Negative Effects of Incentivised Viral Campaigns for Activity in Social Networks

Viral campaigns are crucial methods for word-of-mouth marketing in social communities. The goal of these campaigns is to encourage people for activity. The problem of incentivised and non-incentivised campaigns is studied in the paper. Based on the data collected within the real social networking site both approaches were compared. The experimental results revealed that a highly motivated campaign not necessarily provides better results due to overlapping effect. Additional studies have shown that the behaviour of individual community members in the campaign based on their service profile can be predicted but the classification accuracy may be limited.Comment: In proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Social Computing and its Applications, SCA 201

Does woman + a network = career progression?

Question: I am an ambitious and talented junior manager who has recently been hired by FAB plc, a large multinational company. I am also a woman and, as part of my induction pack, have received an invitation to join FABFemmes - the in-company women's network. I don't think my gender has been an obstacle to my success thus far and so I don't really feel the need to join. But on the other hand I don't want to turn my back on something that might offer me a useful source of contacts to help me advance up the career ladder. What would be the best thing to do? - Ms Ambitious, UK

How to Create an Innovation Accelerator

Too many policy failures are fundamentally failures of knowledge. This has become particularly apparent during the recent financial and economic crisis, which is questioning the validity of mainstream scholarly paradigms. We propose to pursue a multi-disciplinary approach and to establish new institutional settings which remove or reduce obstacles impeding efficient knowledge creation. We provided suggestions on (i) how to modernize and improve the academic publication system, and (ii) how to support scientific coordination, communication, and co-creation in large-scale multi-disciplinary projects. Both constitute important elements of what we envision to be a novel ICT infrastructure called "Innovation Accelerator" or "Knowledge Accelerator".Comment: 32 pages, Visioneer White Paper, see http://www.visioneer.ethz.c

Reforming the implementation of European structural funds: A next development step

The authors assess the performance of the Structural Funds’ implementation system in six Member States of the European Union. Considering the strengths and weaknesses, they develop a reform model for the implementation of European structural policy after 1999. The strengths of the existing implementation system lie mainly in innovation effects triggered by the Structural Funds' model of policy implementation. Its main weaknesses, inter alia, are an interwoven structure of the decision-making processes, an insufficient time management and a lack of in-built improvement loops in the implementation process. To overcome these shortcomings, the authors propose a strategic management and decentralisation model. It demands a de-coupling of strategic programming on the one hand, and detailed programming and implementation on the other. Under this model, the Commission and the Member State would negotiate on the strategic issues. In the framework of the agreement, the Member State together with the monitoring committees would be responsible for the implementation of the programmes. Strengthened feedback loops would help to assure the attainment of the strategic objectives. -- Die Autoren untersuchen die Leistungsfähigkeit des Implementationssystems der Strukturfondsförderung in sechs Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union. Vor dem Hintergrund der Stärken und Schwächen entwickeln sie ein Reformmodell zur Implementation der Strukturfonds in der nächsten Förderperiode nach der Reform 1999. Die Stärken des bestehenden Implementationssystems liegen vor allem in den prozeduralen Innovationen, die z.T. auf das Politikmodell der Strukturfonds und seine Kopplung an mitgliedstaatliche Verwaltungsprozesse zurückgeführt werden können. Die wichtigsten Schwächen sind u.a. die verflochtene Struktur der Entscheidungsprozesse, ein ungenügendes Zeitmanagement und fehlende inhärente Verbesserungsmechanismen des Implementationsprozesses. Um diese Schwächen zu überwinden, schlagen die Autoren ein strategisches Management- und Dezentralisierungsmodell vor. Sein Kern besteht in der Trennung von strategischer Programmierung einerseits und Detailprogrammierung und Implementation andererseits. Die Europäische Kommission und der jeweilige Mitgliedstaat handeln demnach die strategischen Teile der Programme aus. Im Rahmen dieser strategischen Vereinbarung ist dann der Mitgliedstaat für die Detailprogrammierung und Umsetzung der Programme verantwortlich, wobei er vom Begleitausschuß unterstützt wird. Verstärkte Feedbackinstrumente tragen dazu bei, die Einhaltung der strategischen Vorgaben zu sichern.

If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0

Over the past 15 years, the web has transformed the way we seek and use information. In the last 5 years in particular a set of innovative techniques – collectively termed ‘web 2.0’ – have enabled people to become producers as well as consumers of information. It has been suggested that these relatively easy-to-use tools, and the behaviours which underpin their use, have enormous potential for scholarly researchers, enabling them to communicate their research and its findings more rapidly, broadly and effectively than ever before. This report is based on a study commissioned by the Research Information Network to investigate whether such aspirations are being realised. It seeks to improve our currently limited understanding of whether, and if so how, researchers are making use of various web 2.0 tools in the course of their work, the factors that encourage or inhibit adoption, and researchers’ attitudes towards web 2.0 and other forms of communication. Context: How researchers communicate their work and their findings varies in different subjects or disciplines, and in different institutional settings. Such differences have a strong influence on how researchers approach the adoption – or not – of new information and communications technologies. It is also important to stress that ‘web 2.0’ encompasses a wide range of interactions between technologies and social practices which allow web users to generate, repurpose and share content with each other. We focus in this study on a range of generic tools – wikis, blogs and some social networking systems – as well as those designed specifically by and for people within the scholarly community. Method: Our study was designed not only to capture current attitudes and patterns of adoption but also to identify researchers’ needs and aspirations, and problems that they encounter. We began with an online survey, which collected information about researchers’ information gathering and dissemination habits and their attitudes towards web 2.0. This was followed by in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a stratified sample of survey respondents to explore in more depth their experience of web 2.0, including perceived barriers as well as drivers to adoption. Finally, we undertook five case studies of web 2.0 services to investigate their development and adoption across different communities and business models. Key findings: Our study indicates that a majority of researchers are making at least occasional use of one or more web 2.0 tools or services for purposes related to their research: for communicating their work; for developing and sustaining networks and collaborations; or for finding out about what others are doing. But frequent or intensive use is rare, and some researchers regard blogs, wikis and other novel forms of communication as a waste of time or even dangerous. In deciding if they will make web 2.0 tools and services part of their everyday practice, the key questions for researchers are the benefits they may secure from doing so, and how it fits with their use of established services. Researchers who use web 2.0 tools and services do not see them as comparable to or substitutes for other channels and means of communication, but as having their own distinctive role for specific purposes and at particular stages of research. And frequent use of one kind of tool does not imply frequent use of others as well

Improving the Yields in Higher Education: Findings from Lumina Foundation's State-Based Efforts to Increase Productivity in U.S. Higher Education

In 2008, Lumina asked SPEC Associates (SPEC) to evaluate the foundation's grant making aimed at improving the productivity of higher education through statewide policy and program change. The initiative was initially known as Making Opportunity Affordable and later became known more broadly as Lumina's higher education productivity initiative. Eleven states received planning grants in 2008 and a year later seven of these states received multi-year grants to implement their productivity plans. In 2009, Lumina published Four Steps to Finishing First in Higher Education to frame the content of its productivity work. In 2010, the foundation, working with HCM Strategists, launched the Strategy Labs Network to deliver just-in-time technical assistance, engagement, informationsharing and convenings to states. Lumina engaged SPEC to evaluate these productivity investments in the seven states through exploring this over-arching question: What public will building, advocacy, public policy changes, and system or statewide practices are likely to impact higher education productivity for whom and in what circumstances, and which of these are likely to be sustainable, transferable, and/or scalable

Integrating personal learning and working environments

This review paper part of a series of papers commissioned by the Institute for Employment Research at the University of Warwick under the title of 'Beyond Current Horizons – Working and Employment Challenge'. In turn, in forms part of a larger programme of work under the banner of Beyond Current Horizons that is being managed by FutureLab on behalf of the UK Department for Schools, Children and Families. The brief was to cover: - The main trends and issues in the area concerned; - Any possible discontinuities looking forward to 2025 and beyond; - Uncertainties and any big tensions; - Conclusions on what the key issues will be in the future and initial reflections on any general implications for education. Given the wide ranging nature of the brief, this paper largely confines itself to trends and issues in the UK, although where appropriate examples from other countries in Europe are introduced. We realise that in an age of growing globalisation the future of work and learning in the UK cannot be separated from developments elsewhere and that developments in other parts of the world may present a different momentum and trajectory from that in the UK. Thus, when reading this report, please bear in mind the limitations in our approach