Planning support systems (PSSs) are intended to facilitate relevant steps in planning processes; however, the academic evaluation of PSSs reveals many bottlenecks precluding a widespread use of these systems. A central weakness is the lack of communication between PSS developers (focusing on technical issues) and potential PSS users. Other academic fields such as knowledge management and technological innovation recognised similar bottlenecks years ago. On the basis of methods proposed in these fields, a new process architecture for the development of a PSS is proposed. Through a dialogue in which PSS developers and potential users discuss and use the PSS, existing tools, instruments, and models are refined and improved to be more useful to their potential users. The focus shifts away from the development of a technically more sophisticated support system, towards a process of PSS development which is intertwined with the planning process itself. This process architecture is called mediated planning support (MPS). We explore what can be learned from other academic domains and enquire about the applicability of these findings to PSS development. In Amsterdam the Department of Transport wanted to transform their transportation model into a land-use and transport PSS and their work illustrates how such a process architecture can link PSS developers and users in planning practice. We discuss the concepts behind MPS and use the case of Amsterdam to visualise its workings, lastly offering hypotheses on the method and suggestions for further research.@en

Many municipalities officially commit themselves to a drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. For the civil servants in the planning agencies of the local administration this is a great challenge. Ordinary ways of solving problems ¿ expert-driven, piecemeal, and best practice ¿ cannot work for solving such complex challenges. The routine work procedures in the agencies do not support a major shift in policies. In interaction with some workers in the planning agency of one municipality, I am developing a learning strategy. The article gives a few snapshots from my involvement until now. This is work in progress. The interventions haven¿t resulted in concrete change in policies of the munici-pality. As yet, the focus is on the ability of the civil servants to handle the complexities. In the interac-tions, my focus is on the competencies for leadership within the agency. In order to create value to the planners and engineers in the agency, I have to develop my own competencies. This article focuses on my own learning journey.@en

This conference starts from the premise that current thinking practices do not meet the needs of the world. All the knowledge brought by individuals, teams and organisations isn¿t enough to meet current crises in the fields of climate, finance or economy. On the contrary, the cause of these crises can be understood as lying in the way we think about the world. Finding answers to the complexities of this world requires that we make use of as many different sources of insight as possible. Yet, the mental models that guide our behaviour and the behaviour of the organisations we work in are too often inadequate for collaborating across the borders of organisation, profession, interest, conviction, culture, religion or nation. And only in such We face a need to reinvent the way we generate knowledge, skills and attitudes and reframe the relation between practice and reflection, research and education. This conference explores this renewal. It connects the perspectives of science, practice, competencies. It brings together learners in action, reflective practitioners, and action researchers. The experimental [experiential? This fits better as `experiment¿ occurs further on in the sentence] format of the conference also attracts experiments in the format of the contributions. These proceedings include a wealth of ideas, based on research, case histories, introspection and reflection. The contributions show how individuals are exploring the connectivity between theory and practice, between the frameworks people use and the practices that they foster. Based on the burning questions from their practices, authors and practitioners reveal how they are exploring concepts and theoretical frameworks and also indicate their capacity, to be open to confronting theories. Some authors reveal how they really listen to the consequences of perspectives that differ from their own convictions while others report on the place of endeavour in their work.@en

Wat is het geheim van werken met overgave, van totale klantgerichtheid, van superteams, van volle-dige betrokkenheid bij de grote uitdagingen voor de wereld? Waar komt dit uit voort? Wat zijn de bronnen van inspiratie en energie? Otto Scharmer, Peter Senge, Joseph Jaworski en Betty Sue Flowers hebben met het boek Presence een zoektocht beschreven wat het is om zo te mogen werken. Het boek beschrijft niet alleen de eigen ontwikkeling die hen zover heeft gebracht, maar ook de bij-zondere ervaringen van vele anderen met het werken vanuit hun diepste inspiratie, en in verbinding met de wereld om hen heen. In het boek Theory U geeft Otto Scharmer daar een theoretische onder-bouwing voor. Dit boek biedt tevens een scala aan sociale technieken voor het bereiken van die bronnen. Presence en Theory U bieden samen een geheel nieuwe en omvattende kijk op werken en organise-ren, op de manier waarop mensen in verbinding kunnen staan met de grote uitdagingen van deze tijd. Wanneer individuen en teams niet vanuit het oude ego werken, maar wanneer ze ruimte maken voor de aanwezigheid van een groter systeem (presencing), dan krijgen ze gevoel (sensing) hoe de toekomst naar het heden (presence) gehaald kan worden. Een wereld die tot dan toe niet voor mogelijk werd gehouden, dient zich dan aan. Presence is gelukkig niet een verslag van uitzonderlijke mensen over een ervaring die hen toevallig is overkomen. Het boek beschrijft hoe gewone mensen zich ontwikkelen tot buitengewone mensen, hoe traditionele teams leren te werken vanuit passie en verbondenheid, hoe mensen en teams een nieuwe bron vinden om in de wereld te staan. Theory U omvat diverse, practische technieken met als kern het U-proces. In dit hoofdstuk laten wij iets van de bronnen en werkwijzen zien.@en

