Project-
London’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Abstract
London has lofty ambitions to reduce carbon emissions
the automotive industry, involving aims towards zero-emission sale prices for
any and all new automobiles and small freight carriers by 2030, zero-emission
cabs as well as privately rented cabs by 2033, as well as a zero-emission
region in Central London by 2025. To reach these objectives and achieve the air
pollution and climate advantages, a sophisticated allows companies will be
required. This research, which supplements the Mayor’s Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Taskforce’s Delivery Plan, provides trying to charge network
goals at the township power level to 2035. It calculates the governmental
(housing and location moderate to swift or quick) as well as
non-governmental (home and office) charging required infrastructure from
each of London’s 32 boroughs and the City of London. This research also offers
meaningful information on the spread of electric vehicles in new areas. Because
hazards exist throughout the entire life span of initiatives, crisis management
is crucial to the success of electric car going to charge equipment community
collaboration developments under London’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Delivery Plan. However, risk variables in London’s Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure projects are frequently interrelated, and as a result, the
interrelationships among components have an impact on risk administration,
which has been overlooked in previous research. This research also creates a
hazard identification and assessment of programs based just on binomial
visualization with judgement experiments to recognize the risk variables of
London’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and evaluate their inherent impact
links. Look at the importance of cultural in ventures but also how Hofstede’s
Cultural Aspects paradigm may be used to help the London Mayor’s Electric
Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Delivery Plan reach its goal.
Introduction of the study
Automobility is one of the leading sources of global
energy consumption (Gielen et al., 2019). Automobile
emissions from gasoline and diesel account for nearly a sixth of worldwide
greenhouse gas emissions and the bulk of urban air pollution (Shafie and Mahmud, 2020, Maghirang, 2019). As a result,
electric vehicles (EVs), which produce far less CO2 than gasoline vehicles,
have been hailed as one of the most promising green technologies for lowering
global carbon emissions and energy consumption (Milovanoff et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2018). Understanding
important antecedents that might impact customers’ readiness or unwillingness
to embrace EVs, as well as the related influencing process, is critical for
achieving the anticipated environmental advantages of EVs (Biresselioglu et al., 2018). Product-related
factors (such as purchase and operating costs, vehicle speed and exhaust
emissions), information and service (such as infrastructure investment), policy
factors (such as government incentives and regulations), and individual factors
(such as environmental awareness and technology awareness) have all been
studied in relation to EV adoption. Surprisingly little is known about the
significance of cultural values in customers’ decision-making processes when
deciding whether or not to buy an electric vehicle (Gielen et al., 2019).
Significance of culture
in the context of project
On this are four elements that may have a significant
role in determining customer attitudes toward electric vehicles in the United
Kingdom (Morton et al., 2018). First, consumer
views of EVs’ environmental characteristic may be influenced by
“human–nature interaction” and “long–term orientation”
(LTO), concepts derived from Taoism and Confucianism, respectively, in UK
culture (Christidis and Focas, 2019). Furthermore, “facial consciousness,”
a significant component of UK society, may shed light on the significance of EV
symbolism (Sovacool et al., 2019a). We considered
“risk mentality” as another possible element in EV adoption, which is
the influence of uncertainty on customers’ desire to adopt new technology, in
addition to these three UK cultural values (Christidis and Focas, 2019). Despite the
potential for cultural values to have a significant impact on consumer behavior,
previous research suggests that such impacts are generally indirect and occur
through certain mediating processes (Morton et al., 2018). Customers are
likely to connect their beliefs with behavioral intention when societal beliefs
enhance the ethical assessment of sustainable consumption, according to current
research; nevertheless, few studies have studied the role of culture on utilization
sustainably via moral assessment (Sovacool et al., 2019a, Legere and Kang, 2020). We investigate
the moderating effect methodology of deontological moral assessment is, a
person’s assessment of the underlying righteousness vs. immorality of a behavior
(Brambilla et al., 2021)—in the impact of
cultural influences on customers’ decision to accept EVs using code of
professional theories and models, that also appears to apply appropriate
ethical to business settings (Christidis and Focas, 2019, Brambilla et al., 2021).
Implementations of
Hofstede’s Cultural dimensions framework
In the sense of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Framework research, with the goal of integrating cultural aspects, customer
perception, and behaviors regarding ecologically responsible usage, in response
to the call for greater attention to the influence of customers’ value systems
as well as social economic behaviors on attaining successful important for motivation
(Seleznyov et al., 2021). I proved the favorable
benefits of cultural values, such as the human–nature link, LTO, and face
consciousness, on influencing UK consumers’ propensity to embrace EVs,
associated with environmental, metaphorical, and innovative features of EVs (Requardt, 2020). As a result, the
first theoretical conclusion is the discovery of UK values that match to
sustainable innovation traits as antecedents for comprehending customers’
thinking process of EV innovation adoption (Belanche et al., 2020).
Customers have solid motivations for embracing
sustainable technologies like electric vehicles, according to Hofstede, if they
feel the service companies are consistent with own ideals and ethics (Moon, 2021). As a result of
the findings 20, welfare policies to encourage conservation efforts should
examine the influences of social traditions and the psychological
influence processes that accompany them. Policymakers and regulators could use
learning (Matz et al., 2020) and television
advertisements (Fossen et al., 2021) to increase the
attractiveness of principles, as well as enable conversations between similarly
minded citizens on the usage of environmentally conscious (Phipps et al.,
2013), which may increase consumer consciousness and arouse the desire for
social traditions. Furthermore, the results of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
Framework (Rojo et al., 2020) imply that public
measures should be implemented to lower the perceived risk of sustainable and innovative
technology, maybe by offering educational opportunities and enabling consumer
interactions (Xia et al., 2019). Second, we
discovered that deontological ethical judgement plays a role in modulating the
impact of cultural antecedents on adoption intention (Requardt, 2020). As a result, we
contend that deontological assessment is crucial in consumers’ decision-making
processes when it comes to adopting ecologically friendly purchase habits.
