Search results

In today’s competitive business environment, organizations are being challenged to improve performance by improving processes, minimizing costs, and increasing output. Such changes can only be made by looking beyond traditional management systems. Continuous improvement (CI) and total quality management (TQM) have been the focus of recent quality improvement initiatives. However, in many ways, the results have not been as dramatic as desired. Business process reengineering (BPR) focuses on innovation and creativity in redesigning processes in an effort to meet customers’ needs and expectations. Experience using nonlinear systems theory in applied health care settings has revealed that nonlinear science does offer a practical new frame of reference for BPR initiatives. This article describes why radically different approaches are necessary to sustain continued quality improvement, provides the key practical insights offered by nonlinear systems theory, and provides a clinical example of multidimensional thinking as applied in an acute care setting.

Business process re‐engineering requires revolutionary, innovative changes to business processes in an organization in order to achieve major and dramatic improvements in the critical success factors. To accomplish these goals new technologies need to be investigated and adopted. Organizations are experiencing paradigm shifting that at times is bordering on paradigm pioneering. For a dramatic, innovative re‐engineering effort to be successfully implemented, change management is essential. While information technology has great potential for providing added value to products and services, business executives are frustrated because business processes and information technology are not synchronized. The inflexibility of older information systems and information technology (IS/IT) constrained growth and competitiveness and resulted in the development of substitute processes to circumvent these constraints. While continuous improvement is the slow, steady and continuous effort to improve products and/or services, it may not be the best course for some organizations. Ideally, both are needed to maintain a competitive advantage. Provides some suggestions on how an organization may approach these processes and presents a case that demonstrates how one organization dealt with these issues.

Points out some important issues that must be dealt with when developing microcomputer‐based QA systems for health care. While no single solution to the problems associated with quality assurance (QA) system development exists, the first step towards an efficient and effective approach is problem identification and commitment to developing a strategy which addresses the issues discussed in this paper. Examines potential solution alternatives and associated pitfalls, and gives an example of designing a QA system, including a database management system with suggestions for spreadsheet templates.

Expert systems (ES) are designed to support and replicate management tasks and decision making characterized by experience and expertise. These commodities are becoming increasingly limited as organizations flatten their management structure. Effective identification and evaluation of domains appropriate for ES‐based solutions are critical to their successful development and implementation. Presents a comprehensive model for ES domain identification and evaluation that includes an emphasis on total quality management (TQM) and can be used as a project management tool. The TQM matrix evaluation model proposed facilitates qualitative and quantitative assessment of ES domains and can provide for dynamic evaluation, feedback and continuous quality management over the entire project life cycle. Tests the TQM matrix evaluation model by applying it to a real business problem and presents and discusses the results.

Life studies are a rich source for further research on the role of the Afro‐American woman in society. They are especially useful to gain a better understanding of the Afro‐American experience and to show the joys, sorrows, needs, and ideals of the Afro‐American woman as she struggles from day to day.

Randall W. Eberts, Ph.D., is the executive director of the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Mary Hatwood Futrell, Ed.D., is president of Education International (EI), headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, and dean of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at George Washington University, Washington, DC.Bob Harris, M.A., Dip.T (Sec.), (Australia), advanced study at the Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, Geneva, is a former EI executive director and current senior consultant based in Nyon, Switzerland.Ronald D. Henderson, Ph.D., is the director of the Research Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Rachel Hendrickson, Ph.D., is the higher education coordinator in the Membership and Organizing Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Kevin Hollenbeck, Ph.D., is a senior economist and director of publications at the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan.Susan Moore Johnson, Ed.D., is Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr., Professor of Teaching and Learning at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Charles T. Kerchner, Ph.D., is Hollis P. Allen Professor of Education at the Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California.Julia E. Koppich, Ph.D., is president of Koppich & Associates, an education policy research and consulting firm, in San Francisco, California.Carrie M. Lewis, J.D., is a senior writer-editor in the Government Relations Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Christine Maitland, Ph.D., is a former higher education coordinator for the National Education Association who now works on higher education issues with the NEA’s Pacific Regional Office in Burlingame, California.Christine E. Murray, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Education and Human Development and dean of the School of Professions, State University of New York College at Brockport.Diane Shust, J.D., M.S.Ed., is the director of the Government Relations Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.Joe A. Stone, Ph.D., is W. E. Miner Professor of Economics at the University of Oregon, Eugene.Wayne J. Urban, Ph.D., is Regents’ Professor of Education in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Georgia State University, Atlanta.Fred van Leeuwen is the general secretary of Education International, Brussels, Belgium.Maris A. Vinovskis, Ph.D., is Bentley Professor of History, senior research scientist at the Institute for Social Research, and faculty member of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Paul Wolman, Ph.D., is a senior policy analyst in the Research Department at the National Education Association, Washington, DC.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

The imperative role of cataloguing in libraries as the bedrock of information/knowledge organization, the need to manage and retain knowledge for strategic planning and better knowledge management (KM) frameworks, little or no information sharing in cataloguing units in federal university libraries in Nigeria, gave rise to this study. The purpose of this study is to identify knowledge sharing (KS) norms and factors that challenge KS practices among cataloguers to provide positive perspective and approach to KS in cataloguing sections of university libraries and improve KM frameworks for better service delivery.

Based on a qualitative survey design, this study examined KS norms, practices and challenges of cataloguers in five university libraries in south-west Nigeria. Data were collected through an open interview to gather in-depth information from 45 cataloguers. Given the small number of the cataloguing team in each library, an enlisting of all cataloguers (census survey) was pertinent for the study. Data collected were analyzed thematically, interviews transcribed and similar responses grouped to provide answers to research questions.

This study revealed KS norms to be somewhat inconsistent and informal than formal, though participants identified the crucial need for KS in their departments. Factors identified as challenges to KS: mood and pressure from work, participants seeing KS as a waste of time, the “know-it-all” attitude, tribal differences, lack of financial motivation, no formal training and mentoring programme, willingness to learn and copy cataloguing.

This study not only improves the dearth of literature on the issue of KS among cataloguers in Nigerian university libraries; but also provides definite perspective and approach to KS in university libraries' cataloguing section to improve KM frameworks for better service delivery.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.