Board level “Picture-Understanding-Action”: a new way of looking at quality

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to present a quality improvement approach titled “Picture-Understanding-Action” used in Ireland to enhance the role of healthcare boards in the oversight of healthcare quality and its improvement.Design/methodology/approachThe novel and practical “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach was implemented using the Model for Improvement to iteratively introduce changes across three quality improvement projects. This approach outlines the concepts and activities used at each step to support planning and implementation of processes that allow a board to effectively achieve its role in overseeing and improving quality. This approach matured over three quality improvement projects.FindingsThe “Picture” included quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative “Picture” consisted of a quality dashboard/profile of board selected outcome indicators representative of the health system using statistical process control (SPC) charts to focus discussion on real signals of change. The qualitative picture was based on the experience of people who use and work in health services which “people-ised” the numbers. Probing this “Picture” with collective grounding, curiosity and expert training/facilitation developed a shared “Understanding”. This led to “Action(s)” from board members to improve the “Picture” and “Understanding” (feedback action), to ask better questions and make better decisions and recommendations to the executive (feed-forward action). The Model for Improvement, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and a co-design approach in design and implementation were key to success.Originality/valueTo the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time a board has undertaken a quality improvement (QI) project to enhance its own processes. It addresses a gap in research by outlining actions that boards can take to improve their oversight of quality of care.

Prediction of Board Level Pad Cratering Strength with the Pre-Defined Failure Criteria From Joint Level Testing

Conventional reliability tests for the evaluation of pad cratering resistance are mainly classified into two categories: the board level test and the joint level test. The board level test is to imitate the loading conditions during normal operation. However, this type of test is expensive and not flexible. The joint level test is used extensively in the industry because it has the advantages of lower cost, higher throughput, and more quantitative results. It also allows the elimination of confounding factors such as PCB and component stiffness. Therefore, it is always desirable to predict the board level performance by a joint level test. In order to achieve this objective, the correlation between the joint level and the board level tests must be fully understood. Nevertheless, a precise correlation between the two types of tests for pad cratering evaluation is yet to be defined. This study investigates the pad cratering failure mode for the correlation of critical failure factors between joint and board level tests. An intermediate critical failure factor could be taken as a failure criterion in board level testing for failure detection. For verifying the validity of such a failure criterion, an experimental study should be performed. The 4-point bending test is chosen as the board level test for critical failure factor validation. In addition, an innovative pin shear test method is developed as the joint level test for failure factor detection. Both test methods are assessed by a series of parametric studies with an optimized process to ensure the accuracy of the results. From the results of the experimental study and simulation, the critical failure factor correlation is established between the board level 4-point bending and the joint level pin shear test. Using finite element analysis (FEA), the critical failure strain is identified from the pin shear test model and will be employed as the board level failure criterion. Subsequently the obtained failure criterion is verified by a 4-point bending model. As a result, this indirect correlation method can predict the board level failure with various geometric parameters.

INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY

This article presents the reports how new technologies are acting as a key component of change, forcing firms to adapt to new processes, which in turn are disrupting existing hierarchies. The unfavorable conditions of these components create opportunities for marketers who have not been considered as key players at the board level. Thus, it creates conditions for a wide release of innovations and a quick return on investment. To successfully manage innovation, marketing must not only focus on internal management and facilitation, but also enable enterprise-wide market orientation to become the dominant tool of the firm. The article describes their methodological features. The article describes their methodological features, which are aimed at their direct impact on the effectiveness of innovation.

"Directors' duties" imposed below board level

<p>Recently, the High Court of Australia considered the scope of the term “officer” in a case concerning the breach of a statutory duty under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The equivalent duties prescribed by the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 are owed by an ostensibly narrower class. In considering how New Zealand law would apply to the same facts, this essay discusses the extent to which directors’ duties are, or should be owed by those below directorship level. It concludes that an expansive interpretation of the “director” definition is unnecessary and undesirable, and that explicitly extending directors’ duties to encompass certain senior managers would merely create uncertainties for courts and corporate leaders.</p>

"Directors' duties" imposed below board level

<p>Recently, the High Court of Australia considered the scope of the term “officer” in a case concerning the breach of a statutory duty under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The equivalent duties prescribed by the New Zealand Companies Act 1993 are owed by an ostensibly narrower class. In considering how New Zealand law would apply to the same facts, this essay discusses the extent to which directors’ duties are, or should be owed by those below directorship level. It concludes that an expansive interpretation of the “director” definition is unnecessary and undesirable, and that explicitly extending directors’ duties to encompass certain senior managers would merely create uncertainties for courts and corporate leaders.</p>