A Framework for Stakeholder-Based Knowledge Valuation in Organizations

2001 ◽  
pp. 298-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fons Wijnhoven
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Stakeholder Group ◽  
Industrial Society ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Production Factor ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Valuation Methods ◽  
Human Resource Accounting ◽  
Resource Accounting ◽  
Post Industrial

Knowledge, an essential production factor in the post-industrial society, is not as rigorously measured as organizational tangibles. Several authors in the tradition of intellectual capital measurement and human resource accounting have tried to solve this by the development of one or more metrics. This chapter assumes that valuation is intrinsically subjective and that knowledge to a large extent is subjective. Consequently, it should be approached by subjective valuation methods. The chapter reviews existing knowledge valuation methods for their validity for a specific stakeholder group, and considers Nominal Group Techniques as a way to converge the resulting opinions. This convergence is important for shared decision-making. Following this approach, knowledge valuation is not accounting but much more the creation and facilitation of productive cooperative systems in the economy.

EP.TH.602Exploring decision-making of healthcare professionals in patients with benign large non-pedunculated colonic polyps (BLNPCP) virtually using combined focus group and nominal group technique

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Wheldon ◽  
J Morgan ◽  
MJ Lee ◽  
S Riley ◽  
SR Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professional ◽  
Patient Preference ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Nominal Group Technique ◽  
Colonic Polyps ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Factors ◽  
Group Technique

Abstract Aim We aimed to elicit key factors that influence healthcare professional decision-making when deciding treatment for BLNPCP. Background Benign large non-pedunculated colonic polyps (BLNPCP) may harbour covert malignancy and opinions differ about the optimal treatment modality. There are several options available, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal resection, combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery and surgical resection. Despite widespread availability of endoscopic resection techniques, there are high rates of surgery in the UK. Methods Three focus groups of healthcare professionals, comprised of either consultant colorectal surgeons, nurse endoscopists and consultant gastroenterologists, were conducted virtually utilising the Nominal Group Technique. Meetings were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes were devolved using the framework approach for qualitative analysis. A priority-ranked list of factors influencing healthcare professional decision-making in this setting was generated. Results Five main themes were identified as influencing decision-making: Shared decision making (patient preference, informed consent); Patient factors (co-morbidity, age, life-expectancy); Polyp factors (Location, size, morphology, risk of cancer); Healthcare professionals (skill-set, personal preference); System factors (techniques availability locally, regional referral networks). Nominal Group Technique generated 55 items across the three focus groups. Nurses and gastroentologists ranked patient factors (particularly drug history and tolerance of procedure) and shared decision making (patient preference) more highly then surgeons. Surgeons placed greater emphasis on polyp factors particularly location and the risk of submucosal invasive carcinoma. Conclusion Decision making is complex and multifactorial. These results support the benefits of complex polyp MDTs and patient involvement in the decision-making. The complexity of decision-making may underpin wide variation in practice.

scholarly journals Reaching a consensus on research priorities for supporting women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases during pre-conception, pregnancy and early parenting: A Nominal Group Technique exercise with lay and professional stakeholders

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhiannon Phillips ◽  
Denitza Williams ◽  
Daniel Bowen ◽  
Delyth Morris ◽  
Aimee Grant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Nominal Group Technique ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Research Topics ◽  
Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases ◽  
Early Parenting

Background:Women with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) find it difficult to get information and support with family planning, pregnancy, and early parenting. A systematic approach to prioritising research is required to accelerate development and evaluation of interventions to meet the complex needs of this population.  Methods:A Nominal Group Technique (NGT) exercise was carried out with lay and professional stakeholders (n=29). Stakeholders were prepared for debate through presentation of available evidence. Stakeholders completed three tasks to develop, individually rank, and reach consensus on research priorities: Task 1 – mapping challenges and services using visual timelines; Task 2 - identifying research topics; Task 3 - individually ranking research topics in priority order. Results of the ranking exercise were fed back to the group for comment.   Results:The main themes emerging from Task 1 were the need for provision of information, multi-disciplinary care, and social and peer support. In Task 2, 15 research topics and 58 sub-topics were identified around addressing the challenges and gaps in care identified during Task 1.  In Task 3, a consensus was reached on the ten research topics that should be given the highest priority. These were individually ranked, resulting in the following order of priorities (from 1 – highest to 10 – lowest): 1. Shared decision-making early in the care pathway; 2. Pre-conception counseling; 3. Information about medication use during pregnancy/breastfeeding; 4. Personalised care planning; 5. Support for partners/family members; 6. Information about local support/disease specific issues; 7. Shared decision-making across the care pathway; 8. Peer-support; 9. Social inequalities in care, and; 10. Guidance on holistic/alternative therapies.    Conclusions:This systematic approach to identification of research priorities from a multi-disciplinary and lay perspective indicated that activities should focus on development and evaluation of interventions that increase patient involvement in clinical decision-making, multi-disciplinary models of care, and timely provision of information.

scholarly journals Impact of Human Resource Accounting Practices on Decision Making in the Organization – Evidence from a Private Company in Kurdistan Region of Iraq

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9S3) ◽  
pp. 1251-1254
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Human Resource ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Alternative Hypothesis ◽  
Private Company ◽  
Human Resource Accounting ◽  
Resource Accounting ◽  
The Impact

The current study aimed at understanding the impact of Human Resource Accounting practices on decision making in an organization. The research was conducted on a private company in Kurdistan. Researchers constructed a model where predictor variable is Human Resource Accounting Practices and Predicted variable is Decision making. The Research has null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis where the null hypothesis was“There is no significant relationship between Human Resource Accounting Practices and Decision Making”. The alternative hypothesis was “There is significant relationship between Human Resource Accounting Practices and Decision Making”. The sample size for the current research was 107 where researcher distributed 120 questionnaires where 13 questionnaires were not filled properly. Researchers used quantitative method to analyze the results of the current research. The questionnaire consists of 20 questions which were organized randomly to avoid bias based responses from the respondents. Researchers concluded that HRA hasa strong positive effect on decision making where alternative hypothesis was accepted and null hypothesis got rejected. The sample size was low as the researcher conducted pilot study on this area and may get different results by increasing the sample size and demographics. The present research helps the organization to understand the importance of Human Resource Accounting and the effect of HRA on decision making

scholarly journals Influence of Human Resource Accounting Practices on Managerial Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 8-18
Author(s):  
James O. Abiola ◽  
Rilwan Ayinde Adisa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Resource ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Managerial Decision ◽  
Managerial Decision Making ◽  
Human Resource Accounting ◽  
Resource Accounting

The study examined the influence of Human Resource Accounting (HRA) practices on managerial decision-making. Data for the study were gathered via a structured questionnaire on a 5-Points Likert Scale administered on personnel of Accounting, and Audit/Internal Control departments which were considered to be the relevant departments for this study in 16 quoted firms in the Nigerian financial services sector. The questionnaires distributed were returned and analyzed using a simple regression analysis model. The study found that HRA has a significant impact on managerial decision-making of organizations. It was therefore recommended that organizations should be more proactive in the use of HRA to enhance decision-making. Necessary and relevant standards should also be provided on the need for recognizing human resource cost in organizations’ statement of financial position in order to enhance adequate decision-making in business organizations premised on fair financial reporting.

scholarly journals Development of a Draft Core Set of Domains for Measuring Shared Decision Making in Osteoarthritis: An OMERACT Working Group on Shared Decision Making

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 2442-2447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karine Toupin-April ◽  
Jennifer Barton ◽  
Liana Fraenkel ◽  
Linda Li ◽  
Viviane Grandpierre ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Group Process ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Core Set ◽  
Group 2

Objective.Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers.Methods.We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting.Results.In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested.Conclusion.We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

scholarly journals Toward the Development of a Core Set of Outcome Domains to Assess Shared Decision-making Interventions in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Delphi Survey and Consensus Meeting

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
pp. 1544-1550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karine Toupin-April ◽  
Jennifer Barton ◽  
Liana Fraenkel ◽  
Linda C. Li ◽  
Peter Brooks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Group Process ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
The Core ◽  
Core Set ◽  
Participant Characteristics

Objective.The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials.Methods.Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set.Results.A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants).Conclusion.Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants.

scholarly journals Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Peritoneal Dialysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karine E. Manera ◽  
David W. Johnson ◽  
Jonathan C. Craig ◽  
Jenny I. Shen ◽  
Lorena Ruiz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Importance Score ◽  
Patient Centered

Background and objectivesThe absence of accepted patient-centered outcomes in research can limit shared decision-making in peritoneal dialysis (PD), particularly because PD-related treatments can be associated with mortality, technique failure, and complications that can impair quality of life. We aimed to identify patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in PD, and to describe the reasons for their choices.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsPatients on PD and their caregivers were purposively sampled from nine dialysis units across Australia, the United States, and Hong Kong. Using nominal group technique, participants identified and ranked outcomes, and discussed the reasons for their choices. An importance score (scale 0–1) was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.ResultsAcross 14 groups, 126 participants (81 patients, 45 caregivers), aged 18–84 (mean 54, SD 15) years, identified 56 outcomes. The ten highest ranked outcomes were PD infection (importance score, 0.27), mortality (0.25), fatigue (0.25), flexibility with time (0.18), BP (0.17), PD failure (0.16), ability to travel (0.15), sleep (0.14), ability to work (0.14), and effect on family (0.12). Mortality was ranked first in Australia, second in Hong Kong, and 15th in the United States. The five themes were serious and cascading consequences on health, current and impending relevance, maintaining role and social functioning, requiring constant vigilance, and beyond control and responsibility.ConclusionsFor patients on PD and their caregivers, PD-related infection, mortality, and fatigue were of highest priority, and were focused on health, maintaining lifestyle, and self-management. Reporting these patient-centered outcomes may enhance the relevance of research to inform shared decision-making.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

On the evaluation of shared decision making: The Decision Evaluation Scales

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. F. M. Stalmeier ◽  
M. S. Roosmalen ◽  
L. C. G. Josette Verhoef ◽  
E. H. M. Hoekstra-Weebers ◽  
J. C. Oosterwijk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document