Banking in the modern world Homework 2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Banking in the modern world Homework 2 - Essay Example What is the leverage-adjusted duration gap? Total value of portfolios of Assets = Commercial Loan + Consumer Loan = $400 + $250 = $650 Fractional value of assets at = 61.5 = 0.615% Fractional value of assets B = 38.4 = 0.384% Weighted Average Duration= Duration asset A (% in portfolio) + Duration of asset B (% in portfolio) Weighted Average Duration= 3 years (. 615) + 7 years (. 384) Weighted Average Duration= 1.85 + 2.69 = 4.54 years Total value of portfolios of Liability = IG Bonds + Deposits + Non-deposit borrowing = $65 + $600 + $50= $715 Fractional value of Liability A = .091 Fractional value of Liability B = .839 Fractional value of Liability C = .070 Weighted Average Duration= Duration Liability A (% in portfolio) + Duration of Liability B (% in portfolio) + Duration Liability C (% in portfolio) Weighted Average Duration= 15 years (.091) + 1.25 years (.839) + .50 years (.070) Weighted Average Duration= 1.365 + 1.049 + .035 Weighted Average Duration= 2.4 years Leverage-adjusted duration gap is a formula that measures the overall interest rate of bank and it tells positive or negative changes in the overall interest rate of a banking company. B. What is going to happen to the Bank’s net worth if interest rates will increase or decrease by 1 per cent from the current 5 percent? Interpret the results. Each banking service provider has to face the interest rate risk in its business and if the market rate increases or decrease, it affects the value of cash of banks. Suppose market rate increases with 1 %, then the demand and value of cash will not be affected and it will remain un-changed. But the value of the loan will effect and it will decrease. In this case, the market value of equity of that bank will increase and thus investors will get another opportunity to invest. C. How the Bank can reduce its exposure to interest rate risk? Show this with a numerical example. Each bank has an option to alter its interest rate exposure by making some changes a nd restricting its investment plans, borrowings and other pricing strategies and this can be done with the help of managing maturity times of its current portfolio. Question No. 2. What kind of futures or options hedges would be called for in the following situations? a. Market interest rates are expected to increase and your financial firm’s asset-liability managers expect to liquidate a portion of their bond portfolio to meet customers’ demands for funds in the upcoming quarter. Usually Financial firms expect a lower price for selling their bond portfolio in the market but they don’t expect it if the portfolio consists on short future hedge securities. After selling them on lower prices, they use to repurchase them at a profit giving rate. A similar profit can be made by the bank with the help of Put options for government and financial futures contracts. b. Your financial firm has interest-sensitive assets of $79 million and interest-sensitive liabilities of $88 million over the next 30 days and market interest rates are expected to rise. Financial firm has increased its interest-sensitive assets by $9 million that means this firm is a growing yo bear looser if the interest rate in the market increases. This firm need to hedge its risk it's going to bear on increased $9 million and for this, it should sell financial futures contracts or use a put option on government securities or financial futures contracts. c. A survey of Tuskee Bank’

Learning experience Essay Example for Free

Learning experience Essay When I think about â€Å"Learning Experiences,† I think of every situation someone finds themselves in as a learning experience. People have not traditionally used that phrase in relating to more formal learning interventions – i. e. classroom, but from a learner’s perspective, both formally and informally, that’s exactly what is happening: learners are experiencing something that, hopefully, results in a change in thinking, understanding, or behavior afterwards. Learning experiences are a way to think about what a learning intervention might be (i. e. – its design) in the context of desired end goals and outcomes. This can then inform our choices about how communication channels and modes, learning activities, and resources come together to best support the end goals and outcomes, and also how these channels and activities may evolve over time. Certainly in this context, a learning intervention is something that is much more than what has traditionally been thought of as â€Å"content. † In thinking about what is currently thought of as learning content, I think of something akin to a page from. a textbook (that has its doppelganger in web-based training) with which one â€Å"reads† and then â€Å"interacts† with in some way. That definition of learning content and learner interaction represents a very narrow and limited view of what a learning experience can be and usually limits the type of learning to that of recognizing or memorizing specific facts, procedures, and concepts exemplified in the deployment of web- based, self-directed individual learning experiences commonly called e-learning. Learning content can be thought of much more broadly and inclusively. This could mean that learning content could actually include not only the â€Å"whats† but the â€Å"hows† of learning. For example, learning content in the context