Immunosorbent assay (ELISA) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Immunosorbent assay (ELISA) - Essay Example A comprehensive understanding of how an ELISA works would require the determination of what antibodies are and how they work. The basic definition of an antibody is that it is a protein produced by the immune structure in reaction to the foreign molecules in an organism’s body. Under circumstances that require the attainment of indirect semi-quantitative results, multiwall polystyrene wells are the most commonly used solid surface. ELISA, being quick and easy to undertake, is preferable given that its makeup also enables it to tackle voluminous samples consecutively during research and diagnostic targets. As a result, ELISA is considered the best choice when evaluating research and diagnostic targets (Killian et al., 2013). The process of performing ELISA depends on the relations between an epitope; it may be a small linear or a three-dimensional succession of amino acids established on an antigen and a corresponding antibody-binding site. This experiment aimed at determining how the concentration of antibodies in the body would be affected by the use of ELISA under indirect semi-quantitative and anti-human albumin antibody. This is because of the wide utilization or applications to which the enzyme can be put such as in the analytical implements in biomedical research to detect and quantify specific antibodies and antigens in a sample. In this experiment, the antibodies employed were either monoclonal or polyclonal (Rosie, 2013). When performing any ELISA test, there are four formats of performing the laboratory tests: direct ELISA, indirect ELISA, sandwich/capture ELISA, and competitive or inhibitor ELISA. These allows the experiment’s elasticity to fit basing on antibodies available, the needed results and complications of the essential results (Rodland, 2005.p.145-148). In this experiment, the variation employed is the indirect ELISA, which employs the human albumin ELISA test. Given that ELISA test utilizes the rudimental concept

Drainage Facility Design for Car Park Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Drainage Facility Design for Car Park - Essay Example A proper drainage facility should be designed to avoid any water logging situation in the park. The runoff from the car park will depend on the rainfall. Rainfall at a point varies significantly with change in season and occurance. Hence, it is utmost important to have sufficient information on the maximum rainfall in the area. By knowing the amount of water coming into the catchment of car park will determine the quantity of water flowing out from it. The water flowing out of the car park will also depend on the type of parking surface, water traps in the parking area and time of concentration. This will greatly influence the water flowing out to the sewers. The water coming into the parking area could be determined by use of various hydrological modelling and it is also possible to develop different scenarios of the same. World is facing serious problems due to changing climate scenario. This change is due to unplanned use of resources and pollution caused due to the same. Changing carbon concentration in atmosphere has affected the climate system. This has also resulted in ever increasing natural disasters throughout the world in the form of earthquakes, cyclones, flood, drought, tsunami etc. The frequency of less probable extreme events has increased and the world is facing serious problems to meet MDG. ... The frequency of less probable extreme events has increased and the world is facing serious problems to meet MDG. With globalization and technological advancement people are looking for coping mechanism to live with the shrinking resource base. A major impact of this climate change has been on the rainfall pattern. The frequency, intensity and duration of the rainfall in many parts of the world have changed significantly in the recent past. Flash floods, acid rains and high intensity rainfall is a unique feature. Surface hydrology depends largely on the precipitation pattern, it is important to estimate forecast to reduce damage. Water harvesting is an effective way to conserve water resources. Runoff from the parking area could be used in many ways. Normally, there is provision to collect this water and divert it into sewer for safe disposal. This water could also be used for storage and recharge purposes in the areas with less rainfall availability. Recharging of the aquifer by use of this water is a good idea. The major task while planning for these systems is to calculate the maximum rainfall for the region. Various methods are used in estimating the probable maximum rainfall for an area. 1. Construction and the use of IDF curves: Intensity-duration-frequency curves are used in determining the intensity of rainfall. It is commonly used to calculate the value of (I) in rational method. These curves are the graphical representation of the probability of occurance of a rainfall of average intensity. The rational method illustrates a proper application of IDF curve. IDF curves should not be used to obtain storm runoff volumes. The Intensity-Duration-Frequency curve is

The Great Depression Essay Example for Free

The Great Depression Essay In a Bull Market, the stock market experiences a general rise in prices and stock trading volume for shares over a period of time. While in a Bear Market, the Stock market experiences a general decline in prices of stock. Not all stocks experience a decline in value, but most do. 2) Stock Market Crash- (1929) Plunge in stock market prices that marked the beginning of the Great Depression. 3) New Deal- the historic period (1933-1940) in the U. S. during which President Franklin Roosevelts economic policies were implemented. Three components of the New Deal. The first R was the effort to help the one-third of the population that was hardest hit by the depression, ; included social security and unemployment insurance. The second R was the effort in numerous programs to restore the economy to normal health, achieved by 1937. Finally, the third R let government intervention stabilize the economy by balancing the interests of farmers, business and labor. There was no major anti-trust program. 4) 100 Days- FDR began sending bill after bill to Congress. Between March 9 and June 16, 1933 which came to be called the HUNDRED DAYS. Congress passed 15 major acts to meet the economic crisis setting a pace for new legislation that has never been equaled. Later became known as 1st New Deal. 5) Bank Holiday- closing of banks for four days during the Great Depression, March 6-10. Roosevelt declared this holiday to prelude opening banks on a sounder basis. 6) Dust Bowl- Late in 1933 a prolonged drought struck the states of the trans-Mississippi Great Plains. The resulting dust storms were caused by drought, wind, and dry-farming techniques and mechanization. Tens of thousands of refugees fled their ruined acres. ) Brain Trust- Group of expert policy advisers who worked with FDR in the 1930s to end the great depression. 8) Social Security- guaranteed retirement payments for enrolled workers beginning at age 65; set up federal-state system of unemployment insurance and care for dependent mothers and children, the handicapped, and public health 9) Court Packing- Roosevelts proposal in 1937 to reform the Supreme Court by appointing an additional justice for every justice over age 70; following the Courts actions in striking down major New Deal laws, FDR came to believe that some justices were out of touch with the nations needs. Congress believed Roosevelts proposal endangered the Courts independence and said no. 10) NRA/ â€Å"Blue Eagle†- The National Recovery Administration was designed to assist industry, labor, and the unemployed. Labor, under the NRA, was granted additional benefits. Workers were guaranteed the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. A blue eagle was described as the symbol of the NRA. 11) SEC- In 1934, Congress took further steps to protect the public against fraud, deception, and inside manipulations. It authorized the Securities and Exchange Commission, which was designed as a watchdog administrative agency. 12) WPA- New Deal program that provided relief to the unemployed in fields such as theater, literature, entertainment, and art. One of the largest alphabet agencies. 13) Herbert Hoover- President of the United States from 1929 to 1933. Republican candidate who assumed the presidency in March 1929 promising the American people prosperity and attempted to first deal with the Depression by trying to restore public faith in the community. 4) Franklin Roosevelt- He was president from 1933-1945 and was elected four times, he led the countrys recovery from the Depression and to victory in World War II. He died in office, however, just weeks before Germanys surrender. He is generally considered the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln. 15) Eleanor Roosevelt- FDRs Wife and New Deal supporter. She was a great supporter of civil rights and opposed the Jim Crow laws. She also worked for birth control and better conditions for working women. 