Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Revised work with minor emendations approved by supervisor. / This dissertation considers three broad issues which emerge from the sustainability discourse. First is the nature of the discourse itself, particularly the underlying philosophical positions which are represented. Second, is the nature of the highly complex types of problem which the discourse exposes. And third is whether the engineering profession, as it is practised currently, is adequate to deal with such problems. The sustainability discourse exposes two distinct, fundamentally irreconcilable philosophical positions. The first, “sustainable development”, considers humanity to be privileged in relation to all other species and ecosystems. It is only incumbent upon us to look after the environment to the extent to which it is in our interests to do so. The second, “sustainability”, sees humanity as having no special moral privilege and recognises the moral status of other species, ecosystems, and even wilderness areas. Thus, sustainability imposes upon us a moral obligation to take their status into account and not to degrade or to destroy them. These two conflicting positions give rise to extremely complex problems. An innovative taxonomy of problem complexity has been developed which identifies three broad categories of problem. Of particular interest in this dissertation is the most complex of these, referred to here as the Type 3 problem. The Type 3 problem recognises the systemic complexity of the problem situation but also includes differences of the domain of interests as a fundamental, constituent part of the problem itself. Hence, established systems analysis techniques and reductionist approaches do not work. The domain of interests will typically have disparate ideas and positions, which may be entirely irreconcilable. The dissertation explores the development of philosophy of science, particularly in the last 70 years. It is noted that, unlike the philosophy of science, the philosophy of engineering has not been influenced by developments of critical theory, cultural theory, and postmodernism, which have had significant impact in late 20th-century Western society. This is seen as a constraint on the practice of engineering. Thus, a set of philosophical principles for sustainable engineering practice is developed. Such a change in the philosophy underlying the practice of engineering is seen as necessary if engineers are to engage with and contribute to the resolution of Type 3 problems. Two particular challenges must be overcome, if Type 3 problems are to be satisfactorily resolved. First, issues of belief, values, and morals are central to this problem type and must be included in problem consideration. And second, the problem situation is usually so complex that it challenges the capacity of human cognition to deal with it. Consequently, extensive consideration is given to cognitive and behavioural psychology, in particular to choice, judgement and decision-making in uncertainty. A novel problem-structuring approach is developed on three levels. A set philosophical foundation is established; a theoretical framework, based on general systems theory and established behavioural and cognitive psychological theory, is devised; and a set of tools is proposed to model Type 3 complex problems as a dynamic systems. The approach is different to other systems approaches, in that it enables qualitative exploration of the system to plausible, hypothetical disturbances. The problem-structuring approach is applied in a case study, which relates to the development of a water subsystem for a major metropolis (Sydney, Australia). The technique is also used to critique existing infrastructure planning processes and to propose an alternative approach.

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Revised work with minor emendations approved by supervisor. / This dissertation considers three broad issues which emerge from the sustainability discourse. First is the nature of the discourse itself, particularly the underlying philosophical positions which are represented. Second, is the nature of the highly complex types of problem which the discourse exposes. And third is whether the engineering profession, as it is practised currently, is adequate to deal with such problems. The sustainability discourse exposes two distinct, fundamentally irreconcilable philosophical positions. The first, “sustainable development”, considers humanity to be privileged in relation to all other species and ecosystems. It is only incumbent upon us to look after the environment to the extent to which it is in our interests to do so. The second, “sustainability”, sees humanity as having no special moral privilege and recognises the moral status of other species, ecosystems, and even wilderness areas. Thus, sustainability imposes upon us a moral obligation to take their status into account and not to degrade or to destroy them. These two conflicting positions give rise to extremely complex problems. An innovative taxonomy of problem complexity has been developed which identifies three broad categories of problem. Of particular interest in this dissertation is the most complex of these, referred to here as the Type 3 problem. The Type 3 problem recognises the systemic complexity of the problem situation but also includes differences of the domain of interests as a fundamental, constituent part of the problem itself. Hence, established systems analysis techniques and reductionist approaches do not work. The domain of interests will typically have disparate ideas and positions, which may be entirely irreconcilable. The dissertation explores the development