Collaboration

Clinical collaboration Clinical collaboration is the collaboration of organizations, teams of professionals, or small groups of individual professionals, each having skills, equipment or information that will complement what their partner has, all seeking to be more effective. Choosing one's partner is important, and has been described as "similar to the accreditation process of Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations."[1] "CHOP Hub For Clinical Collaboration Arrives on the Skyline in University City, West Philadelphia" was a 2020 headline describing a coming 19-story medical building.[2] While clinical collaboration, which has been described as a "culture"[3] rather than as something to be purchased,[4] is not a "full-asset merger,"[5] a clinical collaboration does aid the financial goal of "to maximize the value of" a franchise. Overview[edit] Other concepts affecting healthcare delivery are "clinical affiliation"[12][13] and "non-clinical collaboration Medical research[edit]

Commons-based peer production Method of producing value Commons-based peer production (CBPP) is a term coined by Harvard Law School professor Yochai Benkler.[1] It describes a model of socio-economic production in which large numbers of people work cooperatively; usually over the Internet. Commons-based projects generally have less rigid hierarchical structures than those under more traditional business models. Synonymous terms for this process include consumer co-production and collaborative media production.[2]: 63 Yochai Benkler used this term as early as 2001. Yochai Benkler contrasts commons-based peer production with firm production, in which tasks are delegated based on a central decision-making process, and market-based production, in which allocating different prices to different tasks serves as an incentive to anyone interested in performing a task. In his book The Wealth of Networks (2006), Yochai Benkler significantly expands on his definition of commons-based peer production. Several outgrowths have been:

Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability (CNS) | NCER | Research You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more. Launched in 2004, CNS is a grants program that is a cornerstone of ORD's transition to sustainability. This web site includes project descriptions for the selected projects from the 2004 and 2006 solicitation, a description of one sustainability pilot project, and information about related financial assistance programs to support collaborative community and regional environmental protection, as well as links to other sustainability resources.

Collaborative partnership Agreements by organizations to share resources There are instances where collaborative partnerships develop between those in different fields to supplement one another's expertise. The relationships between collaborative partners can lead to long-term partnerships that rely on one another.[1] As Don Kettl writes, “From Medicare to Medicaid, environmental planning to transportation policy, the federal government shares responsibility with state and local government and for-profit and nonprofit organizations... The result is an extended chain of implementation in which no one is fully in charge of everything”(2001, p. 25)[2] Partnership and collaboration are often used inter-changeably, sometimes within the same paragraph or even sentence. Collaborative arrangements occur based on more than just altruism. Sustainable development [edit] Partnerships are perceived as arrangements that can further the drive for sustainable development. Natural resource management According to the U.S.

Peerconomy.org STIR: SocioTechnical Integration Research Science and technology policies around the world are placing new pressures on laboratories to address broader societal dimensions of their work in ways that have the potential to influence the content of science and engineering activities themselves – presumably for the better (Fisher and Mahajan, 2006). Despite longstanding calls for collaborations between natural and human scientists to achieve this goal, neither the capacity of laboratories to respond to such pressures nor the role that interdisciplinary collaborations may play in enhancing responsiveness is well understood or empirically supported. It is crucial to overcome these limitations in order to design, implement and assess effective programs aimed at responsible innovation. Learn more about the STIR project. Objectives The objectives of the STIR project as a whole, as well as each paired study, are to: Intellectual Merit Broader Impacts The STIR project: Support

Civic virtue (organizational citizenship behavior dimension) Civic virtue is one of the five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) identified in Dennis Organ's prominent 1988 definition of the construct. Originally, Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) first proposed two dimensions: altruism and general compliance. Later, Organ (1988) deconstructed the dimension of general compliance and added additional dimensions of OCB. Construct definition [edit] Civic virtue is characterized by behaviors that indicate an employee's deep concerns and active interest in the life of the organization (Law, Wong, & Chen, 2005). Similar citizenship dimensions Since Smith et al.’s original 1983 definition of organizational citizenship behavior, there has been a lack of consensus regarding the dimensionality of OCB. Organizational participation Graham, in an essay on OCBs, outlines a politically centered approach to understanding OCBs (Graham, 1991). Protecting the organization Categorization of civic virtue behaviors Civic virtue and gender George, J. Law, S.

