Richard Rorty, innovation strategies & movie inspiration

Movie innovation is a conversation between screenwriters and producers in our mixed economy – a concept of innovation supported by Richard Rorty and Aristole's Poetics. During innovation conversations, inspired writers describe fresh movie actions to empathetic producers. Some inspired actions may confuse. Writers and producers use strategies to inquire about confusing actions. This Australian study redescribes 25 writer-producer strategies in the one place for the first time. It adds a new strategy. And, with more evidence than the current literature, it investigates writer inspiration, which drives film innovation. It reports inspiration in pioneering, verifiable detail.

Complicated working time arrangements : construction industry case study

This paper extends the understanding of working-time changes and work-life balance (WLB) through analyzing a case study where a reduction in working hours designed to assist the workforce in balancing work and nonwork life was implemented. An alliance project in the Australian construction industry was established initially with a 5-day working week, a departure from the industry-standard 6-day week. However, a range of factors complicated the success of this initiative, and the industry-standard 6-day working week was reinstated for the project. The authors argue that this case is valuable in determining the complex mix of influences that work against a wholesale or straightforward adoption of working-time adjustments and work-life balance practices. It is concluded that although the prevailing workplace culture is considered an important factor in the determination of working time, structural and workplace principles and practices may also be critical in working to secure the successful introduction of working-time reduction and work-life balance initiatives in the construction industry in the future.

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.

Livable Housing Design : Who will take responsibility?

Current housing design and construction practices do not meet the needs of many people with disability and older people, and limits their inclusion and participation in community and family life. In spite of a decade of advocacy for regulation of access within residential environments, the Australian government has opted for a voluntary approach where the housing industry takes responsibility. Housing industry leaders have indicated that they are willing to transform their established practice, if it makes good business to do so, and if there is a demand from home buyers. To date, there has been minimal demand. In 2010, housing industry and community leaders formalised this commitment in an agreement, called Livable Housing Design, to transform housing design and construction practices, with a target of all new housing providing minimal access by 2020. This paper reports on a study which examined the assumption behind Livable Housing Design agreement; that is, individuals in the housing industry will respond voluntarily and take responsibility for the provision of inclusive housing. From interviews with developers, designers and builders in Brisbane, Queensland, the study found a complex picture of competing demands and responsibilities. Instead of changing their design and construction practices voluntarily to meet the future needs of users over the life of housing, they are more likely to focus on their immediate contractual obligations and to maintain the status quo. Contrary to the view of the government and industry leaders, participants identified that an external regulatory framework would be required if Livable Housing Design’s 2020 goal was to be met.