IEEE Engineering Management Review

Published by Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Print ISSN: 0360-8581
Publications
Not Available
 
The purpose of risk management is to analyze the business risks of a process, application, system, or other assets to determine the most prudent method for safe operation. These assets are reviewed by the risk analysis team with the business objectives as their primary consideration. For security professionals, the best way of providing support for the organization and to ensuring that management objectives are met is through implementation of an effective risk management and risk analysis process.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. You may purchase this article from the Ask*IEEE Document Delivery Service at http://www.ieee.org/services/askieee/
 
The principles learned from implementing a Performance Management System with two hundred plus engineering managers, and two-three hundred lead engineers at a major aerospace division in the Southwest are summarized. Even though "Performance Appraisal" is traditionally looked on as an evaluative procedure intrinsically linked to salary decision, the predominant value of a total Performance Management System appears to be that management makes their expectations clear to employees and provides consistant feedback on their personal progress toward reaching these goals. The return-on-investment (ROI) ratio has been measured to be 10:1.
 
Purpose-This article examines the phenomenon of RFID (radio frequency identification) technology and its implications for both management practice and research over the next decade. Design/methodology/approach - The article examines RFID, incorporating the latest information and research findings on how the technology is being utilized today and planned for in the future. The article uses both academic and practitioner-oriented resources to support its findings. Findings - RFID is an emerging technology that is forecast to grow exponentially in use over the next decade. RFID, which uses radio waves to identify objects, is projected to rapidly supplant bar code technology as the principal means of identifying items in the supply chain and in a wide variety of applications. This overview of the fundamentals of RFID is presented to give the reader a working knowledge of the technology. Research limitations/ implications - The article looks over the horizon at implications for management research, outlining how this represents a greenfield opportunity for research directed at a wide variety of topics and settings in the broad management discipline. Practical implications - The article concludes with a look at RFID's implications for our day-today business and personal lives, including a number of cutting-edge applications for the technology. Originality/value - In this article, the author gives the history of RFID technology, how it works, how it differs from bar codes from a technical and operational perspective, and how RFID provides organizations with a unique opportunity to create value through the use of this new media technology.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. You may purchase this article from the Ask*IEEE Document Delivery Service at http://www.ieee.org/services/askieee/
 
Acknowledging the sea change that has occurred in the USA following 9/11, we have to be cognizant of the fact that, as a result, our lives will most certainly change. How will our companies deal with the unexpected impact of this tragedy? And how are individuals in the companies managing the change that is inevitable in light of the present economic and political circumstances? What do individuals have to do in order to promote greater productivity within a company? We can no longer be complacent in our jobs or in our lives as a whole if we are going to continue to be the great nation that we are. We have to take responsibility and be proactive in our jobs. And this takes courage. We have to come to grips with habits and thinking that keep us bound to the past. We have to see that our fellow workers are properly trained; we have to take responsibility for that training, whether we give it or receive it. We have to be open to suggestions and take responsibility for making suggestions as well as implementing them.
 
The Swedish ship Vasa was one of the most spectacular warships ever built. On its maiden voyage in August of 1628, after going less than one mile, the vessel keeled over and sank 110 feet to the bottom of the Stockholm harbor. Fifty crewmembers went down with the ship. It was truly a disaster-and an excellent example of a failure in the new-product development process. In this article, we show how insights gleaned from the Vasa incident are relevant to contemporary organizations. Seven potential problems in new-product development are examined. Together, these problems comprise the Vasa syndrome - a complex set of challenges that can ultimately overwhelm an organization's capabilities. Each problem provides an opportunity to develop managerial competencies in understanding these problem areas, linking these problems to failures described in the Vasa case and contemporary organizations, and determining how to avoid or minimize these problems in the new-product development process. The Vasa case and examples from contemporary organizations demonstrate how history continues to repeat itself in the process of new-product development, and we provide guidelines on how to avoid falling prey to the Vasa syndrome.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
There is a new wave of business communication tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging software - which the author has dubbed, collectively, Enterprise 2.0 - that allow for more spontaneous, knowledge-based collaboration. These new tools, the author contends, may well supplant other communication and knowledge management systems with their superior ability to capture tacit knowledge, best practices and relevant experiences from throughout a company and make them readily available to more users. This article offers a paradigm that highlights the salient characteristics of these new technologies, which the author refers to as SLATES (search, links, authoring, tags, extensions, signals). The resulting organizational communication patterns can lead to highly productive and highly collaborative environments by making both the practices of knowledge work and its outputs more visible. Drawing on case studies and survey data, the article offers managers a set of ground rules for implementing the new technologies. First, it is necessary to create a receptive culture in order to prepare the way for new practices. Second, a common platform must be created to allow for a collaboration infrastructure. Third, an informal rollout of the technologies may be preferred to a more formal procedural change. And fourth, managerial support and leadership is crucial. Even when implanted and implemented well, these new technologies will certainly bring with them new challenges. These tools may well reduce management's ability to exert unilateral control and to express some level of negativity. Whether a company's leaders really want this to happen and will be able to resist the temptation to silence dissent is an open question. Leaders will have to play a delicate role if they want Enterprise 2.0 technologies to succeed.
 