of learning experiences could contain a collection of specific content resources, content pointers, functional tools or tool pointers, activity descriptions, and assessments that, when brought together, embody a particular pedagogical model. In fact, the reverse could also be learning content – a pedagogical model describing the types of learning resources, tools, and activities needed to achieve learning outcomes. So you could think of learning content as collections of pedagogical models and collections of resources that participate in shaping an individual’s learning experience that are aligned with learning outcomes and positive actions that stem from the experience. Another facet of learning content is the artifacts produced during the learning experience. Besides the description above, learning content models should also be collaborative or cooperative with resources and activities supporting the learners working together to produce a learning artifact. A learning artifact could  be anything based on an authentic learning activity or experience such as a model, computer code, diagram or even the ubiquitous PowerPoint presentation. As these artifacts are created and evaluated during the learning process, they then become learning resources that can be used iteratively for others in similar or more advanced experiences. These ideas allow us to merge knowledge management and single/double loop organizational learning into our concept of learning content. Conceptually, this represents a shift from the typical view of content managed by a typical content  management system, with the assumption that when content is simply presented to a learner that he or she will just â€Å"learn† from it – that somehow learning (and especially learning to do or understand) is transmitted from the content to the learner. With that view of content and of the learner’s experience, then it’s no surprise that critics of the pedagogical merits of SCORM view it as being â€Å"limited. † When I think about learning experiences in the context of this effort by ADL, I define them as a model that will allow higher order learning outcomes to be realized. This can occur by expanding on our  understanding of learning content to include specific collections of learning resources, tools, and activities guided by pedagogical models. This is sometimes conceived as a problem-based, collaborative-based approach shaped and tailored to meet specific learning goals but I believe it is even much more than that. Learning experiences as currently being thought of by ADL will be able to provide an interoperable and reusable means for design and/or self organization of learning activities that are pedagogically sound, allowing the attainment, assessment, and tracking of higher order learning outcomes.

Biochemistry Research Paper -- Health, Diseases, Viruses, Bacteria

Toll-like receptors are proteins that play a significant role in the recognition of pathogens such as viruses and bacteria, thereby initiating an innate response. The TLR family recognizes structurally conserve molecules known as pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPS) derive from these viruses and bacteria. TLR7 have been shown to mediate the recognition of single stranded RNA (ssRNA) viruses, whereas TLR9 recognizes non-methylated CpG sequences in bacterial DNA molecules. However, the molecular mechanism by which non-methylated CpG DNA and ssRNA viruses activate the innate immunity is not well understood. In this paper, it is demonstrated that the cell response to vesicular stomatitis viruses (VSV) and bacteria DNA is mediated by TLR7 and TLR9. Through the generation of TLR7 and TLR9-deficient mice, it was determined that TLR7 are required for responsiveness to both vesicular stomatitis viruses and TLR9 recognizes bacteria DNA. Both TLR7 and TLR9 deficient mice did not show any response to single stranded RNA viruses and non-methylated CpG bacteria DNA including inflammatory cytokine production from macrophages and dendritic cells. However, the in vivo ability of vesicular stomatitis viruses and CpG bacteria DNA to stimulate IL-12 secretion depended on the functional activation of MyD88 and IRAK. These results present evidence for the requirement of TLR7 for single stranded RNA viruses and TLR9 for non-methylated CpG bacteria DNA to induced cellular effects. Conversely, further results provide evidence that support the role for TLR7 and TLR9 to trigger vesicular stomatitis viruses and CpG bacteria DNA mediated signaling transduction resulting in the induction of the interferon response [266]. Introduction: The inna... ... bone marrow of WT, TLR7,TLR9, or MyD88 deficient mice and infected with VSV for 18hrs. IFN and IL-12 level were determined from culture supernatant by ELISA Lund, J.M.et al Conclusion: In justification with the previous study on TLR9 recognition of CpG DNA and initiating an innate immune system, Lund, J.M. et al have demonstrated that, together, TLR7 and TLR9 likely form a functional subgroup within the TLR family that recognize pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMPS) in endosomal compartment. It is now clear TLR7 and TLR9 play a significant role in the recognition of vesicular stomatitis virus and CpG bacteria DNA, thereby activating the innate immune system. The experiments with TLR7 and TLR9 deficient mice have shown the essential role in the recognition of ssRNA by TLR7 and non-methylated CpG bacteria DNA by TLR9 respectively.

