The Problem of Curtin Universitys Lack of Parking Lots - Research Paper Example

Business Problem Analysis 300 Supplementary Assessment - Individual Problem Analysis Report Supplementary Assignment Specification Semester Table of Contents Title Page No. 1. Introduction.............................................................................. ........ 2 1.1 Objectives............................................................................. 4 2. Methodology.................................................................................... 4 3. The Problem.................................................................................... 5 3.1 The Situation......................................................................... 6 4. The Stakeholders............................................................................. 7 4.1 Owners and Administrators, Staff and Personnel.................. 7 4.2 Faculty Members and Non-Teaching Personnel................... 7 4.3 The Students......................................................................... 8 4.4 The General Public................................................................ 8 4.5 Qualitative Classes of Stakeholders (QCoS)........................ 8 5. CSH Questions Answered................................................................ 9 6. Problem Solution............................................................................... 10 6.1 Resources Available............................................................... 11 6.2 Alternative Solution................................................................ 12 7. Soft Systems Methodology............................................................... 12 8. Cognitive Mapping............................................................................ 14 8.1 Coloured Cognitive Mapping (CCM)....................................... 16 8.2 Initial Cognitive Mapping......................................................... 17 8.3 Problem Diagnosis ................................................................ 18 9. FACTOR Criteria............................................................................... 19 10. CATWOE Criteria.............................................................................. 20 11. Appendices – Rich Pictures.............................................................. 21 12. Bibliography....................................................................................... 22 1. Introduction Problems dominate our lives. How we deal with these problems and come up with the best solution enable us to harmoniously with nature and with the world around us. Some problems are simple, but in the twenty-first century which is an age of intense globalization, our problems have become too complicated. In business, we are lucky to have simple problems. But we can still say that we have survived in spite of too many complicated problems we deal day in and day out. This essay is about a simple problem that has become complicated for too many reasons. The lack of a parking lot (or parking lots) in a university campus is not a complex problem. The problem needs a simple solution – provide the parking lot and the problem is solved. But it has become complicated because there has been no immediate and lasting solution. It is so easy to reason out that the solution to the unavailability of a parking lot is to purchase a vacant lot (or lots) where users can have easy access, construct roads linking to the lot, and provide the necessary structures and appropriate management. That is easier said than done. Parking lots are not easy to find. Let us go direct to the problem of Curtin University and the lack of parking lots for the various buildings of the university. The only direct solution to this problem is to purchase vacant lots. That is again easier said than done. It has become complicated because for so long now the problem has remained and has created headaches and controversies amongst the various stakeholders of the parking lot issue. This problem has to be solved by the stakeholders and in a manner that requires unity and understanding of the causes and circumstances surrounding the problem. 1.1 Objective The objective of this essay is to discuss and analyse the problem of lack of parking spaces for the campuses of Curtin University. Through this discussion, we are able to research the different aspects of providing parking spaces in university campuses, including the ‘whys’ and the ‘hows’ of introducing solutions to the issue at hand. 2. Methodology The problem of Curtin University’s lack of parking lots has been in existence for some time now. It cannot be said that the university did not do anything about it because the administrators did provide parking lots. But how they applied solutions to the problem and how substantial were their actions are still matters to be discussed in this paper. In this problem solving exercise, we used different techniques in searching for and arriving at the right blueprint for a problem solution. First we provided an analysis of the situation and then the business problem analysis. Consultations were also conducted to those who were directly involved in the problem of parking lots. Consultations are conducted to the faculty and staff, the administrators, the students, the non-teaching personnel and employees who are working inside the university, and the members of the general public who do business in and with the university. This paper also used different methods in acquiring information and data from the stakeholders and from available literature. We researched books, journals, the Internet and various other reading materials to find enough information and data for the subject matter of parking lots in university campuses. The researched material was put into writing, paraphrased and analysed, and became a major part of the discussion to arrive at the possible solution for lack of parking lots at Curtin University. 