Study of Cylindrical Sails for Large Ships Essay

Study of Cylindrical Sails for Large Ships - Essay Example For instance, the estimate for 2007 was 60,000 deaths. The use of the ships also has had a negative impact on global warming, and this is a growing concern for environmentalists. Because the world is being impacted to the point of people dying, resolving this issue has become very important. Furthermore, C02 emitted from ships is only increasing, up about 3 percent from 2007, because of the growing use of more and more ships on the ocean. Therefore, the shipping industry realizes the threat this negative environmental impact has on its industry, as people and politicians both do want to see a change. The shipping industry reportedly put out 847 tonnes in 2007 (this was actually one of the lower estimates; some organizations claim that the rate was much higher). The shipping industry is therefore being put under increasingly pressure to act. Therefore, the researcher proposes that the use of wind tunnels combined with cylindrical sails will help to address this problem. There have been several studies done, which will be discussed, involving the use of cylindrical sails. By combining the cylindrical sails with the use of the wind tunnels, the ships should be able to go faster than those that just traveled with the cylindrical sails, thus making this option more feasible for the shipping industry, which does have time limitations when traveling. Research Objectives Quantitative methods of research will include the calculations of the ship's traveled distance and the ship's length. Wind tunnel data will also be used to determine the success of the study. By using these calculations, it can be determined if the voyages using the new types of sail are correct. Qualitative methods will include researching the actual comments of the researchers, and obtaining information regarding their thoughts and feelings about the ships. Fig.1 The researcher plans to use cylindrical sail with air suction, utilizing dodger support structures and power of air intake. The wind tunnel will not be used as the sail, but the model the researcher tests will be conducted in wind tunnel to grasp the order of possible saving as well as the mechanism of flow around the sail. Research Design There are five various wind assistance devices that can be used for ships, and will be discussed here. Schematic drawing of different wind rigs for ships. There is a wide choice of various rigs that can be used for hull and superstructure configurations, making comparisons difficult; however, when considering wind-assisted motor cargo ships, options are more limited. The main groups to consider in this category are as follows. 1. Square Rig-This concept is often used to improve aerodynamics of sails and allows for clean lines through the use of cantilever masts, for, and aft stay-sails. This setup can be counted on during long voyages when the wind is fairly predictable. However, in this day and age, not as much cargo is shipped via long voyage as it was in historical times. Thus, a second application of this idea can be used for shorter routes where the wind is also not predictable. The fore and aft sails can be modified so that they can sail close to the wind. Soft sails can also be used at sea and are fairly cheap as well, although keeping them up to date can cost the company (Clayton 57). 2.

Managment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 5000 words

Managment - Essay Example was done by HSE (2001), it was seen that the the way health and safety is maintained is of equal importance just like the way other sectors are managed because it reflects how efficient and relevant the (HSE, 2001) system could be in the working place. The objective of this report is to asses how health and safety management system is being observed and implemented at Carillion place. This objective ha sto be met by checking the main elements of the system at Carillon plc. The main elements include: planning, performance, performance assessment and performance improvement of the health and safety system. Carillion is a multinational construction company located in Wolverhampton, United Kingdom. It mainly deals with construction and engineering activities both civil and building and employs approximately 51,000 across the globe. One of the major sectors that Carillon keeps watch on is the health and safety management of the company. Due to its value for that sector it was given an award of OHSAS certification in 2000. With Carillon having the certification of BS OHSAS 18001, it meets the requirements for the methodology that is located which it is named Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) approach, that has been illustrated using a diagram in Fig 1.0.0 (HSE 2001, p.6). it has a certification for OHSAS 18001, this makes OHSAS 18001 health and safety management system the body that is used to check it and it can also be checked by the HSG65 gap analysis model. A summary of this review has been shown in Appendix B. Factors that make the health and safety management of Carillion effective is the fact that it has its health and safety policies written that sets the trend for maintaining health and safety in the organization. A copy of this policy statement has been put in Appendix A. The policy statement document has been written and undersigned by Richard Howson, the CEO of Carillion construction company. It clearly says that the Health and Safety of the people that work

