Critical success factors for IS executive careers

This article qualitatively analyzes the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for Information Systems (IS) executive careers based on evidence gathered from five case studies carried out in 1997. Typical IS executive career paths are presented within a time series style and the CSFs are interpreted within a descriptive framework by synthesising the case data based on Social Cognitive Theory. The descriptive framework suggests that successful IS executive careers would most likely be achieved by well educated and experienced IS employees who have the right attitude towards both their career and work, together with good performance. They would also exhibit an ability for self-learning and to anticipate future IT uses, as well as having proficient IS management knowledge and skills while working with an appropriate organizational environment. Moreover, the framework systematically indicates the interactions between the coupling factors in the typical career development processes. This provides a benchmark for employees that are aiming at a senior IS executive career against which they can compare their own achievements and aspirations. It also raises propositions for further research on theory building.

Reply: 'Myopic foveoschisis: An ectatic retinopathy, not a schisis'

Full text: We thank Tsilimbaris et al1 for their comments on the appropriateness of the term ‘myopic foveoschisis’ to describe the condition that is characterized by the separation of neural retina layers associated with high myopia and posterior staphyloma. They have proposed the term ‘myopic ectatic retinopathy’ as a more literal and functionally more accurate descriptor of the condition to avoid the use of the word ‘schisis’, which may be misleading because it is also used to describe other conditions where there is separation of neural retina layers without the presence of staphyloma.2 Using the word ‘ectatic’ for this condition would imply that we are fairly certain about the pathogenesis and mechanistic factors that underlie its development and progression. However, this is not the case, unfortunately, as our review of the literature has shown. There are several theories ranging from vitreous traction to sclerosing changes of retinal vessels to progression of staphylomas as possible etiological factors. Therefore, it is likely to be multifactorial in nature—hence the success reported with different procedures that address either the vitreous traction factor using vitrectomy, peel plus tamponade or the scleral ectasia factor using posterior buckling techniques. In the absence of a good understanding of underlying pathogenesis, it is probably best to use purely descriptive names rather than mechanistic terms. The use of descriptive terms, even though similar, do not necessarily cause confusion as long as they are widely accepted as differentiating terminology, for example, postoperative pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (Irvine–Gass syndrome) vs cystoid macular edema associated with posterior uveitis in a phakic patient. The introduction of too many mechanistic or pathogenetic terms in the absence of clear understating of etiology can in fact cause more confusion, for example, serous chorioretinopathy vs central serous retinopathy vs serous choroidopathy. The confinement to broad descriptive terms can enhance communication and reduce confusion without committing to any presumption about etiology until it is better understood. This approach is probably best illustrated by the recent advances in the understanding of mactel21, a condition initially described and classified, using descriptive nomenclature, by Don Gass as bilateral, idiopathic acquired juxtafoveolar telangiectasis (Group2A) and as distinctly different from unilateral, congenital parafoveolar telangiectasis (Group 1A; Gass,3 pp 504–506 vs 127–128). Finally, it is worthy to note that for myopic foveoschisis associated with a staphyloma that is associated with outer layer macular detachment, Don Gass also descriptively included the additional observation (before the advent of OCT) that the retinal profile was concave rather than convex in shape, thereby differentiating it from rhegmatogenous detachments with recruitment of subretinal fluid that is associated with posteriorly located breaks and macular holes in myopic eyes. References 1.Tsilimbaris MK, Vavvas DG, Bechrakis NE. Myopic foveoschisis: an ectatic retinopathy, not aschisis. Eye 2016; 30: 328–329. 2.Powner MB, Gillies MC, Tretiach M, Scott A, Guymer RH, Hageman GS et al. Perifoveal müller cell depletion in a case of macular telangiectasia type 2. Ophthalmology 2010; 117(12): 2407–2416. 3.Gass DM. Stereoscopic Atlas of Macular Diseases: Diagnosis and Treatment, 4th edn. Mosby-Yearbook: St. Louis, 1997.

The classification of HLA supertypes by GRID/CPCA and hierarchical clustering methods

Biological experiments often produce enormous amount of data, which are usually analyzed by data clustering. Cluster analysis refers to statistical methods that are used to assign data with similar properties into several smaller, more meaningful groups. Two commonly used clustering techniques are introduced in the following section: principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical clustering. PCA calculates the variance between variables and groups them into a few uncorrelated groups or principal components (PCs) that are orthogonal to each other. Hierarchical clustering is carried out by separating data into many clusters and merging similar clusters together. Here, we use an example of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) supertype classification to demonstrate the usage of the two methods. Two programs, Generating Optimal Linear Partial Least Square Estimations (GOLPE) and Sybyl, are used for PCA and hierarchical clustering, respectively. However, the reader should bear in mind that the methods have been incorporated into other software as well, such as SIMCA, statistiXL, and R.