The Experts below are selected from a list of 52269 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Nigel Roome - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
developing capabilities and competence for sustainable business management as innovation a research agenda
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007Co-Authors: J A G Van Kleef, Nigel RoomeAbstract:This paper frames the response by business to the challenge of sustainable development in terms of innovation. It addresses how the shift in business focus from competitiveness to sustainability impacts the capabilities and competence for innovation. A review of the literature suggests that innovation for sustainability requires the active involvement of a broader and more diverse network of actors, including those with more local knowledge of the implications of innovations than is the case with more conventional forms of innovation. The paper also identifies a Systematic Failure to address the need for inventiveness as a cornerstone of innovation. The paper puts forward elements of an applied research agenda to support the development of a better understanding of the capabilities that foster the competence by business to innovate in ways that are more sustainable. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
developing capabilities and competence for sustainable business management as innovation a research agenda
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007Co-Authors: J A G Van Kleef, Nigel RoomeAbstract:Abstract This paper frames the response by business to the challenge of sustainable development in terms of innovation. It addresses how the shift in business focus from competitiveness to sustainability impacts the capabilities and competence for innovation. A review of the literature suggests that innovation for sustainability requires the active involvement of a broader and more diverse network of actors, including those with more local knowledge of the implications of innovations than is the case with more conventional forms of innovation. The paper also identifies a Systematic Failure to address the need for inventiveness as a cornerstone of innovation. The paper puts forward elements of an applied research agenda to support the development of a better understanding of the capabilities that foster the competence by business to innovate in ways that are more sustainable.
J A G Van Kleef - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
developing capabilities and competence for sustainable business management as innovation a research agenda
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007Co-Authors: J A G Van Kleef, Nigel RoomeAbstract:This paper frames the response by business to the challenge of sustainable development in terms of innovation. It addresses how the shift in business focus from competitiveness to sustainability impacts the capabilities and competence for innovation. A review of the literature suggests that innovation for sustainability requires the active involvement of a broader and more diverse network of actors, including those with more local knowledge of the implications of innovations than is the case with more conventional forms of innovation. The paper also identifies a Systematic Failure to address the need for inventiveness as a cornerstone of innovation. The paper puts forward elements of an applied research agenda to support the development of a better understanding of the capabilities that foster the competence by business to innovate in ways that are more sustainable. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
developing capabilities and competence for sustainable business management as innovation a research agenda
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007Co-Authors: J A G Van Kleef, Nigel RoomeAbstract:Abstract This paper frames the response by business to the challenge of sustainable development in terms of innovation. It addresses how the shift in business focus from competitiveness to sustainability impacts the capabilities and competence for innovation. A review of the literature suggests that innovation for sustainability requires the active involvement of a broader and more diverse network of actors, including those with more local knowledge of the implications of innovations than is the case with more conventional forms of innovation. The paper also identifies a Systematic Failure to address the need for inventiveness as a cornerstone of innovation. The paper puts forward elements of an applied research agenda to support the development of a better understanding of the capabilities that foster the competence by business to innovate in ways that are more sustainable.
Iain Mclean - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political economics and normative analysis
New Political Economy, 2008Co-Authors: Colin Jennings, Iain McleanAbstract:The approaches and opinions of economists often dominate public policy discussion. Economists have gained this privileged position partly (or perhaps mainly) because of the obvious relevance of their subject matter, but also because of the unified methodology (neo-classical economics) that the vast majority of modern economists bring to their analysis of policy problems and proposed solutions. The idea of Pareto efficiency and its potential trade-off with equity is a central idea that is understood by all economists and this common language provides the economics profession with a powerful voice in public affairs. The purpose of this paper is to review and reflect upon the way in which economists find themselves analysing and providing suggestions for social improvements and how this role has changed over roughly the last 60 years. We focus on the fundamental split in the public economics tradition between those that adhere to public finance and those that adhere to public choice. A pure public finance perspective views Failures in society as Failures of the market. The solutions are technical, as might be enacted by a benevolent dictator. The pure public choice view accepts (sometimes grudgingly) that markets may fail, but so, it insists, does politics. This signals institutional reforms to constrain the potential for political Failure. Certain policy recommendations may be viewed as compatible with both traditions, but other policy proposals will be the opposite of that proposed within the other tradition. In recent years a political economics synthesis emerged. This accepts that institutions are very important and governments require constraints, but that some degree of benevolence on the part of policy makers should not be assumed non-existent. The implications for public policy from this approach are, however, much less clear and perhaps more piecemeal. We also discuss analyses of Systematic Failure, not so much on the part of markets or politicians, but by voters. Most clearly this could lead to populism and relaxing the idea that voters necessarily choose their interests. The implications for public policy are addressed. Throughout the paper we will relate the discussion to the experience of UK government policy-making.
-
Political economics and normative analysis
2024Co-Authors: Colin Jennings, Iain McleanAbstract:The approaches and opinions of economists often dominate public policy discussion. Economists have gained this privileged position partly (or perhaps mainly) because of the obvious relevance of their subject matter, but also because of the unified methodology (neo-classical economics) that the vast majority of modern economists bring to their analysis of policy problems and proposed solutions. The idea of Pareto efficiency and its potential trade-off with equity is a central idea that is understood by all economists and this common language provides the economics profession with a powerful voice in public affairs. The purpose of this paper is to review and reflect upon the way in which economists find themselves analysing and providing suggestions for social improvements and how this role has changed over roughly the last 60 years. We focus on the fundamental split in the public economics tradition between those that adhere to public finance and those that adhere to public choice. A pure public finance perspective views Failures in society as Failures of the market. The solutions are technical, as might be enacted by a benevolent dictator. The pure public choice view accepts (sometimes grudgingly) that markets may fail, but so, it insists, does politics. This signals institutional reforms to constrain the potential for political Failure. Certain policy recommendations may be viewed as compatible with both traditions, but other policy proposals will be the opposite of that proposed within the other tradition. In recent years a political economics synthesis emerged. This accepts that institutions are very important and governments require constraints, but that some degree of benevolence on the part of policy makers should not be assumed non-existent. The implications for public policy from this approach are, however, much less clear and perhaps more piecemeal. We also discuss analyses of Systematic Failure, not so much on the part of markets or politicians, but by voters. Most clearly this could lead to populism and relaxing the idea that voters necessarily choose their interests. The implications for public policy are addressed. Throughout the paper we will relate the discussion to the experience of UK government policy-making.public finance; public choice; political economics; normative analysis
-
Political economics and normative analysis
2024Co-Authors: Colin Jennings, Iain McleanAbstract:The approaches and opinions of economists often dominate public policy discussion. Economists have gained this privileged position partly (or perhaps mainly) because of the obvious relevance of their subject matter, but also because of the unified methodology (neo-classical economics) that the vast majority of modern economists bring to their analysis of policy problems and proposed solutions. The idea of Pareto efficiency and its potential trade-off with equity is a central idea that is understood by all economists and this common language provides the economics profession with a powerful voice in public affairs. The purpose of this paper is to review and reflect upon the way in which economists find themselves analysing and providing suggestions for social improvements and how this role has changed over roughly the last 60 years. We focus on the fundamental split in the public economics tradition between those that adhere to public finance and those that adhere to public choice. A pure public finance perspective views Failures in society as Failures of the market. The solutions are technical, as might be enacted by a benevolent dictator. The pure public choice view accepts (sometimes grudgingly) that markets may fail, but so, it insists, does politics. This signals institutional reforms to constrain the potential for political Failure. Certain policy recommendations may be viewed as compatible with both traditions, but other policy proposals will be the opposite of that proposed within the other tradition. In recent years a political economics synthesis emerged. This accepts that institutions are very important and governments require constraints, but that some degree of benevolence on the part of policy makers should not be assumed non-existent. The implications for public policy from this approach are, however, much less clear and perhaps more piecemeal. We also discuss analyses of Systematic Failure, not so much on the part of markets or politicians, but by voters. Most clearly this could lead to populism and relaxing the idea that voters necessarily choose their interests. The implications for public policy are addressed. Throughout the paper we will relate the discussion to the experience of UK government policy-making.Public Finance, Public Choice, Public Economics, Political Economics, Normative Analysis
Clifton D Fuller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
meeting the challenge of scientific dissemination in the era of covid 19 toward a modular approach to knowledge sharing for radiation oncology
International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2020Co-Authors: Clifton D Fuller, Lisanne V Van Dijk, Reid F Thompson, Jacob G Scott, Ethan Ludmir, Charles R ThomasAbstract:On May 1 and May 22, 2020, a pair of high-profile articles were fast-track reviewed and published by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet, venues widely regarded as among the most prestigious of medical journals.1Mehra M.R. Desai S.S. Ruschitzka F. Patel A.N. Retracted: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis.Lancet. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6Crossref Scopus (123) Google Scholar,2Mehra M.R. Desai S.S. Kuy S. Henry T.D. Patel A.N. Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in COVID-19.N Engl J Med. 2020; 102: 1-7Google Scholar The Lancet article reported a multinational registry analysis of chloroquine with or without macrolide antibiotics in patients who were infected with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 virus, and an NEJM manuscript from the same group investigated angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers in patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These papers would have been a pinnacle achievement for the academic coauthors, in addition to the supporting company Surgisphere, who reportedly supplied the data. Led by the vascular surgeon Sapan Desai, this small company with “big data” aspirations redefined research priorities and patient study allocation with their remarkable results. Unfortunately, these august journals would soon be roiled by controversy when it became evident that the data may have been falsified for both papers.3Mehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy S, Henry TD, Patel AN. Retraction: Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in COVID-19. N Engl J Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmc2021225. Accessed June 27, 2020.Google Scholar The subsequent debacle serves as a cautionary tale of the Systematic Failure modes of traditional avenues of sharing and verifying clinical science, particularly when applied to fast-tracked research.
Pradeep Kumar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Systematic Failure mode effect analysis fmea using fuzzy linguistic modelling
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 2005Co-Authors: Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Dinesh Kumar, Pradeep KumarAbstract:Purpose – To permit the system safety and reliability analysts to evaluate the criticality or risk associated with item Failure modes.Design/methodology/approach – The factors considered in traditional Failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) for risk assessment are frequency of occurrence (Sf), severity (S) and detectability (Sd) of an item Failure mode. Because of the subjective and qualitative nature of the information and to make the analysis more consistent and logical, an approach using fuzzy logic is proposed. In the proposed approach, these parameters are represented as members of a fuzzy set fuzzified by using appropriate membership functions and are evaluated in fuzzy inference engine, which makes use of well‐defined rule base and fuzzy logic operations to determine the criticality/riskiness level of the Failure. The fuzzy conclusion is then defuzzified to get risk priority number. The higher the value of RPN, the greater will be the risk and lower the value of RPN, and the lesser will be the ris...
