Weighting the Stages of City Development Strategy Plan based on the Importance of the Interests of Stakeholders and using Quality Function Deployment Technique (Case Study: Kashmar)

جغرافیاوتوسعه ناحیه ای

Article 4, Volume 19, Issue 2 - Serial Number 37, September 2021, Pages 123-93   

Document Type: case study

DOI: 10.22067/jgrd.2021.70976.1046

Author

Hadi Sarvari^*

Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Development, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

The study aimed to discover the relationship between the interests of the stakeholders and the weight of different stages of the city development strategy plan for Kashmar, Iran. Taking a cooperative approach, the development strategy program tries to appeal the cooperation of beneficiaries for maximizing the effectiveness of city development programs. The development program of Kashmar has also been planned to provide the ground for filling the gap that can be seen between stakeholders and the citiey’s long-term development regarding the so significant pilgrimage and services dimensions. The cooperation of the stakeholders, however, should follow the realization of their interests and plannings should care the issue. The applied research used a descriptive-analytical method and quality function deployment technique. The technique is used for translating customers or stakeholders’ demands into the features of product. That is, all demands of stakeholders are clearly and remarkabley determined and prioritized for planners. The population of the study are managers of the institutions benefiting from urban development of Kashmar and experts in urban planning. The questionnaires were purposefully distributed among the the population. Validity of the study was confiremd by a group of experts and its reliability was confirmed by parallel method. The findings showed that the most significant benefits from imprtant stakeholders’ perspective are developing rail and air access, preseving water resources, and boosting economic interactions with the influential parts of the city. The results showed that the most significant stages in preparing the development strategy plan of the city which planners should consider in fulfilling important interests of the stakeholders are compliance with the highier-rank plans, connecting the plan with the current structure, and making inter-departmental agreements. Ensuring the most important interests of major stakeholders through urban planners’ endeavors in more effective stages of city development strategy planning would significantly contribute to the fulfimenent of urban development plans.
 

Keywords

Stakeholders; City Development Strategy Process; Benefits; Quality Function Deployment; Kashmar City

References

 

1. آذرگون، ن.، منصوری، ا.، و براتی، ن. (1394). ارائه شاخص‌های سنجش و ارزیابی توسعة پایدار شهری در طر‌ح‌های توسعة راهبردی شهری با استفاده از مدل کارت امتیاز متعادل. مجله معماری و شهرسازی آرمانشهر، 1(23)، 265-281.
2. براتی، ن.، و سرداری، م. (1388). برنامه توسعة راهبردی (استراتژیک) شهری: برنامه توسعة راهبردی شهر قزوین تا سال 1410 (از تئوری تا عمل). انتشارات نوآوران دانشگاه پارسه. تهران.
3. پور احمد، ا.، دربان آستانه، ر.، و پورقربان، ش. (1395). نقش راهبرد توسعة شهری در مدیریت توسعة گردشگری مطالعه موردی: جزیره هرمز. فصلنامه مطالعات شهری، 1(19)، 36-56.
4. حاتمی‌نژاد، ح.، و فرجی ملایی، ا. (1390). امکان سنجی اجرای طرح‌های استراتژی توسعة شهری در ایران. مجله مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، 2(8)، 55-76.
5. حیاتی، م.، مشبکی اصفهانی، ا.، خورشیدی، ع.، و مرتضوی، م. (1397). ارائه الگوی مدیریت تعامل با ذی‌نفعان راهبردی بانک. مجله پژوهش‌های مدیریت منابع سازمانی، 8(2)، 57-73.
6. کاردار، س.، رحمانی، م.، و ملاآقاجانزاده، س. (1388). طرح استراتژی توسعة شهری رویکردی راهبردی و نوین در مدیریت، طراحی و برنامه ریزی شهری. مجله راهبرد، 18(52)، 183-200.
7. کاظمیان، غ.، و جلیلی، م. (1394). تحلیل قدرت ذی‌نفعان کلیدی در فرایند سیاست‌گذاری طرح جامع تهران. مجله نامه معماری و شهرسازی، 1(1)، 139-159.
8. مسعودی‌فر، ا. (1390). مدیریت ذی‌نفعان پروژه. مجله مدیریت پروژه، 6(17)، 34-45.
9. ملک‌زاده، ن.، مسعود ، م.، و داداش‌پور ، ه. (1391). سنجش میزان مشارکت ذی‌نفعان و ذی‌نفوذان در راهبرد توسعة شهری(نمونه موردی: منطقه 22شهرداری تهران). مجله شهر ایرانی اسلامی، 1(8)، 97-110.
10. مومنی، م.، و مرمضی، ح. (1386). ارتقای کیفیت خدمات امور مالی با به کارگیری QFD وAHP. مجله بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 14(48)، 105-124.
11. نوریان، ف.، و خاکپور، ا. (1396). ارائه مدلی جهت شناسایی بهره‌وران کلیدی در برنامه‌های شهری، نمونه موردی: ناحیه جوادیه منطقه 16 شهرداری تهران. مجله معماری و شهرسازی آرمانشهر، 1(19)، 271-281.
12. وزارت کشور. (1394). شرح خدمات براساس ابلاغیه سازمان شهرداری­ها و دهیاری­های کشور و دستورالعمل تهیه، تصویب، اجرا و پایش برنامه عملیات نوسازی و عمران و اصلاحات شهری (برنامه راهبردی- عملیاتی شهر و شهرداری). تهران: سازمان شهرداری­ها و دهیاری­های کشور.

