Understanding stakeholder requirements on an NHS hospital project: application of semiotics-rooted theories.

Hospitals represent complex and difficult contexts for AEC (architecture, engineering and construction) professionals to engage with due to their functional complexity and diversity of stakeholder interests (i.e. patient, visitor, medical specialist). Hospital designers need to take note of changing NHS policy contexts (e.g. the possible empowerment of general practitioners to shape services), technological advances in medical equipment design and the potential health needs of future generations. It is imperative for hospital designers and architects to align their processes and methodologies (e.g. briefing and requirements capture) to the needs and desires of their clients so that a medical facility design is produced which is truly aligned to the requirements of the hospital stakeholders. Semiotics, the “study” or “discipline” of signs aims to investigate the nature of signs (their inception, representation and meaning), whilst semiotics-rooted theories are concerned with investigating how meaning and understanding is mobilized between persons and between organisations. This paper details a semiotics-rooted research approach for investigating the interactions between hospital designers and stakeholders on a forthcoming NHS hospital project in the UK. A semiotics grounded study will potentially provide a deeper understanding of how meaning and understanding is established between hospital project stakeholders and construction professionals.

Framing evidence: policy design for the zero carbon home

In 2006 the UK government announced a move to zero carbon homes by 2016. The demand posed a major challenge to policy makers and construction professionals entailing a protracted process of policy design. The task of giving content to this target is used to explore the role of evidence in the policy process. Whereas much literature on policy and evidence treats evidence as an external input, independent of politics, this paper explores the ongoing mutual constitution of both. Drawing on theories of policy framing and the sociology of classification, the account follows the story of a policy for Zero Carbon Homes from the parameters and values used to specify the target. Particular attention is given to the role of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) and to the creation of a new policy venue, the Zero Carbon Hub. The analysis underlines the way in which the choices about how to model and measure the aims potentially transforms them, the importance of policy venues for transparency and the role of RIAs in the authorization of particular definitions. A more transparent, open approach to policy formulation is needed in which the framing of evidence is recognized as an integral part of the policy process.

The Cold War and its aftermath in the Americas: the search for a synthetic interpretation of U.S. policy

More than two decades have passed since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the transfer of the Cold War file from a daily preoccupation of policy makers to a more detached assessment by historians. Scholars of U.S.-Latin American relations are beginning to take advantage both of the distance in time and of newly opened archives to reflect on the four decades that, from the 1940s to the 1980s, divided the Americas, as they did much of the world. Others are seeking to understand U.S. policy and inter-American relations in the post-Cold War era, a period that not only lacks a clear definition but also still has no name. Still others have turned their gaze forward to offer policies in regard to the region for the new Obama administration. Numerous books and review essays have addressed these three subjects—the Cold War, the post-Cold War era, and current and future issues on the inter-American agenda. Few of these studies attempt, however, to connect the three subjects or to offer new and comprehensive theories to explain the course of U.S. policies from the beginning of the twentieth century until the present. Indeed, some works and policy makers continue to use the mind-sets of the Cold War as though that conflict were still being fought. With the benefit of newly opened archives, some scholars have nevertheless drawn insights from the depths of the Cold War that improve our understanding of U.S. policies and inter-American relations, but they do not address the question as to whether the United States has escaped the longer cycle of intervention followed by neglect that has characterized its relations with Latin America. Another question is whether U.S. policies differ markedly before, during, and after the Cold War. In what follows, we ask whether the books reviewed here provide any insights in this regard and whether they offer a compass for the future of inter-American relations. We also offer our own thoughts as to how their various perspectives could be synthesized to address these questions more comprehensively.