Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

An approach to environmental analysis and forecasting that educational policymakers can employ in dealing with the level of uncertainty in strategic decision making is presented. Traditional planning models are weak in identifying environmental changes and assessing their organizational impact. The proposed approach does not lead decision makers to conclude that the uncertainty they perceive in the external environment has been reduced. It enhances their capability to deal with a changing environment by making the uncertainty they perceive explicit (via analysis and evaluation of alternative future states of an organization's environment and the source of change within it). Topics of discussion include: environmental analysis and forecasting; issue identification; environmental scanning; structuring issues; forecasting; cross impact analysis; alternative scenarios (demonstration, driving force, and system change); policy analysis; and action plans. A case study illustrating the application to the strategic planning process of a two-year college is provided. It looks at the participants in the process (drawn from across the college's administrative and instructional staff), scanning the external environment from a variety of sources, forecasting external changes, refining the forecast, developing the cross impact model, developing alternative scenarios, conducting the policy analysis, incorporating the strategies into the college's ongoing activities, and benefits and limitations. Problems, issues, and needed research are noted. It is concluded that by using the best available information, it is possible to anticipate plausible alternative futures and limit the number of unanticipated possibilities to the smallest possible set. Contains 180 references. (SM)

Both publicly and privately funded research projects managed by universities are growing in size and scope. Complex, large-scale projects (over $50 million) pose new management challenges and risks for universities. This paper explores the relationship between project success and a variety of factors in large-scale university projects. First, we characterize the challenge of large-scale university research project management, synthesize findings from the literature, and identify research gaps. Second, we offer a profile of large-scale U.S. university-run projects based on a survey conducted by us. The projects address a range of research from large-scale clinical trials to the construction of complex scientific instruments. While NIH is the largest overall government funder of university research, NASA is the largest funder of these large-scale university projects. Third, we share some preliminary results from our survey. While universities often meet their technical performance goals, cost and schedule overruns are common and can be significant. Qualitative data confirmed that research project managers face anti-management challenges in the university setting and challenges with project management techniques not tailored to the university. (Contains 4 figures and 5 endnotes.)

Both publicly and privately funded research projects managed by universities are growing in size and scope. Complex, large-scale projects (over $50 million) pose new management challenges and risks for universities. This paper explores the relationship between project success and a variety of factors in large-scale university projects. First, we characterize the challenge of large-scale university research project management, synthesize findings from the literature, and identify research gaps. Second, we offer a profile of large-scale U.S. university-run projects based on a survey conducted by us. The projects address a range of research from large-scale clinical trials to the construction of complex scientific instruments. While NIH is the largest overall government funder of university research, NASA is the largest funder of these large-scale university projects. Third, we share some preliminary results from our survey. While universities often meet their technical performance goals, cost and schedule overruns are common and can be significant. Qualitative data confirmed that research project managers face anti-management challenges in the university setting and challenges with project management techniques not tailored to the university. (Contains 4 figures and 5 endnotes.)

Both publicly and privately funded research projects managed by universities are growing in size and scope. Complex, large-scale projects (over $50 million) pose new management challenges and risks for universities. This paper explores the relationship between project success and a variety of factors in large-scale university projects. First, we characterize the challenge of large-scale university research project management, synthesize findings from the literature, and identify research gaps. Second, we offer a profile of large-scale U.S. university-run projects based on a survey conducted by us. The projects address a range of research from large-scale clinical trials to the construction of complex scientific instruments. While NIH is the largest overall government funder of university research, NASA is the largest funder of these large-scale university projects. Third, we share some preliminary results from our survey. While universities often meet their technical performance goals, cost and schedule overruns are common and can be significant. Qualitative data confirmed that research project managers face anti-management challenges in the university setting and challenges with project management techniques not tailored to the university. (Contains 4 figures and 5 endnotes.)

Both publicly and privately funded research projects managed by universities are growing in size and scope. Complex, large-scale projects (over $50 million) pose new management challenges and risks for universities. This paper explores the relationship between project success and a variety of factors in large-scale university projects. First, we characterize the challenge of large-scale university research project management, synthesize findings from the literature, and identify research gaps. Second, we offer a profile of large-scale U.S. university-run projects based on a survey conducted by us. The projects address a range of research from large-scale clinical trials to the construction of complex scientific instruments. While NIH is the largest overall government funder of university research, NASA is the largest funder of these large-scale university projects. Third, we share some preliminary results from our survey. While universities often meet their technical performance goals, cost and schedule overruns are common and can be significant. Qualitative data confirmed that research project managers face anti-management challenges in the university setting and challenges with project management techniques not tailored to the university. (Contains 4 figures and 5 endnotes.)

