A Literature Review of Capacity Frameworks:
Six Features of Comparison
Tara Lyons
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Carleton University
tlyons@connect.carleton.ca
and
Bill Reimer
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Concordia University
reamer@vax2.concordia.ca
Paper Prepared for:
NRRN Conference
Twillingate, NFLD
Draft: June 8, 2006
Six Features of Comparison
Abstract
This paper compares capacity definitions and their associated theoretical frameworks using six features of comparison: 1) whether capacity is understood as a condition or a process, 2) the outcomes considered, 3) the measurement of capacity, 4) whether it is understood to exist within communities (endogamous) or outside of communities (exogenous), 5) what levels of analysis are used, and 6) whether capacity outcomes are understood as inherently positive. In each case, variations in the literature are compared to the approach taken in the New Rural Economy Project – a nine-year project investigating capacity in rural Canada. We argue that by locating capacity research with respect to these six features we will be better able to compare capacity frameworks, understand the processes involved, and improve the policies and programs designed to enhance capacity at multiple levels.
Six Features of Comparison
Introduction
'Capacity', 'community capacity', and 'community development' are commonly used terms in academic literature, however, there remains no consensus on their definitions (Cuthill & Fien, 2005). As a result of this ambiguity the differences and similarities between the concepts and their applications remain underdeveloped. In part this is due to the diverse theoretical frameworks and research in which the concepts are used. We find ’capacity’ used in health research to discuss the ways that communities can improve personal health. Within forestry research (Parkins et al., 2003; Kusel, 1996) we find community capacity defined as “a measure of how communities respond and create opportunities to improve local wellbeing” (Kusel, 1996: 361). Likewise, we see the concepts of community development and community capacity in research dealing with social and economic development (Flora & Flora, 2004; Green & Haines; 2002; Bryden & Munro, 2000; Stern et al., 1997). Further, these various conceptions of
‘capacity’ are applied across developing nations (Gibbon et al., 2002) and developed nations (Jackson et al., 2003) and used in research focusing on rural (Tiepoh & Reimer, 2004; Robinson & Wilkinson, 1997) and urban areas (Chaskin, 2001; Gittell et al., 1998). Since they frequently start from diverse frameworks, the value of ‘capacity’ as an analytical concept has been severely limited even as its strategic and polemical use has increased.
We hope to reintroduce some of the analytical value of the concept by identifying six key features which help to differentiate its use. We argue that by locating particular conceptions of capacity to these six features, we are better able to make comparisons between then, identify
their relative utility for various questions, and increase our understanding of the processes and conditions related to capacity development and outcomes.
These features have emerged as a result of discussion and research within the New Rural Economy Project (NRE) – a multi-discipline, long-term project focusing on rural Canada. The conceptual framework on capacity that has guided our research and collaboration will be used as a point of reference for discussing the differences and similarities by which capacity is discussed in the literature. We first of all provide a brief introduction to the NRE project, followed by an outline of the Capacity Framework1 we have developed. Next, we situate the NRE framework within other perspectives found in the literature based upon the following six features: 1) whether capacity is understood as a process or not, 2) the types of outcomes considered, 3) how capacity is measured, 4) whether capacity is understood as something that exists within communities (endogamous) or outside of communities (exogenous), 5) the levels of analysis that are used, and 6) whether capacity outcomes are understood as inherently positive. Finally, we will discuss some of the research advantages of the perspective we have taken and identify capacity issues arising for further attention.
The NRE Project
The NRE Project was established in 1997 with three major characteristics. First, it is a network of researchers, policy-makers, practitioners, and rural citizens working in a collaborative manner using a national perspective to rural research and education (Reimer, 1996). Second, the project 1 There is a distinction between frameworks and models. Cuthill & Fien (2005: 69) use Rapoport (1985:256) distinction: “Conceptual frameworks are neither models nor theories … models describe how things work, whereas theories explain phenomena. Conceptual frameworks do neither; rather they help to think about phenomena, to order material, revealing patterns – and pattern recognition typically leads to models and theories. (Cuthill & Fien, 2005: 69)
has developed a number of rural Canadian databases and research materials including census, survey, interview, and documentary information. This material makes it possible to compare rural places on a national level and to do so at a level of specificity that is sensitive to local variation. Using census subdivision data, for example, we have integrated demographic and economic data from 1986, 1991, 1996 and 2001 in order to profile rural Canada on key characteristics. This provides an important basis for grounding our theoretical, strategic, and policy developments. Third, we have established a ‘Rural Observatory’ of 32 systematically identified rural sites with which we have collaborated over the 8 years of the research (Reimer, 2002).
All of these elements are integrated in a program of research teams, workshops, conferences, and publications that have enabled us to watch, study, and engage in capacity activities within a systematic comparative structure. It has provided us with the means to elaborate our framework of the capacity process within a context of corroboration that includes multiple methodologies and considerable feedback from local actors.
NRE Capacity Model and Framework
Communities are dynamic, changing, and fundamentally based on social relations rather than place (Massey, 1994). Geographical proximity may breed community but it is not inevitable. Geographically bounded areas like rural municipalities often represent disparate and disconnected populations, while strong social, cultural bonds and shared identities may exist across widely dispersed geographic spaces or places. Thus the concept of ‘community’ remains problematic from both a theoretical and empirical point of view (Amit & Rapport 2002; Bell &
Newby 1973; Lyon 1987). Understandings of place change—with time, contexts, and the people or networks involved (Massey, 1995). So too, does the capacity associated with them. For this reason, we approach the issue of capacity in terms of social capacity rather than community capacity and simply use the term ‘capacity’.
Capacity, in the NRE framework, is defined as the ability of people to organize their assets and resources to achieve objectives they consider important. It is represented in Figure 1 in terms of five major elements. First, it includes the assets and liabilities available to a group or community. We have represented these in terms of four types of assets without implying that this list is exclusive or exhaustive. Second, the central part of the Figure represents the various actions or processes that may be taken by individuals or groups to recognize, reorganize, or manage those assets in order to produce outputs. Much of our NRE research has focused on the elaboration of the processes involved – including the identification of four normative systems guiding those processes (Tiepoh & Reimer 2004). Third, our framework highlights the outcomes of the reorganization of assets and liabilities. They may be outcomes that are planned or those that are unintended consequences of those actions. The fourth element is important for the dynamic quality of the framework. It represents how the outcomes at one point in time may become new assets and liabilities in the future. Finally, the framework recognizes the role of contextual features that may constrain, enhance, or modify any of the first four elements. It also acknowledges how the framework is scaleable – finding applications at the level of individuals, communities, regions, nations, or societies.
Figure 1: NRE Capacity Model
Our research focuses on the processes by which rural people produce their valued outcomes from the assets available to them. The framework itself can be applied to any kind of community or group, including those in an urban context, although our primary attention has been directed to rural settings. We emphasize the types of social relationships required to produce specified outcomes and highlight assets such as social capital alongside the more traditional emphasis on natural resources and human capital. In all cases we understand social relations as dynamic and potentially complex. This dynamism includes the power relations which are embedded in all types of social relations (Massey, 1994).
Six Features of Comparison
Capacity as condition or process?
Mendis et al. (2003) identify capacity perspectives in the literature as falling between two extreme poles: those that concentrate on identifying what capacity is and those that focus more on the processes by which capacity is built. The first approach identifies specific characteristics of a community which are assumed to be assets. From this perspective capacity is treated as a condition where capacity is usually understood as static – ready to be used under particular circumstances. The second approach examines how assets are used. In this case, the focus is on the processes of capacity, where capacity is understood as an ongoing, dynamic phenomenon. Most of the capacity literature can be located with respect to these two extremes.
Some authors approach capacity as a condition or quality that a group or community can have, build, and use (Gibbon et al., 2002; Labonte and Laverack, 2001; Kusel, 1996). It is seen as a type of stock that can be augmented or depleted. Although Gibbon et al. (2002) state that they “do not presume that community capacity ‘exists’ waiting to be discovered”, for example, they go on to argue that there are particular characteristics (what they refer to as ‘domains of community capacity’) that “adequately capture the essential qualities of a ‘capable community’” (Gibbon et al., 2002: 486-487). In contrast, others, such as Freudenberg (2004; 1995) and Wilkinson (1989) treat capacity as a process that is more dynamic. Wilkinson (1989), for example, argues that community development is a process and notes that "[a] process is never fully 'developed'; it consists simply of behavior in process" (Wilkinson, 1989: 342).
Other models fall between these two approaches (Cuthill & Fien 2005). Jackson et al. (2003), for example, do not incorporate feedback and they regard capacity as a quality of a community, which leads us to presume that they are treating capacity as a condition. However, they place themselves outside of the literature that assumes capacity “needs to be added or built”, thereby implying that capacity is more of a process (Jackson et al., 2003: 347). Likewise, Goodman et al. (1998) conceptualize capacity as complex, dynamic, multi-dimensional, as operating at individual and group levels, and as dependent upon context. The authors do not limit their understanding of capacity to a condition of a group. In contrast, capacity is understood as a process and as something which can be lost as well as gained.
