国有企业知识创造外文翻译中英文
英文
Knowledge creation in state-owned enterprises
Matteo Landoni
Abstract
The understanding of knowledge creation in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is a rising issue in the academic debate and in the political agenda; still, there is a lack of a comprehensive theory despite the number of research published so far. This paper offers a novel theoretical framework for knowledge creation in SOEs by the study of innovation in SOEs from the perspective of the theory of the entrepreneurial firm and the theory of knowledge management, which together provide new insights that explain the factors that enable innovation in SOEs. These factors are managerial autonomy and government coordination. The theoretical development is important because considers SOEs as both firms and public entities, a double nature that combines the advantages of state-ownership and corporate governance. The theoretical contribution provides support to the increasing academic attention on the entrepreneurial state and the rise of SOEs as innovative actors.
Keywords: Innovation, Knowledge creation, Knowledge management, State-owned enterprises, Entrepreneurial state, State capitalism
1. Introduction
State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have a relevant role in the economy worldwide (Florio, 2014). Despite decades of privations, SOEs still account for a large part of industrial outputs and assets, around 10% of global GDP and around 20% of global market capitalization (Bruton et al., 2015; T?nurist and Karo, 2016), and their number is constantly increasing; in contrast with public perception, states around the world have acquired more firms assets than sold (Borisova et al., 2015).
Despite the attention of scholars has turned towards SOEs given their importance for the economy, their contribution to innovation has been underestimated for a long time. Only recently, a few studies have investigated their innovative role and recognized SOEs for their historical role in support of technological industries (for
example in Italy and South Korea. Cardinale, 2018: 4). Still, however, the reason of the increasing attention on SOEs is in most cases due to their role in the development of emerging economies (Ralston et al., 2006; Musacchio and Lazzarini, 2014; Stan et al., 2014), and particularly in China, where SOEs play a pivotal role in the innovation process.
This paper looks at the process of knowledge creation in SOEs and contributes to the current debate with a framework concerning how state-ownership affects innovation in enterprises. The paper argues that innovation in SOEs is different than in private firms as well as other public entities, e.g. universities. SOEs differs from private firms because of their long-term perspective, public-nature, appreciation of externalities increasing social benefit, and relationship with the government; at the same time, SOEs differ from other public institutions for their corporate structure and market competition constraints. Therefore, it is misleading to simply compare the respective innovation efficiencies, for example in terms of outputs such as patents. Instead, the paper contributes to the theory of innovation and the debate on the state fostering innovation offering a comprehensive framework to evaluate and formulate innovation policies. The framework consists in two factors enabling innovation in SOEs, and these factors are the autonomy of the management and coordination with the government. The paper extensively reviews the issue in the literature and proposes a novel theoretical foundation for knowledge-creation in SOEs by the matching of the theory of the firm and the economy of knowledge.
The research question that concerns innovation in SOEs deals with which factors allow for the creation of knowledge that makes SOEs unique and incomparable innovators able to acquire, exploit, combine, and ultimately create new knowledge. The contribution of the paper to the theory of knowledge creation is the view of SOEs the only innovators that combine the governance of knowledge of firms with the public mission orientation of the state.
First, what distinguishes SOEs from any other private firm is the ownership structure that includes the government as a shareholder, either majority or minority owner (Musacchio and Lazzarini, 2014; Peng et al., 2016). The share of ownership
defines also the commitment of state, for example, whether its position is dominant (Benito et al., 2016; Estrin et al., 2016; Cuervo-Cazurra et al., 2014). The nature of the shareholders is not the only difference that matters; it is more relevant that SOEs exist for the good of both the industrial policy and the social interest (Landoni, 2018). The two mutually reinforce when the social interest of the government is to spur and diffuse innovation. While governments’ pressure to develop informatio n may target both public and private firms, SOEs are more prone to fulfill them due to a greater involvement with government goals and institutional prescriptions (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Baum and Oliver, 1991; Bichler and Schmidkonz, 2012; T?nurist, 2015; Wang et al., 2012).
Second, SOEs diverge from any other research and development entity of the public sector, such as public universities and research centres. The public sector is that section of the economy controlled by the state and it comprises all the publicly funded and controlled agencies, enterprises, and organizations that deliver public programs, goods, or services. Among the entities of the public sectors are universities, hospitals, and the like. The role of the public sector is unique to bring to society education, healthcare, law and police enforcement, transportation, welfare, and other government-related services. Despite the importance of the public sector worldwide, it is currently under pressure both from the governments that need to reduce budget expenditures and the societies’ changing issues such as aging, pollution, and the like (Tizard, 2012). The public sector needs to face the current transformation and provide new ways to deliver services. Knowledge management in the public sector is indeed essential for the delivering of policies that aim at the public good (Wiig, 2002; Riege and Linsday, 2006). Nevertheless, the public sector is a specific context and cannot simply import private sector techniques (Massaro et al., 2015). It must develop its knowledge management strategy.
Several studies have explored knowledge management in the public sectors, showing the influence in education (Elia et al., 2017), healthcare (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2012; Cruz-Cunha et al., 2013), police and military sector (Eppler and Pfister, 2014), and public transport (Cairo et al., 2015). However,
knowledge management studies in the public sector have left SOEs behind. A recent literature review on the topic found that only 3% of the studies concerning knowledge management in the public sector have a focus on SOEs (Massaro et al., 2015: 535).
Quick web research for journal articles on the topic brings in even a more clear result. Searching on Scopus2 for articles that include “public enterprises” and “knowledge management” in the title, abstract, and keywords, the query returned only two results, namely conference proceedings around ten years old (2008 and 2011 respectively). The same research strategy for “state-owned enterprises” and “knowledge management” returned 23 results. Similarly, “public enterprises” and “innovation” returned just 35 articles, while “state-owned enterprises” and “innovation” produced 169 results. For a comparison, (any) “enterprises” and “innovation” returned 13,867 articles and almost seven thousand conference papers.
