Search results

As any organisation chart illustrates, two essential features of organisations are formal authority and division of labour. “Formal authority” specifies those individuals and positions which have institutionalised power over others, while “division of labour” specifies those individuals and positions who are responsible for certain tasks in an organisation. In these respects organisations are a reflection of their environmental contexts of which class is a major feature (Clegg and Dunkerley, 1980). Broadly speaking what emerges in organisations are two classes of participants. One such class is represented by those who own the means of production (or capital) while the other such class is represented by those who own labour. This difference in capital ownership leads to disparities in the rights, powers and privileges—prerogatives—of the two classes (Clegg and Dunkerley, 1980). In practice, however, the capitalists are represented in organisations by “the management” who act as their agents. Thus the active participants in organisations become “management” and “labour” (Strauss and Rosenstein, 1970). Management with its power base grounded in its role as the owner's agent becomes the “elite” in the organisation.

This paper aims to analyze the current state of technological advancements research in addressing the diverse risk factors involved in earthmoving equipment operations through Rasmussen's (1997) risk management framework. It examines how existing technologies research capture, manage and disseminate risk information across various levels of safety management by defining their core functionalities. The research highlights gaps in current technological solutions research regarding the flow of information in the risk management framework. It emphasizes the need for an integrated approach in technological advancements to enhance the holistic safety management approach capable of capturing various risks across different levels of risk management.

This research employs a multistep approach. Initially, earthmoving equipment risk factors and functionalities of technological solutions were identified through a systematic review of current scholarly works. Subsequently, social network analysis (SNA) and Pareto analysis were applied to evaluate and determine the importance of risk factors and functionalities of technologies for improving them.

The findings highlight the importance of multilevel approaches that expand technological functionalities to address risk factors across all levels of Rasmussen's (1997) risk management framework. The current combination of technological advancements focuses primarily on on-site monitoring, congested work sites, site layout/path planning, utility problems, safety training, and blind spot and visibility. Site monitoring and warning systems, supported by sensors and computer vision (CV), are pivotal for identifying risks and enabling data-driven safety management. However, workforce-level cognitive factors (W1-W6), which influence safety behavior, remain underexplored for enhancing their functionality to anticipation and response during the operation. Prevention is the core function of current technological solutions, emphasizing the need to address human and equipment risk factors such as sources of hazards in earthmoving operations. Learning: AI as a data-driven approach and IoT systems are key for future development, and when grounded in ontology-based knowledge of earthwork, they gain a structured vision of earthmoving equipment types, their interactions and the earthwork activities. It enhances the capabilities of these technologies to capture and manage complex interactions between hazard sources (human and equipment), supporting comprehensive risk factors across all levels of the risk management framework.

This paper elucidates that technological solutions for safety management in earthmoving equipment operations require a more holistic approach—grounded in an understanding of functionalities of technologies—to effectively capture risks across various levels of Rasmussen (1997) risk management. It emphasizes that technological solutions should not only address isolated hazards but also ensure the continuous flow of information on multiple risk factors across the risk management framework.

Examines the way in which works of generative computer‐based art, specifically those which reference Artificial Life, may gain aesthetic appeal through instilling a sense of “wonder” in a viewer. This idea is examined from its roots in our fascination with natural phenomena and the sublime, through its representation in terms of the basic elements of drawing off and on‐screen, and into the computational realm in which Artificial Life software finds its form. Further explores the artistic potential of the approach which takes computationally‐realized works with a single level of emergent organizational structure, to those capable of giving rise to interactions built yet again on top of these in an ever‐increasing hierarchy of added complexity. The difficulties of coding such software systems successfully will be briefly discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to theoretically propose a complex perspective as the third way to understand disasters which is used to describe the Hiroshima landslide disaster 2014 in Japan. In the first half of the paper the complex perspective is explained in detail with comparison to two conventional perspectives on disasters, i.e. hazard approach and vulnerability approach. According to the complex perspective, deaths in disasters are avoidable. In the second half of the paper, Hiroshima landslide disaster is analyzed in line with the complex perspective. Also, how will Hiroshima not repeat such landslide disaster is suggested.

To develop the case study for Hiroshima, a desk-based literature review, a field site visit and five key informant interviews were conducted by the authors in 2016. The authors’ initial analysis based on newspaper reports indicated a failure in the early warning system, evacuation and severity of the hazard. Based on this, the broader literature on traditional perspectives on risk, vulnerability and complexity were mined to understand and theorize the failure in Hiroshima. Then the interviews were conducted in the city of Hiroshima to analyze the disaster from complex perspective.

The authors demonstrated that the Hiroshima Landslide disaster 2014 and its deaths could be explained by complex perspective. Complex perspective brings us the following suggestions not to repeat landslide disaster in Hiroshima. Political leaders at national and local levels must take up responsibilities to set a “goal” for the disaster management system to “reduce deaths.” Also, governmental and non-governmental organizations should make efforts to engage proactively with community through disaster education or through community awareness program to shift the mind set from hito-goto to jibun-no-koto (their story to our story).

Reducing deaths by disasters is essential for the world thus it is UN’s Sendai Goal One. As most contemporary sciences are based on reductionism, disasters have been described as a combination of the related components such as hazards, vulnerability. Although the great contributions from the reductionism to disaster studies, it has been said that integrated disaster management is needed since the reductionism usually give the partially optimized solution to disaster reduction. This study proposes complex approach to find comparatively total optimized solution to disaster reduction, in particular reducing deaths. Although it is based on merely one case study, this paper describes the possibility of different way to reduce deaths by disasters.