of philosophy of science, particularly in the last 70 years. It is noted that, unlike the philosophy of science, the philosophy of engineering has not been influenced by developments of critical theory, cultural theory, and postmodernism, which have had significant impact in late 20th-century Western society. This is seen as a constraint on the practice of engineering. Thus, a set of philosophical principles for sustainable engineering practice is developed. Such a change in the philosophy underlying the practice of engineering is seen as necessary if engineers are to engage with and contribute to the resolution of Type 3 problems. Two particular challenges must be overcome, if Type 3 problems are to be satisfactorily resolved. First, issues of belief, values, and morals are central to this problem type and must be included in problem consideration. And second, the problem situation is usually so complex that it challenges the capacity of human cognition to deal with it. Consequently, extensive consideration is given to cognitive and behavioural psychology, in particular to choice, judgement and decision-making in uncertainty. A novel problem-structuring approach is developed on three levels. A set philosophical foundation is established; a theoretical framework, based on general systems theory and established behavioural and cognitive psychological theory, is devised; and a set of tools is proposed to model Type 3 complex problems as a dynamic systems. The approach is different to other systems approaches, in that it enables qualitative exploration of the system to plausible, hypothetical disturbances. The problem-structuring approach is applied in a case study, which relates to the development of a water subsystem for a major metropolis (Sydney, Australia). The technique is also used to critique existing infrastructure planning processes and to propose an alternative approach.

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / Revised work with minor emendations approved by supervisor. / This dissertation considers three broad issues which emerge from the sustainability discourse. First is the nature of the discourse itself, particularly the underlying philosophical positions which are represented. Second, is the nature of the highly complex types of problem which the discourse exposes. And third is whether the engineering profession, as it is practised currently, is adequate to deal with such problems. The sustainability discourse exposes two distinct, fundamentally irreconcilable philosophical positions. The first, “sustainable development”, considers humanity to be privileged in relation to all other species and ecosystems. It is only incumbent upon us to look after the environment to the extent to which it is in our interests to do so. The second, “sustainability”, sees humanity as having no special moral privilege and recognises the moral status of other species, ecosystems, and even wilderness areas. Thus, sustainability imposes upon us a moral obligation to take their status into account and not to degrade or to destroy them. These two conflicting positions give rise to extremely complex problems. An innovative taxonomy of problem complexity has been developed which identifies three broad categories of problem. Of particular interest in this dissertation is the most complex of these, referred to here as the Type 3 problem. The Type 3 problem recognises the systemic complexity of the problem situation but also includes differences of the domain of interests as a fundamental, constituent part of the problem itself. Hence, established systems analysis techniques and reductionist approaches do not work. The domain of interests will typically have disparate ideas and positions, which may be entirely irreconcilable. The dissertation explores the development of philosophy of science, particularly in the last 70 years. It is noted that, unlike the philosophy of science, the philosophy of engineering has not been influenced by developments of critical theory, cultural theory, and postmodernism, which have had significant impact in late 20th-century Western society. This is seen as a constraint on the practice of engineering. Thus, a set of philosophical principles for sustainable engineering practice is developed. Such a change in the philosophy underlying the practice of engineering is seen as necessary if engineers are to engage with and contribute to the resolution of Type 3 problems. Two particular challenges must be overcome, if Type 3 problems are to be satisfactorily resolved. First, issues of belief, values, and morals are central to this problem type and must be included in problem consideration. And second, the problem situation is usually so complex that it challenges the capacity of human cognition to deal with it. Consequently, extensive consideration is given to cognitive and behavioural psychology, in particular to choice, judgement and decision-making in uncertainty. A novel problem-structuring approach is developed on three levels. A set philosophical foundation is established; a theoretical framework, based on general systems theory and established behavioural and cognitive psychological theory, is devised; and a set of tools is proposed to model Type 3 complex problems as a dynamic systems. The approach is different to other systems approaches, in that it enables qualitative exploration of the system to plausible, hypothetical disturbances. The problem-structuring approach is applied in a case study, which relates to the development of a water subsystem for a major metropolis (Sydney, Australia). The technique is also used to critique existing infrastructure planning processes and to propose an alternative approach.