Managed Care Essay

As recently as 1960, before the onset of managed mental health care, the roles of psychiatrists, psychologists, and clinical social workers tended to be distinct. Psychiatrists had the overall responsibility of patient care, conducted psychotherapy, prescribed medication, and supervised hospital care. Clinical psychologists conducted testing and provided group therapy and other therapeutic modalities in institutions and hospitals. Clinical social workers performed comprehensive psychosocial assessments, counseled regarding family issues, and created discharge plans for patients in social services agencies. At that time, the mental health field was far from overcrowded. With psychiatrists’ shift in emphasis, clinical social workers and clinical psychologists assumed more responsibility in mental health treatment, and psychotherapy, in particular. The proliferation of managed care companies during the 1980s furthered the increased involvement of clinical social workers and clinical psychologists. Because of improved training and the less-expensive nature of their services, clinical social workers and clinical psychologists were more involved in providing psychotherapy to patients suffering from mental illness. (Committee on Therapy, Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, 1992). Conflict in Roles According to Gibelman & Schervish managed health care companies have continued this trend of expanding the roles and responsibilities of nonmedical providers–primarily clinical social workers and clinical psychologists–while narrowing the scope of psychiatric practice. Managed health care companies see clinical social workers in particular as an economical, substitutable source of labor for both clinical psychologists and psychiatrists in the treatment of patients suffering from mental illness. Presently, clinical social workers provide a wide array of services to clients with mental illness in a variety of settings and at all functional levels of practice. Clinical social workers practice in institutions, hospitals, school systems, clinics, correctional facilities, and private practices. They function in positions of direct service, supervision, management, policy development, research, community organization, and education and training. Clinical social workers frequen tly perform assessments and arrange and develop services. In these roles they serve as gatekeepers and treatment providers. For some time, clinical social  workers have performed the largest portion of psychotherapeutic work done in the United States. Clinical social workers provide as much as 65 percent of all psychotherapy and mental health services (1997). Payers have begun to ask, â€Å"What type of therapist is the most cost-effective?† and â€Å"What is the advantage of paying one profession higher fees than another for rendering the same service?† when an objective review of empirical studies shows that there is no absolute proof that one profession can perform psychotherapy better than another. Such research leads managed care companies to conclude that many of the cheaper sources of labor in the mental health field, such as clinical social workers, are as effective in administering treatment to patients suffering from mental illness as other more-expensive practitioners (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997) Individual verse Group Practice With managed care’s influence, outpatient treatment, and private practice, in particular, has become a viable and increasingly important role for clinical social workers. Although mental health clinics and other institutions provide the greatest opportunity for clinical social workers, a growing number are now carrying out services in a primary setting of solo or group private practice (Gibelman & Schervish, 1996). In 1995, 19.7 percent of NASW members cited private solo and group as their primary practice, and 45.5 percent as their secondary practice setting (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997). Findings indicate that the proportion of clinical social workers entering and practicing as private practitioners continues to grow (Gibelman & Schervish, 1996). The future treatment of patients in solo private practice may be in jeopardy, as managed care companies force clinical social workers and other mental health care providers to join group practices. In group practices, clinical social workers, in combination with other mental health practitioners, provide individual and group therapy, family interventions, and a variety of other services, all through one office (Shera, 1996). These groups provide â€Å"one-stop shopping,† as well as greater access to less-expensive professionals, such as master’s-level clinical social workers. Managed care companies find that group practices are more efficient and cost-effective in the management of a population of patients (Johnson, 1995). As managed care companies continue to reduce reimbursement dollars, changes in multidisciplinary team structures are inevitable, with even more  reliance on master’s-level service providers. Practitioner distinctions already have begun to diminish in favor of more team-oriented models, with the boundaries between the uniqueness of the individual disciplines beginning to blur (Eubanks, Goldberg, & Fox, 1996). Psychiatrists often head the team, coordinating services in conjunction with psychotherapists and other mental health