Search results

Policymakers implementing pay-for-performance schemes within general practice should seek to design schemes which work with rather than against the professional values and goals of general practitioners. In this way, schemes are more likely to enhance the practitioners' engagement. The purpose of this paper is to show how this was done in two case studies of pay-for-performance design and present the lessons from this study for policymakers.

A Most Similar Systems collective case study of the design of two pay-for-performance schemes for general practitioners, the United Kingdom's Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) and the New Zealand’s Performance Management Programme (PMP) was undertaken, involving 26 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, documentary and literature analysis.

Innovation in processes was found in both case studies which facilitated engagement by general practitioners in the formulation and implementation of these schemes. These were careful selection of highly skilled design teams, use of principle-based negotiation techniques and academic mediation of indicator selection. In addition, in England the majority of members in the combined QOF design team were general practitioners. The evidence from these two case studies reinforces approaches to scheme design which seek to harness rather than challenge medical professional values and which maximise the participation of general practitioners in the design process. Achieving funder/practitioner collaboration should be a key goal in the policymaking process.

Pay-for-performance scheme designers can improve their ability to engage general practitioners in scheme design and scheme uptake by adopting approaches which actively engage general practitioners as designers and users of such schemes.

This study compares two contemporaneous processes of pay-for-performance scheme design and implementation in similar systems of general practice funding and delivery at the national level, offering a rare quasi-experimental opportunity for learning lessons from comparative analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to review a systemic organizational change initiative for improving collaboration, innovation and value creation at a global telecom.

Based on a comprehensive internal assessment Telenor identified core issues and challenges in supporting collaboration after several years of dramatic global expansion. From the assessment the change leaders built a business case for launching a systemic change initiative. They chose a collaboration and partnering approach with multiple management groups, with an emphasis on networks and innovation. A two‐year roadmap was developed to build three meta capabilities in collaborative technologies, social innovation and network behaviors and new business thinking.

The case study is a mid‐point assessment of how the implementation is working. A small and smart approach for introducing new ideas and learning innovations into receptive and influential groups within Telenor, new ways of working are taking hold quickly. The equal emphasis on bringing in social innovation such as communities of practice and introducing a next generation of management tools is effectively changing behaviors that are supported by new collaborative technologies.

Collaboration and knowledge sharing at Telenor is seen equally as a technology issue, a social innovation and behavior issue and a business issue. Many change efforts around knowledge sharing and collaboration emphasize technology or behaviors, but rarely address both effectively. This approach is more systemic than most because it not only addresses these two arenas, but also puts an unusually high emphasis on educating people into new business fundamentals such as the importance of intangible value and the power of networks.

The purpose of this paper is to provide examples of evaluating value‐creating networks and to address the organizational issues and challenges of a network orientation.

Value network analysis was first developed in 1993 and was adapted in 1997 for intangible asset management. It has been applied from shopfloor work groups to business webs and economic regions. It draws from a theory base of living systems, knowledge management, complexity theory, and intangible asset management.

The paper provides an overview of a value network analysis method and examples and insights from its practical application.

The paper does not provide a detailed comparative analysis with social network analysis, but rather looks forward to where interest in social networks may evolve into continuing concentration on value‐creating networks.

Value network analysis provides an opportunity to overcome the “split” in business management practices, where human interactions and relationships reside in one world of models and practices, and business processes and transactions reside in another. The engineering approaches of the last two decades have focused on driving out variation, with the unanticipated consequence of stifling organizational agility and innovation. The more human‐centric orientation of the value network perspective brings these two worlds together in a powerful, simple, and pragmatic way to model business activities.

The paper augments and expands the growing application of social or organizational network analysis by pointing to a next generation of analysis and analytics that can support organizational effectiveness. The value network analysis method fills a gap between network theory and practical application for managers, executives, analysts, and researchers.

The study of the diffusion of innovations into libraries has become a cottage industry of sorts, as libraries have always provided a fascinating test-bed of nonprofit institutions attempting improvement through the use of new policies, practices, and assorted apparatus (Malinconico, 1997). For example, Paul Sturges (1996) has focused on the evolution of public library services over the course of 70 years across England, while Verna Pungitore (1995) presented the development of standardization of library planning policies in contemporary America. For the past several decades, however, the study of diffusion in libraries has tended to focus on the implementation of information technologies (e.g., Clayton, 1997; Tran, 2005; White, 2001) and their associated competencies (e.g., Marshall, 1990; Wildemuth, 1992), the improvements in performance associated with their use (e.g., Damanpour, 1985, 1988; Damanpour & Evan, 1984), and ways to manage resistance to technological changes within the library environment (e.g., Weiner, 2003).

AUGUR safety steps designed for maximum mobility and safety can be used in narrow gangways, behind counters or any places where space is at a premium. They are 13 ins wide and highly manoeuvrable and would be very useful in library stacks. The steps are pushed around on metal swivel castors which retract instantly when the first step is mounted locking them firmly to the floor by rubber safety domes on the four legs. Non‐slip treads in ribbed rubber provide an additional safety factor.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the measurement and the management of the dynamic aspects of intellectual capital through the use of causal mapping.

The paper details the methods utilized in a single in-depth case study of a network-based business model.

The paper illustrates how causal mapping can be used to understand how intellectual capital really works in the specific business context in which it is deployed. Moreover, exploiting the causal map as a platform for extracting a set of indicators can provide information on the length of the lag and the persistence of the effects of managerial actions. In addition, it can signal when and how to refine and update the causal map. The combination of these factors can potentially support the dynamic measurement and management of intellectual capital.

The paper presented has two main limitations. First, the use of a single case study to provide in-depth and rich data limits the generalizability of the observations. Second, the proposed approach has not been implemented in practice. Future research opportunities include interventionist-type case studies that put the causal mapping approach into practice.

The paper highlights the need to build causal maps to enhance the measurement and management of intellectual capital, which is dynamic in nature. As a consequence, this tool can be useful for monitoring the intangibles of companies and networks and to better understand the contribution their intellectual capital makes to the value creation process.

The paper openly questions the measurement of the fluid and dynamic aspects of intellectual capital. It proposes a tool for governing these aspects and it suggests that even the existing intellectual capital measurement systems can improve their usefulness by including these dimensions. So, a shift in intellectual capital measurement is prescribed.