1,720,975 research outputs found
Stakeholder Analysis
No full textThe previous chapters on stakeholder theory, stakeholder engagement and communicative planning have shown that stakeholders are important to any decision-making and planning process. This is particularly true for contentious projects where significant problems demand solutions, yet where stakeholders are not satisfied with their options by working alone, and where acceptable solutions are not emerging from traditional decision-making processes (Booher and Innes 2002). These problems often coincide with a complex social, economic and environmental setting. Such contentious projects attract large numbers of stakeholders, each with different backgrounds, perspectives, and objectives (Crocker 2007). This leads to a complex set of stakeholders holding many different positions with respect to the problem itself, and with respect to other stakeholders. A simple polarized dichotomy of for and against does not, as a consequence, exist in these contexts. This complicates the analysis and, subsequently, the classification and categorization of the stakeholders (Ashworth and Skelcher 2005; Achterkamp and Vos 2007; Greenwood 2007). The question thus becomes: how can these stakeholders be differentiated from each other and different attention be given to different stakeholders? In other words, how can the stakeholders be analysed to understand the uniqueness of each stakeholder. By examining the available literature on the topic, three main components that define a stakeholder will be identified: stakeholder salience, stakeholder interests, and stakeholder relations with each other.</p
Conclusion
No full textThe last chapter had set out an overview of the stakeholders identified in the Adelaide airport stakeholder network. The three main metrics are discussed, salience, frames of reference, and network centrality. The chapter has indicated to a degree of how complex and intricate the data involved is. There is no relation between either one of the main metrics, which presents evidence that the context and environment to the Adelaide stakeholder arena is indeed complex and multifaceted. After reading this case study, one cannot look at the data and pick ‘the most important’ stakeholder, nor ‘the least important’ stakeholder. In fact, the data is so complex that it defies categorization. This implicates that stakeholder engagement within complex and dynamic environments, such as airports, requires a more contingent, and specialized approach, and one which is based on each stakeholder being considered separately. The information compiled using the three pronged approach of the three component stakeholder analysis is for that purpose a rich source of reference that can assist in drafting meaningful and personalized engagement policies.</p
Adelaide Airport
No full textAdelaide officially opened its first aerodrome just after WWI, in 1921. Captain Butler’s Aerodrome, as it was called, was nine kilometres north-west of the city in the suburb of Hendon. It provided the facilities for airmail services between Adelaide and Sydney (AAL 2009). A move to a second airfield was undertaken in 1927 as aviation continued to grow, and Parafield was acquired by the government. By 1941, however, it became evident that Parafield was too small for the future aviation needs of Adelaide. 785 hectares of marshy land in West Torrens, also known as West Beach, were chosen for Adelaide Airport in 1944 (LINC 2006). Construction started in 1947 and, within the next 10 years, Adelaide International Airport was developed, with the first flights commencing in 1954. It would not be until 1957 before the first passenger terminal was officially opened, funded by the Federal government. Designed to be only a temporary terminal, it remained in use until 2005. As with other airports in the world, the introduction of the jet engine prompted the need to extend the runway in the mid-1960s. In 1982, Adelaide Airport’s International Terminal was opened and the first scheduled international services into and out of Adelaide commenced (AAL 2007).</p
Stakeholder Theory
No full textInterest in stakeholder theory has grown considerably since Freeman (1984) fully articulated a stakeholder framework in his seminal work Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Freeman drew on a variety of studies to develop his stakeholder approach. Using corporate planning, systems theory and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), he argued that existing management theories were not prepared enough to address “the quantity and kinds of change which are occurring in the business environment” (Freeman 1984, p. 5). Freeman defined a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman 1984, p. 46). Thereafter, the notion of stakeholding gained increasing presence in academic texts, media and government publications (Friedman and Miles 2002).</p
Stakeholder Engagement
