URBAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND URBAN MANAGEMENT
DECISIONS AND CONTROL
Nathan D. Grunctstein*
A system d e f in itio n of g e n eral v a l i d i t y has no p a r tic u la r relevance f o r th e
co n te n t o f t h i s p a p e r. At th e o u ts e t, th e r e f o re , a l l concern w ith tn e
g e n eric concept of a system w i l l be put to one s id e . Nor w i l l th e re be any
r e s o r t t o a form al d e f in itio n of a system . At th e same tim e , i t i s conceded
t h a t th e problem o f a form al system d e f in itio n i s not w ithout i t s d i f f i c u l ­
t i e s . (R ef. 1) There i s no in te n tio n i n t n i s paper to proceed by examining
what e x i s t s e m p iric a lly in tn e way of automated inform ation i n s t a l l a t i o n s
f o r urb an a u th o r i ti e s and th en to a p p ra ise th e e x te n t to wnich th e y , as i n ­
fo rm atio n s t r u c tu r e s , d e v ia te from th e a t t r i b u t e s of a fo rm ally defin ed
system . (R ef. 2)
I t i s th e t r i a d of urban management and urban planning and inform ation te c h ­
nology t h a t i s my concern. A lin k a g e between them i s necessary in o rd e r to
move tow ards a kind of urban inform ation system , one f o r which th e designa­
t i o n Urban Management Info rm atio n System i s s u ita b ly d e s c rip tiv e . 1 tak e i t
t h a t th e d esign o f an in fo rm atio n system f o r urban management i s th e major
te c h n ic a l ta s k p r e s e n tly co n fro n tin g in fo rm atio n te c h n o lo g is ts and urban
p la n n e rs.
At p re s e n t both urb an planning ana in fo rm atio n technology a re w ithout any
fo cu s f o r c o n c e p tu a lly p a tte rn in g urban management. I t i s p o ss ib le to have
in fo rm a tio n i n s t a l l a t i o n s and s tr u c tu r e s and a n a ly tic ro u tin e s (a a ta banks,
in fo rm a tio n sto ra g e and r e t r i e v a l , and sim u la tio n ) t h a t a re not lin k e d to
em piric urban management d e c isio n and c o n tro l s tr u c tu r e s , in tf iis stage ox'
th in g s , s e p a ra te and beyond tn e urban p lan n e r and h is models i s "u ltim ate
decision-m aking" (R er. 3 ) , There i s nothing to in d ic a te t h a t t h i s not tn e
dominant s i t u a t i o n to d ay .
What urban p la n n e rs and th o se d iv e rse p ro ie s s io n a ls in urban renewal and
tr a n s p o r ta tio n who have u t i l i z e d im o rm atio n technology have so f a r done i s
t o b u ild th e i n f r a - s t r u c t u r e f o r an Urban Management Inform ation System. I t
♦ P ro fesso r and D ire c to r of th e Graduate Program i n P ublic Management Science,
Department of P o l i t i c a l S cience, w estern Reserve U n iv e rsity
1
i s p r im a r ily an a n a ly tic i n f r a - s t r u c t u r e . Contemporary urban management
(that, i s urban management sin c e 19^7 ) has long needed a way of d isag g reg a­
t in g th e urban community f o r purposes of management, d e c isio n and c o n tr o l.
T his i s more th a n a m a tte r of d a ta banks and in fo rm a tio n sto ra g e and r e ­
t r i e v a l . What has now been worked out a re a n a ly tic tech n iq u e s f o r tim e phased, m u lti- v a r ia b le d isa g g re g a tio n s (m ic ro -a n a iy s is ) of tu e urban commun­
i t y i n term s o f: ( 1 ) a re a {2) tr a n s p o rta tio n (3) p r o je c t and 14-) p o p u latio n
d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n t h a t have d e s c rip tiv e and p r e d ic tiv e u t i l i t y f o r uroan
developm ent. (R ef. 4)
The autom ation of d a ta and p ro ce sses f o r d a ta a n a ly s is i s not t o be equated
w ith an Urban Management Info rm atio n System. And a t t h i s p o in t i n th e s ta te
of th e a r t i t i s prem ature t o t a l k of a t o t a l system s approach to inform a­
t i o n f o r urban management.. Viewed from a system s s ta n d p o in t, urban manage­
ment d e c isio n s a re a com posite o f a n a ly tic and s o c io - s tr u c tu r a l d e c isio n
p ro c e ss e s . I t i s i n f a c t e s s e n t ia l t o th in k i n term s of an in te r f a c e of
th e s e a n a ly tic and s o c io - s tr u c tu r a l d e c isio n p ro c e sse s. The i n te r la c e be­
tween them as re v e a le d by ty p es and p a tte r n s of urban management d e c isio n s
can be viewed as e m p iric a l in d ic a to r s of requirem ents f o r o rg an izin g urban
management in fo rm a tio n a t a systems l e v e l.