care providers on the treatment team. However, it is not unusual for a clinical psychologist or even a clinical social worker to lead the team, with the psychiatrist relegated to the role of psychopharmacology consultant rather than an active team member (Brooks & Riley, 1996). Treatment In addition to changing the role of mental health practitioners and the structure of treatment teams, managed care has forced the clinical social work profession and the mental health field in general, to examine how its members provide care. Managed care companies are exploring new ways they can provide the most effective services to more people under increasing resource constraints (Shera, 1996). The transition from fee-for-service to managed mental health care services has created an entirely new culture for mental health care providers and consumers (Geller, 1996). Practitioners must accommodate their treatment to the preferences of managed care. Otherwise, they risk a decrease in referrals, which could ultimately lead to loss of status and income. Managed health care companies have exerted influence on the ways that mental health practitioners conceptualize their practice, forcing treaters to modify therapeutic interventions and practice protocols significantly (Shera, 1996). Brief therapy now appears to be the preferred mode of intervention (Gibelman & Schervish, 1996). Long-term psychotherapy has been virtually eliminated for all but private-pay patients. Managed care companies find that studies of short- and long-term therapy suggest that brief approaches are as good as or better than long-term treatment, except in special cases (Lazarus, 1996). The majority of interventions distinguishing themselves in comparative outcome studies are based on behavioral or cognitive-behavioral theories. These treatments tend to be goal- and present-oriented, behaviorally specific, symptom-directive, advice giving, educational, collaborative, and aimed toward the resolution or amelioration of symptoms in relatively brief periods (Johnson, 1995). The  shift in preference to brief modes of therapy by managed care organizations has changed expectations for therapists. Theoretical orientation of practitioners has become of great interest as managed care companies look fo r practitioners who use brief treatment methods (Giles, 1993). The practitioners most significantly affected by managed care’s shift in preferred mode of treatment have been those who provide the extensive and intensive treatments of psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy, predominantly clinical psychologists. Their emphasis on Freudian psychotherapies, which generally have a very long duration of outpatient care and discouraging results in the outcome literature, have been, criticized heavily (Giles, 1993). Emerging models of psychotherapy endorsed by managed care organizations assume that the psychotherapeutic process occurs in pieces over time. In these models, psychotherapy functions as an active working relationship between the patient and the therapist, whereby the goal is defined as change rather than cure. Managed care companies’ focus on resolving patients’ acute symptoms, rather than ridding them of their mental health conditions, has led to the gradual disappearance of the use of the psychodynamic model as the dominant framework in the treatment of individuals suffering from mental illness (Edwards, 1997). Recently, group treatments have received attention as a cost-effective means of treatment (Iglehart, 1994). A group format allows a number of patients struggling with similar life issues to come together and benefit by interacting with one another and a therapist, the group leader (Shapiro, 1995). Managed care companies support group designs, relying on numerous studies that demonstrate the efficacy of short-term therapeutic groups using behavioral and cognitive-behavioral approaches. Managed care organizations find group treatment inexpensive relative to other treatment methods, because one practitioner can treat many clients at once, significantly reducing billable hours of treatment incurred. The potential of group treatment to alleviate the psychological problems of large numbers of people at relatively low cost makes group therapy an attractive option for managed care companies (). Despite the utility gains, however, managed care companies do not rely on group treatments as wide ly as might be expected, primarily because of patients’ resistance to group treatment. Some patients find the idea of group treatment difficult to accept because they have a hard time  understanding how they will benefit. Many patients prefer individual treatment sessions, where they have the therapist’s undivided attention. These patients may be embarrassed about their problems and reject the notion of others besides their therapist providing input. The logistics of setting up short-term groups, along with current therapist practice patterns, present additional impediments to managed care’s use of group therapy (Crespi, 1997). Nevertheless, the immediate cost-effectiveness of groups, coupled with documented positive outcomes, has made the modality particularly appealing in mental health delivery systems and provides a compelling argument for their use (Crespi,1997). Projection Managed health care organizations have influenced the delivery of services in the mental health field considerably and will undoubtedly continue