Building family/general practice research capacity

To promote the range of interventions for building family/general practice (family medicine) research capacity, we describe successful international examples. Such examples of interventions that build research capacity focus on diseases and illness research, as well as process research; monitor the output of research in family/general practice (family medicine); increase the number of family medicine research journals; encourage and enable research skills acquisition (including making it part of professional training); strengthen the academic base; and promote research networks and collaborations. The responsibility for these interventions lies with the government, colleges and academies, and universities. There are exciting and varied methods of building research capacity in family medicine.

The mental health country profile: Background, design and use of a systematic method of appraisal

This article describes the construction and use of a systematic structured method of mental health country situation appraisal, in order to help meet the need for conceptual tools to assist planners and policy makers develop and audit policy and implementation strategies. The tool encompasses the key domains of context, needs, resources, provisions and outcomes, and provides a framework for synthesizing key qualitative and quantitative information, flagging up gaps in knowledge, and for reviewing existing policies. It serves as an enabling tool to alert and inform policy makers, professionals and other key stakeholders about important issues which need to be considered in mental health policy development. It provides detailed country specific information in a systematic format, to facilitate global sharing of experiences of mental health reform and strategies between policy makers and other stakeholders. Lastly, it is designed to be a capacity building tool for local stakeholders to enhance situation appraisal, and multisectorial policy development and implementation.

Sustainable Native Floriculture?

The Centre for Native Floriculture (CNF) commenced in May 2003 at The University of Queensland, Gatton. The CNF is a joint initiative with the Queensland State Government, with funding for an initial 3-year period. The phase-out of bush-picking under the South East Queensland Forests Agreement was a catalyst for the Centres establishment. The CNF vision is: ‘to help create an internationally competitive and environmentally sustainable native floriculture industry that provides significant employment opportunities in Queensland’. The Centre is comprised of three research, development and extension programs. The Value Chain Program assists native floriculture industry groups in developing efficient consumer-orientated production, handling and marketing systems for select high potential species. These value chain systems will serve as models for realizing the market potential of and regional fiscal returns on other native ornamental species identified as crop ideotypes that are sought after by end-users (e.g. florists). The Floriculture Program supports the value chain by working to enhance germplasm for the native floriculture industry through selection and breeding, optimize cultivation protocols and overcome any technical barriers that arise. Such barriers include propagation constraints, disease problems and post-harvest limitations. The Capacity Building Program operates to transfer technology and other skills (e.g. value chain management principles) to industry members, train operatives for the industry and promote native floriculture. Conservation of native flora is encouraged through cultivation and community engagement. Protection of biodiversity is advocated via regional production systems that spare natural areas and educate the public as to the biological, floricultural and aesthetic values of native flora. Eco-agricultural tourism focused on wildflowers both in nature and in cultivation is also advocated by the CNF.

The sugar cane biofactory - building blocks for the future

The sugarcane plant, with its enormous genetic capacity to accumulate carbon and manufacture and store sucrose, also has the potential to accumulate carbon and metabolically create a wide range of new molecules for industrial and other commercial uses. The extent to which this change can be developed and realised commercially is a function of the technical competence of the industry's R&D capacity, the reality of the commercial drivers which support this global agenda, and the determination of the industry to achieve such goals. The outcomes of existing R&D work already strongly support the technical challenges of this opportunity in sugarcane. The current challenge remains the commercialisation of the technology in a global market in which the current business structures and systems for the manufacture and distribution of existing (competitive) products makes the development of new product lines a higher risk than might otherwise be the case. This is despite all the claims that global markets are expecting and (in some cases) legislating the creation of more sustainable production systems. The options and issues for the development of a sugarcane biofactory system are discussed.

Building business cases for maintenance improvement projects

Many maintenance managers find it difficult to justify investments in maintenance improvement initiatives. In part, this is due to a tendency by mine managers to regard maintenance purely as a cost centre, and not as a process able to influence productive capacity and profit. It is also hindered by a lack of alignment between commonly used maintenance performance measures and key business drivers, and the lack of formal business training amongst maintenance professionals. With this in mind, a model to assist maintenance managers in evaluating the benefits of maintenance improvement projects was recently formulated. The model considers four cost saving dimensions. These are: 1. reduction in the cost of unplanned repairs and maintenance, 2. increased or accelerated production and/or sales, 3. spares inventory reduction, and 4. reduction in over-investment in physical assets and operating costs. This paper discusses the application of this model and a number of numerical examples are given to justify investments in maintenance improvement projects having varying objectives.