The Differences and Similarities Between Voluntary and Reflex Nerve Assignment

The Differences and Similarities Between Voluntary and Reflex Nerve Actions - Assignment Example It is evidently clear from the discussion that endocrine organs are those organs which have specialized glands that produce and secrete chemical substances called hormones that regulate the growth, metabolism, development,  and function of the body. The major endocrine glands are pituitary, hypothalamus, thyroid, adrenals, parathyroids, reproductive organs and pineal body. The pineal body is located in the middle portion of the brain and secretes melatonin which regulated the wake-sleep cycle of the body. The hypothalamus releases several hormones that control the stimulation and suppression of hormones secreted by the pituitary gland. The paper tells that one of the important hormone released by hypothalamus is somatostatin which stops the release of secretion of growth hormone by the pituitary gland. Hypothalamus is secreted in the lower central part of the brain. The pituitary gland is located beneath the hypothalamus at the base of the brain. It is attached to the base of the b rain by a stalk. It secretes several hormones which control the functions of other endocrine glands. The gland is divided into 2 parts, the anterior lobe, and the posterior lobe. Most of the anterior pituitary hormones have a diurnal rhythm. The hormones of the anterior lobe are regulated by the hypothalamus. They are growth hormone which stimulates the growth of tissue and bone, thyroid stimulating hormone which stimulates the thyroid to produce and secrete thyroid hormones, adrenocorticotropin hormone which stimulates the adrenal glands to produce steroid hormones, prolactin which stimulates the production of milk in women and follicular stimulating and luteinizing hormones which control the functioning of sexual organs and production of sex hormones. Growth hormone is secreted by the pituitary gland. It is an anabolic hormone. It stimulates the growth of various types of tissues of the body especially the bone and the skeletal muscle. Growth hormone stimulates synthesis of protei ns, causes mobilization of fat and inhibits the uptake and metabolism of glucose. Increased secretion of this hormone causes gigantism and decreased secretion causes dwarfism. The posterior lobe of the pituitary gland produces vasopressin which controls water loss through kidneys and oxytocin which stimulates milk production and contracts uterus during childbirth. The thyroid gland is located... Describe the differences and similarities between voluntary and reflex nerve actions. Our body carries out mainly 2 types of actions and they are voluntary actions, involuntary actions or reflex actions. Both the actions involve stimuli, impulse, neurons and effector organs. Voluntary action is nothing but an anticipated, may or may not be conscious, goal-oriented movement. It is initiated in the cerebral cortex of the brain and the impulse passes into the motor area of the cerebral cortex and then to the spinal cord. From here, an impulse is passed to motor neuron and then to the muscle mak ing it contract. Example of voluntary action is waving the hand at a friend. The brain sends the impulse to the muscles of the hand and makes the hand wave at the friend. Thus, voluntary action is under the control of the will of the individual. Reflex action is involuntary. It is initiated by the stimulation of the receptor and the impulse passes through the dendrite and then the axon of the neuron through the synapse. It then relays on the neuron of the grey matter in the spinal cord and the impulse is passed to the motor neuron which then sends the impulse to the muscle. The muscle then contracts and produces action. Example of reflex action is running away from seeing a snake. The action occurs without the conscious of the individual. The control of actions is mainly at the spinal cord level. It is an instantaneous movement. Voluntary impulse passes over to the opposite side of the body, whereas reflex impulse does not. Voluntary reflex is slow because of a longer pathway. Refle x impulse is quicker because it involves only 2 synapses. The pineal body is located in the middle portion of the brain and secretes melatonin which regulated the wake-sleep cycle of the body. The hypothalamus releases several hormones that control the stimulation and suppression of hormones secreted by the pituitary gland. One of the important hormone released by hypothalamus is somatostatin which stops the release of secretion of growth hormone by the pituitary gland. Hypothalamus is secreted in the lower central part of the brain. The pituitary gland is located beneath the hypothalamus at the base of the brain. It is attached to the base of the brain by a stalk. It secretes several hormones which control the functions of other endocrine glands. The gland is divided into 2 parts, the anterior lobe, and the posterior lobe. Most of the anterior pituitary hormones have a diurnal rhythm. The hormones of the anterior lobe are regulated by the hypothalamus. They are growth hormone which stimulates the growth of tissue and bone, thyroid stimulating hormone which stimulates the thyroid to produce and secrete thyroid hormones, adrenocorticotropin hormone which stimulates the adrenal glands to produce steroid hormones, prolactin which stimulates the production of milk in women and follicular stimulating and luteinizing hormones which control the functioning of sexual organs and production of sex hormones. Growth hormone is secreted by the pituitary gland. It is an anabolic hormone. It stimulates the growth of various types of tissues of the body especially the bone and the skeletal muscle. Growth hormone stimulates synthesis of proteins, causes mobilization of fat and inhibits the uptake and metabolism of glucose. Increased secretion of this hormone causes gigantism and decreased secretion causes dwarfism. The posterior lobe of the pituitary gland produces vasopressin which controls water loss through kidneys and oxytocin which stimulates milk production and contracts uterus during childbirth. The thyroid gland is located in the front of the neck and produces thyroid hormones. They are critical for the metabolism in the body. They have a major role to play in the growth and development of various tissues in the body including the nervous tissue. The follicles of the thyroid store thyroglobin from which thyroid hormone is derived. Hypersecretion of thyroid hormone causes Grave's disease and hyposecretion leads to hypothyroidism, an extreme form of which is known as cretinism. The hormones also help maintain normal blood pressure and heart rate in the body. On the surface of the thyroid gland are 2 pairs of parathyroid glands which release parathormone. This hormone regulates the calcium metabolism in the bone and blood. The pancreas is located in the abdomen behind the stomach. It has both endocrine and exocrine parts. The endocrine part secretes glucagon and insulin that control glucose levels in the blood. There are 2 adrenal glands, each of wh ich is located on the top of each kidney. They are triangular shaped and have outer cortex and inner medulla. The outer part reduces corticosteroids which regulate metabolism and control salt and water in the body. The medulla secretes catecholamines which maintain heart and blood pressure and cope with emotional and physical stress. The reproductive glands secrete sex hormones. The male testicles, which are located in the scrotum, secrete androgens like testosterone. These hormones are responsible for the growth and development of sexual characteristics in males. In females, the female hormones are secreted by ovaries which are located on either side of the uterus. They produce estrogens and progesterone which are responsible for female characteristics and are also involved in reproductive functions.  

