MOT Discussion Result-Stakeholder Exercise Workshop_PA Minerals_Apr24.2011

合集下载

具体实施方案 英文

具体实施方案 英文

具体实施方案英文Specific Implementation PlanThe specific implementation plan is a crucial step in turning ideas and strategies into action. It provides a detailed roadmap for executing a project or initiative, ensuring that all necessary steps are taken in the right order and with the right resources. In this document, we will outline the key components of a successful specific implementation plan and provide guidance on how to create one.1. Clearly Define the ObjectivesThe first step in creating a specific implementation plan is to clearly define the objectives of the project or initiative. What are the desired outcomes? What problem are we trying to solve? By clearly articulating the objectives, we can ensure that all subsequent actions are aligned with the overall goals.2. Identify Key StakeholdersNext, it is important to identify the key stakeholders who will beinvolved in the implementation process. This may include internal team members, external partners, and other relevant parties. Understanding the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder is essential for effective coordination and communication.3. Develop a Detailed TimelineA detailed timeline is essential for ensuring that the implementation process stays on track. This should include specific milestones, deadlines, and dependencies between different tasks. By breaking down the project into smaller, manageable steps, we can ensure that progress is being made and identify any potential bottlenecks.4. Allocate ResourcesIn order to successfully implement a project, it is important to allocate the necessary resources, including budget, personnel, and materials. This may involve securing funding, hiring additional staff, or procuring equipment. By ensuring that the right resources are in place, we can avoid delays and setbacks during the implementation process.5. Establish Clear Communication ChannelsEffective communication is critical for successful implementation. It is important to establish clear communication channels and protocols for sharing information, reporting progress, and addressing any issues that may arise. This may involve regular meetings, status updates, and other forms of communication.6. Monitor and Evaluate ProgressThroughout the implementation process, it is important to monitor and evaluate progress against the established objectives and timeline. This may involve tracking key performance indicators, conducting regular reviews, and making adjustments as needed. By staying vigilant, we can identify any potential problems early and take corrective action.7. Adapt and IterateFinally, it is important to recognize that implementation plans are not set in stone. As circumstances change and new information becomes available, it may be necessary to adapt and iterate the plan. Thisflexibility is essential for ensuring that the project stays aligned with the overall objectives and remains responsive to changing conditions.In conclusion, a specific implementation plan is a critical tool for turning ideas into action. By clearly defining objectives, identifying key stakeholders, developing a detailed timeline, allocating resources, establishing clear communication channels, monitoring progress,and remaining adaptable, we can ensure that our projects and initiatives are implemented successfully. With careful planning and execution, we can turn our vision into reality.。

Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice

Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice

JPART18:543–571 Collaborative Governance in Theoryand PracticeChris AnsellAlison GashUniversity of California,BerkeleyABSTRACTOver the past few decades,a new form of governance has emerged to replace adversarial and managerial modes of policy making and implementation.Collaborative governance,as it has come to be known,brings public and private stakeholders together in collective forums with public agencies to engage in consensus-oriented decision making.In this article, we conduct a meta-analytical study of the existing literature on collaborative governance with the goal of elaborating a contingency model of collaborative governance.After review-ing137cases of collaborative governance across a range of policy sectors,we identify critical variables that will influence whether or not this mode of governance will produce successful collaboration.These variables include the prior history of conflict or cooperation, the incentives for stakeholders to participate,power and resources imbalances,leadership, and institutional design.We also identify a series of factors that are crucial within the collaborative process itself.These factors include face-to-face dialogue,trust building,and the development of commitment and shared understanding.We found that a virtuous cycle of collaboration tends to develop when collaborative forums focus on‘‘small wins’’that deepen trust,commitment,and shared understanding.The article concludes with a discus-sion of the implications of our contingency model for practitioners and for future research on collaborative governance.Over the last two decades,a new strategy of governing called‘‘collaborative governance’’has developed.This mode of governance brings multiple stakeholders together in common forums with public agencies to engage in consensus-oriented decision making.In this article,we conduct a meta-analytical study of the existing literature on collaborative governance with the goal of elaborating a general model of collaborative governance. The ultimate goal is to develop a contingency approach to collaboration that can highlight conditions under which collaborative governance will be more or less effective as an Early versions of this article were presented at the Conference on Democratic Network Governance,Copenhagen,the Interdisciplinary Committee on Organizations at the University of California,Irvine,and the Berkeley graduate seminar Perspectives on Governance.We thank the participants of these events for their useful suggestions and Martha Feldman,in particular,for her encouragement.We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and useful comments.Address correspondence to the author at cansell@ or aligash@.doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032Advance Access publication on November13,2007ªThe Author2007.Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Researchand Theory,Inc.All rights reserved.For permissions,please e-mail:journals.permissions@approach to policy making and public management.1In conducting this meta-analytic study,we adopted a strategy we call ‘‘successive approximation’’:we used a sample of the literature to develop a common language for analyzing collaborative governance and then successively ‘‘tested’’this language against additional cases,refining and elaborating our model of collaborative governance as we evaluated additional cases.Although collaborative governance may now have a fashionable management cache´,the untidy character of the literature on collaboration reflects the way it has bubbled up from many local experiments,often in reaction to previous governance failures.Collabo-rative governance has emerged as a response to the failures of downstream implementation and to the high cost and politicization of regulation.It has developed as an alternative to the adversarialism of interest group pluralism and to the accountability failures of manageri-alism (especially as the authority of experts is challenged).More positively,one might argue that trends toward collaboration also arise from the growth of knowledge and in-stitutional capacity.As knowledge becomes increasingly specialized and distributed and as institutional infrastructures become more complex and interdependent,the demand for collaboration increases.The common metric for all these factors may be,as Gray (1989)has pointed out,the increasing ‘‘turbulence’’faced by policy makers and managers.Although Susskind and Cruikshank (1987),Gray (1989),and Fung and Wright (2001,2003)have suggested more general theoretical accounts of collaborative governance,much of the literature is focused on the species rather than the genus .The bulk of the collaborative governance literature is composed of single-case case studies focused on sector-specific governance issues like site-based management of schools,community po-licing,watershed councils,regulatory negotiation,collaborative planning,community health partnerships,and natural resource comanagement (the species).2Moreover,a num-ber of the most influential theoretical accounts of this phenomenon are focused on specific types of collaborative governance.Healey (1996,2003)and Innes and Booher (1999a,1999b),for example,provide foundational accounts of collaborative planning,as Freeman (1997)does for regulation and administrative law and Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000)do for natural resources management.Our goal is to build on the findings of this rich literature,but also to derive theoretical and empirical claims about the genus of collaborative governance—about the common mode of governing.DEFINING COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCEWe define collaborative governance as follows:A governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal,consensus-oriented,and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage publicprograms or assets.This definition stresses six important criteria:(1)the forum is initiated by public agencies or institutions,(2)participants in the forum include nonstate actors,(3)participants engage directly in decision making and are not merely ‘‘consulted’’by public agencies,(4)the 1Thomas (1995)develops a contingency perspective on public participation,though it aims more broadly and is developed from the perspective of public managers.2A smaller group of studies evaluates specific types of collaborative governance at a more aggregated level (for example,see Beierle [2000],Langbein [2002],and Leach,Pelkey,and Sabatier [2002]).Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory544Ansell and Gash Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice545 forum is formally organized and meets collectively,(5)the forum aims to make decisionsby consensus(even if consensus is not achieved in practice),and(6)the focus of collab-oration is on public policy or public management.This is a more restrictive definition thanis sometimes found in the literature.However,the wide-ranging use of the term has,as Imperial notes,been a barrier to theory building(Imperial2005,286).Since our goal is to compare apples with apples(to the extent possible),we have defined the term restrictivelyso as to increase the comparability of our cases.One critical component of the term collaborative governance is‘‘governance.’’Much research has been devoted to establishing a workable definition of governance that is bounded and falsifiable,yet comprehensive.For instance,Lynn,Heinrich,and Hill (2001,7)construe governance broadly as‘‘regimes of laws,rules,judicial decisions,and administrative practices that constrain,prescribe,and enable the provision of publicly supported goods and services.’’This definition provides room for traditional governmental structures as well as emerging forms of public/private decision-making bodies.Stoker,onthe other hand,argues:As a baseline definition it can be taken that governance refers to the rules and forms that guidecollective decision-making.That the focus is on decision-making in the collective impliesthat governance is not about one individual making a decision but rather about groups ofindividuals or organisations or systems of organisations making decisions(2004,3).He also suggests that among the various interpretations of the term,there is‘‘baseline agreement that governance refers to the development of governing styles in which bound-aries between and within public and private sectors have become blurred’’(Stoker1998, 17).We opt for a combined approach to conceptualize governance.We agree with Lynn, Heinrich,and Hill that governance applies to laws and rules that pertain to the provision ofpublic goods.However,we adopt Stoker’s claim that governance is also about collective decision making—and specifically about collective decision making that includes bothpublic and private actors.Collaborative governance is therefore a type of governance inwhich public and private actors work collectively in distinctive ways,using particular processes,to establish laws and rules for the provision of public goods.Although there are many forms of collaboration involving strictly nonstate actors,ourdefinition stipulates a specific role for public agencies.By using the term‘‘public agency,’’our intention is to include public institutions such as bureaucracies,courts,legislatures,andother governmental bodies at the local,state,or federal level.But the typical public in-stitution among our cases is,in fact,an executive branch agency,and therefore,the term‘‘public agency’’is apt.Such public agencies may initiate collaborative forums either tofulfill their own purposes or to comply with a mandate,including court orders,legislation,or rules governing the allocation of federal funds.For example,the Workforce InvestmentAct of1998stipulates that all states and localities receiving federal workforce develop-ment funds must convene a workforce investment board that comprised public and privateactors in order to develop and oversee policies at the state and local level concerning job training,under-and unemployment.According to our definition,these workforce invest-ments boards are mandated to engage in collaborative governance.Although public agencies are typically the initiators or instigators of collaborative governance,our definition requires participation by nonstate stakeholders.Some scholars describe interagency coordination as collaborative governance.Although there is nothing inherently wrong with using the term in this way,much of the literature on collaborativegovernance uses this term to signal a different kind of relationship between public agencies and nonstate stakeholders.Smith (1998,61),for example,argues that collaboratives in-volve ‘‘representation by key interest groups.’’Connick and Innes (2003,180)define collaborative governance as including ‘‘representatives of all relevant interests.’’Reilly (1998,115)describes collaborative efforts as a type of problem solving that involves the ‘‘shared pursuit of government agencies and concerned citizens.’’We use the term ‘‘stakeholder’’to refer both to the participation of citizens as indi-viduals and to the participation of organized groups.For convenience,we will also here-after use the term ‘‘stakeholder’’to refer to both public agencies and nonstate stakeholders,though we believe that public agencies have a distinctive leadership role in collaborative governance.Our definition of collaborative governance also sets standards for the type of participation of nonstate stakeholders.We believe that collaborative governance is never merely consultative.3Collaboration implies two-way communication and influence be-tween agencies and stakeholders and also opportunities for stakeholders to talk with each other.Agencies and stakeholders must meet together in a deliberative and multilateral process.In other words,as described above,the process must be collective .Consultative techniques,such as stakeholder surveys or focus groups,although possibly very useful management tools,are not collaborative in the sense implied here because they do not permit two-way flows of communication or multilateral deliberation.Collaboration also implies that nonstate stakeholders will have real responsibility for policy outcomes.Therefore,we impose the condition that stakeholders must be directly engaged in decision making.This criterion is implicit in much of the collaborative gov-ernance literature.Freeman (1997,22),for example,argues that stakeholders participate ‘‘in all stages of the decisionmaking process.’’The watershed partnerships studied by Leach,Pelkey,and Sabatier (2002,648)make policy and implementation decisions on a range of ongoing water management issues regarding streams,rivers,and watersheds.Ultimate authority may lie with the public agency (as with regulatory negotiation),but stakeholders must directly participate in the decision-making process.Thus,advisory committees may be a form of collaborative governance if their advice is closely linked to decision-making outcomes.In practice (and by design),however,advisory committees are often far removed from actual decision making.We impose the criteria of formal collaboration to distinguish collaborative gover-nance from more casual and conventional forms of agency-interest group interaction.For example,the term collaborative governance might be thought to describe the informal relationships that agencies and interest groups have always cultivated.Surely,interest groups and public agencies have always engaged in two-way flows of influence.The difference between our definition of collaborative governance and conventional interest group influence is that the former implies an explicit and public strategy of organizing this influence.Walter and Petr (2000,495),for example,describe collaborative governance as a formal activity that ‘‘involves joint activities,joint structures and shared resources,’’and Padilla and Daigle (1998,74)prescribe the development of a ‘‘structured arrangement.’’This formal arrangement implies organization and structure.Decisions in collaborative forums are consensus oriented (Connick and Innes 2003;Seidenfeld 2000).Although public agencies may have the ultimate authority to make 3See Beierle and Long (1999)for an example of collaboration as consultation.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory546Ansell and Gash Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice547 a decision,the goal of collaboration is typically to achieve some degree of consensus among stakeholders.We use the term consensus oriented because collaborative forumsoften do not succeed in reaching consensus.However,the premise of meeting together ina deliberative,multilateral,and formal forum is to strive toward consensus or,at least,tostrive to discover areas of agreement.Finally,collaborative governance focuses on public policies and issues.The focuson public issues distinguishes collaborative governance from other forms of consensus decision making,such as alternative dispute resolution or transformative mediation. Although agencies may pursue dispute resolution or mediation to reduce social or politicalconflict,these techniques are often used to deal with strictly private conflicts.Moreover,public dispute resolution or mediation may be designed merely to resolve private disputes.While acknowledging the ambiguity of the boundary between public and private,we restrict the use of the term‘‘collaborative governance’’to the governance of public affairs.Our definition of collaborative governance is meant to distinguish collaborative gov-ernance from two alternative patterns of policy making:adversarialism and managerialism (Busenberg1999;Futrell2003;Williams and Matheny1995).By contrast with decisionsmade adversarially,collaborative governance is not a‘‘winner-take-all’’form of interest intermediation.In collaborative governance,stakeholders will often have an adversarial relationship to one another,but the goal is to transform adversarial relationships into more cooperative ones.In adversarial politics,groups may engage in positive-sum bargainingand develop cooperative alliances.However,this cooperation is ad hoc,and adversarial politics does not explicitly seek to transform conflict into cooperation.In managerialism,public agencies make decisions unilaterally or through closed de-cision processes,typically relying on agency experts to make decisions(Futrell2003; Williams and Matheny1995).Although managerial agencies may take account of stake-holder perspectives in their decision making and may even go so far as to consult directlywith stakeholders,collaborative governance requires that stakeholders be directly includedin the decision-making process.A number of synonyms for collaborative governance may cause confusion.For ex-ample,‘‘corporatism’’is certainly a form of collaborative governance as we define it. Classic definitions of corporatism(like Schmitter’s)emphasize tripartite bargaining be-tween peak associations of labor and capital and the state.Typically,these peak associa-tions have a representational monopoly in their sector(they are‘‘encompassing’’).If westart with this narrower definition of corporatism,collaborative governance is the broader term.Collaborative governance often implies the inclusion of a broader range of stake-holders than corporatism,and the stakeholders often lack a representational monopoly overtheir sector.The term‘‘associational governance’’is sometimes used to refer to the more generic mode of governing with associations,but collaborative governance may not even include formal associations.The Porte Alegre project,for example,is a form of collabo-rative governance that includes individual citizens in budgetary decision making(Fung and Wright2001).Sometimes the term‘‘policy network’’is used to describe more pluralistic forms ofstate-society cooperation.A policy network may include both public agencies and stake-holder groups.Moreover,policy networks typically imply cooperative modes of deliber-ation or decision making among actors within the network.Thus,the terms policy networkand collaborative governance can refer to similar phenomena.However,collaborative governance refers to an explicit and formal strategy of incorporating stakeholders intomultilateral and consensus-oriented decision-making processes.By contrast,the co-operation inherent in policy networks may be informal and remain largely implicit (e.g.,unacknowledged,unstated,nondesigned).Moreover,it may operate through infor-mal patterns of brokerage and shuttle diplomacy rather than through formal multilateral processes.Collaborative governance and public-private partnership can also sometimes refer to the same phenomenon.Public-private partnerships typically require collaboration to func-tion,but their goal is often to achieve coordination rather than to achieve decision-making consensus per se.A public-private partnership may simply represent an agreement between public and private actors to deliver certain services or perform certain tasks.Collective decision making is therefore secondary to the definition of public-private partnership.By contrast,the institutionalization of a collective decision-making process is central to the definition of collaborative governance.Finally,a range of terms are often used interchangeably with collaborative gover-nance.Such terms include participatory management,interactive policy making,stake-holder governance,and collaborative management.We prefer the term governance to management because it is broader and encompasses various aspects of the governing process,including planning,policy making,and management.The term collaborative is also more indicative of the deliberative and consensus-oriented approach that we contrast with adversarialism or managerialism than terms like participatory or interactive.A MODEL OF COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCEArmed with a working definition of collaborative governance,we collected a wide range of case studies from the literature.We did this in the typical fashion:we systematically reviewed journals across a wide range of disciplines,including specialist journals in public health,education,social welfare,international relations,etc.We also conducted key word electronic searches using a wide variety of search terms,including those described above and many more (e.g.,‘‘comanagement,’’‘‘public participation,’’‘‘alternative dispute res-olution’’).Of course,we also followed up on the literature cited in the cases we discovered.Ultimately,our model is built on an analysis of 137cases.Although international in scope,our search was restricted to literature in English,and thus,American cases are overrepre-sented.Even a cursory examination of our cases also suggests that natural resource man-agement cases are overrepresented.This is not due to any sampling bias on our part but rather reflects the importance of collaborative strategies for managing contentious local resource disputes.Most of the studies we reviewed were case studies of an attempt to implement collaborative governance in a particular sector.As you might imagine,the universe of cases we collected was quite diverse and the cases differed in quality,methodology,and intent.Although our definition was restrictive so as to facilitate comparison of apples with apples,representing this diversity was also one of our goals.We perceived experiments with collaborative governance bubbling up in many different policy sectors,with little sense that they were engaged in a similar governance strategy.Surely,we felt,these diverse experiments could learn from each other.Yet this diversity proved a challenge.Our original intention to treat these cases as a large-N data set subject to quasi-experimental statistical evaluation was not successful.Since it is useful for both scholarsJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory548Ansell and Gash Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice549 and practitioners to understand how we arrived at our conclusions,we briefly report on the problems we encountered in conducting our meta-analysis.Early attempts at systematic coding were frustrating,and we soon developed an understanding of our dilemma.Although scholars studying collaborative governancehad already made some important theoretical statements,the language used to describewhat was happening was far from standardized.We found ourselves groping tofinda common language of description and evaluation even as we were trying to‘‘code’’studies.Add to this challenge a severe problem of‘‘missing data’’—a reflection of thehighly varied motivations of the researchers—and we concluded that a quasi-experimental approach was ill advised.Ultimately,we moved toward a meta-analytic strategy that wecall successive approximation.We selected a subset of our cases and used them to developa common‘‘model’’of collaborative governance.4We then randomly selected additional subsets of case studies.The second subset was used to‘‘test’’the model developed in thefirst round and then to further‘‘refine’’the model.A third sample of cases was used to testthe second-round model,and so on.The appendix provides a list of the studies evaluated ineach of four successive rounds of evaluation.Successive approximation has the advantage of both refining the conceptual modelwhile providing some of the evaluative‘‘discipline’’of a quasi-experimental study.How-ever,we are under no illusion that this process yielded‘‘the one’’model of collaborative governance.There was a large element of art involved in both specifying and evaluatingour model.As we proceeded,we were overwhelmed by the complexity of the collaborative process.Variables and causal relationships proliferated beyond what we felt would ulti-mately be useful for policy makers and practitioners.Therefore,our model representsa conscious attempt to simplify as much as possible the representation of key variablesand their relationships.This goal of simplification led us to stress common and frequentfindings across cases.This approach strengthens the generality of ourfindings but dis-counts less universal or frequently mentionedfindings from the literature.Toward the endof our analysis,we were ourselves in disagreement about how to represent key relations.We used thefinal round of case analysis to settle these differences.One other important clarification needs to be made before we introduce ourfindings.Our survey of the cases quickly disabused us of the notion that we could use our analysis to answer the question:‘‘Is collaborative governance more effective than adversarial or managerial governance?’’Very few of the studies we reviewed actually evaluated gover-nance outcomes.This is not to say that the comparison between collaborative,adversarial,and managerial governance is not relevant to these studies.Experiments with collaborative governance were typically driven by earlier failures with adversarial or managerial approaches.But systematic comparisons were rarely explicitly made.What most studiesdid try to do was understand the conditions under which stakeholders acted collaboratively.Did they engage in good faith negotiation?Did they pursue mutual gains?Did they achieve consensus?Were they satisfied with the process?In other words,most studies in the collaborative governance literature evaluate‘‘process outcomes’’rather than policy or management outcomes.Figure1provides a visual representation of our centralfindings.The model has fourbroad variables—starting conditions,institutional design,leadership,and collaborative4To avoid recreating the wheel,ourfirst subset was not randomly selected but included many of the most prominent theoretical statements about collaborative governance.process.Each of these broad variables can be disaggregated into more fine-grained vari-ables.Collaborative process variables are treated as the core of our model,with starting conditions,institutional design,and leadership variables represented as either critical contributions to or context for the collaborative process.Starting conditions set the basic level of trust,conflict,and social capital that become resources or liabilities during col-laboration.Institutional design sets the basic ground rules under which collaboration takes place.And,leadership provides essential mediation and facilitation for the collaborative process.The collaborative process itself is highly iterative and nonlinear,and thus,we represent it (with considerable simplification)as a cycle.The remainder of the article describes each of these variables in more detail and draws out their implications for a contingency model of collaborative governance.STARTING CONDITIONSThe literature is clear that conditions present at the outset of collaboration can either facilitate or discourage cooperation among stakeholders and between agencies and stake-holders.Imagine two very different starting points.In one,the stakeholders have a history of bitter division over some emotionally charged local issue and have come to regard each other as unscrupulous enemies.In the other,the stakeholders have a shared vision for what they would like to achieve through collaboration and a history of past cooperation and mutual respect.In both cases,collaboration may be difficult,but the first case must over-come problems of distrust,disrespect,and outright antagonism.We narrowed the critical starting conditions down to three broad variables:imbalances between the resources orFigure 1A Model of Collaborative GovernanceJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory550。

