Search results

The purpose of the study is to consolidate a set of indicators for assessing design and construction phase strategies for reducing operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. They will also estimate the quantity of operational GHG emission and its associated reduction over assessment period.

Five steps framework adopted include defining the purpose of the indicators and selection of candidate indicators. Others are defining the criteria for indicator selection, selecting and defining the proposed indicators. Relevancy, measurability, prevalence, preference, feasibility and adaptability of the indicator were the criteria used for selecting the indicators.

The study consolidated public transport accessibility, sustainable parking space, green vehicle priority, proximity to amenities and alternative modes as indicators for design and construction phase strategies. Transportation accounting and carbon footprint (CFP) and their associated reduction are indicators for operational GHG emission while plan and policy is an indicator for policymakers and stakeholders.

The study shows that providing correct indicators for assessing direct and indirect GHG emission with easy to obtain data is essential for assessment of built environment. Stakeholder can use the indicators in developing new rating systems and researchers as an additional knowledge. Policy makers and stakeholders can use the study in monitoring and rewarding the sustainability and activities of building related industries and organisations.

The study was conducted at the Center for Energy and Industrial Environmental Studies (CEIES) Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia and utilises existing rating systems and tools, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and GHG protocol reports and guides and several other standards, which are open for research.

Many groups in organisations are unsuccessful in problem solving. However, the principle of continuous improvement necessitates that organisations refine their employees’ problem-solving skills. In this mixed-method, field-based lab experiment, we explored the impact of a treatment to enhance the quality of group problem-solving processes.

We focused on the structured problem-solving process in Kaizen Events by differentiating six consecutive phases. About 16 Kaizen Event groups (101 members) participated in a field-based lab experiment that used a lean simulation game to establish a group problem-solving context. Data were collected via video, surveys and group interviews. We examined if a high-quality process is strengthened through group members’ elevated awareness of problem-solving preferences. About 11 groups received a treatment of tailor-made individual feedback to increase awareness of their problem-solving preferences. Additionally, we repeated the experiment in five control groups, where member preferences were not shared.

In the treatment groups, where problem-solving preferences had been shared, we observed a clear improvement in Kaizen Event process quality and higher problem-solving self-efficacy levels. Moreover, their self-reported Kaizen Event behaviour had changed. Within the control groups, the participants also reported that their problem-solving self-efficacy had improved, but this did not have a positive impact on the quality of the objectively measured Kaizen Event process.

By combining insights from operations management and organisational behaviour, we demonstrate that the structured Kaizen Event problem-solving process improves when group members’ individual problem-solving preferences are shared. We thus add an individual-level variable to the extant models of Kaizen Event success factors. Our results provide fresh insights into how to improve the continuous improvement process within organisations. Kaizen Event stakeholders and their facilitators are offered guidance on how to increase one’s awareness of own and others’ problem-solving preferences in group-based problem-solving events.

As of 2007, there were an estimated 10.4 million businesses in the United States that were owned and operated by women. The number of women-owned firms has continued to grow at around twice the rate of all firms for the past two decades (Center for Women℉s Business Research, 2008). On the other hand, women comprise only 15.4 percent of corporate officers in Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst, 2007b) and, in 2003, held only 14.8 percent of board seats in the Fortune 500 (Catalyst, 2007a).To better understand the glass ceiling faced by both female entrepreneurs and women leaders, the research on women℉s issues is examined from a number of different vantage points. Women℉s entrepreneurship and women℉s leadership research on leadership, decision-making, and gender differences was examined to discover commonalities. Then female single-sex education literature was reviewed for insights on developmental issues that might influence future women entrepreneurs and leaders. In this exploration of research, it was found that both women entrepreneurs and women leaders in the corporate environment tend toward the same leadership styles and ways of interacting with others; they also experience a lack of role models and possible lack of self-efficacy.The literature on single-sex education provides observations that young women may thrive in environments in which there are fewer male competitors, hold less stereotyped views on gender, hold higher aspirations, may have greater opportunities for training of leadership skills, and may have increased self-confidence that may be the result of exposure to successful women role models. Implications for future research are explored and suggestions are provided to meet the needs of developing women entrepreneurs.

The effects of innovation on leadership abilities have not been widely investigated. Although diffusion of innovation theory has existed for some time, there is a need for more research detailing the relationship between innovation and transformational leadership. In a survey of organizational members (N = 294), innovation was significantly related to all subscales of transformational leadership. The relationship between innovation and transactional leadership was generally not significant, and the relationship with laissez-faire leadership was inverse and significant. Implications emerging from the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation are discussed, including the distinction between the champion and “techie” styles of innovation and their basis in leadership activity.