Intentional community Characteristics[edit] Purpose[edit] The purposes of intentional communities vary in different communities. Types of communities[edit] Some communities are secular; others have a spiritual basis. Some communities provide services to disadvantaged populations, for example, war refugees, the homeless, or people with developmental disabilities. Types of memberships[edit] Many communities have different types or levels of membership. Christian intentional communities are usually composed of those wanting to emulate the practices of the earliest believers. A survey in the 1995 edition of the Communities Directory, published by Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC), reported that 54% of the communities choosing to list themselves were rural, 28% were urban, 10% had both rural and urban sites, and 8% did not specify.[1] Type of governance[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] Further reading[edit] External links[edit]

Collaborative method Group Setup[edit] Deliberate setup of a team—before beginning work—increases the potential for high performance.[citation needed] To do so, the following components of collaboration should be an initial focus: Group models[edit] Four group models are common in collaboration:[1] Chance Collaboration by chance is the most basic model and underlies all four. Acuity Collaboration by acuity establishes a team with balanced skill sets. Interest Collaboration by interest forms a team of persons with similar hobbies, curiosities or careers. Leader Collaboration by leader is a team model where the members are chosen by a leader. Spence's basic rules[edit] Spence identifies[1] seven rules for all collaboration: Look for common ground: find shared values, consider shared personal experiences, pay attention to and give feedback, be yourself and expect the same of others, be willing to accept differences in perception and opinions Katzenbach and Smith's "team basics"[edit] Complementary skills in team members

Conformity Matching opinions and behaviors to group norms Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded.[1] Norms are implicit, specific rules, guidance shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others. People often choose to conform to society rather than to pursue personal desires – because it is often easier to follow the path others have made already, rather than forging a new one. Thus, conformity is sometimes a product of group communication.[2] This tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or in society as a whole and may result from subtle unconscious influences (predisposed state of mind), or from direct and overt social pressure. The Asch conformity experiment demonstrates how much influence conformity has on people. Although peer pressure may manifest negatively, conformity can be regarded as either good or bad. Definition and context[edit] Definition[edit] Peer[edit] Social responses[edit]

Utopian socialism Utopian socialism is a term used to define the first currents of modern socialist thought as exemplified by the work of Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen, which inspired Karl Marx and other early socialists.[1] However, visions of imaginary ideal societies, which competed with revolutionary social-democratic movements, were viewed as not being grounded in the material conditions of society and as reactionary.[2] Although it is technically possible for any set of ideas or any person living at any time in history to be a utopian socialist, the term is most often applied to those socialists who lived in the first quarter of the 19th century who were ascribed the label "utopian" by later socialists as a negative term, in order to imply naivete and dismiss their ideas as fanciful or unrealistic.[3] Forms of socialism which existed in hunter-gatherer societies are referred to as primitive communism by Marxists.[4] Definition[edit] Development[edit] Ursula K. Corning, Iowa

Yann Moulier Boutang asks, "Are we all just Google's worker bees?" :: Society of the Query Posted: November 13, 2009 at 6:31 pm | By: chris castiglione | Tags: bees, capitalism, Google, Yann Moulier Boutang | 3 Comments Are we all just worker bees being exploited by Google for capitalistic means? Google has become the emblem of cognitive capitalism because it has invented a new economic model relying on the controlled development of collective intelligence networks. French socio-economist Yann Moulier Boutang explored the dependency of Google (as a factory for the commodization of knowledge) on human querying (as labor). “You are working for Google! Boutang surmises that Google’s new economic model may be reshaping capitalism into - what he refers to as – a “meta-market”. In conclusion Boutang asks, “Is it possible to free the clickworker from Google?”