Elsevier

Cities

Volume 21, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 29-39
Cities

Planning Just-in-Time versus planning Just-in-Case

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2003.10.007Get rights and content

Abstract

In this paper we introduce a distinction between two forms of planning: Just-in-Case planning versus Just-in-Time planning. The first refers to the traditional mode of planning as currently practiced in most urban and regional planning agencies, whereas the second, is what planning in a self-organizing system might be. The key notion behind this distinction is Just-in-Time—a method of production and management that marks the current transformation from 20th century Fordism to 21st century post-Fordism. In our paper we relate this distinction to the Israeli planning experience and suggest preliminary principles for a new, Just-in-Time, planning approach.

Introduction

Two main areas of criticism can be identified in current planning thought. The first, the post-modern approach, rejects absolute truth and reason. It challenges modern thinking by condemning attempts to rationalize reality as being false and irrelevant. In regards to urban planning, the postmodern claim is that science is incapable of controlling society and space, and should not try to do so. If it is not the immediacy of creating local delight that replaces the just and rational objectives of city planning (Harvey, 1989, Soja, 1989, Goodchild, 1990, Cooke, 1990, Portugali, 1994, Portugali, 1999), than it is talking and communicating. Hence, the communicative approach, well presented in the writings of Forester, 1989, Forester, 1999, Healey, 1992, Healey, 1993, Healey, 1996 and Innes, 1996, Innes, 1998, attempts to make planners aware of the uses of discussion, communication and information delivery, while promoting the value of “pragmatic judgment in planning” (Forester, 1999, 190).

The second is the self-organization approach, which refers to systems (such as the city) that are complex and open in the sense that their boundaries allow a flow of material and information, and are difficult to predict or govern. Order and stability spontaneously emerge from within the system, through a process called “self organization”. The city, from the self-organization point of view, is full of planning; a huge number of planning actors, including individuals, families, firms of all sizes and official city planners operate in the city, preparing plans for a variety of built elements: farmhouses and residential buildings, offices and industrial structures, shopping centers, neighborhoods, roads, parks. The spatial order of the city is seemingly innate, as a result of the ongoing relationships between the various plans with each other, and the built environment. Therefore, the aim of urban planning to regulate or make order out of what occurs in the city is doomed to fail (Portugali, 1994, Portugali, 1999).

Most commentators on western planning systems, as well as Israeli planners and administrators, are of course aware of these approaches. The fact is, however, that most existing planning systems, including the Israeli, are still modeled on modern rational planning theory. Planning today, as shown in legal and bureaucratic frameworks of planning, is procedural and comprehensive. This is also the case with the Israeli planning system, that in line with modern planning thought forms a hierarchical, authoritative structure that assumes a top-to-bottom order and flow of ideas (Yiftachel, 1995, Yiftachel, 1998, Kallus and Law Yone, 2002, Shachar, 1998, Portugali, 1994, Portugali, 1999).

A new point of view on planning theory and practice—the Just-in-Time (JIT) approach—was introduced by us in Portugali (1999). There, we developed a three-step argument: first, we called the main stream of urban planning, as it is theorized and practiced today, “push planning”, after “push management”, the modern scientific Fordist approach to management and manufacturing. Then, we made a further distinction between “push planning and management” and another type of planning, termed “pull planning and management”. Third, we showed that “pull planning and management” is highly suited to the open, complex nature of the self-organized city. In addition, we provided preliminary practical guidelines for the self-planned environment.

Our aim in this paper is to go beyond our previous work in three new different directions: first, to highlight the ways in which planning Just-in-Time (JIT) and Just-in-Case (JIC) relate to current planning issues in Israel. In particular, we will explore the tensions that exist between certainty and discretion in planning, as elaborated by Booth, 1996, Tewdwr-Jones, 1999 and Cullingworth (1994), and connect it with the Israeli case. Second, we will address the issue of planning during times of crisis, as described by Alterman (1995) with respect to the absorption of the large immigration wave Israel has faced during the 1990s. Third, our paper will emphasize what we regard to be one of the most significant aspects of JIT planning—the democratization of planning.

However, before we begin this journey, we will take a quick introductory look at the meaning of JIT (Just-in-Time) and JIC (Just-in-Case) planning systems and their relations to self-organization. This discussion will provide the point of departure for the discussion that follows.1

Section snippets

Push management

Currently, push planning is the dominant approach to western manufacturing and management. It is also termed Taylorism (after Taylor’s Scientific Management 1911/1947) and Fordism (after the mechanized mass-production methods pioneered by Henry Ford (1863–1947)). Although management has developed considerably since the beginning of the 20th century, push management continues to have a central role in industrial production and management (Hay, 1988).

