WASHINGTON - The Bush administration would require commercial airlines and cruise-line operators to collect information such as fingerprints from international travelers and send the information to the Homeland Security Department soon after the travelers leave the country, according to a proposed rule.
The proposal, which will be announced Tuesday, will close a security gap identified after the 9/11 attacks and identify which visitors have overstayed their visas.
Airlines and cruise ship operators must already provide the department with biographical information on international passengers before they leave the country. But this rule would require biometric information — such as fingerprints — to be collected and then transmitted within 24 hours of a visitor leaving the U.S., according to a Homeland Security official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement had not yet been made.
Over 10 years, officials estimate it will cost air and sea carriers about $2.7 billion to carry out the requirement. The department plans to enforce the rule by June 30, 2009. Some air carriers have complained the federal government should cover the cost of implementing this rule.
U.S. officials already collect fingerprints from visitors when they come into the country, but the administration has yet to complete the exit portion of the tracking program — known as US-VISIT.
Lawmakers, including Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., have pressed the department to roll out its biometric exit system for more than a year.
"Any uncertainty about who is entering and leaving our country is an unacceptable risk that must be addressed," Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement Monday.
There will be a 60-day comment period for the proposed rule.
Minggu, 18 Januari 2009
Getting Things Done
Getting Things Done (commonly abbreviated as GTD) is an action management method of The David Allen Company, and the title of the book by David Allen which describes the method. Both Getting Things Done and GTD are registered trademarks of the David Allen Company.
GTD rests on the principle that a person needs to move tasks out of the mind by recording them somewhere. That way, the mind is freed from the job of remembering everything that needs to be done, and can concentrate on actually performing those tasks. What distinguishes David Allen's book from most other time- or action-management literature is the level of detail to which he describes a possible way to organize oneself.
How does GTD work?
GTD is strictly defined by David Allen on his website [1]. In time management priorities usually play a central role which is less emphasized by Allen. Instead, he promotes two key elements in time management — control and perspective. Allen advocates three major models for gaining control and perspective:
1.A workflow process
2.A framework with 6 levels of focus
3.A natural planning method
The first major model is the workflow process, which is used to gain control over all the tasks and commitments which one needs or wants to get done.[2]:20 The workflow process consists of five distinct phases listed below (with each described in greater details in the Principles section):
1.Collect
2.Process
3.Organize
4.Review
5.Do
Allen uses an altitude analogy to illustrate his second major model, 6 different levels of focus, and give perspective on tasks and commitments. These 6 levels of focus, from the bottom up, are [2]:51 :
1.Current actions
2.Current projects
3.Areas of responsibility
4.Yearly goals
5.5 year vision
6.Life goals
As you "move up" in altitude, you are able to consider the "bigger picture." The bottom level — your current to do list — is at "runway" height, and the top level — Life Goals — is at 50,000 feet, with the other 4 areas of focus at metaphorical 10,000 feet increments between the two. Considering projects, actions, unfinished business or commitments ("open loops" in GTD terminology[3]), and other "input" from a variety of "heights" gives one varying perspective.
Allen strongly advocates doing a weekly review process which utilizes the different levels of focus. The perspective gained from utilizing these different levels of focus should drive one's priorities, which in turn determines the priority of when and if one is to do the particular individual tasks and commitments gathered during the workflow process. During this weekly review, the user also determines the context for the tasks and places them on the appropriate lists. Examples of grouping together similar tasks include making a list of telephone calls to make or errands to do while downtown. Context lists can be defined by the set of tools available or by the presence of individuals or groups for whom one has items to discuss or present.
Allen expects that the first two models are sufficient most of the time to gain control and perspective on the majority of tasks and projects. However, there are some cases in which more involved planning and thinking are necessary.[2]:54 This leads to the third major model, which is the natural planning method. While the workflow model has a "horizontal" focus on doing individual tasks, the natural planning method has a "vertical" focus on planning projects and thinking through topics. The planning model consists of 5 stages which are:
1.Defining the purpose and principles
2.Envisioning the outcome
3.Brainstorming
4.Organizing
5.Identifying next actions
The psychology of GTD is based on making it easy to store, track and retrieve all the information related to the things you need to get done. Allen suggests that many of the mental blocks we encounter in regard to doing certain activities are caused by insufficient 'front-end' planning (i.e., for any project we need to clarify what is to be achieved and what specific actions are needed to achieve it). It is most practical, according to Allen, to do this thinking in advance, generating a series of actions which we can later undertake without any further planning.
Allen also contends that our mental "reminder system" is rather inefficient and seldom reminds us of what we need to do at the time and place that we can do it. Consequently, the "next actions" stored by context in the "trusted system" act as an external support which ensures that we are presented with the right reminders at the right time. There are many associated personal management tips and tricks detailed in Getting Things Done which can be useful for implementing the workflow described by Allen.
A capsule description of GTD from Allen's book Ready for Anything:
“Get everything out of your head. Make decisions about actions required on stuff when it shows up — not when it blows up. Organize reminders of your projects and the next actions on them in appropriate categories. Keep your system current, complete, and reviewed sufficiently to trust your intuitive choices about what you're doing (and not doing) at any time.”
Principles
The core principles of GTD are:
Collect
The notion of stress-free productivity starts with this step by off-loading what needs to get done from your head. Capture everything that is necessary to track, remember, or act on- in what Allen calls a bucket: a physical inbox, an email inbox, a tape recorder, a notebook, a PDA, or any combination of these. The idea here is to get everything out of one's head and into a collection device, ready for processing. All buckets should be emptied (processed) at least once per week.
Allen doesn't advocate any preferred collection method, leaving the choice to the individual. He only insists upon the importance of emptying the "buckets" regularly. Any storage space (physical inbox, email inbox, tape recorder, notebook, PDA, etc) that is processed regularly by the individual is acceptable.
Process
When processing a bucket, a strict workflow is followed:
Start at the top.
Deal with one item at a time.
Never put anything back into 'in'.
If an item requires action:
Do it (if it takes less than two minutes), OR
Delegate it, OR
Defer it.
If an item does not require action:
File it for reference, OR
Throw it away, OR
Incubate it for possible action later.
If it takes under two minutes to do something, just do it immediately. The two-minute rule is a guideline, encompassing roughly the time it would take to defer the action formally.
Organize
Allen describes a suggested set of lists which can be used to keep track of items awaiting attention:
Next actions — For every item requiring attention, decide what is the next action that can be physically taken on that item. For example, if the item is, "Write project report," the next action might be, "Email Fred for meeting minutes," or, "Call Mary to ask about report requirements." Though there may be many steps and actions required to complete the item, there will always be something that needs to be done first, and this step should be recorded in the next actions list. Preferably, these steps are organized by the context in which they can be done, such as "in the office," "by the phone," or "at the store."
Projects — Every open loop in one's life or work which requires more than one physical action to achieve becomes a project. These projects are tracked and periodically reviewed to make sure that every project has a next action associated with it, and thus can be moved forward.
Waiting for — When an action has been delegated to someone else, or when one is waiting for some external event before a project can be moved forward, this is tracked in the system and periodically checked to see if action is due, or a reminder needs to be sent.
Someday/Maybe — Things to be done at some point, but not right now. Examples might be "learn Chinese," or, "take diving holiday."
A calendar is important for keeping track of appointments and commitments; however, Allen specifically recommends that the calendar be reserved for the hard landscape: things which absolutely have to be done by a particular deadline, or meetings and appointments which are fixed in time and place. To-do items should be reserved for the next action lists.
A final key organizing component of GTD is the filing system. A filing system must be easy, simple and fun. Even a single piece of paper, if needed for reference, should get its own file if it doesn't belong in an existing folder. Allen suggests a single, alphabetically organized filing system, in order to make it as quick and easy as possible to store and retrieve the needed information.
Review
The lists of actions and reminders will be of little use if not reviewed at least daily, or whenever possible. Given the time, energy and resources available at that particular moment, decide what is the most important thing to be doing right now, and do it. If one is inclined to procrastinate, one may end up always doing the easy tasks and avoiding the difficult ones. To solve this, one can decide to do the actions of the list one by one, following their order, just like processing an inbox.
At least weekly, the discipline of GTD requires that all your outstanding actions, projects and 'waiting for' items are reviewed, making sure that any new tasks or forthcoming events are entered into your system, and that everything is up to date. Allen suggests the creation of a "tickler file" in order to help refresh one's memory each week with the outstanding tasks and projects.
Do
Any organizational system is no good if excessive time is spent organizing tasks instead of actually doing them. David Allen's contention is that if one can make it simple, easy, and fun to take the necessary actions, one will be less inclined to procrastinate or become overwhelmed with too many 'open loops'.
Tools and techniques
Tickler file
A slice of '43 Folders'
One device that Allen suggests is the tickler file for organizing your paperwork (also known as the '43 folders'). Twelve folders are used to represent each month and an additional 31 folders are used to represent each day. The folders are arranged to help remind you of activities to be done that day. Each day you open to the numbered folder representing today's date. You take all the items out of the folder and put the empty folder into the next month. This sort of management allows you to file hardcopy reminders to yourself. For instance, if you had a concert on the 12th of the month, you would store the tickets in the 12th folder, and when the 12th came around, they would be there waiting for you.
Software tools for GTD
Software tools were specifically suggested by Allen as helpful and important for implementing GTD, including digital outlining, brainstorming, and project planning applications. However, in 2001, Allen bemoaned the general lack of "good 'project management' tools," concluding:
... less structured and more functional applications will emerge in the coming years, based on the ways we naturally think and plan.[4]
Since that prediction a virtual explosion of GTD-supporting software has emerged, underscoring the influence of GTD on the world of time management. In April 2008, more than 100 software tools existed that provide the core features needed to implement Getting Things Done.[citation needed]
These software tools range from simple list managers for individuals to collaborative web applications, both free and commercial, for all popular platforms and devices. Much of this software specifically automates or reinforces the GTD methodology of collecting, processing, organizing, reviewing, and doing.
GTD rests on the principle that a person needs to move tasks out of the mind by recording them somewhere. That way, the mind is freed from the job of remembering everything that needs to be done, and can concentrate on actually performing those tasks. What distinguishes David Allen's book from most other time- or action-management literature is the level of detail to which he describes a possible way to organize oneself.
How does GTD work?
GTD is strictly defined by David Allen on his website [1]. In time management priorities usually play a central role which is less emphasized by Allen. Instead, he promotes two key elements in time management — control and perspective. Allen advocates three major models for gaining control and perspective:
1.A workflow process
2.A framework with 6 levels of focus
3.A natural planning method
The first major model is the workflow process, which is used to gain control over all the tasks and commitments which one needs or wants to get done.[2]:20 The workflow process consists of five distinct phases listed below (with each described in greater details in the Principles section):
1.Collect
2.Process
3.Organize
4.Review
5.Do
Allen uses an altitude analogy to illustrate his second major model, 6 different levels of focus, and give perspective on tasks and commitments. These 6 levels of focus, from the bottom up, are [2]:51 :
1.Current actions
2.Current projects
3.Areas of responsibility
4.Yearly goals
5.5 year vision
6.Life goals
As you "move up" in altitude, you are able to consider the "bigger picture." The bottom level — your current to do list — is at "runway" height, and the top level — Life Goals — is at 50,000 feet, with the other 4 areas of focus at metaphorical 10,000 feet increments between the two. Considering projects, actions, unfinished business or commitments ("open loops" in GTD terminology[3]), and other "input" from a variety of "heights" gives one varying perspective.
Allen strongly advocates doing a weekly review process which utilizes the different levels of focus. The perspective gained from utilizing these different levels of focus should drive one's priorities, which in turn determines the priority of when and if one is to do the particular individual tasks and commitments gathered during the workflow process. During this weekly review, the user also determines the context for the tasks and places them on the appropriate lists. Examples of grouping together similar tasks include making a list of telephone calls to make or errands to do while downtown. Context lists can be defined by the set of tools available or by the presence of individuals or groups for whom one has items to discuss or present.
Allen expects that the first two models are sufficient most of the time to gain control and perspective on the majority of tasks and projects. However, there are some cases in which more involved planning and thinking are necessary.[2]:54 This leads to the third major model, which is the natural planning method. While the workflow model has a "horizontal" focus on doing individual tasks, the natural planning method has a "vertical" focus on planning projects and thinking through topics. The planning model consists of 5 stages which are:
1.Defining the purpose and principles
2.Envisioning the outcome
3.Brainstorming
4.Organizing
5.Identifying next actions
The psychology of GTD is based on making it easy to store, track and retrieve all the information related to the things you need to get done. Allen suggests that many of the mental blocks we encounter in regard to doing certain activities are caused by insufficient 'front-end' planning (i.e., for any project we need to clarify what is to be achieved and what specific actions are needed to achieve it). It is most practical, according to Allen, to do this thinking in advance, generating a series of actions which we can later undertake without any further planning.
Allen also contends that our mental "reminder system" is rather inefficient and seldom reminds us of what we need to do at the time and place that we can do it. Consequently, the "next actions" stored by context in the "trusted system" act as an external support which ensures that we are presented with the right reminders at the right time. There are many associated personal management tips and tricks detailed in Getting Things Done which can be useful for implementing the workflow described by Allen.
A capsule description of GTD from Allen's book Ready for Anything:
“Get everything out of your head. Make decisions about actions required on stuff when it shows up — not when it blows up. Organize reminders of your projects and the next actions on them in appropriate categories. Keep your system current, complete, and reviewed sufficiently to trust your intuitive choices about what you're doing (and not doing) at any time.”
Principles
The core principles of GTD are:
Collect
The notion of stress-free productivity starts with this step by off-loading what needs to get done from your head. Capture everything that is necessary to track, remember, or act on- in what Allen calls a bucket: a physical inbox, an email inbox, a tape recorder, a notebook, a PDA, or any combination of these. The idea here is to get everything out of one's head and into a collection device, ready for processing. All buckets should be emptied (processed) at least once per week.
Allen doesn't advocate any preferred collection method, leaving the choice to the individual. He only insists upon the importance of emptying the "buckets" regularly. Any storage space (physical inbox, email inbox, tape recorder, notebook, PDA, etc) that is processed regularly by the individual is acceptable.
Process
When processing a bucket, a strict workflow is followed:
Start at the top.
Deal with one item at a time.
Never put anything back into 'in'.
If an item requires action:
Do it (if it takes less than two minutes), OR
Delegate it, OR
Defer it.
If an item does not require action:
File it for reference, OR
Throw it away, OR
Incubate it for possible action later.
If it takes under two minutes to do something, just do it immediately. The two-minute rule is a guideline, encompassing roughly the time it would take to defer the action formally.
Organize
Allen describes a suggested set of lists which can be used to keep track of items awaiting attention:
Next actions — For every item requiring attention, decide what is the next action that can be physically taken on that item. For example, if the item is, "Write project report," the next action might be, "Email Fred for meeting minutes," or, "Call Mary to ask about report requirements." Though there may be many steps and actions required to complete the item, there will always be something that needs to be done first, and this step should be recorded in the next actions list. Preferably, these steps are organized by the context in which they can be done, such as "in the office," "by the phone," or "at the store."
Projects — Every open loop in one's life or work which requires more than one physical action to achieve becomes a project. These projects are tracked and periodically reviewed to make sure that every project has a next action associated with it, and thus can be moved forward.
Waiting for — When an action has been delegated to someone else, or when one is waiting for some external event before a project can be moved forward, this is tracked in the system and periodically checked to see if action is due, or a reminder needs to be sent.
Someday/Maybe — Things to be done at some point, but not right now. Examples might be "learn Chinese," or, "take diving holiday."
A calendar is important for keeping track of appointments and commitments; however, Allen specifically recommends that the calendar be reserved for the hard landscape: things which absolutely have to be done by a particular deadline, or meetings and appointments which are fixed in time and place. To-do items should be reserved for the next action lists.
A final key organizing component of GTD is the filing system. A filing system must be easy, simple and fun. Even a single piece of paper, if needed for reference, should get its own file if it doesn't belong in an existing folder. Allen suggests a single, alphabetically organized filing system, in order to make it as quick and easy as possible to store and retrieve the needed information.
Review
The lists of actions and reminders will be of little use if not reviewed at least daily, or whenever possible. Given the time, energy and resources available at that particular moment, decide what is the most important thing to be doing right now, and do it. If one is inclined to procrastinate, one may end up always doing the easy tasks and avoiding the difficult ones. To solve this, one can decide to do the actions of the list one by one, following their order, just like processing an inbox.
At least weekly, the discipline of GTD requires that all your outstanding actions, projects and 'waiting for' items are reviewed, making sure that any new tasks or forthcoming events are entered into your system, and that everything is up to date. Allen suggests the creation of a "tickler file" in order to help refresh one's memory each week with the outstanding tasks and projects.
Do
Any organizational system is no good if excessive time is spent organizing tasks instead of actually doing them. David Allen's contention is that if one can make it simple, easy, and fun to take the necessary actions, one will be less inclined to procrastinate or become overwhelmed with too many 'open loops'.
Tools and techniques
Tickler file
A slice of '43 Folders'
One device that Allen suggests is the tickler file for organizing your paperwork (also known as the '43 folders'). Twelve folders are used to represent each month and an additional 31 folders are used to represent each day. The folders are arranged to help remind you of activities to be done that day. Each day you open to the numbered folder representing today's date. You take all the items out of the folder and put the empty folder into the next month. This sort of management allows you to file hardcopy reminders to yourself. For instance, if you had a concert on the 12th of the month, you would store the tickets in the 12th folder, and when the 12th came around, they would be there waiting for you.
Software tools for GTD
Software tools were specifically suggested by Allen as helpful and important for implementing GTD, including digital outlining, brainstorming, and project planning applications. However, in 2001, Allen bemoaned the general lack of "good 'project management' tools," concluding:
... less structured and more functional applications will emerge in the coming years, based on the ways we naturally think and plan.[4]
Since that prediction a virtual explosion of GTD-supporting software has emerged, underscoring the influence of GTD on the world of time management. In April 2008, more than 100 software tools existed that provide the core features needed to implement Getting Things Done.[citation needed]
These software tools range from simple list managers for individuals to collaborative web applications, both free and commercial, for all popular platforms and devices. Much of this software specifically automates or reinforces the GTD methodology of collecting, processing, organizing, reviewing, and doing.
Fatal shark attack forces beach closures near San Diego
SOLANA BEACH, Calif. - A shark believed to be a great white killed a 66-year-old swimmer with a single, giant bite across both legs Friday as the man trained with a group of triathletes, authorities and witnesses said.
Dave Martin, a retired veterinarian from Solana Beach, was attacked at San Diego County's Tide Beach around 7 a.m., authorities and family friend Rob Hill said.
Martin was taken to a lifeguard station for emergency treatment but was pronounced dead at the scene, according to a statement on the Solana Beach city Web site. His injuries crossed both thighs, San Diego County sheriff's Sgt. Randy Webb said in a news release.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography shark expert Richard Rosenblatt says the shark was probably a great white between 12 and 17 feet long.
"It looks like the shark came up, bit him, and swam away," said Dismas Abelman, the Solana Beach deputy fire chief.
There was a single bite across both of Martin's legs, Abelman said.
The attack took place about 150 yards offshore. Several swimmers wearing wetsuits were in a group when the shark attacked, lifeguard Craig Miller said. Two swimmers were about 20 yards ahead of the man when they heard him scream for help. They turned around and dragged him back to shore.
Swimmers were ordered out of the water for a 17-mile stretch around the attack site and county authorities sent up helicopters to scan the waters for the shark. Eight miles of beach were closed.
"The shark is still in the area. We're sure of that," Mayor Joe Kellejian said.
Hill, a member of the Triathlon Club of San Diego, said he was running on the beach while about nine other members were in the water when the attack took place.
"They saw him come up out of the water, scream 'shark,' flail his arms and go back under," Hill said. "The flesh was just hanging," and Martin may have bled to death before he left the water, Hill said.
A witness, Ira Opper, described the victim as "burly and athletic." He said the man was wearing a black wetsuit that was shredded on both legs.
Martin's relatives visited the lifeguard station in small groups, emerging in tears, before his body was transported to the county medical examiner's office. A man who identified himself as Martin's son answered the telephone at Martin's home a few blocks from the beach but declined to comment on the attack.
Club members had been meeting at the beach for at least six years and never had seen a shark, Hill said.
However, Hill said he saw a seal or sea lion on the beach earlier this week. Miller said a seal pup was found on the beach Friday morning before the attack and was taken to a marine animal rescue center.
The shark may have confused the wet-suited swimmers with his prey, Hill said.
Rosenblatt, the shark expert, said white sharks travel through the area, and the way the man was attacked and the "massive" but clean wounds "sounds like what a white shark would do."
White sharks hunt along the bottom, look for seal silhouettes above and then rise to attack, he said.
"A human swimmer is not too unlike a seal," he said.
Shark attacks are extremely rare. There were 71 confirmed unprovoked cases worldwide last year, up from 63 in 2006, according to the University of Florida. Only one 2007 attack, in the South Pacific, was fatal.
The last fatal shark attack in California, according to data from the state Department of Fish and Game, took place in 2004, when a man skin diving for abalone was attacked by a great white shark off the coast of Mendocino County. On Aug. 19, 2003, a great white killed a woman who was swimming at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County on the central California coast.
Solana Beach is 14 miles northwest of San Diego.
Dave Martin, a retired veterinarian from Solana Beach, was attacked at San Diego County's Tide Beach around 7 a.m., authorities and family friend Rob Hill said.
Martin was taken to a lifeguard station for emergency treatment but was pronounced dead at the scene, according to a statement on the Solana Beach city Web site. His injuries crossed both thighs, San Diego County sheriff's Sgt. Randy Webb said in a news release.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography shark expert Richard Rosenblatt says the shark was probably a great white between 12 and 17 feet long.
"It looks like the shark came up, bit him, and swam away," said Dismas Abelman, the Solana Beach deputy fire chief.
There was a single bite across both of Martin's legs, Abelman said.
The attack took place about 150 yards offshore. Several swimmers wearing wetsuits were in a group when the shark attacked, lifeguard Craig Miller said. Two swimmers were about 20 yards ahead of the man when they heard him scream for help. They turned around and dragged him back to shore.
Swimmers were ordered out of the water for a 17-mile stretch around the attack site and county authorities sent up helicopters to scan the waters for the shark. Eight miles of beach were closed.
"The shark is still in the area. We're sure of that," Mayor Joe Kellejian said.
Hill, a member of the Triathlon Club of San Diego, said he was running on the beach while about nine other members were in the water when the attack took place.
"They saw him come up out of the water, scream 'shark,' flail his arms and go back under," Hill said. "The flesh was just hanging," and Martin may have bled to death before he left the water, Hill said.
A witness, Ira Opper, described the victim as "burly and athletic." He said the man was wearing a black wetsuit that was shredded on both legs.
Martin's relatives visited the lifeguard station in small groups, emerging in tears, before his body was transported to the county medical examiner's office. A man who identified himself as Martin's son answered the telephone at Martin's home a few blocks from the beach but declined to comment on the attack.
Club members had been meeting at the beach for at least six years and never had seen a shark, Hill said.
However, Hill said he saw a seal or sea lion on the beach earlier this week. Miller said a seal pup was found on the beach Friday morning before the attack and was taken to a marine animal rescue center.
The shark may have confused the wet-suited swimmers with his prey, Hill said.
Rosenblatt, the shark expert, said white sharks travel through the area, and the way the man was attacked and the "massive" but clean wounds "sounds like what a white shark would do."
White sharks hunt along the bottom, look for seal silhouettes above and then rise to attack, he said.
"A human swimmer is not too unlike a seal," he said.
Shark attacks are extremely rare. There were 71 confirmed unprovoked cases worldwide last year, up from 63 in 2006, according to the University of Florida. Only one 2007 attack, in the South Pacific, was fatal.
The last fatal shark attack in California, according to data from the state Department of Fish and Game, took place in 2004, when a man skin diving for abalone was attacked by a great white shark off the coast of Mendocino County. On Aug. 19, 2003, a great white killed a woman who was swimming at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County on the central California coast.
Solana Beach is 14 miles northwest of San Diego.
Housing rescue package set for House vote
WASHINGTON - A broad housing rescue package aimed at preventing foreclosures would have the government step in to insure up to $300 billion in new mortgages for struggling homeowners.
The plan, designed to stabilize a key sector of the shaky economy, is set for a House vote Wednesday. It would let the Federal Housing Administration insure more affordable fixed-rate loans for borrowers currently too financially strapped to qualify.
The White House says President Bush would veto the measure, calling it a burdensome bailout that would open taxpayers to too much risk. That's despite Democrats' attempts to attract Republican support by including a grab-bag of measures Bush has called for.
They include legislation to overhaul the Federal Housing Administration, the Depression-era mortgage insurer, and to more tightly regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that finance home loans. Also part of the plan is a measure, which Bush has repeatedly requested, allowing state and local housing finance agencies to use tax-exempt bonds to refinance distressed subprime mortgages.
Its main element, written by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the Financial Services Committee chairman, is designed to help roughly 500,000 borrowers at a cost of $2.7 billion over the next five years. Under Frank's bill, the FHA would relax its standards to let debt-ridden homeowners refinance into more affordable, fixed-rate mortgages if their lenders agreed to take substantial losses on the original loans.
Borrowers would have to show they could afford to make payments on the new mortgages. They would have to share with FHA at least half of their proceeds if they profited from selling or refinancing again.
Frank, working closely on his plan with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, has picked up some Republican support, especially among lawmakers representing areas hit hardest by the housing crisis.
But GOP leaders strongly oppose the bill, which they say would help reckless borrowers who overextended themselves, unscrupulous lenders, and investors who tried to game the market at the expense of renters and homeowners who made wiser choices.
The plan is to be combined with $11 billion in housing tax breaks, including a $7,500 credit for first-time home-buyers that would function like a zero-interest government loan, to be paid off over 15 years.
As part of the package, the House is scheduled to vote on an amendment — bitterly opposed by the financial services industry but championed by governors — that would ensure that neither the FHA plan nor other banking laws pre-empt state foreclosure laws. It's aimed at letting states that have recently moved to make it harder to evict homeowners continue those efforts.
The House also plans a vote on a separate bill — also facing a veto threat — to send $15 billion to states for the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties in the hardest-hit areas.
Critics say it would reward lenders, many of whom are in part to blame for the housing chaos, and act as an incentive for them to foreclose rather than find ways to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes.
The plan, designed to stabilize a key sector of the shaky economy, is set for a House vote Wednesday. It would let the Federal Housing Administration insure more affordable fixed-rate loans for borrowers currently too financially strapped to qualify.
The White House says President Bush would veto the measure, calling it a burdensome bailout that would open taxpayers to too much risk. That's despite Democrats' attempts to attract Republican support by including a grab-bag of measures Bush has called for.
They include legislation to overhaul the Federal Housing Administration, the Depression-era mortgage insurer, and to more tightly regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that finance home loans. Also part of the plan is a measure, which Bush has repeatedly requested, allowing state and local housing finance agencies to use tax-exempt bonds to refinance distressed subprime mortgages.
Its main element, written by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the Financial Services Committee chairman, is designed to help roughly 500,000 borrowers at a cost of $2.7 billion over the next five years. Under Frank's bill, the FHA would relax its standards to let debt-ridden homeowners refinance into more affordable, fixed-rate mortgages if their lenders agreed to take substantial losses on the original loans.
Borrowers would have to show they could afford to make payments on the new mortgages. They would have to share with FHA at least half of their proceeds if they profited from selling or refinancing again.
Frank, working closely on his plan with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, has picked up some Republican support, especially among lawmakers representing areas hit hardest by the housing crisis.
But GOP leaders strongly oppose the bill, which they say would help reckless borrowers who overextended themselves, unscrupulous lenders, and investors who tried to game the market at the expense of renters and homeowners who made wiser choices.
The plan is to be combined with $11 billion in housing tax breaks, including a $7,500 credit for first-time home-buyers that would function like a zero-interest government loan, to be paid off over 15 years.
As part of the package, the House is scheduled to vote on an amendment — bitterly opposed by the financial services industry but championed by governors — that would ensure that neither the FHA plan nor other banking laws pre-empt state foreclosure laws. It's aimed at letting states that have recently moved to make it harder to evict homeowners continue those efforts.
The House also plans a vote on a separate bill — also facing a veto threat — to send $15 billion to states for the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed properties in the hardest-hit areas.
Critics say it would reward lenders, many of whom are in part to blame for the housing chaos, and act as an incentive for them to foreclose rather than find ways to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes.
If You Want to Be a Master Communicator ... Shut Up and Listen!
There is no one in the world more powerful than a great communicator.
The ability to communicate masterfully is like The Midas Touch. It allows you to turn virtually any opportunity into pure gold. Through skillful communication, success becomes possible in every area of your life - career, relationships, finances. Effective communication is key to all of these and more.
So just what is it that makes someone a great communicator? What is that rare ability that allows some people to forge real, meaningful, mutually-satisfying connections with others?
For years I've taught classes, conducted seminars and coached individuals on their communication and presentation skills. And just about everyone I've worked with believes that being an effective communicator simply means being able to get their point across, to successfully express their thoughts, ideas and feelings to others.
But in fact, that is just a very small part of the equation. This ability alone will not allow you to forge meaningful connections. In fact, if all you focus on is your personal agenda, there's a good chance you'll get nowhere. How many times have you observed an eloquent speaker with what appears to be all the right techniques, a great vocabulary, all poise and polish, only to find that his or her words ultimately fall flat?
Look up "communication" in the dictionary, and you'll see that it derives from the Latin word communicare, "to impart, share," literally "to make common." So real communication isn't simply a transmission of ideas; it's an exchange, a dialogue of sorts. Effective communication is a sharing of information, a coming together of two unique points-of-view, the communicator's and the person being communicated with. Sometimes those points-of-view are in sync, sometimes they are in conflict; but they are always distinct. No one's perspective, experience, interpretation, concerns, goals, mood, etc. is identical to yours. Understanding this fact is key to making powerful connections.
