Evaluation of social externalities of rapid economic development associated with major resource projects in regional communities

This thesis developed a thematic structure for evaluating social externalities of major resource projects using a mixed methods approach and structural equation modelling. The implications offer important insights into the extent quality of life is being influenced by coal seam gas projects in regional communities in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Findings show that unresolved concerns of community residents about environmental and social impacts contribute to lower life-satisfaction, inhibit the community to plan for the future, and lead to a weaker local economy.

Value-mapping for major economic infrastructure projects

The establishment of corporate objectives regarding economic, environmental, social, and ethical responsibilities, to inform business practice, has been gaining credibility in the business sector since the early 1990’s. This is witnessed through (i) the formation of international forums for sustainable and accountable development, (ii) the emergence of standards, systems, and frameworks to provide common ground for regulatory and corporate dialogue, and (iii) the significant quantum of relevant popular and academic literature in a diverse range of disciplines. How then has this move towards greater corporate responsibility become evident in the provision of major urban infrastructure projects? The gap identified, in both academic literature and industry practice, is a structured and auditable link between corporate intent and project outcomes. Limited literature has been discovered which makes a link between corporate responsibility; project performance indicators (or critical success factors) and major infrastructure provision. This search revealed that a comprehensive mapping framework, from an organisation’s corporate objectives through to intended, anticipated and actual outcomes and impacts has not yet been developed for the delivery of such projects. The research problem thus explored is ‘the need to better identify, map and account for the outcomes, impacts and risks associated with economic, environmental, social and ethical outcomes and impacts which arise from major economic infrastructure projects, both now, and into the future’. The methodology being used to undertake this research is based on Checkland’s soft system methodology, engaging in action research on three collaborative case studies. A key outcome of this research is a value-mapping framework applicable to Australian public sector agencies. This is a decision-making methodology which will enable project teams responsible for delivering major projects, to better identify and align project objectives and impacts with stated corporate objectives.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition and exploitation in development projects

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the specifications of the three variants of the aircraft; Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and the Carrier Variant (CV). Because the Navy requires a plane that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, that required a special variant of the aircraft design, adding complexity to the project. Technical complexity occurs in a project using technology that is immature or where design characteristics are unknown or untried. Developing a plane that can take off on a very short runway and land vertically created may highly interdependent technological challenges to correctly locate, direct and balance the lift fans, modulate the airflow and provide equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft and at the same time control engine temperatures. These technological challenges make costing and scheduling equally challenging. Structural complexity in a project comes from the sheer numbers of elements such as the number of people, teams or organizations involved, ambiguity regarding the elements, and the massive degree of interconnectedness between them. While Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, they are assisted in major aspects of the JSF development by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engineer Team and innumerable subcontractors. In addition to identifying opportunities to achieve project goals, complex projects also need to identify and exploit opportunities to increase agility in response to changing stakeholder demands or to reduce project risks. Complexity Leadership Theory contends that in complex environments adaptive and enabling leadership are needed (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey, 2007). Adaptive leadership facilitates creativity, learning and adaptability, while enabling leadership handles the conflicts that inevitably arise between adaptive leadership and traditional administrative leadership (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2007). Hence, adaptive leadership involves the recognition and opportunities to adapt, while and enabling leadership involves the exploitation of these opportunities. Our research questions revolve around the type or source of complexity and its relationship to opportunity recognition and exploitation. For example, is it only external environmental complexity that creates the need for the entrepreneurial behaviours, such as opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? Do the internal dimensions of project complexity, such as technological and structural complexity, also create the need for opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? The Kropp, Zolin and Lindsay model (2009) describes a relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), opportunity recognition (OR), and opportunity exploitation (OX) in complex projects, with environmental and organizational contextual variables as moderators. We extend their model by defining the affects of external complexity and internal complexity on OR and OX. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: When the environment complex EO is more likely to result in OR because project members will be actively looking for solutions to problems created by environmental change. But in projects that are technologically or structurally complex project leaders and members may try to make the minimum changes possible to reduce the risk of creating new problems due to delays or schedule changes. In projects with environmental or technological complexity project leaders who encourage the innovativeness dimension of EO will increase OR in complex projects. But projects with technical or structural complexity innovativeness will not necessarily result in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities due to the over-riding importance of maintaining stability in the highly intricate and interconnected project structure. We propose that in projects with environmental complexity creating the need for change and innovation project leaders, who are willing to accept and manage risk, are more likely to identify opportunities to increase project effectiveness and efficiency. In contrast in projects with internal complexity a much higher willingness to accept risk will be necessary to trigger opportunity recognition. In structurally complex projects we predict it will be less likely to find a relationship between risk taking and OP. When the environment is complex, and a project has autonomy, they will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. When a project experiences high competitive aggressiveness and their environment is complex, project leaders will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. This paper reports the first stage of a three year study into the behaviours of managers, leaders and team members of complex projects. We conduct a qualitative study involving a Group Discussion with experienced project leaders. The objective is to determine how leaders of large and potentially complex projects perceive that external and internal complexity will influence the affects of EO on OR. ---------- Results and Implications: These results will help identify and distinguish the impact of external and internal complexity on entrepreneurial behaviours in NPDP. Project managers will be better able to quickly decide how and when to respond to changes in the environment and internal project events.

Ramifications of development projects deemed “state significant”

Purpose, Design/methodology / approach The acknowledgement of state significance in relation to development projects can result in special treatment by regulatory authorities, particularly in terms of environmental compliance and certain economic and other government support measures. However, defining just what constitutes a “significant project”, or a project of “state significance”, varies considerably between Australian states. In terms of establishing threshold levels, in Queensland there is even less clarity. Despite this lack of definition, the implications of “state significance” can nevertheless be considerable. For example, in Queensland if the Coordinator-General declares a project to be a “significant project” under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, the environmental impact assessment process may become more streamlined – potentially circumventing certain provisions under The Integrated Planning Act 1997. If the project is not large enough to be so deemed, an extractive resource under the State Planning Policy 2/07 - Protection of Extractive Resources 2007 may be considered to be of State or regional significance and subsequently designated as a “Key Resource Area”. As a consequence, such a project is afforded some measure of resource protection but remains subject to the normal assessment process under the Integrated Development Assessment System, as well as the usual requirements of the vegetation management codes, and other regulations. Findings (Originality/value) & Research limitations / implications This paper explores the various meanings of “state significance” in Queensland and the ramifications for development projects in that state. It argues for a streamlining of the assessment process in order to avoid or minimise constraints acting on the state’s development. In so doing, it questions the existence of a strategic threat to the delivery of an already over-stretched infrastructure program.

Submission to Victorian Parliamentary Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure

In the networked information driven world that we now inhabit the ability to access and reuse information, data and culture is a key ingredient to social, economic and cultural innovation. As government holds enormous amounts of publicly funded material that can be released to the public without breaching the law it should move to implement policies that will allow better access to and reuse of that information, knowledge and culture. The Queensland Government Information Licensing Framework (GILF) Project4 is one of the first projects in the world to systemically approach this issue and should be consulted as a best practice model.

Economic development and construction productivity in Malaysia

The productivity of the construction industry has a significant effect on national economic growth. Gains from higher construction productivity flow through the economy, as all industries rely on construction to some extent as part of their business investment. Contractions and expansions of economic activity are common phenomena in an economy. Three construction cycles occurred between the years 1970 and 2011 in Malaysia. The relationships between construction productivity and economic development are examined by the partial correlation method to establish the underlying factors driving the change in construction productivity. Construction productivity is statistically significantly correlated with gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in a positive direction for the 1985–98 and 1998–2009 cycles, but not the 1970–85 cycle. Fluctuations in construction activities and the influx of foreign workers underlie the changes of construction productivity in the 1985–98 cycle. There was less fluctuation in construction activities in the 1998–2009 cycle, with changes being mainly due to the fiscal stimulation policies of the government in attempting to stabilize the economy. The intensive construction of mega-projects resulted in resource constraints and cost pressures during the 1980s and 1990s. A better management of the ‘boom-bust’ nature of the construction business cycle is required to maintain the capability and capacity of the industry.

Infrastructure, investment and development evaluation: A Complex Stakeholder Perception Mapping approach for improving local and regional economic development outcomes

Partial evaluation of infrastructure investments have resulted in expensive mistakes, unsatisfactory outcomes and increased uncertainties for too many stakeholders, communities and economies in both developing and developed nations. "Complex Stakeholder Perception Mapping" (CSPM), is a novel approach that can address existing limitations by inclusively framing, capturing and mapping the spectrum of insights and perceptions using extended Geographic Information Systems. Maps generated in CSPM offer presentations of flexibly combined, complex perceptions of stakeholders on multiple aspects of development. CSPM extends the applications of GIS software in non-spatial mapping and of Multi-Criteria Analysis with a multidimensional evaluation platform and augments decision science capabilities in addressing complexities. Application of CSPM can improve local and regional economic gains from infrastructure projects and aid any multi-objective and multi-stakeholder decision situations.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition in development projects

New product development projects are experiencing increasing internal and external project complexity. Complexity leadership theory proposes that external complexity requires adaptive and enabling leadership, which facilitates opportunity recognition (OR). We ask whether internal complexity also requires OR for increased adaptability. We extend a model of EO and OR to conclude that internal complexity may require more careful OR. This means that leaders of technically or structurally complex projects need to evaluate opportunities more carefully than those in projects with external or technological complexity.

Submission to Brisbane City Council : Draft Brisbane Economic Development Plan

As with any strategic planning process, evidence-based estimates are needed to plan effectively for the future. Comments below are based upon data drawn from the Brisbane Long Term Infrastructure Plan (Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation, 2005) and the Brisbane Long Term Planning Economic Indicators (National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, 2005), as these are cited as the underpinning research for the economic plan. This submission focuses on one critical aspect of the strategic plan — the relationship between population growth, employment growth, and infrastructure provision. While the focus of the strategic plan is on the changes which would occur within Brisbane, it is important that consideration of predicted changes in surrounding local government areas be also carried out.

Why new business development projects fail : coping with the differences of technological versus market knowledge

Managing through projects has become important for generating new knowledge to cope with technological and market discontinuities. This paper examines how the fit between the creation of technological and market knowledge and important project management characteristics, i.e. project autonomy and completion criteria, influences the success of new business development (NBD) projects. In-depth longitudinal case research on NBD projects commercialised from 1993 to 2003 in the consumer electronics industry highlights that project management characteristics focusing only on the creation of technological knowledge contributed to the failure of those NBD projects that required new market knowledge as well. The findings indicate that senior management support and engaging in an alliance with partners possessing complementary market knowledge can offset this misalignment of the organisation of NBD projects.