Search results

The first generation of large mainframe computers certainly acted as a centralising force within companies. The arrival of cheaper minicomputers and the development of online terminals to mainframes had a “decentralising” effect in the sense that machines could be purchased and operated at departmental/site level.

There is much discussion of “distributive processing” in computer management circles, but little agreement as to what the term means. Three conditions that must be met for distributive processing to exist are suggested, and it is shown (through two case studies) how different companies may move towards distributive processing in different ways. Two main routes, via distributed and decentralised processing, are identified, and it is suggested (using Mintzberg′s work) that the route a company takes is significantly influenced by the nature and structure of the organisation.

Reports on computer innovation in companies suggest that, in general, awareness lags behind application, and that there is considerable variation between functional areas. Why this should be is considered and five key factors are focused on which suggest that different specialisms lack awareness for different reasons. It is concluded that all managers must move from “ignorance” to “omniscience”.

So swift and dramatic have been technological changes over recent decades that the significant accompanying organisational changes can easily be overlooked. The author considers the effect that such changes have had on larger companies, particularly those that have established specialist computer services departments.

Since the first Volume of this Bibliography there has been an explosion of literature in all the main areas of business. The researcher and librarian have to be able to uncover specific articles devoted to certain topics. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume III, in addition to the annotated list of articles as the two previous volumes, contains further features to help the reader. Each entry within has been indexed according to the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus and thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid information retrieval. Each article has its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. The first Volume of the Bibliography covered seven journals published by MCB University Press. This Volume now indexes 25 journals, indicating the greater depth, coverage and expansion of the subject areas concerned.

The librarian and researcher have to be able to uncover specific articles in their areas of interest. This Bibliography is designed to help. Volume IV, like Volume III, contains features to help the reader to retrieve relevant literature from MCB University Press' considerable output. Each entry within has been indexed according to author(s) and the Fifth Edition of the SCIMP/SCAMP Thesaurus. The latter thus provides a full subject index to facilitate rapid retrieval. Each article or book is assigned its own unique number and this is used in both the subject and author index. This Volume indexes 29 journals indicating the depth, coverage and expansion of MCB's portfolio.

Considers the benefits and pitfalls of 360‐degree feedback – drawing from experiences at British Petroleum (BP) and current thinking at British Aerospace (BAe), Brough. A distinction is made between “assessment” and “development” (necessary for understanding what appraisal is trying to achieve) and the different forms of appraisal – downward, upward, peer and self – are defined. The BAe Brough appraisal scheme is outlined and reference made to a “Manager as a Developer” training programme where the notion of 360‐degree feedback is being considered. Suggests there are 11 key issues that should be considered when introducing upward appraisal and that most of these also apply to peer appraisal and self appraisal. The BP scheme is used as a model for contrasting the author′s own views and those of his BAe colleagues. Concludes by warning of the dangers associated with 360‐degree feedback and favours, in most instances, an “informal, voluntary, qualitative” approach.

Considers competence – what the competence‐based approach means, how it has developed, and how it can be used in the long‐term evaluation of training and development. Focuses on defining what criteria are used for assessing competence; how such criteria are measured; which criteria are most apt in each particular instance; why certain forms of behaviour are thought to be competent; where the approach can prove most useful; who determines competence; and when is individual competence (as opposed to team competence) the thing to aim for. Considers how competence‐based qualifications can be incorporated with knowledge‐based qualifications and draws examples from the British Aerospace experience. Concludes by questioning whether the political debate is coming full circle, with the pendulum swinging back to knowledge‐based qualifications.

Emphasizes the need for clear terminology; distinguishes between “competence” and “competency”. Argues that competence and competency models have been used in three different areas: recruitment, skill assessment and development. Considers competence models, such as the MCI standards in the area of skill assessment, which focus on What people can do; require clear, measurable standards; and exclude grading. Discusses behaviour inventories – which focus on how people behave and can be graded in relation to recruitment and staff development. Makes a distinction between intellectually based and morally based behaviours which allows a “dartboard” model to be created with “hard” competences at the centre, phasing out through intellectually based behaviours to “soft” morally based behaviour at the periphery. Behaviours, capabilities and attributes are added to the vocabulary, hopefully to provide greater clarification.

British Aerospace (MAD) has launched Open Learning Centres on three of its sites with a fourth to open shortly. Considers the various mechanisms being used to assess overall effectiveness and identifies three strands of the process: measurement, monitoring and evaluation. Concludes with the contention that tensions can exist, when launching an Open Learning Centre, between creating the learning organization and meeting the business need.