If you take nothing else away from this article, please remember this statement: effective communication is always a two-way street.
In order for real, meaningful communication to take place, information must flow in both directions - not just from you, but to you. By fully appreciating this concept, you will be able to do what is necessary to make real connections with others, and ultimately improve your odds of getting what you want from each communication encounter.
Just how can you make this exchange possible? Stop talking -- and listen.
Most of us are actually pretty good at talking. We talk like crazy. We talk about our problems, our accomplishments, our relationships, our headaches, our dreams. We talk about everything that matters to us. Unfortunately, those issues are rarely what's of greatest interest to others.
On the flip side, sadly most of us are lousy listeners. In fact, most people, even when they appear to be listening intently to someone else, are actually lost in their own thoughts, often thinking about what they will say next.
Really hearing what others have to say, what matters to them, what they want, what they fear, what they hope for, will ultimately make you better able to connect with them, and help them to understand your message.
Being an effective listener is probably the single most important quality of a great communicator. Just observe some of the best there are. It's often been reported by those who know him that President Bill Clinton makes every person he speaks with feel like they're the only person in the room. The Reverend Billy Graham is able to touch the emotions of thousands of people at the same time, who feel that he's speaking personally with them. Winston Churchill tapped into the fears and dreams of an entire nation, and inspired them to greatness. Think about the great communicators you've met in your own life, and how they somehow seemed to speak a language you really understood.
Speaking the language of others. That's what real communication is all about.
Think of it this way. Supposed you had to deliver some important information to someone, but that person only spoke Japanese, and you did not. What would you do? You might have your message translated for you, or have an interpreter on hand. But if you didn't figure out how to somehow impart your message in the language that person understood, it would fall on deaf ears. No matter how eloquently you made your point, it would remain meaningless, because you didn't speak the language.
If you're going to be one of the world's great communicators, you will have to learn the language of others, and then frame your message in a manner they will understand and appreciate.
Here are a few things you can start doing right now to make yourself a more effective communicator.
1. Train yourself to really listen. When you're attempting to connect with someone, really focus on them, what they're saying and how they're behaving. Consciously try to block everything else out - your thoughts, distractions around you, etc. Make a point of not speaking yourself until the other person has expressed a complete thought. Fight the urge to interrupt or finish their sentences. Try to be genuinely interested in every word they say.
2. Acknowledge others' words and feelings. When it is your turn to talk, begin by confirming for the other person that you really heard them. There are several ways to do this. You might want to comment on what they've just told you. "I can imagine that was difficult." You might ask a question. "Wow, what happened after that?" Mirroring is another good technique for letting someone know you heard them. Basically, it is simply repeating back to the other person what they just said, and asking them for confirmation that you understood. "So it sounds like this was a really positive experience for you, is that right?" When you let people know you're really listening to them, they will be more interested when it's time for you to share your thoughts with them.
3. Listen with your eyes. There may be no better way of letting someone know you're listening than by maintaining strong, consistent eye contact. This is very important when you're speaking, but even more so when you're the listener. Don't look down. Don't look around the room. Don't look at other people. Look into the eyes of the person speaking to you, and they'll know you're interested in what they're saying. (Important! This might sound crazy, but you have to pick one eye to look at. That's right, left or right, your choice. But you have to focus on one. If you don't, your gaze will drift from one to the other. You'll exhibit what is commonly referred to as "shifty eyes," which most people interpret as a sign of nervousness.)
4. Relate your thoughts to theirs. Finally, it's your turn to express your ideas, feelings and desires. To be most effective, try to build your thoughts on what you've just heard. "I'm glad you brought that up, because I've been thinking about something very similar." Even if you're point-of-view is opposite theirs, you will make it more meaningful to your listener by pointing that fact out. "I certainly hear what you're saying, and I understand why you think that way. But I have a different perspective on the situation. Let me explain." By connecting your point to theirs, you make it relevant to them.
It all boils down to this: masterful communication is a conscious act. It requires focus, attention, forethought and an appreciation of the person with whom you hope to forge a connection.
Take the time to learn and apply these few skills, and you'll be on your way to becoming a great communicator, and to reaping untold rewards in the process.
The ability to communicate masterfully is like The Midas Touch. It allows you to turn virtually any opportunity into pure gold. Through skillful communication, success becomes possible in every area of your life - career, relationships, finances. Effective communication is key to all of these and more.
So just what is it that makes someone a great communicator? What is that rare ability that allows some people to forge real, meaningful, mutually-satisfying connections with others?
For years I've taught classes, conducted seminars and coached individuals on their communication and presentation skills. And just about everyone I've worked with believes that being an effective communicator simply means being able to get their point across, to successfully express their thoughts, ideas and feelings to others.
But in fact, that is just a very small part of the equation. This ability alone will not allow you to forge meaningful connections. In fact, if all you focus on is your personal agenda, there's a good chance you'll get nowhere. How many times have you observed an eloquent speaker with what appears to be all the right techniques, a great vocabulary, all poise and polish, only to find that his or her words ultimately fall flat?
Look up "communication" in the dictionary, and you'll see that it derives from the Latin word communicare, "to impart, share," literally "to make common." So real communication isn't simply a transmission of ideas; it's an exchange, a dialogue of sorts. Effective communication is a sharing of information, a coming together of two unique points-of-view, the communicator's and the person being communicated with. Sometimes those points-of-view are in sync, sometimes they are in conflict; but they are always distinct. No one's perspective, experience, interpretation, concerns, goals, mood, etc. is identical to yours. Understanding this fact is key to making powerful connections.
If you take nothing else away from this article, please remember this statement: effective communication is always a two-way street.
In order for real, meaningful communication to take place, information must flow in both directions - not just from you, but to you. By fully appreciating this concept, you will be able to do what is necessary to make real connections with others, and ultimately improve your odds of getting what you want from each communication encounter.
Just how can you make this exchange possible? Stop talking -- and listen.
Most of us are actually pretty good at talking. We talk like crazy. We talk about our problems, our accomplishments, our relationships, our headaches, our dreams. We talk about everything that matters to us. Unfortunately, those issues are rarely what's of greatest interest to others.
On the flip side, sadly most of us are lousy listeners. In fact, most people, even when they appear to be listening intently to someone else, are actually lost in their own thoughts, often thinking about what they will say next.
Really hearing what others have to say, what matters to them, what they want, what they fear, what they hope for, will ultimately make you better able to connect with them, and help them to understand your message.
Being an effective listener is probably the single most important quality of a great communicator. Just observe some of the best there are. It's often been reported by those who know him that President Bill Clinton makes every person he speaks with feel like they're the only person in the room. The Reverend Billy Graham is able to touch the emotions of thousands of people at the same time, who feel that he's speaking personally with them. Winston Churchill tapped into the fears and dreams of an entire nation, and inspired them to greatness. Think about the great communicators you've met in your own life, and how they somehow seemed to speak a language you really understood.
Speaking the language of others. That's what real communication is all about.
Think of it this way. Supposed you had to deliver some important information to someone, but that person only spoke Japanese, and you did not. What would you do? You might have your message translated for you, or have an interpreter on hand. But if you didn't figure out how to somehow impart your message in the language that person understood, it would fall on deaf ears. No matter how eloquently you made your point, it would remain meaningless, because you didn't speak the language.
If you're going to be one of the world's great communicators, you will have to learn the language of others, and then frame your message in a manner they will understand and appreciate.
Here are a few things you can start doing right now to make yourself a more effective communicator.
1. Train yourself to really listen. When you're attempting to connect with someone, really focus on them, what they're saying and how they're behaving. Consciously try to block everything else out - your thoughts, distractions around you, etc. Make a point of not speaking yourself until the other person has expressed a complete thought. Fight the urge to interrupt or finish their sentences. Try to be genuinely interested in every word they say.
2. Acknowledge others' words and feelings. When it is your turn to talk, begin by confirming for the other person that you really heard them. There are several ways to do this. You might want to comment on what they've just told you. "I can imagine that was difficult." You might ask a question. "Wow, what happened after that?" Mirroring is another good technique for letting someone know you heard them. Basically, it is simply repeating back to the other person what they just said, and asking them for confirmation that you understood. "So it sounds like this was a really positive experience for you, is that right?" When you let people know you're really listening to them, they will be more interested when it's time for you to share your thoughts with them.
3. Listen with your eyes. There may be no better way of letting someone know you're listening than by maintaining strong, consistent eye contact. This is very important when you're speaking, but even more so when you're the listener. Don't look down. Don't look around the room. Don't look at other people. Look into the eyes of the person speaking to you, and they'll know you're interested in what they're saying. (Important! This might sound crazy, but you have to pick one eye to look at. That's right, left or right, your choice. But you have to focus on one. If you don't, your gaze will drift from one to the other. You'll exhibit what is commonly referred to as "shifty eyes," which most people interpret as a sign of nervousness.)
4. Relate your thoughts to theirs. Finally, it's your turn to express your ideas, feelings and desires. To be most effective, try to build your thoughts on what you've just heard. "I'm glad you brought that up, because I've been thinking about something very similar." Even if you're point-of-view is opposite theirs, you will make it more meaningful to your listener by pointing that fact out. "I certainly hear what you're saying, and I understand why you think that way. But I have a different perspective on the situation. Let me explain." By connecting your point to theirs, you make it relevant to them.
It all boils down to this: masterful communication is a conscious act. It requires focus, attention, forethought and an appreciation of the person with whom you hope to forge a connection.
Take the time to learn and apply these few skills, and you'll be on your way to becoming a great communicator, and to reaping untold rewards in the process.
How to Chair the Perfect Meeting
Preparing for a Meeting
Know how many people you want to attend the meeting and make sure everyone you want to attend receives an invitation. Ensure they respond to the invitation regardless of whether they can attend or not. This will make it easier when preparing documentation and other materials. Once you've determined how many people will be attending the meeting, preparing all materials including hand-outs, power point presentations, a meeting itinerary and other materials at least a week or two in advance will give you enough time to make changes or corrections. Having help at this stage can make this process much smoother. If you need to send materials to those attending, do so as soon as you have them done. Create extra copies in case people forget to bring them to the meeting.
Starting the Meeting
Before the meeting starts, make sure you introduce yourself. This can make people feel more comfortable and relaxed. In order to chair a successful meeting, make sure all audio/visual equipment is working before the meeting starts. This will prevent the meeting from starting and ending later than it should. Open the meeting by explaining why it's necessary to meet and what you hope to accomplish by the end. Ask that everyone introduce each other. If you're following a specific itinerary, begin talking about the first topic. After a few minutes, people will begin asking questions and offering their opinions. While this is what you want during a meeting, you will need to ensure that everyone stays on track so all topics are covered in the time allotted.
Keeping the Meeting on Schedule
If you feel a discussion has gone on long enough, ask that everyone move on to the next topic. You can always return to the topic if there's time after the other topics have been discussed. Most people will agree and will move on. If someone in the meeting refuses to move on to the next topic, you may need to let them know that they are free to discuss it later. Your role as the chair of the meeting is to make sure that the meeting is productive, enlightening and informative to all who attend. If there is a need to return to a topic that was discussed earlier, use your best judgment and return to an earlier discussion when necessary. Closing a Meeting Once you've gone over all the topics on the itinerary, you should close the meeting by summing up what was learned. Allow those in the meeting to provide any final remarks and then end the meeting. While chairing a meeting can be stressful, if you are able to maintain control over the discussion topics and the length of time people spend talking about them, you can accomplish everything on your agenda in one meeting.
Know how many people you want to attend the meeting and make sure everyone you want to attend receives an invitation. Ensure they respond to the invitation regardless of whether they can attend or not. This will make it easier when preparing documentation and other materials. Once you've determined how many people will be attending the meeting, preparing all materials including hand-outs, power point presentations, a meeting itinerary and other materials at least a week or two in advance will give you enough time to make changes or corrections. Having help at this stage can make this process much smoother. If you need to send materials to those attending, do so as soon as you have them done. Create extra copies in case people forget to bring them to the meeting.
Starting the Meeting
Before the meeting starts, make sure you introduce yourself. This can make people feel more comfortable and relaxed. In order to chair a successful meeting, make sure all audio/visual equipment is working before the meeting starts. This will prevent the meeting from starting and ending later than it should. Open the meeting by explaining why it's necessary to meet and what you hope to accomplish by the end. Ask that everyone introduce each other. If you're following a specific itinerary, begin talking about the first topic. After a few minutes, people will begin asking questions and offering their opinions. While this is what you want during a meeting, you will need to ensure that everyone stays on track so all topics are covered in the time allotted.
Keeping the Meeting on Schedule
If you feel a discussion has gone on long enough, ask that everyone move on to the next topic. You can always return to the topic if there's time after the other topics have been discussed. Most people will agree and will move on. If someone in the meeting refuses to move on to the next topic, you may need to let them know that they are free to discuss it later. Your role as the chair of the meeting is to make sure that the meeting is productive, enlightening and informative to all who attend. If there is a need to return to a topic that was discussed earlier, use your best judgment and return to an earlier discussion when necessary. Closing a Meeting Once you've gone over all the topics on the itinerary, you should close the meeting by summing up what was learned. Allow those in the meeting to provide any final remarks and then end the meeting. While chairing a meeting can be stressful, if you are able to maintain control over the discussion topics and the length of time people spend talking about them, you can accomplish everything on your agenda in one meeting.
How to Beat Nerves before a Presentation
Create a Professional Presentation
Most presentations focus on one or two topics and can last anywhere from ten to twenty minutes. Before you begin preparing, ask the people in charge of the meeting how long your presentation should be. Take into consideration slides, handouts or other visual aids you want to use so you can create a presentation that is the perfect length.
When drafting your presentation, make sure you understand your topic so you can interact with your audience easily. During a casual presentation you will be able to use visual aids, ask and answer questions and repeat important pieces of information in order to reinforce your points.
Practice your presentation using visual aid devices that will be made available to you at the meeting. This will make you more comfortable changing from slide to slide, starting or stopping a power point slide or referring to documents you've given to the audience.
If you choose to hand out information before, during or after the presentation, make sure you bring enough copies for everyone. Find out how many people will be attending and make at least five extra copies in case additional people decide to attend.
Choose the Right Outfit
Wearing your favorite suit on the day of your presentation can help reduce any stress you have. When you know you look good, your body language will become relaxed. You may even feel more comfortable answering questions during the presentation. If you don't have anything suitable to wear, consider buying a new outfit to make the occasion even more special. Choose a neutral colored business suit (pant or skirt suit), polish your shoes and wear a white shirt underneath so you don't stand out from other people in the room. Brightly colored suits are usually not appropriate for presentations and may distract others from listening closely to what you have to say.
