Project management as an anti-planning measure for the effective preparation and implementation of the urban development plans in the Global South

Abstract

The preparation of urban development plans and their implementation for urban development in the Global South are often not treated as projects, despite the time, cost and other resource implications. Urban development plan preparation and implementation often overrun their schedule, and cost and at times become uncertain. So, an argument has emerged that plan preparation and implementation should be managed by the use of project management principles. Thus, the objective of the study was to explore the challenges in the preparation of urban plans and their implementation and how project management as an anti-planning measure can improve efficiency in these aspects. A Delphi research method involving surveys among urban planning and project management professionals and experts was used. Findings suggest that the preparation of plans and implementation suffer from several challenges under the conventional process. However, project management can become an anti-planning measure and enable the preparation of plans and implementation efficiently. As advocated by anti-planning, it can enable keeping a journal of the occurrences regularly which would allow diagnosis of the challenges and to take appropriate remedial interventions. Practically, it can enable controlling the schedule, cost, and resources and eliminate uncertainty in urban planning and implementation.

Keywords:

• anti-planning
• planning
• project management
• schedule
• urban plan

Public interest statement

Plan preparation and implementation of plans for urban development are complex problems. They incur time, cost and other resources. Often the plan preparation and implementation face severe challenges resulting to delay, cost overruns and uncertainty. Specifically, such problems occur in the countries in the Global South. Therefore, it is hypothesized in this article that project management as an anti-planning measure if incorporated to the planning and implementation processes, efficiency in both planning and implementation of plans can be attained. This study established that project management can become an anti-planning measure and it would enable the preparation of plans and implementation efficiently through keeping a journal of the occurrences regularly which would allow diagnosis of the challenges and to take appropriate remedial interventions. Most importantly, it can assist to control the schedule, cost, and resources and eliminate uncertainty in the preparation of urban development plans and their implementation.

1. Introduction

Urban areas are central to the economic development of any country. They are considered the engines of economic growth ((Duranton, 2008; Floater et al., 2014; Gouldson et al., 2015; Spence et al., 2009; World Bank, 1991). Urban areas or cities evolve continuously and are highly dynamic. The smooth functioning of urban areas and their sustainable development require coordinated and effective interlinkage among the various physical, spatial and infrastructural elements as well as their interaction with the socio-economic activities and the environment. The development of the various elements in urban areas and their interlinkage, and coordinated function require apposite planning and effective implementation of the plans. Further, experience from urban development in Global South, for example, countries such as India, suggests that despite the availability of rules, planning regulations and control measures, the growth of the urban areas often goes out of control with unsatisfactory development of infrastructure and public services (Ahluwalia et al., 2014), which is argued to be a result of poor planning and implementation of the plans.

Plan preparation and implementation of the plans for the development of various physical, spatial and infrastructural elements that would help in the functioning of the socio-economic, and transportation activities and influence the environment are complex processes. The preparation of the plans and their implementation are often conducted by a team of professionals mandated by a designated authority such as the Government, urban development authorities or municipalities. Planning and implementation incur resources such as time, cost and human resources. However, the preparation of urban development plans and their implementation are scarcely treated as projects, specifically in the countries of the Global South despite the time, cost and other resource implications (Ahuja, 2015). These are usually undertaken by the urban planning and development authorities following conventional processes. For example, plan preparation follows a sequential process of establishing plan objectives, data collection, data analyses, development of alternate plans, public notification, stakeholder engagement, evaluation of plans and finalisation of plans. Similarly, the implementation of plans is conducted by developing schemes and projects from the plans, tendering, allocating the work, executing the work, completing the work and closing the project. However, experience has evidenced that the plan preparation and their implementation usually overrun the schedule, and cost and at times become uncertain.¹ So, an argument has emerged that the plan preparation and implementation should be treated as projects and managed according to the project management principles. Moreover, arguments have also emerged that anti-planning (not no planning) could assist in enhancing the efficiency of plan preparation and the effectiveness of the implementation of the plans (Das, 2014; Newport, 2013; Thomson, 1983). The advocates of anti-planning argue that it enables the keeping of journals of the events and occurrences on a daily basis that would assist to diagnose the pitfalls and challenges and take corrective measures (Das, 2014; Newport, 2013), which would be beneficial for both plan preparation and implementation.

However, the extant literature on plan preparation and implementation suggests studies on the role of project management and anti-planning in plan preparation and implementation of plans are limited. For example, Ahuja (2015) argued that project management would enhance the efficacy of infrastructure development or urban renewal projects. Similarly, Mui and Sankaran (2004) observed that a model premised on project organizational structure, team structure, attributes of team members, stakeholder management, communication, and information technology enablers can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of urban renewal project implementation. Moreover, according to Jack et al. (2016), lack of standardised project design and failure to adhere to project management regulations, and lack of continuity in government inhibit urban development projects. In other words, project management can play a crucial role in urban plan preparation and implementation. Similarly, the incorporation of anti-planning in planning and implementation could be beneficial (Das, 2014; Gandy, 2006; Thomson, 1983). However, empirical studies, on the impact of anti-planning on urban plan preparation and implementation are scarce as evidenced by extant literature on urban planning theory and practice. Moreover, the role of project management as an anti-planning measure has not been explored despite its potential to contribute to the efficacy (Ahuja, 2015; Jack et al., 2016) at the different steps of plan preparation and implementation of the plans. Consequently, a research gap exists in terms of whether project management can be an anti-planning measure and how it can contribute to the efficacy of plan preparation and its implementation for urban development. Therefore, the study examined the following research questions such as:

(1) What are the challenges that plague plan preparation and implementation? and

(2) How project management as an anti-planning measure would improve the efficiency of plan preparation and implementation for urban areas?

Consequently, the objective of the study was to explore the linkage between project management and anti-planning in plan preparation and implementation so that efficiency can be affected. In other words, the study examined the challenges encountered in the plan preparation and their implementation and how the principles of project management as an anti-planning measure can assist in efficient plan preparation and implementation.

