IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v39y2007i7p1699-1714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A SWOT Analysis of Planning Support Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Guido Vonk

    (Urban and Regional Research Centre, Utrecht and Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University, PO Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • Stan Geertman

    (Urban and Regional Research Centre, Utrecht and International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, PO Box 6, 9500 AA Enschede, The Netherlands)

  • Paul Schot

    (Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University, PO Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:39:y:2007:i:7:p:1699-1714
    DOI: 10.1068/a38262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a38262
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a38262?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. Stan Geertman, 1999. "Geographical Information Technology and Strategic Physical Planning," Advances in Spatial Science, in: John Stillwell & Stan Geertman & Stan Openshaw (ed.), Geographical Information and Planning, chapter 4, pages 69-86, Springer.
    2. John Stillwell & Stan Geertman & Stan Openshaw, 1999. "Developments in Geographical Information and Planning," Advances in Spatial Science, in: John Stillwell & Stan Geertman & Stan Openshaw (ed.), Geographical Information and Planning, chapter 1, pages 3-22, Springer.
    3. 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.
    4. Ken Snyder, 2003. "Tools for Community Design and Decision-making," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Stan Geertman & John Stillwell (ed.), Planning Support Systems in Practice, chapter 6, pages 99-120, Springer.
    5. 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.
    6. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 1991. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 40-57, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin-Fink, Nicole & Reilly, Brian K., 2017. "A road map for developing and applying object-oriented bayesian networks to “WICKED” problems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 27-44.
    2. Ksenija Lalović & Jelena Živković & Uroš Radosavljević & Zoran Đukanović, 2019. "An Integral Approach to the Modeling of Information Support for Local Sustainable Development—Experiences of a Serbian Enabling Leadership Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-24, May.
    3. Zhiyong Yi & Guiwen Liu & Wei Lang & Asheem Shrestha & Igor Martek, 2017. "Strategic Approaches to Sustainable Urban Renewal in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Corrado Zoppi, 2018. "Integration of Conservation Measures Concerning Natura 2000 Sites into Marine Protected Areas Regulations: A Study Related to Sardinia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Silva, Cecília & Patatas, Tiago & Amante, Ana, 2017. "Evaluating the usefulness of the structural accessibility layer for planning practice – Planning practitioners’ perception," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 137-149.
    6. Daniel Antony Kolkman & Paolo Campo & Tina Balke-Visser & Nigel Gilbert, 2016. "How to build models for government: criteria driving model acceptance in policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 489-504, December.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Duniesky Feitó Madrigal & Alejandro Mungaray Lagarda & Michelle Texis Flores, 2016. "Factors associated with learning management in Mexican micro-entrepreneurs," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 32(141), pages 381-386, December.
    5. Ankita Tandon & Unnikrishnan K. Nair, 2015. "Enactment of knowledge brokering: Agents, roles, processes and the impact of immersion," Working papers 183, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    6. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    7. Alvesson, Mats & Sveningsson, Stefan, 2011. "Management is the solution: Now what was the problem? On the fragile basis for managerialism," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 349-361.
    8. Dupouet, Olivier & Yildizoglu, Murat, 2006. "Organizational performance in hierarchies and communities of practice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 668-690, December.
    9. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    10. Frédéric CREPLET, 2004. "Les Portails d’entreprise : une réponse aux dimensions de l’entreprise « processeur de connaissances »," Working Papers of BETA 2004-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    11. Louie Rivers & Tamara Dempsey & Jade Mitchell & Carole Gibbs, 2015. "Environmental Regulation and Enforcement: Structures, Processes and the Use of Data for Fraud Detection," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-29, December.
    12. Mohajan, Haradhan, 2016. "Sharing of Tacit Knowledge in Organizations: A Review," MPRA Paper 82958, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Jun 2016.
    13. Xiao Zhang & Luqun Xie & Jiatao Li & Li Cheng, 2022. "“Outside in”: Global demand heterogeneity and dynamic capabilities of multinational enterprises," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(4), pages 709-722, June.
    14. Cristina Páez-Avilés & Esteve Juanola-Feliu & Islam Bogachan-Tahirbegi & Mónica Mir & Manel González-Piñero & Josep Samitier, 2015. "Innovation And Technology Transfer Of Medical Devices Fostered By Cross-Disciplinary Communities Of Practitioners," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(06), pages 1-27, December.
    15. Fioretti, Guido, 2009. "From men and machines to the organizational learning curve," MPRA Paper 19392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. 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.
    17. Gyewan Moon & Suk Bong Choi & Shaikh Javed Fardin, 2016. "Organisational factors for effective knowledge sharing: an empirical study of Korean learning teams," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 102-120.
    18. Maarten B.T. de Groot & Oli R. Mihalache & Tom Elfring, 2022. "Toward a Theory of Family Social Capital in Wealthy Transgenerational Enterprise Families," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(1), pages 159-192, January.
    19. Prencipe, Andrea & Tell, Fredrik, 2001. "Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1373-1394, December.
    20. Parjanen, Satu & Hyypiä, Mirva, 2019. "Innotin game supporting collective creativity in innovation activities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 26-34.

    More about this item

    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:envira:v:39:y:2007:i:7:p:1699-1714. 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.