软件项目管理案例分析考核试卷

软件项目管理案例分析考核试卷
D.变更控制
9.项目沟通管理包括以下哪些关键活动?()
A.沟通计划
B.信息分发
C.绩效报告
D.项目收尾
10.敏捷项目管理的核心价值观包括以下哪些?()
A.个体和互动高于流程和工具
B.工作软件高于详尽的文档
C.客户合作高于合同谈判
D.响应变化高于遵循计划
11.以下哪些角色在敏捷开发团队中常见?()
A.产品负责人
五、主观题(本题共4小题,每题10分,共40分)
1.描述软件项目管理中项目范围的定义过程,并解释为什么控制项目范围是项目成功的关键因素。
答案:____
2.以一个实际项目为例,说明如何使用风险管理计划来识别和应对项目风险。
答案:____
3.阐述敏捷项目管理和传统瀑布模型在软件项目开发中的主要区别,并讨论敏捷方法在哪些情况下更为适用。
A.风险避免
B.风险减轻
C.风险转移
D.风险接受
6.以下哪些活动属于软件质量保证的工作?()
A.质量计划
B.质量审计
C.过程改进
D.错误跟踪
7.软件测试的类型包括以下哪些?()
A.单元测试
B.集成测试
C.系统测试
D.性能测试
8.以下哪些是配置管理的主要活动?()
A.配置项识别
B.配置状态记录
C.配置审核
2.在项目中,通过风险登记册记录已识别的风险,评估风险概率和影响,制定风险应对策略,如避免、转移、减轻或接受,以减轻对项目的不利影响。
3.敏捷项目管理强调快速迭代、客户合作和响应变化,而瀑布模型是顺序开发过程。敏捷适用于需求不明确、需快速响应变化的场景。
4.项目收尾阶段确保项目目标达成,完成产品交付、财务结算、资源遣散和项目总结,为组织提供经验和教训。

参考方案的英文

参考方案的英文

Reference Scheme: A Complete GuideIntroductionThe reference scheme is a crucial aspect of any project or initiative. It provides a framework for others to follow and learn from, ensuring consistency and efficiency. In this guide, we will explore the various components of a reference scheme and how it contributes to the success of a project.What is a Reference Scheme?A reference scheme is a set of guidelines, instructions, and standards that serves as a reference for the project team. It provides a basis for decision-making, ensuring that all project stakeholders follow a consistent approach. A well-defined reference scheme saves time and effort by providing a roadmap for tackling challenges and achieving project goals.Components of a Reference SchemeA comprehensive reference scheme consists of the following components:1. Project GoalsAt the core of the reference scheme lies the project goals. Clearly defining the objectives and desired outcomes of the project is essential for success. This section should provide a concise and measurable description of the project’s scope and purpose.2. Stakeholder AnalysisUnderstanding the project’s stakeholders and their respective roles is crucial for effective decision-making and communication. This section should identify key stakeholders, their interests, and their level of influence. It should also outline strategies for engaging and involving stakeholders throughout the project’s lifecycle.3. Project TimelineA well-defined timeline is essential for managing project activities and resources effectively. Thi s section should outline the project’s major milestones and deliverables, along with their expected completion dates. Consider incorporating Gantt charts or other visual tools to enhance clarity and ease of understanding.4. Budget and Resource AllocationManaging project resources, including budget and personnel, is a critical aspect of any project. This section should outline the project’s budget allocation, including any specific funding sources. It should also identify key resource requirements and how they will be allocated throughout the project.5. Risk ManagementEvery project comes with inherent risks. Identifying and managing these risks is crucial for project success. This section should outline thepotential risks associated with the project, along with mitigation strategies. Consider including a risk assessment matrix or other visual tools to d in risk prioritization and mitigation planning.6. Communication PlanEffective communication is essential for project success. This section should outlin e the project’s communication channels, protocols, and stakeholders, along with their respective roles and responsibilities. Consider utilizing a communication matrix to track and manage project communications effectively.7. Quality AssuranceEnsuring quality throughout the project lifecycle is critical for achieving project goals. This section should outline the project’s quality assurance processes, including any relevant standards or benchmarks. Consider incorporating quality control checklists or other tools to measure and track project quality.ConclusionA well-defined reference scheme is a valuable asset for any project or initiative. It provides a roadmap for success, ensuring that all project stakeholders are aligned and working towards a common goal. By incorporating the components outlined in this guide, you can create a comprehensive and effective reference scheme for your project.。

英语初级商务英语(集锦5篇)

英语初级商务英语(集锦5篇)

英语初级商务英语(集锦5篇)1.英语初级商务英语第1篇_ccruals 增值,应计achieve 获得或达到,实现,完成acknowledge 承认,告知已收到(某物),承认某人acquire 获得,得到_cquisition 收购,被收购的公司或股份acting 代理的activity 业务类型actual 实在的,实际的,确实的adapt 修改,适应adjust 整理,使适应administration 实施,经营,行政administer 管理,实施adopt 采纳,批准,挑选某人作候选人advertise 公布,做广告2.英语初级商务英语第2篇改进包装方法十分必要。

We’ve informed the manufacturer to have them packed as per your 我们已经通知厂商按你们的要求包装。

Packing has a close bearing on包装直接关系到产品的销售。

Packing also effects the reputation of our包装也影响产品的声誉。

A packing that catches the eye will help us push the醒目的包装有助于我们推销产品。

Buyers always pay great attention to买方很注意包装的情况。

I’m sure the new packing will give your clients我相信新包装定会使您的客户满意。

Different articles require different不同商品需要不同的包装。

Generally speaking, buyers bear the charges of包装费用一般由买方负担。

Packing charge is about 3% of the total cost of the3.英语初级商务英语第3篇完整拼出下列句中空格处的单词(注意是完整拼出):Although he was a f( )e at school, he became a successful man 失败者He was so c( )s to know what was in the letter that he opened it ,even though it was addressed to his 好奇的Will you be quite f( )k with me about this matter? 坦白的In their school they have an i( )l of ten minutes for 间隔的时间The police watched the cafe to which the robber was known to r( ) 常去答案及解析:正确答案:failure 题目翻译:尽管他在学校是个失败者,最后他还是成了一个成功的人.正确答案:curious 题目翻译:他太好奇信里是什么,就打开了,尽管是寄给他姐姐的.正确答案:frank 题目翻译:你能非常坦白的告诉我这件事吗?正确答案:interval 题目翻译:在学校里,有十分钟的休息时间.正确答案:resort 题目翻译:警察们监视了强盗们常去的咖啡馆.4.英语初级商务英语第4篇找出与中括号内单词意义相近的单词:Steam can [generate] electricity by turning an electricHe earned high [commendation] from the people for hisThe policeman [halted] the speeding car to see if the driver wasI have a [sore] throat fromI will show you the [magnificent] palace of the答案及解析:正确答案:b题目翻译:发电机可以转化让水蒸汽产生电. 选项翻译改变产生停止覆盖正确答案:c题目翻译:他的勇敢赢得了人们很高的赞扬选项翻译报答自毫表扬考虑正确答案:a题目翻译:警察让超速的车停下检查司机是否喝酒. 选项翻译停止发现追捕拿正确答案:d题目翻译:我感冒喉咙痛. 选项翻译强壮微弱干净痛正确答案:a题目翻译:我带你去看国王华丽的宫殿. 选项翻译伟大的古代的钝的彩色的5.英语初级商务英语第5篇Achieving a successful mergerHowever attractive the figures may look on paper, in thelong run the success or failure of a merger depends on thehuman When the agreement has been signed and theaccountants have departed, the real problems may only just If there is a culture clash between the two companiesin the way their people work, then all the efforts of the financiersand lawyers to strike a deal may have been inAccording to Chris Bolton of KS Management Consultants, 70% of mergers fail to live up totheir promise of shareholder value, riot through any failure in economic terms but because theintegration of people is Corporates, he explains, concentrate their efforts before amerger on legal, technical and financial They employ a range of experts to obtain themost favourable contract But even at these early stages, people issues must be takeninto The strengths and weaknesses of both organisations should be assessed and, ifit is a merger of equals, then careful thought should be given to which personnel, from whichside,should take on the keyThis was the issue in 20XX when the proposed merger between two pharmaceuticalcompanies promised to create one of the largest players in the For both companies themerger was intended to reverse falling market share and shareholder However, although thecompanies' skill bases were compatible, the chief executives of the two companies could not agreewhich of them was to head up the new This illustrates the need to compromise if amerger is to takeBut even in mergers that do go ahead, there can be culture One way to avoid this isto work with focus groups to see how employees view the existing culture of their Inone example, where two global organisations in the food sector were planning to merge, focusgroups discovered that the companies displayed very different One was sales-focused,knew exactly what it wanted to achieve and pushed initiatives The other got involved inlengthy discussions, trying out options methodically and making contingency The firstresponded quickly to changes in the marketplace; the second took longer, but the option iteventually chose was usually the correct Neither company's approach would have worked fortheThe answer is not to adopt one company's approach, or even to try to incorporate everyaspect of both organisations, but to create a totally new This means taking the best fromboth sides and making a new organisation that everyone can Or almost there will be those who cannotadapt to a different Research into the impact ofmergers has found that companies with differing management styles are the ones that need towork hardest at creating a newAnother tool that can help to get the right cultural mix isintercultural This involvescarrying out research that looks at the culture of a company and the business culture of thecountry in which it is It identifies how people, money and time are managed in a company,and investigates the business customs of the country and how its politics, economics and historyimpact on the way business is13 According to the text, mergers can encounter problems whenA contracts are signed tooB experts cannot predict accurateC conflicting attitudes cannot beD staff are opposed to the terms of the14 According to Chris Bolton, what do many organisations do in preparation for a merger?A ensure their interests are representedB give reassurances to shareholdersC consider the effect of a merger on employeesD analyse the varying strengths of their staff15 The proposed merger of two pharmaceutical groups failed becauseA major shareholders wereB there was a fall in the demand for theirC there were problems combining their areas ofD an issue of personal rivalry could not be16 According to the text, focus groups can help companies toA develop newB adopt contingencyC be decisive and reactD evaluate how well matched they17 Creating a new culture in a newly merged organisation means thatA management styles become moreB there is more chance of the merger 中华考试网C staff will find it more difficult to adapt to theD successful elements of the original organisations are18 According to the text, intercultural analysis will showA what kind of benefits a merger can leadB how the national context affects the way a company isC how long it will take for a company culture toD what changes companies should make before a merger takes参考答案接解析《Achieving a successful merger》,实现一个成功的并购。

如何进行利益相关者分析(以福特中国为例)

如何进行利益相关者分析(以福特中国为例)

前言:本人硕士毕业于海外(英国),故此范例为英文:Step 1如何寻找stakeholder(利益相关者):Step 2建立stakeholder analysis matrix(根据利益interest和影响influence去考虑):Key stakeholders of Ford China AnalysisStep 3根据上述matrix,寻找key stakeholder:Step 4 相关阐释(为什么那些利益相关者是key——不要你觉得,一定要拿出你的道理说服别人,这点很关键):1.1 Ford Motor CompanyFord Motor company makes an effort on its strategy in Asian Pacific Region and established Ford China as a crucial subsidiary in this area. As the parent company, it enjoys the final decision on all the activities Ford China plans to conduct. Therefore, its goal is the supreme target of Ford China’s Strategy.1.2 Changan Motor Company, Jiangling Motor Company & Mazda Motor CompanyAll Changan, Jiangling and Mazda have a strategic partnership with Ford China. According to Ford China (2016), Changan, Ford, and Mazda commonly aim at constructing a “world-class engine base” and corporately built up Changan Ford Mazda Automobile (shareholding situation: Changan 50%, Ford 35%, and Mazda 15%). Besides, to dominate a SUV (sports utility vehicle) market in China, Ford China collaborates with Jiangling to set up a joint venture (shareholding position: Jiangling 64% and Ford 32%). All Changan, Jiangling and Mazda are essential shareholders of the companies cooperating with Ford China, thereby, their every determination on the joint venture will considerably influence Ford China. Therefore, the strategic themes of Ford China are closely related to them.1.3 4S shopsIn China, 4S (Sale, Sparepart, Service, and Survey) shops are the dealers of Ford vehicles. They are the formal sales channel of Ford motors. If their relationship with Ford has several barriers, a problem of Ford motors selling might emerge in China. Hence, financially, it affects the in come/sales volume of Ford China’s strategy.1.4 CustomersAs a customer-centralised company, Ford China takes a tremendous consideration on Chinese customers to optimise their services to be customer-oriented. In a competitive market, if the quality of Ford China productions and/or its aftersales are not relatively high, fewer originalowners will re-purchase a second Ford vehicle when their primary motors meet the expiration. In addition, if the word of mouth is not sufficiently excellent, a smaller number of potential customers will reveal. They are the objectives in Ford China’s strategy on customer perspective.1.5 EmployeesAs a company in second-tier industry and focusing on aftersales services, Ford China has hired exceeding 20,000 employees (Ford China, 2016). They all are important components in Ford China’s strategy on learning & growth perspective, without which the strategy cannot be achievable ultimately.1.6 Buick Motor Company & Chevrolet Motor CompanyIn China motor indust ry, Buick and Chevrolet are Ford’s two main competitors. Their marketing activities are considerably concerned by Ford China on account of maintaining competitiveness in the motor industry. They are significant benchmarking objectives of Ford China on internal perspective.1.7 China Association of Automobile ManufacturesChina Association of Automobile Manufactures (CAAM) supervises all the issues in terms of motor industry in China. Therefore, Ford China and all its activities are taken into CAAM’s consideration. All activities Ford China undertakes and participates in are monitored by CAAM and should be under its regulation, and every dispute Ford China is involved in will be c oordinated by CAAM. Thus, it externally impacts on Ford China’s strategy on all perspectives.。

Stakeholder利益相关者阐述

Stakeholder利益相关者阐述
• The classical economic view that business’ only goal is the maximize profits for owners.
• Business is not equipped to handle social activities.
• It dilutes the primary purpose of business. • Businesses have too much power already . • It limits the ability to compete in a global marketplace.
Ch2 Corporate Citizenship
Starting questions
1. What is the most concerned issue in the eyes of corporate decision-makers? Maximization of profits or commitment to social responsibility
Ethical Responsibilities
=
+ Philanthropic Responsibilities
Total Corporate CSR
A stakeholder perspective focuses on the CSR pyramid as a unified whole.
Arguments Against CSR
Corporate social responsibility emphasizes:
a. obligation and accountability. b. action and activity. c. outcomes and results. d. socially responsible investing.

