China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Overview of project monitoring and evaluation research
Published in Callistus Tengan, Clinton Aigbavboa, Wellington Didibhuku Thwala, Construction Project Monitoring and Evaluation, 2021
Callistus Tengan, Clinton Aigbavboa, Wellington Didibhuku Thwala
Often M&E are characterized by comparing performance with set standards (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007). This perhaps underscores why standards such as quality, time, cost and satisfaction levels of projects are set as targets before projects commence. Ile et al. (2012) describe indicators as a measurement tool that aids project managers to ascertain the extent to which results are being achieved. Prennushi, Rubio and Subbarao (2001) also define indicators as variables used to measure progress towards the goals. An indicator is a sign which specifies the progress of project intervention, whether project objectives are being met (Rugg, 2010). Hammond, Adriaanse, Rodenburg, Bryant and Woodward (1995) posit that indicators communicate information about progress towards achieving impact and provide clues about matters of greater implication or a phenomenon that is not immediately apparent. The impact is the positive or negative, planned or unplanned effect occasioned by a development project. Measuring the impact of a project, therefore, is critical in producing valuable information for the decision-making process and supports accountability for the delivery of results (Njama, 2015). Kusek and Rist (2004) emphasize that performance targeting of indicators and assessment of progress towards its achievement provide early warnings to allow corrective measures to be taken, indicating whether an in-depth evaluation or review is required.
Literature Review
Published in Alberto Galvis Castaño, Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control for the Municipal Water Cycle in a River Basin Context, 2019
The literature review identifies a number of research topics which are not addressed in this PhD thesis, but which would warrant further attention. This includes for instance further research on: 1) Water quality indicators. In this study dissolved oxygen (DO) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) were used as classic indicators of water pollution. However, it is recommended for future research to also include other compounds and indicators such as pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, micro pollutants, etc., which may have other (eco-toxicological) impacts, beyond oxygen consumption (Section 2.2.4). For these contaminants the best management options are provided under Step 1 of the 3-SSA (minimisation and prevention); 2) The implementation of cleaner production to minimize and prevent waste flows other than domestic sources (industrial, agricultural); 3) Evaluation of different options under Step 3 Stimulated natural self- purification, such as using ecohydrology approaches (Section 2.3.7). This could be addressed via a study on the effect of hydraulic and ecohydrology interventions in the Sonso Lagoon and the effect of floodplains; 4) Evaluate strategies included in the paradigm shift for the city of the future (Section 2.6.2), such as: decentralization, Instrumentation Control and Automation (ICA) and water sensitivity Urban Design WSUD (Section 2.6.4).
Human Rights Principles
Published in Pedi Chiemena Obani, Strengthening the Human Right to Sanitation as an Instrument for Inclusive Development, 2018
The formulation of HR indicators involves multiple disciplines, methodologies and standardisation of processes which transcends the international HR law sphere (Rosga & Satterthwaie, 2009; Welling, 2008). Relevant considerations in the selection of HR indicators include: a) a clear link to the relevant HR normative framework; b) disaggregation to capture minorities; c) balance between context specific and universal indicators; d) practicality of use and comparison of data; e) compliance with legal, ethical and HR safeguards in the collection, processing and dissemination of data; and f) data reliability and validity.59 Indicators may be quantitative, qualitative, structural, process related or outcome related.60 Structural indicators capture the necessary institutional mechanisms for HR implementation; process indicators link HR policies with milestones that translate into outcome indicators reflecting the status of HR realization.61
Examining indicators coverage in a sample of sustainable building assessment systems
Published in Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 2019
Indicator-based SB assessment systems are composed of sets of indicators, grouped in categories and subcategories, which used to assess and evaluate building performance. In general, an indicator is a measurable variable that its role in monitoring and evaluating a phenomenon has been established. SB indicators are measurable attributes or parameters of a building that are proved to contribute significantly to sustainability in buildings (Li et al., 2017; Nessa, Urbel-Piirsalua, Anderbergd, & Olssona, 2007). Ideally, an indicator should incorporate all variables that contribute to the attribute being measured although in many cases it is an impossible or very difficult task. SB assessment systems and research studies usually group indicators in a three-level hierarchical structure: indicators, subcategories and categories (Berardi, 2012, 2011; Illankoon et al., 2017; Li et al., 2017; Pintér, Hardi, & Bartelmus, 2005; Yu, Li, Yang, & Wang, 2015). Categories, which represent the common themes or aspects being assessed, are the top level of the hierarchy, while subcategories (also called criteria) are the middle level of the hierarchy, and each of them is comprised of one or more indicators (Li et al., 2017; Pintér et al., 2005; Retzlaff, 2008). Thus, each category or subcategory encompasses a substantial but discrete portion of building’s sustainability. The method of grouping indictors into categories and subcategories reflects the conceptual framework of the assessment system (Li et al., 2017; Pintér et al., 2005).
A computer-aided unit process sustainable modelling for manufacturing processes: case for extrusion process
Published in Production & Manufacturing Research, 2019
A sustainability indicator is a single parameter employed to measure the condition of a sustainability aspect, such as material wastage or energy use (Jayal, Badurdeen, Dillon Jr, & Jawahir, 2010). Sustainability indicators help measure and assess sustainability and provide basis for improvement. Working to improve an objective requires an ongoing monitoring of its status, progress made towards realizing that objective and the issues encountered while achieving the set goals. Indicators are what one needs to help identify process objectives. Sustainability indicators help measure and assess sustainability and provide a basis for its improvement. There are numerous indicators which could be used as basis for sustainability assessment. Most commonly used indicators are: environmental, economic and social indicators.
A systems approach to life cycle risk prediction for complex engineering projects
Published in Cogent Engineering, 2018
This literature review highlights that there has been extensive research conducted on risk prediction in complex project management but there are deficiencies in several areas. On the identification of risks, it is still an intuitive process and depends on both who the risk analyst is and how it is conducted. The 3PE model, reviewed in Section 2.1 can be explored further with focus on how to systematise the risk identification process so that a consistent set of risk items can be identified. The incorporation of indicators, is considered a step towards providing an objective value for decision makers. However, the use of indicators without understanding the nature of the risk needs to be tackled and could lead to incorrect decisions. The link of indicators to the nature of risk (i.e. modelling) requires further research. On the modelling of risks, Bayesian and fuzzy methods are primarily the tools to manipulate risk values so they are useful for deriving indicators. The risk itself is still treated as black box and a method to visually bind the nature of risk to the indicator is still lacking. Hence, it is understandable that industry practice is to use a SEMP to manage the situation because it is basically a step-wise gate control process.