For this purpose, the perspectives of urban planning, anti-planning and project management premised upon extant literature are first examined, which is articulated in the next section. Followed by the research methods adopted for this study which include data collection, data analyses and model estimation are presented. Results obtained and Discussions made are presented in the next two sections. Finally, the conclusions and contributions of the study are elicited.

2. Urban planning, anti-planning and project management perspectives

2.1 Urban Planning, plan preparation and implementation

Planning is the conscious determination of a future course of action to achieve the desired result. Future events, instead of leaving them to chance, are made to happen in a certain recognized manner through planning. Planning involves choosing a course of action from all available alternatives for accomplishing the desired results with judicious use of resources, within a limited time and with certainty (Ogolo, 2011; Seeley, 1962). It sketches a complete mental picture of things yet to happen in an enterprise or organization through the process of looking ahead. The proposed course of action is charted out in greater detail with the help of a complex chain of plans such as policies, procedures, programmes, budgets and so on focused on the objectives.

In the context of urban areas, urban planning should basically concern itself with the physical framework in which the social, political, and economic life of the community takes place (Admasu & Jenberu, 2020; Jenberu & Admasu, 2019; Moore, 1978). In the spatial and physical sense, urban planning revolves around the issues of how best to arrange land and buildings to meet the needs of a modern urban civilization (Hiraskar, 2007; Rajendra, 2014). However, planning, since the dawn of the industrial era has been dominated by the pervasive idea of efficiency, which implies a condition in which a specified task is performed with low inputs of resources (Rittel & Webber, 1973). It is seen as a process of designing problem solutions that might be installed and operated economically. It is also considered a problem, which can be assigned to technically skilled personnel to accomplish the objective or could be relied upon by the efficiency of the experts who could diagnose the problem and solve it while simultaneously reducing the resource input (Rittel & Webber, 1973). However, two aspects such as urban plans and regulations are vital for urban development. According to Kaiser, Godshalk, Chapin (1995) and Neuman, (1998), plans can be seen as sets of agendas, policies, designs and strategies for physical development, encapsulated in a two-dimensional layout of the physical form of the city. On the other hand, urban development regulations are binding rules concerning ‘what is built, where it is built, and when and how it is built. Generally, these take the form of land use regulations, zoning ordinances and building codes having the forces of law, which the city development authorities or council are bound to follow (Birch, 2008: 142). So, both are intertwined. However, the planned endeavour in the urban areas brings clearly both positive and negative socio-economic outcomes simultaneously (Goodfellow, 2013; Todes, 2011). In other words, planning entails identifying the actions that might effectively narrow the gap between what is and what needs to be (Rittel & Webber, 1973).

Rittel and Webber (1973) argue that the planning system or plan preparation process can be seen as an ongoing, cybernetic process of governance, incorporating systematic procedures for continuously searching out goals; identifying problems; forecasting uncontrollable contextual changes; inventing alternative strategies, tactics, and times sequenced actions; stimulating alternative and plausible action sets and their consequences; evaluating alternatively forecasted outcomes; statistically monitoring those conditions of the public and of systems that are judged to be relevant; feeding back information to the simulation and decision channels so that errors can be corrected—all in a simultaneously functioning governing process (Das, 2014). However, counterarguments have emerged that such a complex set of steps leading to planning is highly unattainable and likely to falter because planners deal with societal problems, which are largely wicked in nature- that are inherently different from the definable problems that scientists and perhaps some classes of engineers deal with (Beck et al., 2011; Hardin, 1998; Rittel & Webber, 1973. In the case of planning problems in urban areas, which are essentially complex social issues and like other wicked problems, they have no stopping rule, there is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution (Beck et al., 2011; Das, 2014) and every solution to a wicked problem is a one-shot operation (Rittel & Webber, 1973). In contrast, according to some scholars, urban planning is simply considered a technical and apolitical exercise (Stone, 1993; Ward, 1996).

However, evidence and experiences from history suggest that urban planning has met with numerous failures than successes (Admasu & Jenberu, 2020). Examples of failures of planning range date back 1960s and 1970s or before the current decades. For example, the failure of the infrastructure and housing development process of Caracas, the capital of Venezuela in the 1970s led to congested and overcrowded housing areas and the growth of illegal settlements and shanty towns as against the intended planned and affordable housing provision (Thomson, 1983). Similarly, in India, there are several examples of the lack of intended success of different urban development programmes that include Integrated Development of Small & Medium Towns (IDSMT), Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Programmes (JNNRUM), etc. For instance, JNNURM was launched in 2005 for 7 years until 2012 for a few selected cities. However, it was extended until 2014. It was aimed at achieving integrated development of infrastructure services in cities, establishing linkages between asset-creation and asset management for long-term project sustainability, ensuring adequate funds to meet the deficiencies in urban infrastructural services, enabling planned development of cities including peri-urban areas, outgrowths and urban corridors for dispersed urbanization, and improving delivery and universal access of civic amenities and provision of utilities. However, the mission allegedly did not realise its intended aims fully and was replaced by another mission- the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) yojana (plan) in 2015 with a specific focus on urban renewal projects for infrastructure development such as robust sewerage networks and water supply for urban transformation. Moreover, the peculiar combination of the up-market aristocracy (like Bangalore and Gurgaon) fueled by private investors or international financiers like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank) (Goldman, 2008: 3, Roy, 2009), and impregnable slums (a classic case of Mumbai) (Roy, 2009) created by lopsided developments in the cities of India are also glaring examples of the failure of urban planning. Similarly, the infrastructure scenario in Lagos, one of the largest cities in Africa is almost deplorable (Gandy, 2006); or mismatch between the structural plan and national planning standard in the case of Arba Minch town in Ethiopia (Admasu & Jenberu, 2020) are some other examples in the Global South.

