Gray  George M.  Allen  Jon C.  Burmaster  David E.  Gage  Stuart H.  Hammitt  James K.  Kaplan  Stanley  Keeney  Ralph L.  Morse  Joseph G.  North  D. Warner  Nyrop  Jan P.  Stahevitch  Alina  Williams  Richard 《Risk analysis》1998,18(6):773-780

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have focused attention on risk assessment of potential insect, weed, and animal pests and diseases of livestock. These risks have traditionally been addressed through quarantine protocols ranging from limits on the geographical areas from which a product may originate, postharvest disinfestation procedures like fumigation, and inspections at points of export and import, to outright bans. To ensure that plant and animal protection measures are not used as nontariff trade barriers, GATT and NAFTA require pest risk analysis (PRA) to support quarantine decisions. The increased emphasis on PRA has spurred multiple efforts at the national and international level to design frameworks for the conduct of these analyses. As approaches to pest risk analysis proliferate, and the importance of the analyses grows, concerns have arisen about the scientific and technical conduct of pest risk analysis. In January of 1997, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) held an invitation-only workshop in Washington, D.C. to bring experts in risk analysis and pest characterization together to develop general principles for pest risk analysis. Workshop participants examined current frameworks for PRA, discussed strengths and weaknesses of the approaches, and formulated principles, based on years of experience with risk analysis in other setting and knowledge of the issues specific to analysis of pests. The principles developed highlight the both the similarities of pest risk analysis to other forms of risk analysis, and its unique attributes.  相似文献   

    

James W. Marcum  Christie J. Flynn  Kay E. Ketzenberger  Thomas E. Schaefer  John Theis  Cathie H. Tinney 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1998,17(2):93-98

  相似文献   

    

James W. Marcum  Christie J. Flynn  Kay E. Ketzenberger  Thomas E. Schaefer  John Theis 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1998,17(3):83-90

  相似文献   

    

James B. Rieley  Charles Leahy 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1998,17(4):57-63

The impact of corporate buyout can be measured several ways: by a change in cultural norms, by employee productivity, or by financial performance. Each of these measurements has an impact on the others. This case study details the consequences of a buyout—how changes in the norms of an organization's culture affected employee productivity and financial performance during a 12-month period.  相似文献   

    

James R. Lucas 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1998,17(2):1-4

  相似文献   

    

Kevin Agatstein  James B. Rieley 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1998,18(1):43-48

All organizations face the same problem of ensuring that their decision-making process is as effective as possible. Decision-making techniques range greatly—from a command-and-control hierarchical process to a totally diffused process reflected in self-directed work teams. How can managers determine whether they are taking the right approach, or doing the right thing? Indeed, does the “right thing” refer to short-term or long-term results? In most organizations, there is no real process to explore the impact of decisions over either the short or long term. As this article explains, computer simulation models can be used to enhance an organization's decision-making process and enable it to “see” the impact of its future choices over both the short and long term.  相似文献   

    

James R. Stanley 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1997,16(2):57-62

Productivity gains are key to improving customer satisfaction, market-share growth, and financial performance. For this reason, world-class companies do more than simply pursue incremental productivity improvements. Rather, they design improvement programs that accelerate the rate at which productivity gains are made. Between 1992 and 1995. Howmet Corporation of Greenwich, Connecticut, improved productivity at a rate of 6 percent per year. In 1996, however, the rate of annual improvement jumped to 12 percent. A comprehensive reengineering of the company, with one year for planning and three years for executing phase one on a companywide basis, set the stage for the dramatic acceleration in productivity improvement now occurring in phase two.  相似文献   

    

Alan G. Robison  Sam Stern 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1997,17(1):43-51

Although creativity is a high priority for almost any organization, at most companies it happens only on a hit-or-miss basis. The main reason for this is a general lack of awareness of what really drives corporate creativity. Myths about creativity are commonplace, and managers act on them. This article describes three simple principles of corporate creativity, based on how it actually occurs, that will significantly boost creative performance when they are recognized and acted on: (1) most creative acts are unexpected and cannot be anticipated by management; (2) rewards do more harm than good to creativity; and (3) participation is the key variable by which to manage.  相似文献   

    

James W. Marcum  Jerome M. Hatcher  Rachael Green 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1995,14(3):139-150

  相似文献   

    

James W. Marcum  Rachel Green  Mark Fisch 《Global Business and Organizational Excellence》1995,15(1):119-132

  相似文献