Why new business development projects fail : coping with the differences of technological versus market knowledge

Managing through projects has become important for generating new knowledge to cope with technological and market discontinuities. This paper examines how the fit between the creation of technological and market knowledge and important project management characteristics, i.e. project autonomy and completion criteria, influences the success of new business development (NBD) projects. In-depth longitudinal case research on NBD projects commercialised from 1993 to 2003 in the consumer electronics industry highlights that project management characteristics focusing only on the creation of technological knowledge contributed to the failure of those NBD projects that required new market knowledge as well. The findings indicate that senior management support and engaging in an alliance with partners possessing complementary market knowledge can offset this misalignment of the organisation of NBD projects.

Small business pedagogic practices

Understanding how learning for small businesses should best proceed constitutes a worthwhile, yet challenging, pedagogic project. In order to maintain their viability, small businesses need to be able to respond to new practices and tasks. Yet small businesses seem neither attracted to nor to value the kinds of taught courses that are the standard pedagogic practice of vocational education systems.

Extending life-cycle costing (LCC) analysis for sustainability considerations in road infrastructure projects

Sustainable development is about making societal investments. These investments should be in synchronization with the natural environment, trends of social development, as well as organisational and local economies over a long time span. Traditionally in the eyes of clients, project development will need to produce the required profit margins, with some degrees of consideration for other impacts. This is being changed as all citizens of our society are becoming more aware of concepts and challenges such as the climate change, greenhouse footprints, and social dimensions of sustainability, and will in turn demand answers to these issues in built facilities. A large number of R&D projects have focused on the technical advancement and environmental assessment of products and built facilities. It is equally important address the cost/benefit issue, as developers in the world would not want to loose money by investing in built assets. For infrastructure projects, due to its significant cost of development and lengthy delivery time, presenting the full money story of going green is of vital importance. Traditional views of life-cycle costing tend to focus on the pure economics of a construction project. Sustainability concepts are not broadly integrated with the current LCCA in the construction sector. To rectify this problem, this paper reports on the progress to date of developing and extending contemporary LCCA models in the evaluation of road infrastructure sustainability. The suggested new model development is based on sustainability indicators identified through previous research, and incorporating industry verified cost elements of sustainability measures. The on-going project aims to design and a working model for sustainability life-cycle costing analysis for this type of infrastructure projects.

Framework and processes for enhancing sustainability deliverables in Australian road infrastructure projects

Road and highway infrastructure provides the backbone for a nation’s economic growth. The versatile dispersion of population in Australia and its resource boom, coupled with improved living standards and growing societal expectations, calls for continuing development and improvement of road infrastructure under the current local, state and federal governments’ policies and strategic plans. As road infrastructure projects involve huge resources and mechanisms, achieving sustainability not only on economic scales but also through environmental and social responsibility becomes a crucial issue. While sustainability is a logical link to infrastructure development, literature study and consultation with the industry found that there is a lack of common understanding on what constitutes sustainability in the infrastructure context. Its priorities are often interpreted differently among multiple stakeholders. For road infrastructure projects which typically span over long periods of time, achieving tangible sustainability outcomes during the lifecycle of development remains a formidable task. Sustainable development initiatives often remain ideological as in macro-level policies and broad-based concepts. There were little elaboration and exemplar cases on how these policies and concepts can be translated into practical decision-making during project implementation. In contrast, there seemed to be over commitment on research and development of sustainability assessment methods and tools. Between the two positions, there is a perception-reality gap and mismatch, specifically on how to enhance sustainability deliverables during infrastructure project delivery. Review on past research in this industry sector also found that little has been done to promote sustainable road infrastructure development; this has wide and varied potential impacts. This research identified the common perceptions and expectations by different stakeholders towards achieving sustainability in road and highway infrastructure projects. Face to face interviews on selected representatives of these stakeholders were carried out in order to select and categorize, confirm and prioritize a list of sustainability performance targets identified through literature and past research. A Delphi study was conducted with the assistance of a panel of senior industry professionals and academic experts, which further considered the interrelationship and influence of the sustainability indicators, and identified critical sustainability indicators under ten critical sustainability criteria (e.g. Environmental, Health & Safety, Resource Utilization & Management, Social & Cultural, Economic, Public Governance & Community Engagement, Relations Management, Engineering, Institutional and Project Management). This presented critical sustainability issues that needed to be addressed at the project level. Accordingly, exemplar highway development projects were used as case studies to elicit solutions for the critical issues. Through the identification and integration of different perceptions and priority needs of the stakeholders, as well as key sustainability indicators and solutions for critical issues, a set of decision-making guidelines was developed to promote and drive consistent sustainability deliverables in road infrastructure projects.

