Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

152888-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Owner organizations in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry are presented with a wide variety of project delivery approaches. Implementation of these approaches, while enticing due to their potential to save money, reduce schedule delays, or improve quality, is extremely difficult to accomplish and requires a concerted change management

Owner organizations in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry are presented with a wide variety of project delivery approaches. Implementation of these approaches, while enticing due to their potential to save money, reduce schedule delays, or improve quality, is extremely difficult to accomplish and requires a concerted change management effort. Research in the field of organizational behavior cautions that perhaps more than half of all organizational change efforts fail to accomplish their intended objectives. This study utilizes an action research approach to analyze change message delivery within owner organizations, model owner project team readiness and adoption of change, and identify the most frequently encountered types of resistance from lead project members. The analysis methodology included Spearman's rank order correlation, variable selection testing via three methods of hierarchical linear regression, relative weight analysis, and one-way ANOVA. Key findings from this study include recommendations for communicating the change message within owner organizations, empirical validation of critical predictors for change readiness and change adoption among project teams, and identification of the most frequently encountered resistive behaviors within change implementation in the AEC industry. A key contribution of this research is the recommendation of change management strategies for use by change practitioners.
ContributorsLines, Brian (Author) / Sullivan, Kenneth (Thesis advisor) / Wiezel, Avi (Committee member) / Badger, William (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
155824-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The higher education sector is always changing and seeks for robust methodologies to make education more effective and produce higher quality products which are the future professionals. While each student has different preference in learning, numerous forms of instructional strategies are adopted to engage students in varied ways. Existing

The higher education sector is always changing and seeks for robust methodologies to make education more effective and produce higher quality products which are the future professionals. While each student has different preference in learning, numerous forms of instructional strategies are adopted to engage students in varied ways. Existing literature has studied the impacts of various teaching strategies on students’ performance. Previous studies did not figure out if personal characteristics such as honestly, emotionality, etc. have any impacts on the students’ academic performance. This master thesis uses the detailed information gathered through surveying construction students and analyses such data to determine the relationship between various personal factors and understand if there is any relation between students’ academic performance and personal characteristics. This work has used HEXACO factor scales and Emotional Intelligence (EI) as a basis of its analysis. Results of this analysis indicated that there is no significant correlation between students’ academic performance and HEXACO and EI criteria. Although the analysis process tried to provide the most accurate and robust results, but findings could potentially be affected by a number of factors such as excluding some survey responses from data analysis due to confusing responses or being outlier.
ContributorsDadvar, Atefeh (Author) / Sullivan, Kenneth (Thesis advisor) / Smithwick, Jake (Committee member) / Lines, Brian (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
154315-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

Three dilemmas plague governance of scientific research and technological

innovation: the dilemma of orientation, the dilemma of legitimacy, and the dilemma of control. The dilemma of orientation risks innovation heedless of long-term implications. The dilemma of legitimacy grapples with delegation of authority in democracies, often at the expense of broader public

Three dilemmas plague governance of scientific research and technological

innovation: the dilemma of orientation, the dilemma of legitimacy, and the dilemma of control. The dilemma of orientation risks innovation heedless of long-term implications. The dilemma of legitimacy grapples with delegation of authority in democracies, often at the expense of broader public interest. The dilemma of control poses that the undesirable implications of new technologies are hard to grasp, yet once grasped, all too difficult to remedy. That humanity has innovated itself into the sustainability crisis is a prime manifestation of these dilemmas.

Responsible innovation (RI), with foci on anticipation, inclusion, reflection, coordination, and adaptation, aims to mitigate dilemmas of orientation, legitimacy, and control. The aspiration of RI is to bend the processes of technology development toward more just, sustainable, and societally desirable outcomes. Despite the potential for fruitful interaction across RI’s constitutive domains—sustainability science and social studies of science and technology—most sustainability scientists under-theorize the sociopolitical dimensions of technological systems and most science and technology scholars hesitate to take a normative, solutions-oriented stance. Efforts to advance RI, although notable, entail one-off projects that do not lend themselves to comparative analysis for learning.

In this dissertation, I offer an intervention research framework to aid systematic study of intentional programs of change to advance responsible innovation. Two empirical studies demonstrate the framework in application. An evaluation of Science Outside the Lab presents a program to help early-career scientists and engineers understand the complexities of science policy. An evaluation of a Community Engagement Workshop presents a program to help engineers better look beyond technology, listen to and learn from people, and empower communities. Each program is efficacious in helping scientists and engineers more thoughtfully engage with mediators of science and technology governance dilemmas: Science Outside the Lab in revealing the dilemmas of orientation and legitimacy; Community Engagement Workshop in offering reflexive and inclusive approaches to control. As part of a larger intervention research portfolio, these and other projects hold promise for aiding governance of science and technology through responsible innovation.

ContributorsBernstein, Michael J. (Author) / Wiek, Arnim (Thesis advisor) / Wetmore, Jameson M. (Thesis advisor) / Grimm, Nancy (Committee member) / Anderies, John M (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016