CPP 1D
_______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuest April 06 2017 20:48 _______________________________________________________________ 06 April 2017 ProQuest Table of contents 1. ORGANISATIONAL RISK-LEARNING: A CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL CARE CAPITAL PROJECTS IN SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITIES................................................................................................................ 1 06 April 2017 ii ProQuest Document 1 of 1 ORGANISATIONAL RISK-LEARNING: A CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL CARE CAPITAL PROJECTS IN SCOTTISH LOCAL AUTHORITIES Author: McCann, C; Asenova, D; Bailey, S J ProQuest document link Abstract: Risk literature in the public sector tends to be concerned with the development of risk management in relation to financial innovations and public policy making. This paper focuses on risk-learning in the management of Social Care capital projects financed by the Prudential Borrowing Framework (PBFyf ' H V S L W H W K H G U L Y H W R L Q W H J U D W H U L V k management into all aspects of local government operations, it appears that risk management is relatively novel within each local authority and is fragmented. Risk-learning appears to be limited to individuals with some indication of team-learning and to a lesser extent organisational learning. Whilst evidence suggests that a number of processes are in place to communicate risks at an organisational level, such system(syf G R Q R W W H Q G W o support 'explicit' as opposed to 'implicit' risk-learning from capital projects. The paper draws on 10 in-depth interviews with risk managers and senior management in Social Work departments across five Scottish local authorities. It proposes the development of risk processes, and a risk culture, whereby all levels of the organisationare capable of challenging and dealing with emerging risks in capital projects underpinned by organisational learning (Senge, 1990; Argyris &Schon, 1975yf $ F F R U G L Q J O \ L Q G H Y H O R S L Q J U L V N P R G H O V O R F D l authorities should adopt similar effective risk practices and learn from previous project successes and failures to improve performance and outcomes for service delivery. Thus, this paper provides an analysis of risk management in social care capital projects within a framework of organisational learning. Full text: Headnote ABSTRACT Risk literature in the public sector tends to be concerned with the development of risk management in relation to financial innovations and public policy making. This paper focuses on risk-learning in the management of Social Care capital projects financed by the Prudential Borrowing Framework (PBFyf ' H V S L W H W K H G U L Y H W R L Q W H J U D W H U L V k management into all aspects of local government operations, it appears that risk management is relatively novel within each local authority and is fragmented. Risk-learning appears to be limited to individuals with some indication of team-learning and to a lesser extent organisational learning. Whilst evidence suggests that a number of processes are in place to communicate risks at an organisational level, such system(syf G R Q R W W H Q G W o support 'explicit' as opposed to 'implicit' risk-learning from capital projects. The paper draws on 10 in-depth interviews with risk managers and senior management in Social Work departments across five Scottish local authorities. It proposes the development of risk processes, and a risk culture, whereby all levels of the organisationare capable of challenging and dealing with emerging risks in capital projects underpinned by organisational learning (Senge, 1990; Argyris &Schon, 1975yf $ F F R U G L Q J O \ L Q G H Y H O R S L Q J U L V N P R G H O V O R F D l authorities should adopt similar effective risk practices and learn from previous project successes and failures to improve performance and outcomes for service delivery. Thus, this paper provides an analysis of risk management in social care capital projects within a framework of organisational learning. Keywords: Risk Management, Local Authorities, Organisational Learning Introduction Risk management in public sector capital projects has long been aligned with the use of the Private Finance Initiative and Public Private-Partnerships (PFI/PPPyf L Q I L Q D Q F L Q J S U R M H F W V 7 K H X V H R I 3 ) , 3 3 3 L Q W K H G H O L Y H U \ R f public services brought risk to the forefront of management in a way that traditional procurement methods were 06 April 2017 Page 1 of 16 ProQuest unable to do so. A number of risk issues have been explored in the use of PFI/PPP in the delivery of public services for example, the adequate transfer of risk, cost-effectiveness and the increased involvement of the private sector in public services, to name but a few, revealing a number of risk failures. Many UK capital projects have been criticised for providing inefficient services at a considerable cost to the public sector attributed to inadequate risk management by the public sector partner (Asenova et al; 2003; Froud, 2002; Pollock, A et ak, 2007; Ball et ak, 2000; Dixon et ak, 2005yf Having withdrawn the use of PFI/PPP to finance public sector infrastructure in Scotland in 2007, local authorities are increasingly using the Prudential Borrowing Framework (PBFyf W R I L Q D Q F H W K H G H Y H O R S P H Q W R f social care infrastructure. Whilst the use of the PBF reverts to a more traditional procurement methodology without the involvement of the private sector in delivery, literature (Asenova &Beck, 2003; Bing et ak, 2005; Hood et ak, 2007; Smythe &Edkins, 2007; Binsted &Brannigan, 2008; NAO, 2000; 2011; Demirag &Khadaroo, 2011yf U H Y H D O V V R P H V L P L O D U L W L H V L Q F D S L W D O S U R M H F W V I L Q D Q F H G E \ E R W K W K H 3 U X G H Q W L D O % R U U R Z L Q J ) U D P H Z R U N 3 % ) \f and the Private Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnerships (PFI/PPPyf ) R U H [ D P S O H U L V N L G H Q W L I L F D W L R Q D Q d allocation and value for money (VFMyf L Q V H U Y L F H G H O L Y H U \ 6 L P L O D U L W L H V L Q W K H V \ V W H P V R I 3 ) , 3 3 3 D Q G 3 % F include that both are capital financing mechanisms and face the similar types of risks which are inherent in capital projects (NAO, 2011; Pollock et ak, 2011yf If we consider the concept of 'organisational isomorphism', often referred to within the context of learning from crisis, it suggests that although two particular systems may appear to be completely different, if they possess the same or similar underlying component parts or procedures then they will both be open to the common modes of failure (Toft &Reynolds, 1997: 16yf , W F R X O G W K H U H I R U H E H D V V X P H G W K D W S U R M H F W V I L Q D Q F H G E \ W K H 3 % F may be exposed to risk failures common to those of PFI/PPP projects (NAO, 2011; Toft &Reynolds, 1997yf .