W hile a t t h i s sta g e t a l k of a t o t a l systems approach i s prem ature ( i f n o t
p r e te n tio u s ) , th e r e i s need n o n e th e le ss f o r a s tr a te g y by waich to p ro g ress
to a system s le v e l i n b u ild in g urban management in fo rm a tio n system s. The
choice o f system s b u ild in g s tr a te g y to be p r e f e r r e d i s t h a t which s a t i s f i e s
c e r t a i n re q u ire m e n ts. I t should p o in t th e way to a u s e f u l decom position o r
d isa g g re g a tio n or tn e urban community f o r purposes of urban management de­
c is io n and c o n tr o l. I t should fa v o r s p e c if ic r a th e r th a n g ross in fo rm atio n
and c o n tr o l system s. I t should search f o r c o m p a tib ility and com plem entarity
between th e a n a ly tic ( q u a n tita tiv e ) and th e s o c io - s tr u c tu r a l (b e h a v io ra l).
I t should u t i l i z e co n cep ts of c o n tro l and d e c isio n i n r e l a t i o n to urban
management.
To s e t o ut th e fo re g o in g as c r i t e r i a f o r a s tr a te g y ox system s b u ila in g i s
t o a s s e r t t h a t an Uroan Management In fo rm atio n System as an in fo rm a tio n
system snould be s p e c if ic to th e bases of community d isa g g re g a tio n and to
d e c is io n and c o n tr o l s tr u c tu r e s c h a ra c te r iz in g urban management i n a com­
m unity. A way s t i l l has to be thought out oy which to fe e d th e c o n trib u tio n s
o f th e a n a ly tic te c h n iq u e s o f m ic ro -a n a ly sis and models f o r th e s o lu tio n of
p lan n in g problems i n t o em piric management d e c isio n and c o n tr o l s tr u c tu r e s .
In fo rm atio n f o r m ic ro -a n a iy s is and model c o n s tru c tio n i s n o t th e e q u iv a le n t
o f urban management in fo rm a tio n . In s h o r te s t supply a re concepts o f c o n tro l
and d e c is io n f o r u rb an management, w ith o u t which th e s e p ro ce sses cannot be
given an o p e ra tio n a l lo g ic c o n s is te n t w ith system s req u irem en ts.
Some schem atic and diagram m atic r e p re s e n ta tiv e s may be u s e f u l h e re a s de­
v ic e s f o r re p e rc e iv in g urban management d e c is io n and c o n tr o l. We can look
a t tn e urban management system a s composed o f a number of i n t e r - r e i a t e d
components. Two o f th e s e urban management components a re c o n tra s te d in
f ig u r e 1 .
2
Planning D ecision
Management Component
C ity F u n ctio n al
Management Component
Most D ire c tio n a l
F u tu re d e c is io n o rie n te d
Comprehensive p o lic y o rie n te d
P lan ch o ices o rie n te d
L egal c o n tro ls o rie n te d
Land u se o rie n te d
L east d ir e c tio n a l
P resen t d e c isio n o rie n te d
D isc re te a c t i v i t y o rie n te d
O perations d e cisio n s o rie n te d
M anagerial c o n tro ls o rie n te d
S e rv ic e s -^ fa c ilitie s o rie n te d
F igure 1*
There i s a tendency tow ards p o l a r i ty i n th e re s p e c tiv e o rg a n iz a tio n a l o rie n ­
t a t i o n s of th e s e two components* I t produces a s itu a tio n of p o te n tia l con­
f l i c t , which can be a m elio rated by th e presence of a m eeting ground, Uroan
renew al h as provided a m eeting ground through i t s focus upon are a and
p r o j e c t, and through i t s CRP requirem ent of a tim e-phased program of renewal
a c t i v i t y . On th e whole i t i s an in te rm e d ia te m eeting ground. The CRP pro­
gram, i n management term s, l i e s between d is c r e te a c t i v i t y , on th e one hand,
and comprehensive p lan n in g , on th e o th e r.
We may now s tr u c tu r e th e s e t of components of th e urban management system as
i n F ig u re 2,
Planning Decision
Management Component
Urban Renewal
Management
Component
CRP Coordination
of Urban Renewal
and City
Management
Camponents
Choice
Renewal
of
Strategies
Program
Magnitude Priorities
Comprehens ive
Plan
Program
Composition
Program
Management
Formulation of
Area-Project
Choices
Design of
Project Plans
Time
Phasing__________
City Management System
Urban
Objectives
Fiscal
Master
Plan
£
Program
Implementation
Requirements
—
X
Urban
Renewal
Capacity
Capital
Improvements
Community
Facilities'
Operating
r Services
Renewal
Project
Operations
Qrogram
Authorization
Figure 2.