16) Huey Long- Senator of Louisiana, who was said to have more brass than a government mule. He used his abundant rabble-rousing talents to publicize his â€Å"Share Our Wealth† program, which promised to make â€Å"Every Man a King. Every family was to receive $5000, supposedly at the expense of the prosperous. Fear of Long’s becoming a fascist dictator ended when he was shot by an assassin in the Louisiana state capitol in 1935. 17) Isolationism- Abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations. American foreign policy. It’s what America strives to do in order to keep out of European problems and wars. 8) Appeasement- Policy pursued by the Western democracies towards Nazi Germany, consenting to concessions in which Hitlers demands to annex the German-inhabited Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia were acquiesced to in hopes of achieving peace in our time; although Hitler promised the Sudetenland would be his last territorial claim, he broke this vow only a few months later. 19) Fascism vs. Communism- Fascism is a political s ystem headed by a dictator that calls for extreme nationalism and racism and no tolerance of opposition. Communism is a political system characterized by a centrally planned economy with all economic and political power resting in the hands of the central government. 20) Blitzkrieg- Tactics used by Germany in invasion of Poland in 1939. Also called lightning war. Involved a surprise attack, and then overwhelming with force! 21) Pearl Harbor- was the site of an unexpected attack on an American naval fleet by Japanese bombers on December 7, 1941. The United States suffered 3,000 casualties and the loss of several naval and aircrafts. And Congress declared war on Japan the following day, and Italy and France soon after. 2) Midway- (battle) It was a U. S. naval victory over the Japanese fleet in June 1942, in which the Japanese lost four of their best aircraft carriers. It marked a turning point in World War II. 23) D-Day- June 6, 1944 Led by Eisenhower, over a million troops (the largest invasion force in history) stormed the beaches at Normandy and began the process of re-taking France. It was the turning point of World War II. 24) Japanese Internment- Carried out through Executive Order 9066, which took many Japanese families away from their homes and into internment camp. Motivated (somewhat) by racism and fear of spies. 5) Hiroshima/Nagasaki- The first dropped on August 6, 1945 and the second dropped on August 9, 1945. These two events are the only active deployments of nuclear weapons in war to date. For six months, the United States had made use of intense strategic fire-bombing of 67 Japanese cities. US clued for surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, 1945. The Japanese government ignored this ultimatum. By executive order of President Harry S. Truman, the U. S. dropped the nuclear weapon Little Boy on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed by the detonation of Fat Man over Nagasaki on August 9. 6) Occupation of Japan- Occupied by American army under MacArthur, he carried out his program for the democratization of japan with stunning success. Top Japanese war criminals were tried in Tokyo . The Japanese cooperated to astonishing degree when they saw that good behavior and the adoption of democracy would speed the end of the occupation. a MacArthur-dictated constitution renounced militarism and introduced western-style democratic government paving the way for a phenomenal economic recovery that within a few decades made japan one of worlds mightiest industrial powers. Occupation of Germany- Four zones France in the southwest, Russia in the east, us in the south, and UK in the northeast. Likewise, berlin was split into east and west. This maintained that Germany would be nonaggressive while rebuilding and under allied and Russian control. 28) Douglas MacArthur- (1880-1964), U. S. general. Commander of U. S. (later Allied) forces in the southwestern Pacific during World War II, he accepted Japans surrender in 1945 and administered the ensuing Allied occupation. He was in charge of UN forces in Korea 1950-51, before being forced to relinquish command by President Truman. 29) Dwight D. Eisenhower- Supreme Commander of the US Forces in Europe during World War II; became president and during his two terms presided over the economically prosperous 1950s. He was praised for his dignity and decency, though criticized for not being more assertive on civil rights 30) Admiral Yamamoto- Japanese admiral who planned Pearl Harbor Attack. Japan stealthily came in from the North.

Community Safety Initiatives | Evaluation

Community Safety Initiatives | Evaluation INTRODUCTION Purpose of this paper is to discuss the main problems confronting those who must evaluate community safety initiatives. In order to do this, the paper first provides an overview of the problem. This is followed by an analysis of support and initiative by governments, technical difficulties, access to data, political pressure, and utilisation. COMMUNITY SAFETY EVALUATION The initial challenge facing every community safety initiative is to meet crime reduction targets whilst also implementing preventative measures to ensure long-term reductions in crime and disorder. Arguably, high quality evaluation can play a role in this as it can help better understand what works and how it works (Morton 2006). According to AG (2007), evaluation is concerned with making value-based judgments about a program. Mallock and Braithwaite (2005:4) define evaluation as â€Å"the systematic examination of a policy, program or project aimed at assessing its merit, value, worth, relevance or contribution†. Any evidence of the benefits and impact of initiatives will help to influence local partners in commissioning decisions. However, according to Morton (2006), some evaluators have been more able to undertake evaluations than others. As Read and Tilley (2000) claim, evaluation stage continues to be a major weakness of a community safety program. Proper evaluations of community safety initiatives are rare (Community Safety Centre 2000). According to Rhodes (2007), a range of policies and programs has been established with the aim of achieving greater community participation and involvement leading to increased community capacity. However there has been little evaluation of this approach or the specific programs. Read and Tilley (2000) also claim that there is relatively little systematic evaluation and a shortage of good evaluations. Moreover, what is available is generally weak. According to AG (2007), the reasons for the lack of evaluation of community safety programs have not been studied extensively, but social, political and financial considerations are likely to have a strong influence. Evaluation studies consume resources, and therefore are competing for the limited resources available and must be justified by the value of the information which they provide. There are also several other relevant factors including the limited knowledge and experience of evaluation theory and practice of many program managers and organisers. In addition, evaluation evidence is often seen as bad news since program objectives tend to be over-optimistic and hence are rarely fully met; a situation that evaluation might expose. LACK OF SUPPORT AND INITIATIVE According to Community Safety Centre (2000), little time and resources are available for conducting evaluation. When evaluation does occur, the size does matter. It can depend on how large the partnership is as to the resources that they have available for evaluation (Cherney and Sutton 2004). Often in small partnerships no money is put aside for evaluation. Since majority of serious evaluations are going to be expensive, this can particularly be a problem for small projects where a good evaluation may take up a relatively large proportion of the project budget. Thus, very often people will argue that this is an unnecessary cost. Furthermore, practitioners very often feel that they can themselves quiet easily tell whether or not something has been a success. Community Safety Centre (2000) concludes that recommendations that something works, by people who were involved in implementing the initiative, are often based on relatively weak evaluation evidence commonly relying on more gener al impressions that are usually not objective enough. In Australia, for example, neither central nor regional government has so far encouraged evaluators to undertake their own evaluation (Cherney and Sutton 2004). Community Safety Centre (2000) and Morton (2006) also claim that there is a lack of commitment from central government and local agencies, arguing that the problem lies in attracting and maintaining involvement of people and agencies that really are not interested in crime prevention or community safety. According to Morton (2006), evaluators have only been required to produce quarterly reports with milestones for the future and not to undertake a real