Talk to the Audience
Meeting with those who you will be presenting to is a great way to reduce stress. Knowing more about your audience will make them seem less intimidating. Arrive early to set-up and join the group for coffee or tea before the meeting begins. Even if you will be presenting to co-workers, make sure you mingle with other people in order to calm your nerves.
Giving a presentation can be stressful, but if you've prepared your materials in advance, you should be able to overcome any feelings of nervousness once you start talking. Make sure you listen to yourself as you give the presentation. If you feel you're talking too quickly, take a deep breath in order to slow down. This will keep you focused on what you're saying and keep the audience engaged too.
Most presentations focus on one or two topics and can last anywhere from ten to twenty minutes. Before you begin preparing, ask the people in charge of the meeting how long your presentation should be. Take into consideration slides, handouts or other visual aids you want to use so you can create a presentation that is the perfect length.
When drafting your presentation, make sure you understand your topic so you can interact with your audience easily. During a casual presentation you will be able to use visual aids, ask and answer questions and repeat important pieces of information in order to reinforce your points.
Practice your presentation using visual aid devices that will be made available to you at the meeting. This will make you more comfortable changing from slide to slide, starting or stopping a power point slide or referring to documents you've given to the audience.
If you choose to hand out information before, during or after the presentation, make sure you bring enough copies for everyone. Find out how many people will be attending and make at least five extra copies in case additional people decide to attend.
Choose the Right Outfit
Wearing your favorite suit on the day of your presentation can help reduce any stress you have. When you know you look good, your body language will become relaxed. You may even feel more comfortable answering questions during the presentation. If you don't have anything suitable to wear, consider buying a new outfit to make the occasion even more special. Choose a neutral colored business suit (pant or skirt suit), polish your shoes and wear a white shirt underneath so you don't stand out from other people in the room. Brightly colored suits are usually not appropriate for presentations and may distract others from listening closely to what you have to say.
Talk to the Audience
Meeting with those who you will be presenting to is a great way to reduce stress. Knowing more about your audience will make them seem less intimidating. Arrive early to set-up and join the group for coffee or tea before the meeting begins. Even if you will be presenting to co-workers, make sure you mingle with other people in order to calm your nerves.
Giving a presentation can be stressful, but if you've prepared your materials in advance, you should be able to overcome any feelings of nervousness once you start talking. Make sure you listen to yourself as you give the presentation. If you feel you're talking too quickly, take a deep breath in order to slow down. This will keep you focused on what you're saying and keep the audience engaged too.
How to Ask for Good Feedback
Asking for feedback is a great way to get information from others that helps us make improvements on any number of projects or situations.
Recently, I was looking for feedback and asked my peer the following:
"I've attached the two ads that I spoke to you about when we met. If you have a moment, could you please take a look at both and give me your feedback?"
This was her response:
"I do not like either. The image looks very phony to me. But if I have to choose, I would choose the one with the special introductory offer."
Having asked her to clarify what she meant by "phony," so I could find an image that looked "less phony," she responded that she doesn't like stock photography.
It was obvious to me at this point that I wasn't clear regarding the kind of information I wanted from her. This resulted in her giving me her opinion, not constructive feedback.
The purpose of constructive feedback is to provide timely, honest, useful comments and suggestions that contribute to a better process, result or improved behaviours.
I realize now that when I'm asking for feedback, I have to ask specifically for the information I need for the purpose of improving. It's my responsibility to guide them to provide me with the type of information that I seek to make the result better.
Ask Specific Questions, Get Specific Answers
I should have asked specific questions for feedback, such as:
Is the ad eye-catching? Would it be seen in a sea of other ads and newspaper copy? What could be done to make it more noticeable?
Is the wording effective? Do some sentences flow poorly? What could improve it?
Is the ad an appropriate size to be seen easily in the newspaper? If not, what would be better?
In addition to the specific questions you'd like answered, ask for any additional comments, suggestions, or observations they may have which your questions might have overlooked.
Make Sure You Ask the Right Person.
When considering what kind of feedback you want, let that lead you to the person who is best suited to respond. Choose people who can provide you with the most valuable, actionable feedback possible. It can take some thought to determine who they are, but it's well worth it.
Understanding what it is that you want from the person giving feedback helps them respond more effectively and provide you with the information you need to improve.
Recently, I was looking for feedback and asked my peer the following:
"I've attached the two ads that I spoke to you about when we met. If you have a moment, could you please take a look at both and give me your feedback?"
This was her response:
"I do not like either. The image looks very phony to me. But if I have to choose, I would choose the one with the special introductory offer."
Having asked her to clarify what she meant by "phony," so I could find an image that looked "less phony," she responded that she doesn't like stock photography.
It was obvious to me at this point that I wasn't clear regarding the kind of information I wanted from her. This resulted in her giving me her opinion, not constructive feedback.
The purpose of constructive feedback is to provide timely, honest, useful comments and suggestions that contribute to a better process, result or improved behaviours.
I realize now that when I'm asking for feedback, I have to ask specifically for the information I need for the purpose of improving. It's my responsibility to guide them to provide me with the type of information that I seek to make the result better.
Ask Specific Questions, Get Specific Answers
I should have asked specific questions for feedback, such as:
Is the ad eye-catching? Would it be seen in a sea of other ads and newspaper copy? What could be done to make it more noticeable?
Is the wording effective? Do some sentences flow poorly? What could improve it?
Is the ad an appropriate size to be seen easily in the newspaper? If not, what would be better?
In addition to the specific questions you'd like answered, ask for any additional comments, suggestions, or observations they may have which your questions might have overlooked.
Make Sure You Ask the Right Person.
When considering what kind of feedback you want, let that lead you to the person who is best suited to respond. Choose people who can provide you with the most valuable, actionable feedback possible. It can take some thought to determine who they are, but it's well worth it.
Understanding what it is that you want from the person giving feedback helps them respond more effectively and provide you with the information you need to improve.
The World’s Crisis Why We Need a New Solution?
Of course we have seen many summit meetings of International institutions, such as G-8, UN, IMF, ADB, World Bank etc to make a new solution from the world’s big problems that we are having it today. The international institutions get the final result calling together resolution. But we never see good implementation at field going on. Example the crisis food, why many countries are panic together? They don’t know what kind of right solution will be using to solve the problems. Today in the world there a lot of many face problems without solution in other word it will be worse. How is working UN, IMF, G-8 to see the global crisis such as global warming, energy and food crisis, war in Iraq, the death in Africa, the destroying forest in Brazil and Indonesia, the nuclear crisis in North Korea and Iran? They just give statement but for being implemented there is no good formula as solution.
So as the world citizen, what would like to do? Just seeing the problem is happening, or gives voice to international institutions as input to make solution.
The meeting of World Economic Forum on East Asia in Kuala Lumpur, 15-16 June 2008 try making a new solution based on analyzed the problems in the world. The participants are realizing the real solution is the best way. People are too tired getting a lot of problems such as the global warming-oil price-food crisis. The problems make the standard of living is more worse. Today many people in the world to get access in standard of living such as healthy service, good education, and standard salary for monthly needs are too difficult. Meanwhile, the leaders of world never get a good solution.
In international trade, we know the agreement of WTO, APEC, and NAFTA etc. But the free trade is not lifting the standard of living for farmers, employees, and citizen. The biggest industries from developed countries push developing countries in all sectors. It’s stupid agreement. We make it together but we kill the weak countries. There is no equal position when the trading goes on.
America is known as the country is difficult to make cooperation with other countries in Bush administration. America is just seeing the global problems from only their reviews. When we give other reviews from another perspective, America is refusing these reviews. We know America today is single super power. They want to keep international supremacy. But remember America is living in global world today, America needs making a new solution with other countries in the world. We need a global consensus to make a new solution for all of us. World’s consensus must be stepping ahead. The equal position must be creating. If we just look at single power as Manager to finish all problems everything going difficult. America has to give more politics space to other countries following as participants. We can see war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is looking at tired actually; America has spent too much budget for war’s cost. The bad impact for us happens in economy sector. Local economy sector in America is having very big problem in financial sector. Many people are difficult to buy a home and majority is American-Hispanic as example. Bush’s administration is divided for two focuses, first local economy growth goes on very slow and second they don’t know until when Iraq’s war will finish.
Some globalization experts say that America’s supremacy is reducing to give the global institutions working fully as its capabilities. West countries domination are not giving more space to global institutions to work. National interests become the main policy face and making difficult to be independent. To solve the world’s crisis Asia’s voices must be having full attention. Asia countries such as Japan, China, India, and South Korea are the new global partner. The screening of world of global economy is multipolar corporation. The countries are dependent each other. Did you know? Asia’s position on the global state is lifting lately especially in economy and business sector. But Asia voice is in politics world too weak, only China is having full attention by Europe and America of its voices. The balancing of power is having by America, Europe Union and China. But China is having a great potential to be the number one superpower status
together with America and China goes on to get this supremacy.
So as the world citizen, what would like to do? Just seeing the problem is happening, or gives voice to international institutions as input to make solution.
The meeting of World Economic Forum on East Asia in Kuala Lumpur, 15-16 June 2008 try making a new solution based on analyzed the problems in the world. The participants are realizing the real solution is the best way. People are too tired getting a lot of problems such as the global warming-oil price-food crisis. The problems make the standard of living is more worse. Today many people in the world to get access in standard of living such as healthy service, good education, and standard salary for monthly needs are too difficult. Meanwhile, the leaders of world never get a good solution.
In international trade, we know the agreement of WTO, APEC, and NAFTA etc. But the free trade is not lifting the standard of living for farmers, employees, and citizen. The biggest industries from developed countries push developing countries in all sectors. It’s stupid agreement. We make it together but we kill the weak countries. There is no equal position when the trading goes on.
America is known as the country is difficult to make cooperation with other countries in Bush administration. America is just seeing the global problems from only their reviews. When we give other reviews from another perspective, America is refusing these reviews. We know America today is single super power. They want to keep international supremacy. But remember America is living in global world today, America needs making a new solution with other countries in the world. We need a global consensus to make a new solution for all of us. World’s consensus must be stepping ahead. The equal position must be creating. If we just look at single power as Manager to finish all problems everything going difficult. America has to give more politics space to other countries following as participants. We can see war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is looking at tired actually; America has spent too much budget for war’s cost. The bad impact for us happens in economy sector. Local economy sector in America is having very big problem in financial sector. Many people are difficult to buy a home and majority is American-Hispanic as example. Bush’s administration is divided for two focuses, first local economy growth goes on very slow and second they don’t know until when Iraq’s war will finish.
Some globalization experts say that America’s supremacy is reducing to give the global institutions working fully as its capabilities. West countries domination are not giving more space to global institutions to work. National interests become the main policy face and making difficult to be independent. To solve the world’s crisis Asia’s voices must be having full attention. Asia countries such as Japan, China, India, and South Korea are the new global partner. The screening of world of global economy is multipolar corporation. The countries are dependent each other. Did you know? Asia’s position on the global state is lifting lately especially in economy and business sector. But Asia voice is in politics world too weak, only China is having full attention by Europe and America of its voices. The balancing of power is having by America, Europe Union and China. But China is having a great potential to be the number one superpower status
together with America and China goes on to get this supremacy.
Selasa, 15 Juli 2008
NYPD officers cleared in killing; rights leaders want probe
Civil rights leaders demanded a federal investigation and vowed to march through the streets in protest after three police officers were cleared of all charges Friday in the killing of an unarmed man cut down in a hail of 50 bullets on his wedding day.
The verdict by Justice Arthur Cooperman elicited gasps as well as tears of joy and sorrow. Detective Michael Oliver, who fired 31 of the shots, wept at the defense table, while the mother of victim Sean Bell cried in the packed courtroom. Shouts of "Murderers! Murderers!" and "KKK!" rang out on the courthouse steps.
Bell, a 23-year-old black man, was killed outside a seedy strip club in Queens in 2006 as he was leaving his bachelor party with two friends. The officers — undercover detectives who were investigating reports of prostitution at the club — said they thought one of the men had a gun.
The slaying heightened tensions in the city and stoked long-standing allegations of racism and excessive use of force on the part of New York City's police, even though two of the officers charged are black.
In announcing his verdict in the non-jury trial, the judge said that the inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution witnesses — mainly Bell's friends — "had the effect of eviscerating" their credibility.
"At times, the testimony just didn't make sense," the judge said.
Police had assigned extra officers to the courthouse and had helicopters in the air to help deal with any unrest. But within an hour, the angry, weeping crowd of about 200 people outside the courthouse had scattered, and despite a few scuffles, no arrests were made.
Oliver and Gescard Isnora were acquitted of charges that included manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment. The third officer, Marc Cooper, faced lesser charges.
The verdict does not entirely resolve issues surrounding the case.
After the verdict, the U.S. attorney's office said it will look into the case and "take appropriate action if the evidence indicates a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes."
In addition, relatives of the victims have sued the city, and those cases could either go to trial or be settled out of court with the potential for multimillion-dollar payouts.
Also, the officers, who had been on paid leave, still face possible departmental charges that could result in their firing. While the judge found that the officers' behavior was not criminal, he added, "Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums."
The officers appeared somber later at a news conference. Each called the verdict fair. One apologized.
"I'd like to say sorry to the Bell family for the tragedy," Cooper said.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who represents Bell's family, demanded a federal investigation.
"This verdict is one round down, but the fight is far from over," the civil rights leader said on his radio show. He said he is organizing "economic withdrawal" and "civil disobedience" that could involve going to jail and marching on Wall Street, at the judge's house and at police headquarters.
"We are going to close the city down in a nonviolent, effective way," Sharpton said. "We're going to hit the pocketbooks. We're going to let you know that we are not going to be in any way diverted from exercising our civil rights."
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said: "We don't expect any violence, nor is there any place for it."
The officers had complained that pretrial publicity had unfairly painted them as cold-blooded killers. They opted to have the judge instead of a jury decide the case, a strategy that appeared to pay off.
District Attorney Richard Brown said that despite losing the case, prosecutors had "revealed significant deficiencies" in police tactics that need "prompt and serious attention."
The case brought back painful memories of other New York police shootings, such as the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant who was gunned down in a barrage of 41 bullets by police officers who mistook his wallet for a gun. The acquittal of the officers in that case led to days of protests, with hundreds arrested.
"An ugly pattern is emerging in New York," the Rev. Jesse Jackson said in Chicago after Friday's verdict. "This was a massacre. This was not a shootout. And the U.S. attorney general must give America the assurance that we all have equal protection under the law,"
The nearly two-month trial was marked by deeply divergent accounts of the night.
The defense painted the victims as drunken thugs who the officers believed were armed and dangerous. Prosecutors sought to convince the judge that the victims had been minding their own business, and that the officers were inept, trigger-happy cowboys.
Bell's companions — Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman — were both wounded; Guzman still has four bullets lodged in his body. Both testified. Guzman, a burly ex-convict, grew combative during cross-examination, and said of Isnora: "This dude is shooting like he's crazy, like he's out of his mind."
None of the officers took the stand. Instead, the judge heard transcripts of the officers telling a grand jury that they believed they had good reason to use deadly force.
