Cash flow management in construction firms

The level of insolvencies in the construction industry is high, when compared to other industry sectors. Given the management expertise and experience that is available to the construction industry, it seems strange that, according to the literature, the major causes of failure are lack of financial control and poor management. This indicates that with a good cash flow management, companies could be kept operating and financially healthy. It is possible to prevent failure. Although there are financial models that can be used to predict failure, they are based on company accounts, which have been shown to be an unreliable source of data. There are models available for cash flow management and forecasting and these could be used as a starting point for managers in rethinking their cash flow management practices. The research reported here has reached the stage of formulating researchable questions for an in-depth study including issues such as how contractors manage their cash flow, how payment practices can be managed without damaging others in the supply chain and the relationships between companies’ financial structures and the payment regimes to which they are subjected.

A retrospective audit of medicines use review forms

The medicines use review (MUR) service was introduced in England and Wales in 2005 to improve patients’ knowledge and use of medicines through a private, patient–pharmacist consultation. The pharmacist completes a standard form as a record of the MUR consultation and the patient receives a copy. The 2008 White Paper, Pharmacy in England[1] notes some MURs are of poor or questionable quality and there are anecdotal reports that pharmacists elect to conduct ‘easy’ MURs with patients on a single prescribed medicine only.[2] In 2009, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) launched a multi-disciplinary audit template to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] Prior to this, we conducted a retrospective MUR audit in a 1-month period in 2008. Our aims were to report on findings from this audit and the validity of using MUR forms as data for audit.

Autopoiesis vs. social autopoiesis: critical evaluation and implications for understanding firms as autopoietic social systems

The main objective of this study is to revisit the fundamental postulations of autopoietic self-production wrapped within the autopoietic six-point key and to investigate whether or not firms as specific social systems can be treated as autopoietic unities. In order to do so firms have to be defined as simple and composite unities whereupon their boundaries have to be clearly identifiable. The test of social autopoiesis reveals that firms can be viewed as autopoietic social systems that exist in the communicative space with employees' firm-specific communicative sub-domains as their components. Furthermore, it is argued that the social reification of autopoiesis (autokoinopoiesis) in firms is quintessentially interconnected with physical autopoiesis of their employees (autophysiopoiesis). Discontiguous focus on productivity as firms' obvious physical implication may thus be upgraded by a very social nature of ideactivity, firms' only real survival force.