Integrating Circular Economy, Capability Approach and Action Research. Maria Angela Ferrario1, Zoltán Bajmócy2, 3, Will Simm1, Stephen Forshaw1. 1 Lancaster University, School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster, UK 2 University of Szeged
To be presented at the 11th International Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE), 30 june-3 july 2015, Leeds,
agile and reflective approach that integrates a) the principles of circular economy b) the practices of open-source licensing c) the principles of capability approach.
Circular Economy; Capability Approach (CA) Theme: 7. Special sessions Subtheme: 7. 34. Transformative Science for Transformative Social Change:
We argue that the circular economy approach 10 as well as the human development and capability approach 3 are meaningful ways for exploring potentially sustainable technology development processes.
Underpinning Concepts The circular economy approach is a thinking framework that considers economy as a network of systems that transform resources (e g. actual material, energy) and feeds them back into a closed virtuous loop.
Ecover, Puma) addressing tensions between economic growth and environmental health and human wellbeing. However, we argue that even a sustainably
and scalability for the relatively more affluent‘averages'weakens our economy by concentrating wealth and power in the corporate network of the few 17 instead of harnessing the strengths of more diverse, distributed and potentially more resilient parts of society.
23 FN, September 2002 Digital Business Ecosystems page 3 1. OVERVIEW AND RATIONALE Small Organisations and e-business The SMES are the backbone of European economy (there are now over 19
The two digital divides At the Lisbon summit in March 2000, the European union representatives set the goal of becoming the world's most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010 with the need to promote an‘Information Society
and adopters of ebusiness in some cases perceived as the worldwide benchmark the situation is entirely different in regions with less developed economies, particularly in Southern Europe.
and ecommerce in all sectors of the economy. 2 Benchmarking national and regional ebusiness policies for SMES Final Benchmarking report 12 june 2002 SMES and ICT goal of Lisbon regional divide
Three main key issues should be addressed to effectively support Small Businesses evolution toward the knowledge economy:
but also entrepreneurial and managerial expertise needed for operating in a networked economy. SMES critically depend on on-the-job competence.
As a result, the preponderance of SMES in Europe's economy is matched not by their use of digital systems. 7 in 2000 34%of large enterprises compared to 10%of SMES10 used e-business services (source Eurostat) FN,
and other stakeholders of these primary species including government agencies, regulators, associations, standards bodies, and representatives of the host community.
user profiling Local ecosystem/s Savanna, j u n g l e/ecosystems of Amazonas Regional economy/multiregional economy L o c a l
It will constitute a global digital ecosystems environment able to continuously evolve aimed at fostering local economic growth through networked nodes of innovation.
Clup-Clued, 1980 FN, September 2002 Digital Business Ecosystems page 19 management of the Chile's economy;
The European council held in Lisbon on 23/24 March 2000 recognised an urgent need for Europe to quickly exploit the new opportunities of the economy and in particular the Internet.
Section 7 provides a 2 Parsons sees a social system as part of a social action system that comprises the economy (social adaptation to its action and non-action environmental systems), the polity (collective goal attainment),
and firm founders, contributing to economic growth and job creation (see, for example Startx, Stanford's student start-up accelerator, which in less than a year 6 trained 90 founders and 27 companies4,
In a laissez-faire regime, characterised by a limited state intervention in the economy (e g. the US, some Western europe countries), industry is the driving force, with the other two spheres as ancillary support structures and limited roles
On the other hand, in more advanced contexts, where innovation stakeholders are more mature and have attained more complex forms of interaction,
and build a platform where innovation stakeholders from different organizational backgrounds and perspectives can come together to generate
the Head of the New york Federal reserve bank initially took the lead in calling for high-tech development as an alternative to finance as the engine of New york's economy.
and has the ultimate 10 The European Technology Platforms (ETPS) are led industry multinational networks (36 ETPS in 2011) that bring together various stakeholders to define a common vision and implement a medium-to long-term Strategic
Research Agenda in key industrial areas for Europe's competitiveness and economic growth (http://cordis. europa. eu/technology-platforms/).
or by emerging companies that proved to be too weak to restart the economy. A shift to a knowledge-based economy was sought, in
which universities would play a greater role, moving on from the position of R&d labs for industry they had played earlier.