3
A form al s tr u c tu r e oi t m s k in a provides some in d ic a tio n or tn e com plexity
c o n tain ed w ith in an urban management system . Complexity, in tu r n , p o in ts
up tn e p o s s ib le u t i l i t y ox d if f e r e n t i a t i n g urban management on some basxs
ana c o n stru c tin g com patibly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d management in fo rm atio n systems
f o r d e c isio n ana c o n tr o l.
The re le v a n t p a r a l l e l i s th e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n 01 c o rp o ra te m anagerial func­
tio n s to dem onstrate t h a t complex autom ated management in fo rm atio n systems
cannot be used f o r a n ty p es of management problem s. Deardon u iir e r e n tia te o
c o rp o ra te management fu n c tio n s in to ( 1 ; s t r a te g ic planning (c o rp o ra te p o n cxes ana o b je c tiv e s ana reso u rce s a llo c a tio n s ) ; (2 ) management c o n tro l (de­
com position of p la n s in to fu n c tio n a l components w ith o rg a n iz a tio n a l d i s t r i ­
bu tio n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ) ; ana (3) o p e ra tio n a l c o n tro l (d eterm in atio n oi
an o p e ra tio n s budget composed of im plem entation requirem ents f o r each plan
su b d iv isio n , ana perform ance c o n tro ls to ensure c o n siste n c y w ith p la n s ) . He
n o tes t h a t t h i s t r i a d i c d i s tin c tio n " is not com pletely determ ined by tn e
h ie ra rc h y w ith in a company. 11 (Kef. 5) Deardon a s s e r ts t h a t autom ated in ­
fo rm a tio n -c o n tro l system s are "not a t a l l a p p lic a b le to tn e ty p ic a l manage­
ment c o n tro l system" oecause th e y are r a d i c a l l y d if f e r e n t from o p e ra tio n a l
c o n tr o l system s. As f o r tn e computer and s t r a te g ic planning:
About tn e o n ly c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of s t r a te g ic planning t n a t f i t s
in to tn e computer c a p a b il i ti e s i s t h a t s t r a te g ic d e c isio n s
sometimes in v o lv e many i n te r a c tin g v a r ia b le s . Because of t n i s ,
th e g e n e ra l b u sin e ss sim u latio n may prove to be of c o n sid e ra b le
v alu e i n s t r a t e g i c p lan n in g . The g e n e ra l b u sin e ss sim u la tio n ,
however, i s e n t i r e l y d if f e r e n t from th e t y p ic a l autom ated o per­
a tio n a l c o n tr o l system ana i s aimed a t so lv in g a d i f f e r e n t s e t
of problem s. The g e n eral b u sin e ss sim u la tio n i s designed to
allow management t o t e s t th e long-range e f f e c ts of d i f f e r e n t
courses of a c tio n before making a d e c isio n as t o w ix^. course
t o embark on. (R ef. 6 )
In tn e f i e l u o f p lan n in g a tte n tio n a t tn e p re s e n t tim e i s focused p rim a rily
on p r e o ic tiv e ana p lan n in g models as bases f o r an in fo rm a tio n system f o r
management a e c is io n s about urban renew al. The main concern of th e s e models
i s w ith tu e p o l i t i c o - s t r a t e g i c a re a of urban management d e c is io n , i f we u t i l ­
iz e th e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of Deardon on th e su p p o sitio n t h a t w ith re s p e c t to
in fo rm a tio n system s urban management has some h e u r i s t i c a l l y u s e fu l p a r a l le l s
w ith c o rp o ra te management. The t h r u s t i s to use p r e d ic tiv e and p lann in g
models to provide a te c h n ic a l p o in t of e n try and a pathway by wnich p lan n ers
can l in k up w ith to p m anagerial and p o l i t i c a l urban d e c isio n makers. There
i s r e l a t i v e l y no i n t e r e s t on th e p a r t of p la n n e rs i n th e o p e ra tio n a l c o n tro l
a re a o f renew al program management, where a p p lic a tio n s of PERI1 tech n iq u es to
p r o je c t scheduling and a v a r i e ty of e n g in eerin g a d m in is tra tio n problems are
th e concern ox u rban management. (R ef. 7) What i s p r e s e n tly a l l but oyp assed i s th e a re a of management c o n tr o l, and h e re th e Government Sub-Model
o f The P itts b u rg n Urban Renewal S im ulation Model should be regarded as a
p io n e e r p ro to ty p e . (R ef. 0) The i n t e r r e l a t i o n of a re a , p o p u la tio n and
w e lfa re g o als dependent upon urban s e rv ic e s and f a c i l i t i e s p o in ts to th e
need f o r a s p e c ia liz e d management in fo rm a tio n sub-system f o r th e a re a of
management c o n tr o l.
For purposes of d e sig n , an Urban Management in f ormation System should (1)
posit, some kind oi c o n te n t d i f f e r e n tia tio n of urban m anagerial d e cisio n and
c e n tr a l a c t i v i t y and (2 ) move to an e x p lic it mapping of th e in te r f a c e oi'
a n a ly tic and so c io —s t r u c tu r a l processes in urban management decisions* For
each d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a re a of urban management something lik e th e follow ing
would e x is ts
1* P o l i t i c o - s t r a t e g i c
c la s s of problems - s e t of d e cisio n makers - s o c ia l s tru c tu r e
f o r d e c isio n - a n a ly tic tecnniques - inform ation co ntent - inform ­
a tio n technology
2, M anagerial
c la s s of problems - s e t of d e cisio n makers - s o c ia l s tru c tu re
f o r d e c isio n - a n a ly tic techniques - inform ation co n ten t - inform ­
a tio n technology
3. O p e ratio n al
c la s s o f problems - s e t of d e cisio n makers - s o c ia l s tru c tu re
f o r d e c isio n - a n a ly tic techniques - inform ation co ntent - inform ­
a tio n technology
So f a r , c h a r ts of in fo rm a tio n loops and flow s around a d e cisio n sequence get
a t th e s e subcomponents of a management inform ation system in ad eq u ately .
They te n d t o be dom inated by a t a c i t , a n a ly tic a lly Diased lo g ic of inform a­
t i o n flow and u t i l i z a t i o n , along w ith which goes an im p lic it paradigm f o r
d e c is io n . F ig u re s 3 and 4 diagram a renewal d e c isio n sequence and inform a­
t i o n flo w . Both b u ild from th e a n a ly tic technique of a sim u latio n model.
W hile th e y d i f f e r i n t h a t F igure
ta k e s com puterization as th e c r i t e r i o n
f o r a more e x p l i c i t r a tio n a liz a tio n of th e d e c isio n sequence, th e y a re a lik e
i n t h a t both rec o g n ize th e sig n ific a n c e f o r th e d e c isio n makers of inform a­
t i o n e x te r n a l to th e computer sim u la tio n .
F ig u re 3 .
5
Pre-Computer
Stage
Computer
Stage
Submission of
Computer Results
To Decision-Makers
Data
Compilations
Data Bank
Information
Post-Computer
Stage
Computer
Storage
(memory)
Analytic
Refinements
and Empirical
Checks
Data
Variables
Data Inputs For
Simulation Analysis
Evaluation of
Simulation Analysis
Re-examination
of Decision
Constraints
Screened Decision
Alternatives
/
Computer Simulation
of
Screened Alternatives
Renewal
Decisions
Constraints Imposed
by Decision-•Makers
Non-Computeri zed
Decision Factors
IImplementations
Formulation of
Renewal Alternatives
For Decisions
Data on Implementation
Effects
J1
Figure
This i s a n o t y e t r e a l l y adequate way o f in d ic a tin g t h a t in r e a l i t y a m u lti­
p le in fo rm a tio n system c h a ra c te riz e s a p a r t i c u l a r c la s s o f urban renewal
d e c is io n s . What i t su g g ests i s th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f incongruence between th e
inform a.tion system o f th e s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e f o r urban d e c isio n and t h a t o f
th e a jia ly tic s tr u c tu r e (plan n in g a n a l y s t s .) Info rm atio n technology i s le s s
s k i l l f u l in i t s approach to th e u t i l i z a t i o n o f in fo rm atio n w ith in th e so cio s t r u c t u r a l r e la tio n s h ip s fo r urban d e c isio n and more s k i l l f u l in i t s ap­
proach t o th e u t i l i z a t i o n o f in fo rm a tio n in p ro cesses a s s o c ia te d w ith d e te r ­
m inate tech n iq u e s o f a n a ly s is . I t i s no a c c id e n t t h a t in th e t r i a d i c r e l a ­
t i o n o f p la n n e r - model b u ild e r - d e c isio n maker (p o litico -m an a g er) - th e
t i e i s between p la n n e r and model b u ild e r . " I t i s fre q u e n tly t h e i r [p lan n er]
methodology bein g implemented and made e x p l i c i t through th e use o f th e modelSi
F u rth e r, i t i s t h e i r decision-m alting p ro ce ss which a lle g e d ly i s to be en­
h a n c e d .__ In no case t o d a te has th e r e been, however, a t r u l y d a ily work­
in g r e la tio n s h ip y e t e s ta b lis h e d where urban renew al p lan n ers and d e c isio n
makers a re t e s t i n g out new a lte r n a tiv e s through th e use o f computer models
b u i l t f o r them ." (R e f.9)
P a r t ic u la r l y f o r th e p o l i t i c o - s t r a t e g i c area, o f urban d e c isio n and c o n tro l,
p ro g re ss tow ards an Urban Management Inform ation System w i l l p la te a u -o u t
