ALLIANCE THEORY AND BEHAVIOUR: ANGLO RUSSIAN EDUCATION ALLIANCES

Robin Matthews

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

NETWORK OF DISTRIBUTED DECISIONS IN ORGANIZATIONS

NETWORKS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STORIES

04/20/23 3robindcmatthews.com

COMPLEXITY

• INTERDEPENDENCE• Large number of interacting variables

– time

– Space

• MANY BEHAVIOURS• NO SIMPLE (CAUSAL)SEQUENCES• QUALITATIVE CHANGE

• Emergence

• selection

• ADAPTATION• Co-evolution

Nodes (vertices)

Connectors

04/20/23 5robindcmatthews.com

A

B

C

D

E

F

Small world

Random network

Complex networks the global financial system

Preferential attachment

04/20/23 6robindcmatthews.com

Games

• ZERO POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE SUM GAMES• INTERDEPENDENCE

• Nash equilibrium

• Evolutionary stability

• RULES OF THE GAME

• COOPERATIVE AND NON CO-OPERATIVE GAMES

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

Relationships are multi level

Figure 2

GB

B1

B2

B3

GR

R1

R2

R3

foundationscomplex 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.

A1

A8

A5 A6 A7

A2 A4A3

networks of relations

Figure 4(b)

Binary Relationships Investigatedin the study

GB

GR

R1 R2 R3

B1 B3B2

12

3 45

6

7 8

9

Significant relationships in higher education partnerships

British Student

Russian Student

British Student

Russian Academic

British Student

Russian Institution

British Academic

Russian Student

British Academic

Russian Academic

British Academic

Russian Institution

British Institution

Russian Student

British Institution

Russian Academic

British Institution

Russian Institution

R1 R2 R3

B1

B2

B3

1 2 3

9

4 5 6

7 8

Figure 5(a)Relationships Investigated

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.

Payoffs from Alliances in Higher EducationBetween Russian and British Institutions

General 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.

Payoffs from Alliances in Higher EducationBetween Russian and British Institutions

General 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.