Search results

To provide and illustrate a structured engineering approach for conceptual design of enterprise performance measurement and management systems.

The paper proposes and utilizes a design approach based on combining an enterprise engineering process with a system dynamics (SD) modeling methodology. A research case application in a call center using real data serves as an illustration of these ideas.

This proposed approach provided clear guidance through all the steps of the research case developed. When compared to traditional alternatives, it especially enhanced considerations pertaining to causality relationships among performance metrics, both in a qualitative as well as in a quantitative way.

The explicit combination of enterprise engineering and SD methods creates new research and application opportunities. From a research perspective it establishes a framework for dealing with performance from a systems life‐cycle perspective as well as points to the need for developing integrated modeling techniques. From a practical perspective, the results achieved to this point provide a conceptual design guideline of immediate applicability.

In this commentary, we will examine London and Sessa's (this volume) article on continuous learning in organizations from alternative researcher and practitioner perspectives. Specifically, we review its major points, examine the issues of entity selection and definitions, discuss the need for a “parts and wholes” approach, contrast alternative process models that stress the importance of time, and speculate about different user perspectives and their approaches. On balance, their article will stimulate much needed discussion and research in an important area.

Describes a methodology to monitor and maintain team wellness, focused on critical team processes to sustain teams after launching. The approach includes a structured assessment tool to measure team member perceptions of critical team processes, selection and implementation of improvement initiatives guided by graphical portrayal of assessment results, and re‐assessment of team processes to measure impact of initiatives. Illustrates this approach and associated assessment and portrayal tools through an application with two work teams in a telecommunications company. This approach provides a structured method for monitoring team wellness, or health, which can complement business results‐focused measures of a team’s performance.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

THE eleventh annual meeting of the Institute was for the first time held simultaneously in three centres—in New York City at Columbia University, in Detroit at Rackham Educational Memorial, and in Los Angeles at the University of Southern California—from January 25 to 29. The purpose of the three simultaneous meetings was to minimize travel by executives and engineers from important war jobs in the present emergency. The same programme was offered at all three centres, papers being sometimes presented by proxies—experts in the same field as far as possible. In spite of the fact that attendance was divided between three centres, there was splendid representation at each place and a wide range of subjects was covered in the many papers. Naturally these were restricted more to analysis, and technology and information as to the latest design or production features of current aircraft or engines was withheld. The same ban applied to striking developments in accessories, instruments and armaments. All papers had to be approved by the Army or Navy and to be read substantially as written. While off‐the‐record discussions were permitted, these discussions were not made public. In particular there was a ban on comparisons between foreign and American materials, equipment or methods. The formula for control of comparison performance stated that the manufacturer's smooth curve calibrations and performance figures might be quoted, but no Wright field performance figures or data could be revealed. In spite of such restrictions a tremendous amount of valuable technical information was presented to the assembled engineers.

Kerstin Aumann is a doctoral student in the social-organizational psychology program at Teachers College, Columbia University. She received her B.S. at Northwestern University, after which she spent three years working in the Change Communication Specialty Group at Burson-Marsteller, a global communications firm. Her research interests include international human resources management, cross-cultural organizational behavior, and cultural diversity.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of AACSB accreditation on the autonomy and costs of limited resource institutions whose missions are primarily teaching.

To evaluate the research questions, a content analysis of all publications in the EBSCO Business Source Premier Database for the period January 1, 1990 through December 15, 2012 was conducted.

The findings indicate that in the process of becoming AACSB accredited, faculty members of the subject institutions shift their focus more toward research and less toward teaching activities, and that the institutions become less autonomous and more like their benchmark AACSB institutions. In addition, the costs of AACSB accreditation are likely to be significant for the subject institutions.

The findings of the study point to the need for additional theoretical and empirical research related to the research questions. First, there is a need to formulate a conceptual framework for clearly identifying and measuring the implicit and explicit costs, including all of the opportunity costs, associated with accreditation. In addition, there is a compelling need to develop a conceptual framework and measurement system that will allow business schools to better assess their quality and productivity. For limited resource institutions whose missions are primarily teaching this system should comport with the schools’ teaching missions.

The findings suggest that the subject institutions seeking AACSB accreditation should carefully consider a number of questions before pursing accreditation. First, is the institution's mission congruent with AACSB standards or will its mission have to be changed? If AACSB accreditation is deemed to be appropriate, how will the associated changes in resource needs and resource allocation serve to further the institution's mission? And, what are the incremental costs of accreditation, and does the institution have the resource base to sustain accreditation?

The study is the first to conduct a detailed content analysis to evaluate some of the costs and benefits of AACSB accreditation for limited resource institutions whose missions are primarily teaching.