an article by
Karen Maas (Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands) and Cecilia Grieco (LUMSA University, Rome Italy)
published in
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship
Volume 8 Issue 1 (2017)
Abstract
Social entrepreneurship (SE) is a beautiful and growing vehicle in society to tackle social problems in innovative ways. Unfortunately, existing research has failed to address to what extent SEs are truly living up to their promises. In result, surprisingly little is known about the actual success of SEs in creating social impact.
Even more elementary, it is hard to know whether SEs are measuring and monitoring their social impact. Using a worldwide sample of 3.194 SEs from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) data this study provides unique insights, as it represents the first global and harmonized assessment of the practice of impact measurement of SEs.
Findings show that about 33% of the SEs in the sample do measure their impact.
Furthermore, the results show a significant positive relation between economic mission, size and innovativeness of the SE and impact measurement.
The relation between social mission and impact measurement show a significant negative result. These results can be seen as a starting point in investigating the actual practice of SEs involvement in impact measurement and opens up interesting avenues for future research.
Showing posts with label performance_measurement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label performance_measurement. Show all posts
Saturday, 16 September 2017
Friday, 2 August 2013
Government Contracts With Private Organizations: Are There Differences Between Nonprofits and For-profits?
an article by Eva M. Witesman (Brigham Young University, Provo, USA) and Sergio Fernandez (Indiana University, Bloomington, USA) published in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Volume 42 Number 4 (August 2013)
Abstract
In this empirical study, we examine whether systematic differences exist between government contracts with nonprofit and for-profit service providers.
Based on principal-agent theory, we examine the potential comparative advantage of nonprofit organisations over for-profits in two areas: contracting process and contract performance.
We test hypotheses using data from a national survey of local government contracts with private service providers. The results provide some support for the propositions that public officials trust nonprofits more than for-profits and grant them additional discretion. Even stronger support is found for the propositions that nonprofits are monitored less than for-profits and are awarded contracts of longer duration and for services characterised by higher levels of task uncertainty than those awarded to their for-profit counterparts.
We find no significant differences in performance between nonprofit and for-profit contractors in terms of cost, quality of work, responsiveness to government requirements, legal compliance, or customer satisfaction.
Hazel’s comment:
This study was done in the USA. I wonder whether the same findings would apply in the UK. My instinctive reaction is not whilst I am thinking of ATOS, Capita and their ilk. Those examples are, however, national government contract and the authors here are talking about local government.
Abstract
In this empirical study, we examine whether systematic differences exist between government contracts with nonprofit and for-profit service providers.
Based on principal-agent theory, we examine the potential comparative advantage of nonprofit organisations over for-profits in two areas: contracting process and contract performance.
We test hypotheses using data from a national survey of local government contracts with private service providers. The results provide some support for the propositions that public officials trust nonprofits more than for-profits and grant them additional discretion. Even stronger support is found for the propositions that nonprofits are monitored less than for-profits and are awarded contracts of longer duration and for services characterised by higher levels of task uncertainty than those awarded to their for-profit counterparts.
We find no significant differences in performance between nonprofit and for-profit contractors in terms of cost, quality of work, responsiveness to government requirements, legal compliance, or customer satisfaction.
Hazel’s comment:
This study was done in the USA. I wonder whether the same findings would apply in the UK. My instinctive reaction is not whilst I am thinking of ATOS, Capita and their ilk. Those examples are, however, national government contract and the authors here are talking about local government.
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
A preliminary study of cognitive failures in open plan offices
an article by Brian Purdey (Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia) and David Leifer (University of Sydney, Australia) published in Facilities Volume 30 Issue 11/12 (2012)
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to describe the application of a new method using instruments with increased ability to objectively assess and quantify the performance impacts on office workers in built environment settings.
Design/methodology/approach
A Distractibility Index (DI) was calculated for sample employees, who then used a computer-based instrument in two settings to evaluate cognitive impairment
Findings
There was measured cognitive impairment in higher distracting work environments. There is potential to use DI to predict performance detriments and aid better workplace design/management.
Research limitations/implications
The study employed only a small sample size. The level of noise and other distractions in the settings studied need to be measured objectively. There is a need to differentiate between various sources of distraction in terms of their impact on cognitive impairment.
Practical implications
The findings of this paper can help to improve workplace performance, with less reliance on physical design solutions.
Originality/value
Workplace performance evaluations typically use subjective measures and self-assessments. Modern work is increasingly cognitive, and hence new computer-based and more objective tools are required. The tool used in this research has been highly validated in other applications.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to describe the application of a new method using instruments with increased ability to objectively assess and quantify the performance impacts on office workers in built environment settings.
Design/methodology/approach
A Distractibility Index (DI) was calculated for sample employees, who then used a computer-based instrument in two settings to evaluate cognitive impairment
Findings
There was measured cognitive impairment in higher distracting work environments. There is potential to use DI to predict performance detriments and aid better workplace design/management.
Research limitations/implications
The study employed only a small sample size. The level of noise and other distractions in the settings studied need to be measured objectively. There is a need to differentiate between various sources of distraction in terms of their impact on cognitive impairment.
Practical implications
The findings of this paper can help to improve workplace performance, with less reliance on physical design solutions.
Originality/value
Workplace performance evaluations typically use subjective measures and self-assessments. Modern work is increasingly cognitive, and hence new computer-based and more objective tools are required. The tool used in this research has been highly validated in other applications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
