Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine and to compare the most utilized information technology (IT) investment decision methods between hotels with centrally managed IT, and hotels with locally managed IT.

The empirical data were collected via a structured questionnaire from hotel managers in the USA.

The key findings of the research are that evaluation activities for hospitality IT investments have not been performed widely and consistently. Although sophisticated evaluation methods have been developed over the years, they do not appear to have provided a satisfactory answer to improve IT decision‐making practice. In this study, significant differences were found in how IT investments are evaluated in hotels with centrally managed IT as compared to hotels with locally managed IT. The hotels with centrally managed IT tend to use more financial and non‐financial evaluation methods since all investments are expected to show a positive return on investment.

The research findings highlight the importance of the use of IT investment evaluation techniques in hotels and the major differences between hotels with centrally and locally managed IT.

The literature on IT investment evaluation methods in the lodging industry is limited. Being one of the first studies in this area, these research findings are particularly valuable for practitioners and researchers.

This paper aims to examine the geochemical change experienced by laterites in Kerala, India, subjected to tropical monsoonal climate. These sediments are underlain by hard rock. The source rock characteristics have a major stake on the ultimate composition of sediments, as also the climatic conditions which an area experience.

Core samples have been obtained from several locations in a lateritic plateau. The upper portions of the borehole cores are composed of the lateritic hard cap, followed by lateritic soils. The soil samples were subjected to sediment texture analysis and XRF analysis (Bruker S4 Pioneer Sequential Wavelength-Dispersive XRF) for the determination of major elements ((in oxide form).

Major element geochemistry has revealed the following order of relative proportions of elements (in oxide form) SiO₂ > Al₂O₃ > Fe₂O₃ > TiO₂ >> Na₂O > P₂O₅ > CaO > K₂O > MgO > MnO. Even though the concentrations of SiO₂, Al₂O₃ and Fe₂O₃ contribute 90% of major element chemistry, there is no significant correlation found for these elements within themselves or with others.

Microscale movement of elements could not be characterised in this study. This requires access to an electron probe micro analyzer.

The practical implication of tropical weathering is that enhanced chemical leaching leads to movement of most elements out of the system, except for Al, leading to the possible formation of bauxite, or aluminous laterite.

The weathered products in this study provide livelihood sustenance for many of the local households, through manual production of laterite bricks, which are used in construction.

The indices of the intensity of chemical alteration/weathering like chemical index of alteration (CIA), chemical index of weathering (CIW) and weathering index of parker (WIP) reveal that the sediments indicate intense weathering of the source area prior to being deposited in the present location. This indicates enhanced monsoonal activity in the provenance areas, than that obtained today.

