in a

way

which

is professionally well founded in the given context,

MAKE A DECISION!

as well as ethically and legally responsible

!

Stakeholder Relationship Management between cultures and their formal and informal expectations – Are our Universities open for open structures?Stakeholder Relationship Management between cultures and their formal and informal expectations – Are our Universities open for open structures?Thanks to Web 2.0 synergy and improved usuability of theoretic tools and quality standards are no longer a problem from a technical point of view. Are our Universities ready to realize the new role of moderation in social media that integrate research and education instantly?

19. Up to now, the ignorance of all the other interest group has been the precondition for publishers to sell

they cannot sell content? They sell conversations. Instead of despairing of the loneliness while editing content, scientists despair oft he excitement of contri-butions to b e evaluated update in real time in discour-ses moderated by them. This scenario demonstrates the end of feudalistic conditions for publishers. Their lonely castles will be entered. Monopolies in monologue content secured by exclusive rights of distribution will no longer be possible. Relationship statements such as „I know and you don’t. That’s why you have to pay fort he book“ belong tot he Middle Ages unenlightened knowledge societies. Author collectives do not have to wait for years to receive feedback for their achieve-ments. Knowledge producer and knowledge consu-mers pardon! Knowledge prosumers do no longer need to teach others, they are enabled to learning while putting their knowledge into the discourse system.

20. The public / media as the „fourth branch“ who are interested in the development of organisa-tions relevant to society and their prominent decision-makers and who trivialise the mastery, art and ethics of leadership – partly in the mystifying mode, partly in to rationalising mode – win both: the chance to put the program of European Enlighten-ment into practice and the change to get lost in infor-mation overload. The option chosen does not only decide what the future will look like.

1. Inexperienced decision-makers want to learn how to make reasonable decisions which are sustainable and adequate tot he context. They want to be backed by experienced specialists in theory and practice, as well as to sharpen their

contributions to a discourse system tell more about their professional and didactic abilities than snapshots on Facebook when applying to a job. Perspectives of inexperienced professionals with a fresh look at things, without blinkers, are valuable for optimisation and innovation.

18. Representatives of norming organisations such as associations, ministries seeking to improve the quality of life and the sustainability of society by the quality of executive decision making face a problem: this problem is a result of socially fragmented commu-nication oft he stakeholders involved in the given context of quality standards for excellent decision making. The quality standards issued by them, someti-mes in to form of legal acts, will only be implemented

perspectives and interests. Eliminating fragmented communication in the form of a virtual discourse system, it is easy to update quality standards meeting present requirements. Quality assurance will become more sustainable as standards not just prescribed but borne by stakeholders and put into practice.

2. Experienced decision-makers want to train their knowledge using the latest data to evaluate their

prepare for examinations in good time. They want to

transfer of theoretical knowledge into practice is seen as a disruption. If the systems provider does not repair the system just in time, another comparable system is chosen which guarantees better conditions and professional moderation.

17. Agencies certifying quality management systems do not only want to certify the formal com-

theories increases tot he extent they can be taught in an integrated manner. The less teachers talk to each

get, who have a right to expect unambiguousness. If

decision-makers will not be able to legally justify which choice is adequate to which situation. Thanks to a discourse system, quality experts can cooperate

-

competition. This is an example of consumer protec-tion put into practice in the education SYSTEM!

3. Leadership is not just a privilege, but also service. , who are required to have them lead by somebody else, want to be able to trust in their executives. That is the reason why they want to see as much transparency as possible in the decisions made fort hem. If they understand the reasons for making a decision, they may learn to make their own decisions to take some of the workload from the

-sibility.

16. at universities doing research into health management and at the same time invol-ved in a special case of organisation is interested in latest data by comparing theoretical and empirical

4. Clients in need of care and potential custo-mers from the relevant target group pass their impres-sions oft he organisation on to their families and friends and have a substantial impact on the organisation’s image. They are valuable as potential clients for new services and products to be developed in online interaction to meet the present demand. Relatives of people in need of care would like to have the opportunity to get to know what to expect from

making the decision which organisation to choose.

5. Competitors appreciate leadership mistakes made in our organisation. Does this mean that know-ledge management across organisations is threate-ning? Not necessarily! Due to anonymous case studies as well as the person and organisation providing the case study, it is possible that competitors can learn from each other within a virtual learning and quality community without fear to lose their face and without fear to revealing inside data. A valuable example in

6. External cooperation partners such as service agents, suppliers, distributors, as well as strategic part-ners such as interest groups and disseminators would like to fell sure that they cooperate with competent and committed partners.

12. Shareholders of care facilities and training providers who want to earn revenues from the opera-tion of their business.

