A comparative analysis of the price-process model of mortgage valuation

ABSTRACTThis study provides new insight into guanxi practice and quality differences between business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-government (B2G) ties in China. The results, based on data obtained through structured interviews with 108 Chinese managers across eight cities in China, reveal stark differences between the practices used in developing B2B ties and those used in developing B2G ties. More specifically, these two tie types differ in a variety of guanxi initiation, building, and utilization practices. This study also builds upon the process model of guanxi development by highlighting the dissimilar role of gift giving practices in B2B and B2G ties. Furthermore, this study measures guanxi quality as a separate concept from guanxi process and demonstrates that guanxi quality is a multidimensional concept that is composed of affective attachment and felt obligation, both of which vary across B2B and B2G ties. Implications of these results for theory development and managerial practice in China are also discussed.

Download Full-text

A comparative analysis of emulators for the sensitivity analysis of a land surface process model

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences ◽

10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.05.194 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 2 (6) ◽

pp. 7716-7717 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

George P. Petropoulos ◽

Marco Ratto ◽

Stefano Tarantola

Keyword(s):

Sensitivity Analysis ◽

Comparative Analysis ◽

Land Surface ◽

Process Model ◽

Surface Process ◽

Land Surface Process

Download Full-text

Concluding Reflections and Presentation of an EBOCD Conceptual Process Model

Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage - Evidence-Based Initiatives for Organizational Change and Development ◽

10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.ch053 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 724-742 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Robert G. Hamlin ◽

Jenni Jones ◽

Andrea D. Ellinger

Keyword(s):

Comparative Analysis ◽

Case History ◽

Process Model ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Research Practice ◽

Case Histories ◽

Wide Range ◽

Multiple Cross ◽

Practice Gap ◽

Theory Research

This chapter begins by presenting a synopsis of insights on EBOCD practice gleaned from the Section 2 chapters, and a range of extant and emergent generalized (common) insights and lessons about evidence-based initiatives for OCD that have resulted from a multiple cross-case comparative analysis of the 33 reflective case histories presented in Section 3. It then offers a response to the skepticisms expressed by McLean and Kim, the authors of Chapter 52, about the reality of EBOCD ever existing beyond what they suggest could be outlier case history examples of OCD by drawing attention to the wide range of extant best evidence that informed them. The chapter concludes with an EBOCD Conceptual Process Model which offers a pathway forward for bridging the reputed research-practice gap in the field of OCD and HRD, and for generating new bodies of best evidence and practice-to-theory research opportunities.

Download Full-text

A Comparative Analysis of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving and the Systematic Approach of Pahl and Beitz

Volume 4: 8th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology ◽

10.1115/96-detc/dtm-1529 ◽

1996 ◽

Author(s):

Johan Malmqvist ◽

Roger Axelsson ◽

Mikael Johansson

Keyword(s):

Comparative Analysis ◽

Problem Solving ◽

Design Process ◽

Process Model ◽

Systematic Approach ◽

Systems Design ◽

Engineering Systems ◽

Whole Process ◽

Detail Design ◽

Design Process Model

Abstract This paper presents a comparative analysis of two design methodologies; the Theory of Inventive Problem-Solving (TIPS) and the systematic approach of Pahl and Beitz (SAPB). The methodologies are compared with respect to a number of aspects; similarities and differences are highlighted. It is then suggested that a more powerful methodology may result if the methodologies are unified and that such a unification should use SAPB as an underlying design process model being complemented by TIPS elements at certain points. This is because the SAPB has a wider scope as a design process model, covering the whole process from task clarification to detail design and component as well as systems design, whereas TIPS features some very useful elements (engineering systems evolution laws, standards and principles) that are not included in the SAPB.

Download Full-text