Building partnerships as a key strategy in developing an event management model for an international dance event : a case study of the 2008 WDA (World Dance Alliance) Global Summit, Brisbane, Australia

With the increasing growth of cultural events both in Australia and internationally, there has also been an increase in event management studies; in theory and in practice. Although a series of related knowledge and skills required specifically by event managers has already been identified by many researchers (Perry et al., 1996; Getz, 2002 & Silvers et al., 2006) and generic event management models proposed, including ‘project management’ strategies in an event context (Getz, 2007), knowledge gaps still exist in relation to identifying specific types of events, especially for not-for-profit arts events. For events of a largely voluntary nature, insufficient resources are recognised as the most challenging; including finance, human resources and infrastructure. Therefore, the concepts and principles which are adopted by large scale commercial events may not be suitable for not-for-profit arts events aiming at providing professional network opportunities for artists. Building partnerships are identified as a key strategy in developing an effective event management model for this type of event. Using the 2008 World Dance Alliance Global Summit (WDAGS) in Brisbane 13-18 July, as a case study, the level, nature and relationship of key partners are investigated. Data is triangulated from interviews with organisers of the 2008 WDAGS, on-line and email surveys of delegates, participant observation and analysis of formal and informal documents, to produce a management model suited to this kind of event.

Alliance supervision to enhance client outcomes

Clinical supervision has traditionally been considered an important part of training and the professional development of therapists, being rated highly in the experience of trainees as well as practitioners in the field (Orlinsky, Botermans, & Ronnestad, 2001; Steven, Goodyear, & Robertson, 1998). However, the evidence base for any supervision approach improving outcomes with clients is lacking (Bambling, & King, 2000). In this chapter an alternate non‐approach bound model of supervision is presented that has preliminary evidence for enhancing client outcomes in brief psychological treatment. The focus of this Three‐Stage Alliance Supervision (TSAS) prioritises the interpersonal process of counselling as an independent factor as well as the core construct through which all technical interventions should be given. Below is a basic introduction to the supervision model used in the first empirical investigation of supervision and client outcome (Bambling, King, Raue, Schweitzer, & Lambert 2006). While this chapter does not constitute the supervision manual it should provide the reader with sufficient knowledge to adopt an alliance focus in their supervision practice.

Policy into practice : adoption of hazard mitigation measures by local government in Queensland : a collaborative research project between Queensland University of Technology and Emergency Management Queensland in association with Local Government of Queensland Disaster Management Alliance

The focus of the present research was to investigate how Local Governments in Queensland were progressing with the adoption of delineated DM policies and supporting guidelines. The study consulted Local Government representatives and hence, the results reflect their views on these issues. Is adoption occurring? To what degree? Are policies and guidelines being effectively implemented so that the objective of a safer, more resilient community is being achieved? If not, what are the current barriers to achieving this, and can recommendations be made to overcome these barriers? These questions defined the basis on which the present study was designed and the survey tools developed. While it was recognised that LGAQ and Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) may have differing views on some reported issues, it was beyond the scope of the present study to canvass those views. The study resolved to document and analyse these questions under the broad themes of: • Building community capacity (notably via community awareness). • Council operationalisation of DM. • Regional partnerships (in mitigation/adaptation). Data was collected via a survey tool comprising two components: • An online questionnaire survey distributed via the LGAQ Disaster Management Alliance (hereafter referred to as the “Alliance”) to DM sections of all Queensland Local Government Councils; and • a series of focus groups with selected Queensland Councils

Individual agency as explanation of alliance development and change : a case study

Alliances, with other inter-organisational forms, have become a strategy of choice and necessity for both the private and public sectors. From initial formation, alliances develop and change in different ways, with research suggesting that many alliances will be terminated without their potential value being realised. Alliance process theorists address this phenomenon, seeking explanations as to why alliances unfold the way they do. However, these explanations have generally focussed on economic and structural determinants: empirically, little is known about how and why the agency of alliance actors shapes the alliance path. Theorists have suggested that current alliance process theory has provided valuable, but partial accounts of alliance development, which could be usefully extended by considering social and individual factors. The purpose of this research therefore was to extend alliance process theory by exploring individual agency as an explanation of alliance events and in doing so, reveal the potential of a multi-frame approach for understanding alliance process. Through an historical study of a single, rich case of alliance process, this thesis provided three explanations for the sequence of alliance events, each informed by a different theoretical perspective. The explanatory contribution of the Individual Agency (IA) perspective was distilled through juxtaposition with the perspectives of Environmental Determinism (ED) and Indeterminacy/Chance (I/C). The research produced a number of findings. First, it provided empirical support for the tentative proposition that the choices and practices of alliance actors are partially explanatory of alliance change and that these practices are particular to the alliance context. Secondly, the study found that examining the case through three theoretical frames provided a more complete explanation. Two propositions were put forward as to how individual agency can be theorised within this three-perspective framework. Finally, the case explained which alliance actors were required to shape alliance decision making in this case and why.