Thus, in considering possible similarities this paper explores the risk practices of three Scottish local authorities in managing social care infrastructure projects financed by the PBF. It explores how risk is managed and whether the local authorities 'risk-leam' from their experiences of other capital projects and apply this learning to their social care projects discussed in this paper. The PBF and PFI/PPP and Social Care Sector Risk Regulation and Mitigation A shift in the balance of long-term care provision has changed the dynamics of the social care sector and requirements for care home provision in the UK. Population ageing, common to all parts of the UK and other European countries, will increase the demand on care service provision. Scotland's population has been ageing as a result of higher life expectancy and the population of Scotland is likely to increase by 7yb E \ D Q d there will be a greater proportion of older people (GRO, 2011yf 7 K H Q X P E H U R I S H R S O H D J H G D Q G R Y H U L V Q R w projected to increase by 23yb E H W Z H H Q D Q G D Q G E \ \b between 2008 and 2033 (GRO, 2011yf 7 K e growth in numbers of older people, and particularly those over 75 years, will be accompanied by higher levels of dementia, restricted mobility and sensory impairments. Currently, 50yb R I P H Q D Q G \b of women aged 75 and over have limiting long-term conditions (GRO, 2011yf 7 R P H H W V X F K G H P D Q G O R F D O D X W K R U L W L H V S U R Y L G H D P L [ R f service provision from both the public and private sector. Care provision within the UK, and in particular Scotland, has altered and care policy states that individuals are better off living at home where possible rather than a care home facility (Scottish Government, 2011yf UK and Scottish Government initiatives, for example, single shared assessment, community care partnerships, delayed discharge from hospitals and free personal care policy were developed as part of an increasing emphasis of care in the community (Bell et ah, 2007yf 7 K H 6 F R W W L V K * R Y H U Q P H Q W V N H \ S R O L F \ S U L R U L W \ L V W o support people to remain at home for as long as possible, rather than in care homes or hospital settings. To achieve this 'shift in the balance of care', there has been a focus on service improvement and increasing flexibility through joint working between health, housing and social care, using levers such as free personal care, equipment and adaptations and housing support (Scottish Government, 2011yf & K R L F H D Q G F R Q W U R O I R r service users have been increased by greater flexibility for informal careers and the increased range of service 06 April 2017 Page 2 of 16 ProQuest providers (Bell et ah, 2007yf 7 K H L Q Y R O Y H P H Q W R I W K H S U L Y D W H V H F W R U L Q W K H G H O L Y H U \ R I R O G H U S H R S O H V V H U Y L F H V K D s increased significantly as local authorities increasingly withdraw as providers of care services to become purchasers as demographics shift. Local authorities still provide care home places but increasingly purchase care home places and services from private sector care home providers. Whilst the public sector has reduced its responsibility as the provider of elderly care services and the numbers of private companies has increased, the public sector still operates a number of care homes (Scottish Government, 2011yf The UK and devolved Governments have introduced extensive regulation and standards some of which articulate risk in a specific way due to a lack of regulation over the past two decades (Stein et ah, 2010yf , n Scotland the Care Inspectorate, formally the Care Commission, is the independent inspectorate and regulatory body for care and children's services through a set of national standards and care home inspections. Local authorities do not conduct their own inspections but rely on the national care standards as the main source of regulation. National standards address the quality of care and services provided and present a number of regulatory challenges for local authorities. For example, standards stipulate a minimum size of room, that each individual room includes en-suite toilet facilities amongst other factors. Substantial under investment has meant that Scottish social care infrastructure (such as care homes for young people and older peopleyf K D V U H T X L U H d far-reaching modernisation to deliver quality care home services. Care home services for both older people and children were not providing value for money and did not meet the national care standards in which a number of risk management issues are present. After a period of sustained growth, the Scottish budget faces its first real terms cut since devolution, with a real terms reduction of 0.9yb L Q 6 F R W W L V K * R Y H U Q P H Q W \f. With forecast reductions in public expenditure in the next Spending Review and beyond, both central and local government will face difficult decisions in the allocation of available funding in the coming years. It is also likely to be more difficult for local authorities and other providers to maintain traditional methods and levels of service provision, and increases the importance of finding new ways of delivering services and making the best use of available resources (Scottish Government, 2009yf 7 K H F K D O O H Q J H V R I G H P R J U D S K L F F K D Q J H D Q G U H G X F W L R Q V L Q S X E O L F H [ S H Q G L W X U H D O V R U D L V H T X H V W L R Q V D E R X t expectations relating to the balance between what the state and individual should provide to support future generations of older people. Local authorities are increasingly using the PBF rather than PFI/PPP to fund the development of their social care services both to modernise and meet the requirements of the national standards. Central to the PBF is that local authorities must borrow for capital projects on the basis of affordability. Instead of the prior system of Credit Approvals, reliance is based on Prudential Indicators (Pisyf Z K L F K D U H H Q F D S V X O D W H G L Q W K H 3 U X G H Q W L D l Code. Pis must be determined by each local authority for the forthcoming year and the following two financial years when deciding borrowing levels (CIPFA, 2003yf 7 K X V O R F D O D X W K R U L W L H V D U H U H T X L U H G W R G H Y H O R S W K H L r annual revenue and capital spending plans for a minimum rolling three-year period to assess the financial risk of borrowing (CIPFA, 2003yf 2 Q W K H R W K H U K D Q G 3 ) , 3 3 3 S U R Y L G H V D P H D Q V R I I X Q G L Q J P D M R U F D S L W D O L Q Y H V W P H Q W s without immediate recourse to the public purse and has resulted in the considerable involvement of the private sector in the delivery of public services. Private consortia, usually involving large construction firms, are contracted to design, build, and manage new projects, typically for 30 years. In return the local authority pays a unitary charge to the consortium for provision of the service (HM Treasury, 2001yf 8 Q O L N H 3 ) , 3 3 3 D N H \ I H D W X U H R I 3 % ) S U R M H F W V L V W K D W W K H \ D U H I L Q D Q F H d upfront by the public sector itself and borrowing costs are met from revenue. However, local authorities in Scotland no longer utilize PFI/PPP to fund the development of their social care infrastructure. Risk issues are equally present in both methods of finance and as such this paper addresses the risk management practices of three local authorities in managing the development of its social care sector. Public Sector Risk Management and Capital Projects Since late 1990s there has been a drive for risk management from UK and Scottish Governments to be 06 April 2017 Page 3 of 16 ProQuest incorporated into all aspects of local authority operations which has change the landscape of risk. Risk is no longer simply a consideration for technocrats managing predictable health, safety and environmental threats to society but has become a central organizing principle of public policy and cost-effectiveness and quality service delivery (HM Treasury, 2004yf / R F D O D X W K R U L W L H V K D Y H P R Y H G D Z D \ I U R P D P R U H W U D G L W L R Q D O L Q V X U D Q F H D S S U R D F h to manage risks in-house rather than insurance against potential risks (Hood, 2003yf 7 K L V U H S U H V H Q W V D V K L I W L n public sector risk ideology from a traditional 'insurance-related' approach to a holistic 'risk management' approach. In general, it has progressed to include not only health and safety, legal and financial risks but also socio- cultural risk, political risk, environmental and reputational risks all of which are particularly relevant in capital project management (HM Treasury, 2004: Dowlen, 1995yf 3 R O L F L H V V \ V W H P V D Q G J X L G D Q F H G H Y H O R S H G W o assist local authorities in the management of risk by both Government and other public sector bodiesyf U H I O H F W a more holistic approach to consider this extension of risks in delivering value for money (VFMyf D Q G T X D O L W \ L n service delivery. This signifies a more innovative approach, similar to that of the private sector, to protect public service provision and operations from internal and external threats. Public sector risk management emulating the private sector can largely be attributed to the use of the PFI/PPP as a financing mechanism for capital projects (Kaplan &Mikes, 2012yf , Q W K H P D Q D J H P H Q W R I 3 ) , 3 3 3 F D S L W D O S U R M H F W V E R W K W K H S X E O L F D Q G S U L Y D W H V H F W R U D U H H [ S H F W H d to be knowledgeable in the area of risk. However, often the public sector, particularly in comparison to the private sector, is criticised for making poor risk management decisions (Hood &McGarvey, 2000; Asenova &Beck, 2003yf 7 K H \ G R Q R W W H Q G W R K D Y H W K H F R P P H U F L D O V N L O O V U H T X L U H G W R E H D E O H W R G H D O Z L W K U L V N W U D Q V I H r efficiently and allocate risk to those best placed to manage it in capital projects. A number of failings in the risk management process of capital projects have resulted mainly in problems with: the quality of service delivery; delays and changes in service delivery; increased costs and time over-runs; design problems with education and health buildings; financing changes; maintenance; and management of facilities (Hood &McGarvey, 2000; Asenova &Beck, 2003; Shaoul, 2005; Rowland &Pollock, 2003; Bing et ak, 2004; Heliowell &Pollock, 2007a; NAO, 2011yf Despite evidence of risk failures, guidance relating to the implementation of PBF takes the form of the Prudential Code, developed by CIPFA, and fails to take account of all risks focusing mainly on financial risk.
Other risks outside finance are not considered in PBF guidance and the literature suggests (Hood et ak, 2007yf that PBF has not been thoroughly investigated from a risk perspective. With PBF projects, although differing in technical detail, the opportunity exists for similar problems to occur, as such risks are common to the management of capital projects. Often, it is not necessarily the financing option which creates the risk, but the inability of the public sector to manage risk properly, suggesting the need for improvement. The UK Government believes many of the key principles, such as risk, established through PFI/PPP should become standard practice within the public sector irrespective of the source of finances (Scottish Parliament, 2000yf Thus, it seems unwise not to take account of all types of risks in capital projects financed by the PBF. Given the lack of risk guidance associated with PBF, local authorities could learn from experience of previous capital projects financed by PFI/PPP. By engaging in the full risk management process, local authorities can by default engage in organisational risk-learning; to inform policy with a view to avoid repeatedly engaging in similar risk failures identified above. In this way, it does not necessarily require the development of new risk systems or processes but, within the context of organisational learning, to enhance or supplement existing systems which focus on efficient service delivery through improved learning. It may not necessarily require local authorities to adopt entirely new systems or processes, but, existing risk models may be supported by the introduction of new elements of risk innovation. Organisational 'Risk-Learning' Historically, 'organisational learning ' is a term which tends to be associated with private sector organizations and innovative learning. However, more recently it has been linked to the public sector as a management 06 April 2017 Page 4 of 16 ProQuest approach, signalling a more innovative progression to learning within public sector organizations (NAO, 2009yf .
