Breaking the impasse: towards a new regime for international climate governance

The reality of the current international order makes it imperative that a just and effective climate regime balance the historical responsibility of developed countries with the increasing absolute emissions from many developing nations. In this short outlook article, key pillars are proposed for a new international climate architecture that envisions replacing the current annex system with two new annexes –Annex α, for countries with high current emissions and historically high emissions, and Annex β, for countries with high current emissions and historically low emissions. Countries in both annexes would implement legally binding targets under this framework. Additionally, this proposal includes tweaks and revisions to funding and technology transfer mechanisms to correct for weaknesses and inequities under the current Kyoto architecture. The proposed framework stems from a belief that a top-down, international approach to climate policy remains the most effective for ensuring environmental integrity. Given the slow rate of institutional learning, reforming and improving the current system is held as a more efficient course of action than abandoning the progress already achieved. It is argued that the proposed framework effectively accommodates key equity, environmental integrity and political feasibility concerns.

Learning across business sectors: Knowledge sharing between aerospace and construction

This report addresses the extent that managerial practices can be shared between the aerospace and construction sectors. Current recipes for learning from other industries tend to be oversimplistic and often fail to recognise the embedded and contextual nature of managerial knowledge. Knowledge sharing between business sectors is best understood as an essential source of innovation. The process of comparison challenges assumptions and better equips managers to cope with future change. Comparisons between the aerospace and construction sectors are especially useful because they are so different. The two sectors differ hugely in terms of their institutional context, structure and technological intensity. The aerospace sector has experienced extensive consolidation and is dominated by a small number of global companies. Aerospace companies operate within complex networks of global interdependency such that collaborative working is a commercial imperative. In contrast, the construction sector remains highly fragmented and is characterised by a continued reliance on small firms. The vast majority of construction firms compete within localised markets that are too often characterised by opportunistic behaviour. Comparing construction to aerospace highlights the unique characteristics of both sectors and helps explain how managerial practices are mediated by context. Detailed comparisons between the two sectors are made in a range of areas and guidance is provided for the implementation of knowledge sharing strategies within and across organisations. The commonly accepted notion of ‘best practice’ is exposed as a myth. Indeed, universal models of best practice can be detrimental to performance by deflecting from the need to adapt continuously to changing circumstances. Competitiveness in the construction sector too often rests on efficiency in managing contracts, with a particular emphasis on the allocation of risk. Innovation in construction tends to be problem-driven and is rarely shared from project to project. In aerospace, the dominant model of competitiveness means that firms have little choice other than to invest in continuous innovation, despite difficult trading conditions. Research and development (R&D) expenditure in aerospace continues to rise as a percentage of turnovers. A sustained capacity for innovation within the aerospace sector depends crucially upon stability and continuity of work. In the construction sector, the emergence of the ‘hollowed-out’ firm has undermined the industry’s capacity for innovation. Integrated procurement contexts such as prime contracting in construction potentially provide a more supportive climate for an innovation-based model of competitiveness. However, investment in new ways of working depends upon a shift in thinking not only amongst construction contractors, but also amongst the industry’s major clients.

Learning across business sectors: facets of innovation in aerospace and construction

Innovation is notoriously difficult to define and is invariably intertwined with issues of knowledge creation, continuous improvement and organisational change. An extensive literature classifies numerous types of innovation and militates against any simplistic attempt at definition. It is widely accepted that innovation is at least partly dependent upon the surrounding environment. Industry recipes and institutionally embedded practices shape the environment within which innovation occurs. Recent research directions have addressed the diffusion of innovation and its dependence upon social and institutional structures. In this respect, it is highly pertinent to compare the way that innovation is interpreted and enacted in different industrial sectors. The comparison between UK aerospace and construction is especially revealing because the two sectors are so different and therefore constitute radically different climates for innovation. Empirical research is reported based on semi-structured interviews with practitioners from both sectors. Interpretations of innovation are found to differ dramatically between aerospace and construction. Within the context of an ongoing struggle to define innovation, both industries are striving to become more innovative. The aerospace sector is found to emphasise technical innovation whereas the construction sector emphasises process innovation. An overriding cultural bias in Western economies towards technological innovation results in the common perception that aerospace is much more innovative than construction. The experienced realities of practitioners in the two sectors are much more complex.

Interactive learning in UK construction practice: examining the role of BIM process standards

From a construction innovation systems perspective, firms acquire knowledge from suppliers, clients, universities and institutional environment. Building information modelling (BIM) involves these firms using new process standards. To understand the implications on interactive learning using BIM process standards, a case study is conducted with the UK operations of a multinational construction firm. Data is drawn from: a) two workshops involving the firm and a wider industry group, b) observations of practice in the BIM core team and in three ongoing projects, c) 12 semi-structured interviews; and d) secondary publications. The firm uses a set of BIM process standards (IFC, PAS 1192, Uniclass, COBie) in its construction activities. It is also involved in a pilot to implement the COBie standard, supported by technical and management standards for BIM, such as Uniclass and PAS1192. Analyses suggest that such BIM process standards unconsciously shapes the firm's internal and external interactive learning processes. Internally standards allow engineers to learn from each through visualising 3D information and talking around designs with operatives to address problems during construction. Externally, the firm participates in trial and pilot projects involving other construction firms, government agencies, universities and suppliers to learn about the standard and access knowledge to solve its specific design problems. Through its BIM manager, the firm provides feedback to standards developers and information technology suppliers. The research contributes by articulating how BIM process standards unconsciously change interactive learning processes in construction practice. Further research could investigate these findings in the wider UK construction innovation system.