Brothers in arms – An experiment on the alliance puzzle

The generic alliance game considers players in an alliance who fight against an external enemy. After victory, the alliance may break up, and its members may fight against each other over the spoils of the victory. Our experimental analysis of this game shows: In-group solidarity vanishes after the break-up of the alliance. Former ‘brothers in arms’ fight even more vigorously against each other than strangers do. Furthermore, this vigorous internal fighting is anticipated and reduces the ability of the alliance to mobilize the joint fighting effort, compared to a situation in which victorious alliance members share the spoils of victory equally and peacefully

Learning routines used by firms during construction of infrastructure projects using the alliance procurement method

Collaborative contracting has emerged over the past 15 years as an innovative project delivery framework that is particularly suited to infrastructure projects. Australia leads the world in the development of project and program alliance approaches to collaborative delivery. These approaches are considered to promise superior project results. However, very little is known about the learning routines that are most widely used in support of collaborative projects in general and alliance projects in particular. The literature on absorptive capacity and dynamic capabilities indicates that such learning enhances project performance. The learning routines employed at corporate level during the operation of collaborative infrastructure projects in Australia were examined through a large survey conducted in 2013. This paper presents a descriptive summary of the preliminary findings. The survey captured the experiences of 320 practitioners of collaborative construction projects, including public and private sector clients, contractors, consultants and suppliers (three per cent of projects were located in New Zealand, but for brevity’s sake the sample is referred to as Australian). The majority of projects identified used alliances (78.6%); whilst 9% used Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) contracts and 2.7% used Early Tender Involvement contracts, which are ‘slimmer’ types of collaborative contract. The remaining 9.7% of respondents used traditional contracts that employed some collaborative elements. The majority of projects were delivered for public sector clients (86.3%), and/or clients experienced with asset procurement (89.6%). All of the projects delivered infrastructure assets; one third in the road sector, one third in the water sector, one fifth in the rail sector, and the rest spread across energy, building and mining. Learning routines were explored within three interconnected phases: knowledge exploration, transformation and exploitation. The results show that explorative and exploitative learning routines were applied to a similar extent. Transformative routines were applied to a relatively low extent. It was also found that the most highly applied routine is ‘regularly applying new knowledge to collaborative projects’; and the least popular routine was ‘staff incentives to encourage information sharing about collaborative projects’. Future research planned by the authors will examine the impact of these routines on project performance.

Built to last or meant to end : intertemporal choice in strategic alliance portfolios

A salient but rarely explicitly studied characteristic of interfirm relationships is that they can intentionally be formed for finite periods of time. What determines firms' intertemporal choices between different alliance time horizons? Shadow of the future theorists suggest that when an alliance has an explicitly set short-term time frame, there is an increased risk that partners may behave opportunistically. This does not readily explain the high incidence of time-bound alliances being formed. Reconciling insights from the shadow of the future perspective with nascent research on the flexibility of temporary organizations, and shifting the focus from the level of individual transactions to that of strategic alliance portfolios, we argue that firms may be willing to accept a higher risk of opportunism when there are offsetting gains in strategic flexibility in managing their strategic alliance portfolio. Consequently, we hypothesize that environmental factors that increase the need for strategic flexibility—namely, dynamism and complexity in the environment—are likely to increase the relative share of time-bound alliances in strategic alliance portfolios. Our analysis of longitudinal data on the intertemporal alliance choices of a large sample of small and medium-sized enterprises provides support for this argument. Our findings fill an important gap in theory about time horizons in interfirm relationships and temporary organizations and show the importance of separating planned terminations from duration-based performance measures.

Neoliberal social inclusion? The agenda of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance

University–community engagement (UCE) represents a hybrid discourse and a set of practices within contemporary higher education. As a modality of research and teaching, ‘engagement’ denotes the process of universities forming partnerships with external communities for the promised generation of mutually beneficial and socially responsive knowledge, leading to enhanced economic, social and cultural developments. A critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge) of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance’s (AUCEA) ‘Position Paper’(2008 Universities and community engagement (Position paper 2008–2010)), as reported in this article, suggests that its uneasy synthesis of neoliberal, social inclusion and civic engagement discourses into a hybrid UCE discourse semantically privileges neoliberal forms of engagement. Perhaps, as a result, the AUCEA seems to have missed an opportunity to influence the Australian ‘widening participation’ debate on securing access and opportunity for marginalised students at universities and building social and cultural capital within their communities of origin.