It is a process as well as an outcome; it includes supportive organizational structures and processes; it is multidimensional and ecological in operating at the individual, group,
organizational, community and policy levels…; and it is context specific (Goodman et al, 1998: 260).
In addition, they argue that capacity is “a construct that has different meanings in different contexts” and something that changes over time (Goodman et al, 1998: 273). However, they also treat capacity as a condition by identifying nine dimensions that can be used to identify and
‘build’ assets.
Most authors acknowledge that capacity is dynamic, regardless of whether they treat it as a condition or a process (Jackson et al., 2003; Labonte & Laverack, 2001; Goodman et al., 1998). Labonte and Laverack (2001), for example, criticize formulations that reify ‘capacity’ and argue that capacity is dynamic, context specific, and not independent of infrastructures. In this article, they examine questions such as: “capacity building for whom, and for what purpose?” (Labonte & Laverack, 2001: 112). These questions are important because capacity efforts and outcomes
are dependent upon contexts. Democratic leadership, for example, is often considered a condition of capacity (Gibbon et al., 2002), yet in certain communities, groups, or situations this type of leadership may inhibit rather than enhance capacity efforts.
If capacity is defined in terms of specific conditions only, such as ‘local leadership’ or ‘resource mobilization’ (Gibbon et al., 2002), we are not encouraged to learn about different ways in which capacity efforts are carried out or why some initiatives are successful and other are not. In addition, conceptualizing capacity strictly as a condition results in power dynamics being overshadowed. If a community is seen to have high levels of leadership and therefore high levels of capacity, for example, we become insensitive to the way in which that leadership is exercised, including who might be excluded in the process.
From our point of view, capacity refers to the whole process by which assets are reorganized into outcomes. Communities or groups with high capacity are able to identify the need, plan the reorganization, and accomplish it with greater ease and efficiency than those with lower levels. Similar to Jackson et al. (2003) capacity may be altered by the assets available (e.g., institutions and human capital), but it is also dependent on the dynamics of the social processes and context in which they take place. Capacity operates within the framework of a dynamic, feedback process where individuals or groups reorganize assets to produce outcomes and where those outcomes can in turn become new assets or liabilities.
Outcomes: Capacity for what?
Capacity outcomes range from the specific to very general. Health practitioners, for example, often identify health promotion as an outcome (Labonte & Laverack, 2001; Smith et al., 2001; Goodman, et al., 1998; Hawe et al., 1997; Freudenberg et al., 1995), whereas social and economic improvement (in various forms) are discussed as outcomes within the community development literature (Flora & Flora, 2004; Green & Haines; 2002; Bryden & Munro, 2000; Morrisey, 2000; Stern et al., 1997; McGuire et al., 1994).
Our concern with community capacity has led us to adopt a relatively flexible approach to capacity outcomes. Communities may value a wide range of outcomes depending on local circumstances and researchers may identify others as important to community development objectives. One community may consider health promotion as an outcome of capacity, for example, while another may value the maintenance of their community centre, community radio station, or library as outcomes. These outcomes may also change over time or remain consistent for long periods of time. In our model, therefore, we have listed just a few of the most frequently cited outcomes for which capacity may be desired or needed: economic wealth, social and political inclusions, social cohesion, environmental security, social and self worth, and health.
How is Capacity Measured?
Given the many ways in which capacity is defined and conceptualized, it is no wonder that there is considerable variation in the ways it is measured. To facilitate the evaluation of these approaches, we find that some of the fundamental discussions in measurement theory provide a
useful place to start (Kline 2006; Bollen & Lennox 1991). From this discussion we can understand the measurement of capacity taking one of three basic approaches.
The first is to treat the indicators of capacity as identical with capacity itself. A low value on any of the indicators, therefore, means that a key component of capacity is low or missing, signaling that the level of capacity is diminished. This extreme positivist approach is sometimes reflected in the language of capacity measurement where strict identification of the concept and indicator are implied, but few authors maintain this identification in their more extensive discussions. We can, therefore, assume that for the most part, capacity is treated as a latent concept, requiring a number of operational assumptions for measurement.
The second approach to measurement treats the indicators of capacity as outcomes or consequences closely associated with the underlying concept (capacity). This is the classical reflective (effect indicator) approach. Within this model, the outcome indicators are all considered to be correlated since they are all generated in some way or another wherever capacity is relatively high. If capacity is high, we expect to find all of the indicators present.
A third approach would be to treat the indicators as causes of capacity as proposed in a formative (causal indicator) model of measurement. In this case, each indicator may or may not be present since they are all potential, but not necessary conditions for high capacity. From this point of view, for example, assets, leadership, or participation may all contribute to high capacity, but any one of them may be low or missing – even under conditions of high capacity. In this case, the
measurement challenge is to determine which of these conditions are most likely to generate high capacity under what circumstances.
A key research objective within the third approach would be to examine the relationship between capacity conditions and outcomes in order to develop sufficient confidence in the nature of capacity inferred. In order to be consistent with the model, this analysis would also have to be done in a longitudinal fashion or using longitudinal proxies. By examining which conditions produce which outcomes, we would then be able to specify a formative index for capacity.
Few of the authors explicitly discuss the measurement of capacity in these terms. This is unfortunate since it makes comparison difficult and glosses many questions that are critical to the understanding of capacity processes themselves. Jackson et al. (2003), for example, provide
‘indicators of overall community capacity’, by means of a checklist of characteristics and propose that these are strengths upon which a community might build. Likewise, Francisco et al. (2001) identify six ‘core competencies’ based on the assumption that there are “key factors or components of successful efforts to bring about community change and improvement (e.g., leadership, having a targeted mission, action planning)” (Francisco et al., 2001: 296). It remains unclear, for example, whether all of these characteristics are necessary for capacity (as we would expect in a reflective model) or only some are necessary (as we would expect in a formative approach). If the reflective model is being used, we would conclude that a group or community which is low in manifested leadership, for example, would therefore be low in capacity. On the other hand, if the formative approach was assumed, we would look for other factors that might reflect capacity in the place of leadership or conditions that suppress the manifestations of
leadership. As practitioners or policy-makers, the former approach would lead us to focus our attention on improving the leadership competence of the group or community, while in the latter we may look to take advantage of other factors already sufficiently strong to produce the desired outcomes.
Our approach to the conceptualization and measurement of capacity is of the formative over the reflective type. We understand capacity as a potential quality of a group or community – one that cannot be seen in current conditions alone but as the conjuncture of a number of characteristics. Assets as we have identified them are important, but the absence of one or the other asset is not in itself an indication of low capacity. For this reason, our approach and procedures to measuring levels and types of capacity remain indirect—focusing on the conditions that have contributed to capacity outcomes in the past as a basis for assessing current or future capacity levels. We argue that frameworks which link capacity too closely to specific characteristics are likely to overlook important options for capacity building and action. Our objective is, therefore, to explore the conditions under which capacity is facilitated or impeded.
Is capacity endogamous or exogenous?
Most authors identify capacity as an internal characteristic of communities that is frequently affected by exogenous constraints and/or facilitators. These include Freudenberg (2004), Gibbon et al. (2002), Labonte and Laverack (2001), Kusel (1996) and Warren (1983), who move beyond strictly individual-based understandings of community capacity to an inclusion of what Jackson et al. (2003) call “socioenvironmental conditions” (Jackson et al., 2003: 340).
The most comprehensive example is Jackson et al. (2003) who define community capacity as: “the potential of a community to build on its strengths in order to work towards and achieve its goals and dreams, given both facilitating and barrier conditions coming from inside and outside the community” (Jackson et al., 2003: 345). Specifically, Jackson et al. (2003) argue that it is imperative not to ignore the role that external structures and factors such as institutions and policies have in whether community capacity is facilitated or impeded. Even where a community has an abundance of natural resources, for example, if they do not have the appropriate control over these resources then the resources cannot be used. Similarly, Gibbon et al. (2002) argue that “[t]he capacity of a group is also dependent on the resource opportunities or constraints (ecological, political and environmental), and the conditions in which people and groups live” (Gibbon et al., 2002: 485).
These approaches are similar to our capacity framework where we consider individuals, communities, and groups as well as internal and external conditions that can enhance or inhibit capacity efforts. We treat community or group capacity as independent from those external conditions, however, in order to analyze the relationship between them. We recognize Massey’s argument that "[p]laces are both interconnected and interdependent. Their economic fortunes and general well-being can in no way be completely determined by events or actions within the place itself" (Massey, 1995: 69). This approach allows for a more flexible analysis of capacity than one which includes those external conditions as part of the capacity characteristics of the group or community itself. For instance, it raises the question of the conditions under which local capacity may succeed or fail to produce particular outcomes and highlights the limits of local capacity for community development.
Capacity for Whom?
Capacity is not shared equally among all group or community members. Nor are the outcomes of capacity beneficial for all members. As a result, capacity frameworks that recognize variation in power and privilege are preferred over those that leave these aspects invisible. Part of this involves the identification of the group or community used as the unit of analysis.
