Search results

Pressures from non-profit sport organizations’ (NPSOs) external environment influence governance structures and processes. Thus, this study explores the impact of external factors on NPSO board decision making.

Using a sample of six NPSO boards (two national, four provincial/territorial), data were collected via 36 observations, 18 interviews, and over 900 documents. A thematic analysis was conducted via NVivo 12.

Results identified two external factors impacting NPSO board decision making: the sport system structure and general environment conditions. External factors impacted NPSO board decision making in terms of duration, flow, interaction, and scrutiny.

Results demonstrate the need for NPSO boards to engage in boundary-spanning activities whereby external information sources from stakeholders are incorporated to make informed decisions. Practically, NPSO boards should harness virtual meetings to continue their operations while incorporating risk management analyses to assess threats and opportunities.

This survey explores the application of real options theory to the field of health economics. The integration of options theory offers a valuable framework to address these challenges, providing insights into healthcare investments, policy analysis and patient care pathways.

This research employs the real options theory, a financial concept, to delve into health economics challenges. Through a systematic approach, three distinct models rooted in this theory are crafted and analyzed. Firstly, the study examines the value of investing in emerging health technology, factoring in future advantages, associated costs and unpredictability. The second model is patient-centric, evaluating the choice between immediate treatment switch and waiting for more clarity, while also weighing the associated risks. Lastly, the research assesses pandemic-related government policies, emphasizing the importance of delaying decisions in the face of uncertainties, thereby promoting data-driven policymaking.

Three different real options models are presented in this study to illustrate their applicability and value in aiding decision-makers. (1) The first evaluates investments in new technology, analyzing future benefits, discount rates and benefit volatility to determine investment value. (2) In the second model, a patient has the option of switching treatments now or waiting for more information before optimally switching treatments. However, waiting has its risks, such as disease progression. By modeling the potential benefits and risks of both options, and factoring in the time value, this model aids doctors and patients in making informed decisions based on a quantified assessment of potential outcomes. (3) The third model concerns pandemic policy: governments can end or prolong lockdowns. While awaiting more data on the virus might lead to economic and societal strain, the model emphasizes the economic value of deferring decisions under uncertainty.

This research provides a quantified perspective on various decisions in healthcare, from investments in new technology to treatment choices for patients to government decisions regarding pandemics. By applying real options theory, stakeholders can make more evidence-driven decisions.

Decisions about patient care pathways and pandemic policies have direct societal implications. For instance, choices regarding the prolongation or ending of lockdowns can lead to economic and societal strain.

The originality of this study lies in its application of real options theory, a concept from finance, to the realm of health economics, offering novel insights and analytical tools for decision-makers in the healthcare sector.

The primary aim of this research was to investigate the mediating effect of the decision-making structure on the relationship between perceived environmental uncertainty and hospital performance.

Online and manual survey questionnaires were used to collect data in this study. The target population of this study consists of all middle managers within 11 COVID-19 referral hospitals in Surabaya. A total of 189 responses were collected, however, 27 incomplete responses were excluded from the final dataset. Data was analyzed using SEM-PLS.

The study's findings indicate that decision-making structure plays a role in mediating the link between perceived environmental uncertainty and hospital performance assessed via the Balanced Scorecard, highlighting the significance of flexible decision-making processes during uncertain periods. Moreover, based on our supplementary test, respondents' demographic characteristics influence their perceptions of hospital performance.

Hospital administrators can consider the significance of decision-making structures in responding to environmental uncertainties like the COVID-19 pandemic. By fostering adaptable decision-making processes and empowering middle managers, hospitals may enhance their performance and resilience in challenging situations. Additionally, based on supplementary tests, it is found that differences in the perception of the three Balanced Scorecard perspectives imply that hospitals categorized as types A, B, C, and D should prioritize specific areas to improve their overall performance.

This research adds substantial originality and value to the existing body of knowledge by exploring the interplay between decision-making structures, environmental uncertainty, and hospital performance. It contributes to the literature by specifically focusing on the Covid-19 pandemic, a unique and unprecedented global crisis.

This study aims to create actionable guidelines for pricing decision-making by employing game a theory matrix to forecast the correlation between the average daily rate and the latest ambiance of hotels.

Utilizing a vector error correction model, the research employs game theory to assess the influence of the average daily rate on the hotel's newest atmosphere during both peak season (April–September) and valley season (October–March).

Findings indicate that during the peak season, when the average daily rate rises in resorts and falls in suburban areas, the hotel’s newest atmosphere is at its best in both types of accommodations. During the off-peak season, the hotel’s newest atmosphere is achieved when both resorts and suburban accommodations increase their average daily rates.

There are two study constraints. One is the assumption that hotel guests in both parties prefer not to change hotels, but in fact they would. Two is a limited sample of two resort and suburban markets.

This suggests that the hotel’s newest atmosphere can draw both leisure and business travelers to suburban areas during the low season and more leisure travelers to resorts during the high season.

The study’s findings have implications for revenue related to the hotel’s newest atmosphere and cleanliness for both suburban and resort hotels, particularly when promoting tourism collaboratively.

The study provides valuable insights for hotel managers in analyzing pricing strategies using matrices.

This study aims to investigate the association between cognitive moral development (CMD) and unethical pro-organizational behaviour (UPB) by taking purchasing employees as research subjects. The moderating effect of perceived leader’s UPB is also explored.

Data were collected through a two-stage questionnaire survey on purchasing employees in companies across a spectrum of industries in Taiwan, and 492 purchasing employees were analysed in the study.

Research findings reveal that employees at the conventional level of CMD are more likely to conduct UPB than those at the pre-conventional and post-conventional levels. Perceived leader’s UPB will moderate the association between CMD and UPB. Employees’ UPB is strongly associated with their CMD when they perceive their leaders as being likely to perform UPB.

Although a variety of factors influencing UPB have been proposed in the literature, none of them have analysed the association between CMD and UPB. However, CMD is one important factor affecting ethical decision-making. The present study can promote further understanding of the role of CMD in UPB and contribute to a growing body of research on CMD and UPB.

Supplier selection along with continuous evaluation of their performance is a crucial activity in healthcare supply chain management for effective utilization of scarce resources while providing quality service at an affordable price, and minimizing chances of stock-out, avoiding serious consequences on the illness or fatality of the patients. Presence of both qualitative and quantitative evaluation criteria, set of potential suppliers and participation of different stakeholders with varying interest make healthcare supplier selection a challenging task which can be effectively solved using any of the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods.

To deal with various qualitative criteria, like cost, quality, delivery performance, reliability, responsiveness and flexibility, this paper proposes integration of grey system theory with a newly developed MCDM tool, i.e. mixed aggregation by comprehensive normalization technique (MACONT) to identify the best performing supplier for pharmaceutical items in a healthcare unit from a pool of six competing alternatives based on the opinions of three healthcare professionals.

While assessing importance of the six evaluation criteria and performance of the alternative healthcare suppliers against those criteria using grey numbers, and exploring use of three normalization procedures and two aggregation operations of MACONT method, this integrated approach singles out S5 as the most compromised healthcare supplier for the considered problem. A sensitivity analysis of its ranking performance against varying values of both balance parameters and preference parameters also validates its solution accuracy and robustness.

This integrated approach can thus efficiently solve healthcare supplier selection problems based on qualitative evaluation criteria in uncertain group decision making environment. It can also be deployed to deal with other decision making problems in the healthcare sector, like supplier selection for healthcare devices, performance evaluation of healthcare units, ranking of physicians etc.

Infection and cross-contamination have been massive concerns in the medical field. This study aims to investigate consumers’ awareness and their choices of endoscopes, which may deter them from the cross-contamination problem.

A discrete choice experiment survey was administered to 166 respondents in Penang, Malaysia. Participants were asked to make hypothetical choices and estimate their preference for endoscopes. The multinomial logit model was used to estimate the assumptions based on the stated preference data collected.

Only two-fifths of respondents are aware of their rights regarding endoscope selection. The findings are consistent with utility theory, where choices are made to maximise personal satisfaction. If given the choice, consumers preferred the single-use endoscope over the reusable or the doctor’s preferred endoscope. Price, insurance coverage and personal income are significant determinants of the consumer’s choice of endoscopes.

This study only investigates subjects living in Penang. Other possible important attributes to endoscope choices, such as environmental and device availability may be considered in future study.

The findings may create awareness among consumers about their rights when choosing medical devices. It may also improve health-care institutions’ (users’) and device manufacturers’ (industry players’) understanding of consumer needs and demands from socioeconomic perspectives.

The research offers insights into consumer rights and awareness of health-care services. Ultimately leading to better policy to protect consumers’ rights and safety.

This study contributes to the rare literature on consumer rights toward medical devices, in particular, the consumer’s awareness of the choice of endoscopes.

This paper aims to provide an elucidative and explanatory overview of decision-making theory that human resource management and development (HR) researchers and practitioners can use to explore the impact of heuristics and biases on organizational decisions, particularly within HR contexts.

This paper draws upon three theoretical resources anchored in decision-making research: the theory of bounded rationality, the heuristics and biases program, and cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST). A selective narrative review approach was adopted to identify, translate, and contextualize research findings that provide immense applicability, connection, and significance to the field and study of HR.

The authors extract key insights from the theoretical resources surveyed and illustrate the linkages between HR and decision-making research, presenting a theoretical framework to guide future research endeavors.

Decades of decision-making research have been distilled into a digestible and accessible framework that offers both theoretical and practical implications.

Heuristics are mental shortcuts that facilitate quick decisions by simplifying complexity and reducing effort needed to solve problems. Heuristic strategies can yield favorable outcomes, especially amid time and information constraints. However, heuristics can also introduce systematic judgment errors known as biases. Biases are pervasive within organizational settings and can lead to disastrous decisions. This paper provides HR scholars and professionals with a balanced, nuanced, and integrative framework to better understand heuristics and biases and explore their organizational impact. To that end, a forward-looking and direction-setting research agenda is presented.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the support for multi-party collaboration in project construction provided by building information modeling (BIM). Based on the perspective of value co-creation, the research results can provide support for the collaborative application and contract design of BIM platform.

In this paper, an evolutionary game model involving the owner, designer and constructor is constructed by using prospect theory and evolutionary game theory. Through simulation analysis, the evolution law of the strategy choice of each party in the collaborative application of BIM platform is discussed and the key factors affecting the strategy choice of all parties are analyzed.

The results show that there is an ideal local equilibrium point with progressive stability in the evolutionary game between the three parties: “the construction party shares information, the designer receives the information and optimizes the project and the owner does not provide incentives”; in addition, the opportunistic behaviors of the design and construction parties, as well as the probability of such behaviors being detected and the subsequent punishment have a significant impact on the evolutionary outcome.

This method can provide support for the collaborative application and contract design of BIM platform.

Disinformation on social media is a serious issue. This study examines the effects of disinformation on COVID-19 vaccination decision-making to understand how social media users make healthcare decisions when disinformation is presented in their social media feeds. It examines trust in post owners as a moderator on the relationship between information types (i.e. disinformation and factual information) and vaccination decision-making.

This study conducts a scenario-based web survey experiment to collect extensive survey data from social media users.

This study reveals that information types differently affect social media users' COVID-19 vaccination decision-making and finds a moderating effect of trust in post owners on the relationship between information types and vaccination decision-making. For those who have a high degree of trust in post owners, the effect of information types on vaccination decision-making becomes large. In contrast, information types do not affect the decision-making of those who have a very low degree of trust in post owners. Besides, identification and compliance are found to affect trust in post owners.

This study contributes to the literature on online disinformation and individual healthcare decision-making by demonstrating the effect of disinformation on vaccination decision-making and providing empirical evidence on how trust in post owners impacts the effects of information types on vaccination decision-making. This study focuses on trust in post owners, unlike prior studies that focus on trust in information or social media platforms.