and more specifically Atlanta's urban informal stakeholder networks is noteworthy in this respect. Simplified, Stone argues that,
Entrepreneurs and their stakeholders, in the words of Sarasvathy and Venkatraman (2011), often end up co-creating new opportunities.
Theory of change encourages all stakeholders, including the groups who are intended to benefit, to articulate expected achievements.
we suggest perceiving social innovation as boosting collaboration and partnership between various stakeholders (the public sector, private enterprise and the free market, civil society,
EFFECTIVE STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT...18 IV. COLLABORATION...18 V. CONVERGENCE AND INTEGRATION...19 D. WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS?..
19 3. THE AREAS THAT ARE POISED FOR GROWTH...20 4. CONCLUSION...21 Social Innovation to answer Society's Challenges 2014 Frost
and deliver value to all of the stakeholders in our global future. In the second half of this Whitepaper we will go on to define Social Innovation in more detail.
the stakeholders, and the areas and sectors that are poised for the highest growth. 3 Power Patients proactively make use of Google
and has many stakeholders companies, social enterprises, governments, NGOS, charities and public sector organisations to name but a few.
This is done through communication with stakeholders and integrating those expectations into its management and business value creation with a strong focus on technology deployment
Through the collaboration of multiple stakeholders, the initiative focuses on energy and transportation infrastructure and the application of autonomous, decentralised IT systems for energy control.
The key characteristics of delivering Social Innovation include the co-ordination and mediation between the different groups of stakeholders involved.
BUSINESS 2 SOCIETY (B2s) MODEL The B2s perspective is created by a complete stakeholder focus and is a core element of Social Innovation.
EFFECTIVE STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT The long-term success of Social Innovation lies with the proactive engagement of local stakeholders and beneficiaries.
B2s models tend to involve multiple stakeholder groups and the successful social innovators will be those that can bring integrated solutions to deliver clear value
and benefits to the multiple interconnected local stakeholders. Successful Social Innovations tend to occur within a cross sector context
where different stakeholders from different sectors of society, government or industry work together towards common goals and hence share common benefits.
It also requires collaborative working between the multiple stakeholders. Projects are often large and complex,
and mobile services (m-services) to play a role in collaboration by enabling stakeholders to work competently, effectively and efficiently, with par tners, anytime and anywhere.
which communications both real-time and non-real time are integrated to optimise stakeholder processes and increase productivity.
D. WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? Social Innovation at its best delivers value to the full spectrum of stakeholders:
Positive transformational change to communities; accelerated advancement for Governments; enhanced efficiency and sustainability to corporations;
Key Stakeholders for Social Innovation Ability to deliver integrated, converged and connected solutions is a critical success factor Government Increased pressure for sustainable economic growthcommunities Communities/users/patients/citizens:
Collaboration & Multi-Stakeholder Models Clinics Set up Overseas Using NHS Brand The Department of health (DH) and the UK Trade and Investment department (UKTI) have put together a scheme where the NHS establishes overseas clinics.
This new breed of innovators will also strike a balance between profit for stakeholders and improved lives for individual citizens, focusing on progress both for business and our global society.
and how it creates value for its stakeholders (2000). b. Timmers defines the business model as architecture for product,
Decision variables focus on stakeholder identification, value creation, visions, values and networks and alliances. 2. 2 Why Digital Business models The role of information technology and its relationship to the business has shifted over the last 20 years.
2001) Actors, market segments, value offering, value activity, stakeholder network, value interfaces, value ports and value exchanges 8 No No Linder and Cantrell (2001) Pricing model,
perceived by employees and other stakeholders, their resistance to change will be more intense. lack of leadership.
This suggests that stakeholders need to be comfortable with a certain amount of uncertainty and need to be open to the possibility of unanticipated outcomes.
As reference architectures require agreement among all stakeholders, they are developed usually through an incremental process.
and validated on large-scale testbeds 3. 2 Designs for In-Network Clouds Due to the existence of multiple stakeholders with conflicting goals and policies,
As reference architectures require agreement among all stakeholders, they are developed usually in an incremental process.
