Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini 1 Robert Laurini Laboratory of Information Systems Engineering INSA de Lyon - University of Lyon GROUPWARE FOR URBAN PLANNING AND COMPUTER-BASED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Groupware for Urban Planning • I - What is Groupware? • II - Is Groupware Useful for Urban Planning? • III - Public Participation • IV - Conclusions I - What is groupware? • 1.1. Definitions • 1.2. Participatory design • 1.3. Benefits and limitations • 1.4. Cooperative information systems Several definitions • Coleman (1995): "Groupware is an umbrella term for the technologies that support person-to-person collaboration; groupware can be anything from email to electronic meeting systems to workflow". • Nunamaker, Briggs and Mittleman (1995) : "Groupware is any technology specifically used to make group more productive".
Transcript
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
1
Robert Laurini
Laboratory of Information Systems Engineering
INSA de Lyon - University of Lyon
GROUPWARE FOR URBAN PLANNINGAND COMPUTER-BASEDPUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Groupware for Urban Planning
• I - What is Groupware?
• II - Is Groupware Useful for Urban Planning?
• III - Public Participation
• IV - Conclusions
I - What is groupware?
• 1.1. Definitions
• 1.2. Participatory design
• 1.3. Benefits and limitations
• 1.4. Cooperative information systems
Several definitions
• Coleman (1995): "Groupware is an umbrella term for the technologies that support person-to-person collaboration; groupware can be anything from email to electronic meeting systems to workflow".
• Nunamaker, Briggs and Mittleman (1995) : "Groupware is any technology specifically used to make group more productive".
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
2
Groupware is ...
• Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
• Team Database
• Group Decision Support System (GDSS)
• E-Mail
• Group Support Systems
• Project Management
• Coordination Software
• Group Conferencing
• Electronic Conferencing
• Shared Drawing
• Group Memory
• Electronic Brainstorming
• Video Teleconferencing
• Information Filtering
• Electronic Meeting Systems
• Group Scheduling
• Workflow Automation
• Team Calendar
• Electronic Voting
• Group Development Tools
• Shared Edition
A Taxonomy of workflow (Marshak, 1995)
Business Process:Request a Purchase Order
Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5Routes
Task:PurchaseRequest
Task:Compare
Request toBudget
Task:EstimateEffect ofRequest
Task:Forecast
NewBudget
Task:ComposeApproval /Rejection
Letter
Tasks orActions
ProductivityTools Forms
Processor
LegacyAccounting
System
Spread-sheet
WordProcessor
Data Data Data Data Data Data DataDataSources
...
Linkingtasks
Activity 1 Activity 2
Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3
Activity 2
Activity 1
Activity 3
Activity 1
Activity 2
Activity 3
Activity 2
Activity 1
Activity 1 (a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Example of task sequence
Activity 3
Activity 2
Activity 4
Activity 1
Activity 5
Activity 6
Activity 7
Worklist
User 3
Worklist
User 2
Worklist
User 1
Worklist
User 6
Worklist
User 5
Worklist
User 4
Worklist
Agent 7
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
3
States of activities and documents
Pending
Inactive
Enabled
Done
Undefined
Exists
Draft
Final
Activitystates
Documentstates
Active In-edit
1.2. Participatory design
• Objective : people should design something cooperatively.
• For instance in CADCAM: design of cars, planes, bridges, buildings.
• ==> a database storing:– different steps and different versions
– and all interactions between all engineers.
An example in civil engineeringProject
Management
Design Monitoring:Keeping track of
changes in bridge design
Technical Services:Consulting engineers
Prefabrication Works:Supervision of bridgeelement construction
onshore
Offshore Works:Supervision of bridgeelement placement
off shore
Site Facilities and Onshore Works:Supervision of railway and
roadway construction on-shore
Site Office:AdministrationJournalizing
Distribution of mail
Documentation:Registration andhandling of qualitydocumentation
Project Services:Main staff function
Progress Monitoring:Time planning and economy
(budgetting and contractor payment)
1.3. Benefits and limitations
• According to Coleman (1995), benefits are:– increased productivity,
– better customer service,
– fewer meetings,
– automating routine procedure,
– integration of geographically disparate teams,
– better coordination globally,
– leveraging professional expertise.
