London, K A and Cadman, K (2009) Impact of a fragmented regulatory environment on sustainable urban development design management. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5(1-2), pp. 5-23. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
The building project development approval process is increasingly complex and fraught with conflict due to the rise of the sustainable urban development movement and inclusive decision making. Coupled with this, government decision-making decentralization has resulted in a fragmented and over-regulated compliance system. Problems arising from the process include wasted resources, excessive time delays, increased holding and litigation costs, inadequate planning coordination, high levels of advocacy costs and a divisive politicized approval process. In Australia, despite attempts by government and industry associations, numerous problems are still unresolved. Design managers increasingly assume a liaison role during the approval phase. There is a long tradition of planning theory literature which provides context for understanding the knowledge-power-participation relationship for this paper. This study investigated the policy, process and practice conflicts during the approval stage in achieving sustainable urban developments. Three regional local government areas within one state jurisdiction and observations from detailed structured focus group interviews involving 23 stakeholders, proposers and assessors were analysed to explore this conflictual environment. As a result of regulatory fragmentation and excessive consultation, various persuasion tactics have been developed by all stakeholders of which 'reciprocity' and 'authority' were identified as the most common. Two challenges for design managers were thus identified: first, the emergence of the role of a by default central informal arbitrator across conflicting planning instruments; and, second, as a navigator through a set of persuasion tactics. An inclusive knowledge-based design management framework for sustainable urban development is proposed considering Habermas' communicative planning theory, Foucaltian governance and discursive powers thesis and Cialdini's persuasion theory, as well as being grounded in the key empirical results from this study, using various types and sources of knowledge as an authoritative persuasion tactic.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | authoritative persuasion; building design management; development approval; inclusivity; sustainable urban development |
| Index terms: | interview, jurisdiction, default, coordination, compliance, local government, emergence, design manager, design management, time delay, sustainable urban development, decentralization, Australia, decision-making, arbitrator, project development, litigation, approval, movement, governance, focus group, building design management, fragmentation |
| Subjects: | legal systems, management, systems engineering, project delivery, health safety and environment, health behaviours and lifestyles, dispute resolution, data collection methods, Geography, project controls, profession, sustainability and resilience, contractual role, political science, administrative law, design process, decision analysis, business |
| Topics: | Project Management, Health and Safety, Time Control, Urban Studies, Contract Administration, Geographical Context, Governance, Legal Issues, Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here