Testing the vision: Preschool settings as places for meeting, bonding and bridging

The OECD (2006 Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. OECD Publishing: Paris) envisions early childhood education and care settings as meeting places for diverse social groups; places that build social capital. This vision was assessed in a comparison of three preschools types: full-fee paying, subsidised-fee and publicly funded. The social composition within each was examined and the connectedness of the children (n = 472) who attended compared. Publicly funded preschools had more socially diverse populations. The quantity of social connectedness did not differ but children in publicly funded preschools described higher quality social relationships. Not all preschool settings are socially diverse but, where they are, the quality of relationships is highest.

A conceptual decision-making framework for the delivery of innovative change in organisations

Research found that today’s organisations are increasingly aware of the potential barriers and perceived challenges associated with the successful delivery of change — including cultural and sub-cultural indifferences; financial constraints; restricted timelines; insufficient senior management support; fragmented key stakeholder commitment; and inadequate training. The delivery and application of Innovative Change (see glossary) within a construction industry organisation tends to require a certain level of ‘readiness’. This readiness is the combination of an organisation’s ability to part from undertakings that may be old, traditional, or inefficient; and then being able to readily adopt a procedure or initiative which is new, improved, or more efficient. Despite the construction industry’s awareness of the various threats and opportunities associated with the delivery of change, research found little attention is currently given to develop a ‘decision-making framework’ that comprises measurable elements (dynamics) that may assist in more accurately determining an organisation’s level of readiness or ability to deliver innovative change. To resolve this, an initial Background Literature Review in 2004 identified six such dynamics, those of Change, Innovation, Implementation, Culture, Leadership, and Training and Education, which were then hypothesised to be key components of a ‘Conceptual Decision-making Framework’ (CDF) for delivering innovative change within an organisation. To support this hypothesis, a second (more extensive) Literature Review was undertaken from late 2007 to mid 2009. A Delphi study was embarked on in June 2008, inviting fifteen building and construction industry members to form a panel and take part in a Delphi study. The selection criterion required panel members to have senior positions (manager and above) within a recognised field or occupation, and to have experience, understanding and / or knowledge in the process of delivering change within organisations. The final panel comprised nine representatives from private and public industry organisations and tertiary / research and development (R&D) universities. The Delphi study developed, distributed and collated two rounds of survey questionnaires over a four-month period, comprising open-ended and closed questions (referred to as factors). The first round of Delphi survey questionnaires were distributed to the panel in August 2008, asking them to rate the relevancy of the six hypothesised dynamics. In early September 2008, round-one responses were returned, analysed and documented. From this, an additional three dynamics were identified and confirmed by the panel as being highly relevant during the decision-making process when delivering innovative change within an organisation. The additional dynamics (‘Knowledge-sharing and Management’; ‘Business Process Requirements’; and ‘Life-cycle Costs’) were then added to the first six dynamics and used to populate the second (final) Delphi survey questionnaire. This was distributed to the same nine panel members in October 2008, this time asking them to rate the relevancy of all nine dynamics. In November 2008, round-two responses were returned, analysed, summarised and documented. Final results confirmed stability in responses and met Delphi study guidelines. The final contribution is twofold. Firstly, findings confirm all nine dynamics as key components of the proposed CDF for delivering innovative change within an organisation. Secondly, the future development and testing of an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Process’ (ICDP) is proposed, one that is underpinned by an ‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF), an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA) program, and an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG).

Fault diagnostics and supervised testing : How fault diagnostic tools can be proactive?

The topic of fault detection and diagnostics (FDD) is studied from the perspective of proactive testing. Unlike most research focus in the diagnosis area in which system outputs are analyzed for diagnosis purposes, in this paper the focus is on the other side of the problem: manipulating system inputs for better diagnosis reasoning. In other words, the question of how diagnostic mechanisms can direct system inputs for better diagnosis analysis is addressed here. It is shown how the problem can be formulated as decision making problem coupled with a Bayesian Network based diagnostic mechanism. The developed mechanism is applied to the problem of supervised testing in HVAC systems.

Funding grant proposals for scientific research : retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel

Objectives: To quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding. Design: Analysis of retrospective data from grant review panels. Setting: The National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia. Participants/Data: All panel members’ scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009. Main outcome measure: The proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from variation in panel members’ scores; the cost-effectiveness of different size assessment panels. Results: 59% of 620 funded grants were sometimes not funded when random variability was accounted for. Only 9% of grant proposals were always funded, 61% were never funded and 29% were sometimes funded. The extra cost per grant effectively funded from the most effective system was $18,541. Conclusions: Allocating funding for scientific research in health and medicine is costly and somewhat random. There are many useful research questions to be addressed that could improve current processes.