Planning is being “revisited” and “reinvented” to play new roles in managing the growth of cities in ways that promote their sustainability, inclusiveness and livability (Todes, 2011). New approaches to planning have been evolving for some time. For example, the 2006 Vancouver Declaration developed for the World Planners Congress, “Reinventing Planning: A New Governance Paradigm for Managing Human Settlements”, talks of the importance of a new urban planning system (Todes, 2011), and Planning Sustainable Cities’ Habitat (2009), which reflects on the past and present concepts and practices of planning across the world, and suggests directions for change. According to the critics, the “master planning” approach that dominated formal planning practice does not address the real conditions and dynamics of rapidly growing cities in developing countries, and the extent of poverty, inequality and informality (Das, 2014; Engida, 2013; Habitat, 2009; Keeton & Nijhuis, 2019). Plans are static instruments, which take so long to produce that they become outdated fast, and paid little attention to implementation, although planning traditions and practices vary considerably. Therefore, the contextuality of planning and the need to develop locally appropriate systems of planning are essential (Das, 2014; Healey, 2004:47; Todes, 2011).

2.2 Anti-planning

In contrast to planning which requires figuring out in advance when and how to accomplish objectives, anti-planning advocates throwing out all such rules and just diving in, and adapting the best as possible to the circumstances. However, it entails keeping a record of the experience, capturing the thoughts, triumphs, frustrations and achievements for later review, and learning from them to do better in future (Das, 2014; Newport, 2013). The theory behind anti-planning is that it exposes a much wider swath of the productivity plan landscape. The problems can be seen on a hierarchical level from simple to complex, which would allow seeing things from new viewpoints, assimilating complex concepts, and addressing real-world problems and opportunities like the Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007). Like the Last Planner system, it envisages working toward planned accomplishments, doing what can be done to move along a planned path, and when that becomes impossible, determining alternative paths that accomplish desired goals (Richert, 2017). Newport (2013) argues that the journal will keep things updated on how well things are going, which provides the selective pressure needed to drive towards some novel approaches to get the work done.

In the landscape of urban development, there are four things, which come out from the anti-planning arguments. First, the things which start bad may end up good and the things which start great may not necessarily end up so great but rather may go worse (Thomson, 1983). Second, the law of nature and natural growth always do not obey the theories of planning. It is not always possible to contain natural growth and therefore it is necessary to respect the law of nature and natural growth. Third, people are the best to understand and know what is best for them and planning does not adhere to that. Fourth, from the spatial development point of view, anti-planning advocates that urban planning should first consider the land for other functions such as agriculture, economic development and ecological environment and not for construction (Chang et al., 2010; Das, 2014). Thus, anti-planning is not opposed to planning or no planning as seen by many. It argues against what planning is all about- it needs to see what is not needed to do than what is needed to be done (Beck et al., 2011; Das, 2014; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Anti-planning suggests that it is critical for planners to anticipate more, and to be confronted with the reality that something might not happen to facilitate the happening of another thing. It boils down to priorities, respecting the law of nature, people, and natural growth and determining alternate paths when it is not possible to move along a predetermined planned path. In other words, it offers a pragmatic and innovative approach that leads to efficiency and provides opportunities for constant adaptive learning (contrary to the conventional urban planning process (Cowley & Caprotti, 2019). Thus, it is not necessarily against planning but provides a way to plan based on the four hypotheses discussed above so that the time-consuming expensive plans do not go to waste leaving the cities in peril (Das, 2014).

2.3 Project management and its role in plan preparation and implementation for urban development

According to PMBOK Guide (2022), project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirement. It is the practice of initiating, planning, executing, controlling, and closing the work of a team to achieve the desired objectives within the specified time by judicious use of the resources (Issa & Tu, 2020). Plans can be treated as projects, in other words, as temporary endeavours designed to attain the set objectives within limited resources and time (Nokes, 2007; PMI, n.d.). It includes competing demands for scope, time, cost, risk and quality, identifying the requirements and managing stakeholders with differing needs in an iterative manner (PMBOK Guide, 2022).

Arguments have emerged to incorporate project management in the plan preparation and implementation of urban development plans (Ahuja, 2015; Jack et al., 2016). According to Ahuja (2015) and Mui and Sankaran (2004), project management is likely to bring efficiency specifically in the planning and implementation of urban renewal projects. Further, Jack et al. (2016) argued not adhering to project management regulations, causes the failure of urban development projects. However, evidence from the literature suggests that project management has been sporadically used and is yet to be integral to plan preparation and implementation.

A summary of constructs and dimensions related to planning, anti-planning and project management as evident from the extant literature is presented in Table 1. It was observed from the mainstream literature that very scarce studies have been conducted on the role of project management and anti-planning in plan preparation and implementation for urban development projects. Also, no significant studies have been conducted to explore whether project management can be an anti-planning tool, which might enhance the efficiency of plan preparation and implementation if incorporated. These two research gaps entail the justification of this study.

Table 1. Constructs and dimensions of planning, anti-planning and role of project management in planning and implementation evidenced in the literature

Constructs	Dimensions	Authors
Urban planning, Plan preparation and implementation	Defining planning	Ogolo (2011); Seeley (1962)
	Physical and spatial framework	Admasu and Jenberu (2020); Jenberu and Admasu (2019); Moore (1978)
	Scope and objectives of planning	Rittel and Webber (1973); Kaiser, Godshalk, Chapin (1995); Neuman, (1998)
	Land use regulations, zoning ordinances and building codes	Birch (2008); Goodfellow (2013)
	Wicked problem	Beck et al. (2011); Hardin (1998); Rittel and Webber (1973)
	Limitations and challenges of formal planning practices and	Admasu and Jenberu (2020); Das (2014); Engida (2013); Keeton and Nijhuis (2019); Habitat (2009)
	Outcomes of planning	Goldman (2008); Gandy (2006); Goodfellow (2013); Todes (2011); Roy (2009);
Anti-planning	Defining anti-planning and scope	Das (2014); Newport (2013)
	The theoretical background of anti-planning	Snowden and Boone (2007)
	Process followed in anti-planning	Newport (2013)
	Aspects related to urban planning	Chang et al. (2010); Das (2014); Thomson (1983)
	Planning versus anti-planning	Beck et al. (2011); Das (2014); Rittel and Webber (1973)
Project management and its role in urban planning and development	Defining project management and scope	PMBOK Guide (2021); Issa and Tu (2020)
	Plans as projects	Nokes (2007); PMI (n.d.)
	project management in the plan preparation and implementation	Ahuja (2015); Jack et al. (2016)
	Project management and efficiency	Ahuja (2015); Mui and Sankaran (2004
	Plan failure because of lack of use of Project management processes and regulations	Jack et al. (2016)