This Order, which is made under Regulation 2 of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943 (S.R. & O. 1943 No. 1553; item No. 1605), and will come into force on January 1st, 1945, specifies the information which must be given on the labels of pre‐packed foods when sold by retail. These requirements also apply on sales otherwise by retail but alternatively the food must be sold unlabelled and the purchaser supplied with a statement giving the required information. Special requirements apply to the disclosure of the vitamin or mineral content of food for which claims are made in labels or advertisements. The Order also provides appropriate defences in cases of infringement, including a defence similar to that provided by the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, where some other person is responsible for the commission of the offence charged. Retail Labelling Requirements.—Subject to the exemptions specified in the First Schedule, pre‐packed food must not be sold (or displayed for sale) by retail unless the label bears a true statement as to the matters mentioned below. The label must be marked on the wrapper or container or securely attached to it. The statement must be clearly legible and placed in a prominent position on the label. If the food is pre‐packed in more than one wrapper or container, the label must be placed on the inner package. A second label must be placed on the outer wrapper or container if the first label is not clearly legible throughout it. (a) Name and Address of Packer or Labeller.—The statement must specify the name of either the packer or the labeller and one of his business addresses. The name and address of another trader may be substituted if the food is packed or labelled for him or on his instructions and he carries on business at any address in the United Kingdom. The above requirement may also be satisfied by placing a trade mark (but not a certification trade mark) prominently on the label. The trade mark must be one of those entered on the Trades Mark Register kept under the Trade Marks Act, 1938 (1 & 2 Geo. 6, c. 22), for that food and the words “Registered Trade Mark” must be associated with it on the label. Table A of the First Schedule provides that the following foods shall be wholly exempt from this requirement: beef or pork sausages or sausage meat and slicing sausage (other than canned); sugar; yeast; unfermented apple juice and soft drinks in solid, semi‐solid or powder form. (b) Names of Foods and Ingredients.—The statement must also specify the common or usual name (if any) of the food and of each ingredient, if the food is made of two or more ingredients. The ingredients must each be given a specific, not a generic, name and must be named in the order of the proportion in which they were used. The ingredient used in the greatest proportion (by weight) must be the first on the list. If the food contains an ingredient made from two or more constituents, the statement must specify those constituents and it will not be necessary to name the ingredient. [See also (vi) below.] It is not necessary to state that the food contains water. The following exemptions from this requirement are given in Table A of the First Schedule: (i) Spices and flavouring essences, whether pre‐packed for sale as such or forming an ingredient of another food, may be designated as spices, etc., without further specifying their common or usual name or their composition. This exemption also applies to colourings, except those pre‐packed for sale as such. (ii) In the case of speciality flour, whether pre‐packed for sale as such or forming an ingredient of another food there is no need to specify ingredients or constituents which are authorised ingredients of National or “M” flour. (iii) Preservatives, as defined in the Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations, are wholly exempt if the label complies with the requirements of those Regulations, whether the preservatives are pre‐packed for sale as such or form an ingredient of one of the foods specified in paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Regulations. (iv) It is not necessary to specify the ingredients used in the foods specified in Table C. The food must, however, be pre‐packed for sale as such and must comply with the composition requirements of the relevant Control Order listed in the Table. Table C specifies the following foods: Foods for which a standard is prescribed under a Food Standards Order; specified canned fruit; Christmas puddings; fish cakes; jam and marmalade; meat or fish paste; meat roll or galantine; canned ready or prepared meals; canned soup; beef or pork sausages or sausage meat and slicing sausage (not canned); standard saccharin tablets; and sweetening tablets. (v) There is no need to specify the ingredients of the following foods when pre‐packed for sale as such; biscuits, condensed milk as defined by the Public Health (Condensed Milk) Regulations, 1923 and 1927; curry powders; pickles and sauces (except salad cream, mayonnaise and sandwich spread). (vi) When a food mentioned in (iv) or (v) above or in Table B (see below) forms an ingredient of some other food, it may be designated by its common or usual name, without specifying the ingredients. (c) Minimum Quantity.—The statement must also specify the minimum quantity of food in the wrapper or container. This quantity must be expressed according to trade custom in terms of net weight, measure or number. In cases where Section 4 of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1928, permits the weight of the wrapper or container to be included in the weight sold, the above provision may be complied with by specifying the minimum weight of the food with its wrapper or container. Table A of the First Schedule provides that the following foods shall be wholly exempt from this requirement: biscuits, when sold by the packet or piece at not more than 3d. per unit; condensed milk, as defined above; and dried milk, as defined by the Public Health (Dried Milk) Regulations 1923 and 1927, including sweetened or modified dried milk but not compounded dried milk. (d)Exemptions.