Challenges in implementing evidence-based practice into mental health services

This paper highlights challenges in implementing mental health policy at a service delivery level. It describes an attempt to foster greater application of recovery-orientated principles and practices within mental health services. Notwithstanding a highly supportive policy environment, strong support from service administrators, and an enthusiastic staff response to training, application of the training and support tools was weaker than anticipated. This paper evaluates the dissemination trial against key elements to promote sustained adoption of innovations. Organisational and procedural changes are required before mental health policies are systematically implemented in practice.

Virtual teams and group member dissimilarity - Consequences for the development of trust

The consequences of demographic dissimilarity for group trust in work teams was examined in a virtual (computer-mediated) and a face-to-face (FTF) environment. Demographic dissimilarity (based on age, gender, country of birth, enrolled degree) was predicted to be negatively associated with group trust in the FTF environment but not in the computer-mediated environment. Participants worked in small groups on a creative task for 3 consecutive days. In the computer-mediated environment, participants worked on the task for an hour per day. In the FTF environment, participants worked on the task for 20 minutes per day. Partial support was found for the effectiveness of computer-mediated groups in reducing the negative consequences of dissimilarity. Age dissimilarity was negatively related to trust in FTF groups but not in computer-mediated groups. Birthplace dissimilarity was positively related to trust in computer-mediated groups. Implications for the successful management of virtual teams are discussed.

Moomba - A collaborative environment for supporting distributed extreme programming in global software development

Global Software Development (GSD) is an emerging distributive software engineering practice, in which a higher communication overhead due to temporal and geographical separation among developers is traded with gains in reduced development cost, improved flexibility and mobility for developers, increased access to skilled resource-pools and convenience of customer involvements. However, due to its distributive nature, GSD faces many fresh challenges in aspects relating to project coordination, awareness, collaborative coding and effective communication. New software engineering methodologies and processes are required to address these issues. Research has shown that, with adequate support tools, Distributed Extreme Programming (DXP) – a distributive variant of an agile methodology – Extreme Programming (XP) can be both efficient and beneficial to GDS projects. In this paper, we present the design and realization of a collaborative environment, called Moomba, which assists a distributed team in both instantiation and execution of a DXP process in GSD projects.

A software audit framework for spyware risk mitigation

Our research described in this paper identifies a three part premise relating to the spyware paradigm. Firstly the data suggests spyware is proliferating at an exponential rate. Secondly ongoing research confirms that spyware produces many security risks – including that of privacy/confidentiality breaches via illicit data collection and reporting. Thirdly, anti-spyware controls are improving but are still considered problematic for several reasons. Our research then concludes that control measures to counter this very significant challenge should merit compliance auditing – and this auditing may effectively target the vital message passing performed by all illicit data collection spyware. Our research then evolves into an experiment involving the design and implementation of a software audit tool to conduct the desired compliance auditing. The software audit tool is positioned at the protected network’s gateway. The software audit tool uses ‘phone-home’ IP addresses as spyware signatures to detect the presence of the offending software. The audit tool also has the capability to differentiate legitimate message passing software from that produced by spyware – and ‘learn’ both new spyware signatures and new legitimate message passing profiles. The testing stage of the software has proven successful – albeit using very limited levels of network message passing variety and frequency.