How environmental and organizational complexity affects opportunity recognition and exploitation in development projects

Principal Topic: Project structures are often created by entrepreneurs and large corporate organizations to develop new products. Since new product development projects (NPDP) are more often situated within a larger organization, intrapreneurship or corporate entrepreneurship plays an important role in bringing these projects to fruition. Since NPDP often involves the development of a new product using immature technology, we describe development of an immature technology. The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 aircraft is being developed by the U.S. Department of Defense and eight allied nations. In 2001 Lockheed Martin won a $19 billion contract to develop an affordable, stealthy and supersonic all-weather strike fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter aircraft. In this research we define a complex project as one that demonstrates a number of sources of uncertainty to a degree, or level of severity, that makes it extremely difficult to predict project outcomes, to control or manage project (Remington & Zolin, Forthcoming). Project complexity has been conceptualized by Remington and Pollock (2007) in terms of four major sources of complexity; temporal, directional, structural and technological complexity (See Figure 1). Temporal complexity exists when projects experience significant environmental change outside the direct influence or control of the project. The Global Economic Crisis of 2008 - 2009 is a good example of the type of environmental change that can make a project complex as, for example in the JSF project, where project managers attempt to respond to changes in interest rates, international currency exchange rates and commodity prices etc. Directional complexity exists in a project where stakeholders' goals are unclear or undefined, where progress is hindered by unknown political agendas, or where stakeholders disagree or misunderstand project goals. In the JSF project all the services and all non countries have to agree to the specifications of the three variants of the aircraft; Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL), Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) and the Carrier Variant (CV). Because the Navy requires a plane that can take off and land on an aircraft carrier, that required a special variant of the aircraft design, adding complexity to the project. Technical complexity occurs in a project using technology that is immature or where design characteristics are unknown or untried. Developing a plane that can take off on a very short runway and land vertically created may highly interdependent technological challenges to correctly locate, direct and balance the lift fans, modulate the airflow and provide equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft and at the same time control engine temperatures. These technological challenges make costing and scheduling equally challenging. Structural complexity in a project comes from the sheer numbers of elements such as the number of people, teams or organizations involved, ambiguity regarding the elements, and the massive degree of interconnectedness between them. While Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor, they are assisted in major aspects of the JSF development by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engineer Team and innumerable subcontractors. In addition to identifying opportunities to achieve project goals, complex projects also need to identify and exploit opportunities to increase agility in response to changing stakeholder demands or to reduce project risks. Complexity Leadership Theory contends that in complex environments adaptive and enabling leadership are needed (Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelvey, 2007). Adaptive leadership facilitates creativity, learning and adaptability, while enabling leadership handles the conflicts that inevitably arise between adaptive leadership and traditional administrative leadership (Uhl-Bien and Marion, 2007). Hence, adaptive leadership involves the recognition and opportunities to adapt, while and enabling leadership involves the exploitation of these opportunities. Our research questions revolve around the type or source of complexity and its relationship to opportunity recognition and exploitation. For example, is it only external environmental complexity that creates the need for the entrepreneurial behaviours, such as opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? Do the internal dimensions of project complexity, such as technological and structural complexity, also create the need for opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation? The Kropp, Zolin and Lindsay model (2009) describes a relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), opportunity recognition (OR), and opportunity exploitation (OX) in complex projects, with environmental and organizational contextual variables as moderators. We extend their model by defining the affects of external complexity and internal complexity on OR and OX. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: When the environment complex EO is more likely to result in OR because project members will be actively looking for solutions to problems created by environmental change. But in projects that are technologically or structurally complex project leaders and members may try to make the minimum changes possible to reduce the risk of creating new problems due to delays or schedule changes. In projects with environmental or technological complexity project leaders who encourage the innovativeness dimension of EO will increase OR in complex projects. But projects with technical or structural complexity innovativeness will not necessarily result in the recognition and exploitation of opportunities due to the over-riding importance of maintaining stability in the highly intricate and interconnected project structure. We propose that in projects with environmental complexity creating the need for change and innovation project leaders, who are willing to accept and manage risk, are more likely to identify opportunities to increase project effectiveness and efficiency. In contrast in projects with internal complexity a much higher willingness to accept risk will be necessary to trigger opportunity recognition. In structurally complex projects we predict it will be less likely to find a relationship between risk taking and OP. When the environment is complex, and a project has autonomy, they will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. When a project experiences high competitive aggressiveness and their environment is complex, project leaders will be motivated to execute opportunities to improve the project's performance. In contrast, when the project has high internal complexity, they will be more cautious in execution. This paper reports the first stage of a three year study into the behaviours of managers, leaders and team members of complex projects. We conduct a qualitative study involving a Group Discussion with experienced project leaders. The objective is to determine how leaders of large and potentially complex projects perceive that external and internal complexity will influence the affects of EO on OR. ---------- Results and Implications: These results will help identify and distinguish the impact of external and internal complexity on entrepreneurial behaviours in NPDP. Project managers will be better able to quickly decide how and when to respond to changes in the environment and internal project events.

