MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033949655

The Successful Implementation of O. Reg. 588/17: Organizational Factors that Contribute to the Success of Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure in Small Ontario Municipalities

2019· article· en· W7033949655 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSunflower and Safflower Cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIT asset managementAsset managementAsset (computer security)Local governmentGovernment (linguistics)PopulationStrategic planning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asset management planning in Ontario has evolved since the early 2000s and Ontario Regulation 588/17: Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure came into effect on January 1, 2019. The requirements of the regulation are different for small municipalities, being those having a population of less than 25,000, than for large municipalities. The burden of undertaking large-scale change initiatives, specifically those that are externally initiated, can be especially difficult for small municipalities that often lack the resources and specialized staff to address these changes. This paper explores the organizational factors that contribute to the success of local government asset management planning activities in small municipalities. A review of asset management and change management literature determines the elements that contribute to successful change management in public organizations undertaking asset management programs. Central to this is review is a change management framework consisting of the eight factors necessary for successful change in public organizations that was developed by Fernandez and Rainey in 2006. Through this research, the framework is adjusted to remove extraneous factors and add factors central to the asset management literature. The factors found to contribute to the successful delivery of asset management programs in small municipalities are as follows: Factor 1 – Provide and Implement a Plan Factor 2 – Ensure Top Management Support and Commitment Factor 3 – Use Evidence-Based Decision-Making\t Factor 4 – Institutionalize Change Factor 5 – Provide Resources and Pursue Comprehensive Change Factor 6 – Build Internal Support by Communicating Strategically The applicability of these six factors is then validated through a longitudinal comparison case study. The case study demonstrates how Loyalist Township, a small municipality in southeastern Ontario, has employed these methods to contribute to the success of its asset management planning over a 10-year period, from 2009 to 2019.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicSunflower and Safflower CultivationFrench-language works237,207