Planning Management: Collaboration and Partnership
The nature of the planning profession naturally entails the collaboration of a diaspora (always wanted to use that word more often…) of fields. Lets face it, we recognise that the issues we face falls beyond the capacity of any one specialist, and in light of the vogue for an holistic approach a multiplicity of minds is the preferred course. Heck, (I’m not sure how the rest of the world does it), but the emphasis on the planning course at the University of Auckland places emphasis for the planner as a generalist: we can never be as good as architects when it comes to urban design, nor ever as good as an economist when it comes to policy analyst. But rather, through collaboration we can combine a diversity of skills, values and views to reach more robust solutions to the problems at hand.
I want to touch on two key which I think is most relevant to planners when it comes to collaboration and partnership:
- Between planners and other professions.
- Between planners as professions and those they are serving.
Whoever the collaboration process involves, there are guidelines to create an environment that is conducive to meaningful collaboration:
- all views are given equal weight
- learning occurs through the process
- divergent thinking is allowed and collective agreement is not needed
- there is a shared goal or common purpose
- people feel safe to participate and share
Between Planners and other professions
Historically, planners and architects are almost synonymous. Both has been traditionally seen as dealing with the physical built form - one determining the master plan the other how the built form interacts. Modern relationships might have developed somewhat since, but there is no doubt that there is still some inherent bond between the two (heck, I would even argue that planning emerged from architecture. Whats more, I’m studying at the School of Architecture and Planning). Given the likeliness for us to interact with architects, it is then surprising that there is virtually no interactions between architecture and planning students. If we are to expect future professions to collaborate effectively, surely, it stands to reason that it should begin at the teaching stage.
What I, and some of my fellow students observed, is that there seems to be some antagonism between architecture students and planning students (I use the terms students due to the fact that I cant comment for sure the realities of the professional sphere). One common tension I sense is that architects often view planners as the bureaucrats there to limit their creativity, whilst planners often dread the effects of buildings (as wonderful as they may be) designed totally divorced from the surrounding urban context. One essentially (gross generalisation here) places form over function, and vice versa. Perhaps it reflects different personality types, but surely we can reach some middle ground?
As part of the discussion for the class was ideas for collaboration opportunities between the two student groups. Given the overlapping of certain elements, would it not be possible for students from either course to attend the same lecture? In light of cities and the environment, papers on sustainability, green design etc. are just as applicable to the two fields. Studio projects would offer even better opportunities. Lets say as a paper they have to plan and design a small city block: this would allow each to see the process the other goes through - architects may gain an appreciating for why certain building codes are considered, why the restrictions were placed, whilst planners gain the benefits of an architect’s expertise with the built form as well as their creativity (not to say planners are not creative…). Heck, engineers may even be involved too to help them realise the technical implications of their decisions (and for architectural engineers to reciprocate the, er, difficulties imposed by design architects).
One commendable exercise has been Claystation [making auckland], an initiative where participants are invited to build in clay, over a map of auckland, buildings/ spaces; describing why they would like to remodel it, what it is and where it is. The brilliant thing about this, is that one it is a very hands on tactile approach which helps to create not only social but physical interactions; two, anyone, no matter age, discipline or profession can enter; and three, being a fun exercise helps to foster a light-hearted and relaxed atmosphere where people are not socially conscious thus allowing for freedom of communication and collaboration. The latter takes advantage of play theory, which stipulates that though which creativity can be explored in a safe environment as well as the of satisfaction that comes from being immersed in an activity. Mistakes can be made that cannot be made in the ‘real’ world it is in this context of play that makes it ideal for generating new creative solutions, as well as collaboration.
Between Planners and clients
The second element I want to touch on is the partnership that should exist between planners and those they work for. The Global Studio initiative is, I think and excellent example of this (visit them here). According to their website: ‘Global Studio is a place-based action research program where international students, academics, and professionals come together with local universities, local government, NGOs, and CBOs to collaborate with disadvantaged communities. ‘
The fact that students as planners can become divorced from the realities of the world (that great insulation of the classroom) is tackled head on by Global Studio. They have utilized the wealth of resources that exits within students as a means to engage in community projects, asking (a very good question I might add): What can Universities most usefully do, for students and communities?
It is these kind of engagements between communities and professionals that produces the best results, both party stands to gain something from it - the community technical help, and the students, applicable experience. The way I see it, it would be prudent for Universities to incorporate such actions and projects as part of their core programs.
Tying with the previous posts on cross-cultural competencies we see areas of overlapping. Collaboration naturally involves interaction with those that are different from us, this case not only culturally but also in terms of technical ability and knowledge.
One phenomena which I find relevant to collaborations and partnerships is crowdsourcing. This essentially is a portmanteau of ‘crowd’ and ‘outsourcing’, crowdsourcing seeks to distribute problem-solving and solution finding amongst crowds, think of wikipedia. One example is the City of Melbourne Australia, as reported in this Next American City Article. In creating a new citywide master plan in 2008, officials at the City’s Planning and Sustainability office released the document as a wiki whereby anyone can made changes to it. Whilst there can be criticism, the experience within Melbourne has shown a strong ability for users to self-regulate, whatsmore, it represents a genuine attempt to use new-media to improve the planning process. I think this opens up exciting new possibility in what public partnerships and community collaborations can come to represent.