to do so (Eubanks et al., 1996). Whether the developments instituted by managed care companies are greeted with pleasure, indifference, or hostility, general agreement exists that the treatment of patients suffering from mental illness will be irrevocably changed as managed care continues to alter drastically the delivery, definition, and outcome of treatment that patients receive. In the future, indicators (Iglehart, 1994) suggest that nonpsychiatric practitioners will emerge as the dominant providers of treatment. According to Giles (1993), managed care companies will expect nonmedical practitioners, such as clinical social workers to provide the bulk of outpatient care in the mental health care field. Clinical social workers are cost-effective, fully qualified providers of mental health care services in the eyes of managed care companies. Distinctions between master’s-level and doctoral-level providers will become more evident as master’s-level practitioners assume primary responsibility for direct mental health services, and doctoral-level providers assume more administrative, supervisory, and research-oriented roles (Crespi, 1997). The rapid increase in managed care’s influence, accompanied by the reduction of referrals to more-expensive specialists, suggests that demand for clinical psychologists will continue to diminish (Johnson, 1997). As managed health care organizations restrict consumer choice of providers, many mental health professionals, such as clinical psychologists, may have difficulty joining reimbursement plans (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997). Despite the shift away  from doctoral-level providers and the narrowing role of the medical practitioner in the treatment regime of managed care companies, psychiatrists will likely have an essential and continuing role in the mental health care system. According to Giles (1993), managed mental health care still needs medical practitioners for their knowledge of psychopharmacology and experience in prescribing medications. Scientific literature has demonstrated that psychotropic medications are an effective and essential treatment component for most psychiatric illnesses, and psychiatrists, being physicians, are currently the only ones who can prescribe these drugs with the knowledge to do so effectively. Another likely development with the influence of managed health care is the rarity of the solo practitioner (Crespi, 1997). Individual practitioners and small group practices will likely remain, but will probably represent a much smaller proportion of psychotherapists (Committee o n Therapy, 1992). With commentators predicting a demise in solo private practice, practitioners will either have to affiliate with managed mental health care groups or forego clients with insurance in favor of those able to afford private payment (Gibelman & Schervish, 1996). The psychotherapist who decides to operate outside of the managed care system faces not only a degree of professional isolation, but also limitations in referrals and remuneration (Committee on Therapy). The managed care initiatives sweeping the nation have profoundly affected the ways that clinical social workers and other mental health practitioners deliver services to people suffering from mental illness (Shera, 1996). As these changes continue, clinicians working in a managed care environment will more often practice time-limited psychotherapeutic interventions and, in all but the rarest cases, the practice of unregimented intensive psychotherapy and psychoanalysis will take place outside of the confines of the managed care a rena. For the majority of mental health care consumers, therapeutic work will focus on precipitating stressors and acute exacerbation that may be treated within the reimbursable framework (Committee on Therapy, 1992; Crespi, 1997). Finally, with managed care’s increasing influence, use of outcome measurement and management will continue. Quantifiable data will play a larger role in treatment decisions. Funding sources of mental health care services will increasingly seek quantitative methods to measure the quality  and efficiency of different interventions to guide their purchasing decisions (Johnson, 1997). As managed care companies look for hard data to determine the most effective professionals and treatments, mental health care providers will have to quantitatively demonstrate effectiveness of interventions and treatment through evidence of patient improvement (Gibelman & Schervish, 1996). Thus, the ability to implement and participate in outcomes measurement processes is vita l for any practitioner who wishes to operate in the managed care environment. Conclusion Despite widespread criticism and various efforts at reform, managed care companies continue to expand. Clinical social workers currently involved in the mental health field, as well as incoming social work students interested in mental health, must take heed of the rapid developments in the field. Although the changes resulting from the influence of managed care present many challenges, they also create many opportunities for mental health care providers, and for clinical social workers in particular. To take advantage of these opportunities, clinical social workers, and the institutions educating them, must be prepared (Geller, 1996). Many clinicians currently practicing, as well as current and incoming graduate students, lack information