It looks like innovation and knowledge creation is missing in SOEs. This paper tries to fill this gap. It contends that innovative SOEs are other than regular firms and argues that SOEs differ from any other public sector entity because they combine the mechanism of governance of firms with state-ownership. For this reason, SOEs can apply knowledge management within the public sectors like any other public entities can do.
This study explores the theories of the firm and knowledge management to develop a novel theoretical perspective on innovation in SOEs. Two factors explain innovation in SOEs. These factors derive from the corporate governance of firms together with a publicly supported mission and are found in the managerial autonomy and coordination with the government. Their combination allows SOEs to enjoy managerial efficiency in terms of allocation of resources together with a long-term vision, patient capital, and synergy with the government policies.
2. Theoretical background: a review of innovation in SOEs
2.1. State-owned enterprises and innovation
The nature of state-owned enterprises is exceptional (for a review Daiser et al., 2017). There is no consensus on the economic rationalities of SOEs. The classic works of Arrow (1951, 1962) and Debreu (1959) point to the underinvestment of
private firms in technologies with public and social spill-overs for their low value and uncertain returns. Of course, public authorities can and do support knowledge creation by the means of universities and public research centres; however, concerning the diffusion and the commercial valorisation of technologies, enterprises arise to deal with uncertainty and coordination related to the use of market mechanisms and resources allocation, as in the perspective of Coase (1937)and Romer (1990).
Similarly, the efficiency of SOEs is also disputed. Several scholars associate government ownership to inefficient corporate governance (Eckel and Vermaelen, 1986; Boardman and Vining, 1989; Chen et al., 2008; Borisova et al., 2012). A review of studies on the privatization of SOEs (Megginson and Netter, 2001) found lower performance compared to private firms. Estrin et al. (2009)confirmed the negative effect of transition economies. One reason relates to the fact that SOEs are prone to fulfill more administrative rather than economic principles (Shleifer and Vishny, 1994; Shleifer, 1998; Ramamurti, 2000; Freund, 2001; Ramaswamy, 2001). Another reason lies in the opportunism of managers to gain political support (Khwaja and Mian, 2005; Cheung et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2010) or in little incentives for risk-taking decisions and a preference for short-term and political goals (Shleifer, 1998) and a higher cost of equity (Boubakri, and Cosset, 2012; Kahan and Rock, 2010, 2013). Furthermore, some attribute poor monitoring of managers, corruptions, market indiscipline, and political interference to state-ownership (Belloc, 2014: 824), as well as
The common view on SOEs changed over time. SOEs are now considered as dynamic actors more than a relic of the past (Ralston et al., 2006; Musacchio and Lazzarini, 2014; Stan et al., 2014). For example, government ownership may relax budget constraints and allow for long-term investments that lower the cost of capital, reduce financial constraints, and allow for larger and longer investment in R&D (Bortolotti et al., 2018). Several scholars (O'Hara and Shaw, 1990; Faccio et al., 2006; Borisova and Megginson, 2011; Iannotta et al., 2013; Borisova et al., 2015; Acharya et al., 2016) found government ownership to provide implicit debt guarantees and access to public funds (e.g. state-owned banks. Lazzarini et al.,
2015; Bacchiocchi et al., 2017). Similarly, recent contributions relate the long-term orientation of the state to greater innovation in SOEs (Munari et al., 2010; Choi et al., 2011). The linkages with the government consist of a stronger obligation to meet policy goals, which include a greater commitment to innovation (Li et al., 2018).
The relationship of SOEs with the government is undergoing a process of corporatization. Initially, they were servant of the state, adopting the same organizational goals (Amayah, 2013: 456); then, they gradually developed their own internal competencies and assured their financial sustainability, loosening their ties with the government (Sexty, 1980; Hafsi et al., 1987; Lioukas et al., 1993). With the decrease of government control, SOEs gain entrepreneurial autonomy (Rentsch and Finger, 2015). The renovated tendency to pursue market goals is particularly relevant in the middle management of SOEs (Guo et al., 2017).
Innovation studies look at SOEs as instruments of innovation policy; for example, SOEs have been excellent sources of knowledge spill-overs (Antonelli et al., 2014), and provide an institutional setting that combines private incentives and risk-taking behavior with public incentives and long-term orientation (T?nurist and Karo, 2016). The last is supposed to fix –at least partially– the failures of the market (for a review see Martin and Scott, 2000).
The role of the public sector – including SOEs – towards innovation has been at best underestimated, at worst misjudged (Meissner et al., 2017). SOEs experience an increasing pressure to promote growth due to their importance in the world economy, firstly by undertaking “an active role in generating and implementing innovation” (Meissner et al., 2019: 121).
Empirical research on innovation outcomes has not disentangled these opposing views. The effects of state-ownership on the innovation effort of firms are ambivalent (Zhou et al., 2017). The analysis of resource allocation to R&D and its efficiency gives mixed results; SOEs allocate more resources, while the outcome is greater for private firms, i.e. amount of patents (Munari and Oriani 2005; Munari et al., 2002; Munari and Sobrero 2003). While the effect of SOEs on innovation is unclear (Choi et al., 2011; Ren et al., 2005), the role of the state as a shareholder in promoting
innovative activities is documented (Mahmood and Rufin, 2005). Very recently, Yi et al. (2017) explored a sample of more than 190 thousand Chinese firms and found a positive moderating effect of state-ownership on R&D intensity and innovation. Their result confirms other studies (Wang et al., 2015; Kafouros et al., 2015) on the positive role of state-ownership in the innovation process. An analysis of more than five thousands European firms (3808 private firms and 1363 SOEs) from 1999 to 2016 found that a government shareholder is significantly associated with greater R&D expenditure (5.55% increase in R&D investment), confirming a cheaper access to funds, but simultaneously a reduction in patents’ production, measured as patents per dollar invested (Bortolotti et al., 2018). While the first result is partially explained by the larger average size of SOEs compared to private firms, the second may relate to the public scope of R&D activities in SOES. For the same reason, it would be misleading to compare the value (for example by measuring the stock price reaction as in Kogan et al., 2017) of private firms’ and SOEs’ patents.
