefits, technical details, the development process, jurisdiction characteristics, and planning style. Drawing on these interviews, the article proposes seven lessons for the creation of planning support system infrastructures: utilize participatory design, support a variety of planning practices, address indirect costs to users, encourage collaboration among multiple users within each organization, ensure that all stakeholders have appropriate access, be mindful of the framing of new technologies, and embrace their transformational potential. Although the Scenario Planning Model has benefited from California's unique planning mandates, advances in web-based geospatial technologies mean that many regions may draw on these lessons to create similar planning support system infrastructures, which have the potential to improve local and regional planning practices through enhanced information, analysis, and communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Goodspeed & Cassie Hackel, 2019. "Lessons for developing a planning support system infrastructure: The case of Southern California's Scenario Planning Model," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(4), pages 777-796, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:46:y:2019:i:4:p:777-796
    DOI: 10.1177/2399808317727004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399808317727004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399808317727004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2005. "Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(5), pages 909-924, May.
    2. Daniel Robey & Sundeep Sahay, 1996. "Transforming Work Through Information Technology: A Comparative Case Study of Geographic Information Systems in County Government," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 93-110, March.
    3. Robert Goodspeed, 2016. "The Death and Life of Collaborative Planning Theory," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(4), pages 1-5.
    4. Daniel Robey & Marie-Claude Boudreau, 1999. "Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 167-185, June.
    5. Elisa Barbour & Elizabeth Deakin, 2012. "Smart Growth Planning for Climate Protection," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 78(1), pages 70-86.
    6. Robert Goodspeed, 2016. "The Death and Life of Collaborative Planning Theory," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(4), pages 1-5.
    7. Stan Geertman & John Stillwell, 2003. "Planning Support Systems: An Introduction," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Stan Geertman & John Stillwell (ed.), Planning Support Systems in Practice, chapter 1, pages 3-22, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    2. Wanda J. Orlikowski & C. Suzanne Iacono, 2001. "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 121-134, June.
    3. Margunn Aanestad & Bob Jolliffe & Arunima Mukherjee & Sundeep Sahay, 2014. "Infrastructuring Work: Building a State-Wide Hospital Information Infrastructure in India," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 834-845, December.
    4. Pelzer, Peter, 2017. "Usefulness of planning support systems: A conceptual framework and an empirical illustration," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 84-95.
    5. Marie-Claude Boudreau & Daniel Robey, 2005. "Enacting Integrated Information Technology: A Human Agency Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 3-18, February.
    6. Yanliu Lin & Kasper Benneker, 2022. "Assessing collaborative planning and the added value of planning support apps in The Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(2), pages 391-410, February.
    7. Guido Vonk & Stan Geertman & Paul Schot, 2007. "A SWOT Analysis of Planning Support Systems," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 39(7), pages 1699-1714, July.
    8. Denolf, Janne.M. & Wognum, Nel P.M. & Trienekens, Jacques H. & van der Vorst, Jack G.A.J. & Omta, S.W.F. (Onno), 2012. "Towards a Supply-Chain Instrument to Monitor an Information Technology Implementation," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144968, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    9. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "PSS are more user-friendly, but are they also increasingly useful?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 96-107.
    10. Steven Spears & Marlon G Boarnet & Douglas Houston, 2017. "Driving reduction after the introduction of light rail transit: Evidence from an experimental-control group evaluation of the Los Angeles Expo Line," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(12), pages 2780-2799, September.
    11. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    12. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    13. Jackson, Stephen & Philip, George, 2010. "A techno-cultural emergence perspective on the management of techno-change," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 445-456.
    14. J-R Córdoba, 2008. "The Javeriana Case: Systems Thinking, Power and Ethics in IS (and OR?) Strategy," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(5), pages 721-724, May.
    15. Ciaran Devlin, 2020. "Digital Social Innovation and the Adoption of #PlanTech: The Case of Coventry City Council," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 59-67.
    16. Tessa Eikelboom & Ron Janssen, 2015. "Comparison of Geodesign Tools to Communicate Stakeholder Values," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1065-1087, November.
    17. Heyer, Johanna & Palm, Matthew & Niemeier, Deb, 2020. "Are we keeping up? Accessibility, equity and air quality in regional planning," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    18. Geertman, Stan, 2017. "PSS: Beyond the implementation gap," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 70-76.
    19. Haozhi Pan & Stan Geertman & Brian Deal, 2020. "What does urban informatics add to planning support technology?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1317-1325, October.
    20. Maryam Alavi & Dorothy E. Leidner, 2001. "Research Commentary: Technology-Mediated Learning—A Call for Greater Depth and Breadth of Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:46:y:2019:i:4:p:777-796. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.