Search results

The aim of this paper is to examine the relationships between open‐plan measures and the effectiveness of facilities space management. A review of the literature reveals that the relationships have remained largely unsubstantiated empirically. Hence, where emphasis should be in practice, is virtually unknown. A sample of 25 randomly selected open‐plan workplaces was studied and the results were analysed using Spearman’s Rho correlation. Three measures were found to have significant influence in facilities space management: designed capacity by number of staff, flexibility in terms of workstations mobility and density by number of staff per workstation. There was found to be no significant correlation between open‐plan measures and space effectiveness. However, a better appreciation of open‐plan measures in facilities space management, will indirectly influence space effectiveness. The implications of the results are that facilities space managers should systematically evaluate alternative measures and give greater attention to particular aspects of open‐plan.

The contribution of accounting research to the space sector has arguably been less discernible, less visible and less appreciated than that made by STEM disciplines. This paper aims to ascertain the nature and extent to which management accounting can contribute to interdisciplinary advancements of the space sector. This is accomplished by investigating possible contributions realised by management accounting research to the space sector and identifying the opportunities and challenges facing interdisciplinary accounting researchers in making a contribution.

This qualitative empirical study draws on interviews with 25 academic researchers and practitioners from Australia, the USA, the UK, Canada, Europe, India and China, with research or practitioner experience on accounting issues germane to the space sector. The purpose is to seek their perceptions of how interdisciplinary management accounting research can solve contemporaneous problems in the space sector.

The potential contribution that management accounting research can make in the space sector is grounded in the inherent interdisciplinary of the discipline. The propensity to draw on other disciplines, theories, methodologies and methods is a strength of management accounting, as it is arguably by such interdisciplinarity that “wicked problems’ such as those presented by space exploration, policy and research can be solved.

This is one of the first papers to explore the role and contribution management accounting research can offer to what has traditionally been a STEM-dominated field. In so doing, it underscores the central importance and value-added by an interdisciplinary approach to management accounting research.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Plans are underway for the next 25–50 years in space. The days of “mission control” may be waning. More study and research is recommended on issues of leadership for (a) earth‐based projects in space, and (b) space‐based programmes with managers there of manned or unmanned projects. Large‐scale technical enterprises in space require a new form of macro management. Despite current difficulties associated with the management of the space shuttle, both experiential history and a possible paradigm or demonstrated model of future trends in the general field of management are offered.

In light of the discussions on outer space property management, this conceptual review paper aims to discuss and evaluate if, when and under which conditions certain land management and property right frameworks can apply to allocate and/or restrict property rights in outer space.

This paper applies a pragmatic review approach which seeks to better understand if and how the basic tenets of the land management frameworks could better shape and revise the challenges in outer space regulations.

Despite the fact that regulatory guidelines on outer space rights are existing, the analysis shows that these lack a number of practical tools and measures aiming at intervening if stakeholders do not follow the rules. With the use of land management frameworks, it is possible to derive policy options for making the outer space management more practical and action-oriented, in particular for the removal of space debris. These include amongst others more attention for formulating global public restrictions in outer space, incorporating regulatory guidelines for accessing open space regimes, addressing responsiveness and robustness in adherence and compliance to regulations

Given the conceptual and discursive character of the paper, there are no specific empirical data, yet several recommendations for further research include expanding the boundary work between the land management and regulatory outer space domain.

The insights derived from land management and real estate related property theories could potentially provide new starting points for (re)formulating the regulatory framework for outer space property discourses.

Interpreting the outer space regulations from known and practiced land management perspective helps to bridge the policy–society knowledge and necessity gap on outer space activities.

The specific land management perspective and discursive analysis on outer space debris provide new options for devising and extending regulatory guidelines for assigning responsibilities on outer space debris and debris rights, restrictions and responsibilities.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the ways in which notions of space, constituted by management accounting and operations, interact, conflict and are understood by operations managers in a variety of situations within the context of iron ore mining. The authors address a dual question: How do accounting space and production space relate to each other? And what does it mean for operations managers to reside in both those spaces at once?

The paper is based on field studies at a mining company involving operations managers who experience tensions between accounting and production responsibilities and must prioritize between different courses of action to create value.

In contrast to the view that management accounting poses a problem for operations managers in production environments, the authors show how especially discursive tensions foster reflection and choice. Operations managers prioritize their actions in accordance with management accounting or operations based on how they experience and reflect upon the tensions they encounter, dominating artifacts and their experienced relation to space. Operations managers are not tied to specific spaces, but they prioritize their responsibility to management accounting or operations depending on the space to which they feel a sense of belongingness.

Drawing upon a conceptualization of tensions between management accounting and operations as a spatial phenomenon, it is possible to understand the dilemmas experienced by operations managers in a dynamic and relational way. The authors propose that viewing tensions between management accounting and production as spatial phenomena enables a novel understanding of how such tensions can create reflexivity in responsibility with operations managers.