Search results

While much is made of the contribution of design to the achievement of competitive advantage within the British fashion retail sector, little attempt has been made to examine the processes in which design is managed, integrated and developed within such companies. With the cooperation of 11 of the UK's most successful fashion retailers, this research identifies that the responsibility for design direction and development has moved from supplier to fashion retailer, in order that the latter can fully exploit and protect the opportunities afforded to them through own‐branding. Suggesting that design control affords greater supply chain control, the research also provides a valuable insight into the varying roles and responsibilities of the designer as well as the differing ways in which the design function is managed by fashion retailers. In addition, the research identifies that for some of the most successful fashion retailers, the contribution of the designer has been extended and his or her creativity incorporated into areas of decision making not traditionally associated with that of the fashion designer.

Why do some healthcare professionals report incidents while others fail to do so? In a previous paper, the authors explored the culture of hospitals in Ireland and the response to those who reported poor care. In this paper the authors aim to advance understanding of reporting behaviour by exploring differences between those who report incidents and those who choose not to report.

An exploratory quantitative research design was utilised for this study. Data from eight acute hospitals in the Health Services Executive (HSE) regions in Ireland – two hospitals from each of the four regions and nursing staff on three wards within each hospital – provided the sample. A total of 575 anonymous questionnaires were distributed.

Eighty‐eight per cent of nurses working in acute hospitals have observed an incident of poor care in the past six months, but only 70 per cent of those reported it. Non‐reporters are significantly more likely than those who have reported incidents to cite “not wanting to cause trouble” and “not being sure if it is the right thing to do” as reasons for their reluctance to report. “Fear of retribution” was the most common reason given by non‐reporters for their reluctance to report.

The findings show that reluctance to report is mainly influenced by fears of retribution, not wanting to cause trouble and not being sure if reporting an incident is the right thing to do. Managers and policy makers within healthcare environments need to provide more reassurance for staff and put in place better measures to protect staff from negative repercussions that might arise from whistleblowing.

Regulation is increasingly being used in healthcare to influence the behaviour of healthcare organisations. Since 2006, a key change in Ireland has been the introduction of national regulatory standards in mental health services under new legislation. Little empirical evidence, however, exists on the effects of regulation. The purpose of this paper is to examine the perceived impact of standards at patient level as well as on professional and organisational practice in services.

An anonymous online survey methodology using a self-devised questionnaire instrument was employed. A national cohort of service managers and multi-disciplinary mental health professionals were asked their views on the introduction of standards.

A total of 185 individuals responded to the survey, yielding a response rate of 38 per cent. Substantial improvements were reported to have taken place across services with the most notable changes being improved safeguarding of patients’ rights and increased safety of care. Additionally, major changes were reported in professional working with new topics being discussed at management meetings and new functions being incorporated into certain professionals’ roles.

Standards can change behaviour at several levels across healthcare organisations, although professional groups differ in their views on the degree of this impact.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first evaluation of the impact of national regulatory standards in healthcare in Ireland. This study lends support to the use of standards to enhance patient rights and the safety of services. The results provide useful direction for policy makers, regulators, and service providers.

The reporting of incidents or “whistleblowing” occurs when a member of staff within an organisation discloses that an employee has acted in a way that is a cause for concern, and the person it is reported to has the ability to do something about it. Surveys in the UK and the USA have shown that errors in healthcare are unacceptably high. It is also known that under‐reporting of errors is the norm. There is a need to understand why people fail to report so that systems and more open cultures which support staff in reporting poor practice can be introduced. Research that captures the experiences of those who have observed poor care and what they experience if they report an incident is critical to developing such an understanding. This paper aims to address this issue.

An exploratory quantitative research design, based on a similar study in the NHS UK, was utilised to answer the research questions of this study. Data were collected in eight acute hospitals in the Health Services Executive (HSE) regions in Ireland. Two hospitals were selected from each of the four regions and nursing staff on three wards within each hospital provided the sample. A total of 575 anonymous questionnaires were sent to all grades of nurses working on these 24 wards.

A total of 152 responses were received, a response rate of 26 per cent. This study found that 88 per cent of respondents, i.e. nurses working in acute hospitals, have observed an incident of poor care in the past six months. The findings indicate that 70 per cent of those that observed an incident of poor care reported it. Nurse managers are more likely to report than staff nurses (reporting rates of 88 per cent and 65 per cent respectively). The study findings indicate that only one in four nurses who reported poor care were satisfied with the way the organisation handled their concerns.

Health professionals have a responsibility to maintain standards of care and this responsibility includes taking action to report poor care. The paper shows that reporting of poor care is hampered by a fear of retribution and lack of faith in the organisation's ability to take corrective action.

The purpose of this paper is to enhance understanding of the conceptualisation and operationalisation of public value in practice by applying Moore's (1995) strategic triangle as an analytical framework to study strategic management and management control practices in relation to public value.

The paper uses an interpretative longitudinal case study approach including qualitative methods of document studies and interviews between 2017 and 2019.

In the strategic triangle, the three nodes of authorising environment, public value creation and operational capacity are interdependent, and alignment is a necessity for a strategy to be successful. But this alignment is vulnerable. The findings suggest three propositions: (1) strategic alignment is vulnerable to management control practices having a strong focus on performance measurements, (2) strategic alignment is vulnerable to standardised management control practices and (3) strategic alignment is vulnerable to politically driven management control practices.

With the strategic triangle as a base, this paper tries to understand what kind of management control practices enable and/or constrain public value, as there has been a call for this kind of research. In this way it adds to earlier research on public value, to the growing interest in the strategic triangle as an analytical framework in analysing empirical material and to the request for more empirical studies on the subject. The strategic triangle also embraces political factors, government agendas and political leadership for which there has also been a call for more research.

With the requisite IT infrastructure now becoming commonplace in academic institutions, electronic journals are becoming an established component of academic life, but the management of electronic journals can not yet be considered trouble‐free. This latest research project at Liverpool John Moores University focuses on the evaluation and promotion of electronic journals in academic libraries in the UK and in North America. The aim is to highlight any significant differences in the way that electronic journals are managed and to identify successes in order to establish “best practice”. Several issues emerge from the research. For electronic journals to become a significant alternative to the print version, there needs to be a recognition that the introduction of electronic journals will impact on working practices and staffing requirements, requiring more technical skills and competencies and changes in management priorities. Furthermore, electronic journals are still a “moving target”, making realignment even more difficult and posing awkward questions for decision makers as to the best way forward. The whole process of electronic journal development requires effective management of change. Interoperability would seem to provide the key to many of the issues involved. All of these factors influence the changing arena of LIS education.