Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
External Relationships (external + relationships)
Selected AbstractsHow fundraising is carried out in US nonprofit organisationsINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & VOLUNTARY SECTOR MARKETING, Issue 4 2002Mark Hager A substantial number of nonprofit organisations in the USA report inflows of charitable contributions or grants without expenditures allocated to fundraising costs. This observation raises questions about how fundraising is carried out. Based on a survey of US charities, the paper observes that nonprofit organisations use a range of internal capacities and external relationships to conduct their fundraising. The use of staff members dedicated to fundraising is common, but much fundraising is still carried out by executive directors, volunteers and board members. Also, a substantial number of organisations engage external entities, including federated campaigns, support organisations and professional fundraising firms to generate contributions. Copyright © 2002 Henry Stewart Publications [source] Global Health Governance: Commission on Social Determinants of Health and the Imperative for ChangeTHE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS, Issue 3 2010Ruth Bell In May 2009 the World Health Assembly passed a resolution on reducing health inequities through action on the social determinants of health, based on the work of the global Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2005,2008. The Commission's genesis and findings raise some important questions for global health governance. We draw out some of the essential elements, themes, and mechanisms that shaped the Commission. We start by examining the evolving nature of global health and the Commission's foundational inspiration , the universal pattern of health inequity and the imperative, driven by a sense of social justice, to make better and more equal health a global goal. We look at how the Commission was established, how it was structured internally, and how it developed external relationships , with the World Health Organization, with global networks of academics and practitioners, with country governments eager to spearhead action on health equity, and with civil society. We outline the Commission's recommendations as they relate to the architecture of global health governance. Finally, we look at how the Commission is catalyzing a movement to bring social determinants of health to the forefront of international and national policy discourse. [source] The Relative Importance of Interfirm Relationships and Knowledge Transfer for New Product Development Success,THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 2 2007Mette Praest Knudsen The relationship and network literature has primarily focused on particular partner types, for example, buyer,supplier relationships or competitor interaction. This article explores the nature and relative importance of different types of interfirm relationships for new product development (NPD) success. The underlying premise of the study is that not only the type of interfirm relationships but also the combination of relationships are important for NPD performance. The interaction with a specific type of partner is expected to influence innovative performance by means of appropriate knowledge transfer. Varying needs for external knowledge, and thus types of relationships, are observed depending on the particular stages in the NPD process, the character of the knowledge base of the firm, and the industrial conditions. The absorption of external knowledge is discussed using the degree of redundancy in knowledge, which is defined as the degree of overlap in the knowledge base of the sender and the recipient of knowledge. Hence, the degree of redundancy has direct implications for the ease and, hence, use of knowledge shared with an external partner. The article is based on data from the Know for Innovation survey on innovative activities among European firms, which was carried out in 2000 in seven European countries covering five industries. The article explores the extent of use of external relationships in collaborative product development and finds that customers are involved more frequently in joint development efforts. Second, the industry association of the most important relationship is studied, and the results show that firms tend to partner with firms from their own industry. The danger in this approach is that firms from their own industry tend to contribute similar knowledge, which ultimately may endanger the creation of new knowledge and therefore more radical product developments. The analyses combine the finding that relationships with customers are used most frequently at both early and late stages of the product development process, with a second and more contradictory finding that at the same time customer relationships have a negative impact on innovative success. Moreover, the combination of customers, with both universities and competitors, has a significant negative effect on innovative performance. The potential causes of this apparent paradox can be narrowed down to two: (1) the average customer may be unable to articulate needs for advanced technology-based products; and (2) the average customer may be unable to conceptualize ideas beyond the realm of his or her own experience. Based on this evidence the article cautions product development managers to think explicitly about what certain customers can contribute with and, more importantly, to match this contribution directly with their own sense of what direction product development should go in the future. Finally, the role of complementary as well as supplementary knowledge is investigated for innovative success finding that sharing of supplementary knowledge with external partners in NPD leads to a positive effect on innovative performance. The article is concluded by a discussion of the implication of this finding for building knowledge within the firm and for selecting external partners for NPD. [source] Interfirm Modularity and Its Implications for Product Development,THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2005Nancy Staudenmayer Industries characterized by interfirm modularity, in which the component products of different firms work together to create a system, are becoming increasingly widespread. In such industries, the existence of a common architecture enables consumers to mix and match the products of different firms. Industries ranging from stereos, cameras, and bicycles to computers, printing, and wireless services are now characterized by interfirm modularity. While the increasing presence of this context has been documented, the implications for the product development process remain underdeveloped. For the present study, in-depth field-based case studies of seven firms experiencing an environment of interfirm modularity were conducted in order to deepen understanding of this important phenomenon. What unique challenges did this context pose and why? What solutions did firms experiment with, and which seemed to work? Based on an inductive process of data analysis from these case studies, three primary categories of challenges raised by this environment were identified. First, firms were frustrated at their lack of control over the definition of their own products. The set of features and functions in products were constrained to a great extent by an architecture that the firm did not control. Second, while an environment of interfirm modularity should in theory eliminate interdependencies among firms since interfaces between products are defined ex-ante, the present study found, ironically, that interdependencies were ubiquitous. Interdependencies continually emerged throughout the product development process, despite efforts to limit them. Third, firms found that the quantity and variegated nature of external relationships made their management exceedingly difficult. The sheer complexity was daunting, given both the size of the external network as well as the number of ties per external collaborator. Partners with whom control over the architecture was shared often had divergent interests,or at least not fully convergent interests. The solutions to these challenges were creative and in many cases counter to established wisdom. For instance, research has suggested many ways for a firm to influence architectural standards. While the firms in the present sample followed some of this advice, they also focused on a more neglected aspect of architecture,the compliance and testing standards that accompany modules and interfaces. By concentrating their efforts in a different area, even smaller firms in this sample were able to have some influence. Instead of focusing on the elimination of interdependencies, it was found that firms benefited from concentrating on the management of interdependencies as they emerged. Finally, while layers of management and "bureaucracy" are often viewed as unproductive, these firms found that adding structure, through positions such as Relationship Manager, was highly beneficial in handling the coordination and control of a wide range of external relationships. [source] | ||||||||||