Search results

This paper aims to investigate the implications and impact from the implementation of European Working Time Directive (EWTD) compliant working patterns (the introduction of shifts) on doctors.

A qualitative, case study based research method was used. Data collection involved: the application of semi‐structured, open‐ended interviewing to elicit information based upon categories defined from the literature survey; follow‐up conversations with many interviewees; participant observation; thematic coding and analysis of the results.

Shifts are here to stay. All doctors interviewed acknowledged that, but there was a general feeling of minimal flexibility in the system. A recurrent theme when asked how things could be improved was to split‐up the week of night shifts into two shorter periods. Some doctors, particularly those working full‐time with small children, already split their weekends in order to spend time with their family.

The methodology applied was appropriate, generating ample data to facilitate discussion and from which to draw specific conclusions. A perceived limitation is the single case approach; however Remenyi argues this can be enough to add to the body of knowledge.

The research generated suggestions for how shifts could be scheduled to make them more palatable for those who work them. Specific recommendations for future research are made.

The research questions of the paper draw out the personal implications for doctors of their employers' adherence to the implementation of EWTD.

Reviews the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoints practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

In an age when the ways we have of communicating with each other are ever‐increasing, as is the speed of that interaction, how is it that many of the problems that face individuals and organizations stem from a lack of communication?

Provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to digest format.

AS we march towards the brave new world of computers and automation, the suzerainty of science and conforming communities, literature descends upon editorial desks in a flood. Every day brings its cascade of information, exhortation, instruction and advice. Much of it is useful, despite the otiose percentage which spins cocoons of words about a tiny larva of fact. The general effect of this daily conditioning is to suggest a future quite unlike the sort of world we have hitherto known, a mechanistic era emptied of normal human qualities.

Obviously such a fundamental change as this within an organisation has to be instituted in all branches over a short period of time. Ideally training needed to be completed in each branch two to three weeks before conversion; this allowed branch staff the remaining time to introduce the agents to the new forms and procedures. With only one Field Personnel and Training Officer responsible for training throughout the 62 branches, this posed a considerable problem.

While the open innovation concept proposed by Henry Chesbrough a decade ago has had some striking successes, the myriad options for engaging external partners can be daunting, so leaders need a guide for getting started that matches the needs of their firm. This paper aims to address this issue.

The paper identifies that innovation processes involve three stages during which the business model elements are conceived and elaborated: idea‐generation, idea‐development, and commercialization. The question for leaders is: “In which of the three stages could your growth efforts benefit from an infusion of external ideas and expertise?”

The open‐innovation approach does not require a company to replace all its current research and development (R&D) efforts. But it does change the primary question leaders should be asking to “How can my company create significantly more value by leveraging external partners to bring many more innovations to market?”

The article shows executives how they can systematically assess an innovation process, understand where new venture business models are weakest, and select the points at which open innovation could add some needed spark.

The article leads executives through two‐step process for introducing a customized open innovation program: step one, assess where your company's innovation process would benefit from external input by using five key questions; and step two, learn how to manage external relationships.

The purpose of this paper is to find out what exactly the term business model innovation encompasses and what type yields the best results.

IBM Consulting researchers first identified the main types of business model innovation, which can be used alone or in combination. They then compared these three types of business model innovation across 35 best practice cases.

The study found that all new business models can be classified into three types: innovations in industry models; in revenue models and in enterprise models. A key finding was that each type of business model innovation, with the right strategy and strong execution can generate success.

Researchers found that while network plays are being used by diverse companies in different industries and regions and of varying age, size and other characteristics, this tactic has been a particularly useful strategy for older companies.

The study found that best business model innovation strategies provide a strong fit between the competitive landscape for a particular industry and the organization's strengths, shortcomings and characteristics such as age and size.

To innovate, many high performing firms are collaborating beyond their organizations – with their extended networks of suppliers, customers, business partners and others. Such collaboration, however, is not easily accomplished. IBM Consulting offers a framework for managing these alliances – its ABCs of collaborative innovation – that can improve the chances of success. This paper aims to explore this framework.

IBM Consulting has recently completed a major study of innovation success and problems as perceived by top management. For example, they found that the strongest collaborators in a recent IBM study were also the strongest financial performers. This paper studies these firm's success factors.

To paper finds that to avoid the pitfalls of collaborative innovation, IBM Consulting's research and experience has determined that the key guiding principles are: alignment, boundaries and commitment, which they call the ABCs.

Alignment entails synchronizing the strategic vision and innovation goals with the implementation of these throughout the organization, focusing on collaboration both vertically and horizontally. Managing boundaries enables collaboration across organizations, establishing structures and processes regarding governance, operations and technology. Finally, an ongoing commitment is required to orchestrate and systematize collaboration for innovation throughout the organization and its extended enterprise over time.

The paper offers a useful top‐level review of the success factors for collaborative innovation.