Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning

Accepted Manuscript

Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning Suvi Konsti-Laakso , Tero Rantala PII: DOI: Reference:

S0377-2217(17)31084-6 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.12.002 EOR 14861

To appear in:

European Journal of Operational Research

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

3 August 2016 29 November 2017 2 December 2017

Please cite this article as: Suvi Konsti-Laakso , Tero Rantala , Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning, European Journal of Operational Research (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.12.002

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights   

AC

CE

PT

ED

M

AN US

CR IP T



A process model for managing community engagement is proposed The model enables and supports participation of large group instead of representatives only. The model builds on ideas of facilitative modeling, problem structuring methods and innovation management. Empirical case study in Finland validates and demonstrates the use of the model for community engagement in urban planning.

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning Suvi Konsti-Laakso and Tero Rantala Lappeenranta University of Technology, School of Business and Management, LUT Lahti Saimaankatu 11, FI-15140 Lahti, Finland

AC

CE

PT

ED

M

AN US

CR IP T

e-mail: [email protected]; tel.: +358-400-784495

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3

Abstract

Today‘s society stresses the importance of public participation and the management of large stakeholder groups. To confront this challenge, community operational research (community OR), as a structured approach, could help. In this article, we propose a process model for managing community engagement in urban planning. The model builds on ideas of facilitative modelling,

CR IP T

problem-structuring methods and innovation management. The model is empirically validated through a case study setting, where a local entrepreneurial community was engaged in an urban regeneration plan for a city centre area in Finland. One reason for utilizing community engagement in the urban planning process is related to decreasing boundary critique, and especially preventing later conflicts. The results of the study indicate that the constructed and utilized process model was useful. The

AN US

current literature on community OR recognizes that the use of transparent processes enabling dialogue between participants, accepted as fair by the stakeholder groups, has been shown to make a significant difference in people‘s acceptance, even when they might disagree with the outcome of the decision. Based on the results of this study, this seemed to also be the case in the urban planning context. The findings of the study also reveal that an open innovation-based strategy and methods can bring new

M

insights into collaboration practices in the context of community engagement and urban planning.

ED

Keywords: Community operational research, OR in government, OR for community development, Problem structuring

PT

1. Introduction

Community operational research (community OR) aims at making changes within communities through different methodologies, processes, methods and techniques (Midgley & Ochoa-Arias, 2004).

CE

It is distinguished from other adaptions of operational research through a ―meaningful engagement of communities‖ (Midgley, Johnson and Chichirau 2018, p. 2). Although in some cases community can

AC

be defined by geographic terms and can be understood as underrepresented, underserved or vulnerable populations compared with more privileged populations (Johnson & Smilowitz, 2007), in general, community can be defined as the voluntary association of actors, who typically lack common organizational affiliations but are united by a shared instrumental goal (West & Lakhani, 2008). Despite a shared interest in a certain issue, community members may represent extremes in opinions, perspectives and worldviews—but still belong to the same community.

Contemporary organizations and society in general are characterized by different collaborative relationships, as knowledge and power tend to be distributed. Situations in which the desired

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4

knowledge or input is held by actors who do not share a common mitigating organizational structure are more the rule rather than the exception. This feeds the tendency toward participative approaches. To confront this challenge, it seems that community OR and participatory and facilitative approaches in particular (Franco, 2007) can provide tools to tackle such situations. Participative methods can facilitate and support stakeholder engagement in decision-making processes concerning complex organizational, social, environmental or technological issues (Midgley et al., 2013). The benefits of participative methods have been acknowledged, but in the real world, participatory problem

CR IP T

structuring and planning have not gained popularity (e.g. Innes & Booher, 2004; Turnhout, Van Bommel, & Aarts, 2010). Many reasons have been suggested, such as organizational constraints and lack of education. In general, community-based planning and development processes can be seen as rational and analytical decision-making processes. The traditional methods of arranging stakeholder involvement, such as hearings, comment procedures and reviews, are organized to satisfy legal requirements, not to cause learning and provide space for new ideas to emerge (Innes & Booher,

AN US

2004). Thus, a more facilitative grasp is called for (Midgley & Reynolds, 2004) as well as approaches that engage the community as a whole, not just their representatives (Rosenhead 2006; White, 2003). This understanding requires approaches, methods and models that emphasize and enable participation for larger stakeholder groups.

M

Seltzer and Mahmoudi (2012) have suggested that innovation forms an interesting metaphor for planning and could offer fresh insights for planning practice. Currently, in innovation studies, the role

ED

of knowledge is emphasized, and firms engage their clients and suppliers in innovation activities as knowledge producers and creators. Knowledge building can be viewed as a central part and the starting point of any successful urban planning process (Faehnle & Tyrväinen, 2013). For these

CE

community OR.

PT

reasons, some of the recent innovation management practices and methods could be useful in

This study aims at contributing to community OR by developing a process model for managing

AC

community engagement in urban planning. The process model builds on the theory of community OR (e.g. Midgley & Ochoa-Arias, 2004; Midgley Johnson and Chichirau, 2018), facilitative modelling (Franco & Montibeller, 2010), problem structuring methods (Ackermann, 2012) and innovation management (Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2012). The model was developed based on the literature and then empirically validated as part of a major city centre development and restructuring project that took place in the city of Lahti, Finland. Johnson, Midgley and Chichirau (2018) argue that urban planning and community development can be viewed as frontiers of community OR. This study, thus, increases the awareness of the interplay between community and citizen participation and innovation management as well as the utilization of innovation methods as part of community OR.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5

This paper is constructed as follows. First, the literature on problem structuring methods is reviewed. Then, a conceptual framework for managing community engagement in urban planning is presented. In section 4, an empirical case study in which the model was tested is introduced. A discussion and conclusions close this paper and attempt to summarize the contribution and implications of this study for community OR. Although the study increases the understanding of community engagement in the urban planning context and, thus, is mainly related to community OR, we believe that the results of the study are interesting and useful for many other academics and practitioners. Johnson et al. (2018),

CR IP T

for example, show that an overlap between community OR and other traditions, such as public sector OR and even OR in the private sector, exists.