3. The Problem Not having your car parked in a designated place does not give you peace of mind. This is the dilemma created by having insufficient parking lots in school campuses. Universities have various buildings for their colleges, and each building requires a parking lot adequate enough to accommodate vehicles of the people studying or working there. At Curtin University, this is a common problem. It has caused headaches to the university administrators, and discomfort to the students, the faculty and all the others considered stakeholders of the parking lot dilemma. Curtin University is based in Western Australia and has campuses in some parts in Asia.1 Generally, this problem has continuously troubled even city planners including architects and engineers in other urban cities. In university campuses, lack of car park is felt by students and everyone working inside the university that include the non-teaching staff, administration staff, maintenance and engineering people, and the janitorial staff. Every building inside the university campus must have a car park. This school dilemma is not only felt in small campuses but in large universities in major cities in the United States, Europe and Asia2. In Australia, the use of cars in studying and working is most preferred. However, this has resulted into some negative effects and environmental problems. Roadway traffic provides more travel time on the part of commuters.3 The use of private cars has also resulted in traffic congestion in major thoroughfares in Australia, and has affected the environment due to heavy emission of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.4 3.1 The Situation Curtin University is a large multi-cultural university with a big student and teacher population, but a car park is still one of its major problems. The root cause for this is the growing population of students and faculty and the lack of adequate planning during the time when the university was still growing in size and population. Faculty and students need to transfer from one building to another, thus parking areas must be in a suitable location where car users don’t need to go farther from the car park. Every school building inside the university campus must have a car park. Has the university administration provided enough time and resources and exerted all efforts to solve the problem of the parking lot dilemma? They did try to solve the problem by adding parking lots but the problem still existed. Planners of buildings and projects do not take anything for granted. A good guess is that the administrators must have taken it for granted. Be that as it may, but looking for a solution must be a collaborative effort among the different stakeholders of the problem. Since the university has several buildings, the necessity is not only one car park but several sites for a building where students study and employees work. The parking lot problem has created more problems like: Threats of student demonstrations and noise that disturbs the peace inside the university campus; Trouble and misunderstanding between students and other stakeholders who find themselves fighting for an available parking space to park their cars; Lack of communication among the stakeholders; The stakeholders are rumbling with fingers pointed against each other over who should take the blame for not addressing the problem. 4. The Stakeholders 4.1 The Owners and Administrators, their Staff and Personnel Stakeholders are persons or groups affected by the problem and issue at hand.5 The owners and administrators, along with the working staff and personnel are also affected by this perennial problem. The administrators are only employed by the university. They are affected in the sense that they also need parking spaces. It is the administrators who have the power and influence to convince the owners of the university to solve the problem. They have done something by providing parking lots but the problem has remained. The administrators should initiate moves to get the other stakeholders into action. The whole effort should be a concerted effort. Moreover, the administrators are being pressured by other stakeholders of this controversy to make the necessary move and initiatives. The students have constantly made comments that university administration has been lax in applying solution to the problem. 4.2 Faculty Members and Non-Teaching Personnel Another group of stakeholders affected by the parking problem is the faculty members who find it hard and uncomfortable to be working in a university without an adequate parking space. Teachers and professors have the whole day dedicated to work. Sometimes they bring along with them their work at home and they have to feel comfortable in order to deliver the best quality teaching they can provide. Car park is one ‘luxury’ they want to enjoy for they cannot afford to ride in a public transportation. Carrying loads of books and paper work in a public transport is not acceptable to a university professor for it provides more stress to the job. 4.3 The Students University students who are multi-cultural are another group who are deeply affected by the car park problem. New students who hail from far-flung places, from schools and other states in Australia are also affected. The new students are a group of young people who don’t know where and what to do with their cars because they have to be oriented to the school campus. Public transport is not an option for them for they also do not know how to use it. The students can have strong attributes such as power to demand from the university the immediacy of a car park for as long as they are united. They have the right to demand because they are paying the university. 