Search results

Trust in how projects are managed is important because leaders have the power to make decisions that impact project outcomes. Steering committees provide strategic direction and governance for projects and they support the project manager. The purpose of this paper is to study how steering committees contribute to governance and trust. More specifically, the aim is to explore, which steering committee features and governance mechanisms are important for building trust.

Empirical data were collected using in-depth interviews. The studied case concerns the Norwegian Navy’s experience with a steering committee in the project of building new frigates.

Findings show that the steering committee had a significant impact on governance and trust in the project. The identified governance mechanisms performed by the steering committee included: control and performance measurement, support, decision-making, relationship management, reporting, resource management, risk management and strategic focus.

Despite the limitations of studying only a single case, the findings may provide general learning, as well as important practical information and experience to managers interested in the role of the project steering committee.

The paper provides key managerial implications that project owners should take into account when organizing a steering committee. The analysis identifies composition, competence, authority, responsibility, commitment and continuity as steering committee features that contribute to building trust. Findings particularly highlight the choice to include external steering committee members to be successful.

This research extends the current understanding of how through different features and governance mechanisms a steering committee can build trust in the management of projects.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the confusion among project management practitioners about the role of steering committees.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with highly experienced participants selected from a range of industries and disciplines in Queensland, Australia.

Six separate confusions on the role of steering committees were identified within that practitioner community. However, despite participants expressing various opposing views, they had actually come to the same working arrangements for their committees; all that was missing was a common conceptualisation of these working arrangements and consistent terminology.

The paper provides clear evidence to the academic literature that confusion over the role of steering committees actually exists within the practitioner community and identifies six separate ways in which this occurs. It also identifies a problematic error in the widely used PRINCE2 governance model. Clarity in committee governance arrangements will facilitate future research endeavours through the removal of confusion surrounding committee labelling and accountability.

A committee decision tree model that guards against all six confusions is proposed for practitioner use, providing a means of avoiding unnecessary internal conflict within organisational governance arrangements. It can be used to check terms of reference of existing or proposed committees, facilitating organisational efficiency and effectiveness. The suggested renaming of project control groups to project coordination groups, and discontinuance of the practice of labelling committees that cannot authorise their decisions as either steering committees or boards, further supports this.

Reconciliation of terminology with actual practice and the consequent clarity of governance arrangements can facilitate building social and physical systems and infrastructure, benefitting organisations, whether public, charitable or private.

Clarity regarding committee accountability can avoid confusion, misunderstanding and their consequent waste of time, resources and money.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the nature of societal regulatory control systems developing an analytical framework drawing from Jurgen Habermas' notion of “steering” and an understanding of “performance management systems”. It seeks to provide a conceptual language of “relational” and “transactional” approaches to regulation both generally and in relation to higher education (HE). The paper aims to illustrate that different types of regulation are related to the different contexts in which they are developed.

The paper undertakes an in‐depth analysis of regulatory frameworks and financing at a general level and in the specific context of HE in England in order to analyse the nature of the processes of steering both empirically and conceptually. The paper ends with some evaluatory reflections on the conceptual framework and in relation to the regulatory processes of HE in the England following this change.

The paper argues that the societal regulatory requirements, of a “relational” or “transactional” form use financing as central tools of “steering”, both generally and in HE. In HE two dominant institutional steering media are identified: regional Funding Councils, (in England, the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE)) and the Research Councils (RC). Regulation of funding flows from the two bodies is described using the conceptual framework developed. HEFCE's regulations are more “relational” in nature relative to the RCs more “transactional” systems. Located in two different Government departments until June 2007, these two funding organisations were then brought together to form the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS); they are now (since June 2009) part of the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS).

The paper provides a conceptual framework by which to understand regulation more generally and demonstrates the significance of this framework by providing new insights into the changing societal regulatory context of HE in England.

This paper seeks to extend understanding of how being responsible and accountable for performance impacts on control processes between organisations.

The paper analyses empirical findings gathered from officers of two local education authorities about their control relationships with schools. It provides a Habermasian theoretically informed analysis of these control relationships. Control is studied as the steering processes that occur between organisations in response to regulation from government.

The LEA officers employ the language of influence to conceal ongoing direct forms of control over schools. As the officers attempt to demonstrate their accountability to the Department of Education and Skills, they use communication and information strategically to steer schools towards their ways of thinking.

The paper focuses only on the views of LEA officers. Further research is required to ascertain the views of schools and other stakeholders in local education.

Where regulatory bodies demand performance accountability from organisations, appropriate control mechanisms are necessary to ensure that organisations work in transparent ways towards regulatory objectives.

Steering, responsibility, accountability and control are discussed in an educational context.

This article studies the tensions between universities' accountability and autonomy in response to the demands of public steering mechanisms coordinating higher education institutions.

Demonstrating the tension between accountability and autonomy, the impact and relevance of public steering mechanisms coordinating higher education are studied via a survey with selected representative Finnish universities. The response rate was an exceptionally high 94%. In addition to the statistical analysis of the survey, open-ended questions were also analyzed to give a more in-depth understanding of the findings. The study uses paradox theory and institutional complexity as its theoretical lenses.