2. Literature review

AN US

2.1. Community participation

Public participation at the general level involves the direct or indirect involvement of stakeholder groups in decision making about policies, plans or programs in which the groups have an interest (Quick & Bryson, 2016). Through participation, different stakeholder groups have the possibility of interacting with government agencies, political decision makers, third-sector and non-profit

M

organizations and business organizations to develop, create and implement public policies and programs (Quick & Bryson, 2016). For this reason, public participation, used interchangeably with

ED

citizen participation, is an important part of the public–government relationship in democracies (e.g. Bryson, Quick, Slotterback, & Crosby, 2013). The topic of community participation or citizen participation has received interest among academics ever since Arnstein (1969) presented the Ladder

PT

of Citizen Participation study. Arnstein stated that citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power. It can be seen as a redistribution of power that enables, in Arnstein‘s words, ‗have-not‘

CE

citizens—presently excluded from the political and economic processes—to be deliberately included in future development. Citizen participation is the strategy by which these have-not stakeholder

AC

groups can join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programs are operated and benefits, such as contracts and patronage, are distributed. Since then, the focus of interest in public participation has changed, and in the 2000s, public participation (citizen participation and community participation) has become more routine and somehow an expected feature of public policy making (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O‘Leary, 2005). Irvin and Stansbury (2004) observed that it is widely argued that increased community participation in government decision making produces many important benefits, and dissent is rare. Participation is seen as a good and ethical practice—the right thing to do (Innes & Booher, 2004; Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2012). Participation can be seen as an important element in democratic society from a philosophical

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6

viewpoint but also from a pragmatic viewpoint as a source of new knowledge and idea generation and better acceptance.

The thinking related to citizen and community participation has moved from whether participation should occur to the recognition that well-organized and well-executed participation can be very useful for citizenship and decision making (Bryson et al., 2013). Seltzer and Mahmoudi (2012) described four primary purposes for conducting participation: 1) the identification and collection of data, 2) the

CR IP T

establishment of legitimacy for the planning effort, 3) addressing the moral and ethical commitment of planners to ensure that those who are the most affected by a given decision have a hand in making it and 4) the development of robustness by bringing the widest possible set of views to the table. In other words, participation is the act of creating new knowledge, contributing new perspectives and diffusing knowledge to other stakeholder groups. This perspective of improving the knowledge foundations of planning processes is provided as a criticism of Arnstein‘s power-focusing ladders

AN US

(Tritter & McCallum, 2006).

Community OR has contributed to public participation. Effective community OR interventions require an understanding of the problem context, engagement with stakeholder groups and primary data collection (Friend, 2004; Midgley, Johnson and Chichirau, 2018). Moore (2012) argues that the

M

practice of participation has become more professionalized, and there is a growing number of facilitation practitioners. In addition, many different purposes exist for public participation, for

ED

example, fulfilling legal requirements, informing the public, enhancing the understanding of public problems, exploring and generating potential solutions (Bryson et al., 2013; Quick & Bryson, 2016) and supporting urban planning. Typically, planning is dominated by scientific and expert knowledge,

PT

whereas local communities often have ‗non-expert knowledge‘ that is site-specific, practical and experience-based (Van Herzele, 2004). Brabham (2009) brings forward the idea of crowdsourcing,

CE

where problems are solved and solutions are generated by non-experts.

AC

Although interest in and expectations of citizen and community participation in governance are growing, the participation methods vary, and practical and theoretical debates surround their implementation (Quick & Bryson, 2016). Key concerns related to participation include legitimacy of participation, diversity and inclusion and challenges related to the design of the participation processes. Quick and Bryson (2016) argue that the solutions to these concerns are not simple. The scholars highlight that public policy problems, participating stakeholder groups and methods and models for organizing the processes are unique in every setting (Pfister & Godana, 2012). Fung (2006) demonstrates that analyzing and characterizing participation requires attention to what kinds of stakeholder groups participate and how the participation is conducted.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

7

2.2. Community OR and community-based operations theory

Community OR and its disciplinary relation, community-based operations research, has an increasingly high profile within multiple domains that benefit from empirical and analytic approaches to problem solving (Midgley, Johnson and Chichirau, 2018). Community-based operations research, a domain closely aligned with community OR, in general builds on four steps: problem identification, problem formulation, problem solution and implementation (Johnson, 2012, pp. 11–15). Community

CR IP T

OR focuses on problem-solving processes as well as outcomes (Midgley, Johnson and Chichirau, 2018; Midgley & Ochoa-Arias, 2004), in particular, designing interventions that are intended to improve the understanding of decision opportunities, data and solutions as much as producing specific prescriptions or strategies (e.g. Johnson et al., 2017; Ritchie, 2004). However, there are settings where there is no single problem that can have an optimal solution. Franco (2007) concludes that problems that require a multi-organizational setting cannot be clearly defined, and therefore, a more

AN US

‗problematic situation‘ may be a more suitable term. According to Franco and Montibeller (2010), the process of facilitative modelling can be described as 1) structuring the problematic situation and agreeing on a focus; 2) developing a model of objectives, such as creating, refining and evaluating option actions and 3) developing action plans.

M

According to Vidal (2009), there are two central social processes to be managed: first one relates to problem-structuring process, second to group process. The problem-structuring process deals with

ED

how the group tries to generate ideas and visions, how the problematic situation can be illustrated and which decisions need to be made to agree on an action plan. The group process, however, relates to how the individuals in the group work together, learn, communicate and solve conflicts. The

PT

facilitation process manages these two processes, and its main mission is to create and support group dynamics. A facilitator can guide the communication and decision making taking place so that faulty

CE

processes can be avoided and the strengths of the participants are fully harnessed.

AC

Franco and Montibeller (2010) and Vidal (2009) use divergent and convergent phases in group tasks in problem-structuring and decision-making events. Divergence is driven by the expenditure of resources, such as people, time and ideas, beyond an organization‘s normal activity. Divergence is about exploring, finding out, asking questions and discovering new possibilities. This phase is open, non-rational, non-analytical and experiential. Convergence, however, is driven by exogenous and endogenous constraints, such as organizational mandates and focusing attention. It is about reaching goals, making decisions, limiting possibilities and controlling the results. As compared to the divergence phase, the convergence phase is relatively closed, rational, analytical and theoretical compared to divergence (Darsø & Høyrup, 2012; Garud, Tuertscher, & van de Ven, 2013; Mäkimattila, Melkas, & Uotila, 2013). Darsø and Høyrup (2012) state that generally the balance of

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

8

the innovation process is heavily biased toward the rationale and convergent side, yet the visionary and sprawling phase could open up a new perspective and create innovative ideas.

2.3. Problem-structuring methods

Problem-structuring methods (PSMs), in general, assist a group of stakeholders in gaining a better understanding of a problematic situation (Checkland, 2000; Rosenhead, 1996) of common interest.

CR IP T

The PSM is highly participatory and interactive (Franco, 2007). PSMs have been found to be useful in different organizational contexts and take into account the politics, power and social demands of organizational life (Ackermann, 2012).

The PSM family includes several well-established techniques, such as soft systems methodology, strategic options development and analysis (SODA) and strategic choice (Ackermann, 2012, Franco,

AN US

2007; Mingers & Rosenhead, 2004; Rosenhead 1996; see also Khadka, Hujala, Wolfslehner, & Vacik, 2013 for a summary). They differ from each other in the degree and style of stakeholder participation and the role of experts, consultants and facilitators.

At the core of the PSM is the use of qualitative or quantitative models as transitional objects. These

M

models structure the stakeholder engagement and provide a focus for the dialogue (Eden & Ackermann, 2006). Depending on their nature (qualitative or quantitative), they can be constructed

ED

collectively in a workshop setting, or they can be created by the facilitator based on interviews or from other related data (Franco, 2007; Midgley et al., 2013). The models can use words, pictures and/or numbers to show participants different viewpoints and understandings of a problematic

PT

situation (Cronin, Midgley, & Skuba Jackson, 2014). For example, Cronin et al. (2014) introduced an issues-mapping method that utilizes interviews to create graphic representations (i.e. models) that

CE

were utilized in workshops. Foote et al. (2007) demonstrate how PSMs can be used to define the problem context from many conflicting viewpoints and achieve consensus.

AC

The main strength of these methods is that they acknowledge and include the participants‘ subjective perspectives, the important value of mutual learning, iterative process design and adaptive decision making (Hjortsø, 2004). Franco (2007) identified several PSM intervention products: the model and problem structure; accommodations of multiple positions, power relations, increased understanding and mutual learning; ownership of the problem structure and commitment to planned actions and partial commitments. The methods can be systemic, that is, they intend to broaden the perspectives of participants to create new framings, strategies and actions (Midgley et al., 2013). In other words, such methods are intended to increase the innovativeness or novelty of the outcomes.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9

2.4. Innovation development methods

The current understanding of innovation highlights the role of diverse knowledge. Innovations are born when different kinds of knowledge meet. Therefore, in innovation studies, much emphasis is placed on creating tools and arenas for different kinds of knowledge to meet and new ideas to emerge. Open innovation was originally related to technology sourcing in business strategy (Chesbrough, 2003), but currently, open innovation activities include knowledge sourcing from consumers or users

CR IP T

(Bogers, Afuah, & Bastian, 2010).

Sometimes, the difference between participants is so large that a special interpretation function is needed. This function is called a broker (Burt, 2004; Parjanen, Harmaakorpi, & Frantsi, 2010). A broker supports innovation by connecting, recombining and transferring to new contexts otherwise disconnected pools of ideas (Verona, Prandelli, & Sawhney, 2006). Collaboration between

AN US

stakeholder groups in the problem-structuring and planning process (e.g. planners, decision makers and brokers) is the process and context within which plans are made. An open innovation strategy, normally utilized in business surroundings and technology development, can offer planners and process owners new insights into collaboration practices. At the centre of the open innovation philosophy is how organizations use the ideas and knowledge of external actors in their innovation

M

processes (Laursen & Salter, 2006). In the broadest sense, open innovation, similar to citizen participation, seeks involvement on the part of users, customers and thinkers ‗as a means for

ED

augmenting the perspectives found inside the firm or organization‘ (Seltzer & Mahmoudi, 2012).

PT

3. Toward a conceptual framework

The conceptual framework shown in Fig. 1 builds on the community-based operations research steps

CE

proposed by Johnson (2012), the divergence and convergence of ideas and participants and the use of a model as a vehicle for dialogue between stakeholder groups. The main idea of the framework is to

AC

enable the whole community to participate in a structured manner. The framework includes three distinct types of actors: the community, the owner organization (e.g. a public sector organization) and the facilitators. The process is led by the management team, which consists of representatives of the participating organizations. These representatives are authorized to act on behalf of their respective organizations. They are the decision makers, who analyze and sum up the overall outcome of the process.

In addition to diverging and converging in group tasks, this idea can be used in terms of participants. The process can be open, meaning that everyone interested can join, or closed, where only those who are invited or named can participate. Particularly in a multi-organizational and community context, it

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

10

is important to recognize the inclusion, exclusion and marginalization of people and issues. This is called boundary critique (Midgley, Munlo, & Brown, 1998). It is important to explore the current boundaries that people are using and what the boundaries of the intervention ought to be. Scholars have stated that the process of boundaries should be explored before methods are chosen as well as during the interventions (Midgley et al., 1998). The boundary critique recognizes implications for conflict prevention, not only conflict resolution, although Midgley and Pinzon (2011) argue that the most significant uses of boundary critique in OR projects have been in conflict resolution. A critical

different value and boundary judgments (Midgley & Pinzon, 2011).

CR IP T

implication originates from Ulrich‘s (1983) observation that conflicts may arise when people make

Dialogue is a key element of PSMs. Thus, facilitated workshops or conferences are important instruments of the facilitative approach and are suitable for large-scale community participation. The process includes workshops that are open to all community members. The model is based on the idea

AN US

that the problem or challenge to be solved has an owner organization that has an interest in the problem. The different phases of the process are facilitated or brokered through an intermediary organization that has experience facilitating or the capability to facilitate. Innovation methods and tools, such as innovation sessions and theme sessions (Aula & Harmaakorpi, 2008; Parjanen, 2012), can be useful for facilitating workshops during the process. In the model, the first open workshop

M

represents the divergent side—the workshop should produce and bring to light all the concerns, ideas and suggestions concerning the future city centre. The workshop is highly future-oriented and seeks to

ED

bring together diverse participants (Parjanen, 2012). Therefore, this phase is about broadening participants‘ ideas and supporting participants‘ perspectives so that new issues and solutions might

AC

CE

PT

arise.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for managing the engagement process.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

11

After the first workshop, the management group analyzes and categorizes the results. This phase is similar to problem structuring (Rosenhead, 1996). The aim is to find the ‗pain points‘ (cf. Suster, 2013), which cause the most objections or concern among community members. The identified themes then form the base for the second workshop, which represents the outcomes of the first workshop and exposes the outcomes for further refinement. In the second workshop, the most prominent and burning themes are brought back to the community for discussion. The second workshop represents the convergent side of the process; it should bring the generated and categorized

CR IP T

themes closer to a concrete implementation of them. After the second workshop, the management team again sums up the outcomes and drafts the results, such as a list of priorities, models etc., which then form the basis for implementation. The outcome of this model is a design principle or ‗development picture‘ that is produced and to some extent agreed upon by the community members themselves. In this sense, this model provides a method for conducting the first step of design thinking—that is, gaining a deep understanding of communities‘ realities (e.g. Thoring & Müller,

AN US

2011). In an urban planning process setting, this framework serves as a ‗sub-process‘ that can be utilized in all phases where community or citizen involvement is required.

4. Lahti city centre case

M

4.1. Background

ED

To explore messy, problematic situations, issues regarding public spaces and processes related to urban planning provide a fruitful direction. The process model described in the previous section was empirically validated and elaborated in the context of urban planning. Issues of public participation

PT

were related to problem-structuring research, such as that by Cronin et al. (2014) and Hjortsø (2004). Public participation often means that the participants have completely different and conflicting

CE

worldviews and do not share a unifying organizational culture mitigating their interaction (Hjortsø,

AC

2004). Therefore, special facilitation is needed.

The City of Lahti is located in southern Finland and has approximately 120 000 inhabitants. Lahti is the central city of the region Päijät-Häme. The city centre has undergone different development activities and planning for many years. Over the last few decades, numerous different development plans and future visions have been constructed, but many have not been implemented because of opposition from public servants, residents or political decision makers. However, an important milestone was reached in 2012, when the construction of an underground parking facility under the marketplace received approval. In addition, several other major construction projects were initiated that would clearly affect the dynamics of the city centre. In addition, an upcoming major sports event,

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

12

the 2017 FIS Nordic World Ski Championships, created the need and motivation to examine the functionalities of the city centre area. Thus, the master plan for the city centre needed to be updated.

Given a history of unsuccessful plans and visions, a participatory process was selected as a way forward to improve the likelihood of success of the planning process and acceptance of the new master plan. Midgley and Pinzon (2011) state that even though the most significant uses of boundary critique in OR projects have been in conflict resolution, it has implications for conflict prevention,

CR IP T

which was also meant to be the purpose in this case. The participation process focused on forming the objectives and identifying the factors that needed to be included in the official planning process. The city of Lahti was asked by the political decision makers to utilize participative planning and community involvement as part of the updating process for the master plan for the city centre. The city representatives already had a platform for involving individual inhabitants in this process. However, they were missing a platform or framework for involving the business-related stakeholder

AN US

groups of the centre area. In this case study, therefore, we investigate the process for involving local city centre area entrepreneurs and property/facility owners and the involvement of public servants as well as the feasibility of the process model.

The process in this case example had three distinct participant groups, which are shown in Figure 2. First, the community participants in this case are local centre area shopkeepers and

M

-

property/facility owners, event organizers, tourism operators and logistics operators. Most of

ED

these community members are (micro) entrepreneurs or self-employed, and therefore, they share a common interest in the master plan for the city centre. However, they all have diverse objectives, values and problems, as their businesses may have different requirements for the

PT

built environment. As a stakeholder group, they are highly affected by the urban planning decisions (such as reduced parking spaces or walking districts) and are often underrepresented

-

CE

in the expert-driven urban planning process. Second, the city of Lahti as an organization is responsible for conducting the master plan

AC

process. The second group thus consisted of officials from the Lahti city organization, mainly from the technical and environmental services of the city of Lahti. The different business actors operating in the Lahti city centre area are organized as a formal association, which employs an executive director. The second group of participants also consisted of members of this association. -

The third group consisted of facilitators. This group included university researchers and a professional facilitator, who was contracted to facilitate the open workshops. The management group comprised the executive director of the community, the project manager from the city organization, researchers and the facilitator. The reason for collaborating with the local university unit as part of the process was related to the opportunity to use the

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

13

researchers‘ expertise in innovation management and innovation methods. The current literature on university relations recognizes several benefits that an organization can gain from collaborating with universities (e.g. Perkmann & Walsh, 2007; Perkmann et al., 2013), but researchers are not widely and commonly utilized in community engagement activities,

Management team

M

Community

Facilitators

AN US

City organization

CR IP T

especially in the urban planning context.

ED

Figure 2. Summary of process model‘s participating actors.

The case was facilitated and managed utilizing the process model (Fig. 1) based on the current literature on community OR, facilitative modelling, PSMs and innovation management. The process

PT

model was constructed before the beginning of the process with the university researchers and management team of the process. The aim of the case study was to explore the feasibility of the

CE

constructed model in the context of urban planning and investigate what possible advantages were

AC

achieved.

4.2. Methodology and data gathering

The empirical data for this study were gathered from the collaborative development process that took place between October 2013 and May 2014. Table 1 indicates how the data were collected during the process. The data were collected as field notes from individual meetings with the management team of the process during the working phase of three workshops, in which the future development plan was collaboratively constructed in open interviews with key stakeholders and via e-mails. The participants in the management team meetings comprised members of an association of the city centre entrepreneurs, public servants of the technical and environmental services of city of Lahti and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

14

university members of the local research unit. Each meeting had a minimum of four university observers present, and each meeting was documented. During each workshop, a minimum of eight university observers were present. These workshops were also documented, and observations were discussed afterward with the university members.

Table 1. Description of the data gathered from case study. Participants

Research material

Start meeting of the management team First workshop for the stakeholder groups Management team meeting

8 persons

Group discussions and notes

65 participants*

Group discussions, notes, drawings, photos, videos, recorded interviews, feedback after the workshop

10 persons

Analyzed and sorted data from the first workshop, group discussions, notes

Second workshop for the stakeholder groups

46 participants*

Management team meeting

10 persons

Third workshop for the stakeholder groups

43 participants*

AN US

CR IP T

Event

Group discussions, notes, drawings, photos, videos, recorded interviews, feedback after the workshop

Analyzed and sorted data from the first and second workshops, group discussions, notes

ED

M

Group discussions, notes, drawings, photos, videos, recorded interviews, feedback after the workshop

PT

Final meeting of 10 persons Analyzed and sorted data from all three workshops, the final the management results and constructed plan of the whole process, group team discussions, notes *Participants were mainly the same persons in open workshops

CE

4.3. Application process

The collaborative development process started with the preparation phase, in which the management

AC

team of the process was established. The main aim of the whole process was to generate commonly accepted development guidelines for the future of the city centre, which would be used as the basis for the master plan for the development of the city centre. However, it was acknowledged at the beginning of the project that constructing a vision or development plan that would be fully agreed on by all the participant groups might be very difficult. Therefore, the intervention was designed to enable the mutual understanding of diverse opinions and viewpoints. The city organization hoped that this participatory process would minimize resistance to the master plan and in this way ease its implementation.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

15

The aim of the first workshop was to collect stakeholder wishes, visions and insights concerning the future of the city centre area. Therefore, this workshop had a future-oriented scope and followed the idea of the innovation session method (Parjanen, 2012). In this case, the innovation session method was used to facilitate the stakeholders‘ participation and community engagement in the urban planning context to ensure that all participants had the opportunity to share their ideas, wishes and opinions concerning the future development of the city centre with the other participants. The workshop lasted four hours, and there were 65 participants. The participants were randomly divided

CR IP T

into small groups. Each group had a list of questions, and the group needed to choose and focus on the most interesting ones for that particular group. Each group discussed the selected questions and then produced ideas and proposals. To visualize and present the ideas, there was a miniature model of the city centre in the room, as Figure 3 indicates. The ideas, visions and concerns were attached to the

CE

PT

ED

M

AN US

corresponding physical location, and in this way, a common tangible model was created.

AC

Figure 3. Outcome of the first workshop.

After the first workshop, all the ideas and development suggestions were collected and documented by the university researchers and were then were analyzed and categorized with the management team and the university researchers. The collaboratively generated and produced ideas and solutions were sorted under different themes based on the nature of the idea. The management team identified the most important themes that would need more refinement and discussion. These themes were actually the problematic situations that were causing concern for the community members. These themes would be the input for the next workshop. The themes identified in this case were logistics, parking

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

16

and maintenance; covered spaces and novel infrastructure; events in the city centre area; atmosphere, comfort and lighting of the city centre; profiling and routing the city centre and the coherent appearance of the city centre. The aim of the second workshop was to produce more detailed development ideas and solutions for each theme. There were 46 participants at this workshop, and it also lasted four hours. Small-group discussions were utilized, and the participants selected a theme that was closest to their interests.