Meshfree and particle methods and their applications

Meshfree and particle methods and their applications

Meshfree and particle methods and their applicationsShaofan LiDepartment of Civil&Environmental Engineering,University of California,Berkeley CA94720;li@Wing Kam LiuDepartment of Mechanical Engineering,Northwestern University,2145Sheridan Rd,Evanston IL60208;w-liu@Recent developments of meshfree and particle methods and their applications in applied mechan-ics are surveyed.Three major methodologies have been reviewed.First,smoothed particlehydrodynamics͑SPH͒is discussed as a representative of a non-local kernel,strong form collo-cation approach.Second,mesh-free Galerkin methods,which have been an active researcharea in recent years,are reviewed.Third,some applications of molecular dynamics͑MD͒inapplied mechanics are discussed.The emphases of this survey are placed on simulations offinite deformations,fracture,strain localization of solids;incompressible as well as compress-ibleflows;and applications of multiscale methods and nano-scale mechanics.This review ar-ticle includes397references.͓DOI:10.1115/1.1431547͔1INTRODUCTIONSince the invention of thefinite element method͑FEM͒in the1950s,FEM has become the most popular and widely used method in engineering computations.A salient feature of the FEM is that it divides a continuum into discrete ele-ments.This subdivision is called discretization.In FEM,the individual elements are connected together by a topological map,which is usually called a mesh.Thefinite element in-terpolation functions are then built upon the mesh,which ensures the compatibility of the interpolation.However,this procedure is not always advantageous,because the numerical compatibility condition is not the same as the physical com-patibility condition of a continuum.For instance,in a La-grangian type of computations,one may experience mesh distortion,which can either end the computation altogether or result in drastic deterioration of accuracy.In addition, FEM often requires a veryfine mesh in problems with high gradients or a distinct local character,which can be compu-tationally expensive.For this reason,adaptive FEM has be-come a necessity.Today,adaptive remeshing procedures for simulations of impact/penetration problems,explosion/fragmentation prob-lems,flow pass obstacles,andfluid-structure interaction problems etc have become formidable tasks to undertake. The difficulties involved are not only remeshing,but also mapping the state variables from the old mesh to the new mesh.This process often introduces numerical errors,and frequent remeshing is thus not desirable.Therefore,the so called Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian͑ALE͒formulations have been developed͑see,eg͓1–4͔͒.For a complete descrip-tion on this subject,readers may consult Chapter7of the book by Belytschko,Liu,and Moran͓5͔.The objective of the ALE formulation is to make the mesh independent of the material so that the mesh distortion can be minimized.Un-fortunately,in computer simulations of very large deforma-tion and/or high-speed mechanical and structural systems, even with the ALE formulation,a distorted mesh introduces severe errors in numerical computations.Furthermore,the convective transport effects in ALE often lead to spurious oscillation that needs to be stabilized by artificial diffusion or a Petrov-Galerkin stabilization.In other cases,a mesh may carry inherent bias in numerical simulations,and its presence becomes a nuisance in computations.A well known example is the simulation of the strain localization problem,which is notorious for its mesh alignment sensitivity͓6,7͔.Therefore, it would be computationally efficacious to discretize a con-tinuum by only a set of nodal points,or particles,without mesh constraints.This is the leitmotif of contemporary mesh-free Galerkin methods.The advantages of the meshfree particle methods may be summarized as follows:1͒They can easily handle very large deformations,since the connectivity among nodes is generated as part of the computation and can change with time;2͒The methodology can be linked more easily with a CAD database thanfinite elements,since it is not necessary to generate an element mesh;3͒The method can easily handle damage of the components, such as fracture,which should prove very useful in mod-elings of material failure;Transmitted by Associate Editor JN ReddyASME Reprint No AMR319$26.00Appl Mech Rev vol55,no1,January2002©2002American Society of Mechanical Engineers14͒Accuracy can be controlled more easily,since in areas where more refinement is needed,nodes can be added quite easily͑h-adaptivity͒;5͒The continuum meshfree methods can be used to model large deformations of thin shell structures,such as nano-tubes;6͒The method can incorporate an enrichment offine scale solutions of features,such as discontinuities as a function of current stress states,into the coarse scale;and7͒Meshfree discretization can provide accurate representa-tion of geometric object.In general,particle methods can be classified based on two different criteria:physical principles,or computational formulations.According to the physical modeling,they may be categorized into two classes:those based on deterministic models,and those based on probabilistic models.On the other hand,according to computational modelings,they may be categorized into two different types as well:those serving as approximations of the strong forms of partial differential equations͑PDEs͒,and those serving as approximations of the weak forms of PDEs.In this survey,the classification based on computational strategies is adopted.To approximate the strong form of a PDE using a particle method,the partial differential equation is usually discretized by a specific collocation technique.Examples are smoothed particle hydrodynamics͑SPH͓͒8–12͔,the vortex method ͓13–18͔,the generalizedfinite difference method͓19,20͔, and many others.It is worth mentioning that some particle methods,such as SPH and vortex methods,were initially developed as probabilistic methods͓10,14͔,and it turns out that both SPH and the vortex method are most frequently used as deterministic methods today.Nevertheless,the ma-jority of particle methods in this category are based on probabilistic principles,or used as probabilistic simulation tools.There are three major methods in this category:1͒molecular dynamics͑both quantum molecular dynamics ͓21–26͔and classical molecular dynamics͓27–32͔͒;2͒di-rect simulation Monte Carlo͑DSMC͒,or Monte Carlo method based molecular dynamics,such as quantum Monte Carlo methods͓33–41͔͒͑It is noted that not all the Monte Carlo methods are meshfree methods,for instance,a proba-bilisticfinite element method is a mesh-based method͓42–44͔͒;and3͒the lattice gas automaton͑LGA͒,or lattice gas cellular automaton͓45–49͔and its later derivative,the Lat-tice Boltzmann Equation method͑LBE͓͒50–54͔.It may be pointed out that the Lattice Boltzmann Equation method is not a meshfree method,and it requires a grid;this example shows that particle methods are not always meshfree.The second class of particle methods is used with various Galerkin weak formulations,which are called meshfree Galerkin methods.Examples in this class are Diffuse Ele-ment Method͑DEM͓͒55–58͔,Element Free Galerkin Method͑EFGM͓͒59–63͔,Reproducing Kernel Particle Method͑RKPM͓͒64–72͔,h-p Cloud Method͓73–76͔,Par-tition of Unity Method͓77–79͔,Meshless Local Petrov-Galerkin Method͑MLPG͓͒80–83͔,Free Mesh Method͓84–88͔,and others.There are exceptions to this classification,because someparticle methods can be used in both strong form collocationas well as weak form discretization.The particle-in-cell ͑PIC͒method is such an exception.The strong form colloca-tion PIC is often called thefinite-volume particle-in-cellmethod͓89–91͔,and the weak form PIC is often called thematerial point method͓92͔,or simply particle-in-cell method ͓93–95͔.RKPM also has two versions as well:a collocation version͓96͔and a Galerkin weak form version͓66͔.In areas such as astrophysics,solid state physics,biophys-ics,biochemistry and biomedical research,one may encoun-ter situations where the object under consideration is not acontinuum,but a set of particles.There is no need for dis-cretization to begin with.A particle method is the naturalchoice in numerical simulations.Relevant examples are thesimulation of formation of a star system,the nano-scalemovement of millions of atoms in a non-equilibrium state,folding and unfolding of DNA,and dynamic interactions ofvarious molecules,etc.In fact,the current trend is not onlyto use particle methods as discretization tools to solve con-tinuum problems͑such as SPH,vortex method͓14,15,97͔and meshfree Galerkin methods͒,but also to use particlemethods as a physical model͑statistical model,or atomisticmodel͒to simulate continuum behavior of physics.The latestexamples are using the Lattice Boltzmann method to solvefluid mechanics problems,and using molecular dynamics tosolve fracture mechanics problems in solid mechanics͓98–103͔.This survey is organized as follows:Thefirst part is acritical review of smoothed particle hydrodynamics͑SPH͒.The emphasis is placed on the recent development of correc-tive SPH.The second part is a summary of meshfree Galer-kin methods,which includes DEM,EFGM,RKPM,hp-Cloud method,partition of unity method,MLPGM,andmeshfree nodal integration methods.The third part reviewsrecent applications of molecular dynamics in fracture me-chanics as well as nanomechanics.The last part is a surveyon some other meshfree/particle methods,such as vortexmethods,the Lattice Boltzmann method,the natural elementmethod,the particle-in-cell method,etc.The survey is con-cluded with the discussions of some emerging meshfree/particle methods.2SMOOTHED PARTICLE HYDRODYNAMICS2.1OverviewSmoothed Particle Hydrodynamics is one of the earliest par-ticle methods in computational mechanics.Early contribu-tions have been reviewed in several articles͓8,12,104͔.In1977,Lucy͓10͔and Gingold and Monaghan͓9͔simulta-neously formulated the so-called Smoothed Particle Hydro-dynamics,which is known today as SPH.Both of them wereinterested in the astrophysical problems,such as the forma-tion and evolution of proto-stars or galaxies.The collectivemovement of those particles is similar to the movement of aliquid,or gasflow,and it may be modeled by the governingequations of classical Newtonian hydrodynamics.Today,SPH is being used in simulations of supernovas͓105͔,col-2Li and Liu:Meshfree and particle methods and applications Appl Mech Rev vol55,no1,January2002lapse as well as formation of galaxies͓106–109͔,coales-cence of black holes with neutron stars͓110,111͔,single and multiple detonations in white dwarfs͓112͔,and even in ‘‘Modeling the Universe’’͓113͔.Because of the distinct ad-vantages of the particle method,soon after its debut,the SPH method was widely adopted as one of the efficient computa-tional techniques to solve applied mechanics problems. Therefore,the term hydrodynamics really should be inter-preted as mechanics in general,if the methodology is applied to other branches of mechanics rather than classical hydro-dynamics.To make distinction with the classical hydrody-namics,some authors,eg Kum et al͓114,115͔,called it Smoothed Particle Applied Mechanics.This idea of the method is somewhat contrary to the con-cepts of the conventional discretization methods,which dis-cretize a continuum system into a discrete algebraic system. In astrophysical applications,the real physical system is dis-crete;in order to avoid singularity,a local continuousfield is generated by introducing a localized kernel function,which can serve as a smoothing interpolationfield.If one wishes to interpret the physical meaning of the kernel function as the probability of a particle’s position,one is dealing with a probabilistic method.Otherwise,it is only a smoothing tech-nique.Thus,the essence of the method is to choose a smooth kernel,W(x,h)͑h is the smoothing length͒,and to use it to localize the strong form of a partial differential equation through a convoluted integration.Define SPH averaging/ localization operator asA k͑x͒ϭ͗A͑x͒͘ϭ͵R n W͑xϪxЈ,h͒A͑xЈ͒d⍀xЈϷ͚Iϭ1N W͑xϪx I,h͒A͑x I͒⌬V I(1) One may derive a SPH discrete equation of motion from its continuous counterpart͓12,116͔,ͳ␳d v dtʹI ϭϪٌ͗•␴͘I⇒␳Id v IdtϷϪ͚Jϭ1N͑␴Iϩ␴J͒•ٌW͑x IϪx J,h͒⌬V J(2)where␴is Cauchy stress,␳is density,v is velocity,and⌬V J is the volume element carried by the particle J.Usually a positive function,such as the Gaussian func-tion,is chosen as the kernel functionW͑x,h͒ϭ1͑␲h2͒n/2expͫϪx2h2ͬ,1рnр3(3)where the parameter h is the smoothing length.In general, the kernel function has to satisfy the following conditions:i)W͑x,h͒у0(4) ii)͵R n W͑u,h͒d⍀uϭ1(5) iii)W͑u,h͒→␦͑u͒,h→0(6) i v)W͑u,h͒෈C p͑R n͒,pу1(7)The third property ensures the convergence,and the last property comes from the requirement that the smoothing ker-nel must be differentiable at least once.This is because the derivative of the kernel function should be continuous to prevent a largefluctuation in the force felt by the particle. The latter feature gives rise to the name smoothed particle hydrodynamics.In computations,compact supported kernel functions such as spline functions are usually employed͓117͔.In this case, the smoothing length becomes the radius of the compact sup-port.Two examples of smooth kernel functions are depicted in Fig.1.The advantage of using an analytical kernel is that one can evaluate a kernel function at any spatial point without knowing the local particle distribution.This is no longer true for the latest corrective smoothed particle hydrodynamics methods͓66,118͔,because the corrective kernel function de-pends on the local particle distribution.The kernel representation is not only an instrument that can smoothly discretize a partial differential equation,but it also furnishes an interpolant scheme on a set of moving par-ticles.By utilizing this property,SPH can serve as a La-grangian type method to solve problems in continuum me-chanics.Libersky and his co-workers apply the method to solid mechanics͓117,119,120͔,and they successfully simu-late3D thick-wall bomb explosion/fragmentation problem, tungsten/plate impact/penetration problem,etc.The impact and penetration simulation has also been conducted by Johnson and his co-workers͓121–123͔,and an SPH option is implemented in EPIC code for modeling inelastic,dam-age,large deformation problems.Attaway et al͓124͔devel-oped a coupling technique to combine SPH with thefinite element method,and an SPH option is also included in PR-ONTO2D͑Taylor and Flanagan͓125͔͒.SPH technology has been employed to solve problems of both compressibleflow͓126͔and incompressibleflow Fig.1Examples of kernel functionsAppl Mech Rev vol55,no1,January2002Li and Liu:Meshfree and particle methods and applications3͓116,127–129͔,multiple phaseflow and surface tension ͓114,115,129,130,131,132,133͔,heat conduction͓134͔, electro-magnetic͑Maxwell equations͓͒90,104,135͔,plasma/fluid motion͓135͔,general relativistic hydrodynamics͓136–138͔,heat conduction͓134,139͔,and nonlinear dynamics ͓140͔.2.2Corrective SPH and other improvementsin SPH formulationsVarious improvements of SPH have been developed through the years͓104,141–149͔.Most of these improvement are aimed at the following shortcomings,or pathologies,in nu-merical computations:•tensile instability͓150–154͔;•lack of interpolation consistency,or completeness ͓66,155,156͔;•zero-energy mode͓157͔;•difficulty in enforcing essential boundary condition ͓120,128,131͔.2.2.1Tensile instabilitySo-called tensile instability is the situation where particles are under a certain tensile͑hydrostatic͒stress state,and the motion of the particles become unstable.To identify the cul-prit,a von Neumann stability analysis was carried out by Swegle et al͓150͔,and by Balsara͓158͔.Swegle and his co-workers have identified and explained the source of the tensile instability.Recently,by using von Neumann and Cou-rant stability criterion,Belytschko et al͓151͔revisited the problem in the general framework of meshfree particle meth-ods.In their analysis,finite deformation effects are also con-sidered.Several remedies have been proposed to avoid such ten-sile instability.Morris proposed using special kernel func-tions.While successful in some cases,they do not always yield satisfactory results͓152͔.Randles and Libersky͓120͔proposed adding dissipative terms,which is related to con-servative smoothing.Notably,Dyka et al͓153,154͔proposed a so-called stress point method.The essential idea of this approach is to add additional points other than SPH particles when evaluating,or sampling,stress and other state vari-ables.Whereas the kinematic variables such as displacement,velocity,and acceleration are still sampled at particle points.In fact,the stress point plays a similar role as the‘‘Gaussquadrature point’’does in the numerical integration of theGalerkin weak form.This analogy wasfirst pointed out byLiu et al͓66͔.This problem was revisited again recently byChen et al͓159͔as well as Monaghan͓148͔.The formerproposes a special corrective smoothed-particle method ͑CSPM͒to address the tensile instability problem by enforc-ing the higher order consistency,and the latter proposes toadd an artificial force to stabilize the computation.Randlesand Libersky͓160͔combined normalization with the usualstress point approach to achieve better stability as well aslinear consistency.Apparently,the SPH tensile instability isrelated to the lack of consistency of the SPH interpolant.A2D stress point deployment is shown in Fig.2.2.2.2Zero-energy modeThe zero energy mode has been discovered in bothfinitedifference andfinite element computations.A comprehensivediscussion of the subject can be found in the book by Be-lytschko et al͓5͔.The reason that SPH suffers similar zeroenergy mode deficiency is due to the fact that the derivativesof kinematic variables are evaluated at particle points by ana-lytical differentiation rather than by differentiation of inter-polants.In many cases,the kernel function reaches a maxi-mum at its nodal position,and its spatial derivatives becomezero.To avoid a zero-energy mode,or spurious stress oscil-lation,an efficient remedy is to adopt the stress point ap-proach͓157͔.2.2.3Corrective SPHAs an interpolation among moving particles,SPH is not apartition of unity,which means that SPH interpolants cannotrepresent rigid body motion correctly.This problem wasfirstnoticed by Liu et al͓64–66͔.They then set forth a key no-tion,a correction function,which has become the centraltheme of the so-called corrective SPH.The idea of a correc-tive SPH is to construct a corrective kernel,a product of thecorrection function with the original kernel.By doing so,theconsistency,or completeness,of the SPH interpolant can beenforced.This new interpolant is named the reproducing ker-nel particle method͓64–66͔.SPH kernel functions satisfy zero-th order moment condi-tion͑5͒.Most kernel functions satisfy higher order momentcondition as well͓104͔,for instance͵R xW͑x,h͒dxϭ0.(8)These conditions only hold in the continuous form.In gen-eral they are not valid after discretization,ie͚Iϭ1NPW͑xϪx I,h͒⌬x I 1(9)͚Iϭ1NP͑xϪx I͒W͑xϪx I,h͒⌬x I 0(10)where NP is the total number of the particles.Note that con-dition͑9͒is the condition of partition of unity.Sincethe Fig.2A2D Stress point distribution4Li and Liu:Meshfree and particle methods and applications Appl Mech Rev vol55,no1,January2002kernel function can not satisfy the discrete moment condi-tions,a modified kernel function is introduced to enforce the discrete consistency conditionsW˜h ͑x Ϫx I ;x ͒ϭC h ͑x Ϫx I ;x ͒W ͑x Ϫx I ,h ͒(11)where C h (x ;x Ϫx I )is the correction function,which can be expressed asC h ͑x ;x Ϫx I ͒ϭb 0͑x ,h ͒ϩb 1͑x ,h ͒x Ϫx Ihϩb 2͑x ,h ͒ϫͩx Ϫx I hͪ2ϩ¯¯(12)where b 0(x ),b 1(x ),¯.,b n (x )are unknown functions.Wecan determine them to correct the original kernel function.Suppose f (x )is a sufficiently smooth function.By Taylor expansion,f I ϭf ͑x I ͒ϭf ͑x ͒ϩf Ј͑x ͒ͩx I Ϫxhͪh ϩf Љ͑x ͒2!ͩx I Ϫx hͪ2h 2ϩ¯¯(13)the modified kernel approximation can be written as,f h ͑x ͒ϭ͚I ϭ1NPW˜h ͑x Ϫx I ;x ͒f I ⌬x I ϭ͚ͩI ϭ1NP W˜h ͑x Ϫx I ,x ͒⌬x I ͪf ͑x ͒h 0Ϫ͚ͩI ϭ1NP ͩx Ϫx IhͪW ˜h ͑x Ϫx I ,x ͒⌬x I ͪf Ј͑x ͒h ϩ¯¯ϩ͚ͩI ϭ1NP ͑Ϫ1͒nͩx Ϫx I hͪnW˜h ϫ͑x Ϫx I ,x ͒⌬x Iͪf n ͑x ͒n !h nϩO ͑h n ϩ1͒.(14)To obtain an n -th order reproducing condition,the moments of the modified kernel function must satisfy the following conditions:M 0͑x ͒ϭ͚I ϭ1NPW ˜h ͑x Ϫx I ,x ͒⌬x I ϭ1;M 1͑x ͒ϭ͚I ϭ1NPͩx Ϫx IhͪW ˜h ͑x Ϫx I ,x ͒⌬x I ϭ0;ӇM n ͑x ͒ϭ͚I ϭ1NPͩx Ϫx IhͪnW˜h ͑x Ϫx I ,x ͒⌬x I ϭ0;·(15)Substituting the modified kernel expressions,͑11͒and ͑12͒into Eq.͑15͒,we can determine the n ϩ1coefficients,b i (x ),by solving the following moment equations :ͩm 0͑x ͒m 1͑x ͒¯m n ͑x ͒m 1͑x ͒m 2͑x ͒¯m n ϩ1͑x ͒ӇӇӇӇm n ͑x ͒m n ϩ1͑x ͒¯m 2n ͑x ͒ͪͩb 0͑x ,h ͒b 1͑x ,h ͒Ӈb n ͑x ,h ͒ͪϭͩ10Ӈ0ͪ(16)It is worth mentioning that after introducing the correction function,the modified kernel function may not be a positive function anymore,K ͑x Ϫx I ͒у”0.(17)Within the compact support,K (x Ϫx I )may become negative.This is the reason why Duarte and Oden refer to it as the signed partition of unity ͓73,74,76͔.There are other approaches to restoring completeness of the SPH approximation.Their emphases are not only consis-tency,but also on cost ing RKPM,or a moving-least-squares interpolant ͓155,156͔to construct modified kernels,one has to know all the neighboring par-ticles that are adjacent to a spatial point where the kernel function is in evaluation.This will require an additional CPU to search,update the connectivity array,and calculate the modified kernel function pointwise.It should be noted that the calculation of the modified kernel function requires pointwise matrix inversions at each time step,since particles are moving and the connectivity map is changing as well.Thus,using a moving least square interpolant as the kernel function may not be cost-effective,and it destroys the sim-plicity of SPH formulation.Several compromises have been proposed throughout the years,which are listed as follows:1͒Monaghan’s symmetrization on derivative approximation ͓104,145͔;2͒Johnson-Beissel correction ͓123͔;3͒Randles-Libersky correction ͓120͔;4͒Krongauz-Belytschko correction ͓61͔;5͒Chen-Beraun correction ͓139,140,161͔;6͒Bonet-Kulasegaram integration correction ͓118͔;7͒Aluru’s collocation RKPM ͓96͔.Since the linear reproducing condition in the interpolation is equivalent to the constant reproducing condition in the de-rivative of the interpolant,some of the algorithms directly correct derivatives instead of the interpolant.The Chen-Beraun correction corrects even higher order derivatives,but it may require more computational effort in multi-dimensions.Completeness,or consistency,closely relates to conver-gence.There are two types of error estimates:interpolation error and the error between exact solution and the numerical solution.The former usually dictates the latter.In conven-tional SPH formulations,there is no requirement for the completeness of interpolation.The particle distribution is as-sumed to be randomly distributed and the summations areAppl Mech Rev vol 55,no 1,January 2002Li and Liu:Meshfree and particle methods and applications5Monte Carlo estimates of integral interpolants.The error of random interpolation wasfirst estimated by Niedereiter͓162͔as beingϰNϪ1log N nϪ1where N is total particle number and n is the dimension of space.This result was further improved by Wozniakowski͓163͔as beingϰNϪ1log N nϪ1/2.Accord-ing to reference͓104͔,‘‘this remarkable result was produced by a challenge with a payoff of sixty-four dollars!’’Twenty-one years after its invention,in1998Di Lisio et al͓164͔gave a convergence proof of smoothed particle hydrodynam-ics method for regularized Eulerflow equations.Besides consistency conditions,the conservation proper-ties of a SPH formulation also strongly influence its perfor-mance.This has been a critical theme throughout SPH re-search,see͓12,104,120,145,155,165͔.It is well known that classical SPH enjoys Galilean invariance,and if certain de-rivative approximations,or Golden rules as Monaghan puts it,are chosen,the corresponding SPH formulations can pre-serve some discrete conservation laws.This issue was re-cently revisited by Bonet et al͓166͔,and they set forth a discrete variational SPH formulation,which can automati-cally satisfy the balance of linear momentum and balance of angular momentum conservation laws.Here is the basic idea. Assume the discrete potential energy in a SPH system is ⌸͑x͒ϭ͚I V I0U͑J I͒(18) where V I0is the initial volume element,and U(J I)is the internal energy density,which is assumed to be the function of determinant of the Jacobian—ratio between the initial and current volume element,JϭV IV I0ϭ␳I0␳I(19)where␳I0and␳I are pointwise density in initial configuration and in current configuration.For adiabatic processes,the pressure can be obtained from ץU I/ץJϭp I.Thus,the stationary condition of potential en-ergy gives␦⌸ϭD⌸͓␦v͔ϭ͚I V I0DU I͓␦v͔ϭ͚I͚ͭJ m I m Jͩp I␳I2ϩp J␳J2ٌͪW I͑x J͒ͮ␦v I(20)where m I is the mass associated with particle I.On the other hand,D⌸͓␦v͔ϭ͚Iץ⌸ץx I␦v Iϭ͚I T I•␦v I(21)where T is the internal force͑summation of stress͒.Then through the variational principle,one can identify,T Iϭ͚I m I m Jͩp I␳I2ϩp J␳J2ٌͪW I͑x J͒(22)and establish the discrete SPH equation of motion͑balance of linear momentum͒,m Id v IdtϭϪ͚I m I m Jͩp I␳I2ϩp J␳J2ٌͪW I͑x J͒.(23)2.2.4Boundary conditionsSPH,and in fact particle methods in general,have difficulties in enforcing essential boundary condition.For SPH,some effort has been devoted to address the issue.Takeda’s image particle method͓131͔is designed to satisfy the no-slip boundary condition;it is further generalized by Morris et al ͓128͔to satisfy boundary conditions along a curved bound-ary.Based on the same philosophy,Randles and Libersky ͓120͔proposed a so-called ghost particle approach,which is outlined as follows:Suppose particle i is a boundary particle. All the other particles within its support,N(i),can be di-vided into three subsets:1͒I(i):all the interior points that are the neighbors of i;2͒B(i):all the boundary points that are the neighbors of i; 3͒G(i):all the exterior points that are the neighbors of i,ie, all the ghost particles.Therefore N(i)ϭI(i)ഫB(i)ഫG(i).Figure3illustrates such an arrangement.In the ghost particle approach,the boundary correction formula for general scalarfield f is given as followsf iϭf bcϩ͚j෈I…i…͑f jϪf bc͒⌬V j W i jͩ1Ϫ͚j෈B…i…⌬V j W i jͪ(24)where f bc is the prescribed boundary value at xϭx i.One of the advantages of the above formula is that the sampling formula only depends on interior particles.2.3Other related issues and applicationsBesides resolving the above fundamental issues,there have been some other progresses in improving the performance of SPH,which have focused on applications as well as algorith-mic efficiency.How to choose an interpolation kernel to en-sure successful simulations is discussed in͓167͔;how to modify the kernel functions without correction isdiscussed Fig.3The Ghost particle approach for boundary treatment6Li and Liu:Meshfree and particle methods and applications Appl Mech Rev vol55,no1,January2002。

