Partnering with governments and other institutions:driving change in diabetes care

The human and material cost of type 2 diabetes is a cause of increasing concern for health professionals, representative organisations and governments worldwide. The scale of morbidity and mortality has led the United Nations to issue a resolution on diabetes, calling for national policies for prevention, treatment and care. There is clearly an urgent need for a concerted response from all interested parties at the community, national and international level to work towards the goals of the resolution and create effective, sustainable treatment models, care systems and prevention strategies. Action requires both a 'bottom-up' approach of public awareness campaigns and pressure from healthcare professionals, coupled with a 'top-down' drive for change, via partnerships with governments, third sector (non-governmental) organisations and other institutions. In this review, we examine how existing collaborative initiatives serve as examples for those seeking to implement change in health policy and practice in the quest to alleviate the health and economic burden of diabetes. Efforts are underway to provide continuous and comprehensive care models for those who already have type 2 diabetes; in some cases, national plans extend to prevention strategies in attempts to improve overall public health. In the spirit of partnership, collaborations with governments that incorporate sustainability, long-term goals and a holistic approach continue to be a driving force for change. It is now critical to maintain this momentum and use the growing body of compelling evidence to educate, inform and deliver a long-term, lasting impact on patient and public health worldwide. © 2007 The Authors.

The role of interoganisational tension and conflict in market creation practice

Markets exist within a world of constant exchanges which form the basis for changes and the creation of new markets. Therefore, it is important to research these exchanges. One of the areas in which market creation can be observed is interorganisational collaborations, as firms increasingly collaborate to create markets. In market creation practice, however, interorganisational tension and conflict can form from divergent approaches and vested interests of the partners. Interorganisational tension represents the opposing intentions of interorganisational forces, and conflict is generated through disagreements. The aim of this research is to investigate interorganisational tension and conflict on market creation practice. Specifically, it attempts to: (i) expand interorganisational tension and conflict and provide insights to these concepts, as well as establishing a two-dimensional interorganisational tension (productive and unproductive) understanding, (ii) explore the interactions between interorganisational tension and conflict, (iii) develop a conceptual framework that explains the level of market creation depending on the effects of interorganisational tension and conflict, (iv) develop a typology of partnering firms based on interorganisational tension and conflict practice. To achieve this aim, and to respond to the research calls, this study follows a grounded theory approach which intends to expand the understanding of interorganisational tension and conflict. According to the findings, a major characteristic of interorganisational tension is its two dimensions: productive and unproductive. However, it is the intertwined nature of tension and conflict that influences market creation. Fundamental to these are the six interorganisational tension and three conflict types revealed by the findings of this study. The core theoretical contributions of the study are a dynamic framework that portrays the dynamic interactions between interorganisational tension and conflict on market creation practice, and a typology of market-creating partnering firms. Collectively, they explicate the development of market creation practice, and firms’ reactions to interorganisational tension and conflict.

An integrated process for strategic positioning within the value chain

The purpose of this article is to highlight the value of ‘strategic positioning’ as a means of providing competitive edge, and to introduce and describe a novel method of managing this. Strategic positioning is concerned with the choice of business activities a company carries out itself, compared to those provided by suppliers, partners, distributors and even customers. It is therefore directly impacted by, and has direct impact upon, such decisions as outsourcing, off-shoring, partnering, innovation, technology acquisition and customer servicing.

The right time and place:strategic positioning for competitive manufacture

Increasingly in the UK, companies that have traditionally considered themselves as manufacturers are being advised to now see themselves as service providers and to reconsider whether to have any production capability. A key challenge is to translate this strategy into a selection of product and service-centred activities within the company's supply chain networks. Strategic positioning is concerned with the choice of business activities a company carries out itself, compared to those provided by suppliers, partners, distributors and even customers. In practice, strategic positioning is directly impacted by such decisions as outsourcing, off-shoring, partnering, technology innovation, acquisition and exploitation. If companies can better understand their strategic positioning, they can make more informed decisions about the adoption of alternative manufacturing and supply chain activities. Similarly, they are more likely to reject those that, like off-shoring, are currently en vogue but are highly likely to erode competitive edge and business success. Our research has developed a new concept we call 'competitive space' as a means of appreciating the strategic positioning of companies, along with a structured decision process for managing competitive space. Our ideas about competitive space, along with the decision process itself, have been developed and tested on a range of manufacturers. As more and more manufacturers are encouraged to move towards system integration and a serviceable business model, the challenge is to identify the appropriate strategic position for their organisations, or in other words, to identify their optimum competitive space for manufacture.

Can your vendor innovate for you?

Professor Ilan Oshri of Loughborough University’s Centre for Global Sourcing and Services and Professor Julia Kotlarsky look at the challenges of partnering with vendors on innovation programmes. What are the keys to a successful relationship?

Partnerships:the role that power plays in shaping collaborative buyer-supplier exchanges

The role that power plays in collaborative buyer-supplier exchanges or partnerships is explored in this study. The paper argues that research into business-to-business relationships, although rich, largely marginalises the impact that power differentials have on the formation and long-term success of partnerships. To address this, five cases are presented, drawn from the UK food industry, that show how power dynamics shape partnerships. In addition, the research contends that partnering is more likely to succeed when there are equal power resources, or interdependence, between collaborating parties and this leads us to a more robust definition of partnerships.

Firms’ knowledge search and local knowledge externalities in innovation performance

We use an augmented version of the UK Innovation Surveys 4–7 to explore firm-level and local area openness externalities on firms’ innovation performance. We find strong evidence of the value of external knowledge acquisition both through interactive collaboration and non-interactive contacts such as demonstration effects, copying or reverse engineering. Levels of knowledge search activity remain well below the private optimum, however, due perhaps to informational market failures. We also find strong positive externalities of openness resulting from the intensity of local interactive knowledge search—a knowledge diffusion effect. However, there are strong negative externalities resulting from the intensity of local non-interactive knowledge search—a competition effect. Our results provide support for local initiatives to support innovation partnering and counter illegal copying or counterfeiting. We find no significant relationship between either local labour quality or employment composition and innovative outputs.