The innovation performance of an enterprise is enhanced by both its government connections and the innovativeness of its economic stakeholders (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Government connections allow enterprises to access resources and information (Cull et al., 2015; Hillman, 2005, 1999; Inoue et al., 2013; Li and Zhang, 2007; Peng and Luo, 2000), which positively impacts innovative strategy and performance (Li and Atuahene-Gima, 2001). Innovation relies on the integration of different sources of knowledge that enterprises develop into capabilities and routines (Grant, 1996).
2.2. Knowledge management and innovation
Governments aim at radical innovation targeting complex and uncertain issues (Mazzucato, 2016a), and drive firms’ efforts in direction of societal innovation (Hellstr?m, 2003; Owen et al., 2012; Stilgoe et al., 2013; Mazzucato and Semieniuk, 2017). For this reason, governments need to develop knowledge management strategies to transfer knowledge (Riege and Linsday, 2006: 29) with the aim of novel combination between distant and unrelated technologies (Castaldi et al., 2015). This implies a clear vision and an effective network of partners (Wiig, 2002).
The innovation process is the growth of new knowledge (Du Plessis, 2007) as a result of the combination of existing knowledge in novel forms (Arthur, 2009). Knowledge management shows that among all the knowledge processes (i.e. knowledge creation, sharing, acquisition, transfer, and application), knowledge creation has the most beneficial impact on innovation (Andreeva and Kianto, 2011); thus, managers need to develop practices and techniques for acquiring and sharing knowledge from internal and external sources (Darroch and McNaughton, 2002; Hall and Andriani 2002, 2003).
Knowledge theory makes clear two fundamental issues. First, innovation needs knowledge that is spread among different actors, often a great amount, and all may contribute significantly to the innovation process (Cassiman and Veugelers, 2006; Metcalfe, 2007). Second, knowledge is not always easy to transfer; it is frequently tacit and embodied in people (Rodan, 2002; Cavusgil et al., 2003; Franken, 2017). The major problem is to make the combination of knowledge effective and efficient.
Knowledge management aims at the acquisition, integration, combination, and application of existing internal and external knowledge sources. The combination of knowledge has to overcome the cognitive distances of individuals. When individuals share a common knowledge base, the cognitive distance is lower, making combinations easier (Nooteboom, 2000; Frenken et al., 2007). However, low cognitive distance increases the chances to produce incremental innovation in adjacent fields or related diversification. The match of unrelated technologies and experiences of distant industries is necessary to produce brand new combinations, and in the best case, radical innovation (Darroch and McNaughton, 2002; Castaldi et al., 2015). This has a positive impact on competitive advantage (Bou-Llusar and Segarra-Ciprés, 2006) and product innovation (Darroch and McNaughton, 2002). SOEs have greater access to knowledge thanks to the connections with the government, which strengthens the practices of knowledge exploration (i.e. acquisition), exploitation (i.e. transfer), and creation (Donate and de Pablo, 2015). Yet, too much political influence may hamper knowledge management (Amayah, 2013:
456; Gau, 2011: 2).
Governments develop innovation policies aiming at the efficient transfer of knowledge. However, generic innovation policies would lead to related innovation, while societal challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity, aging, and the like need more than an incremental solution but society-wide reform and renewal (Mazzucato, 2016a). Governments may form a knowledge-based partnership to fuel innovation in radical directions. Different partnerships can transfer scarce resources between the public and the private sectors, from information exchange to full strategic alliances (Riege and Linsday, 2006: 31). Strategic alliances are based on shared resources that are important for learning and thus enabling knowledge creation, either within the public sector or between the government and the private sector (Parise and Sasson, 2002: 41). Knowledge management is fundamental in the networking process of innovation to align visions and perspectives, manage heterogeneity and distribution of knowledge sources, and balance exploration and exploitation of knowledge (Wu et al., 2010: 574).
3. Theory development: knowledge governance in state-owned enterprises
3.1. Research purpose
The paper aims to understand which are the factors enabling the process of knowledge creation in SOEs. For this purpose, the paper adopts the conceptual framework of the theory of the firm together with the theory of knowledge. The two theories complete each other to provide a comprehensive understanding of innovation in SOEs. The theory of the firm explains why governments choose enterprises as a governance model of innovation policy over other forms of organization, while the theory of knowledge establishes why state-ownership is important in accessing and nurturing a network of knowledge sources. The development of a theory on the matter is relevant; however, despite an increasing focus on the issue of knowledge in SOEs, there is still not an exhaustive comprehension about the mechanism of knowledge creation (Franken, 2017). Paragraph 3.2 reviews the relevant issues in the theory of the firm and the knowledge theory that concern SOEs; next, paragraph 3.3 matched the two theories to underline the elements at the basis of an innovative theory of
innovation in SOEs. The further fourth section develops such theoretical elements.
3.2. The theory of the firm and knowledge governance
The nature of the firm explains that firms exist to overcome market inefficiencies (Coase, 1937) being firms an alternative mechanism of resource allocation to the system of price, or the market. Concerning innovation, market failures may hinder the process of knowledge creation due to high costs, uncertainty, and risks connected to a peculiar resource, information. Firms arise then as the ideal governance structure to manage uncertainty and coordinate scarce resources to foster knowledge creation (Williamson, 2002; Foss and Mahoney, 2010).
