Advertisement

Concluding Discussions and Propositions

  • Fatemeh Farnaz Arefian
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

This chapter outlines the essence of this research as a coherent whole. It discusses the generalisability of the research, through the strategic choice of the case, where the researcher has the opportunity to access a deeper level understanding of a complex phenomenon and interactions. The Bam case was an attempt to ‘urbanise’ the previous reconstruction experience in Iran, which had been based on large scale rural reconstruction experiences. The research advances the discourse on organising reconstruction, the organisational configuration and management of post-disaster reconstruction activities, focusing on housing. The research connects to knowledge areas of disaster-development studies in urban contexts, strategic management and contingency view in organisation theory and construction management, assisting to achieve better reconstruction programmes in other national and international cases. Taking the discourse forward in-depth learning opportunities are identified and linked back to theoretical discussions. Through the iterative process, the research proposes a graphically presented analytical framework, which integrates multiple overlapping perspectives for understanding organisation design and management of a post-disaster reconstruction programme, which have developmental objectives in an urban context, offering overlapping theoretical insights on this subject. Building on the learning opportunities the proposed analytical model is supported by complementing propositions.

References

  1. Ansoff, H (1990) Implanting strategic management, 2nd ed. Prentice Ha, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Argate L, Miron-Spektor E (2011) Organisational learning: from experience to knowledge. https://server1.tepper.cmu.edu/Seminars/docs/ARGOTE_SPEKTOR_OS_%20in-press.pdf. Accessed 3 Sep 2012
  4. Armstrong M (2009) Armstrong’s handbook of management and leadership: a guide to managing for results, 2nd edn. KoganGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonabeau E (2007) Understanding and managing complexity risk. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48Google Scholar
  6. Bryman A (2008) Social research methods, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Chartered Management Institute (CMI), (n.d.) Igor Ansoff father of corporate strategy. Thinker 052. http://www.managers.org.uk for CMI members. Accessed 19 Jan 2011
  8. Christopolos I, ALNAP, Glemminge Development Research (2006) Provention consortium forum 2006. Strengthening global collaboration in disaster risk reduction. The elusive ‘Window of Opportunity’ for risk reduction in post-disaster recovery. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/njlite_download.php?id=5282. Accessed 20 Dec 2010
  9. 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
  10. Curado C (2006) Organisational learning and organisational design. Learn Organ 13(1):25–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson C (2009) Multi-actor arrangements and project management. In: Lizarralde G, Johnson C, Davidson C (eds) Rebuilding after disasters: from emergency to sustainability. Spon Press, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building Theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 14(4):532–550Google Scholar
  14. Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12:219–245.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gharaati Kopaei M (2009) Knowledge transfer in post-disaster reconstruction; the problem of post-post-disaster reconstruction. PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal. http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/webclient/StreamGate?folder_id=0&dvs=1420020480363~426. Accessed 21 Aug 2014
  16. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Facility. GFDRR (2014) Guide to developing disaster recovery framework (World Reconstruction Conference Version), GFDRR, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Goold M (2002) Designing effective organizations: how to create structured networks. Jossey-Bass; Wiley (distributor), San Francisco CalifGoogle Scholar
  18. Harpham A (2009) Bridging the Gap between Corporate Strategy and Project, Introduction to Programme Management. www.pm4success.com. Accessed 21 Aug 2009
  19. Lyons M, Schilderman T, Boano C, D’Urzo S (2010) Conclusions. In: Lyons M, Schilderman T, Boano C (eds) Building back better: delivering people-centred housing reconstruction at scale. Practical Action Pub, Warwickshire UK, pp 345–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mintzberg H, Ghoshal S, Lampel J, Quinn JB (2003) The strategy process: concepts, contexts, cases, 4th ed. Pearson EducationGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan G (2006) Images of organization, updated edition (first edition 1997). Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  22. Morris PWG, Jamieson A (2005) Moving from corporate strategy to project strategy. Proj Manage J 36(4):5–18Google Scholar
  23. Pelling M, High C, Dearing J, Smith D (2008) Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations. Environ Plan 40(4):867–884.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a39148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perrow C (1973) The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Org Dyn 2(1):3–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(73)90007-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sull DN (2007) Closing the gap between strategy and execution. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 48(4). http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2007/summer/48412/closing-the-gap-between-strategy-and-execution/?type=x&reprint=48412. Accessed 19 Jan 2011
  26. Wisner B (2004) Chapter 9, Towards a safer environment. At risk: natural hazards. People’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London, pp 321–376Google Scholar
  27. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. SageGoogle Scholar
  28. Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, London, New Delhi, SingaporeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations