Search results

This paper aims to establish a systematically constructed defence offset technology transfer (TT) process description and to identify the process pain points and critical success factors from the supplier perspective.

A novel integrated case study and Straussian grounded theory approach under the interpretative assumptions and purposive sampling in a global defence industry organisation are presented.

The TT is approached from the process modelling point of view, and a detailed operations description covering the end-to-end TT process across a defence industrial participation project is presented. The findings suggest that local recipient’s management, financial resources and planning, supply chain management and local production planning are the main factors of an efficient process.

This is a single case study, only reflecting the supplier view. Future research could explore the other dimensions of the process to confirm the identified factors playing a role over time.

To date, the body of TT research has focused on the factors influencing the technology absorption and the identification of meta mechanisms between the supplier and recipient organisations in a context of a multinational corporation and as an intra-firm activity, providing little insight to the actual practical operational level TT process. This study seeks to fill this gap by advancing a more profound understanding of the process activities and the main factors through which the local recipient organisation can best influence the project’s success and manage the inter-organisational TT operations more effectively in a highly technologically complex operational environment.

The purpose of this paper was to develop a quantitative classroom observation method that is able to analyse the school day to identify Time-on-Task losses comprehensively and systematically, at a level of detail that can be used by teachers and principals to stimulate and focus practical improvement efforts.

The novel Time-on-Task Analysis (TOTA) model was developed by triangulating the conceptual framework of the Overall Equipment Effectiveness metric with the semantics and structure of the target domain. Once developed, the model was tested structurally against a time-series classroom observation data set, after which the resulting TOTA was presented to a sample of 52 education stakeholders, who then gave their perspectives of the analysis in a structured survey.

The ontological model was found to be accurate, complete and without conceptual incongruencies, and its output novel and useful by the sample of education stakeholders. Of the participants, 90.3% found the analysis to provide a new perspective, 94.2% reported that the analysis triggered improvement ideas and 80.8% thought that their school(s) could benefit from a TOTA study.

The TOTA model introduces a time-loss-focused perspective to the field of quantitative classroom observation studies, which is dominated by more sociologic- and pedagogic-focused topics. Its grounding in Overall Equipment Effectiveness also gives it a more detailed and systematic approach than the few Time-on-Task studies done to date, resulting in a model made for the “Gemba”: the school classroom.

Food insecurity is an evolving nutrition issue affecting both developed and underdeveloped college campuses. The purpose of this paper is to assess food insecurity and related coping strategies among Texas Tech University students.

This was a cross-sectional online survey in Lubbock, Texas, among college students (n=173). The outcome measures, socio-demographic factors, household food insecurity access) and dietary diversity were assessed using validated tools. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software. Socio-demographic differences in food security status were examined using χ², and means testing. Risks of student food insecurity were assessed using odds ratios (ORs).

Respondents were mostly female (70 percent), non-Hispanic white (58 percent) and young adults’ (median age: 22.0 (20.0, 27.0)), with a median monthly income of $1,000 (0.0, 1,500) and spent about a fifth of their income on food. More students were food insecure (59.5 percent) compared to those who experienced food security (40.5 percent) (p<0.001). Some of the severe food insecure students (16.7 percent) reported going to bed without food (6.9 percent) in the prior 30 days. Students with monthly food budgets of ⩽ $200 were 3.2 times more likely to be food insecure (OR=3.231: CI: 1.353–7.714; p=0.010) compared to those with higher food budgets. A students’ choice of priority monthly expenses was significantly associated with food security status; however, further risk assessment of dichotomous “prioritized food” and “prioritized other expenses” was not statistically significant.

Student’s food budget of $200 was the strongest determinant of food insecurity. Individual training on money management and meal planning are recommended. University policies should recognize and develop academic support policies addressing competing expenses with food.