Search

found 4 results

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Our last guest is one half of the duo known in Christchurch as the Brilliant Bagshaws Dr Sue Bagshaw has worked in the youth health sector for 30 years. She's set up and been involved in so many organisations benefitting young people it would make your head spin. She chairs the Korowai Youth Well-Being Trust running the Youth One Stop Shop 298 Youth Health, where she runs teaching clinics and is in the process of setting up the Christchurch Youth Hub - Te Hurihanga o Rangatahi, a collaboration of health and social services and transitional housing for youth. Dr Bagshaw established the 198 youth one stop shop in 1995 and helped run it for 15 years. She's advised a network of similar organisations around the country, now known as the Network of Youth One Stop Shops. Following the Christchurch earthquakes, she brought together 16 youth organisations to form the first youth hub in Barbadoes Street in 2012. Colin: Dr Bagshaw is now Dame Susan Bagshaw. I asked her if she thinks she'll ever get used to being called Dame Susan

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Collective identity construction in organisations engaged in an inter-organisational collaboration (IOC), especially temporary IOCs set up in disaster situations, has received scant attention in the organisational studies literature yet collective identity is considered to be important in fostering effective IOC operations. This doctoral study was designed to add to our understanding about how collective identity is constituted throughout the entire lifespan of a particular temporary coopetitive (i.e., simultaneously collaborative and competitive) IOC formed in a post-disaster environment. To achieve this purpose, a qualitative case study of the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT), a time-bound coopetition formed to repair the horizontal infrastructure in Christchurch, New Zealand after the devastating 2011 Canterbury earthquakes, was undertaken. Using data from semi-structured interviews, field observations, and organisational documents and other artefacts, an inductive analytic method was employed to explore how internal stakeholders engaged with and co- constructed a collective SCIRT identity and reconciled this with their home organization identity. The analysis revealed that the SCIRT collective identity was an ongoing process, involving the interweaving of social, temporal, material and geospatial dimensions constructed through intersecting cycles of senior managers’ sensegiving and employees’ sensemaking across SCIRT’s five and a half years of existence. Senior management deliberately undertook identity work campaigns that used organisational rituals, artefacts, and spatial design to disseminate and encourage a sense of “we are all SCIRT”. However, there was no common sense of “we-ness”. Identification with SCIRT was experienced differently among different groups of employees and across time. Employees’ differing senses of collective identity were accounted for by their past, present, and anticipated future relationships with their home organisation, and also (re)shaped by the geosocial environments in which they worked. The study supports previous research claiming that collective identity is a process of recursive sensegiving and sensemaking between senior managers and employees. However, it extends the literature by revealing the imbricated nature of collective identity, how members’ sense of “who we are” can change across the entire lifetime of a temporary IOC, and how sociomateriality, temporality, and geosocial effects strongly intervene in employees’ emerging senses of collective identity. Moreover, the study demonstrates how the ongoing identity work can be embedded in a time-space frame that further accentuates the influence of temporality, especially the anticipated future, organisational rituals, artefacts, and the geosocial environment. The study’s primary contribution to theory is a processual model of collective identity that applies specifically to a temporary IOC involving coopetition. In doing so, it represents a more finely nuanced and situational model than existing models. At a practical level, this model suggests that managers need to appreciate that organisational artefacts, rituals, and the prevailing organisational geosocial environment are inextricably linked in processes that can be manipulated to enhance the construction of collective identity.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The increase of the world's population located near areas prone to natural disasters has given rise to new ‘mega risks’; the rebuild after disasters will test the governments’ capabilities to provide appropriate responses to protect the people and businesses. During the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes (2010-2012) that destroyed much of the inner city, the government of New Zealand set up a new partnership between the public and private sector to rebuild the city’s infrastructure. The new alliance, called SCIRT, used traditional risk management methods in the many construction projects. And, in hindsight, this was seen as one of the causes for some of the unanticipated problems. This study investigated the risk management practices in the post-disaster recovery to produce a specific risk management model that can be used effectively during future post-disaster situations. The aim was to develop a risk management guideline for more integrated risk management and fill the gap that arises when the traditional risk management framework is used in post-disaster situations. The study used the SCIRT alliance as a case study. The findings of the study are based on time and financial data from 100 rebuild projects, and from surveying and interviewing risk management professionals connected to the infrastructure recovery programme. The study focussed on post-disaster risk management in construction as a whole. It took into consideration the changes that happened to the people, the work and the environment due to the disaster. System thinking, and system dynamics techniques have been used due to the complexity of the recovery and to minimise the effect of unforeseen consequences. Based on an extensive literature review, the following methods were used to produce the model. The analytical hierarchical process and the relative importance index have been used to identify the critical risks inside the recovery project. System theory methods and quantitative graph theory have been used to investigate the dynamics of risks between the different management levels. Qualitative comparative analysis has been used to explore the critical success factors. And finally, causal loop diagrams combined with the grounded theory approach has been used to develop the model itself. The study identified that inexperienced staff, low management competency, poor communication, scope uncertainty, and non-alignment of the timing of strategic decisions with schedule demands, were the key risk factors in recovery projects. Among the critical risk groups, it was found that at a strategic management level, financial risks attracted the highest level of interest, as the client needs to secure funding. At both alliance-management and alliance-execution levels, the safety and environmental risks were given top priority due to a combination of high levels of emotional, reputational and media stresses. Risks arising from a lack of resources combined with the high volume of work and the concern that the cost could go out of control, alongside the aforementioned funding issues encouraged the client to create the recovery alliance model with large reputable construction organisations to lock in the recovery cost, at a time when the scope was still uncertain. This study found that building trust between all parties, clearer communication and a constant interactive flow of information, established a more working environment. Competent and clear allocation of risk management responsibilities, cultural shift, risk prioritisation, and staff training were crucial factors. Finally, the post-disaster risk management (PDRM) model can be described as an integrated risk management model that considers how the changes which happened to the environment, the people and their work, caused them to think differently to ease the complexity of the recovery projects. The model should be used as a guideline for recovery systems, especially after an earthquake, looking in detail at all the attributes and the concepts, which influence the risk management for more effective PDRM. The PDRM model is represented in Causal Loops Diagrams (CLD) in Figure 8.31 and based on 10 principles (Figure 8.32) and 26 concepts (Table 8.1) with its attributes.