Supporting multi-organisational collaborative groups in the public sector

In this paper, the issues that arise in multi-organisational collaborative groups (MOCGs) in the public sector are discussed and how a technology-based group support system (GSS) could assist individuals within these groups. MOCGs are commonly used in the public sector to find solutions to multifaceted social problems. Finding solutions for such problems is difficult because their scope is outside the boundary of a single government agency. The standard approach to solving such problems is collaborative involving a diverse range of stakeholders. Collaborative working can be advantageous but it also introduces its own pressures. Conflicts can arise due to the multiple contexts and goals of group members and the organisations that they represent. Trust, communication and a shared interface are crucial to making any significant progress. A GSS could support these elements.

Mean flow and turbulence statistics over groups of urban-like cubical obstacles

Direct numerical simulations of turbulent flow over regular arrays of urban-like, cubical obstacles are reported. Results are analysed in terms of a formal spatial averaging procedure to enable interpretation of the flow within the arrays as a canopy flow, and of the flow above as a rough wall boundary layer. Spatial averages of the mean velocity, turbulent stresses and pressure drag are computed. The statistics compare very well with data from wind-tunnel experiments. Within the arrays the time-averaged flow structure gives rise to significant 'dispersive stress' whereas above the Reynolds stress dominates. The mean flow structure and turbulence statistics depend significantly on the layout of the cubes. Unsteady effects are important, especially in the lower canopy layer where turbulent fluctuations dominate over the mean flow.

Access, equity and the role of rights in health care

Modern health care rhetoric promotes choice and individual patient rights as dominant values. Yet we also accept that in any regime constrained by finite resources, difficult choices between patients are inevitable. How can we balance rights to liberty, on the one hand, with equity in the allocation of scarce resources on the other? For example, the duty of health authorities to allocate resources is a duty owed to the community as a whole, rather than to specific individuals. Macro-duties of this nature are founded on the notion of equity and fairness amongst individuals rather than personal liberty. They presume that if hard choices have to be made, they will be resolved according to fair and consistent principles which treat equal cases equally, and unequal cases unequally. In this paper, we argue for greater clarity and candour in the health care rights debate. With this in mind, we discuss (1) private and public rights, (2) negative and positive rights, (3) procedural and substantive rights, (4) sustainable health care rights and (5) the New Zealand booking system for prioritising access to elective services. This system aims to consider: individual need and ability to benefit alongside the resources made available to elective health services in an attempt to give the principles of equity practical effect. We describe a continuum on which the merits of those, sometimes competing, values-liberty and equity-can be evaluated and assessed.