Undefined

Undefined
strategies • Summary and Outlook
01
Introduction
Background of the report
The report was commissioned to investigate a specific issue or problem
It provides an overview of the current situation and identifies key trends and
05
Suggested undefined coping strategies
Government level response strategies
03
Exploration of undefined solutions
Plan 1: Improve laws and regulations
Establish comprehensive laws and regulations
Develop comprehensive laws and regulations to define and regulate undefined behaviors, covering various aspects such as data privacy, cybersecurity, and AI ethics
In mathematics, undefined values may vary from division by zero, taking the logarithm of a negative number, or other operations that are not defined for central inputs

开启片剂完整性的窗户(中英文对照)

开启片剂完整性的窗户(中英文对照)

开启片剂完整性的窗户日本东芝公司,剑桥大学摘要:由日本东芝公司和剑桥大学合作成立的公司向《医药技术》解释了FDA支持的技术如何在不损坏片剂的情况下测定其完整性。

太赫脉冲成像的一个应用是检查肠溶制剂的完整性,以确保它们在到达肠溶之前不会溶解。

关键词:片剂完整性,太赫脉冲成像。

能够检测片剂的结构完整性和化学成分而无需将它们打碎的一种技术,已经通过了概念验证阶段,正在进行法规申请。

由英国私募Teraview公司研发并且以太赫光(介于无线电波和光波之间)为基础。

该成像技术为配方研发和质量控制中的湿溶出试验提供了一个更好的选择。

该技术还可以缩短新产品的研发时间,并且根据厂商的情况,随时间推移甚至可能发展成为一个用于制药生产线的实时片剂检测系统。

TPI技术通过发射太赫射线绘制出片剂和涂层厚度的三维差异图谱,在有结构或化学变化时太赫射线被反射回。

反射脉冲的时间延迟累加成该片剂的三维图像。

该系统使用太赫发射极,采用一个机器臂捡起片剂并且使其通过太赫光束,用一个扫描仪收集反射光并且建成三维图像(见图)。

技术研发太赫技术发源于二十世纪九十年代中期13本东芝公司位于英国的东芝欧洲研究中心,该中心与剑桥大学的物理学系有着密切的联系。

日本东芝公司当时正在研究新一代的半导体,研究的副产品是发现了这些半导体实际上是太赫光非常好的发射源和检测器。

二十世纪九十年代后期,日本东芝公司授权研究小组寻求该技术可能的应用,包括成像和化学传感光谱学,并与葛兰素史克和辉瑞以及其它公司建立了关系,以探讨其在制药业的应用。

虽然早期的结果表明该技术有前景,但日本东芝公司却不愿深入研究下去,原因是此应用与日本东芝公司在消费电子行业的任何业务兴趣都没有交叉。

这一决定的结果是研究中心的首席执行官DonArnone和剑桥桥大学物理学系的教授Michael Pepper先生于2001年成立了Teraview公司一作为研究中心的子公司。

TPI imaga 2000是第一个商品化太赫成像系统,该系统经优化用于成品片剂及其核心完整性和性能的无破坏检测。

Topological Hunds rules and the electronic properties of a triple lateral quantum dot molec

