Innes and Booher propose network power as an emergent capacity produced through diversity, interdependence and authentic dialogue rather than held intact by a single actor. Their DIAD formulation performs a distinctive methodological move: it treats the planning arena as a complex adaptive network whose interactions can generate meanings, identities and options unavailable to isolated participants. Consensus is therefore not valuable because it eliminates disagreement but because structured interaction can alter the field of what is collectively knowable and achievable. The planner appears as node, analyst, mediator and designer of linkages rather than as external optimiser. This bridges collaborative planning, complexity theory and governance. Its relevance is especially strong before formal commitment, when projects are assembled through conversations among owners, authorities, consultants, communities and technical specialists. The source makes visible that an alternative can become credible because relations among actors change, not merely because better data appear. Continuity is consequently relational: knowledge moves only where institutional and interpersonal connections allow it to be translated, challenged and retained across successive decision settings.
URBANISM MEETS ART