Breaking organizational barriers for greening Australian campuses

Sustainability is an issue for everyone. For instance, the higher education sector is being asked to take an active part in creating a sustainable future, due to their moral responsibility, social obligation, and their own need to adapt to the changing higher education environment. By either signing declarations or making public statements, many universities are expressing their desire to become role models for enhancing sustainability. However, too often they have not delivered as much as they had intended. This is particularly evident in the lack of physical implementation of sustainable practices in the campus environment. Real projects such as green technologies on campus have the potential to rectify the problem in addition to improving building performance. Despite being relatively recent innovations, Green Roof and Living Wall have been widely recognized because of their substantial benefits, such as runoff water reduction, noise insulation, and the promotion of biodiversity. While they can be found in commercial and residential buildings, they only appear infrequently on campuses as universities have been very slow to implement sustainability innovations. There has been very little research examining the fundamental problems from the organizational perspective. To address this deficiency, the researchers designed and carried out 24 semi-structured interviews to investigate the general organizational environment of Australian universities with the intention to identify organizational obstacles to the delivery of Green Roof and Living Wall projects. This research revealed that the organizational environment of Australian universities still has a lot of room to be improved in order to accommodate sustainability practices. Some of the main organizational barriers to the adoption of sustainable innovations were identified including lack of awareness and knowledge, the absence of strong supportive leadership, a weak sustainability-rooted culture and several management challenges. This led to the development of a set of strategies to help optimize the organizational environment for the purpose of better decision making for Green Roof and Living Wall implementation

Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

Abstract Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/1/1748-5908-4-50.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/2/1748-5908-4-50-S1.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/3/1748-5908-4-50-S3.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/4/1748-5908-4-50-S4.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/5/1748-5908-4-50.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78272/6/1748-5908-4-50-S2.PDFPeer Reviewe

Dental Professionals in Non-Dental Settings

This report focuses on nine oral health innovations seeking to increase access to preventive oral health care in nondental settings. Two additional reports in this series describe the remaining programs that provide care in dental settings and care to young children. The nine innovations described here integrate service delivery and workforce models in order to reduce or eliminate socioeconomic, geographic, and cultural barriers to care. Although the programs are diverse in their approaches as well as in the specific characteristics of the communities they serve, a common factor among them is the implementation of multiple strategies to increase the number of children from low-income families who access preventive care, and also to engage families and communities in investing in and prioritizing oral health. For low-income children and their families, the barriers that must be addressed to increase access to preventive oral health care are numerous. For example, even children covered by public insurance programs face a shortage of dentists that accept Medicaid and who specialize in pediatric dentistry. The effects of poverty intersect with other barriers such as living in remote geographic areas and having a community-wide history of poor access to dental care in populations such as recent immigrants. Overcoming these barriers requires creative strategies that address transportation barriers, establish welcoming environments for oral health care, and are linguistically and culturally relevant. Each of these nine programs is based on such strategies, including:-Expanding the dental workforce through training new types of providers or adding new providers to the workforce toincrease reach and community presence;-Implementing new strategies to increase the cost-effectiveness of care so that more oral health care services are available and accessible;-Providing training and technical assistance that increase opportunities for and competence in delivering oral health education and care to children;-Offering oral health care services in existing, familiar community venues such as schools, Head Start programs and senior centers;-Developing creative service delivery models that address transportation and cultural barriers as well as the fear and stigma associated with dental care that may arise in communities with historically poor access.The findings from the EAs of these programs are synthesized to highlight diverse and innovative strategies for overcoming barriers to access. These strategies have potential for rigorous evaluation and could emerge as best practices. If proven effective, these innovative program elements could then be disseminated and replicated to increase access for populations in need of preventive oral health care

FinTech ecosystem as an instrument of sustainable development provision

Purpose: The article aims to determine the relationship between the FinTech ecosystem and ensuring a stable path of economic growth in the context of digitalization. The transition to digitalization of the financial sector is accompanied by a fundamentally new, qualitative transformation of socioeconomic relations in society. Design/Methodology/Approach: As part of the study, the concept of FinTech was considered both in the context of technological innovation and in the context of companies utilizing these innovations in business, as well as the systematization of business models of the FinTech industry. The classification of horizontal and vertical innovations of the financial industry is given. The authors presented the structure of the FinTech ecosystem as an instrument for ensuring sustainable. Findings: For the successful development of the FinTech ecosystem, the authors of the study presented a number of initiatives, the implementation of which will ensure the maintenance of the financial system stability, protection of consumer rights, as well as the digital innovations’ development and implementation. Practical Implications: The formation of a sustainable digital financial infrastructure tends to ensure the effective provision of services in the financial market, including for small and medium-sized companies, which will increase the availability of financial services and promote competition in the financial sector. Originality/Value: The key contribution of the study is the ecosystem approach, which allowed determining the possibilities of safe sustainable development of the financial sector.peer-reviewe

Evaluating the public value of social innovation

Services that were traditionally delivered by the public sector are now proving difficult for the state to afford due to economic and socio-political challenges faced by society. In this context, social innovation plays an important role as it encourages civil society, private, public and third sector organisations to work together to find alternative ways of delivering services. This paper evaluates the influence of social innovation in creating public value through services offered to the community at both local and national levels in the UK. Three diverse cases are used from the UK context and analysed through a public value lens to examine the role of community, private, public and third sector organisations in driving social innovation. The findings highlight how social innovation contributes to addressing civil society needs while simultaneously contributing to the political and economic agendas of a country and the exploitation of science for the benefit of communities

Catalyzing Change in Secondary Education in Africa and India

Mathematica Policy Research started working with the PSIPSE in late 2014 as its learning partner. In this brief, the organisations share their independent analysis of the PSIPSE approach to effecting change in secondary education—starting with the partnership's theory of change, countries of focus, and interventions supported. They end by presenting the monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) framework developed for the PSIPSE and distilling some implications of an analysis for the future

Why do commercial companies contribute to open source software?

This is the post-print version of the Article. The official published version can be accessed from the link belowMany researchers have pointed out that the opensource movement is an interesting phenomenon that is difficult to explain with conventional economic theories. However, while there is no shortage on research on individuals’ motivation for contributing to opensource, few have investigated the commercial companies’ motivations for doing the same. A case study was conducted at three different companies from the IT service industry, to investigate three possible drivers: sale of complimentary services, innovation and open sourcing (outsourcing). We offer three conclusions. First, we identified three main drivers for contributing to opensource, which are (a) selling complimentary services, (b) building greater innovative capability and (c) cost reduction through open sourcing to an external community. Second, while previous research has documented that the most important driver is selling complimentary services, we found that this picture is too simple. Our evidence points to a broader set of motivations, in the sense that all our cases exhibit combinations of the three drivers. Finally, our findings suggest that there might be a shift in how commercial companies view opensource software. The companies interviewed have all expressed a moral obligation to contribute to open source