O trabalho teve como objetivo investigar a agilidade nas contratações de projetos de pesquisa no âmbito do Programa de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento da Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL). A pesquisa foi motivada pela demora na contratação de alguns projetos e pelo insucesso na contratação de outros, com o concorrente acúmulo de recursos a serem investidos. O primeiro objetivo específico foi a identificação das restrições do programa de P&D da ANEEL e seleção daquelas que afetam a contratação de projetos de pesquisa. O segundo objetivo é a proposição de alternativas para aumentar a agilidade na contratação de projetos de pesquisa. O trabalho foi dividido em duas etapas que correspondem aos objetivos específicos e são apresentadas em dois artigos. A primeira procurou investigar as variáveis do problema. A segunda etapa procurou propor alternativas para agilizar o processo de contratação de projetos de pesquisa das empresas. Na primeira etapa foi aplicado método para lidar com problemas sociais complexos ao longo de reuniões específicas. Uma das reuniões foi realizada com especialistas em pesquisa e outra com os envolvidos no programa de pesquisa. As informações foram trabalhadas e validadas com os participantes. Para desenvolver a segunda etapa, foram realizados três estudos de caso em que foram realizadas entrevistas e o mapeamento dos processos de contratação de empresas de diferentes naturezas jurídicas. Os procedimentos buscaram investigar se existiam diferenças na agilidade de contratação entre as empresas, tendo como base de comparação uma configuração específica de projeto, investigar a motivação para tais diferenças e levantar alternativas para disseminar entre as empresas a agilidade nas contratações. Na primeira etapa, as restrições do programa de P&D foram identificadas e a maior parte delas está relacionada com a gestão interna das empresas. Em seguida, estão as restrições relacionadas a contratação de projetos, mais especificamente a questões de propriedade industrial e de equipamentos comprados ou produzidos pelo projeto. Na segunda etapa, foram confirmadas diferenças na agilidade de contratação entre as empresas. A padronização de procedimentos e as relações recorrentes foram identificadas como motivações para tais diferenças. Entre as alternativas encontradas na literatura para tratar as restrições constatadas na primeira etapa, a formação de relações de longo prazo parece beneficiar a celebração de contratos. A formação de comitês para ajustes nos contratos não foi alvo de questionamento na presente pesquisa, mas também pode ser uma alternativa para agilizar a celebração de contratos. A atribuição da propriedade dos resultados para a parceira que mais contribui é alvo de controvérsia por questões legais. A presente pesquisa contribuiu para o campo gerencial ao propor a criação de uma certificação de qualidade para disseminar a padronização de processos, sendo que a padronização não foi abordada na teoria revisada que trata sobre a contratação de projetos de pesquisa. Essa alternativa contribuiria para tratar as restrições encontradas na contratação de projetos entre as empresas e as executoras com benefícios que extrapolam o escopo da presente pesquisa, visto que as instituições de pesquisa envolvidas no programa de P&D ANEEL estão dentre as principais do sistema de pesquisa brasileiro. Propõe-se desenvolver novas pesquisas que evoluam o conhecimento sobre a agilidade de contratação ao investigar os perfis de contratações, os mecanismos de governança utilizados e as diferenças de agilidade obtidas. / The work´s objective was the investigation of research contracting agility in the context of R&D Program for the Brazilian Electric Energy Sector. The research was motivated by the delay on some projects contract negotiation and by others unsuccessful contracting process, while the funds to invest keep growing. The first specific objective was to discover which constraints of the R&D Program for the Brazilian Electric Energy Sector, which guidelines and instructions are established by the Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency – ANEEL, affects research projects contracting process. The second objective is the proposition of alternatives to increase contracting agility. The work had two main stages to address the specific objectives and they are presented in two papers. The first stage investigated problem´s topics. The second stage intended to propose alternatives to make the utilities contracting process more agile. The first stage has applied a method for handling complex societal problems. A discussion meeting involved research experts and other the utilities and academy. The information collected was summarized and then validated with the participants. At the second stage, three case studies were developed using interviews and process mapping with public, private and mixed utilities. The procedures applied intended to investigate if there was agility differences in utilities contracting processes, using as reference a specific project configuration, identify