Co-production on the Edge of Project and Process Management - The Sijtwende development project

The goal of this paper is to describe and analyze co-production in public private partnerships in spatial planning. We will describe one specific case study, the location development project Sijtwende on the edge of two municipalities (The Hague and Voorburg), on the edge of public and private investments and on the edge of urban development and extension of the mobility system. We will elaborate the bottlenecks in the cooperation between several actors involved. Furthermore we will look for important breakthroughs in the process of collaborative development of the area. How was it possible that after a public lock in situation that took more than twenty years a private party was able to force a breakthrough? Finally we will deal with the question what this case learns us for the management of these complex processes of co-production. We will combine theoretical thoughts and empirical insights from our in-depth case study in order to find balances in using project management and process management strategies for managing complex spatial planning processes.

Buurtgericht beleid en de kunst van vertrouwen geven

Burgerparticipatie is het sterkst doorgedrongen in gemeenten, wijken en buurten. Vanuit een oude traditie van schikken en plooien en polderen worden burgers betrokken bij ontwikkeling, uitvoering en beheer. Momenteel wordt dit ook wel ‘buurtgericht beleid’ of ‘bewonerbetrokkenheid’ genoemd1. In politieke kringen is toenemende aandacht voor de verantwoordelijkheden van burgers in onze maatschappij. Politici zien graag dat bewoners, bedrijven en instellingen meer hun medeverantwoordelijkheid nemen voor de leefbaarheid en veiligheid in hun eigen buurt. ‘Meedoen’, staat er in het motto van het huidige regeerakkoord. Ook minister Pechtold noemt dit element in zijn speech bij het ontvangst nemen van het WRR-rapport ‘vertrouwen in de buurt’: “Bewoners en maatschappelijke ondernemers moet zich meer verantwoordelijk voelen voor de publieke zaak”. De bedoeling is om burgers en diverse organisaties in de buurt zelf te laten bepalen op welke wijze de impuls voor hun wijk wordt vormgegeven. Alleen op die manier kunnen burgers weer meer verantwoordelijkheid voor het wel en wee van hun buurt nemen

Institutional Evolution within Local Democracy - Local Self-Governance Meets Local Government

__Abstract__ In the Netherlands, citizens have the formal opportunity to put issues – under certain conditions – on the political agenda. This has been possible since May 2006 at the national level and at the local level since March 2002. In addition, people increasingly engage in an informal way, on their own initiative, to draw from their expertise, experience and knowledge to formulate ideas for policy that they may offer to government. Such ‘citizens’ initiatives’ can be seen, in addition to interactive policy making, as a form of citizens’ participation (Edelenbos et al. 2008). Citizen participation is often initiated by government; it is a bottom-up development started by citizens themselves (Edelenbos et al. 2008). In this chapter, we elaborate on the institutional implications of the ‘citizens’ initiatives’ within local democracy. These initiatives could be described as forms of selfgovernance, leading to the emergence of ‘proto-institutions’ (Lawrence et al. 2002). These proto-institutions interact with established institutions of representative democracy. This interaction is a co-evolving process in which both types of institutions react to each other in certain ways. In this contribution, we describe this institutional evolution and try to find determining factors in this process. We want to provide explanatory factors of processes of institutional co-evolution. We argue that these factors are of major importance with regard to processes of citizen participation and co-operating mechanisms between proto-institutions developed by citizens’ initiatives and established institutions of representative democracy

Identifying modes of managing urban heritage:Results from a systematic literature review

This article presents a systematic literature review on urban heritage. It analyses (a) how urban heritage is conceptualized and interpreted in academic research, (b) urban heritage management modes. This literature review interprets urban heritage as a resource, collective memory, and space. It categorizes urban heritage management practice into six management modes according to stakeholders' collaboration levels: community-led, expert-coordinated, government-led, conflict-resolution, and privatization. These modes are analyzed based on different political regimes. The review observes five approaches to conceptualizing urban heritage: researching people's perspectives towards urban heritage, framing urban heritage, tracing the process of urban heritage forming, reviewing international policies and charters, and exploring the functions of urban heritage. Finally, for the future research agenda, the article recommends a focus on the following themes: the causal relations between factors and effects of adopting different urban heritage modes, researching community engagement and interactions between different levels of government, and analyzing conflict-resolution processes systematically.</p

Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in governance networks

This article examines the impact of two facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in urban governance networks. While research on boundary spanning is growing, there is little attention for antecedents. Combining governance network literature on project management and organizational literature on facilitative and servant leadership, we examine two potential conditions: a facilitative project management style and executive support. We conducted survey research among project managers involved in urban governance networks in order to test these relationships. We found positive relationships between facilitative project management and boundary-spanning behaviour, while executive support indirectly, via facilitative management, contributed to boundary-spanning behaviour

Connective capacity in water governance practices: The meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance

__Abstract__ This article deals with water governance to face institutional fragmentation in water management practices. In this holistic approach the connective capacity with domains, levels, scales, organizations and actors is emphasized. Recent literature and empirical research shows that both trust and boundary spanning leadership turn out to be of great importance for realizing connective capacity and subsequently integrated performance in water management practices. Trust stimulates and consolidates coordination and interaction between different actors from different domains and organizations in the water governance networks, and therefore leads to cross-boundary partnerships. Trust is developed in informal network structures. Boundary spanners are important in creating and stimulating informal spaces of interaction, and thus in creating conditions for trust to evolve in these actor networks. In this way positive relationship between trust, boundary spanning, informal networks and integrated performance is realized