reflection on a project, including writing a review on the project and analysing available data. All evaluators have to do is monitor whether money is being spent on outputs. Read and Tilley (2000) argue that there is little attention paid to how initiatives may have had their effects. There is not enough investment or requirement for evaluation. According to Varone, Jacob and De Winter (2005), policy evaluation is an underdeveloped tool of Belgian public governance. They claim that it is partitocracy, weakness of Parliament vis-à  -vis the government, and the federalisation process that is characteristic of the recent institutional evolution of the country, that jeopardise the development of a mature evaluation culture. TECHNICAL DIFFUCULTIES Evaluators might find barriers at each of the evaluation steps, including problem formulation, design of instruments, research deign, data collection, data analysis, findings and conclusions and utilisation (Hagan 2000). In respect to problem formulation, evaluation researchers are often in a hurry to get on with the task without thoroughly grounding the evaluation in the major theoretical issues in the field. Glaser and Zeigler (1974) claim that much of what is regarded as in-house evaluations has been co opted and is little more than head counting or the production of tables for annual reports. Further problem is the absence of standardised definitions. The confusion over definitions has not only impeded communication among researchers and, more importantly, between researchers and practitioners, but also has hindered comparisons and replications of research studies. Furthermore, although evaluators would prefer control over treatment and a classic experimental design, with random assignment of cases to experimental and control groups, this seldom happens. In many instances it is very difficult to find organisations that would be willing to undergo experimentation, particularly if it involves the denial of certain treatments (control group) to some clients. The program planners and staff may resists randomisation as means of allocations treatments, arguing for assignment based on need or merit. The design may not be correctly carried out, resulting in nonequivalent experimental and control groups. The design may break down as some people refuse to participate or drop out of different treatment groups (experimental mortality). Some feel that randomised designs create focused inequality because some groups receive treatment others desire and thus can cause reactions that could be confused with treatments. Much of the bemoaning concerning the inadequacy of research design in evaluation methodology has arisen because of an over-commitment to experimental designs, and a deficient appreciation of the utility of post hoc controls by means of multivariety statistical techniques. It may be that more rapid progress can be made in the evolution of preventive programs if research designs are based on statistical rather than experimental model. One major difficulty in evaluation research is in procuring adequate control groups. In respect to data collection, one principal shortcoming of much evaluation research has been its over reliance on questionnaires as the primary means of data gathering. Program supporters will jump on methodological or procedural problems in any evaluation that comes to a negative conclusion. Hagan (2000) also lists other obstacles to evaluation, including unsound and poorly done data analysis, unethical evaluations, naive and unprepared evaluation staff, and poor relationships between evaluation and program staff. Community Safety Centre (2000) argues that, unlike experimental researchers, evaluators often have difficulty comparing their experimental groups with a control group. Although evaluators might attempt to find a similar group to compare with, it is usually impossible to apply the ideal experimental rigor of randomly allocating individuals to an experimental condition and a control condition. According to AG (2007), those responsible for commissioning or conducting evaluation studies also need to take account of the local social, cultural and political context if the evaluations are to produce evidence that is not only useful, but used. According to Morton (2006), some evaluators have stressed their incompetence, claming that they do not know how to undertake evaluation. Schuller (2004) has referred to the lack of accuracy in their predictions, partly due to a lack of post-auditing information. She further argues that evaluators apply a narrow scope that stresses well-established knowledge of local impacts, whilst underplaying wider geographical, systematic, or time factors. Evaluation research can be a complex and difficult task (Community Safety Centre 2000). Evaluators are often described by a lack of control over, and even knowledge of, wide range of factors which may or may not impact on the performance indicators. While evaluating a single crime prevention initiative may be difficult enough, evaluating a full community safety project may be many times more complicated. The intervention package often impacts beyond the target area and this impact needs to be anticipated. As an additional complication, evaluation research can itself have an impact on the outcome of an initiative. A secondary role of the audit process is to raise awareness and build support for the initiative in the affected community. ACCESS TO DATA A commonly reported problem with evaluation has been access to relevant data (Morton 2006). Morton (2006) claims that it is often hard to get good baseline data against which to evaluate a project, mainly because procedures and resources for appropriate multi-agency data collection and mapping are not in place. Often the relevant data is not recorded or collated across services and analysed together to give a complete picture of the problem. Furthermore, partnerships often lack appropriate analytical skills to use quantitative data (Morton 2006). According to Hagan (2000), if proper data for evaluation are absent and clear outcomes or criteria of organisational success are absent, then a proper evaluation cannot be undertaken. The success of the entire evaluation process hinges on the motivation of the administrator and organisation in calling for an evaluation in the first place. It should be possible to locate specific organisational objectives that are measurable. The key assumptions of the program must be stated in a form which can be tested objectively. However, this often does not happen in practice. POLITICAL PRESSURE Political pressure can present another problem for evaluators. Administrators often want to spend all the funding available on implementation as opposed to evaluation (Morton 2006). Thus, being aware of the political context of a program is a precondition for useable evaluation research (AG 2007). Evaluation research requires the active support and cooperation of the agency or program to be evaluated (Hagan 2000). However, the program administrator’s desire to reaffirm his or her position with favorable program evaluations may conflict with the evaluator’s desire to acquire an objective appraisal of a program’s impact. The end result may be either a research design with low scientific credibility and tainted results, or a credible study that never receives a public hearing because the administrator does not like the results. According to Read and Tilley (2000), few evaluations are independent and evidence is used selectively. There is undue satisfaction with redu ction as an indicator that the initiative was effective without attention to alternative explanations, or to possible side-effects. They further argue that 84% of evaluations they studied were conducted by the initiative coordinator or staff, and only 9% were by an independent external evaluator. Thus, it is challenging for partnerships to persuade for funding to be put aside for evaluation. Evaluator’s job is also affected by balancing the need to be strategic and pressure to produce â€Å"runs on the board† by local authorities and central agencies, as well as the greater value placed on â€Å"projects† compared to â€Å"planning† within local authorities (Cherney and Sutton 2004). According to Hagan (2000), even the best laid evaluation plans can â€Å"bite the dust† in the â€Å"high noon† of political reality. In discussing the politicisation of evaluation research, Hagan (2000) points out the incasing political nature of evaluations as they are increasingly used to decide the future of programs. According to him, part of the administrator’s concern about evaluation research comes from the dilemma that research creates for him. The evaluation process casts him in contradictory roles. On the one hand, he is the key person in the agency, and the success of its various operations, including evaluation, depends on his knowledge and involvement. On the other hand, evaluation carries the potentiality of discrediting an administratively sponsored program or of undermining a position the administrator has taken. MURPHY’S LAW Hagan (2000) applies Murphy’s Law to