Cambridge Judge Business School Research Articles

Philanthropy to the fore [research - innovation

“LABOUR, CAPITAL, and ability are a three-legged stool... They are equal members of the great triple alliance which moves the industrial world,” said famous philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, who was the wealthiest man in the world at the beginning of the 20th century. He established the Carnegie Corporation of New York in 1911 dedicated to the principles of `scientific philanthropy', but now his do-gooding baton has been passed to other billionaire entrepreneurs who might agree with Carnegie's notion that “the man who dies thus rich dies disgraced”. This new generation includes Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who recently announced he will give away most of his $124bn fortune to help causes including fighting the climate crisis, and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who established the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to tackle inequalities. The notion of philanthropy - a form of altruism that consists of private initiatives, for the public good - can stir up controversy for those who think that it is the role of the state to invest and to provide for its citizens, or for others who believe that individual philanthropists can exert too much power and influence through the causes that they support. Politics aside, it provides much-needed money to fund research, innovation and technology designed to solve Earth's most pressing problems, from pandemics to climate change. "Philanthropy is about taking a long-term systemic and entrepreneurial approach to driving system change. As such it is absolutely potentially a huge driver of innovation,” says Clare Woodcraft, a fellow at the Centre for Strategic Philanthropy at Cambridge Judge Business School. As risk capital, it fills `market gaps' where there are no incentives to operate, such as radical ideas. “Philanthropy can provide patient capital so that social change makers, social entrepreneurs and practitioners interested in addressing the world's entrenched socio-economic challenges differently, have the support, the funding and the time to test new solutions,” she says. There are two main approaches favoured by philanthropists looking for new ways to improve the lives of others: collaboration and competition.

Comparing approaches for carbon dioxide removal

Niall is a professor in energy systems engineering at Imperial College London. He is a Chartered Engineer, and a fellow of both the IChemE and the Royal Society of Chemistry. His research is focused on understanding the transition to a low-carbon economy. Niall has more than a decade's experience as a consultant to the public and private sectors. He has worked with a range of private sector energy companies and is currently seconded to BEIS, where he is working as an expert policy advisor on CCUS and GGR. David is a professor of technology policy at Cambridge Judge Business School. David has advised government, industry, and non-governmental organizations on energy and environmental policy, with a particular emphasis on the politics of climate change and the social acceptability of low-carbon or net-negative mitigation options for achieving net-zero targets, including carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen, and other energy and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options. Stuart is the current director of SCCS and professor of CCS at the University of Edinburgh. Stuart has over 35 years research experience in energy and environment with a focus on oil and gas extraction, radioactive waste disposal, carbon capture and storage, and biochar in soils. Stuart provides advice to both UK and Scottish governments. He was elected FRSE in 2002, awarded the Geological Society William Smith Medal in 2011, and in 2012 was appointed OBE for services to climate change technologies.

Institutions and Innovation in China

Management scholars have been increasingly interested in how institutional factors, especially the government, affect innovation in emerging markets. This symposium brings together a unique set of papers exploring different ways governments contributes to firm and scientific innovation in the important emerging market of China. Specifically, the first paper investigates how government-led innovation policies can affect patent growth, including the absolute number of patents and patent novelty, and how policies can yield different results across the country. The second paper describes the effect of government industrial priorities on firm innovation, including targeted firms that lie in prioritized industries as well as non-targeted firms. The third paper examines the effect of talent returnee programs on scientific innovation and explains the performance gaps between returnee scientists and their overseas peers. The last study builds on the institutional view to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic affects change in innovation between SOEs and non- SOEs and considers the contingent roles of regional R&D funding and firm digitalization. As a set, the papers offer new insights into how institutional factors contribute to the firm and scientific innovation in an emerging market, which can inform organization and management theories and strategic management research. The Limits of State-Led Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Patents Presenter: Yuen Yuen Ang; - Presenter: Nan Jia; U. of Southern California Presenter: Bo Yang; U. of Southern California Presenter: Kenneth Guang-Lih Huang; National U. of Singapore Government priorities and firm innovation in China Presenter: Christopher Marquis; Cambridge Judge Business School Presenter: Qian Wang; Cornell SC Johnson College of Business Can Brain Drain of Elite Scientists be Reversed? Evidence from China’s Young Thousand Talents Presenter: Dongbo Shi; Shanghai Jiao Tong U. Presenter: Weichen Liu; Shanghai Jiao Tong U. Presenter: Yanbo Wang; U. of Hong Kong COVID-19 Pandemic and Innovation of Chinese SOEs and non-SOEs Presenter: Kevin Zheng Zhou; U. of Hong Kong Presenter: Meitong Dong; HKU

