Building infrastructure asset management : Australian practices

Generally, major public funding is invested in civil infrastructure assets. The efficiency and comfort level of expected and actual living standards is largely dependant on the management strategies of these assets. Buildings are one of the major & vital assets, which need to be maintained primarily to ensure their functionality by effective & efficient delivery of services and to optimise economic benefits. In Australia, billions of dollars are spent annually managing and maintaining built assets. These assets make up the social and economic infrastructure, which facilitate the essential services to public and business. Buildings are one of the prime & fundamental assets, which need to be managed effectively and efficiently to ensure that related services are delivered economically and sustainably

A model for assessing and correcting project Health

Maintaining the health of a construction project can help to achieve the desired outcomes of the project. An analogy is drawn to the medical process of a human health check where it is possible to broadly diagnose health in terms of a number of key areas such as blood pressure or cholesterol level. Similarly it appears possible to diagnose the current health of a construction project in terms of a number of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) and key performance indicators (KPIs). The medical analogy continues into the detailed investigation phase where a number of contributing factors are evaluated to identify possible causes of ill health and through the identification of potential remedies to return the project to the desired level of health. This paper presents the development of a model that diagnoses the immediate health of a construction project, investigates the factors which appear to be causing the ill health and proposes a remedy to return the project to good health. The proposed model uses the well-established continuous improvement management model (Deming, 1986) to adapt the process of human physical health checking to construction project health.

Achieving value alignment in project delivery

A study into best practice project delivery and the development of a suite of products, resources and services to help guide clients and project teams towards the best approach for specific projects.

BIM : expectations and a reality check

BIM (Building Information Modelling) is an approach that involves applying and maintaining an integral digital representation of all building information for different phases of the project lifecycle. This paper presents an analysis of the current state of BIM in the industry and a re-assessment of its role and potential contribution in the near future, given the apparent slow rate of adoption by the industry. The paper analyses the readiness of the building industry with respect to the product, processes and people to present an argument on where the expectations from BIM and its adoption may have been misplaced. This paper reports on the findings from: (1) a critical review of latest BIM literature and commercial applications, and (2) workshops with focus groups on changing work-practice, role of technology, current perceptions and expectations of BIM.

Review: "Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2003" edited by Frew, A.J., Hitz, M., & O’Connor, P.

"This volume represents the proceedings of the 10th ENTER conference, held in Helsinki, Finland during January 2003. The conference theme was ‘technology on the move’, and the 476pp. proceedings offer 50 papers by 108 authors. The editors advise all papers were subject to a double blind peer review. The research has been categorised into 18 broad headings, which reflects the diversity of topics addressed. This reviewer has adopted the approach of succinctly summarising each of the papers, in the order they appear, to assist readers of Tourism Management in judging the potential value of the content for their own work..." -- publisher website

Competing through service innovation : the role of bricolage and entrepreneurship in project-oriented firms

The criticality of service innovation in building and sustaining competitive advantage is gaining increasing recognition in the marketplace. Using empirical data from US and Australian project-oriented firms, the study uses a multi-staged multi-method research program to demonstrate how entrepreneurial service firms strategically combine resources at hand (bricolage) to innovate and stay ahead of rivals. The research shows that service entrepreneurship (SE) and bricolage influence two forms of service innovation (interactive and supportive), which in turn is associated with sustained competitive advantage (SCA). The results suggest that SE and bricolage indirectly relate to SCA through service innovation. The findings offer novel insights into how project-oriented service firms engage in innovation. In short, the findings encourage the “making do by combining resources at hand” as higher levels of entrepreneurial bricolage are associated with higher levels of interactive and supportive innovation enabling SCA, suggesting a new model.

Leveraging R&D Investment for the Australian Built Environment : Industry Report

The overarching goal of this project is to better match funding strategies to industry needs to maximise the benefits of R&D to Australia’s infrastructure and building industry. Project partners are: Queensland Department of Public Works; Queensland Transport and Main Roads; Western Australian Department of Treasury and Finance; John Holland; Queensland University of Technology; Swinburne University of Technology; and VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (Prof Göran Roos). This project has been endorsed by the Australian Built Environment Industry Innovation Council (BEIIC) with Council member Prof Catherin Bull serving on this project’s Steering Committee. This project seeks to: (i) maximise the value of R&D investment in this sector through improved understanding of future industry research needs; and (ii) address the perceived problem of a disproportionately low R&D investment in this sector, relative to the size and national importance of the sector. This research will develop new theory built on open innovation, dynamic capabilities and absorptive capacity theories in the context of strategic foresighting and roadmapping activities. Four project phases have been designed to address this research: 1: Audit and analysis of R&D investment in the Australian built environment since 1990 - access publically available data relating to R&D investments across Australia from public and private organisations to understand past trends. 2: Examine diffusion mechanisms of research and innovation and its impact on public and private organisations – investigate specific R&D investments to determine the process of realising research support, direction-setting, project engagement, impacts and pathways to adoption. 3: Develop a strategic roadmap for the future of this critical Australian industry - assess the likely future landscapes that R&D investment will both respond to and anticipate. 4: Develop policy to maximise the value of R&D investments to public and private organisations – through translating project learnings into policy guidelines.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

Energy Transformed: Sustainable Energy Solutions for Climate Change Mitigation

This 600+ page online education program provides free access to a comprehensive education and training package that brings together the knowledge of how countries, specifically Australia, can achieve at least 60 percent cuts to greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This resource has been developed in line with the activities of the CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship research program which is focused on research that will assist Australia to achieve this target. This training package provides industry, governments, business and households with the knowledge they need to realise at least 30 percent energy efficiency savings in the short term while providing a strong basis for further improvement. It also provides an updated overview of advances in low carbon technologies, renewable energy and sustainable transport to help achieve a sustainable energy future. Whist this education and training package has an Australian focus, it outlines sustainable energy strategies and provide links to numerous online reports which will assist climate change mitigation efforts globally. This training program seeks to compliment other initiatives seeking to encourage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through behaviour change, sustainable consumption, and constructive changes in economic incentives and policy.