The empirical analysis of this study shows a considerable gap between the experienced impact and the experienced relevance of the steering mechanisms in higher education. The authors’ further analysis of the open-ended data shows that indicator-based funding allocation has undermined the perceived university autonomy. The authors highlight the paradoxical tensions of university autonomy and higher education institutions' steering mechanisms' requirement for accountability. Finding an acceptable balance between accountability and institutional autonomy plays an important role in designing higher education policies.

The authors found that even if a steering mechanism is experienced as impactful, it is not necessarily considered relevant. One of the key aspects in understanding the reasons behind this mismatch is related to university autonomy. Most impactful steering mechanisms become considered less relevant because they also endanger institutional autonomy. In this sense, it could be expected that steering mechanisms should better balance accountability and autonomy.

This paper describes a practical approach to implement computational steering for problem solving environments (PSEs) by using WBCSim as an example. WBCSim is a Web based simulation system designed to increase the productivity of wood scientists conducting research on wood‐based composites manufacturing processes. WBCSim serves as a prototypical example for the design, construction, and evaluation of small‐scale PSEs.

Various changes have been made to support computational steering across the three layers – client, server, developer – comprising the WBCSim system. A detailed description of the WBCSim system architecture is presented, along with a typical scenario of computational steering usage.

The set of changes and components are: design and add a very simple steering module at the legacy simulation code level, provide a way to monitor simulation execution (alert users when it is time to steer), add an interface to access and visualize simulation results, and perhaps to compare intermediate results across multiple steering attempts. These simple changes and components have a relatively low cost in terms of increasing software complexity.

The novelty lies in designing and implementing a practical approach to enable computational steering capability for PSEs embedded with legacy simulation code.

Two-handed automobile steering at low vehicle speeds may lead to reduced steering ability at large steering wheel angles and shoulder injury at high steering wheel rates (SWRs). As a first step toward solving these problems, this study aims, firstly, to design a surface electromyography (sEMG) controlled steering assistance interface that enables hands-free steering wheel rotation and, secondly, to validate the effect of this rotation on path-following accuracy.

A total of 24 drivers used biceps brachii sEMG signals to control the steering assistance interface at a maximized SWR in three driving simulator scenarios: U-turn, 90º turn and 45º turn. For comparison, the scenarios were repeated with a slower SWR and a game steering wheel in place of the steering assistance interface. The path-following accuracy of the steering assistance interface would be validated if it was at least comparable to that of the game steering wheel.

Overall, the steering assistance interface with a maximized SWR was comparable to a game steering wheel. For the U-turn, 90º turn and 45º turn, the sEMG-based human–machine interface (HMI) had median lateral errors of 0.55, 0.3 and 0.2 m, respectively, whereas the game steering wheel, respectively, had median lateral errors of 0.7, 0.4 and 0.3 m. The higher accuracy of the sEMG-based HMI was statistically significant in the case of the U-turn.

Although production automobiles do not use sEMG-based HMIs, and few studies have proposed sEMG controlled steering, the results of the current study warrant further development of a sEMG-based HMI for an actual automobile.

A research project is described which aims at understanding how individual actors succeed in handling divergences in personal interests, subgroup interests and the global group interests. Self‐steering and steering others in a complex pattern of social interaction is a theme that was underpinned theoretically by a sociocybernetic point of view expressed by Baumgartner, Geyer, van der Zouwen and others.

A survey of political philosophy from Antiquity to present times, and of more recent efforts to create a thoroughly planned society, leads to the conclusion that history does not give an unambiguous answer to the question whether or not macro‐social planning is possible. From an analytical rather than a historical viewpoint, the concept of planning turns out to be ill‐defined and to have many implicit surplus‐meanings that are supposed to distinguish it from similar decision‐related activities, but do not really do so. The planning paradox is inescapable: Perfect planning implies perfect prediction, which in turn implies a deterministic universe that leaves no room for planning. While the cost‐benefit ratio of planning efforts increases during periods of rapid social change, for reasons that are explained, the author nevertheless concludes that a tenacious pro‐steering bias exists as a result of human cognitive dispositions towards balanced thinking, linear thinking, asymmetric attribution of success and satisficing.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a co‐simulation method to study the ground maneuvers of aircraft anti‐skid braking and steering.

A virtual prototype of aircraft is established in the multibody system dynamics software MSC.ADAMS/Aircraft. The anti‐skid braking control model, which adopts the multi‐threshold PID control method with a slip‐velocity‐controlled, pressure‐bias‐modulated (PBM) system, is established in MATLAB/Simulink. EASY5 is used to establish the hydraulic system of nose wheel steering. The ADAMS model is connected to block diagrams of the anti‐skid braking control model in MATLAB/Simulink, and is also connected to the block diagrams of nose wheel steering system model in EASY5, so that the ground maneuvers of aircraft anti‐skid braking and steering are simulated separately.

Results are presented to investigate the performance of anti‐skid braking system in aircraft anti‐skid simulation. In aircraft steering simulation, the influence of two important parameters on the forces acting on the tires is discussed in detail, and the safe area to prevent aircraft sideslip is obtained.

This paper presents an advanced method to study the ground maneuvers of aircraft anti‐skid braking and steering, and establishes an integrated aircraft model of airframe, landing gear, steering system, and anti‐skid braking system to investigate the interaction of each subsystem via simulation.