ALLIANCE THEORY AND BEHAVIOUR: ANGLO RUSSIAN EDUCATION ALLIANCES

1
ALLIANCE THEORY AND BEHAVIOUR ANGLO RUSSIAN
EDUCATION ALLIANCES

• Robin Matthews

2
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

3
NETWORK OF DISTRIBUTED DECISIONS IN
ORGANIZATIONS
NETWORKS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STORIES
4
COMPLEXITY

• INTERDEPENDENCE
• Large number of interacting variables
• time
• Space
• MANY BEHAVIOURS
• NO SIMPLE (CAUSAL)SEQUENCES
• QUALITATIVE CHANGE
• Emergence
• selection
• ADAPTATION
• Co-evolution

5
B
C
A
Random network
Connectors
Small world
D
F
E
Nodes (vertices)
6
Complex networks the global financial system
Preferential attachment
7
(No Transcript)
8
Games

• ZERO POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SUM GAMES
• INTERDEPENDENCE
• Nash equilibrium
• Evolutionary stability
• RULES OF THE GAME
• COOPERATIVE AND NON CO-OPERATIVE GAMES

9
(No Transcript)
10

• 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

11
Relationships are multi level
12
foundations

• complex 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.

13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
Significant relationships in higher education
partnerships
16
(No Transcript)
17

• 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.

18
Payoffs from Alliances in Higher
EducationBetween Russian and British
InstitutionsGeneral 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.

19
Payoffs from Alliances in Higher
EducationBetween Russian and British
InstitutionsGeneral 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.