Analysis framework for the interaction between lean construction and building information modelling

Building with Building Information Modelling (BIM) changes design and production processes. But can BIM be used to support process changes designed according to lean production and lean construction principles? To begin to answer this question we provide a conceptual analysis of the interaction of lean construction and BIM for improving construction. This was investigated by compiling a detailed listing of lean construction principles and BIM functionalities which are relevant from this perspective. These were drawn from a detailed literature survey. A research framework for analysis of the interaction between lean and BIM was then compiled. The goal of the framework is to both guide and stimulate research; as such, the approach adopted up to this point is constructive. Ongoing research has identified 55 such interactions, the majority of which show positive synergy between the two

Proceedings of International Workshop "Global Computing: Programming Environments, Languages, Security and Analysis of Systems"

According to the IST/ FET proactive initiative on GLOBAL COMPUTING, the goal is to obtain techniques (models, frameworks, methods, algorithms) for constructing systems that are flexible, dependable, secure, robust and efficient. The dominant concerns are not those of representing and manipulating data efficiently but rather those of handling the co-ordination and interaction, security, reliability, robustness, failure modes, and control of risk of the entities in the system and the overall design, description and performance of the system itself. Completely different paradigms of computer science may have to be developed to tackle these issues effectively. The research should concentrate on systems having the following characteristics: • The systems are composed of autonomous computational entities where activity is not centrally controlled, either because global control is impossible or impractical, or because the entities are created or controlled by different owners. • The computational entities are mobile, due to the movement of the physical platforms or by movement of the entity from one platform to another. • The configuration varies over time. For instance, the system is open to the introduction of new computational entities and likewise their deletion. The behaviour of the entities may vary over time. • The systems operate with incomplete information about the environment. For instance, information becomes rapidly out of date and mobility requires information about the environment to be discovered. The ultimate goal of the research action is to provide a solid scientific foundation for the design of such systems, and to lay the groundwork for achieving effective principles for building and analysing such systems. This workshop covers the aspects related to languages and programming environments as well as analysis of systems and resources involving 9 projects (AGILE , DART, DEGAS , MIKADO, MRG, MYTHS, PEPITO, PROFUNDIS, SECURE) out of the 13 founded under the initiative. After an year from the start of the projects, the goal of the workshop is to fix the state of the art on the topics covered by the two clusters related to programming environments and analysis of systems as well as to devise strategies and new ideas to profitably continue the research effort towards the overall objective of the initiative. We acknowledge the Dipartimento di Informatica and Tlc of the University of Trento, the Comune di Rovereto, the project DEGAS for partially funding the event and the Events and Meetings Office of the University of Trento for the valuable collaboration

Analysis Framework for the Interaction Between Lean Construction and Building Information Modelling

Building with Building Information Modelling (BIM) changes design and production processes. But can BIM be used to support process changes designed according to lean production and lean construction principles? To begin to answer this question we provide a conceptual analysis of the interaction of lean construction and BIM for improving construction. This was investigated by compiling a detailed listing of lean construction principles and BIM functionalities which are relevant from this perspective. These were drawn from a detailed literature survey. A research framework for analysis of the interaction between lean and BIM was then compiled. The goal of the framework is to both guide and stimulate research; as such, the approach adopted up to this point is constructive. Ongoing research has identified 55 such interactions, the majority of which show positive synergy between the two

Best practice rail safety regulation

Regulating rail safety, and in particular, achieving regulatory best practice, is no easy task. The disaggregation and privatisation of the rail system, and the broader industry restructuring that took place in the 1990s have produced an industry that is structurally diverse, characterised by technological and corporate complexity and subject to competitive pressures as never before. Moreover, the multiplicity of different rail organisations that has emerged from this process – ranging from large, sophisticated commercial operators through to small heritage railways - has resulted in considerable variation in available resources, skills, experience and understanding, and in safety performance itself. There is much evidence to suggest that there are serious deficiencies both in the rail industry’s approach to safety and in the regulatory response to it, although the nature of these deficiencies varies considerably from State to State. In New South Wales, the Glenbrook and Waterfall accidents highlighted a series of major problems that (according to Hopkins analysis of the Glenbrook enquiry) include: a rule focussed culture [which] tended to deaden awareness of risks; the organisational and occupationally fragmentation of the railway system; a powerful culture of punctuality - of ‘on time running’ - whose side effect was to undermine safety; a railway culture that was profoundly risk blind, even risk denying; and a rail culture that disempowered its employees. Victoria too, although it has not experienced the same sorts of high profile accidents as New South Wales, nevertheless confronts safety and regulatory problems of considerable magnitude. For example, in 2004 a Department of Infrastructure report documented the absence of any sustained improvement in rail incident trends and a number of serious rail incidents that have exposed deep deficiencies in the current regulatory system. According to the Report, the latter include: the absence of any clear definition of the respective responsibilities of the industry and the Safety Regulator; no explicit obligation to demonstrate that a Safety Management System (SMS) is capable of systematically and continually controlling and minimising the risks that have been identified and assessed by a rail organisation; inadequate specification within the SMS and no mandated performance standard for its scope or quality; a lack of penalties for disregarding non-conformance or non-compliance reports, and a lack of guidance for industry and the regulator for the conduct of safety investigations. The limitations of safety arrangements in other jurisdictions are less well documented but there is reason to believe that they are also, for the most part, substantial. More broadly, it is doubtful whether either the industry or government has come to terms with the implications of privatisation or the shift from “largely Government owned entities, which often combined the roles of policy maker, regulator and service deliverer … [to] privatised or corporatised entities [which] have to some extent separated these roles”.7 Nor have effective measures been taken to re-create a safety culture within the industry, notwithstanding that the disaggregation of the rail system in the 1990s was “largely responsible for the destruction of the previously existing safety culture, which was ‘fundamental’ to maintaining optimal safety”. Couple all this with the industry’s inherent vulnerability to high severity albeit low probability, accidents, and the extent of the regulatory challenge, is easy to grasp. That challenge involves essentially three issues: (i) what sort of standards should be imposed upon rail enterprises; (ii) what role(s) should the regulator take with regard to enforcement; and (iii) what roles should there be for workers and third parties. We address these issues in the following sections, with a particular focus on the first two questions, which in the context of the contemporary rail industry in Australia are both controversial and crucial to its future safety performance. In doing so, we assume the goals of rail safety regulation to include (as specified by the National Transport Commission): public trust; the safety of rail users, the general public and rail employees; the need to balance safety and efficiency; and to deliver regulatory oversight at lowest possible cost, to which we would add continuous improvement and best industry practice. This article is a synthesis. It draws on the author’s own work on occupational health, major hazard facilities and environment regulation, on that of colleagues at Regulatory Institutions Network at Australian National University most notably, Elizabeth Bluff, Andrew Hopkins and Christine Parker, and on recent reports on rail safety regulation, in seeking to develop a framework for best practice rail safety regulation