Furthermore, Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions framework (Rojo et al., 2020) discovered that
the mediation effects varied according on the cultural antecedents and the
types of EVs. The competing mediation effect of deontological appraisal in the influence
of the human–nature interaction on consumers’ propensity to adopt BEVs may
reflect public anxiety about whether BEV adoption can truly assist reduce air
pollution in the United Kingdom (Moon, 2021).
Prior research has found a gap between intention and
conduct, despite Hofstede’s belief that behavioural intention is the most
explicit and direct antecedent to actual action (Wong and Cheng, 2020). Future research
may use longitudinal designs to validate the link between cultural antecedents
and actual EV adoption, according to Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions framework. Investigators
might also conduct a study of EV early adopters to learn more about their
habits (Brezina et al., 2019). Finally, despite
ensuring the confidentiality of participants through into the online
questionnaire, our research may not even be able to avoid the possible problem
of public desirability bias (Venkateswaran and Ojha, 2019). To account for
this potential bias in the analysis, next research may include a measure of
social acceptability in the questionnaire.
Cultural influence and
successful delivery of project Plan
The examination of mediating mechanisms in the context
of Hofstede’s Cultural Factors concept could have substantial consequences for
the development the influencing impacts of cultural variables on climate
consumerism (Rahman and Luomala, 2021). Electric
vehicles (EVs) come in a variety of shapes and sizes, each with its own set of
advantages and disadvantages in terms of energy savings and emissions reduction
(Panchal et al., 2018). BEVs are made of
cells that is filled from the power grid, whereas PHEVs can be powered by
either a diesel engine or an electrical system with a limited all-electric
range (Moon, 2021). As a result, I
evaluated the direct only effects, such as no mediated, as well as intermediate
just impacts, such as complete mediation, or both implications, such as
mediating variable, of diverse cultural elements employing meditational issues
in the context of Hofstede’s Cultural Theory (Sovacool et al., 2019b, Bissessar, 2018). The structural
model from previous research for the effects of environmental factors on
describing the technology acceptance within each type of EV may assist in the
creation of some more efficient mitigation conditions and institutional
promotional strategies to facilitate the adoption of EVs, allowing the London
Mayor’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Facilities to be delivered successfully (Bissessar, 2018).
Critically examine project management
leadership literature covering definitions of leadership and 3 project
management leadership theories covered on the module and recommend a leadership
style required for delivering the ‘Mayor of London’s Electric Vehicle (EV)
Infrastructure Delivery Plan’
Leadership in the context
of Project
The capacity to control, change, and exercising
influence over the conduct of others in a group is referred to as leadership (Stewart et al., 2019). It is a person’s
or a group of people’s capacities to inspire and steer representatives.
Clarifying goal, expressing the mission because others would voluntarily
follow, and offering the expertise, ideas, & procedures to fulfil the
vision are all part of leadership (Wildavsky et al., 2018). Leadership is a
critical leadership position that enables a company’s capabilities be directed
for continuous improvements & accomplishment (Huffington et al., 2018). Successful
managers clarify the organization ’s goals, encourage employees, and assist
them to achieve it.
Three project management
leadership theories in the context of project
A few of the theories that imply diverse techniques or
leadership styles for Mayor of London’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure
Delivery Plan include a contingency and situational theories; transactional and transformational
leadership theories and Authentic leadership theory.
Leadership &
theoretical prospective of Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Numerous strategies or transformational leadership are
suggested by a variety of ideas. In the contexts of different calamities and catastrophes
caused by uncontrolled anthropogenic activities, need for sustained development
is more urgent than ever (Suresh et al., 2020). Companies like
Mayor of London’s are looking for alternative energy sources due to the
declining supply of fossil fuels (Dyatlov et al., 2020). The Electric
Vehicle Infrastructure Delivery Plan is a novel phenomenon, and the Electric
Vehicle is undergoing considerable study to ensure that it is possible and
financially successful. There’re some early adopters, such as the Mayor of
London’s EV Infrastructure, whom has succeeded in establishing or are pushing
forward with their models (Chitchyan and Bird, 2021).
The Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure scenario is
changing at a breakneck rate, with regular technical updates. It is critical to
stay current with changes, failing which the Mayor company may gain market
share (Harvey et al., 2018). The current
leaders are in charge of directing their staff to change in the most effective
way possible. The researcher name (Khan et al., 2018) highlighted the
importance of leadership effectiveness in intellectual capital for the firm (Nauman et al., 2021). Transformational
leaders were far more effective in handling the execution and completion of
innovation inside the dynamic environment of workspaces and its
responsibilities, according to leadership style (Stremersch et al., 2021). The transition
from the Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure to the knowledge era has forced
leaders to adjust their leadership methods, because modern inventions are
unstable, global leaders must be flexible, adaptable, and interactive.
Succession planning requires a high level of dependability of Mayor of London’s
EV (Nauman et al., 2021).
Transformational leadership theory
The Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure demonstrated
no improvement in leadership practices for over fifty years, with centralized
control being the favored strategy (Kwan, 2020). Unfortunately,
contemporary changes in the global economy have significantly altered the
criteria for leaders and influenced the companies like Mayor of London’s EV to
adopt stylistics way of leaderships (Fernández and Angel, 2020).
