A video of a presentation by David Meates, Chief Executive of the Christchurch District Health Board and the West Coast District Health Board, during the first plenary of the 2016 People in Disasters Conference. The presentation is titled, "Local System Perspective".The abstract for this presentation reads as follows: The devastating Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 have resulted in challenges for the people of Canterbury and have altered the population's health needs. In the wake of New Zealand's largest natural disaster, the health system needed to respond rapidly to changing needs and damaged infrastructure in the short-term in the context of developing sustainable long-term solutions. Canterbury was undergoing system transformation prior to the quakes, however the horizon of transformation was brought forward post-quake: 'Vision 2020' became the vision for now. Innovation was enabled as people working across the system addressed new constraints such as the loss of 106 acute hospital beds, 635 aged residential care beds, the loss of general practices and pharmacies as well as damaged non-government organisation sector. A number of new integration initiatives (e.g. a shared electronic health record system, community rehabilitation for older people, community falls prevention) and expansion of existing programs (e.g. acute demand management) were focused on supporting people to stay well in their homes and communities. The system working together in an integrated way has resulted in significant reductions in acute health service utilisation in Canterbury. Acute admission rates have not increased and remain significantly below national rates and the number of acute and rehabilitation bed days have fallen since the quakes, with these trends most evident among older people. However, health needs frequently reported in post-disaster literature have created greater pressures on the system. In particular, an escalating number of people facing mental health problems and coping with acute needs of the migrant rebuild population provide new challenges for a workforce also affected by the quakes. The recovery journey for Canterbury is not over.
During the 21st century, New Zealand has experienced increasing public concern over the quality of the design and appearance of new developments, and their effects on the urban environment. In response to this, a number of local authorities developed a range of tools to address this issue, including urban design panels to review proposals and provide independent advice. Following the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence, the commitment to achieve high quality urban design within Christchurch was given further importance, with the city facing the unprecedented challenge of rebuilding a ‘vibrant and successful city’. The rebuild and regeneration reinforced the need for independent design review, putting more focus and emphasis on the role and use of the urban design panel; first through collaboratively assisting applicants in achieving a better design outcome for their development by providing an independent set of eyes on their design; and secondly in assisting Council officers in forming their recommendations on resource consent decisions. However, there is a perception that urban design and the role of the urban design panel is not fully understood, with some stakeholders arguing that Council’s urban design requirements are adding cost and complexity to their developments. The purpose of this research was to develop a better understanding on the role of the Christchurch urban design panel post-earthquake in the central city; its direct and indirect influence on the built environment; and the deficiencies in the broader planning framework and institutional settings that it might be addressing. Ultimately, the perceived role of the Panel is understood, and there is agreement that urban design is having a positive influence on the built environment, albeit viewed differently amongst the varying groups involved. What has become clear throughout this research is that the perceived tension between the development community and urban design well and truly exists, with the urban design panel contributing towards this. This tension is exacerbated further through the cost of urban design to developers, and the drive for financial return from their investments. The panel, albeit promoting a positive experience, is simply a ‘tick box’ exercise for some, and as the research suggests, groups or professional are determining themselves what constitutes good urban design, based on their attitude, the context in which they sit and the financial constraints to incorporate good design elements. It is perhaps a bleak time for urban design, and more about building homes.
This thesis describes the management process of innovation through construction infrastructure projects. This research focuses on the innovation management process at the project level from four views. These are categorised into the separate yet related areas of: “innovation definition”, “Project time”, “project team motivation” and “Project temporary organisation”. A practical knowledge is developed for each of these research areas that enables project practitioners to make the best decision for the right type of innovation at the right phase of projects, through a capable project organisation. The research developed a holistic view on both innovation and the construction infrastructure project as two complex phenomena. An infrastructure project is a long-term capital investment, highly risky and an uncertain. Infrastructure projects can play a key role in innovation and performance improvement throughout the construction industry. The delivery of an infrastructure project is affected in most cases by critical issues of budget constraint, programme delays and safety Where the business climate is characterized by uncertainty, risk and a high level of technological change, construction infrastructure projects are unable to cope with the requirement to develop innovation. Innovation in infrastructure projects, as one of the key performance indicators (KPI) has been identified as a critical capability for performance improvement through the industry. However, in spite of the importance of infrastructure projects in improving innovation, there are a few research efforts that have developed a comprehensive view on the project context and its drivers and inhibitors for innovation in the construction industry. Two main reasons are given as the inhibitors through the process of comprehensive research on innovation management in construction. The first reason is the absence of an understanding of innovation itself. The second is a bias towards research at a firm and individual level, so a comprehensive assessment of project-related factors and their effects on innovation in infrastructure projects has not been undertaken. This study overcomes these issues by adopting as a case study approach of a successful infrastructure project. This research examines more than 500 construction innovations generated by a unique infrastructure alliance. SCIRT (Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team) is a temporary alliancing organisation that was created to rebuild and recover the damaged infrastructure after the Christchurch 2011 earthquake. Researchers were given full access to the innovation project information and innovation systems under a contract with SCIRT Learning Legacy, provided the research with material which is critical for understanding innovations in large, complex alliancing infrastructure organisation. In this research, an innovation classification model was first constructed. Clear definitions have been developed for six types of construction innovation with a variety of level of novelties and benefits. The innovation classification model was applied on the SCIRT innovation database and the resultant trends and behaviours of different types of innovation are presented. The trends and behaviours through different types of SCIRT innovations developed a unique opportunity to research the projectrelated factors and their effect on the behaviour of different classified types of innovation throughout the project’s lifecycle. The result was the identification of specific characteristics of an infrastructure project that affect the innovation management process at the project level. These were categorised in four separate chapters. The first study presents the relationship between six classified types of innovation, the level of novelty and the benefit they come up with, by applying the innovation classification model on SCIRT innovation database. The second study focused on the innovation potential and limitations in different project lifecycle phases by using a logic relationship between the six classified types of innovation and the three classified phases of the SCIRT project. The third study result develops a holistic view of different elements of the SCIRT motivation system and results in a relationship between the maturity level of definition developed for innovation as one of the KPIs and a desire though the SCIRT innovation incentive system to motivate more important innovations throughout the project. The fourth study is about the role of the project’s temporary organisation that finally results in a multiple-view innovation model being developed for project organisation capability assessment in the construction industry. The result of this thesis provides practical and instrumental knowledge to be used by a project practitioner. Benefits of the current thesis could be categorized in four groups. The first group is the innovation classification model that provides a clear definition for six classified types of innovation with four levels of novelty and specifically defined outcomes and the relationship between the innovation types, novelty and benefit. The second is the ability that is provided for the project practitioner to make the best decision for the right type of innovation at the right phases of a project’s lifecycle. The third is an optimisation that is applied on the SCIRT innovation motivation system that enables the project practitioner to incentivize the right type of innovation with the right level of financial gain. This drives the project teams to develop a more important innovation instead of a simple problemsolving one. Finally, the last and probably more important benefit is the recommended multiple-view innovation model. This is a tool that could be used by a project practitioner in order to empower the project team to support innovation throughout the project.