The reason for the rise of firms is that knowledge as a resource presents several difficulties (Chapman and Magnusson, 2006). An organization equipped with a governance mechanism can guide the process of knowledge creation (Andreeva and Kianto, 2012; Lee and Choi, 2003; Gold et al., 2001). The firm, as a hierarchical model of governance, provides the architecture to control the sources of knowledge and to turn them into innovations (Wu et al., 2010: 574). Still, knowledge and profit may diverge. Though information and knowledge are precious resources, they are public goods and their value may spread beyond the boundaries of the firm. Knowledge escapes the price mechanism because of the uncertainty about its externalities. Organization theorists more than the theory of the firm support the rise of a centralized model of governance, i.e. the firm, to govern economic externalities (Simon, 1962). It follows that the creation of knowledge is even more uncertain than the processing of knowledge. A further step from this perspective sees firms as more than knowledge-based organizations, but as knowledge-creating companies (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Firms hold knowledge, yet most knowledge is a public good. Private enterprises may be reluctant to invest and bear the risk of an uncertain activity, which might result in basic knowledge of unclear use (Jamasb and Pollitt, 2011; Florio and Sirtori, 2016; Sterlacchini, 2012; Xie, 2012), i.e. knowledge spill-overs that benefit firms that did not cover for the cost and risks of research. A reason is the low-profit expectations in publicly desired innovations. Private firms avoid investments in not
marketable or public-services innovation such as health, infrastructures, and energy efficiency, which property rights are not clear due to their social value (Battistoni et al., 2016; Jamasb and Pollitt, 2008; Picot et al., 2016).
Besides the difficulties of private enterprises, two factors support SOEs as a model of knowledge governance. First, governments need knowledge management to address complex issues; yet, they rarely have all the resources to deliver successful public policy (Bridgman and Davis, 2004). Given the difficulties in setting policies, governments may need proper governance structures and cost-effective mechanisms to manage knowledge sources. Second, governments look for a greater commitment to “accountability mechanisms that encourage ethical practices and ensure the implementation of proper pr ocesses” (Riege and Linsday, 2006: 31). Governance structure and accountability are the reasons that explain why governments need SOEs to drive knowledge creation over public universities and research centres that conversely lack both agile structures and accountability practices.
3.3. An entrepreneurial theory of the state-owned enterprise
Innovation in firms depends on the governance structure of the enterprise (Belloc, 2012). How the board takes decisions is a matter that involved the different interests of owners and managers. The state is a rather peculiar owner. Essentially, state-ownership offers privileged access to resources and incentives granted by the government (Chang et al., 2006; Luo, 2003; Zhou et al., 2017). For instance, the Chinese government drives R&D funds primarily to SOEs (Sun and Liu, 2014).
SOEs combine two factors enabling innovation:, a corporate governance structure and privileged access to resources granted by state ownership. Corporate governance offers a solution to the coordination problem related to the combination of knowledge sources, while state-ownership grants privileged access to resources. Together, they explain the role of SOEs in the innovative process. The public sector increasingly aims at innovation to address complex societal challenges. SOEs should look at strategic knowledge management practices as a coordinating mechanism and as a driver to develop greater innovation (Darroch, 2005; Inkinen 2016). That is especially true for innovative firms that arrange and design capabilities into
innovation in a world of structural uncertainty (Langlois, 2007).
Nevertheless, the guidance of government is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for innovation. SOEs must be set free to experiment without the constrictions of a too narrow mission-oriented policy, as well as they must develop collaborations with other entities, including private firms (Mazzucato, 2014: 17). In this respect, two issues are at stake: managerial autonomy and coordinating mechanism within the innovative system.
中文
国有企业知识创造
马特奥·兰多尼
摘要
在学术研究和政治议程中，对国有企业（SOE）对知识创造的理解是一个日益迫切的问题。尽管到目前为止已经发表了许多研究，但是仍然缺乏一个全面的理论。本文通过企业家企业理论和知识管理理论的视角研究国有企业的创新，为国有企业的知识创造提供了一个新颖的理论框架，它们共同提供了新的见解，解释了推动国有企业创新的因素。这些因素是管理自治和政府协调。理论上的发展很重要，因为将国有企业既视为公司又是公共实体，这是结合了国家所有权和公司治理优势的双重性质。理论上的贡献为对学术界对企业家状态的日益关注和国有企业作为创新参与者的兴起提供了支持。
关键词：创新，知识创造，知识管理，国有企业，创业状态，国家资本主义1引言
国有企业（SOE）在全球经济中具有重要作用（Florio，2014年）。尽管有数十年的私有化，但国有企业仍占工业产出和资产的很大一部分，约占全球GDP 的10％，约占全球市值的20％（Bruton等，2015；T?nurist和Karo，2016），及其数量不断增加；与公众的看法相反，全球各州收购的公司资产多于出售的资产（Borisova等，2015）。
尽管由于国有企业对经济的重要性，学者们已将注意力转向国有企业，但长期以来它们对创新的贡献却被低估了。直到最近，一些研究才调查了它们的创新
作用，并认可了国有企业在支持技术产业方面的历史性作用。但是，在大多数情况下，人们越来越关注国有企业的原因是它们在新兴经济体的发展中所起的作用（Ralston等，2006；Musacchio和Lazzarini，2014；Stan等，2014）。在中国，国有企业在创新过程中起着举足轻重的作用。