An investigation into the effect of social loafing

An investigation into the effect of social loafing The aim of this experiment was to measure the effect of two categories, group or individuals, and the effect they have on the performance of individuals. Participants were involved in the activity of unscrambling as many words as they could in the time limit of five minutes. The hypothesis is that the mean number of words unscrambled by participants working individually is higher than the mean number of words unscrambled by participants working in a group. The experiment consisted of 19 participants which included 10 males and 9 females. The rights of the participants were taken into consideration throughout the whole experiment. Nine of the participants who were selected randomly were divided into groups of three while the other ten participants worked individually. They were given a list of 26 words to unscramble. The number of words which they were able to unscramble in five minutes was then collected and counted to measure the performance of those who are working individually and those working in groups. The results show that the average number of words found for those who were working individually was 12.4 words while the average number of words found per individual who were working in groups were 5.22 words. This shows that the experiment supports the social loafing theory. The significance level were calculated to be p < 0.005. This means that the probability that the results were because of chance was less than 0.5%. The results were highly significant. Thus, according to the results of the statistical test, the research hypothesis is supported while the null hypothesis is rejected. The theory of social loafing is evident in a lot of situations in life. Social loafing is a reduction in effort by individuals when they work in groups as compared to when they work by themselves (Weiten, 2008: 491) Each person in a group usually tends to put in lesser effort than they would working alone. Max Ringelmann (1913) first came up with the idea of social loafing when he found that when a group of men were instructed to pull on a rope, they did not put in as much effort as when they were pulling alone. The force of the pull produced by the participants was measured by a strain gauge attached to the rope. When the group of men was led to believe that they had other team members helping them, he noticed that they tend to put in less effort than they normally would when pulling alone. Ringelmann stated that the amount of effort produced by each individual working alone was not the same as the average amount of effort put in by the individuals who believed that they were in a group. Another study which was used to investigate social loafing is Latanà © et al.s (1979). As cited by Weiten (2008), the study consisted of measuring the level of noise created by participants who were asked to either clap or cheer as loud as they could. A group of participants were told that they working in a group while another group was told that they were working alone. This was in fact not true, as the only purpose was to ensure that they believed that were actually working in a group. Consequently, the amount of effort that they produced individually was measured. From the study, Latanà © and his colleagues found that each person in a group tends to put in lesser effort when in a group than working alone. Research shows that the larger the group, the lesser the effort produced by each of the individuals. The reason is that when more people are assigned to an activity, the amount of work which needs to be produced is divided equally among more people and this consequently causes individuals to think that their effort is not as significant and their contribution is not evaluated suitably. As cited by Antony S. R. Manstead et al. (1995, 1996:275) in the book called The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology, Steiner, I.D. (1972) postulated that actual group productivity should always be lower than potential group productivity because of process losses due to poor coordination and low motivation. Furthermore, he added that the potential productivity is usually based on performance of individuals working alone. This study aims to support the social loafing theory. A group of participants will be divided into two categories: those working individually and those working in groups. The mean number unscrambled by participants in each category will be calculated. Their performance in the activity will show that social loafing does exist when working in a group. The experiment is a one-tailed experiment. Research hypothesis (H1): The mean number of words unscrambled by participants working individually is higher than the mean number of words unscrambled by participants working in a group. Null hypothesis (H0): There will be no significant difference in the number of words found in participants working individually than in a group. Method Design The type of method used in this experiment is an independent measures design. This was used to avoid practice effects. Each participant only took part in each condition once which means that both groups consist of different individuals. The independent variable is working individually or in a group. The dependant variable is the difference of performance in each condition. The environment that the participants were in was under controlled conditions. The activity is the unscrambling of words. This experiment is considered as a single blind experiment where only the experimenters know the hypothesis and aim of the experiments. Participants were given consent letters to sign and were briefed and de-briefed accordingly. Those who did not include their signature on the given consent letters prior to the experiment were not allowed to participate in the activity. Those who participated were given the right to withdraw at any point of time. The participants also remained anonymous througho ut the study. Participants The participants tested in this study consisted of 19 Year 6 students from a private school in Victoria. The participants consisted of 10 males and 9 females aged 11 to 13 years. The sample was an opportunity sample but the participants in each category were randomly assigned. The participants came from different backgrounds and cultures. This is to ensure that the experiment is fair and not biased. Materials List of 26 words to unscramble (Refer to Appendix ) Pen Stopwatch Briefing instructions (Refer to Appendix ) De-briefing instructions (Refer to Appendix ) Consent Letter (Refer to Appendix ) Procedure Participants are first briefed (Refer to Appendix ). Participants are randomly divided into two conditions. Half of the participants will be carrying out the activity alone and the other half is to be divided into groups of three to work on the same activity. Participants who are working individually are to sit far from each other to avoid communicating. The other participants who are working in groups of three are to be seated together but each group is to be seated far from another group to avoid communication between groups. Participants who are in the group category are asked to work as a team to unscramble the list of 26 words while the others will be working individually to unscramble the same set of 26 words. When the seating arrangement of all the participants are properly allocated, the list of 26 words is given faced down to the participants. Only one copy of the list will be given to each of the groups instead of one copy for each participant. The participants are then giv en a time limit of five minutes to quickly unscramble the list of 26 words. During the experiment, participants have the right to withdraw if they do not wish to participate. After exactly five minutes, they are asked to stop writing and the sheets are to be collected by the experimenters. Participants are then de-briefed. Results Table 1: Table shows mean number of words found in each category Participants working individually Participants working in a group Mean number of words found 12.4 words 5.22 words Standard Deviation 5.04 words 1.09 words Graph 1: Bar graph shows average no. of words found in each category Graph 1 shows that the average number of words found for those who were working individually were 12.4 words. The average number of words found per individual who were working in groups were 5.22 words. This shows that the experiment supports the social loafing theory. The standard deviation were 5.04 and 1.09 respectively. A Mann-Whitney U test was used in order to test the significance of the results as it is an ordinal level data, and it was an unrelated design. When tested, it was found that the probability that it was the independant variable that changed the dependent variable and not chance. The significance level were calculated to be p < 0.005 (Refer to appendix ). This means that the probability that the results were because of chance was less than 0.5%. The results were highly significant. Thus, according to the results of the statistical test, the research hypothesis is supported while the null hypothesis is rejected. Discussion The results shows that the research hypothesis has been supported. The mean number of words unscrambled by participants working individually is 12.4, higher than the mean number of words unscrambled by participants working in a group which is 5.22 words. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to show that the results were highly significant. This shows that the research hypothesis is supported and the null hypothesis is rejected. According to Ringelmanns study, the amount of effort produced by each individual working alone is not the same as the average amount of effort put in by the individuals who were in pseudogroups. He asserted that the performance of individuals working alone is much more than the average performance of individuals working in groups, which is called the social loafing theory. In this experiment, the social loafing theory is supported as the mean number of words unscrambled by individuals working alone is 12.4, which is definitely higher than 5.22 words, the average number of words unscrambled by individuals working in groups. The aim of this study was to measure the cause and effect relationship of the performance of individuals working in a group or individually. The result of this experiment relates to the study carried out by Latanà © and his colleagues as it supports the theory of social loafing. The reduction in performance of individuals when they are working in groups as compared to working individually is evident in both studies. There are several strengths in the experiment. One of the strengths of the experiment was that the subjects came from different backgrounds and cultures. This is a good as the cultural diversity of the participants was not limited. Also, the fact that there were approximately the same number of males and females is good. If there were a huge difference in females and males, the experiments would not be fair. Another strength of the experiment is that it was designed to be an independent measures design. This was to avoid practice effects. If the participants had taken part in both conditions, the results would have been affected. Though the research hypothesis was supported, there are several limitations in the experiment. As mentioned, the participants were between the ages of 11 to 13 as it was an opportunity sample. It was difficult to get a random sample as there are limited number students available and there was a time constraint. Another limitation of the experiment was that no extra precaution was made ensure that the participants did not cheat by communicating with each other. Though we did our best effort to ensure that they did not communicate with each other, it is not absolute that no one cheated. Also, during the experiment, as all the participants (whether in a group or individually) were in the same environment at the same time, there was a chance that some participants may have overheard the words unscrambled by another person. This component of the experiment was hard to control as no matter how much effort was put in to ensure it was a fair experiment, the participants did have a chance to cheat. With regards to the limitations of the experiment, there are a few areas of improvement. In relation to the sample itself, although the participants and the students were randomly assigned, we could have ensured that the sample were not an opportunity sample. Furthermore, instead of selecting ten males and nine females, it could have been better if there was exactly the same number of females and males. To counteract the problem of cheating, the environment that the participants were in (which was a classroom) could have been different. The experiment could have been carried out in an open space so that there is a significant amount of space between groups and the individuals working alone. This would ensure that there was less opportunity for the participants to cheat. Ethical considerations were taken into account in this experiment. The participants were allowed to withdraw at any point of time during the activity. The rights of the participants were met and they remained anonymous throughout the whole experiment. The participants were not deceived in any way as that would be unethical. The implication of this finding is that the results produced can be shown to teachers/instructors to prove that individuals generally work better alone than working in groups as they tend not to put in as much effort when working in groups. In majority of the groups, some individuals tend to slack off and let their other team members do the work. Some individuals may also think that their effort is not evaluated individually so they tend to put less effort than they would put in when working alone. This could further relate to employers in the work field. For further researches, the sample should be much bigger so that the experiment would have fewer limitations. Also, follow-up studies can manipulate the age groups and compare the difference in performance for various age groups. They could also investigate the effect of culture on the performance of individuals when working in groups. They could test the theory of: Asians generally tend to work well in groups unlike Westerns, who prefer to work individually.

What it means to be an American Essay -- Patriotism United States Amer

What does it mean to be an American? The soil of the middle-east stained with the blood of our American soldiers just so we can not take advantage of our right to vote. Though sometimes questionable, America's overall image portrayed to other countries is an honorable one. America is known for its democracy and as well as being a land of opportunities and many freedoms. America's assortment of ethnicities and cultures is proof that our country is a desirable one. Wars are being fought at this very moment to defend these freedoms. There are many battles that have dictated what America is and stands for today. Some of these battles were literal fights and others were ones of a societal nature. For example, The Civil War was a pivotal battle in American history that freed African-Americans from slavery which was led and won politically by Abraham Lincoln. Following this was Dr. Martin Luther King?s work which led to the end of segregation also against African-Americans. Currently, America is fighting a war on terrorism against several countries. America?s origin will truly tell why ...

Porter’s generic strategies Essay

Introduction Porter’s generic strategies of cost leadership, differentiation and focus can be (and often are) adopted by competitors in any given industry and can be provably successful in 21st century business. According to Porter: Effectively implementing any of these generic strategies usually requires total commitment and supporting organizational arrangements that are diluted if there is more than one primary target. . . . [These] generic strategies are approaches to outperforming competitors in the industry. Porter (1980: 35). Furthermore, Porter argues that â€Å"the firm failing to develop its strategy in at least one of the directions–a firm struck in the middle–is in an extremely poor position† and is doomed to essentially low profitability. Porter (1980: 41). In cost leadership situation an organization sets out to be the low-cost producer in its industry. It caters for many industry segments. If an organization can achieve and sustain overall cost leadership then it will achieve superior performance. Cost leadership can be obtained by focusing on key accounts, reaping economies of scale, controlling costs† (Sultan Kermally; 2003, 66-67). Main Body In order to achieve an proper competitive positioning and above average performance, Porter has proposed the following strategies which are termed as generic strategies: Cost leadership A differentiation strategy Focus strategy Cost leadership (attaining the lowest cost position) is clearly not within every firm’s ability to strive toward and attain. In fact, not more than one or two firms in any industry can give value arising predominately from cost-effective operations. By far the majority of firms succeed through the implementation of one of the other two strategies. Even in the case of supposed commodities, companies strive to raise other dimensions of value given to consumers rather than seeking just to compete on a cost basis. Mobil and Exxon are amongst the petroleum firms that attempt to position their gasoline as being superior in quality (anti-clog, non-freeze, etc.), additionally to which their service stations stock an increasing array of convenience items. Mercedes Benz focuses on the prestige and image-conscious end of the automobile market, while Toyota’s manufacturing efficiency gives it a cost and quality facilitator which is reinforced by its marketing wizardry. Combinations of these strategies are also probable, as when instant oil change (focus) specialists look to establish a low-cost position due to the high volume of business generated by a sensible response to customer’s minor automobile service needs. The cost leadership strategy frequently requires a `lean’ culture and is usually perceived as `unattractive’ with the constant focus on cost management and efficiency. A leaning to be production or operations led therefore emerges. This produces a concentration on standardization of products, components as well as processes with the minimization of variations/derivatives. A fine balance needs to be attained between maintaining a contracted range of products/services and meeting the varying needs of diverse customer groups. It is these tensions between either giving a differentiated approach to match customer require and gain competitive advantage, or pursuing cost leadership to gain profit margin and value advantage, that frequently leads in practice to a mixed approach. This means that the advantages of neither competitive position are attained. This being `stuck in the middle’ yields no competitive advantage and corrodes the position of the business unit. Differentiation would involve an organization in providing something unique to its target customers. The uniqueness can be related to products, the way it delivers its goods and services, the way it markets its products or anything that shapes a customer’s perception in relation to differentiation. This could be the way products and services are branded or designed and the customers perceive such offerings as unique† (Sultan Kermally; 2003, 66-67). The differentiation strategy is often the most `attractive’ in that it gives the opportunity for a more resourceful approach to the market. For this reason the organization tends to be marketing led. It is fundamental in these business units that the cost/benefit analysis of any new type of differentiation is thoroughly evaluated. In addition, sensitivity analysis should be used to look at the capability of the associated cost base at different levels of sales performance and in diverse market conditions. The primary challenge with differentiation is one of competitor replication, where the benefit is temporary and, once replicated, becomes an increase in the industry/market cost base for all competitors. This growing migration of the cost base can over time destroy an attractive market segment. According to Grant (1991): â€Å"Differentiation is different from segmentation. Differentiation is concerned