Back to basics: fundamental principles of system dynamics and queueing theory

Back to basics: fundamental principles of system dynamics and queueing theory

Conceptualising Corruption and the Rule of Law

The Modern Law ReviewEarly View REVIEW ARTICLE Conceptualising Corruption and the Rule of Law Jacob Eisler, Corresponding Author Jacob Eisler j.eisler@soton.ac.uk Associate Professor of Public Law, Southampton Law School; Research Associate, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge Judge Business School. Many thanks to Peter Turner, Aidan Finley, and two anonymous reviewers for advice, suggestions, and encouragement. Corresponding author: Dr Jacob Eisler, Southampton Law School, Highfield Campus, Building 4, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ. Email: j.eisler@soton.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author Jacob Eisler, Corresponding Author Jacob Eisler j.eisler@soton.ac.uk Associate Professor of Public Law, Southampton Law School; Research Associate, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge Judge Business School. Many thanks to Peter Turner, Aidan Finley, and two anonymous reviewers for advice, suggestions, and encouragement. Corresponding author: Dr Jacob Eisler, Southampton Law School, Highfield Campus, Building 4, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ. Email: j.eisler@soton.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this author First published: 03 October 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12694 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation

Addressing Grand Challenges: Current Barriers and Ways to Move Forward

Climate change presents a clear and present danger to our society. Businesses and the civil society have made strong commitments and collaborative efforts to address climate change, yet the problem has become increasingly severe. There have recently been growing scholarly interests to understand the barriers of how to effectively deal with current grand challenges, and how such barriers can be overcome. However, important questions remain to identify the best path forward. This symposium brings together leading and emerging scholars in the area to discuss some of these important questions. The four papers in the symposium illustrate unintended consequences from efforts in addressing climate change across different contexts and emphasize the need for strong collaboration at a global scale. The papers suggest solutions to the problem and offer important implications to academics, policies and practices, setting an agenda for future research. The symposium discusses empirical and theoretical connections of research across contexts including institutions, industries, businesses, and organizations’ decision makers, and offer management scholars promising opportunities for future exploration. Non- and Sub-State Action in Post-Paris Climate Governance: Review of a Contested Field Presenter: Julia Grimm; Cambridge Judge Business School Carbon Targets and Target Attainment Presenter: Eun-Hee Kim; Fordham U. Presenter: Patrick J. Callery; Sprott School of Business, Carleton U. The Grasshopper and the Ant: Variation in Organizational Adaptive Responses to Climate Change Presenter: Lucrezia Nava; Cambridge Judge Business School Presenter: Maja Tampe; ESADE Business School A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: the Effects of Common Ownership on Corporate Social Responsibility Presenter: Kala Viswanathan; Harvard U.

Leadership Forum on Organizations and Sustainability: Taking Stock, Looking Forward

In mid-2020, leaders in the field of organizations and the natural environment convened for a conference call to assess the field as it stands and consider reorientations that might elevate its scholarship and amplify its impact. On the call were: Tobias Hahn (ESADE), President of GRONEN, the Group for Research on Organizations and the Natural Environment1 Jennifer Howard-Grenville (Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge), Deputy Editor of Academy of Management Journal. Tom Lyon (University of Michigan), President of ARCS, the Alliance for Research on Corporate Sustainability Mike Russo (University of Oregon), Editor-in-Chief of Organization & Environment Judith L. Walls (Institute for Economy and the Environment, University of St.Gallen), Chair of the Organizations and the Natural Environment Division of the Academy of Management1 What follows is a lightly edited transcript of our free-flowing conversation, with references that came up in the discussion added.

Practical Applications of Divergent ESG Ratings

In Divergent ESG Ratings, from the November 2020 issue of The Journal of Portfolio Management, authors Elroy Dimson of the University of Cambridge Judge Business School and Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of London Business School address inconsistencies in how environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings are evaluated by raters and used by asset managers and investors. The authors carried out an extensive review of previous literature on ESG fund and index performance, along with an analysis of variations in ESG ratings given by different rating bodies. Their analysis found that many popular claims that ESG investing outperforms conventional indexes are unfounded. Furthermore, there is no clear agreement among raters on how individual companies score, or on the relative importance of individual factors of ESG ratings. The divergent ESG ratings provide little to no clear direction for asset managers and investors intending to implement ESG investment strategies.

The 4th European Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report

This year’s report is titled ‘Shifting Paradigms’ to, in part, emphasise the continued growth and development of the European Alternative Finance Industry, but also underscore that these patterns of growth can develop and change as the sector continues to develop and mature. Throughout the region, platforms have continued to grow, respond to regulation, and expand operations internationally. In some regions, model prominence has shifted, allowing for others to grow. At times, this has been a response to the development or lack of regulation, or simply a result of competing market forces. Last year’s report, ‘Expanding Horizons’, sought to exemplify the positive developments in European Alternative Finance in 2016 and foreshadowed future developments in the industry. The sector as a whole has continued to expand, and across the board has grown in volume. As with last year, this study captured market data from 45 European countries, and continued to explore issues with regard to innovation, research and development, as well as internationalisation trends. This year’s European Alternative Finance Industry Report has been produced by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance at Cambridge Judge Business School and the University of Agder. This report was generously supported by Invesco and the CME Group Foundation. Highlights from the report This year’s study gathered data from 269 platforms with reported operations in 2017. These 269 platforms were responsible for 519 unique data entries across 45 countries in Europe. The study shows that the total European online alternative finance market (including the UK) grew by 36 per cent to reach €10.44 billion in 2017. The United Kingdom is still the largest individual alternative finance market, albeit with a declining market share from 73 per cent in 2016 to 68 per cent in 2017. Excluding the UK from overall volume, the European online alternative finance industry grew 63 per cent from €2.06 billion to €3.37 billion in 2017. France (€661.37 million), Germany (€595.41 million) and the Netherlands (€279.93 million) remained the top three national markets for online alternative finance by market volume in Europe, excluding the United Kingdom. For the fourth year in a row P2P Consumer Lending accounted for the largest market share of European Alterative Finance (excluding the UK). This model accounted for 41 per cent of all volume and grew by 99.8 per cent from €697 million in 2016 to €1.39 billion in 2017. Internationalisation of platforms is on the rise. In 2017, 88 per cent of platforms reported some level of cross-border inflows, while 61 per cent reported outflows. This represents a growth of 11 per cent for platforms reporting cross-border inflows, and 17 per cent growth for those reporting cross-border outflows. Despite growth in international orientation of platforms, the extent of actual localisation of services, interface and brand remains limited. While in 2016, models that were associated with larger volumes reported a higher level of change to their business model, the opposite trend was observed in 2017. For the top five model types by volume, 50 per cent or more of platforms reported making no changes to their business model. Product innovation, however, was high across the board. As was observed in the previous year, most innovation focused on improving the operational efficiency of platforms through process streamlining and automation, as well as optimising payment processing and customer verification. Additionally, as with last year, the secondary research focus for platforms in Europe regards investment and development in customer service features, predominantly social media and promotional tools, community management, and CRM systems. As regulatory regimes across Europe continue to develop, so to do the perceptions of platforms on the adequacy of these regulations. In general, while overall views are still divided, it appears that the level of approval has been increasing.

Advanced Technology and Creative Magic: How Technology Use Shapes the Creativity-Innovation Process

Today more than ever, the use of technology is a daily experience for creative workers and inventors all over the world. While we know much about how technology shapes creative and innovative outcomes, we know less about how technology use shapes the creativity-innovation process. When faced with a new technology, creators and inventors have to navigate many tensions and puzzles, and how they do it is likely to change both the creative process and the way the technology is applied to it. The way individuals make sense of new technologies, decide whether or not to interact with them, and apply them to their innovative efforts has thus the potential to significantly shape the creative process and the innovation journey. As a consequence, a deeper, multidisciplinary look at the process of technology use is warranted in order to understand when the use of advanced technologies results in “creative magic”, and when instead they disrupt innovators’ efforts rather than helping them. This symposium includes four empirical papers focusing on these issues, either trying to understand how individuals and collectives make sense of new technologies entering their creative processes or whether and why they decide to apply new technologies in their work. Using Connective Action to Organize Collective Creativity in the Age of Social Media Presenter: Emily Truelove; Massachusetts Institute of Technology Designing in a Box: How Algorithms Shape the Creative Process Presenter: Alentina Vardanyan; Cambridge Judge Business School Accelerating Innovation without Killing it: Sustaining Ambiguity while Coordinating in Hackathons Presenter: Hila Lifshitz-Assaf; New York U. Presenter: Sarah Lebovitz; U. of Virginia Presenter: Lior Zalmanson; Tel Aviv U. Experimenting Strategically: How Industry Downturns Drive Standardization and Experimentation Presenter: Colleen Cunningham; London Business School Presenter: Aldona Kapacinskaite; London Business School

