Search results

Charitable lotteries represent one of today's most popular fund-raising schemes. This study begins by developing theory examining the optimal design of a charitable lottery. We show that any prize distribution is only optimal for a group of n symmetric agents with given risk preference. However, there exist multiple prize distributions that generate contributions approaching the optimal level over a range of individual risk posture. We test our theory using a battery of experimental treatments. Our results suggest that lotteries dominate the voluntary contribution mechanism (VCM) in terms of total dollars raised. Moreover, the performance of lotteries weakly depends on individual risk preference.

We take Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT) seriously by rigorously estimating structural models using the full set of CPT parameters. Much of the literature only estimates a subset of CPT parameters, or more simply assumes CPT parameter values from prior studies. Our data are from laboratory experiments with undergraduate students and MBA students facing substantial real incentives and losses. We also estimate structural models from Expected Utility Theory (EUT), Dual Theory (DT), Rank-Dependent Utility (RDU), and Disappointment Aversion (DA) for comparison. Our major finding is that a majority of individuals in our sample locally asset integrate. That is, they see a loss frame for what it is, a frame, and behave as if they evaluate the net payment rather than the gross loss when one is presented to them. This finding is devastating to the direct application of CPT to these data for those subjects. Support for CPT is greater when losses are covered out of an earned endowment rather than house money, but RDU is still the best single characterization of individual and pooled choices. Defenders of the CPT model claim, correctly, that the CPT model exists “because the data says it should.” In other words, the CPT model was borne from a wide range of stylized facts culled from parts of the cognitive psychology literature. If one is to take the CPT model seriously and rigorously then it needs to do a much better job of explaining the data than we see here.

There is growing public interest in alternatives to intellectual property including, but not limited to, prizes and government grants. We collect various historical and contemporary examples of alternative incentives, and show when they are superior to intellectual property. We also give an explanation for why federally funded R&D has moved from an intramural activity to largely a grant process. Finally, we observe that much research is supported by a hybrid system of public and private sponsorship, and explain why this makes sense in some circumstances.

The purpose of this study is to understand the identity of the Nobel Prize as a corporate heritage brand and its management challenges.

An in-depth case study analysed within a heritage brand model and a corporate brand identity framework.

The Nobel Prize is a corporate heritage brand – one whose value proposition is based on heritage – in this case “achievements for the benefit of mankind” (derived directly from Alfred Nobel’s will). It is also defined as a “networked brand”, one where four independent collaborating organisations around the (Nobel) hub create and sustain the Nobel Prize’s identity and reputation, acting as a “federated republic”.

The new and combined application of the Heritage Quotient framework and the Corporate Brand Identity Matrix in the Heritage Brand Identity Process (HBIP) offers a structured approach to integrate the identity of a corporate heritage brand. In a networked situation, understanding the role of stewardship in collaborating organisations is essential: The network entities maintain their own identities and goals, but share common values of the network hub.

The integrated frameworks (HBIP) provides a platform for managing a corporate heritage brand.

This is the first field-based study of the Nobel Prize from a strategic brand management perspective.

This paper aims to provide an alternative method of building quality collections for Jewish Studies collection development professionals in small and medium‐sized academic libraries with highly restricted budgets.

Sources of Jewish Studies literary awards were identified and a detailed analysis of awarded books' subjects and the publishing sources was conducted.

The results show that awarded books cover a vast variety of subjects of interest to Jewish Studies collections. Since many of them are also published by academic presses, the use of identified Jewish Studies book award sources should be considered by bibliographers responsible for building Jewish Studies collections in non‐sectarian college libraries with very limited budgetary resources.

The “one stop” access to all award sources and awarded books provides an easy access to otherwise dispersed information.

The comprehensive list of awards, nominated and winning titles, as well as the subject analysis presented herein, is the first of its kind. This can be used by Jewish Studies bibliographers to build and improve their collections and can also serve as a model for building other interdisciplinary subject collections.

Several bibliometric indicators that are extensively used to estimate research performance have not been validated against an external criterion of excellence. This paper aims to investigate whether this validation is possible using the number of Nobel Prize awards.

This study uses several analytical treatments of the data to investigate: whether Nobel Prize awards are sporadic events or they depend on the scientific activity of countries or institutions and can be used in research evaluation; and the association between the number of Nobel Prize achievements and conventional bibliometric indicators across countries and institutions.

This study finds that conventional bibliometric indicators, numbers of publications, citations, and top 1 per cent most cited publications, correlate with the number of Nobel Prize achievements in several advanced countries with similar research abilities. Contrarily, in countries and institutions with more variable research characteristics, there is no association between conventional bibliometric indicators and the number of Nobel Prize achievements, and their use as indicators of research excellence is not valid. In contrast, the number of national articles in Nature and Science correlates with the number of Nobel Prize achievements across countries and institutions.

Science administrators implementing research evaluations and research incentives based on conventional bibliometric indicators should consider that increasing the scores of these indicators does not imply an improvement in research excellence.

The study demonstrates that Nobel Prize achievements are not singular events that occur by chance. Therefore, the number of Nobel Prize achievements can be used to validate bibliometric indicators.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the commonalities and differences between the Deming Prize (DP) and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA).

A qualitative comparison is made of the changes in the Deming Prize and the MBNQA from 1992 to 2005. In the process, the paper arrives at their current commonalities and differences.

Concludes that during the last 13 years the emphasis of both the Deming Prize and the MBNQA has shifted from technical quality to excellence of all organizational processes. They have moved towards a common understanding of “good leadership” and an appreciation of systems thinking. However, they have maintained their basic difference in the sense that, while inherent in the DP are consulting and guidance by the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE) over a longer timeframe, MBNQA begins with a more self‐ assessment approach and is more competitive in spirit. Further, since its inception, while the MBNQA has been very public with its entire award process, the DP has made its award process public only since 2003.

Prior experience in TQM is considered desirable if an organization is to reap full benefit from the Deming Prize.

Compares the changes in the understanding of quality by two major awards in a common time period. It shows that, in spite of all its mutations, the DP maintains its basic congruence with the Deming's philosophy. It also brings out the differences in the assessment methods of the Deming Prize and the MBNQA.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a system for regularly offered government-sponsored technology prizes. Such prizes would preserve the incentive to invent without the barriers to entry that come with the patent system. This is of particular interest to entrepreneurs as they lack the patent portfolio that incumbent firms can leverage into derivative technology.

After reviewing various efficiency concerns with the patent system, the author describes how technology prizes could work alongside the patent system. Such prizes are best when the sponsor can capture as much of the technology spillover as possible – i.e. through a government agency. This paper provides a framework for a practical prize structure while paying special attention to combating the logistical and public choice concerns of creating a prize.

This paper focuses on two methods to prevent inefficiency in government-sponsored prize: truth-bonding and information markets. Each mechanism helps combat different kinds of problems. Various complications to this system are explored and addressed.

The paper suggests that an efficient prize system is a possible policy and, if implemented, would embolden technology-focused entrepreneurship and other subsequent technological development.

While previous work has noted the benefits of technology prizes over patents, few attempts have been made to outline an incentive-compatible system for doing so. This paper is the first of its kind to propose a practical and efficient government-sponsored prize system.

This paper circulates around two major questions: what is the character of prizes as a media product? And how do the specifics of media prizes relate to the understanding of organizations with respect to a given aspect of their activities? The purpose of this paper is to bring forward theoretical arguments that show the significance of media preferences and values as central in how media prizes and awards are created and operated by discussing these questions.

The paper draws on a variety of literature – mainly within management and media/communication studies – that is interested in the construction of different assessment tools such as prizes and rankings.

The paper addresses three particular characteristics of media prizes relevant for the understanding of how media evaluate organizations: the forming and spreading of stereotypical representative or behavior within a specific category or field; the simplification of status through the creation of “winners”; and the popularization of public measures for success in business life.

This is a conceptual paper and as such it needs more systematic empirical testing to validate the findings.

The paper suggests three different roles media prizes have in evaluating organizations’ performance and their social status. The findings suggest that the qualities/aspects emphasized by the prizes are framed in such a way that they follow the rational or logic of media, and that they as such bear witness should be regarded with certain critical scrutiny.

The paper discusses an expanding area of journalistic practice – i.e. production and proliferation of media prizes. These prizes have a significant effect on how the authors conceptualize and understand different aspects of the life – in the case business practices such as entrepreneurship. The authors suggest here how media prizes can come to shape the perceptions of reality through processes of simplification, stereotypification and popularization.

Up to now there are few studies focusing on media as a producer of assessments central for building normative and cognitive bases on which organizations are evaluated. The conceptual arguments in this paper highlight a number of areas that can serve as a starting point for future inquiry.

In the twenty-first century, technology and information are continuously being changed and rapidly updated. Many new innovations and discoveries emerge daily. This study aims to identify significant pioneers and milestones in academic research through utilizing bibliometric methods and heterogeneous data, including textbook citations, citations of theses and dissertations, and journal citations.

This study proposes several methods and formulas for recommending Nobel prizes candidates. Through utilizing bibliometric methods and heterogeneous data, including textbook citations, citations of theses and dissertations, and journal article citations, this research facilitates the collection of numerous significant research results. The authors propose several new, useful formulae, including a pioneer paper impact factor, a popular classical paper impact factor, a ranking factor of specific fields, a groundbreaking author impact factor, and a frequently cited author impact factor.

This study utilizes historical information on the Nobel Prize to examine, revise, and verify existing methods for recommending and predicting candidates, in order to enhance the accuracy and availability of the approach presented by this study. The experimental results show that the approach designed in this study had a rate of successful prediction exceeding 50 percent. The major reason for producing reasonable results is that the milestone paper and pioneer paper are filtered first, and then the important candidate authors from the most pioneer paper are filtered. Therefore, the results indicated the feasibility of the methods developed by this study.

The purpose of the Nobel Prize is to reward original research findings or inventions that significantly and positively influence human life. However, due to budget limitations, only five fields are included in the academic domains for which Nobel prizes are awarded. The authors develop one useful new way to identify milestone papers and authors. Young students can choose, read and learn from these milestone papers. The pioneer authors identified by this research could be the recommended candidate list for some academic awards.