Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Strategic governance and planning as fractal
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Architecture and Water.
2012 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation only (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Some years ago I experienced a project aiming to develop strategic documents in a city which was considered progressive. The project following communicative planning practice was considered successful and yet the documents weren’t implemented. My observations about discrepancies between planning and overall results clustered around few categories: continuity/consistency, aims, leaders and context/conditions. Since my observations were based on intuition rather than empirical data, I compared them with findings in Flyvbjerg’s influential book Rationality and Power (1998) offering 15 years of evidence. The categories were approved; moreover, the book uncovered some interactions and inter-dependencies between them which were not in line with communicative planning theory. Looking for explanation for my results, I consulted Chinese strategist Sun Tzu offering probably the most comprehensive understanding of forces hidden behind success or failure of decisions and activities. Interpretations of his manuscript (e.g. Sawyer, 1996; Lord, 2000; Yuen, 2008) reveal few universal principles applicable in governance and planning. I have this hypothesis: Strategic governance is a fractal having a self-repeating pattern which might help to understand complexity of cities. This pattern is qualitative, remaining the above key categories and their interactions. However, this hypothesis cannot be proved by empirical data at this stage. Therefore, this article sketches strategic governance as a fractal based on my own experience and illustrates its projection into planning. It shows how the hypothesis could bridge an increasing contrast between complexity of governance and simplicity of concepts required by communicative planning involving non-professional stakeholders and distributed decision-making practice.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012.
National Category
Architectural Engineering
Research subject
Architecture
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-39185Local ID: dd4395f6-1ef7-4e1b-8500-681464b0db4dOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-39185DiVA: diva2:1012694
Conference
AESOP thematic group on Complexity & Planning, Meeting : Complexity and Collaborative Rationality 16/11/2012 - 17/11/2012
Note
Godkänd; 2012; 20140218 (lucdob)Available from: 2016-10-03 Created: 2016-10-03 Last updated: 2017-10-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(796 kB)57 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 796 kBChecksum SHA-512
47dc9c400bf5641f3d4179881bd606e9a98ff5e1fd9a56c93e117136e7c07e0e8a68584a1f8070d5709e10746021f8ee1a2532d153a9cbe10167e75bb95d29eb
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Dobrucka, Lucia
By organisation
Architecture and Water
Architectural Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 57 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 160 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf