Strategic alliances in a town centre : Stakeholder’s perceptions of property owner’s role

In order for town centres to manage increased competition in retailing, co-operation between stakeholders in a strategic alliance has become more important. A typical set of stakeholders in a strategic alliance for strengthening retailingare retailers, local authorities and property owners. The roles of retailer’sand local authorities’ are well researched. However, the role of property owners is not. The aim of this paper seeks to unfold the role of property owners in a strategic alliance. This is a case study of a medium-sized town in which semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders were conducted. In the chosen town there is a TCM alliance co-operation at work. The above mentioned stakeholders are possible members in an alliance. The case studied shows a fragmented property owner market with no dominant property owner, as it is in many medium-sized towns. Our study shows that many stakeholders look at the role of property owners as crucial for town centre development. However, property owners do not see that they can significantly contribute to or benefit from the development.The main reasons for this opinion are that they consider themselves as not having enough resources or the capability to influence the town development.

Lessons learned from stakeholders in a facilitation intervention targeting neonatal health in Quang Ninh province, Vietnam

BACKGROUND: In northern Vietnam the Neonatal health - Knowledge Into Practice (NeoKIP, Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44599712) trial has evaluated facilitation as a knowledge translation intervention to improve neonatal survival. The results demonstrated that intervention sites, each having an assigned group including local stakeholders supported by a facilitator, lowered the neonatal mortality rate by 50% during the last intervention year compared with control sites. This process evaluation was conducted to identify and describe mechanisms of the NeoKIP intervention based on experiences of facilitators and intervention group members. METHODS: Four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with all facilitators at different occasions and 12 FGDs with 6 intervention groups at 2 occasions. Fifteen FGDs were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes and 17 sub-themes emerged from the 3 FGDs with facilitators, and 5 themes and 18 sub-themes were identified from the 12 FGDs with the intervention groups mirroring the process of, and the barriers to, the intervention. Facilitators and intervention group members concurred that having groups representing various organisations was beneficial. Facilitators were considered important in assembling the groups. The facilitators functioned best if coming from the same geographical area as the groups and if they were able to come to terms with the chair of the groups. However, the facilitators' lack of health knowledge was regarded as a deficit for assisting the groups' assignments. FGD participants experienced the NeoKIP intervention to have impact on the knowledge and behaviour of both intervention group members and the general public, however, they found that the intervention was a slow and time-consuming process. Perceived facilitation barriers were lack of money, inadequate support, and the function of the intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative process evaluation contributes to explain the improved neonatal survival and why this occurred after a latent period in the NeoKIP project. The used knowledge translation intervention, where facilitators supported multi-stakeholder coalitions with the mandate to impact upon attitudes and behaviour in the communes, has low costs and potential for being scaled-up within existing healthcare systems.