Responding to sustainability challenge and cost implications in highway construction projects

Highway construction often requires a significant capital input; therefore it often causes serious financial implications for developers, owners and operators. The recent industry-wide focus on sustainability has added a new dimension to the evaluation of highway projects, particularly on the economical scale of ‘going green’. Comprehensive analysis of the whole-of-life highway development that responds to sustainability challenges is one of the primary concerns for stakeholders. Principles of engineering economics and life cycle costing have been used to determine the incremental capacity investments for highway projects. However, the consideration of costs and issues associated with sustainability is still very limited in current studies on highway projects. Previous studies have identified that highway project investments are primarily concerned with direct market costs that can be quantified through life cycle costing analysis (LCCA). But they tend to ignore costs that are difficult to calculate, as those related to environmental and social elements. On a more positive note, these studies proved that the inclusion of such costs is an essential part of the overall development investment and a primary concern for decision making by the stakeholders. This paper discusses a research attempt to identify and categorise sustainability cost elements for highway projects. Through questionnaire survey, a set of sustainability cost elements on highway projects has been proposed. These cost elements are incorporated into the extension of some of the existing Life Cycle Costing Analysis (LCCA) models in order to produce a holistic financial picture of the highway project. It is expected that a new LCCA model will be established to serve as a suitable tool for decision making for highway project stakeholders.

Factors contributing to successful public private partnership projects : comparing Hong Kong with Australia and the United Kingdom

Purpose: With the increasing interest in Public Private Partnership (PPP) there is a need to investigate the factors contributing to successful delivery of PPP projects. Design/methodology/approach: An empirical questionnaire survey was conducted in Hong Kong and Australia. The survey respondents were asked to rate eighteen factors which contribute to delivering successful PPP projects. Findings: The findings from this survey were further compared with the results achieved by a previous researcher (Li, 2003) in a similar survey conducted in the United Kingdom. The comparison showed that amongst the top five success factors ranked by Hong Kong respondents, three were also ranked highly by the Australians and British. These success factors included: ‘Commitment and responsibility of public and private sectors’; ‘Strong and good private consortium’; and ‘Appropriate risk allocation and risk sharing’. Originality/value: These success factors were therefore found to be important for contributing to successful PPP projects irrespective of geographical locations.

The public sector’s perspective on procuring public works projects : comparing the views of practitioners in Hong Kong and Australia

Hong Kong has been one of the early jurisdictions to adopt Public Private Partnership (PPP) model for delivering large public infrastructure projects. The development of this procurement approach in Hong Kong has followed an intricate path. As such, it is believed that there are a number of areas which are interesting to unveil. As part of a comprehensive research study looking at implementing PPPs, interviews with experienced local industrial practitioners from the public sector were conducted to realize their perspective on the topic of procuring public works projects. Amongst these interviews, fourteen were launched government officials and advisers. The interview findings show that the majority of the Hong Kong and Australian interviewees had previously conducted some kind of research in the field of PPP. Both groups of interviewees agreed that “PPPs gain private sector’s added efficiency/expertise/management skills” when compared to projects procured traditionally. Also, both groups of interviewees felt that projects best suited to use PPP are those that have an “Economic business case”. The interviewees believed that “Contractor’s performance” could be used as key performance indicators for PPP projects. A large number of critical success factors were identified by the interviewees for PPP projects; two of these were similar for both groups of interviewees. These included “Project objectives well defined” and “Partnership spirit/commitment/trust”. Finally it was found that in-house guidance materials were more common in the organizations of the Australian interviewees compared to the Hong Kong ones. This paper studies the views of the public sector towards the topic of PPPs in Hong Kong and Australia, which helps to answer some of the queries that both academics and the private sector in these jurisdictions are keen to know. As a result the private sector can be more prepared when negotiating with the public sector and realise their needs better, academics on the other hand are provided a wider perspective of this topic benefiting the research industry at large.

