48 resultados para public sector innovation
em CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK
Resumo:
In this paper, the issues that arise in multi-organisational collaborative groups (MOCGs) in the public sector are discussed and how a technology-based group support system (GSS) could assist individuals within these groups. MOCGs are commonly used in the public sector to find solutions to multifaceted social problems. Finding solutions for such problems is difficult because their scope is outside the boundary of a single government agency. The standard approach to solving such problems is collaborative involving a diverse range of stakeholders. Collaborative working can be advantageous but it also introduces its own pressures. Conflicts can arise due to the multiple contexts and goals of group members and the organisations that they represent. Trust, communication and a shared interface are crucial to making any significant progress. A GSS could support these elements.
Resumo:
The management of a public sector project is analysed using a model developed from systems theory. Linear responsibility analysis is used to identify the primary and key decision structure of the project and to generate quantitative data regarding differentiation and integration of the operating system, the managing system and the client/project team. The environmental context of the project is identified. Conclusions are drawn regarding the project organization structure's ability to cope with the prevailing environmental conditions. It is found that the complexity of the managing system imposed on the project was unable to achieve this and created serious deficiencies in the outcome of the project.
Resumo:
The article discusses various reports published within the issue, including one by Carmine Bianchi on understanding public sector from different levels and perspectives, one by Mauro Lo Tennero on the aspiration and structure of Sicily to enforce public policy, and one by Nuno Videira and colleagues on the use of group model building in the public sector to concur sustainable policies.
Resumo:
The Lifetime Homes (LTH) concept initiated in 1989 by the Helen Hamlyn Trust, and subsequently promoted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, emerged at a point when there was growing awareness of the decline of both private and public sector housing quality, especially in relation to floorspace standards (Karn & Sheridan, 1994). LTH were intended to offset the concerns of first, the house buying public of the appearance and affordability of homes suitable for successive generations, second, the private house building industry of the cost and marketability of incorporating 'inclusive' design features, and third, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), who had to balance cost constraints with addressing the needs of a growing number of households with older and/or disabled people. Approved Document Part M of the building regulations was extended in 1999, from public buildings to private dwellings, and currently requires that all new housing meet minimal 'visitability' criteria. Indeed, although the signs are that Part M will be incrementally extended to comprise LTH principles, the paper argues that in their existing form they are insufficient to act as a key component of the government's 'new agenda for British housing'. This paper therefore explores how they might usefully be expanded from an approach, largely based on compromise, to one that inspires innovative, flexible and inclusive house forms, which also challenge design conventions.
Resumo:
The overall objective of the research project has been to assess the impact of provider diversity on quality and innovation in the NHS. The specific research aims were to identify the differences in performance between non-profit Third Sector organisations, for-profit private enterprises, and incumbent public sector institutions within the NHS as providers of health care services, as well as the factors that affect the entry and growth of new private and Third Sector providers. The study used both qualitative and quantitative methods based on case studies of four Local Health Economies (LHEs). Qualitative methods included documentary analysis and interviews with key informants and managers of both commissioning and provider organisations. To provide a focus to the study, two tracer conditions were followed: orthopaedic surgery and home health care for frail older people. In the case of hospital inpatient care, data on patient characteristics were also collected from the HES database. The analysis of this data provided preliminary estimates of the effects of provider type on quality, controlling for client characteristics and case mix. In addition, a survey of patient experience in diverse provider organisations was analysed to compare the different dimensions of quality of provision of acute services between incumbent NHS organisations and new independent sector treatment centres. The research has shown that, in respect of inpatient hospital services, diverse providers supply health services of at least as good quality as traditional NHS providers, and that there is ample opportunity to expand their scale and scope as providers of services commissioned by the NHS. The research used patient experience survey data to investigate whether hospital ownership affects the quality of services reported by NHS patients in areas other than clinical quality. The raw survey data appear to show that private hospitals provide higher quality services than the public hospitals. However, further empirical analysis leads to a more nuanced understanding of the performance differences. Firstly, the analysis shows that each sector offers greater quality in certain specialties. Secondly, the analysis shows that differences in the quality of patients’ reported experience are mainly attributable to patient characteristics, the selection of patients into each type of hospital, and the characteristics of individual hospitals, rather than to hospital ownership as such. Controlling for such differences, NHS patients are on average likely to experience a similar quality of care in a public or privately-run hospital. Nevertheless, for specific groups of patients and for specific types of treatments, especially the more straightforward ones, the private sector provides an improved patient experience compared to the public sector. Elsewhere, the NHS continues to provide a high quality service and outperforms the private sector in a range of services and for a range of clients.
Resumo:
Construction procurement is complex and there is a very wide range of options available to procurers. Inappropriate choices about how to procure may limit practical opportunities for innovation. In particular, traditional approaches to construction procurement set up many obstacles for technology suppliers to provide innovative solutions. This is because they are often employed as sub-contractors simply to provide and install equipment to specifications developed before the point at which they become involved in a project. A research team at the University of Reading has developed a procurement framework that comprehensively defines the various options open to procurers in a more fine-grained way than has been known in the past. This enables informed decisions that can establish tailor-made procurement approaches that take into account the needs of specific clients. It enables risk and reward structures to be aligned so that contracts and payment mechanisms are aligned precisely with what a client seeks to achieve. This is not a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Rather, it is an approach that enables informed decisions about how to organize individual procurements that are appropriate to particular circumstances, acknowledging that they differ for each client and for each procurement exercise. Within this context, performance-based contracting (PBC) is explored in terms of the different ways in which technology suppliers within constructed facilities might be encouraged and rewarded for the kinds of innovation sought by the ultimate clients. Examples from various industry sectors are presented, from public sector and from private sector, with a commentary about what they sought to achieve and the extent to which they were successful. The lessons from these examples are presented in terms of feasibility in relation to financial issues, governance, economics, strategic issues, contractual issues and cash flow issues for clients and for contractors. Further background documents and more detailed readings are provided in an appendix for those who wish to find out more.
Resumo:
Competitive Dialogue (CD) is a new contract award procedure of the European Community (EC). It is set out in Article 29 of the 'Public Sector Directive' 2004/18/EC. Over the last decades, projects were becoming more and more complex, and the existing EC procedures were no longer suitable to procure those projects. The call for a new procedure resulted in CD. This paper describes how the Directive has been implemented into the laws of two member states: the UK and the Netherlands. In order to implement the Directive, both lawmakers have set up a new and distinct piece of legislation. In each case, large parts of the Directive’s content have been repeated ‘word for word’; only minor parts have been reworded and/or restructured. In the next part of the paper, the CD procedure is examined in different respects. First, an overview is given on the different EC contract award procedures (open, restricted, negotiated, CD) and awarding methods (lowest price and Most Economically Advantageous Tender, MEAT). Second, the applicability of CD is described: Among other limitations, CD can only be applied to public contracts for works, supplies, and services, and this scope of application is further restricted by the exclusion of certain contract types. One such exclusion concerns services concessions. This means that PPP contracts which are set up as services concessions cannot be awarded by CD. The last two parts of the paper pertain to the main features of the CD procedure – from ‘contract notice’ to ‘contract award’ – and the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. One advantage is that the dialogue allows the complexity of the project to be disentangled and clarified. Other advantages are the stimulation of innovation and creativity. These advantages are set against the procedure’s disadvantages, which include high transaction costs and a perceived hindrance of innovation (due to an ambiguity between transparency and fair competition). It is concluded that all advantages and disadvantages are related to one of three elements: communication, competition, and/or structure of the procedure. Further research is needed to find out how these elements are related.