Constructing institutional change: emergence, contestation and convergence of business models in the field of Java application servers

How are innovative new business models established if organizations constantly compare themselves against existing criteria and expectations? The objective is to address this question from the perspective of innovators and their ability to redefine established expectations and evaluation criteria. The research questions ask whether there are discernible patterns of discursive action through which innovators theorize institutional change and what role such theorizations play for mobilizing support and realizing change projects. These questions are investigated through a case study on a critical area of enterprise computing software, Java application servers. In the present case, business practices and models were already well established among incumbents with critical market areas allocated to few dominant firms. Fringe players started experimenting with a new business approach of selling services around freely available opensource application servers. While most new players struggled, one new entrant succeeded in leading incumbents to adopt and compete on the new model. The case demonstrates that innovative and substantially new models and practices are established in organizational fields when innovators are able to refine expectations and evaluation criteria within an organisational field. The study addresses the theoretical paradox of embedded agency. Actors who are embedded in prevailing institutional logics and structures find it hard to perceive potentially disruptive opportunities that fall outside existing ways of doing things. Changing prevailing institutional logics and structures requires strategic and institutional work aimed at overcoming barriers to innovation. The study addresses this problem through the lens of (new) institutional theory. This discourse methodology traces the process through which innovators were able to establish a new social and business model in the field.

Peer mentoring works! How peer mentoring enhances student success in Higher Education:evaluation toolkit

This toolkit, published by the HEA, provides colleagues across the Sector with the practical and methodological tools to empirically evaluate peer mentoring and tutoring. This evaluation kit provides two data collection tools that may be adopted and adapted to meet institutional requirements. The first of these is a survey, developed out of the original survey used in the Peer Mentoring Works Project. Some questions have been added as a result of reflexive application of colleagues and students input as the project has progressed. The second part of the toolkit comprises a qualitative interview guide. This guide is similar to the one used in the research, but again it has been further developed as a result of the project. It may be adapted for use in focus groups or one-to-one interviews. The final document within the kit is a sample consent form.

Understanding institutional conversion:the case of the National Reporting and Learning System

This article focuses on one type of institutional change: conversion. One innovative approach to institutional change, the “political-coalitional approach”, acknowledges that: institutions can have unintended effects, which may privilege certain groups over others; institutions are often created and sustained through compromise with external actors; and institutions’ external context can vary significantly over time, as different coalitions’ power waxes and wanes. This approach helps explain the conversion of one institution drawn from the UK National Health Service, the National Reporting and Learning System. However, the shift of this system from producing formative information to facilitate learning to promote safer care, towards producing summative information to support resource allocation decisions, cannot be explained merely by examining the actions of external power coalitions. An internal focus, which considers factors that are normally viewed as “organisational” (such as leadership and internal stability), is also required.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a new team effectiveness scale for all types of community adult mental health teams:a mixed-methods approach

Defining 'effectiveness' in the context of community mental health teams (CMHTs) has become increasingly difficult under the current pattern of provision required in National Health Service mental health services in England. The aim of this study was to establish the characteristics of multi-professional team working effectiveness in adult CMHTs to develop a new measure of CMHT effectiveness. The study was conducted between May and November 2010 and comprised two stages. Stage 1 used a formative evaluative approach based on the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System to develop the scale with multiple stakeholder groups over a series of qualitative workshops held in various locations across England. Stage 2 analysed responses from a cross-sectional survey of 1500 members in 135 CMHTs from 11 Mental Health Trusts in England to determine the scale's psychometric properties. Based on an analysis of its structural validity and reliability, the resultant 20-item scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and captured one overall latent factor of CMHT effectiveness comprising seven dimensions: improved service user well-being, creative problem-solving, continuous care, inter-team working, respect between professionals, engagement with carers and therapeutic relationships with service users. The scale will be of significant value to CMHTs and healthcare commissioners both nationally and internationally for monitoring, evaluating and improving team functioning in practice.

Developing a robust self evaluation framework for active learning:the first stage of an ERASMUS+ project (QAEMarketPlace4HEI)

In ensuring the quality of learning and teaching in Higher Education, self-evaluation is an important component of the process. An example would be the approach taken within the CDIO community whereby self-evaluation against the CDIO standards is part of the quality assurance process. Eight European universities (Reykjavik University, Iceland; Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Aarhus University, Denmark; Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Ume? University, Sweden; Telecom Bretagne, France; Aston University, United Kingdom; Queens University Belfast, United Kingdom) are engaged in an EU funded Erasmus + project that is exploring the quality assurance process associated with active learning. The development of a new self-evaluation framework that feeds into a ?Marketplace? where participating institutions can be paired up and then engage in peer evaluations and sharing around each institutions approach to and implementation of active learning. All of the partner institutions are engaged in the application of CDIO within their engineering programmes and this has provided a common starting point for the partnership to form and the project to be developed. Although the initial focus will be CDIO, the longer term aim is that the approach could be of value beyond CDIO and within other disciplines. The focus of this paper is the process by which the self-evaluation framework is being developed and the form of the draft framework. In today?s Higher Education environment, the need to comply with Quality Assurance standards is an ever present feature of programme development and review. When engaging in a project that spans several countries, the wealth of applicable standards and guidelines is significant. In working towards the development of a robust Self Evaluation Framework for this project, the project team decided to take a wide view of the available resources to ensure a full consideration of different requirements and practices. The approach to developing the framework considered: a) institutional standards and processes b) national standards and processes e.g. QAA in the UK c) documents relating to regional / global accreditation schemes e.g. ABET d) requirements / guidelines relating to particular learning and teaching frameworks e.g. CDIO. The resulting draft self-evaluation framework is to be implemented within the project team to start with to support the initial ?Marketplace? pairing process. Following this initial work, changes will be considered before a final version is made available as part of the project outputs. Particular consideration has been paid to the extent of the framework, as a key objective of the project is to ensure that the approach to quality assurance has impact but is not overly demanding in terms of time or paperwork. In other words that it is focused on action and value added to staff, students and the programmes being considered.