A number of reviews conducted into the failings of public sector capital projects concluded that local government departments need to improve their capacity to learn; focusing attention to how public sector organizations learn or indeed how they 'fail ' to learn (NAO, 2009yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O O H D U Q L Q J L Q W K H S X E O L F V H F W R r has been defined as being: "... .chiefly about changing behaviour to achieve improvement. It is a continuous process that includes learning from within a department (from, for example, experimentation or from the experience of past success or failureyf , as well as from outside (from the experience of other departments, agencies and organisations in other sectorsyf 1 $ 2 \f This approach to organisational innovation differs from the traditional view of a public sector organisation which is often led by a top-down approach which can stifle innovation (Osborne &Brown, 2013yf , W U H T X L U H V W K D W O R F D l authorities become enablers of organisational learning to encourage learning from risk experience and where staff are receptive to change and innovation to avoid risk failures. Organisational learning theorists consider that organizations are required to learn faster as a result of a fast changing environment in which they exist and adapt to changes they meet in their operational environment - including risk (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Schein, 2004; Denton, 1998; Lahteenmaki et ak, 2001yf 7 K H F R P P R Q Y L H Z L V W K D W O H D U Q L Q J L V Q H H G H G \ H W Q o comprehensive and integrated theory of organisational learning exists. Different views exist relating to how organizations learn, how organisational learning process can be influenced and who are the negotiators or enablers of organisational learning. Organisational theorists distinguish between three different levels of learning - individual, team and organization, but the linkage between these three levels is not distinct. Lähteenmäki et ak (2001yf L Q G L F D W H W K D t there is no clear understanding in what way does organisational learning differ from individual learning. Yet it is evident that for organisational learning to occur a prerequisite is that individual learning takes place in the first instance. Argyris and Schon (1978yf I R F X V R Q L Q G L Y L G X D O O H D U Q L Q J V W D W L Q J W K D W W K H P D L Q D F W R U L Q R U J D Q L V D W L R Q D l learning is always the individual. Nonaka &Takeuchi (1995yf V X S S R U W V W K L V Y L H Z F R Q F O X G L Q J W K D W Q H Z N Q R Z O H G J e always begins with the individual. However, we cannot assume that organisations learn merely by an accumulation of individual learning, it requires that systems and processes are in place to transfer such learning to a team and organisational level. The importance of team-learning to achieve learning at organisational level has been widely debated.
Pawlowsky (2000yf L Q G L F D W H V W K D W W H D P O H D U Q L Q J E U L G J H V W K H J D S I U R P L Q G L Y L G X D O W R R U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O O H D U Q L Q J L Q W K e transfer of individual learning to organisational knowledge that can then be shared by all. Senge (1990yf considers team learning as unavoidable for organisational learning advocating that unless teams learn, the organisationcannot learn as a whole. Stata (1996: pp 318yf L O O X V W U D W H V V H Y H U D O D V S H F W V R I K R Z R U J D Q L V D W L R Q D l learning differs from individual learning: "First, organisational learning occurs through shared insights, knowledge, and mental models. Thus organizations can learn only as fast as the slowest link learns. Change is blocked unless all of the major decision makers learn together, come to share beliefs and goals, and are committed to take the actions to change. Second, learning builds on past knowledge and experience - that is, on memory. Organisational memory depends on institutional mechanisms (e.g., policies, strategies, and explicit modelsyf X V H G W R U H W D L n knowledge. Of course, organizations also depend on the memory of individuals. But relying exclusively on individuals risks losing hard-won lessons and experiences as people migrate from one job to another." Evidently for an organisationto learn the institutional mechanisms must be present to transfer tacit to explicit knowledge as legitimatised by Nonaka &Takeuchi (1995yf , Q G L Y L G X D O O H D U Q L Q J L V R I W H Q O L Q N H G W R W D F L W N Q R Z O H G J e which is more difficult to capture within an organisation than explicit knowledge (Dinur, 2011yf 7 D F L W N Q R Z O H G J e is personal and is shared between individuals through face-to-face interaction and shared experiences, whereas explicit knowledge is communicated through procedures and policies. Explicit knowledge refers to that 06 April 2017 Page 5 of 16 ProQuest which can be codified and transmitted as it is articulated in a formal language which makes it easier to communicate to others (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995yf This can be in the form of individual or team risk-learning to inform risk practice at an organisational level (Elliot &Macpherson, 2010yf / R F D O D X W K R U L W L H V P D \ E H Q H I L W I U R P D F H Q W U D O L V H G W H D P W R P R Q L W R U D Q G U H Y L H Z F D S L W D l projects and to encourage a joined-up approach to facilitate individual and organisational learning (Pérez- Nordtvedt et al., 2008yf 7 K H E H Q H I L W R I W K L V L V W R V K D U H N Q R Z O H G J H J L Y H Q W K H O D F N R I F R P P H U F L D O H [ S H U W L V H Z K L F h apparently exists within local authorities (Asenova &Beck, 2003yf % \ V K D U L Q J U L V N N Q R Z O H G J H H L W K H U H [ S O L F L W O \ R r implicitly, from both internal and external sources, may benefit the management of capital projects as it may avoid repetition of the same mistakes in other projects (Becerra, 2008yf Elliot (2009yf D U J X H V W K D W W \ S L F D O O \ R U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O O H D U Q L Q J I U R P D F U L V L V K D V E H H Q F R Q F H S W X D O L V H G D V D O L Q H D r process moving through the stages of knowledge acquisition and transfer to assimilation into the norms and practices of organisational actors. Knowledge acquisition can manifest itself through results in a collection of codified outputs in the form of recommendations for regulations, reporting structures, best practices, tools and technologies. As such risk-learning needs to become part of day-to-day operations and practice. This may be achieved through risk publications, activity reports, and workshops for lessons learned, presentations and the creation or better use of risk systems to store and ultimately disseminate knowledge. As part of the risk management process tacit knowledge may then be captured in an explicit form through the use of risk registers in the reporting and monitoring of risks (ARMIC, 2002yf This may also manifest itself in changing behaviour in order to achieve improvements, learning from the job itself within a department from previous successes or failures and from external sources to achieve a proactive rather than reactive response to risk (NAO, 2009; Lumineau et al., 2011yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O O H D U Q L Q J W K H R U L V W V D O V o place emphasis on the cultural perspective of organisational learning, the social, cultural and political environment influence organisational capacity and speed of learning (Gilson et ah, 2009yf ' X H W R W K H H [ L V W L Q g risk- averse culture some local authorities may fail to see the benefit of effective risk management in the delivery of public services (Smulian, 2010; Pfeifer, 2011; Heaton, 2011yf , W L V W K H U H I R U H Q R W V X U S U L V L Q J W K D W P X F h learning may occur following large projects, initiatives or crises. However, for learning to become more effective, such knowledge should be stored and shared. This requires a change of behaviour, both departmental and individual which can be achieved through a shift in culture (Heaton, 2011yf Various models to facilitate organisational learning have been developed. For example Kolb's experiential learning which explores the cyclical pattern of all learning from experience through to reflection and conceptualizing to action and further learning (Kolb, 1984yf 6 H Q J H \f differentiates between adaptive and generative learning and Fiol and Lyles (1985yf L G H Q W L I \ O R Z H U O H Y H O D Q G K L J K H U O H Y H O O H D U Q L Q J , Q W H U P V R I a learning-based approach to risk, Agryis and Schon's (1978yf P R G H O R I