Comparing rice production systems: A challenge for agronomic research and for the dissemination of knowledge-intensive farming practices

This article is a commentary on several research studies conducted on the prospects for aerobic rice production systems that aim at reducing the demand for irrigation water which in certain major rice producing areas of the world is becoming increasingly scarce. The research studies considered, as reported in published articles mainly under the aegis of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), have a narrow scope in that they test only 3 or 4 rice varieties under different soil moisture treatments obtained with controlled irrigation, but with other agronomic factors of production held as constant. Consequently, these studies do not permit an assessment of the interactions among agronomic factors that will be of critical significance to the performance of any production system. Varying the production factor of "water" will seriously affect also the levels of the other factors required to optimise the performance of a production system. The major weakness in the studies analysed in this article originates from not taking account of the interactions between experimental and non-experimental factors involved in the comparisons between different production systems. This applies to the experimental field design used for the research studies as well as to the subsequent statistical analyses of the results. The existence of such interactions is a serious complicating element that makes meaningful comparisons between different crop production systems difficult. Consequently, the data and conclusions drawn from such research readily become biased towards proposing standardised solutions for possible introduction to farmers through a linear technology transfer process. Yet, the variability and diversity encountered in the real-world farming environment demand more flexible solutions and approaches in the dissemination of knowledge-intensive production practices through "experiential learning" types of processes, such as those employed by farmer field schools. This article illustrates, based on expertise of the 'system of rice intensification' (SRI), that several cost-effective and environment-friendly agronomic solutions to reduce the demand for irrigation water, other than the asserted need for the introduction of new cultivars, are feasible. Further, these agronomic Solutions can offer immediate benefits of reduced water requirements and increased net returns that Would be readily accessible to a wide range of rice producers, particularly the resource poor smallholders. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Theory and practice in value management: a reply to Ellis et al (2005)

The constructivist model of 'soft' value management (VM) is contrasted with the VM discourse appropriated by cost consultants who operate from within UK quantity surveying (QS) practices. The enactment of VM by cost consultants is shaped by the institutional context within which they operate and is not necessarily representative of VM practice per se. Opportunities to perform VM during the formative stages of design are further constrained by the positivistic rhetoric that such practitioners use to conceptualize and promote their services. The complex interplay between VM theory and practice is highlighted and analysed from a non-deterministic perspective. Codified models of 'best practice' are seen to be socially constructed and legitimized through human interaction in the context of interorganizational networks. Published methodologies are seen to inform practice in only a loose and indirect manner, with extensive scope for localized improvization. New insights into the relationship between VM theory and practice are derived from the dramaturgical metaphor. The social reality of VM is seen to be constituted through scripts and performances, both of which are continuously contested across organizational arenas. It is concluded that VM defies universal definition and is conceptualized and enacted differently across different localized contexts.

How contractors price risk in bids: theory and practice

Formal and analytical models that contractors can use to assess and price project risk at the tender stage have proliferated in recent years. However, they are rarely used in practice. Introducing more models would, therefore, not necessarily help. A better understanding is needed of how contractors arrive at a bid price in practice, and how, and in what circumstances, risk apportionment actually influences pricing levels. More than 60 proposed risk models for contractors that are published in journals were examined and classified. Then exploratory interviews with five UK contractors and documentary analyses on how contractors price work generally and risk specifically were carried out to help in comparing the propositions from the literature to what contractors actually do. No comprehensive literature on the real bidding processes used in practice was found, and there is no evidence that pricing is systematic. Hence, systematic risk and pricing models for contractors may have no justifiable basis. Contractors process their bids through certain tendering gateways. They acknowledge the risk that they should price. However, the final settlement depends on a set of complex, micro-economic factors. Hence, risk accountability may be smaller than its true cost to the contractor. Risk apportionment occurs at three stages of the whole bid-pricing process. However, analytical approaches tend not to incorporate this, although they could.