List of benchmarking methods and software tools - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - en.wikipedia.org (HTTP)
Benchmarking requires the use of specific valuation methods. With evaluation is meant the evaluation the level of achieving the target for a particular evaluation item. There are general "methods" respectively approaches as well as IT-supported "software tools" that enable an effective and efficient work. The following is a list of notable methods and benchmarking software tools. Benchmarking methods[edit] There are many benchmarking methods each having different analytical focus. Benchmarking software tools[edit] There are a number software tools that allow the support of different kinds of benchmarking types. References[edit] Jump up ^ Peter Kairies: So analysieren Sie Ihre Konkurrenz. expert Verlag, Renningen 2001, 3-8169-1977-4.Jump up ^ Anette von Ahsen (Hrsg.): Bewertung von Innovationen im Mittelstand. See also[edit]
Mateo Aboy Blog - www.mateoaboy.com (HTTP)
2012/// Filed in: Contract Law (UK) Below are a few relevant principles and leading cases regarding the exclusion of liability for misrepresentation: S Pearons v Dublin Corporation: It is not possible to exclude liability for fraudulent misrepresentation. Walker v Boyle: The exclusion clause will only be effective if the party seeking to rely on it can prove the clause was reasonable (MA1967 s(2), UCTA 1977). Inntrepreneur Pub Co v East Crown: `Entire Agreement' clauses fall within the scope of s.3 as far as liability for misrepresentation is concerned (i.e., such term has no effect except in so far it satisfies the reasonableness as stated in section 11(1) of the UCTA 1997). Tags: misrepresentation, case law Below are a few relevant principles and leading cases regarding the remedies for misrepresentation:
Social Science Research Network (SSRN) Home Page - www.ssrn.com (HTTP)
Innovation Theory, Innovation White Papers, Innovation Practices - www.strategyn.com (HTTP)
Outcome-Driven Innovation The ultimate innovation upgrade White Papers Strategyn’s white papers provide deep insight into our innovation theory and practices. The white paper, Outcome-Driven Innovation, is a must read. The other white papers, which offer Strategyn’s perspective on strategy, innovation management and innovation practices such as voice-of-the-customer (VOC) and QFD, are equally compelling. This white paper by innovation expert Tony Ulwick helps readers achieve two important objectives: it underscores why innovation has historically been a misunderstood, fragmented and ineffective process, and it explains in detail the innovation theory, discoveries and concepts that comprise the Outcome-Driven Innovation process. Building a Corporate Culture of Innovation This white paper focuses on the challenges companies face when creating a corporate culture of innovation. A New Perspective on Strategy What is Innovation? Outcome-Based Market Segmentation Silence the Voice of the Customer
Mentorat et Parrainage - www.merkapt.com (HTTP)
In this short white paper, I will endeavour to answer the key questions you may have about entrepreneurial mentoring and the implementation of a programme: Is this new support relationship for entrepreneurs just trendy or does it have a real impact for new entrepreneurs? Why… Lire la suite Reviewing our latest missions and discussions with large corporations such as: Airbus, Alcatel Lucent, CEA, CMA-CGM, Eurocopter, Gemalto, Pernod Ricard, and Renault, in 2013 here are the main 3 trends that keep coming back in our perspective: Mentoring, community and networks Corporations have finally realized… Lire la suite Le 21 juin je suis intervenue pour le réseau des CCI de France sur la mise en place d’un programme de mentorat entrepreneurial. Après une présentation générale sur le sujet (qu’est-ce que le mentorat ? A quoi ça sert ? J’étais invitée la semaine dernière à la signature de la charte nationale du mentorat entrepreneurial à Bercy.
The Manager's Handbook: 80+ Open Courseware Collections to Help You Be a Better Leader
Remapping your strategic mind-set - McKinsey Quarterly - Strategy - Globalization
Senior executives need better mental maps to navigate our unevenly globalized world. Although a wide variety of metrics show that just 10 to 25 percent of economic activity is truly global, executives disproportionately embrace visions of unbounded opportunities in a borderless world, where distances and differences no longer matter. In several articles and books, I’ve tried to describe the true nature of globalization and suggest ways for executives to structure their thinking about distance and difference effects (see sidebar, “Understanding the world and measuring distance”). Rooted maps correct a misperception reinforced by conventional ones: that the world looks the same regardless of the viewer’s vantage point or purpose. They do so by adjusting the sizes or positions of countries in relation to a specific home country, while otherwise maintaining familiar shapes and spatial relationships, which help us fit these maps into our existing mental models. Exhibit 1 Enlarge Exhibit 2
A Manifesto for Agile Strategy: oxymoron or innovation? « Made by Many
You can talk and think about stuff for ages and ages before doing something or other. Why not just do something straight away and learn from that? London was basking in unexpected sunshine and Tim Malbon (aka @malbonster) and I were wolfing down some fish and chips in Soho. His off-the-cuff comment stopped me cold – chip halfway to mouth – and in one way or another I have been thinking about it ever since (it was 6 months ago!). ‘Doing over planning‘ might be the simplest way to summarise the Agile philosophy that Made by Many so fervently pursues (a great non-tech articulation of the Agile approach to web apps is Getting Real by 37 Signals). I was further prompted by Stuart's excellent recent post exploring some of the differences between "Agile" the philosophy and "agile" the adjective, in which he concludes: Two of the most interesting questions for me is how is Agile going to scale beyond a team level? My short answer to this, is most definitely. 1. 2. 3. 4. So whaddya think?
