We are currently in a transition moving from a linear economy grounded on economic value maximization based on material transformation to a circular economy. Core of this transition is organising value preservation from various yet interlinked perspectives. The underlying fundamental shift is to move away from mere financial value maximization towards multiple value creation (WCED, 1987; Jonker, 2014; Raworth, 2017). This implies moving from mere economic value creation, to simultaneously and in a balanced way creating ecological and social value. A parallel development supporting this transition can be observed in accounting & control. Elkington (1994) introduced the triple bottom line (TBL) concept, referring to the economic, ecological and social impact of companies. The TBL should be seen more as a conceptual way of thinking, rather than a practical innovative accounting tool to monitor and control sustainable value (Rambaud & Richard, 2015). However, it has inspired accounting & control practitioners to develop accounting tools that not only aim at economic value (‘single capital’ accounting) but also at multiple forms of capital (‘multi capital’ accounting or integrated reporting). This has led to a variety of integrated reporting platforms such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRC), Dow Jones Sustainable Indexes (DJSI), True Costing, Reporting 3.0, etc. These integrated reporting platforms and corresponding accounting concepts, can be seen as a fundament for management control systems focussing on multiple value creation. This leads to the following research question: How are management control systems designed in practice to drive multiple value creation?
MULTIFILE
This article describes experiences with a qualitative research project into teachers’ learning from innovating their own educational practices. Decades of New Public Management (NPM) in the Netherlands, with its top-down and businesslike approach to areas of public interest, obscured the learning and innovating capacity of teachers, teams, and schools. Merely studying the learning processes which take place at a teacher level would present insufficient insight into the deeper mechanisms which hinder or stimulate learning from innovation in a bottom-up manner. We, therefore, focused on the relations between different layers (individual, systemic) within schools. A high-quality design was required for answering the research question: How and what do teachers learn from innovating their own educational practices? This article elaborates upon this design and discusses the methodological findings and complications of this type of research.
DOCUMENT
While smart maintenance is gaining popularity in professional engineering and construction management practice, little is known about the dimensions of its maturity. It is assumed that the complex networked environment of maintenance and the rise of data-driven methodologies require a different perspective on maintenance. This paper identifies maturity dimensions for smart maintenance of constructed assets that can be measured. A research design based on two opposite cases is used and data from multiple sources is collected in four embedded case studies in corporate facility management organizations. Through coding data in several cross-case analyses, a maturity framework is designed that is validated through expert consultation. The proposed smart maintenance maturity framework includes technological dimensions (e.g., tracking and tracing) as well as behavioral dimensions (e.g., culture). It presents a new and encompassing theoretical perspective on client leadership in digital construction, integrating innovation in both construction and maintenance supply networks.
DOCUMENT