The earlier researcher (Clancy et al., 2018), explain the
novel concepts in the context of benefits and shortcomings of the
transformational leadership theory as extended to the Mayor of London’s EV
Infrastructure, the researcher (Clancy et al., 2018), also proposes a
number of changes designed to reduce negative consequences. To begin,
executives must pay more attention to engagement with the technological team to
make sure that critical elements from unknown industries are included (e.g.,
the integration of IT, hybrid technologies, and autonomous technologies) are
more important to deliver computational plan for Mayor of London’s. Furthermore,
they must assure the establishment of both azimuth and elevation messaging
services, as well as shared ideals, in order to strengthen trust, accomplish
consistent progression, and reduce unequal competency allocation (Kwan, 2020). Finally,
inspiring potential must be used to convey the need for transformation
throughout the firm in order to maintain the industry’s speed and agility while
also overcoming newly developing obstacles. The transformational theory is
predicted to optimize the functionality of the Mayor of London’s Objectives Of
sustainable design if these guidelines are followed correctly (Clancy et al., 2018).
Authentic
leadership theory
Authentic leadership theory (Luthans and Avolio, 2003), which provides
strong interaction, motivation, & intercultural flexibility, seems to be
another reasonable suggestion in the context of the Mayor of London’s Electric
Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Luthans and Avolio, 2003). Furthermore, it
fulfills the industry’s contemporary requirement for a plausible
entrepreneurial planning. Finally, Authentic leadership motivate the style of transactional
leadership theory, which is based on sound economic concepts, has practical
potential (Ofori, 2008). Furthermore,
according to (Wang et al., 2014), it is linked to
outcome focus, which is one of the company’s overall aims. It does, however,
bring unpredictability, since the London’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure
Delivery Plan declining stability may erode contingent compensation
opportunities.
Historical prospective
In the study of the Mayor of London’s EV
Infrastructure, (Muralidharan and Pathak, 2019) suggested the
Sophistication Conceptual Framework. Traditional leadership styles can help
motivate personnel and increase productivity, or they can also discourage
investment among the Mayor of London’s EV workers (Wen et al., 2019). The emergent
Properties Leadership Theory concept elevates leadership above and beyond
management duties (Schock et al., 2019). The modern era’s
leadership requirements are completely opposite, and this may be handled by
adapting leadership behaviors to the demands of the company (Schock et al., 2019).
Recommended leadership
style
In the context of the Mayor of London’s EV
Infrastructure, according to (Bass and Stogdill, 1990), transformational
leaders excite and cognitively invigorate their staff more than traditional
leaders whose focus on standard methods (Pralat, 2021). From the
beginning, Mayor of London’s embodied the culture of invention. The
earlier researcher (Bateman and Snell, 2019), creates
significant challenge for his staff and encourages them to question the status
of companies which create more efficient advertisement to adopt newly develop
strategies and plan. Leaders that bring through transformation and skillfully
administer it always have an influence on the community (Myricks, 2021).
The Mayor of London’s EV is part of a rapidly shifting
technology landscape that is adaptable across all battlefields. Professionals
having understood the impacts of disturbance and the necessity of working with
agility in the contexts of transformational style. There have been cases
wherein companies like Mayor of London’s worked diligently on a technique, only
for new adopted individuals to dismiss
the idea due to his strategic considerations (Schwarz, 2019). Employees are
capable of accepting continuous transformational styles of leadership and are
equipped for this sort of action (Khan, 2021). Musk’s
transformative leadership style was ideal for ushering in a change in the
sector of organization (Anastasiadis et al., 2019).
Critically review and evaluate 2 managing change
models (Kotter or Kübler-Ross or Lewin’s model) covered on the module and
recommend one model that could be used or adapted as a suitable framework for
implementing the ‘Mayor of London’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure
Delivery Plan’ to improve consumer awareness and perception of EV’s. Justify your
answer supported by the literature and link this to the EV case study (LO3). 4.
Whilst the ‘Mayor of London’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Delivery
Plan’ will
Critical
review & evaluation of models
Industry has gone through several transformations
& cultural shifts, and competitiveness has grown genuinely global
throughout current history (Shrivastava et al., 2020). Never before has
a company had to react as swiftly to market demands and adopt new technology as
quickly as it does now without risking becoming irrelevant (Mergel et al., 2019). An comprehensive
literature (Vial, 2019) investigation of
all the most widely admired and paraphrased Transformation Modeling approaches (Misra et al., 2019) was conducted to
establish a comprehensive and integrated understanding of the nature of
Implementing Change, especially the different facets applicable to
incorporating technological change to Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure
manufacturing lines towards the extent that an Increasingly Recognized as a key
can indeed be built from that framework (Mergel et al., 2019). The models were
evaluated for both straight & non-linear ideas which may be applied to the
Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure manufacturing companies, and a
meta-theoretical architecture was constructed by combining the appropriate
aspects of all the models using a snowflake purposeful sampling. Aspects of
Scientometric concepts, non-codified theories, and the scientists’ direct
knowledge achieving technical change were included to this design (Lacerda, 2019).