Topological Hunds rules and the electronic properties of a triple lateral quantum dot molec

a r X i v :c o n d -m a t /0610175v 3 [c o n d -m a t .m e s -h a l l ] 26 F eb 2007Topological Hunds rules and the electronic properties of a triplelateral quantum dot moleculeMarek Korkusinski,1Irene Puerto Gimenez,1Pawel Hawrylak,1Louis Gaudreau,2,3Sergei A.Studenikin,2and Andrew S.Sachrajda 21Quantum Theory Group,Institute for Microstructural Sciences,National Research Council of Canada,Ottawa,Ontario,Canada K1A 0R62Quantum Physics Group,Institute for Microstructural Sciences,National Research Council of Canada,Ottawa,Ontario,Canada K1A 0R63R´e groupement Qu´e b´e cois sur les Mat´e riaux de Pointe,Universit´e de Sherbrooke,Qu´e bec,Canada J1K 2R1Abstract We analyze theoretically and experimentally the electronic structure and charging diagram of three coupled lateral quantum dots filled with ing the Hubbard model and real-space exact diagonalization techniques we show that the electronic properties of this artificial molecule can be understood using a set of topological Hunds rules.These rules relate the multi-electron energy levels to spin and the inter-dot tunneling t ,and control charging energies.We map out the charging diagram for up to N =6electrons and predict a spin-polarized phase for two holes.The theoretical charging diagram is compared with the measured charging diagram of the gated triple-dot device.PACS numbers:,73.23.HkI.INTRODUCTIONFollowing on earlier work which showed that a small and well-controlled number of elec-trons can be confined in a single1,2and a double quantum dot,3,4,5,6,7an artificial lateral quantum molecule consisting of three quantum-mechanically coupled lateral quantum dots has been demonstrated.8The triple quantum dot molecule is a natural step toward creat-ing quantum dot networks,with potential applications in quantum computing.9,10,11When filled with three electrons,one electron per dot,this device can serve as a simple quantum logic circuit,with each electron spin treated as a qubit.One can also use the molecule as a single coded qubit,11,12,13,14whose states are encoded in the states of three electronic spins but tunable with applied voltage.The triple dot could also be used to create entanglement between spin qubits,15spin and charge qubits,16as a charge rectifier,17,18and may exhibit a characteristic Kondo effect when coupled to the leads.19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26With electrons lo-calized on individual dots and their tunneling controlled by gates,the triple dot molecule can be also thought of as an implementation of the tunable Hubbard model,an important step toward realization of“quantum materials”.27,28,29,30,31,32The electronic properties of the triple quantum dot with one electron per dot have been studied theoretically by a number of authors.To make contact with the pairwise-exchange formalism used in quantum information,11attempts were made to map the properties of this system onto those of the three-spin Heisenberg model.Scarola and Das Sarma33used the Hubbard,variational,and exact diagonalization approaches to demonstrate that this mapping can be carried out only for a limited range of triple-dot parameters.Mizel and Lidar34,35,36arrived at similar conclusions using the Heitler-London and Hund-M¨u lliken schemes to calculate the energy levels of three coupled dots with one electron per dot. In both cases the many-body effects were responsible for the appearance of higher-order terms in the effective spin Hamiltonian.In an alternative approach,in Ref.12we have used real-space wave functions and the configuration-interaction technique to analyze the three-electron triple-dot molecule acting as a single coded qubit and shown how its energy levels can be tuned by voltages applied to gates defining the structure.Properties of the triple-dot molecule as a scattering center have also been studied us-ing quantum transport ing the density-functional and quantum Monte Carlo methods,Stopa17calculated the currentflowing through a nominally empty molecule con-nected to electron reservoirs and under bias.The rectifying behavior of the system predicted in this analysis was confirmed experimentally.18Landr´o n de Guevara and Orellana37calcu-lated the zero-temperature conductance through a linear molecule coupled in parallel to the leads using a Hubbard approach in a magneticfield.Apart from the Fano resonances in the spectrum,they found evidence of formation of the quantum-molecular states decoupled from the leads.The Hubbard model has also been used to investigate the triple-dot system in the Kondo regime,both in the linear20,21,22and triangular topology.23,24,25,26 In this paper we describe the electronic properties of a lateral triple quantum dot molecule as a function of electron numbers.In analogy to the work on quantum materials,27,28we model our system with the Hubbard Hamiltonian,but the obtained results are verified by microscopic methods.In the Hubbard model we retain only one lowest-energy orbital per dot.The lowest-energy shell of the molecule can befilled with up to N e=6electrons.We analyze in detail the ordering of energy levels,the spacing of Coulomb blockade peaks and the charging and spin phase diagram of this shell.We demonstrate that the energy levels of the molecule are related to the total spin of electrons but not directly related to the charge e.Wefind the spin singlet as the two-electron ground state,with the singlet-triplet(S-T) splitting proportional to the single-particle tunneling matrix element t.This is in contrast to atoms,where the S-T splitting is proportional to the electronic exchange and hence to e2, or to magnetic solids,where super-exchange leads to S-T splitting proportional to1/e2.On the other hand,for two holes(N e=4)we predict a spin polarized ground state and a singlet-triplet transition driven only by modifying the topology of the system.For three electrons in a half-filled shell(N e=3)we confirm the existence of the frustrated antiferromagnetic ground state.12The fact that the tunneling alone distinguishes singlet and triplet states is related to the interplay of the Fermi statistics and system topology.We term the set of rules established here and relating spin of the ground state to thefilling of the shell,topology, and tunneling,”topological Hunds rules”.The ability to tune tunneling by gates opens the possibility of directly manipulating the electron spin using electrical means only,of interest in designing novel quantum materials,magneto-electronics and quantum computation.We show that the Hubbard model is capable of reproducing the charging diagram of a lateral gated triple-dot measured recently by Gaudreau et al.8The paper is organized as follows.In Sec.II we describe the model lateral triple-dot device and construct the Hubbard Hamiltonian.In Sec.III we determine the electronicstructure of the device charged with N e=1to6electrons.Results of the Hubbard model are tested against real space(RSP)configuration interaction(RSP-CI)and linear combination of atomic or quantum dot orbitals(LCAO-CI)calculations.The charging diagram as a function of the dot energies is presented and analyzed in Sec.IV.In Sec.V we relate the calculated and measured charging diagrams.Summary and conclusions are presented in Sec.VI.II.THE MODELThe proposed model gated triple-dot device realizing the triple dot using only metallic gates,studied in Ref.12and related to the one studied by Gaudreau et al.in Ref.8,is shown in Fig.1(a).It consists of a heterojunction with a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG)created at a distance D below the top surface of the sample.The metallic gates deposited on the surface serve to deplete the2DEG underneath.Any opening in the gates is translated electrostatically into a local potential minimum,capable of confining a small number of electrons.Thus,in our model the three circular holes in the main gate(shown in gray)define a triangular triple quantum dot lateral confinement.Each isolated potential minimum gives rise to a quantized energy spectrum,of which we retain only the lowest energy level E i in dot i.By tuning the voltage on the main gate we can control the number of confined electrons.For example,in Fig.1(a)we show N e=2electrons with parallel spins localized on two of the dots.This is not,however,a depiction of a quantum molecular state: due to the interdot coupling the electrons are delocalized across the molecule.The main gate alone defines a symmetric triangular molecule with identical pairwise coupling of all dots.This triple-dot potential can be well approximated by a sum of three Gaussians.The single-particle confinement can be additionally tuned by three smaller gates,shown in red,green,and blue.Their arrangement with respect to the potential minima is shown schematically in Fig.1(b).The gate V G1controls simultaneously the lowest energy levels E1 and E2of dots1and2,and the gate V G3controls the energy level E3of dot3.Additionally, the gate V G13is designed to tune the topology of the system without significantly changing the energies E i.By biasing it with a sufficiently high negative voltage we increase the tunneling barrier between dots1and3and change the sample layout from a closed triangle, in which all dots are identically coupled,to a linear molecule,in which the tunneling betweendots1and3is not allowed.We examine the electronic properties of our triple quantum dot molecule in the frame of the Hubbard model with one spin-degenerate orbital per dot.Without specifying them explicitly,the localized orbitals in the Hubbard model are assumed to be orthogonal.This is to be contrasted with the approach starting from the linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO),which are non-orthogonal.The orthogonalization leads to extended,quantum-molecular orbitals which serve as a basis for CI calculation.In the Hubbard model,with c+iσ(c iσ)operators creating(annihilating)electrons with spinσon the orbital of i-th dot,the Hamiltonian can be written as:ˆH=3 σ,i=1E i c+iσc iσ+3 σ,i,j=1,i=j t ij c+iσc jσ+3 i=1U i n i↓n i↑+1on the sign of the element t.In numerical calculations of the single-particle spectrum corresponding to the potential produced by metallic gates12shown in Fig.1(a)wefind the ground state to be non-degenerate,indicating that t<0.Additionally,the magnitude of the tunneling matrix element can be found from the single-particle energy gap∆=3|t|.Knowledge of the sign of the off-diagonal element allows us to construct the single-particle molecular orbitals.The ground state is|M1 =13(|1 +|2 +|3 ),while the two degenerateexcited states are|M2 =12(|1 −|2 )and|M3 =16(|1 +|2 −2·|3 ).The states|M2 and|M3 were chosen to be symmetric with respect to a mirror plane passing through the dot3and intersecting the(1−2)base of the triangle at its midpoint.However,due to the degeneracy of the two levels,any pair of orthogonal states created as linear combinations of |M2 and|M3 will be viable as eigenstates.The degeneracy of the excited states is a direct consequence of the symmetry of the triangular molecule.Changing its topology,e.g.,by increasing the tunneling barrier between dots1and3,will remove the degeneracy.In the limit of an infinite barrier,i.e.,t13=0,we deal with a linear triple-dot molecule,whose single-√2|t|). particle energy spectrum consists of three equally spaced levels:(E−Thus,the triangular triple dot design makes it possible to engineer the degeneracy of states solely by electrostatic means.Now we can start to populate our triple-dot molecule with electrons.Let us start our many-body analysis with the simplest case of N e=5.As the maximal number of electrons in our system is six,we can interpret thefive-electron configurations as those of a single hole.The hole(e.g.,with spin down)can be placed on either of the dots,and thus our basis consists of three configurations:|1(H) =h+1↓|N e=6 =c+3↑c+2↑c+3↓c+2↓c+1↓|0 ,|2(H) = h+2↓|N e=6 =c+1↑c+3↑c+3↓c+2↓c+1↓|0 ,and|3(H) =h+3↓|N e=6 =c+2↑c+1↑c+3↓c+2↓c+1↓|0 ,with h+iσbeing the creation operator of the hole with spinσon the i-th dot.It is convenient to express the energies of these configurations with respect to the total energy of the system with six electrons E F=2E1+2E2+2E3+U1+U2+U3+4V12+4V13+4V23.We have =E F−E1−U1−2V12−2V13,E(H)2=E F−E2−U2−2V12−2V23,andthen E(H)1=E F−E3−U3−2V13−2V23.The three energies are respectively the diagonal terms of E(H)3our single-hole Hamiltonian.The off-diagonal terms are composed out of the single-particle tunneling matrix elements.We have i(H)|ˆH|j(H) =−t ij;the negative phase is due to the anticommutation relations of the electronic creation and annihilation operators.As we can see,the single-hole Hamiltonian can be obtained from the single-electron Hamiltonian byappropriately modifying the diagonal terms and setting t ij↔−t ij.This is the signature of the particle-hole symmetry.27However,for the triangular triple dot on resonance this symmetry is not reflected in the energy spectrum of the hole:in this case,the opposite sign of the off-diagonal element leads to a doubly-degenerate hole ground state.This property is immediately apparent in the molecular basis:we create the lowest-energy configuration by filling the molecular ground state|M1 with two of thefive electrons,and distributing the remaining three on the degenerate orbitals|M2 and|M3 .The latter can be accomplished in two energetically equivalent ways,hence the double degeneracy.Note,however,that the electron-hole symmetry is fully restored upon transition to the linear triple-dot molecule. For this topology,the single-particle spectrum of both the electron and the hole consists of three equally spaced non-degenerate levels.B.Two electrons and two holesThe interplay of topology and statistics is particularly important in the cases of two electrons and two holes confined in the triple dot molecule.Let us consider the case of N e=2first.Since the Hamiltonian(1)commutes with the total spin operator,we can classify the two-electron states into singlets and triplets.Working with the molecular basis set,we form the configuration with the lowest energy by placing both carriers with antiparallel spins on orbital|M1 .Therefore we expect the ground state of the two-electron system to be a spin singlet,irrespective of the molecule’s topology.However,in order to examine the topological and statistical effects in the energy spectrum and the structure of the wave functions,we carry out a systematic analysis in the localized basis.Due to Fermi statistics,the two electrons with parallel spins cannot occupy the same quantum dot.Hence there are only three possible triplet configurations,|T1 =c+2↓c+1↓|0 , |T2 =c+3↓c+1↓|0 ,and|T3 =c+3↓c+2↓|0 ,shown schematically in Fig.2(a).The three triplet configurations interact with each other only via the single-particle tunneling Hamiltonian. However,in evaluating the respective matrix elements we need to follow the Fermionic anticommutation rules of the creation and annihilation operators.For example,acting with ˆH on the configuration Tto produce the configuration T3requires the evaluation of the1following expression:ˆH|T1 =+t31c+3↓c1↓c+2↓c+1↓|0 .In order to remove the electron1wefirst have to move it around electron2,and soˆH|T1 =−t31c+3↓c+2↓c1↓c+1↓|0 =−t31|T3 .Hence,tunneling of the electron from dot1to dot3in the presence of the electron in dot2generates an additional phase or changes the sign of the tunneling matrix element.This is of course the most elementary property of Fermions brought out so clearly in this simple model.By contrast,tunneling from dot2to dot3in the presence of electron in dot1does not change the sign of the tunneling matrix element.The resulting triplet Hamiltonian matrix takes the following form:ˆH T =E1+E2+V12t23−t13t23E1+E3+V13t12−t13t12E2+E3+V23.(2)ˆHTis related to the one-hole Hamiltonian.This similarity becomes more apparent ifˆH T is written in the basis{|T1 ,−|T2 ,|T3 },in which case all the off-diagonal elements acquire a negative phase.This is not surprising,since the single-hole configurations analyzed in the previous Section can be generated from the above triplet configurations simply by adding to them an inert core of three electrons spin up,one electron per dot.With the three dots on resonance and all tunneling matrix elements t ij equal and negative,the triplet energy spectrum is found to be(2E+V−|t|,2E+V−|t|,2E+V+2|t|).As in the case of the single hole,the lowest-energy triplet state is doubly degenerate.Moreover,the renormalization of the lowest energy2E+V−|t|from the single configuration energy2E+V,as well as the gap in the triplet spectrum,are determined entirely by tunneling.The splitting between the ground andfirst excited states is the same as that found in the single-carrier case and equals3|t|.We shall now demonstrate that topology and statistics differentiates between triplet and singlet two-electron states.The singly-occupied singlet configurations|S1 ,|S2 ,and|S3 are obtained from the triplet configurations|T1 ,|T2 ,and|T3 byflipping the spin of one electron and properly antisymmetrizing the configurations.For example,the configuration |S1 =12 c+2↓c+1↑+c+1↓c+2↑ |0 .In addition to the singly-occupied configurations there are also three doubly-occupied configurations,e.g.,|S4 =c+1↓c+1↑|0 ,as shown in Fig.2(b).Inthe basis of the six configurations the two-electron singlet Hamiltonian can be written as:ˆH S =E1+E2+V12t23t13√2t120 t23E1+E3+V13t12√2t13 t13t12E2+E3+V230√2t23√2t1302E1+U100√2t2302E2+U20√2t23002E3+U3.(3)The3×3upper left-hand corner ofˆH S corresponds to the three singly occupied configura-tions|S1 ,|S2 ,and|S3 .It is similar to the two-electron triplet HamiltonianˆH T but differsfrom it by the positive phase of the tunneling matrix element t13.Hence,in the triangular topology of the triple-dot molecule the tunneling from dot1to dot3distinguishes between the singlet and the triplet spin configurations.By setting t13=0,i.e.,upon transition to the linear topology,this difference disappears.However,the singlet basis is still different from its triplet counterpart due to the presence of the doubly-occupied configurations.For the dots on resonance the energies of the six singlet levels can be obtained analytically. The spectrum can be grouped into two non-degenerate levels E S1,2:E S1,2=(2E+V−2|t|)+1(4√2 (U−V−|t|)±2t)2+(U−V−|t|)2 .(5)In the strong coupling limit U≫V>|t|the singlet ground-state energy E S1≈(2E+ V−2|t|)−8t2U−V.It is proportional to the tunneling matrix element|t|and contains the second-order super-exchange correction∼t2/(U−V)due to the doubly occupied singlet configurations.Removing the resonance by detuning the onsite energies E i enhances the contribution from the doubly-occupied states.Therefore the ground state maintains its singlet character independently of the choice of gate voltages.The situation is qualitatively different when two holes,instead of two electrons,populate the system.The two holes are created when two electrons are removed from the closed-shellconfiguration with N e=6,i.e.,they correspond to N e=4electrons.In the molecular basis corresponding to the triangular triple dot we put two electrons on the lowest-energy orbital |M1 ,and the remaining two electrons on the degenerate pair of orbitals|M2 and|M3 .With this alignment of levels it is possible to create both triplet and singlet configurations, all with the same single-particle energy,and it is not immediately clear which total spin is preferred.On the other hand,in the limit of the linear triple dot the molecular orbitals are non-degenerate and the four-electron ground state is expected to be a spin singlet.The selected two-hole singlet and triplet configurations in the localized basis are illus-trated in Fig.2(c).Let us focus on the tripletsfirst.They involve one electron spin-up occupying thefirst,second,or third dot in the presence of an inert core of three spin-down electrons.For example,the configuration shown in left-hand panel of Fig.2(c)can be written as|T(H)1 =h+1↓h+2↓|N e=6 =c+3↑c+3↓c+2↓c+1↓|0 .Therefore,the hole triplet Hamiltonian is equivalent to the single-electron Hamiltonian,differing from it only in di-agonal terms.For example,the energy of the configuration|T(H)1 is T(H)1|ˆH|T(H)1 =E F−E1−E2−U1−U2−3V12−2V13−2V23.The two-hole triplet Hamiltonian can also be compared to the two-electron triplet HamiltonianˆH T,written in the modified ba-sis set{|T1 ,−|T2 ,|T3 }(i.e.,with all off-diagonal matrix elements acquiring a negative phase).Setting aside the diagonal matrix elements,the two Hamiltonians are connected by the electron-hole symmetry transition t ij↔−t ij.However,unlike that of the elec-tronic triplet,the ground state of the hole triplet is non-degenerate,and its energy is E T(H)=E F−2E−2U−7V−2|t|.As it is in the case of the single electron and the 1single hole,the particle-hole symmetry between the two-electron triplet and the two-hole triplet is fully restored upon transition to the linear topology of the triple dot.Let us move on to considering the two-hole singlet configurations.The singly-occupied states,illustrated in the middle panel of Fig.2(c),involve the two holes occupying two different dots,while the doubly-occupied states,such as the one in the right-hand panel of Fig.2(c),hold both holes on the same dot.The two-hole singlet Hamiltonian is analogous to that of the two-electron singlet,Eq.(3).However,we need to replace the energy of two-electron complexes with the energy of two-hole complexes,and change the phase of the off-diagonal elements connecting the singly-occupied configurations.The sign of elements √The ground-state energy of the hole singlet for the triangular triple dot on resonance is well approximated by E S(H)1≈(E F−2E−2U−7V−|t|)−2t2.Note that the two-hole super-exchange term is fourU−Vtimes smaller than the super-exchange correction to the energy of the two-electron singlet. By increasing the tunneling or decreasing the on-site Hubbard repulsion we can increase the contribution from super-exchange and lower the energy of the singlet state.Therefore, the total spin of the two-hole ground state for the triple dot on resonance depends on the interplay of Hubbard parameters.For2|t|<U−V the ground state is a spin triplet, and a triplet-singlet transition can be induced by increasing the hopping matrix element. The triplet-singlet transition can also be induced by biasing one of the dots,which lowers the energy of the doubly-occupied singlet configurations.Hence the configuration of two holes shows a nontrivial dependence on tunneling,Coulomb interactions and gate voltages allowing to control the system’s magnetic moment purely by electrical means.C.Three electronsTo complete our understanding of the energy levels of a triple quantum dot molecule we need to analyze the half-filled case of three electrons(or,equivalently,three holes).We start with the completely spin-polarized system,i.e.,one with total spin S=3/2.In this case we can distribute the electrons on the three dots in only one way:one electron on each site, which gives a spin-polarized state|a3/2 =c+3↓c+2↓c+1↓|0 .As the basis of our Hilbert space consists of one configuration only,|a3/2 is the eigenstate of our system,and its energy is E3/2=E1+E2+E3+V12+V13+V23.Let us nowflip the spin of one of the electrons. This electron can be placed on any orbital,and with each specific placement the remaining two spin-down electrons can be distributed in three ways.For example,Fig.3(a)shows the three configurations with the spin-up electron occupying the dot1.Thus,altogether we can generate nine different configurations.Three of these configurations involve single occupancy of the orbitals.They can be written as|a =c+3↓c+2↓c+1↑|0 ,|b =c+1↓c+3↓c+2↑|0 ,and|c = c+2↓c+1↓c+3↑|0 .Out of these three configurations we construct the three eigenstates of the total spin operator.One of those eigenstates is|a3/2 =13(|a +|b +|c ),and it corresponds to the total spin S=3/2.The two other eigenstates,|a1/2 =12(|a −|b )and|b1/2 =16(|a +|b −2|c ),correspond to the total spin S=1/2.The remaining six configurations involve doubly-occupied orbitals.They are|c1/2 =c+2↓c+1↓c+1↑|0 ,|d1/2 =c+3↓c+1↓c+1↑|0 ,|e1/2 =c+3↓c+2↓c+2↑|0 ,|f1/2 =c+1↓c+2↓c+2↑|0 ,|g1/2 =c+1↓c+3↓c+3↑|0 ,|h1/2 =c+2↓c+3↓c+3↑|0 .All these configurations are eigenstates of the total spin with S=1/2.Thus,among our nine spin-unpolarized states we have one high-spin,and eight low-spin states.In this basis the Hamiltonian matrix is block-diagonal,with the high-spin state completely decoupled.The energy corresponding to this state is equal to that of the fully polarized system discussed above,and is equal to E3/2.In the basis of the nine S=1/2configurations we construct the Hamiltonian matrix by dividing9configurations into three groups,each containing one of the singly-occupied configurations|a ,|b ,and|c .By labeling each group with the index of the spin-up electron, the Hamiltonian takes the form of a3×3matrix:ˆH 1/2=ˆH1ˆT12ˆT+31ˆT+12ˆH2ˆT23ˆT31ˆT+23ˆH3.(6)The diagonal matrix,e.g.,ˆH 1=2E1+E2+2V12+U1t23−t13t232E1+E3+2V13+U1t12−t13t12E1+E2+E3+V12+V13+V23describes the interaction of three configurations which contain spin-up electron on site1,i.e., two doubly-occupied configurations|c1/2 and|d1/2 ,and a singly-occupied configuration|a(in this order,see Fig.3(a)).The configurations with double occupancy acquire the diagonal interaction term U.The three configurations involve a pair of spin-polarized electrons(spin triplet)moving on a triangular plaquette in the presence of a“spectator”spin-up electron. Because of the triplet character of the two electrons,the phase of the hopping matrix element −t13from site1to site3is different from the phase of the hopping matrix element+t23from site2to site3.As discussed above,the negative phase in−t13distinguishes the singlet and triplet electron pairs.The remaining matrices corresponding to spin-up electrons localized on sites2and3can be constructed in a similar fashion.The interaction between them isgiven in terms of effective hopping matrixˆT ij =0−t ij000−t ij+t ij00.There is no direct interaction between the configurations with single occupancy,since such scattering process would have to involve two electrons,one with spin up and one with spin down.This cannot be accomplished by the single-particle tunneling.These states are coupled only indirectly,involving the configurations with double occupancy.The low-energy spectrum of the Hubbard Hamiltonian of the N e=3quantum-dot molecule can be further approximated by the spectrum of the model spin Hamiltonian:H3e=E3/2+ i<j J ij S i· S j−1/4 + i<j<k D ijk S i· S j× S k (7) Here,E3/2is the energy of the spin S=3/2state,J ij are exchange matrix elements of the Heisenberg part of the spin Hamiltonian which depend on microscopic parameters of the triple dot,and D ijk are higher order spin-spin interactions discussed,e.g.,by Scarola and Das Sarma in Ref.33.We define the effective exchange constant J for the triple dot molecule with three electrons in terms of the gap between the S=1/2and S=3/2states as E3/2−E1/2=3J/2.Without the higher order corrections J would have been equal to the Heisenberg J ij,otherwise it is simply related to the gap of the N e=3electron spectrum.The mapping of the behavior of our system onto the effective exchange Hamiltonian (7)connects our analysis to the general formalism used in quantum computing.10,11Our considerations do not introduce any new elements into that formalism,but rather provide means for its realistic and accurate parametrization,reflecting the properties of an actual gated triple-dot device.The Heisenberg Hamiltonian(7)can be used to model the behavior of three electrons confined in a triple dot treated as three coupled qubits.However,it applies also to a coded qubit scheme,in which the states of the entire molecule are treated as the logical states of a single qubit.In Ref.12we have presented a detailed analysis of such a system,in which we selected the two lowest total spin1/2states as the logical states|0L and|1L of the coded qubit,respectively.In that design,the control of the energy gap between the two states by。