At the Delft University of Technology, the faculty of civil engineering stands next to the faculty of architecture. Some 40 years ago, an architectural company designed the two buildings. Civil engineering shows the raw materials of its construction: concrete, brick, steel and wood. Architecture has a lighter tone, with more attention to the finishing of walls and ceilings. When studying at Architecture, I took such differences for granted. Of course I belonged to the culture of my own faculty and more or less looked down on the civil engineers. Right now I am teaching at civil engineering. My students appear to have the same kind of stance towards the architects. In the working life of these professions, the quality of their collaboration has a major impact on the functioning of both transport systems and land use systems. Again and again, the mental models both professions hold over each other hamper collaboration, without them being aware of this. We are not well equipped for collaboration, for the open exchange of knowledge, values, intuitions or aspirations. Real openness is scary. Our mental models hold us back from such openness. We are trapped in this ambivalence. Many challenges thus remain unanswered, even if most of us are willing to meet them. This article addresses the theme of acknowledging diversity, as a challenge for education and a challenge for professional life. The article is based on an ongoing action research project on the collaboration between urban planners and transport engineers. The article gives the first outcomes of a round of interviews with students from both trades, exploring their mental models, on the way they work and learn in teams. The article uses Otto Scharmer¿s Theory U as a framework for research [1]. The models that the theory provides might be very helpful to explore the models that students and professionals hold, as well as helpful in acknowledging the variety of perspectives. The models might also be supportive in learning to deal with this diversity. The interviews explore the mental models or narratives the students hold over their work and over the relations between both professions. In due time, based on these interviews, suggestions will be done for the renewal of the education curricula, and for the design of project start ups for the collaboration between engineers and planners. Keywords Theory U, diversity, mental models, collaboration, leadership.@en

Mythes rond mobiliteit, individueel en openbaar vervoer blijven hardnekkig bestaan. Maar een aantal succesvolle voorbeelden uit het buitenland laat zien dat het openbaar vervoer wel degelijk een hoge individuele mobiliteit kan bewerkstelligen. Zelfs in Nederland zouden door een bredere aanpak van het verkeers- en vervoerbeleid de automobilisten verleid kunnen worden om de overstap naar openbaar vervoer te maken.@en

Tuning land use and transport is not only relevant for each of these policy fields; it has a major impact on the regional economy and the environment, too. Yet, again and again, the collaboration between land use planners and transport engineers proves to be problematic. Apart from institutional barriers and diverging interests, the focus of both engineers and planners appears to be very different. Engineers and planners seem to be driven by different forces. Their professional languages, technologies and frameworks hamper communication and collaboration. This abstract explores the characteristics of this diversion, and explores an approach towards an improved collaboration. Concepts from education sciences, cognitive psychology, organizational learning and systems theory are used. This abstract suggests that the education of both professions needs reframing. Land use planners are now taught to solve planning problems, just as transport engineers are taught to solve transport problems. But, society needs planners as well as engineers to solve societal problems. Teaching leadership might be a proper answer to this challenge.@en

