A co-ordinated business object approach for supporting tactical level management decisions

The proliferation of data throughout the strategic, tactical and operational areas within many organisations, has provided a need for the decision maker to be presented with structured information that is appropriate for achieving allocated tasks. However, despite this abundance of data, managers at all levels in the organisation commonly encounter a condition of ‘information overload’, that results in a paucity of the correct information. Specifically, this thesis will focus upon the tactical domain within the organisation and the information needs of management who reside at this level. In doing so, it will argue that the link between decision making at the tactical level in the organisation, and low-level transaction processing data, should be through a common object model that used a framework based upon knowledge leveraged from co-ordination theory. In order to achieve this, the Co-ordinated Business Object Model (CBOM) was created. Detailing a two-tier framework, the first tier models data based upon four interactive object models, namely, processes, activities, resources and actors. The second tier analyses the data captured by the four object models, and returns information that can be used to support tactical decision making. In addition, the Co-ordinated Business Object Support System (CBOSS), is a prototype tool that has been developed in order to both support the CBOM implementation, and to also demonstrate the functionality of the CBOM as a modelling approach for supporting tactical management decision making. Containing a graphical user interface, the system’s functionality allows the user to create and explore alternative implementations of an identified tactical level process. In order to validate the CBOM, three verification tests have been completed. The results provide evidence that the CBOM framework helps bridge the gap between low level transaction data, and the information that is used to support tactical level decision making.

Radical or not so radical? Tactical variation in core policy formation by the Front National

Starting from a number of general tenets about radical political parties, this article examines the Front National (FN) in relation to its core policy issue of immigration. To what extent has FN immigration policy been defined from the outset by its radicalism? Has that radicalism been constant or variable over time? And how far can a reciprocal influence be detected between the FN and the center Right in immigration policy formulation? Focusing on election campaigns, manifestos, and key moments in the FN's evolution, the article assesses how the party has tailored its radicalism to contextual factors and tactical considerations. It reveals an FN less bound to a fixed policy and more ready to seek accommodation (with circumstance, public opinion, or the center Right) than is generally acknowledged. Conversely, it also assesses how the FN's mobilization of strong support on the immigration issue has had radicalizing effects on the center Right. The article concludes by considering whether the change of leadership in January 2011 might confine the FN to the radical Right or see it adopt a more center-oriented course.

Having your day in court:judicial opportunity and tactical choice in Anti-GMO campaigns in France and the United Kingdom

Investigating the recent direct action campaigns against genetically modified crops in France and the United Kingdom, the authors set out to understand how contrasting judicial systems and cultures affect the way that activists choose to commit ostensibly illegal actions and how they negotiate the trade-offs between effectiveness and public accountability. The authors find evidence that prosecution outcomes across different judicial systems are consistent and relatively predictable and consequently argue that the concept of a “judicial opportunity structure” is useful for developing scholars’ understanding of social movement trajectories. The authors also find that these differential judicial opportunities cannot adequately account for the tactical choices made by activists with respect to the staging of covert or overt direct action; rather, explanations of tactical choice are better accounted for by movement ideas, cultures, and traditions.