The officers said that as the club closed around 4 a.m., they heard Guzman say, "Yo, go get my gun" — something Bell's friends denied.
Isnora claimed that after he warned the men to halt, Bell pulled away in his car, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene. The detective also said Guzman made a sudden move as if he were reaching for a gun.
Benefield and Guzman testified that there were no orders from the police.
With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers said they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again. Isnora fired 11 rounds, and Cooper four. Two other officers who fired weren't charged.
When the smoke had cleared, there was no weapon inside Bell's blood-splattered car.
The verdict by Justice Arthur Cooperman elicited gasps as well as tears of joy and sorrow. Detective Michael Oliver, who fired 31 of the shots, wept at the defense table, while the mother of victim Sean Bell cried in the packed courtroom. Shouts of "Murderers! Murderers!" and "KKK!" rang out on the courthouse steps.
Bell, a 23-year-old black man, was killed outside a seedy strip club in Queens in 2006 as he was leaving his bachelor party with two friends. The officers — undercover detectives who were investigating reports of prostitution at the club — said they thought one of the men had a gun.
The slaying heightened tensions in the city and stoked long-standing allegations of racism and excessive use of force on the part of New York City's police, even though two of the officers charged are black.
In announcing his verdict in the non-jury trial, the judge said that the inconsistent testimony, courtroom demeanor and rap sheets of the prosecution witnesses — mainly Bell's friends — "had the effect of eviscerating" their credibility.
"At times, the testimony just didn't make sense," the judge said.
Police had assigned extra officers to the courthouse and had helicopters in the air to help deal with any unrest. But within an hour, the angry, weeping crowd of about 200 people outside the courthouse had scattered, and despite a few scuffles, no arrests were made.
Oliver and Gescard Isnora were acquitted of charges that included manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment. The third officer, Marc Cooper, faced lesser charges.
The verdict does not entirely resolve issues surrounding the case.
After the verdict, the U.S. attorney's office said it will look into the case and "take appropriate action if the evidence indicates a prosecutable violation of federal criminal civil rights statutes."
In addition, relatives of the victims have sued the city, and those cases could either go to trial or be settled out of court with the potential for multimillion-dollar payouts.
Also, the officers, who had been on paid leave, still face possible departmental charges that could result in their firing. While the judge found that the officers' behavior was not criminal, he added, "Questions of carelessness and incompetence must be left to other forums."
The officers appeared somber later at a news conference. Each called the verdict fair. One apologized.
"I'd like to say sorry to the Bell family for the tragedy," Cooper said.
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who represents Bell's family, demanded a federal investigation.
"This verdict is one round down, but the fight is far from over," the civil rights leader said on his radio show. He said he is organizing "economic withdrawal" and "civil disobedience" that could involve going to jail and marching on Wall Street, at the judge's house and at police headquarters.
"We are going to close the city down in a nonviolent, effective way," Sharpton said. "We're going to hit the pocketbooks. We're going to let you know that we are not going to be in any way diverted from exercising our civil rights."
Mayor Michael Bloomberg said: "We don't expect any violence, nor is there any place for it."
The officers had complained that pretrial publicity had unfairly painted them as cold-blooded killers. They opted to have the judge instead of a jury decide the case, a strategy that appeared to pay off.
District Attorney Richard Brown said that despite losing the case, prosecutors had "revealed significant deficiencies" in police tactics that need "prompt and serious attention."
The case brought back painful memories of other New York police shootings, such as the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo, an African immigrant who was gunned down in a barrage of 41 bullets by police officers who mistook his wallet for a gun. The acquittal of the officers in that case led to days of protests, with hundreds arrested.
"An ugly pattern is emerging in New York," the Rev. Jesse Jackson said in Chicago after Friday's verdict. "This was a massacre. This was not a shootout. And the U.S. attorney general must give America the assurance that we all have equal protection under the law,"
The nearly two-month trial was marked by deeply divergent accounts of the night.
The defense painted the victims as drunken thugs who the officers believed were armed and dangerous. Prosecutors sought to convince the judge that the victims had been minding their own business, and that the officers were inept, trigger-happy cowboys.
Bell's companions — Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman — were both wounded; Guzman still has four bullets lodged in his body. Both testified. Guzman, a burly ex-convict, grew combative during cross-examination, and said of Isnora: "This dude is shooting like he's crazy, like he's out of his mind."
None of the officers took the stand. Instead, the judge heard transcripts of the officers telling a grand jury that they believed they had good reason to use deadly force.
The officers said that as the club closed around 4 a.m., they heard Guzman say, "Yo, go get my gun" — something Bell's friends denied.
Isnora claimed that after he warned the men to halt, Bell pulled away in his car, bumped him and rammed an unmarked police van that converged on the scene. The detective also said Guzman made a sudden move as if he were reaching for a gun.
Benefield and Guzman testified that there were no orders from the police.
With tires screeching, glass breaking and bullets flying, the officers said they believed they were the ones under fire. Oliver responded by emptying his semiautomatic pistol, reloading, and emptying it again. Isnora fired 11 rounds, and Cooper four. Two other officers who fired weren't charged.
When the smoke had cleared, there was no weapon inside Bell's blood-splattered car.
Obama's secret weapon: The media
My, oh my, but weren’t those fellows from ABC News rude to Barack Obama at this week’s presidential debate.
Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?
Where indeed. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.
That’s still a good response now that it is Obama partisans — some of whom are showing up in distressingly inappropriate places — who are doing the whining.
The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.
Last fall, when NBC’s Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions — a mix of fair and impertinent — he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.
But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists rushing to validate the Obama criticisms and denouncing ABC’s performance as journalistically unsound.
The response was itself a warning about a huge challenge for reporters in the 2008 cycle: preserving professional detachment in a race that will likely feature two nominees, Obama and John McCain, who so far have been beneficiaries of media cheerleadinThis is not to say that ABC’s performance was flawless. There were some weird questions (“Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do?”). There were some questionable production decisions (the camera cutaways to Chelsea Clinton, the stacking of so many process questions in the first 45 minutes).
But there was nothing to justify Tom Shales’s hyperbolic review (“shoddy, despicable performances” by Gibson and Stephanopoulos) in The Washington Post or Greg Mitchell’s in Editor & Publisher (“perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years”). Others, like Time’s Michael Grunwald, likewise weighed in against ABC.
In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.
Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything, they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.
If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient and uncertain.
The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.
(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and The Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through detox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)
(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama's speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he's on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the ClintoAll this is hardly the end of the world. Clinton is not behind principally because of media bias; Obama is not ahead principally because of media favoritism. McCain won the GOP nomination mainly through good luck and the infirmities of his opposition. But the fact that lots of reporters personally like the guy — and a few seem to have an open crush — did not hurt.
But the protectiveness toward Obama revealed in the embarrassing rush of many journalists to his side this week does touch on at least four deeper trends in the news business.
1. The breakdown of journalistic conventions about point of view. In an earlier era these standards — favoring austere, stoical language conveying voice-of-God authority — were designed in part to ensure that stories betrayed no hint of the writer’s real feelings.
But the convention was a pretense. There is a generally laudable move toward more conversational — and more candid — language in stories. This shift allows a respected pro like the Associated Press’s Ron Fournier to unsheathe a knife and write this sentence earlier this year about Mitt Romney: “The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents' record and continued to show why he's the most malleable — and least credible — major presidential candidate.”
This shift is also what allows NBC News to feel comfortable with its Obama reporter, Lee Cowan, who has acknowledged that he finds it hard to keep his objectivity covering Obama.
But when does a legitimate attempt to capture the energy and mood of a political movement become boosterism? Did Cowan cross the line in this dispatch for the “Nightly News” on Feb. 5?: “Since the early days of his campaign, the candidate has morphed from the intellectual to the inspirational. … And it's that theme that's brought crowds in the door and to their feet.”
It is a thin and often illegible line between this kind of journalism and outright favoritism.
Wherever the line, it is clear that the profession collectively has stepped over it — based as much on what it hasn’t covered as what it has.
Two of the questions ABC asked Wednesday were related to subjects that have largely been met with media yawns.
One was Obama’s casual association with 1960s era radicals and would-be bomb-setters William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn: What is the nature of his relationship?
Another was about a questionnaire from a 1996 legislative race in which he endorsed a ban on handguns. Obama said the questionnaire was filled out by someone else and was in error about his views at the time. But it was later found that his handwriting was on the document: What gives?
One can dispute the relevance of these stories — though it seems certain they will be of interest to many moderate voters Obama would need in the fall — but it is indisputable that if Clinton was facing similar questions they would be the subject of constant and all-consuming coverage. There is an obvious double standard.
2. The rise of the liberal echo chamber. It used to be that if a reporter received a letter that started, “You biased S.O.B.,” it was almost certainly coming from someone on the right. In 1998 — the year of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Bill Clinton’s impeachment — those notes began coming in equal measure from the left. During the Bush era — when the media stumbled in coverage of the march to wBut it has only been in this campaign cycle that we have seen the liberal echo chamber — from websites like The Huffington Post and cable commentators like Keith Olbermann — be able consistently to drive a campaign story line. In the past, it was only the conservative echo chamber — Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh — who regularly drove stories in new media and old media alike. This is a huge shift.
3. The blurring of lines between journalist and advocate. The Huffington Post is an admirable enterprise, staking a flag in a new media landscape. Its success this year was made possible by the openness of the Web and the decline in what was once the near-monopoly power of old media institutions like The New York Times to set the agenda on national politics. (Politico is itself an experiment in that new media landscape — one reason we admire Huffington.)
But it covers politics with a mix of traditional reporters and analysts, like Tom Edsall, and with people who define themselves principally as advocates. Many of these advocates, like The Huffington Post as a whole, are proudly cheering for Obama. (This is true even though the site, almost apologetically, broke the story about Obama’s recent remarks saying small-town Pennsylvanians turn to guns and God because they are bitter.)
Obama benefits also from probably the strongest bias of traditional, old media reporters: Against partisan combat and for a brand of politics that would transcend differences in favor of cooperation and centrism on elite issues like entitlement reform. Many of these reporters see Clinton representing bad, angry, contrived old politics and Obama bravely leading the way for good, civil, authentic new politics.
4. Covering politics as it is versus as it should be. Many of the people complaining about ABC’s coverage, even some Clinton supporters, disliked the questions and the tone because they felt they were serving as a warm-up act for Republican attacks in the fall.
It is not an easy balance. It is not reporters’ job to promote the opposition’s story lines — especially dubious ones like the suggestion that because Obama does not favor flag pins on his lapel it reflects adversely on his patriotism. But nor can serious reporters avert their gaze from the fact that questions about how well candidates connect personally and culturally with voters matter a lot — they were decisive factors in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Gibson and Stephanopoulos handled this balancing act responsibly. They asked tough questions of both candidates. In the wake of the debate, it is time for Obama’s cheerleaders in the media to ask some questions of themselves.
Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?
Where indeed. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.
That’s still a good response now that it is Obama partisans — some of whom are showing up in distressingly inappropriate places — who are doing the whining.
The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.
Last fall, when NBC’s Tim Russert hazed Clinton with a bunch of similar questions — a mix of fair and impertinent — he got lots of gripes from Clinton supporters.
But there was nothing like the piling on from journalists rushing to validate the Obama criticisms and denouncing ABC’s performance as journalistically unsound.
The response was itself a warning about a huge challenge for reporters in the 2008 cycle: preserving professional detachment in a race that will likely feature two nominees, Obama and John McCain, who so far have been beneficiaries of media cheerleadinThis is not to say that ABC’s performance was flawless. There were some weird questions (“Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do?”). There were some questionable production decisions (the camera cutaways to Chelsea Clinton, the stacking of so many process questions in the first 45 minutes).
But there was nothing to justify Tom Shales’s hyperbolic review (“shoddy, despicable performances” by Gibson and Stephanopoulos) in The Washington Post or Greg Mitchell’s in Editor & Publisher (“perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years”). Others, like Time’s Michael Grunwald, likewise weighed in against ABC.
In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.
Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything, they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.
If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient and uncertain.
The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.
(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and The Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through detox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)
(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama's speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he's on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the ClintoAll this is hardly the end of the world. Clinton is not behind principally because of media bias; Obama is not ahead principally because of media favoritism. McCain won the GOP nomination mainly through good luck and the infirmities of his opposition. But the fact that lots of reporters personally like the guy — and a few seem to have an open crush — did not hurt.
But the protectiveness toward Obama revealed in the embarrassing rush of many journalists to his side this week does touch on at least four deeper trends in the news business.
1. The breakdown of journalistic conventions about point of view. In an earlier era these standards — favoring austere, stoical language conveying voice-of-God authority — were designed in part to ensure that stories betrayed no hint of the writer’s real feelings.
But the convention was a pretense. There is a generally laudable move toward more conversational — and more candid — language in stories. This shift allows a respected pro like the Associated Press’s Ron Fournier to unsheathe a knife and write this sentence earlier this year about Mitt Romney: “The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents' record and continued to show why he's the most malleable — and least credible — major presidential candidate.”
This shift is also what allows NBC News to feel comfortable with its Obama reporter, Lee Cowan, who has acknowledged that he finds it hard to keep his objectivity covering Obama.
But when does a legitimate attempt to capture the energy and mood of a political movement become boosterism? Did Cowan cross the line in this dispatch for the “Nightly News” on Feb. 5?: “Since the early days of his campaign, the candidate has morphed from the intellectual to the inspirational. … And it's that theme that's brought crowds in the door and to their feet.”
It is a thin and often illegible line between this kind of journalism and outright favoritism.
Wherever the line, it is clear that the profession collectively has stepped over it — based as much on what it hasn’t covered as what it has.
Two of the questions ABC asked Wednesday were related to subjects that have largely been met with media yawns.
One was Obama’s casual association with 1960s era radicals and would-be bomb-setters William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn: What is the nature of his relationship?
Another was about a questionnaire from a 1996 legislative race in which he endorsed a ban on handguns. Obama said the questionnaire was filled out by someone else and was in error about his views at the time. But it was later found that his handwriting was on the document: What gives?
One can dispute the relevance of these stories — though it seems certain they will be of interest to many moderate voters Obama would need in the fall — but it is indisputable that if Clinton was facing similar questions they would be the subject of constant and all-consuming coverage. There is an obvious double standard.
2. The rise of the liberal echo chamber. It used to be that if a reporter received a letter that started, “You biased S.O.B.,” it was almost certainly coming from someone on the right. In 1998 — the year of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Bill Clinton’s impeachment — those notes began coming in equal measure from the left. During the Bush era — when the media stumbled in coverage of the march to wBut it has only been in this campaign cycle that we have seen the liberal echo chamber — from websites like The Huffington Post and cable commentators like Keith Olbermann — be able consistently to drive a campaign story line. In the past, it was only the conservative echo chamber — Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh — who regularly drove stories in new media and old media alike. This is a huge shift.
3. The blurring of lines between journalist and advocate. The Huffington Post is an admirable enterprise, staking a flag in a new media landscape. Its success this year was made possible by the openness of the Web and the decline in what was once the near-monopoly power of old media institutions like The New York Times to set the agenda on national politics. (Politico is itself an experiment in that new media landscape — one reason we admire Huffington.)
