Search results

This study aims to establish an evaluation method for cross-regional major infrastructure project (CRMIP) supportability. The focus is to identify evaluation indicators from a complexity perspective and develop an evaluation model using qualitative and quantitative methods. Case studies are carried out to verify the reliability of the evaluation model, thereby providing theoretical and practical guidance for CRMIP operations and maintenance (O&M).

Guided by the idea of complexity management, the evaluation indicators of CRMIP supportability are determined through literature analysis, actual O&M experience and expert interviews. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, consisting of sequential relationship analysis, entropy weighting, game theory and cloud model, is developed to determine the indicator weights. Finally, the evaluation model is used to evaluate the supportability of the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macao Bridge (HZMB), which tests the rationality of the model and reveals its supportability level.

The results demonstrate that CRMIPs' supportability is influenced by 6 guideline-level and 18 indicator-level indicators, and the priority of the influencing factors includes “organization,” “technology,” “system,” “human resources,” “material system,” and “funding.” As for specific indicators, “organizational objectives,” “organizational structure and synergy mechanism,” and “technical systems and procedures” are critical to CRMIPs' O&M supportability. The results also indicate that the supportability level of the HZMB falls between good and excellent.

Under the guidance of complexity management thinking, this study proposes a supportability evaluation framework based on the combined weights of game theory and the cloud model. This study provides a valuable reference and scientific judgment for the health and safety of CRMIPs' O&M.

Considering the importance of China as a global economic power and the emphasis placed on human resources in a knowledge economy, the findings of no less than 30 articles on diversity management in that country seem inadequate given the growing importance of diversity in the workplace. Analysis of those articles reveals that most of the research focuses on firms located on the eastern coast. Moreover, while cataloging the types of industry and ownership covered provides a broad overview, specific industries and ownership types require further examination.

Searches were conducted in both English and Chinese databases using the keyword search phrase of “diversity management and China”. The criteria for including an article were as follows: 1) an emphasis on diversity management within the business environment; 2) a focus on applications of diversity management within the People’s Republic of China, thus excluding Taiwan; and 3) a research-based or conceptual orientation. The search was further limited by using the “abstract” as a limiter under the assumption that if the concepts were important, the author(s) would have used that terminology in the abstract.

Gender emerged as a major concern along with residential status; racial and ethnic differences, on the other hand, cultural and/or other influences on diversity management received limited attention. Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were used by the various authors, but exploratory methods such as grounded theory saw minimal use. With the little research done on diversity management in China, it is difficult to assess whether or Chinese firms are fully using its available workforce. China must embrace diversity management practices with a view to achieving competitive advantages as well as equality and harmony in the workplace.

This is one of the first published reviews of articles from both Chinese and English databases that delves into the issue of diversity management in China.