Necessary and possible Essay Example for Free

Necessary and possible Essay Among the countless present that God endowed to men, the gift of life is the most superb of all. Everything around here on Earth is alive, and so it is our task to take good care of this grant. Reflecting on this idea, each of us must act in a way that propagates it, thus making a better world. And so the question stand still, how can we make a better world? Among the many individuals who has answers are Seyyed Hossein Nasr, he recommend two action steps first â€Å"the interiorization of ecological values† second â€Å"to reflect in what I write and what I say the significance of seeing nature as the domain of the sacred. † (1990). He refers on the importance of the environment in sustaining life, which is indeed true because we get all our needs from it in order to survive. Audrey Shenandoah also laid her answers. â€Å"It has to begin with every individual†, (1990). We should learn to give thanks on everything that we have as well as anything that are given to us. Being responsible to manage our life accordingly will result to better lives. On the other hand, Ronald Engel had another answer to the question, â€Å"making new covenant† (1990). We should exercise democracy n everything around us. Sallie Mcfague reply that â€Å"a basic metanoia, repentance, a turning around. Be submissive to Gods will is what she exemplified, furthermore He has plans for each life He create. Trusting and doing what pleases him is the central key in every aspect of our existence. Ismar Schorsch has his own response to the question. â€Å"It is necessary to have a little less self-indulgence. † (1990), we should not have inferiority towards our self for us to be able to move on and have a good living. The Dalai Lama views that, â€Å"We need a certain discipline, contentment, awareness and what I call a sense of responsibility. † (1990). While Rockefeller relates religion in his answer, â€Å"It is necessary and possible to develop ethic of sustainability that will be accepted by all the different religious traditions and by many different cultures of the world† (1990). As a whole, every creature are part of our nature, thus it should start from our self through serving as an example to others and this eventually will lead us to a better world.