stakeholder

stakeholder

Stake holder利益相关者是指股东、债权人等可能对公司的现金流量有要求权的人。

管理学意义上的利益相关者(stakeholder)是组织外部环境中受组织决策和行动影响的任何相关者。

利益相关者可能是客户内部的(如雇员),也可能是客户外部的(如供应商或压力群体)。

大多数情况下,利益相关者可分类如下:所有者和股东银行和其它债权人供应商购买者和顾客广告商管理人员雇员工会竞争对手地方及国家政府管制者媒体公众利益群体政党和宗教群体以及军队编辑本段利益相关者的角色利益相关者能够影响组织,他们的意见一定要作为决策时需要考虑的因素。

但是,所有利益相关者不可能对所有问题保持一致意见,其中一些群体要比另一些群体的影响力更大,这是如何平衡各方利益成为战略制定考虑的关键问题。

除了对战略制定产生影响以外,利益相关者分析也是评价战略的有力工具。

战略评价可以通过确定持反对意见的股东和他们对一些有争议的问题的影响力来完成。

利益相关者矩阵确定利益相关者的位置有两种方法:权力/动力矩阵和权力/利益矩阵、权力/动力矩阵可预测性高低低 A B影很少问题不可预测,但可管理响高 C D影响大,但可预测最大的危险或机会编辑本段分析如下:图示列出了一个权力/动力矩阵,在这个矩阵上可以画出各利益相关者的位置。

利用这种方法可以很好地评估和分析出在新战略的发展过程中在哪儿应该引入“政治力量”。

1. 最难应付的团体是处于D区内的那些团体,因为它们可以很好地支持或阻碍新战略,但是它们的观点却很难预测。

其隐含的意思非常明显:在已建立一个不可改变的地位前一定要找到一种方法,来测试这些利益相关者对新战略的态度。

2. 相反,在细分市场C内的利益相关者,可能会通过管理人员的参与过程来影响战略,这些管理人员同意他们的'观点'并建立那些代表他们期望的战略。

3. 虽然细分市场A和B内的利益相关者权力很小,但是这并不意味着它们不重要。

事实上,这些利益相关者的积极支持本身,会对权力更大的利益相关者的态度产生影响。

toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience (definitive dependent stakeholders)

toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience (definitive dependent stakeholders)

Since Freeman (1984) published his landmark book. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, the concept oí "stakeholders" has become embedded in management scholarship and in managers' thinking. Yet, as popular as the term has become and as richly descriptive as it is, there is no agreement on what Freeman (1994) calls "The Principle oí Who or What Really Counts." That is, who (or what) are the stakeholders of the firm? And to whom (or what) do managers pay attention? The first question calls for a normaiive iheory of stakeholder identiiication, to explain logically why managers should consider certain classes oí entities as stakeholders. The second question calls for a descriptive theory oí stakeholder salience, to explain the conditions under which managers do consider certain classes of entities as stakeholders. Stakeholder theory, reviewed in this article, oífers a maddening variety oí signals on how questions oí stakeholder identification might be answered. We will see stakeholders identified as primary or secondary