Premised upon the findings from the literature and objectives of the study a conceptual framework for this study was formulated and presented in Figure 1. It was argued that while conventional planning and implementation processes face severe challenges, the incorporation of project management as an anti-planning measure would be able to alleviate or reduce such planning and implementation challenges and bring efficiency.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study.

3. Research methods

A survey research method for the collection of data through a Delphi survey among relevant stakeholders in two rounds was used. Data were analysed by statistical analyses such as Relative Important Index (RII) estimations, Standard Deviation (SD), Coefficient of Variation (COV), and Inter Quartile Range (IQR). Also, Ordinal Regression model estimation was conducted. A schematic flow chart of the methodology used is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Schematic flow chart of the methodology used.

3.1 Data collection

Data were collected by surveying using the Delphi method. The Delphi method was used to capture the perceptions and beliefs of the stakeholders (Liggett et al., 2011). It is argued to be a practical and structured method to get opinions on a particular question from a group of experts in the related fields of the study and is usually used to obtain a consensus among the respondents which constitute the Delphi panel (Slade et al., 2014; Yousuf, 2007). According to Linstone and Turoff (1975, p.3), Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem (Hsu & Sandford, 2007; Ludwig, 1997; Massaroli et al., 2017). This forecasting technique collects qualitative or subjective information, though relatively accurate in a setting of imperfect information, by combining the knowledge and experience of experts in different fields. It necessitates gathering experts’ views anonymously through a questionnaire, analysing them and sending back to them a new questionnaire, which contains a previous exploration of the results from the initial information obtained, and allowing them to change their opinion if they so wish (controlled feedback) in an iterative manner of two to three rounds (Mustapha et al., 2018; Pulido-Fernández et al., 2013). According to scholars such as Miller (2006) in contrast to common surveys, which try to identify “what is,” the Delphi technique addresses “what could/should be” (Hsu & Sandford, 2007).

This method is found suitable for two reasons for this study. First, a lack of structured data related to plan preparation and implementation and the use of project management in such activities required collecting data from experts and experienced professionals from the relevant fields of study. Further, since this study is explorative and looks for a plausible change in the perspectives of the way urban planning and implementation are done and how project management can assist, this technique is deemed to be suitable.

The data was collected in two rounds from a range of experts belonging to two important countries of the Global South such as India and South Africa. These countries were selected because formal structures and agencies have been created for developing urban plans and implementing such plans at different spatial levels in these countries. Moreover, urban planning plays a crucial role in the development of these countries. For this purpose, initially, 21 experts which constitute 12 from India and 9 from South Africa were selected for the survey. These include urban planning and design professionals (8), architects (4), project managers (3), academicians from the field of architecture and urban planning (4) and urban development executives (officers in charge of implementation) (2). The selections were conducted based on their expertise and experience in the field of study. Of the 8 urban planning and design professionals, 2 are at the higher executive level, 5 are from the middle executive level and one is from the junior executive level. These urban development executives are well experienced (more than 10 years on the job). The architects were professional consultants with significant (more than 10 years) experience. Of the 3 project managers, 2 are at the middle management level and 1 has been working as an engineer for a considerable period before becoming a project manager. All the academicians selected belong to the mid-career group having significant (more than 7 years) of experience. However, after the first round, only 18 experts participated and three (one urban planning professional, one academician and one architect) did not participate. All the experts are well qualified (at least have a bachelor’s degree in the relevant field), have sufficient practical and work experience (more than 7 years of experience) and are considered experts in their field. So, the sample size and diversity of expertise are found to be acceptable (Donohoe & Needham, 2009; Garrod & Fyall, 2005; Lin & Song, 2014; Rowe & Wright, 2001; Sobaih et al., 2012).

The questions asked include the aspects related to the process of urban plan preparation, challenges faced during the plan preparation, challenges concerning implementation, the role of anti-planning and how project management can assist. A Likert scale having pointers ranging between 1 (lowest importance) and 5 (highest importance), where 1 indicates very low, 2 indicates low, 3 indicates fair, 4 indicates high and 5 signifies very high was used to receive the perceptions and opinions. After the first round, the results were sent to the experts to confirm or change their opinions. The anonymity of the panel members and responses were kept to avoid individual and mutual prejudices and biases (Lin & Song, 2014; Lin et al., 2014; Song et al., 2013).

The data was collected on three constructs such as (1) the challenges in the urban planning process, (2) the challenges in the implementation of the plans, and (3) the role of project management and anti-planning in the planning and implementation (Table 2). The constructs and attributes were delineated before the preparation of the questionnaire after discussing with the relevant stakeholders of urban development and experts. The first round of data was collected in July-September 2018 and the second round was conducted between August and October 2019. The survey was conducted with the help of research assistants by using Pen and Paper Interviewing (PAPI) method.

