Indigenous Australians make up a mere 2.4% of the population of whom around a quarter live in remote and very remote parts of Australia. The poor state of Indigenous housing in remote areas is generally acknowledged as one of Australia’s most intractable housing problems. The thesis examines why the remote Indigenous housing system does not meet the housing needs of Indigenous people in remote areas and discusses an alternative system. The aim of the thesis is to understand why the remote Indigenous housing system is not meeting people’s needs, despite policy statements that emphasise empowerment and partnerships. This understanding of the current remote Indigenous housing system involved placing it in historical, policy and international contexts and examining the current attempts to rationalise and streamline the system. The service-delivery concepts of supply-driven (externally prescribed) and demand-responsive (community determined) are applied to remote Indigenous housing. The characteristics of successful remote Indigenous housing, namely Indigenous control and self-determination, an enabling environment and a culturally responsive system, are developed and found to be characteristic of a demand-responsive system. The research hypothesises that the remote Indigenous housing system’s supply-driven focus is largely responsible for the housing needs of Indigenous people in remote areas not being met. This was tested using the new methodology of a Systems Social Assessment which is developed by combining Social Assessment and Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology. This methodology illustrated that the current remote Indigenous housing system has a supply-driven focus where the housing ‘solutions’ are controlled and largely provided from an external source, in this case the Commonwealth and State governments and their agents. The thesis discusses an alternative demand-responsive focus where remote communities have more control over the nature and delivery of their housing that may prove more successful.

An initial analysis of sustainable project life cycle management methodologies’ current status highlighted that social and environmental aspects of sustainable development are not addressed effectively. An acceptable model aimed at addressing the various sustainable development aspects from a project management perspective is thus needed. This study’s main research objective was consequently to develop the different elements of such a model for social business sustainability. The research focused on the three main research questions discussed below. Which lifecycles should be considered when evaluating the project’s possible impacts? Projects implement or deliver certain products, which in turn, can produce other commodities sold by the company. The three lifecycles, i.e. project, asset and product, were studied to determine which lifecycles to consider when evaluating projects’ possible impacts. It was concluded that it is specifically the project’s deliverables and its associated products that have economic, social and environmental consequences. These life cycles must therefore be considered as part of the project life cycle when evaluating social impacts. What social business sustainability impacts or aspects should be considered in the project life cycle? A sustainable development framework that can be applied to projects directly to ensure their alignment with sustainable development does not exist at present. A social sustainability assessment framework as part of a sustainability assessment framework for operational initiatives was consequently developed and introduced. The social framework was verified and validated by means of case studies, a survey and a Delphi Technique case study to test the framework’s completeness and relevance. How should project management methodologies be adopted to ensure incorporation of social business sustainability? The research indicated that the various social aspects are addressed in different ways in the individual asset life cycle phase. The social criteria in the framework should therefore also be addressed in different ways in the project management methodologies. A Social Impact Indicator (SII) calculation procedure, based on a previously introduced Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) calculation procedure for environmental Resource Impact Indicators (RIIs), was developed as a method to evaluate social impacts in the project life cycle phases. Case studies in the process industry and statistical information for South Africa have been used to establish information availability for the SII calculation procedure. / Thesis (PhD (Engineering Management))--University of Pretoria, 2006. / Graduate School of Technology Management (GSTM) / unrestricted