4.4 The General Public The general public is another group of stakeholders. They include parents and relatives of the students, the families of faculty members, and the rest of the general public who come and conduct business with Curtin University. They are affected because they also need a parking lot for their vehicles. The general public also have power to persuade owners and administrators of Curtin University to fast track the availability of parking lots. 4.5 Qualitative Classes of Stakeholders (QCoS) The university administrators are primary stakeholders of the parking lot issue. They have the three attributes – power, legitimacy, and urgency – which qualify them to be relevant stakeholders in this car park problem of Curtin University. The teaching and non-teaching staffs have an almost equal rank as primary stakeholders. They have the same attributes as the university administrators and therefore they have the capability and power to solve the car park problem. This group of stakeholders can ask and demand from the university administrators the urgency of a solution for a car park. If the problem remains, they have to help find other options. 4.6 The CSH Questions Answered The first topic deals with the interest of the stakeholders. The interest of the stakeholders in wanting to have an adequate, spacious, and safe parking space will definitely be served. And as a consequence, there will be peace inside the university campus and peace of mind for the students, faculty and all the other stakeholders. Providing a new and spacious car park will benefit the faculty and staff, students, and the thousands of employees of Curtin University. The measure of improvement is that vehicles will be safe and parked in designated places. Management of the parking spaces will be executed by qualified personnel appointed by the stakeholders. Who should be in a position to change the measure of improvement? A working committee must be appointed by all the stakeholders to conduct and implement the solution, i.e. find and purchase vacant lots near and adjacent the university buildings that lack parking spaces. The committee will control the funds that will be provided by Curtin University – with the help of some donors – for the purchase of vacant lots or in providing the alternative solution, i.e. construction of a building that can provide parking spaces. The decisions of the committee will not be absolute because they will have to consult the ‘body’ which is composed of the representatives of the general assembly of stakeholders assembled every month during the course of the implementation of the car park solution. The committee will hire professional designers, engineers and financial experts to act as consultants to the committee on matters pertaining to technical and financial aspects. These consultants may not be stakeholders of the car park problem. Relevant knowledge will include the accessibility of the vacant lot to be purchased or, the financial viability of the building to be constructed as parking spaces. The guarantor of success will be discussed in the continuous dialogue and open forum that will include the stakeholders of the problem. The committee, which is comprised of representatives of the various stakeholder groups, will implement the decisions of the stakeholders. The committee will report its accomplishments to the general assembly of stakeholders. Success can be measured in the car park issue if the stakeholders find that their cars are parked in safe places within the built car park areas. 6. Potential Problem Solutions Finding a suitable location for parking is not an easy job. The university administration has tried to solve this problem but it has remained a contested issue because the big demand has not yet been addressed. Site and space are a problem. Building engineers and architects in urban areas solve this problem by constructing buildings with car parks in the upper floors. This creates another problem because the university would need a considerable budget in constructing the building. So this option has to be studied very carefully. The administration has also considered the public transportation option but it was not an ultimate solution because there are many students and faculty with cars. The problem remains. The administration and management lacked such knowledge and expertise to solve the problem. The issue has to be answered in a forum and discussion group that must include the university administration, the faculty, the students and other stakeholders in the car park issue. Students and faculty members can use public transport but there are disadvantages to this mode of transport. They have to be on time in arriving at the university. In travelling, they carry along with them a lot of stuff used in their studies. The use of bicycle can be an option for some non-teaching staff and students who reside near the school campus. In a study by Brown and associates on 35 universities in Amsterdam, students were given free transit service. The program was called ‘Unlimited Access’ which garnered positive results because it reduced the demand for parking spaces in the universities and also saved money for the students.6 6.1 Resources Available There are vacant lots along the sides of Curtin University that need to be developed. These are private lots owned by developers. The problem is funding to buy the lots. This is the responsibility of the owners of Curtin University. Some parking lots already in use need more development, access roads have to be added including road signs and some dirt roads have to asphalted or constructed. Again, an added problem is funding. The university should find solution to the problem funding. But other stakeholders can help by raising funds from concerned donors. Donors may come from anyone from the stakeholders, organizations that can provide aid, the government, and other private and public groups. 6.2 Alternative Solution If no vacant lot is available, an alternative solution is to construct a building to provide parking spaces for the stakeholders like the one shown in the picture. 