Search

The provision of sustainable housing should factor energy efficiency, the use of sustainable building methods and materials and address the current associated barriers. This consideration triggered an ongoing study in UK which has so far conducted a bibliometric analysis of 275 papers using the VOSviewer software. More papers have been published in the last 5 years compared to the previous 15, and the UK is less engaged in successful collaborations in comparison to other economically developed nations. The lesser use of innovation in the UK has been identified. Also, the uses of sustainable methods and materials in residential housing are not fully exploited for achieving energy efficiency. A future research direction emerging is the potential to study the combined impact of using innovative materials and methods to achieve greater energy efficiency in UK housing provision. Through technological innovations and the need to move from fossil fuels (for example, through the use of heat pumps) a new approach can move the UK closer to achieving net-zero in housing provision and operations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This paper offers a retrospective on the launch and first volumes of this journal. It describes the history of a unique period in our discipline when founding fathers in the US and UK collaborated with industry and each other to create a new field. Design/methodology/approach: The authors interviewed founding editor Professor Martin Christopher and coeditor in Chief Professor Doug Lambert, conducted a bibliometric review of the first volumes of the journal and informed the analysis by approaches taken in other retrospectives published in the journal. The authors also feature historical artifacts from the journal. Findings: The editorial focus during the early days of the journal demonstrate how the roots of the field are in cost modeling and technical work but quickly moved toward customer orientation and managerial focus. The editorial approach during the early days of the journal was on innovative research and publishing, scholarship engaged with industry, a focus on relevance and industry impact as well as leveraging research in education. Originality/value: There have been retrospectives on the journals most recent volumes but what the authors aim to do is to reflect upon the launch and the first volumes of the journal. The authors expand and further detail the timeline of the development of the logistics field. In the process, the authors identify several historical roots for topics of greater focus in logistics and supply chain management in later years. The authors also find that many of the essential approaches and lessons learned in the period leading up to the launch and shortly after the launch of the journal do not only capture the early development of the discipline it also offers an approach and model for scholarship worthy of consideration still today. On top of that, several of the lessons learned in that period hold high relevance still today and they imply part of the path forward for the discipline and the journal, the authors develop questions for future research and research and editorial strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on a robust data set of 281 manufacturing and service firms in the UK, the paper offers an empirical analysis of relationship between the three strategic orientations and novel business model (BM). The paper plugs the gap around design and implementation of new BM and role of diverse strategic orientations. The empiric in the paper is supported by structure equation modelling and findings confirm the validity of the model thereby providing theoretical support around complexity of BM and its relationship with three strategic orientations. In the light of strategic importance around renewed business model, our paper is a timely contribution to understanding some of the antecedents of novel business model, its link to business performance and implementation of BM across firms in manufacturing and service sectors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The collapse of Greensill Capital, a company whose self-styled owner experimented with innovative supply-chain finance, led to parliamentary inquiries in the UK during the course of 2021. This paper tells the story of the collapse and analyses the justifications mobilised by the company's owner, Lex Greensill, in defence of his acts. His exculpatory narratives contain classical components that characterise white-collar and financial crime, but also some innovative aspects that may prefigure the future development of these types of crimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Innovation for reforming health and social care is high on the policy agenda in the United Kingdom in response to the growing needs of an ageing population. However, information about new innovations of care being implemented is sparse. Methods: We mapped innovations for people in later life in two regions, North East England and South East Scotland. Data collection included discussions with stakeholders (n = 51), semi-structured interviews (n = 14) and website searches that focused on technology, evaluation and health inequalities. We analysed qualitative data using framework and thematic analyses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Results: One hundred eleven innovations were identified across the two regions. Interviewees reported a wide range of technologies that had been rapidly introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic and many remained in use. Digital exclusion of certain groups of older people was an ongoing concern. Innovations fell into two groups; system-level ones that aimed to alleviate systems pressures such as preventing hospital (re)admissions, and patient-level ones which sought to enhance health and wellbeing directly. Interviewees were aware of the importance of health inequalities but lacked data to monitor the impact of innovations on these, and evaluation was challenging due to lack of time, training, and support. Quantitative findings revealed that two thirds of innovations (n = 74, 67%) primarily focused on the system level, whilst a third (n = 37, 33%) primarily focused on the patient-level. Overall, over half (n = 65, 