本文着眼于国有企业中知识创造的过程，并以有关国家所有权如何影响企业创新的框架为当前的辩论做出了贡献。该研究认为，国有企业的创新与私营企业以及其他公共实体（例如私营企业）的创新不同。国有企业与私营企业之所以不同，是因为它们具有长远的眼光，具有公共性质，对外部性的认识增加了社会效益以及与政府的关系。同时，国有企业由于其公司结构和市场竞争约束而不同于其他公共机构。因此，简单地比较各自的创新效率是一种误导，例如就专利等产出而言。取而代之的是，本文为创新理论和关于国家促进创新的辩论做出了贡献，为评估和制定创新政策提供了全面的框架。该框架包括两个使国有企业能够创新的因素，这些因素是管理的自主权以及与政府的协调。本文广泛回顾了文献中的问题，并通过企业理论和知识经济的匹配为国有企业的知识创造提出了新的理论基础。
与国有企业创新有关的研究问题涉及哪些因素允许创造知识，这些知识使国有企业成为独特的，无与伦比的创新者，能够获取，利用，结合并最终创造新知识。文献对知识创造理论的贡献是国有企业的观点，它是将企业知识管理与国家公共使命导向相结合的唯一创新者。
首先，国有企业与任何其他私营公司的区别在于所有权结构，包括政府作为股东，无论是股东还是少数股东（Musacchio和Lazzarini，2014年；Peng等人，2016年）。所有权份额还定义了国家承诺，例如，国家的地位是否占主导地位（Benito等人，2016；Estrin等人，2016；Cuervo-Cazurra等人，2014）。股东的性质不是唯一重要的区别；更为重要的是，国有企业的存在有利于产业政策和社会利益的发展（Landoni，2018）。当政府的社会利益是促进和传播创新时，两者相互促进。尽管政府在开发信息方面的压力可能既针对公营公司也针对民营公司，但由于更多地参与政府目标和机构规定，国有企业更倾向于履行这些信息（Aldrich和Fiol，1994；Baum和Oliver，1991；Bichler和Schmidkonz，2012;T?nurist，2015; Wang等，2012）。
毕业设计（论文）外文参考文献及译文 英文题目Component-based Safety Computer of Railway Signal Interlocking System 中文题目模块化安全铁路信号计算机联锁系统 学院自动化与电气工程学院 专业自动控制 姓名葛彦宁 学号 200808746 指导教师贺清 2012年5月30日
Component-based Safety Computer of Railway Signal Interlocking System 1 Introduction Signal Interlocking System is the critical equipment which can guarantee traffic safety and enhance operational efficiency in railway transportation. For a long time, the core control computer adopts in interlocking system is the special customized high-grade safety computer, for example, the SIMIS of Siemens, the EI32 of Nippon Signal, and so on. Along with the rapid development of electronic technology, the customized safety computer is facing severe challenges, for instance, the high development costs, poor usability, weak expansibility and slow technology update. To overcome the flaws of the high-grade special customized computer, the U.S. Department of Defense has put forward the concept：we should adopt commercial standards to replace military norms and standards for meeting consumers’demand [1]. In the meantime, there are several explorations and practices about adopting open system architecture in avionics. The United Stated and Europe have do much research about utilizing cost-effective fault-tolerant computer to replace the dedicated computer in aerospace and other safety-critical fields. In recent years, it is gradually becoming a new trend that the utilization of standardized components in aerospace, industry, transportation and other safety-critical fields. 2 Railways signal interlocking system 2.1 Functions of signal interlocking system The basic function of signal interlocking system is to protect train safety by controlling signal equipments, such as switch points, signals and track units in a station, and it handles routes via a certain interlocking regulation. Since the birth of the railway transportation, signal interlocking system has gone through manual signal, mechanical signal, relay-based interlocking, and the modern computer-based Interlocking System. 2.2 Architecture of signal interlocking system Generally, the Interlocking System has a hierarchical structure. According to the function of equipments, the system can be divided to the function of equipments; the system
https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html,/finance/company/consumer.html Consumer finance company The consumer finance division of the SG group of France has become highly active within India. They plan to offer finance for vehicles and two-wheelers to consumers, aiming to provide close to Rs. 400 billion in India in the next few years of its operations. The SG group is also dealing in stock broking, asset management, investment banking, private banking, information technology and business processing. SG group has ventured into the rapidly growing consumer credit market in India, and have plans to construct a headquarters at Kolkata. The AIG Group has been approved by the RBI to set up a non-banking finance company (NBFC). AIG seeks to introduce its consumer finance and asset management businesses in India. AIG Capital India plans to emphasize credit cards, mortgage financing, consumer durable financing and personal loans. Leading Indian and international concerns like the HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Barclays and HDFC Bank are also waiting to be approved by the Reserve Bank of India to initiate similar operations. AIG is presently involved in insurance and financial services in more than one hundred countries. The affiliates of the AIG Group also provide retirement and asset management services all over the world. Many international companies have been looking at NBFC business because of the growing consumer finance market. Unlike foreign banks, there are no strictures on branch openings for the NBFCs. GE Consumer Finance is a section of General Electric. It is responsible for looking after the retail finance operations. GE Consumer Finance also governs the GE Capital Asia. Outside the United States, GE Consumer Finance performs its operations under the GE Money brand. GE Consumer Finance currently offers financial services in more than fifty countries. The company deals in credit cards, personal finance, mortgages and automobile solutions. It has a client base of more than 118 million customers throughout the world