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
4
Limitations
• there is a too low level of education in the business community about groupware
• organizations are resistant to change
• there are few standards in the groupwaremarket
1.4. Cooperative Information Systems
• Cooperative information systems: – a database storing all information and
knowledge necessary
– to support the collective work.
• Characteristics– distributed database system
– one central database
– and several local databases.
Cooperative Information Systems
CooperativeInformation
System
ParticipatoryDesign
Task andmessage
Management
The 4-square map for groupwareoptions (Johansen et al, 1996)
Same time
Differentplace
Same time
Same place Same place
Differenttime
DifferentTime
Differentplace
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
5
II - Is groupware useful for urban planning?
• 2.1. Description of the French planning process
• 2.2. Actors and Roles in Urban Planning
• 2.3. Conditions of success
• 2.4. Groupware in action
• 2.5 Towards systems for spatial negotiation
• 2.6. Architecture
2.1. Description of the French planning process
Actions
PlanningCommittee
PlanningAgency
Othergovernmental
offices
LocalCouncil
Instruction
InitialDecree
Blueprintdesign
Study
Opinion onblueprint
Possiblemodifications
Local CouncilNotice
Possiblemodification
Public inquirydecree
Public inquiry
Possiblemodifications
Local CouncilNotice
2 months1 month
3 months
Actors
DefinitiveApproval
Public InquiryInspector
Depart-mentalPrefect
Depart-mentalEnvironmentOffice
Approved local citizen
groups
Master Plan n
Map and writtenstatements
Master Plan n+1
Map and writtenstatements
ArgumentsTechnical advices
Executed simulationsLord Mayor's promises
Politicians votesetc.
Master Plan k
Map and writtenstatements
Master Plan i
Map and writtenstatements
Master Planj
Map and writtenstatements
Set of arguments
Set of arguments
2.2. Actors and roles in urbanplanning
Actors in Urban Planning Groupware in useFrequency Type of usage
Departmental Prefect From time to time,(minimum once a month)
General checking,Final approval
City councilors in charge of urbanplanning
Several times a week RequirementsMeetingsSimulationVotes
Other city councilors Several times a year Checking, VotesConferencingMeetings
City dwellers associations At the beginning and duringpublic consultation (inquiry)
Desire collection
Public consultation At the end, daily, one monthlong
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
6
Relations between actors and tasks to be performed
Actors
Proxies
Roles
ReceiverMessage
Sender
Actions tobe performed
0-n
1-n
0-n
1-n
1-n
1-n
1-n
1-1
1-1
Affairs
Date
2.3. Conditions of success
• a/ will of participation
• b/ training
• c/well-designed CSCW system infrastructures
• Equation of success for groupware is:
Groupware Success =
Technology + Culture + Economics + Politics
2.4. Groupware in action
OldLandUsePlan
Version1.1
Version1.2
Version2.1
Version2.2
Version3.1
Version4.1
Version3.2
Version4.2
Version4.3
Version5.1
NewLandUsePlan
Adviceand possiblemodifications
Examination Examination Examination
Technicalcoordination
Result of the vote
Voters
Refused
Opinion Opinion Opinion
Coordinator
Technical and juridical advisers
Planversion i
Planversion i+1
∆V
Technicallyvalidatedproposal
Adviceand possiblemodifications
Adviceand possiblemodifications
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
7
Each zone of the city can be at different states of approvals
Version 5Step 4
Approved
Version 5Step 2
In design
Version 5Step 3
Approved
Version 5Step 6
In preparation
Version 6Step 4
In design
Graph of decomposition, and recomposition of versions
A BC
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3
Startingsituation
B1 C1A1 A1 B2C2 A3 B2
C3
Legend
Selectedversion
Refusedversion
**************
Version V27approved
Version V23approved
Fusion beforeconsistency checking
at the boundary
If rearrangementimpossible
at the boundary,rejection
Fusion afterconsistency checking
at the boundary
Version V45duly made
2.5. Towards systems for spatial negotiation
• private criteria.