7. Soft Systems Methodology In addressing the problem of the parking spaces inside Curtin University, we can apply the soft systems methodology. SSM was formulated and developed by Peter Checkland on the engineering discipline. Problems can be analysed and planned using SSM.7 Soft systems methodology has evolved as a refinement to the ‘hard systems’ in traditional problem solving techniques in engineering. It has been introduced and adopted to any discipline that involves systems and methodology. We can further apply this to problem solving that needs a systematic approach such as the parking lot issue.8 According to this concept, soft methodology applies to the general case while the ‘hard’ methodology as applied in engineering only referred to a specific case. But that is the opinion of some who criticizes SSM as against the traditional one. Zhang Huaxia9 tried to apply SSM into broader areas of studies with an application of scientific methodologies. He also examined the role of SSM in philosophy. Soft Systems Methodology evolved from the classical concept of engineering used to analyse, devise, and work on engineering systems. This traditional method was first introduced in the 1930s but became popular in the 1960s to 70s. Some authors simply called it systems engineering. Hard systems engineering was developed on the idea that systems are all around us, made to be used objectively. Any system that tends to exist can be developed and designed through systems engineering as many things can be developed and improved into systems.10 Systems can be developed and accomplished by setting up clear objectives. The first moon landing by U.S. astronauts was itself called systems engineering, instead of calling it ‘project moon landing’. There is also a particular solution and design for every system. And this is one interesting characteristic, should I say, of soft systems methodology which can be applied on the parking lot ‘project’ of Curtin University. Instead of calling it a project, for purposes of systematic application of solutions to the problem, we can call it a system.11 The parking lot problem has been considered a problem and it is a controversial one. A conflict of ideas or a clash of opinion has caused this problem to become unsolvable – almost; almost because with the use of several methods and techniques, like SSM, all the stakeholders can solve it. First, we can change our method by calling it a system – the parking lot system of Curtin University. Objectives have to be set, problems have to be identified, and stakeholders have to unite and work as one cohesive force. The judgements reached by administrators cannot be defended enough to produce a definite decision.12 This requires more planning and analysis. Another option is finding any available space adjacent to existing buildings of the university. This needs skill and expertise of engineers and architects. Public transportation is another option of which the university has tried before. If it did not work before, plans and moves should be instituted to provide public transport. Talks with public transport companies can be initiated by university administrators to start providing transportation in areas where students and faculty come from. There should be discussion and other problem-solving techniques that should be initiated by the stakeholders to include the faculty, students, administration and management of Curtin University. Topic areas include the possible car park sites, funding, and finding probable sites which need funding, and the source of funding other than the university. Groups of students can start facilitating discussions and dialogues with the other stakeholders. One question: why has the problem become a perennial one? Why is there no solution to this problem? The Administration tried the option of using public transport but it did not work out. The reason could be that many students and faculty members do not want to use public transport. The Administration needs to explain this. Another question is: why was the public transport solution the only solution provided by the university? 8. Cognitive Mapping The lack of or insufficiency of car parks at the sides of buildings of Curtin University is a big dilemma and not acceptable to the students, faculty, the working staff and other stakeholders. This is a part of their necessity and requirements while studying or working at the university, respectively. The circumstances that caused the problem are: The university has grown considerably in size and proportion with additional buildings and structures being built with no adequate car parks being considered while those structures were under construction. The administrators did not do anything drastic and substantial to solve the issue at hand. There is actually no site available but university administrators/planners did not do anything about it. Other stakeholders such as the faculty, the students, and the working staff have not made moves to solve the problem or to find solutions to the problem. The students realize the problem cannot just be solved right away. The faculty also see the situation is getting worse. The stakeholders, including administration and owners, realize they have to do a collaborative action in order to get the right solution. 8.1 Coloured Cognitive Mapping Coloured cognitive mapping is provided above. The many causes of the problem of parking lot are mentioned in the different nodes. Problems as difficulties are given in red, and problems as solutions are given in green. The ultimate solution could be the purchase of parking lots, along with the development and management of these parking lots by representatives designated by the stakeholders. 8.2 Initial Cognitive Mapping of Problems as Solutions The simple cognitive mapping formulated above is that there is a problem of lack of or inadequate parking lots in the university. The cause is that administration did not provide any solution, or, the solution provided was not an accurate solution. The problem remains. The outcome is that the stakeholders suffer from lack of parking lots. 8.3 PROBLEM DIAGNOSIS In diagnosing the problem, we have used several methods. The diagram above tells us that the problem is caused by several factors. First, there are no vacant lots near the university and the stakeholders are not united in finding a solution to the problem. The stakeholders have to get their acts together before any further actions. When they are united, they can form study groups, find solutions to the funding problem, form committees, and act as one cohesive group. The key factor in solving the problem is unity. 