Broadening our Sight (Site): Indigenous Economic Development and Socioeconomic Well-Being

In our symposium, participants will share case studies from Indigenous communities across the world to provide nuanced insights into the myriad of Indigenous socioeconomic practices that reflect heterogenous values, traditions, access and proximity to markets, lands and resources, degrees of collectivity, and differing socioeconomic conditions. Presentations will identify and explore a range of entrepreneurial and economic development initiatives and demonstrate how these initiatives engage with a community’s particular socioeconomic objectives for social, cultural, environmental, spiritual, and economic value creation. Based on their experiences working with Indigenous peoples, symposium participants will engage the audience in a nuanced discussion of Indigenous community socioeconomic development initiatives, research methodologies and research findings. Our symposium’s objectives are to: 1) broaden the sight/site to include Indigenous entrepreneurial and economic ventures and communities worldwide; 2) define the optimal ethical space of engagement in which collaborative research partnerships between Indigenous peoples, communities and organizations can be developed and managed over time; 3) share our stories and experiences about engaging with Indigenous peoples, communities and organizations globally as non-Indigenous allies and Indigenous researchers working to facilitate community self-determination and socioeconomic well-being; and, 4) highlight how Indigenous peoples, communities and organizations are challenging colonization worldwide through developing robust entrepreneurial and economic development ventures that address their community’s particular socioeconomic needs, values, and objectives on their terms. Foundations for Ethical Space: A Dialogue on Sustainability and Reconciliation Presenter: David Lertzman; Haskayne School of Business, U. of Calgary Andean Enterprises: Bolivia’s Royal Quinoa Entrepreneurs Presenter: Tamara Stenn; Landmark College Response to Tourism Development Through Self-Gentrification in Indigenous Communities Presenter: Jin Hooi Chan; U. of Greenwich, Business School Presenter: Xiaoguang Qi; Cambridge Judge Business School Raising Money for Emancipation and Decolonization: The Role of Activist Crowdfunding Campaigns Presenter: Annaleena Parhankangas; Iowa State U. Presenter: Rick Colbourne; Sprott School of Business, Carleton U. Bedouin Entrepreneurship: A Promise for Sustainability? Presenter: Abeer Salem; October U. for Modern Sciences and Arts

Transforming Paradigms: A Global AI in Financial Services Survey

This report presents the findings of a global survey on AI in Financial Services jointly conducted by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School and the World Economic Forum in Q2-Q3 2019. Representing one of the largest global empirical studies on AI in Financial Services, a total of 151 respondents from 33 countries participated in the survey, including both FinTechs (54% of the sample) and incumbent financial institutions (46% of the sample). The study was supported by EY and Invesco. The study’s objective was to analyse and understand the current state of AI adoption in Financial Services, as well as its subsequent implications. This was done through the comparative analysis of empirical data collected via a web-based questionnaire. This research provides a comprehensive picture of how AI is currently being applied in Financial Services by both FinTechs and Incumbents; driving different business models; underpinning new products and services; and playing a strategic role in digital transformation. The findings also reveal how financial service providers across the globe are meeting the challenges of AI adoption with its emerging risks and regulatory implications, as well as the impact of AI on the competitive landscape and employment levels. The overarching findings of the study suggest that AI is expected to transform a number of different paradigms within the Financial Services industry. These anticipated changes include how data is utilised to generate more actionable insights; business model innovation (e.g., selling AI as a service); changes to the competitive environment with the entrance of ‘Big Tech’ and consolidation; various impacts on jobs and regulation; impacts on risks and biases; and the further development and adoption of game-changing technologies.

Funding the sun: New Paradigms for Financing Off-Grid Solar Companies

This report elucidates the role of financial innovation in the off-grid solar sector and provides a roadmap for practitioners, financiers, and entrepreneurs navigating capital raises for companies active in the sector. It examines a full range of established and frontier financing options. It illustrates that some technology-enabled financial innovations, such as peer-to-peer business lending, are already playing an important role in the sector. It was prepared by the World Bank Group and the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, the University of Cambridge Judge Business School, with support from ESMAP.