But it covers politics with a mix of traditional reporters and analysts, like Tom Edsall, and with people who define themselves principally as advocates. Many of these advocates, like The Huffington Post as a whole, are proudly cheering for Obama. (This is true even though the site, almost apologetically, broke the story about Obama’s recent remarks saying small-town Pennsylvanians turn to guns and God because they are bitter.)
Obama benefits also from probably the strongest bias of traditional, old media reporters: Against partisan combat and for a brand of politics that would transcend differences in favor of cooperation and centrism on elite issues like entitlement reform. Many of these reporters see Clinton representing bad, angry, contrived old politics and Obama bravely leading the way for good, civil, authentic new politics.
4. Covering politics as it is versus as it should be. Many of the people complaining about ABC’s coverage, even some Clinton supporters, disliked the questions and the tone because they felt they were serving as a warm-up act for Republican attacks in the fall.
It is not an easy balance. It is not reporters’ job to promote the opposition’s story lines — especially dubious ones like the suggestion that because Obama does not favor flag pins on his lapel it reflects adversely on his patriotism. But nor can serious reporters avert their gaze from the fact that questions about how well candidates connect personally and culturally with voters matter a lot — they were decisive factors in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Gibson and Stephanopoulos handled this balancing act responsibly. They asked tough questions of both candidates. In the wake of the debate, it is time for Obama’s cheerleaders in the media to ask some questions of themselves.
HBS Cases: Negotiating with Wal-Mart
What happens when you encounter a company with a great deal of power, like Wal-Mart, that is also the ultimate non-negotiable partner? A series of Harvard Business School cases by James Sebenius and Ellen Knebel explore successful deal-making strategies. From the HBS Alumni Bulletin. Key concepts include:
• Driving a mutually agreeable deal with a large company such as Wal-Mart means price alone can't be the centerpiece of the interaction.
Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, sold $315 billion worth of goods in 2006. With its single-minded focus on "EDLP" (everyday low prices) and the power to make or break suppliers, a partnership with Wal-Mart is either the Holy Grail or the kiss of death, depending on one's perspective.
There are numerous media accounts of the corporate monolith riding its suppliers into the ground. But what about those who manage to survive, and thrive, while dealing with the classic hardball negotiator?
In "Sarah Talley and Frey Farms Produce: Negotiating with Wal-Mart" and "Tom Muccio: Negotiating the P&G Relationship with Wal-Mart," HBS professor Jim Sebenius and Research Associate Ellen Knebel show two very different organizations doing just that. The cases are part of a series that involve hard bargaining situations.
"Wal-Mart could clearly live without Frey Farms, but it's pretty hard to live without Tide and Pampers."
"The concept of win-win bargaining is a good and powerful message," Sebenius says, "but a lot of our students and executives face counterparts who aren't interested in playing by those rules. So what happens when you encounter someone with a great deal of power, like Wal-Mart, who is also the ultimate non-negotiable partner?"
The case details how P&G executive Tom Muccio pioneers a new supplier-retailer partnership between P&G and Wal-Mart. Built on proximity (Muccio relocated to Wal-Mart's turf in Arkansas) and growing trust (both sides eventually eliminated elaborate legal contracts in favor of Letters of Intent), the new relationship focused on establishing a joint vision and problem-solving process, information sharing, and generally moving away from the "lowest common denominator" pricing issues that had defined their interactions previously. From 1987, when Muccio initiated the changes, to 2003, shortly before his retirement, P&G's sales to Wal-Mart grew from $350 million to $7.8 billion.
"There are obvious differences between P&G and a much smaller entity like Frey Farms," Sebenius notes. "Wal-Mart could clearly live without Frey Farms, but it's pretty hard to live without Tide and Pampers."
Sarah meets Goliath
Sarah Talley was 19 in 1997, when she first began negotiations to supply Wal-Mart with her family farm's pumpkins and watermelons. Like Muccio, Talley confronted some of the same hardball price challenges, and like Muccio, she acquired a deep understanding of the Wal-Mart culture while finding "new money" in the supply chain through innovative tactics.
For example, Frey Farms used school buses ($1,500 each) instead of tractors ($12,000 each) as a cheaper and faster way to transport melons to the warehouse.
Talley also negotiated a coveted co-management supplier agreement with Wal-Mart, showing how Frey Farms could share the responsibility of managing inventory levels and sales and ultimately save customers money while improving their own margins.
"Two sides in this sort of negotiation will always differ on price," Sebenius observes. "However, if that conflict is the centerpiece of their interaction, then it's a bad situation. If they're trying to develop the customer, the relationship, and sales, the price piece will be one of many points, most of which they're aligned on."
Research Associate Knebel points out that while Tom Muccio's approach to Wal-Mart was pioneering for its time, many other companies have since followed P&G's lead and enjoyed their own versions of success with the mega-retailer. Getting a ground-level view of how two companies achieved those positive outcomes illustrates the story-within-a-story of implementing corporate change.
"Achieving that is where macro concepts, micro imperatives, and managerial skill really come together," says Sebenius. And the payoffs—as Muccio and Talley discover—are well worth the effort.
Sarah Talley's Key Negotiation Principles
• When you have a problem, when there's something you engage in with Wal-Mart that requires agreement so that it becomes a negotiation, the first advice is to think in partnership terms, really focus on a common goal, of getting costs out, for example, and ask questions. Don't make demands or statements ... you know, can we do this better and so forth. If the relationship with Wal-Mart is truly a partnership, negotiating to resolve differences should not endanger the tenor of the partnership.
• Don't spend time griping. Be problem solvers instead. Approach Wal-Mart by saying, "Let's work together and drive costs down and produce it so much cheaper you don't have to replace me, because if you work with me I could do it better."
• Learn from and lobby with people and their partners who have credibility, and with people having problems in the field.
• Don't ignore small issues or let things fester.
• Do not let Wal-Mart become more than 20 percent of your company's business. It's hard to negotiate with a company that controls yours.
• Never go into a meeting without a clear agenda. Make good use of the buyers' face time. Leave with answers. Don't make small talk. Get to the point; their time is valuable. Bring underlying issues to the surface. Attack them head on and find resolution face to face.
• Trying to bluff Wal-Mart is never a good idea. There is always someone willing to do it cheaper to gain the business. You have to treat the relationship as a marriage. Communication and compromise is key.
• Don't take for granted that just because the buyer is young they don't know what they are talking about or that it will be an easy sell. Most young buyers are very ambitious to move up within the company and can be some of the toughest, most educated buyers you will encounter. Know your product all the way from the production standpoint to the end use. Chances are your buyer does, and will expect you to be even more knowledgeable.
• Driving a mutually agreeable deal with a large company such as Wal-Mart means price alone can't be the centerpiece of the interaction.
Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, sold $315 billion worth of goods in 2006. With its single-minded focus on "EDLP" (everyday low prices) and the power to make or break suppliers, a partnership with Wal-Mart is either the Holy Grail or the kiss of death, depending on one's perspective.
There are numerous media accounts of the corporate monolith riding its suppliers into the ground. But what about those who manage to survive, and thrive, while dealing with the classic hardball negotiator?
In "Sarah Talley and Frey Farms Produce: Negotiating with Wal-Mart" and "Tom Muccio: Negotiating the P&G Relationship with Wal-Mart," HBS professor Jim Sebenius and Research Associate Ellen Knebel show two very different organizations doing just that. The cases are part of a series that involve hard bargaining situations.
"Wal-Mart could clearly live without Frey Farms, but it's pretty hard to live without Tide and Pampers."
"The concept of win-win bargaining is a good and powerful message," Sebenius says, "but a lot of our students and executives face counterparts who aren't interested in playing by those rules. So what happens when you encounter someone with a great deal of power, like Wal-Mart, who is also the ultimate non-negotiable partner?"
The case details how P&G executive Tom Muccio pioneers a new supplier-retailer partnership between P&G and Wal-Mart. Built on proximity (Muccio relocated to Wal-Mart's turf in Arkansas) and growing trust (both sides eventually eliminated elaborate legal contracts in favor of Letters of Intent), the new relationship focused on establishing a joint vision and problem-solving process, information sharing, and generally moving away from the "lowest common denominator" pricing issues that had defined their interactions previously. From 1987, when Muccio initiated the changes, to 2003, shortly before his retirement, P&G's sales to Wal-Mart grew from $350 million to $7.8 billion.
"There are obvious differences between P&G and a much smaller entity like Frey Farms," Sebenius notes. "Wal-Mart could clearly live without Frey Farms, but it's pretty hard to live without Tide and Pampers."
Sarah meets Goliath
Sarah Talley was 19 in 1997, when she first began negotiations to supply Wal-Mart with her family farm's pumpkins and watermelons. Like Muccio, Talley confronted some of the same hardball price challenges, and like Muccio, she acquired a deep understanding of the Wal-Mart culture while finding "new money" in the supply chain through innovative tactics.
For example, Frey Farms used school buses ($1,500 each) instead of tractors ($12,000 each) as a cheaper and faster way to transport melons to the warehouse.
Talley also negotiated a coveted co-management supplier agreement with Wal-Mart, showing how Frey Farms could share the responsibility of managing inventory levels and sales and ultimately save customers money while improving their own margins.
"Two sides in this sort of negotiation will always differ on price," Sebenius observes. "However, if that conflict is the centerpiece of their interaction, then it's a bad situation. If they're trying to develop the customer, the relationship, and sales, the price piece will be one of many points, most of which they're aligned on."
Research Associate Knebel points out that while Tom Muccio's approach to Wal-Mart was pioneering for its time, many other companies have since followed P&G's lead and enjoyed their own versions of success with the mega-retailer. Getting a ground-level view of how two companies achieved those positive outcomes illustrates the story-within-a-story of implementing corporate change.
"Achieving that is where macro concepts, micro imperatives, and managerial skill really come together," says Sebenius. And the payoffs—as Muccio and Talley discover—are well worth the effort.
Sarah Talley's Key Negotiation Principles
• When you have a problem, when there's something you engage in with Wal-Mart that requires agreement so that it becomes a negotiation, the first advice is to think in partnership terms, really focus on a common goal, of getting costs out, for example, and ask questions. Don't make demands or statements ... you know, can we do this better and so forth. If the relationship with Wal-Mart is truly a partnership, negotiating to resolve differences should not endanger the tenor of the partnership.
• Don't spend time griping. Be problem solvers instead. Approach Wal-Mart by saying, "Let's work together and drive costs down and produce it so much cheaper you don't have to replace me, because if you work with me I could do it better."
• Learn from and lobby with people and their partners who have credibility, and with people having problems in the field.
• Don't ignore small issues or let things fester.
• Do not let Wal-Mart become more than 20 percent of your company's business. It's hard to negotiate with a company that controls yours.
• Never go into a meeting without a clear agenda. Make good use of the buyers' face time. Leave with answers. Don't make small talk. Get to the point; their time is valuable. Bring underlying issues to the surface. Attack them head on and find resolution face to face.
• Trying to bluff Wal-Mart is never a good idea. There is always someone willing to do it cheaper to gain the business. You have to treat the relationship as a marriage. Communication and compromise is key.
• Don't take for granted that just because the buyer is young they don't know what they are talking about or that it will be an easy sell. Most young buyers are very ambitious to move up within the company and can be some of the toughest, most educated buyers you will encounter. Know your product all the way from the production standpoint to the end use. Chances are your buyer does, and will expect you to be even more knowledgeable.
New Guidelines Proposed for Hedge Funds
-- In the place of new government regulations, the Bush administration is coming forward with some industry-developed "best practices" to guide the operation of hedge funds.
Those guidelines were scheduled to be unveiled Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the leaders of the two groups working on guidelines for the funds.
One set of recommendations provides guidelines on how investors of hedge funds should operate. It was drawn up by an investors' group headed by Russell Read, the chief investment officer of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest pension fund in the United States.
The other set of recommendations designed to serve as guidelines for the managers of the hedge funds was draw up by an advisory panel headed by Eric Mindich, the head of Eton Park Capital Management, a large hedge fund.
The Bush administration has resisted pressure to increase government regulation of hedge funds, arguing that market discipline is the best way to handle these funds. The White House still supports that view even after the turbulence that has hit financial markets roiled by a serious credit crisis.
Those troubles claimed their biggest victim last month with the near-collapse of Bear Stearns, the country's fifth largest investment bank, which was taken over by JP Morgan Chase & Co. in a deal in which the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion loan.
Hedge funds, vast pools of capital that operate secretively and with very little government supervision, have grown explosively in recent years.
While hedge funds cater to institutional investors and very wealthy individuals, millions of ordinary people have become investors in them through their pension plans.
Hedge funds have been caught up in the recent turmoil in financial markets, with investors growing worried about the solvency of funds that had invested heavily in securities backed by subprime mortgages, where delinquencies have hit record levels
Those guidelines were scheduled to be unveiled Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the leaders of the two groups working on guidelines for the funds.
One set of recommendations provides guidelines on how investors of hedge funds should operate. It was drawn up by an investors' group headed by Russell Read, the chief investment officer of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), the largest pension fund in the United States.
The other set of recommendations designed to serve as guidelines for the managers of the hedge funds was draw up by an advisory panel headed by Eric Mindich, the head of Eton Park Capital Management, a large hedge fund.
The Bush administration has resisted pressure to increase government regulation of hedge funds, arguing that market discipline is the best way to handle these funds. The White House still supports that view even after the turbulence that has hit financial markets roiled by a serious credit crisis.
Those troubles claimed their biggest victim last month with the near-collapse of Bear Stearns, the country's fifth largest investment bank, which was taken over by JP Morgan Chase & Co. in a deal in which the Federal Reserve provided a $30 billion loan.
Hedge funds, vast pools of capital that operate secretively and with very little government supervision, have grown explosively in recent years.
While hedge funds cater to institutional investors and very wealthy individuals, millions of ordinary people have become investors in them through their pension plans.