CR IP T

For each theme, there were five to eight facilitative questions that the group was able to use in their discussions, for example, ‗Future of parking on the street. What are the alternatives for parking?‘ The groups were asked to use a template so that the proposed ideas would be developed as concretely as possible. This template included five slots: the question or problem, solution or future implementation, challenges and how they can be tackled, issues we agree on and issues we disagree on. Therefore, instead of divergent ideas, the aim of the work in this phase was to converge the

AN US

problematic situations and provide alternative solutions. Compared to first workshop, this workshop had a more focused scope, and it followed the idea of the innovation-based theme session method.

At the end of the second workshop, the facilitators and the management team members explained how the process would continue. The community members were asked how they would like to continue

M

this interaction. As the last phase of the process was intended to be closed to the management team, there were indications that some of the participants would like to participate in this event and discuss

ED

the results. Therefore, the management team decided that, as the community members wished to participate, the last phase or meeting would be open as well. Thus, a third workshop, called a ‗development workshop‘, was held. Again, the management team gathered to discuss and analyze the

PT

results of the second workshop. Based on the input, a list of 10 topics was created. This list was the first draft of the objectives or guidelines of the master plan. These issues had been the most discussed

CE

during the workshops. These 10 topics were then addressed in the third workshop, enabling the community to once more discuss, create solutions and work on mutual consensus and acceptance.

AC

This workshop had 43 participants and lasted 3.5 hours. This time, the participants were randomly divided into groups, and each group discussed every topic. The focus was to receive more information about topics and generate concrete suggestions or solutions for how to proceed with these topics.

At the end of the third workshop, the community spokesperson explained how the association (i.e. the community) would proceed and how they could implement some of the ideas. The groups agreed that a short paper describing the selected planning objectives would be drafted by the management team and would be circulated among the participants. The representative in charge of the city of Lahti described how the official master plan process would continue and how the planning objectives would be treated in the official planning process. In addition, the group discussed how the interaction

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17

between stakeholders related to the city centre would continue. In this discussion, the need for this type of workshop was acknowledged, but other forms of interaction tools, such as social media, were hoped for. The community spokesperson was given the role and responsibility of mediating between different parties, and he was encouraged to continue this activity. After three phases of the process, the participating stakeholder groups had constructed a ‗development picture‘ and future development targets of the Lahti city centre and generated the basis for the master plan for the Lahti city centre. As a result, the ideas and outcomes of these workshops were delivered to the planners, who were

CR IP T

contracted to create the master plan for the city centre.

As a summary of the case study, to reach a (successful) outcome, three workshop rounds were required although two rounds had been anticipated, as indicated in Figure 4. The line in the second and third rows represents how the level and timing of the different steps changed across different stakeholders. As problematic issues emerge and are concentrated, a need may arise to expose these

AN US

issues to create, refine and find solutions collectively on several occasions. This can be interpreted that they are the right issues that can cause unwanted consequences (in this case, complaints about the master plan) in the future. The issues may also require the use of systemic methods so that new avenues and solutions can be found. Therefore, the process of formulating and solving problems was

AC

CE

PT

ED

M

iterative.

Figure 4. A process model for managing community engagement in urban planning.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

18

According to the reflections of the management team and the feedback collected after each workshop, the process was considered a success. This view came from the community as well as from the city organization. As the main result, the process produced key factors and themes as planning objectives for the master plan, which was the principal goal. These themes and factors were discussed and developed with all the participants, and a common understanding was found. Even though there was some opposition to the themes and factors (a common outcome in community participation), the participants with these opinions felt that they better understood what was produced (themes and key

CR IP T

factors for the master plan) and why. In addition to the themes and factors developed for the master plan for the city centre, several smaller individual development ideas were generated (e.g. campaigns, events and services). Some of these ideas were implemented by the entrepreneurs, some by the representatives of the city of Lahti and some by the community spokesperson. The community members commonly shared the opinion that they had lacked a platform for common development and idea sharing, which they now had an option for as a part of the process. The community members also

AN US

wished that this type of workshop were a regular activity, which is a strong positive statement indicating commitment to and ownership of the issue at hand. Another issue indicating the success of the process is the willingness of the community members to participate. Most of the participants were city area entrepreneurs and shopkeepers, basically micro-level business operators. The workshops were conducted during business hours, and the participants were asked to attend voluntarily, meaning

M

they were not compensated for their participation. Still, they participated in two four-hour workshops and asked to participate in the third development workshop. Based on the feedback collected after

ED

each workshop, the community participants were very satisfied with the workshop content.

The main point for estimating the success of the process is the follow-up of the master plan under

PT

development. After the process in the case example was finished, all the gathered themes and key factors were analyzed and delivered to the consultants and architects who were responsible for

CE

creating more detailed plans. The consultants and architects mentioned that the background material constructed by the community during the process was the most comprehensive they had ever received,

AC

and they found it very easy to start the design work. After the consultants‘ and architects‘ design process, the master plan for the Lahti city centre (Lahti City Centre Master Plan, 2015) was given to the political decision makers and was successfully implemented at the beginning of 2016.

5. Discussion

As the focus of interest in community engagement and public participation has changed over the last two decades and during the 2000s became more of a routine than an exception (Bingham et al., 2005), many questions and challenges related to these activities still exist. Key concerns related to community engagement entail the inclusion and exclusion of stakeholders and challenges related to

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

19

designing participation processes. The solutions to these concerns are far from simple. The public policy problems, participating stakeholder groups and methods and models for organizing the processes are unique in every setting (Pfister & Godana, 2012; Quick & Bryson, 2016). In this study, one reason for utilizing community engagement in the urban planning process was related to decreasing boundary critique and especially preventing later conflicts. The results of the study indicate that the constructed and utilized process model was useful. The participants who opposed the master plan felt that they understood well what was done and why. They found the development

CR IP T

meaningful, and participation, thus, might have been an important factor (Tritter & McCallum, 2006). The results support Ulrich‘s (1983) original ideas that explorations of purposes and values (as well as boundaries) associated with a disagreement can shed new light on differences of perspective, enabling greater mutual understanding. The findings are also in line with the arguments of Midgley and Pinzon (2011) and Winstanley et al. (2005) that the use of transparent processes, accepted as fair by the stakeholder groups, has been shown to make a significant difference in people‘s acceptance even

AN US

when they might disagree with the outcome of the decision. During the process people can learn from others‘ views and even change their original opinion. Based on the results of this study, this seemed to be the case in the urban planning context.

Fung (2006) further demonstrates that analyzing and characterizing community engagement requires

M

attention to what kinds of stakeholder groups participate and how the participation is conducted. The process model was validated with the business community. In this case, there were three workshops

ED

during which community members and public servants worked together. These workshops were held at the very beginning of the urban planning process. Participants started to build the vision of the future city centre together on an empty canvas, so to speak. This is the distinctive feature of this

PT

model compared to other cases, such as issues mapping (Cronin et al., 2014). The problem was modelled in a bottom-up manner and with very little prior examination. The model builds on

CE

traditional elements of community OR and facilitative modelling, such as facilitated workshops and a dialogue between community and public sector organizations. The model, moreover, enabled

AC

participation for all individual community members, not just selected representatives of the community. The findings of the study support the results of Laursen and Salter (2006) and Seltzer and Mahmoudi (2012) that an open innovation-based strategy and methods can support and bring new insights into collaboration practices as well as in the context of community engagement and urban planning. As the community in this study comprised mainly business-oriented entrepreneurs, they found the innovation methods to be suitable for facilitating involvement. As Laursen and Salter (2006) further argued, at the centre of the open innovation philosophy is how organizations use the ideas and knowledge of external actors in their innovation process. The same philosophy of the use of ideas and knowledge generated by utilizing innovation development methods is found to be suitable in the context of community OR.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20

As community OR often requires organized participation among stakeholder groups for problem identification, formulation and solution (c.f. Midgley, Johnson and Chichirau, 2018; Gregory & Midgley, 2000), the practice of participation has become more professionalized, and there is a growing number of facilitation practitioners (Moore, 2012). In this study, the process model was facilitated by one professional facilitator and several university researchers. There is not much awareness of the use and role of researchers as facilitators or brokers of the processes of community

CR IP T

engagement, especially in the context of urban planning. Society, communities and individual organizations, both public and private, traditionally take advantage of researchers as persons to transfer academic knowledge to other segments of society or to solve some technical or processrelated problem (c.f. Perkmann & Walsh, 2007; Perkmann et al., 2013). The results of this study, however, revealed that university researchers were commonly accepted as impartial or neutral facilitators or brokers who, after the process was completed, were considered an important part of the

AN US

process‘s success. The researcher‘s capabilities in documenting and analyzing the gathered data were also found to be remarkable. The utilization of researchers in primary data collection thus can support effective community OR interventions, as observed in Friend (2004).

M

6. Conclusions

ED

The case study reported here showed how the business community of the city centre area and public servants worked together during the urban planning process to gain sufficient consensus on key factors concerning the master plan for the city centre. Based on the current literature on community

PT

OR and innovation management, a process model was constructed and validated. It also opened up the discussion and interplay between the innovation management and community OR by utilizing

CE

innovation development methods in the context of community engagement in urban planning. During planning processes, which are often very long timewise and generally complex in terms of the number

AC

of stakeholders, this method helps the participants and the managers to picture the overall process. Therefore, this model could serve as a guide for practitioners and students regarding how to manage these interventions in multi-actor organization settings and hopefully encourage use of the community OR approach as a common method for tackling problematic situations in society.

References Ackermann, F. (2012). Problem structuring methods ‗in the dock‘: Arguing the case for soft OR. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(3), 652–658.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

21

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

Aula, P., & Harmaakorpi, V. (2008). Innovative milieu—A view on regional reputation building: A case study of the Lahti Urban Region. Regional Studies, 42(4), 523–538. Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O‘Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes

65(5), 547–558.

CR IP T

for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review,

Bogers, M., Afuah, A., & Bastian, B. (2010). Users as innovators: A review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 36(4), 857–875.

AN US

Brabhman, D. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262.

Bryson, J. M., Quick, K., Slotterback, C., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation

M

processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34.

ED

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.

Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: A thirty-year retrospective. Systems Research and

PT

Behavioral Science, 17(S1), S11.

Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from

CE

technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.

AC

Cronin, K., Midgley, G., & Skuba Jackson, L. (2014). Issues mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts. European Journal of Operational Research, 233(1), 145–158.

Darsø, L., & Høyrup, S. (2012). Developing a framework for innovation and learning in the workplace. In Practice-based innovation: Insights, applications and policy implications (pp. 135– 154). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2006). Where next for problem structuring methods. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), 766–768.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

22

Faehnle, M., & Tyrväinen, L. (2013). A framework for evaluating and designing collaborative planning. Land Use Policy, 32, 332–341.

Foote, J. L., Gregor, J. E., Hepil, M. C., Baker, V. E., Houston, D. J., & Midgley, G. (2007). Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation. Journal of the

CR IP T

Operational Research Society, 58(5), 645–654.

Franco, L. A. (2007). Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organizational settings: An empirical investigation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(6), 760–768.

Franco, L. A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research. European

AN US

Journal of Operational Research, 205(3), 489–500.

Friend, J. (2004). Perspectives of engagement in community operational research. In G. Midgley & A. E. Ochoa-Aria (Eds.), Community operational research: OR and systems thinking for community development (pp. 175-201). New York, NY: Kluwer.

M

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review,

ED

66(1), 66–75.

Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. The

PT

Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775–819.

Gregory, W. J., & Midgley, G. (2000). Planning for disaster: Developing a counselling service.

CE

Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 278–290.

AC

Hjortsø, C. N. (2004). Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft OR: An application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 667–683.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436.

Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

23

Johnson, M. (2012). Community-based operations research: Decision modeling for local impact and diverse populations. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business.

Johnson, M. P., Midgley, G., & Chichirau, G. (2017). Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research. http://works.bepress.com/michael_johnson/81/ Accessed 28

CR IP T

November 2017. Johnson MP and Smilowitz K (2007). ―Community-Based Operations Research‖, in (T. Klastorin, Ed.) Tutorials in Operations Research 2007: OR Tools and Application - Glimpses of Future

Technologies (p. 102 – 123). Hanover, MD: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

AN US

Khadka, C., Hujala, T., Wolfslehner, B., & Vacik, H. (2013). Problem structuring in participatory forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 26, 1–11.

Lahti City Centre Master Plan. (2015).

http://lahtiuudistuu.fi/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/1_lahtokohdat_ja_tavoitteet.pdf/ Accessed 30 June

M

2016.

ED

Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

PT

Midgley, G., Cavana, R. Y., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J. L., Wood, D. R., & Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2013). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. European Journal of

CE

Operational Research, 229(1), 143–154.

AC

Midgley, G., Johnson, M.P. & Chichirau, G. (2018). What is Community Operational Research?. European Journal of Operational Research, In press, Corrected Proof.

Midgley, G., Munlo, I., & Brown, M. (1998). The theory and practice of boundary critique: Developing housing services for older people. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49(5), 467–478.

Midgley, G., & Ochoa-Arias, A. E. (Eds.). (2004). Community operational research: OR and systems thinking for community development. New York, NY: Kluwer.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

24

Midgley, G., & Pinzon L. A. (2011). Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 1543–1554.

Midgley, G., & Reynolds, M. (2004). Systems/operational research and sustainable development: Towards a new agenda. Sustainable Development, 12(1), 56–64.

Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of

CR IP T

Operational Research, 152(3), 530–554.

Moore, A. (2012). Following from the front: Theorizing deliberative facilitation. Critical Policy Studies, 6(2), 146–162.

Mäkimattila, M., Melkas, H., & Uotila, T. (2013). Dynamics of openness in innovation processes—a

AN US

case study in the Finnish food industry. Knowledge and Process Management, 20(4), 243–255.

Parjanen, S. (2012). Innovation sessions as sources of new ideas. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 11(4), 352–368.

M

Parjanen, S., Harmaakorpi, V., & Frantsi, T. (2010). Collective creativity and brokerage functions in heavily cross-disciplined innovation processes. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge

ED

and Management, 5(1), 1–21.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D‘Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A.,

PT

Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-

CE

industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.

AC

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.

Pfister, D. S., & Godana, G. (2012). Deliberation technology. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1).

Quick, K., & Bryson, J. M. (2016). Public participation. In J. Torbing & C. Ansell (Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance (pp.158-169). Cheltenham, England: Elgar Press.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

25

Ritchie, C. (2004). Housing in the Dearne Valley: Doing community OR with the Thurnscoe Tenants Housing Co-operative. In G. Midgley & A. E. Ochoa-Arias (Eds.), Community operational research: OR and systems thinking for community development (pp. 121–142). New York, NY: Kluwer.

Rosenhead, J. (1996). What's the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces, 26(6), 117–131.

Operational Research Society, 57(7), 759–765.

CR IP T

Rosenhead, J. (2006). Past, present and future of problem structuring methods. Journal of the

Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2012). Citizen participation, open innovation and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18.

AN US

Suster, M. (2013). How to Identify Client Pain Points. https://www.inc.com/mark-suster/how-toidentify-client-pain-points.html Accessed 28 October 2017.

Thoring, K., & Müller, R. M. (2011). Understanding design thinking: A process model based on method engineering. In. A. Kovasevic, W. Ion, C. McMahon, L. Buck, & P. Hogarth, (Eds.), DS 69:

ED

Education (pp. 493-498). London, UK.

M

Proceedings of E&PDE 2011, the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design

Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond

PT

Arnstein. Health Policy, 76(2), 156–168.

Turnhout, E., Van Bommel, S., & Aarts, N. (2010). How participation creates citizens: Participatory

CE

governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 26.

AC

Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuretics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Berne, Switzerland: Haupt.

Van Herzele, A. (2004). Local knowledge in action: Valuing nonprofessional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(2), 197–212.

Verona, G., Prandelli, E., & Sawhney, M. (2006). Innovation and virtual environments: Towards virtual knowledge brokers. Organization Studies, 27(6), 765–788.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

26

Vidal, R. V. V. (2009). Community facilitation of problem structuring and decision-making processes: Experiences from the EU LEADER+ programme. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(3), 803–810.

West, J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2008). Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry and Innovation, 15(2), 223–231.

CR IP T

White, L. (2003). The role of systems research and operational research in community involvement: A case study of a health action zone. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 20(2), 133–145.

Winstanley, A., Baker, V., Foote, J., Gregor, J., Gregory, W., Hepi, M., & Midgley, G. (2005). Water in the Waimea basin: Community values and water management options. Report for the Waimea

AC

CE

PT

ED

M

AN US

Water Augmentation Committee and Tasman District Council. Christchurch, New Zealand: ESR.