the motivation for the differences founded and raise alternatives to make all utilities contracting processes agile. The constraints were identified in the first stage and most of them are related with utilities management. In second place, there are constraints related with project contracting, especially issues about industrial property and equipments developed or bought in the project. At the second stage, contracting agility differences were found. Process standardization and recurrent relationships were identified as possible motivations for these differences. Among the alternatives found in the literature review to handle the constraints identified in the first stage, the long term relationships seems to make contracting easier. The development of committees to adapt contracts during evolution of the collaboration was not in the scope of the present research, but also can be an alternative to make contracting more agile. Share property rights according with technological contribution can be refused because of legal aspects. The present research evolve the management knowledge as it proposes a certification to promote process standardization, besides the standardization was not present in the reviewed theory about research project contracting. This alternative would contribute to handle constraints identified in the contracting experience, with benefits that will exceed the planned scope, as the research institutions in the ANEEL R&D program are among the most importants in the brazilian research system. New researches may expand the knowledge about contracting agility if they investigate contracting configuration, governance mechanisms used and the agility differences obtained.

O trabalho teve como objetivo investigar a agilidade nas contratações de projetos de pesquisa no âmbito do Programa de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento da Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL). A pesquisa foi motivada pela demora na contratação de alguns projetos e pelo insucesso na contratação de outros, com o concorrente acúmulo de recursos a serem investidos. O primeiro objetivo específico foi a identificação das restrições do programa de P&D da ANEEL e seleção daquelas que afetam a contratação de projetos de pesquisa. O segundo objetivo é a proposição de alternativas para aumentar a agilidade na contratação de projetos de pesquisa. O trabalho foi dividido em duas etapas que correspondem aos objetivos específicos e são apresentadas em dois artigos. A primeira procurou investigar as variáveis do problema. A segunda etapa procurou propor alternativas para agilizar o processo de contratação de projetos de pesquisa das empresas. Na primeira etapa foi aplicado método para lidar com problemas sociais complexos ao longo de reuniões específicas. Uma das reuniões foi realizada com especialistas em pesquisa e outra com os envolvidos no programa de pesquisa. As informações foram trabalhadas e validadas com os participantes. Para desenvolver a segunda etapa, foram realizados três estudos de caso em que foram realizadas entrevistas e o mapeamento dos processos de contratação de empresas de diferentes naturezas jurídicas. Os procedimentos buscaram investigar se existiam diferenças na agilidade de contratação entre as empresas, tendo como base de comparação uma configuração específica de projeto, investigar a motivação para tais diferenças e levantar alternativas para disseminar entre as empresas a agilidade nas contratações. Na primeira etapa, as restrições do programa de P&D foram identificadas e a maior parte delas está relacionada com a gestão interna das empresas. Em seguida, estão as restrições relacionadas a contratação de projetos, mais especificamente a questões de propriedade industrial e de equipamentos comprados ou produzidos pelo projeto. Na segunda etapa, foram confirmadas diferenças na agilidade de contratação entre as empresas. A padronização de procedimentos e as relações recorrentes foram identificadas como motivações para tais diferenças. Entre as alternativas encontradas na literatura para tratar as restrições constatadas na primeira etapa, a formação de relações de longo prazo parece beneficiar a celebração de contratos. A formação de comitês para ajustes nos contratos não foi alvo de questionamento na presente pesquisa, mas também pode ser uma alternativa para agilizar a celebração de contratos. A atribuição da propriedade dos resultados para a parceira que mais contribui é alvo de controvérsia por questões legais. A presente pesquisa contribuiu para o campo gerencial ao propor a criação de uma certificação de qualidade para disseminar a padronização de processos, sendo que a padronização não foi abordada na teoria revisada que trata sobre a contratação de projetos de pesquisa. Essa alternativa contribuiria para tratar as restrições encontradas na contratação de projetos entre as empresas e as executoras com benefícios que extrapolam o escopo da presente pesquisa, visto que as instituições de pesquisa envolvidas no programa de P&D ANEEL estão dentre as principais do sistema de pesquisa brasileiro. Propõe-se