Faced with the variability of labor supply, some organizations considered older workers as a viable, untapped resource that can easily be used more effectively or reincorporated in the workplace. This practice would alleviate the labor shortage for quality people for all levels of jobs. In addition, the federal government recently made it more attractive for retirees to return to the workforce with the passage of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000, which repealed the Social Security earnings limit.
 
In the 13 years since Paul Klimstra and Joseph Potts offered readers of Research · Technology Management a view of the state of the art in managing R&D projects, a number of technological and behavioral developments have occurred that make it necessary to reconsider the current state of the discipline. This report considers some of the more significant changes and advances, and the current state of thinking in project management, based on a review of the literature and theoretical and empirical research from the decade of the 1990s. It encompasses the areas of risk management, scheduling, structure, project team coordination, control, and the impact of new technologies.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. You may purchase this article from the Ask*IEEE Document Delivery Service at http://www.ieee.org/services/askieee/
 
Many executives and managers embrace intuition as an effective approach to important decisions. Indeed, recent surveys and business press articles indicate broad support for the use of intuition when making strategic decisions. The need for quick decisions, the need to cope with demands created by complex market forces, and the assumed benefits of applying deeply held knowledge combine to create strong perceived value for the intuitive approach. Intuition, however, has not been subjected to sufficient review, particularly in a forum for executives and other managers. This article responds to the need for critical evaluation. Utilizing holistic hunch and automated expertise as two fundamental definitions, our review evaluates intuition's costs and benefits in light of an organization's goals. Drawing evidence from the fields of behavioral decision making, strategic decision making, and mental modeling, our conclusions suggest intuition is a troublesome decision tool. To contribute to effective managerial practice, we offer tactics that decision makers can use to make intuitive judgments and choices less troublesome.
 
The National Research Council (NRC) assembled a committee to address the scarcity of broad-based study of the effectiveness of the patent system. The committee's report provides a unique and timely perspective on how well the patent system is adapting to evolving conditions and focuses particularly on how patenting practices affect researchers and universities. Overall, the committee supports several steps to ensure the vitality and improve the functioning of the patent system, and these are as follows: preserve an open-ended, unitary, flexible patent system; reinvigorate the nonobviousness standard; institute an "Open Review" procedure; strengthen USPTO resources; shield some research uses of patented inventions from liability for infringement; modify or remove the subjective elements of litigation; and harmonize the U.S., European, and Japanese patent examination systems.
 
Good writing style is easy to recognize but difficult to achieve. The basic elements to be considered for effective business communications are: clarity, content, organization, readability, words, sentences, paragraphs, and the readers. Content and organization comprise the preliminary steps. The choice and management of words, sentences, and paragraphs contribute to the clarity and readability of the text. Enveloping all these, however, must be an awareness of the readers' needs. With these guidelines in use, the objectives of business communications¿to inform, to analyze, to persuade, to instruct¿ can be realized.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. You may purchase this article from the Ask*IEEE Document Delivery Service at http://www.ieee.org/services/askieee/
 
A major high-order thinking skill that enables engineers to successfully perform systems engineering tasks is Engineering Systems Thinking. To successfully perform their tasks, systems engineers need a systems view or, in other words, a high capacity for engineering systems thinking (CEST). This paper summarizes the findings of three studies aimed at identifying the knowledge, abilities, cognitive characteristics (thinking skills) and personal traits (behavioral competences) of systems engineers with high capacity for engineering systems thinking (or, in other words, successful systems engineers). The findings suggest that successful systems engineers possess interdisciplinary knowledge. They are expert in at least one main field but have general knowledge in additional fields and disciplines. They become familiar with the jargon and professional language of the other disciplines, and are able to communicate with people or experts from different fields and disciplines. Overall, 10 cognitive characteristics, 11 abilities, and 10 behavioral competences were identified. In addition, nine additional roles of systems engineering were identified.
 