Table 2. Constructs and attributes of urban planning, implementation and project management

Constructs	Attribute ID	Attributes
Challenges in the urban planning process	UP01	Lack of human resource
	UP02	Availability of financial resources
	UP03	Timely decision-making by the authorities
	UP04	Data availability
	UP05	Schedule overruns
	UP06	Cost overruns
	UP07	Bureaucratic bottlenecks
	UP08	Stakeholders engagement
	UP09	Implementation of stakeholders’ opinions
	UP10	Political and pressure group interference
	UP11	Review, monitoring and control
	UP12	Evaluation of alternate plans and options
	UP13	Final decision-making and final plan preparations
Challenges concerning implementation	IM01	Decision on implementation
	IM02	Resource availability
	IM03	Cost challenges
	IM04	Schedule challenges
	IM05	Challenges with regard to implementing agencies
	IM06	Review, monitoring and control
	IM07	Interference of stakeholders
	IM08	Interference of pressure groups, bureaucracy and political groups
Role of project management as an anti-planning measure	PMAP01	Creation of project charter and initiation of the project and mandate
	PMAP01	Preparation schedule
	PMAP01	Procurement of resources
	PMAP01	Control of budget and costs
	PMAP01	Execution of the plans according to schedule and availability of resources
	PMAP01	Stakeholders’ engagement, implementation of their demands
	PMAP01	Control of the schedule and resources
	PMAP01	Review and monitoring of the execution of the plans
	PMAP01	Keeping a journal of daily progress and challenges and taking remedial interventions

3.2 Data analyses and model estimation

The data collected were analysed under three aspects. These aspects include the relative importance of challenges of urban planning or plan preparation, the relative importance of challenges concerning the implementation of the urban development plans and the relative influence of project management aspects as anti-planning measures. The relative importance of challenges concerning plan preparation and implementation was evaluated by using the Relative Importance Indices (RIIs), standard deviation (SD), inter-quartile range (IQR), and coefficient of variation (CV). The RIIs, SD, IQR, and COV were calculated from the responses received from the respondents on the Likert scale. Equation 1 was used to estimate the RIIs. The RIIs signify the relative importance of the challenges in a hierarchical order. However, SD was used to examine the consistency of the responses. A low SD value (<1.0) (in the context of a scale between 1 and 5) indicates consistent responses from the respondents. Similarly, COV and IQR were used to examine the consensus among the respondents on RIIs. The IQR which represents 50% of assessments between the lower quartile (Q1) and upper quartile (Q3) is widely used as a robust measure of consensus in Delphi studies (von der Gracht, 2012). A threshold value of IQR ≤1.0 is considered to have established the consensus (von der Gracht, 2012). Similarly, a COV value of less than 30% (variation) indicates consensus. Consequently, the simultaneous use of the four above-mentioned indicators (RII. SD, COV, and IQR) was made to determine the relative importance of the challenges of plan preparation and implementation (Eric, Fidelis, Das, 2022).

(1) $\mathrm{RII}={\sum }_1^{\mathrm{N}}\frac{{\mathrm{w}}_{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{x}}_{\mathrm{i}}}{5\mathrm{N}}$(1)

Where; RII = Relative Importance Index which ranges between 0 and 1, w = weighting given to each factor (in this study all factors have been given equal weightage), x = Score frequency of i^th response to each factor, N = number of respondents for a particular influence factor.

The attributes having an RII value between 0.6 and 0.79 (on a scale of 0 to 1) were considered fairly important challenges. An RII value of 0.8 and above indicates a highly important challenge. However, the attributes having RIIs <0.6 were considered less challenging (Das, 2022).

The role of project management aspects in urban planning and implementation was evaluated by ordinal regression model estimation. The ordinal regression model is a typical regression model that is usually used to predict the behaviour of the ordinal dependent variable (in this case the impact of project management on planning and implementation) premised upon a set of independent variables (project management aspects). However, this model is only applicable if the values are available on an ordinal and arbitrary scale (Williams & Quiroz, 2020). Since data was collected on an ordinal scale for this study, this method is found to be suitable. The model was estimated to evaluate the relative importance and influence of different project management aspects as anti-planning measures to improve the efficiency of urban plan preparation and implementation. In this case, the various project management aspects were considered the predictor variables and the influence of these aspects was considered the dependent variable. The log-linked ordinal regression model was used for the model estimation. Equation 2 presents the log-linked ordinal regression model.

(2) $\mathrm{Pr}\left(\mathit{y}\le \mathit{\iota }\mathrm{Ix}\right)=\mathit{\sigma }({\mathit{\theta }}_{\iota }-\mathit{w}.\mathit{x})$(2)

Where Pr is the cumulative probability of the response $\mathit{y}$

$\mathit{y}$ being at most $\mathit{i}$ is given by a function $\mathit{\sigma }($the inverse link function) applied to a linear function of $\mathit{x}$.

The set of observations is represented by p-length vectors $\mathit{x}$

The logistic function $\mathit{\sigma }$ is given by Equation 3.

(3) $\mathit{\sigma }\left({\mathit{\theta }}_{\mathit{i}}-\mathit{w}.\mathit{x}\right)=\frac{1}{1+e^{-}}({\mathit{\theta }}_{\mathit{i}}-\mathit{w}.\mathit{x})$(3)

Where, ${\theta }_i$ are the set of thresholds with ${\mathit{\theta }}_{1\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}}<{\mathit{\theta }}_2<{\mathit{\theta }}_{3\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}}\dots \dots .{\mathit{\theta }}_{\mathrm{k}-1\mathit{\hspace{0.17em}}}$in which k disjoint segments are corresponding to k response levels.

Before the model estimation results were analysed and discussed, the validity and robustness of the model were checked. For this purpose, different model parameters such as the Goodness of Fit, Nagelkerke r square (Pseudo r square) and test of parallel lines were used. The IBM SPPS V.28 software was used for all the data analysis and model estimation conducted in this study.