Hedge funds have been caught up in the recent turmoil in financial markets, with investors growing worried about the solvency of funds that had invested heavily in securities backed by subprime mortgages, where delinquencies have hit record levels
Areas and categories and implementations of management
• Accounting management
• Agile management
• Association management
• Capability Management
• Change management
• Communication management
• Constraint management
• Cost management
• Crisis management
• Critical management studies
• Customer relationship management
• Decision making styles
• Design management
• Disaster management
• Earned value management
• Educational management
• Enterprise management
• Environmental management
• Facility management
• Financial management
• Forecasting
• Human resources management
• Hospital management
• Information technology management
• Innovation management
• Interim management
• Inventory management
• Knowledge management
• Land management
• Leadership management
• Logistics management
• Lifecycle management
• Management on demand
• Marketing management
• Materials management
• Operations management
• Organization development
• Perception management
• Practice management
• Program management
• Project management
• Process management
• Performance management
• Product management
• Public administration
• Public management
• Quality management
• Records management
• Research management
• Resource management
• Risk management
• Skills management
• Social entrepreneurship
• Spend management
• Spiritual management
• Strategic management
• Stress management
• Supply chain management
• Systems management
• Talent management
• Time management
• Visual management
• Agile management
• Association management
• Capability Management
• Change management
• Communication management
• Constraint management
• Cost management
• Crisis management
• Critical management studies
• Customer relationship management
• Decision making styles
• Design management
• Disaster management
• Earned value management
• Educational management
• Enterprise management
• Environmental management
• Facility management
• Financial management
• Forecasting
• Human resources management
• Hospital management
• Information technology management
• Innovation management
• Interim management
• Inventory management
• Knowledge management
• Land management
• Leadership management
• Logistics management
• Lifecycle management
• Management on demand
• Marketing management
• Materials management
• Operations management
• Organization development
• Perception management
• Practice management
• Program management
• Project management
• Process management
• Performance management
• Product management
• Public administration
• Public management
• Quality management
• Records management
• Research management
• Resource management
• Risk management
• Skills management
• Social entrepreneurship
• Spend management
• Spiritual management
• Strategic management
• Stress management
• Supply chain management
• Systems management
• Talent management
• Time management
• Visual management
Management topics
Basic functions of management
Management operates through various functions, often classified as planning, organizing, leading/motivating and controlling.
• Planning: deciding what needs to happen in the future (today, next week, next month, next year, over the next 5 years, etc.) and generating plans for action.
• Organizing: making optimum use of the resources required to enable the successful carrying out of plans.
• Leading/Motivating: exhibiting skills in these areas for getting others to play an effective part in achieving plans.
• Controlling: monitoring -- checking progress against plans, which may need modification based on feedback.
[edit] Formation of the business policy
• The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose -- which may be, for example, to make soap.
• The vision of the business reflects its aspirations and specifies its intended direction or future destination.
• The objectives of the business refers to the ends or activity at which a certain task is aimed.
• The business's policy is a guide that stipulates rules, regulations and objectives, and may be used in the managers' decision-making. It must be flexible and easily interpreted and understood by all employees.
• The business's strategy refers to the coordinated plan of action that it is going to take, as well as the resources that it will use, to realize its vision and long-term objectives. It is a guideline to managers, stipulating how they ought to allocate and utilize the factors of production to the business's advantage. Initially, it could help the managers decide on what type of business they want to form.
[edit] How to implement policies and strategies
• All policies and strategies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and staff.
• Managers must understand where and how they can implement their policies and strategies.
• A plan of action must be devised for each department.
• Policies and strategies must be reviewed regularly.
• Contingency plans must be devised in case the environment changes.
• Assessments of progress ought to be carried out regularly by top-level managers.
• A good environment is required within the business.
[edit] The development of policies and strategies
• The missions, objectives, strengths and weaknesses of each department must be analysed to determine their roles in achieving the business's mission.
• The forecasting method develops a reliable picture of the business's future environment.
• A planning unit must be created to ensure that all plans are consistent and that policies and strategies are aimed at achieving the same mission and objectives.
• Contingency plans must be developed, just in case.
All policies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and staff that is required in the execution of any departmental policy.
[edit] Where policies and strategies fit into the planning process
• They give mid- and lower-level managers a good idea of the future plans for each department.
• A framework is created whereby plans and decisions are made.
• Mid- and lower-level management may add their own plans to the business's strategic ones.
[edit] Managerial levels and hierarchy
The management of a large organization may have three levels:
1. Senior management (or "top management" or "upper management")
2. Middle management
3. Low-level management, such as supervisors or team-leaders
4. Foreman
5. Rank and File
Top-level management
• require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills.
• They have to be very aware of external factors such as markets.
• Their decisions are generally of a long-term nature
• Their decision are made using analytic, directive, conceptual and/or behavioral/participative processes
• They are responsible for strategic decisions.
• They have to chalk out the plan and see that plan may be effective in the future.
• They are executive in nature.
Middle management
• Mid-level managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks.
• They are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by top-level management.
Lower management
• This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans taken by the other two are carried out.
• Lower-level managers' decisions are generally short-term ones
Foreman
• They are men who have direct supervision over the working force in office factory, sales field or other areas of activity of the concern.
Rank and File
• The responsibilities of the persons belonging to this group are even more restricted and more specific than those of the foreman.
Management operates through various functions, often classified as planning, organizing, leading/motivating and controlling.
• Planning: deciding what needs to happen in the future (today, next week, next month, next year, over the next 5 years, etc.) and generating plans for action.
• Organizing: making optimum use of the resources required to enable the successful carrying out of plans.
• Leading/Motivating: exhibiting skills in these areas for getting others to play an effective part in achieving plans.
• Controlling: monitoring -- checking progress against plans, which may need modification based on feedback.
[edit] Formation of the business policy
• The mission of the business is its most obvious purpose -- which may be, for example, to make soap.
• The vision of the business reflects its aspirations and specifies its intended direction or future destination.
• The objectives of the business refers to the ends or activity at which a certain task is aimed.
• The business's policy is a guide that stipulates rules, regulations and objectives, and may be used in the managers' decision-making. It must be flexible and easily interpreted and understood by all employees.
• The business's strategy refers to the coordinated plan of action that it is going to take, as well as the resources that it will use, to realize its vision and long-term objectives. It is a guideline to managers, stipulating how they ought to allocate and utilize the factors of production to the business's advantage. Initially, it could help the managers decide on what type of business they want to form.
[edit] How to implement policies and strategies
• All policies and strategies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and staff.
• Managers must understand where and how they can implement their policies and strategies.
• A plan of action must be devised for each department.
• Policies and strategies must be reviewed regularly.
• Contingency plans must be devised in case the environment changes.
• Assessments of progress ought to be carried out regularly by top-level managers.
• A good environment is required within the business.
[edit] The development of policies and strategies
• The missions, objectives, strengths and weaknesses of each department must be analysed to determine their roles in achieving the business's mission.
• The forecasting method develops a reliable picture of the business's future environment.
• A planning unit must be created to ensure that all plans are consistent and that policies and strategies are aimed at achieving the same mission and objectives.
• Contingency plans must be developed, just in case.
All policies must be discussed with all managerial personnel and staff that is required in the execution of any departmental policy.
[edit] Where policies and strategies fit into the planning process
• They give mid- and lower-level managers a good idea of the future plans for each department.
• A framework is created whereby plans and decisions are made.
• Mid- and lower-level management may add their own plans to the business's strategic ones.
[edit] Managerial levels and hierarchy
The management of a large organization may have three levels:
1. Senior management (or "top management" or "upper management")
2. Middle management
3. Low-level management, such as supervisors or team-leaders
4. Foreman
5. Rank and File
Top-level management
• require an extensive knowledge of management roles and skills.
• They have to be very aware of external factors such as markets.
• Their decisions are generally of a long-term nature
• Their decision are made using analytic, directive, conceptual and/or behavioral/participative processes
• They are responsible for strategic decisions.
• They have to chalk out the plan and see that plan may be effective in the future.
• They are executive in nature.
Middle management
• Mid-level managers have a specialized understanding of certain managerial tasks.
• They are responsible for carrying out the decisions made by top-level management.
Lower management
• This level of management ensures that the decisions and plans taken by the other two are carried out.
• Lower-level managers' decisions are generally short-term ones
Foreman
• They are men who have direct supervision over the working force in office factory, sales field or other areas of activity of the concern.
Rank and File
• The responsibilities of the persons belonging to this group are even more restricted and more specific than those of the foreman.
Management
Management in simple terms means the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals. Management comprises planning, organizing, resourcing, leading or directing, and controlling an organization (a group of one or more people or entities) or effort for the purpose of accomplishing a goal. Resourcing encompasses the deployment and manipulation of human resources, financial resources, technological resources, and natural resources.
Management can also refer to the person or people who perform the act(s) of management.
Overview
The verb manage comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle — especially a horse), which in turn derives from the Latin manus (hand). The French word mesnagement (later ménagement) influenced the development in meaning of the English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries.[1]
[edit] Theoretical scope
Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), who wrote on the topic in the early twentieth century, defined management as "the art of getting things done through people".[2] One can also think of management functionally, as the action of measuring a quantity on a regular basis and of adjusting some initial plan; or as the actions taken to reach one's intended goal. This applies even in situations where planning does not take place. From this perspective, Frenchman Henri Fayol[3] considers management to consist of five functions:
1. planning
2. organizing
3. leading
4. co-ordinating
5. controlling
Some people, however, find this definition, while useful, far too narrow. The phrase "management is what managers do" occurs widely, suggesting the difficulty of defining management, the shifting nature of definitions, and the connection of managerial practices with the existence of a managerial cadre or class.
One habit of thought regards management as equivalent to "business administration" and thus excludes management in places outside commerce, as for example in charities and in the public sector. More realistically, however, every organization must manage its work, people, processes, technology, etc. in order to maximize its effectiveness. Nonetheless, many people refer to university departments which teach management as "business schools." Some institutions (such as the Harvard Business School) use that name while others (such as the Yale School of Management) employ the more inclusive term "management."
Speakers of English may also use the term "management" or "the management" as a collective word describing the managers of an organization, for example of a corporation. Historically this use of the term was often contrasted with the term "Labor" referring to those being managed.
[edit] Nature of managerial work
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
In for-profit work, management has as its primary function the satisfaction of a range of stakeholders. This typically involves making a profit (for the shareholders), creating valued products at a reasonable cost (for customers), and providing rewarding employment opportunities (for employees). In nonprofit management, add the importance of keeping the faith of donors. In most models of management/governance, shareholders vote for the board of directors, and the board then hires senior management. Some organizations have experimented with other methods (such as employee-voting models) of selecting or reviewing managers; but this occurs only very rarely.
In the public sector of countries constituted as representative democracies, voters elect politicians to public office. Such politicians hire many managers and administrators, and in some countries like the United States political appointees lose their jobs on the election of a new president/governor/mayor. Some 2500 people serve at the pleasure of the United States Chief Executive, including all of the top US government executives.
Public, private, and voluntary sectors place different demands on managers, but all must retain the faith of those who select them (if they wish to retain their jobs), retain the faith of those people that fund the organization, and retain the faith of those who work for the organization. If they fail to convince employees of the advantages of staying rather than leaving, they may tip the organization into a downward spiral of hiring, training, firing, and recruiting. Management also has the task of innovating and of improving the functioning of organizations.
[edit] Historical development
Difficulties arise in tracing the history of management. Some see it (by definition) as a late modern (in the sense of late modernity) conceptualization. On those terms it cannot have a pre-modern history, only harbingers (such as stewards). Others, however, detect management-like activities in the pre-modern past. Some writers[who?] trace the development of management-thought back to Sumerian traders and to the builders of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Slave-owners through the centuries faced the problems of exploiting/motivating a dependent but sometimes unenthusiastic or recalcitrant workforce, but many pre-industrial enterprises, given their small scale, did not feel compelled to face the issues of management systematically. However, innovations such as the spread of Arabic numerals (5th to 15th centuries) and the codification of double-entry book-keeping (1494) provided tools for management assessment, planning and control.
Given the scale of most commercial operations and the lack of mechanized record-keeping and recording before the industrial revolution, it made sense for most owners of enterprises in those times to carry out management functions by and for themselves. But with growing size and complexity of organizations, the split between owners (individuals, industrial dynasties or groups of shareholders) and day-to-day managers (independent specialists in planning and control) gradually became more common.
[edit] Early writing
While management has been present for millennia, several writers have created a background of works that assisted in modern management theories.[4]
[edit] Sun Tzu's The Art of War
Written by Chinese general Sun Tzu in the 6th century BCE, The Art of War is a military strategy book that, for managerial purposes, recommends being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager's organization and a foe's.[4]
[edit] Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince
Believing that people were motivated by self-interest, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513 as advice for the leadership of Florence, Italy.[5] Machiavelli recommended that leaders use fear—but not hatred—to maintain control.
[edit] Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
Written in 1776 by Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, The Wealth of Nations aims for efficient organization of work through division of labor.[5] Smith described how changes in processes could boost productivity in the manufacture of pins. While individuals could produce 200 pins per day, Smith analyzed the steps involved in manufacture and, with 10 specialists, enabled production of 48,000 pins per day.[5]
[edit] 19th century
Some argue[citation needed] that modern management as a discipline began as an off-shoot of economics in the 19th century. Classical economists such as Adam Smith (1723 - 1790) and John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) provided a theoretical background to resource-allocation, production, and pricing issues. About the same time, innovators like Eli Whitney (1765 - 1825), James Watt (1736 - 1819), and Matthew Boulton (1728 - 1809) developed elements of technical production such as standardization, quality-control procedures, cost-accounting, interchangeability of parts, and work-planning. Many of these aspects of management existed in the pre-1861 slave-based sector of the US economy. That environment saw 4 million people, as the contemporary usages had it, "managed" in profitable quasi-mass production.
By the late 19th century, marginal economists Alfred Marshall (1842 - 1924) and Léon Walras (1834 - 1910) and others introduced a new layer of complexity to the theoretical underpinnings of management. Joseph Wharton offered the first tertiary-level course in management in 1881.
[edit] 20th century
By about 1900 one finds managers trying to place their theories on what they regarded as a thoroughly scientific basis (see scientism for perceived limitations of this belief). Examples include Henry R. Towne's Science of management in the 1890s, Frederick Winslow Taylor's Scientific management (1911), Frank and Lillian Gilbreth's Applied motion study (1917), and Henry L. Gantt's charts (1910s). J. Duncan wrote the first college management textbook in 1911. In 1912 Yoichi Ueno introduced Taylorism to Japan and became first management consultant of the "Japanese-management style". His son Ichiro Ueno pioneered Japanese quality-assurance.
The first comprehensive theories of management appeared around 1920. The Harvard Business School invented the Master of Business Administration degree (MBA) in 1921. People like Henri Fayol (1841 - 1925) and Alexander Church described the various branches of management and their inter-relationships. In the early 20th century, people like Ordway Tead (1891 - 1973), Walter Scott and J. Mooney applied the principles of psychology to management, while other writers, such as Elton Mayo (1880 - 1949), Mary Parker Follett (1868 - 1933), Chester Barnard (1886 - 1961), Max Weber (1864 - 1920), Rensis Likert (1903 - 1981), and Chris Argyris (1923 - ) approached the phenomenon of management from a sociological perspective.
Peter Drucker (1909 – 2005) wrote one of the earliest books on applied management: Concept of the Corporation (published in 1946). It resulted from Alfred Sloan (chairman of General Motors until 1956) commissioning a study of the organisation. Drucker went on to write 39 books, many in the same vein.
H. Dodge, Ronald Fisher (1890 - 1962), and Thornton C. Fry introduced statistical techniques into management-studies. In the 1940s, Patrick Blackett combined these statistical theories with microeconomic theory and gave birth to the science of operations research. Operations research, sometimes known as "management science" (but distinct from Taylor's scientific management), attempts to take a scientific approach to solving management problems, particularly in the areas of logistics and operations.