 

13. Aaltonen, K., Jaakko, K. & Tuomas, O. (2008). Stakeholder’s salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 509-516.
14. Akao, Y. (1997). QFD: Past, present, and future. International Symposium on QFD Linköping, 97(2), 1-
15. Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002). Planning futures: New directions for planning theory. London: Routledge.
16. Andersen, S. E., & Nielsen, A. E. (2009). The city at stake: Stakeholder mapping. Linköping University. Journal of Current Cultural Research, (1), 305-329.
17. Baar, B. (2006). Using stakeholder Analysis in Software project Management. Rerieved from http://www.SoftwareProjects.org
18. Basedow, J., Westrope, C., & Meaux, A. (2017). Urban stakeholder engagement and coordination. Guidance note for humanitarian practitioners. London: IIED.
19. Calderon, C. (2013). Politicising participation: Towards a new theoretical approach to participation in the planning and design of public space. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
20. Calderon, C., & Westin, M. (2019). Understanding context and its influence on collaborative planning processes: A contribution to communicative planning theory. International Planning Studies, UK: Taylor & Francis Group.
21. Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. (2006). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. Mason Thompson Learning.
22. Cities Alliance. (2006). City development strategy: A conceptual framework. Washington, DC: Cities Alliance.
23. Cities Alliance. (2010). Annual Report. The 2010 Annual Report focuses on the transition process undertaken by the Cities Alliance over the course of the year. Retrieved from https://www.citiesalliance.org.
24. Cities Alliance. (2017(. City Development Strategies 2.0. Rue Royale 94. Belgium: Brussels.
25. Clarke, T. (1997). Measuring and managing stakeholder relations, Journal of Communica-tion Management, 12(3), 211–221.
26. Didier, S., Morange, M., & Peyroux, E. (2012). The adaptive nature of neoliberalism at the local scale: Fifteen years of city improvement districts in Cape Town and Johannesburg. Antipode, 45(1), 121–139.
27. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholdertheory of the corporation concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, (20), 65-91.
28. ECON Analysis and Centre for Local Government, University of Technology, Sydney [ECON & CLG, UTS]. (2005). The impacts of city development strategies. Brussels, Belgium: Cities Alliance.
29. Flyvbjerg, B., & Richardson, T. (2002). Planning and foucault: In Allmendinger, & M. Tewdwr-Jones (pp. 44-62). Planning futures: New directions for planning theory. London: Routledge.
30. Forester, J. (1987). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(3), 303-314.
31. Freeman, R. E., & McVea, J. (2005). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Social Science Research Network Electronic.
32. Freeman, R., & Edward. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
33. Friedmann, J. (1993). Toward a non-Euclidian mode of planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(4), 482–485.
34. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies, MacMillan Press: London.
35. Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.
36. Healey, P. (2004). The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(1), 45–67.
37. Healey, P. (2006). Transforming governance: Challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies, 14(3), 299–320.
38. Holgerson, F., & Haarstad, H. (2009). Class, community and communicative planning. Antipode, 41(2), 348-370.
39. Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(4), 333–342.
40. Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the Network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge.
