Advertisement

Application of Socio-Technical Research Methods in Understanding the Genesis and Potential Sustainability of Planning Support Systems

  • Wayne Williamson
  • Bruno Parolin
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC, volume 195)

Abstract

This research compares two methodologies to gain an insight into which may best fit the research of Planning Support Systems (PSS) used in planning practice. The approach taken by this research is twofold; firstly using data collected through case studies and the application of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and secondly, an online questionnaire of staff in government and private practice. The questionnaire data was analysed using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Results of applying ANT can provide useful insights into the social and technical interactions that are relied upon to build and implement a PSS. Moreover, the UTAUT results found that in order for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) applications to be widely accepted by planners, the organizations in which they work need to address performance expectancy and facilitating conditions as priorities. Although the methods used in this research are vastly different, results have been found to be somewhat complimentary.

Keywords

Geographic Information System Performance Expectancy Focal Actor Planning Practice Effort Expectancy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aslıgül Göçmen A, Ventura SJ (2010) Barriers to GIS use in planning. J Am Plann Assoc 76(2):172–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batty M (2008) Planning support systems: progress, predictions, and speculations on the shape of things to come. In: Brail R (ed) Planning support systems for cities and regions. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder G, Boldero JM (2012) Planning for change: the roles of habitual practice and habitus in planning practice. Urban Policy Res 30(2):175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brail RK (2009) Planning support systems: bridging the gap between technology and user. Paper presented at 11th international conference on computers in urban planning and urban management, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 16–18 JuneGoogle Scholar
  5. Callon M (1986) Some elements of sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: Law J (ed) Power, action, and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? Sociological review monograph no. 32. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Couclelis H (2005) Where has the future gone? Rethinking the role of integrated land use models in spatial planning. Environ Plan A 37(8):1353–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Department of Planning (2007) Improving the NSW planning system: discussion paper, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  8. Geertman S (2006) Potentials for planning support: a planning-conceptual approach. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 33:863–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geertman S (2008) Planning support systems: a planner’s perspective. In: Brail RK (ed) Planning support systems for cities and regions. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Geertman S, Stillwell J (2004) Planning support systems: an inventory of current practice. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28(2):291–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harris B (1989) Beyond geographic information systems-computers and the planning professional. J Am Plan Assoc 55(1):85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris B, Batty M (1993) Locational models geographic information and planning support systems. J Plan Educ Res 12(2):184–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klosterman RE (2001) Planning support systems: a new perspective on computer aided planning. In: Klosterman RE, Brail RK (eds) Planning support systems: integrated geographic information systems, models and visualization tools. ESRI Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  14. Klosterman RE, Pettit C (2005) Guest editorial: an update on planning support systems. Environ Plan B Plan Des 32(4):477–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latour B (1986) The powers of association. In: Law J (ed) Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? sociological review monograph 32. Routledge & Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Law J (1986) The heterogeneity of texts. In: Callon M, Law J, Rip A (eds) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. Macmillan Press, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  18. Law J, Callon M (1992) The life and death of an aircraft: a network analysis of technical change. In: Bijker WE, Law J (eds) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin EW (2000) Actor-networks and implementation: examples from conservation GIS in ecuador. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14(8):715–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McMaster T, Wastell D (2005) Diffusion—or delusion? challenging an IS research tradition. Inf Technol People 18(4):383–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McMaster T, Vidgen RT, Wastell DG (1997) Towards an understanding of technology in transition: two conflicting theories. Paper presented at information systems research in Scandinavia, IRIS20 conference, University of Oslo, HankoGoogle Scholar
  22. Miles JA (2012) Management and organizational theory. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitev NN (2005) Are social constructivist approaches critical? The case if IS failure. In: Howcroft D, Truath EM (eds) Handbook of critical information systems research: theory and application. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  24. Monteiro E (2000) Actor-network theory and information infrastructure. In: Ciborra CU (ed) From control to drift: the dynamics of corporate information infrastructures. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore T (2008) Planning support systems: what are practicing planners looking for? In: Brail RK (ed) Planning support systems for cities and regions. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Pettit C, Keysers J, Bishop I, Klosterman RE (2008) Applying the what if? planning support system for better understanding urban fringe growth. In: Pettit C, Cartwright W, Bishop I, Lowell K, Puller D, Duncan D (eds) Landscape analysis and visualization: spatial models for natural resource management and planning. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Rodger K, Moore SA, Newsome D (2009) Wildlife tourism science and actor network theory. Ann Tourism Res 36(4):645–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simon P (2010) The next wave of technologies: opportunities in chaos. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  29. Tatnall A (2000) Working paper: information systems innovation—two different models. School of Information Systems, Victoria University, Victory, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  30. Tatnall A, Burgess S (2002) Using actor-network theory to research the implementation of B–B portal for regional SMEs in Melbourne, Australia. Paper presented at 15th electronic commerce conference and reality: constructing the e-economy, Bled, SloveniaGoogle Scholar
  31. Tatnall A, Gilding A (1999) Actor-network theory and information systems research. Paper presented at 10th Australasian conference in information systemsGoogle Scholar
  32. te Brömmelstroet MCG, Schrijnen PM (2010) From planning support systems to mediated planning support: a structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 37(1):3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478Google Scholar
  34. Vonk G, Geertman S, Schot P (2005) Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environ Plan A 37(5):909–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vonk G, Geertman S, Schot P (2007a) A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environ Plan A 39:1699–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vonk G, Geertman S, Schot P (2007b) New technologies stuck in old hierarchies: the diffusion of geo-information technologies in Dutch public organizations. Public Adm Rev 67(4):745–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Williamson W, Parolin B (2012) Investigating E-planning in practice: an actor-network case study approach. Int J E-Plan Res 1(3):68–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of the Built EnvironmentUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations