During the timespan of the implementation of a system, the why and what against the actual state of the system can change. This difference is referred to as the design problem. Currently, no design problems are identified in Business Rules Management (BRM) and Business Rules Management System (BRMS) literature. To solve problems with a BRMS implementation it is important that the problems solved by this implementation are known, which is not the case. A case study approach is utilized containing two phases of data collection. Phase one consisted of multiple expert interviews focused on creating a set of design problems utilizing existing literature on BRMS design problems. Then, in phase two, the set of design problems were proposed to a selection of thirteen organizations, which indicated if the design problems occurred in a BRMS implementation. This resulted in a set of 24 design problems. The identification of design problems contributes to future research in evaluating BRMS’s. Furthermore, the identification of design problems is a contribution towards situational artifact construction in the field of BRM.
LINK
Introduction: The Legal Services counters (LSC) is the first contact point for legal aid in the Netherlands. Professionals reported dealing with a client group combining problems on several dimensions, next to the legal issue. This combination (multiple problem situation, MP) seems to impair the effectiveness of the provided legal help. Methods: A face-to-face survey among 421 visitors of 4 LSC locations was administered (2019). Analyses: Statistical techniques were used to assess the occurrence of MP, the association with the numbers of contacts with the LSC, the background characteristics of clients with and without MP, and the multivariate association between stress, MP and use of the LSC. Results: 44,1% of the respondents reported MP. Those reported a higher number of contacts with the LSC in the past year. MP clients were older and had a lower education level. Financial (58%), conflictual (56%) and physical health (41%) problems were mostly reported. Stress and number of problems were related to a higher attendance to the LSC. Discussion: Legal aid services should set out systematic collaboration paths with other social services, starting off by an assessment of the problem domains, to contribute to an effective solution of those issues, including the legal one.
Little research exists on what works in the supervision of offenders with debt problems. This qualitative study aims to provide insight into the barriers probation officers and clients experience during supervision regarding debt and the support that clients need. Interviews were conducted with 33 Dutch probation officers and 16 clients. The results show that debt often negatively influences clients’ lives and hinders their resocialization. Probation officers lack effective methods to support clients with debt problems. To adequately help clients with debt problems, probation officers should obtain more knowledge about effective interventions and collaborate more closely with debt specialists from the probation supervision outset.
Our unilateral diet has resulted in a deficiency of specific elements/components needed for well-functioning of the human body. Especially the element magnesium is low in our processed food and results in neuronal and muscular malfunctioning, problems in bone heath/strength, and increased chances of diabetes, depression and cardiovascular diseases. Furthermore, it has also been recognized that magnesium plays an important role in cognitive functioning (impairment and enhancement), especially for people suffering from neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson disease, Alzheimer, etc). Recently, it has been reported that magnesium addition positively effects sleep and calmness (anti-stress). In order to increase the bioavailability of magnesium cations, organic acids such as citrate, glycerophosphate and glycinate are often used as counterions. However, the magnesium supplements that are currently on the market still suffer from low bio-availability and often do not enter the brain significantly.The preparation of dual/multiple ligands of magnesium in which the organic acid not only functions as a carrier but also has synergistically/complementary biological effects is widely unexplored and needs further development. As a result, there is a strong need for dual/multiple magnesium supplements that are non-toxic, stable, prepared via an economically and ecologically attractive route, resulting in high bioavailability of magnesium in vivo, preferably positively influencing cognition/concentration
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
Het project ‘Design Thinking bij Nationale Militaire Inzet Koninklijke Landmacht’- Fase1 (NMIKL fasse1) is gericht op nieuwe creatieve methoden om complexe vraagstukken van de Landmacht Nationale Inzet (LNI) op te lossen. Binnen het convenant tussen de Hogeschool Utrecht (HU) en LNI heeft LNI haar hulpvraag voorgelegd om de vele complexe vraagstukken van diverse aard te helpen oplossen. Het ontbreekt LNI aan een methode om de Inmiddels 75 benoemde complexe vraagstukken met ingewikkelde onderlinge relaties op te pakken. Dergelijke complexe vraagstukken worden ‘wicked problems’ genoemd. Ze bevatten gestapelde problematiek, zoals technologische uitdagingen, de factoren van duurzaamheid, klimaat en vergrijzing van de beroepsbevolking. Daar bovenop komt de toegenomen bedreiging van vrede in Europa. Om een gedegen vraagarticulatie voor de meest belangrijke LNI vraagstukken op te stellen, is een aanpak gewenst, die bij deze ‘wicked problems’ past. Suit-case (een HU-MKB-partner) is opgericht door TU Delft studenten, die gespecialiseerd zijn in het aanpakken van complexe vraagstukken met creatieve methoden, zoals ‘design thinking’ en ‘transition theory management’. Suit-case wil graag haar aanpak geschikt maken voor hiërarchisch gestructureerde organisaties zoals Defensie, zodat de techniek beschikbaar komt voor dergelijke bedrijven( zoals Shell, NS, enzovoorts). Ook deze bedrijven hebben te maken met de maatschappelijke uitdagingen en ‘wicked problems’ en hebben gezien de klimaat-doelstellingen versnelling in hun transitie-proces en daarmee vraagoplossendvermogen nodig. Co-Design van de HU heeft veel ervaring met DT binnen de zorg. Samen gaan we DT beter beschikbaar maken voor grote bedrijven met een hiërarchische structuur zodat ook zij complexe vraagstukken innovatief kunnen oppakken. Door minimaal drie LNI-vraagstukken te doorlopen wordt de ontwikkelde aanpak getest en leert LNI de methoden in de praktijk toe te passen. Het resultaat is een nieuwe, methodologisch onderbouwde vraagarticulatie-aanpak voor complexe vraagstukken voor hiërarchisch georganiseerde organisaties zoals LNI en drie goede vraagarticulaties met aanpak.
