Search results

The days when corporations could select their portfolios of investments and sit back and wait for results are long gone. To remain competitive, corporations must provide their business units with low‐cost capital, outstanding executives, corporate R&D, centralized marketing where appropriate and other resources in the corporate arsenal. To be successful, they must pursue strategies of vertical integration and a synergistic combining of businesses.

THE fashionable topic today is management. Critics lay at its door many of the troubles from which we suffer. On the other hand there are those who laud it as the key which will open the door to future prosperity for this country. Government, Press, commerce and industry are as one in assuring us that by making management efficient we can say goodbye to many of our difficulties. That is a rather facile assumption. Prosperity depends on productivity and management is only one of the factors involved.

Describes how corporations have recently decided that development of strategic planning information can be improved through the involvement of lower‐level line managers in their planning process. Proposes a practical method for organising middle‐level line managers in sequential order so as to plan efficiently. Discusses some behavioural implications are discussed.

IN the current issue of the journal of the Institute of Practitioners in Work Study, Organisation, and Methods one of its Members, a Mr. E. Cule Davies, plausibly argues that ‘professional standards’ are interdependent with what he terms ‘practical results’. Mr. Davies cites a notional case of a company inviting a ‘specialist’ (the quote marks are his) to improve productivity in a given section and who gave their own professional work study practitioner the same objective to attain.

International business programs became realities in the 1950s, but only at two universities: Columbia and Indiana. In the 1960s, more universities added IB programs and departments; the 1970s saw even more added as universities realized that IB programs would enhance their reputations, improve student knowledge and expertise, and enhance companies’ future success. In 1974, the AACSB added internationalization as a requirement for business schools, forcing even more to enhance the international dimensions of their courses, programs, and faculty. Now virtually all B-schools have become global to some extent, although major differences remain in the quantity and quality of their internationalization.

Vertical integration is often one of the first diversification strategies that firms consider. To choose the right strategy, companies must assess the four different types of possible integration and weigh the merits of each.

The final report of the Butter Regulations Committee has now been published and it is earnestly to be hoped that Regulations based on the Committee's Recommendations will at once be framed and issued by the Board of Agriculture. It will be remembered that in an Interim Report the Committee recommended the adoption of a limit of 16 per cent. for the proportion of water in butter, and that, acting on this recommendation, the Board of Agriculture drew up and issued the “Sale of Butter Regulations, 1902,” under the powers conferred on the Board by Section 4 of the Food Act of 1899. In the present Report the Committee deal with the other matters referred to them, namely, as to what Regulations, if any, might with advantage be made for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of butter, or what addition of extraneous matter other than water, should raise a presumption until the contrary is proved that the butter is not “genuine.” The Committee are to be congratulated on the result of their labours—labours which have obviously been both arduous and lengthy. The questions which have had to be dealt with are intricate and difficult, and they are, moreover, of a highly technical nature. The Committee have evidently worked with the earnest desire to arrive at conclusions which, when applied, would afford as great a measure of protection—as it is possible to give by means of legislative enactments—to the consumer and to the honest producer. The thorough investigation which has been made could result only in the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived, namely, that, in regard to the administration of the Food Acts, (1) an analytical limit should be imposed which limit should determine what degree of deficiency in those constituents which specially characterise butter should raise a presumption that the butter is not “genuine”; (2) that the use of 10 per cent. of a chemically‐recognisable oil in the manufacture of margarine be made compulsory; (3) that steps should be taken to obtain international co‐operation; and finally, that the System of Control, as explained by various witnesses, commends itself to the Committee.

If additional evidence were needed of the connection between food supply and the spread of infectious disease, it would be found in a report recently presented to the Finsbury Borough Council by its Medical Officer of Health, Dr. GEORGE NEWMAN. It appears that in the early part of May a number of cases of scarlet fever were notified to Dr. NEWMAN, and upon inquiry being made it was ascertained that nearly the whole of these cases had partaken of milk from a particular dairy. A most pains‐taking investigation was at once instituted, and the source of the supply was traced to a farm in the Midlands, where two or three persons were found recovering from scarlet fever. The wholesale man in London, to whom the milk was consigned, at first denied that any of this particular supply had been sent to shops in the Finsbury district, but it was eventually discovered that one, or possibly two, churns had been delivered one morning, with the result that a number of persons contracted the disease. One of the most interesting points in Dr. NEWMAN'S report is that three of these cases, occurring in one family, received milk from a person who was not a customer of the wholesale dealer mentioned above. It transpired on the examination of this last retailer's servants that on the particular morning on which the infected churn of milk had been sent into Finsbury, one of them, running short, had borrowed a quart from another milkman, and had immediately delivered it at the house in which these three cases subsequently developed. The quantity he happened to borrow was a portion of the contents of the infected churn.

In the very able and striking address which he recently delivered before the Society of Arts, Sir WILLIAM PREECE insisted that commercial success—whether of a man, of a body of men, or of a nation—is referable to the working of distinct laws, the recognition and study of which may justly be said to constitute a “science of business.” In terms rendered the more severe by their dispassionate and moderate character, Sir WILLIAM referred to the lamentable ignorance displayed by the legislature, by the manufacturer, and by the general public, of what may bo regarded as the most elementary facts and methods upon which such a science must be based. He pointed to the loose and bungling character of our commercial legislation; to the lack of co‐operation and combination; to the nonexistence of a properly organised and effective consular service whereby full information could be supplied and the interests of British trade, both home and colonial, might be studied and advanced; and finally to the lethargy of British producers and manufacturers themselves, who allow foreign competitors to drive them out of even their own home markets without making an effort to discard the old‐fashioned and worn‐out methods which have given those competitors the advantage. Of late years the warning voice has been raised from time to time, but it has been as a voice crying in the wilderness. The remarkable speech delivered at the Guildhall by H.R.H. THE PRINCE OF WALES is fresh in the recollection of those who are not too drowsy or too indifferent to appreciate the vital nature and the magnitude of the evil. In 1891 Lord PLAYFAIR stated that if the Americans were right in principle in the management of some of their commercial concerns, “the whole policy of the United Kingdom was founded on a gigantic error, and must lead to our ruin as a commercial nation.” Sir WILLIAM PREECE is amply justified in attaching severe blame to the British manufacturer and producer. They have allowed “the Americans and the Germans to oust them out of their own markets, not by any superiority in the quality of their goods, but by lower prices, by superior knowledge of the demands of the markets, by the establishment of new markets, by better direct communication with foreign countries, by superior methods in business ways, by establishing regular intelligence departments, and, above all, by possessing and exercising superior commercial technical knowledge,” “and,” continued Sir.WILLIAM, “they must lay aside the commercial habits of their fathers.” With regard to food‐products, for instance, can it be truly said that any adequate steps are taken to secure any satisfactory and permanent improvement of the national food supply with respect to purity and good quality? Has anything been done, with governmental or legislative assistance, to make a systematic study of, and provide authoritative information upon such questions as the sources from which food stuffs are obtained, the adequacy or inadequacy of supplies, the true value of home‐produce and the advantages of utilising colonial products as far as possible? The answers to these questions can only be emphatically in the negative. There is no civilised country in the world in which the producer and vendor of adulterated, impoverished, and inferior articles of food can cany on their nefarious practices with more impunity, in certain respects, than in the United Kingdom, although, originally, we led the way in framing legislative enactments on these all‐important matters. At every port of entry today we might most appropriately set up the old waste‐land notice that “rubbish may be shot here.” As we offer all the necessary facilities, and as they are being taken advantage of more and more, wo might also freely advise that “rubbish should bo manufactured here” as well, What steps do British producers and manufacturers of articles of food take to move with the times, to set their houses in order, to protect themselves, and to enable the public to differentiate between the good and the bad? In the vast majority of instances the attitude they adopt is still one of unmasterly inactivity, except in the direction of unscientific and clumsy advertisement. On this they spend enormous sums without proportionate returns, and in following this course they constantly lay themselves open to condemnatory criticism by the publication of unauthorised and exaggerated statements which, in spit© of CARLYLE'S dictum “mostly fools,” are now merely received by the general public with a shrug of the shoulders. The time has come when, in order not only to develop their trade but in order to keep it, British manufacturers must give evidence of an independent and authoritative character to justify the faith that is presumably in them in recommending their goods to the public. Those who refuse to entertain new ideas and who are content to rest in a semi‐comatose condition on the achievements of the past,—relying merely on the possession of the hitherto reputable “name of the firm,”—by the operation of an inexorable law must inevitably drop out of the race.

It is apparently becoming the fashion among certain types of self‐sufficient persons in this country to endeavour to bring discredit upon the scientific expert, and—whenever the practice can be indulged in with impunity—to snub and to insult him as far as possible. While this course of procedure is particularly to be observed when the expert is called upon to give evidence in a Court of Law, or to explain technical points before some highly inexpert body, it is not only in these circumstances that he is subjected to misrepresentation, discourtesy, and downright insult. Whenever a case occurs which appears to afford pabulum capable of being twisted into shape for the purpose, certain newspapers— generally, we are glad to say, of the lower class—are invariably ready to publish cheap sneers at science and scientific men, frequently accompanied by insulting suggestions. Other journals of a better class do not indulge in abuse and insulting suggestions, but confine themselves to lecturing the expert or experts with all that assurance which is characteristic of blatant ignorance. Accusations of incompetence and of culpable negligence are common in the gutter Press and in some so‐called Courts of Justice. Even suggestions of bad faith and of failure to honourably discharge duties undertaken are sometimes to be met with. It cannot be supposed that the reason for all this is to be found in the conduct of some very few persons who, in the eyes of all right‐thinking people, have brought discredit on themselves by appearing as “ advocate‐witnesses ” to defend the indefensible. At any rate, the conduct of such individuals affords no justification for tarring everybody with the same brush. The hostile, acidly‐cantankerous, and frequently grossly insolent attitude adopted by certain persons and in certain quarters towards those experts whose duties are of a public character and connected with legal or semi‐legal proceedings, is due to a reason which is not far to seek. It is due, in the first place, to the disgraceful ignorance in regard to scientific matters, even of the most elementary kind, which unhappily pervades all classes of the community;' and, secondly, to that form of jealousy peculiar to the small and mean mind which detests and kicks at anything and everything beyond its power of comprehension. When apparently contradictory evidence is given by scientific witnesses—appearing on opposite sides in a case—it is obviously far more easy and satisfactory to shriek about the “ differing of doctors ” than to admit that one's own miserable ignorance prevents one from seeing the points and from ascertaining whether there is any real contradiction or not. It is far more convenient to suggest that the public analyst, for instance, does not know what he is about, has made some absurd mistake, or has been guilty of scandalous negligence, than to admit that one does not understand his certificate owing to one's own defective education or inferior intellectual capacity.