59%) of innovations involved technologies although relatively few (n = 12, 11%) utilised advanced technologies. Very few (n = 16, 14%) focused on reducing health inequalities, and only a minority of innovations (n = 43, 39%) had undergone evaluation (most of which were conducted by the service providers themselves). Conclusions: We found a wide range of innovative care services being developed for people in later life, yet alignment with key policy priorities, such as addressing health inequalities, was limited. There was a strong focus on technology, with little consideration for the potential to widen the health inequality gap. The absence of robust evaluation was also a concern as most innovations were implemented without support to monitor effectiveness and/or without plans for sustainability and spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Kingdom’s Medicines and Medical Devices Act (MMD Act) 2021 received royal assent on 11 February 2021. In its passage through parliament, as well as in the accompanying Explanatory Notes, the Act was framed by the government as a necessary post-Brexit bill. Yet prior to this, it was widely presumed that existing statutory instruments, enacted in 2019 to address medical devices regulation in anticipation of a ‘No Deal Brexit’, would provide the United Kingdom (UK) with the necessary legal framework through the transition period and beyond. The European Union (EU) exit legislation included provisions aimed at aligning domestic law with the new EU Medical Devices Regulation (EU MDR) and In Vitro Devices Regulation (EU IVDR) (which were initially due to be implemented during the EU exit transition period). However, just over a year later, at the end of 2020, while the 2021 Act was in the final stages of its parliamentary journey, legislation was introduced that reversed the provisions of the domestic medical device regulations concerning alignment for Great Britain (GB: England, Wales, and Scotland). The result is that the UK now has a dual system of regulation, with Northern Ireland (NI) being governed by the new EU MDR and EU IVDR and GB by older pre-Brexit (yet still EU-derived) law. This article is an attempt to analyse the complex situation now in existence regarding the regulation of medical devices in the UK. To this end, we focus on three main issues. First, we examine the difficulties and challenges presented by the dual system of regulation between NI and GB, highlighting the potentially far-reaching consequences of regulatory divergence between different UK jurisdictions. Second, we ask whether, in the rush to new legislation in 2021, opportunities to properly reform the approach to medical devices were missed. Finally, we look to the future, focusing on the recent Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Consultation on the future of medical devices regulation in the UK and the challenges and opportunities that remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The UK National Health Service (NHS) is ideally placed to undertake research. The UK Government recently launched its vision of research within the NHS to improve research culture and activity amongst its staff. Currently, little is known about the research interest, capacity and culture of staff in one Health Board in South East Scotland and how their attitudes to research may have changed as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods: We used the validated Research Capacity and Culture tool in an online survey of staff working in one Health Board in South East Scotland to explore attitudes to research at the organisation, team and individual level together with involvement in, barriers to and motivators to engage in research. Questions included changes in attitude to research as a result of the pandemic. Staff were identified by professional group: nurses/midwives, medical/dental, allied health professionals (AHP), other therapeutic and administrative roles. Median scores and interquartile ranges were reported and differences between groups assessed using the Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests with P < 0.05 accepted as statistical significance. Free-text entries were analysed using content analysis. Results: Replies were received from 503/9145 potential respondents (5.5% response), of these 278 (3.0% response) completed all sections of the questionnaire. Differences between groups were noted in the proportions of those with research as part of their role (P = 0.012) and in being research-active (P < 0.001). Respondents reported high scores for promoting evidence-based practice and for finding and critically reviewing literature. Low scores were returned for preparing reports and securing grants. Overall, medical and other therapeutic staff reported higher levels of practical skills compared with other groups. Principal barriers to research were pressure of clinical work and lack of time, backfill and funds. 171/503 (34%) had changed their attitude to research as a result of the pandemic with 92% of 205 respondents more likely to volunteer for a study themselves. Conclusion: We found a positive change in attitude to research arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Research engagement may increase after addressing the barriers cited. The present results provide a baseline against which future initiatives introduced to increase research capability and capacity may be assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic generated a series of profound and unprecedented challenges for health and social care systems and those frontline clinicians responsible for delivering services including nurses. One consequence has been the rapid and widespread introduction of a range of digital tools, solutions, and initiatives. In the United Kingdom, this has required clinical leadership to drive implementation and adoption of digital innovations across the system, ranging from those in senior executive board level positions to those on the frontline. Findings: This commentary presents a framework highlighting the breadth of digital transformations which emerged as a consequence of the U.K. health and social care systems' response to the COVID-19 crisis. The framework outlines the different levels of digital transformation, ranging from what we