Suchergebnisse

In the last two decades, local governments have increasingly engaged in energy conservation and sustainability programs and policy. However, the benefits of these policies (i.e., cleaner air, less congestion, etc.) are often perceived as dispersed and costly. As such, localities consider collaborating with one another. However, decisions to collaborate pose considerable risks that can be magnified or mitigated by the mechanisms through which collaboration occurs. We investigate decisions to engage in formal and informal collaboration in the area of energy efficiency and conservation as a response to collaboration risks.

PurposeThis paper proposes an instrument to measure the extent of collaboration in a supply chain consisting of two members, suppliers and retailers.Design/methodology/approachThe proposed model for collaboration incorporates collaborative practices in information sharing, decision synchronisation and incentive alignment. A collaboration index is introduced to measure the level of collaborative practices. A survey of companies in New Zealand was conducted to obtain data to test and evaluate the collaboration index.FindingsThe survey results confirmed the reliability and validity of the proposed collaboration index measure for measuring collaboration. The findings also showed that the collaboration index was positively associated with operational performance.Research limitations/implicationsFuture research could consider larger sample sizes and cover other industry types.Practical implicationsSupply chain participants will be able to measure the extent of their collaboration and seek improvement in their performance.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the literature by introducing a new index for measuring the extent of supply chain collaboration. This measure can be used by any participant (member) in a supply chain to identify the level of collaboration and seek improvement.

Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- List of Contributors -- Acknowledgements -- PART I INTRODUCTION -- 1 When Scientists, Scholars, Clinicians, Physicians and Patients Meet -- 2 The Evolution of Collaborations in Health Sciences Measured by Co-authorship -- PART II COLLABORATION IN HEALTH RESEARCH -- 3 From Virus to Vaccine: Projectification of Science in the VIRGO Consortium -- 4 Who Wants to Collaborate with Social Scientists? Biomedical and Clinical Scientists' Perceptions of Social Science -- 5 Credible to Collaborators Themselves: How Corporations and Trade Associations Made Trans Fats into a Problem -- PART III COLLABORATIVE HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURES -- 6 The Compound Collaborations of Clinical Registries -- 7 Scripted Collaboration: Digitalisation of Care for Children -- PART IV COLLABORATION IN HEALTH CARE -- 8 Shifting Collaborations and the Quest for Legitimacy: Observation of Regenerative Medicine Research in Japan -- 9 Boundary-Spanning Engagements on a Neonatal Ward: Reflections on a Collaborative Entanglement between Clinicians and a Researcher -- 10 Health Care Collaboration Between Patients and Physicians -- PART V CONCLUSION -- 11 The Health of Collaborations: A Reflection

We introduce two novel ways to capture the impact benefits two countries receive from collaborations.
For both indicators we compare the value of a specific collaboration with the value of average collaborations for each of the countries. As we restrict our analysis to only two-country collaborations and calculate the values for each scientific field individually, many of the problems
introduced by former attempts of collaboration indicators dissipate. Additional to a mean based indicator (Citation Benefit) we introduce an International Citation Share indicator that
measures the share of international citations on an item basis. By aggregating and correlating
these indicators we show that two different factors of collaboration return, highly cited publications and a general domestic/international bias, i.e. the tendency of a publication to be cited more in the originating country, can be measured exclusively by these two indicators. These
approaches open up the field to a new kind of deep analysis of scientific collaborations. (author's abstract)

Collaboration is a substantive idea repeatedly discussed in health care circles. The benefits are well validated. Yet collaboration is seldom practiced. So what is the problem? The lack of a shared definition is one barrier. Additionally, the complexity of collaboration and the skills required to facilitate the process are formidable. Much of the literature on collaboration describes what it should look like as an outcome, but little is written describing how to approach the developmental process of collaboration. In an attempt to remedy the all too familiar riddle of matching ends with means, this article offers key lessons to bridge the discourse on collaboration with the practice of collaboration. These lessons can benefit clinical nurse managers and all nurses who operate in an organizational setting that requires complex problem solving.

Collaborations, which bring organizations together in a community to implement or improve an innovative program or change a policy or procedure, have become a central strategy for promoting community change. Funders require them; nonprofits see them as useful solutions to their problems of declining resources and increasing complexity (including multicultural issues); and communities demand them as evidence that key stakeholders are coming together to address problems of mutual concern. Moreover, no matter how powerful the concept, the implementation of community collaborations can usually be improved. The evaluation of collaborations can provide evidence of outcome and impact, and can help improve the process by which the collaboration operates. This book was developed by the nonprofit Human Interaction Research Institute,with funding support from the Federal Center for Mental Health Services, in connection with a series of evaluations of mental health, youth violence prevention and arts grant-making programs (supported by both the Federal government and foundations)-all of which involved collaborations as a central mechanism. It is the first comprehensive treatment of theoretical, research, and practice issues concerning the evaluation of collaborations, and includes an extensive set of forms that can be adapted for this purpose. Chapter authors are leaders in both evaluation and community collaboration work.

Collaboration is problematic in the public sector, yet many smart city theorists advocate relationships fully dependent upon collaboration to address the intense complexity encountered by city governments and achieve city objectives of quality of life, efficiency, effectiveness, and economic and environmental sustainability. Skeptical, we inductively drew together the widely dispersed theoretical tenets of smart city collaboration into a framework of collaborative relationships and tested this framework using secondary evidence as to practice in greater Amsterdam. Mostly authentic collaborative relationships were explicated. Theory is extended by clarifying the roles of actors, especially the role of city government as actor and steward of the collaborative ecosystem. Future research should unpack the factors that impact the sustainability of smart city collaborations.

IASSIST Collaboration In Africa

Richard W. Edwards: International Monetary Collaboration. Transnational Publishers, Dobbs Ferry/New York 1985 (Vertrieb für Europa: Bowker Publishing Company, Epping/Essex), 822 Seiten, 113,50 Dollar

"Collaboration-based approaches to healthcare improvement attract much attention. They involve networks of people coming together to cooperate around a common interest, with shared goals of improving care and mutual learning. Longstanding examples of collaborative approaches have been associated with some success in improving outcomes and reducing harm. The evidence for their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, however, remains inconsistent and contingent on the circumstances in which they are deployed and how they are used for what purpose. Several models for collaboration have been developed, varying in structure, format, and balance between internal leadership and external control. We focus on two approaches: quality improvement collaboratives and communities of practice. We explore evidence of their impact on health outcomes, and evidence about how best to organise and implement collaboration-based approaches. Using examples of more and less successful collaborations, we offer guidance on the key challenges involved in using collaboration-based approaches to improve healthcare"--

Collaboration-based approaches to healthcare improvement attract much attention. They involve networks of people coming together to cooperate around a common interest, with shared goals of improving care and mutual learning. Longstanding examples of collaborative approaches have been associated with some success in improving outcomes and reducing harm. The evidence for their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, however, remains inconsistent and contingent on the circumstances in which they are deployed and how they are used for what purpose. Several models for collaboration have been developed, varying in structure, format, and balance between internal leadership and external control. The authors focus on two approaches: quality improvement collaboratives and communities of practice. They explore evidence of their impact on health outcomes, and evidence about how best to organise and implement collaboration-based approaches. Using examples of more and less successful collaborations, they offer guidance on the key challenges involved in using collaboration-based approaches to improve healthcare. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.