Technology roadmapping has been applied successfully in many industrial organizations. Designed to facilitate and communicate technology strategy and planning, roadmaps (or, as in Europe, route maps) can take a variety of specific forms, depending on the type (opportunities, capabilities, products, technologies, etc.) and particular company context. While roadmaps are generally manifest in a number of "program elements or levels" superimposed upon a timeline, experienced mappers often claim that it is "roadmapping" rather than "the roadmap" that generates the value. This special report focuses primarily on product and technology roadmaps. Following an introduction to the evolution, purpose and applications of corporate/industry roadmapping, four industry-developed articles examine roadmapping in Lucent Technologies, Rockwell Automation, the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry, and UK-based Domino Printing Sciences.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. You may purchase this article from the Ask*IEEE Document Delivery Service at http://www.ieee.org/services/askieee/
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. You may purchase this article from the Ask*IEEE Document Delivery Service at http://www.ieee.org/services/askieee/
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
Major changes in MA can be traced to changes in (1) format (2) data utilized, (3) data content, and (4) methodology. New developments, however, have been more technical than fundamental in nature and represent by and large an extension of existing ideas. Undoubtedly, the whole MA system will become more decision oriented and for this reason will grow in size and become somewhat disjointed because the decision-making process ¿ due to the large number of unconnected models used at present ¿ is still rather atomistic in nature. Note should be taken also of the fact that the development in MA has been somewhat different in the U.S. and in Europe. The European emphasis has been much more in the area of theory formation ¿ as demonstrated by the contributions of Gutenberg and Heinen; in the U.S. the emphasis has been an operational solution, a typically pragmatic approach to assure progress by dealing with specific methods whenever the need arose. Neither one of the two appears to be sufficient by itself, because at this point only a more theoretical basis for integration of certain specific methods seems to be best suited for detecting gaps and developing conceptual approaches to close these. In view of this, the conclusion is inescapable that progress in the past years ¿ apparently overwhelming if only the number of publications is considered ¿ has fallen short of spectacular results because of a dominant preoccupation with technicalities.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
Many business thinkers believe it's the role of senior managers to scan the external environment to monitor contingencies and constraints, and to use that precise knowledge to modify the company's strategy and design. As these thinkers see it, managers need accurate and abundant information to carry out that role. According to that logic, it makes sense to invest heavily in systems for collecting and organizing competitive information. Another school of pundits contends that, since today's complex information often isn't precise anyway, it's not worth going overboard with such investments. In other words, it's not the accuracy and abundance of information that should matter most to top executives-rather, it's how that information is interpreted. After all, the role of senior managers isn't just to make decisions; it's to set direction and motivate others in the face of ambiguities and conflicting demands. Top executives must interpret information and communicate those interpretations-they must manage meaning more than they must manage information. So which of these competing views is the right one? Research conducted by academics Sutcliffe and Weber found that how accurate senior executives are about their competitive environments is indeed less important for strategy and corresponding organizational changes than the way in which they interpret information about their environments. Investments in shaping those interpretations, therefore, may create a more durable competitive advantage than investments in obtaining and organizing more information. And what kinds of interpretations are most closely linked with high performance? Their research suggests that high performers respond positively to opportunities, yet they aren't overconfident in their abilities to take advantage of those opportunities.
 
Some of the unique characteristics of the technologist helps him to achieve. But there are others¿such as his inflexibilities and discomforts with doubt¿that retard him. Let's separate the two and see how to get everything working together.
 
This paper examines techniques for dealing with the high output engineer who refuses to go by the rules others seem to accept as part of their job. Typical myths about these super achievers are explored and methods for coping as a manager are presented. Techniques for maintaining the high output of the super achiever while attempting to conform to standards are shown.
 
Companies need a systematic process to activate deept customer focus that shapes priorities, behavior and systems. Commitment is critical. Limp acceptance is lethal for any change initiative. The process can be mapped into 10 critical breakthroughs that help delineate the stages the company must go through. The ten breakthroughs are as follows: create strategic excitement; enlist points of light; articulate the new market space; identify the value opportunities; build a compelling case; size the prize; model the concept; get people working together; get critical mass; and gather momentum. Research has shown that these breakthroughs are remarkably consistent across enterprises and industries.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. You may purchase this article from the Ask*IEEE Document Delivery Service at http://www.ieee.org/services/askieee/
 
This publication contains reprint articles for which IEEE does not hold copyright. Full text is not available on IEEE Xplore for these articles.
 
Top-cited authors
Harold Demsetz
  • University of California, Los Angeles
Ram Nidumolu
  • Indian School of Business
Patricia G. Greene
  • Babson College
John Sterman
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jeanne W. Ross
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology