Advertisement

Analysis of the Multi-organisation Nature: The Bam Housing Reconstruction Organisation

Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

When system elements include organisations, the complexities of their formation and implementation are greater. The sociotechnical delivery system of a reconstruction programme connects system elements, including organisations that in nature, size and internal arrangement might be different, but through the system formation, their activities are (or must be) integrated towards the objectives of the reconstruction. This delivery system is, in fact, a mega system, a concept which has also recently emerged within the literature on construction management. This chapter analyses main considerations and features related to the multi-organisational nature of the sociotechnical system of housing reconstruction programme in the Bam case that influenced the programme performance and its longer-term effects. The research makes a case that auto-adaptation within a multi-organisational delivery system of the reconstruction programme is necessary but not sufficient. The case exemplifies the need for balance between auto-adaptation and overall strategic supervision of the programme as a whole. The workflow as an attribute of organisational configuration had a multiple importance as both the production chain and simultaneously the standardisation force of the coordinating mechanism. Dynamics of power balance between organisations and their internal motivations were influential. The engagement of influential local and national organisations which had role in housing development in normal situations in the programme contributed to sustaining improvements after the reconstruction period, transferring lessons from reconstruction to the normal housing development situation.

References

  1. Arefian FF (2016) Getting ready for urban reconstruction: organising housing reconstruction in Bam. In: Arefian FF, Moeini SHI (eds) Urban change in Iran: stories of rooted histories and ever-accelerating developments. The urban book series. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, pp 231–257Google Scholar
  2. Baas S, Ramasami S, Dey De Pryck J, Battista F (2008) Disaster risk management systems analysis: a guide book. Volume 13 of Environment and Natural Resources Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Barakat S (2003) Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaster. Network Paper, ODI, London. http://www.odihpn.org/documents%5Cnetworkpaper043.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2009
  4. Comfort LK, Kapucu N (2006) Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The World Trade Center attacks, 11 Sept 2001. Nat Hazards 39(2):309–327.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-006-0030-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies A, Mackenzie I (2013) Project complexity and systems integration: constructing the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics games. Int J Project Manage 32(5):773–790.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dimmer C (2014) Evolving place governance innovations and pluralising reconstruction practices in post-disaster Japan. Plann Theor Pract 15(2):260–265Google Scholar
  7. Le Masurier J, Suzanne W, Shestakova Y (2006) An analysis of alliancing procurement method for reconstruction following an earthquake. In: Proceedings of the 8th national conference on earthquake engineering. Presented at the 8th national conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA, paper 290. http://nisee.berkeley.edu/documents/elib/www/documents/200601/8NCEE/8NCEE-000290.pdf. Accessed 8 Dec 2014
  8. Maskrey A (1994) Disaster mitigation as a crisis of paradigms: reconstructing after the alto mayo earthquake, per. In: Varley A, Wiley J (eds) Disasters, development and environment, Chichester, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Milleti DS, Gillespie DF (1976) An integrated formalization of organization-environment interdependencies. Hum Relat 29(1):85–100.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677602900106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morgan G (2006) Images of organization, updated edition (first edition 1997). Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  11. Pelling M (2003) Chapter 2, Cities as sites of disaster. In: Pelling M (ed) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan Publications, London, pp 19–45Google Scholar
  12. Saemian S, Erfanian Daneshvar A (2011) The process of technical control and supervision in reconstruction of bam. (Unpublished report). (in Persian)Google Scholar
  13. Twigg J, Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre (2006) Technology, post-disaster housing reconstruction and livelihood security—Practical Action Consulting (Website) Practical Action. http://practicalactionconsulting.org/t4sl_disasterapproaches. Accessed 2 Sept 2011
  14. Wisner B (2004) Chapter 9, Towards a safer environment. In: At Risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London, pp 321–376Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silk Cities, The Bartlett Development Planning UnitUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations