Search results

Prefabricated products are continually entering the building construction market; yet, the decision to use prefabricated products in a construction project is based mostly on personal preferences and the evaluation of direct costs. Researchers and practitioners have debated appropriate measurement systems for evaluating the impacts of prefabricated products and for comparing them with conventional on-site construction practices. The more advanced, cost–benefit approach to evaluating prefabricated products often inspires controversy because it may generate inaccurate results when converting non-monetary effects into costs. As prefabrication may affect multiple organisations and product subsystems, the method used to decide on production methods should consider multiple direct and indirect impacts, including nonmonetary ones. Thus, this study aims to develop a multi-criteria method to evaluate both the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabrication solutions to facilitate decision-making on whether to use prefabricated products.

Drawing upon a literature review, this research suggests a multi-criteria method that combines the choosing-by-advantage approach with a cost–benefit analysis. The method was presented for validation in focus group discussions and tested in a case involving a prefabricated bathroom.

The analysis indicates that the method helps a project’s stakeholders communicate about the relative merits of prefabrication and conventional construction while facilitating the final decision of whether to use prefabrication.

This research contributes a method of evaluating the monetary and non-monetary impacts of prefabricated products. The research underlines the need to evaluate the diverse benefits and sacrifices that stakeholder face when considering production methods in construction.

The primary aim of this paper is to develop a reference model for measuring corporate sustainability that can be used by organizations to integrate sustainability measures into their current performance measurement system, helping them to embed sustainability into daily activities and to forge a sustainability culture. A secondary intent is to present a critical analysis of some well‐known sustainability measurement initiatives, showing their strengths and shortcomings.

The approach employed to develop the reference model described in this paper is a qualitative analysis of the complementarity, shortcomings and strengths of eight well‐known sustainability measurement initiatives alongside an extant corporate sustainability literature review.

The research carried out has found that there is not a single initiative analyzed that tackles all sustainability issues and in fact there is no consensus around what should be measured and how. The main divergences are related to the following aspects: different criteria are applied by the initiatives to classify issues between dimensions; same impacts are evaluated at different levels of a cause‐effect relationship continuum by the same initiative; disagreement about the groups of stakeholders a company should engage and assessing the company impacts that should be taken into account (direct only or those of its whole value chain). Moreover, the way in which most initiatives measure sustainability performance is not the most adequate to embed it into the performance measurement systems, since they evaluate sustainability via presence of management practice and employ absolute values indicators rather than result‐oriented measures and ratio indicators that are more adequate for internal decision making. In this context, a sustainability measurement model was developed that is more comprehensive, objective and value‐oriented, constituting an attempt to shed light on these problems.

The major limitation is the fact that the proposed model does not provide any guidance to select the sustainability key issues for an organization to be integrated into its current performance measurement system. It mainly provides a very comprehensive set of sustainability issues and measures that could be used.

This paper sheds light on some sustainability measurement current challenges – lack of consensus of what should be measured and how – and sustainability embedment into daily activities. Academics will find it useful in their research efforts since it presents a broad review of sustainability concepts as well as an analysis of strengths and shortcomings of all and each sustainability initiative focused. Practitioners will also find it useful as a tool to better understand the sustainability concept, to start measuring sustainability performance, to integrate it in, as well as to evaluate, their current performance measurement systems.

This paper aims to examine how social marketing intervention programmes to measure, evaluate and document social marketing impact.

A systematic review of 49 nutritional behaviour intervention programmes (2006–2020) was conducted. To examine the social marketing impact of the programmes, a logic model of social impact was used. The model comprises inputs (the resources used for an intervention programme), outputs (the direct products resulting from the use of resources), outcomes (short- to medium-term programme effects) and impacts (long-term programme effects on the individual, community or societal levels).

Most intervention programmes set the goal of encouraging their target audience to increase fruit and vegetable intake, choose healthy food items, drink less sugary beverages or consume low-fat diaries, while few others sought policy or systems change. Multiple criteria were used for impact evaluation (e.g. exposure and reach, changes in knowledge, awareness, attitudes, behaviours and body mass index). (Quasi) experiments were the most popular method used for impact measurement, followed by the pre-post model of impact. Positive changes were found in 33 programmes, often reported in terms of short-term outputs or outcomes. Long-term impact particularly on the broader societal level was not indicated.

This research offers a systematic review of how social marketing impact is measured, evaluated and documented. It also provides some guidance for social marketers on how to shift from a reductionist, behavioural outcome-focussed approach towards an “expansionist” impact approach that explicitly considers social marketing impacts on the quality of life of individuals, communities and societies.

The purpose of this present study is to find a scientific method for the evaluation of environmental impacts according to the requirement 4.3.1.

To realize the objectives, the authors worked with a representative sample from certified ISO 14001 organizations. The data aim to identify and evaluate (according to the organization's methodology) significant environmental impacts. In this study, the authors created two models for the evaluation of environmental impacts based on an artificial neural network applied in the pilot organization and compared the results obtained from these models with those obtained by applying an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. AHP is part of an multi‐criteria decision making method and provides good multi‐criteria support for decision making for problems that can be structured hierarchically.

This paper presents a new approach that uses a backpropagation neural network to evaluate environmental impacts regardless of the organization type.

This paper presents a unique approach for the reliable and objective evaluation of environmental impacts.

The growing prevalence of social entrepreneurship has been coupled with an increasing number of so-called “impact investors”. However, much remains to be learned about this nascent class of investors. To address the dearth of scholarly attention to impact investing, this study seeks to answer four questions that are central to understanding the phenomenon. What are the defining characteristics of impact investing? Do impact investors differ from traditional classes of investors and, if so, how? What are the motivations that drive impact investment? And, what criteria do impact investors use when evaluating potential investments?

A partially inductive study based on semi-structured interviews with 31 investors and ethnographic observation was conducted to explore how impact investors differ from other classes of investors in their motivations and unique criteria used to evaluate ventures seeking investment.

This study reveals that impact investors represent a unique class of investors that differs from socially responsible investing, from other types of for-profit investors, such as venture capitalists and angel investors, and from traditional philanthropists. The varied motivations of impact investors and the criteria they use to evaluate investments are identified.

Despite the growing practitioner and media attention to impact investing, several foundational issues remain unaddressed. This study takes the first steps toward shedding light on this new realm of early-stage venture investing and clarifying its role in larger efforts of social responsibility.

The purpose of this paper is to report the research findings of an evaluation of the impact of continuing education programs (CEPs) on library information science (LIS) professionals of academic libraries in Mumbai, India. The paper also introduces Donald Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation for Library Science research in the area of program evaluation.

The impact of CEPs was evaluated using Donald Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation using survey method. The impact was evaluated at four levels; reaction, learning, behavior and results. The population of the present study included 344 LIS professionals working at colleges libraries affiliated to University of Mumbai and Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey (SNDT) Women’s University in Mumbai, India. The data collected through questionnaire were supplemented by five specimen interviews of heads of institutions of the academic librarians who had attended more than five CEPs in five years, 2009-2013.

The findings of the study revealed that professionals were satisfied with CEP attendance; keen on gaining more knowledge and transferring the acquired knowledge and skills at their workplaces and interested in implementing the learning to achieve results. The reasons given by academic librarians on not implementing the learning in the library indicated that there were hindrances like lack of management support, lack of technical expertise, inadequate staff in the library, poor IT Infrastructure, etc. in transferring the learning at work.

The study was based on self-perceptions of respondents. The limitation of self-perception was eliminated to some extent by supplementing qualitative data wherever required. CEPs included conferences, seminars, workshops, refresher courses, orientation programs and online courses. Pre-test and post-test recommended by the Kirkpatrick model could not be conducted as the researcher has not adopted experimental design. The data of feedback from the organizers and content of the CEPs attended by respondents were not analyzed in the study.

The paper describes the implementation of Kirkpatrick model to evaluate the CEPs, which can be used by the organizers or institutions to evaluate the impact of CEPs in future. This will help them to improve upon the contents of CEPs making them more relevant and effective.

Evaluation of CEPs will be useful to ensure the effectiveness of CEPs and performance of LIS professionals.

This paper reports an original research initiative undertaken to evaluate the impact of CEPs attended by LIS professionals of Indian academic libraries in Mumbai, India. It fills the gap in LIS research. The application of Donald Kirkpatrick model of Training evaluation is also valuable for LIS research.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce altmetric indicators and combine with traditional citation indicators to comprehensively evaluate the impact of academic journals from the perspective of multidimensional and multi-indicator fusion.

The authors take international multidisciplinary journals as an example, combining 14 traditional citation indicators of academic journals and introducing 14 altmetric indicators to build a comprehensive evaluation model of the impact of academic journals (academic impact and societal impact). At the same time, the authors systematically construct a journal evaluation indicator system from three dimensions. Then, the indicators data of three dimensions are evaluated by normalized processing, correlation analysis, reliability and validity analysis, PCA and factor analysis.

Two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses can exactly provide some useful information for academic journals’ location in the respective coordinate systems. There are strong positive correlations among the measured indicators in the three dimensions, and each indicator has a significant consistency between whole and internal. The correlation coefficient between FD1 and FD2 is 0.888 with a strong positive correlation. It shows that the traditional citation indicators provided by WoS and Scopus database are highly consistent, and they are comparable and alternative in evaluating the academic impact of journals. The correlation coefficients of FD1, FD2 with FD3 are 0.831 and 0.798. There are strong positive correlations among them, which indicate that the evaluation of journals’ societal impact based on altmetrics indicator can be considered as a potential supplement to academic impact evaluation based on citation and to reflect the multidimensional nature of journals impact in an immediate way.

Multidimensional and multi-indicator perspective evaluation can provide references for the selection of impact evaluation indicators and model optimization of academic journals, and also provide new ideas for improving the status of the impact evaluation of academic journals.

This study distinguishes the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field based on the modification of the journal impact factor.

Taking SSCI journals in library and information science (LIS) as the research object, the authors first explore the skewness degree of the citation distribution of journal articles. Then, we define the paper citation ratio as the weight of impact factor to modify the journal impact factor for the evaluation of papers, namely the weighted impact factor. The authors further explore the feasibility of the weighted impact factor in evaluating papers.

The research results show that different types of skewness exist in the citation distribution of journal papers. Particularly, 94% of journal paper citations are highly skewed, while the rest are moderately skewed. The weighted impact factor has a closer correlation with the citation frequency of papers than the journal impact factor. It resolves the issue that the journal impact factor tends to exaggerate the influence of low-cited papers in journals with high impact factors or weaken the influence of high-cited papers in journals with low impact factors.

The weighted impact factor is constructed based on the skewness of the citation distribution of journal articles. It provides a new method to distinguish the academic influence of different papers published in journals of the same subject or field, then avoids the situation that papers published in the same journal having the same academic impact.

The purpose of this paper is to present a critically reflective account of the process of conducting an impact evaluation of a dance-theatre company’s staged productions and workshops.

There are two main approaches: the introspective critical reflection on the process of performing an impact evaluation; and the drawing/colouring methods used to perform it.

It is more difficult to provide impact evaluations of the soft rather than hard outcomes of publicly funded performance arts. The engagement of third-party evaluators may help overcome the challenge that many “accepted” approaches are outwith the skill or financial resources of smaller non-profit organisations.

Although based on a single case, the authors believe that the evidence how the use of innovative methodologies may be more appropriate to performing arts impact evaluations, even those less familiar to management researchers.

This paper offers insights into various methods of impact evaluation that may be of use to smaller non-profit arts organisations who may be constrained by limited skills and financial resources.

This paper provides an original contribution to understanding innovative methodologies to perform arts impact evaluations, particularly those assessing soft outcomes, and a contribution in recognising the role of academic researchers in performing such evaluations.