Investeren in ov loont, mits voldoende gericht en als onderdeel van een samenhangend pakket van maatregelen, stelt een drietal onderzoekers. Zij reageren daarmee op de ongenuanceerde stelling dat openbaar vervoer geen alternatief voor de auto is. Deze stelling legde het nieuwe dagblad De Pers het KiM in de mond. Succesvolle buitenlandse voorbeelden bewijzen dat ov automobilisten wél kan verleiden uit de auto te stappen. Pieter Schrijnen (TU Delft), Martin Dijst, (Universiteit Utrecht) en Luca Bertolini (Universiteit van Amsterdam) stellen dat het ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat veel te lang de nadruk heeft gelegd op de congestie op de `eigen¿ rijkswegen, terwijl de meeste congestie ontstaat in en rond stedelijke regio¿s en in de wisselwerking tussen rijkswegen en de regionale of stedelijke wegen. Zij reageren daarmee op een artikel in het dagblad De Pers eind januari 2007. Volgens De Pers betoogt Carl Koopmans van het Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid (KiM), een zelfstandig orgaan binnen het ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, dat je met ov nauwelijks mensen uit de auto krijgt. De auteurs menen dat het beleidsprobleem breder moet worden gedefinieerd; de definitie `bereikbaarheid en sociaal-economisch functioneren van steden en regio¿s¿ doet meer recht aan de problematiek het beperkte `congestie op de hoofdwegen¿. Ze pleiten voor meer aandacht voor de plekken waar de automobilisten naartoe gaan en vandaan komen, voor de aansluitingen met de steden, de werkgebieden en woonbuurten. Op basis van buitenlandse voorbeelden zijn drie succesfactoren aan te wijzen: de integratie met de ruimtelijke ordening (bijv. kantoor op het spoor), de differentiatie naar vervoersfunctie (o.a. goed bedienen van de verschillende gebruikers) en prijsbeleid (bijv. variatie naar plaats en tijd). Tot slot: de milieubelasting van auto en ov kan niet worden vergeleken door te wijzen op de prestaties van de nieuwste, schoonste auto¿s. Want ook de technologie van het ov-materieel vernieuwt. Wat betreft verkeersveiligheid, ruimtebeslag, verbruik van schaarse brandstoffen, geluid en de meeste emissies is het ov bijna altijd beter dan de auto.@en

Looking back at my education, at what I like to cherish from those years, what then comes to mind is the way some teachers were as a person, more than what they taught. I hardly remember the content of their lessons, but I do recall them telling stories, being compassionate or reflective. Of course I can also recall the boring lessons, the many days that passed in routine, the many teachers hardly present to their classes. In retrospect, one can observe that the long and boring lessons probably shaped my competencies more than the few inspiring moments. We get used to people functioning on a lower level than they might. We get used to not addressing each other in our highest aspirations and competencies. Long ago, we accepted to live with moderate solutions and compromise. As Hämäläinen & Saarinen recently observed, most human interactions are subdued, by the system of holding back, by a behaviour of re-straint more than by a behaviour of inspiration and aspiration [Hämäläinen & Saarinen 2004]. This paper explores education and teaching as a means to catalyse competencies of students and pro-fessionals. Society puts many challenges to professionals. This paper describes some of these chal-lenges, on the level of society, human interaction and self-image. Students need to develop profes-sional competencies in all three realms. Most courses still have a focus on discipline based knowledge and skills, and a staff that has its major competence in specialist knowledge. But the new requirements for higher education as developed in the EU do also elaborate these three competencies. The paper ends with some reflections on the role of teachers as an element in the systems of learning.@en

The integration of land use systems and transport systems contributes strongly to the sustainable development of cities and regions. But integration doesn¿t come easy. The policy processes involved are so complex that the departments of transport and planning often lower their ambitions. Major barriers are found in the silo structure of the policy fields, but also in the different paradigms of the disciplines of land use planning and transport. Accepting those barriers reduces the level of intelligence of the system as a whole. This article reviews the literature on collaborative planning and on learning, in search for the levers that transport and land use professionals can use to improve their collaboration. Planning theory suggests argumentative approaches to integrate such diverging discourses. Ideal speech situations supposedly allow participants to acknowledge diversity and to create new common frameworks. But it is not obvious that the professionals involved are capable to participate in such conversation, or even facilitate them. Cognitive psychology, organisational learning and neurosciences offer another perspective on the interaction. They reveal how difficult it is for anybody to handle such complex situations. Uncertainty and fear are probably the most dominant emotions. Most people will react on this complexity with an attitude that prevents learning. They also reveal the relevance of personal leadership for the creation of breakthroughs. This article suggests to use perspectives offered in cognitive psychology and neurosciences to reframe the policy processes. The focus on interests, disciplines, rational discourses doesn¿t acknowledge the emotions involved, nor the individuality of learning processes. This focus hampers learning and collaboration. A focus on values, integration, personal involvement changes the language and the possible output of the collaboration. Leadership training can support the professionals involved to take responsibility, not just for the content of their integrative work and for their individual shortcomings, but also for the shortcomings that are imminent in such processes. The article gives an example of such a training, as applied in one of the Dutch provinces.@en

The academic literature on PSS recently identified fundamental bottlenecks blocking widespread use of them in planning practice: a lack of communication between the developers and the potential users. Other academic fields (knowledge management and technological innovation) have recognized similar bottlenecks years ago. This article proposes a process architecture for PSS development, based on methods generated in those fields. The method is applied to a case in Amsterdam. The Am-sterdam Department of Transport wanted to transform their transport model into a PSS, to support the integration of land use and transport planning. This paper pre-sents the considerations that used in the design process of the development of this PSS. It describes the products from this case so far and reflects on the interactive method used. Although the project is not finished, the results seem promising.@en