فروش فایل ,دانلود فایل,خرید فایل,دانلود رایگان فایل,دانلود رایگان
فروش فایل ,دانلود فایل,خرید فایل,دانلود رایگان فایل,دانلود رایگانفروش فایل ,دانلود فایل,خرید فایل,دانلود رایگان فایل,دانلود رایگان
فروش فایل ,دانلود فایل,خرید فایل,دانلود رایگان فایل,دانلود رایگانمقاله مدیریت ترجمه شده با عنوان پژوهش در عملیات
نوشته تدبیر ترجمه شده با عنوان پژوهش در عملیات در فرمت دعا و شامل برگردان متن زیر می باشد:
Operations research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Operations
research, operational research, or simply OR, is the use of
mathematical models, statistics and algorithms to aid in
decision-making. It is most often used to analyze complex real-world
systems, typically with the goal of improving or optimizing performance.
It is one form of applied mathematics.
Contents
• 1 Operations research in context
• 2 Areas of application
• 3 Professional societies
• 4 Origins and the name
• 5 Examples
• 6 See also
• 7 External links
[edit]
Operations research in context
The
terms operations research and management science are often used
synonymously. When a distinction is drawn, management science generally
implies a closer relationship to the problems of business management.
Operations
research also closely relates to industrial engineering. Industrial
engineering takes more of an engineering point of view, and industrial
engineers typically consider OR techniques to be a major part of their
toolset.
Some
of the primary tools used by operations researchers are statistics,
optimization, stochastics, queueing theory, game theory, graph theory,
and simulation. Because of the computational nature of these fields OR
also has ties to computer science, and operations researchers regularly
use custom-written or off-the-shelf software.
Operations
research is distinguished by its ability to look at and improve an
entire system, rather than concentrating only on specific elements
(though this is often done as well). An operations researcher faced with
a new problem is expected to determine which techniques are most
appropriate given the nature of the system, the goals for improvement,
and constraints on time and computing power. For this and other reasons,
the human element of OR is vital. Like any tools, OR techniques cannot
solve problems by themselves.
[edit]
Areas of application
A few examples of applications in which operations research is currently used include the following:
• designing the layout of a factory for efficient flow of materials
•
constructing a telecommunications network at low cost while still
guaranteeing quality service if particular connections become very busy
or get damaged
• determining the routes of school buses so that as few buses are needed as possible
• designing the layout of a computer chip to reduce manufacturing time (therefore reducing cost)
• managing the flow of raw materials and products in a supply chain based on uncertain demand for the finished products
[edit]
Professional societies
The
International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS) is
an umbrella organization for operations research societies worldwide.
Significant among these are the Institute for Operations Research and
the Management Sciences (INFORMS) and the Operational Research Society
(ORS). EURO is the association of European Operational Research
Societies (EURO). CORS is the Canadian Operations Research Society
(CORS). ASOR is the Australian Society for Operations Research (ASOR).
MORS is the Military Operations Research Society (MORS)--based in the
United States since 1966 with the objective of enhancing the quality and
usefulness of military operations research analysis in support of
defense decisions. ORSP is the Operations Research Society of the
Philippines.
In
2004, INFORMS began an initiative to better market the OR profession,
including a website entitled The Science of Better, which provides an
introduction to OR and examples of successful applications of OR to
industrial problems.
[edit]
Origins and the name
Although
foundations were laid earlier, the field of operations research as we
know it arose during World War II, as military planners in the United
Kingdom (including Frederick Lanchester, Patrick Blackett and Frank
Yates) and in the United States looked for ways to make better decisions
in such areas as logistics and training schedules. After the war it
began to be applied to similar problems in industry.
It
is known as "operational research" in the United Kingdom ("operational
analysis" within the UK military and Ministry of Defence, where OR
stands for "operational requirements") and as "operations research" in
most other English-speaking countries, though OR is a common
abbreviation everywhere. The name is somewhat unfortunate, since OR is
no longer concerned only with operations, nor does its application
involve any research in the traditional sense (though OR research is
still carried out to find new or better techniques).
[edit]
Examples
Blackett's
team made a number of crucial analyses which aided the war effort.
Britain introduced the convoy system to reduce shipping losses, but
while the principle of using warships to accompany merchant ships was
generally accepted, it was unclear whether it was better for convoys to
be small or large. Convoys travel at the speed of the slowest member, so
small convoys can travel faster. It was also argued that small convoys
would be harder for German U-boats to detect. On the other hand, large
convoys could deploy more warships against an attacker and also the
proportion of merchant ships sunk by a U-boat would be lower. Blackett's
staff clearly showed that:
• large convoys were more efficient
• the probability of detection by U-boat was statistically unrelated to the size of the convoy
• slow convoys were at greater risk (though considered overall, large convoys were still to be preferred)
In
another piece of work, Blackett's team analysed a report of a survey
carried out by RAF Bomber Command. For the survey Bomber Command
inspected all bombers returning from bombing raids over Germany over a
particular period. All damage inflicted by German air defenses was noted
and the recommendation was given that armour be added in the most
heavily damaged areas.