Kubler-Ross & Kurt
Lewin model case study of EVs
According to Kubler-Ross (Corr, 2020), most people’s
experiences of ‘Transformation’ through a sequence of processes, similar to the
well-known “Five mourning process (Suomela, 2019, Corr, 2020).” It is
critical for a Project Manager to recognize that emotions of amazement, willful
ignorance, unhappiness, and sometimes even depressed mood are common once
attempting to deal with digital transformation, so the individuals, as
caretakers of the Change Initiative, must deal with these negative emotions
accordingly to avoid disrupting the Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure
integration. Most, if not all, people will feel the feelings associated with
the Kotter’s eight curve, therefore anticipate significant irritation and/or
lack of participation from the Steering Committee (Eisenberg and Alahakone). Once the
Underperformers are satisfied that the Implementation process was completed
correctly and that the technology is safe to use, they will embrace the
innovation as well. Some Underperformers will only join once the Optimize stage
has been completed or all the kinks have been straightened out (Safe, 2021).
Kurt Lewin devised a three-step change theory (Burnes, 2020): unfreezing,
altering, and refreezing. The model is a straightforward and practical approach
to comprehending the transformation process. The period of development,
according to Lewin, comprises first generating the notion that a change is
required, then progressing forward towards the improved, optimum consistency of
conduct, and lastly consolidating that new behavior as the norm (Bakari et al., 2017). The model is
still extensively utilized and it is the foundation for many current
transformation models, such as the Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure rollout.
Numerous individuals consider Kurt Lewin’s ‘shifting in 3 parts’
(unfreezing>changing>refreezing) to be the standard or essential method
to project leadership. Researchers have chastised Lewin for overcomplicating
the organizational change, while others have supported him against certain
claims (McAleese et al., 2013). The model’s
basic relevance, on the other hand, has remained uncontested. It can be linked
back to early article on the Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure ever written
in Social Relations (if it can be linked directly whatsoever). Researchers (Cummings et al., 2016) contend that Kurt
Lewin actually designed such a model and that it emerged after his death, comparison
about what Lewin stated regarding change in three phases in how it’s
represented in recent works for EV Infrastructure.
Recommended model for
case study: Richard Kotter
Rising temperatures including local pollution are high
on the agenda for urban areas, and are mostly now actively looking at methods
to cut their energy consumption, as seen by the Mayor of London’s EV
Infrastructure. “Most automobiles sit idle for much of the day, as well as
in the late evenings,” says Richard Kotter (ElBanhawy et al., 2012), “and are
often only utilized for commuting at peak periods throughout the daytime.”
Overnight & throughout the weekend, the same was said about industrial
transportation vehicles. Richard Kotter went on to say” While this
technology is still in its infancy, we are conscious that our cities have a
rising desire and legal need to address climate change.” According to the
Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure (Shaw and Bunce, 2015), “this
strategy demands the joined-up planning of both transportation and
infrastructural amenities, including energy consumption and availability for UK
& other metropolitan regions & rural surrounds of the future.”
Delivery Plan’ to improve
consumer awareness and perception of EV’s
Many researches (Adnan et al., 2017, Jin and Slowik, 2017, Carmichael
et al., 2021) affected the mechanisms of delivery
plan and proposed evaluations for outstanding worldwide practices on electric
motor awareness among consumers & community engagement in order to improve
public attitudes and understanding of EVs. The previous study (Jin and Slowik, 2017, Hodson and Marvin, 2013) contains related
literature and studies on the relevance of customer perception, as well as
exemplary measures in promoting Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure in
marketplaces. Based on an extensive review, the authors decided 5 research
studies (Moser, 2010, Ager and Strang, 2008, Rowe et al.,
2013) for further debate in attempt to
understand the essential components of effective comprehensive public service
announcements, such as the implementation of action huge impact perception is a
key part of helping the early Mayor of London’s electric vehicle market.
Long-term initiatives that employ a variety of marketing & awareness
offenders are more likely to reach a larger number of potential Mayor of London
electric car buyers (Lee and Kotler, 2011, Manning, 2001). Interested
parties might presumably cooperate to utilize abilities as well as successfully
use available resources on Mayor of London’s electric vehicle awareness
programs, & local context as well as funds can be critical in assessing the
practicability of a Mayor of London’s electric vehicle consumer awareness (Hall et al., 2017, Skok and Baker, 2018). Whereas the
objective of this project is on how behavior to enhance understanding and awareness
could perhaps influence electric vehicle uptake, Mayor of London’s Delivery
Plan should note that a wide range of promotion actions (e.g., financial (Kley et al., 2012), and
non-financial incentives (Zhongming et al., 2017), charging
infrastructure deployment, high model availability, efforts to increase
awareness and understanding, and others) are critical to growing the market
Mayor of London’s to improve consumer awareness and perception.
Whilst the ‘Mayor of London’s Electric Vehicle (EV)
Infrastructure Delivery Plan’ will encounter many well documented barriers and
issues you are asked as a consultant to critically analyses the risks
associated with the EV delivery plan from Concept to Implementation for a
client who intends to deliver Electric Vehicle’s in another leading European
City that currently has no such EV Infrastructure plan.