Unfair Dismissal Legislation

Unfair Dismissal Legislation In this paper we will examine the tension between unfair (employee) dismissal legislation and the autonomy of managers to run their departments as they see fit. Interestingly, the question refers to managers right to manage their employees: It should be stated at the outset, unlike the rights afforded to employees by legislation and the common law, which are enforceable rights per se; there is no such right enshrined in the law to protect the autonomy of managers. It is also interesting to note that the question does not ask us to d iscuss the degree to which unfair dismissal legislation takes away managers right to manage their employees effectively or well, or ask us to comment upon whether or not the suppression of managers autonomy is a good or a bad thing for the development of a healthy and effective commercial workplace. We will argue in this essay that such an assessment is central to the question of this paper. After all, for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which seeks (inter alia) to regulate the conduct of Police Officers, might well be seen to take away rights of the police to arrest citizens, but only does so to protect the citizen from unconstitutional and unacceptable authoritarian practices. Likewise, in the case of unfair dismissal legislation, if the effect is to prevent poor management practice, then this cannot be seen as a negative thing. The worry is that such legislation will interfere with good management, by creating expectations in the minds of employees regarding the standard acceptable processes which govern their employment and as such, might prevent managers from taking the initiative to be creative and progressive in their management approach. The question therefore boils down to whether or not the current unfair dismissal legislation in the UK is sufficiently flexible to allow management creativity to blossom to the advantage of all stakeholders in the employee-management-employer relationship. Unfair dismissal of employees is governed by Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by Part 3 of the Employment Act 2002. The right to not be unfairly dismissed is defined is s94 of the 1996 Act, and s95 of the same act outlines the circumstances which are capable of giving rise to a breach of this employment right. Hepple and Morris (2002) p255 comment upon the amendments to the unfair dismissal legislation introduced by the Employment Act 2002: â€Å"[T]he new statutory standard and modified disciplinary procedures, broad in conception but minimalist in their requirements, ‘are so rudimentary in nature that they afford little protection to employees[and] ‘fall significantly short of the requirements of the current ACAS Code and of the standards of reasonableness developed by tribunals†. This would seem to suggest that this legislation has had little impact upon curtailing the right of managers to manage their employees, especially in light of the fact that there is no significant deterrent effect arising from the remedy contained in s34(6) of the 2002 Act, which only entitles an unfairly dismissed employee to four weeks pay compensation. It also seems apparent that s34(2) of the Employment Act 2002 has reversed the case law decision of Polkey v A. E. Dayton Services [1988] in which it was decided that employers (and, more importantly, their managers) should be reasonable in their choice and use of employee dismissal procedures. S34(2) of the Employment Act 2002 introduced s98A into the Employment Act 1996, subsection 2 of which states: â€Å"[F]ailure by an employer to follow a procedure in relation to the dismissal of an employee shall not be regarded for the purposes of section 98(4)(a) as by itself making the employers action unreasonable if he shows that he would have decided to dismiss the employee if he had followed the procedure.† Again, there is nothing in this section which would suggest that managers rights to employ their own styles of disciplinary procedure have been curtailed: As long as the procedures employed lead to a decision identical to that which would have been generated through adherence to the standard dismissal procedures contained in the UK Employment Acts. It might be argued that that this procedural latitude will not be enforced to its full extent, and therefore that employers and their managers cannot rely upon its provisions to escape liability for nonprocedural conforman ce, but, as Collins (2004) reports: â€Å"The potential width of this exception should not be underestimated†. In regards to this amendment and also to the introduction of the ACAS code under the Employment Act 2002, Smith and Morton (2006) write: â€Å"In spite of government declarations, it is not clear how the ACAS Code and case law can impose a higher procedural standard than the statutory procedures in an unfair dismissal claim, although the test of a reasonable employer (whose action will fall within the range of reasonable responses) remains. Henceforth an employer defending a dismissal may argue that adherence to a procedure above the statutory minimum or the ACAS Code would not have led to a different outcome.† It would therefore seem that, under the new unfair dismissal regime, employers have even more latitude to escape liability for unfair dismissal by procedural unfairness and therefore, even less reason to reign in their managers by insisting on extra training or standard management practices. It should also be noted that under the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001, the maximum award available to an employer from an employee who unsuccessfully brings a claim in the employment tribunal has been substantially increased as it now, by virtue of the Employment Tribunal Regulations 2004, can also include non-legal preparation costs. This must serve as a deterrent to employees from making frivolous and/or poorly constructed claims for unfair dismissal. Ans so, our analysis of the UK legislative framework on unfair dismissal all point to a conclusion that this regime does not have any significant effect upon the right of managers to manage their employees, so long as the procedures utilized are synonymous by result. However, there is often a big difference between the legal impact of legislation and its cultural effect. Let us now perform a literature review of several key sources in the field of employee management to see if the practical and real effect of the amended unfair dismissal legislation has been to curtail the creativity of managers or otherwise interfere with their right to manage their employees, effectively or otherwise. The first point which can be identified from the literature is that the legislation on unfair dismissal has had different effects on different sized of business. Whilst the research is relatively out of date, it seems clear that the small business sector has been the least affected by the formal dismissal regime. As Harrison et al (1998) write: â€Å"The major studies (e.g. Dickens et al., 1985) are now dated and there have been few attempts to up-date earlier assessments of the impact of unfair dismissal legislation on small firms (e.g. Clifton and Tatton-Brown, 1979; Daniel and Stilgoe, 1978; Evans et al., 1985). This research and the periodic WIRS surveys (Millward et al., 1992) indicated that small businesses were less likely to have formal disciplinary procedures than larger businesses. This would suggest that small business managers autonomy to manage in their own way has not been significantly ‘taken away by the UKs unfair dismissal legislation and its enshrined standar d procedures. This is confirmed by the findings of a case study analysis by Harrison et al (1998) who found that: â€Å"The presence of a formal written disciplinary procedure does not, of itself, ensure that it is applied/observed by all managers, nor that common disciplinary standards will be applied to all employees, or even to all employees in the same occupation, grade, etc. For example, two instances were found where the senior site manager in multi-site companies in the catering sector was not familiar with the requirements of their companies written procedures. Harrison et al (1998) also found, from their interviews, that managers in this sector took a flexible approach to disciplinary action. The problem with this is that the approach is likely to differ from manager to manager with the result that the only way companies can maintain consistency is not to change, remove or replace senior managers: â€Å"[T]here was evidence from many of the interviews of a â€Å"flexible approach† being taken to disciplinary actionThis â€Å"flexibility† plainly has its strengths, but it inevitably also raises issues of perceived consistency or inconsistency among employees of actions taken by different managers [I]ts potential effect on both employee morale and on potential unfair dismissal claims and outcomes, was a principal reason why many organizations have restricted the right to dismiss to senior managers.† Interestingly however, the interviews conducted across multi-site organizations revealed that â€Å"managers were able to draw on the wider resources of their organizations, including the advice and expertise of HR/personnel specialists. In some cases these specialists became involved in helping line managers to handle disciplinary cases, usually with the effect of avoiding major discrepancies.† This would suggest that the UK unfair dismissal legislation has had a noticeable impact upon the rights of managers in larger organizations to manage their employees, the procedures clearly being taken seriously if outside help is being drafted in regularly. In pages 457-458, Harrison et al (1998) discuss the effect of unfair dismissal legislation on ‘management style. They confirm our earlier conclusion that Managers are still acting autonomously despite the unfair dismissal legislation: â€Å"There are acknowledged difficulties in attempting to categorise management styles in organisations, not least because they may vary from one manager to another, and from one situation to another.† McCabe and Rabil (2001) write convincingly on the rights of employees and the impact of these rights on employers and their managers. At page 34 they write: â€Å"‘[T]he most critical right of employees is the right to due process (Velasquez, 1982, p. 327)[D]ue process involves a system of checks and balances, it increases the objectivity of decisions‘the topic of due process in work organizations calls for much greater conceptual development, practical experimentation, and systematic research (Aram and Salipante, Jr., 1981, p. 198). Prima facie, these respective statements seem to conflict with one another: On the one hand, McCabe and Rabil talk of ‘objective decision making, and yet on the other, they talk of the need for ‘practical experimentation. However, I would argue that, rather than being mutually exclusive, these observations demonstrate the ability for fair management autonomy to co-exist with principles of due process, if not necessarily consisten cy. Managers can implement their own style of disciplinary procedures into a workplace as long as these implementations are perceived as subscribing to the princinple of due process and the end effects of these implementations are consistent with the outcomes which would have been reached under the statutory procedures. This confirms what we postulated earlier in this essay; namely, that the unfair dismissal legislation does not significantly impede effective and fair management autonomy, but simply prevents managers from managing their employees in ways which are inappropriate or do not follow the principle of ‘due process. As McCabe and Rabil (2001) write: â€Å"Not all managers know how to manage their work force effectively, nor do they all treat their employees fairly. A good due process system cannot make managers manage more fairly. It may provide a strong incentive for them to do that, but if they don t know how, the process itself will not teach them. In conclusion, I would argue that since the inception of the Employment Act 2002, which amended the unfair dismissal legislation contained in the Employment Rights Act 1996, the UKs legislation on the unfair dismissal of employees is sufficiently flexible to allow employers and their managers the autonomy to create and implement their own employee management procedures, so long as these procedures are capable of yielding fair and equitable decisions. Thus, in response to the specific question, to what degree has the unfair dismissal legislation taken away managers right to manage their employees? I would argue that it has significantly taken away this ‘right. However, in relation to the more important question, to what degree has the unfair dismissal legislation taken away managers right to manage their employees fairly and effectively? I would argue that it has not taken away this right significantly.

Hedge Fund Policy Essay -- Economics Wealth Papers

Hedge Fund Policy What makes a hedge fund such a unique investment? And why is it so controversial? Many feel the risks of a hedge fund strongly outweigh its benefits. And with some funds, it does. But when a hedge fund strives, it has impeccable potential. It is arguable that the regulation on hedge funds, or lack there of, is what allows for so many to falter. However, despite various suggestions for policy changes, a few lemons still remain. Would changes in policy and regulation of a Hedge Fund allow it to be a more attractive investment opportunity? Although some alterations could make the hedge fund a safer investment, some risks are completely unavoidable. Ultimately, these changes may not only create more problems, but also take away from the uniqueness of this remarkable form of investment. A hedge fund is typically a private partnership invested primarily in publicly traded securities or futures. They are limited to 99 investors and require large minimum investments, which can range from $25,000 to several million dollars. Sixty five percent of the investors must have a net worth of at least $1 million. A general partner, who uses sophisticated strategies to make bets on the fund?s direction, and generally receives 20% of the profits, leads the fund. Hedge fund strategies fall into four open categories: absolute return, long/short equity, event driven, and global asset allocation. Absolute driven strategies are known as "market-neutral" funds, which seek to moderate the effects of overall market forces. Long/Short hedge funds, which represent about half of the assets in the hedge fund industry, seek to profit from underpricings by buying long, and overpricing through short selling. Event driven hedge funds ... ... able to grow and have the leverage it had, if it had not been lent the money," said Bert Ely. Though many may argue that hedge funds do more harm than good, they are still extremely popular investments and have proven to be very successful. Many have benefited with the current hedge fund policy and see no need for regulatory changes. Various proposed changes may not, in fact, be entirely beneficial. Once implemented, the suggested solutions could create more problems for the hedge fund world. And such changes would alter the characteristics that attract so many to such incredible investment opportunities. In the end, a better hedge fund policy is neither plausible nor desirable. Sources: http://library.hbs.edu/hedgefunds.htm http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~mtwomey/newspapers/100198he.html http://www.bernstein.com/perfstrat/products/ts_020401.htm