Blackett's
team instead made the surprising and counter-intuitive recommendation
that the armour be placed in the areas which were completely untouched
by damage, according to the survey. They reasoned that the survey was
biased, since it only included aircraft that successfully came back from
Germany. The untouched areas were probably vital areas, which if hit
would result in the loss of the aircraft.
مقاله ترجمه شده با عنوان تحقق سود و جدایی از سرمایه
نوشته ترجمه شده با آغاز تحقق سود و جدایی از پول باب فرمت ورد و حاوی ترجمه متن زیر می باشد:
Realization of income and separation from capital
The
concepts of economic income and realized income have been subjects of
controversy for a long time in corporate accounting and related areas.
Those arguments have been repeated in a variety of forms, not only in
attempts to reconsider the concept of income in the light of economic
income but also in the related area such as taxation on corporate income
and restrictions on dividend for the company law purpose. In this
section, take a quick look at an early judicial precedent in US 6), as a
clue to a review of the process of interaction of income concept and
establishment of realization concepts.
The
judicial precedent at issue is the case of Eisner vs. Macomber ruled by
the US Federal Supreme Court in 1920. Although this case was originally
a dispute over the provision of the Internal Revenue Code that deemed
stock dividends as taxable income, it became a leading case that left a
significant impact to posterity, in that it established the conceptual
norms such as what constitutes income. The court decision set out the
interpretation of the realization concept that a mere increase in the
value of capital is not enough to constitute income if it is not
separated from capital, thereby denied that stock dividend is income.
The court decision defined the income generated from capital as an
inflow of goods that has been separated from capital and the recipient
can independently use or dispose of, not a mere increase in the value of
the capital. It pointed out that, whereas in case of cash dividends the
shareholders acquire a property with exclusive ownership and can freely
decide its disposal, stock dividend provides only an evidence of what
the shareholders already holds. It also noted that the increase in the
value of capital arising before the dividend should not be deemed as
realization of income, as long as the shareholders do not have
discretion to reinvest or consume it.
This
was an attempt to describe the “inflow of cash or cash equivalent” test
for realization of income, which had already been established with
regard to taxation on capital gains, using more essential attributes.
This rule, which deems the increase of the value realized separately
from capital as income, tried to derive the accounting concept of
realized income by adding the “availability for consumption” condition,
whereas it started from the concept of economic income, that is, value
increase arising on capital. However, separation from capital would not
be necessary, if satisfaction of the “availability for consumption”
condition were just enough. Even before the cash flow is realized, an
increment in capital value is consumable through borrowing. Even though
the increment is not separated from capital, capital is maintained as
far as the surplus is consumed. It follows that the “availability for
consumption” condition can be also met by economic income. Although
stock dividend itself has nothing to do with the income of shareholders,
the increase in the value of their interest, resulted from accumulation
of earnings before that, should have brought consumable income to the
shareholders.
Nevertheless,
this court decision determined that the shareholders’ equity in
retained earnings is capital, not income. The basic stance of this
decision was that income is cash flow, not the expectation of it. Stock
dividend was excluded from the income of the shareholders because it
neither makes the company worse off nor the shareholders better off. A
transfer of wealth involving cash flows (that is, realized income), not
mere appreciation of capital value, was the element of income as defined
here. The above discussion reveals that the realized income as an
accounting concept should be viewed as a concept conflicting with the
economic income concept ab initio, rather than a subordinated concept
derived from that. It was not a concept derived from the economic income
by imposing an additional condition. Instead, it seems that realization
as cash flows was regarded as a necessary condition from the beginning
and that condition was explained by the concept of separation from
capital. This means that economic income and realized income are
independent concepts with different objectives and origins. Although
they can be compared with each other, consistency between them cannot be
expected.
---مقاله ترجمه شده مدیریت با عنوان پشت پرده مشکلات بازاریابی
مقاله ترجمه شده تدبیر با عنوان پشت پرده مشکلات بازاریابی باب فرمت ورد و حاوی ترجمه متن زیر می باشد:
BEHIND MARKETING'S WOES:
Marketing
is ripe for a revolution because its failures are so apparent.
"Everybody--stockholders, directors, CEOs, customers, the government--is
angry because marketing, which should be driving business, doesn't
work" write marketing executives Kevin Clancy and Robert Shulman. One of
the most important reasons for this breakdown is that research is not
working because of flaws in its basic premises.
Even
academics, the primary source of research theory, see major flaws in
mainstream research methods. Multivariate statistics that describe
personality traits can account for no more than 7 percent of purchasing
behavior, according to a paper published by William Massy, Ronald Frank,
and Thomas Lodahl of Stanford, the University of Pennsylvania, and
Cornell, respectively.Consumer research's problems originate in
psychology, a field that has long struggled to define human behavior
with the same precision physicists use to describe the movement of
bodies from atoms to stars. But human behavior is too unpredictable to
describe with such precision, because it depends on an almost infinite
number of relationships. An increasingly desperate search for
cause-and-effect explanations leads many psychologists to "retreat to
abstract ideas that ignore contexts completely," writes Harvard
psychologist Jerome Kagan. Consumer research reflects similar
tendencies.
