|
on Economic Design |
| By: | Davide Azzolini; Nicola Doppio; Luca Mion; Iunio Quarto Russo; Alessio Tomelleri |
| Abstract: | Innovating product design is crucial for firms operating in the digital sector as it is closely linked with innovation capability and, therefore, with firm performance and productivity. In this paper, we run a randomized controlled trial to assess if participating in an open innovation initiative increases SMEs’ capability to design more competitive digital products. More specifically, the intervention aimed at increasing firms’ knowledge of the Design Sprint and their readiness to implement user-centered design techniques. 190 SMEs based in 7 different European countries took part in the field trial in spring 2021. We find that the intervention increased participants’ knowledge about user-centered design methods, although no statistically significant effects are found on participants’ intention to adopt that in their firms. This may be traced back to organizational and financial constraints typically related to the small-sized firms involved. |
| Keywords: | Open Innovation, SMEs, Randomized Controlled Trial, User Experience Design, Design Sprint |
| JEL: | D22 M31 O31 |
| Date: | 2024–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:fbk:wpaper:2024-01&r=des |
| By: | Kyle Myers; Wei Yang Tham |
| Abstract: | The design of research grants has been hypothesized to be a useful tool for influencing researchers and their science. We test this by conducting two thought experiments in a nationally representative survey of academic researchers. First, we offer participants a hypothetical grant with randomized attributes and ask how the grant would influence their research strategy. Longer grants increase researchers' willingness to take risks, but only among tenured professors, which suggests that job security and grant duration are complements. Both longer and larger grants reduce researchers' focus on speed, which suggests a significant amount of racing in science is in pursuit of resources. But along these and other strategic dimensions, the effect of grant design is small. Second, we identify researchers' indifference between the two grant design parameters and find they are very unwilling to trade off the amount of funding a grant provides in order to extend the duration of the grant $\unicode{x2014}$ money is much more valuable than time. Heterogeneity in this preference can be explained with a straightforward model of researchers' utility. Overall, our results suggest that the design of research grants is more relevant to selection effects on the composition of researchers pursuing funding, as opposed to having large treatment effects on the strategies of researchers that receive funding. |
| Date: | 2023–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2312.06479&r=des |
| By: | Victoria Y. Fan (Center for Global Development); Jubilee Ahazie (Center for Global Development) |
| Abstract: | Countries moving towards universal health coverage are challenged about what new health benefits and interventions they will add to their national health programs. Currently, there are three general approaches that countries use to expand their benefit packages: essential services or essential package list; health technology assessment agency driven approaches; and technical assistance and consultancies. Countries need comprehensive, easy-to-use tools to plan the pathway of adding interventions, which we call benefit package expansion. Such tools can complement approaches to benefit package expansion driven by agencies or technical assistance. We propose a new framework organized in three layers (Inner Core, Outer Core, and Mantle, or IOM framework) that outlines the features or characteristics to consider when designing and building a tool for benefit package expansion planning. The layers of the IOM framework refer to: (1) Inner Core—scoping the set of interventions; (2) Outer Core—cost and benefit information of the interventions; and (3) Mantle—additional considerations such as accessibility and documentation. In this study, we use this IOM framework to identify and review four existing tools that may support benefit package expansion. Based on our review applying a decision-matrix method (a modified Pugh method) that is standard in design thinking, we describe and compare the functionality and usability of these tools, their scope of interventions, information on interventions and services, and customizability for local country contexts. Compared to other tools, HIPtool was more comprehensive in terms of interventions and rated higher on Mantle dimensions of user accessibility, whereas OneHealth tool rated well on intervention costs and benefits. There remains a need for a central coordinating entity in the global health architecture to serve as a repository of tools for designing benefit packages for universal health coverage as well as reinforcing the importance of benefit package design as a crucial part of progressing towards universal health coverage. |
| Date: | 2023–05–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cgd:ppaper:291&r=des |
| By: | Irene Selwaness (Cairo University); Ghada Barsoum (AUC) |
| Abstract: | This paper examines the extent to which the institutional framework for social insurance (SI) might constrain access to contributory schemes and explain workers’ coverage gaps. We use nationally representative microdata from Egypt to test how the design leads to the exclusion of specific categories of workers. We show that the legal framework for SI allows certain types of workers (the self-employed and employers in unregistered enterprises) to opt out of the SI system, thus legalizing and legitimating employment informality. Although the law explicitly highlights the objective of including informal workers, the difficulty of the required documentation and the focus on specific occupations show that it fails to recognize the diversity of this group. Our findings also show that the lack of SI coverage happened even among workers who should be covered by law, i.e., regular wage workers, due to the substantial increases in the minimum insurable wage upon which contributions are calculated, rendering the scheme less attractive for both employers and employees. The paper demonstrates that the conditions of enrollment, cost, and benefit design for SI schemes disincentivize both employers and employees from contributing to the system |
| Date: | 2023–11–20 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:erg:wpaper:1661&r=des |