Sweden's movement of leading corporations and entrepreneurs abroad in the early 1990s or mergers with foreign firms that also outsourced economic activities abroad caused a financial crisis
Other priorities included enhancing interactions between different innovation stakeholders, such as firms, universities and research institutes,
and economic growth in evolutionary systems where institutions and learning processes are of central importance (Freeman, 1987,1988;
For example, we know that economic downturn and political crises are a major catalyst for the creation of the Consensus space,
increased participation of industry and other private stakeholders in public research priority-setting, licensing and exploitation of intellectual property rights (IPR) resulting from publicly-funded research, IPR awareness and training activities,
and collaboration between national and regional innovation stakeholders and creating new platforms for communication, promoting collaborative governance measures,
Innovations for a Low Carbon Economy: Economic, Institutional and Management Approaches. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. 37 Bergek, A s. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark,
Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1, 93 118. Carlsson, B.,Jacobsson, S.,Holmén, M.,Rickne, A. 2002.
Paper for The Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics (downloaded on 9 april 2012 from http://faculty. weatherhead. case. edu/carlsson/documents/Innovationsystemssurveypaper6. pdf) 38 Casas, R
Journal of Industrial Economics 35,543 563. Cooke, P. 1996. Regional Innovation Systems. UCL Press, London.
and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10,945-974. Cooke, P.,Boekholt, P.,Tödtling, F. 2000.
The Warhol Economy. Princeton: Princeton university Press. Cusumano, M. A.,Elenkov, D. 1994. Linking international technology transfer with strategy and management:
The Research Network and the New Economics of Science: From Metaphors to Organizational Behaviours, in:
1998), Technology and economic theory, Pinter Publishers, London. Edquist, C. 1997) Systems of innovation approaches their emergence and characteristics, in:
Technology and economy theory. Pinter, London. Freeman, C. 1991. Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues.
From Innovation Emergency to Economic growth. Innovation Lecture, The hague, 26 march 2012 (downloaded on 8 april 2012 from http://europa. eu/rapid/pressreleasesaction. do?
Towards a`New'Strategic Leadership of Place for the Knowledge-based Economy. Leadership 5, 5-23.
Distributed economies A new engine for innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production 13,971-979. Kaufmann, A.,Tödtling, F. 2001.
Harnessing technology for economic growth, National Academy Press, WASHINGTON DC, pp. 275-305. Kuhlmann, S. 2001. Future governance of innovation policy in Europe three scenarios.
Etzkowitz, H.,Leydesdorff, L. Eds), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University Industry Government Relations.
The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. Universal Publishers, Boca raton, FL. Leydesdorff, L. 2008. Configurational Information as Potentially Negative Entropy:
Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of triple-helix relations among'technology, organization, and territory.
Dosi, G. Ed.)Technology and Economic theory. Pinter Publishers: London. Lundvall, B.-Å. 1992 (Ed.)National Systems of Innovation.
Cambridge Journal of Economics 23,167-185. Mason, C. and Harrison, R. 1992. Strategy for closing the small firms finance gap, in:
Networking for regional innovation and economic growth: the Brazilian Petrópolis technopole. International Journal of Technology Management 27,488-497.
Economy and Society. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Pavitt, K. 1984. Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change:
economy (e g. Cooke and Leydesdorff, 2006; OECD, 1996), characterized by both accelerating pace of change and increasing complexity and uncertainty,
) As Nonaka (1991,96) puts it, in an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge.
From the point-of-view of an individual entrepreneur, the knowledge-based economy is mixed a blessing: more and more information is freely available,
Thus, the notion of the representative firm of mainstream economics is abandoned. Likewise the resource-based view, the evolutionary approach stresses the significance of firm's unique technological Entrepreneurial SMES 131 Downloaded by WATERFORD INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY At 04:12 03 july 2015 (PT) resources and knowledge
the make or buy calculation of transaction-cost economics loses its relevance as in-house R&d
to achieve scale economies in production, and to reduce the time taken to develop and commercialize new products (Tidd et al.,
in order to understand the process of innovation and, concomitantly, technological change and advancement in the economy (e g.
Cooke, P. and Leydesdorff, L. 2006), Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: the construction of advantage, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 5-15.
an econometric analysis at the firm level, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 115-58.