Early Lessons on Regulatory Innovation to Enable Inclusive FinTech: Innovation Offices, Regulatory Sandboxes and RegTech

Technology-enabled innovation in financial services (FinTech) can extend the benefits of financial inclusion to millions of unbanked and underbanked people around the world. However, the rise of FinTech presents many regulatory challenges - for emerging and developing economies in particular. Consequently a number of regulators in advanced, emerging, and developing economies have responded to such challenges by innovating on their own. These innovative regulatory initiatives include innovation offices, regulatory sandboxes, and RegTech for regulators. Against this backdrop, the Early Lessons on Regulatory Innovations to Enable Inclusive FinTech Report aims to provide readers with key insights on how regulators are innovating to better respond to financial innovation. This empirical study provides independent and comprehensive insights on the inter-relationships between financial and regulatory innovation and financial inclusion, together with lessons learned from early examples of regulatory innovation. The report also provides practical considerations for those regulators seeking to develop their own initiatives. This report has been produced by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance at Cambridge Judge Business School in partnership with the FinTech Working Group of the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Advocate for Inclusive Finance for Development (UNSGSA). It would not have been possible without the support of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the supervision and coordination of the Office of the UNSGSA. Global interest in innovative regulatory initiatives is strong, with regulatory sandboxes now live or planned in over 50 jurisdictions. There are also innovation offices in operation in over 30 jurisdictions, while 20 jurisdictions are pioneering RegTech models. Some jurisdictions have established innovation offices as a first step in the regulatory innovation journey. They are a particularly compelling initial option for capacity-constrained regulators in emerging and developing economies. They require no protracted changes to legislation or regulation, or related resource implications. Key lessons learned from innovation offices underscore the importance of early, and close, engagement with innovators. Executive buy-in and inter-agency coordination can ensure their effective functioning, and they can be a powerful support to regulators with a financial inclusion remit. Innovation offices are also only as good as the quality of their resources, such as the technical capacity of their staff. Regulatory sandboxes have been widely adopted as an innovative regulatory initiative, including several with a specific financial inclusion focus. Sandboxes can help regulators gain a better understanding of FinTech and develop evidence-based regulations that promote inclusive FinTech. Key lessons learned from early regulatory sandboxes highlight that they are neither necessary nor sufficient for promoting financial inclusion. Sandboxes do offer benefits but are complex to set up and costly to run. Experience shows that most regulatory questions raised in connection with sandbox tests can be effectively resolved without a live testing environment. Similar results may be more affordably achieved through innovation offices and other tools. RegTech (regulatory technology) is a distinct innovative regulatory initiative, which focuses on how to monitor and enforce compliance against relevant regulations. RegTech can support a more responsible delivery of innovative financial services, which may directly impact financial inclusion. It also allows regulators to swiftly respond to market developments, better protect consumers, and enhance institutional supervision. There are currently limited examples of RegTech solutions being deployed in emerging and developing economies. Lessons learned from initiatives that do exist highlight the merits of beginning with a problem that will likely gain broad support and has a high likelihood of successful resolution. Crowdsourcing potential solutions to regulatory problems, paired with strong executive sponsorship, has also proven rewarding. Finally, multi-disciplinary teams with complementary skill sets can help foster long-term regulatory transformation. It is clear that no single initiative is a silver bullet for effective regulation. Many are resource intensive and require careful cost-benefit analysis. However there are a number of considerations for regulators who do seek to implement their own innovative regulatory initiatives. An internal mindset and culture which is supportive of innovation within the regulator is crucial, while direct engagement between regulators and innovators has also proven to be mutually beneficial, regardless of the form which this takes. Regulators have also benefited from close inter-agency collaboration and opportunities for mutual learning. Regulators in emerging and developing economies need to remain agile and open as they innovate and create regulatory initiatives. When effectively carried out, innovative regulatory initiatives enable inclusive FinTech and support regulators in long-term capacity building.

Crossing the Private-Public Boundary: Why, What and How?

Boundaries that constitute the legitimacy of organizational categories are becoming more and more blurry. One salient example is found in the private- public sphere, with private ventures increasingly involved in social innovations while socially-oriented agencies are gradually integrating a commercial logic. This symposium consists of four papers that explore practices that transcend the private-public boundary. The first paper proposes a field-level typology to examine the hybridity of private-public interests among organizations, and so sets the tone for the symposium by identifying meaningful dimensions to consider for this phenomenon. The rest of the papers explore specific empirical contexts where organizations integrate social and commercial logics in different ways. Two of these papers focus on the commercialization of socially-oriented agencies, recognizing that juxtaposing a commercial logic with social mission may jeopardize the latter. The last paper investigates the integration of social value in commercial business as shaped by institutional context, which highlights the nuance of competing stakeholder interests. Taken together, these papers recognize that categorization for organizations is a socially constructed process. Authors of these papers challenge the binary view of a social-commercial dichotomy, and offer new thoughts for multiple organization theories i.e. organizational identities, categorical legitimacy, institutional hybridity. Unpacking Variation in Hybrid Organizational Forms Presenter: Jean-Baptiste Litrico; Smith School of Business, Queen's U. Presenter: Marya Besharov; Cornell U. The Market for the Corporate Soul: Evidence from Sustainable Food Acquisitions Presenter: Matthew Lee; INSEAD Presenter: Clarence Lee; Cornell U. How Commercial Pressures Affect Microfinance Organizations Identity Commitments Presenter: Eric Y.-F. Zhao; Indiana U., Bloomington Presenter: Matthew Grimes; Cambridge Judge Business School Presenter: Tyler Wry; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Incorporating Social Value in Commercial Lending among Chinese Banks Presenter: Xuege Lu; Cornell Johnson School Presenter: Lisha Liu; Cornell U.

Simon Sainsbury Centre, Cambridge Judge Business School.

<p>El <em>Simon Sainsbury Centre</em> es una extensión del <em>Cambridge Judge Business School</em>, perteneciente a la Universidad de Cambridge en Inglaterra. El proyecto se origina a partir de un plan director para complementar y actualizar un escenario arquitectónico complejo, creado por la yuxtaposición y combinación de edificios e intervenciones arquitectónicas de diferentes períodos, algunos de los cuales tienen un carácter arquitectónico particular.</p><p>El sitio fue originalmente ocupado por el Hospital Addenbrooke, cuyas estructuras principales han sufrido varias transformaciones desde su construcción. Los cambios más notables del edificio han sido, en primer lugar, la adaptación de su fachada en la década de 1860, ejemplo del característico resurgimiento ecléctico victoriano de Matthew Digby Wyatt, y, en segundo lugar, la ampliación para alojar el <em>Cambridge Judge Business School</em> en la década de 1990, a partir de un estilo inglés postmoderno y extravagante propio de John Outram. </p>

CompleX-Machine: An Automated Testing Tool Using X-Machine Theory

This paper is aimed at creating an Automatic Java X-Machine testing tool for software development. The nature of software development is changing. Thus, the type of software testing tools required is also changing. Software is growing increasingly complex and, in part due to commercial impetus for faster software releases with new features and value, increasingly in danger of containing faults. These faults can incur huge cost for software development organisations and users; Cambridge Judge Business School’s research estimated the cost of software bugs to the global economy is $312 billion. Beyond the cost, faster software development methodologies and increasing expectations on developers to become testers is driving demand for faster, automated, and effective tools to prevent potential faults as early as possible in the software development lifecycle. Using X-Machine theory, this paper will explore a new tool to address software complexity, changing expectations on developers, faster development pressures and methodologies, with a view to reducing the huge cost of fixing software bugs.

Entrenching Innovation - The 4th UK Alternative Finance Industry Report

The 4th UK Alternative Finance Report from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF), the University of Cambridge Judge Business School, captures the size and growth of UK crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending markets in 2016. This research is based on surveys of more than 8,300 investors and lenders of online alternative finance as well as 77 crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending platforms in the United Kingdom. Based on these findings, the CCAF has provided input to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which is currently reviewing its regulatory regime for crowdfunding in the UK.

Financial Market History Can Help Today's Investors

What do practitioners need to know about financial market history? In July 2015, Cambridge Judge Business School hosted many of the world's leading academics and a number of senior investment professionals to discuss this question. The result is Financial Market History: Reflections on the Past for Investors Today, edited by David Chambers and Elroy Dimson and published by the CFA Institute Research Foundation. In this interview, Chambers, academic director of the Centre for Endowment Asset Management at Cambridge Judge Business School, and Dimson, chairman of the Centre for Endowment Asset Management and emeritus professor of finance at London Business School, discuss the book and its contents.

Hitting Stride: The 2nd Americas Alternative Finance Industry Report

Hitting Stride: The 2nd Americas Alternative Finance Industry Report