99 resultados para Money resources


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

In two experiments we tested the prediction derived from Tversky and Kahneman's (1983) work on the causal conjunction fallacy that the strength of the causal connection between constituent events directly affects the magnitude of the causal conjunction fallacy. We also explored whether any effects of perceived causal strength were due to graded output from heuristic Type 1 reasoning processes or the result of analytic Type 2 reasoning processes. As predicted, Experiment 1 demonstrated that fallacy rates were higher for strongly than for weakly related conjunctions. Weakly related conjunctions in turn attracted higher rates of fallacious responding than did unrelated conjunctions. Experiment 2 showed that a concurrent memory load increased rates of fallacious responding for strongly related but not for weakly related conjunctions. We interpret these results as showing that manipulations of the strength of the perceived causal relationship between the conjuncts result in graded output from heuristic reasoning process and that additional mental resources are required to suppress strong heuristic output.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Within the context of New Public Management (NPM), successive UK governments have claimed that PFI projects provide more accountability, and arguably, more value for money (VFM) than conventional procurement for the public (HM Treasury 1995, 2000, 2003a and 2003b). However, recent empirical research in the UK on PFI has indicated its potential limitations for accountability and VFM (Broadbent, Gill and Laughlin, 2004; Edwards, Shaoul, Stafford and Arblaster, 2004; Shaoul, 2005; and Ismail and Pendlebury, 2006) albeit these are based on either published accounts or a limited number of key stakeholders. This paper attempts to partially redress this gap in the literature by presenting an interesting case of the impact of PFI on accountability and VFM in Northern Ireland's education sector. The findings of this research, based on forty two interviews with a wide range of key stakeholders, suggest that stakeholders have different and often conflicting expectations and the actual PFI accountability and VFM benefits are much more obfuscated than those claimed in Government publications.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

University Science Park incubators (USIs) have emerged as a means by which Government, academia and business can develop high technology business firms (spin out HTBFs) from initial conception through to becoming established small firms, which are ready to move beyond the Science Park confines. Although there is considerable literature on how USIs can be improved and developed there is a paucity of studies, which explore how lifecycle development within HTBFs in USIs can affect how they use the unique resources and opportunities of the USI. Moreover, there is a focus on single point in time studies, which do not adequately investigate the longitudinal dynamics of HTBF lifecycle development within USIs. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the longitudinal use of the unique resources of the USI by HTBFs at different lifecycle stages. The research methodology involved 18 HTBFs within two separate USIs. A series of longitudinal interviews and focus groups were conducted with HTBFs and USI staff over a 36-month period. NUD*IST software was used in developing the coding and analysis of transcripts. The results show that a HTBF's propensity to make effective use of the USI's resources and support increases as the lifecycle stage of the company increases and the small-firm searches for independence and autonomy. Therefore, further research is required to investigate the following two outstanding questions; firstly, which usage pattern is associated with the HTBF's ultimate success or failure in the marketplace? And secondly, are there any services missing from the observed array that the USI could provide to enhance the HTBF's degree of ultimate success? © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.