Both publicly and privately funded research projects managed by universities are growing in size and scope. Complex, large-scale projects (over $50 million) pose new management challenges and risks for universities. This paper explores the relationship between project success and a variety of factors in large-scale university projects. First, we characterize the challenge of large-scale university research project management, synthesize findings from the literature, and identify research gaps. Second, we offer a profile of large-scale U.S. university-run projects based on a survey conducted by us. The projects address a range of research from large-scale clinical trials to the construction of complex scientific instruments. While NIH is the largest overall government funder of university research, NASA is the largest funder of these large-scale university projects. Third, we share some preliminary results from our survey. While universities often meet their technical performance goals, cost and schedule overruns are common and can be significant. Qualitative data confirmed that research project managers face anti-management challenges in the university setting and challenges with project management techniques not tailored to the university. (Contains 4 figures and 5 endnotes.)

Both publicly and privately funded research projects managed by universities are growing in size and scope. Complex, large-scale projects (over $50 million) pose new management challenges and risks for universities. This paper explores the relationship between project success and a variety of factors in large-scale university projects. First, we characterize the challenge of large-scale university research project management, synthesize findings from the literature, and identify research gaps. Second, we offer a profile of large-scale U.S. university-run projects based on a survey conducted by us. The projects address a range of research from large-scale clinical trials to the construction of complex scientific instruments. While NIH is the largest overall government funder of university research, NASA is the largest funder of these large-scale university projects. Third, we share some preliminary results from our survey. While universities often meet their technical performance goals, cost and schedule overruns are common and can be significant. Qualitative data confirmed that research project managers face anti-management challenges in the university setting and challenges with project management techniques not tailored to the university. (Contains 4 figures and 5 endnotes.)

Both publicly and privately funded research projects managed by universities are growing in size and scope. Complex, large-scale projects (over $50 million) pose new management challenges and risks for universities. This paper explores the relationship between project success and a variety of factors in large-scale university projects. First, we characterize the challenge of large-scale university research project management, synthesize findings from the literature, and identify research gaps. Second, we offer a profile of large-scale U.S. university-run projects based on a survey conducted by us. The projects address a range of research from large-scale clinical trials to the construction of complex scientific instruments. While NIH is the largest overall government funder of university research, NASA is the largest funder of these large-scale university projects. Third, we share some preliminary results from our survey. While universities often meet their technical performance goals, cost and schedule overruns are common and can be significant. Qualitative data confirmed that research project managers face anti-management challenges in the university setting and challenges with project management techniques not tailored to the university. (Contains 4 figures and 5 endnotes.)

The Department of Defense (DoD) has an annual budget approaching a half-trillion dollars. A significant portion of that budget is either directly or indirectly affected by Information Technology (IT) Infrastructure modernization initiatives. Nationally, investment in IT infrastructure modernization is about $250 Billion a year, spanning approximately 175,000 projects. Unfortunately, various studies indicate that only 28% are completed on time and on budget-with the number dropping to around 9% for larger companies in 1994, including government programs. By 1998, these numbers had improved, with success rates for larger companies, for example, up to 24%. But, only small organizations have managed to implement more than half of their applications into one integrated system (Smith, 2000; Johnson, 1999, December; Keller, 2006, May 29). The factors driving these numbers are myriad-and include the sheer scope and complexity of infrastructure modernization programs, unstable/undefined requirements, unstable funding, moving target objectives, and evolving threats. As a result, the costs of integration complexity increase exponentially, but yet are almost invariably under estimated. These challenges notwithstanding, one Gartner study asserts that IT asset productivity will drive market capitalization (Gartner, 2002, July). Given the scope, importance and complexity of these projects, reliable, cost- effective, early warning indicators of problems are essential. Yet, classical investment theory provides little guidance for dealing with public-sector investment. The result is a general absence of computationally efficient, predictive models applicable to the analysis of those investments.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has an annual budget approaching a half-trillion dollars. A significant portion of that budget is either directly or indirectly affected by Information Technology (IT) Infrastructure modernization initiatives. Nationally, investment in IT infrastructure modernization is about $250 Billion a year, spanning approximately 175,000 projects. Unfortunately, various studies indicate that only 28% are completed on time and on budget-with the number dropping to around 9% for larger companies in 1994, including government programs. By 1998, these numbers had improved, with success rates for larger companies, for example, up to 24%. But, only small organizations have managed to implement more than half of their applications into one integrated system (Smith, 2000; Johnson, 1999, December; Keller, 2006, May 29). The factors driving these numbers are myriad-and include the sheer scope and complexity of infrastructure modernization programs, unstable/undefined requirements, unstable funding, moving target objectives, and evolving threats. As a result, the costs of integration complexity increase exponentially, but yet are almost invariably under estimated. These challenges notwithstanding, one Gartner study asserts that IT asset productivity will drive market capitalization (Gartner, 2002, July). Given the scope, importance and complexity of these projects, reliable, cost- effective, early warning indicators of problems are essential. Yet, classical investment theory provides little guidance for dealing with public-sector investment. The result is a general absence of computationally efficient, predictive models applicable to the analysis of those investments.