11. Trainees/students/university graduates as

prepared for their future careers as responsible execu-tives in time.

15. Freelance teachers, trainers, advisors, supervi-sors, mediators, change agents, and authors are inte-

combine their independence and insights into the

comprehensive expertise which might be a result of

necessary for high-quality decisions emerges in the interplay between the organisation and its periphery.

14. -sations do not want to be substituted. That is the reason why they need the guarantee represented by their superiors that their status is not measured by the

passing on their competency.

13. If mangers in training organisations recog-nised the moderation of knowledge management as an aspect of leadership, they have good reasons to do

among colleagues and even again representatives of

learning tasks.10. Private relatives and friends do not notice the

stress involved in taking the risks of decision making only in theory. They may support the executive, or they may not do so. To evaluate the need of support, they need information: Instead of “Hello darling, did you have a nice day?” they will say “I know what has happened today”.

7. Representatives of social stakeholder such as communities, courts, tax authorities, authorities in

-ronment want to guarantee that the executives can represent their organisation and that decisions are made in the correct legal and professional framework. Information is required to act in time.

8. Superiors want to assess the quality of their decision in retrospect at the latest. They want to make sure just in time which criteria are up to date.

9. Colleagues with the same level of training and responsibility have their view, want to talk o each other and want to take part in decision making.

either in a direct or an indirect way. The discourse provides the opportunity to take part in decision in time.

1. Are universities open for their new challenges? 2. In other words: Which of the present functions cannot be virtualised except courses with on-site attendance? What about exa-

follow-ups of lectures taking rather the form of mentoring than of teaching? Organisation the exchange with other scientists? Pu-

3. To put it in a nutshell: When will universities be open?4. In a nutshell: Which players on the globalised education market will take the classic functions and the discourse moderation over, if universities wake up late?

What should and what can universities do? In a best-case scenario, universities enable students to make decisions which are cor-rect from a technical point of view and which are legally defensible in a professional context. In other words: a decision maker in a concrete situation is involved.

-enced by a number of factors.

As it is worthwhile considering the perspectives and expertise of the other stakeholders, the term “Stakeholder-Relationship Ma-nagement” is not the best one. Stakeholder integration is what the present situation calls for. Why should anyone take the burden of dealing with such a complexity of social interactions? Because it is worthwhile! Because these negotiation processes can be rapidly organised in a sustainable way on the Internet. An example of another group of stakeholders is external quality commissioners who investigate and certify the compliance with quality standards in given contexts. When a ministry makes a decision, a group of experts is asked for opinions. Do these experts know all relevant theoretic tools? Do they consider all ethic implications? Are they aware of all contexts for applications? No, they are not and that is why they need to arrive at an agreement with other stakeholders. If stakeholders communicate with each other in a discourse, quality standards are not just agreed upon, they are implemented as they were decided by consensus. They are implemented because they were assessed to be practical and feasible in a given con-text, unlike company wikis. They are implemented as their practicality is continually optimised and updated for new contexts.

Who may organise a form of discourse which will lead to consensus as described above? It is universities and publishers who pro-vide didactic and legal experience to process knowledge.

-tending the discourse to other stakeholders, further standards are added: the practicability of recommendations, etc.

Editorial tasks will continue to be of importance. The scope of editorial functions, however, will diminish due to streamlining pro-vided by the Internet. New functions will appear for knowledge workers: moderating discourses. For collective intelligence to emerge, discourses must not be moderated according to the slogan “Intelligent is what the boss con-siders to be intelligent.” The extremist “I like it” button can be considered a quasi monarchist element barring creative intelli-gence. Not every contribution, however, can be integrated into a discourse. If a discourse is not to get lost between vanity and

For discourses to be considered lively and enriching, a large number of well-adjusted details are required. The competence to mo-derate involving all points of views is needed and the architecture of the discourse system is essential. Which options are there to contribute to knowledge, to evaluate data to complement each other? Which are the didactic formats to process and update

experts? It is a given fact that the interest of stakeholders diminishes if moderation of the discourse is not provided in a competent way. Stakeholders vote with their feet. If supply and demand do not meet, stakeholders will move on to discourse systems of other pu-blishers or universities providing a similar focus.

Our poster demonstrates a selection of formal and informal expectations individual stakeholders have from experience. Our example shows a discourse system for health-care professionals, which could be operated by a provider of nursing training.

Stakeholder Management? Three principles for tapping synergies through web-based stakeholder integration:• Organisation? 2 problems = 1 solution!• Purposeful actions require coordination. Coordination requires on-time discourses about the learning needs• Functions and business segments traditionally separated are converging through Web 2.0 in teaching as well as in practice