It is to be noted that the responses received from the experts from round one were compiled and analysed. The findings were then sent to the experts for their confirmation, amendments, or disagreements in the second round. Once the responses were received after the second round, the responses were compiled and analysed and the final results were presented and discussed.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Challenges in the urban planning process

The urban planning process used particularly by the city development/planning authorities or municipalities in the Global South is generally governed by the mandate of the government. The plans are prepared periodically depending on the priorities and demands of the situation for different aspects independently or in combination. The plan preparation is usually carried out by a team of professionals (constitutes of people belonging to different knowledge areas, and skills) under the leadership of a senior administrative official(s) or professionals. However, the challenges faced in the plan preparation are multifarious. The different challenges experienced in plan preparation and their relative importance are presented in Table 3. It was found that the SD values for all the challenges are low (<1.0) indicating consistency in the responses. The results revealed that schedule overruns (RII = 0.93, CV = 12.7%, IQR = 1.0), cost overruns (RII = 0.86, CV = 15.6%, IQR = 1.0), lack of availability of financial resources (RII = 0.83, CV = 17.0%, IQR = 1.0), and bureaucratic bottlenecks (RII = 0.8, CV = 17.1%, IQR = 0.5) are the most important challenges experienced in plan preparation. Followed by, a lack of human resources (RII = 0.76, CV = 17.1%, IQR = 0.5), lack of data availability (RII = 0.7, CV = 17.7%, IQR = 1.0), stakeholders engagement (RII = 0.79, CV = 16.2%, IQR = 0.3), poor implementation of stakeholders’ opinions (RII = 0.78, CV = 17.4%, IQR = 1.0), and final decision making and final plan preparations (RII = 0.67, CV = 29.1%, IQR = 1.0) are fairly challenging aspects experienced in plan preparation. On the other hand, political and pressure group interference (RII = 0.59, CV = 21.7%, IQR = 0.3) is less challenging. However, responses on the aspects such as review, monitoring and control (RII = 0.69, CV = 38.9%, IQR = 2.3) and evaluation of alternate plans and options (RII = 0.70, CV = 26.4%, IQR = 1.3) are found to be inconsistent, therefore the importance of these factors could not be conclusively established.

Table 3. The relative importance of the challenges in the urban planning process

Urban planning process challenges	Mean	RII	SD	CV (%)	IQR	Relative importance
Lack of human resource	3.78	0.76	0.65	17.1	1.0	Fairly challenging
Lack of availability of financial resources	4.17	0.83	0.71	17.0%	1.0	Highly challenging
Timely decision-making by the authorities	4.28	0.86	0.75	17.6	1.0	Highly challenging
Lack of data availability	3.50	0.70	0.62	17.7	1.0	Fairly challenging
Schedule overruns	4.66	0.93	0.59	12.7	1.0	Highly challenging
Cost overruns	4.28	0.86	0.67	15.6	1.0	Highly challenging
Bureaucratic bottlenecks	4.0	0.80	0.69	17.1	0.50	Highly challenging
Stakeholders engagement	3.94	0.79	0.64	16.2	0.30	Fairly challenging
Implementation of stakeholders’ opinions	3.89	0.78	0.69	17.4	1.0	Fairly challenging
Political and pressure group interference	2.94	0.59	0.64	21.7	0.30	Less challenging
Review, monitoring and control	3.44	0.69	1.34	38.9*	2.3*	Inconsistent
Evaluation of alternate plans and options	3.5	0.70	0.92	26.4	1.3*	Inconsistent
Final decision-making and final plan preparations	3.33	0.67	0.97	29.1	1.0	Fairly challenging

Note: *- Inconsistent responses

4.2 Challenges in the implementation of the plans

Table 4 presents the relative importance of the challenges in the implementation of the plans for urban development. The low SD values show the consistency of the responses. As found lack of resource availability (RII = 0.83, CV = 14.8%, IQR = 1.0) and cost of implementation of project-related challenges (RII = 0.89, CV = 15.9%, IQR = 1.0) are the two most important challenges in the implementation of urban plans. These challenges are followed by challenges concerning schedule (RII = 0.75, CV = 15.4%, IQR = 1.0), review, monitoring and control (RII = 0.6, CV = 17.6%, IQR = 0.0), and interference of pressure groups, bureaucracy and political groups (RII = 0.79, CV = 13.6%, IQR = 0.0), which were fairly challenging aspects for implementation of urban plans. However, decision-making on implementation (RII = 0.58, CV = 21.7%, IQR = 0.25), challenges concerning implementing agencies (RII = 0.57, CV = 21.8%, IQR = 1.0) and interference of stakeholders (RII = 0.53, CV = 25.7%, IQR = 1.0) are lesser challenges for implementation of urban plans.

Table 4. The relative importance of the challenges in the implementation of the plans

Challenges	Mean	RII	SD	CV (%)	IQR	Relative importance
Decision-making on implementation	2.94	0.58	0.64	21.7	0.25	Less challenging
Resource availability	4.17	0.83	0.62	14.8	1.0	Highly challenging
Cost of implementation of projects related challenges	4.39	089	0.70	15.9	1.0	Highly challenging
Schedule challenges	3.73	0.75	0.58	15.4	1.0	Fairly challenging
Challenges concerning implementing agencies	2.83	0.57	0.62	21.8	1.0	Less challenging
Review, monitoring and control	3.0	0.60	0.54	17.6	0.0	Fairly challenging
Interference of stakeholders	2.67	0.53	0.69	25.7	1.0	Less challenging
Interference of pressure groups, bureaucracy and political groups	3.94	0.79	0.44	13.7	0.0	Fairly challenging

4.3 Role of project management and anti-planning in planning and implementation

The various project management aspects which could influence the efficiency of the plan preparation and implementation and their relative impacts obtained from the ordinal regression model estimation are presented in Table 6. However, before the model estimation was conducted the validity of the model was checked. Table 5 presents the model validity parameters, which indicates that the model is valid and can be used for model estimation. The evaluations of the project management aspects were conducted with reference to the current practice of limited or no use of project management in both plan preparation and implementation of the plans for urban development. In other words, the current practice of limited or no use of project management was taken as the reference aspect. The parameter estimate results show the preparation of the schedule (B = 6.635, P < 0.001) is the most important aspect in both plan preparation and implementation that can be efficiently conducted if project management is incorporated. Furthermore, project management can control of budget and costs (B = 5.875, P < 0.001) and enable the execution of the plans according to schedule and availability of resources (B = 4.857, P < 0.001). Additionally, it was found that the challenges of reviewing and monitoring the execution of the plans (B = 3.998, p < 0.001) can be alleviated. More importantly, it can enable keeping a journal of daily progress and challenges and taking remedial interventions (B = 3.912, P < 0.001), which is the most important aspect of anti-planning. It was also found that if project management is used it can contribute to the control of the schedule and resources (B = 2.288, p = 0.001) and also can assist in the process of stakeholders’ engagement, and implementation of their demands (B = 1.669, P = 0.016). However, the creation of the project charter and initiation of the project and mandate (p = 0.164, >0.05), and procurement of resources (p = 0.122, >0.05) are found to be statistically not significant and therefore may not be conclusively inferred that these aspects can influence plan preparation and implementation positively.