Fiet, J. O. and Patel, P. C. 2008), Entrepreneurial discovery as constrained, systematic search, Small Business Economics, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 215-29.
in Archibugi, D.,Howells, J. and Michie, J. Eds), Innovation Policy in a Global economy, Cambridge university Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 67-93.
Johannessen, J-A.,Olaisen, J. and Olsen, B. 1999), Managing and organizing innovation in the knowledge economy, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 116-28.
Littunen, H. 2000), Networks and local environmental characteristics in the survival of new firms, Small Business Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 59-71.
from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation, in Dosi, G.,Freeman, C.,Nelson, R.,Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. Eds), Technical Change and Economic theory
an investigation into the Italian manufacturing sector, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 311-29.
Na°s, S. O. and Leppa lahti, A. 1997), Innovation, firm profitability and growth, Report R-01/1997, Studies in Technology, Innovation and Economic policy (STEP
OECD (1996), The Knowledge-Based Economy: Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, OECD, Paris. OECD (2005), The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities:
and evolutionary and institutional economics. Miika Varis can be contacted at: Miika. Varis@uef. fi Hannu Littunen, after graduating from the University of Jyva skyla,
was a researcher at the University of Jyva skyla, School of business and Economics, Centre for Economic Research, Finland,
He has published in several international journals such as International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Small Business Economics, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Family business Review, Finnish Journal of Economics, and Academy of Entrepreneurship/International Journal of Entrepreneurship.
Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1-19. Crossref 2. Haim Hilman, Narentheren Kaliappen. 2015.
Agricultural and Food Economics 3, 10. Crossref 9. Hans Löfsten. 2014. Information Structures and Business Performance-Implications for Technologybased Firm's Innovation Performance.
Technology transfer in a global economy. The Journal of Technology Transfer 39,301-312. Crossref 12. Franz Tödtling, Markus Grillitsch. 2014.
Journal of the Knowledge Economy 5, 330-356. Crossref 13. Thuy Hang Do, Tim Mazzarol, Thierry Volery, Sophie Reboud. 2014.
49 3. 1 Introduction 49 3. 2 Stakeholders'involvement 49 3. 3 Overview of indicators 52 Teaching and learning 52 3. 3
but also parents and other stakeholders, to make informed choices between different higher education institutions and their programmes.
In a first phase running until the end of 2009 the consortium would design a multidimensional ranking system for higher education institutions in consultation with stakeholders.
interested and committed stakeholder representatives met with the project team over the life of the project.
The stakeholder consultations provided vital input on the relevance of potential performance dimensions and indicators
Stakeholder workshops were held four times during the project with an average attendance of 35 representatives drawn from a wide range of organisations including student bodies, employer organisations, rectors'conferences, national university associations and national representatives.
yet higher education and research systems are becoming more complex and at first sight less intelligible for many stakeholders.
and can cater to the different needs of a wide variety of stakeholders. An enhanced understanding of the diversity in the profiles and performances of higher education and research institutions at a national, European and global level requires a new ranking tool.
and it is driven user (as a stakeholder with particular interests, you are enabled to rank institutions with comparable profiles according to the criteria important to you).
On the basis of an extensive stakeholder consultation process (focusing on relevance) and a thorough methodological analysis (focusing on validity, reliability and feasibility),
Many European stakeholders are interested in assessing and comparing European higher education and research institutions and programmes globally.
classifications, and rankings-from the point of view of the information they could deliver to assist different stakeholders in their different decisions regarding higher education and research institutions.
and research institutions have for different groups of stakeholders, to define explicitly our conceptual framework regarding the different functions of higher education institutions,
Users and stakeholders themselves should be enabled to decide which indicators they want to select to create the rankings that are relevant to their purposes.
Transparency tools are instruments that aim to provide information to stakeholders about the efforts and performance of higher education and research institutions.
Quality assurance, evaluation or accreditation, also produces information to stakeholders (review reports, accreditation status) and in that sense helps to achieve transparency.
global) Businessweek (business schools, USA+global) The Economist (business schools; global) The major dimensions along which we analysed the classifications, rankings and league tables included:
Surveys among stakeholders such as staff members, students, alumni or employers. Surveys are strong methods to elicit opinions such as reputation or satisfaction,
Student satisfaction and to a lesser extent satisfaction of other stakeholders is used in national rankings, but not in existing global university rankings.