on the breadth of these developments (Crespi, 1997). Clinical social workers must actively seek out continuing education courses, conferences, and journal articles discussing developments in the field related to managed mental health care to be better informed. In addition, schools of social work must update their curricula for incoming students to reflect the realities of changes in managed care. Graduate schools must educate future social workers regarding developments, providing students with the information and skills necessary to survive in this evolving culture (Shera, 1996). Many social work programs are discovering that traditional curricula are no longer adequate to prepare students for practice in the era of managed care. Managed care’s emphasis on the provision of mental health services at contained costs requires specialized practice skills, particularly rapid assessment, brief treatment, and the ability to document treatment outcomes. Social work educators must incorporate these elements into their programs. As managed care continues to expand and evolve, social work educators need to continue to evaluate its  effect on the training of current and potential clinical social workers. Educators in the field, along with graduate school instructors and administrators, must make the necessary changes to provide clinical social workers with the ability to adapt to the changing environment. Collaboration with managed care is necessary for professional survival (Eubanks et al., 1996). Clinical social workers have an enormous role in the treatment of people suffering from mental illness and have a real opportunity to play a major role in managed mental health care (Shera, 1996). Clinical social workers must rise to the challenge.

Entrepreneurship Versus Intrapreneurship

Entrepreneurship versus Intrapreneurship1 Veronica MAIER2 Cristiana POP ZENOVIA Abstract This paper provides a review of theoretical studies on the concepts of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, pinpointing the similarities and differences between them. Entrepreneurship continues to thrive in almost all corners of the world. Entrepreneurs are reshaping the business environment, creating a world in which their companies play an important role in the vitality of the global economy. But there is not always necessary to establish a company in order to implement new ideas.A great potential lies in applying business principles within existing organizations. Keywords: entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, human capital, business, leadership JEL classification: L26 Introduction Why are entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs suddenly more important today than before? An explanation to this question would be that the world is changing nowadays more rapidly under the influence of new technologies. T he increasing competition hinders our work. It does not suffice anymore to stand before our competitors simply driven by our will of competing; we have to bring something new to the market.Entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs play a decisive role as they help the company (newly established or existing) to engage in new business and enter new markets. The concept of entrepreneurship is seen as the process of uncovering and developing an opportunity to create value through innovation and seizing that opportunity without regard to either resources (human and capital) or the location of the entrepreneur – in a new or existing company (Churchill, 1992). 1 2 Investing in people! Ph. D. scholarship, Project co-financed by the SECTORAL OPERATIONAL PROGRAM FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT 2007 – 2013, Priority Axis 1. Education and training in support for growth and development of a knowledge based society†, Key area of intervention 1. 5: Doctoral and post-doctoral programs in support of research. Contract nr. : POSDRU/88/1. 5/S/60185 – â€Å"INNOVATIVE DOCTORAL STUDIES IN A KNOWLEDGE BASED SOCIETY† Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Veronica MAIER, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania E-mail:veronica. [email  protected] com Cristiana POP ZENOVIA, Babes-Bolyai University, Romania E-mail:cristina. [email  protected] com Volume 12, Issue 5, December 2011 971 Review of International Comparative ManagementIntrapreneurship represent the initiation and implementation of innovative systems and practices within an organization, by some of its staff under the supervision of a manager who takes the role of an intrapreneur, in order to improve the economical performance of the organization, by using a part of its resources, namely those that previously have not been used in an appropriate manner. Intrapreneurship improves the economical and financial performance of the company, by applying a more efficient use of the resources and by using a suitable motivational system for its employees (Istocescu, 2003).Similarities and differences between entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship Unlike the entrepreneur, the intrapreneur acts within an existing organization. The intrapreneur is the revolutionary inside the organization, who fights for change and renewal from within the system. This may give rise to conflicts within the organization, so respect is the necessary key in order to channel these conflicts and transform them into positive aspects for the organization.Even