Insight into the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of planning support systems (PSS) is fragmented between users and system developers. The lack of combined insights blocks development in the right direction and makes potential users hesitant to apply PSS in planning. This study presents SWOT of PSS from a combined user–developer perspective. We first express them in terms of combinations of planning task, PSS information function, and user, and subsequently use a literature survey, a series of interviews, and a web survey to gather views from developers, users, and PSS experts. The analysis shows that planners mainly use simple information storage and retrieval systems for exploration tasks, while the majority of PSS are technically much more advanced and aim to support complex tasks. The potential of these advanced PSS can only be realized if planners and system developers start to share knowledge and demands and identify opportunities in a cooperative PSS-development process. Without such a process, the advantages and opportunities of PSS will remain unexploited.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderE R, 1998, “Doing the ‘impossible’: Notes for a general theory of planning”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design25667–680.
2.
ArchibugiF, 2004, “Planning theory: Reconstruction or requiem for planning”European Planning Studies12425–445.
3.
BattyM, 1995, “Planning support systems and the new logic of computation”Regional Development Dialogue161–17.
4.
BeaudryAPinsonneaultA, 2005, “Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation”MIS Quarterly29493–524.
5.
BishopI, 1998, “Planning support: Hardware and software in search of a system”Computers Environment and Urban Systems22189–202.
6.
BrailRKlostermanR (Eds), 2001Planning Support Systems, Integrating Geographic Information Systems, Models and Visualization Tools (ESRI Press, Redlands, CA).
7.
BrownJDuguidP, 1991, “Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation”Organization Science240–57.
8.
BurroughPMcDonnelR, 1998Principles of Geographical Information Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford).
9.
ChristensenJLundvallB, 2004Product Innovation, Interactive Learning and Economic Performance (Elsevier, Amsterdam).
10.
CouclelisH, 2003, “Where has the future gone? Rethinking the role of integrated land use models in spatial planning”, in Framing Land Use Dynamics: Reviewed Abstracts International Conference 16–18 April, 2003Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, pp 27–28.
11.
CraigWHarrisTWeinerD (Eds), 2002Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems (Taylor and Francis, London).
12.
DavisF, 1989, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use, and user acceptance of information technology”MIS Quarterly13319–339.
13.
DishawMStrongD, 1999, “Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs”Information and Management369–21.
14.
DishawMStrongDBandyB, 2002, “Extending the task-technology fit model with self-efficacy constructs”, in Eighth Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2002Association for Information Systems, Dallas, pp 1021–1027.
15.
DriessenPPJGlasbergenPVerdaasC, 2001, “Interactive policy-making—a model of management for public works”European Journal of Operational Research128322–337.
16.
GeertmanS, 1996Physical Planning and Geographical Information: A Reconnaissance of Geo-IT Methodology PhD thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
17.
GeertmanSStillwellJ (Eds), 2003aPlanning Support Systems in Practice1st edition (Springer, Berlin).
18.
GeertmanSStillwellJ, 2003b, “Planning support systems: An introduction”, in Planning Support Systems in Practice Eds GeertmanSStillwellJ (Springer, Berlin) pp 3–23.
19.
GeertmanSStillwellJ, 2004, “Planning support systems: An inventory of current practice”Computers Environment and Urban Systems28291–310.
20.
GoodhueD LThompsonR L, 1995, “Task–technology fit and individual performance”MIS Quarterly19213–235.
21.
HallP, 2002, “Planning: Millenial retrospect and prospect”Progress in Planning57263–284.
22.
HarrisB, 1960, “Plan or projection: An examination of the use of models in planning”Journal of the American Institute of Planners26(4) 265–272.
23.
JankowskiPNyergesT, 2001Geographic Information systems for Group Decision Making (Taylor and Francis, London).
24.
KlostermanR, 1997, “Planning support systems: A new perspective on computer-aided planning”Journal of Planning Education and Research1745–54.
25.
KlostermanRPettitC, 2005, “An update on planning support systems”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32477–484.
LundvallB, 1988, “Innovation as an interactive process: From user–producer interaction to the national system of innovation”, in Technical Change and Economic Theory Eds DosiGFreemanCNelsonRSilverbergGSoeteL (Pinter, London) pp 349–369.
28.
MandelbaumS J, 1979, “A complete general theory of planning is impossible”Policy Sciences1159–71.
29.
MargerumR, 2002, “Evaluating collaborative planning, implications from an empirical analysis of growth management”Journal of the American Planning Association68179–193.
30.
NovikovaJ, 2005, “Firms of networks: In search of the locus of innovation”, in Proceedings of DRUID Academy's 2005 Winter Conference on Industrial Evolution and Dynamics Aalborg, Denmark, http://www.druid.dk/ocs/viewpaper/327.pdf.
31.
OudshoornNPinchT, 2003, “How users and non-users matter”, in How Users Matter, The Co-construction of Users and Technology Eds OudshoornNPinchT (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 4–22.
32.
PittawayLRobertsonMMinurKDenyerD, 2004, “Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence”, WP 2004/016, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster.
33.
RogersE, 2003Diffusion of Innovations5th edition (Free Press, New York).
34.
SnyderK, 2003, “Tools for community design and decision-making”, in Planning Support Systems in Practice Eds GeertmanSStillwellJ (Springer, Berlin) pp 99–120.
35.
StillwellJGeertmanSOpenshawS, 1999a, “Developments in geographical information and planning”, in Geographical Information and Planning Eds StillwellJGeertmanSOpenshawS (Springer, Berlin) pp 3–22.
36.
StillwellJCHGeertmanSOpenshawS, 1999bGeographical Information and Planning (Springer, Berlin).
37.
VenkateshVMorrisMDavisGDavisF, 2004, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”MIS Quarterly27425–478.
38.
VonkGGeertmanSSchotP, 2005a, “Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems”Environment and Planning A37909–924.
39.
VonkGGeertmanSSchotP, 2005b, “New technologies stuck in old hierarchies: An analysis of the diffusion of geo-information technologies in Dutch planning organizations”Public Administration Review forthcoming.
40.
WengerE, 1998, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
