Published Article / In their research as well as their teaching, universities of technology (UoTs) expect to be infused by the application of technology and to be integrally related to the world of work. At the same time, research at UoTs is characteristically innovatory, in the specific sense of transforming research discoveries into products or services that are user-oriented and commercially viable. Since practical problems and user needs do not respect disciplinary boundaries it follows, firstly, that such research at a UoT will in some sense not respect disciplinary boundaries, i.e. it will have to connect, cross, or integrate traditional disciplines. This paper seeks accordingly conceptually to differentiate the relevant senses of multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary (MIT) research. It then characterises the fourteen current research programmes at Central University of Technology (CUT) in these regards, comparing the findings from interviews with the programme leaders with the insights of the authors. Secondly, in that most research at UoTs is also expected to be innovatory, it is demanded of researchers that they also master the skill of researching the feasible applications of findings, developing products, and envisaging commercialisation; and handing the stakeholder relationships that arise in these interactions. The interviews further indicate the extent to which the respective programmes have moved down the MIT road. They also reveal that the challenges that are faced by the programmes are overwhelming generic rather than specifically MIT-related. Some strategic recommendations are extracted from the findings.

Infrastructure is presenting significant national and global challenges. Whilst often seen as performing well, infrastructure tends to do so against only limited terms of reference and short-term objectives. Given that the world is facing a new infrastructure bill of ~£40T, improving the benefits delivered by existing infrastructure is vital (Dobbs et al., 2013). This thesis investigates strategic intent and the management of infrastructure systems; how factors such as organisational structure and business practice affect outcomes and the ways in which those systems — not projects — are managed. To date, performance has largely been approached from the perspective of project investment and/or delivery, or the assessment of latent failures arising from specific shocks or disruptive events (e.g. natural disaster, infrastructure failures, climate change). By contrast, the delivery of system-level services and outcomes across the infrastructure system has been rarely examined. This is where infrastructure forms an enduring system of services, assets, projects, and networks each at different stages of their lifecycle, and affecting one another as they develop, then age. Yet system performance, which also includes societal, organisational, administrative and technical factors, is arguably the level relevant to, and the reality of, day-to-day public infrastructure management. This research firstly investigated industry perceptions in order to test and confirm the problem: the nub of which was the inability to fully deliver appropriate and relevant infrastructure outcomes over the long term. Three detailed studies then explored the reasons for this problem through different lenses; thereby providing an evidence-base for a range of issues that are shared by the wider infrastructure industry. In confirming its hypothesis that “the strategic intent and the day-to-day management of infrastructure systems are often misaligned, with negative consequences for achieving the desired long-term infrastructure system outcomes”, this research has increased our understanding of the ways in which that misalignment occurs, and the consequences that result. It found those consequences were material, and frequently not visible within the sub-system accountable for the delivery of those outcomes. That public infrastructure exists, not in its own right, but to be of benefit to society, is a central theme drawn from the definition of infrastructure itself. This research shows that it is not enough to be focused on technical outcomes. Infrastructure needs to move beyond how society interacts with an asset, to the outcomes that reflect the needs, beliefs, and choices of society as well as its ability to respond to change (aptitude). Although the research has confirmed its hypothesis and three supporting propositions, the research does not purport to offer ‘the solution’. Single solutions do not exist to address the challenges facing a complex adaptive system such as infrastructure. But the research does offer several system-oriented sense-making models at both the detailed and system-level. This includes the probing methodology by way of a diagnostic roadmap. These models aim to assist practitioners in managing the transition of projects, assets, and services into a wider infrastructure system, their potential, and in (re)orienting the organisation to the dynamic nature of the system and its societal imperative.