except as in fo rm a tio n technology can b reach th e s o c io - s tr u c tu r a l p ro cesses
o f urb an d e c is io n . J u s t as th e model b u ild e r s moved to t r a n s l a t e p lan n er
m ethodology and d e c is io n p ro ce ss in to models u s e fu l f o r renew al d e cisio n
p u rp o se s, so should th e y now move in to c lo se in te r a c tio n w ith th e p o l it i c o m an ag erial members o f th e urban d e c isio n s tr u c tu r e . Only through t h i s i n t e r ­
a c tio n can th e y g e t a t th e s o c ia l and b e h a v io ra l mechanisms by which are
made m a n ife st th o se f a c to r s m eth o d o lo g ically exogenous to an impact (simu-
6
l a t i o n ) model; namely, d ecisio n r u le s , s o c ia l p re fe re n c e s, g o a ls, v alu es and
tra d e -o ffs .
An urban renew al d e c is io n i s e x tra c te d from a s e t of choice p o s s i b i l i t i e s
about urban renew al. There a re s o c ia l mechanisms f o r searcning out o r d i s ­
covering urban renew al choice p o s s i b i l i t i e s . In a s itu a tio n of m u ltip le
search a c t i v i t y , wnicn i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , p lan n ers a re not th e only persons
engaged i n th e searc h f o r urban renew al choice p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The search
by p lan n e rs may be:
1,
2,
3,
&,
I n p o te n tia l com petition w ith o tn e r searches by non-planners;
i n d if f e r e n t to choice p o s s i b i l i t i e s suggested by o tn e r se arc n ers;
Accommodated to urban renewal choices proposed by o th e r se arc h ers;
D ire c te d to b u ild in g upon and en larg in g a com patible reaew al choice
p o s s i b i l i t y suggested by o tn e r non-public se a rc n e rs,
Tne ch o ice p o s s i b i l i t i e s put f o r tn by p lan n ers can be taken to re p re se n t th e
p ro d u ct of c o n tr o lle d search techniques and of p ro fe s s io n a lly h e ld valu es
w ith re s p e c t t o th e urban community. They may a ls o be th e product of manda­
t o r y c r i t e r i a imposed by renewal le g i s l a t i o n and assigned to plan n ers f o r
im plem entation, such as th e e lim in a tio n of o lig n t.
At one extrem e, urban renew al i s th e handmaiden of p lanning. At th e o tn e r
extrem e, i t i s tn e handmaiden of p u b lic p o lic y ir r e s p e c tiv e of planning
v a lu e s a s s o c ia te d w ith p h y sic a l lan d u se . By v ir tu e of expanding th e range
of reco g n ized lan d use c la im a n ts, to g e th e r w itn an expanded v a r ie ty of soc­
i a l v a lu e s and o b je c tiv e s f o r which urban lan d may be used on t h e i r b e h a lf;
and by enlargem ent of tn e le g a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r m anipulating space u t i l ­
i z a ti o n on b e h a lf of th e s e recognized c la im a n ts, urban renew al l e g i s l a t i o n
has tran sfo rm ed tn e a llo c a tio n of urban space in to a problem of p u b lic
p o lic y p re fe re n c e s . That l e g i s l a t i o n , n e v e rth e le s s , supports congruence be­
tween th e p u b lic p o lic y bases bf renew al d e c isio n s and th e planning valu es
in c o rp o ra te d i n a comprehensive plan f o r a c i t y . On th e one hand, th e CRP
i s a v e h ic le f o r th e r e a liz a tio n of tn e comprehensive p la n ; on th e o th e r,
t h a t p la n can be adapted to th e p refe ren c es in je c te d by p u b lic p o lic y in to
urban renew al,
W hile a l l t n i s i s exogenous to any sim u latio n model, i t i s th e source of a
number of q u e stio n s t h a t l i e a t th e th re sn n o ld of any a p p lic a tio n of a
model. I t i s s u r p r is in g th e number of f i r s t o rd e r q u e stio n s t n a t can oe
asked about th e a p p lic a tio n o f a sim u la tio n nodei f o r urban renewal t n a t
a re p r e s e n tly w ith o u t an answer. To i l l u s t r a t e : ^1) What renewal choice
p o s s i b i l i t i e s should be sim ulated? (2) what computer o u tp u ts a re s i g n i f i ­
c a n t f o r d e c is io n purposes (th a t i s , in what form should renew al choices be
p re se n te d f o r sim u la tio n )? (3) Who a re th e d e cisio n maKers (th a t i s , who
should submit renew al ch o ices ±or computer sim u la tio n )? In term s of gross
d esig n a lt e r n a t iv e s f o r an inform ation system , th e p o la r choices a re between
a sim ple a u th o r ita tiv e computer access system and a m u ltip le access com­
p u te r system .