Kagan
is bothered by psychology's excessive dependence on behavioral models
that conform better to statistical theory than to behavioral realities.
Models of consumer behavior tend to extract their subjects from the
complex, often unpredictable, but completely natural contexts in which
people live and make purchasing decisions. The result is often an
interesting manipulation of a hypothetical situation that leads to a
marketing failure.
One
of the most famous marketing busts was the reformulation of Coca-Cola.
Extensive consumer research predicted success for "New Coke" because
people said it tasted better. But the research failed to disclose that
people also saw "Old Coke" as an important cultural icon, that would
lose value by changing the original recipe. This subtle value proved to
be far more influential than taste in determining consumer response.
Kodak's
"Advanta" camera was an even costlier bust. Its research failed to warn
executives of Advanta's biggest challenge: persuading a marketplace
dominated by middle-aged baby boomers to buy what was proudly touted as a
high-tech product. In mid-life, the bells and whistles of new
technology generally begin to lose their appeal. Simplicity begins to
edge out complexity in consumers' preferences.
Mainstream
consumer research generally fails to take into account developmental
changes in values and world views that happen across a person's life
span. Research also tends to ignore the major changes in cognition, or
how the mind processes information, that happen with age. The subliminal
origins of these changes prevent consumers from adequately reporting
them to researchers, but the changes are decisive in marketplace
behavior.
Another
assumption that leads consumer research astray is borrowed from classic
economics. Researchers assume that people make buying decisions to
satisfy their self-interest, and that they use reason to determine which
product best serves that end. Brain researchers see reason playing a
much weaker role in personal decisions, however. In their book Marketing
Revolution, Clancy and Shulman state the problem this way: "Because
consumers don't choose rationally, any research that forces rational
answers has to be flawed."
مقاله ترجمه شده مدیریت با عنوان پشت پرده مشکلات بازاریابی
مقاله برگردان شده مدیریت با عنوان پس پرده مشکلات بازاریابی در فرمت ورد و حاوی برگردان متن زیر می باشد:
BEHIND MARKETING'S WOES:
Marketing
is ripe for a revolution because its failures are so apparent.
"Everybody--stockholders, directors, CEOs, customers, the government--is
angry because marketing, which should be driving business, doesn't
work" write marketing executives Kevin Clancy and Robert Shulman. One of
the most important reasons for this breakdown is that research is not
working because of flaws in its basic premises.
Even
academics, the primary source of research theory, see major flaws in
mainstream research methods. Multivariate statistics that describe
personality traits can account for no more than 7 percent of purchasing
behavior, according to a paper published by William Massy, Ronald Frank,
and Thomas Lodahl of Stanford, the University of Pennsylvania, and
Cornell, respectively.Consumer research's problems originate in
psychology, a field that has long struggled to define human behavior
with the same precision physicists use to describe the movement of
bodies from atoms to stars. But human behavior is too unpredictable to
describe with such precision, because it depends on an almost infinite
number of relationships. An increasingly desperate search for
cause-and-effect explanations leads many psychologists to "retreat to
abstract ideas that ignore contexts completely," writes Harvard
psychologist Jerome Kagan. Consumer research reflects similar
tendencies.
Kagan
is bothered by psychology's excessive dependence on behavioral models
that conform better to statistical theory than to behavioral realities.
Models of consumer behavior tend to extract their subjects from the
complex, often unpredictable, but completely natural contexts in which
people live and make purchasing decisions. The result is often an
interesting manipulation of a hypothetical situation that leads to a
marketing failure.
One
of the most famous marketing busts was the reformulation of Coca-Cola.
Extensive consumer research predicted success for "New Coke" because
people said it tasted better. But the research failed to disclose that
people also saw "Old Coke" as an important cultural icon, that would
lose value by changing the original recipe. This subtle value proved to
be far more influential than taste in determining consumer response.
Kodak's
"Advanta" camera was an even costlier bust. Its research failed to warn
executives of Advanta's biggest challenge: persuading a marketplace
dominated by middle-aged baby boomers to buy what was proudly touted as a
high-tech product. In mid-life, the bells and whistles of new
technology generally begin to lose their appeal. Simplicity begins to
edge out complexity in consumers' preferences.
Mainstream
consumer research generally fails to take into account developmental
changes in values and world views that happen across a person's life
span. Research also tends to ignore the major changes in cognition, or
how the mind processes information, that happen with age. The subliminal
origins of these changes prevent consumers from adequately reporting
them to researchers, but the changes are decisive in marketplace
behavior.
Another
assumption that leads consumer research astray is borrowed from classic
economics. Researchers assume that people make buying decisions to
satisfy their self-interest, and that they use reason to determine which
product best serves that end. Brain researchers see reason playing a
much weaker role in personal decisions, however. In their book Marketing
Revolution, Clancy and Shulman state the problem this way: "Because
consumers don't choose rationally, any research that forces rational
answers has to be flawed."