Although advancements to gasoline engines will
continuing to lower atmospheric co2 and other harmful emissions in vehicles
during the next few millennia, it is widely acknowledged that automotive
innovations will indeed be necessary to meet objectives. There seems to be a
widespread belief among potential choices that the Mayor of London’s EV
Infrastructure is the finest near-market low-emission vehicular technology. The
Mayor of London’s EV plan emphasizes the need for extensive charging
infrastructure to accommodate the accumulation or use of electronically
controlled automobiles besides People in London as well as enterprises. The
Mayor of London’s EV plan highlights the requirement for extensive charging
infrastructure to facilitate the uptake and usage of electric automobiles by
Londoners and businesses. This draught plan lays out a potential risk analysis
technique for the implementation of charging infrastructure for privately owned
EVs up to 2025, which faces several challenges and concerns. Choosing to focus
on the Mayor of London’s EV Infrastructure deployment plan within leading
regions, such as European cities that currently lack an EV Stimulus plan and
destinations dominated by people living in this area, will not only provide the
greatest environmental benefit in the short term, but will also increase sales,
lower mileage reimbursement, & help in making EVs more accessible to a
larger number of people, which will also be crucial for M2M adoption and
implementation.
a) Review all the
possible sources of risks related to the development and implementation of the
‘Mayor of London’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Delivery Plan’, learning
from the UK’s lessons learned. Identify the project’s aim and from these
identify 10 possible risks, construct a risk register (in a table)
making use of the risk meta language to describe the risk fully and
qualitatively analyse the risks and summarise your findings. (LO4)
The mayor of London EVs infrastructure has been
effectively utilized in infrastructure investment like an innovative funding
mechanism, as well as researchers have accomplished various research outcomes.
The authors of (Leurent and Windisch, 2011, Zheng et al., 2012),
highlighted the mayor of London’s electric infrastructure plan can help
the country to save money while also encouraging business strategy for
charging infrastructure. The authors of (Wirges et al., 2012, Andersen et al., 2009), thought that incorporating
the mayor of London’s electric infrastructure into filling stations may allow
individual entrepreneurs to help with project profitability. The authors of (Zheng et al., 2012), showed that the
mayor of London’s electric infrastructure plan is a good strategy to improve
recharging operational effectiveness.
Risk management is a major issue in the mayor of
London’s EV infrastructure projects, and feature analysis is a vital aspect in
the risk management process. The authors of (Rozenes et al., 2006, Suresh et al., 2020) created a
methodology to identify the most critical risk variables impacting the mayor of
London’s EV infrastructure projects in UK, as well as to assess the overall
threat level of such projects. It is still at the risk evaluation phase, with
no complete risk control in place. The authors presented a three-dimensional
approach to regulate risks in the mayor of London’s EV infrastructure projects
in (Voronkova et al., 2020) to cover this
gap. These findings equip choice with a
comprehensive risk strategy. However, while defining and assessing risk
variables, present research ignores the interconnections across specified
standards, it has a substantial impact on risk mitigation.
Table 1: Risk in the
context of project
|
Serial |
Risk |
|
1 |
In the short term, |
|
2 |
Massive rises in energy |
|
3 |
Domestic firm’s |
|
4 |
Endorsement of an |
|
5 |
Accidents and |
|
6 |
Engineered of inferior |
|
7 |
Use of Mayor of |
|
8 |
Under the proposal, |
|
9 |
Multiple middlemen |
|
10 |
The private sector is |
|
11 |
The Mayor of London’s |
b) For the 10 risks
identified from (4a) develop mitigating strategies (threats and opportunities)
for each of the 10 risks and include the mitigation strategy alongside the risk
register shown in part (a). (L06).
Table 2: Develop
mitigating strategies in the context of project
|
Risk Serial # |
mitigating strategies (threats and opportunities) |
|
1 |
Electric motors, according to the Mayor of London, |
|
2 |
Only those places with enough power to fulfil |
|
3 |
The project manager has always been in frequent |
|
4 |
The advantages of the rent-to-own alternatives have |
|
5 |
At all stages, technological specialists were |
|
6 |
Through multinational competition, conditionally |
|
7 |
Municipality elections are conducted every three |
|
8 |
Only items from respected worldwide manufactures |
|
9 |
The Mayor of London will work closely with the |
|
10 |
Because the planning process is restricted to 1 |
|
11 |
The Mayor of London’s Electric Vehicle will be |
c) Furthermore, identify
the risk management team structure and roles (with a supporting diagrammatic
structure that would link with the risks shown in part (a)) that would be required
when undertaking a risk management exercise for the ‘Mayor of London’s Electric
Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Delivery Plan’ (LO5).
Successfully investigated in diverse sectors based on
reviews and literature have recognized important risk linked with resulting in
significant at this time. In another article (Rozenes et al., 2006), the top three
risk in waste-to-energy incinerator mayor of London’s EV infrastructure
projects were identified as community resistance and encouragement, inadequate
risk associated with new adopted batteries and electric filling stations developments,
& incorrect operations. Risk allocation was done out in the mayor of
London’s EV Infrastructural development in UK by the authors of (Grenier and Page, 2012). Limited
availability, dealings with non-licensed commodities, threats to the
environment, financial risk, as well as a lack of supporting facilities are
indeed the five main risk concerns, according to the authors (Metzner et al., 2018).
Figure 1: Risk management
team structure and roles
In figure 1 the Table 1 presents several essential risks
in the mayor of London’s EV infrastructure spending based on illustrative
research, providing empirical direction as well as an indication benchmark and
Table 2 provide the mitigating strategies (threats and opportunities) for
company. From the perspective of the system, this research attempts to
investigate the influence relationships among risk variables of the mayor of
London’s major infrastructure projects. Risk aspects linked with the mayor of
London’s EV infrastructural development are recognized and identified based on
a literature survey, expert consensus, and industry leaders’ viewpoints. In the
first phase, a vulnerability analysis indexing system is introduced, which
includes six dimensions considerable risk, economic exposure, psychological
influence, design risk, & risk management.
References (Harvard
Style)
ADNAN, N., NORDIN, S. M.
& RAHMAN, I. 2017. Adoption of PHEV/EV in Malaysia: A critical review on
predicting consumer behaviour. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72,
849-862.