though intrapreneurs benefit from using the resources of the organization for the implementation of the emerging opportunities, there are several motives why innovation is more difficult to implement in an existing organization, such as (Malek & Ilbach, 2004): †¢ The size: the bigger the organization the more difficult it is to have an overview of the actions of every employee †¢ Lack of communication: Specialization and separation, help in concentr ating on the areas of interest, but hinder communication. Internal competition: Internal competition amplifies the problem because instead of sharing the knowledge with others it borders the knowledge sharing. Everyone wants to keep the information for themselves. †¢ Feedback received in case of success/mistake: Costs in case of failure are too great and the reward for a successful outcome too small. Intrapreneurs must be allowed to commit mistakes, because such mistakes are an inevitable part in the entrepreneurial process. The recognition of success is also very rare.No company provides payment in advance for what an entrepreneur might accomplish, but a lot of them like to talk about the concept of intapreneurship and expected their employees to get involved and assume their risk. But finally, when motivated employees get involves and have success their only reward is a small bonus. †¢ Dullness: Many companies are slow and reluctant to change. Intrapreneurs bump many tim es into the well known sentence â€Å"We always did it this way†, which leaves little or no space to creativity.The willingness to try new things appears only when the company's shortcomings become apparent, but even so they don’t give room to an innovative leadership. †¢ Hierarchies: Organizational hierarchies compel employees to ask permission for actions that fall outside their daily duties. The more complex the hierarchy the more difficult it is to impose change. Hierarchies 972 Volume 12, Issue 5, December 2011 Review of International Comparative Management have also tended to create a short-term thinking.Employees on lower hierarchical levels have a â€Å"Victim-Mentality† due to a reduced area of action and reduced responsibilities. Those who wish to implement innovative ideas should first consider what the best option for them is: as an intrapreneur, as part of an existing organization, or an entrepreneur in a newly established company. In order to give an answer to this question an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of both concepts is required. The table below helps someone decide what type of business best suits him after confronting him with the advantages and disadvantages that await him.Table 1: Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: advantages and disadvantages ENTREPRENEURSHIP Advantages Disadvantages You are your own boss – independency †¢ Money pressure – giving up on the security of a regular paycheck The income increases †¢ Less benefits as the business is new You have the chance to be original You have part of excitement and adventure †¢ Long working hours †¢ Mistakes are magnified There are a lot of possibilities Salary potential – you decide upon your †¢ All decisions must be made alone own salary INTRAPRENEURSHIP Advantages Disadvantages Ability to stay in a friendly, well known †¢ Reward may not be up to expectation environment †¢ Innovation may not be appreciated Practicing your skills within an organizaaccordingly tion – lower risk †¢ You can be innovative but to a cerUsing companies resources, good name, tain limit – you are not your own knowledge boss Access to customers, infrastructure †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ After seeing the pros and the cons of each concept we think that it is useful to see also the similarities and differences between these two concepts.Morris & Kuratko (2002) are of the opinion that the literature is sometimes confusing in underlining what exactly makes an entrepreneur different from an intrapreneur and what they have in common. This is why they point out a serious a similarities and differences: Review of International Comparative Management Volume 12, Issue 5, December 2011 973 Table 2: Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship: similarities and differences †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Similarities Both involve opportunity recognition and definition. Both require a unique business concept that takes the form of a product, process, or service. Both are driven by an individual champion who works with a team to bring the concept to fruition. Both require that the entrepreneur be able to balance vision with managerial skill, passion with pragmatism, and proactiveness with patience.Both involve concepts that are most vulnerable in the formative stage, and that require adaptation over time. Both entail a window of opportunity within which the concept can be successfully capitalized upon. Both are predicated on value creation and accountability to a customer. Both entail risk and require risk management strategies. Both require the entrepreneur to develop creative strategies for leveraging resources. Both involve significant ambiguity. Both require harvesting strategies. Differences †¢ In start-up entrepreneurship, the entrepreneur takes the risk in intrapreneurship and the company takes the risk other than career-related risk. In start-up the individual entrepreneur owns the concept and business in