desenvolver novas pesquisas que evoluam o conhecimento sobre a agilidade de contratação ao investigar os perfis de contratações, os mecanismos de governança utilizados e as diferenças de agilidade obtidas. / The work´s objective was the investigation of research contracting agility in the context of R&D Program for the Brazilian Electric Energy Sector. The research was motivated by the delay on some projects contract negotiation and by others unsuccessful contracting process, while the funds to invest keep growing. The first specific objective was to discover which constraints of the R&D Program for the Brazilian Electric Energy Sector, which guidelines and instructions are established by the Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency – ANEEL, affects research projects contracting process. The second objective is the proposition of alternatives to increase contracting agility. The work had two main stages to address the specific objectives and they are presented in two papers. The first stage investigated problem´s topics. The second stage intended to propose alternatives to make the utilities contracting process more agile. The first stage has applied a method for handling complex societal problems. A discussion meeting involved research experts and other the utilities and academy. The information collected was summarized and then validated with the participants. At the second stage, three case studies were developed using interviews and process mapping with public, private and mixed utilities. The procedures applied intended to investigate if there was agility differences in utilities contracting processes, using as reference a specific project configuration, identify the motivation for the differences founded and raise alternatives to make all utilities contracting processes agile. The constraints were identified in the first stage and most of them are related with utilities management. In second place, there are constraints related with project contracting, especially issues about industrial property and equipments developed or bought in the project. At the second stage, contracting agility differences were found. Process standardization and recurrent relationships were identified as possible motivations for these differences. Among the alternatives found in the literature review to handle the constraints identified in the first stage, the long term relationships seems to make contracting easier. The development of committees to adapt contracts during evolution of the collaboration was not in the scope of the present research, but also can be an alternative to make contracting more agile. Share property rights according with technological contribution can be refused because of legal aspects. The present research evolve the management knowledge as it proposes a certification to promote process standardization, besides the standardization was not present in the reviewed theory about research project contracting. This alternative would contribute to handle constraints identified in the contracting experience, with benefits that will exceed the planned scope, as the research institutions in the ANEEL R&D program are among the most importants in the brazilian research system. New researches may expand the knowledge about contracting agility if they investigate contracting configuration, governance mechanisms used and the agility differences obtained.

O trabalho teve como objetivo investigar a agilidade nas contratações de projetos de pesquisa no âmbito do Programa de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento da Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica (ANEEL). A pesquisa foi motivada pela demora na contratação de alguns projetos e pelo insucesso na contratação de outros, com o concorrente acúmulo de recursos a serem investidos. O primeiro objetivo específico foi a identificação das restrições do programa de P&D da ANEEL e seleção daquelas que afetam a contratação de projetos de pesquisa. O segundo objetivo é a proposição de alternativas para aumentar a agilidade na contratação de projetos de pesquisa. O trabalho foi dividido em duas etapas que correspondem aos objetivos específicos e são apresentadas em dois artigos. A primeira procurou investigar as variáveis do problema. A segunda etapa procurou propor alternativas para agilizar o processo de contratação de projetos de pesquisa das empresas. Na primeira etapa foi aplicado método para lidar com problemas sociais complexos ao longo de reuniões específicas. Uma das reuniões foi realizada com especialistas em pesquisa e outra com os envolvidos no programa de pesquisa. As informações foram trabalhadas e validadas com os participantes. Para desenvolver a segunda etapa, foram realizados três estudos de caso em que foram realizadas entrevistas e o mapeamento dos processos de contratação de empresas de diferentes naturezas jurídicas. Os procedimentos buscaram investigar se existiam diferenças na agilidade de contratação entre as empresas, tendo como base de comparação uma configuração específica de projeto, investigar a motivação para tais diferenças