Ethics and Social Responsibilities in Management :: Ethical Standards Management Essays

Ethics and Social Responsibilities in Management   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ethics can be defined as a process of evaluating actions according to moral principal of values(A.Alhemoud). Throughout the centuries people were trying to choose between profit and moral. Perhaps, some of them obtain both, but every time it could have roused ethical issues. Those issues concern fairness, justice, rightness or wrongness; as a result it can only be resolved according to ethical standards.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Setting the ethical standards for the way of doing business in corporation is primarily task of management. Corporations have to maintain the same standards as an individual person and, in addition, corporations, as organizational units, have their own social responsibilities toward customers, employees and society. However, any business should keep it's original purpose of functioning - making profit. Balancing the traditional standards of profitability and burden of social responsibilities is not an easy task. In recent years it has been a trend of setting standards of corporate ethics according to high degree of morale.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  To be able to keep the ethical standards management must follow the law. However, there are some complications in enforcing it. The law affects and is affected by social forces and prevailing ethical standards. "Although the law can codify societies ethical ____________________________________________________ ____________________ Alhemoud, Ali " Management Ethics is Smart Business." values, ethical decision making transcends the law in that 1) the law deals with actions not with thoughts, and therefore it does not (and cannot) codify all ethical requirements; and 2) an individual or a group may perceive a given law as immoral, not as a guide to ethical behavior." ( A. Alhemoud). How, then, a company can ensure that its code of ethics is both followed and enforced ? " . ..Defense firm such as General Dynamics and TRW, and an information company, Dun & Broadstreet, have appointed internal ethics officers or ombudsmen. Whether employees have faith in these safeguards against corporate retaliation is hard to tell, though it is one step forward (The Economist August 19 1995)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The ethical codes of corporations that that get so important nowadays also did not come into being at once. They emerged from individual ethical standards and corporate consciousness. Moreover, the public demand for prosecution of any violations of corporate, professional and business ethics has been increased. Finally, mass media made possible for society reveal secrets that were kept from public before. So, the business conduct regulations were created to "draft guidelines for ethical conduct, develop a process for monitoring business practices and recommend ways to correct questionable activities." (J.Byrne) All these measures were taken to balance various social responsibilities with the high degree of moral and sense of attainment.

Classic Pen Company: Developing an Abc Model

ANALYSIS Background Information: The Classic Pen Company was a low-cost producer of traditional BLUE and BLACK pens with profit margins over 20% of sales. They then introduced RED pens at a 3% premium, and a year later they introduced PURPLE pens due to the 10% premium that they could command. However, they were disappointed with the most recent year; RED and PURPLE pens were not bringing in expected sales (still considering their higher profit margin), and BLUE and BLACK pens profitability was down.Issue(s) Identification There are two main issues within this case: -Profitability -Pricing ?Which involves Production time and effort per unit. -Should they introduce even more variety? Can they keep up with demand and competition? Recommendations: 1. Get rid of RED pens – They are the trickiest to make; their revenue is only $. 03 more than standard pens. 2. Lower the Price for BLACK pens, since they are the most simple to make and require less overhead and direct labour. . Lower price of BLUE pens- they are the most popular, but with the changing market prices must be adjustable. 4. Invest in new equipment (Therefore eliminating time to clean vats in order to make new coloured pens). 5. Focus in only making BLUE and BLACK pens as specialty pens Conclusion: My recommendation to Dempsey would be to invest in new technology to lower the overhead costs (Set-ups, runs) in the future. With a competitive market it is important to adapt.The addition of new colours is crucial to their survival, but with the current machinery it may not be possible. New equipment would mean limited backlog (if any), more options in colour, and meeting customers’ demands. If investment of new machinery is not doable for the company, it would be best to try and cut cost, and focus on standard pens for future investments. BLACK and BLUE pens bring in the most sales volumes and they could potentially cut back to 200% overhead once again.