In nations across the globe, global rankings have prompted the desire for‘world-class universities'both as symbols of national achievement and prestige and supposedly as engines of the knowledge economy (Marginson, 2006.
The point of the preceding observations was not that all kinds of stakeholders react to rankings,
The various functions of higher education and research institutions for a heterogeneity of stakeholders and target groups can only be addressed adequately in a multidimensional approach.
Involvement of stakeholders in the process of designing a ranking tool and selecting indicators is crucial to keep feedback loops short,
This includes statistical procedures as well as the inclusion of the expertise of stakeholders, rankings and indicator experts, field experts (for the field-based rankings) and regional/national experts.
Different users and stakeholders should be able to construct different sorts of rankings. This is one of the Berlin Principles.
and does not produce the information most valued by major groups of stakeholders: students, potential students, their families, academic staff and professional organizations.
These stakeholders are interested mainly in information about a particular field. This does not mean that institutional-level rankings are not valuable to other stakeholders and for particular purposes.
The new instrument should allow for the comparisons of comparable institutions at the level of the organization as a whole and also at the level of the disciplinary fields in
or its transfer to stakeholders outside the higher education and research institutions (knowledge transfer) or to various groups of‘learners'(education).
A fourth assumption refers to the different stakeholders or users of rankings. Ranking information is produced to inform users about the value of higher education and research,
So 41 stakeholders and users have to rely on information that is provided by a variety of transparency tools and quality assessment outcomes.
Other stakeholders (students and institutional leaders are prime examples) are interested precisely in what happens inside the box.
which are relevant to the different stakeholders and their motives for using rankings. The conceptual grid shown below must be applied twice:
For different dimensions (research, teaching & learning, knowledge transfer) and different stakeholders/users the relevance of information about different aspects of performance may vary.
Additional context information may be needed to allow for the valid interpretation of specific indicators by different stakeholders. 42 Table-2-1:
The AUBR Expert Group5 (a o.)underlines the importance of stakeholders'needs and involvement, as well as the principles of purposefulness, contextuality,
and availability of the various indicators in practice. 3. 2 Stakeholders'involvement The indicator selection process is illustrated in Figure 3-1. This process is driven highly stakeholder.
Various categories of stakeholders (student organizations, employer organizations, associations and consortia of higher education institutions, government representatives, international organizations) have been involved in an iterative process of consultation to come to a stakeholder-based assessment of the relevance
This first list was exposed for feedback to stakeholders as well as to groups of specialist experts. Stakeholders were asked to give their views on the relative relevance of various indicators
presented to them as potential items in the five dimensions of U multirank (see 3. 3). In addition,
The information gathered was fed into a second round of consultations with stakeholder organizations. In all some 80 national and international organizations participated in the consultation process.
To further support the stakeholder consultation process, an on-line questionnaire was used. Through this process an additional 40 organizations offered their views.
The stakeholders'consultation process led to the selection of a set of indicators based on the criterion of relevance (according to stakeholders'perspectives.
Literature review Review of existing rankings Review of existing databases First selection Stakeholder consultation Expert advice Second selection Pre-test Revision Selection
Based on the various stakeholders'and experts'assessments of the indicators as well as on our analyses using the four additional criteria,
As one of the main objectives of our U multirank project is to inform stakeholders such as students,
but it is an axiom of economic theories as well as of civil society that persons know their own interest (and experience) best.
and findings that came out during the stakeholder/expert consultations and the pretesting phases of the selection process (Table 3-1). Table 3-1:
Stakeholders questioned relevance. 2 Graduation rate The percentage of a cohort that graduated x years after entering the program (x is stipulated the normal')time expected for completing all requirements for the degree times 1. 5
) Graduation rate regarded by stakeholders as most relevant indicator. Shows effectiveness of schooling process. More selective institutions score better compared to (institutions in) open access settings.
Relevant indicator according to stakeholders: shows teaching leads to broadly-educated graduates. But sensitive to regulatory (accreditation) and disciplinary context.
English-language information (for international students in non-English speaking countries) One indicator dropped from the list during the stakeholder consultation is graduate earnings.
Stakeholders'feedback on the student satisfaction indicators revealed that they have a positive view overall of the relevance of the indicators on student satisfaction.
