Search

It is common knowledge that the Australian wine industry has enjoyed remarkable success over the past three decades in terms of production and export growth, innovation and reputation for consistent quality. The centralisation of resources and infrastructure, as well as the nationally-oriented funding and R&D agendas, are usually cited as providing the foundation for this success. Yet in more recent years it is this same nationally-focused centralisation that is increasingly at odds with a rapidly changing international wine landscape and therefore, the organisational and innovation requirements of the firms that must respond to these changes. This paper explores these issues within the theoretical context of what it has termed domain inertia—an industry-level dislocation between organisation and firm imperatives. Arguing that neither traditional organisational nor innovation-based change theories deal with the complexities of industry-level inertia, the paper attempts to move beyond orthodox theoretical parameters. In so doing, it adopts a somewhat unique theory that places organisational and innovation inertia within a widening domain of discordant industry-level imperatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last 30 years has seen significant developments in the Australian housing sector for people with disabilities. Despite much change in the sector, and advancements in disability services, the range of current supported housing options for younger Australian adults with a neurological disability remains vastly under-developed. This is despite a widely accepted and endorsed recognition that, as is the general population, people with all forms of disability have a right to housing of their choice. This paper presents a timely critique of the key actions made by the Australian disability and housing sectors and subsequently proposes a more informed approach to supported housing design and development: one that is based on a comprehensive understanding of consumer housing priorities and preferences, and is conducive to a person’s biopsychosocial health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The building project development approval process is increasingly complex and fraught with conflict due to the rise of the sustainable urban development movement and inclusive decision making. Coupled with this, government decision-making decentralization has resulted in a fragmented and over-regulated compliance system. Problems arising from the process include wasted resources, excessive time delays, increased holding and litigation costs, inadequate planning coordination, high levels of advocacy costs and a divisive politicized approval process. In Australia, despite attempts by government and industry associations, numerous problems are still unresolved. Design managers increasingly assume a liaison role during the approval phase. There is a long tradition of planning theory literature which provides context for understanding the knowledge-power-participation relationship for this paper. This study investigated the policy, process and practice conflicts during the approval stage in achieving sustainable urban developments. Three regional local government areas within one state jurisdiction and observations from detailed structured focus group interviews involving 23 stakeholders, proposers and assessors were analysed to explore this conflictual environment. As a result of regulatory fragmentation and excessive consultation, various persuasion tactics have been developed by all stakeholders of which 'reciprocity' and 'authority' were identified as the most common. Two challenges for design managers were thus identified: first, the emergence of the role of a by default central informal arbitrator across conflicting planning instruments; and, second, as a navigator through a set of persuasion tactics. An inclusive knowledge-based design management framework for sustainable urban development is proposed considering Habermas' communicative planning theory, Foucaltian governance and discursive powers thesis and Cialdini's persuasion theory, as well as being grounded in the key empirical results from this study, using various types and sources of knowledge as an authoritative persuasion tactic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]