G R X E O H D Q G V L Q J O H O R R S O H D U Q L Q J I L W V Z L W h the intended outcomes of the risk management cycle. Thus, this paper draws on Argyris and Schon's (1978yf development of 'double' and 'single' loop learning, as the process of detection, correction and feedback, cycles to determine if local authorities engage in single or double -loop learning and consequently the risk-cycle. The Risk Management Cycle, Double and Single-Loop Learning Single-loop learning is described as a process of error and correction and this type of learning solves a risk issue but ignores why it occurred in the first instance (Argyris &Schon, 1978yf ' R X E O H O R R S O H D U Q L Q J R Q W K H R W K H r hand is generative in that this type of learning uses feedback from past actions to question why it occurred in the first place (Argyris &Schon, 1978yf % \ D G R S W L Q J G R X E O H O R R S O H D U Q L Q J W K H R U L J L Q D O V W U D W H J \ F D Q E H T X H V W L R Q H d and if necessary, a new strategy can be adopted, or changes can be made to an existing strategy. In this way, engaging in double-loop learning can contribute to the organisational learning as a whole informing change at a strategic level. Much learning in the public sector tends to occur following large capital projects and crises (NAO, 2009yf D Q G L V U H D F W L Y H U D W K H U W K D Q S U R D F W L Y H D Q G D F W L R Q L V R I W H Q W D N H Q R Q O \ D I W H U D F U L V L V 7 R I W V D Q d Reynolds, 1997yf 06 April 2017 Page 6 of 16 ProQuest The processes of learning as an organization supports the risk management cycle whereby all risks should be communicated, monitored, reviewed and to inform change to policy or processes modifying behaviour where necessary. By its very nature, the risk management process tends to lend itself to risk-learning. Risk management models all specify an iterative linking process of risk identification, analysis, treatment and monitoring and reporting (Crawford &Stein, 2004; AIRMIC et ah, 2002; HM Treasury, 2004yf ) L J X U H L O O X V W U D W H s the risk management cyclical process: This research paper is to gauge the stage (i.e., risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk treatment, and risk review, monitor, communication, monitoring and reportingyf W R Z K L F K O R F D O D X W K R U L W L H V U H D F K L Q W K H U L V k cycle and if by default organisational risk-learning occurs. If single-loop learning occurs, local authorities will reach the risk treatment stage (detection and correctionyf I D L O L Q J W R U H D F K W K H Q H [ W V W D J H L Q W K H U L V N F \ F O e indicated in figure 1. In order to achieve double-loop learning, which is preferable, local authorities must reach the risk review, communication and monitoring and reporting stage of the risk-cycle whereby the original risk strategy can be questioned and if necessary, a new strategy can be adopted, or changes can be made to an existing strategy. Research Methodology This research is based on a triangulation of research methods case studies, documentary analysis and ten in- depth interviews with risk managers, senior management and Heads of Department in Social Work departments across three Scottish local authorities referred to A, B and C. Interviews were held between March 2010 and September 2010. Additional interviews were conducted with the Risk Managers from another two Scottish local authorities (referred to as D and Eyf K H O G L Q 2 F W R E H U D V S D U W R I D U H V H D U F K S U R M H F W I X Q G H G E \ W K H - R V H S h Rowntree Foundation. Interviews were conducted with: Documentary analysis was conducted of a variety of eGovemment publications, for example, annual reports; press releases; and policy documents available on local authority websites. Additional documents were requested from interviewees at the local authority which informed the creation of interview topic guides. For example, progress reports; meeting minutes; committee reports; financial records; training guidance; memos; and any other supporting documentation for evidence of risk management strategies, the use of PBF and any evidence of risk-learning. Due to sensitivity of data issues all local authorities and interviewees are anonymised in this paper to protect their identities to allow for unbiased data collection representative of the views of those interviewed. Background to Case Studies At the time of interviews social care capital projects were either fully complete or close to completion: Research Findings PFI/PPP versus the PBF Both Senior Management and Heads of Service were experienced in managing the development of social care capital projects and were all knowledgeable of PFI/PPP and the PBF, but experience varied across local authorities and within local authorities. Whilst Risk Managers were aware of PFI/PPP they had little involvement in the process and were unaware of the PBF. In terms of the rationale behind the use of PBF, prior to the introduction of the PBF, local authorities were presented with few options as to ways in which to fund the regeneration of Social Care services; in sum financial resources were not available. Before the PBF, PFI/PPP (having been used to fund the regeneration of the Education sector in each of the local authoritiesyf D Q G V W D Q G D U G F R X Q F L O F D S L W D O D O O R F D W L R Q Z H U H F R Q V L G H U H G D n option, however neither was deemed as a suitable. PFI/PPP was regarded as too complex and costly a procurement process given the size and scale of project and in standard Council capital allocation there were no funds available. In using the PBF to finance the development of social care services, each local authority was able to demonstrate a financial case which met their requirements. In comparison to the PFI/PPP model it was suggested that a key advantage of the PBF model is its simplistic 06 April 2017 Page 7 of 16 ProQuest nature: I think PBF is quite a simplistic model. Although the PBF is presented as complicated it's actually not. It was quite straightforward we had estimates from our capital receipts we knew how much we could release from funds and savings and we knew how much we could borrow. (Interviewee Senior Management Alyf Evidently, from a financial point of view the PBF was deemed as a straightforward and flexible process unlike that of PFI/PPP which was considered to be far more complicated. It was evident that the use of the PBF, as opposed to PFI/PPP, reduced the level of involvement in certain financial aspects and as such financial risk in PBF project management. For example, whilst interest rate and credit risk remained an issue due to borrowing levels, other financial risks such as financing risk were not deemed relevant to PBF projects as no multifaceted partnerships between the public and private sectors exist in the PBF model like in that of PFI/PPP. This means that the PFI/PPP model tends to be suitable for larger-scale projects to be financially viable due to its complexity. One interviewee commented that: At that time PFI/PPP was not an option due to the size of the project and would [have] therefore become an expensive procurement exercise. At that time the PBF was kicking around in the background and the [local authority] did some piloting around procurement so we took advantage of that and the PBF - we had a plan. At that stage we waited for the PBF to become available to build our new care homes (Interviewee Senior Management Alyf In financing social care services the PBF was evidently the most appropriate option for the three local authorities in comparison to the PFI/PPP model. For each local authority the Corporate Finance Team develops the prudential indicators to assess the financial risk of borrowing and the interest rates at which the Council can borrow. Such borrowing would be considered as part of a Council's budget and Social Care budget. One interviewee (Head of Service Byf F R P P H Q W H G W K D W D O W K R X J K W K H \ Z H U H D Z D U H W K D W W K H L U S U R M H F W Z D V I L Q D Q F H G E y PBF it was not something that they were concerned with. All interviewees commented that they had no involvement in assessing the financial risk in the use of PBF, other than departmental financial projections in terms of the departmental requirements, until the project had been agreed. At this stage, heads of service were involved in the financial management at an operational level to manage the risk of increased costs and the project going over budget. The role of the departmental project team is to prepare a funding bid for social care services and the decision lies with the elected members. Given the current economic climate (2007-2012yf