Can we get along better?

Queensland University of Technology, together with the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, the Alliancing Association of Australia, and the Australian Research Council, have recently commenced a 3 year research project which aims to explore the ways in which value for money can be optimised using collaborative contracting during delivery of Australian infrastructure projects.

Social and cultural drivers of incentive effectiveness in infrastructure projects

Formal incentives systems aim to encourage improved performance by offering a reward for the achievement of project-specific goals. Despite argued benefits of incentive systems on project delivery outcomes, there remains debate over how incentive systems can be designed to encourage the formation of strong project relationships within a complex social system such as an infrastructure project. This challenge is compounded by the increasing emphasis in construction management research on the important mediating influence of technical and organisational context on project performance. In light of this challenge, the research presented in this paper focuses on the design of incentive systems in four infrastructure projects: two road reconstructions in the Netherlands and two building constructions in Australia. Based on a motivational theory frame, a cross case analysis is conducted to examine differences and similarities across social and cultural drivers impacting on the effectiveness of the incentive systems in light of infrastructure project context. Despite significant differences in case project characteristics, results indicate the projects’ experience similar social drivers impacting on incentive effectiveness. Significant value across the projects was placed on: varied performance goals and multiple opportunities to across the project team to pursue incentive rewards; fair risk allocation across contract parties; value-driven tender selection; improved design-build integration; and promotion of future work opportunities. However, differences across the contexts were identified. Results suggest future work opportunities were a more powerful social driver in upholding reputation and establishing strong project relationships in the Australian context. On the other hand, the relationship initiatives in the Dutch context seemed to be more broadly embraced resulting in a greater willingness to collaboratively manage project risk. Although there are limitations with this research in drawing generalizations across two sets of case projects, the results provide a strong base to explore the social and cultural influences on incentive effectiveness across different geographical and contextual boundaries in future research.

Sustainable Pedagogical Change for Embedding Reflective Learning Across Higher Education Programs

For pedagogical change to be sustained over time, and over the span of higher education courses, it needs to be framed widely, rather than ‘tacked on’. The framing includes curriculum reform and resource provision alongside staff pedagogical development. This is especially true for initiatives (such as reflective writing and assessment) that target broad-based, high-level skills and dispositions. For various reasons, such initiatives can easily become lost because of the discipline-specific focus of a syllabus outweighs the initiative, or because lack of resources compromises a desired approach. Course improvement in higher education contexts is typically difficult and episodic. In such circumstances, we argue that a strategic and trustworthy approach is necessary where practitioner-lead pedagogic development is fostered through trust and communication and is purposefully embedded within key dimensions of curriculum integration and resource provision. This chapter describes an approach to pedagogical change where curriculum, pedagogy and resources are simultaneously and collaboratively orchestrated to provide an effective framework for sustainable and effective change. A robust conceptual model is proposed to guide the implementation of such change.

Understanding Formal and Informal Governance on Infrastructure Projects - Literature Review [industry report]

In Australia, collaborative contracts have been increasingly used to govern infrastructure projects. These contracts combine formal and informal mechanisms to manage project delivery. Formal mechanisms (e.g. financial risk sharing) are specified in the contract, while informal mechanisms (e.g. integrated team) are not. The paper reports on a literature review to operationalise the concepts of formal and informal governance, as the literature contains a multiplicity of, often un-testable, definitions. This work is the first phase of a study that will examine the optimal balance of formal and informal governance structures. Desk-top review of leading journals in the areas of construction management and business management, as well as recent government documents and industry guidelines, was undertaken to to conceptualise and operatinalise formal and informal governance mechanisms. The study primarily draws on transaction-cost economics (e.g. Williamson 1979; 1991), relational contract theory (Feinman 2000; Macneil 2000) and social psychology theory (e.g. Gulati 1995). Content analysis of the literature was undertaken to identify key governance mechanisms. Content analysis is a commonly used methodology in the social sciences area. It provides rich data through the systematic and objective review of literature (Krippendorff 2004). NVivo 9, a qualitative data analysis software package, was used to assist in this process. Formal governance mechanisms were found to be usefully broken down into four measurable categories: (1) target cost arrangement (2) financial risk and reward sharing regime (3) transparent financials and (4) collaborative multi-party agreement Informal governance mechanisms were found to be usefully broken down into three measurable categories: (1) leadership structure (2) integrated team (3) joint management system We expect these categories to effectively capture the key governance drivers of outcomes on infrastructure projects. These categories will be further refined and broken down into individual governance mechanisms for assessment through a large-scale Australian survey planned for late 2012. These individual mechanisms will feature in the questionnaire that QUT will deliver to AAA in October 2012.

Who really pays for urban infrastructure? : the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia

This thesis advances the understanding of the impact of developer infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia through the development of an econometric model and empirical analysis. The results indicate substantial on-passing of these government charges to purchasers of both new and existing homes, thus negatively impacting housing affordability across the whole community. The results of this thesis will inform policy makers and assist in the development of evidence based policy related to housing affordability and funding of urban infrastructure. Being generic, the econometric model is expected to be a tool that is suitable for estimating similar house price effects in other housing markets.

Real-time and interactive attacks on DNP3 critical infrastructure using Scapy

The Distributed Network Protocol v3.0 (DNP3) is one of the most widely used protocols, to control national infrastructure. Widely used interactive packet manipulation tools, such as Scapy, have not yet been augmented to parse and create DNP3 frames (Biondi 2014). In this paper we extend Scapy to include DNP3, thus allowing us to perform attacks on DNP3 in real-time. Our contribution builds on East et al. (2009), who proposed a range of possible attacks on DNP3. We implement several of these attacks to validate our DNP3 extension to Scapy, then executed the attacks on real world equipment. We present our results, showing that many of these theoretical attacks would be unsuccessful in an Ethernet-based network.

Financing the project : economic incentives promoting sustainable property development

This chapter is focussed on the various financial instruments and incentives that have been implemented in a range of countries to encourage sustainable developments in all property sectors. It is an area that has undergone substantial change globally since 2008. Sustainable property development has been impacted by the Global Financial Crisis, particularly with regards to the availability of private sector funding and the requirements of funders who now have a more cautious approach to risk. Sustainability, and sometimes a lack of it, is increasingly viewed as a risk in some markets; it is also seen as an area in which governments, through creation of markets and through the use of fiscal instruments can seek to speed up the pace at which the economics of sustainable development makes good business sense. However, it is not just governments that provide the incentive for sustainability- or the dis-incentive for non-sustainable behaviours.