STAKEHOLDER_THEORY_

STAKEHOLDER_THEORY_

STAKEHOLDER THEORY: ISSUES TO RESOLVEEmerson Wagner Mainardes (corresponding author)University of Beira Interior (UBI) – Management and Economics Department – NECE –Center for Studies in Management ScienceE-mail adress: emerson.wm@sapo.pt; emainardes@.brHelena AlvesUniversity of Beira Interior (UBI) – Management and Economics Department – NECE –Center for Studies in Management ScienceE-mail adress: halves@ubi.ptMario RaposoUniversity of Beira Interior (UBI) – Management and Economics Department – NECE –Center for Studies in Management ScienceE-mail adress: mraposo@ubi.ptAbstractPurpose: The objective of this article is to collate and debate the main issues driving the Stakeholder Theory academic debate.Design/methodology/approach: First, a discussion of the stakeholder concept is set out before moving onto the history and nature of Stakeholder Theory. The work proceeds with an attempt to systematically bring together the points of divergence among researchers interested in Stakeholder Theory and finally, there is a brief discussion of these theoretical loopholes in conjunction with a proposed research agenda for the field.Findings: Based upon the unification of the theoretically problematic issues, research agendas are put forward with the objective of clarifying doubts and resolving the controversies ongoing among academics. As regards the formulation of Stakeholders Theory, one question requiring resolution is that of the stakeholder concept itself. Additionally, further research should focus on the boundaries as to what constitutes a stakeholder group as well as defining the criteria for attributing individual membership of one or another group. In practical theoretical application, it is correspondingly necessary to target research on aspects such as conflicts of interest between stakeholders and management difficulties in coping with multiple objectives. Finally, there is a need for research that systematizes the knowledge produced with the objective of attaining the theoretical convergence necessary for the development of Stakeholder Theory.Originality/value: The main contribution of this article derives from the systematization of the various shortcomings that need overcoming within the framework of Stakeholder Theory and the identification of research agendas.Keywords: Stakeholders; Stakeholder Theory; Stakeholder Concept; Normative Stakeholder Theorizing; Analytical Stakeholder Theorizing; Criticism of Stakeholder Theory.Paper type: Literature review1. IntroductionStakeholder Theory was put forward by Freeman (1984) as a proposal for the strategic management of organizations in the late 20th century. Over time, this Theory has gained in importance with key works by Clarkson (1994, 1995), Donaldson and Preston (1995), Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997), Rowley (1997) and Frooman (1999) enabling both greater theoretical depth and development. From an initially strategic perspective, the Theory evolved and was adopted as a means of management by many market based organizations.Stakeholder Theory, given it remains a relatively recent addition to the management field, has not been fully developed. According to Fassin (2008), the success of Stakeholder Theory, both in management literature and in business practice, is due in large part to the simplicity inherent to the model. However, over the years, some academics have criticized the vagueness and ambiguity of this Theory. The stakeholder model, backed as it is by its simplicity and clear visual presentation, has stirred debates in academic literature.Indeed, very few management themes have generated as many published works in recent decades as the underlying concept, the model and theories around stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, Gibson, 2000, Wolfe and Putler, 2002, Friedman and Miles, 2006). One of the most salient characteristics of this Theory is the diversity in the points of view that have been expressed within its scope. Correspondingly, there is a low level of theoretical integration whether in terms of the normative, instrumental or descriptive dimensions as well as within the actual dimensions themselves (Lépineux, 2005).Hence, the objective of this article is to bring together and discuss some of the questions driving Stakeholder Theory academic debate. This research was motivated by the sheer relevance of the Theory to various different areas, especially strategic management, marketing, corporative governance, corporate social responsibility, business ethics, public management, among others.Similarly, the main contribution of this article derives primarily from the systematization of some of the shortcomings that need overcoming within the framework ofStakeholder Theory. Based upon this unification of the theoretically problematic issues, we then set out research agendas aiming to clarify the doubts and resolve the controversies that have been ongoing among academics.In order to achieve this objective, this paper is structured as follows: firstly, there is discussion of the stakeholder concept before moving onto the history and nature of Stakeholder Theory and presenting the three approaches that explain the Theory, the normative, instrumental and descriptive approaches. The next stage attempts to systematically bring together the points of divergence among researchers interested in Stakeholder Theory and finally, there is a brief discussion of these theoretical loopholes in conjunction with a suggested research agenda for the field.2. The Stakeholder ConceptThe origin of the stakeholder concept lies in the business science literature (Freeman, 1984), and may be traced back even as far as Adam Smith and his “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Its modern utilization in management literature was brought about by the Stanford Research Institute that introduced the term in 1963 so as to generalize and expand the notion of the shareholder as the only group that management needed to be sensitive towards (Jongbloed, Enders and Salerno, 2008). Within this perspective, Freeman (1984) argued that business organizations should be concerned about the interests of other stakeholders when taking strategic decisions.Although a relatively longstanding term, the development of Stakeholder Theory was set in motion by the work of Freeman (1984). The objective of his work was to delineate an alternative form of strategic management as a response to rising competitiveness, globalization and the growing complexity of company operations. As time went by, the stakeholder concept has taken on greater importance due to public interest, greater coverage by the media, concerns about corporative governance and its adoption as a policy within the scope of the Third Way (Hutton, 1999, Greenwood, 2008).Meanwhile, in accordance with Friedman and Miles (2006), the term stakeholder has been deployed indiscriminately in the last two decades. The term is highly popular with businesses, governments, non-governmental organizations and even with the media. Despite this widespread usage, many who adopt the term neither define the concept nor provide any particularly clear understanding of what they mean as regards what a stakeholder actually is. Even in academic circles, countless definitions of stakeholder have been put forward without any of those suggested ever gaining consensus and hence there is no single, definitive andgenerally accepted definition for stakeholder. The works of Bryson (2004), Buchholz and Rosenthal (2005), Pesqueux and Damak-Ayadi (2005), Friedman and Miles (2006) and Beach (2008) amount to a total of 66 different concepts for the term stakeholder.Although each researcher defines the concept differently, they do as a rule reflect the same principle to a greater or lesser extent: the company should take into consideration the needs, interests and influences of peoples and groups who either impact on or may be impacted by its policies and operations (Frederick, Post and St. Davis, 1992). Hence, according to Clarkson (1995), the stakeholder concept contains three fundamental factors: the organization, the other actors and the nature of the company-actor relationships.However, Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) propose that these concepts represent phenomena in themselves, including: the relationship between the company and the stakeholders (as in Freeman, 1994), the position of the stakeholder towards the company (for example, Starik, 1994), the company as dependent upon stakeholders (see Freeman and Reed, 1983), the stakeholder wielding power over the company (according to Brenner, 1995), the stakeholder as dependent on the company (as is the case in Langtry, 1994), the company as holding power over the stakeholder (see Carroll, 1993), the company and stakeholder as mutually dependent (for example, Wicks, Gilbert Jr. and Freeman, 1994), the company and the stakeholder as engaged in contractual relations (as in Hill and Jones, 1992), the stakeholder as holding a right on the company (see Evan and Freeman, 1988), the stakeholder as running some kind of risk (see Clarkson, 1994), the stakeholder as having a moral right over the company (according to Carroll, 1989), or the stakeholder as having an interest in the company (see Clarkson, 1995). In summary, whether broader or more restrictive, these are understandings of the stakeholder concept as connected to organizations and which, according to Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997), may guide the actions of a specific organization.However, despite the countless definitions and differing emphasizes, which may result in distorted conceptual interpretations (Friedman and Miles, 2006), a large majority of studies adopt the definition idealized by Freeman (1984) that individuals or groups may influence or be influenced by the scope of organizational objectives. Within this concept, a person, an informal group, an organization or an institution may all be stakeholders. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) state that the Freeman (1984) definition is so broad that it opens up an infinite scope for stakeholders as even climatic factors may play this role. Hence, there is a need to establish limits to the extent of stakeholders. To this end, Freeman and Evan (1990) reduce the organizational environment to a multilateral agreement between an organization and its stakeholders.3. History and Nature of Stakeholder TheoryThe origins of Stakeholder Theory draw on four key academic fields: sociology, economics, politics and ethics, and especially the literature on Corporate Planning, Systems Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Theory. Freeman (1984), over the course of his work entitled Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach, generally accepted as launching the Stakeholder Theory concepts, defines how stakeholders with similar interests or rights form a group. What Freeman (1984) was seeking to explain was the relationship between the company and its external environment and its behavior within this environment. The author set out his model as if a chart in which the company is positioned at the centre and is involved with stakeholders connected with the company.In this model, the company-stakeholder relationships are dyadic and mutually independent (Frooman, 1999). According to Fassin (2009), the model proposed by Freeman (1984) may have been inspired by a tool drawn from sociology, the sociogram, which visualizes the frequency of interactions between individuals or groups. The model design was influenced by the traditional capitalist organizational production model in which the company is related only to four groups: the suppliers, employees and shareholders supplying the basic resources that the company transforms into products or services for the fourth group, that is, the clients. Nevertheless, Freeman (1984) also added other groups influenced by company activities and saw the organization as the centre of a series of interdependent relationships (Crane and Matten, 2004).The ideas of Freeman (1984), which culminated in Stakeholder Theory, emerged out of an organizational context in which the company was perceived as not being self-sufficient and actually dependent on the external environment made up of groups external to the organization, as Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) had earlier observed. These were the external groups that Freeman (1984) termed stakeholders. This situation was later handled by Frooman (1999) as resource dependency.According to Jones and Wicks (1999) and Savage, Dunkin and Ford (2004), the basic premises of Stakeholder Theory are:•the organization enters into relationships with many groups that influence or are influenced by the company, stakeholders in accordance with Freeman’s (1984) terminology,•the Theory focuses on the nature of these relationships in terms of processes and results for the company and for stakeholders,•the interests of all legitimate stakeholder are of intrinsic value and it is assumed that there is no single prevailing set of interests as Clarkson (1995) and Donaldson and Preston (1995) pointed out,•the Theory focuses upon management decision making,•the Theory explains how stakeholders try and influence organizational decision making processes so as to be consistent with their needs and priorities,•as regards organizations, these should attempt to understand and balance the interests of the various participants.Taking these premises into consideration, and according to Clarkson (1995), Donaldson and Preston (1995), Rowley (1997), Scott and Lane (2000) and Baldwin (2002), the concept of stakeholder management was developed so that organizations could recognize, analyze and examine the characteristics of individuals or groups influencing or being influenced by organizational behavior. Thus, management is carried out over three levels: the identification of stakeholders, the development of processes identifying and interpreting their needs and interests and the construction of relationships with the entire process structured around the organization’s respective objectives. On the other hand, stakeholders define their expectations, experience the effects of the relational experience with the organization, evaluate the results obtained and act in accordance with these evaluations, strengthening or otherwise their ties with the company (Polonsky, 1996, Post, Preston and Sachs, 2002, Neville, Bell and Mengüç, 2005).While Freeman (1984) limited his own intentions to providing an approach to the subject, generalizing and testing the taking of strategic management decisions, Stakeholder Theory earned its wings, both among academics and among practitioners, as a new Theory of the Firm (Key, 1999). Within this framework, stakeholder literature breaks down into two main branches: one strategic and one moral (Goodpaster, 1991, Frooman, 1999). The strategic literature emphasizes the active management of stakeholder interests while literature in the moral field is primarily interested in a balance between stakeholder interests.Freeman and McVea (2001) clarified how Stakeholder Theory was originally developed within a framework of four distinct lines of organizational management research, as demonstrated by Freeman (1984): Strategic Organizational Planning, Systems Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Theory:•within the Strategic Organizational Planning line, the concept is that successful strategies correspond to the integration of all stakeholder interests (contrary to the maximization of one group’s position to the detriment of others),•both Systems Theory and Organizational Theory focus upon the idea that organizations are open systems that interact with diverse third parties and thus it is necessary to set out collective strategies that perfect the system as a whole beyond the actual recognition of all the relationships on which companies depend for their own survival,•Corporate Social Responsibility is not considered a formalized theoretical group but rathera series of business case studies and empirical analyses seeking to demonstrate theimportance of building up strong and trustworthy relationships and maintaining a good reputation with all groups external to the organization for its ongoing success.Within the broad context of this Theory, it may be stated that diverse stakeholder groups interact with a company. According to Clarkson (1995), these groups may be subdivided into two: the primary (those with formal or official contractual relationships with the company, such as clients, suppliers, employees, shareholders, among others), and the secondary (those without such contracts, such as government authorities or the local community). In this way, we may configure a company as a set of relationships, explicit or implicit, across both the internal and external environments. However, with the emergence and advance of Stakeholder Theory, attention began to be paid to the interests of these distinct groups of individuals and not only to the shareholders or owners of the company (Argandoña, 1998, Gibson, 2000).Indeed, history now states it was Freeman (1984) who was the first researcher to clearly identify the strategic importance of other groups and individuals to the company, different to the traditional groups of clients, suppliers, employees and shareholders. In fact, he saw these groups as highly disparate, such as local community, environmentalist and consumer defense organizations as well as government authorities, special interest groups and with even competitors and the media as legitimate stakeholders (Clement, 2005). Given there were so many stakeholder groups listed by Freeman (1984), over time the need to group them was encountered within the scope of efforts to reduce managerial complexity. For example, Gibson (2000) proceeded to group stakeholders into institutional (involving laws, regulations), economic (actors in the marketplace) and ethical (environment and social pressure groups) categories. Furthermore, for Lépineux (2005), these became shareholders, internal stakeholders, operational partners and community.However, in accordance with Freeman and Liedtka (1997), Stakeholder Theory was bound up with an already longstanding tradition that perceived business as an integral part of society and not as some separate and purely economic institution. Radin (1999) affirmed that Stakeholder Theory means recognizing that organizations hold responsibilities towards people and entities beyond their stockholders. Stakeholder Theory draws on analytical mechanisms from Systems Theory, for example, regarding the interdependence and integration of actors making up a system and in seeking to explain the interrelationship between them (Campbell, 1997). Hill and Jones (1992) had already utilized Agency Theory, which approaches the company as the nexus of contracts between stakeholders and managers as if some central node. This operates as the means to explain how managers bear responsibility for conciliating divergent interests, taking strategic decisions and allocating strategic resources in whatever form proves most coherent with the demands of the other stakeholders.Thus, the Theory of Freeman (1984) came against a scenario of rising awareness as to the importance of business to society and along with the beginnings of the globalization of markets and the development of information technologies and means of communication followed by the later heightening of social pressures applied by governments, trade unions, political groups and communities in general. Stakeholder Theory arrived in time to explain and predict how organizations should act by taking into consideration the influences of stakeholders hitherto left out of the range of analysis, such as the local community and the media, among others.Many have already posited that the destiny of Stakeholder Theory is to topple the dominant paradigm, the economic model of the company (Key, 1999). The aforementioned Theory seeks to set down attitudes and organizational practices for the company to survive and prosper (Brenner, 1993). Given this situation, the influence of stakeholders in organizational strategy requires responses on behalf of the company reflecting the potential power, whether to threaten or to cooperate, of each stakeholder within a context of mutually exchanging interests and benefits.Without doubt, the appearance of Stakeholder Theory proved a counterbalance to the key actor approach, based upon Agency Theory, in its presentation of a more collectivist vision of organizations as a social vehicle for human development. Within this framework, Clarkson (1995) stated that the survival and sustainable profitability of organizations depended upon their capacity to comply with the economic and social purpose defined as creating and distributing sufficient wealth or value to ensure that each group of primary stakeholders continues to be a part of the company’s system. Hence, an organization may beseen as a set of interdependent relationships between primary stakeholders, a perspective that has seen significant research in the field of organizational strategy (Evan and Freeman, 1988, Hill and Jones, 1992, Kotter and Heskett, 1992, Harrison and St. John, 1994, Donaldson and Preston, 1995, Jones, 1995, Greenley and Foxall, 1996, Hillman and Keim, 2001).After the Theory took shape and over time, stakeholders slowly moved in from the periphery of organizational activities towards a more central position. Andriof et al. (2002) explains that the stakeholder concept, its involvement and relationship with the organization is now positioned as characteristic of the most modern companies. In the last two decades, there has been a perceivable rise in the number of research publications dealing with the strategy and positioning of stakeholders in organizational decision making (Asher, Mahoney and Mahoney, 2005). Various studies point to the utilization of Stakeholder Theory for analyzing the circumstances faced by contemporary organizations (Freeman and Liedtka, 1997, Metcalfe, 1998, Clarke, 2005).This emphasis may have come about, according to Clement (2005), given the greater level of pressures on organizations currently facing demands for responses from distinct groups of stakeholders. As these stakeholders are in constant interaction with the company, they may provide them with contributions or important resources while each also represents interests needing to be satisfied. Correspondingly, analyzing who the stakeholders are, identifying their interests and how they act is fundamental to contemporary organizations and especially in terms of those stakeholders of greatest importance to organizational survival and being able to meet their respective needs (Hill and Jones, 1998).4. Normative Aspects of Stakeholder TheoryAs Donaldson and Preston (1995) affirmed, Stakeholder Theory cannot be considered a single Theory but rather a set of theories for the management of stakeholders. This theoretical set is divided into three (Friedman and Miles, 2006): the descriptive approach (which sets out how the organization operates in terms of stakeholder management), the instrumental approach (which demonstrates how to attain organizational objectives through stakeholder management), and the normative approach (which defines how businesses should operate, especially in relation to moral principles). We now take up this third theme.The normative approach is based upon moral premises about how actors and organizations should go about their activities. According to Donaldson and Preston (1995), stakeholder oriented policies are justifiable based upon the supposition that they do hold legitimate interests in the company activities that should be taken into consideration bymanagers as, from Freeman’s (1998) perspective, stakeholders should not be seen merely as the means of raising organizational performance. Research within this framework evaluates relationships in accordance with ethical and philosophic principles. Jones and Wicks (1999) propose Stakeholder Theory as a normative ethic that should approach which obligations from the stakeholder model rest upon the management and particularly the level of importance of obligations attributed to some stakeholders over other stakeholder groups.Within this perspective, Friedman and Miles (2006) draw an institutional vision of the organization defined as an arena of competing, and on occasion conflicting, multiple interests. This social space sees stakeholders acting from different positions of power depending on the organizational sustainability of negotiations and the specific cooperative solutions agreed upon.Some studies have explicitly justified this normative dimension to Stakeholder Theory (Freeman and McVea, 2001, Hansen, Bode and Moosmayer, 2004) making recourse to legal arguments, such as property rights (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, Blair, 1998). Others deploy the Rawlsian construct of a social contract (Freeman and Evan, 1990, Child and Marcoux, 1999, Phillips, 2003). There are, however, also economic arguments that incorporate relationships of trust (Goodpaster, 1991, Boatright, 1994, Marcoux, 2003) or Agency Theory (Shankman, 1999) and moral reasoning (Gibson, 2000), such as the equity principle (Phillips, 1997, Metcalfe, 1998), Kantian Theory, the right to be treated as an end (Evan and Freeman, 1988, Bowie, 1999) or through recourse to the concept of the common good (Argandoña, 1998).According to proponents of business ethics, the normative aspect of Stakeholder Theory incorporates the following trends: Evan and Freeman (1983) and Bowie (1994) identify Kantian capitalism, for Phillips (1997) justice, according to Freeman (1994) fair contracts, while Freeman and Gilbert Jr. (1988) propose personal projects and, in accordance with Wicks, Gilbert Jr. and Freeman (1994), the feminist approach.In summary, these theories guide the thinking behind Stakeholder Theory, orienting its principles towards the application of Theory as a proposed relationship between the company and its stakeholders within a fair, ethical and morally correct framework (deontological principles), where interests are not purely economic (utilitarian principles), thereby justifying both the actions of management as well as the results obtained. The theories cited, according to Friedman and Miles (2006), act as influential inputs into Stakeholder Theory normative thinking.Therefore, the normative facet to Stakeholder Theory may serve to generalize the understanding of how organizational behaviors may be shaped and fashioned. In other words, the efforts of management need to be focused on grasping why the company needs to satisfy its stakeholders and how to achieve this as well as prescribing values for the undertaking of normative research projects (Freeman, 1999, Radin, 1999).Complementarily, McVea and Freeman (2005) propose that stakeholders should be understood as real, and not abstract, individuals as only thus can managers gain awareness about the options they take and considering the moral and ethical aspects to each organizational decision. Stakeholder Theory should focus on the creation of value, decision making processes and relationships with real individuals. This represents an individualization of the company-stakeholder relationship.Many researchers involved in Stakeholder Theory agree that the normative dimension depends upon the other dimensions (descriptive and instrumental) and these should not be underestimated. When positing certain types of behavior, it is important to compare the desirable with the real. Rowley (1997) explained that any understanding of this Theory requires not only explaining the influences wielded by stakeholders but also how the company responds to these influences. In addition, Stakeholder Theory needs to describe and predict how organizations are to operate under diverse and different conditions. More recent revisions of the normative facet of Stakeholder Theory suggest three categories for stakeholder participation: moderate, that is dealing with parties with respect, intermediary, thus incorporating some stakeholder interests into organizational management and demanding, hence with the full participation of such actors in corporate decision making processes (Hendry, 2001, Flak, Nordheim and Munkuold, 2008).5. Analytic Aspects of Stakeholder TheoryThe analytical perspective to Stakeholder Theory covers two dimensions: the descriptive perspective and the instrumental perspective. Both were discussed in the study by Donaldson and Preston (1995), and later renamed by Reed (2002) as positive and strategic. Despite this proposal, the original terminology (descriptive and instrumental) has prevailed in the literature. According to Friedman and Miles (2006), these perspectives should be centered on the organization, on the organization-stakeholder relationship, or directly on the stakeholder.The instrumental perspective, proposed initially by Jones (1995) and later furthered by Donaldson and Preston (1995), explores how the stakeholder model may be used to attain the。

关于茅盾英语作文的结尾

关于茅盾英语作文的结尾

关于茅盾英语作文的结尾Title: The Paradox of Modern Communication: A Reflection on Screen TimeIn the fabric of contemporary society, screen time has woven itself into a complex tapestry of connectivity and isolation, illuminating both the bright promise and the shadowy perils of modern communication. This phenomenon, emblematic of the intricate relationship between individuals and their digital devices, is a veritable paradox, offering an infinity of knowledge and connection yet potentially engendering a sense of disconnection and overindulgence. As such, navigating through the maze of screen time requires a nuanced understanding to reap its benefits while avoiding its pitfalls.Screen time acts as a portal to a vast expanse of information, democratizing knowledge in a manner unprecedented in human history. With the flick of a finger, one can delve into the depths of academic papers, explore the farthest corners of the world, and engage with tutorials that impart skills ranging from culinary arts to coding. Educational platforms have transformed learning into an ubiquitous endeavor, no longer confined by the physical boundaries of aclassroom. Moreover, screens facilitate connections across vast distances. Families separated by continents can gather around a virtual dinner table; friends can share moments instantaneously, regardless of their geographical locations. In professional contexts, screens enable multinational collaborations and telecommuting, punctuating the notion that productivity need not be tethered to a physical office space.However, this very convenience comes with a caveat. The allure of screens can easily morph into an addiction, with detrimental effects on mental health and social interactions. Excessive screen time has been linked to issues such as anxiety, depression, and disturbed sleep patterns. Moreover, thefast-paced nature of digital content can overstimulate the brain, leading to decreased attention spans and a craving for constant stimulation. On a sociocultural level, the prevalence of screens has raised concerns about the erosion offace-to-face communication skills and the blurring of boundaries between work and personal life.Balancing screen time necessitates a conscious approach. It involves setting limits and prioritizing activities that enrich the soul beyond the confines of a digital interface. Engaging inoutdoor activities, reading physical books, or participating in community events can provide a much-needed diversification from the digital dominance. For families, establishing screen-free zones or times can foster a healthier environment, where conversations and shared experiences are valued above virtual interactions.The power of screen time lies in how it is harnessed. Like any tool, its impact is determined by the user. Responsible usage can expand horizons, facilitate growth, and maintain connections. Yet, unchecked and excessive screen time can lead to psychological and social malaise. Recognizing both its utility and its limitations is the cornerstone of a balanced relationship with technology.In conclusion, screen time is not monolithic; it is a multifaceted aspect of modern life that requires discernment. By advocating a measured approach to our digital consumption, we can enjoy the manifold benefits of technology while safeguarding our mental health, social relations, and overall well-being. Thus, as we navigate the digital tide, let us strive to find equilibrium, ensuring that screen time enhances rather than diminishes the quality of our lives.。

WhoareStakeholders?

WhoareStakeholders?