Many authors focus on the community-level in their framework of capacity with little room for the analysis of variations within that community (Freudenberg, 2004; Jackson et al., 2003; Labonte & Laverack, 2001; Kusel, 1996; Wilkinson, 1989; Warren, 1983). According to Smith et al. (2001), for example, “[c]apacity building is a process of working with a community to determine what its needs and strengths are, and to develop ways of using those strengths to meet those needs” (31). They focus on community action to facilitate better health for members at the community level and explicitly use “community as a central unit for analysis and action” (Smith et al., 2001: 34). They acknowledge that a community is not homogeneous and that “[t]here are divisions and differences within any community, relationships of power and privilege”, yet the analysis remains focused on the ‘community’ as a whole with little room for an analysis of the ways in which events of capacity impact groups and individuals within the community (Smith et al, 2001: 34). This is also the case in the work of Kusel (1996) where community capacity is defined as “the collective ability of residents in a community to respond (the communal response) to external and internal stresses; to create and take advantage of opportunities; and to meet the needs of residents, diversely defined” (369). Once again, the community is the unit of analysis. They acknowledge that people in a community have different needs, yet the focus
remains on the community without addressing how these diverse needs are met. Goodman et al. (1998) provide an important exception to this pattern, however, by claiming that community capacity “[operates] at the individual, group, organizational, community and policy levels” and following this up with an analysis that reflects all levels (Goodman et al., 1998: 260).
The NRE framework incorporates multiple levels in the analysis – including the individual, group, community, regional, and national. This means the model can be applied at any and all of these levels and that more than one level can be considered for one given event. The level chosen is dependent upon the context of the event of capacity in question and the impacts may be examined at other levels. This is important because an event may have different implications and meanings at different levels. In one of our communities, for example, a small group of citizens proposed to start an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) tourism business. Despite opposition to this idea from other members of the community the ATV tourism is now established. If one were to interpret this event as a manifestation of community-level capacity it may be seen as a successful example of the actualization of capacity. However, such a view overlooks the tensions within the community (some of them remaining to this day) and would be unlikely to ask why one group was successful and the other was unsuccessful. Invariably, such tensions and explanations for success or failure are rooted within relations of power. Ignoring them is likely to result in overlooking the important exercise and relations of power in of the process of capacity.
Capacity Outcomes as Positive?
Community or group capacity may have both positive and negative outcomes. Most of the literature treats capacity as being inherently beneficial with little recognition of the ways in
which capacity-building may result in undesirable ends. (Flora & Flora, 2004; Jackson et al., 2003; Gibbon et al., 2002; Morrisey, 2000; Goodman et al., 1998; Freudenberg et al., 1995; McGuire, 1994). For example, when Kusel (1996) states that “high community capacity itself is suggestive of higher levels of well-being for residents” he is assuming that capacity can only produce positive impacts for all people in a community (Kusel, 1996: 370). Likewise, Smith et al., (2001) argue that “[c]apacity building is a process of working with a community to determine what its needs and strengths are, and to develop ways of using those strengths to meet those needs” (31). The authors note that although there may be hierarchies within communities and power and privilege, this lies at the level of the community. The outcomes of community capacity are still positive for all involved.
The assumption in these approaches is that capacity outcomes always have positive effects across contexts. Capacity is treated as one dimensional and as having beneficial impacts on every person. We see this throughout the capacity literature, even within frameworks that acknowledge internal and external impediments (Freudenberg, 2004; Wilkinson, 1989). Jackson et al. (2003), for example, argue that “capacity recognizes the challenges as part of the community’s action plan to address barriers and explicitly incorporates the concept that the community can be proactive towards achieving its goals” (348). Despite acknowledging obstacles communities face, the outcomes of capacity remain understood as something that is always beneficial for all members of the community.
Labonte and Laverack (2001) provide one of the few examples which recognize that capacity outcomes have possible negative effects. They state:
There are groups whose capacity (or empowerment, or development, or social
capital/cohesion) is created primarily by denying the same to others: racists, xenophobes, sexists, totalitarians, and it can be advanced [by] private (individual or corporate) economic decisions that fail to consider their effects on distributive justice or environmental
sustainability (Labonte & Laverack, 2001: 125).
This approach provides credibility for the more complex analysis of the ATV example above. According to those who argue that "Community development is simply the action taken with positive purpose" (Wilkinson, 1989: 341) the establishment of the ATV trail and support would most likely be seen as an example of successful community development. But what about the dissenting group? They also had a positive purpose by opposing this form of tourism which they felt would be harmful to their community. We must look for ways in which these dynamics can be better integrated into our models and understandings of capacity development in a community context.
Using a perspective where the outcomes of capacity are understood as inherently positive results in overlooking the group of people who were in opposition and the tensions generated by this venture. Also overlooked are the relations between the two opposing groups. People do not necessarily have the same interests and desires and any community “is composed of diverse community groups that compete among themselves both for resources and influence” (Shirlow & Murtagh, 2004: 61). Likewise, Edwards (1997: 832) argues:
“The idea that a spatial community can be empowered in any significant way assumes the existence of a unitary set of values and interests. That is not plausible. Even in socially and ethnically homogeneous housing estates, it would be naive to assume that everyone’s
interests were common and it certainly would not be plausible in an ethnically and racially mixed area. In such a case, the empowerment of some may be at the expense of others”
By defining capacity outcomes as positive, the community-focused relations of power are overshadowed and left unexamined. The analysis of why and how one group was successful over another, what conditions may have enhanced or inhibited the relative success of the groups, or the impacts of the outcome on individuals, the community, and the regional levels are all left unexplored. Instead, we are given the impression of high community capacity while glossing over the ways in which this high capacity may rest on the suppression of capacity for others – either within or outside the community.
Conclusion
We have outlined the NRE capacity framework using six criteria in order to gain a better understanding of our approach and those presented in the literature. We found that the NRE approach diverges from much of the literature in three significant ways. First, we have formulated our framework to make it scaleable, rather than limit its application to the community level alone. This has provided us with the means to investigate how the amount and nature of capacity at the community level have been affected by those at the regional level and vice-versa. As health care assets have been regionalized, for example, regional councils have increased their capacity to allocate services, while the capacities of the related communities to access those services have been differentially affected according to their transportation assets.
Second, we have left open the possibility that capacity outcomes may be negative rather than limit them to positive results. This has justified and encouraged the investigation of the conditions under which the outcomes are positive or negative as well as the ways in which the same capacity outcomes may be positive for one group while being negative for another. Our