with how the firm competes — in what ways the firm can proffer uniqueness to its customers. Such exclusivity might relate to consistency (McDonalds), dependability (Federal Express), status (American Express), quality (Marks & Spencer), and innovation (Sony). Segmentation, in terms of market segment choices is concerned with where the firm competes in terms of consumer groups, localities and product types†. Whereas segmentation is a feature of market structure, differentiation is a strategic choice by a firm. A segmented market is one that can be partitioned according to the characteristics of customers and their demand. Differentiation is concerned with a firm’s positioning within a market or a segment in relation to the product, service and image characteristics that influence customer choice†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Sultan Kermally; 2003, 66-67). Michael Porter also has addressed the issues of competitive advantage in relation to the nations. In his book ‘The Competitive Advantage of Nations’ (1990), Porter’s view has an impact in relation to global competition and consequently global marketing. He puts forward a view that national conditions influence a firm’s competitive advantage in globally competing industries. Then comes focus strategy that â€Å"involves an organization being selective in terms of the segments it wants to serve and focusing on these segments to the exclusion of other segments. The focus strategy can either be cost focus or differentiation focus. If an organization does not choose generic strategies it wants to focus on then as Porter puts it, it will be ‘stuck in the middle’. The extent to which a generic strategy can be sustainable will depend on competitors’ behavior and action. The organization constantly has to be a step ahead of its competitors† (Sultan Kermally; 2003, 66-67). Porter’s generic strategies are based on the competitive methods and possibility of the organization, both of which compromise its strategy. His recommendations have perceptive appeal. Unfortunately, Porter does not cite any contributing literature in the development of his typology. It is also unfortunate that Porter’s deductively derived typology was not convoyed by an attempt to validate its contents empirically. However, separate research efforts have been directed at subjecting Porter’s conceptualized typology to empirical verification. One of the first empirical tests of Porter’s hypothesis was conducted by Dess and Davis, who examined 22 firms in the paint and related products industry (Dess and Davis, 1984). A total of 78 executives from these firms completed questionnaires by representing the importance of 21 competitive variables (Woo and Cool, 1983). The resulting correlation matrix of this distinctiveness was subjected to factor analysis to isolate the competitive dimensions linked with Porter’s three generic strategies. The principal factor solutions hold three elements that were matched against Porter’s generic strategies. A panel of seven academicians was then surveyed to establish the importance of each competitive means for each of the generic strategies. Overall, general agreement was attained between the panel’s definition of cost leadership and differentiation and that resultant via the factor analysis. However, disagreement existed over the panel’s idea of focus strategy and that which was labeled through the beginning. So as to differentiate firms according to discrete patterns of strategic behavior, Dess and Davis entered the factor scores of each firm into a group algorithm. Performance data (return on assets and annual sales growth) were provided for 15 of these firms. The authors observed four separate clusters, of which three were hold as pursuing distinct generic strategies (cost leadership, differentiation, or focus). They labeled the fourth cluster â€Å"stuck in the middle.† Return on assets for both the cost leadership and differentiation strategies were considerably higher than that generated by the â€Å"stuck in the middle† strategy, lending some support to Porter’s argument that generic strategies produce superior performance. However, the focus cluster was also shown to have the lowest profitability, signifying that Dess and Davis’s results were not conclusive. The authors also raised questions concerning interpretation of factor scores, given concerns they had with the constancy of factor loading in the sample set. The study is also limited in that it implicated only one industry. In a separate study, White examined 69 business units from 12 different businesses from the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategies (PIMS) data base in order to determine the â€Å"proper† organizational requirements approved for Porter’s three generic strategies (White, 1986). A differentiation strategy was operationalized by high relative cost and price, whereas a cost leadership strategy was distinct by low relative price and cost. The organizational â€Å"context† of the business unit was operationalized along three dimensions: autonomy, frequency of reports/reviews, and functional coordination. Performance was determined according to return on investment (ROI), real sales growth, relative market share, and cash flow from investment. By statistically comparing different organizational characteristics, White was capable to demonstrate that businesses within a common strategy class had similar organizational contexts within the overall corporation. For businesses that followed a cost leadership strategy, higher ROIs were linked with low autonomy and more frequent reviews and measures of performance. For businesses following differentiation strategies, higher ROIs were linked with an opposite set of interorganizational characteristics. These results were reliable with Porter’s contention (Porter, 1980). However, when White employed other measures of performance (for instance, real sales growth), the previously mentioned relationships did not always hold. In addition, the combination strategy of both low cost and differentiation produced the highest overall ROI results and higher real growth consequences than a simple pure cost strategy. This suggests that, differing to Porter’s hypothesis, some successful businesses follow a combination of two or more â€Å"generic† strategies concurrently. Another study based on testing Porter’s hypothesis was performed by Woo and Cool. The primary aim of this study was to contrast the performance of Porter’s differentiation and cost leadership strategies with non-generic strategies. The study concentrated on domestic manufacturing businesses over the period from 1976 to 1979 and used the PIMS data base. Woo and Cool chose relative price and cost as representative of the major dimensions that reflect Porter’s differentiation as well as cost leadership strategies. Performance was represented by four factors: return on investment, real sales growth, relative market share, and cash flow to investment. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure was performed that designated mixed results for the generic strategies. According to Woo and Cool, â€Å"In all cases, non-generic strategies as a group seem to achieve as well as the generic strategies.† (Woo and Cool, 1983, 17). These results seem to corroborate those findings of White. In addition, the use of discriminant analysis recognized differences in the functional components of Porter’s two generic strategies and revealed that (1) differentiation strategy was recognized with higher product quality and product R&D and (2) cost leadership was linked with lower discretionary spending and a heavy emphasis on forward integration. In all, Woo and Cool’s conclusions challenged two aspects of Porter’s hypothesis, namely, that generic strategies produce superior performance and that the useful components of particular generic strategies are static and deductively particular The generic strategies make the postulation that the company intends to persist in a concentration mode, that is, limit its horizons to a single product/service or attain a predominant portion of its sales in one industry. Few large or medium size firms confine their product horizons. Characteristically it is small businesses that start with such a focus. With success and growth usually comes a desire to reduce dependence on any one product/market. Diversified firms have more established sales and earnings. Risk reduction unquestionably helps improve shareholder value. Most firms have historically been uncomfortable about â€Å"sticking to their knitting† lest they knit a sweater that’s no longer in style or that someone else can make at half the price (perhaps with a machine they’ve just invented). The unwillingness to place all one’s eggs in one basket is quite comprehensible since it could result in binding the company’s future to just one product, a product that might be rendered obsolete or alternated by alternate products. Also, competitors could prove to be more competent at value formation by identifying the desired components of value more accurately or delivering them more efficiently. Continuous value enhancement in a single product area is positively laudable, but prudence dictates that other stakeholders’ needs (shareholders, employees, creditors, and suppliers, for instance) also be taken into thought. Diversification is an important strategy in assuring that the needs of a diversity of stakeholders are given careful enough attention to merit their strong support. Moreover, expanding the product as well as market scope of the firm widens its range of customers, providing even more opportunities for delivering value in completely novel ways. Diversification has, of late, come under fire for being the reason of many firms’ declining ability to compete with domestic and foreign rivals. It is, however, conglomerate diversification that distracts a firm from its work of value. When a firm has numerous product and service offerings, few of which have any association to each other, the objective becomes to exploit shareholder value (stock price and/or dividend). Commitment to a product line or to its customers is noticeably absent at the corporate level. Conglomerates not simply keep their eggs in different baskets, they often forget where their baskets are! On the other hand, concentrically diversified firms–General Electric, Matsushita, Procter and Gamble, IBM, and Honda, to name a few–seek new product or market opportunities with a view to ongoing their prior success in value creation. IBM, for instance, has excelled at providing engineering, installation, maintenance and other types of services to customers. This source of value has been deliberately developed and maximized regardless of whether the product is a mainframe computer, a microcomputer or peripheral equipment. Procter and Gamble, whether in consumer non-durables or in its more recent food/pharmaceutical ventures has, certainly, always been known for its clear conceptualization and faultless construction of value? However, its capability to unerringly communicate the value inhabiting in its products–through timely and well-planned distribution, superb promotion, and rapid assimilation of customer comments-is what enables P & G to exploit value in its erstwhile as well as new product areas. Thus, Porter three generic strategies are alternative, workable approaches to dealing with the competitive forces.