— The above provisions do not apply to: (i) foods packed by a retailer for sale on the premises, but there must be no reference to the food on the wrapper or container or on any label printed on, attached to or given with it; (ii) food imported on Government account which is still in the original container or wrapper; (iii) food packed specially for consumption by H.M. Forces or the Forces of H.M. Allies or Co‐Belligerents; (iv) assortments of foods packed for sale as a meal and ready for consumption without cooking, heating, etc.; (v) food intended for export or for use as ships‘ stores; (vi) foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule when pre‐packed for sale as such. Table B specifies the following foods: bread (not including breadcrumbs); butter and milk blended butter; cakes; cheese (including processed cheese, blue vein, soft curd or cream cheese and cheese made from milk other than cow's milk); compound cooking fat; intoxicating liquor, i.e., spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry and sweets and other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquors which cannot be sold with‐out an excise licence; liquid milk; margarine (not including vegetarian butter); meat pies; National Flour and “M” flour; soft drinks if specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Soft Drinks Order, 1943; still spa water; sugar confectionery, chocolate and chocolate confectionery. (e) Small Packages.—If the wrapper or container holds less than ½ oz. or ½ fluid oz. and, owing to insufficient space it is not reasonably practicable for all the above particulars to be given on the label, it will only be necessary to give those particulars which it is reasonably practicable to specify. The particulars required in (b) must be specified first and those required in (c) must be specified next, in order of priority. The foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule (see above) are exempt from this provision when pre‐packed for sale as such. Labelling Requirement on Other Sales.—On sales of pre‐packed food otherwise than by retail, the seller must either: (a) deliver the food labelled in the manner prescribed for retail sales; or (b) deliver the food unlabelled and furnish the purchaser an invoice or other document within 14 days of delivery. The invoice, etc., must contain a statement of any particulars that may be necessary to enable a retail trader to comply with provisions (b) and (c) of the retail labelling requirements (see above). Pre‐packed food will be regarded as unlabelled only if there is no reference to it on the wrapper or container or on any label printed on or attached to it. The food will not, however, be regarded as labelled merely because the wrapper or container has been marked at packing with reasonable words or marks of identification. This provision, however, does not apply to foods exempted from the retail labelling requirements, including foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule (see (d) above). Defacement of Labels.—Statements on labels placed on a wrapper or container under the above provisions must not be removed, altered or defaced. It will, however, be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that the food was in his possession otherwise than for sale; and (b) that there was no intent to deceive. Claims for Vitamins and Minerals in Food.—(a) General Claims: No one, except under certain conditions, may (i) sell any food with a label making a general claim that vitamins or minerals are present in it; (ii) stock pre‐packed food with a similar label; or (iii) publish, or be a party to publishing, an advertisement making a general claim as above. The above provisions apply whether the label is attached to or printed on the wrapper or container or not. The conditions referred to above are as follows: (i) If a claim that vitamins are present is made, the food must contain one or more of the substances specified in Part I of the Second Schedule, i.e. Vitamins A, B1, B2 (Riboflavin), C and D; Carotene; or Nicotinic Acid, Nicotinic Acid Amide and the active derivatives. (ii) If a claim that minerals are present is made, the food must contain one or more of the substances specified in Part II of the Second Schedule, i.e., Calcium, Iodine, Iron or Phosphorus. (iii) The label or advertisement must specify the minimum quantity of each substance in each oz. or fluid oz., expressed in the appropriate units specified in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule. (b) Particular Claims.— The Order also provides that no one shall: (i) sell any food with a label which claims or in any way suggests that a particular substance specified in the Second Schedule is present in it; (ii) stock pre‐packed food with a similar label; or (iii) publish, or be a party to publishing, an advertisement making a particular claim or suggestion as above. These claims or suggestions may, however, still be made if the label or advertisement specifies the minimum quantity of each substance contained in each oz. or fluid oz., expressed in the appropriate units specified in the Second Schedule. The above provisions apply whether the label is attached to or printed on the wrapper or container or not. (c) Exemptions.—These provisions do not apply to: (i) fruit or vegetables, excluding those which have been canned or bottled or those preserved otherwise than by freezing, gas or cold storage or other storage methods; (ii) food served by a caterer as a meal or part of a meal; (iii) food imported on Government account which is still in the original wrapper or container. In case (iii), however, the provisions relating to advertisements are still applicable. (d) Defences.—In proceedings relating to the publication of an advertisement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove that his business is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received it for publication in the ordinary course of business. In similar proceedings against the manufacturers, producers or importers of the advertised food the onus of proving that he did not publish, and was not a party to publishing, the advertisement is on the defendant. In proceedings for a failure to specify the required particulars in an advertisement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove that he took all reasonable steps, by pre‐packing, to see that it would not be sold without an appropriate label. Deficiencies of Weight or Measure.