塑料薄膜 百科名片 用聚氯乙烯、聚乙烯、聚丙烯、聚苯乙烯以及其他树脂制成的薄膜，用于包装,以及用作覆膜层。塑料包装及塑料包装产品在市场上所占的份额越来越大，特别是复合塑料软包装，已经广泛地应用于食品、医药、化工等领域，其中又以食品包装所占比例最大，比如饮料包装、速冻食品包装、蒸煮食品包装、快餐食品包装等，这些产品都给人们生活带来了极大的便利。 词语信息 薄膜种类 发展现状 表面性能 特性比较 编辑本段词语信息 【词语】：塑料薄膜 【注音】：sù liào bómó 编辑本段薄膜种类 PVA涂布高阻隔薄膜 PVA涂布高阻隔薄膜是将添加了纳米无机物的PVA涂布于聚乙烯薄膜后经 塑料薄膜性价比 印刷、复合而成，在不大幅度提高成本的前提下，沧州金龙塑料有限公司科研人员经过3年的艰苦奋斗、自主创新，终于率先在国内将拥有国家专利的产品，PVA涂布高阻隔牛奶膜全面推向了市场。两年来，国内一些乳制品加工企业在无菌包装上用的奶膜由于采用了该公司生产的高阻隔薄膜，阻氧率小于2cm3/(m2·24h·0.1MPa)。其阻隔性能不仅明显优于EVOH五层共挤薄膜，而且包装成本也大幅度下降，这不仅能确保被包装物对无菌包装所有的质量要求，而且大幅度降低了食品加工企业无菌包装的成本，可用于包装饮料、果汁、牛奶、酱油醋等。 双向拉伸聚丙烯薄膜（BOPP）
双向拉伸聚丙烯薄膜是由聚丙烯颗粒经共挤形成片材后，再经纵横两个方向的拉伸而制得的。由于拉伸分子定向，所以这种薄膜的物理稳定性、机械强度、气密性较好，透明度和光泽度较高，坚韧耐磨，是目前应用最广泛的印刷薄膜，一般使用厚度为20～40 μ m ，应用最广泛的为20 μ m 。双向拉伸聚丙烯薄膜主要缺点是热封性差，所以一般用做复合薄膜的外层薄膜，如与聚乙烯薄膜复合后防潮性、透明性、强度、挺度和印刷性均较理想，适用于盛装干燥食品。由于双向拉伸聚丙烯薄膜的表面为非极性，结晶度高，表面自由能低，因此，其印刷性能较差，对油墨和胶黏剂的附着力差，在印刷和复合前需要进行表面处理。 低密度聚乙烯薄膜（LDPE） 低密度聚乙烯薄膜一般采用吹塑和流延两种工艺制成。流延聚乙烯薄膜的厚度均匀，但由于价格较高，成本较低，所以应用最为广泛。低密度聚乙烯薄膜是一种半透明、有光泽、质地较柔软的薄膜，具有优良的化学稳定性、热封性、耐水性和防潮性，耐冷冻，可水煮。其主要缺点是对氧气的阻隔性较差，常用于复合软包装材料的内层薄膜，而且也是目前应用最广泛、用量最大的一种塑料包装薄膜，约占塑料包装薄膜耗用量的40%以上。 由于聚乙烯分子中不含极性基团，且结晶度高，表面自由能低，因此，该薄膜的印刷性能较差，对油墨和胶黏剂的附着力差，所以在印刷和复合前需要进行表面处理。 聚酯薄膜（PET） 聚酯薄膜是以聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇酯为原料，采用挤出法制成厚片，再经双向拉伸制成的薄膜材料。它是一种无色透明、有光泽的薄膜，机械性能优良，刚性、硬度及韧性高，耐穿刺，耐摩擦，耐高温和低温，耐化学药品性、耐油性、气密性和保香性良好，是常用的阻透性复合薄膜基材之一。但聚酯薄膜的价格较高，一般厚度为12 μ m，常用做蒸煮包装的外层材料，印刷性较好。 尼龙薄膜（PA） 尼龙薄膜是一种非常坚韧的薄膜，透明性好，并具有良好的光泽，抗张强度、拉伸强度较高，还具有较好的耐热性、耐寒性、耐油性和耐有机溶剂性，耐磨性、耐穿刺性优良，且比较柔软，阻氧性优良，但对水蒸气的阻隔性较差，吸潮、透湿性较大，热封性较差，适于包装硬性物品，例如油腻性食品、肉制品、油炸食品、真空包装食品、蒸煮食品等。 流延聚丙烯薄膜（CPP） 流延聚丙烯薄膜是采用流延工艺生产的聚丙烯薄膜，又可分为普通CPP和蒸煮级CPP 两种，透明度极好，厚度均匀，且纵横向的性能均匀，一般用做复合薄膜的内层材料。普通CPP 薄膜的厚度一般在25～50μm 之间，与OPP复合后透明度较好，表面光亮，手感坚挺，一般的礼品包装袋都采用此种材料。这种薄膜还具有良好的热封性。蒸煮级CPP 薄膜的厚度一般在60～80 μ m 之间，能耐121℃、30 min的高温蒸煮，耐油性、气密性较好，且热封强度较高，一般的肉类包装内层均采用蒸煮级的CPP薄膜。
聚乙烯薄膜 1 范围 本标准规定了聚乙烯薄膜(以下简称PE膜)的技术要求、试验方法、检验规则及标志、包装、运输、贮存等。 本标准适用于以聚乙烯树脂为主要原料，用挤出吹塑、流延成型的通用薄膜。 2 规范性引用文件 下列标准中的所包含的条款通过本标准的引用而成为本标准的条款。凡是注日期的引用文件，其随后所有的修改单（不包括勘误的内容）或修订版均不适用于本标准；凡是不注日期的引用文件，其最新版本适用于本标准。 GB/T 191 包装储运图示标志 GB/T 1040.3—2006 塑料拉伸性能的测定第3部分：塑料和薄片的试验条件 GB/T 2828.1 计数抽样检验程序第1部分：按接收质量限(AQL)检索的逐批检验抽样计划 GB/T 2918 塑料试样状态调节和试验的标准环境 GB/T 5009.60 食品包装用聚乙烯、聚苯乙烯、聚丙烯成型品卫生标准的分析方法 GB/T 6672 塑料薄膜和薄片厚度测定机械测量法 GB/T 6673 塑料薄膜和薄片长度和宽度的测定 GB/T 8807 塑料镜面光泽试样方法 GB 9687 食品包装用聚乙烯成型品卫生标准 GB/T 10006—2008 塑料薄膜和薄片摩擦系数测定方法 GB/T 14216 塑料膜和片润湿张力试验方法 QB/T 2358 塑料薄膜包装袋热合强度试验方法 3 分类 包装用聚乙烯薄膜按使用要求不同分PE（酱包专用）膜、PE膜、和乳白PE膜表示。 4 要求 4.1 外观 4.1.1不应存在有碍使用的气泡、穿孔、水纹、条纹、暴筋、熟化不良、鱼眼、僵块等瑕疵。 4.1.2膜卷断面不平整度不大于3 mm。 4.1.3卷膜纸芯不允许凹陷和缺口。 4.2 尺寸偏差 4.2.1 宽度偏差 宽度偏差应符合表1要求。
联想新员工培训分析 （一）培训方案 联想对新员工的指导从其进入公司的第一天开始。上班第一天，有新员工的“首天培训”，主要是熟悉工作环境和要求；紧接着是所在公司的新员工入职培训、集团的“入模子”培训及后续的轮岗培训，之后，新员工就可以返回各自的部门和岗位。前两个培训各需—周，轮岗通常需1—2周，经过这三个规范过程，新员工的培训内存就告一段落。 这当中的重点是集团统一的“入模子”培训。培训班为全脱产封闭式，共5天，其中一天是军训。课程包括联想简介、发展历史、奋斗目标、经营理念、行为规范和团队训练等，以及一系列团队活动，包括卡拉OK比赛、拔河比赛、篮球比赛等。培训班将一天分成几个时间段，每一段时间都作了统一安排。培训班的管理制度是依照公司对员工的要求来做，有严密的纪律，每天早晨出操点名，白天学院上课时，还要组织检查内务。从早晨起床到晚上熄灯都要对每个小组进行考察、打分。如上课迟到就要罚站，并对所在小组扣分，还会在最后的培训鉴定上标明。 培训班中，团队的协作作为—项重要内容贯穿始终。新学员刚刚进入培训班就被分为若干个小组，每组不超过20人，每个小组选拔3—4位骨干。之后的每一天，每一项活动都将按组进行打分，学习效果和最后成绩与这些分数有直接关系。
学习过程始终重视学员的参与，从互动式教学到各种团队活功，讲求人人参与，协调配合，积极竞赛。根据活动内容不同，各组组长会将组内人员进行不同组合和分工，每个人都有机会承担某一项活动的主力，一方面发挥新员工所长和能动性，另—方面注意挖掘每个人的潜能，有机会锻炼自己的弱项。因此，不论这个新员工是怎样的一个人，都有机会展示、发现并提升自己。 在拓展训练中，设有盲人行动、建寺庙和过硫酸河游戏、背摔等，这些训练主要为了提高学员的心理承受能力。如背摔，学员要站在一个高高的台子上闭着眼睛脸朝上似自由落体地摔向下面围起圈子的人们。为提高新员工的表达与胆量，培训班设有一个即兴主题演讲内容，每个新员工在拿到演讲题目后有两分钟的准备时间，然后他要站到一个很高的台子上进行两分钟的演讲，不管你是情急下的语无伦次，还是紧张的心跳、腿软甚至不知所措，你都必须坚持下来，完成演讲。类似这样的训练在子公司各自的培训课程完成之后，还要在集团统一的培训班上再度进行过关训练。几次下来，新员工能了解所必须具备的各种能力和自信心、他们会在今后的岗位上得到进一步的锻炼和提高。 联想入职培训的另一个特点是新员工指导人。公司在每一位新员工到岗之前都要指定一对一的指导人。指导人负责带新人并考察新员工在试用期间的表现能力等，其作用一是代行了人力资源部的考察职责，二是通过帮带行使部门职责。指导人已经在联想形成—种制度，对指导人的选择，公司也有一系列规范，包括要求和资格认定及指导
塑料薄膜生产工艺 塑料薄膜生产工艺：塑料薄膜的成型加工方法有多种，例如有压延法、流延法、吹塑法、拉伸法等，近年来双向拉伸膜成为人们关注的焦点。今后，双向拉伸技术将更多地向着特种功能膜，如厚膜拉伸、薄型膜拉伸、多层共挤拉伸等方向发展。近年来，适应包装行业对包装物要求的不断提高，各种功能膜市场发展迅速。经过双向拉伸生产的塑料薄膜可有效改善材料的拉伸性能（拉伸强度是未拉伸薄膜的3-5倍）、阻隔性能、光学性能、耐热耐寒性、尺寸稳定性、厚度均匀性等多种性能，并具有生产速度快、产能大、效率高等特点，市场迅速发展。 双向拉伸原理 塑料薄膜双向拉伸的原理：是将高聚物树脂通过挤出机加热熔融挤出厚片后，在玻璃化温度以上、熔点以下的适当温度范围内（高弹态下），通过纵拉机与横拉机时，在外力作用下，先后沿纵向和横向进行一定倍数的拉伸，从而使高聚物的分子链或结晶面在平行于薄膜平面的方向上进行取向而有序排列；然后在拉紧状态下进行热定型使取向的大分子结构固定下来；最后经冷却及后续处理便可制得理想的塑料薄膜。 双向拉伸薄膜生产设备与工艺双向拉伸薄膜的生产设备与工艺，以聚酯薄膜（PET）为例简述如下：配料与混合普通聚酯薄膜所使用的原料主要是有光PET切片和母料切片。母料切片是指含有添加剂的PET切片，添加剂有二氧化硅、碳酸钙、硫酸钡、高岭土等，应根据薄膜的不同用途选用相应的母料切片。聚酯薄膜一般采用一定含量的含硅母料切片与有光切片配用，其作用是通过二氧化硅微粒在薄膜中的分布，增加薄膜表面微观上的粗糙度，使收卷时薄膜之间可容纳少量的空气，以防止薄膜粘连。有光切片与一定比例的母料切片通过计量混合机混合后进入下一工序。 结晶和干燥：对有吸湿倾向的高聚物，例如PET、PA、PC等，在进行双向拉伸之前，须先进行予结晶和干燥处理。一是提高聚合物的软化点，避免其在干燥和熔融挤出过程中树脂粒子互相粘连、结块；二是去除树脂中水分，防止含有酯基的聚合物在熔融挤出过程中发生水解降解和产生气泡。PET的予结晶和干燥设备一般采用带有结晶床的填充塔，同时配有干空气制备装置，包括空压机、分子筛去湿器、加热器等。予结晶和干燥温度在150-170℃左右，干燥时间约3.5-4小时。干燥后的PET切片湿含量要求控制在50ppm以下。 熔融挤出熔融挤出包括挤出机、熔体计量泵、熔体过滤器和静态混合器。 一、熔融挤出机 经过结晶和干燥处理的PET切片进入单螺杆挤出机进行加热熔融塑化。为了保证PET切片塑化良好、挤出熔体压力稳定，螺杆的结构非常重要。除对长径比、压缩比、各功能段均有一定要求外，还特别要求是屏障型螺杆，因为这种结构的螺杆具有以下几个特点： 有利于挤出物料的良好塑化。 有利于挤出机出口物料温度均匀一致。 挤出机出料稳定。 排气性能好。 有利于提高挤出能力。 若挤出量不是太大，推荐选用排气式双螺杆挤出机。排气挤出机有两个排气口与两套抽真空系统相连接，具有很好的抽排气、除湿功能，可将物料中所含的水分及低聚物抽走，可以省去复杂的预结晶/干燥系统，既节省投资又可降低运行成本。挤出机温度设定，从加料口到
联想新员工培训内容 联想新员工培训后，在入职之初，都会发一份联想员工行为操守准则。这份准则共六条，规范了作为一名联想人应该具备的基本原则，包括做人诚实一致、做事公司分明、业务活动适度、对业务伙伴公正廉洁等。 在遵守公司制度履行岗位职责的基础上，认同联想文化。核心文化价值观是：“服务客户，精准求实，诚信共享，创业创新”。 联想认为，企业是有血型的，符合这个血型的人，就能成为联想的员工；不符合这个血型的人，联想与之无缘。联想管理学院就是要培养出具有联想血型的人。 联想需要三种血型的人： 第一种就是能独立做事的人； 第二种是能够带领一帮人做事的人； 第三种能审时度势，把握全局的领军人物。 如果你还不知道自己被贴上什么标签，我们奉劝你要赶紧行动起来，最好是用最快的速度找到这个标签，并赶紧到自己的大脑上。只有这样，你才能自信地告诉大家：我属于这个企业的一分子。 否则，你就很有可能面临“走人”的危险——因为，绝大多数的企业是不能容忍一个“异类”的存在的。 联想新员工培训包括企业文化培训、专业技能培训和联想员工时间管理培训。联想十分重视员工的时间管理，认为员工的工作不是从自己的任务开始，而是从掌握时间开始的。只有有效管理自己的时间，
减少非生产性工作所占用的时间，才是当务之急。 附：联想新员工时间管理培训 一、认识自己的时间 1. 记录自己的时间； 2. 管理自己的时间； 3. 集中自己的时间。 二、如何诊断自己的时间 第一步：要记录自己时间耗用的实际情形。 必须在“当时”立即加以记录，长期积累就可以保持一份时间记录簿，以便于自己检讨；你会发现自己的时间花费往往很乱，常常浪费在无谓的小事上，但是经过练习并且持之以恒，时间的利用是会有进步的。 第二步：先将“非生产性”的和“浪费时间”的活动找出来，消除这类活动；要做到着一点，有赖于自己发问下面的几个问题： 浪费时间，无助于成果。将时间记录本拿出来，逐项地问：“这件事如果不做，有何后果？”假使认为：“不会有任何影响”，那么要即刻停止,对于那些出于礼节性的事情,只要审度一下婉绝即可； 事实上，人总有一种倾向，高估自己的地位的重要性，认为许多事是非要恭亲不可，然而，实际上并非这样；在时间记录所载活动中,如果哪一项另请他人做更好,就要学会“授权给别人”，这样才能真正做好自己该做的工作。 有一项时间浪费的因素，我们是必须消除的：不要浪费别人的时间！
第一部分软包装材料之-－－塑料薄膜基本知识 一、软包装之薄膜的定义 在国家包装通用术语（GB412２—83)中，软包装的定义为:软包装是指在充填或取出内装物后，容器形状可发生变化的包装。用纸、铝箔、纤维、塑料薄膜以及它们的复合物所制成的各种袋、盒、套、包封等均为软包装。 一般将厚度在０.25mm以下的片状塑料称为薄膜。塑料薄膜透明、柔韧,具有良好的耐水性、防潮性和阻气性、机械强度较好，化学性质稳定，耐油脂,易于印刷精美图文,可以热封制袋。它能满足各种物品的包装要求,是用于包装易存、易放的方便食品，生活用品，超级市场的小包装商品的理想材料。以塑料薄膜为主的软包装印刷在包装印刷中占有重要地位。据统计,从1980年以来,世界上一些先进国家的塑料包装占整个包装印刷的３２.5%~44%。?一般来说,因为单一薄膜材料对内装物的保护性不够理想，所以多采用将两种以上的薄膜复合为一层的复合薄膜,以满足食品保鲜、无菌包装技术的要求。复合薄膜的外层材料多选用不易划伤、磨毛,光学性能优良,印刷性能良好的材科,如：纸、玻璃纸、拉伸聚丙烯、聚酯等；中间层是阻隔性聚合物，如:铝箔、蒸镀铝、聚俯二氮乙烯电里层材料多选用无毒、无味的聚乙烯等热塑性树脂。 二、塑料阻透性技术介绍 1、塑料的阻透性? 塑料制品（容器、薄膜）对小分子气体、液体、水蒸汽及气味的屏蔽能力。 2、透过系数？ 塑料阻透能力大小的指标。 定义： 一定厚度（１mm)的塑料制品，在一定的压力（1Mpa），一定的温度（23度)，一定的湿度（6５%）下,单位时间（1day＝２４小时)，单位面积(1m2)，通过小分子物质（Ｏ2、CO2、Ｈ2O)的体积或重量。表示为（ｃｍ３)、(g) 对于气体： 单位为cm３,mm/ｍ2,d，mｐa； 对于液体: 单位为ｇ，ｍm/ｍ2,d，mpa; 3、常用中高阻透性塑料的透过系数
塑料薄膜的挤出吹塑 塑料薄膜可以用挤出吹塑、压延、流延、挤出拉幅以及使用夹缝机头直接挤出等方法制造，各种方法特点不同，适应性也不同。其中吹塑法成型塑料薄膜比较经济和简便，结晶型和非结晶型塑料都适用，吹塑成型不但能成型薄至几丝的包装薄膜，也能成型厚达0.3mm 的重包装薄膜，既能生产窄幅，也能得到宽度达近20m的薄膜，这是其他成型方法无法比拟的。吹塑过程塑料受到纵横方向的拉伸取向作用，制品质量较高，因此，吹塑成型在薄膜生产上应用十分广泛。 挤出成型设备有螺杆挤出机和柱塞式挤出机两大类，前者为连续式挤出，后者为间歇式挤出。螺杆挤出机又可分为单螺杆挤出机和多螺杆挤出机。 压延成型 压延成型是生产高分子材料薄膜和片材的主要方法，它是将接近黏流温度的物料通过一系列相向旋转着的平行滚筒的间隙，使其受到挤压和延展作用，成为具有一定厚度和宽度的薄片状制品。 塑料压延成型一般适用于生产厚度为0.05—0.5mm的软质PVC薄膜和厚度为0.3—1.00mm的硬质PVC片材。当制品厚度小于或大于这个范围时，一般不用压延成型，而采用吹塑或挤出等其他方法。 压延薄膜制品主要用于、农业、工业包装、室内装饰以及各种生活用品等。压延成型具有生产能力大、可自动化连续生产、产品质量好的特点。 压延制品的生产是多工序作业，其生产流程包括供料阶段和压延阶段，是一个从原料混合、塑化、供料，到压延的完整连续生产线。供料阶段所需要的设备包括混合机、开炼机、密炼机或塑化挤出机等。压延阶段由压延机和牵引、轧花、冷却、卷曲、切割等辅助装置完成。 拉幅薄膜成型 拉幅薄膜成型是在挤出成型的基础上发展起来的一种塑料薄膜的成型方法，它是将挤出成型所得的厚度为1—3mm的厚片或管坯重新加热到材料的高弹态下进行大幅度拉伸而成薄
【摘要】及时、规范、全面的新员工入职培训是企业人力资源管理中不可忽视的一个重要环节。但有一部分企业在新员工入职培训实践中，存在培训缺乏系统性、规范性、培训内容简单及培训效果缺乏反馈和评估等误区。现代企业可通过树立以战略为导向的培训理念、加强新员工入职培训过程管理、确定针对性的新员工入职培训内容、选择灵活多样的新员工培训形式和建立完善的新员工入职培训效果反馈及评估体系等措施来提高培训的效果。 【关键词】新员工入职培训误区策略 新员工入职培训是企业为新进员工所专门设计并实施的培训，它在为企业塑造合格员工、传承企业文化、建设成功团队、赢得竞争优势等方面有着十分重要和独特的作用。新员工入职培训是一个企业录用的员工从局外人转变为企业人的过程，是员工从一个团体融入到另一个团体的过程，是员工逐渐熟悉、适应企业环境并开始初步规划职业生涯、定位自己的角色、开始发挥才能的过程。及时、规范、全面的新员工入职培训是企业人力资源管理中不可忽视的一个重要环节。日本松下电器公司的“入社教育”，联想集团的“入模子培训”，无不体现了对新员工入职培训的重视。研究新员工入职培训的误区及改进策略，有着重要的实践意义。 一、新员工入职培训中存在的误区 德隆商务咨询公司一项针对企业培训状况的调查显示在我国12个行业的百家企业中，有32%的企业根本不提供任何员工培训，有15%的企业只为员工提供最简单的入职培训。而在员工培训的满意度调查中，员工对入职培训的不满意高达67%。另据有统计表明，国内有近78%的企业没有对新进员工进行有效的培训，往往把新员工入职培训当作一个简单“行政步骤”。很多企业在新员工入职培训中存在一些误区。 1.新员工入职培训缺乏系统性和规范性 主要表现为：（1）很多企业在培训的时间安排上，随意性很大。如由于企业营业的需要，有些企业以工作忙，人手不足为借口，马上分配新招到的员工到相关部门开始工作，而不顾及对新员工的培训，只等有时间了再派新员工参加培训。这种无序的培训给培训部门带来了不必要的协调工作量，增加了培训的次数与时间成本，并且新员工没参加培训既增加了企业用人的风险性，又不利于新员工角色的迅速转换；（2）企业缺乏规范性的培训文本或讲义。为了维护企业培训水平，企业都应有自己的培训资料，对新员工入职培训必须掌握的知识、技能和态度都必须设定目标进行考核，只有这样才能使培训工作有持续性，并且能避免企业的后续培训的内容重叠和资源的浪费把新员工培训变成新员工欢迎典礼。许多企业在培训形式上，主要是领导发言、代表致辞、体检聚餐。 2.新员工入职培训内容简单 很多企业把新员工入职培训当作一个简单“行政步骤”，认为新员工培训只要了解一些企业基本情况则可，所谓的培训也就是安排一天或两天时间，在内容安排上主要是参观企业、讲解员工手册与企业的一些基本规章制度等培
塑料薄膜拉伸性能试验方法标准要求 中华人民共和国国家标准 塑料薄膜拉伸性能试验方法 Plastics-Determinationoftensileproperiesoffilms 本标准参照采用国际标准ISO1184—1983《塑料薄膜拉伸性能的测定》。 1主题内容与适用范围 本标准规定了塑料薄膜和片材的拉伸性能试验方法。 本标准适用于塑料薄膜和厚度小于1mm的片材。不适用于增强薄膜、微孔片材和膜。 2引用标准 GB2918塑料试样状态调节和试验的标准环境 GB6672塑料薄膜和薄片厚度的测量机械测量法 中华人民共和国国家标准 塑料薄膜拉伸性能试验方法 Plastics-Determinationoftensileproperiesoffilms 本标准参照采用国际标准ISO1184—1983《塑料薄膜拉伸性能的测定》。 1主题内容与适用范围 本标准规定了塑料薄膜和片材的拉伸性能试验方法。 本标准适用于塑料薄膜和厚度小于1mm的片材。不适用于增强薄膜、微孔片材和膜。 2引用标准 GB2918塑料试样状态调节和试验的标准环境 GB6672塑料薄膜和薄片厚度的测量机械测量法 4.1试样形状及尺寸