Some of the more recent developments include the Theory of Constraints, management by objectives, reengineering, Six Sigma and various information-technology-driven theories such as agile software development, as well as group management theories such as Cog's Ladder.
As the general recognition of managers as a class solidified during the 20th century and gave perceived practitioners of the art/science of management a certain amount of prestige, so the way opened for popularised systems of management ideas to peddle their wares. In this context many management fads may have had more to do with pop psychology than with scientific theories of management.
Towards the end of the 20th century, business management came to consist of six separate branches, namely:
• Human resource management
• Operations management or production management
• Strategic management
• Marketing management
• Financial management
• Information technology management responsible for management information systems
[edit] 21st century
In the 21st century observers find it increasingly difficult to subdivide management into functional categories in this way. More and more processes simultaneously involve several categories. Instead, one tends to think in terms of the various processes, tasks, and objects subject to management.
Branches of management theory also exist relating to nonprofits and to government: such as public administration, public management, and educational management. Further, management programs related to civil-society organizations have also spawned programs in nonprofit management and social entrepreneurship.
Note that many of the assumptions made by management have come under attack from business ethics viewpoints, critical management studies, and anti-corporate activism.
As one consequence, workplace democracy has become both more common, and more advocated, in some places distributing all management functions among the workers, each of whom takes on a portion of the work. However, these models predate any current political issue, and may occur more naturally than does a command hierarchy. All management to some degree embraces democratic principles in that in the long term workers must give majority support to management; otherwise they leave to find other work, or go on strike. Hence management has started to become less based on the conceptualisation of classical military command-and-control, and more about facilitation and support of collaborative activity, utilizing principles such as those of human interaction management to deal with the complexities of human interaction. Indeed, the concept of Ubiquitous command-and-control posits such a transformation for 21st century military management.
Management can also refer to the person or people who perform the act(s) of management.
Overview
The verb manage comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle — especially a horse), which in turn derives from the Latin manus (hand). The French word mesnagement (later ménagement) influenced the development in meaning of the English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries.[1]
[edit] Theoretical scope
Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933), who wrote on the topic in the early twentieth century, defined management as "the art of getting things done through people".[2] One can also think of management functionally, as the action of measuring a quantity on a regular basis and of adjusting some initial plan; or as the actions taken to reach one's intended goal. This applies even in situations where planning does not take place. From this perspective, Frenchman Henri Fayol[3] considers management to consist of five functions:
1. planning
2. organizing
3. leading
4. co-ordinating
5. controlling
Some people, however, find this definition, while useful, far too narrow. The phrase "management is what managers do" occurs widely, suggesting the difficulty of defining management, the shifting nature of definitions, and the connection of managerial practices with the existence of a managerial cadre or class.
One habit of thought regards management as equivalent to "business administration" and thus excludes management in places outside commerce, as for example in charities and in the public sector. More realistically, however, every organization must manage its work, people, processes, technology, etc. in order to maximize its effectiveness. Nonetheless, many people refer to university departments which teach management as "business schools." Some institutions (such as the Harvard Business School) use that name while others (such as the Yale School of Management) employ the more inclusive term "management."
Speakers of English may also use the term "management" or "the management" as a collective word describing the managers of an organization, for example of a corporation. Historically this use of the term was often contrasted with the term "Labor" referring to those being managed.
[edit] Nature of managerial work
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
In for-profit work, management has as its primary function the satisfaction of a range of stakeholders. This typically involves making a profit (for the shareholders), creating valued products at a reasonable cost (for customers), and providing rewarding employment opportunities (for employees). In nonprofit management, add the importance of keeping the faith of donors. In most models of management/governance, shareholders vote for the board of directors, and the board then hires senior management. Some organizations have experimented with other methods (such as employee-voting models) of selecting or reviewing managers; but this occurs only very rarely.
In the public sector of countries constituted as representative democracies, voters elect politicians to public office. Such politicians hire many managers and administrators, and in some countries like the United States political appointees lose their jobs on the election of a new president/governor/mayor. Some 2500 people serve at the pleasure of the United States Chief Executive, including all of the top US government executives.
Public, private, and voluntary sectors place different demands on managers, but all must retain the faith of those who select them (if they wish to retain their jobs), retain the faith of those people that fund the organization, and retain the faith of those who work for the organization. If they fail to convince employees of the advantages of staying rather than leaving, they may tip the organization into a downward spiral of hiring, training, firing, and recruiting. Management also has the task of innovating and of improving the functioning of organizations.
[edit] Historical development
Difficulties arise in tracing the history of management. Some see it (by definition) as a late modern (in the sense of late modernity) conceptualization. On those terms it cannot have a pre-modern history, only harbingers (such as stewards). Others, however, detect management-like activities in the pre-modern past. Some writers[who?] trace the development of management-thought back to Sumerian traders and to the builders of the pyramids of ancient Egypt. Slave-owners through the centuries faced the problems of exploiting/motivating a dependent but sometimes unenthusiastic or recalcitrant workforce, but many pre-industrial enterprises, given their small scale, did not feel compelled to face the issues of management systematically. However, innovations such as the spread of Arabic numerals (5th to 15th centuries) and the codification of double-entry book-keeping (1494) provided tools for management assessment, planning and control.
Given the scale of most commercial operations and the lack of mechanized record-keeping and recording before the industrial revolution, it made sense for most owners of enterprises in those times to carry out management functions by and for themselves. But with growing size and complexity of organizations, the split between owners (individuals, industrial dynasties or groups of shareholders) and day-to-day managers (independent specialists in planning and control) gradually became more common.
[edit] Early writing
While management has been present for millennia, several writers have created a background of works that assisted in modern management theories.[4]
[edit] Sun Tzu's The Art of War
Written by Chinese general Sun Tzu in the 6th century BCE, The Art of War is a military strategy book that, for managerial purposes, recommends being aware of and acting on strengths and weaknesses of both a manager's organization and a foe's.[4]
[edit] Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince
Believing that people were motivated by self-interest, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513 as advice for the leadership of Florence, Italy.[5] Machiavelli recommended that leaders use fear—but not hatred—to maintain control.
[edit] Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
Written in 1776 by Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher, The Wealth of Nations aims for efficient organization of work through division of labor.[5] Smith described how changes in processes could boost productivity in the manufacture of pins. While individuals could produce 200 pins per day, Smith analyzed the steps involved in manufacture and, with 10 specialists, enabled production of 48,000 pins per day.[5]
[edit] 19th century
Some argue[citation needed] that modern management as a discipline began as an off-shoot of economics in the 19th century. Classical economists such as Adam Smith (1723 - 1790) and John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) provided a theoretical background to resource-allocation, production, and pricing issues. About the same time, innovators like Eli Whitney (1765 - 1825), James Watt (1736 - 1819), and Matthew Boulton (1728 - 1809) developed elements of technical production such as standardization, quality-control procedures, cost-accounting, interchangeability of parts, and work-planning. Many of these aspects of management existed in the pre-1861 slave-based sector of the US economy. That environment saw 4 million people, as the contemporary usages had it, "managed" in profitable quasi-mass production.
By the late 19th century, marginal economists Alfred Marshall (1842 - 1924) and Léon Walras (1834 - 1910) and others introduced a new layer of complexity to the theoretical underpinnings of management. Joseph Wharton offered the first tertiary-level course in management in 1881.
[edit] 20th century
By about 1900 one finds managers trying to place their theories on what they regarded as a thoroughly scientific basis (see scientism for perceived limitations of this belief). Examples include Henry R. Towne's Science of management in the 1890s, Frederick Winslow Taylor's Scientific management (1911), Frank and Lillian Gilbreth's Applied motion study (1917), and Henry L. Gantt's charts (1910s). J. Duncan wrote the first college management textbook in 1911. In 1912 Yoichi Ueno introduced Taylorism to Japan and became first management consultant of the "Japanese-management style". His son Ichiro Ueno pioneered Japanese quality-assurance.
The first comprehensive theories of management appeared around 1920. The Harvard Business School invented the Master of Business Administration degree (MBA) in 1921. People like Henri Fayol (1841 - 1925) and Alexander Church described the various branches of management and their inter-relationships. In the early 20th century, people like Ordway Tead (1891 - 1973), Walter Scott and J. Mooney applied the principles of psychology to management, while other writers, such as Elton Mayo (1880 - 1949), Mary Parker Follett (1868 - 1933), Chester Barnard (1886 - 1961), Max Weber (1864 - 1920), Rensis Likert (1903 - 1981), and Chris Argyris (1923 - ) approached the phenomenon of management from a sociological perspective.
Peter Drucker (1909 – 2005) wrote one of the earliest books on applied management: Concept of the Corporation (published in 1946). It resulted from Alfred Sloan (chairman of General Motors until 1956) commissioning a study of the organisation. Drucker went on to write 39 books, many in the same vein.
H. Dodge, Ronald Fisher (1890 - 1962), and Thornton C. Fry introduced statistical techniques into management-studies. In the 1940s, Patrick Blackett combined these statistical theories with microeconomic theory and gave birth to the science of operations research. Operations research, sometimes known as "management science" (but distinct from Taylor's scientific management), attempts to take a scientific approach to solving management problems, particularly in the areas of logistics and operations.
Some of the more recent developments include the Theory of Constraints, management by objectives, reengineering, Six Sigma and various information-technology-driven theories such as agile software development, as well as group management theories such as Cog's Ladder.
As the general recognition of managers as a class solidified during the 20th century and gave perceived practitioners of the art/science of management a certain amount of prestige, so the way opened for popularised systems of management ideas to peddle their wares. In this context many management fads may have had more to do with pop psychology than with scientific theories of management.
Towards the end of the 20th century, business management came to consist of six separate branches, namely:
• Human resource management
• Operations management or production management
• Strategic management
• Marketing management
• Financial management
• Information technology management responsible for management information systems
[edit] 21st century
In the 21st century observers find it increasingly difficult to subdivide management into functional categories in this way. More and more processes simultaneously involve several categories. Instead, one tends to think in terms of the various processes, tasks, and objects subject to management.
Branches of management theory also exist relating to nonprofits and to government: such as public administration, public management, and educational management. Further, management programs related to civil-society organizations have also spawned programs in nonprofit management and social entrepreneurship.
Note that many of the assumptions made by management have come under attack from business ethics viewpoints, critical management studies, and anti-corporate activism.
As one consequence, workplace democracy has become both more common, and more advocated, in some places distributing all management functions among the workers, each of whom takes on a portion of the work. However, these models predate any current political issue, and may occur more naturally than does a command hierarchy. All management to some degree embraces democratic principles in that in the long term workers must give majority support to management; otherwise they leave to find other work, or go on strike. Hence management has started to become less based on the conceptualisation of classical military command-and-control, and more about facilitation and support of collaborative activity, utilizing principles such as those of human interaction management to deal with the complexities of human interaction. Indeed, the concept of Ubiquitous command-and-control posits such a transformation for 21st century military management.
List of relational database management systems
Open-source software
• CSQL
• Derby aka Java DB
• Firebird
• Gladius DB
• H2
• HSQLDB
• Ingres
• LucidDB [1]
• Mckoi SQL Database
• MonetDB
• MySQL
• Ocelot SQL [2]
• OpenLink Virtuoso (Open Source Edition)
• PostgreSQL
• Quadcap QED
• Rebol sql-protocol
• SmallSQL
• SQLite
• txtSQL
Freeware (proprietary)
• Adabas D
• Advantage Local Server
• IBM DB2 Express-C
• FrontBase
• MaxDB
• Microsoft SQL Server Express
• Oracle Database 10g Express Edition
• Sav Zigzag
• ScimoreDB
• Sybase ASE Express Edition
• tdbengine
Proprietary software
• 4th Dimension
• Microsoft Access
• Advantage Database Server
• Alpha_Five
• CA-Datacom
• Dataphor
• Daffodil database
• DB2
• EnterpriseDB
• eXtremeDB
• Faircom c-tree
• FileMaker Pro
• Greenplum
• Helix database
• Informix
• InterBase
• Jbase
• Kognitio, WX2
• Linter
• Matisse
• Microsoft Jet Database Engine (part of Microsoft Access)
• Microsoft SQL Server
• Microsoft Visual FoxPro
• Mimer SQL
• mSQL
• Multivalue
• MySQL
• Netezza
• NonStop SQL
• Oddity Databases
• Openbase
• Oracle
• Oracle Rdb for OpenVMS
• OpenLink Virtuoso Universal Server
• Pervasive
• Pick Post-Relational
• Progress 4GL
• Pyrrho DBMS
• Sand Analytic Server (formerly known as Nucleus)
• SIR (including SIR/XS, SIR2002, SIR2000 ...)
• solidDB
• GUPTA SQLBase
• Sybase SQL Anywhere (formerly known as Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere and Watcom SQL)
• Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise
• Sybase Adaptive Server IQ
• Teradata
• ThinkSQL
• TimesTen
• Unify
• Valentina (Database)
• Vertica
• VistaDB
• VMDS
• Whitecross Systems
• WinBase602
• CSQL
• Derby aka Java DB
• Firebird
• Gladius DB
• H2
• HSQLDB
• Ingres
• LucidDB [1]
• Mckoi SQL Database
• MonetDB
• MySQL
• Ocelot SQL [2]
• OpenLink Virtuoso (Open Source Edition)
• PostgreSQL
• Quadcap QED
• Rebol sql-protocol
• SmallSQL
• SQLite
• txtSQL
Freeware (proprietary)
• Adabas D
• Advantage Local Server
• IBM DB2 Express-C
• FrontBase
• MaxDB
• Microsoft SQL Server Express
• Oracle Database 10g Express Edition
• Sav Zigzag
• ScimoreDB
• Sybase ASE Express Edition
• tdbengine
Proprietary software
• 4th Dimension
• Microsoft Access
• Advantage Database Server
• Alpha_Five
• CA-Datacom
• Dataphor
• Daffodil database
• DB2
• EnterpriseDB
• eXtremeDB
• Faircom c-tree
• FileMaker Pro
• Greenplum
• Helix database
• Informix
• InterBase
• Jbase
• Kognitio, WX2
• Linter
• Matisse
• Microsoft Jet Database Engine (part of Microsoft Access)
• Microsoft SQL Server
• Microsoft Visual FoxPro
• Mimer SQL
• mSQL
• Multivalue
• MySQL
• Netezza
• NonStop SQL
• Oddity Databases
• Openbase
• Oracle
• Oracle Rdb for OpenVMS
• OpenLink Virtuoso Universal Server
• Pervasive
• Pick Post-Relational
• Progress 4GL
• Pyrrho DBMS
• Sand Analytic Server (formerly known as Nucleus)
• SIR (including SIR/XS, SIR2002, SIR2000 ...)
• solidDB
• GUPTA SQLBase
• Sybase SQL Anywhere (formerly known as Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere and Watcom SQL)
• Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise
• Sybase Adaptive Server IQ
• Teradata
• ThinkSQL
• TimesTen
• Unify
• Valentina (Database)
• Vertica
• VistaDB
• VMDS
• Whitecross Systems
• WinBase602
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