文献信息： 文献标题：Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human resource management（影响人力资源管理未来的挑战和机遇） 国外作者：Dianna L. Stone，Diana L. Deadrick 文献出处：《Human Resource Management Review》, 2015, 25(2):139-145 字数统计：英文3725单词，21193字符；中文6933汉字 外文文献： Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human resource management Abstract Today, the field of Human Resource Management (HR) is experiencing numerous pressures for change. Shifts in the economy, globalization, domestic diversity, and technology have created new demands for organizations, and propelled the field in some completely new directions. However, we believe that these challenges also create numerous opportunities for HR and organizations as a whole. Thus, the primary purposes of this article are to examine some of the challenges and opportunities that should influence the future of HR. We also consider implications for future research and practice in the field. Keywords: Future of human resource management, Globalization, Knowledge economy Diversity, Technology 1.Change from a manufacturing to a service or knowledge economy One of the major challenges influencing the future of HR processes is the change from a manufacturing to a service or knowledgebased economy. This new economy is characterized by a decline in manufacturing and a growth in service or knowledge as the core of the economic base. A service economy can be defined as a system based on buying and selling of services or providing something for others (Oxford
流动的：一个快速的，多平台的开放源码的同步化多媒体整合语言唱机Dick C.A. Bulterman, Jack Jansen, Kleanthis Kleanthous, Kees Blom and Daniel Benden CWI: Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica Kruislaan 413 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands +31 20 592 43 00 Dick.Bulterman@cwi.nl 摘要： 本文概述了一个出现在早期的流动性的同步化多媒体唱机。不同于其它同步化的实现，早期的播放器是一个可重组的同步化引擎，可以定制作为一个实验媒体播放器的核心。同步化唱机是一个引用了同步化多媒体引擎并可以集成在一个广泛的媒体播放器的项目。本文是以我们要创造一个新的同步化引擎为动机的综述开始的。然后论述的是早期媒体播放器的核心架构（包括可扩展性，播放器自定义的集成装置）。我们以一个关于我们在windows，Mac，Linux版本应用于台式机以及PDA设备上实施流动性例子的体验的讨论结束。 类别和主题描述符： H.5.2 多媒体的信息系统。 H.5.4 超级文本/超级媒体。 一般词汇： 试验，性能，验证。 关键词： 同步化多媒体整合语言，唱机，公开源代码，演示。 1.动机： 早期公开的同步化媒体播放器是一个非常有特色的公开源代码的同步化 2.0播放器，它以研究团体的意图被使用（在我们的研究团体内外）目的是为了研究项目的团体在需要源代码的时候可以访问生产特性的同步化播放器的网站。它也被用作一个独立的不需要专有的媒体格式的同步化播放器使用，播放器支持一系列同步化2.0配置文件（包括台式机和移动的配置）可以被分配利用在Linux，Macintosh，windows系统的台式机，PDA设备和掌上电脑。 同时现存的几个同步化播放器，包括网络视频播放软件,IE浏览器,小型同步化播放器, GRiNS ,X- GRiNS ，以及各种各样专有移动设备，我们发展流动性唱机有三个原因： 准许制作数字以及个人或者课堂使用中的的全部硬拷贝即时没有提供拷贝权限或者商业性的利益分摊，而且在第一页有这种拷贝的注意事项。服务器上有关于复制以及翻版的分发列表的通知。需要事先明确具体的许可权以及费用。 'MM’04, October 10-16, 2004, New Y ork, New Y ork, USA. Copyright 2004 ACM 1-58113-893-8/04/0010...$5.00. 现有的同步化播放器没有提供一个完整同步化2.0播放器的正确实现。早期的播放器所有的同步化工具，是以同步化2.0语言的属性为基础加上扩展功能能够支持高级的动画以及规范可移动设备以3GPP/PSS-6同步化使用. 所有的同步化播放器都是针对商业SMIL表达专有媒介。早期的播发器使用开源的媒体解码器和开源的网络传输协议,以便播放器可以轻松定制广泛的使用范围的研究计划。 我们的目标是建立一个鼓励发展类似的多媒体研究输出的平台,，我们期望的是一个标准的基线播放器的供给,其他研究人员和开发机构可以集中精力到基线播放器的集成扩展(从新媒体的解码器或新的网络控制算法任何一个中)。这些扩展可以在其它的平台上被共享。 在2004年中期，与螺旋形客户机对照，同时移动到一个GPL核心，早期的播放器支持一个广阔的范围的同步化应用指标构架，它提供了一个准确实现的更完整的同步化语言，它在低资源配置下提供了更好的性能，提供了更多可扩展的媒体播放器架构。它也提供了一个包含所有媒体解码作为部分开放的客户基础。
中等分辨率制备分离的 快速色谱技术 W. Clark Still,* Michael K a h n , and Abhijit Mitra Departm(7nt o/ Chemistry, Columbia Uniuersity,1Veu York, Neu; York 10027 ReceiLied January 26, 1978 我们希望找到一种简单的吸附色谱技术用于有机化合物的常规净化。这种技术是适于传统的有机物大规模制备分离，该技术需使用长柱色谱法。尽管这种技术得到的效果非常好，但是其需要消耗大量的时间，并且由于频带拖尾经常出现低复原率。当分离的样本剂量大于1或者2g时，这些问题显得更加突出。近年来，几种制备系统已经进行了改进，能将分离时间减少到1-3h，并允许各成分的分辨率ΔR f≥（使用薄层色谱分析进行分析）。在这些方法中，在我们的实验室中，媒介压力色谱法1和短柱色谱法2是最成功的。最近，我们发现一种可以将分离速度大幅度提升的技术，可用于反应产物的常规提纯，我们将这种技术称为急骤色谱法。虽然这种技术的分辨率只是中等（ΔR f≥），而且构建这个系统花费非常低，并且能在10-15min内分离重量在的样本。4 急骤色谱法是以空气压力驱动的混合介质压力以及短柱色谱法为基础，专门针对快速分离，介质压力以及短柱色谱已经进行了优化。优化实验是在一组标准条件5下进行的，优化实验使用苯甲醇作为样本，放在一个20mm*5in.的硅胶柱60内，使用Tracor 970紫外检测器监测圆柱的输出。分辨率通过持续时间（r）和峰宽（w,w/2）的比率进行测定的（Figure 1），结果如图2-4所示，图2-4分别放映分辨率随着硅胶颗粒大小、洗脱液流速和样本大小的变化。
XXX学院 毕业设计(论文)外文资料翻译 学院：计算机与软件工程学院 专业：计算机科学技术(软件工程方向) 姓名： 学号： 外文出处：GoyKakus.THE RESEARCH OFCUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT STRATEGY [J]. International Journal of Management Research & Review, 2017, 1(9): 624-635. 附件： 1.外文资料翻译译文；2.外文原文。 注：请将该封面与附件装订成册。
附件1：外文资料翻译译文 客户关系管理战略研究 Goy Kakus 摘要 客户关系管理解决方案，通过为你提供客户业务数据来帮助你提供客户想要的服务或产品,提供更好的客户服务、交叉销售和更有效的销售,达成交易,保留现有客户并更好地理解你的客户是谁。本文探讨了客户关系管理模型在获得、保持与发展策略方面的优势。然而,我们对其定义和意义还存在一些困惑。本文通过考察关系营销和其他学科方面的相关文献，解释了客户关系管理的概念基础,从而对客户关系管理的知识作出了贡献。 关键词:客户关系管理模型, 客户关系管理的博弈改变者与关键策略 引言 CRM 是客户关系管理的简称。它的特征在于公司与客户的沟通,无论是销售还是服务相关的。客户关系管理这一术语经常用来解释企业客户关系,客户关系管理系统也以同样的方式被用来处理商业联系, 赢得客户,达成合同和赢得销售。 客户关系管理通常被考虑作为一个业务策略，从而使企业能够: *了解客户 *通过更好的客户体验留住客户 *吸引新客户 *赢得新客户和达成合同 *提高盈利 *减少客户管理成本 *通过服务台等工具软件,电子邮件组织者和不同类型的企业应用程序，企业业务经常寻求个性化的在线体验。 设计精良的客户关系管理包括以下特征: 1．客户关系管理是一种以顾客为中心并以客户投入为基础的服务响应，一对一的解决客户的必需品, 买家和卖家服务中心直接在线互动,帮助客户解决他
中英文对照外文翻译文献 中英文对照外文翻译 The Internet is Applicated in Real Estate The Real Estate Industry and the World Wide Web: Changing Technology, Changing Location.The Internet, in its Web based graphics version, has captured the imagination of both consumers and businesses. Its convenience, speed, low cost and versatility are being exploited on a daily basis in ever-changing ways. Together with its capacity to transform existing businesses, promote new businesses and facilitate exchange of information and data, its other striking attribute has been the speed with which this new technology has spread throughout the global economy. Keywords:The internet;Real Estate;Applicated The number of computer hosts grew by more than ten-fold between 1995 and early 1999. The number of Web sites increased almost 100-fold, to over two million, between 1995 and 1998.Ｂy the year 2000, there will be approximately 400-500 million Internet users in the world, and the total number of Web sites will exceed five million. This new technology has the potential for affecting the real estate industry directly and indirectly. Directly, it may become a tool that allows a real estate business to expand its information and sales network. Indirectly, it may change the location equation where and how firms do business which in turn will affect the role of firms involved in real estate development, investment and transactions. Measuring the Spread of the Web
新媒体营销外文翻译文献 (文档含英文原文和中文翻译) 译文: 研究微博中承诺和信用对消费者行为倾向的影响 ——基于关系营销的角度 摘要：本研究的目的是探索消费者对企业通过微博进行关系营销的观点。这项研究是以承诺-信用理论以及消费者对企业微博形象、承诺、信用、满意度和社群意识对消费者的行为倾向的研究为基础的。这项研究的成果可以成为企业利用微博进行关系营销的准则。这项研究显示消费者的满意度对承诺、信用、社群意识和消费者的行为倾向具有积极影响。企业形象对承诺和信用的影响是成立的，但对行为倾向的影响需须经由承诺和信用产生中介效果。信用对承诺和社群意识的影响是存在的，但是对行为倾向的影响须经由承诺和社群意识产生中介效果。最后，承诺和社群意识对行为倾向的影响是成立的。 关键词：微博、关系营销、满意度、企业形象、承诺、信用、社群意识、行为倾向 1、引言 当我们在新的经济时代面临着现今的商业环境时，许多企业在短时间内就变成了一个以顾客为中心的企业。为了提高竞争力，企业必须了解他们的顾客，了解顾客的需求，并且通过专项服务满足顾客的需求。随着技术时代环境的改变，企业已经通过信息系统与客
户建立了关系。随着顾客上网历史的增加，企业可以提供给他们更多的产品信息并且在第一时间获得顾客的回复。通过这种方法，客户服务的成本可以降低；企业与客户的关系可以变得稳定；企业与客户之间可以建立更多的联系；企业与客户之间的沟通可以个性化。 基于格朗鲁斯的研究，他认为关系营销意味着企业通过发展、维护和提高与顾客的关系来达到企业的目的。越来越多的企业发展其吸引力来构建自己的形象以留住和吸引新的顾客。因此，一个企业的专业性和企业形象的构建对企业来说是很重要的。一个公司是否可以提供服务或产品以满足客户的需求影响着客户对企业的信任和忠诚度。 基于Web2.0大流行，大众媒体已经覆盖了许多拥有新颖、有趣故事的网站，吸引了更多的公众关注互联网。这些问题对因特网的常用用户来说都不是问题。因特网发展很迅速。近来微博服务供应商例如Facebook、Twitter和Plurk是新闻的热点话题，已经聚集了大量用户。根据市场研究公司的成员尼尔森最近的一份报告，在2008年二月到2009年二月间，Twitter是用户增长速度最快的一个社交网站（从475000个用户到17600000个用户）。它的绝对访客增长率在美国是1382%。在2009年五月，全国用户数量达到37300000，这是一个令人吃惊的数据。博客用户一直在讨论是否微博可以取代博客。因特网用户最关注的是微博是否可以缩短他们与朋友们之间的距离，是否可以帮助他们交到新朋友。然而，商人们最关注的是微博是否可以替代博客变为一个新的营销武器。 博客营销是指不仅让因特网用户变的亲密，也是指需要“可信的”网络发言人的赞语。博客成为值得信赖的网络发言人是由于他们长时间在某些话题上努力花费时间。通过写文章，他们在互联网用户的心中构建了“大师”的形象。结果，即使他们的一个“好”字也对有科技非常强大的影响力。这就是博客营销的有效性。博客的权利：检查实际操作者在博客上的使用对公共关系产生的影响。 对于微博，我们可以在Twitter上看到谷歌。在谷歌在Twitter上的账户建立后，立马就有16000个追随者。现在谷歌在Twitter上的追随者有1670000人。这意味着谷歌每在Twitter上发表一条新闻，1760000个人在下一秒将在互联网或手机短信上被通知。这种传播新闻的速度和范围是令人吃惊的。 再来说说戴尔，一个主要的国际电脑制造商，例如，通过微博的能力来提供信息，特别提供了可以通过短信迅速传递给所有微博用户信息的功能。因为价钱很合理，许多用户已经立即决定变成戴尔的追随者。并且戴尔继续提供给追随者们更多的第一手优惠券。结果，通过微博达到的总订单金额已经达到了新台币100000000元。通过微博，消息可以更加迅速地传递给互联网用户。然而，这并不意味着任何一种营销信息都可以通过微博随意
毕业设计说明书 英文文献及中文翻译 学院：专 2011年6月 电子与计算机科学技术软件工程
https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Overview https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, is a unified Web development model that includes the services necessary for you to build enterprise-class Web applications with a minimum of https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, is part of https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Framework,and when coding https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, applications you have access to classes in https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Framework.You can code your applications in any language compatible with the common language runtime(CLR), including Microsoft Visual Basic and C#.These languages enable you to develop https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, applications that benefit from the common language runtime,type safety, inheritance,and so on. If you want to try https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html,,you can install Visual Web Developer Express using the Microsoft Web Platform Installer,which is a free tool that makes it simple to download,install,and service components of the Microsoft Web Platform.These components include Visual Web Developer Express,Internet Information Services (IIS),SQL Server Express,and https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Framework.All of these are tools that you use to create https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Web applications.You can also use the Microsoft Web Platform Installer to install open-source https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, and PHP Web applications. Visual Web Developer Visual Web Developer is a full-featured development environment for creating https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Web applications.Visual Web Developer provides an ideal environment in which to build Web sites and then publish them to a hosting https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html,ing the development tools in Visual Web Developer,you can develop https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Web pages on your own computer.Visual Web Developer includes a local Web server that provides all the features you need to test and debug https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Web pages,without requiring Internet Information Services(IIS)to be installed. Visual Web Developer provides an ideal environment in which to build Web sites and then publish them to a hosting https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html,ing the development tools in Visual Web Developer,you can develop https://www.doczj.com/doc/0c10880490.html, Web pages on your own computer.