本方法规定使用四种类型的试样，Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ型为哑铃形试样。见图1～图3。Ⅳ型为长条型试样，宽度10～25mm，总长度不小于150mm，标距至少为50mm。 国家技术监督局1991-07-03批准1992-04-01实施 GB13022-91 4.2试样选择
可根据不同的产品或按已有的产品标准的规定进行选择。一般情况下，伸长率较大的试样不宜采用 太宽的试样。 4.3试样制备 4.3.1试样应沿样品宽度方向大约等间隔裁取。 4.3.2哑铃形及长条形试样均可用冲刀冲制，长条形试样也可用其他裁刀裁取。各种方法制得的试样 应符合4.1要求。试样边缘平滑无缺口。可用低倍放大镜检查缺口，舍去边缘有缺陷的试样。 4.3.3按试样尺寸要求准确打印或画出标线。此标线应对试样不产生任何影响。 4.4试样数量 试样按每个试验方向为一组，每组试样不少于5个。 5试验条件 5.1试样状态调节和试验的标准环境 按GB2918中规定的标准环境正常偏差范围进行状态调节，时间不少于4h，并在此环境下进行试验。 5.2试验速度(空载) GB13022-91 5.2.1试验速度如下： a.1±0.5mm/min; b.2±0.5mm/min或2.5±0.5mm/min; c.5±1mm/min; d.10±2mm/min; e.30±3mm/min或25±2.5mm/min;
前言 2 第一章关于岗前培训与指导 3 第二章服务工程师指导12 第三章备件专员指导15 第四章非业务岗位新员工指导17 第五章新任站长指导18 附录1 岗位规范培训四步骤20 附录2 表格汇编22 表1 技术类新员工站内培训指导时间推进表22 表2 备件新员工站内培训指导时间推进表23 表3 新任站长站内实习指导时间推进表24 表4 岗位责任书学习和交流表25 表5 岗位工作规范交流总结表26 表6 试用期重点工作目标计划书27 表7 周工作目标计划表（一）28 表8 周工作目标计划表（二）29 表9 新员工轮岗实习考核表30 表10 新员工试用期考核表31 表11 新员工试用期工作总结表32 表12 联想电脑公司试用（见习）人员转正表33 表13 新员工提前转正申请表34 表14 延迟参加新员工入职培训申请表35
企业应对员工提供必要的培训，以保证他们具备完成工作所必备的知识和技能，这是企业在员工已经进入企业后所从事的提高这些员工价值的人力资源管理活动。 员工培训分为岗前培训与在职培训，岗前培训的主要目的是让员工尽快适应企业的工作环境；而在职培训涉及培养员工应该具有何种技能，以及如何提高培训人员的执行能力，更好地实施培训。员工培训是一个系统的过程，它通过提高员工的技能水平，增强员工对企业的规则和理念的理解以及改进员工的工作态度，旨在提高员工特征和工作要求之间的配合程度。 本手册主要讲述作为联想服务站如何进行站内新员工的岗前培训指导，供站内使用、执行。
第一章关于岗前培训与指导 1.1 岗前培训与指导的意义与作用 1.2 岗前培训与指导的步骤及方法 1.3 有关联想服务中心站的站内新员工培训与指导 1.1 岗前培训与指导的意义与作用 岗前培训与指导的意义 企业新员工岗前培训是使新员工熟悉企业、适应环境和形势的过程。新员工进入企业会面临“文化冲击”，有效的岗前培训可以减少这种冲击的负面影响。新员工在企业中最初阶段的经历对其职业生活具有极其重要的影响。新员工处于企业的边界上，他们不再是局外人，但是也没有有机地融入企业，因此会感到很大的心理压力。他们希望尽快地被企业接纳，结果，这一时期员工比以后的任何时期都容易接受来自企业环境的各种暗示。这些暗示的来源包括企业的正式文件、上级所作的示范、上级的正式指示、同事所作的示范、自己的努力所带来的奖惩、自己的问题所得到的回答和任务的挑战程度等。员工在组织的第一年是一个关键的时期。在这一阶段，员工尽力使自己与企业的要求相适应，这可以产生积极的工作态度和高的工作标准。 新员工刚刚进入一个企业时，他最关心的是学会如何去做自己的工作，以及与自己的角色相应的行为方式。一般来说，他们更愿意通过自己的观察和亲自的尝试来适应新的环境，而不大愿意通过询问上级和同事，或者阅读公司的政策手册来了解所需要的信息。因此，有效的岗前教育是一项技巧性很强的工作。 岗前培训与指导的作用 岗前培训是员工在企业中发展自己职业生涯的起点。岗前培训意味着员工必须放弃某些理念、价值观念和行为方式，要适应新企业的要求和目标，学习新的工作准则和有效的工作行为。公司在这一阶段的工作要帮助新员工建立与同事和工作团队的关系，建立符合实际的期望和积极的态度。员工岗前培训的目的是消除员工新进公司产生的焦虑，而新员工辅导有助于消除这些焦虑。具体而言，岗前培训的作用有以下几个方面： 第一，岗前培训是新员工进入团队过程的需要。新的环境给员工一种不确定感。一个
联想电脑公司 人力资源部文件 文件编号：QB/LX·RS· A0148-98发文日期： 1998/9/23第 1页，共8页 收文部门：公司各部 收文者：全体员工抄送：／／ 拟制：赵松林审核：王建中审批：牛红 关键字：新员工培训制度是否受控 :是□否□ 文件类别：管理规定、价格政策、请示报告、会议通知、备忘录、总结报告、会议纪要、问题处理、通报、技术报告、协议、文件转发、一般通知、其他 是否保密：是□ 1. 绝密 2.机密 3.秘密否□保密期限：/ 保密文件的销毁方式： 1.到期后由发文部门收回统一销毁 2.到期后由收文部门自行销毁 新员工培训制度（修订） 1．目的：为使电脑公司的新员工尽早了解联想的历史和文化、树立联想人的自豪感和自信心，并尽快熟悉工作环境、掌握必要的工作手段和技能，明确工作的规范和要求,以便 顺利地投入到工作之中去，根据《联想电脑公司培训工作管理章程》的有关条款， 特制定本制度。 2．适用范围：所有试用期的新员工，包括社会在职人员、应届毕业生以 及由集团其它部门转入的员工。 3．所有试用人员必须参加“新员工培训”（从集团其他部门转入的人员可免予参加集团培训）。 凡不参加“新员工培训”的，从社会招聘的在职人员不予转正，应届毕业生和从集团其他部门转入的人员不予定级。 4．新员工培训组成部分 4．1 电脑公司入职培训 4．2 集团公司新员工培训 4．3 电脑公司内部轮岗实习 5．培训内容 5．1电脑公司入职培训 1
5．1．1电脑公司宗旨、成长历程、经营业绩与未来发展目标 5．1．2电脑公司组织结构及各部宗旨与职责 5．1．3电脑公司主要规章制度（考勤、考核、工薪、财务、岗位 责任体系等） 5．1．4电脑公司的研发、制造现场参观 5．1．5客户意识与合作精神、团队建设 5．1．6通用岗位技能（基本礼仪、内部信息网、讲演等）5．2 集团新员工培训 5．2．1联想简介与历史 5．2．2联想企业文化 5．2．3规章制度等 5．2．4演讲技巧与团队精神 5．3 电脑公司轮岗实习 主要是针对本岗位工作的实际需要，选择与本岗位有业务关系的两 个岗位或两个处（分属两个部门），具体内容包括： 5．3．1实习部门工作和业务的基本情况和有关政策、制度 5．3．2实习岗位的具体工作流程和规范，明确相关接口人 5．3．3具体参与实习岗位工作过程，体会联想做事的方式和氛围6．培训时间安排 6．1 新员工培训每月安排一期，具体安排如下： 6．1．1每月整周第一周的周二至周五为电脑公司新员工入职培训； 6．1．2第一周的周日至第二周的周四为集团公司新员工培训，周 五新员工返回本部门接受其岗位指导人对其轮岗实习安排； 6．1．3第三周至第四周为新员工轮岗实习。 6．2 新员工试用一周（外地新员工须试用三周）后即参加最近一期的培训。 7．培训的组织、教学与指导 7．1 电脑公司入职培训 7．1．1公司人力资源部培训处负责整体策划、组织实施。 7．1．2每期培训须有一位总经理室成员给学员讲话，每位总经理 2
第一部分软包装材料之---塑料薄膜基本知识 一、软包装之薄膜的定义 在国家包装通用术语（GB4122—83）中，软包装的定义为：软包装是指在充填或取出内装物后，容器形状可发生变化的包装。用纸、铝箔、纤维、塑料薄膜以及它们的复合物所制成的各种袋、盒、套、包封等均为软包装。一般将厚度在0.25mm以下的片状塑料称为薄膜。塑料薄膜透明、柔韧，具有良好的耐水性、防潮性和阻气性、机械强度较好，化学性质稳定，耐油脂，易于印刷精美图文，可以热封制袋。它能满足各种物品的包装要求，是用于包装易存、易放的方便食品，生活用品，超级市场的小包装商品的理想材料。以塑料薄膜为主的软包装印刷在包装印刷中占有重要地位。据统计，从1980年以来，世界上一些先进国家的塑料包装占整个包装印刷的32.5%～44%。 一般来说，因为单一薄膜材料对内装物的保护性不够理想，所以多采用将两种以上的薄膜复合为一层的复合薄膜，以满足食品保鲜、无菌包装技术的要求。复合薄膜的外层材料多选用不易划伤、磨毛，光学性能优良，印刷性能良好的材科，如：纸、玻璃纸、拉伸聚丙烯、聚酯等；中间层是阻隔性聚合物，如：铝箔、蒸镀铝、聚俯二氮乙烯电里层材料多选用无毒、无味的聚乙烯等热塑性树脂。 二、塑料阻透性技术介绍 1、塑料的阻透性？ 塑料制品（容器、薄膜）对小分子气体、液体、水蒸汽及气味的屏蔽能力。 2、透过系数？ 塑料阻透能力大小的指标。 定义： 一定厚度（1mm）的塑料制品，在一定的压力（1Mpa），一定的温度（23度），一定的湿度（65%）下，单位时间（1day=24小时），单位面积（1m2），通过小分子物质（O2、CO2、H2O）的体积或重量。表示为（cm3）、（g） 对于气体： 单位为cm3，mm/m2，d，mpa； 对于液体： 单位为 g，mm/m2，d，mpa； 3、常用中高阻透性塑料的透过系数
联想电脑公司人力资源部文件 文件编号：QB/LX·RS·A0148-98 发文日期：1998/9/23 第 1 页，共8 页 收文部门：公司各部 收文者：全体员工抄送：／／ 拟制：赵松林审核：王建中审批：牛红 关键字：新员工培训制度是否受控:是□否□ 文件类别：管理规定、价格政策、请示报告、会议通知、备忘录、总结报告、会议纪要、问题处理、通报、技术报告、协议、文件转发、一般通知、其他 是否保密：是□ 1.绝密 2.机密 3.秘密否□保密期限：/ 保密文件的销毁方式： 1.到期后由发文部门收回统一销毁 2.到期后由收文部门自行销毁 新员工培训制度（修订） 1．目的：为使电脑公司的新员工尽早了解联想的历史和文化、树立联想人的自豪感和自信心，并尽快熟悉工作环境、掌握必要的工作手段 和技能，明确工作的规范和要求,以便顺利地投入到工作之中去， 根据《联想电脑公司培训工作管理章程》的有关条款，特制定本 制度。 2．适用范围：所有试用期的新员工，包括社会在职人员、应届毕业生以 及由集团其它部门转入的员工。 3．所有试用人员必须参加“新员工培训”（从集团其他部门转入的人员可免予参加集团培训）。凡不参加“新员工培训”的，从社会招聘的在职人员不予转正，应届毕业生和从集团其他部门转入的人员不予定级。 4．新员工培训组成部分 4．1电脑公司入职培训
