Search results

Not‐for‐profit organizations, sometimes called charities or voluntary organizations, are assumed to be serving their customers well – but are they? A customer segmentation is proposed of beneficiaries, supporters, stakeholders and regulators, each group having intermediaries through which the end customer may be reached. Lays out structural reasons why not‐for‐profits may not value or respect their customers, including excess demand, lack of competition, professional dominance and distance, lack of consumer research, lack of appreciation of supporters (both donors and volunteer service workers), comparatively lower salaries of staff, and argues that the “inter constituency tension” of the different and competing needs of beneficiaries, supporters, stakeholders and regulators plus the production orientation of many not‐for‐profits means that, in practice, customers are not sufficiently valued or respected.

I want to make some comments on recent discussions of the moral and legal status of blackmail and in their light look at official secrecy (see Owens, 1988 and Evans, 1990).

This study investigated perceptions useful for pricing decisions. Buyers observing premium prices may believe that “you get what you pay for,” but do buyers seeing low prices believe that “you do not get what you do not pay for”? This research tested the idea that these two statements often prompt different perceptions.

Data came from a questionnaire completed by 105 working professionals in an evening MBA program at a metropolitan university. A randomly selected half received one version, asking about the statement “you get what you pay for.” The other half received an otherwise identical version asking about “you do not get what you do not pay for.” All were asked whether they believed the statement, Yes or No, and then asked to offer an example from their own experience to support that answer.

As expected, different examples were offered, depending on the statement. Examples agreeing that “you get what you pay for” disproportionately involved quality. Examples of “you do not get what you do not pay for” disproportionately involved service or “extras” – whether they were examples in support of agreeing or disagreeing. Most respondents agreed with whichever statement they saw, but more agreed with “you get what you pay for.”

Managers fearful that lowering a price will signal a drop in quality – exemplifying “you do not get what you do not pay for” – may be misreading the way buyers think. Those considering setting a higher price than they otherwise might, to signal better quality, have evidence here to support that view. So do those who, regardless of price level, offer occasional unexpected “extras.”

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the necessary condition of the relative error between continuous function transformation after inverse transformation and original sequence is not larger than the relative error between transformed sequence and its corresponding simulation sequence.

First, explore the function transformation feature of after inverse transformation the relative error not enlarged, then combine this feature with the function transformation feature of not enlarge the class ratio dispersion, not reduce the smoothness which author have got, and obtain a kind of special transformation that not enlarge class ratio dispersion, not reduce the smoothness and after inverse transformation keep the relative not enlarged. Meanwhile, offer the concrete form of this special function type to monotone increasing continuous function transformation and monotone decreasing continuous function transformation, respectively, and study its properties.

This paper finds the concise and important feature of monotonically increasing function transformation after inverse transformation whether the relative error enlarge or not is at first, the concise and important feature of monotonically decreasing function transformation after inverse transformation relative error not enlarged is. And find that the ideal function transformation which both reduces class ratio dispersion strictly and keeps error of inverse transformation not enlarged is non-exist for monotone increasing function transformation and monotone decreasing function transformation.

Use the necessary condition given by this paper, it may use to judge whether function transformation can keep relative error of inverse transformation not enlarged by easy data calculation before build modeling, therefore, choose the best function transformation. These results tell the authors: the paper cannot treat any functions as the same that whether the relative error of inverse transformation will not enlarge (or not reduced), but the authors should divide them into two parts to discuss that it will be expanded in some range or be reduced in some range. It will affect the future direction of the research, not to find the function transform both satisfies the class ratio dispersion reduced and keep the relative error of inverse transformation not enlarged, but to study which kind of function transform will narrow class ratio dispersion in some range, after the modeling accuracy improvement, but after the inverse transformation the relative error enlarged, and at this time the simulation accuracy is still higher than the simulation accuracy of original data modeling directly. Which kind of function transform will expand class ratio dispersion in some range, after the modeling accuracy diminution, but after the inverse transformation the relative error not enlarged, and now the simulation accuracy is still higher than the simulation accuracy of original data modeling directly, too.

Let peers no longer spend energy in seeking the function transformation which both reduce class ratio dispersion and keep relative error of inverse transformation not enlarged. At the same time, also remind peers that even if a function transformation reduces class ratio dispersion greatly, the data modeling accuracy improves a lot after transformation, but the error of inverse transformation is may quite large, still. Besides, even if function transformation increases class ratio dispersion, the data modeling accuracy is not good after transformation, the ideal situation after inverse transformation would occur, and the possibility cannot be excluded.

