The challenges of managing complexity in projects : an Australian perspective

Project Management (PM) as an academic field is relatively new in Australian universities. Moreover, the field is distributed across four main areas: business (management), built environment and construction, engineering and more recently ICT (information systems). At an institutional level, with notable exceptions, there is little engagement between researchers working in those individual areas. Consequently, an initiative was launched in 2009 to create a network of PM researchers to build a disciplinary base for PM in Australia. The initiative took the form of a bi-annual forum. The first forum established the constituency and spread of PM research in Australia (Sense et al., 2011). This special issue of IJPM arose out of the second forum, held in 2012, that explored the notion of an Australian perspective on PM. At the forum, researchers were invited to collaborate to explore issues, methodological approaches, and theoretical positions underpinning their research and to answer the question: is there a distinctly Australian research agenda which responds to the current challenges of large and complex projects in our region? From a research point of view, it was abundantly clear at the forum that many of the issues facing Australian researchers are shared around the world. However, what emerged from the forum as the Australian perspective was a set of themes and research issues that dominate the Australia research agenda.

Uncovering the challenges of managing cachexia in advanced cancer: Preliminary results from semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals in a regional cancer centre

Background: Cancer cachexia is a complex metabolic syndrome characterised by severe and progressive weight loss which is predominantly muscle mass. It is a devastating and distressing complication of advanced cancer with profound bio-psycho-social implications for patients and their families. At present there is no curative treatment for cachexiain advanced cancer therefore the most important healthcare response entails the minimisation of the psycho-social distress associated with it. However the literature suggests healthcare professionals’are missing opportunities to intervene and respond to the multi-dimensional needs of this population.

Objective:The objective of this study was to explore healthcare professionals’ response to cachexia in advanced cancer.

Methods: An interpretative qualitative approach was adopted in this study. A purposive sample of doctors, nurses, specialist nurses and dieticians were recruited from a regional cancer centre between November 2009 and November 2010. Data was collection was twofold: two multi-professional focus groups were conducted first to uncover the main themes and issues in cachexia management. This data then informed the interview schedule for the following 25 individual semi-structured interviews.

Results: Preliminary data analysis of the semi-structured interviews revealed distinct differences between disciplines in their perceptions of cancer cachexia which influenced their response to it in clinical practice. The commonality between disciplines, with the exception of palliative care, was a reliance on the biomedical approach to cancer cachexia management.

Discussion and Conclusions: Cancer cachexia is a complex and challenging syndrome which needs to be addressed from a holistic model of care to reflect the multi-dimensional needs of this patient group. The perspectives of those involved in care delivery is required in order to inform the development of interventions aimed at minimising the distress associated with this devastating syndrome.

Challenges of managing medications for older people at transition points of care

In clinical practice, pharmacists play a very important role in identifying and correcting medication discrepancies as older patients move across transition points of care. With increasing complexity of health care needs of older people, these discrepancies are likely to increase. The major concern with identifying and correcting medication discrepancies is that medication reconciliation is considered a retrospective problem – that is, dealing with medication discrepancies after they have occurred. It is argued here that a more proactive stance should be taken where doctors, nurses and pharmacists collectively work together to prevent medication discrepancies from happening in the first place. Improved involvement of patients and family members will help to facilitate better management of medications across transition points of care. Efficient use of information technology aids, such as electronic medication reconciliation tools, should also assist with organizational systems problems associated with the working culture, heavy workloads, and staff and skill mix of health professionals.

Introduction to Advancing Practice in Pain Management

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Advanced practice The context of pain management: definitions and prevalence Advancing practice in pain management Bringing together advanced practice and pain management Conclusions References

Managing pain medications in long-term care: nurses' views

The purpose of this study was to explore nurses' perceptions of their current practices related to administering pain medications to long-term care (LTC) residents. A cross-sectional survey design was used, including both quantitative and open-ended questions. Data were collected from 165 nurses (59% response rate) at nine LTC homes in southern Ontario, Canada. The majority (85%) felt that the medication administration system was adequate to help them manage residents' pain and 98% felt comfortable administering narcotics. In deciding to administer a narcotic, nurses were influenced by pain assessments, physician orders, diagnosis, past history, effectiveness of non-narcotics and fear of making dosage miscalculations or developing addictions. Finally, most nurses stated that they trusted the physicians and pharmacists to ensure orders were safe. These findings highlight nurses' perceptions of managing pain medications in LTC and related areas where continuing education initiatives for nurses are needed.

