Lean Thinking: Theory, Application and Dissemination

This book was written and compiled by the University of Huddersfield to share the learnings and experiences of seven years of Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funded projects with the National Health Service (NHS). The focus of these projects was the implementation of Lean thinking and optimising strategic decision making processes. Each of these projects led to major local improvements and this book explains how they were achieved and compiles the lessons learnt. The book is split into three chapters; Lean Thinking Theory, Lean Thinking Applied and Lean Thinking Dissemination

Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning

Forest planning in a participatory context often involves multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests. A promising approach for handling these complex situations is to integrate participatory planning and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The objective of this paper is to analyze strengths and weaknesses of such an integrated approach, focusing on how the use of MCDA has influenced the participatory process. The paper outlines a model for a participatory MCDA process with five steps: stakeholder analysis, structuring of the decision problem, generation of alternatives, elicitation of preferences, and ranking of alternatives. This model was applied in a case study of a planning process for the urban forest in Lycksele, Sweden. In interviews with stakeholders, criteria for four different social groups were identified. Stakeholders also identified specific areas important to them and explained what activities the areas were used for and the forest management they wished for there. Existing forest data were combined with information from interviews to create a map in which the urban forest was divided into zones of different management classes. Three alternative strategic forest plans were produced based on the zonal map. The stakeholders stated their preferences individually by the Analytic Hierarchy Process in inquiry forms and a ranking of alternatives and consistency ratios were determined for each stakeholder. Rankings of alternatives were aggregated; first, for each social group using the arithmetic mean, and then an overall aggregated ranking was calculated from the group rankings using the weighted arithmetic mean. The participatory MCDA process in Lycksele is assessed against five social goals: incorporating public values into decisions, improving the substantive quality of decisions, resolving conflict among competing interests, building trust in institutions, and educating and informing the public. The results and assessment of the case study support the integration of participatory planning and MCDA as a viable option for handling complex forest-management situations. Key issues related to the MCDA methodology that need to be explored further were identified: 1) The handling of place-specific criteria, 2) development of alternatives, 3) the aggregation of individual preferences into a common preference, and 4) application and evaluation of the integrated approach in real case studies

Disentangling the Epistemic Failings of the 2008 Financial Crisis

I argue that epistemic failings are a significant and underappreciated moral hazard in the financial services industry. I argue further that an analysis of these epistemic failings and their means of redress is best developed by identifying policies and procedures that are likely to facilitate good judgment. These policies and procedures are “best epistemic practices.” I explain how best epistemic practices support good reasoning, thereby facilitating accurate judgments about risk and reward. Failures to promote and adhere to best epistemic practices contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. I identify and discuss some of the ways in which best epistemic practices were violated in the events that led to the crisis, with a focus on the role of the credit rating agencies. I go on to discuss some of the ways in which these failings have been redressed. I conclude by observing how proactive regulation for best epistemic practices might help us to anticipate and avoid future crises

Project knowledge into project practice: generational issues in the knowledge management process

This paper considers Learning and Knowledge Transfer within the project domain. Knowledge can be a tenuous and elusive concept, and is challenging to transfer within organizations and projects. This challenge is compounded when we consider generational differences in the project and the workplace. This paper looks at learning, and the transfer of that generated knowledge. A number of tools and frameworks have been considered, together with accumulated extant literature. These issues have been deliberated through the lens of different generational types, focusing on the issues and differences in knowledge engagement and absorption between Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y/Millennials. Generation Z/Centennials have also been included where appropriate. This is a significant issue in modern project and organizational structures. Some recommendations are offered to assist in effective knowledge transfer across generational types.Accepted manuscrip

The "solitude of the reformist" Public Policy and Value Judgments in the Work of Federico Caffè

Caffè's pursuit of a more humane society is strictly related to his view of the economy as a human construction within a more encompassing historical process. Based on this view, he conceives of economics as a policy-oriented social science where value judgments play a crucial role. They frame the questions that need to be answered in order to carry out purposeful change. They also structure the analysis, thus the way questions are answered. A commonly shared understanding of the economy is, therefore, unlikely. Although this would seem to undermine Caffè's view that a "reasonable core" in economic thought exists, the paper -based on methodological premises that differ, to some extent, from those of Caffè- contends that disciplinary dialogue remains possible provided economists acknowledge the need to make their methodological value judgments explicit.