W K H 3 % ) L V E H F R P L Q J L Q F U H D V L Q J O \ L P S R U W D Q W D V D Z D \ R I I L Q D Q F L Q J 6 R F L D l Care capital projects given that sales of assets have dropped. One interviewee (Senior Management A2yf F R P P H Q W H G W K D W L Q P D Q D J L Q J U L V N V D V S D U W R I W K H S U R F X U H P H Q t process it is necessary is to evaluate the financial viability of the contractor to ensure that they have the adequate resources to fund the project. This was of particular concern in private sector service provider and the delivery of services. One interviewee (Head of Service Byf F R P P H Q W H G W K D W G X U L Q J W K H F U H G L W F U X Q F K W K H U H Z D V a real risk that one of the private providers which operate in the local authority area may go bust: When the worse of the credit-crunch was happening we had a close eye on Southern Cross (which provides hundreds of social care places in Glasgowyf Z H Z R U U L H G W K D W W K H \ P D \ J R E X V W D I W H U V H H L Q J W K H P L Q W K H P H G L D D s one of the companies in the media which was anticipated to fail so we kept a close eye (Head of Service Byf Fundamentally, the 'duty-of-care' lies with the local authority if a private sector care providers goes bust. It is the responsibility of the local authority to find places for individuals if this happens. Furthermore, it was acknowledged by the interviewees that in modernising social care service provision there is a risk of higher running costs due to the development of new technologies, single rooms and private bathrooms etc. On the whole the interviewees felt that when they started their projects the risks tended to be around the project being a multi- disciplinary project rather than financial. One interviewee explained: The easy part was identifying the funding then the real hard work began in terms of managing the design and managing the costs (Head of Service, Byf 06 April 2017 Page 8 of 16 ProQuest Financial risk tends to be managed at a strategic level whereby lesser financial and non- financial risks are managed at an operational level by project teams managed by heads of service. Institutional Risk Management Practices in Capital Projects In terms of the organisational pre-conditions linked to the management of risk in social care capital projects for example the institutional practices, risk guidance, risk strategies, standardization and formalized procedures evidence suggests that each local authority engaged in a variation of risk management practice. In the development of social care services risk management was considered by all interviewees as a core part of their Council's operations specifically in managing capital projects, yet a relatively new phenomenon: Risk management is still, or was a relatively new subject. Like 10 years ago in the public sector it was unheard of. Five years ago it was being to emerge so I think a lot of people have been promoted from within (accounting and financeyf , W K L Q N W K H W Z R D X G L W D Q G U L V N J R Z H O O W R J H W K H U E X W , W K L Q N U L V N D X G L W D Q G S H U I R U P D Q F H Z R X O G J o even better (Risk Manager Cyf The key method of risk assessment and management occurs at an early stage during the development of the 'Business Case' for a Social Care capital project which includes both financial and non-financial risk. This process provides a structure through which risk should be assessed and managed in a formalised manner at an operational level which should feed into a strategic risk level. This structure is said to exist to communicate the risk of any given decision from the top (Elected membersyf W R W K R V H L Q G L Y L G X D O V Z L W K L Q W K H V R F L D O F D U H V H U Y L F H W o ensure that identified risks are controlled, reviewed and monitored. At a strategic level, Council members take the final decisions which reflect the Council's long and short-term health and social care objectives. Senior management are then responsible for the overall implementation of such decisions and the day-to-day operational management of risk in social care projects falls with individual directorates or heads of social care services. To support institutional risk management practices, each local authority has an overall corporate 'Risk Management Strategy' in place. It was suggested that in order for effective risk management and learning to occur a link should exist between corporate, or strategic, risk management and operational risk at all stages of the project and not only during the development of the initial business case phase. However, the extent to which this happened varied across participating local authorities. One interviewee (Head of Social Work Cyf H [ S O D L Q H d that the "risk policy is a corporate process and everyone is to follow the same process" and that this should be the case across all Council departments. However, it was noted that this was not always the case and that often there was a failure to communicate risk from an operational to strategic level due to the disjointed approach to risk management in the application of risk formats: This is the same sort of problem I've encountered in Business Continuity. It is not that there isn't risk management going on [on a day-to-day basis] [the problem is that] it's not in the corporate format, which is what we [Risk Managers D] deal in, and which we pass up to the Elected members and Heads of Service. So if there's not that visibility and it's only on a child protection form that you are filling in which is not seen outside of your department [Social Work] then there is not the awareness of the resourcing in high risk areas, corporately high risk areas, as well as departmental. So, to an extent they are their own worst enemies by not engaging in the corporate game as well as social work! (Risk Manager D1yf Whilst each local authority engaged in the development of risk register to record risks, Risk Manager D explained how when managing risk in capital projects, not all risk are managed centrally through a risk register: People have an option. They can use the central system if they want to, for tracking purposes, but quite often, well to be honest I don't think many of our capital projects will have their own risk register. Some of the big ones like the schools one did but not all of them have that. But I think that is perfectly acceptable if the project manager or the steering group, or whatever, want to have their own risk log that they discuss at meetings (Risk Manager Dyf However there are two issues with this approach. Firstly, it assumes that individual project managers will in fact 06 April 2017 Page 9 of 16 ProQuest develop their own 'risk-log' and secondly this advocates an approach to risk management practice which lacks in continuity whereby risk-learning is made more difficult. Furthermore, Risk Manager C explained that those departments (like Social Workyf Z K L F K Z R X O G E H H [ S H F W H G W o be the most risk aware and most skilled at managing their risks are the poorest at demonstrating that: I think certain professionals are just embedded in their jobs like social workers who deal with children and families, they know that children are subjected to certain abuse and there are seven categories of risk. I would expect the child protection committee to those risks on their (riskyf U H J L V W H U D V Z H O O D V R Q H R U W Z R R W K H U E X V L Q H V s related risks like working in partnership, sharing information protocols, that type of thing. But, you've (the Risk Manageryf K D Y H D F W X D O O \ J R W W R V S R R Q I H H G W K H P , W K L Q N , K D G I L U V W R I D O O W D N H Q W K H D S S U R D F K , P Q R W K H U H W o teach my granny how to suck eggs, I know that you (those in the Social Work departmentyf N Q R Z D E R X W U L V N D Q G I know that you know about how to manage risk. I'm just here to help you promote that you can evidence that" But we've (Risk Management Teamyf E H H Q R Q D E R X W 6 R F L D O Z R U N U L V N I R U \ H D U V D Q G W K H \ D U H V W L O O W K H Z R U V H L Q W K e Council. (Risk Manager Cyf Yet, on the other-hand: Other services like well, roads, where you would think that it's just the guys out with their jack hammers, but they are really good at managing their risk. For example, they work with my central risk team, do an analysis of where we are getting the highest frequency of accidents, both to people and to vehicles and they will direct a proportion of their investment/money to mending those particular hotspots. So, that is ideal and yet you wouldn't expect that a roads department is particularly risk aware or proactive but they are very aware and proactive.