evaluation research, clearly indicated barriers that evaluator faces. In relation to evaluation design: the resources needed to complete the evaluation will exceed the original projection by a factor of two. after an evaluation has been completed and is believed to control for all relevant variables, others will be discovered and rival hypothesis will multiply geometrically the necessity of making a major decision change increases as the evaluation project nears completion. In relation to evaluation management: the probability of a breakdown in cooperation between the evaluation project and an operational agency is directly proportional to the trouble it can cause. if staying on schedule is dependent on a number of activities which may be completed before or after an allotted time interval, the total time needed will accumulate in the direction of becoming further and further behind schedule. In relation to data collection: the availability of data element is inversely proportional to the need for that element historical baseline data will be recorded in units or by criteria other than present or future records none of the available self-report formats will work as well as you expect In relation to data analysis and interpretation: in a mathematical calculation, any error that can creep in, will. It will accumulate in the direction that will do the most damage to the results of the calculation. the figure that is most obviously correct will be the source of error if an analysis matrix requires â€Å"n† data elements to make the analysis easy and logical, there will always be â€Å"n-1† available. When tabulating data, the line totals and the column totals should up to the grand total; they won’t In relation to presentation of evaluation findings: the more extensive and thorough the evaluation the less likely the findings will be used by decision makers. UTILISATION Evaluator is often approaching his or her job knowing that evaluation results are often not appropriately utilised. This might significantly impact his or her performance. Hagan (2000) claims that evaluations have not been effectively utilised, and that much of this waste is due to passive bias and censorship within the field itself, which prevent the publication of weaker, less scientific findings, and to misplace client loyalty. Cherney and Sutton (2004) argue that there has been a lack of status and authority within the overall structure of local government to facilitate change in polices and practices. Furthermore, there are agencies and units both within local authorities and externally who are unwilling to be held accountable for community safety outcomes. According to Schuller (2004), there has been inadequate organisation, scheduling and institutional integration into the overall decision-making process, with impact assessment often undertaken towards the end. It has also bee n suggested that the most pertinent issue may be, not to predict accurately, but to define appropriate goals, and then set up the organisation that can effectively adapt and audit the project to achieve goals. CONCLUSION The paper has discussed the main problems confronting those who must evaluate community safety initiatives, looking at the issues of support and initiative, technical difficulties, access to data, political pressure, and low utilisation. Proper evaluations of community safety initiatives are rare. Little time and resources is available for conducting evaluation and there is a lack of commitment from government and local agencies. Barriers have been experienced throughout the evaluation process, including problem formulation, design of instruments, research deign, data collection, data analysis, findings and conclusions and utilisation. Further barriers have been presented by lack of focus on the local social, cultural and political context. Some evaluators have even stressed their incompetence, claming that they do not know how to undertake evaluation. Relevant data is often not recorded or collated to give a complete picture of the problem. Political pressure also presents a signifi cant problem as administrators find themselves in contradictory roles. Furthermore, they often want to spend all the funding available on implementation as opposed to evaluation. Finally, evaluation results have not been effectively utilised, which can have a significant negative impact on evaluators. BIBLIOGRAPHY Australian Government Attorney Generals Department (AG). (2007). â€Å"Conceptual Foundations of Evaluation Models†. Cherney, A and Sutton, A. (2004). Aussie Experience: local government community safety officers and capacity building†. Community Safety Journal, Vol.3, Iss.3, pg.31. Community Safety Centre (2000). â€Å"Research and Evaluation†. Community Safety research and Evaluation Bulletin†. No.1. Glaser, D. and Zeigler, M.S. (1974). â€Å"The Use of the Death Penalty v. the Outrage at Murder†. Crime and Delinquency, pp.333-338. Hagan, F.E. (2000). â€Å"Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology (eds)†. Allyn and Bacon. Mallock, N.A. and Braithwaite, J. (2005). â€Å"Evaluation of the Safety Improvement Program in New South Wales: study no.9†. University of New South Wales. Morton, S. (2006). â€Å"Community Safety in Practice – the importance of evaluation†. Community Safety Journal, Vol.5, Iss.1, pg.12. Read, T and Tilley, N. (2000). â€Å"Not Rocket Science? Problem-solving and crime reduction†. Crime Reduction Research Series Paper 6, Home Office. Rhodes, A. (2007). â€Å"Evaluation of Community Safety Policies and Programs†. RMIT University. Schuller, N. (2004). â€Å"Urban Growth and Community Safety: developing the impact assessment approach†. Community Safety Journal, Vol.3, Iss.4, pg.4. Varone, F., Jacob, S., De Winter, L. (2005). â€Å"Polity, Politics and Policy Evaluation in Belgium†. Evaluation, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.253-273.

Three Contributions Of Chinese Immigrants Essay -- essays research pap

Three Contributions Of Chinese Immigrants   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Chinese started immigrating to the United States in 1849. They left China in search of a better life. Life in China in the 1800's was very hard. There wasn't enough food, money and the cities were overpopulated. They heard about the United States and believed there was an opportunity to start over again. They hoped to find jobs on the railroad or to strike gold. When they arrived in the United States, life was difficult. Laws were made which discriminated against them. However, eventually they became a respected part of our society. They are responsible for many contributions which are part of American life today. This essay will describe three of these contributions: two products, ginseng and tea, and one method of medicine, acupuncture.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ginseng is a perennial herb grown in China and other Asian countries. It is also grown in North American, but the Asian variety is thought to be more valuable. There are many legends and superstitions surrounding ginseng. The Chinese have long believed that the ginseng is a cure for many aliments and can even make one live longer. However, Western researchers are have been unable to prove this. Today, many manufacturers add ginseng to such products as hair tonics, shampoos, skin creams and even soft drinks. Also ginseng can be bought over the counter in drug stores under such names as â€Å"Ginkoba† and â€Å"Ginsana†. â€Å" Ginkoba† is supposed to... Three Contributions Of Chinese Immigrants Essay -- essays research pap Three Contributions Of Chinese Immigrants   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Chinese started immigrating to the United States in 1849. They left China in search of a better life. Life in China in the 1800's was very hard. There wasn't enough food, money and the cities were overpopulated. They heard about the United States and believed there was an opportunity to start over again. They hoped to find jobs on the railroad or to strike gold. When they arrived in the United States, life was difficult. Laws were made which discriminated against them. However, eventually they became a respected part of our society. They are responsible for many contributions which are part of American life today. This essay will describe three of these contributions: two products, ginseng and tea, and one method of medicine, acupuncture.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ginseng is a perennial herb grown in China and other Asian countries. It is also grown in North American, but the Asian variety is thought to be more valuable. There are many legends and superstitions surrounding ginseng. The Chinese have long believed that the ginseng is a cure for many aliments and can even make one live longer. However, Western researchers are have been unable to prove this. Today, many manufacturers add ginseng to such products as hair tonics, shampoos, skin creams and even soft drinks. Also ginseng can be bought over the counter in drug stores under such names as â€Å"Ginkoba† and â€Å"Ginsana†. â€Å" Ginkoba† is supposed to...