AGER,
A. & STRANG, A. 2008. Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of refugee studies, 21, 166-191.
ANASTASIADIS,
E., ANGELOUDIS, P., AINALIS, D., YE, Q. & HSU, P.-Y. 2019. A bilevel
optimisation model for the selection of parking and charging facilities for
EV-based ride-hailing services.
ANDERSEN,
P. H., MATHEWS, J. A. & RASK, M. 2009. Integrating private transport into
renewable energy policy: The strategy of creating intelligent recharging grids
for electric vehicles. Energy policy,
37, 2481-2486.
BAKARI,
H., HUNJRA, A. I. & NIAZI, G. S. K. 2017. How does authentic leadership
influence planned organizational change? The role of employees’ perceptions:
Integration of theory of planned behavior and Lewin’s three step model. Journal of Change Management, 17, 155-187.
BASS,
B. M. & STOGDILL, R. M. 1990. Bass
& Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications, Simon and Schuster.
BATEMAN,
T. & SNELL, S. 2019. Management: Leading & Collaborating in Competitive
World, 13e.
BELANCHE,
D., CASALÓ, L. V., FLAVIÁN, C. & SCHEPERS, J. 2020. Service robot
implementation: a theoretical framework and research agenda. The Service Industries Journal, 40, 203-225.
BIRESSELIOGLU,
M. E., KAPLAN, M. D. & YILMAZ, B. K. 2018. Electric mobility in Europe: A
comprehensive review of motivators and barriers in decision making processes. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 109, 1-13.
BISSESSAR,
C. 2018. An application of Hofstede’s cultural dimension among female
educational leaders. Education sciences,
8, 77.
BRAMBILLA,
M., SACCHI, S., RUSCONI, P. & GOODWIN, G. P. 2021. The primacy of morality
in impression development: Theory, research, and future directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
Elsevier.
BREZINA,
I., BAŠNÁKOVÁ, J. & SOLLÁR, T. 2019. Beyond Czech and Slovak differences in
Hofstede’s Masculinity index: An investigation of cross-cultural differences
using Hofstede’s and Schwartz’s framework. Individual
& Society/Clovek a Spolocnost, 22.
BURNES,
B. 2020. The origins of Lewin’s three-step model of change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
56, 32-59.
CARMICHAEL,
R., GROSS, R., HANNA, R., RHODES, A. & GREEN, T. 2021. The Demand Response
Technology Cluster: Accelerating UK residential consumer engagement with
time-of-use tariffs, electric vehicles and smart meters via digital comparison
tools. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 139, 110701.
CHITCHYAN,
R. & BIRD, C. 2021. Bristol as a Smart Local Energy System of Systems:
Skills Case Study. Available at SSRN
3966236.
CHRISTIDIS,
P. & FOCAS, C. 2019. Factors affecting the uptake of hybrid and electric
vehicles in the European Union. Energies,
12, 3414.
CLANCY,
L., PALMER, S. & BLAKE, J. Developing and procuring London’s highway
infrastructure to enable an electric future.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering,
2018. Thomas Telford Ltd, 45-50.
CORR,
C. A. 2020. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and the “five stages” model in a sampling of
recent American textbooks. OMEGA-Journal
of Death and Dying, 82, 294-322.
CUMMINGS,
S., BRIDGMAN, T. & BROWN, K. G. 2016. Unfreezing change as three steps:
Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human relations, 69,
33-60.
DYATLOV,
S., DIDENKO, N., IVANOVA, E., SOSHNEVA, E. & KULIK, S. Prospects for
alternative energy sources in global energy sector. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science, 2020. IOP Publishing, 012014.
EISENBERG,
J. & ALAHAKONE, M. P. This purpose of this paper is to explain
Organisational Culture, analyze the culture of Singapore Refining Company as
well as to give recommendations on Organisational Culture Change and ending off
with the Kübler-Ross Change Curve Model on the possible behaviours displayed by
employees during change.
ELBANHAWY,
E. Y., DALTON, R., THOMPSON, E. M. & KOTTER, R. A heuristic approach for
investigating the integration of electric mobility charging infrastructure in
metropolitan areas: An agent-based modeling simulation. 2012 2nd International Symposium On
Environment Friendly Energies And Applications, 2012. IEEE, 74-86.
FERNÁNDEZ,
J. E. & ANGEL, M. 2020. Ecological city-states in an era of environmental
disaster: Security, climate change and biodiversity. Sustainability, 12,
5532.
FOSSEN,
B. L., MALLAPRAGADA, G. & DE, A. 2021. Impact of political television
advertisements on viewers’ response to subsequent advertisements. Marketing Science, 40, 305-324.
GIELEN,
D., GORINI, R., WAGNER, N., LEME, R., GUTIERREZ, L., PRAKASH, G., ASMELASH, E.,
JANEIRO, L., GALLINA, G. & VALE, G. 2019. Global energy transformation: a
roadmap to 2050.
GRENIER,
A. & PAGE, S. 2012. The impact of electrified transport on local grid
infrastructure: A comparison between electric cars and light rail. Energy policy, 49, 355-364.
HALL,
D., MOULTAK, M. & LUTSEY, N. 2017. Electric Vehicle Capitals of the World. ICCT White Paper.
HARVEY,
H., ORVIS, R. & RISSMAN, J. 2018. Designing
climate solutions: a policy guide for low-carbon energy, Island Press.
HODSON,
M. & MARVIN, S. 2013. Low carbon
nation?, Routledge.
HUFFINGTON,
C., JAMES, K. & ARMSTRONG, D. 2018. What is the emotional cost of
distributed leadership? Working below the
surface. Routledge.
