Author
Abstract
Problem, research strategy, and findingsDespite recent interest in the experiences of planners working in the private sector, much research does not distinguish between different organizational contexts. A key change in the consultancy market is the rise of global, publicly traded firms that provide planning services. This research draws on interviews with planners working in publicly traded firms to understand the opportunities and constraints from this model of practice. Though some planners noted opportunities in publicly traded firms, participants identified more constraints or limitations related to this model of practice. Scaling up of firm size offered benefits, such as opportunities for collaboration, but these were limited by organizational structures that promoted competition and cost-cutting strategies. Financial pressures and market demands can affect professional practice, such as through increased time spent on financial reporting and capacity issues from frequent turnover in staff. As a small, low-value component of traded firms, planners experienced issues with reduced resources, difficulties with staffing, and a lack of understanding the role of planning. A limitation of the research is that relying on self-reported data may not fully reflect ethical or professional breaches.Takeaway for practiceIncreased collaboration across disciplines and geographies may improve project outcomes, though planners’ concerns about lack of capacity and oversight point to concerns for the clients of consultants, as well as professional associations. There is a need for commissioning agencies, particularly in the public sector, to pay close attention to issues of procurement and develop strategies to evaluate project work. In firms where planning is a small business line and subordinate to more profitable services, there may be emerging ethical and practice issues that have not received sufficient attention in professional codes.
Suggested Citation
Orly Linovski, 2023.
"Planners in Publicly Traded Firms,"
Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 89(3), pages 376-388, July.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:89:y:2023:i:3:p:376-388
DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2022.2093259
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:rjpaxx:v:89:y:2023:i:3:p:376-388. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjpa20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.