Better Bureaucracy: How Organizational Strategies Can Prepare Governments To Deliver More Housing More Fairly
Name
le-briantle-mcp-dusp-2026-thesis.pdf
Size
3.89 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
0e5909a1b13672f0a12cee643ff6c224
Author(s)
Le, Brian
Advisor(s)
Levine, Jeffrey R.
Date Issued
May 2026
Publisher
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract
This thesis examines the efficacy of different organizational strategies local governments deploy throughout the development review and permitting process. This research was prompted by a surge of permitting reform initiatives announced by large cities across the United States in 2025, as cities looked to ease procedural burdens contributing to the national housing shortage. Using a mixed-methods case study approach to gather data from four cities across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this research compared differences in governance structures and processes against outcomes related to permitting (e.g., time to issue a permit, number of building permits issued) and housing (e.g., number of units permitted, type of building structure). Interviews, documents, and datasets were collected from each of the case studies—Boston, Cambridge, Newton, and Revere—and analyzed from the perspective of residential building developments seeking a building permit and all prerequisite approvals. Analyses of each case study’s structures and processes were grounded in organizational science theoretical frameworks like information networks, information processing, and institutional logic.
This thesis argues that Cities seeking to reform permitting processes to improve development goals should not neglect people-centered coordination mechanisms that enable departments to work together better, more efficiently, and more collaboratively. These cities would benefit from (1) clear leadership on and explicit articulation around housing as a citywide priority, (2) stringently defined phases to enable parallel reviews, (3) structured forums for coordinated reviews, (4) shared digital systems with visibility into each department’s feedback, goals, and status, (5) concentrating public engagement under one vertical that can coordinate all public processes, and (6) creating clear conflict resolution pathways or authorities to mitigate individual gatekeepers. The findings suggest that process re-engineering and digital modernization alone are insufficient without addressing how organizational structure shapes inter-departmental coordination. Ultimately, effective permitting reform requires treating organizational coordination as infrastructure—investing in the structures that enable departments to align around shared goals while preserving necessary regulatory oversight.
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning
Terms of Use
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
Copyright retained by author(s)
Persistent DSpace Link