JIN,
L. & SLOWIK, P. 2017. Literature review of electric vehicle consumer
awareness and outreach activities. International
Council on Clean Transportation. Available frominternet: https://www. theicct. org/sites/default/files/publications/Consumer-EV-Awareness_ICCT_Working-Paper_23032017_vF.
pdf.
KHAN,
M. 2021. A critical analysis of Elon Musk’s leadership in Tesla motors. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 1-10.
KHAN,
M. S., SENTOSA, I. & SALMAN, F. 2018. Exploring the role of
transformational leadership in human capital effectiveness: Empirical evidence
from the Malaysian healthcare sector. World
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development.
KLEY,
F., WIETSCHEL, M. & DALLINGER, D. 2012. Evaluation of European electric
vehicle support schemes. Paving the Road
to Sustainable Transport. New York: Routledge, 75-95.
KWAN,
P. 2020. Is transformational leadership theory passé? Revisiting the
integrative effect of instructional leadership and transformational leadership
on student outcomes. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 56,
321-349.
LACERDA,
J. S. 2019. Linking scientific knowledge and technological change: Lessons from
wind turbine evolution and innovation. Energy
Research & Social Science, 50,
92-105.
LEE,
N. R. & KOTLER, P. 2011. Social
marketing: Influencing behaviors for good, Sage Publications.
LEGERE,
A. & KANG, J. 2020. The role of self-concept in shaping sustainable
consumption: A model of slow fashion. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 258,
120699.
LEURENT,
F. & WINDISCH, E. 2011. Triggering the development of electric mobility: a
review of public policies. European
Transport Research Review, 3,
221-235.
LUTHANS,
F. & AVOLIO, B. J. 2003. Authentic leadership development. Positive organizational scholarship, 241, 258.
MAGHIRANG,
R. G. 2019. Urban Air Quality. Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improving Air Quality. CRC Press.
MANNING,
P. K. 2001. Technology’s ways: Information technology, crime analysis and the
rationalizing of policing. Criminal
Justice, 1, 83-103.
MATZ,
S. C., APPEL, R. E. & KOSINSKI, M. 2020. Privacy in the age of
psychological targeting. Current opinion
in psychology, 31, 116-121.
MCALEESE,
I., CREED, A. & ZUTSHI, A. 2013. A response to critique of the refreeze
step in Lewin’s model of organizational change from the viewpoint of
organizational behavior. International
Journal of the Academy of Organizational Behavior Management, 104-124.
MERGEL,
I., EDELMANN, N. & HAUG, N. 2019. Defining digital transformation: Results
from expert interviews. Government
information quarterly, 36,
101385.
METZNER,
M., BICKEL, B., MAYR, A. & FRANKE, J. Simulation-Assisted Method for
Evaluating Innovative Production Technologies for Electric Traction
Motors. 2018 8th International Electric
Drives Production Conference (EDPC), 2018. IEEE, 1-5.
MILOVANOFF,
A., POSEN, I. D. & MACLEAN, H. L. 2020. Electrification of light-duty
vehicle fleet alone will not meet mitigation targets. Nature Climate Change, 10,
1102-1107.
MISRA,
B. B., LANGEFELD, C., OLIVIER, M. & COX, L. A. 2019. Integrated omics:
tools, advances and future approaches. Journal
of molecular endocrinology, 62,
R21-R45.
MOON,
S.-J. 2021. Effect of consumer environmental propensity and innovative
propensity on intention to purchase electric vehicles: applying an extended
theory of planned behavior. International
Journal of Sustainable Transportation,
1-15.
MORTON,
C., ANABLE, J., YEBOAH, G. & COTTRILL, C. 2018. The spatial pattern of
demand in the early market for electric vehicles: Evidence from the United
Kingdom. Journal of Transport Geography,
72, 119-130.
MOSER,
S. C. 2010. Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and
future directions. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 31-53.
MURALIDHARAN,
E. & PATHAK, S. 2019. Consequences of cultural leadership styles for social
entrepreneurship: a theoretical framework. Sustainability,
11, 965.
MYRICKS,
S. P. 2021. Relationships Between
Perceived Leaders’ Transformational Leadership, Employees’ Core
Self-Evaluations, and Employee Outcomes. Grand Canyon University.
NAUMAN,
S., MUSAWIR, A. U., MUNIR, H. & RASHEED, I. 2021. Enhancing the impact of
transformational leadership and team-building on project success: the
moderating role of empowerment climate. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
OFORI,
G. 2008. Leadership for future construction industry: Agenda for authentic
leadership. International Journal of
Project Management, 26, 620-630.
PANCHAL,
C., STEGEN, S. & LU, J. 2018. Review of static and dynamic wireless
electric vehicle charging system. Engineering
science and technology, an international journal, 21, 922-937.
PRALAT,
D. 2021. Organizational Leaders’ Perceptions
of Multigenerational Learning: A Phenomenological Study. University of
Phoenix.
RAHMAN,
S. U. & LUOMALA, H. 2021. Demystifying horizontal/vertical cultural
difference in green consumption: A cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
33, 543-558.
REQUARDT,
J.-G. 2020. Importance of culture,
personality and environmental awareness in automotive purchasing behavior.
Hannover: Institutionelles Repositorium der Leibniz Universität Hannover.
ROJO,
J., EVERETT, B., RAMJAN, L. M., HUNT, L. & SALAMONSON, Y. 2020. Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions as the explanatory framework for performance issues during
clinical placement: A mixed methods study. Nurse
education today, 94, 104581.
