alliance theory and behaviour: anglo russian education alliances robin matthews
Post on 04-Jan-2016
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ALLIANCE THEORY AND BEHAVIOUR: ANGLO RUSSIAN EDUCATION ALLIANCES
Robin Matthews
AIMS IN RELATION TO A DOCTORAL PROGRAMME
• INTERDISCIPLINARY IDEAS• Physical, biological and social sciences
• Imaginative techniques from outside academia
• GENERAL THESIS • Coalition behaviour and evolution
• 3 coalitions (alliances) OPEC, Anglo Russian HE, Simulation
• FOUNDATIONS• Complexity and game theory
NETWORK OF DISTRIBUTED DECISIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS
NETWORKS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STORIES
04/20/23 3robindcmatthews.com
COMPLEXITY
• INTERDEPENDENCE• Large number of interacting variables
– time
– Space
• MANY BEHAVIOURS• NO SIMPLE (CAUSAL)SEQUENCES• QUALITATIVE CHANGE
• Emergence
• selection
• ADAPTATION• Co-evolution
Nodes (vertices)
Connectors
04/20/23 5robindcmatthews.com
A
B
C
D
E
F
Small world
Random network
Complex networks the global financial system
Preferential attachment
04/20/23 6robindcmatthews.com
Games
• ZERO POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SUM GAMES• INTERDEPENDENCE
• Nash equilibrium
• Evolutionary stability
• RULES OF THE GAME
• COOPERATIVE AND NON CO-OPERATIVE GAMES
Type 1 Alliances
• Akin to joint equity ventures. • Partners (B1 and R1) invest
institutional assets (broadly defined to include physical assets, staff, knowledge, expertise and infrastructure) into a separate entity, (termed a joint venture, JV) which reports to and is monitored by both institutions.
• Usually long term designed t achieve broad aims.
• Wide bandwidth and scope• Division of payoffs between
institutional stakeholders is determined by broad contractual arrangements (memoranda of agreement, statements of intent, specified shares cash revenues).
Type 2 Alliances
• Simple and specific arrangements.
• One partner (B1), sells, leases or hires assets to a second (R1) who is responsible for its management and usually reports to B1, who is responsible for monitoring and control.
• Usually short term, designed to achieve specific aims.
• Narrow bandwidth and scope..• Contractual arrangements on
division of monetary payoffs between institutional stakeholders are very specific
Relationships are multi level
Figure 2
GB
B1
B2
B3
GR
R1
R2
R3
foundationscomplex adaptive systems.
Coalitions formed at many levels of the organization matrix.
Search process potentially NP hard. Large numbers of activities and
possible coalitions. Search mediated by organizational
grammar. Grammar is itself a complex adaptive
system. Evolution in the form of new coalition
structures on the organization matrix. Strategy is an evolutionary process. Interdependence between large
numbers of activities: non linearity. Three ontological domains: (R), (P)
and (). Learning takes the form of
exploiting existing potential (P) and exploring for new potential in ().
Cooperative games
Payoffs realised in (R): signalled by decisions by agent stakeholders about coalition formation.
Represented by binary strings. Payoffs from coalitions represented as
transferable utilities. Agency problem extends to many
stakeholders. Payoffs can be distributed in many
different ways to stakeholders. Behaviour conditioned by
organizational grammar. Many different coalitional games
possible on the organization matrix. Coalitions must at least be viable. Coalition structures unlikely to satisfy
core conditions. Coalitions gravitate to as state of self
ordered criticality.
A1
A8
A5 A6 A7
A2 A4A3
networks of relations
Figure 4(b)
Binary Relationships Investigatedin the study
GB
GR
R1 R2 R3
B1 B3B2
12
3 45
6
7 8
9
Significant relationships in higher education partnerships
British Student
Russian Student
British Student
Russian Academic
British Student
Russian Institution
British Academic
Russian Student
British Academic
Russian Academic
British Academic
Russian Institution
British Institution
Russian Student
British Institution
Russian Academic
British Institution
Russian Institution
R1 R2 R3
B1
B2
B3
1 2 3
9
4 5 6
7 8
Figure 5(a)Relationships Investigated
Essential features of type 1 partnerships
• Binary relationships at many levels.• Usually between public sector
organizations.• May receive seed money from
foundations and government agencies.
• Encouraged and morally supported by embassy and British Council (at institutional and faculty/department level): graduation ceremonies, visiting lectures.
• Joint venture has a separate identity.
• Long term, wide spectrum of payoffs (scope and bandwidth).
• Relatively low discount rates.• Long term aim to be self-financing.• Institutions do not capture all
payoffs.• May evolve from type 2 alliances.
Essential features of type 2 partnerships
• Few binary relationships.• May be public, private or
public/private sector partnership.
• Often initially subsidised: grants from foundations and government agencies.
• Usually emanates from joint effort, university, faculty and department level.
• Strong monitoring and control by UK institution.
• A package of payoffs (with narrow bandwidth and scope).
• Aim for an excess revenues over costs annually.
• Relatively high discount rate.• Relatively short term.• May be exploratory and
precursors of type 1.
Payoffs from Alliances in Higher EducationBetween Russian and British Institutions
General Remarks • Payoffs from Russian British alliances in higher education include monetary
and non-monetary, direct and indirect, tangible and intangible, long and short-term components.
• Academic partnerships (including both education and training of Russians located in the UK and in Russia) enhance future diplomatic and trade relationships and contribute to economic growth.
• We differentiate payoffs according to bandwidth (the size and variety of payoffs resulting from a partnership and scope (the number of stakeholders and the variety of stakeholder groups affected by the payoffs).
• The principal stakeholders identified in British (B) and Russian (R) alliances in higher education are governments (BG, RG) institutions (B1, R1) academics (B2, R2) and students (B3, R3).
• Bandwidth and scope are significant influences on the type of partnership agreement.
• Tangible elements include; income streams to institutions, enhanced incomes to graduates (and sometimes academics), and enhanced career opportunities, outcomes in terms of graduate qualifications, research, publications, and contribution to RAE scores and knowledge transfer.
• There may be significant intangible payoffs; reputation, staff development, staff training and development, richer cultural perspectives and greater international understanding.
Payoffs from Alliances in Higher EducationBetween Russian and British Institutions
General Remarks • Students benefit from access to international academics, alumni
networks, and exchange and travel opportunities. UK academic processes are seen as reliable, and fair.
• Programmes offered in Russia are economical on student time (especially part time or block learning modes): a feature particularly important for Russian business students since the Russian environment changes rapidly, management skills are scarce and (prolonged – a year or more) absence from the Russian scene is seen as disadvantageous.
• Consumption benefits accrue to an educated population exposed to international influences.
• Many payoffs are public goods: they are durable, long term, they benefit communities generally; they have wide bandwidth and scope.
• Downside risks to governments of promoting partnerships are negligible and benefits may be substantial.
• Institutions have relatively high discount rates and rate reputation risks highly.
top related