A Discussion of Globalization Theories - Through International Consumer Perceptions

Globalization has developed more and more within the business world as well as private life during the last decades. Globalization has influenced the way companies are conducting business and their approach towards the consumers which can have an influence on their way of purchasing. Consumers nowadays have more than ever the possibility to get involved and gather experiences from abroad, as well as companies are taking advantage of this globalization. Within this thesis the following question will be discussed: Do consumers see the value companies try to create for them with an identical offer the same way in different markets? This idea is based on Theodore Levitt’s theory of globalization which comprises standardization of an offer since consumer needs are homogenizing globally. Douglas & Wind instead state that segmentation with adaptations is necessary to fulfill all consumer needs. Within this elaboration the question whether standardization is accepted and liked by the consumers is discussed and analyzed by including an empirical research. This research is based on Zeithaml’s model of the Perceived Quality Components, which was the fundamental base behind formulating the survey questions. These were submitted in Germany, the Republic of Ireland and Sweden to be able to discuss and visualize how the consumers of these different markets perceive different aspects of a company’s offer. One particular company, which is seen as doing business globally, was chosen as a test object. Based on the test object Lidl - which consumers were questioned about in the survey - it was possible to conduct a comparison of consumers’ general expectations against components of Lidl’s offer such as price, weekly specials, product range, etc. where differences and similarities between the three countries of Lidl’s fulfillment of these expectations were achieved. They were analyzed to discover to which extent globalization is present. Resulting from the comparison it was concluded that nowadays segmentation is important but developing with time globalization seems to increase in significance. Recommendations for further research about topics which were omitted due to limited resources are presented.

Clinical interventions, implementation interventions, and the potential greyness in between - a discussion paper

Background: There is increasing awareness that regardless of the proven value of clinical interventions, the use of effective strategies to implement such interventions into clinical practice is necessary to ensure that patients receive the benefits. However, there is often confusion between what is the clinical intervention and what is the implementation intervention. This may be caused by a lack of conceptual clarity between 'intervention' and 'implementation', yet at other times by ambiguity in application. We suggest that both the scientific and the clinical communities would benefit from greater clarity; therefore, in this paper, we address the concepts of intervention and implementation, primarily as in clinical interventions and implementation interventions, and explore the grey area in between. Discussion: To begin, we consider the similarities, differences and potential greyness between clinical interventions and implementation interventions through an overview of concepts. This is illustrated with reference to two examples of clinical interventions and implementation intervention studies, including the potential ambiguity in between. We then discuss strategies to explore the hybridity of clinical-implementation intervention studies, including the role of theories, frameworks, models, and reporting guidelines that can be applied to help clarify the clinical and implementation intervention, respectively. Conclusion: Semantics provide opportunities for improved precision in depicting what is 'intervention' and what is 'implementation' in health care research. Further, attention to study design, the use of theory, and adoption of reporting guidelines can assist in distinguishing between the clinical intervention and the implementation intervention. However, certain aspects may remain unclear in analyses of hybrid studies of clinical and implementation interventions. Recognizing this potential greyness can inform further discourse.