Southern Folk Music and Race Relations :: Racism American Culture Research

Southern Folk Music and Race Relations Abstract In this paper, I propose that the history and development of southern folk music may serve as an important vehicle for examining and elaborating the dynamics of southern race relations. I am not suggesting a causal relationship; merely an interactional one. Both southern race relations and southern music are reflections of the social structure of the rural south. In the structurally segregated south, black and white musical traditions display the same divergences and convergences which have historically characterized black/white relations. This is not a lyrical analysis; rather, it is a socio-historical analysis of regional popular culture which focuses upon the interaction between two important features of that culture: race and music. Intoduction The development of the American folk music reservoir is a process which parallels the historical and cultural development of American society. In the formation of this reservoir, two major streams, British and African, and several lesser tributaries, e.g., French, German, Mexican, Cajun, etc., flowed together over a two century period (Malone, 1979:4). Alan Lomax, one of folk music's leading historians, has observed that the convergence of these diverse elements has resulted in a cultural product which is "more British than anything one can find in Britain" (1960:155). Southern music is an important part of the folk tradition; in many ways it is synonymous with American folk music. And, its history is well documented (Malone, 1979, 1985; Carr, 1979; Wolfe, 1977). What has been neglected until recently is the sociological examination of the relationship between this form of popular culture and important social, cultural and historical issues and conditions which gave rise to it and are expressed by it (Fine, 1977:381-384; cf. also Albrecht, 1954).1 Country music is a reflection of the southern region's culture, history and social structure at the macro level and of the hopes, fears, beliefs and attitudes of its people at the micro level (Gritzner, 1978). In this paper, I propose that the history and development of southern folk music may serve as an important vehicle for examining and elaborating the dynamics of southern race relations. I am not suggesting a causal relationship; merely an interactional one. Both southern race relations and southern music are reflections of the social structure of the rural south. In the structurally segregated south, black and white musical traditions display the same divergences and convergences which have historically characterized black/white relations. This is not a lyrical analysis; rather, it is a socio-historical analysis of regional popular culture which focuses upon the interaction between two important features of that culture: race and music.

Manzana Insurance

Operations Management ____________________________________________________________ _________________________ Case Study Manzana Insurance [pic] Presented to: Prof B. Mahadevan Submitted By Group 12 (Section B) Peeyush Razdan (0811115) Shalekh Banka (0811124) Shalem Anand Tirkey (0811125) Shreshth Sharma (0811128) Sumeet Mittal (0811131) Manzana Insurance As per the case facts, Manzana Insurance’s Fruitvale branch is the least performing branch and the senior VP seeks a report on the same. Their competitor Golden Gate (backed by its corporate parent generated a price war to gain market) is performing much better in terms of most metrics of Insurance business. 1) Problems faced by Manzana Insurance (Fruitvale branch) a) High Turn Around Time (TAT) Agents in the insurance sector are mediators who act as an interface between the client and the insurer. Hence, the quality of service, measured by average TAT, to the agents (who are common to the competitors) is of primary importance. TAT for Fruitvale has deteriorated to 6 days (1991) from 5 days (1990), while Golden Gate’s offer of 1 day TAT is luring agents away from Manzana. The number of late renewals is also increasing and quite high compared to Golden Gate. b) Geographic/Territorial Allocation to Underwriting Teams Leads to an Uneven Task Distribution We observe that the geographic allocation of agents to the underwriting teams is not optimal. This method has an inherent problem; there can be a surge in requests from a geography which might overload that particular team while the other teams might be idle due to lack of requests from their geography. Hence, their pooling should be rather than using the geographic allocation. c) Primary focus on RUNs rather than RERUNs and Increasing late Renewals Currently, Fruitvale is focusing on RUNs for getting new customers and compromising the service towards the RERUN requests for the existing customers. Loss of focus on RERUNs has led to increase in its TAT causing agents to move towards Golden Gate. The number of late Renewals has increased from 20% to 44% over the last year which has led to a significant increase in the Renewal loss rate from 33% to 47%. Renewal is a low premium – high volume business. Exhibit 5(in case) shows that a new policy and policy renewal give similar revenues of $6724 and $6205 respectively. The commission given to agents is 25% and 7% respectively. So in fact renewal of old insurance brings more revenue due to reduced commission percentage. Also, the time taken for renewal of policies is less, thus more renewals can be done in a given time. d) FCFS Scheduling may not be always optimum Most of the departments follow FCFS scheduling which may not be optimum. Ex. a policy with an effort of 4 hrs would delay all the other smaller policies behind it, effectively delaying 10 simple requests for serving one difficult one. Moreover, the scheduling policy followed across various departments is not same. While some strictly follow FCFS others do it on type of policy ex: RUN preferred over RERUNs. Also, The RAP is given preference over RERUNs by the rating team. The RAPs in fact take more time for processing than RERUNs. Also, only 15% of all quotes result in new policies. Thus, the Manzana Fruitvale branch seems to be servicing RAPs at the cost of RERUNs. e) Huge backlog of policies The existing backlog of policies is quite high, due to which any new policy received is not attended instantly (due to FCFS) further adding on to existing backlog, essentially creating a cascading effect. 