ROWE,
K., SHILBURY, D., FERKINS, L. & HINCKSON, E. 2013. Sport development and
physical activity promotion: An integrated model to enhance collaboration and
understanding. Sport management review,
16, 364-377.
ROZENES,
S., VITNER, G. & SPRAGGETT, S. 2006. Project control: literature review. Project management journal, 37, 5-14.
SAFE,
A. D. B. 2021. AI Case Studies: Potential for Human Health, Space Exploration
and Colonisation and a Proposed Superimposition of the Kubler-Ross Change Curve
on the Hype Cycle.
SCHOCK,
A.-K., GRUBER, F. M., SCHERNDL, T. & ORTNER, T. M. 2019. Tempering agency
with communion increases women’s leadership emergence in all-women groups:
Evidence for role congruity theory in a field setting. The Leadership Quarterly, 30,
189-198.
SCHWARZ,
E. C. 2019. Human vs. Machine: A Framework of Responsibilities and Duties of
Transnational Corporations for Respecting Human Rights in the Use of Artificial
Intelligence. Colum. J. Transnat’l L.,
58, 232.
SELEZNYOV,
S., GOEI, S. L. & EHREN, M. 2021. International policy borrowing and the
case of Japanese Lesson Study: culture and its impact on implementation and
adaptation. Professional Development in
Education, 1-15.
SHAFIE,
S. H. M. & MAHMUD, M. 2020. Urban air pollutant from motor vehicle
emissions in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Aerosol
and Air Quality Research, 20.
SHAW,
S. & BUNCE, L. 2015. Electrifying London: connecting with mainstream
markets. E-Mobility in Europe.
Springer.
SHRIVASTAVA,
P., SMITH, M. S., O’BRIEN, K. & ZSOLNAI, L. 2020. Transforming
sustainability science to generate positive social and environmental change
globally. One Earth, 2, 329-340.
SKOK,
W. & BAKER, S. 2018. Evaluating the impact of Uber on London’s taxi
service: A strategic review. Knowledge
and Process Management, 25,
232-246.
SOVACOOL,
B. K., ABRAHAMSE, W., ZHANG, L. & REN, J. 2019a. Pleasure or profit?
Surveying the purchasing intentions of potential electric vehicle adopters in
China. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 124, 69-81.
SOVACOOL,
B. K., KESTER, J., NOEL, L. & DE RUBENS, G. Z. 2019b. Income, political
affiliation, urbanism and geography in stated preferences for electric vehicles
(EVs) and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies in Northern Europe. Journal of Transport Geography, 78, 214-229.
STEWART,
G. L., COURTRIGHT, S. H. & MANZ, C. C. 2019. Self-leadership: A paradoxical
core of organizational behavior. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 47-67.
STREMERSCH,
S., CAMACHO, N., KEKO, E. & WUYTS, S. 2021. Grassroots innovation success:
The role of self-determination and leadership style. International Journal of Research in Marketing.
SUOMELA,
J. 2019. People and Change: Change Management from a People Perspective.
SURESH,
S., RENUKAPPA, S., ABDUL-AZIZ, A.-R., PALOO, Y. & JALLOW, H. 2020.
Developments in the UK road transport from a smart cities perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management.
VENKATESWARAN,
R. T. & OJHA, A. K. 2019. Abandon Hofstede-based research? Not yet! A
perspective from the philosophy of the social sciences. Asia Pacific Business Review, 25, 413-434.
VIAL,
G. 2019. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The journal of strategic information
systems, 28, 118-144.
VORONKOVA,
O. Y., MELNIK, M. V., NIKITOCHKINA, Y. V., TCHUYKOVA, N. M., DAVIDYANTS, A. A.
& TITOVA, S. V. 2020. Corporate social responsibility of business as a
factor of regional development. Entrepreneurship
and Sustainability Issues, 7,
2170.
WANG,
D., WALDMAN, D. A. & ZHANG, Z. 2014. A meta-analysis of shared leadership
and team effectiveness. Journal of
applied psychology, 99, 181.
WANG,
S., WANG, J., LI, J., WANG, J. & LIANG, L. 2018. Policy implications for
promoting the adoption of electric vehicles: do consumer’s knowledge, perceived
risk and financial incentive policy matter? Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 117, 58-69.
WEN,
T. B., THERESA, C., KELANA, B. W. Y., OTHMAN, R. & SYED, O. R. 2019.
Leadership Styles in Influencing Employees’ Job Performances.„. International Journal of Academic Research
in Business and Social Sciences, 9,
55-65.
WILDAVSKY,
A., SWEDLOW, B., COYLE, D., ELLIS, R., KAGAN, R. & RANNEY, A. 2018. A
cultural theory of leadership. Cultural
Analysis. Routledge.
WIRGES,
J., LINDER, S. & KESSLER, A. 2012. Modelling the development of a regional
charging infrastructure for electric vehicles in time and space. European Journal of Transport and
Infrastructure Research, 12.
WONG,
K. F. E. & CHENG, C. 2020. The turnover intention–behaviour link: a
culture‐moderated meta‐analysis. Journal
of Management Studies, 57,
1174-1216.
XIA,
D., LI, Y., HE, Y., ZHANG, T., WANG, Y. & GU, J. 2019. Exploring the role
of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear
energy. Energy Policy, 132, 208-215.
ZHENG,
J., MEHNDIRATTA, S., GUO, J. Y. & LIU, Z. 2012. Strategic policies and
demonstration program of electric vehicle in China. Transport Policy, 19,
17-25.
ZHONGMING,
Z., LINONG, L., WANGQIANG, Z. & WEI, L. 2017. 2017 Report to
Parliament–Summary and recommendations.