• public criteria
• By spatial negotiation tools, • ==> of agreements
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
8
Spatial negotiation tools
• Agreements between– the city and its current environment
– the version of plan and written statement under study
– the simulated consequences from different points ofview
– the known actor's public criteria at global level together with their evaluation
– possibly some other aspects
2.6. Architecture of a CSCWsystem for urban planning
Urban Planner
Architect
Utilities planner Environmental planner
Socio-economicplanner
Network
Legislativeadviser
GlobalDatabase
CooperativeInformation
System
ParticipatoryDesign
Task andmessage
Management
SpatialNegotiation System
Finance planner
Contents of the databases
LOCAL DATABASESCENTRAL DATABASE
- basic geographic data- census- Master Plan under construction- Map and written statements
(all versions)- states of progress and of validation- project management system- comprehensive hypermaps- results of the poll
- specific data- urban data- versions in analysis and in evaluation- local hypermaps- particular laws- multimedia messaging systems- simulation results
Examples of a video-conferencing meeting
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
9
III - Computer Systems for Public Participation
• 1 - Introduction
• 2 - Specifications
• 3 - Virtual Reality
• 4 - Examples of discussion forums
• 5 - Argumaps
• 6 - Conclusions
3.1 - Introduction
• Importance of public participation during the urban planning processes
• Issues– participatory design
– urban plan visualization
– opinion collection and synthesis
– communication between residents and city council
– facilities organization
• Existence of NIMBY’s (Not In My Back Yard)
Objectives
• expand the public’s role
• increase citizens participation
• enable wider public involvement
Characteristics
• community-based
• reciprocal (resident ⇔ city-council)
• contribution-based
• unrestricted
• accessible and inexpensive
• modifiable
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
10
Public Participation Ladder
Public Participation in Final Decision
PP in Assessing Consequencesand Recommending Solutions
Public Right to Object
Informing the Public
Public Right to Know
PP in Defining Interests,Actors and Determining Agenda
Low levelParticipation
Top levelParticipation
Nobre’s ruler
Autocracy
Manipulation Information Delegation Partnership
To consultTo inform To discuss To share
Technocracy Democracy Citizenship
Evolution of practices (Brun, 99)
Past Present
Context Urbanization Metropolis
Priorities Control landuse Sustainability
Implementation Quantitative Qualitative
ParticipationInstitutional
formalRestricted access to info
Negotiated Interactivity
Transparency
Information tools
Drawings, mapsmock-ups
Photo-camera
GIS-CADConnected database
Multimedia
Past Present
InformationProducts
Manual maps, Photos,
Text files
Raster and vector mapsAerial photosMultimedia
Visual simulation
Communicationassistance
Paper,SlidesVideo
Data serversInternet
CD-ROM
Evolution of practices (Brun, 99)
Groupware for Urban Planning and Computer-based Public Participation Pr. Robert Laurini
11
3.2 - Specifications
• Roles and actors
• Functional capabilities
Roles and actors (Nijkamp 91)
Type of roleInformation
demandUser demandType of system
Informationspecialists
Raw dataAnalysisflexibility
LargeFlexible
Preparer of policy
Raw andpre-treated
data
AnalysisGood flexibility
CompactManageable
Policydecisionmakers
Strategicinformation
Optimisationmodels
“Small isbeautiful”
Interestedcitizens
InformationGood
accessibility“Small isbeautiful”
Functional capabilities (Nyerges, 97)Level 1
• Group communication– idea generation through electronic voting, white boards,
computer conferencing, public computer screens
• Information Management– storage and retrieval thru spatial DBMS