42. Innes, J., & Booher. D, (2014). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 14(2), 195–213.
43. Jayasena, N. S., Mallawaarachchi, H., & Waidyasekara, K. G. A. S. (2019). Stakeholder analysis for smart city development project: An extensive literature review. MATECWeb of Conferences, 266, 06012.
44. Kahane, D., Loptson, K., Herriman, J. & Hardy, M. (2013). Stakeholder and citizen roles in public deliberation. Journal of Public Delibration, 9(2), 1-35.
45. Konrad, A., Steurer, R., Langer, ME., & Martinuzzi, A. (2006). Empirical findings on business society relations in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, (63), 89-105.
46. Laws, D., & Forester, J. (2015). Conflict, improvisation, governance: Street level practices for urban democracy. New York: Routledge.
47. Le Feuvre, M., Medway, D., Warnaby, G., Ward, K. & Goatman, A. (2016). Understanding stakeholder interactions in urban partnerships. Cities, (52), 55-65.
48. Lindenau, M., & Bohler-Baedeker, S. (2014). Citizen and stakeholder involvement: A precondition for sustainability urban mobility. ScinceDirect, Transportation Research Procedia, (4), 347-360.
49. Lipietz, B. (2008). Building a vision for the post-apartheid city: What role for participation in Johannesburg's city development strategy? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 135–163.
50. Macedo, E., & Pinho, J. (2006). The relationship between resource dependence and market orientation: The specific case of non-profit organizations. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 533-553.
51. McGuirk, P. M. (2001). Situating communicative planning theory: Context, power, and knowledge. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 33(2), 195–217.
52. Midgley, J., Hall, A., Hardiman, M., & Narine, D. (1986). Community participation, social development and the state. London: Methuen.
53. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
54. Parnell, S., & Robinson, J. (2006). Development and urban policy: Johannesburg's city development strategy. Urban Studies, 43(2), 337–355.
55. Rasoolimanesh, S., Badarulzaman, N., & Jaafar, M. (2013). A review of city development strategies success factors. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 8(3), 62–78.
56. Rasoolimanesh, S., Badarulzaman, N., & Jaafar, M. (2016). City development strategy: theoretical background, themes, and building blocks. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 20(2), 285-297.
57. Soma, K., Dijkshoorn-Dekker, M.W.C., & Polman, N.B.P. (2018). Stakeholder contributions through transition urban sustainability. Journal of Sustainability Cities and Society, (37), 438-450.
58. Strong, K.C., Ringer, R.C., & Taylor, S.A. )2001(. The rules of stakeholder satisfaction (timeliness, honesty, empathy). Journal of Business Ethics, (32), 219–230.
59. Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Allmendinger, P. (1998). Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: A Critique of Habermasian Collaborative Planning. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, (30), 1975–1989.
60. Un-Habitate. (2004-2009). Kismu city development strategies, Prepared by Kismu city council and center for development and planning management.
61. Un-habitate. (2010). Citywide strategic planning: A guideline. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Program (UNHABITAT).
62. World Bank. (2000). City development strategy (CDS) South Asia region. Progress report 2002.
63. Wu, X. (2007). Stakeholder identifying and positioning (SIP) models: from Google’s operation in China to general case analysis framework. Public Relations Review, (33), 415-425.
64. Zhang, L. Y. (2013). City development strategies and the transition towards a green urban economy. The Economy of Green Cities, (3), 231–240.