Managing a portfolio of corporate venture units : challenges in achieving within-unit focus and between-unit coordination

Principal Topic: There is increasing recognition that the organizational configurations of corporate venture units should depend on the types of ventures the unit seeks to develop (Burgelman, 1984; Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008). Distinction have been made between internal and external as well as exploitative versus explorative ventures (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2008; Narayan et al., 2009; Schildt et al., 2005). Assuming that firms do not want to limit themselves to a single type of venture, but rather employ a portfolio of ventures, the logical consequence is that firms should employ multiple corporate venture units. Each venture unit tailor-made for the type of venture it seeks to develop. Surprisingly, there is limited attention in the literature for the challenges of managing multiple corporate venture units in a single firm. Maintaining multiple venture units within one firm provides easier access to funding for new ideas (Hamel, 1999). It allows for freedom and flexibility to tie the organizational systems (Rice et al., 2000), autonomy (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003), and involvement of management (Day, 1994; Wadwha and Kotha, 2006) to the requirements of the individual ventures. Yet, the strategic objectives of a venture may change when uncertainty around the venture is resolved (Burgelman, 1984). For example, firms may decide to spin-in external ventures (Chesbrough, 2002) or spun-out ventures that prove strategically unimportant (Burgelman, 1984). This suggests that ventures might need to be transferred between venture units, e.g. from a more internally-driven corporate venture division to a corporate venture capital unit. Several studies suggested that ventures require different managerial skills across their phase of development (Desouza et al., 2007; O'Connor and Ayers, 2005; Kazanjian and Drazin, 1990; Westerman et al., 2006). To facilitate effective transfer between venture units and manage the overall venturing process, it is important that firms set up and manage integrative linkages. Integrative linkages provide synergies and coordination between differentiated units (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). Prior findings pointed to the important role of senior management (Westerman et al., 2006; Gilbert, 2006) and a shared organizational vision (Burgers et al., 2009) to coordinate venture units with mainstream businesses. We will draw on these literatures to investigate the key question of how to integratively manage multiple venture units. ---------- Methodology/Key Propositions: In order to seek an answer to the research question, we employ a case study approach that provides unique insights into how firms can break up their venturing process. We selected three Fortune 500 companies that employ multiple venturing units, IBM, Royal Dutch/ Shell and Nokia, and investigated and compared their approaches. It was important that the case companies somewhat differed in the type of venture units they employed as well as the way they integrate and coordinate their venture units. The data are based on extensive interviews and a variety of internal and external company documents to triangulate our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The key proposition of the article is that firms can best manage their multiple venture units through an ambidextrous design of loosely coupled units. This provides venture units with sufficient flexibility to employ organizational configurations that best support the type of venture they seek to develop, as well as provides sufficient integration to facilitate smooth transfer of ventures between venture units. Based on the case findings, we develop a generic framework for a new way of managing the venturing process through multiple corporate venture units. ---------- Results and Implications: One of our main findings is that these firms tend to organize their venture units according to phases in the venture development process. That is, they tend to have venture units aimed at incubation of venture ideas as well as units aimed more at the commercialization of ventures into a new business unit for the firm or a start-up. The companies in our case studies tended to coordinate venture units through integrative management skills or a coordinative venture unit that spanned multiple phases. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we extend prior venturing literature by addressing how firms manage a portfolio of venture units, each achieving different strategic objectives. Second, our framework provides recommendations on how firms should manage such an approach towards venturing. This helps to increase the likelihood of success of their venturing programs.

Managing social policy under federalism: The challenges of hybrid funding and program delivery

This paper discusses generally the question of the level of government that should be used to administer different social policies. The chapter focuses on the Medicaid program, looking at recent state-level changes in health insurance for the poor and long-term care policy. Particular attention will be paid to the question of how states have used their new freedoms to outsource public insurance to the private sector and on the consequent differences in outcomes across states. Notably, this paper will be drawn from my forthcoming book “The American Myth of Markets in Social Policy” (Palgrave, MacMillan, November, 2015).