Impact indicators, referring to the contribution of research outcomes to society, culture, the environment and/or the economy.
along with some comments reflecting their assessment (by stakeholders and experts) against the criteria discussed in the first section of this chapter.
However, stakeholders regarded them as relevant, even though data availability and definitions may sometimes pose a challenge.
The process by which the knowledge, expertise and intellectually linked assets of Higher education institutions are applied constructively beyond Higher education for the wider benefit of the economy and society, through two-way engagement with business, the public sector, cultural and community partners.
i e. business and the economy, has now become a preoccupation of many governing and funding bodies, as well as policy-makers.
together with in the right hand column some of the pros and cons of the indicators expressed by experts and stakeholders during the indicator selection process.
Foreign academic staff is academic staff with a foreign Considered to be relevant by stakeholders.
Some stakeholders see it as less relevant. Availability of data problematic. 4 International joint research publications Relative number of research publications that list one or more author affiliate addresses in another country relative to research staff
Stakeholders question relevance. 10 Student satisfaction: Internationalization of programs Index including the attractiveness of the university's exchange programs, the attractiveness of the partner universities, the sufficiency of the number of exchange places;
Stakeholders consider the indicator important. 13 Student satisfaction: International orientation of programs Rating including several issues:
but dropped during the stakeholders'consultation process is‘Size of international office'.'While this indicates the commitment of the higher education and research institution to internationalization,
stakeholders consider this indicator not very important. Moreover, the validity is questionable as the size of the international office as a facilitating service is a very distant proxy indicator.
because a large majority of stakeholders judged this to be insufficiently relevant. At the field level this indicator was seen
However, it was dropped from the list during the stakeholder consultation as there is no clear internationally accepted way of counting partnerships.
along with the comments made during the stakeholder and expert consultations. Table 3-6: Indicators for the dimension Regional Engagement in the Focused Institutional and Field-based Rankings Focused Institutional Ranking Definition Comments 1 Graduates working in the region The number of graduates working in the region,
Stakeholders like indicator. No national data on graduate destinations. 19http://epp. eurostat. ec. europa. eu/portal/page/portal/region cities/regional statistics/nuts classification 20 http://www. oecd
Stakeholders see this as important indicator. Definition of internship problematic and data not readily available.
and stakeholders did not particularly favor the indicator. Therefore it was dropped from our list. The same holds for measures of the regional economic impact of a higher education institution,
However, stakeholders felt this indicator not to be relevant. A high percentage of new entrants from the region may be seen as the result of the high visibility of regionally active higher education and research institutions.
One could even go beyond these stakeholder groups and include employers and other clients of higher education and research institutions,
and the potential upscaling of U multirank to a globally applicable multidimensional ranking tool. 6. 2 Feasibility of indicators In the pilot study we analyzed the feasibility of the various indicators that were selected after the multi-stage process of stakeholder
the relative importance of the indicator according to the various stakeholders'perspectives validity: the indicator measures
rating‘B'indicates that some stakeholders and/or experts have expressed some doubts regarding one or two selection criteria.
For this reconsideration process a special and final stakeholders'workshop was organized. For indicators with a problematic feasibility score there are two options:
'The last column (In/Out in the tables shows the respective conclusions on those indicators based on consultation with stakeholders
nevertheless as highly relevant by stakeholders. The indicator‘inclusion of work experience'is a composite indicator using a number of data elements (e g. internships, teachers'professional experience outside HE) on employability issues;
Stakeholders, in particular representatives of art schools, stressed the relevance of this indicator despite the poor data situation.
initiatives should also come from providers of (bibliometric) databases as well as stakeholder associations in the sector.
There was an agreement among stakeholders therefore, that those indicators should be used for focused institutional rankings only. 129 International orientation 6. 2. 4most of the indicators on the dimension‘international orientation'proved to be relatively unproblematic in terms of feasibility.
and the relevance of higher education and research to the regional economy and the regional society at large,
and stakeholders were strongly in favor of keeping the indicator (both for institutional and for field-based rankings).
Based on feedback from institutions and stakeholders, this indicator cannot be seen as feasible; there is probably no way to improve the data situation in the short term.
From their participation in the various stakeholder meetings, we can conclude that there is broad interest in the further development and implementation of U multirank.
some issues of up-scaling to other fields have been discussed in the course of the stakeholder consultation.