e levantar alternativas para disseminar entre as empresas a agilidade nas contratações. Na primeira etapa, as restrições do programa de P&D foram identificadas e a maior parte delas está relacionada com a gestão interna das empresas. Em seguida, estão as restrições relacionadas a contratação de projetos, mais especificamente a questões de propriedade industrial e de equipamentos comprados ou produzidos pelo projeto. Na segunda etapa, foram confirmadas diferenças na agilidade de contratação entre as empresas. A padronização de procedimentos e as relações recorrentes foram identificadas como motivações para tais diferenças. Entre as alternativas encontradas na literatura para tratar as restrições constatadas na primeira etapa, a formação de relações de longo prazo parece beneficiar a celebração de contratos. A formação de comitês para ajustes nos contratos não foi alvo de questionamento na presente pesquisa, mas também pode ser uma alternativa para agilizar a celebração de contratos. A atribuição da propriedade dos resultados para a parceira que mais contribui é alvo de controvérsia por questões legais. A presente pesquisa contribuiu para o campo gerencial ao propor a criação de uma certificação de qualidade para disseminar a padronização de processos, sendo que a padronização não foi abordada na teoria revisada que trata sobre a contratação de projetos de pesquisa. Essa alternativa contribuiria para tratar as restrições encontradas na contratação de projetos entre as empresas e as executoras com benefícios que extrapolam o escopo da presente pesquisa, visto que as instituições de pesquisa envolvidas no programa de P&D ANEEL estão dentre as principais do sistema de pesquisa brasileiro. Propõe-se desenvolver novas pesquisas que evoluam o conhecimento sobre a agilidade de contratação ao investigar os perfis de contratações, os mecanismos de governança utilizados e as diferenças de agilidade obtidas. / The work´s objective was the investigation of research contracting agility in the context of R&D Program for the Brazilian Electric Energy Sector. The research was motivated by the delay on some projects contract negotiation and by others unsuccessful contracting process, while the funds to invest keep growing. The first specific objective was to discover which constraints of the R&D Program for the Brazilian Electric Energy Sector, which guidelines and instructions are established by the Brazilian Electricity Regulatory Agency – ANEEL, affects research projects contracting process. The second objective is the proposition of alternatives to increase contracting agility. The work had two main stages to address the specific objectives and they are presented in two papers. The first stage investigated problem´s topics. The second stage intended to propose alternatives to make the utilities contracting process more agile. The first stage has applied a method for handling complex societal problems. A discussion meeting involved research experts and other the utilities and academy. The information collected was summarized and then validated with the participants. At the second stage, three case studies were developed using interviews and process mapping with public, private and mixed utilities. The procedures applied intended to investigate if there was agility differences in utilities contracting processes, using as reference a specific project configuration, identify the motivation for the differences founded and raise alternatives to make all utilities contracting processes agile. The constraints were identified in the first stage and most of them are related with utilities management. In second place, there are constraints related with project contracting, especially issues about industrial property and equipments developed or bought in the project. At the second stage, contracting agility differences were found. Process standardization and recurrent relationships were identified as possible motivations for these differences. Among the alternatives found in the literature review to handle the constraints identified in the first stage, the long term relationships seems to make contracting easier. The development of committees to adapt contracts during evolution of the collaboration was not in the scope of the present research, but also can be an alternative to make contracting more agile. Share property rights according with technological contribution can be refused because of legal aspects. The present research evolve the management knowledge as it proposes a certification to promote process standardization, besides the standardization was not present in the reviewed theory about research project contracting. This alternative would contribute to handle constraints identified in the contracting experience, with benefits that will exceed the planned scope, as the research institutions in the ANEEL R&D program are among the most importants in the brazilian research system. New researches may expand the knowledge about contracting agility if they investigate contracting configuration, governance mechanisms used and the agility differences obtained.