Search results

Process mining (PM) specialises in extracting insights from event logs to facilitate the improvement of an organisation's business processes. Industry trends show the proliferation and continued growth of PM techniques. To address the minimal attention given to developing empirically supported frameworks to assess the nature of impact in the PM domain, this study proposes a framework that identifies the key categories of PM impacts and their interrelationships.

The qualitatively derived framework is built, re-specified and validated from a diverse collection of 62 PM case reports. With multiple rounds of coding supported by coder corroborations, inductively extracted concepts relating to impact from a first set of 12 case reports were grouped into themes and sub-themes to derive an a-priori framework by adopting the balanced scorecard as a theoretical lens. Concepts from the remaining 50 case reports were deductively grouped to re-specify and validate the proposed PM impacts framework. Further analysis identified interrelationships between impacts, which extends our understanding of the identified PM impacts.

The proposed framework captures PM impacts in four main categories: (a) impact on the process, (b) customer impact, (c) financial impact, and (d) impact on innovation and learning. The authors extended this analysis to identify the interrelationships between these categories, which vividly demonstrates how impact on the process mediates the attainment of the other three impact types.

The need for a deeper understanding of PM impacts within the context of contemporary PM practice is addressed by this work. The PM impacts framework provides a classification of PM impacts into four categories with 19 subcategories. It also identifies direct, moderating and mediating relationships between categories and subcategories whilst highlighting the role of impact on the process as a precursor to the other types of PM impact.

Although supporting and assessing the non-academic “impact” of research are not entirely new developments in higher education, academics and research institutions are under increasing pressure to produce work that has a measurable influence outside the academy. With a view to supporting the solution of complex societal issues with evidence and expertise, and against the background of increased emphasis on impact in the United Kingdom's 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF2021) and a proliferation of impact guides and tools, this article offers a simple, easy to remember framework for designing impactful research. We call this framework “The 7Cs of Impact” – Context, Communities, Constituencies, Challenge, Channels, Communication and Capture.

Drawing on core elements of the Policy Institute at King's College London's Impact by Design training course and the authors' practical experience in supporting and delivering impact, this paper outlines how this framework can help address key aspects across the lifecycle of a research project and plan, from identifying the intended impact of research and writing it into grants and proposals, to engaging project stakeholders and assessing whether the project has had the desired impact.

While preparations for current and future REF submissions may benefit from using this framework, this paper sets out the “7Cs” with a more holistic view of impact in mind, seeking to aid researchers in identifying, capturing, and communicating how research projects can and do contribute to the improvement in society.

The regulatory framework may be construed as the existence of supporting infrastructure that assists in control, direction/implementation of a proposed course of law, rule or action. The regulatory order is now more formalized, expert-driven, transparent, independent and pervasive across countries and sectors. As a result, regulatory reforms enable markets to function efficiently by providing a supportive environment for increased investment, private sector growth and market-led economic growth. This study aims to review previous literature for understanding the impact of sectoral regulatory framework on sectoral performance.

This paper has adopted a systematic literature review to understand dynamics between the sectoral regulatory framework and sectoral performance. While seven multidisciplinary databases were used to identify 51 research articles, the bibliometric research profiling was executed to broaden academic research.

The results are organized into three broad categories: research context, research area and research methods. The identified articles exhibited association with 12 distinct sectors/industries, with maximum articles belonging to telecom, energy and finance industries. The study has focused on evolution of regulatory studies, impact of regulatory framework on sectoral performance and commonality in regulatory studies. Among the 15 distinct research contexts identified in this systematic literature review (SLR), the highest mapping was registered (from 23 articles) by the research context “impact of regulatory framework on the sector–institutions, infrastructure and performance indicators.”

Public administration researchers are increasingly using mixed methods research approaches to add diverse and novel perspectives on wicked problems. The qualitative approach (grounded theory, action research, phenomenology and participant observations) is appropriate for understanding the native viewpoints of regulatory practitioners and reducing the gap between rigor and relevance.

The study addresses lack of systematic review of articles covering the impact of regulatory framework on sectoral performance encompassing all sectors by, inter alia, collating important bibliometric profiles of the identified articles.

The purpose of this paper is to inform scholars and practitioners about the current body of knowledge on the role of social capital in scaling social impact since these concepts are still poorly understood and literature is fragmented despite their importance.

A systematic literature review of 27 highly relevant studies in leading journals is conducted, and the results are synthesized into an integrative theoretical framework.

The framework identifies possible dependent, independent, mediating and moderating variables which conceptualize the role of social capital in scaling social impact.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to systematically map social capital’s role in scaling social impact literature with the help of an integrative theoretical framework. For researchers, this framework would help by providing a shared frame of reference to conceptualize the role of social capital in scaling social impact and identify future research directions. Practitioners can use the findings of this review as a guide while designing and implementing scaling social impact programs.

Several frameworks have been developed to map and document scientific societal interaction and impact, each reflecting the specific forms of impact and interaction that characterize different academic fields. The ReAct taxonomy was developed to register data about “productive interactions” and provide an overview of research activities within the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The purpose of the present research is to examine whether the SSH-oriented taxonomy is relevant to the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines when clarifying societal interactions and impact, and whether the taxonomy adds value to the traditional STEM impact indicators such as citation scores and H-index.

The research question was investigated through qualitative interviews with nine STEM researchers. During the interviews, the ReAct taxonomy and visual research profiles based on the ReAct categories were used to encourage and ensure in-depth discussions. The visual research profiles were based on publicly available material on the research activities of the interviewees.

The study provided an insight into how STEM researchers assessed the importance of mapping societal interactions as a background for describing research impact, including which indicators are useful for expressing societal relevance and impact. With regard to the differences between STEM and SSH, the study identified a high degree of cohesion and uniformity in the importance of indicators. Differences were more closely related to the purpose of mapping and impact assessment than between scientific fields. The importance of amalgamation and synergy between academic and societal activities was also emphasised and clarified.

The findings highlight the importance of mapping societal activities and impact, and that societal indicators should be seen as inspiring guidelines depending on purpose and use. A significant contribution is the identification of both uniformity and diversity between the main fields of SSH and STEM, as well as the connection between the choice of indicators and the purpose of mapping, e.g. for impact measurement, profiling, or career development.

The work sheds light on STEM researchers' views on research mapping, visualisation and impact assessment, including similarities and differences between STEM and SSH research.

Building on the concept of “impact literacy” established in a previous paper from Bayley and Phipps, here we extend the principles of impact literacy in light of further insights into sector practice. More specifically, we focus on three additions needed in response to the sector-wide growth of impact: (1) differential levels of impact literacy; (2) institutional impact literacy and environment for impact; and (3) issues of ethics and values in research impact. This paper invites the sector to consider the relevance of all dimensions in establishing, maintaining and strengthening impact within the research landscape. We explore implications for individual professional development, institutional capacity building and ethical collaboration to maximise societal benefit.

The study showcases the social impact (online attention) of funded research compared to nonfunded for the BRICS nations. The key themes achieving online attention across the funded and nonfunded publications have also been identified.

A total of 1,507,931 articles published across the BRICS nations for a period of three (03) years were downloaded from the Clarivate Analytics' InCites database of Web of Science (WoS). “Funding Acknowledgement Analysis (FAA)” was used to identify the funded and nonfunded publications. The altmetric score of the top highly cited (1%) publications was gauged from the largest altmetric data provider, “Altmetric.com”, using the DOI of each publication. One-way ANOVA test was used to know the impact of funding on the mentions (altmetrics) across different data sources covered by Altmetric.com. The highly predominant keywords (hotspots) have been mapped using bibliometric software, “VOSviewer”.

The mentions across all the altmetric sources for funded research are higher compared to nonfunded research for all nations. It indicates the altmetric advantage for funded research, as funded publications are more discussed, tweeted, shared and have more readers and citations; thus, acquiring more social impact/online attention compared to nonfunded publications. The difference in means for funded and nonfunded publications varies across various altmetric sources and nations. Further, the authors’ keyword analysis reveals the prominence of the respective nation names in publications of the BRICS.

The study showcases the utility of indexing the funding information and whether research funding increases social impact return (online attention). It presents altmetrics as an important impact assessment and evaluation framework indicator, adding one more dimension to the research performance. The linking of funding information with the altmetric score can be used to assess the online attention and multi-flavoured impact of a particular funding programme and source/agency of a nation so that necessary strategies would be framed to improve the reach and impact of funded research. It identifies countries that achieve significant online attention for their funded publications compared to nonfunded ones, along with the key themes that can be utilised to frame research and investment plans.

The study represents the social impact of funded research compared to nonfunded across the BRICS nations.

Healthcare is indispensable for any civilisation to attain a good quality of life and well-being on both mental and physical levels. The healthcare domain primarily falls under pharma, medical, biotechnology, and nursing. Also, other fields may be aligned with these primary fields. Healthcare amasses the contemporary trends and knowledge of upcoming techniques to improve healthcare processes. The practitioners are primarily doctors, nurses, specialists and health professionals, hospital administrators, and health insurance.

It is a fundamental attribute needed for any society to attain good quality of life and well-being in mental and physical health. It is a fundamental right of people to receive good healthcare where drug treatment and hospitalization are available at a nominal cost, as a requirement of today’s modern era. There appears to be a significant disparity in the availability of good healthcare in rural areas compared to urban in India. Even though we enter the digital era with the facilities offered in Industry 4.0 and other advanced technologies brings about a significant change of overall processing within healthcare systems. During the pandemic of COVID-19, there has been digital transformation with success globally. Healthcare cooperatives are a new norm to support the healthcare systems globally. The chapter discusses Gampaha healthcare cooperative and reviews Ayushman Sahakar scheme in India. The reforms require time to evolve.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the intersection of research on impact investing and its closely related financial vehicles.

The paper explores 196 articles collected from Scopus and Web of Science using bibliometric and content analysis methodologies.

Despite a growing academic interest in impact investing, scholars generally investigate impact investing as a social phenomenon, using the specific financial mechanism of social impact bonds. This perspective potentially deflates the complex nature of impact investing, which actually combines both social and financial targets and uses a plurality of financial vehicles to reach its goals.

The emerging themes identified will provide both academics and practitioners additional tools to further the debate on impact investing and the understanding of its potential and limits according to the different financial forms it takes. This review should pave the way for a discussion about the boundaries of the social impact sector itself.

Despite the strong international commitment toward impact investing, tensions still exist. A comprehensive overview on the relevant aspects not yet thoroughly investigated will foster the growth of impact investments.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first holistic overview of impact investing, that jointly examines both literature on impact investing and literature on the correlated financial products used in the industry. The result is a comprehensive report of what is known about impact investing in its different financial forms, opening up new pathways for future studies.