Table 6. Role of project management in planning and implementation

Project management aspects	Parameter Estimate (B)	Wald	Significance	95% Confidence Interval
				Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Creation of project charter and initiation of the project and mandate	0.954	1.933	0.164*	−0.391	2.299
Preparation of schedule	6.635	62.556	<0.001	4.991	8.279
Procurement of resources	1.061	2.391	0.122*	−.284	2.407
Control of budget and costs	5.875	52.090	<0.001	4.279	7.470
Execution of the plans according to schedule and availability of resources	4.857	38.051	<0.001	3.314	6.401
Stakeholders’ engagement, implementation of their demands	1.669	5.777	0.016	0.308	3.031
Control of the schedule and resources	2.288	10.214	0.001	.885	3.691
Review and monitoring of the execution of the plans	3.998	26.572	<0.001	2.478	5.518
Keeping a journal of daily progress and challenges and taking remedial interventions	3.912	25.529	<0.001	2.395	5.430
The current practice of no or limited project management	0

Note: * Not significant

Table 5. Model validity parameters of ordinal regression model estimation

Model validation parameters	Chi‐Square value	Significance	Remark
Model fitting information	134.487	<0.001	(≤0.05) Accepted
Goodness of fit	23.410	0.663	(>0.05) Accepted
Negelkerke (Pseudo R^2)	-	0.564	(>0.05) Accepted
Test of parallel lines	23.410	0.663	(>0.05) Accepted

5. Discussion

According to Rittel and Webber (1973), urban planning is a complex and wicked problem, which indicates that there are no specific solutions to urban problems. Consequently, the development of plans and implementation for urban development becomes a very complex and difficult task. Specifically, in the countries of the Global South, the challenge is significant (Das, 2014; Goodfellow, 2013). Often the plan preparation and their implementation face bottlenecks as well as exceed the cost and schedule. In this context, many scholars have argued for the incorporation of anti-planning measures which could enhance the efficiency in plan preparation and implementation of plans for urban development (Das, 2014; Gandy, 2006; Thomson, 1983). Similarly, the integration of project management to enhance the efficiency of plan preparation and implementation on have been advocated (Ahuja, 2015; Jack et al., 2016; Mui & Sankaran, 2004). However, empirical evidence on the role of anti-planning and project management in plan preparation and implementation of plans for urban development is scarce. Moreover, it was also not established whether project management could be an anti-planning measure. Therefore, this study sought to explore what are the challenges experienced in plan preparation and implementation for urban development, whether project management can be an anti-planning measure and how project management can contribute to the efficacy of plan preparation and implementation as an anti-planning measure.

Based on the findings of the study and evidence from extant literature, a detailed conceptual framework for project management as an anti-planning measure for urban planning and implementation is presented in Figure 3. Findings from this study revealed that schedule is a very important challenge, which could be due to several reasons including unavailability of data, lack of financial resources, bureaucratic bottlenecks and lack of timely decision-making by the authorities and lack of competent human resources. In other words, in addition, to schedule challenges, the availability of financial resources, and timely decision-making by the authorities are the major challenges. This study corroborates the arguments made in previous studies (Ahuja, 2015; Mui & Sankaran, 2004) that project management would bring efficacy to urban planning and implementation processes. Further, the planning team or development authority as a whole lack competent human resource from relevant fields. According to the expert’s opinions, usually, all the decisions are taken and work is carried out by one or two persons. Sometimes, the unavailability of key personnel also causes challenges and stalls the plan preparation. Similarly, the availability of resources for planning is a significant constraint (Issa & Tu, 2020). Also, stakeholder engagement is a serious challenge. If it does not happen at the appropriate time and regularly, then it creates problems when the plan is opened for public review before the evaluation of the alternate plans or finalisation of the plans. Further, although, one of the major challenges observed is the level of review, monitoring and control concerning plan preparation, the responses were found to be inconsistent and no consensus was reached. As observed from the experts’ opinions, it does not happen often and in case it happens it lacks in-depth diagnosis and appropriate remedial measures.

Figure 3. A conceptual framework of urban planning and implementation and the role of project management as an anti-planning measure.

The implementation of the plans usually occurs in phases depending on the demands and priorities. The implementation is either done by the planning/developing authorities/municipalities or sourced to executive agencies. According to the experts, the cost of implementation of projects, and the availability of resources (land, infrastructure, budget, equipment, etc.,) are the most important plan implementation-related challenges (Issa & Tu, 2020). Moreover, as agreed by the experts the implementation usually far exceeds the scheduled period, which is often allegedly attributed to the interference of the pressure groups such as political groups and individuals and bureaucracy as well as inadequate review, monitoring and control mechanisms. Unlike the plan preparation, the role of review, monitoring and control in implementation is fairly significant. Even though such measures are usually in place in planning and development organisations, they may not be effective to assist in improving the situation for different reasons such as the lack of objectivity and frequency. Consequently, often timely interventions could not be made to improve the implementation situation.

