Search results

This chapter adds to the volume by providing a first-hand account, discussion, and reflection on our experience of coming in as outside “experts” from Australia to develop courses for universities in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This chapter provides a comparative analysis of two cases illustrating and discussing cross-cultural collaborations for curriculum development for an Industrial Design (ID) program and an interdisciplinary design program in the Middle East, namely the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This chapter aims to provide a better understanding of Quality Assurance (QA) processes and the purpose of curriculum development for employability and entrepreneurship in the MENA region. To meet this aim, we describe the planning processes for the development of the new curricula and the evolution of the programs. We reflect on the differences and similarities of QA frameworks, and their interpretation and use by the universities in the KSA, the UAE, and Australia. We compare the processes and outcomes around specialization versus inter- and transdisciplinarity, as well as around employability in traditional industry versus education for entrepreneurship and future jobs. We observed significant differences between the two recipient MENA countries, and between them and Australia. These related to the understanding and foci of the graduate attributes; the understanding and implementation of course development processes; and the responsibility of provision and oversight of QA oversight in each country. In closing the chapter, we share important learnings through our reflections.

BE2ST-In-Highways is a framework for assessing the social impact of reusing materials in pavement building, using the Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and Economic Impacts (PaLATE) and life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). ENVISION is a two-stage assessment method with four levels of certification: bronze award, silver award, gold award, and platinum award. Stantec published the Green Guide for Roads in 2008 as a marketing tool to highlight its commitment to sustainable development (SD), and the certification policy was created using the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification policy. As part of their first-year requirements, Stantec and a team of Worcester Polytechnic Institute students created another ‘Green Guide for Roads’ in 2009 to integrate previously missing components of the certification guidelines. GreenPave was developed by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation as an SD certification framework based on the Greenroads and GreenLITES SD certification frameworks. Specifications are classified into three types: repair activities, new development projects, and credit for evident and clear criteria. The Greenroads SD certification process reintroduces SD ideas into highway building by awarding points to projects that effectively integrate SD objectives. I-LAST is a tool developed by the Illinois Department of Transportation, American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC), and Illinois Road and Transportation Builders Association (IRTBA) to analyse SD principles in road infrastructure building. INVEST (Infrastructure Voluntary Assessment Sustainability Tool) is designed to be simple to use and includes four stages of a project. Scorecards for pavement, basic rural, basic urban, extended rural, extended urban, and custom are included. CEEQUAL (Sustainability Assessment and Awards for Civil Engineering, Infrastructure, Landscaping, and the Public Realm) was established to improve infrastructure sustainability and award projects to organizations that address environmental concerns in a productive and effective manner. It is managed by CEEQUAL Ltd. and is based on three SD principles: environment, economics, and labelling the social component of SD with access. Customized scorecards may be used when a project does not fit into one of the pre-defined scorecards. The framework was initially created for the United Kingdom (UK) but has now been revised to be worldwide relevant and includes two categories of projects: domestic (UK and Ireland) projects and foreign initiatives. It also offers six project awards. This chapter reviewed frameworks, models, and guidelines for sustainable infrastructure projects, emphasizing the Be²st-In-Highway rating system, ENVISION certification policies, green guide for road rating systems, greenlights certification system or policy, Greenpaves rating system, Greenroads rating system, I-LAST certification tools, invest rating tools, CEEQUAL certification system, and stars rating tools.

At the beginning of the 21st century, multiple and diverse social entities, including the public (consumers), private and nonprofit healthcare institutions, government (public health) and other industry sectors, began to recognize the limitations of the current fragmented healthcare system paradigm. Primary stakeholders, including employers, insurance companies, and healthcare professional organizations, also voiced dissatisfaction with unacceptable health outcomes and rising costs. Grand challenges and wicked problems threatened the viability of the health sector. American health systems responded with innovations and advances in healthcare delivery frameworks that encouraged shifts from intra- and inter-sector arrangements to multi-sector, lasting relationships that emphasized patient centrality along with long-term commitments to sustainability and accountability. This pathway, leading to a population health approach, also generated the need for transformative business models. The coproduction of health framework, with its emphasis on cross-sector alignments, nontraditional partner relationships, sustainable missions, and accountability capable of yielding return on investments, has emerged as a unique strategy for facing disruptive threats and challenges from nonhealth sector corporations. This chapter presents a coproduction of health framework, goals and criteria, examples of boundary spanning network alliance models, and operational (integrator, convener, aggregator) strategies. A comparison of important organizational science theories, including institutional theory, network/network analysis theory, and resource dependency theory, provides suggestions for future research directions necessary to validate the utility of the coproduction of health framework as a precursor for paradigm change.

One of the most hyped concepts in the manufacturing industry is ‘Industry 4.0’. The ‘Industry 4.0’ concept is grabbing the attention of every manufacturing industry across the globe because of its immense applications. This phenomenon is an advanced version of Industry 3.0, combining manufacturing processes and the latest Internet of Things (IoT) technologies. The main advantage of this paradigm shift is efficiency and efficacy in the manufacturing process with the help of advanced automated technologies. The concept of ‘Industry 4.0’ is contemporary, so it falls under exploratory study. Therefore, the research methodology is thematic narration grounded on secondary data (online) analysis. In this light, this chapter aims to explain ‘Industry 4.0’ in terms of concepts, theories and models based on the Web of Science (WoS) database. The data include research manuscripts, book chapters, blogs, white papers, news items and proceedings. The study details the latest technologies behind the ‘Industry 4.0’ phenomenon, different business intelligence technologies and their practical implications in some manufacturing industries. This chapter mainly elaborates on Industry 4.0 frameworks designed by (1) PwC (2) IBM (3) Frost & Sullivan.