—In proceedings for infringement of the labelling requirements relating to the weight or measures of pre‐packed articles of food, the Court must disregard inconsiderable variations in the weight or measure of single articles and take into account (a) the average weight or measure of a reasonable number of other articles of the same kind (if any) sold or stocked by the defendant on the same occasion and (b) all the circumstances of the case. In similar proceedings relating to weight, measure or number, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that the offence was due to a bona fide mistake or accident or to other causes beyond his control and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent it; or (b) that the alleged deficiency was due to unavoidable evaporation, although due care had been taken to avoid it. Proceedings for a deficiency in the weight or measure of any pre‐packed food or in the number of articles in a wrapper or container may be instituted, in England, by the local Weights and Measures Authority, and, in Northern Ireland, by the Ministry of Commerce. Inaccurate Statements, etc.—In prosecutions relating to the inaccuracy or omission of a particular required to be shown on a label or statement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that he bought the food in the wrapper or container in which it was sold from a person carrying on business at an address in the United Kingdom, and that the wrapper or container had remained unopened; (b) that the particular in question was shown on (or omitted from) the label or statement at the time of purchase; and (c) that he had no reason to believe that there was any infringement. The defendant, within fourteen days of the service of the summons (or in Scotland, the complaint), must send the prosecutor a copy of the label or statement with a notice stating that he intends to rely on it and giving the name and address of the person from whom he received it. A similar notification must be sent to the person who gave him the label or statement and he is entitled to appear in Court and give evidence. A defendant who is an employee may also rely on the above defence. Act or Default of Another.—A defendant who is prosecuted under the Order may allege that the offence was due to the act or default of another person. He is entitled to make this person a party to the proceedings but must first lay an information and give at least three clear days' notice to the prosecution. If the original defendant's allegation is proved, the second defendant may be convicted of the offence. The original defendant will then be entitled to an acquittal if he can prove that he used all due diligence to comply with the provisions in question. Both the prosecution and the second defendant will have the right to cross‐examine the original defendant and his witnesses and to call rebutting evidence. The Court may make any order it thinks fit for payment of costs by one party to another. If the Minister or other enforcing authority is reasonably satisfied that an offence for which one defendant might be prosecuted is due to the act or default of a second defendant and that the first defendant could establish the above defence, he may prosecute the second defendant without taking a preliminary prosecution against the first. The second defendant may then be convicted of the offence with which the first defendant might have been charged and may be awarded similar punishment. Special provision is made for a similar procedure under the Law of Scotland. Analysts' Certificates.—In proceedings for infringement, the production by one of the parties of a certificate from a Public Analyst or the Government Chemist will be sufficient evidence of the facts stated in it, unless the other party requires that the Analyst shall be called as a witness. A copy of the Analyst's certificate supplied by one party to the other is admissible in evidence without further proof. If the prosecution intends to produce a certificate, a copy must be served with the summons (or, in Scotland, the complaint). A defendant who intends to produce a certificate or require the Analyst to give evidence must give the other party at least three clear days' notice of his intention. The Court is entitled to adjourn the hearing on such terms as it thinks proper if there is any failure to comply with these requirements. In Northern Ireland, “Government Chemist” means the Government Chemist for Northern Ireland. Other Provisions.—The Order also contains various provisions for securing its application under the law of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions of the Order are subject to any directions, licences or authorisations given by the Minister. Holders of licences or authorisations must comply with every condition imposed. The Order will come into force on January 1st, 1945. Definitions.—“Food” means any article used as food or drink for human consumption and includes any substance intended for use in the composition or preparation of food, any flavouring, sweetening matter or condiment and any colouring matter intended for use in food. An article is not to be deemed not to be food merely because it can also be used as a medicine. Save as otherwise provided, the description or definition of food given in an Order of the Minister will apply for the purposes of this Order. If described or defined in more than one Order, the description or definition given in a Price Control Order will be applicable. “Pre‐packed” means packed or made up in advance ready for retail sale in a wrapper or container. Wrapped or packed food found on premises where that food is packed, kept or stored for sale will be deemed to be pre‐packed unless the contrary is proved. The contrary cannot, however, be proved merely by showing that the food had not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of the Order. “Pre‐pack” is to be correspondingly interpreted. “Retail Sale” means any sale to a person buying otherwise than for resale but does not include a sale to a caterer for his catering business or a sale to a manufacturer for his manufacturing business. “Advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document and any public announcement made orally or by a means of producing or transmitting light or sound. References to a label marked on a wrapper or container include references to any legible marking, however effected. “Food Imported on Government Account” means food imported into the United Kingdom for defence purposes, which was the property of, or consigned directly to, His Majesty or a Government Department, or their agents. “Public Analyst” has the same meaning as in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, [and the corresponding Acts in force for Scotland and Northern Ireland.] References to Orders or Regulations refer to those Orders or Regulations as subsequently amended or replaced.