No full textWhereas stakeholder theory deals with determining which stakeholders are to be involved in issues, e.g., airport planning, stakeholder engagement deals with determining which tools can be chosen to optimize interaction with the stakeholders. To date, little effort has been made to specify the link between stakeholder salience (as discussed in the previous chapter) and stakeholder engagement, which will be discussed in this chapter. Either subject is often treated separately from the other, even though most authors recognize the apparent link between the two. For example, Carroll (1989) used the principle of stakeholder engagement as a final step in the stakeholder analysis framework, thereby showing the importance of the link between the classification or differentiation of stakeholders and the resulting different engagement strategies.</p
The Evolution of Airfield to Airport
No full textTo create a thorough understanding of the Australian context to the book, a historical review of the evolution of the earliest airfields to the current state of the modern airports will be given. This review allows for a clearer understanding of why Australian airports are located where they are, and how the mismatch between on- and off-airport planning came to exist.</p
Communicative Planning
No full textCommunicative planning is an umbrella term for a number of planning processes that emphasize discourse, communication, and consensus building (Olsson 2009). It has become an established normative goal in planning theory and practice (Verma 2007). In turn, a ‘planning process’ is an ongoing and multi-faceted process that is publicly or privately undertaken (Olsson 2009).</p
Greener workplace: understanding senior management\u27s adoption decisions through the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Get PDFHuman resources (HR) policies and practices have changed due to global environmental instability. These policies and practices are the key factors for successful environmental management. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour, this article aims to understand the critical factors which influence senior management\u27s decision to adopt ‘green’ HR practices. Data were collected from 210 organisations in Australia using two separate surveys. Survey one, which was addressed directly to HR managers and directors, contained questions relating to HR policies (the dependent variables), while survey two, which was addressed directly to CEOs and senior managers, contained questions about environmental-related attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control (the independent variables). Results indicated that senior management\u27s environmental-related attitudes, subjective norms from stakeholders and perceived green resource readiness influenced their decision to adopt green HR initiatives. However, attitudes and green resource readiness in particular had greater impacts than subjective norms. Limitations, implications and future research are also outlined
Stakeholders\u27 perceptions of data utility in the context of ERP outcomes
No full textA substantial body of literature exists identifying factors contributing to under-performing Enterprise Resource Planning systems (ERPs), including poor communication, lack of executive support and user dissatisfaction (Calisir et al., 2009). Of particular interest is Momoh et al.’s (2010) recent review identifying poor data quality (DQ) as one of nine critical factors associated with ERP failure. DQ is central to ERP operating processes, ERP facilitated decision-making and inter-organizational cooperation (Batini et al., 2009). Crucial in ERP contexts is that the integrated, automated, process driven nature of ERP data flows can amplify DQ issues, compounding minor errors as they flow through the system (Haug et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2002). However, the growing appreciation of the importance of DQ in determining ERP success lacks research addressing the relationship between stakeholders’ requirements and perceptions of ERP DQ, perceived data utility and the impact of users’ treatment of data on ERP outcomes
Towards an integrated perspective on fleet asset management: engineering and governance considerations
No full textThe traditional engineering perspective on asset management concentrates on the operational performance the assets. This perspective aims at managing assets through their life-cycle, from technical specification, to acquisition, operation including maintenance, and disposal. However, the engineering perspective often takes for granted organizational-level factors. For example, a focus on performance at the asset level may lead to ignore performance measures at the business unit level. The governance perspective on asset management usually concentrates on organizational factors, and measures performance in financial terms. In doing so, the governance perspective tends to ignore the engineering considerations required for optimal asset performance. These two perspectives often take each other for granted. However experience demonstrates that an exclusive focus on one or the other may lead to sub-optimal performance. For example, the two perspectives have different time frames: engineering considers the long term asset life-cycle whereas the organizational time frame is based on a yearly financial calendar. Asset fleets provide a relevant and important context to investigate the interaction between engineering and governance views on asset management as fleets have distributed system characteristics. In this project we investigate how engineering and governance perspectives can be reconciled and integrated to enable optimal asset and organizational performance in the context of asset fleets
- …