(Risk Manager Cyf Evidently, despite the development of common structures and strategies, there is a disjointed approach to risk management both across the five Councils and also notably within Councils. It was suggested that for risk mitigation to occur it is important to have a proper project management process in place which is applied consistently across all projects. At the moment all Councils, departments and projects tend to approach project management, and risk, in a different way. Interviewees did not refer to any specific risk guidance and standards developed by the UK and Scottish Governments to assist local authorities in establishing risk management processes and procedures within their organization. The Risk Manager worked with local authority departments but it was evident that this was very much consultancy-based role and they tended to provide support on health, safety and insurance issues as opposed to being involved in the wider risk governance agenda. For example, the Risk Manager was not directly involved in the development of the Business Case despite the acknowledgement that this was the key tool for assessing risk relating to a Social Care capital project. As such, despite the drive for a more holistic, innovative approach to risk management to include a wider risk governance agenda (Asselt &Renn, 2011yf W K H U R O H R I W K H 5 L V k Manager still reflects a traditional health, safety and insurance role in case study local authorities. Risk Communication and Learning In addition to formal risk measures (such as risk strategies, guidance and risk registersyf W K H U H D U H L Q I R U P D O Z D \ s in which risk is communicated and learned across departments and local authorities. Interviewees provided the following examples: regular meetings to communicate the outcome of any current or previous risk issues across their team, engaging in formal and informal networks and learning as part of the day-to-day working environment. The Head of Service C commented that: Yes, there are a number of formal and informal networks to transfer knowledge. The association of Director of Social Work has a network so there are a number of committees for that (i.e., children and families, community care, substance misuse etc.yf , I Z H K D Y H I L Q D Q F L D O S U H V V X U H V Z H D O O W D O N D E R X W W K H P 7 K H F R X Q F L O V G R V K D U e knowledge for example if the highland council has a great idea that we hadn't thought of then we will use it down here. There are also other networks through local authorities. There isn't sort of a close local network but there are networks and support. (Head of Service Cyf 06 April 2017 Page 10 of 16 ProQuest It was suggested that individuals do learn from their experience of previous involvement in projects and transfer this risk-knowledge to later projects. Consequently, earlier projects may be framed in a different way as individuals learn from managing larger more complex projects. Yet, this type of learning is often described as passive and not codified or recorded in an explicit manner to transfer learning to others. This type of learning can be problematic if such knowledge is stored with the individual rather than with the local authority in an explicit codified manner. Such examples provided of risk-learning are not representative of 'double-loop learning' but reflect a 'single-loop' approach whereby error and correction of risk occurs but fails to ask why it occurred in the first place (Argyris and Schon, 1996yf 7 K L V G L I I H U V W R G R X E O H O R R S O H D U Q L Q J Z K L F K X V H s feedback from past actions to question why it occurred in the first place and contributes to change in organisational strategy as a whole. In this way, engaging in double-loop learning can contribute to a local authority learning as a whole informing change at a strategic level. Thus, it was acknowledged by all interviewees that risk-learning should be an essential element of the risk process in capital projects - learning from one another but codifying information to transfer learning from individual to group. At a departmental level local authority C held a review of risk practices to ensure that they are sufficiently meeting the Councils needs: We've [the local authority C] had a couple of shots at this [reviewing of risk practices]. We have a risk register which covers children, families and older people and, because we are all in the same business of care, we were finding that it was the same risks which came up again and again. So we actually merged the risks to try and reduce the number of risks in the risk register (Head of Service Cyf However, this represented a backwards step as it meant that no individual took ownership of their risk(syf % y merging risks the system was less regulatory and failed to ensure individual ownership. The Council moved back to the previous risk regulation system of three distinct areas of children, families and older people. Yet, whilst risks are also reviewed and monitored to 'flag 'up any recurring risks there is a flaw in this system. For example, with children's homes there were a number of risk incidents, although identified, they were not explicitly recorded. As a result risk information was lacking which presents a problem when monitoring, reviewing and communicating risks. This suggests that in social care capital projects local authority C does not engage in the full risk process only reaching the risk treatment stage as indicated in Figure 1 (page 9yf Z K L F h suggests a failure to engage in learning at an organisational level. The Risk Manager D2 also explained that the fragmented to risk management approach within departments impedes the transference of implicit risk information to explicit: I think it's [risk management] fragmented. Until we actually get amongst them [work with departments] and get them [departments] sorted, I think this type of attitude is going to remain. [Name of Risk Manager] you in his discussions with social work people [department] they've no time for all this stuff [risk management]. They're doing it all we want them to do is formalize the process. So I think that... whenever we go out [to the departments] we ask for the risk register, they haven't got it. But then we find out that they are actually doing what they're supposed to be doing anyway. They just haven't updated the risk register to say that! (Risk Manager D2yf Other processes exist to review and report risks at a group level. As part of the management of capital projects, it is expected that risks are monitored and reviewed. There is a real element of risk that, if not monitored closely, it can be costly and time consuming to change any problems at a later date. For example, local authority B has two review teams in place to monitor capital projects. One of which is chaired by the chief executive and the Head of Service reports to this team on a regular basis with the purpose of managing the project within budget.
Another review team, the Corporate Procurement Team, ensures that the capital project is regulated within procurement rules and manages any legal issues. Similar review teams exist in both local authority A and C.
Whilst a number of review teams exist in the management of capital projects, there was no reference specifically to risk review and communication. It was evident that the information communicated to these groups 06 April 2017 Page 11 of 16 ProQuest was specific to the projects themselves and there were no formal ways of communicating risk issues to other Heads of Services or departments managing projects to share information. It was assumed that this happened as part of the review process, once again learning in this way is passive. Discussion Learning is by no means new to the public sector and local authorities may already engage on a day-to-day basis in risk-learning similar to the methods mentioned above in one form or another. This empirical research explored whether such learning techniques are acted upon in the management of capital projects and if (and howyf N Q R Z O H G J H P D \ E H D F F X P X O D W H G D Q G U H W D L Q H G I R U W K H E H Q H I L W R I R W K H U S H R S O H D Q G I X W X U H S U R M H F W V 7 K H U H D U e a number of examples of individual risk-learning and processes identified by case study local authorities. For example, employees gain risk insights and experiences from simply doing their job; specific risk are assigned to individuals to create ownership of risk; risk management training exists in the form of workshops which helps to develop new skills and knowledge; and informal and formal 'networking' with other colleagues. In terms of team risk-learning processes risk registers provide a working document throughout the lifecycle of a project to learn from the input of individuals. The development of central review teams to monitor all capital projects provides a central process to share and communicate risk issues as do monthly team meeting with all the members of the project team. Whilst it is expected that responsibility for the management of specific risks in a social care capital project is assigned to individuals, and that these risks are recorded and available for anyone to review and consult, this was not always the case and it is evident that limited risk-learning occurs at an organisational level. Although processes exist, for example central review teams and risk registers, engagement by local authority departments in such processes is inconsistent. Though a risk strategy exists in each local authority it is not enforced or regulated a disconnection exists between risk at a strategic and departmental level. Responsibility for risk management lies with each individual department to manage their own project risks. As such the transference from individual learning to strategic change, there was little evidence of a double-loop approach, in monitoring, reviewing and communicating risk, but detection and correction of risk occurs. There is a failure to go beyond this stage of the risk cycle and therefore local authorities are limited in their ability to 'risk-learn' or engage in organisational 'risk-learning' in the formal risk management system. This could be attributed to known complexities in risk governance within an organization which can include inherent uncertainties, fragmented organisational settings, constrained resources, ungovernable actors and unintended consequences (Rothstein, 2006yf 2 Y H U D O O U L V N P D Q D J H P H Q W L V V W L O O D U H O D W L Y H O \ Q R Y H O F R Q F H S W D Q G D s such under-developed and fragmented in its approach which makes it difficult to manage risks across projects.
There is a lack of a proactive attitude towards risk management and evidence suggests that case study local authorities meet the minimum requirements. Local authorities could use other methods to risk-leam in addition to those already identified. For example, the piloting of new capital projects could provide valuable information relating to the risks faced in a capital project prior to full execution. In addition to risk-learning from insights provided through evaluations, audits and scrutiny exercises of previous capital projects. This could provide a learning opportunity for local authorities and may improve the risk management process achieving the final stage of the risk process of monitor, review and communication. This action could be further complemented by comparing risk actions with those of other organizations in both the public and private sectors. The implementation, or review, of risk systems and procedures to encourage better risk management will only be successful if the cultural perspective of an organization promotes and encourages a positive risk culture (Ward &Chapman, 2004yf Conclusion There is a continuing significant variation between local authorities and developments in risk practice are inconsistent across the country, with some local authorities controlling risk better than others. The particular situation and differentiation in each local authority depends upon the culmination of risk strategies and leaders 06 April 2017 Page 12 of 16 ProQuest in risk. Essentially organisational risk- learning is about implementing organisational innovation into local authorities, with a view of addressing inconsistencies in their approach to risk management, by identifying ways of managing risk effectively so as to better deliver services and value for money. Evidence from case study local authorities suggests that risk-learning occurs in an informal manner and whilst systems exist which can facilitate risk-learning there are no explicit structures or systems in place which adequately do so. This is due to the fragmented, inexperienced approach, lack of approach to evidence based, don't evidence managing risk.
Despite the development of risk processes and practices in place failings still exist in the management of risk in capital projects, it is about getting people to act upon those structures to enable risk- learning. As such, it is less to do with the technical aspects but more about the individual acting upon risk processes and how this translates at an organisational level. Yet, the development of review teams and central capital project teams does signify attempts to improve and bridge the gap between individual and organisational risk-learning. The implementation, or review, of risk systems and procedures will only be successful if the cultural perspective of an organization promotes and encourages a risk culture. It may not necessarily mean the development of new systems but the enhancement or engagement in existing systems to improve. Given the barriers, a framework for implementation of a learning- based approach to risk should address the cultural, resource and organisational processes required for producing and using risk knowledge within and across local authorities. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in funding the project "Spending Cuts: Mitigating Risks to Scotland's Disadvantaged Communities". Interviews conducted with Risk Managers as part of this project have been used in the analysis of this paper. References References Airmic et al. (2002yf 7 K H 8 . 5 L V N 0 D Q D J H P H Q W 6 W D Q G D U G Argyris, C.; Schön, D. (1978yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O / H D U Q L Q J $ W K H R U \ R I D F W L R Q S H U V S H F W L Y H 5 H D G L Q J 0 $ $ G G L V R Q - Wesley. Asenova, D and Beck, M (2003yf 6 F R W W L V K / R F D O $ X W K R U L W L H V D Q G W K H 3 U R F X U H P H Q W R I 3 ) , 3 U R M H F W V 3 D W W H U Q R f Developing Risk Management Expertise? Public Works Management and Policy, 8(1yf S S Ball et al. (2000yf 3 U L Y D W H ) L Q D Q F H , Q L W L D W L Y H D J R R G G H D O I R U W K H S X E O L F S X U V H R U D G U D L Q R Q I X W X U H J H Q H U D W L R Q V ?
Policy &Politics vol 29 no 1: 95-108. Becerra, M., Lunnan, R. and Huemer, L. (2008yf 7 U X V W Z R U W K L Q H V V 5 L V N D Q G W K H 7 U D Q V I H U R I 7 D F L W D Q G ( [ S O L F L t Knowledge Between Alliance Partners. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 691-713. Bell et ak, (2007yf ) U H H 3 H U V R Q D O & D U H L Q 6 F R W O D Q G - R V H S K 5 R Z Q W U H H < R U N Bing, L et ak, (2004yf 7 K H D O O R F D W L R Q R I U L V N L Q 3 ) , 3 3 3 F R Q V W U X F W L R Q S U R M H F W V , Q W H U Q D W L R Q D O - R X U Q D O R I 3 U R M H F t management 23, p25-35. Binsted, A &Brannigan, C (2008yf / R F D O 7 U D Q V S R U W ) X Q G L Q J * X L G D Q F H I R U ) X Q G H U V R I 7 U D Q V S R U W 6 F K H P H s Published Project Report PPR 327 EPSRC Boyne, G (1996yf & R P S H W L W L R Q D Q G / R F D O * R Y H U Q P H Q W $ 3 X E O L c Choice Perspective Urban Studies, Vol 33, Nos 4-5,703-721. Demirag &Khadaroo (2011yf $ F F R X Q W D E L O L W \ D Q G Y D O X H I R U P R Q H \ D W K H R U H W L F D O I U D P H Z R U N I R U W K H U H O D W L R Q V K L S L n public-private partnerships. Journal of Management &Governance, Vol. 15, Iss. 2; pg. 271. Chapman, C and Ward, S (2004yf : K \ U L V N H I I L F L H Q F \ L V D N H \ D V S H F W R I E H V W S U D F W L F H S U R M H F W V , Q W H U Q D W L R Q D l Journal of Project Management, 22, (8yf CIPFA (2003yf 7 K H 3 U X G H Q W L D O & R G H I R U & D S L W D O ) L Q D Q F H L Q / R F D O $ X W K R U L W L H V 3 U H O L P L Q D U \ * X L G D Q F H 7 K e Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Denton. J (1998yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O / H D U Q L Q J D Q G ( I I H F W L Y H Q H V V 5 R X W O H G J H & D Q D G D Dinur, A. (2011yf 7 D F L W . Q R Z O H G J H 7 D [ R Q R P \ D Q G 7 U D Q V I H U & D V H % D V H G 5 H V H D U F K - R X U Q D O R I % H K D Y L R U D O D Q d 06 April 2017 Page 13 of 16 ProQuest Applied Management, 12(3yf Di Maggio, P. &Powell, W. (1991yf 7 K H L U R Q F D J H U H Y L V L W H G L Q V W L W X W L R Q D O L V R P R U S K L V P D Q G F R O O H F W L Y H U D W L R Q D O L W \ L n organisational fields', in The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis, eds W. POWELL &P. DIMAGGIO, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Dixon, T., G. Pöttinger A. Jordan. (2005yf / H V V R Q V I U R P W K H 3 U L Y D W H ) L Q D Q F H , Q L W L D W L Y H L Q W K H 8 . % H Q H I L W V , Problems and Critical Success Factors', Journal of Property Investment and Finance, vol 23 (5yf S S Dowlen, A (1995yf / H D U Q L Q J W R P D Q D J H U L V N L Q S X E O L F V H U Y L F H V ( [ H F X W L Y H ' H Y H O R S P H Q W \f, pp. 19-24. Elliot, D (2009yf 7 K H ) D L O X U H R I 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O / H D U Q L Q J I U R P & U L V L V $ 0 D W W H U R I / L I H D Q G ' H D W K - R X U Q D O R f Contingencies and Crisis Management 17:3. Fiol, CM &Lyles, M (1985yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O / H D U Q L Q J $ F D G H P \ R I 0 D Q D J H P H Q W 5 H Y L H Z 9 R O 1 R S p 803-813. Froud, J. (2002yf 7 K H 3 U L Y D W H ) L Q D Q F H , Q L W L D W L Y H U L V N X Q F H U W D L Q W \ D Q G W K H V W D W H $ F F R X Q W L Q J 2 U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V D Q d Society , Vol.28(6yf Gilson, C et al. (2009yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O / H D U Q L Q J L Q * R Y H U Q P H Q W 6 H F W R U 2 U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V / L W H U D W X U H 5 H Y L H Z $ U H S R U t to the National Audit Office from LSE Public Policy Group. GRO (2009yf 3 U R M H F W H G 3 R S X O D W L R Q R I 6 F R W O D Q G E D V H G \f, General Register Office for Scotland (http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/popproj/ projected-population-of-scotland-2008- based/index.htmlyf 2 F W R E H U Hellowell, Mark; Pollock, Allyson M. (2007yf : U L W W H Q ( Y L G H Q F H W R W K H 1 D W L R Q D O $ V V H P E O \ I R U : D O H V ) L Q D Q F e Committee with Regards to its Inquiry on Public Private Partnerships, University of Edinburgh. Hellowell, M &Pollock, A (2007ayf 1 H Z ' H Y H O R S P H Q W 7 K H 3 ) , 6 F R W O D Q G V 3 O D Q I R U ( [ S D Q V L R Q D Q G L W s Implications Public Money &Management, Vol. 27 Issue 5 pp351- 354. Heaton, R. (2011yf : H & R X O G E H & U L W L F L ] H G 3 R O L F L Q J D Q G 5 L V N $ Y H U V L R Q 3 R O L F L Q J $ - R X U Q D O R I 3 R O L F \ D Q d Practice, 5(1yf Hood, J (2003yf 0 L Q L P L V L Q J U L V N 7 K H U R O H R I W K H O R F D O D X W K R U L W \ U L V N P D Q D J H U L Q 3 3 3 3 ) , F R Q W U D F W V 3 X E O L F 3 R O L F y and Administration, 18 (2yf S S Hood, J, Asenova, D, Bailey, S &Manochin, M (2007yf 7 K H 8 . V 3 U X G H Q W L D O % R U U R Z L Q J ) U D P H Z R U N $ 5 H W U R J U D G e Step in Managing Risk? Journal of Risk Research, 10:1, 49- 66. Hood, J &McGarvey, N (2000yf 0 D Q D J L Q J W K H 5 L V N V R I 3 X E O L F 3 U L Y D W H 3 D U W Q H U V K L S V L Q 6 F R W W L V K / R F D O * R Y H U Q P H Q t Policy Studies, Vol. 23, No 1. HM Treasury (2001yf 3 X E O L F 3 U L Y D W H 3 D U W Q H U V K L S V 7 K H * R Y H U Q P H Q W V $ S S U R D F K / R Q G R Q 7 K H 6 W D W L R Q H U \ 2 I I L F H HM Treasury (2004yf 7 K H 2 U D Q J H % R R N 0 D Q D J H P H Q W D Q G 5 L V N 3 U L Q F L S O H V D Q G & R Q F H S W V 6 W D W L R Q H U \ 2 I I L F e London. Kaplan and Mikes (2012yf 0 D Q D J L Q J 5 L V N V $ 1 H Z ) U D P H Z R U N + D U Y D U G % X V L Q H V V 5 H Y L H Z - X Q H Kolb, D.A. (1984yf ( [ S H U L H Q W L D O O H D U Q L Q J H [ S H U L H Q F H D V W K H V R X U F H R I O H D U Q L Q J D Q G G H Y H O R S P H Q W ( Q J O H Z R R d Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lähteenmäki, S., Toivonen, J. and Mattila, M. (2001yf & U L W L F D O $ V S H F W V R I 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O / H D U Q L Q J 5 H V H D U F K D Q d Proposals for Its Measurement. British Journal of Management, 12:113-129. Lumineau, F, Frechet, M and Puthod. D (2001yf $ Q 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O / H D U Q L Q J 3 H U V S H F W L Y H R Q & R Q W U D F W ' H V L J n Strategic Organisation!. 1 (2011yf National Audit Office (NAOyf \f Lessons Learned from PEI and other projects Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London: National Audit Office. National Audit Office (NAOyf \f Helping Government Leam London: National Audit Office. Nonaka, &Takeuchi (1995yf 7 K H N Q R Z O H G J H F U H D W L Q J F R P S D Q \ K R Z - D S D Q H V H F R P S D Q L H V F U H D W H W K H G \ Q D P L F s of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Osborne, S &Brown, K (2005yf 0 D Q D J L Q J & K D Q J H D Q G , Q Q R Y D W L R Q L Q 3 X E O L F 6 H F W R U 2 U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V 5 R X W O H G J H :
06 April 2017 Page 14 of 16 ProQuest London. Osborne, S. &Brown, L. (2013yf 5 L V N D Q G L Q Q R Y D W L R Q W R Z D U G V D I U D P H Z R U N I R U U L V N J R Y H U Q D Q F H L Q S X E O L F V H U Y L F H V .