intrapreneurship; the company typically owns the concept and intellectual rights with the individual entrepreneur having little or no equity in the venture at all. †¢ In a start-up potential rewards for the individual entrepreneur are theoretically unlimited where in intrapreneurship an organizational structure is in place to limit rewards/compensation to the entrepreneur/employee. †¢ In a start-up venture, one strategic gaffe could mean instant failure; in intrapreneurship the organization has more flexibility for management errors. †¢ In a start-up the entrepreneur is subject or more susceptible to outside influences; in intrapreneurship the organization is more insulated from outside forces or influence. †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Source: Morris, 2000Other famous authors have also pinpointed some differences between entrepreneurship and i ntrapreneurship. Even though intrapreneurship is rooted in entrepreneurship (Amo & Kolvereid, 2005; Antoncic, 2001; Davis, 1999; Honig, 2001), there are several differences between these two concepts. In this context Antoncic & Hisrich (2003) note that while intrapreneurs make risky decisions by using the resources of the company, the entrepreneurs make risky decisions using their own resources (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003). Intrapreneurship takes place among employees from within an organization while entrepreneurship tends to mainly be externally focused (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Davis, 1999).Entrepreneurs prefer to develop tacit knowledge, in new organizations, instead of using procedures and mechanisms from other companies. On the other hand intrapreneurs work in organizations that have their own policies, procedures and bureaucracy (Antoncic & Hisrich, 2003; Davis, 1999). 974 Volume 12, Issue 5, December 2011 Review of International Comparative Management Although there are sever al differences between entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, they also have some connections because intrapreneurship is consistently positioned as entrepreneurship within organizations (Antoncic, 2001; Davis, 1999). Conclusions In this paper we have reviewed the literature, which explores both entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship and the relations between them.An important outcome of the review is the identification of the similarities and differences between entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship and also the advantages and disadvantages of both concepts. Nowadays, when we are facing economically difficult times, entrepreneurship and inrapreneurship are an excellent tool for breaking out of the trend trough innovation, by bringing something new on the market. Both entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship are instruments of innovation that help in creating new competencies and accessing new markets. Finally, without developing the insight towards these various aspects, no change of t he company can be realized, and changing, so adapting means in fact, the survival of that company.The value created yesterday, can mean nothing today, therefore only a sustainable company, who recognizes the difference between an entrepreneur and intrapreneur, can turn ideas and creativity into successful new values for tomorrow. Bibliography 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Amo, B. W. & Kolvereid, L. (2005). „Organizational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior† Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(1), pp. 7-19. Antoncic, B. (2001). „Organizational processes in intrapreneurship: a conceptual integration†, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 9(2), pp. 221-35. Antoncic, B. , & Hisrich, R. D. (2003). â€Å"Clarifying the intrapreneurship concept†, Journal of Small Business & Enterprise Development, 2003, pp. 724 Churchill, N. C. , â€Å"Reserch issues in entrepreneurship† (2003). n Antoncic, B & Hisrich, R, D, Clarifying the intrapreneurship co ncept, Journal of Small Business & Enterprise Development, pp. 7-24 Davis, K. S. (1999). â€Å"Decision criteria in the evaluation of potential inrapreneurs†, Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, pp. 295327 Honig, B. (2001). „Learning strategies and resources for entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs†, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 26(1), pp. 21-35. Istocescu, A. (2006). Intreprenoriat si intraprenoriat in Romania, Editura ASE, pp. 67-85 Review of International Comparative Management Volume 12, Issue 5, December 2011 975 8. Levesque, M. & Minniti, M. (2006). „The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behaviour†, Journal of Business Venturing, 2006. 9. Malek, M. & Ibach, P. K. (2004).Entrepreneurship. Prinzipien, Ideen und Geschaftsmodelle zur Unternehmensgrundung im Informationszeitalter, dpunkt. verlag, pp. 105-113 10. Merrifield, D. B. (1993). „Intrapreneurial corporate renewal†, Journal of Business Venturing, pp. 383-389 11. M olina, C. & Callahan, J. L. (2009). „Fostering organizational performance. The role of learning and intrapreneurship†, Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(5), pp. 388-400. 12. Nicolescu, O. & Nicolescu, C. (2008). Intreprenoriatul si managementul intreprinderilor mici si mijlocii, Editura Economica, pp. 52-59 976 Volume 12, Issue 5, December 2011 Review of International Comparative Management