WhoareStakeholders?Writing Test Cases: Part 3 “Who are Stakeholders?”In our earlier post, we made discussion on “Introduction and purpose of writing test cases”. Now we shall discuss about major stakeholders in testing and misconceptions about testers as stakeholders.Overview: Stakeholders in testingSoftware Testers spend a meaningful part of their work lives, doing testing! How frequently do testers stop to think about the question – whom are we testing for? The answer that managers would usually say is –stakeholders. That brings up the next set of questions – who is a stakeholder and who are the stakeholders for testing? A stakeholder is someone who has a stake or interest in the work that we do. The testing stakeholder also has an interest in the quality of the final work product. Stakeholders in testing may be broadly classified as internal and external stakeholders.Some organizations see all stakeholders within the organization as “internal” while any stakeholders outside of the organization are considered as “external”. In some other groups, anyone who is involved with the test effort – in terms of performing testing, leading or managing the test efforts are considered as “internal stakeholders” while all other stakeholders are considered to be “external”. The list of who constitutes a stakeholder can vary across projects and organizations. Given below is a brief list of stakeholders for testing.1.Other testers in the group2.Test Managers and Test Leads, involved in managing andleading test efforts3.Architects and Designers, responsible for designing the product4.Implementers –the developers, development managers and leads involved with developing the product5.Product marketing persons, involved in determining the features for the product and are interested in the quality of implementation of these features6.Analysts, involved in determining the requirements for the product and the related quality attributes7.Program/Project Management folks, responsible for project planning, organizing and managing resources for successful completion of project objectives8.Customer Support individuals, responsible for supporting customers and users of the product produced9.Sales folks, responsible for selling the software10.Executives / Senior Management of the organization, who run the organization11.Shareholders of the organizationers of the software13.Partners of the organization14.Vendors, who may supply components that are integrated with the product15.Customers, who pay for the softwaremunity / Society, where the software product is being usedernmental authorities, who are interested in the software complying with applicable laws and regulations The above list is not complete and can vary depending on particular project or organization.Stakeholders generally tend to want the software testing efforts to succeed and ensure that a quality product be produced. However, some stakeholders can be neither positive nor negative about your testing outcome. Few stakeholders might even be interested in seeing the project fail and could be glad if testing showed up a lot of failures. These could be folks who are interested in maintaining the status quo (the existing state of affairs) and opposed to change that the project might get. It is important for the software testing group to identify who the testing stakeholders are, which of these stakeholders are supportive, who are neutral and who are not supportive.IntroductionTest case document helps almost every person who directly or indirectly involve in the development of the project. Test case document helps the owner of the system to identify boundaries of system. It provides an over view that how the system is tested. Which scenarios the system passes and which scenarios are unsuccessful.Similarly test cases help developers to find issues in system. Rework on cases that failed. Test cases help the project managers and system architects to identify the health of the project/product. It may guide them in identifying release time of product, defining new plans and to meet deadlines timely. It favors the system architects to verify the design issues and business process flows well.ExampleEvery software product has a target audience. For example, the audience for medical software is completely different from gaming software. Therefore, when an organization develops or otherwise invests in a software product, it can assess whether thesoftware product will be acceptable to its end users, its target audience, its purchasers, and other stakeholders. Software testing is the process of attempting to make this assessment. Therefore, test cases should be written according to the nature of the audience.Some Misconceptions about “testers” as Stakeholders1. One big mistake that a project manager makes is that testers are not treated as major stakeholders in the project.2. Development team has a misconception of treating tester as someone watching and pinpointing loopholes in developer’s area of expertise.3. The test team is intentionally kept out of loop up to a certain stage of the project.4. The knowledge transfer from development team to test team starts at a later stage and immediately they are told to start testing without providing them sufficient time either to absorb what they have understood about the customer business or to prepare test cases for complete coverage.5. The bugs reported are not taken as seriously as they are reported – usually the bug closure priorities are set more on the basis of time required to fix a bug or the time left to release rather than the severity of the bug. Most of the project meetings are conducted without test team involved in it – and worst thing is that a lot about quality is discussed in such meetings.In our forthcoming/future post, i.e. in the third part of “test case writing” we’ll cover concepts like how to design effective test cases, their benefits and the essential design elements of the test case.This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010。

stakeholder 意思

stakeholder 意思

stakeholder 意思1. 什么是stakeholder?在商业和组织管理领域,stakeholder(利益相关者)是指能受到组织行为影响或对组织有重要利益关系的个人、团体或社会。

这些利益相关者可能包括公司的员工、股东、客户、供应商、政府、社区、环境和其他利益相关方。

他们的利益可能受到组织决策和行为的影响,因此对于组织来说,正确处理和平衡各利益相关者之间的关系非常重要。

2. 利益相关者的重要性在现代商业环境中,企业越来越意识到了利益相关者的重要性。

不仅是股东和客户,还有员工、供应商、政府和社会等各方都对企业的经营和发展产生影响。

正确处理这些利益相关者的关系,平衡各方利益是企业成功和可持续发展的关键。

3. 利益相关者管理为了更好地管理利益相关者,组织需要进行利益相关者管理。

这包括确定和理解各利益相关者的利益、需求和期望,建立良好的沟通机制,平衡各方的利益,制定合理的决策和行为。

只有通过有效的利益相关者管理,组织才能建立可持续的发展模式,赢得各方的支持和信任。

4. 个人观点和理解在我看来,利益相关者管理是企业和组织非常重要的一部分。

只有平衡各利益相关者的利益,才能实现组织的长期发展和成功。

作为一个利益相关者,我们也应该理解自己的角色和责任,积极参与到组织的发展中来。

5. 总结和回顾利益相关者不仅是企业发展过程中的参与者,也是推动企业发展的重要力量。

只有通过正确的利益相关者管理,组织才能实现可持续的发展和成功。

我强烈建议企业和组织在日常经营中重视利益相关者的意见和需求,建立良好的沟通机制,共同推动组织的发展。

利益相关者(stakeholder)管理是企业管理中非常重要的一环。

在当今商业环境中,企业不仅仅要考虑股东的利益,还需要考虑员工、客户、供应商、政府、社区和环境等利益相关者的需求和期望。

只有通过平衡各方的利益,企业才能获得可持续发展和成功。

为了更好地管理利益相关者,企业需要进行利益相关者管理。

印刷技术 安全印刷过程管理-最新国标

印刷技术 安全印刷过程管理-最新国标

印刷技术安全印刷过程管理1 范围本文件规定了安全印刷商的安全印刷管理体系要求。

本文件适用于安全印刷商建立、实施、保持和改进安全印刷管理体系,实现对安全印刷全过程的管理。

2 规范性引用文件本文件没有规范性引用文件。

3 术语和定义下列术语和定义适用于本文件。

3.1组织 organization为实现目标(3.8),由职责、权限和相互关系构成自身功能的一个人或一组人。

注:组织的概念包括但不限于代理商、公司、集团、商行、企事业单位、行政机构、合营公司、慈善机构或研究机构,或上述组织的部分或组合,无论是否为法人组织、公有的或私有的。

3.2相关方 interested party;stakeholder可能影响决策或活动、或受决策或活动影响、或自认为受决策或活动影响的个人或组织(3.1)。

3.3要求 requirement明示的、通常隐含的或必须履行的需求或期望。

注1:“通常隐含”是指组织(3.1)和相关方(3.2)的惯例或一般做法,所考虑的需求或期望是不言而喻的。

注2:规定要求是经明示的要求,例如在成文信息(3.11)中阐明。

3.4管理体系 management system组织(3.1)建立方针(3.7)和目标(3.8)以及实现这些目标的过程(3.12)的相互关联或相互作用的一组要素。

注1:一个管理体系可能针对单一的领域或几个领域。

注2:管理体系要素包括组织结构、岗位和职责、策划和运行。

注3:管理体系的范围包括整个组织,组织中可被明确识别的职能或可被明确识别的部门,以及跨组织的单一职能或多个职能。

3.5最高管理者 top management在最高层指挥和控制组织(3.1)的一个人或一组人。

注1:最高管理者在组织内有授权和提供资源的权力。

注2:如果管理体系(3.4)的范围只覆盖组织的一部分,在这种情况下,最高管理者是指管理和控制组织这部分的一个人或一组人。

3.6有效性 effectiveness完成策划的活动并得到策划结果的程度。

Organization Objectives Stakeholders

Organization Objectives Stakeholders
Avoid excessive pressure on small or weaker suppliers to cut price
Pay fair prices and pay invoices promptly
EXTERNAL Stakeholders Government
Stakeholder Interest
Share ownership schemes (between workers,
managers, and shareholders)
Advantages: The right to buy shares at a specific price or time allows workers to benefit from the success of the business and aligns the employee interests with the shareholders. Disadvantages: Administration costs; decline in employee motivation if stock price falls; dilution of stock for all shareholders; motivation maybe limited for employees if there is a time requirement to earn shares.
Security of their loans Pay interest
and the ability of the
Pay back capital owed
business to repay them
Prompt payment of

创建领导力(英文)

创建领导力(英文)

Communication Funnel: Be patient, Repeat, Sympathy
How to Initiate Group Synergy
-- Organization Culture
Creating a supportive communication climate Free flow of messages Do not attempt to control others Be direct and straightforward in meaning Show concerns Act like a partner Never show you know the answer Never say no to your “customer” Additional data are welcome
Staff Mgmt. Efficiency
Interv./Sele. Staffing H/C v.s Actual Initiatives
Issue Handling Efficiency
Comple. v.s needed Proper. v.s improper. Big issue v.s commen Over Wright cases
GE Welch 31 Leadership
-- The successful Model
Change, Before its too late,
GE Welch 31 Leadership
-- Organization Culture
Change, Before its too late,
Low
5
or P
  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
Anne Zhang Training Manager , Learning & Development Center, April 24, 2011
People. Partnership. Performance.
Establish Customer Focused Culture
Stakeholder Exercise for PA_Minerals
a.请每个学员分别写出每类利益相关者的三个主要期望(e.g.: Product, services; Quality, speed; Behavior, attitude; Relationship with them),分别写在小告示贴上,每张纸一条, 共18条 b. 写完后分别贴在相应的利益相关者项下 c. 每组选择一个利益相关者,汇总并总结主要要求和期望,按顺序排列,黑色白板笔写在 白板纸上 d. 举例说明
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 10
2.内部相关合作部门(Internal Related Function)
期望/要求 期望 要求 如何满足/超越期望 如何满足 超越期望 1.销售部门希望运营部门提高项目进展速度 (课前练习) 销售部门希望运营部门提高项目进展速度 课前练习) 2.能 真诚、顺畅地沟通 能 真诚、 3.能够获得坚定的支持,及时反馈结果 能够获得坚定的支持, 能够获得坚定的支持 4.希望财务部门的报表清晰、明确、条理清 希望财务部门的报表清晰、明确、 希望财务部门的报表清晰 楚 5.采购及时 采购及时 6.有担当,能主动承担责任,不踢皮球 有担当,能主动承担责任, 有担当 1.定期调研,主动、准确了解对方需求,提 供及时的支持 2.职能划分清晰,不相互推诿,及时处理份 内职责,及时反馈工作进程与结果 3.端正工作态度,不要情绪化 4.部门之间有清晰的接口,按流程规范办事 (课后更新) 课后更新) 1.发出E-Mail之后,及时用电话沟通 2.在寻求帮助之前,站在对方的立场,考虑 对方的难处 3.不承诺没有把握或权限的任务,要与自己 的Line Manager及时沟通
Customer / Stakeholder Identification
Definitions Stakeholder (corporate) - a person, group, organization, or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions A customer, also client, buyer or purchaser is the buyer or user of the paid products of an individual or organization, mostly called the supplier or seller. This is typically through purchasing or renting goods or services. Key stakeholder/customers(主要利益相关者 客户) 主要利益相关者/客户 主要利益相关者 客户) We provide support, service 我们提供支持、服务 我们提供支持、 Those who will be affected by our work 会对我们的工作产 生影响的
Mahatma. Gandhi穆罕默德. 甘地 穆罕默德. 穆罕默德
Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) Mahatma (Sanskrit, “great soul”), a title reserved for the greatest sages
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 4
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 8
JVs (SAS 实例)
期望/要求 期望 要求
1.
如何满足/超越期望 如何满足 超越期望
收到凭证及时准确记录 Supervisor认真审核确保准确 及时准确发出报告 定时财务分析,及时发现并解决问题
工作质量-及时准确
2.
良ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ的沟通、合作
1.外部客户(External Customer)
期望/要求 期望 要求 1.希望产品的价格更加合理 希望产品的价格更加合理 2.希望产品质量有保证,能满足工程技 希望产品质量有保证, 希望产品质量有保证 术的要求 3.希望交货期能够保证,不拖延 希望交货期能够保证, 希望交货期能够保证 4.希望能够获得及时、高效的服务 希望能够获得及时、 希望能够获得及时 5.希望能获得及时的技术更新和足够的培训 希望能获得及时的技术更新和足够的培训 6.希望变更需求后不用增加额外的费用 希望变更需求后不用增加额外的费用 如何满足/超越期望 如何满足 超越期望 (课前练习) 课前练习) 1.定期回访客户,及时充分了解客户的需求 2.加强研发投入,保证技术领先 3.面对客户不合理的要求,及时解释与引导, 但尽量满足合理要求 4.对客户的要求做出及时的回应与确认,无 论如何处理,先以电话或邮件回复 5.给客户提供充分、实用的培训 6.持续跟踪解决方案流程,保证产品质量 (课后更新) 课后更新) 1.提高服务客户的意识 2.谈到竞争对手时不是打压对方,而是突出自 己的优势
Day Two 09:00-12:30 12:30-13:30 13:30-16:30 16:30-17:45 17:45-18:00 MOT—Think Customer & Act Win-win Lunch Time MOT—Act Win-win Exercise Update & Individual Action Plan Recognition, Feedback and closing
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 5
Customer / Stakeholder Identification Exercise
Step1: Brainstorm 头脑风暴,各小组组员列出所有 头脑风暴, 并进行小组汇总(25’ 的利益相关者 并进行小组汇总(25’)
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 2
The 2-day workshop rewards
Criteria: Quota:
最佳参与小组: 2 : 最佳参与个人: 12
参与程度,踊跃发言次数
Approach:
最佳参与小组选举方法:以小组为单位,每组选2个,集体投票(本组除外) 最佳参与个人选举方法:pair group 合作小组给对方小组组员投票,每组一票 票数最多的小组和个人当选
Rewards:
最佳参与小组I奖品:? 最佳参与个人奖品?
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 3
Customer Care 关心客户
Customer is the most important visitor on our premises. 客户是我们企业最重要的客人。 客户是我们企业最重要的客人。 He is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him. 他并不依靠我们,我们却依靠着他。 他并不依靠我们,我们却依靠着他。 He is not an interruption to our work. He is the purpose of it. 他并没有打断我们的工作,他正是我们工作的目的。 他并没有打断我们的工作,他正是我们工作的目的。 He is not an outsider to our business. He is part of it. 他不是我们业务的局外人,他是我们业务工作的一部分。 他不是我们业务的局外人,他是我们业务工作的一部分。 We are not doing him a favor by serving him. He is doing us a favor by giving us an opportunity to do so. 我们并没有通过给他们服务而给他们施恩。正相反,他在施惠于我们。 我们并没有通过给他们服务而给他们施恩。正相反,他在施惠于我们。
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 7
Customer / Stakeholder Identification Exercise
Step3_1: 6A: 请教室 的6组换位思考:如果我是利益相关者,我对 请教室A的 组换位思考 如果我是利益相关者,我对ABB 组换位思考: PA minerals 业务部门 团队有什么期望 要求 (25’) 业务部门/团队有什么期望 要求? 团队有什么期望/要求 )
Step2: Consolidation 大组分类汇总 类) (20’) 大组分类汇总(6 )
每组轮流发言,大家一起汇总 记录并统计出6大类利益相关者(前6名) 在大白纸上(蓝色白板笔)分别写下利益相关者的名称(2 组,12张纸),其中6张(教室A)写下“期望/要求”;6张 (教室B)写下“满足/超出期望的行动”
准确了解客户的需求 反应快速,并及时解释其原因 良好的头攻技巧 合理化建议 熟悉财务的等工作知识 了解财务系统SAP 对客户的问题可提供专业反馈 对客户提供相关培训 自我学习
3.
专业性
4.
工作态度
语气、语调 站在客户立场上思考问题 积极主动地沟通
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 9
© ABB Group May 26, 2011 | Slide 11
3.管理层(Line Manager)
期望/要求 期望 要求 1.希望各部门之间能高效地沟通与合作 希望各部门之间能高效地沟通与合作 2.希望下属的工作态度主动、积极,有担 希望下属的工作态度主动、积极, 希望下属的工作态度主动 当,能享受工作并不断进步 3.能对工作进度与结果进行主动的反馈 能对工作进度与结果进行主动的反馈 4.积极拓展业务,使业务获得较快的增长 积极拓展业务, 积极拓展业务 与发展 5.节约运营的成本,减少无谓的浪费 节约运营的成本, 节约运营的成本 如何满足/超越期望 如何满足 超越期望 (课前练习) 课前练习) 1.准确理解老板的意图与指示 2.主动、及时、保质、高效地完成工作,不 拖沓 3.及时反馈工作进程与最新进展 4.提供真实可靠的信息供老板决策。 (课后更新) 课后更新) 1.理解老板意图需要倾听技巧,并确认自己 的理解是否正确 2.应当当天完成的工作,不拖到第二天 3.像关心自己的财产一样,不浪费公司的资 源 4.发生糟糕的事情时,更要及时和Line Manager沟通,争取更多扭转不利趋势的时 间 5.老板也是客户,要增强服务意识
相关文档
最新文档