The “push” describes a manufacturing chain in

Planning Just-in-Case

As already indicated, 20th century planning theory and practice originates from the same scientific background as the Fordist approach. Modern planning theory views the city as a machine that has to be planned in detail. Accordingly, 1965 Israeli Planning and Building Law is based on the suppositions that detailed planning must be comprehensive and should precede any attempts to meet future needs. This atmosphere matched with the early stages of nation building, when due to the ongoing

Certainty and discretion

The Israeli planning system, like most other western systems, has a growing gap between its formal structure and the actual dynamics that take place. Mainly, an inconsistency is created by the contrast between top-to-bottom strategic planning, inherent in hierarchical organizations and legislation, and the actual bottom-to-top practice of planning and decision-making. According to Booth, 1996, Tewdwr-Jones, 1999, and Cullingworth (1994), who observe this situation in wide range of western

JIT Tel Aviv versus JIC Beer-Sheva

In the South of Israel, the housing markets of Beer-Sheva and of the northern Negev region have been in an ongoing push-planning situation. For many years, Israeli governments have shared the vision of populating the country’s periphery, including the Negev. In addition to the establishment of public services in the city of Beer-Sheva (like the Soroka Medical Center in 1960 and Ben Gurion University of the Negev in 1970), governments worked at offering affordable housing in the region. During

Planning in times of crisis, or: The urban housing supermarket

Urban planning’s objectives of certainty and stability raise the question of what occurs in planning during times of crisis? “Crisis” is a situation in which the common uncertainties are amplified, when the known order is severely disturbed and when, as a result, even the short term becomes enigmatic. Since predictability cannot provide a useful framework for times of crisis, spatial planning must look for new outlines. Christensen (1985) defined the quadrant in which ‘not agreed’ goals meet

Discussion: A JIT planning system and its feasibility

The questions that emerge out of the above case studies are: first, how would a JIT planning system operate? Which bodies would conduct the definition of planning laws and their application to the plans and to the built environment? And then, how feasible might a JIT planning system be? In other words, can current JIC planning system in Israel be smoothly transformed into JIT systems or must it be revolutionized completely? And, given the conservative tendencies of administrations, does a JIT

Concluding notes

JIC planning systems are in a crisis situation. This shows up in academic studies and in the practice of planning—that is, in the observation noted above that non-statutory planning documents and procedures replace the ‘out of date’ statutory practices. On the one hand, this situation indicates that planning is ripe for a change, on the other, a threat to its democracy. The absence of statutory plans gives exceeding power to individuals. The city of Tel Aviv, for example, has no statutory plan.

References (46)

  • N. Alfasi

    Is public participation making urban planning more democratic? The Israeli experience

    Planning Theory and Practice

    (2003)
  • R. Alterman

    Can planning help in time of crisis? Planners’ responses to Israel’s recent wave of mass immigration

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (1995)
  • R. Alterman

    National-level planning in Israel: walking the tightrope between government control and privatization

  • B. Atkin et al.

    Israel: High Pressure Planning

    (1966)
  • P. Booth

    Controlling Development: Certainty and Discretion in Europe, the USA and Hong Kong. The Natural and built Environment Series 9

    (1996)
  • E. Brutzkus

    Regional Policy in Israel

    (1970)
  • M. Castells

    The Rise of the Network Society

    (1996)
  • B. Charniavsky

    Lessons from housing construction for immigration absorption

    Karka

    (1993)
  • K.S. Christensen

    Coping with uncertainty in planning

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (1985)
  • P. Cooke

    Modern urban theory in question

    Institute of British Geographers

    (1990)
  • B.J. Cullingworth

    Alternate planning systems: is there anything to learn from abroad?

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (1994)
  • J. Forester

    Planning In the Face of Power

    (1989)
  • J. Forester

    The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes

    (1999)
  • B. Goodchild

    Planning and the modern/postmodern debate

    Town Planning Review

    (1990)
  • T. Gronning

    The emergence and institutionalization of Toyotism: Subdivision and integration of the labour force at the Toyota Motor Corporation from the 1950s to the 1970s

    Economic and Industrial Democracy

    (1997)
  • D. Harvey

    The Condition of Postmodernity

    (1989)
  • E.J. Hay

    The Just-in-Time Breakthrough

    (1988)
  • P. Healey

    A planner’s day—knowledge and action in communicative practice

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (1992)
  • P. Healey

    The communicative work of development plans

    Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design

    (1993)
  • P. Healey

    The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation

    Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design

    (1996)
  • M. Hill

    Israeli planning in an age of turbulence

  • J.E. Innes

    Planning through consensus building: a new view of the comprehensive planning ideal

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (1996)
  • J.E. Innes

    Information in communicative planning

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (1998)
  • Cited by (62)

    • Losing faith in planning

      2020, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The history of special planning commissions goes back to the early 1990s, when Israel faced the massive in-migration of Jewish people from former USSR origin. Expediting planning process appeared as a crucial component in the national effort to build new housing (Altermann, 1995; Alfasi and Portugali, 2004). The government thus decided to construct interim district level commissions (named Housing Construction Commissions, HCCs) working beside the DPBCs for dealing with large housing plans, including at least 200 units each (Fig. 3a).

    • From abstract principles to specific urban order: Applying complexity theory for analyzing Arab-Palestinian towns in Israel

      2017, Cities
      Citation Excerpt :

      At the same time, the development of the built environment remained an internal Palestinian issue; for decades, the state maintained an indifferent attitude toward the internal structure of the Arab towns, and the villages grew and developed according to abstract values rather than a clear land-use plan (Khamaisi, 1995, 2004, 2005, 2007). This method of planning-without-a-plan, that is, building towns and cities subject to abstract principles rather than a comprehensive outline, is related to complexity science and the self-organization of the built environment (Ben Hamouche, 2009; Moroni, 2010, 2015; Alfasi & Portugali, 2004, 2007, 2009; Alfasi, 2014). In this paper we elaborate on this idea and tie the changing order of the built environments to the evolution of planning principles.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text