†Ã‚   However, the uniqueness of Porter’s cost, differentiation, and focus strategies has been empirically supported by Dess and Davis, White, and Woo and Cool. These same researchers have also suggested that various combinations of these strategy taxa (cost, differentiation, focus) often result in superior performance. Here, the central matter is focused on the proper level of abstraction in conceptualizing generic strategies. As such, cost, differentiation, and focus (or their derivatives) have been equally viewed as representative of lower levels of concept and as such are more appropriately measured as strategy â€Å"types† or â€Å"strategic factors† that in combination make up the taxa or composite strategies. Conclusion Porter’s generic strategies can be linked directly to the competitive positioning strategy. Product specialization, high-quality offerings, and product innovation are all derivatives of Porter’s differentiation strategy; the combination strategy type recognized in this study relates to Porter’s cost and differentiation strategies. Porter also suggests four strategic alternatives in global industries: broad line global competition, global focus, national focus, and protected niche. These broad patterns resemble aspects of the internationalization dimension. For instance, the domestic strategy type identified in this study is closely linked to Porter’s national focus strategy. Porter also does not mention either exporting or mixed international strategy types. Porter has yet to differentiate fully his conceptualization of global strategy in terms of internationalization and competitive positioning. Indeed, his own perspectives of global strategy seem to have matured with time, perhaps as a consequence of mounting criticism leveled against his cost/differentiation generic strategies. To Porter, the essence of a global strategy can be captured through strategic focus. Yet by defining global industries throughout international parameters, it becomes imperative to determine both whether and how member businesses are in fact competing internationally. Later Porter expands his earlier conceptualization of global strategy by defining it as â€Å"one in which a firm seeks to gain competitive advantage from its international presence through either concentrating configuration, coordination among dispersed activities, or both.† (Porter 1986a: 20) With this definition, global strategy is no longer portrayed as just a function of the one-dimensional geographic experience captured by strategic focus. Rather, it is reflected in the essence of internationalization captured in this study. Porter has always faced a complex challenge subordinating his own four–largely internationalization–strategy types to his leading generic strategies. Indeed, by identifying global strategies through predominantly internationalization, Porter is seen implicitly supporting an agreeing strategic emphasis on both competitive positioning and internationalization. For instance, a broad-line global competitor will compete either on the basis of low cost or differentiation. Thus, cost and differentiation are dimensions of a global strategy, and the same a global strategy is rooted in cost or differentiation advantages. Work Cited Dess G., and Davis P. ( 1984). â€Å"Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as determinants of strategic groups’ membership and organizational performance†. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 467-488. Grant, R.M. (1991). The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, Spring, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 114-135. Kim, Eonsoo, Dae-il Nam and J.L. Stimpert (2004) ‘The Applicability of Porters GenericStrategies in the Digital Age: Assumptions, Conjectures, and Suggestions’ Journal of Management, 30:5, 569–589 Millar, D. (1992), ‘The Generic Strategy Trap’, Journal of Business Strategy, 13, 37–41. Parnell, John A. (2006) ‘Generic strategies after two decades: a reconceptualization of competitive strategy’, Management Decision, 44:8, 1139–1154 Parnell, John A. and Lewis Hershey ‘The strategy-performance relationship revisited: the blessing and curse of the combination strategy’, International Journal of Commerceand Management, 15:1, 17–33. Porter M. ( 1986a). â€Å"Changing patterns of international competition†. California Management Review, 28, 9-40. Porter M. E. ( 1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: Free Press. Sultan Kermally; Gurus on Marketing Thorogood, 2003 White R. ( 1986). â€Å"Generic Business Strategies, organizational context and performance: An empirical investigation†. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 217-231. Woo C., and Cool K. ( 1983). Porter’s (1980) generic competitive strategies: A test of performance and functional strategy attributes. Working paper, Purdue University.

The Science Behind The Desalination Process Environmental Sciences Essay

Desalination is the procedure of taking salt from salty H2O to do it suited for imbibing or for usage by industries that require really pure H2O. ( Water Corporation Australia, 2011 ) Desalination workss are normally located near sea or ocean as most desalinization workss get the salty H2O from the sea and ocean. There are many ways of taking the salt from H2O but the chief 3 procedures are: Electrodialysis, Thermal distillment and Reverse osmosis. Electrodialysis Salts dissolved in H2O are ionic which mean they can be either be positively charged ions or negatively charged ions. When an electrical charged is passed through the H2O so â€Å" opposites attract † happens the salt ions will travel toward the antonym charged for illustration a positively charged salt ion will travel toward a negative charge, a negatively charged salt ion will travel toward the positively charge. Once the salt ions have move towards the antonym charged you will hold separated salt from H2O. A membrane is used to divide the purified H2O and salt ions. Thermal distillment The procedure in which salt H2O from the sea or ocean is heated to bring forth steam, so the steam will be condensed on a cold surface and H2O will be left behind. Rearward Osmosis Rearward Osmosis is uses a really high force per unit area and a really all right membrane to roll up the fresh H2O from the salty H2O. The membrane is like a strainer it has holes on the strainer which the holes are merely little plenty to let H2O eyeglasss pass through but non allow salt eyeglasss and other drosss to go through though the membrane Electrodialysis Rearward OsmosisBenefitsThe benefits of desalinization are that you can easy happen the resource, 97 % of the H2O is in ocean and sea and all of that is salt H2O which means that companies and authoritiess can construct desalinization workss and can be certain that the desalinization works will acquire a changeless supply of H2O. For illustration a Government decides to construct a desalinization works and they locate the works merely off shore from the major