To ensure a mutually beneficial situation for all stakeholders in a Future Internet scenario, the Triplewin investigations determine the key goal of Economic Traffic Management (ETM) mechanisms developed.
Based on the assumption that the Internet has evolved into a worldwide social and economic platform with a variety of stakeholders involved,
classify, and develop an analysis framework for such tussles in the socioeconomic domain of Internet stakeholders.
in order to deal with the overlay traffic in a way that is mutually beneficial for all stakeholders of the Future Internet.
while in Section 5 presents concluding remarks. 2 Methodology of Assessment The detailed studies undertaken to assess ETMS deployment evaluate how all three stakeholders (end users, service providers,
deployment and adoption Protocol design Initial scenario (s) Deployment Adoption Benefits to Stakeholders Incremental Implement Wider scenario Deployment Adoption Implement Network effect
Then each step may involve different stakeholders, for example Bittorrent was adopted initially by application developers (and their end-users) to transfer large files,
because different stakeholders are involved equipment vendors implement, whilst network operators deploy; their motivations are not the same.
as only one stakeholder is involved viz the data centre operator. Fig. 2. Potential MPTCP deployment scenario, in a data centre.
Both the devices and servers are under the control of one stakeholder, so the end user‘unconsciously'adopts MPTCP.
Several stakeholders may now be involved. For instance, it is necessary to think about the benefits and costs for OS vendors, end users, applications and ISPS (Internet service providers.
is problematic as it requires several stakeholders to coordinate their deployment 9 . Since this is likely to be difficult,
With the evolution of the Internet from a controlled research network to a worldwide social and economic platform, the initial assumptions regarding stakeholder cooperative behavior are no longer valid.
Accordingly, different stakeholders in the Internet space have developed a wide range of on-line business models to enable sustainable electronic business.
a thorough investigation into socioeconomic tussle analysis becomes highly critical 9. The term tussle was introduced by Clark et al. 5 as a process reflecting the competitive behavior of different stakeholders involved in building
which each stakeholder has particular self-interests, but which are in conflict with the self-interests of other stakeholders.
Following these interests results in actions and inter-actions between and among stakeholders. When stakeholder interests conflict,
inter-actions usually lead to contention. Reasons for tussles to arise are manifold. Overlay traffic management and routing decisions between autonomous systems 11
and mobile network convergence 10 constitute only two representative examples for typical tussle spaces. The main argument for focusing on tussles in relation to socioeconomic impact of the future Internet is in the number of observed stakeholders in the current Internet and their interests.
Clark et al. speak of tussles on the Internet as of today. They argue 5 that t here are,
tussle analysis becomes an important approach to assess the impact of stakeholder behavior. This paper proposes a generic methodology for identifying
In Section 3 we provide a classification of tussles according to stakeholders'interests into social and economic ones,
and can be executed recursively, allowing for more stakeholders, tussles, etc. to be included in the analysis. It is out of the article's scope to suggest where the borderline for the analysis should be drawn,
1. Identify all primary stakeholders and their properties for the functionality under investigation. 2. Identify tussles among identified stakeholders and their relationship. 148 C. Kalogiros et al. 3. For each tussle:
a. Assess the impact to each stakeholder; b. Identify potential ways to circumvent and resulting spill overs.
For each new circumventing technique, apply the methodology again. The first step of the methodology suggests identifying
and studying the properties of all important stakeholders affected by a functionality related to a protocol, a service,
The outcome of this step is a set of stakeholders and attributes such as their population, social context (age, entity type, etc.
as well as the relative influence across stakeholders, change over time. The next step aims at identifying conflicts among the set of stakeholders and their relationship.
In performing the first part of this step the analyst could find particularly useful to check
The third step of the methodology proposes to estimate the impact of each tussle from the perspective of each stakeholder.
In the ideal scenario a tussle outcome will affect all stakeholders in a nonnegative way
Usually this is a result of balanced control across stakeholders, which means that the protocols implementing this functionality follow the Design for Choice design principle 5. Such protocols allow for conflict resolution at run-time,
or all stakeholders are satisfied not by the tussle outcome and have the incentive to take advantage of the functionality provided,
which one can draw inferences about stakeholders and tussles. For all steps of this methodology except for 3a,
However, in complex systems with multiple stakeholders, multiple quantitative and qualitative sources of evidence may be required to better understand the actual and potential tussles.
In this case, the set of stakeholders is extended to include ASPS as well. The new tussle involves ISPS and ASPS (e g.
In the third iteration it will be assumed that the policy-maker (a new stakeholder) decides to intervene
The regulator's decision will redistribute control across stakeholders in a balanced way or, in more complex cases,
On the right part of Figure 1 we see that agents acting selfishly can lead to new tussles (spill over) that may involve new stakeholders as well.
For example, the Tussle I among Actor A and Actor B may trigger the Tussle II involving the same stakeholders,
Economic tussles refer to conflicts between stakeholders, motivated from an expected reward gained (or cost avoided)
while social tussles refer to conflicts between stakeholders that do not share the same social interests,
because a set of stakeholders follow economic objectives and their actions affect the social interests of other stakeholders. 3. 1 Tussle Patterns We have identified an initial set of four tussle patterns that include contention, repurposing, responsibility and control.
Figure 2 shows the actors involved in each tussle An Approach to Investigating Socioeconomic Tussles 151 pattern,
Dotted arrows represent a conflict among two stakeholders while a dotted rectangle shows the selected set of resources
when at least one stakeholder has the ability to influence the outcome. Based on the context, a reverse tussle pattern may also be present.
and an individual stakeholder can be a resource consumer in one tussle, but a provider of a resource in another.
3. 2 Economic Tussles Economic tussles refer to conflicts between stakeholders, motivated from an expected reward gained
Furthermore, such tussles can occur between collaborating stakeholders due to different policies or, in economic terms, different valuations of the outcome.
when a stakeholder is being bypassed. Contention tussles are caused usually by the existence of scarce resources
we believe it can capture the evolving relationships among stakeholders, and thus tussles, across time.
and examine the minimal trust assumptions between the stakeholders in the system to guarantee the security properties advertised.
In the inter-domain setting, we have to take into account the various stakeholders such as ISPS, end-users,
but keep the architecture flexible and let the balance of power between stakeholders to decide the stable configuration.
and minimal in complexity and trust assumptions between stakeholders. 2 Basic Concepts Data-or content-centric networking can be seen as the inversion of control between the sender
Such a life cycle support must deliver assurance to the stakeholders and enable risk and cost management for the business stakeholders in particular.
The paper should be considered a call for contribution to any researcher in the related sub domains
and used by a virtual consortium of business stakeholders. While the creative space of services composition is unlimited in principle,
more stakeholders with different trust levels are involved in a typical service composition and a variety of potentially harmful content sources are leveraged to provide value to the end user.
A key challenge is to support dealing with an unprecedented multitude of autonomous stakeholders and devices probably one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the FI.
The need for assurance in the future Internet demands a set of novel engineering methodologies to guarantee secure system behavior and provide credible evidence that the identified security requirements have been met from the point of view of all stakeholders.
but they will also involve multiple autonomous stakeholders, and may involve an array of physical devices such as smart cards, phones,
Service-orientation and the fragmentation of services (both key characteristics of FI applications) imply that a multitude of stakeholders will be involved in a service composition
and modeling all the stakeholders'security requirements become a major challenge 5. Multilateral Security Requirements Analysis techniques have been advocated in the state of the art 14
In this respect, agent-oriented and goal-oriented approaches such as Secure Tropos 12 and KAOS 8 are recognized currently well as means to explicitly take the stakeholders'perspective into account.
and the geographical spread of smart devices stakeholders would deploy to meet their requirements. Sensor networks, RFID tags, smart appliances that communicate not only with the user
The definition of techniques for the identification of all stakeholders (including attackers), the elicitation of high-level security goals for all stakeholders,
and the identification and resolution of conflicts among different stakeholder security goals; The refinement of security goals into more detailed security requirements for specific services and devices;
devices and stakeholder concerns. 3 Secure Service Architecture and Design FI applications entail scenarios in
each model representing different functional and nonfunctional concerns that different stakeholder may have about it. However
Such a life cycle model aims to ensure the stakeholders'return of investment when implementing security measures during various stages of the SDLC.
A more practical solution is to use Trusted Computing to verify correct policy enforcement 6. Trusted computing instantiation as proposed by the Trusted Computing Group (TCG) uses secure hardware to allow a stakeholder
The heterogeneous and modular field of Future Internet Research and Experimentation with its national and international stakeholder groups requires community and cohesion building
The number of stakeholders who participate in provisioning of network and services is growing. More demanding applications (like egovernment
Making these values explicitly known to the stakeholders can help to provide incentives for cooperation.
7). The complexity of the FI, bringing together large communities of stakeholders and expertise, requires a structured mechanism to avoid fragmentation of efforts
and connected as needed according to the requirements of the involved value chain stakeholders in the respective Future Internet scenario.
Increasingly, research and innovation on the Future Internet such as envisaged in the future Internet PPP programme forms part of a diverse, dynamic and increasingly open Future Internet innovation-ecosystem, where different stakeholders such as researchers
This approach requires sustainable partnerships and cooperation strategies among the main stakeholders. The fourth chapter Smart Cities at the forefront of the Future Internet presents an example of city-scale platform architecture for utilizing innovative Internet of things technologies to enhance the quality of life of citizens.
Effectively sharing these common resources for the purpose of establishing urban and regional innovation ecosystems requires sustainable partnerships and cooperation strategies among the main stakeholders.
Partnerships and clear cooperation strategies among main stakeholders are needed in order to share research and innovation resources such as experimental technology platforms, emerging ICT tools, methodologies and know-how,
and needs of cities and their stakeholders, including citizens and businesses, and which may bridge the gap between short-term city development priorities and longer term technological research and experimentation.
explore, experiment and validate innovative scenarios based on technology platforms such as Future Internet experimental facilities involving SMES and large companies as well as stakeholders from different disciplines.
Testing as joint validation activity Scale of testing Large-scale mainly From small to large scale Stakeholders FI Researchers (ICT industry & academia) IT multidisciplinary researchers, End-users, enterprises (large
This use case involves local stakeholders, such as the regional institution for air measurement quality (Atmo PACA), the local research institute providing the Iot-based green service portal
focus groups involving stakeholders and/or citizen may be run either online or face-to-face. The Periphèria project is among the Smart Cities portfolio of seven projects recently launched in the European commission ICT Policy Support Programme.
among the main stakeholders from business research, policy and citizen groups and achieve an alignment of local, regional and European policy levels and resources.
In that sense, the FI PPP promoted by the EC 10 11 seeks for the cooperation among the main European stakeholders
Thus, the platform will be attractive for all involved stakeholders: industries, communities of users, other entities that are willing to use the experimental facility for deploying
The cardinality of the different stakeholders involved in the smart city business is so big that many nontechnical constraints must be considered (users, public administrations
) A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Family business Review, 21,203 216. Zhou, KZ, & Wu, F. 2010).
The role of government institutions in this phase is to provide the adequate incentives for the development of effective collaborations among all stakeholders in the innovation system
However, the risk is that vested interests from the most powerful regional stakeholders and lobbies may condition decision-makers,
when so-called leading stakeholders play the game of partnership with the sole aim of perpetuating their consolidated position in the regional system,
Local and regional authorities become key players in the promotion of the interactive collaboration between all relevant regional stakeholders for the collective identification of key innovation assets and long-term strategic priorities.
together with other stakeholders, including the private sector, in identifying areas of potential specialisation in regions and Member States. 8 REPORT ON JOINT EUA-REGIO/JRC SMART SPECIALISATION PLATFORM
together with industry and other stakeholders, can maximise the use of EU Structural Funds for research
recognition of the role of universities as a key partner in taking forward successful Smart Specialisation Strategies in partnership with other stakeholders in the region;
active promotion and publication of Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) to motivate participation of key stakeholders;
better alignment of timelines for the different stakeholders (universities, regional authorities and other external actors;
and to prepare for a conference to disseminate the results of the workshop among university leaders, policy makers and other stakeholders.
These topics have been so far exclusively an issue for regional authorities with limited consultation of stakeholders.
(and EUA as the European stakeholder for Europe's universities have focused upon and contributed actively to the debate shaping EU Research Framework Programmes and their rules of participation.
There was a general consensus about the importance to include all relevant stakeholders in the definition and implementation of an RIS3 strategy.
The results of EUA's work are made available to members and stakeholders through conferences seminars, website and publications
and involves many stakeholders across the different sectors, and a new kind of innovation which is pull-through rather than push through
and can deal with new relationships with stakeholders and territories.‘‘Social innovation'seeks new answers to social problems by:
Collaboration with users, front line staff and other stakeholders, and partnerships with organisations from the private, public and third sectors. 38 User Led design processes enable both potential end users and existing front line staff, among other specialists,
and organisational mechanisms that rely, inter alia, on the forceful and broader representation of the interests of stakeholders, on a participatory and democratic governance system,
The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, in collaboration with the municipality, local schools, churches and other stakeholders in the community have worked in Casal da Boba
and many stakeholders will be involved in the running of the business. The car has also been designed to be recycled.
and able to engage a wide range of stakeholders in the design, development and evaluation of social innovation.
and stakeholders such as senior managers or elected councillors, in setting out what is required from a service
and France's Société coopérative d'intérêt collective (cooperative society of collective interest), a new type of multi-stakeholder cooperative structure introduced in France in 1982,
and ideas and solutions can be put forward by citizens and stakeholders across Europe. This could be based on,
and can deal with new relationships with stakeholders and territories.‘‘Social innovation'seeks new answers to social problems by:
There are now 125 NHS Foundation Trusts that have been established as multi-stakeholder mutuals; GPS have organised mutuals to provide out of hours primary care;
But increasingly social ventures are seeking ways to involve stakeholders that do not depend on representation on a board. 120) Boards for innovation.
Social movements, by contrast, use AGMS to reinforce commitments to the mission. 122) Stakeholder governance.
which core stakeholders can be incorporated in the structure of an organisation and its processes. These include the constitution
These can be used at an early stage to guide negotiations between stakeholders. We anticipate considerable web-based innovation in this field, with websites providing guidance on organisational forms, and governance.
and engaging members and stakeholders. 124) Consumer shareholding can be used to involve consumers more directly in the work of a venture,
The benefit of SROI is helping stakeholders to recognise all of the potential benefits a project
describing them instead as processes for discussion between stakeholders. 218) Social accounting methods have been used by many countries.
and able to engage a wide range of stakeholders in the design, development, and evaluation of innovation. 280) In-house innovation units, such as NESTA's Public services Innovation Lab (launched in 2009)
At the European level, The Community of Practice on Inclusive Entrepreneurship (COPIE) brings together a wide variety of stakeholders to discuss issues relating to inclusive entrepreneurship, local development,
or‘blended value'measures and‘social return on investment'measures used for stakeholder communications (for more information on metrics see methods 208-229). 426) Effective philanthropy methods,
and stakeholder management while keeping the organisation aligned to its mission and values. 430) Developing skills within the grant economy.
and other stakeholders of these primary species including government agencies, regulators, associations, standards bodies, and representatives of the host community.
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
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
Other priorities included enhancing interactions between different innovation stakeholders, such as firms, universities and research institutes,
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,
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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 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.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011