Following the user-and stakeholder-driven approach of U multirank, we suggest that field-specific indicators for international rankings should be developed together with stakeholders from these fields.
We encourage stakeholders and organizations to actively participate in the development of relevant field-specific indicators,
in particular in those areas and fields which so far have largely been neglected in international rankings due to the lack of adequate data
and discussed at a U multirank stakeholder workshop and there was a clear preference for the‘sunburst'chart similar to the one used in U-Map.
During the further development of U multirank the production of contextual information will be an important topic. 31 See www. lisboncouncil. net 151 7. 5 User-friendliness U multirank is conceived as a user-driven and stakeholder
the definition of the indicators, processes of data collection and discussion on modes of presentation have been based on intensive stakeholder consultation.
'An authoritative ranking could be produced from the perspective of a specific stakeholder or client organization.
The criteria were derived from the analytical findings of the feasibility study, from the stakeholder consultation process,
The transparency tool must have the trust of participating institutions and other stakeholders. This means that the organization managing the instruments must be accountable and subject to continuous evaluation and assessment.
A key element of U multirank is the flexible, stakeholder-oriented, user-driven approach. The implementation has to ensure this approach,
for instance by integrating stakeholders into consultation structures, creating information products for stakeholder needs and service-oriented communication processes.
those parties taking responsibility for the governance of U multirank should be accepted broadly by stakeholders. Those who will be involved in the implementation should allow their names to be affiliated with the new instrument
Stakeholder model: In this model, major stakeholders, i e. student organizations and associations of higher education institutions, would be responsible for the operation of the transparency instrument.
Independent nonprofit model: In this model, an existing or new cross-national/international organization (or alliance of organizations) independent of government or direct stakeholder interests would act as principal of the transparency tools.
The organization would work under nonprofit conditions and would have to find a funding structure covering the cost.
Service orientation might not be the primary interest in a state-run system. 165 STAKEHOLDER MODEL PRO CON High legitimacy and acceptance among stakeholders (included.
If not all stakeholders are represented inclusiveness becomes difficult. Good chance for international orientation. Inefficiency because of difficulties to find a common ground between stakeholders.
No independence from stakeholder organization interests could be ensured, therefore problems with credibility from the point of view of the end user.
INDEPENDENT NONPROFIT MODEL PRO CON Institutions with strong funding base such as foundations enhance sustainability. Institutions with weak funding base such as research institutes endanger sustainability.
Assessment of the four models for implementing U multirank Criteria Model Inclusiveness International orientation Independence Professionalism Sustainability Efficiency Service orientation Credibility Commercial--+Government++-Stakeholder-+-Independent
The stakeholder model should be recognized in so far as an advisory board could guarantee the connection to relevant groups of stakeholders.
therefore that rankings would be operated (initially) on a project basis by existing professional organizations with a strong involvement of both stakeholder and expert advisory bodies.
Stakeholder and expert advisory councils should be installed in a form that could continue to operate after the two years'project Phase in order to support the development of a viable business plan a partnership with professional
The professional organizations responsible for the first phase could establish the ranking unit as a joint venture with the stakeholder
for-profit institution (s) Operating Project Consortium national field-based ranking partner (s) Stakeholder advisory council/expert advisory council advice governance
Intensity of stakeholder involvement Communication activities Staff demand Number of countries and institutions covered Intensiveness of communication (written only, electronic, workshops etc) Implementation of (technical) infrastructure Basic
and performance measurement and in stakeholder communication processes (as head of the project/unit);(2) two junior staff members with experiences in statistics, empirical research, large-scale data collection, IT;(
), Government Governmental funding (c),(d),(f),(g h i) Stakeholder None (b),(d e f),(g h i) Independent nonprofit Basic funding by owners (b),(d e f),(g h i) Again,
together with the stakeholder model it has the broadest set of funding options, and in contrary to the stakeholder model also a clear potential basic funding source.
If it is combined with the commercial model all relevant funding options are available. The funding scenarios could be specified further
Organizational options such as market, stakeholder, government or independent nonprofit models should be seen as complementary approaches.
The Economics of Credence Goods"Journal of Economic Literature 44 (1): 5-42. Enquist, G. 2005) The internationalisation of higher education in Sweden, the National Agency for Higher education, Högskoleverkets rapportserie 2005: 27 R, Stockholm Espeland, W. N,
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011