EIS QUE LIVRAREI DA PRISÃO O MEU POVO ISRAEL E JUDÁ : AS PALAVRAS DE SALVAÇÃO EM JR 30-31 COMO PROJETO DE RETRIBALIZAÇÃO

A presente tese propõe uma interpretação exegética da profecia de Jr 30-31 na perspectiva social. Jr 30-31 forma uma unidade literária no livro de Jeremias, composta por subunidades que podem ser designadas de perícopes. Grande parte das expectativas salvíficas deste trecho literário devem ser atribuídas à literatura originária do livro, e provém das articulações sociais engendradas por Jeremias no fim do século 7 e início do século 6 a.C. em prol dos empobrecidos da antiga sociedade palestina Israel/Norte e de Judá/Sul. Os primeiros ditos salvíficos de Jr 30-31 surgiram na época de Josias (Jr 30,10-11.18-21; 31,2-5). Nessa época, originaram-se as expectativas de salvação dirigidas para as populações israelitas do Norte. Outro intenso surgimento das expectativas salvíficas aconteceu nos anos imediatamente posteriores à queda de Judá, em 587 a.C., quando Jeremias novamente direcionou uma palavra de esperança aos pobres do Israel/Norte, e incluiu também em sua mensagem aqueles que permaneceram na terra de Judá/Sul depois do saque babilônico. Nesse cenário podem ser localizadas as seguintes perícopes: 30,3.5-7.12-17; 31,15.16-20.21-22.27-28.31-34. A presente tese supõe que, de modo geral, Jr 30-31 seja uma reconfirmação da desmilitarização e da desurbanização de Jerusalém ocorridas naquele período, já que esse novo cenário político e econômico favoreceu os desprestigiados da Palestina. O tribalismo é o moto das expectativas salvíficas da literatura jeremiana original. No engendramento de uma nova sociedade, retribalizada, livre do jugo monárquico e dos imperialismos, Jr 30-31 defendem a posse da terra aos camponeses que sofreram espoliações do império assírio e dos reis judaítas. Com a queda do Estado de Judá, os empobrecidos poderiam retomar suas vidas e possuir a terra como meio de produção e subsistência. A relação entre as palavras de salvação e o tribalismo também pode ser notado em outros trechos do livro de Jeremias. A estruturação verbal proponente de destruição e reconstrução de 31,28 pode ser encontrada em Jr 1,10; 18,7.9; 24,6; 42,10 e 45,4. As promessas de salvação contidas em Jr 1,10, 31,27-28 e 42,10 anunciam a continuidade da vida na terra de Judá depois da catástrofe de 587 a.C. Essa ideia também pode ser percebida em Jr 23,5-6, 30,8-9. Em Jr 24,6, por sua vez, lê-se uma promessa para os exilados de Judá, que viviam na Babilônia sob o sistema tribal. Em Jr 3,6-13.19-25; 4,1-2, as expectativas salvíficas de Jeremias apresentam o caminho para a reorganização social através da conversão para Javé.

Organisational learning - a critical systems thinking discipline

Original Paper European Journal of Information Systems (2001) 10, 135–146; doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000394 Organisational learning—a critical systems thinking discipline P Panagiotidis1,3 and J S Edwards2,4 1Deloitte and Touche, Athens, Greece 2Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK Correspondence: Dr J S Edwards, Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK. E-mail: j.s.edwards@aston.ac.uk 3Petros Panagiotidis is Manager responsible for the Process and Systems Integrity Services of Deloitte and Touche in Athens, Greece. He has a BSc in Business Administration and an MSc in Management Information Systems from Western International University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA; an MSc in Business Systems Analysis and Design from City University, London, UK; and a PhD degree from Aston University, Birmingham, UK. His doctorate was in Business Systems Analysis and Design. His principal interests now are in the ERP/DSS field, where he serves as project leader and project risk managment leader in the implementation of SAP and JD Edwards/Cognos in various major clients in the telecommunications and manufacturing sectors. In addition, he is responsible for the development and application of knowledge management systems and activity-based costing systems. 4John S Edwards is Senior Lecturer in Operational Research and Systems at Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK. He holds MA and PhD degrees (in mathematics and operational research respectively) from Cambridge University. His principal research interests are in knowledge management and decision support, especially methods and processes for system development. He has written more than 30 research papers on these topics, and two books, Building Knowledge-based Systems and Decision Making with Computers, both published by Pitman. Current research work includes the effect of scale of operations on knowledge management, interfacing expert systems with simulation models, process modelling in law and legal services, and a study of the use of artifical intelligence techniques in management accounting. Top of pageAbstract This paper deals with the application of critical systems thinking in the domain of organisational learning and knowledge management. Its viewpoint is that deep organisational learning only takes place when the business systems' stakeholders reflect on their actions and thus inquire about their purpose(s) in relation to the business system and the other stakeholders they perceive to exist. This is done by reflecting both on the sources of motivation and/or deception that are contained in their purpose, and also on the sources of collective motivation and/or deception that are contained in the business system's purpose. The development of an organisational information system that captures, manages and institutionalises meaningful information—a knowledge management system—cannot be separated from organisational learning practices, since it should be the result of these very practices. Although Senge's five disciplines provide a useful starting-point in looking at organisational learning, we argue for a critical systems approach, instead of an uncritical Systems Dynamics one that concentrates only on the organisational learning practices. We proceed to outline a methodology called Business Systems Purpose Analysis (BSPA) that offers a participatory structure for team and organisational learning, upon which the stakeholders can take legitimate action that is based on the force of the better argument. In addition, the organisational learning process in BSPA leads to the development of an intrinsically motivated information organisational system that allows for the institutionalisation of the learning process itself in the form of an organisational knowledge management system. This could be a specific application, or something as wide-ranging as an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementation. Examples of the use of BSPA in two ERP implementations are presented.

CORD an object model supporting statistical summary information for management decision making

Information systems have developed to the stage that there is plenty of data available in most organisations but there are still major problems in turning that data into information for management decision making. This thesis argues that the link between decision support information and transaction processing data should be through a common object model which reflects the real world of the organisation and encompasses the artefacts of the information system. The CORD (Collections, Objects, Roles and Domains) model is developed which is richer in appropriate modelling abstractions than current Object Models. A flexible Object Prototyping tool based on a Semantic Data Storage Manager has been developed which enables a variety of models to be stored and experimented with. A statistical summary table model COST (Collections of Objects Statistical Table) has been developed within CORD and is shown to be adequate to meet the modelling needs of Decision Support and Executive Information Systems. The COST model is supported by a statistical table creator and editor COSTed which is also built on top of the Object Prototyper and uses the CORD model to manage its metadata.

State-of-the-art in integrated vehicle health management

Cranfield University in collaboration with The Boeing Company have set up a Centre of Excellence in IVHM on the University?s technology park. Sponsored by the East of England Development Agency (EEDA), the Centre carries out pre-competitive research and development of IVHM technologies for the benefit of industrial partners. In addition, the dedicated facilities and university staff provide an unparalleled educational environment for learning and applying IVHM technologies. Boeing is actively involved in the creation and work of the Centre through its enterprise-wide Phantom Works technology organization. This paper will describe the organisation and operation of the Centre and will illustrate its activities by describing a research project being carried out in the Centre. This project is a demonstration of an end to end IVHM system beginning with cost/benefit analysis and extending to maintenance, logistics and operations decision support.

A method for systematic artifact selection decision making

Artifact selection decisions typically involve the selection of one from a number of possible/candidate options (decision alternatives). In order to support such decisions, it is important to identify and recognize relevant key issues of problem solving and decision making (Albers, 1996; Harris, 1998a, 1998b; Jacobs & Holten, 1995; Loch & Conger, 1996; Rumble, 1991; Sauter, 1999; Simon, 1986). Sauter classifies four problem solving/decision making styles: (1) left-brain style, (2) right-brain style, (3) accommodating, and (4) integrated (Sauter, 1999). The left-brain style employs analytical and quantitative techniques and relies on rational and logical reasoning. In an effort to achieve predictability and minimize uncertainty, problems are explicitly defined, solution methods are determined, orderly information searches are conducted, and analysis is increasingly refined. Left-brain style decision making works best when it is possible to predict/control, measure, and quantify all relevant variables, and when information is complete. In direct contrast, right-brain style decision making is based on intuitive techniques—it places more emphasis on feelings than facts. Accommodating decision makers use their non-dominant style when they realize that it will work best in a given situation. Lastly, integrated style decision makers are able to combine the left- and right-brain styles—they use analytical processes to filter information and intuition to contend with uncertainty and complexity.

A method for systematic artifact selection decision making

Artifact selection decisions typically involve the selection of one from a number of possible/candidate options (decision alternatives). In order to support such decisions, it is important to identify and recognize relevant key issues of problem solving and decision making (Albers, 1996; Harris, 1998a, 1998b; Jacobs & Holten, 1995; Loch & Conger, 1996; Rumble, 1991; Sauter, 1999; Simon, 1986). Sauter classifies four problem solving/decision making styles: (1) left-brain style, (2) right-brain style, (3) accommodating, and (4) integrated (Sauter, 1999). The left-brain style employs analytical and quantitative techniques and relies on rational and logical reasoning. In an effort to achieve predictability and minimize uncertainty, problems are explicitly defined, solution methods are determined, orderly information searches are conducted, and analysis is increasingly refined. Left-brain style decision making works best when it is possible to predict/control, measure, and quantify all relevant variables, and when information is complete. In direct contrast, right-brain style decision making is based on intuitive techniques—it places more emphasis on feelings than facts. Accommodating decision makers use their non-dominant style when they realize that it will work best in a given situation. Lastly, integrated style decision makers are able to combine the left- and right-brain styles—they use analytical processes to filter information and intuition to contend with uncertainty and complexity.