Public Management Review. 15, 1, p. 186-208. Pawlowsky, P (2000yf 0 D Q D J H P H Q W V F L H Q F H D Q G R U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O O H D U Q L Q J L Q ' L H U N H V 0 % H U W K R L Q $ Q W D O $ & K L O G , J.; Nonaka, I. (Eds.yf \f Handbook of Organisational Learning and Knowledge Oxford University Press. Perez-Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B.L., Datta, D.K., &Rasheed, A.A. (2008yf ( I I H F W L Y H Q H V V D Q G H I I L F L H Q F \ R I F U R V V - border knowledge transfer: An empirical examination. Journal of management Studies, 45: 699-729. Pfeifer, C (2011yf 5 L V N $ Y H U V L R Q D Q G 6 R U W L Q J L Q W R 3 X E O L F 6 H F W R U ( P S O R \ P H Q W * H U P D Q ( F R Q R P L F 5 H Y L H Z 9 R O X P e 12, Issue 1, pages 85-99, February 2011. Pollock, A, Price D, &Player, S (2007yf $ Q ( [ D P L Q D W L R Q R I W K H 8 . 7 U H D V X U \ V ( Y L G H Q F H % D V H I R U & R V W D Q G 7 L P e Overrun Data in UK Value-for-Money Policy and Appraisal Public Policy and Management April 2007-11-02. Pollock, A, Price, D &Brhlikova, P (2011yf 3 U L Y D W H ) L Q D Q F H L Q L W L D W L Y H V G X U L Q J 1 + 6 D X V W H U L W \ % U L W L V K 0 H G L F D O - R X U Q D l Vol. 342. Rowland, J.H &Pollock, A (2003yf 8 Q G H U V W D Q G L Q J W K H 3 U L Y D W H ) L Q D Q F H , Q L W L D W L Y H Y D O X H I R U P R Q H \ " ' H Y H O R S P H Q t in Economics, vol. 19. 2003; pp. 133-48. The Scottish Parliament (2000yf $ X G L W & R P P L W W H H & U L W L F L V H V + R O \ U R R G 3 D U O L D P H Q W 3 U R M H F W & R V W 5 H S R U W L Q J , Committee News Release: CAU 018/2000. The Scottish Government (2009yf 6 F R W W L V K % X G J H W ' U D I W % X G J H W 6 H S W H P E H U ( G L Q E X U J K The Scottish Government (2011yf 1 D W L R Q D O 3 H U I R U P D Q F H ) U D P H Z R U N D F F H V V H G 3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Performance/scotPerforms/indicators. Schein, E (2004yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O & X O W X U H D Q G / H D G H U V K L S - R V V H \ % D V V - R K Q : L O H \ D Q G 6 R Q V Senge, P. (1990yf 7 K H ) L I W K ' L V F L S O L Q H 7 K H D U W D Q G S U D F W L F H R I W K H O H D U Q L Q J R U J D Q L ] D W L R Q / R Q G R Q 5 D Q G R m House. Shaoul, J. (2005yf 7 K H 3 U L Y D W H ) L Q D Q F H , Q L W L D W L Y H R U W K H 3 X E O L F ) X Q G L Q J R I 3 U L Y D W H 3 U R I L W " , Q 7 K H F K D O O H Q J e ofpublic private partnerships: learning from international experience, ed. Hodge, G. and Greve, C., London:
Edward Elgar. Smith, D and Elliott, D (2007yf ( [ S O R U L Q J % D U U L H U V W R / H D U Q L Q J I U R P & U L V L V 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O / H D U Q L Q J D Q G & U L V L s Management Learning 38: 519. Smyth, H &Edkins, A (2007yf 5 H O D W L R Q V K L S 0 D Q D J H P H Q W L Q W K H P D Q D J H P H Q W R I 3 ) , 3 3 3 L Q W K H 8 . , Q W H U Q D W L R Q D l Journal of Project Management Vo\. 25 pp232-240. Stata, R. (1996yf 2 U J D Q L V D W L R Q D O O H D U Q L Q J W K H N H \ W R P D Q D J H P H Q W L Q Q R Y D W L R Q L Q + R Z 2 U J D Q L ] D W L R Q V / H D P H G . .
STARKEY, International Thomson Business Press, London. Stein, W and Crawford, M (2004yf 5 L V N P D Q D J H P H Q W L Q 8 . O R F D O D X W K R U L W L H V W K H H I I H F W L Y H Q H V V R I F X U U H Q W J X L G D Q F e and practice. The International Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 498-512. Stein, W, Asenova, D McCann, C &Marshall, A (2010yf 0 R G H U Q & R Q F H S W V R I 4 X D O L W \ D Q G 5 L V N & K D O O H Q J H V I R U W K e regulation of Care for Older people in Scotland Public Policy and Administration ppl-22. Toft, B &Reynolds, S (1997yf / H D U Q L Q J I U R P ' L V D V W H U V $ P D Q D J H P H Q W D S S U R D F K 3 H U S H W X L W \ 3 U H V V / H L F H V W H U AuthorAffiliation C. McCann* D. Asenova and S. J. Bailey * E-mail: [email protected] Subject: Studies; Risk management; Organizational learning; Project management; Location: Scotland Classification: 9130: Experiment/theoretical treatment; 9175: Western Europe; 3300: Risk management; 2500:
Organizational behavior 06 April 2017 Page 15 of 16 ProQuest Publication title: Journal of Risk and Governance; Hauppauge Volume: 3 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-21 Number of pages: 21 Publication year: 2012 Publication date: 2012 Publisher: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Place of publication: Hauppauge Country of publication: United States Publication subject: Public Administration ISSN: 19395922 Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Case Study, Feature Document feature: Diagrams Tables References ProQuest document ID: 1627151494 Document URL: http://search.proquest.com.proxy.cecybrary.com/docview/1627151494?accountid=144789 Copyright: Copyright Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 2012 Last updated: 2014-11-24 Database: ProQuest Central _______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright Ó 2017 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions 06 April 2017 Page 16 of 16 ProQuest