June 6,1973 Vicarious liability — Master and servant — Course of employment — Bus conductor driving bus — Bus blocking path of conductor's and plaintiff driver's bus — Conductor told by plaintiff to get engineer to move bus — Conductor attempting to move bus himself — Not knowing how to drive bus — Driver injured by conductor's negligent manoeuvre — Express prohibition in bus company's rules against conductors driving buses — Clear separation of duties of drivers and conductors — General duty of conductors to co‐operate with drivers in getting buses into service — Whether bus company vicariously liable for conductor's action — Whether within scope of employment.

October 11, 1967 Negligence — Electricity — Unguarded electric wires — Electrician required to tighten wires — Mobile electric crane in course of construction — Not practice to guard wires — Whether absence of guard negligence — Electrician requiring to remove any guard to carry out work — Statutory duty — Duty to safeguard electric conductor — Fall while descending scaffolding — Whether “reasonably practicable” to guard wires — Whether employers in breach of statutory duty — Electricity Regulations, 1908 (S.R.&O. 1908, No. 1312), reg.2.

Analyzes the directors’ protocols in both the New York Not for Profit Corporation Law and in the New York Business Corporation Law. Examines the similarities and differences existing in the directors’ roles in not for profit corporations and in business corporations. Highlights the legal responsibilities of a not for profit corporation director and warns that, despite such an assignment being voluntary and without compensation, it carries the potential for significant legal exposure if certain formalities are not kept.

Long has recently presented a statement of what the pro‐abortion position is and also a defence of it. I shall, as a pro‐abortionist, question the statement and attack the defence.

A typical vendor of library automation systems cannot, and most likely will not want to, respond to all requests for proposals (RFPs) that it receives. Certain “elimination factors” contribute to the decision to bid or not bid. These include: 1) specifications for the use of computer equipment not employed by the vendor; 2) required features not provided by the vendor's software; 3) performance requirements not met or performed differently by the vendor; 4) a “wired” RFP based on a competitor's system; 5) the size and complexity of the RFP itself; and 6) competition for a vendor's time, such as posed by numerous other previously‐received RFPs that must be answered.

The claimants who were the Appellants in this case were a Mrs Gorham, widow of Mr Gorham, and her two young children. Mr Gorham had been employed by British Telecommunications plc (BT) between 2nd April, 1991 until his death on 5th September, 1994. Upon joining BT, Mr Gorham was informed by BT that he was eligible to join the defined benefit occupational pension scheme. He was sent a booklet about the scheme, which contained an opting‐out form at the back and stated that if this form were not completed he would automatically be joined into the scheme. He did not complete the form but pension contributions were, at his oral instructions, never deducted from his salary and that fact was apparent from his monthly pay slip. The judge at first instance found as a matter of fact that Mr Gorham believed he was not a member of the BT scheme until October 1992 from which date onwards he believed that he was a member of it. In autumn 1991 Mr Gorham contacted Standard Life Assurance Company (Standard Life)and was contacted by a Mr Cornwell, a customer representative of Standard Life. The Gorhams completed and signed a Standard Life Personal Information Questionnaire which prioritised Family Protection followed by Retirement Planning and House Purchase. Mr Cornwell's recommendations based on the information supplied to him from the Gorhams (who were described in the Standard Life correspondence as client and spouse) included transfer of accrued pensions rights with Mr Gorham's previous employer to a personal pension contract and payment into that contract by Mr Gorham of monthly premiums of £80, along with a small amount of life cover at a cost of £5 per month. In November 1992 Mr Gorham, having read the BT pension booklet and discovering that he could not be a member of both the BT scheme and have a personal pension, telephoned the Standard Life helpline to be told that the BT pension scheme was preferable to a personal pension scheme. At that stage he stopped paying contributions into the Standard Life pension scheme. Despite his earlier belief that he had not been a member of the BT scheme the judge at first instance found as a matter of fact that from autumn 1992 onwards he believed he was now a member of the scheme because of his failure to return the opting‐out form at the back of the BT pension scheme booklet. In fact he was not and pension contributions were still not being deducted from his salary. As a result of his failure to join the scheme either in 1991 or in 1992 when he died in 1994 his widow and children received considerably less than if he had been a member. Mrs Gorham sued Standard Life for breach of tortuous duty of care owed to her and the children and was awarded £114,282.61 for her and the children on the basis that she would have been paid that sum, part of it as trustee for the children, if her husband had become a member of the BT occupational scheme. This sum represented the capital value of Mr Gorham's loss of pension rights but the judge at first instance declined to award a further £120,000 which would have represented lump sum death benefits payable to dependants of BT scheme members which would have been payable had Mr Gorham joined the scheme and had two years qualifying service.