metropolis, they have a pipe connected to the major metropolis and they turn the desalinization works on H2O is now being filtered by the procedure contrary osmosis all of a sudden you have merely created another really sustainable H2O supply for you metropolis and you have reduced the sum of H2O that needs to be extracted from the chief river. Another benefit of constructing a desalinization works is that the H2O is besides really clean after the filtering and does non necessitate external 3rd party cleansing which river H2O do es. When the desalinization works finished the procedure of filtrating out the salt from the seawater the H2O is really pure so it does non necessitate to travel through extra cleansing, the filtered H2O from the desalinization works may merely necessitate Cl to be added to the H2O and it would be absolutely potable and clean and pure and it would be more cost effectual merely to make all the procedure, filtrating salt and so adding Cl to filtered H2O all in the one desalinization works. Another benefit is that desalinization is more â€Å" socially † accepted than effluent recycling ( Which is H2O from lavatories, cloacas etc ) authoritiess would be much more successful seeking to sell desalinization to the populace than seeking to sell recycled H2O from your lavatories.DisadvantagesDesalination workss are really inefficient and research suggest that if a desalinization works pumps in 500million litres of H2O and so filtrate that 500litres so 250million litres would be pure H2O and the other 250million litres would be salt and drosss which so is pumped back into sea or ocean merely job being that salt and drosss is twice the dressed ore of salt than seawater which means when the following burden of H2O comes in it will be more concentrated than the burden before which mean the desalinization it would be more salt than H2O so the efficiency of the desalinization workss goes down even more. Another downside of a desalinization works is that it uses a batch of energy to power the works which means that it is consuming our energy resources which is already on a strain so fundamentally they are seeking to repair the H2O crisis but making more quandary for the nursery effects and planetary heating issue. But being run on electricity is another issue what happens if they metropolis all of a sudden had a black out, even though the desalinization works may hold backup generators they wo n't be able to keep a power for a works every bit large as a desalinization works, so if we had a power blackout would that average half of the metropolis H2O supply is gone or if we rely entirely on the desalinization works it would intend that the whole metropolis H2O supply is gone which would be really troublesome for the metropolis. Another disadvantage is that â€Å" nil is perfect † no affair how perfect the engineering is it non hone and if something all of a sudden goes incorrect say in rearward osmosis the membrane is excessively big and salt and drosss manage to go through through it would non merely endanger the occupant of metropolis its supply H2O but cause a batch of people to be ill or even dices.Social effects of desalinizationPeoples can still be really disbelieving about imbibing H2O from the sea or ocean even though scientist and applied scientists of the desalinization works says the H2O is absolutely safe, there is ever on the dorsum of your head, what if some went incorrect and they H2O is non wholly pure? Would you desire to give that H2O to your kids, your babe, and your aged parents? With desalinization there is ever that thought that it is non wholly clean, it ‘s truly salt H2O filtered a twosome of clip to acquire pure H2O. Which is turn affects us socially because that it ever traveling to be a difficult sell for authoritiess to state to their occupants that this H2O is absolutely clean.Economic effects of desalinizationDesalination workss are really expensive and they money has to come from someplace so revenue enhancement remunerators end up paying for the desalinization works which obviously makes it even a harder sell for authoritiess, now non merely you have a H2O supply which is less dependable and possible less pure than fresh river H2O you have to pay for this less dependable and less pure beginning of H2O. They H2O measures will hold to travel up every bit good non merely will they charged a levy to pay for the desalinization works they will do you pay excess to subsidies the cost of running the works ( Electricity, paying staff etc )Environmental effects of desalinizationWhen you build a desalinization works merely of shore you besides could perchance interrupt the natural home ground of certain animate beings like fish or they would hold to clear land and which means they will pass over certain types of creates out of their natural home ground which is non ideal, you killing of species and damaging the land. As mentioned before desalinization workss use a batch of power so it will consume fossil fuels and add the turning job of nurseries gas and planetary heating and C emanations as good.DecisionDesalination is a really feasible and realistic solution for H2O direction, it can work out the H2O crisis presently is seem like desalinization is the best alternate solution for H2O in many major metropoliss around the word as it easier accessible engineering is instead mature downside being its really inefficient and cost a batch of money and uses a batch of power. But their possibly better or every bit good solution out at that place instead than desalinization like waste/storm H2O recycling which is a effectual manner of supplying a secondary H2O supply but with societal effects which people non wishing the fact they are re imbibing their lavatory H2O. A more feasible solution possibly is rainwater reaping in which persons can roll up rainwater and utilize it for their demand which major societal or economical affect merely job being that you can truly merely collect rainwater when it rains hence is atrocious inefficient and non dependable. So in stating all of that, Desalination is the best technique to work out our H2O crisis.