Choice a t a p o lic y le v e l by persons i n m u lti-v a lu e d , c o ll e g i a l, b a rg a in in g ,
in terest-accom m ouating d e c isio n s tr u c tu r e s i s now tn e o b je c t ol system atic
e m p iric a l th e o ry , (R ef, lu ) The way Inform ation i s used in tn e s e d e c isio n
s tr u c tu r e s i s not s in g le d out f o r any s p e c ia l a n a ly s is . That ta s k i s i n -
7
h e n t e d by tn o se whose work i t i s to design an Urban Management in fo rm atio n
System u t i l i z i n g p r e d ic tio n and planning models f o r management d e c isio n and
c o n tr o l.
Urban p lanning and tn e p o l i t i c o - s t r a t e g i c c o n tro l s e c to r of urban management
have always had some k ind of working r e la tio n s h ip . Not so , however, f o r th e
r e la tio n s h ip o f urban p lanning to management c o n tr o l. An iru. ox-mation system
f o r urban management t h a t lin k s plan n in g to th e management c o n tro l s e c to r
in tro d u c e s an in n o v a tio n i n th e r e la tio n s h ip o f planning to urban manage­
ment, H i s t o r i c a ll y , urban planning nas never been t i e d t o m anagerial con­
t r o l of s e rv ic e s ana f a c i l i t i e s as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of la n d u se c o n tr o l and
la n a use p o lic y .
What i s th e in fo rm a tio n base tnrougn wnicn th e two can be tie d ? av ery r e ­
newal p r o je c t assumes th e p ro v isio n o f f a c i l i t i e s and s e rv ic e s f o r a s p e c if ic
p o p u latio n and a re a . Planners* q u e stio n s have t o do w itn (1) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
ana i n te r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of th e s o c ia l, demographic, and p h y s ic a l f a c to r s t h a t
g e n e ra te demand f o r d i f f e r e n t s e rv ic e s and f a c i l i t i e s ( c a u s a lity ;; (2) tn e
probable im pact of tn e p re v is io n s o r w ith h o la in g of s e rv ic e s and f a c i l i t i e s
on lan d u se s anu p o p u la tio n movement ^ p r e d ic tio n ); and U ) c r i t e r i a to govern
th e s p a t i a l lo c a tio n of i a c i l i t i e s and s e r v ic e s , both as between renew al
p r o je c t a re a s and as between them and non-renew al a re a s o± th e c i t y (maximi­
z a tio n J,
Tne in fo rm a tio n needs ox a p re d ic tio n (im pact) model should be d is tin g u is h e d
from th o se of a management c o n tro l system . The base i n i Ox-matio n f o r p la n ­
ners* d e c is io n s cannot be used as tn e in fo rm a tio n f o r management c o n tro l
d e c is io n s , A d i s t i n c t i o n siiouiv^ a ls o be made between an a n a ly tic fo u n d atio n
f o r urpan management anu f u n c tio n a lly o p e ra tiv e urban management. The d i s ­
t i n c t i o n i s com pelled by pragm atic re a so n s . The a n a ly tic and th e p r a c t it i o n ­
e r p e rso n n el a re two d i f f e r e n t o rg a n iz a tio n a l groups, Tne a n a ly s ts want to
u se renew al programming f o r planning purposes anu advance i t as a b a s is f o r
urban management t h a t i s c o n s is te n t w itn p lan n in g . Planners* q u e stio n s a re
fo rm u la te d i n r e l a t i o n t o program plan n in g d e c is io n s ; th e o p e ra tiv e q u e stio n s
oi urban management c o n tr o l a re no t n e c e s s a r ily so fo rm u lated ,
1 am back t o th e r e c u r r e n t is s u e or th e c o n jo in t presence of th e a n a ly tic
ana s o c i o - s t r u c t u r a l , which reap p ears as a g e n e ra liz e d problem in tn e de­
sig n o f an Urban management Inform ation System a t each d i f f e r e n t i a t e d le v e l
o f urban management. P l a c i n g d e c isio n s i n tn e form of renew al program
