Dynamic capabilities and stakeholder theory explanation of superior performance among award-winning hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Baldrige is a system-wide approach for improvement to be used as circumstances dictate. There is a need to understand how hospitals earning Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards – Health Care (MBNQA – HC) assure high quality performance. Examine the dynamic capabilities of MBNQA – HC winning hospitals though the theoretical lens of stakeholder theory and dynamic capabilities. Stakeholder theory calls attention to the synergistic potential for value creation across a firm’s stakeholder groups. Dynamic capabilities consist of processes and activities aimed at identifying opportunities (sensing), mobilizing resources (seizing), and making necessary changes for value creation (transforming). Our data are provided by the MBNQA – HC applications of 10 hospitals judged to have earned the awards for the years 2010–2016. As a primary methodology for performing qualitative analysis, thematic analysis of the applications was our analytic method. 66 sensing activities, 29 seizing activities, and 57 transformations were identified. Sensing and seizing spanned stakeholder groups including customers, competitors, community, and industry. Organization cultures promote system–wide engagement by empowered internal stakeholders, leading to superior performance. Relying on a supportive system-wide culture that empowers internal stakeholders, MBNQA – HC winners engage in numerous sensing, seizing, and transforming activities. These ongoing activities are commonalities of top performing hospitals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".