2) Process Flow and Capacity Analysis We have used process flow, capacity analysis, Lead Time Analysis and Average daily Workload Analysis to analyze the current situation at Manzana’s Fruitvale Branch. ) Process Flow Exhibit 1 shows the process flow diagram with the existing capacity across the four major team Distribution clerks, Underwriter teams, Raters, Policy writers. b) Capacity Analysis Usage of Mean time for capacity analysis is ideally favored over 95% Standard Completion Time (SCT) parameter as 95% SCT is a highly conservative. It assumes every request to be of longer duration (95th percentile with respect to request duration) and does not take into acco unt the time saved while executing smaller requests. Mean on the other hand takes into account that fact that time consumed on longer jobs is compensated by the time saved on smaller jobs. Capacity analysis based on Mean Time (Exhibit 2) shows the bottleneck for RUNs is the Distribution step, for RAPs is underwriting, for RAINs is again Distribution and for RERUNs is policy writing. The same capacity analysis when done using 95% SCT (Exhibit 3) shows Underwriting step to be bottleneck for all the 4 types of policy requests. We observe that there is high standard deviation for most of the steps (especially Underwriting Step) and is comparable to mean value itself. Ex: For RERUNs Underwriting step mean is 18. 7min while the standard deviation is 19. 8min. Hence we are using 95% SCT for determining bottleneck step. And thus we consider Underwriting Stage as the bottleneck for the whole system. c) Lead (Service) Time Analysis Using Little’s Formula we have done Lead Time Analysis (Exhibit 4) which shows that on an average Lead Time is approximately 2 days (2. 10). As we have seen, throughput on the other hand is approximately 6 days which is much higher than the average Lead Time. This suggests that the longer throughput time is because of allocation problems described later. d) Average Daily Workload Analysis The argument of allocation problem is further strengthened by our Average Daily Workload Analysis (Exhibit 5). This analysis has been done taking into account the relative proportions of various types of requests on a daily basis. On the basis on mean processing time for all the steps it comes out that the average daily workload for each step is less than 7. 5 hrs (the stipulated working time). Inferences Above analysis shows that problem at Fruitvale branch is not due to capacity constraint but it is actually due to allocation issue. Predominantly, allocation problems are in underwriting step. Currently allocation is done on the basis of Geographical/territorial lines which lead to uneven workload over time as well as inefficient allocation leading to longer TPUT time. Exhibit 5 shows that RUNs on an average take 50% (Exhibit 6) more processing time than RERUNs hence territory1 which is heavily loaded with RUNs has a higher RERUN loss even though overall it is least loaded. This necessitates a better allocation scheme rather than FIFO. Shortest Job First Scheduling may be used to minimize TPUT but it may delay a high priority request (ex a RERUN close to expiry) and also requires a priori estimation of various time factors. Currently, the system follows FCFS though not strictly, since some departments prioritize based on type of request ex: Underwriting favors RUNs over RERUNs. We would suggest an improved priority scheduling over FIFO which would be determined based on the type of request, agent’s importance, client importance, expiry time etc. et across uniformly across the steps. 3) Recommendations a) Distribution of reports to teams based on priority rather than territorial As found in previous section the current workforce should suffice the existing requirements if there are no backlogs and even if there are, it should not take more than 2 days. The problem was identified in the allocation of the policy request based on territory. We recomm end a collective (instead of territorial) request processing system with more intelligence added to the distribution system, which were also identified as bottlenecks for RUN and RAIN. This distribution system would first prioritize the requests and then allocate them to the underwriting team on an optimal basis ensuring even distribution of total requests, individual requests RUN, RERUN etc. This would remove the existing anomaly of having an overloaded team and an idle team concurrently. They should also keep monitoring the progress of the process and remove blocking issues that may result in a further delay of other policies. To expedite this process, it can also be automated by the help of computers. These changes should substantially reduce the TAT and the delayed RERUNs. The priority should be decided based on the following factors instead of current system purely on the type of request 1) Type of request – RERUN, RUN, RAP, RAIN 2) Already waited time – request that have waited for a long time should be upgraded 3) Estimate of total time required 4) Agent’s priority 5) Client’s priority 6) Expiry Time (Incase of RERUNs) 7) Other factors determining the business value of the request Hence overall, this would reduce the intensity of bottlenecks at DC and UT. b) Increase focus on RERUNs RERUNs, which generate maximum revenue, should be given a higher priority based on their proximity to the expiry date. This ensures customer retention and gives sufficient time to agents for renewal. c) Reduce Backlogs Reduction in current backlogs to minimum will help Fruitvale achieve a day’s TAT as explained. This can be done by working overtime, getting temporary teams possibly from other branches, and increase number of working days temporarily. d) Use Mean instead of SCT We observe that SCT is not a correct approach to evaluate the process flow since the 95th percentile customer’s time considered as a benchmark to set up the system results in very conservative estimates. Initially, other statistical methods like mean + n times standard deviation etc. can be used to achieve desired level of service. Following that, a record including TAT for each request should be maintained so that it can be used for future reference and for reducing the noise in mean that we recommend to be used in future. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Process Flow Diagram Exhibit 2: Capacity Analysis based on Mean Processing time |Capacity |RUNs |RAPs |RAINs |RERUNs | |Distribution |26. 8 |36. 00 |41. 38 |64. 29 | |Underwriting |30. 96 |35. 53 |59. 73 |72. 19 | |Rating |47. 68 |55. 64 |54. 96 |47. 68 | |Policy Writing |31. 69 |NA |41. 67 |44. 91 | *darkened cells show the bottleneck Exhibit 3: Capacity Analysis based of 95% Standard Completion Time Capacity |RUNs |RAPs |RAINs |RERUNs | |Distribution |14. 05 |16. 70 |26. 43 |41. 67 | |Underwriting |12. 59 |15. 43 |27. 33 |21. 50 | |Rating |32. 06 |40. 59 |40. 27 |39. 05 | |Policy Writing |25. 20 |NA |31. 65 |33. 58 | *darkened cells show the bottleneck Exhibit 4: Lead (Service) Time Analysis using Little’s Formula |Requests in progress |82 | |Requests served per day (in steady state) |39 | |Lead /Service Time (Requests in progress/Requests served per day) |2. 1 | Exhibit 5: Average Daily Workload Analysis |Demand Analysis |Requests in 120 days (1991) |Demand per Day | |RUNs |624 |5. | |RAPs |1524 |12. 7 | |RAINs |451 |3. 758333 | |RERUNs |2081 |17. 34167 | |Total |4680 |39 | |Mean Processing Time |RUNS |RAPS |RAINS |RERUNS |Workers/Teams | |Â   |(5. 0) |(12. 70) |(3. 75) |(17. 34) |Total Time |hrs per day | |Distribution |356. 20 |635. 00 |163. 13 |485. 52 |1,639. 85 |6. 83 | |Underwriting |226. 72 |482. 60 |84. 75 |324. 26 |1,118. 33 |6. 21 | |Rating |392. 60 |821. 69 |245. 63 |1,309. 17 |2,769. 09 |5. 