GEO Label – quality information interrogation tool for geospatial datasets:towards effective visualization of quality metadata

Although the importance of dataset fitness-for-use evaluation and intercomparison is widely recognised within the GIS community, no practical tools have yet been developed to support such interrogation. GeoViQua aims to develop a GEO label which will visually summarise and allow interrogation of key informational aspects of geospatial datasets upon which users rely when selecting datasets for use. The proposed GEO label will be integrated in the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) and will be used as a value and trust indicator for datasets accessible through the GEO Portal. As envisioned, the GEO label will act as a decision support mechanism for dataset selection and thereby hopefully improve user recognition of the quality of datasets. To date we have conducted 3 user studies to (1) identify the informational aspects of geospatial datasets upon which users rely when assessing dataset quality and trustworthiness, (2) elicit initial user views on a GEO label and its potential role and (3), evaluate prototype label visualisations. Our first study revealed that, when evaluating quality of data, users consider 8 facets: dataset producer information; producer comments on dataset quality; dataset compliance with international standards; community advice; dataset ratings; links to dataset citations; expert value judgements; and quantitative quality information. Our second study confirmed the relevance of these facets in terms of the community-perceived function that a GEO label should fulfil: users and producers of geospatial data supported the concept of a GEO label that provides a drill-down interrogation facility covering all 8 informational aspects. Consequently, we developed three prototype label visualisations and evaluated their comparative effectiveness and user preference via a third user study to arrive at a final graphical GEO label representation. When integrated in the GEOSS, an individual GEO label will be provided for each dataset in the GEOSS clearinghouse (or other data portals and clearinghouses) based on its available quality information. Producer and feedback metadata documents are being used to dynamically assess information availability and generate the GEO labels. The producer metadata document can either be a standard ISO compliant metadata record supplied with the dataset, or an extended version of a GeoViQua-derived metadata record, and is used to assess the availability of a producer profile, producer comments, compliance with standards, citations and quantitative quality information. GeoViQua is also currently developing a feedback server to collect and encode (as metadata records) user and producer feedback on datasets; these metadata records will be used to assess the availability of user comments, ratings, expert reviews and user-supplied citations for a dataset. The GEO label will provide drill-down functionality which will allow a user to navigate to a GEO label page offering detailed quality information for its associated dataset. At this stage, we are developing the GEO label service that will be used to provide GEO labels on demand based on supplied metadata records. In this presentation, we will provide a comprehensive overview of the GEO label development process, with specific emphasis on the GEO label implementation and integration into the GEOSS.

GEO Label:user and producer perspectives on a label for geospatial data

One of the aims of the Science and Technology Committee (STC) of the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) was to establish a GEO Label- a label to certify geospatial datasets and their quality. As proposed, the GEO Label will be used as a value indicator for geospatial data and datasets accessible through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). It is suggested that the development of such a label will significantly improve user recognition of the quality of geospatial datasets and that its use will help promote trust in datasets that carry the established GEO Label. Furthermore, the GEO Label is seen as an incentive to data providers. At the moment GEOSS contains a large amount of data and is constantly growing. Taking this into account, a GEO Label could assist in searching by providing users with visual cues of dataset quality and possibly relevance; a GEO Label could effectively stand as a decision support mechanism for dataset selection. Currently our project - GeoViQua, - together with EGIDA and ID-03 is undertaking research to define and evaluate the concept of a GEO Label. The development and evaluation process will be carried out in three phases. In phase I we have conducted an online survey (GEO Label Questionnaire) to identify the initial user and producer views on a GEO Label or its potential role. In phase II we will conduct a further study presenting some GEO Label examples that will be based on Phase I. We will elicit feedback on these examples under controlled conditions. In phase III we will create physical prototypes which will be used in a human subject study. The most successful prototypes will then be put forward as potential GEO Label options. At the moment we are in phase I, where we developed an online questionnaire to collect the initial GEO Label requirements and to identify the role that a GEO Label should serve from the user and producer standpoint. The GEO Label Questionnaire consists of generic questions to identify whether users and producers believe a GEO Label is relevant to geospatial data; whether they want a single "one-for-all" label or separate labels that will serve a particular role; the function that would be most relevant for a GEO Label to carry; and the functionality that users and producers would like to see from common rating and review systems they use. To distribute the questionnaire, relevant user and expert groups were contacted at meetings or by email. At this stage we successfully collected over 80 valid responses from geospatial data users and producers. This communication will provide a comprehensive analysis of the survey results, indicating to what extent the users surveyed in Phase I value a GEO Label, and suggesting in what directions a GEO Label may develop. Potential GEO Label examples based on the results of the survey will be presented for use in Phase II.