4．2集团公司新员工培训 4．3电脑公司内部轮岗实习 5．培训内容 5．1电脑公司入职培训 5．1．1电脑公司宗旨、成长历程、经营业绩与未来发展目标 5．1．2电脑公司组织结构及各部宗旨与职责 5．1．3电脑公司主要规章制度（考勤、考核、工薪、财务、岗位 责任体系等） 5．1．4电脑公司的研发、制造现场参观 5．1．5客户意识与合作精神、团队建设 5．1．6通用岗位技能（基本礼仪、内部信息网、讲演等）5．2集团新员工培训 5．2．1联想简介与历史 5．2．2联想企业文化 5．2．3规章制度等 5．2．4演讲技巧与团队精神 5．3电脑公司轮岗实习 主要是针对本岗位工作的实际需要，选择与本岗位有业务关系的两 个岗位或两个处（分属两个部门），具体内容包括： 5．3．1实习部门工作和业务的基本情况和有关政策、制度 5．3．2实习岗位的具体工作流程和规范，明确相关接口人 5．3．3具体参与实习岗位工作过程，体会联想做事的方式和氛围
塑料薄膜基本常识 第一部分软包装材料之---塑料薄膜基本知识 一、软包装之薄膜的定义 在国家包装通用术语（GB4122—83）中，软包装的定义为：软包装是指在充填或取出内装物后，容器形状可发生变化的包装。用纸、铝箔、纤维、塑料薄膜以及它们的复合物所制成的各种袋、盒、套、包封等均为软包装。 一般将厚度在0.25mm以下的片状塑料称为薄膜。塑料薄膜透明、柔韧，具有良好的耐水性、防潮性和阻气性、机械强度较好，化学性质稳定，耐油脂，易于印刷精美图文，可以热封制袋。它能满足各种物品的包装要求，是用于包装易存、易放的方便食品，生活用品，超级市场的小包装商品的理想材料。以塑料薄膜为主的软包装印刷在包装印刷中占有重要地位。据统计，从1980年以来，世界上一些先进国家的塑料包装占整个包装印刷的32.5%～44%。 一般来说，因为单一薄膜材料对内装物的保护性不够理想，所以多采用将两种以上的薄膜复合为一层的复合薄膜，以满足食品保鲜、无菌包装技术的要求。复合薄膜的外层材料多选用不易划伤、磨毛，光学性能优良，印刷性能良好的材科，如：纸、玻璃纸、拉伸聚丙烯、聚酯等；中间层是阻隔性聚合物，如：铝箔、蒸镀铝、聚俯二氮乙烯电里层材料多选用无毒、无味的聚乙烯等热塑性树脂。
二、塑料阻透性技术介绍 1、塑料的阻透性？ 塑料制品（容器、薄膜）对小分子气体、液体、水蒸汽及气味的屏蔽能力。 2、透过系数？ 塑料阻透能力大小的指标。 定义： 一定厚度（1mm）的塑料制品，在一定的压力（1Mpa），一定的温度（23度），一定的湿度（65%）下，单位时间（1day=24小时），单位面积（1m2），通过小分子物质（O2、CO2、H2O）的体积或重量。表示为（cm3）、（g） 对于气体： 单位为cm3，mm/m2，d，mpa； 对于液体：
目录 前言 (2) 第一课LTL网络培训手册 (3) 第二课关于计算机运用的其他问题 (10) 第三课商务流程 (13) 第四课LTL 财务知识 (18) 第五课时间管理概览 (19) 附：《联想之歌》
前言 为了完善集团公司的新员工“入模子”培训工作，巩固培训成果；也为了迅速使新员工转变观念、统一意志，认同LTL的经营理念和价值观以及掌握LTL的基本知识、方法和技能等内容，提升自己的角色转变意识和实际岗位工作能力，为今后的进一步提高创造条件，我们开展了这项新员工培训工作。 为便于培训工作的开展，经过我们的努力，编写了这套教材，以利于我们共同学习和提高。在此，我们对给予我们工作大力支持的调研部、秘书室、经营计划部、综合部以及部分事业部的同仁表示感谢，并对集团人力资源部和联想电脑公司人力资源部同仁的大力支持，致以诚挚的谢意。 由于我们水平有限和时间仓促，教材中的不妥之处在所难免，还望各位同仁不吝赐教，以便于把我们的工作做得更好。
他山之石…… 本章我们来学习一些较实用的技能方法，希望能给你带来一些便利，包括：LTL 网络的基本知识和操作、财务知识、时间管理等；另外，我们将不断丰富此篇内容，让更 多的联想同仁来分享。 第一课 LTL 网络培训手册 适用于LTL 网络用户 经营计划部 主编 一． 前 言 1. 此次培训的内容 讲解网络的基本知识。 讲解内部主页的内容。 收发Email 的方法和使用技巧。 掌握浏览Internet 的方法。 出差时怎样上网。 2．联想集团网络和LTL 网络的概况 二． 登录NT 域 目前我们LTL 的网络供大家登录的有三个域。分别为LTL 域、LTL_SW 域和RAS 域。 域，用通俗的话来说，就是由一台服务器（域控制器）管理的用户群的集合。如果想登 局域网 终端 终端 终端 终端 终端 终端 服 务 器 服 务 器 网 络 传 输 设 备 集团IT 部 POP3、 SMTP 服务器 代理 服务器 Proxy Server 防 火 墙 Internet 学习 提示
几种常见的薄膜 1、双向拉伸聚丙烯薄膜（BOPP） 双向拉伸聚丙烯薄膜是由聚丙烯颗粒经共挤形成片材后，再经纵横两个方向的拉伸而制得的。由于拉伸分子定向，所以这种薄膜的物理稳定性、机械强度、气密性较好，透明度和光泽度较高，坚韧耐磨，是目前应用最广泛的印刷薄膜，一般使用厚度为20~40 μ m ，应用最广泛的为20 μm 。双向拉伸聚丙烯薄膜主要缺点是热封性差，所以一般用做复合薄膜的外层薄膜，如与聚乙烯薄膜复合后防潮性、透明性、强度、挺度和印刷性均较理想，适用于盛装干燥食品。由于双向拉伸聚丙烯薄膜的表面为非极性，结晶度高，表面自由能低，因此，其印刷性能较差，对油墨和胶黏剂的附着力差，在印刷和复合前需要进行表面处理。 2、低密度聚乙烯薄膜（LDPE） 低密度聚乙烯薄膜一般采用吹塑和流延两种工艺制成。流延聚乙烯薄膜的厚度均匀，但由于价格较高，目前很少使用。吹塑聚乙烯薄膜是由吹塑级PE颗粒经吹塑机吹制而成的，成本较低，所以应用最为广泛。低密度聚乙烯薄膜是一种半透明、有光泽、质地较柔软的薄膜，具有优良的化学稳定性、热封性、耐水性和防潮性，耐冷冻，可水煮。其主要缺点是对氧气的阻隔性较差，常用于复合软包装材料的内层薄膜，而且也是目前应用最广泛、用量最大的一种塑料包装薄膜，约占塑料包装薄膜耗用量的40%以上。 由于聚乙烯分子中不含极性基团，且结晶度高，表面自由能低，因此，该薄膜的印刷性能较差，对油墨和胶黏剂的附着力差，所以在印刷和复合前需要进行表面处理。 3、聚酯薄膜（PET） 聚酯薄膜是以聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇酯为原料，采用挤出法制成厚片，再经双向拉伸制成的薄膜材料。它是一种无色透明、有光泽的薄膜，机械性能优良，刚性、硬度及韧性高，耐穿刺，耐摩擦，耐高温和低温，耐化学药品性、耐油性、气密性和保香性良好，是常用的阻透性复合薄膜基材之一。但聚酯薄膜的价格较高，一般厚度为12mm，常用做蒸煮包装的外层材料，印刷性较好。 4、尼龙薄膜（PA） 尼龙薄膜是一种非常坚韧的薄膜，透明性好，并具有良好的光泽，抗张强度、拉伸强度较高，还具有较好的耐热性、耐寒性、耐油性和耐有机溶剂性，耐磨性、耐穿刺性优良，且比较柔软，阻氧性优良，但对水蒸气的阻隔性较差，吸潮、透湿性较大，热封性较差，适于包装硬性物品，例如油腻性食品、肉制品、油炸食品、真空包装食品、蒸煮食品等。 5、流延聚丙烯薄膜（CPP） 流延聚丙烯薄膜是采用流延工艺生产的聚丙烯薄膜，又可分为普通CPP和蒸煮级CPP两种，透明度极好，厚度均匀，且纵横向的性能均匀，一般用做复合薄膜的内层材料。普通CPP 薄膜的厚度一般在25~50μm 之间，与OPP复合后透明度较好，表面光亮，手感坚挺，一般的礼品包装袋都采用此种材料。这种薄膜还具有良好的热封性。蒸煮级CPP 薄膜的厚度一般在60~80 μm 之
方案编号：YT-FS-4092-78 新员工的万能培训方案 (完整版) Develop Detailed Rules Based On Expected Needs And Issues. And Make A Written Plan For The Links To Be Carried Out T o Ensure The Smooth Implementation Of The Scheme. 深思远虑目营心匠 Think Far And See, Work Hard At Heart
新员工的万能培训方案(完整版) 备注：该方案书文本主要根据预期的需求和问题为中心，制定具体实施细则，步骤。并对将要进行的环节进行书面的计划，以对每个步骤详细分析，确保方案的顺利执行。文档可根据实际情况进行修改和使用。 在新员工到单位报到后，必须进行入厂、入校或 入公司教育，称这种教育为"引导"，即对新员工的工 作和组织情况作正式的介绍，让他们了解熟悉单位的 历史、现状、未来发展计划，他们的工作、工作单位 以及整个组织的环境、单位的规章制度、工作的岗位 职责、工作操作程序、单位的组织文化、绩效评估制 度和奖惩制度，并让他们认识将一起工作的同事等等。 此外。培训还要建立传帮带的师徒制度，使新职工更 快地熟悉环境，了解工作操作过程和技术，让他们知 道，如果碰到困难和问题，应该通过什么渠道来解决。 没有任何社会经历，就像一张白纸一样，踏上人 生旅途的新员工，对他们影响最大的是刚参加工作时 遇到的领导及老员工。对新员工的培养方式决定着新
员工的人生态度和生活目标，疏忽不得。 一、踏上工作岗位前的集中训练新来的员工，一般要经过领导人讲话、学习有关本公司知识、实习、集训等集中教育，然后再正式分配到各个部门。这种集中式的训练一般由人事部门组织，短则一个月，长则半年，也有将近一年的。这种训练的目的是要解决一些共同的问题，让新员工尽快熟悉和了解公司的基本情况。可采用通信教育或内部刊物发行的方式来实现。 训练内容应包括三大板块： 1.帮助新员工了解公司，培养员工的认同感。其作法可考虑讲述公司发展史。 主要负责人介绍、有关产品的生产销售状况、经营方针与发展目标等等。 2.在上述活动的基础上，要求新员工确定自己的工作态度和人生目标，同时为之提供有关交际、员工常识之类的小册子，帮助其尽快完成角色转换。 3.请新员工讲述对公司的感想，了解新员工在想