Search

PurposeThe purpose is to examine the risk management processes and methods used in determining project feasibility in the early stages of the property development process by Australia/New Zealand property developers, including Monte Carlo simulation, Bayesian models and real option theory embedded in long-term property development and investment decision-making as instruments for providing flexibility and managing risk, uncertainty and change.Design/methodology/approachA questionnaire survey of 225 Australian and New Zealand trader developers, development managers, investors, valuers, fund managers and government/charities/other relating to Australia/New Zealand property development companies' decision-making processes in the early stages of the development process prior to site acquisition or project commencement – the methods used and confidence in their organisations' ability to both identify and manage the risks involved.FindingsFew of the organisations sampled use sophisticated methods; those organisations that are more likely to use such methods for conducting risk analysis include development organisations that undertake large projects, use more risk analysis methods and have more layers in their project approval process. Decision-makers have a high level of confidence in their organisation's ability to both identify and manage the risks involved, although this is not mirrored in their actual risk management processes. Although the majority of property developers have a risk management plan, less than half have implemented it, and a third need improvement.Practical implicationsProperty development organisations should incorporate more modern and sophisticated models of risk analysis to determine the uncertainty of, and risk in, a change of input variables in their financial viability appraisals. Practical application includes using such multiple techniques as what-if scenarios and probability analysis into feasibility processes and utilise these specific techniques in the pre-acquisition stages of the property development process and, specifically, in the site acquisition process to support decision-making, including a live risk register and catalogue of risks, including identification of and plans for mitigation of project risks, as a form of risk management.Originality/valueFirst study to examine the extent of the decision-making methods used by property developers in the pre-acquisition stage of the development process.

Although user interfaces with gesture-based input and augmented graphics have promoted intuitive human–robot interactions (HRI), they are often implemented in remote applications on research-grade platforms requiring significant training and limiting operator mobility. This paper proposes a mobile mixed-reality interface approach to enhance HRI in shared spaces. As a user points a mobile device at the robot’s workspace, a mixed-reality environment is rendered providing a common frame of reference for the user and robot to effectively communicate spatial information for performing object manipulation tasks, improving the user’s situational awareness while interacting with augmented graphics to intuitively command the robot. An evaluation with participants is conducted to examine task performance and user experience associated with the proposed interface strategy in comparison to conventional approaches that utilize egocentric or exocentric views from cameras mounted on the robot or in the environment, respectively. Results indicate that, despite the suitability of the conventional approaches in remote applications, the proposed interface approach provides comparable task performance and user experiences in shared spaces without the need to install operator stations or vision systems on or around the robot. Moreover, the proposed interface approach provides users the flexibility to direct robots from their own visual perspective (at the expense of some physical workload) and leverages the sensing capabilities of the tablet to expand the robot’s perceptual range.

In undertaking its responsibility to interpret and construct federalism, the High Court of Australia has frequently considered the Supreme Court of the United States' treatment of the same subject. The US influence has been particularly pronounced in the area of State immunity. This article considers whether an American constitutional innovation of the 1990s, the anti-commandeering doctrine articulated in the case of Printz v United States,3 can and should be transplanted to Australia.