9. FACTOR CRITERIA Functionality The problem has been identified and the next step is to produce a draft plan that corresponds to the circumstances surrounding the problem. The analysis is that the stakeholders are willing to unite for a common cause. First, a committee has been formed to implement the desire and objective of the stakeholders. Application Domain The plan is to appoint/select representatives of the different stakeholders – the faculty, the students from the various colleges of the university affected by the parking lot problem, the non-teaching staff, the maintenance and janitorial people, etc. The representatives will constitute the general assembly and this general assembly will appoint a committee that will in turn become the production staff. The production staff will be directly responsible to the general assembly. The production staff will form different sub-committees – the IT planners or programmers, the technical staff, financial staff, and action teams. Conditions The production staff will formulate the plan, put it in writing, put the IT people to work by encoding and let the information systems work, using computers and software available. All plans and designs will have to be worked out and revised and see if they work. Inputs on information and data will be provided by the general assembly. Information campaign can be provided and announced or advertised through the Internet to let all stakeholders know and to get their help. Technology Information technology will be of great use. Intranet can be used to provide quick and easy access to information and interaction amongst the stakeholders and the members of the production staff. Objects The production staff should include in their plan the technology and manpower needed and how they should work and contribute their expertise to the success of the plans. They will be busy formulating product breakdowns such as lots available and how they can be acquired, negotiations for the lots, building of structures if the lots are available, and other production activities. If buildings have to be constructed, more plans have to be formulated. Responsibility Responsibility will be on the staff to acquire services of people who will support production and other activities. Communication is of vital importance. Operations have to be inputted into a computer software to provide more accurate data and get the best results. 10. CATWOE CRITERIA Customers The major stakeholders will be benefitted in the new changes. But everybody will be involved. Curtin University will have to provide funds and those in charge of the university finances will have to adjust. Actors The main actors are the production staff or the committee appointed by the representatives of the general assembly who will implement the decisions of the stakeholders’ representatives. The will execute the plan and provide manpower and resources in the operations. Transformation The transformation process here will involve uniting the different stakeholders to find solutions to the parking lot problem. There will be changes and innovations in the introduction of parking lots in Curtin University. Roads will have to be constructed and thus there will be detours and other changes in the road directions. There are those who do not want parking lots and they will be affected by this. Weltanschauung This is a term that refers to the world view which means a parking lot ought to be built along with a building or structures where people work and interact with each other. Owners The owners are those who could stop the transformation and this includes the real owners of Curtin University or even those administrators and staff who will abide by the decisions of the university. Environmental Constraints The development of a parking lot is affected by environmental constraints. The committee that implements the plans of stakeholders should bear in mind that the development of a car park has the objective of helping solve environmental problem and not aggravate the situation. Appendices Rich Pictures: Circumstances surrounding the problem of lack of parking lots at Curtin University Bibliography Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage 2005; Fujii and Kitamura 2003, quoted in Alistair Kerr, Alexia Lennon, and Barry Watson, “The Call of the Road: Factors Predicting Students’ Car Travelling Intentions and Behaviour,” Transportation (2010) 37:1-13, doi: 10.1007/s11116-009-9217-9. Batabyal, Amitrajeet and Peter Nijkamp, “A probabilistic analysis of two university parking issues,” Ann Reg Sci (2010) 44:111-20, doi: 1007/s00168-008-0237-8. Checkland, Peter. Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-year Retrospective. United States of America: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999. Checkland, Peter and Jim Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-year Retrospective. United States of America: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999. Curtin University, “About Us,” http://about.curtin.edu.au/our-locations.cfm, last modified 31 March 2011. Griseri, Paul and Nina Seppala. Business Ethics. United Kingdom: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2010. Huaxia, Zhang, “Systems Research and Behavioral Science,” Syst. Res. 27, 156-170 (2010), Published online in Wiley InterScience, doi: 10.1002/sres.1022. Kerr, Alistair, Alexia Lennon, and Barry Watson, “The Call of the Road: Factors Predicting Students’ Car Travelling Intentions and Behaviour,” Transportation (2010) 37:1-13, doi: 10.1007/s11116-009-9217-9. Olsson, Mats-Olov and Gunnar Sjöstedt. Systems Approaches and their Application: Examples from Sweden. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004. Wilson, Brian. Soft Systems Methodology: Conceptual Model Building and its Contribution. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001. Read More