Purpose Policymakers often mandate and regulate the network formation to tackle complex issues of public interest. However, the imposed legal, procedural, and political constraints (i.e. mandated specifications) can affect the structuring and functioning of these networks and thus the sustainability and effectiveness of the collaboration over time. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how mandated specifications affect the formation of public networks. Design/methodology/approach Four networks of healthcare providers were selected and studied from the inception of the collaboration until the services’ activation, focusing specifically on how mandated specifications (i.e. mandated purpose, mechanisms for access to resources, structure, and timing) affected their processes of formation. Findings The cases show that mandated purpose facilitates goal alignment within the networks. The leeway granted to the actors for access and internal distribution of resources enhances the network flexibility, if appropriate monitoring against opportunism is applied. If structuring requirements are too stringent and the actors are forced to respect timing constraints that go against the organic evolution of internal relationships, the network capability to adapt and solve conflicts could be jeopardized. Originality/value Based on the findings, the authors formulate four propositions about the impact that mandated specifications have on the process of network formation, which policymakers should be aware of, when deciding to instigate a network.

No abstract

In the modernisation of the state, NPM ideas are presumed to offer Governments certainty in the face of major unknowns. The reliance of NPM on information technologies is presented by Governments as underlining this potential for certainty. However, this presumption of certainty is elusive in practice. Government pursuit of NPM transformational policies aims to make efficiency savings and cost reductions, but this may create new uncertainties for citizens, particularly because of the unintended consequences of the implementation of new technology.

Risk analysis techniques received increasing attention in the health care sector in the last 30 years. These techniques are diffused\ud for health care processes, and less for devices. In fact, risk management for medical devices was introduced only recently (ISO\ud 14971 in 2000 and GHTF/SG3/N15R8 in 2005) [1,2]. The goal of this study is twofold. First, we aim at evaluating the state of\ud the art of the diffusion of standards for the risk assessment of medical devices (with a focus on FMECA). Second, we evaluate\ud the impact of risk assessment techniques on the practice. To pursue the first goal, a literature review has been performed through\ud the investigation of medical and non-medical databases. To reach the second objective, we selected a leading Company in the\ud development of medical devices and we investigated the process enacted to evaluate the risk connected to the design of new\ud devices. The literature search confirmed the widespread application of the FMECA, the scant number of contributions about its\ud applications on medical devices, and the main limitations related to the use of this technique. The empirical investigation showed\ud that the Company spends a surprising amount of time and resources to set and deploy the FMEA rigorously, and it follows the\ud passages envisioned by the literature carefully, with the unique intent to respect the standards. A gap emerges among the\ud practitioners and academic words, with two possible explanations. First, the academics are not addressing the managerial and\ud practical implications of their contributions; in so doing they deepen the “theory versus practice” chasm. Second, the presence of\ud standards actually discourages the practitioners to push over and find new solutions

Rejoining other authors’ arguments in favor of less linear and more process-based studies of change in purpose-oriented networks (PONs), we propose conceiving of PONs not as social entities or forms, but as processes constantly in flux. From this perspective, PONs comprise more or less interconnected processes constantly at play, albeit with more or less intensity, depending on the reflexive management and actions of their participants. We contend that a process view sheds light on three major themes categorizing extant research on network development: network development as the product of engineered, planned managerial actions; network evolution as the product of unintended, systemic changes both within and outside of PONs; and the management of network tensions as the central object of managerial attention.