Based on the above discussions, cost overrun, schedule overrun, unavailability of resources and review, monitoring and control are the most important challenges in the plan preparation and implementation that are linked to project management. Although, both the activities (planning and implementing) involve, schedule, cost, resources and review and monitoring (Ahuja, 2015; Jack et al., 2016; Mui & Sankaran, 2004), it is seen that they are hardly considered projects and consequently are not generally managed by the use of project management principles. However, the parameter estimates suggest that (Table 5), project management can effectively enable the preparation of the schedule, control of budget and costs that would assist the execution of the plans according to schedule and availability of resources and assist in reviewing and monitoring the execution of the plans, control of the schedule and resources, and also can assist in the process of stakeholders’ engagement. In other words, if planning and implementation of plans are treated as projects, and project management principles are adhered to and managed by project managers, then the plan preparation and implementation will follow a project life cycle starting from initiation to ending with closure, thus limiting the challenges of time, cost overruns and resource constraints. In other words, the plan preparation can be conducted more efficiently and the execution of the plans or implementation will be conducted more appropriately.

Moreover, as found from the parameter estimates (Table 5), the project managers can keep a journal of the regular developments, progresses, happening and challenges, through regular reviews and monitoring, which consequently will assist in taking remedial measures (Das, 2014; Newport, 2013). For example, the challenges in the plan preparation can be noted periodically (almost from a daily to weekly basis) and obstacles and challenges faced during implementation can be diagnosed and progress of implementation or execution of the works can be noted and compared to the schedule. In other words, the application of the project management principles such as review, monitoring and control will keep the track of the challenges and progress periodically, which are essentially argued by the principles professed by anti-planning. Thus, in addition to the project management process in the project life cycles, two vital project management aspects such as keeping a regular journal, and reviewing and monitoring and control can be important and effective anti-planning tools, which could assist both plan preparation and implementation of the plans. Suffice it to say the findings of this study established that project management as an anti-planning measure can play a crucial role to enhance efficiency and reduce uncertainty and delay in plan preparation and implementation for urban development, which was argued in previous studies (Ahuja, 2015; Cowley & Caprotti, 2019; Mui & Sankaran, 2004). Essentially, it is argued and theorised here that the project management aspects including that anti-planning measures brought in by project management will assist in alleviating the challenges in the plan preparation and implementation of the plans, thereby making them efficient.

6. Conclusion

The preparation of urban plans and their implementation in the Global South face serious challenges. More often the plan preparation exceeds the schedule and budget despite the availability of structures and agencies, and organisation & management systems. Moreover, although significant time, cost and human resources are involved, the plan preparation and implementation are generally not treated as projects and do not follow the project management principles. However, arguments have emerged that appropriate interventions should be made to make the process of the plan preparation and implementation more efficient. Therefore, this study examined the challenges in the planning and implementation processes and how the use of project management principles as an anti-planning measure can improve the situation. For this purpose, data obtained from experts from relevant fields by using Delphi surveys were used.

Findings suggested that the preparation of the plans usually exceeds the schedule and costs. Resource constraints including financial resources, and human resources, interference from pressure groups, political and bureaucratic interference, stakeholders’ engagement, etc., are some of the major challenges that hinder both plan preparation and their effective implementation. Besides, review, monitoring and control are ineffective and fail to improve the situation specifically concerning the implementation of plans for urban development.

However, it was also emanated that if the preparation of plans and their implementation are treated as projects, and managed by project management principles following the project cycles, efficacy in the schedule preparation, control of budget and costs and resource management can be achieved. More importantly, this will allow the breaking down of various activities into small elements that would enable effective review, monitoring and control of the different activities and events. Moreover, it would enable the keeping of a regular journal or record and learn from them based on which appropriate alternative and remedial measures can be taken to improve the efficiency of the plan preparation and implementation. Consequently, premised upon the principles of anti-planning, project management can act as an anti-planning measure which could assist in the improvement of efficiency. In other words, in addition to the use of the general project management principles, anti-planning principles such as keeping a journal of the tasks and activities on a daily basis and reviewing the challenges and obstacles and monitoring the progress regularly are likely to alleviate the challenges of plan preparation and their implementation in the countries of Global South.

However, a detailed case study on how project management premised anti-planning measures can contribute to the efficacy of plan preparation and implementation is needed as a further scope of research. The major limitations of the study are: (1) it was conducted by using a Delphi survey among a limited number of experts, (2) experts from two countries in the Global South were used, and (3) the analyses were based on perceptions of the experts in the absence of structured statistical or empirical data.

The study has both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, the novelty and major contribution of the study is that project management can be an anti-planning measure in the urban planning and implementation process which has never been considered so far. It thus adds to the discourse of planning and anti-planning as well as extends the horizon of the importance and role of project management in urban planning and implementation. Also, the perceptions of the experts evidenced that the incorporation of project management principles as an anti-planning measure will enhance efficiency in the urban planning process, and implementation and reduce delay and uncertainty, which is another contribution with significant practical implications for the relevant organisations and decision-makers to take decisions, plan and implement urban development activities efficiently.

With many developing countries facing significant challenges with the urban planning and implementation processes, it is theorised that it would be worthwhile to modify the conventional urban planning and implementation processes and incorporate project management as an anti-planning measure. This consequently, enables the preparation of a feasible schedule, keeping a journal of the activities on regular basis, reviewing and monitoring challenges and progress, controlling budget, cost and schedule and also reducing conflict and enhancing coordination through stakeholder management. As a result, delay, overrun of costs, conflict and uncertainty are likely to be reduced, specifically, in countries similar to India and South Africa in the Global South.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dillip Kumar Das

Dillip Kumar Das (Prof.) has a PhD in Urban and Regional Planning with a Civil Engineering and city planning background. Currently, he is engaged in teaching, research, and community engagement activities at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. His research and consulting interests under sustainable urban and regional development include systems analysis, system dynamics modelling, infrastructure planning and management, smart cities, and transportation planning. He has co-authored two books as the lead author and published several peer-reviewed research articles.

Notes

1. Urban planning professionals.