c n o ic es havo to be tran sfo rm eu in to management d e c is io n s . To th e managers
t h i s i s more tn a n a m a tte r of m acnem aticai c a lc u la tio n and p ro je c cion of
im p a cts, Tne urban r e a l i t y p e rc e p tio n s and guiding lo g ic of managers a re
a t v a ria n c e w itn th o s e oi tn e a n a ly tic p la n n e rs . Urban managers p e rc eiv e
and reaso n a s fo llo w s : (1) There i s no p iac e o r p erso n as; wno knows wnat
community goaib should b e. hence, every a llo c a tio n of re so u rc e s i s prag­
m atic an^ r e p r e s e n ts a d is c r e te d e c is io n . (2) Tne c e n tr a l c i t y i s c n a ra c t e r i z e d by to o much cnange ana by changes t n a t a re to o d isp e rse d to enabxe
urban management t o w a it u n t i l a c o n c re te p lan f o r th e whoie community i s
e s ta b lis h e d . (3) o n ly a p ro je c t ty p e o i CRP
f e a s i b l e , magnitude a t a
program le v e l Ox. urban renew al i s immense ana unmanageable. Urban manage­
ment can om y o e a i w ith n ib b lin g p r o je c ts tn ao a re manageable, r r o j e c ts
a re c o n ta in e d , s p e c i n c , and sn o rt ru n , (<+) S hort term , oay-^o-day prooiems
6
a re c r i t i c a l l o r urban management# ( 5 / The c o n te n ts of p lau s have an unscaoj.e q u a lity . I n a c t u a l i ty th e re i s a l o t of sw itching of monies around
t o d e a l w ith s p e c if ic p ro p o sa ls. (6) There i s no s e t body of d e cisio n
matcers and d e c isio n p rocedures. There a re in flu e n c e sub-groups as w e ll as
d e c isio n m akers. (7) The s e le c tio n of a re as f o r renewal a c tio n i s not a
cnoice b u t a response t o autonomously generated community p ressu re s in v o lv ­
in g s o c ia l w e lfa re c o n sid e ra tio n s as w e n as economic c r i t e r i a . (8 ) Uroan
management does n o t neea a renewal program, but a program f o r management of
th e c i t y to meet what i t knows l i e s ahead, in th e way of problems f o r th e
c i t y . (9) The c i t y does not go in to renew al f o r p u re ly planning co n sid era­
t i o n s , b u t u ses renew al p ro je c ts as s p e c ific responses to s p e c ific f e l t
d e f ic ie n c ie s about th e c i t y .
We a re now a t th e h e a rt o f th e m a tte r; 'urban management cannot manage from
a plan n in g -renew al info rm atio n system . A management d e cisio n model cannot
be a su b -p a rt o f an urban renew al sim u latio n model. The p r a c titio n e r man­
ag ers have need f o r a model geared to t h e i r d e c isio n requirem ents. The
p r a c t it i o n e r managers w i l l su b o rd in ate a planning d e c isio n model to th e
o v e r-re ac h in g requirem ents o f urban management d e cisio n and c o n tro l. At
th e same tim e , th e p r a c t it i o n e r managers a re not in d if f e r e n t to th e le v e l
a t which urban management can t r y f o r co n sisten c y in i t s d e cisio n s w ith th e
r a t i o n a l i t y o f a planning-renew al model. The o v e rrid in g i n t e r e s t of th e
urban management d e c isio n s tr u c tu r e i s in th e f i s c a l and o p e ra tin g loads
and changes in th e o p e ra tin g d e c isio n r u le s o f th e c it y agencies. The prob­
lems o f la n d use management have became c r i t i c a l in term s o f t h e i r cash flow
im p lic a tio n s and t h e i r revenue-expenditure im p lic a tio n s . Urban management
i s s tru g g lin g a g a in s t th e d im inishing f i s c a l f l e x i b i l i t y of th e c ity . There
i s a search f o r replacem ent e q u iv a le n ts f o r l o s t revenue sources and fo r in ­
crem ental revenue so u rces. There i s a concern f o r r e a liz in g th e promised
f i s c a l b e n e f its from any investm ent in p h y sic a l renew al and lan d use changes.
The concern o f urban management w ith agency o p e ra tin g loads and d ecisio n
r u le s r e f l e c t s a concern w ith th e m an ageability o f urban se rv ic e s a c t iv i t y
l e v e ls . Urban management i s expected t o a l t e r agency le v e ls o f se rv ic e
a c t i v i t y where th e s e fu n c tio n as u n d e sira b le c o n s tra in ts on planning-renew al
d e c is io n s . Demands f o r any s ig n if ic a n t l i f t i n g o f se rv ic e le v e l a c t iv i t y ,
i f reco g n ized , must le a d t o th e in tro d u c tio n o f a form o f management p la n ­
n in g , w hich, in tu r n , w i l l compel changes in th e s tr u c tu r a l bases o f mana­
gement c o n tro l o f s e rv ic e a c t i v i t i e s . R adical improvement in th e e f f e c tiv e ­
ness w ith which th e s e se rv ic e s a re managed cannot otherw ise be obtained. At
th e same tim e , an in c re a s e in th e le v e l o f s e rv ic e expenditures w ill be
accompanied by an in c re a s e in o p e ra tin g c o s ts . Every in c re a s e in o p eratin g
c o s ts fo rc e s urban management t o search f o r an in crem ental expansion o f
th e urban income base t o cover th e s e c o s ts . Grants from th e e x te rn a l economy
do n o t com pletely u n d erw rite a l l c i t y ex p en d itu re s. In s h o r t, planning
d e c isio n s w i l l o f n e c e s s ity be transform ed in to m anagerial d e cisio n s and
s t r a t e g i e s and judged acc o rd in g ly . At th e le v e l o f urban management co n tro l,
a r e a l consequence o f p lanning d e c isio n s based upon model o u tputs i s what
th e y im ply in th e way o f changes in both th e b a s is and system o f urban
management i t s e l f . A. system o f urban management inform ation a t th e le v e l
o f management c o n tro l re q u ire s a s o c io - s tr u c tu r a l foundation. Without i t
in fo rm a tio n i s n e ith e r g e n erate d nor u t i l i z e d f o r management d e c isio n . The
r e q u i s it e s o c io - s tr u c tu r a l foundation should follow upon th e in novation o f
an a p p ro p ria te form o f co o rd in ated management planning a t th e le v e l o f man­
agement co ntrol* What management planning can do a t t h i s le v e l i s provide
9
th e e s s e n t ia l c e n tr a liz a tio n o f c o n tro l d e c isio n s to d e a l w ith th e in term ix
o f p o p u la tio n , p r o je c t, f a c i l i t i e s , and se rv ic e s on an a r e a l b a s is w ith in
th e c it y .
REFERENCES:
1.
E l l i s , David 0. and Ludwig, Fred J . "Basic Systems C oncepts," Systems
P hilosophy, P re n tic e H a ll, 1962. L ev e n stein , H arold and Feigenbaum,
Donald E . , " D e fin itio n s o f Systems E ngineering Terms," Conference
Paper, I 96U Systems Science C onference, IEEE, P h ila d e lp h ia . Sengupta,
S. Sankar and A ckoff, R u sse ll L., Systems Theory from an O perations
Research P o in t o f View," Conference Paper, I 96U Systems Science Con­
f e r e n c e , IEEE, P h ila d e lp h ia .
2.
P ric e , Dennis G. and M u lv ih ill, Dennis E ., "The P re se n t and F uture Use
o f Computers in S ta te Government," P u b lic A d m in istra tio n Review,
pp. 1U2-150, June, 1965*
3.
S te g e r, W ilbur A ., "Review o f A n a ly tic Techniques f o r th e CRP,"
J o u rn a l o f th e American I n s t i t u t e o f P la n n e rs, p . 172, May, 1965*
1+.
"Urban Development Models: New Tools f o r H a n n in g ," S p e c ia l Is s u e ,
Jo u rn a l o f th e American I n s t i t u t e o f P la n n e rs, May, 1965.
5.
Deardon, John, "Can Management In fo rm atio n be Automated ?"
B u siness Review, M arch-A pril, 196k.
6.
R eference 5> a t page 133.
7.
H eintzlem an, W alter G ., "A dm inistering th e E ngineering Program o f th e
Urban Redevelopment A u th o rity o f P itts b u r g h ," U n iv e rs ity o f P ittsb u rg h ,
G .S .P .I.A ., 1963.
8.
"Governmental S tu d y ," CRP P rogress R eport No. 6 , Department o f C ity
P lan n in g , P itts b u rg h , January I 96U.
9.
R eference 3 a t page 170.
10.
Lindblorn, C harles E . , "The I n te llig e n c e o f Democracy,"
H arvard
Free P r e s s ,1965.
NOTE: The flow diagram s a re adapted from th o se p rep a red by th e au th o r f o r
th e P itts b u rg h Department o f C ity Planning in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e develop­
ment o f th e P itts b u rg h Urban Renewal Sim ulation Model.
10