This paper sets out to provide an overview of the economic realities in optimizing library materials access.

Uses a discussion and examples to illustrate the difficulties in optimizing library materials access.

Provides a catalyst for librarians to consider their collections' optimality.

Hopefully, the example will spark still more attention to how public, university, special and school libraries, along with local, state and federal governments, can cooperate to optimize access both to books and to ubiquitous information and knowledge in a time of falling communication prices.

The Food and Drugs Bill introduced by the Government affords an excellent illustration of the fact that repressive legislative enactments in regard to adulteration must always be of such a nature that, while they give a certain degree and a certain kind of protection to the public, they can never be expected to supply a sufficiently real and effective insurance against adulteration and against the palming off of inferior goods, nor an adequate and satisfactory protection to the producer and vendor of superior articles. In this country, at any rate, legislation on the adulteration question has always been, and probably will always be of a somewhat weak and patchy character, with the defects inevitably resulting from more or less futile attempts to conciliate a variety of conflicting interests. The Bill as it stands, for instance, fails to deal in any way satisfactorily with the subject of preservatives, and, if passed in its present form, will give the force of law to the standards of Somerset House—standards which must of necessity be low and the general acceptance of which must tend to reduce the quality of foods and drugs to the same dead‐level of extreme inferiority. The ludicrous laissez faire report of the Beer Materials Committee—whose authors see no reason to interfere with the unrestricted sale of the products of the “ free mash tun,” or, more properly speaking, of the free adulteration tun—affords a further instance of what is to be expected at present and for many years to come as the result of governmental travail and official meditations. Public feeling is developing in reference to these matters. There is a growing demand for some system of effective insurance, official or non‐official, based on common‐sense and common honesty ; and it is on account of the plain necessity that the quibbles and futilities attaching to repressive legislation shall by some means be brushed aside that we have come to believe in the power and the value of the system of Control, and that we advocate its general acceptance. The attitude and the policy of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ADULTERATION, of the BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, and of the BRITISH ANALYTICAL CONTROL, are in all respects identical with regard to adulteration questions; and in answer to the observations and suggestions which have been put forward since the introduction of the Control System in England, it may be well once more to state that nothing will meet with the approbation or support of the Control which is not pure, genuine, and good in the strictest sense of these terms. Those applicants and critics whom it may concern may with advantage take notice of the fact that under no circumstances will approval be given to such articles as substitute beers, separated milks, coppered vegetables, dyed sugars, foods treated with chemical preservatives, or, in fact, to any food or drug which cannot be regarded as in every respect free from any adulterant, and free from any suspicion of sophistication or inferiority. The supply of such articles as those referred to, which is left more or less unfettered by the cumbrous machinery of the law, as well as the sale of those adulterated goods with which the law can more easily deal, can only be adequately held in check by the application of a strong system of Control to justify approbation, providing, as this does, the only effective form of insurance which up to the present has been devised.