The researcher’s perspective on procuring public works projects

Purpose: As part of a comprehensive research study looking at implementing PPPs, interviews with experienced researchers were conducted to realize their views on private sector involvement in public works projects. Design / methodology / approach: Amongst these interviews, five were launched with academics from Hong Kong and Australia, and two were conducted with Legislative Councillors of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region (HKSAR) government. Findings: The interview findings show that both Hong Kong and Australian interviewees had previously conducted some kind of research in the field of PPP. The interviewees highlighted that “Different risk profiles” and “Private sector more innovative / efficient” were the main differences between projects that were procured by PPP and traditionally. Other differences include risk transfer. In a PPP arrangement the public sector passes on a substantial amount of the project risks to the private sector, whereas in a traditional case the public sector would take the largest responsibility in bearing these risks. Another common feature of the private sector is that they tend to be more efficient and innovative when compared to the public sector hence their expertise is often reflected in PPP projects. The interviewees agreed that the key performance indicators for PPP projects were unique depending on the individual project. The critical success factors mentioned by both groups of interviewees included “Transparent process”, “Project dependent” and “Market need”. Due to the fact that PPP projects tend to be large scaled costly projects, adequate transparency in the process is necessary in order to demonstrate that a fair selection and tendering process is conducted. A market need for the project is also important to ensure that the project will be financially secure and that the private sector can make a reasonable profit to cover their project expenditure. Originality / value: The findings from this study have enabled a comparative analysis between the views of researchers in two completely different jurisdictions. With the growing popularity to implement PPP projects, it is believed that the results presented in this paper would be of interest to the industry at large.

Water sensitive urban design in landscape projects in Shijiazhuang and Yueyang in China [水敏性城市设计 (WSUD) 策略及景观项目中的应用 (中国石家莊和中國岳陽)]

With the rapid urbanization progress, water resources protection and water pollution control have become key problems of human environment construction and social sustainable development. Many countries, especially Australia, have mature experiences. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is one of the successful strategies that is put forward under this global situation and helps releasing heavy environmental pressure from urbanization. The paper discussed main principles of WSUD and then took Shijiazhuang, Heibei and Yueng, Hunan for examples trying to apply WSUD in river landscape projects in China's new urban area, thus doing contributions to more sustainable water management in new urban areas in China.

The management of transport construction projects : a survey of public sector organisations in Queensland Australia

Construction procurement organisations in the Australian framework provide broad guidelines on project management in setting benchmark performance measurements and processes for evaluating their projects. Despite this, little has been known in the project management practise in transport construction projects in Australia, in particular Queensland. Questionnaire data from 53 project management practitioners employed in State and City public sector organisations in Queensland,suggested that many practitioners in the public sector have little or a lack of understanding of government regulatory policies, which are used as economic evaluation tools for project options. Public sector project managers perceive socio-economic evaluation tools as inappropriate for public sector projects. The survey results also found conducting risk management analysis, developing a risk register and mitigation of risks were most effective way of managing risk. This study provides an opportunity for the public sector to review and provide training on project management practices and government regulatory policies governing public projects. This will improve project management practitioners’ understanding and interpretation of government regulatory policies.

Making use of pedagogic models as reflective catalysts for investigating pedagogic practice

The notion of pedagogy for anyone in the teaching profession is innocuous. The term itself, is steeped in history but the details of the practice can be elusive. What does it mean for an academic to be embracing pedagogy? The problem is not limited to academics; most teachers baulk at the introduction of a pedagogic agenda and resist attempts to have them reflect on their classroom teaching practice, where ever that classroom might be constituted. This paper explores the application of a pedagogic model (Education Queensland, 2001) which was developed in the context of primary and secondary teaching and was part of a schooling agenda to improve pedagogy. As a teacher educator I introduced the model to classroom teachers (Hill, 2002) using an Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider and Srivastva 1987) model and at the same time applied the model to my own pedagogy as an academic. Despite being instigated as a model for classroom teachers, I found through my own practitioner investigation that the model was useful for exploring my own pedagogy as a university academic (Hill, 2007, 2008). Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987) Appreciative inquiry in organisational life, in Passmore, W. and Woodman, R. (Eds) Research in Organisational Changes and Development (Vol 1) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pp 129-69 Education Queensland (2001) School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS), Brisbane, Queensland Government. Hill, G. (2002, December ) Reflecting on professional practice with a cracked mirror: Productive Pedagogy experiences. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference. Brisbane, Australia. Hill, G. (2007) Making the assessment criteria explicit through writing feedback: A pedagogical approach to developing academic writing. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 3(1), 59-66. Hill, G. (2008) Supervising Practice Based Research. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 5(4), 78-87