Lessons learned: structuring knowledge codification and abstraction to provide meaningful information for learning

Purpose – To increase the spread and reuse of lessons learned (LLs), the purpose of this paper is to develop a standardised information structure to facilitate concise capture of the critical elements needed to engage secondary learners and help them apply lessons to their contexts. Design/methodology/approach – Three workshops with industry practitioners, an analysis of over 60 actual lessons from private and public sector organisations and seven practitioner interviews provided evidence of actual practice. Design science was used to develop a repeatable/consistent information model of LL content/structure. Workshop analysis and theory provided the coding template. Situation theory and normative analysis were used to define the knowledge and rule logic to standardise fields. Findings – Comparing evidence from practice against theoretical prescriptions in the literature highlighted important enhancements to the standard LL model. These were a consistent/concise rule and context structure, appropriate emotional language, reuse and control criteria to ensure lessons were transferrable and reusable in new situations. Research limitations/implications – Findings are based on a limited sample. Long-term benefits of standardisation and use need further research. A larger sample/longitudinal usage study is planned. Practical implications – The implementation of the LL structure was well-received in one government user site and other industry user sites are pending. Practitioners validated the design logic for improving capture and reuse of lessons to render themeasily translatable to a new learner’s context. Originality/value – The new LL structure is uniquely grounded in user needs, developed from existing best practice and is an original application of normative and situation theory to provide consistent rule logic for context/content structure

One way forward: non-traditional accounting disclosures in the 21st century

Recent empirical studies (Deegan and Rankin, 1999; Deegan et al., 2000) have indicated that although many corporations have begun to respond to perceived demand for environmental disclosures in published accounts, their perspective of organisational legitimacy is a narrow view, in which information is targeted towards specific stakeholders and not to the general public. This paper considers a range of models (variously called guidelines, standards and charters) which have been put forward by different organisations to aid the development of social and environmental disclosures. In all cases verification and attestation are part of the proposed regimen. The question which the papers attempts to answer is whether any one of the models would be capable of rapid adoption as part of an expanded GAAP, should the professional accounting bodies think that this is desirable. The outcome of our deliberations is cautious support for the use of EMAS and ISO 14000 as the basis for a modified GAAP plus the further development of the GRI 2000 guidelines into a set of standards covering both social and environmental reporting

Assessment of the Quality of Safety Cases: A Research Preview

Proceedings of the 25th International Working Conference, REFSQ 2019, Essen, Germany, March 18–21, 2019.[Context and motivation] Safety-critical systems in application domains such as aerospace, automotive, healthcare, and railway are subject to assurance processes to provide confidence that the systems do not pose undue risks to people, property, or the environment. The development of safety cases is usually part of these processes to justify that a system satisfies its safety requirements and thus is dependable. [Question/problem] Although safety cases have been used in industry for over two decades, their management still requires improvement. Important weaknesses have been identified and means to assess the quality of safety cases are limited. [Principal ideas/results] This paper presents a research preview on the assessment of the quality of safety cases. We explain how the area should develop and present our preliminary work towards enabling the assessment with Verification Studio, an industrial tool for system artefact quality analysis. [Contribution] The insights provided allow researchers and practitioners to gain an understanding of why safety case quality requires further investigation, what aspects must be considered, and how quality assessment could be performed in practice.The research leading to this paper has received funding from the AMASS project (H2020-ECSEL ID 692474; Spain’s MINECO ref. PCIN-2015-262). We also thank REFSQ reviewers for their valuable comments to improve the paper