have termed "ceremonial adoption" to isolated automation, organizational integration, and full systems integration. We reflect on the nursing leadership practices that need to be in place to support these changes. Conclusion: Whilst acknowledging the extraordinary results achieved by the COVID-19 driven tsunami of digital transformation, we reflect on the essential steps required to translate these nascent, isolated efforts into fully integrated, long-term solutions. We also offer recommendations for clinical digital leaders and suggest steps that will be crucial to translate the temporary and/or limited interventions into effective, permanent features of our health and social care systems, while also providing a platform on which to build future digital capabilities. We will inevitably continue to see an increase in the use of technology in everyday clinical practice, and nurses are well positioned to take a lead in its widespread adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

External partnerships play an important role in firms' acquisition of the knowledge inputs to innovation. Such knowledge acquisition may be interactive - involving exploration and mutual learning - or non-interactive - involving exploitative activity and learning by only one party. Here, we consider how firms' innovation objectives influence their choice of interactive and/or non-interactive knowledge search. We conduct a comparative analysis for Spain and the UK, which have contrasting innovation eco-systems and regulation burdens. Three empirical results emerge. First, we find strong support for complementarity between non-interactive and interactive knowledge search. Second, we find that where firms have innovation objectives relating to product or service improvement, they are more likely to establish non-interactive search strategies. Third, the innovation objective of reducing environmental impact is significantly related to both, interactive and non-interactive knowledge acquisition strategies. This is likely related to the increasing awareness of the need to promote an agenda based on sustainable growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The exponential rise of information available means we can now, in theory, access knowledge on almost any question we ask. However, as the amount of unverified information increases, so too does the challenge in deciding which information to trust. Farmers, when learning about agricultural innovations, have historically relied on in-person advice from traditional 'experts', such as agricultural advisers, to inform farm management. As more farmers go online for information, it is not clear whether they are now using digital information to corroborate in-person advice from traditional 'experts', or if they are foregoing 'expert' advice in preference for peer-generated information. To fill this knowledge gap, we sought to understand how farmers in two contrasting European countries (Hungary and the UK) learnt about sustainable soil innovations and who influenced them to innovate. Through interviews with 82 respondents, we found farmers in both countries regularly used online sources to access soil information; some were prompted to change their soil management by farmer social media 'influencers'. However, online information and interactions were not usually the main factor influencing farmers to change their practices. Farmers placed most trust in other farmers to learn about new soil practices and were less trusting of traditional 'experts', particularly agricultural researchers from academic and government institutions, who they believed were not empathetic towards farmers' needs. We suggest that some farmers may indeed have had enough of traditional 'experts', instead relying more on their own peer networks to learn and innovate. We discuss ways to improve trustworthy knowledge exchange between agricultural stakeholders to increase uptake of sustainable soil management practices, while acknowledging the value of peer influence and online interactions for innovation and trust building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article advances knowledge on the diversity and heterogeneity of women-led small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the United Kingdom by analysing how gender intersects with ethnicity and place to influence their engagement in innovation. We adopt an intersectional perspective, and base our analyses on the Longitudinal Small Business Survey (LSBS) data of 29,257 SMEs over the period 2015–2018. Our findings suggest that despite their limited number, as well as firm size and industry sector constraints, women-led SMEs are actively engaged in innovation activities. In addition, our results on the effects of intersecting categories of gender, ethnicity and place on innovation, further emphasise the heterogeneity of women-led SMEs, both with regard to their likelihood to engage in innovation, as well as the place where innovation is most likely to occur. Implications for policy and practice are highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Undertaking innovation involves a range of different activities from ideation to the commercialisation of innovations. Each activity may have very different resources and organisational requirements, however, most prior studies treat innovation as a single un-differentiated activity. Here, using new survey data for professional service firms (PSFs) in the UK, we are able to examine separately how a range of organisational work practices influence success in ideation and commercialisation. In particular, we use principal component analysis (PCA) to identify and compare the benefits of four groups of organisational work practices relating to strategy & information sharing, recruitment & training, work flexibility & discretion and culture & leadership. Strong contrasts emerge between those work practices that are important for success in ideation and commercialisation. Work practices linked to culture & leadership are important for ideation activities, while strategy &information sharing practices are more strongly associated with commercialisation success. The results suggest clear managerial implications depending on the priority [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]