77 | |Policy Writing |369. 20 |N. A. |202. 50 |868. 73 |1,440. 43 |4. 0 | Exhibit 6: Uneven distribution due to territorial allocation |Policies |Total |% diff with avg |RUNs |% diff with avg |RERUNs |% diff with avg |Rene wal lost | |/Territory | |1315 | |208 | |693 | | |1 |1151 |14. 24% less |274 |31. 73% more |636 |8. 2% less |403 | |2 |1393 |5. 93% more |179 |13. 94% less |840 |21. % more |227 | |3 |1402 |6. 66% more |171 |17. 7% less |605 |14. 54% less |296 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Processing Time (using mean values) | |Distribution |Underwriting |Rating |Writing |Total |Baselined (w. r. t. minimum) |Baselined (w. r. t. RERUN) | |RUN |68. 5 |43. 6 |75. 5 |71 |258. 6 |169. 35 |150. 09 | |RAP |50 |38 |64. 7 |NA |152. 7 |100. 00 |88. 62 | |RAIN |43. 5 |22. 6 |65. 5 |54 |185. 6 |121. 55 |107. 72 | |RERUN |28 |18. 7 |75. 5 |50. 1 |172. 3 |112. 84 |100. 00 | | ———————– Distribution clerks Number : 4 Capacity: Runs 26. 27 (58. 63), Raps 36 (72. 28), Rains 41. 37(195. 65), Reruns 64. 28(290. 32) Underwriter teams Number: 3 Capacity: Runs 30. 96(12. 59), Raps 35. 52(15. 42), Rains 59. 73(27. 32), Reruns 72. 19(21. 49) New Requests, Renewal requests Request for underwriting Policy writers Number: 4 Capacity: Runs 31. 69(25. 19), Raps NA, Rains 41. 67(31. 64), Reruns 44. 91(33. 58) Raters Number: 4 Capacity: Runs 47. 68(32. 05), Raps 55. 64(40. 58), Rains 54. 96(40. 26), Reruns 47. 68(39. 04) Policy issuing request Rating request Manzana Insurance Operations Management ____________________________________________________________ _________________________ Case Study Manzana Insurance [pic] Presented to: Prof B. Mahadevan Submitted By Group 12 (Section B) Peeyush Razdan (0811115) Shalekh Banka (0811124) Shalem Anand Tirkey (0811125) Shreshth Sharma (0811128) Sumeet Mittal (0811131) Manzana Insurance As per the case facts, Manzana Insurance’s Fruitvale branch is the least performing branch and the senior VP seeks a report on the same. Their competitor Golden Gate (backed by its corporate parent generated a price war to gain market) is performing much better in terms of most metrics of Insurance business. 1) Problems faced by Manzana Insurance (Fruitvale branch) a) High Turn Around Time (TAT) Agents in the insurance sector are mediators who act as an interface between the client and the insurer. Hence, the quality of service, measured by average TAT, to the agents (who are common to the competitors) is of primary importance. TAT for Fruitvale has deteriorated to 6 days (1991) from 5 days (1990), while Golden Gate’s offer of 1 day TAT is luring agents away from Manzana. The number of late renewals is also increasing and quite high compared to Golden Gate. b) Geographic/Territorial Allocation to Underwriting Teams Leads to an Uneven Task Distribution We observe that the geographic allocation of agents to the underwriting teams is not optimal. This method has an inherent problem; there can be a surge in requests from a geography which might overload that particular team while the other teams might be idle due to lack of requests from their geography. Hence, their pooling should be rather than using the geographic allocation. c) Primary focus on RUNs rather than RERUNs and Increasing late Renewals Currently, Fruitvale is focusing on RUNs for getting new customers and compromising the service towards the RERUN requests for the existing customers. Loss of focus on RERUNs has led to increase in its TAT causing agents to move towards Golden Gate. The number of late Renewals has increased from 20% to 44% over the last year which has led to a significant increase in the Renewal loss rate from 33% to 47%. Renewal is a low premium – high volume business. Exhibit 5(in case) shows that a new policy and policy renewal give similar revenues of $6724 and $6205 respectively. The commission given to agents is 25% and 7% respectively. So in fact renewal of old insurance brings more revenue due to reduced commission percentage. Also, the time taken for renewal of policies is less, thus more renewals can be done in a given time. d) FCFS Scheduling may not be always optimum Most of the departments follow FCFS scheduling which may not be optimum. Ex. a policy with an effort of 4 hrs would delay all the other smaller policies behind it, effectively delaying 10 simple requests for serving one difficult one. Moreover, the scheduling policy followed across various departments is not same. While some strictly follow FCFS others do it on type of policy ex: RUN preferred over RERUNs. Also, The RAP is given preference over RERUNs by the rating team. The RAPs in fact take more time for processing than RERUNs. Also, only 15% of all quotes result in new policies. Thus, the Manzana Fruitvale branch seems to be servicing RAPs at the cost of RERUNs. e) Huge backlog of policies The existing backlog of policies is quite high, due to which any new policy received is not attended instantly (due to FCFS) further adding on to existing backlog, essentially creating a cascading effect. 2) Process Flow and Capacity Analysis We have used process flow, capacity analysis, Lead Time Analysis and Average daily Workload Analysis to analyze the current situation at Manzana’s Fruitvale Branch. ) Process Flow Exhibit 1 shows the process flow diagram with the existing capacity across the four major team Distribution clerks, Underwriter teams, Raters, Policy writers. b) Capacity Analysis Usage of Mean time for capacity analysis is ideally favored over 95% Standard Completion Time (SCT) parameter as 95% SCT is a highly conservative. It assumes every request to be of longer duration (95th percentile with respect to request duration) and does not take into acco unt the time saved while executing smaller requests. Mean on the other hand takes into account that fact that time consumed on longer jobs is compensated by the time saved on smaller jobs. Capacity analysis based on Mean Time (Exhibit 2) shows the bottleneck for RUNs is the Distribution step, for RAPs is underwriting, for RAINs is again Distribution and for RERUNs is policy writing. The same capacity analysis when done using 95% SCT (Exhibit 3) shows Underwriting step to be bottleneck for all the 4 types of policy requests. We observe that there is high standard deviation for most of the steps (especially Underwriting Step) and is comparable to mean value itself. Ex: For RERUNs Underwriting step mean is 18. 7min while the standard deviation is 19. 8min. Hence we are using 95% SCT for determining bottleneck step. And thus we consider Underwriting Stage as the bottleneck for the whole system. c) Lead (Service) Time Analysis Using Little’s Formula we have done Lead Time Analysis (Exhibit 4) which shows that on an average Lead Time is approximately 2 days (2. 10). As we have seen, throughput on the other hand is approximately 6 days which is much higher than the average Lead Time. This suggests that the longer throughput time is because of allocation problems described later. d) Average Daily Workload Analysis The argument of allocation problem is further strengthened by our Average Daily Workload Analysis (Exhibit 5). This analysis has been done taking into account the relative proportions of various types of requests on a daily basis. On the basis on mean processing time for all the steps it comes out that the average daily workload for each step is less than 7. 5 hrs (the stipulated working time). Inferences Above analysis shows that problem at Fruitvale branch is not due to capacity constraint but it is actually due to allocation issue. Predominantly, allocation problems are in underwriting step. Currently allocation is done on the basis of Geographical/territorial lines which lead to uneven workload over time as well as inefficient allocation leading to longer TPUT time. Exhibit 5 shows that RUNs on an average take 50% (Exhibit 6) more processing time than RERUNs hence territory1 which is heavily loaded with RUNs has a higher RERUN loss even though overall it is least loaded. This necessitates a better allocation scheme rather than FIFO. Shortest Job First Scheduling may be used to minimize TPUT but it may delay a high priority request (ex a RERUN close to expiry) and also requires a priori estimation of various time factors. Currently, the system follows FCFS though not strictly, since some departments prioritize based on type of request ex: Underwriting favors RUNs over RERUNs. We would suggest an improved priority scheduling over FIFO which would be determined based on the type of request, agent’s importance, client importance, expiry time etc. et across uniformly across the steps. 3) Recommendations a) Distribution of reports to teams based on priority rather than territorial As found in previous section the current workforce should suffice the existing requirements if there are no backlogs and even if there are, it should not take more than 2 days. The problem was identified in the allocation of the policy request based on territory. We recomm end a collective (instead of territorial) request processing system with more intelligence added to the distribution system, which were also identified as bottlenecks for RUN and RAIN. This distribution system would first prioritize the requests and then allocate them to the underwriting team on an optimal basis ensuring even distribution of total requests, individual requests RUN, RERUN etc. This would remove the existing anomaly of having an overloaded team and an idle team concurrently. They should also keep monitoring the progress of the process and remove blocking issues that may result in a further delay of other policies. To expedite this process, it can also be automated by the help of computers. These changes should substantially reduce the TAT and the delayed RERUNs. The priority should be decided based on the following factors instead of current system purely on the type of request 1) Type of request – RERUN, RUN, RAP, RAIN 2) Already waited time – request that have waited for a long time should be upgraded 3) Estimate of total time required 4) Agent’s priority 5) Client’s priority 6) Expiry Time (Incase of RERUNs) 7) Other factors determining the business value of the request Hence overall, this would reduce the intensity of bottlenecks at DC and UT. b) Increase focus on RERUNs RERUNs, which generate maximum revenue, should be given a higher priority based on their proximity to the expiry date. This ensures customer retention and gives sufficient time to agents for renewal. c) Reduce Backlogs Reduction in current backlogs to minimum will help Fruitvale achieve a day’s TAT as explained. This can be done by working overtime, getting temporary teams possibly from other branches, and increase number of working days temporarily. d) Use Mean instead of SCT We observe that SCT is not a correct approach to evaluate the process flow since the 95th percentile customer’s time considered as a benchmark to set up the system results in very conservative estimates. Initially, other statistical methods like mean + n times standard deviation etc. can be used to achieve desired level of service. Following that, a record including TAT for each request should be maintained so that it can be used for future reference and for reducing the noise in mean that we recommend to be used in future. Exhibits Exhibit 1: Process Flow Diagram Exhibit 2: Capacity Analysis based on Mean Processing time |Capacity |RUNs |RAPs |RAINs |RERUNs | |Distribution |26. 8 |36. 00 |41. 38 |64. 29 | |Underwriting |30. 96 |35. 53 |59. 73 |72. 19 | |Rating |47. 68 |55. 64 |54. 96 |47. 68 | |Policy Writing |31. 69 |NA |41. 67 |44. 91 | *darkened cells show the bottleneck Exhibit 3: Capacity Analysis based of 95% Standard Completion Time Capacity |RUNs |RAPs |RAINs |RERUNs | |Distribution |14. 05 |16. 70 |26. 43 |41. 67 | |Underwriting |12. 59 |15. 43 |27. 33 |21. 50 | |Rating |32. 06 |40. 59 |40. 27 |39. 05 | |Policy Writing |25. 20 |NA |31. 65 |33. 58 | *darkened cells show the bottleneck Exhibit 4: Lead (Service) Time Analysis using Little’s Formula |Requests in progress |82 | |Requests served per day (in steady state) |39 | |Lead /Service Time (Requests in progress/Requests served per day) |2. 1 | Exhibit 5: Average Daily Workload Analysis |Demand Analysis |Requests in 120 days (1991) |Demand per Day | |RUNs |624 |5. | |RAPs |1524 |12. 7 | |RAINs |451 |3. 758333 | |RERUNs |2081 |17. 34167 | |Total |4680 |39 | |Mean Processing Time |RUNS |RAPS |RAINS |RERUNS |Workers/Teams | |Â   |(5. 0) |(12. 70) |(3. 75) |(17. 34) |Total Time |hrs per day | |Distribution |356. 20 |635. 00 |163. 13 |485. 52 |1,639. 85 |6. 83 | |Underwriting |226. 72 |482. 60 |84. 75 |324. 26 |1,118. 33 |6. 21 | |Rating |392. 60 |821. 69 |245. 63 |1,309. 17 |2,769. 09 |5. 77 | |Policy Writing |369. 20 |N. A. |202. 50 |868. 73 |1,440. 43 |4. 0 | Exhibit 6: Uneven distribution due to territorial allocation |Policies |Total |% diff with avg |RUNs |% diff with avg |RERUNs |% diff with avg |Rene wal lost | |/Territory | |1315 | |208 | |693 | | |1 |1151 |14. 24% less |274 |31. 73% more |636 |8. 2% less |403 | |2 |1393 |5. 93% more |179 |13. 94% less |840 |21. % more |227 | |3 |1402 |6. 66% more |171 |17. 7% less |605 |14. 54% less |296 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Processing Time (using mean values) | |Distribution |Underwriting |Rating |Writing |Total |Baselined (w. r. t. minimum) |Baselined (w. r. t. RERUN) | |RUN |68. 5 |43. 6 |75. 5 |71 |258. 6 |169. 35 |150. 09 | |RAP |50 |38 |64. 7 |NA |152. 7 |100. 00 |88. 62 | |RAIN |43. 5 |22. 6 |65. 5 |54 |185. 6 |121. 55 |107. 72 | |RERUN |28 |18. 7 |75. 5 |50. 1 |172. 3 |112. 84 |100. 00 | | ———————– Distribution clerks Number : 4 Capacity: Runs 26. 27 (58. 63), Raps 36 (72. 28), Rains 41. 37(195. 65), Reruns 64. 28(290. 32) Underwriter teams Number: 3 Capacity: Runs 30. 96(12. 59), Raps 35. 52(15. 42), Rains 59. 73(27. 32), Reruns 72. 19(21. 49) New Requests, Renewal requests Request for underwriting Policy writers Number: 4 Capacity: Runs 31. 69(25. 19), Raps NA, Rains 41. 67(31. 64), Reruns 44. 91(33. 58) Raters Number: 4 Capacity: Runs 47. 68(32. 05), Raps 55. 64(40. 58), Rains 54. 96(40. 26), Reruns 47. 68(39. 04) Policy issuing request Rating request