The Management Systems Training Council was a co‐operative organization which was developed in the UK in the 1970s to support training and development activity in organization and methods and related topics. Charts the history of the Council from its origins in the 1950s until its demise in 1994, and highlights its achievements using comments from members of the Council. Also relates the work of the Council to more recent developments in quality and re‐engineering.

This study aims to examine the transaction costs (TCs) involved in searching for a business case to adopt specific walling innovations by housing developers and the influence of these TCs on their adoption outcomes. This is against the backdrop that innovation adoption, like any new venture, is failure-prone but necessary for countries to reap the full benefits of technological innovation in residential developments, especially when these innovations are also green. Moreover, this issue is understudied.

The study uses a qualitative design and focuses on the early adopting developers in Ghana. The original theoretical framework integrates theories on entrepreneurial opportunity discovery and TC economics. The authors interviewed 12 developers and 13 industry stakeholders purposively identified. The authors analysed and triangulated the resulting transcripts using thematic analysis techniques.

The authors identified two types of early adopters who attempted eight types of walling innovations. Most efforts (71%) were partially successful or failed. The range of TCs identified differed by the adopter type, technology and knowledge coordination strategy. Although the common TCs that were consequential were associated with monitoring and supervision, construction, additional learning, acquiring specialised skills, design change and dispute resolutions, their influence on adoption outcomes is very nuanced.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to link TCs with innovation adoption outcomes by housing developers in discovering profitable opportunities to adopt specific walling innovations. The findings and theoretical framework lay a foundation for in-depth analyses of the entrepreneurship of innovation adoption in residential real estate. The exploratory work will generate further interest in this area.

This paper aims to examine how employee perceptions of organizational context relate to willingness to mentor. This research will help organizations to understand the relationship between organizational context and willingness to mentor to encourage mentoring.

This study used a survey approach. Employees who worked in the development, production and marketing of pharmaceuticals were administered a survey questionnaire. Data were analyzed through structural equation modeling.

The findings showed that the downsizing experience was negatively related to willingness to mentor, and the threat of being downsized was negatively related to perceived organizational support. In contrast, perceived organizational support was positively related to organization-based self-esteem, which, in turn, was positively related to willingness to mentor.

The relationship between perceived organizational support and organization-based self-esteem, with its subsequent positive effect on willingness to mentor, indicates the importance of organizations’ providing their employees with needed organizational support. Conversely, the negative relationship between the downsizing experience and willingness to mentor, and the threat of being downsized and perceived organizational support, indicates the need to separate mentoring programs from downsizing events even if it means delaying the initiation of a mentoring programs.

Research on the impact of organizational context on willingness to mentor is limited, and this study helps to address that gap.

This study aims to explain how the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) used its power over rail rates as part of an effort to promote the growth of economically underdeveloped regions of the USA. This was accomplished by subsidizing shipments of food and fuel staples to major domestic and world markets and by offsetting the burden of high protective tariffs through low transportation rates on imported goods, from its inception in 1887 until the disruption of ocean transport with the outbreak of First World War in 1914.

Through examination of contemporary ICC studies and cases, this study shows how the ICC condoned rate practices that promoted the socioeconomic welfare of sparsely populated regions primarily in the Southern and Western USA.

The study illustrates that the ICC facilitated exports by authorizing rates that subsidized the transport of overseas food and fuel staples from the interior while at the same time allowing preferential rail–sea contracts on imports that partially offset the burden of protective tariffs on these regions. The focus on regional social welfare within the ICC largely ended by 1914, with the end of protective tariffs and the start of First World War.

This new interpretation explains how international trade patterns in the USA were influenced in significant ways by the ICC to achieve regional social welfare objectives and to promote greater national economic integration.