Adaptív döntéshozatal a beszállítóválasztásban = Adaptive Decision-making in Supplier Selection

Herbert Simon, a korlátozott racionalitás elméletének megalkotója szerint a döntéshozatalunk hatékonyságát az határozza meg, hogy korlátozott kognitív kapacitásaink birtokában milyen stratégiákkal birkózunk meg a komplex környezet kihívásaival. Az erre az elméletre építő kutatások egyik alapvetése, hogy az egyéni problémamegoldási folyamat helyzetspecifikus és ez az idomulás kulcsfontosságú az eredményességben és hatékonyságban. A döntéshozó rendelkezik egy „adaptív szerszámosládával”, amelyből a megfelelő helyzetekben a megfelelő döntési eljárásokat választja. A tanulmányban a szerző egy kvalitatív kutatás eredményeire építve, a beszállítóválasztás példáján keresztül mutat be lehetséges válaszokat a keveset kutatott kérdésre: hogyan működik az adaptivitás folyamata? A tanulmány a döntési helyzethez való alkalmazkodás kialakulását vizsgálja a döntési folyamatok kognitív szintjén. ______ Herbert Simon, the author of theory of bounded rationality claimed that the results of our decision-making is defined by the approprietness of strategies with which we handle the complexity of the environment with our bounded cognitive capacities. One of the main issues or research programs building on this theory is that problem solving is situation-specific, and the adjustment of strategies to actual situational factors is crucial for the effectiveness and efficiency of decision-making. The decision-maker possesses an „adaptive toolbox”, from which he chooses the right decision tools in the right situations. The author, based on the findnings of a qualitative study, presents possible answers to the not well-elaborated question: how does the process of adaptivity work? Forming of an adaptive mechanism is in the focus.

From eco-efficiency to eco-effectiveness: The policy-performance paradox

The internalisation level of sustainability issues varies among topics and among countries. Companies give up less internalised issues for more internalised ones. Discrepancies between legal, market and cultural internalisation lead to different escape strategies: firms develop a high level environmental management system and they have nice sustainability policy and reports. These achievements cover the fact that their total emission keeps increasing and they do not proceed in solving the most crucial global community or corporate governance problems. ‘Escaper’ firms are often qualified as ‘leading’ ones, as a current stream of research is also ‘escapist’: it puts too much emphasis on sustainability efforts as compared to sustainability performance. Genuine strategies focus on hardcore sustainability issues and absolute effects rather than on issues easily solved and having high PR effects. They allow for growth in innovative firms, if they crowd out less efficient or more polluting ones. They produce positive environmental value added when sector average eco-efficiency is used as benchmark and do not accelerate market expansion and consumerism.

Az európai uniós támogatások hatékonysága és hatásossága közötti különbség a ROP 1.2 intézkedésnél (The difference between the efficiency and effectiveness of using the EU-subsidies at Regional Operational Program)

A szerző cikkében megpróbál rávilágítani annak fontosságára, hogy az Európai Unióból érkező fejlesztési támogatások hasznosulása és a támogatási rendszer hatékonysága között jelentős különbség van. Ha nem tudjuk hatékonyan és hatásosan felhasználni az Unióból érkező pénzügyi eszközöket, akkor a cél: a kohézió, a konvergencia az Európai Unió régi tagállamainak fejlettségi szintjéhez, jólétéhez még nehezebben és lassabban érhető el. Az uniós támogatások hatékonysága alapvetően a rendelkezésre álló pénz lekötésének, lehívásának arányából, illetve a lekötött, lehívott és esetleg visszafizetett összeg arányából állapítható meg (kvantitatív megközelítés). A támogatások felhasználásának hatékonyságánál bonyolultabb, jóval összetettebb megközelítést igényel a hatásosság fogalma. A felhasználás hatásosságát a projektszinten a támogatás hatására megtermelt hozzáadott értékkel, programszinten a GDP hozzáadott növekedéssel lehet kifejezni. A cikk alapvetően a ROP 1.2 "Turisztikai fogadóképesség javítása" pályázati kiírás nyertes projektjeinél végzett kutatás eredményein keresztül kívánja szemléltetni a projektszintű vagy mikro hatásosság fontosságára (kvalitatív megközelítés). _________ The author tries to highlight the importance the difference between the efficiency and effectiveness of using the EU-subsidies. If Hungary cannot use the financial means of the EU efficiently and effectively, than the goal: cohesion and convergence to the level of the old, developed countries of the EU will be much harder and slowly. The efficiency of the EU-subsidies can be measured by the ratio of the amount of money obliged and the amount of money spent, and by the amount of money withdrawn by the Commission, which is actually lost (quantitative approach). The effectiveness of EU-subsidies needs a much more complicated and complex approach, than the efficiency. The effectiveness of usage on project level can be measured by the "added value" of the project, on program level by the added GDP growth or employment. The article is analysing basically the results of a survey made among the winner project of the application ROP 1.2 (Regional Operational Program 1.2) Improving the capacity for tourism (project level or micro effectiveness – qualitative approach).

Efficiency of Effectiveness? The Hungarian Practice of Using the EU Funds

Efficiency or effectiveness? It not just the matter of definition. Experts and researchers have to make a difference between the qualitative and quantitative approach. The efficiency of EU subsidies means the ratio of the committed and disposable amount of EU subsidies can be measured, which was used and paid out within the given timeframe and along the legal regulations. The effectiveness of EU subsidies needs a much more complicated and complex approach than efficiency. The effectiveness of usage on a project level can be measured by the ‘added value’ of the project; and on the programme level by the added GDP growth or employment rate. The following research essentially analyses the project level or micro-effectiveness, however, it discusses the results of some macro-analyses as well (qualitative approach).

Systematic review and analysis of evidences on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of biological drugs for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis

Technology: Infliximab and comparator biological such as adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab. Conditions: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) Issue: Infliximab is registered to be used in patients with AS. The aim of the Report is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of infliximab and comparator biologicals for the treatment of adult AS. Methods: Systematic literature review and analysis as well as meta-analysis (direct and indirect comparison) of published randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) were performed, all relevant health economics literature were identified ad analysed. Results: Clinical efficacy of biological therapies is based on good clinical evidences regarding to all clinical efficacy endpoints (ASAS20, ASAS40, ASAS 5/6, and BASDAI 50% response). Altogether, 22 trials are included in our meta-analysis, 12 infliximab, 3 adalimumab studies, 6 etanercept and 1 golimumab. Efficacy of biological treatments for the treatment of AS has been established by clinical scientific evidences, significant improvement at all outcomes considered was confirmed. According to the results of indirect comparison, there were no significant difference between biological treatments and placebo in terms of safety and tolerability endpoints. We found no significant difference between the clinical efficacy and safety of infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab therapies. Cost-utility analysis of adalimumab and/or infliximab, etanercept and golimumab treatment for AS were performed in the UK, Canada, The Netherlands, Germany, Spain and France. There are no cost-utility studies from Eastern Central Europe. Implications for decision making: Efficacy of infliximab and comparator biologicals for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) was proved by clinical evidence, significant improvement at all outcomes considered was confirmed. We found no significant differences in efficacy and safety of different biological treatments. Health economics results suggest that biological therapies are cost-effective alternatives for the treatment of AS in group of developed high income countries. There is a lack of health economics results in Central-Eastern European countries however these data are more and more required by governments and funders as part of the company economic dossiers.