Dashboard From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about a control panel placed in the front of the car. For other uses, see Dashboard (disambiguation). The dashboard of a Bentley Continental GTC car A dashboard (also called dash, instrument panel (IP), or fascia) is a control panel located directly ahead of a vehicle's driver, displaying instrumentation and controls for the vehicle's operation. Contents 1.Etymology 2.Dashboard features 3.Padding and safety 4.Fashion in instrumentation 5.See also 6.References Etymology Horse-drawn carriage dashboard Originally, the word dashboard applied to a barrier of wood or leather fixed at the front of a horse-drawn carriage or sleigh to protect the driver from mud or other debris "dashed up" (thrown up) by the horses' hooves.[1] Commonly these boards did not perform any additional function other than providing a convenient handhold for ascending into the driver's seat, or a small clip with which to secure the reins when not in use. When the first "horseless carriages" were constructed in the late 19th century, with engines mounted beneath the driver such as the Daimler Stahlradwagen, the simple dashboard was retained to protect occupants from debris thrown up by the cars' front wheels. However, as car design evolved to position the motor in front of the driver, the dashboard became a panel that protected vehicle occupants from the heat and oil of the engine. With gradually increasing mechanical complexity, this panel formed a convenient location for the placement of gauges and minor controls, and from this evolved the modern instrument panel,
Project Budget Monitor and Control Author：Yin Guo-li Nationality：American Derivation：Management Science and Engineering.Montreal: Mar 20, 2010 . With the marketing competitiveness growing, it is more and more critical in budget control of each project. This paper discusses that in the construction phase, how can a project manager be successful in budget control. There are many methods discussed in this paper, it reveals that to be successful, the project manager must concern all this methods. 1. INTRODUCTION The survey shows that most projects encounter cost over-runs (Williams Ackermann, Eden, 2002,pl92). According to Wright (1997)'s research, a good rule of thumb is to add a minimum of 50% to the first estimate of the budget (Gardiner and Stewart, 1998, p251). It indicates that project is very complex and full of challenge. Many unexpected issues will lead the project cost over-runs. Therefore, many technologies and methods are developed for successful monitoring and control to lead the project to success. In this article, we will discuss in the construction phase, how can a project manager to be successful budget control. 2. THE CONCEPT AND THE PURPOSE OF PROJECT CONTROL AND MONITOR Erel and Raz (2000) state that the project control cycle consists of measuring the status of the project, comparing to the plan, analysis of the deviations, and implementing any appropriate corrective actions. When a project reach the construction phase, monitor and control is critical to deliver the project success. Project monitoring exists to establish the need to take corrective action, whilst there is still time to take action. Through monitoring the activities, the project team can analyze the deviations and decide what to do and actually do it. The purpose of monitor and control is to support the implementation of corrective actions, ensure projects stay on target or get project back on target once it has gone off target。
Study on Project Cost Control of Construction Enterprises By: R. Max Wideman Abstract With the increasing maturity of construction market, the competition between construction enterprises is becoming fierce. The project profit is gradually decreasing. It demands that all construction enterprises enhance their cost control, lower costs, improve management efficiency and gain maximal profits. This paper analyses the existing problems on project cost control of Chinese construction enterprises, and proposes some suggestions to improve project cost control system. Key Words ：Construction enterprises, Project management, Cost control After joining the WTO, with Chinese construction market becoming integrated, the competition among architectural enterprises is turning more intense. Construction enterprises must continually enhance the overall competitiveness if they want to develop further at home and abroad construction market. Construction Enterprises basically adopt the "project management-centered" model, therefore, it is particularly important to strengthen project cost control. 1.The Current Domestic Project Cost Classification and Control Methods Cost refers to the consumption from producing and selling of certain products, with the performance of various monetary standing for materialized labor and labor-consuming. Direct and indirect costs constitute the total cost, also known as production cost or manufacturing cost. Enterprise product cost is the comprehensive indicator to measure enterprise quality of all aspects. It is not only the fund compensation scale, but also the basis to examine the implementation of cost plan. Besides, it can provide reference for product pricing According to the above-mentioned definition and current domestic cost classification, construction project cost can be divided into direct costs and indirect costs. Direct costs include material cost, personnel cost, construction machinery cost, material transportation cost, temporarily facility cost, engineering cost and other direct cost. Indirect costs mainly result from project management and company's cost-sharing, covering project operating costs (covering the commission of foreign projects), project's management costs (including exchange losses of