Mike’s proven record in managing crises as mayor of America’s largest city is exactly the kind of leadership we need in the White House — not the chaos and uncertainty of the current administration. https://t.co/eygpBRO2dm Source: https://twitter.com/Mike2020/status/1233085280019779585 Uploader: Team Bloomberg

Includes bibliographical references

The Coronavirus was just declared a global health emergency by the World Health Organization. Mike's proven record in managing crises as mayor of America's largest city is the kind of leadership we need — not the chaos and uncertainty of the current administration. https://t.co/TcQiHuvGNo Source: https://twitter.com/Mike2020/status/1222982137260933120 Uploader: Team Bloomberg

The Coronavirus was just declared a global health emergency by the World Health Organization. Mike's proven record in managing crises as mayor of America's largest city is the kind of leadership we need — not the chaos and uncertainty of the current administration. https://t.co/TcQiHuvGNo Source: https://twitter.com/Mike2020/status/1222982137260933120 Uploader: Team Bloomberg

The Coronavirus was just declared a global health emergency by the World Health Organization. Mike's proven record in managing crises as mayor of America's largest city is the kind of leadership we need — not the chaos and uncertainty of the current administration. https://t.co/TcQiHuvGNo Source: https://twitter.com/Mike2020/status/1222982137260933120 Uploader: Team Bloomberg

The defense acquisition system may be improved through tough, sometimes controversial, decision making based on risk. Three areas of risk management will be examined in the form of good projections of technology maturation, achievable requirements, and producibility. Technology maturation risk will examine the technologies being pursued by major defense acquisition programs and whether the available technologies were underdeveloped at Milestone B based on technology readiness levels (TRL). The requirements investigation will examine how well the program was able to define requirements, map requirements against achievable near term technology, and keep requirements from expanding beyond the core set needed for the mission (what many refer to as mission creep). Producibility risk, defined as the ability to produce end items within the projected cost and schedule, will be examined in terms of overall program cost and schedule growth or program restructurings. Some major defense acquisition programs as case examples will be examined to determine influencing factors that affect program acquisition that are beyond the ability of the program office to control. Recommendations are included for areas of further study.

The defense acquisition system may be improved through tough, sometimes controversial, decision making based on risk. Three areas of risk management will be examined in the form of good projections of technology maturation, achievable requirements, and producibility. Technology maturation risk will examine the technologies being pursued by major defense acquisition programs and whether the available technologies were underdeveloped at Milestone B based on technology readiness levels (TRL). The requirements investigation will examine how well the program was able to define requirements, map requirements against achievable near term technology, and keep requirements from expanding beyond the core set needed for the mission (what many refer to as mission creep). Producibility risk, defined as the ability to produce end items within the projected cost and schedule, will be examined in terms of overall program cost and schedule growth or program restructurings. Some major defense acquisition programs as case examples will be examined to determine influencing factors that affect program acquisition that are beyond the ability of the program office to control. Recommendations are included for areas of further study.

The defense acquisition system may be improved through tough, sometimes controversial, decision making based on risk. Three areas of risk management will be examined in the form of good projections of technology maturation, achievable requirements, and producibility. Technology maturation risk will examine the technologies being pursued by major defense acquisition programs and whether the available technologies were underdeveloped at Milestone B based on technology readiness levels (TRL). The requirements investigation will examine how well the program was able to define requirements, map requirements against achievable near term technology, and keep requirements from expanding beyond the core set needed for the mission (what many refer to as mission creep). Producibility risk, defined as the ability to produce end items within the projected cost and schedule, will be examined in terms of overall program cost and schedule growth or program restructurings. Some major defense acquisition programs as case examples will be examined to determine influencing factors that affect program acquisition that are beyond the ability of the program office to control. Recommendations are included for areas of further study.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3349 created on 2022-01-31 16:31:25.298742+00:00.