Planning for and implementation of information technology in civilian and military organizations

Planning for and implementation of information technology in civilian and military organizations Introduction An organization refers to a group of people who form a social unit that is structured and managed systematically with the aim of achieving a given objective. Military teams and civilian arrangements such as business institutions are examples of organizations. Though management structures is believed have originated from the military system of command, the military and civilian organizations have of late taken different dimensions with the later developing more liberalized approaches to implementing its policies.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Planning for and implementation of information technology in civilian and military organizations specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This paper seeks to discuss whether or not the two types of organizations should adopt similar organizational competencies with respect to technology. The paper will look into systems in the two organizational types to identif y similarities or differences to determine the argument. Management in Military and Civil Organization Though the military is always perceived to be a purely hierarchical system with chains of command that must be adhered to, there have been calls from experts and leaders in the military departments for a liberalization of the chains in the organizations. In the year 2001, for example, the United States’ secretary of defense made a call to the office of the president concerning a threat that had been identified in the department of defense. The threat was about the system of administration that was realized in the military. After the information was passed, a number of changes were realized in the country’s military departments such as the â€Å"supply chain system, harness information technology and cut costs by adopting practices from the corporate world† (Managing, 2003, p. 1). The perception that might be held by either the military or the corporate world th at one is more efficient than the other might not be necessarily true. While the military view the cooperate world as more efficient, there are a lot of things that managers in business organizations ought to learn from the military. He also explains that business organizations ought to identify the â€Å"lessons that have been learnt over decades in the military† (Managing, 2003, p. 1). The military is actually designed more like the business world structure. Just as the supply of goods and services are critical to the lives and well being of consumers in the economic set up, is the military provision a necessity to the lives of soldiers in the field. The two organizations are even almost similar in their supply chains. The supply chain foreword direction flow is a similarity in the two organizations with military equipments being transferred along steps of a chain all the way to the final ground soldier just like inventory is transferred through stages until its finished fo rm is delivered to the final consumer.Advertising Looking for critical writing on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The United States’ military actually runs commercial operations that generate a large amount of money from â€Å"sales and services† (Managing, 2003). The military has also been adopting approaches used in the corporate world. Employment of academicians into systems for guidance and research is one of the lessons that have been learnt by the military from the corporate bodies. Technologies such as in information systems have also been adopted by the United States’ military which at one time became the country leader in information technology. The pentagon’s implementation of â€Å"Customer Relations Management, Supplier Management and Enterprise Resource Planning systems† (Managing, 2003, p. 1) and the use of retailer’s functionality systems i n military provisionary chain is also a reflection of developed similarity in the two organizations (Managing, 2003). In what showed compatibility of methods in the two organizations, the American military also formed a committee in the year 2001 that was purely composed of chief executives from the corporate world to help the military in understanding techniques of gaining efficiencies. It is also reported that almost all techniques that have been developed by the military have received adoption by the corporate world (Managing, 2003). As Price David (2008) recounted, there are a number of business management structures that have been adopted by the military. The military, for example, has financial managers who are useful in decision making regarding resource allocations. Business management concepts such as efficiency and cost effectiveness in relation to managing resources that are in most cases scarce, even in military environments have been essentials in the military. Like in business systems, the military’s top administration is also characterized by an extensive level of â€Å"Planning, Programming, and Budgeting† (Price, 2008, p. 1) that helps in the effective utilization of resources for the attainment of military objectives (Price, 2008). Features such as monitoring and evaluation have at the same time become common in the two organizational systems. Another similarity in the two systems is the power that is vested on the capital supplier to the systems. Just as business organizations aim at making decisions in the interest of share holders, the military’s decisions are aimed at satisfying the interest of tax payers (Price, 2008). Conclusion Following the discussion, it is evident that the military and the corporate world share a lot of things in common. It is also evident that concepts that have over time been identified by one party have in the end have been adopted by the other. Due to similarities identified in their systems and operations, it can be concluded that planning for and implementation of information technology in the two systems require similar organizational competence.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Planning for and implementation of information technology in civilian and military organizations specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More References Managing. (2003). Managing Supply Chains: What the Military Can Teach Business (and Vice Versa). Retrieved from: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/managing-supply-chains-what-the-military-can-teach-business-and-vice-versa/ Price, D. E. (2004). Organizing for expeditionary operations? Transforming headquarters financial management into the commanders A-8 staff. Air Force Comptroller, July. Web.

The History of How Dogs Were Domesticated

The History of How Dogs Were Domesticated The history of dog domestication is that of an ancient partnership between dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and humans. That partnership was likely originally based on a human need for help with herding and hunting, for an early alarm system, and for a source of food in addition to the companionship many of us today know and love. In return, dogs received companionship, protection, shelter, and a reliable food source. But when this partnership first occurred is still under some debate. Dog history has been studied recently using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which suggests that wolves and dogs split into different species around 100,000 years ago. Although mtDNA analysis has shed some light on the domestication event(s) which may have occurred between 40,000 and 20,000 years ago, researchers are not agreed on the results. Some analyses suggest that the original domestication location of dog domestication was in East Asia; others that the middle east was the original location of domestication; and still others that later domestication took place in Europe. What the genetic data has shown to date is that the history of dogs is as intricate as that of the people they lived alongside, lending support to the long depth of the partnership, but complicating origin theories. Two Domestications In 2016, a research team led by bioarchaeologist Greger Larson (Frantz et al. cited below) published mtDNA evidence for two places of origin for domestic dogs: one in Eastern Eurasia and one in Western Eurasia. According to that analysis, ancient Asian dogs originated from a domestication event from Asian wolves at least 12,500 years ago; while European Paleolithic dogs originated from an independent domestication event from European wolves at least 15,000 years ago. Then, says the report, at sometime before the Neolithic period (at least 6,400 years ago), Asian dogs were transported by humans to Europe where they displaced European Paleolithic dogs. That would explain why earlier DNA studies reported that all modern dogs were descended from one domestication event, and also the existence of evidence of two domestication event from two different far-flung locations. There were two populations of dogs in the Paleolithic, goes the hypothesis, but one of them- the European Paleolithic dog- is now extinct. A lot of questions remain: there are no ancient American dogs included in most of the data, and Frantz et al. suggest that the two progenitor species were descended from the same initial wolf population and both are now extinct. However, other scholars (Botiguà © and colleagues, cited below) have investigated and found evidence to support migration event(s) across the central Asia steppe region, but not for a complete replacement. They were unable to rule out Europe as the original domestication location. The Data: Early Domesticated Dogs The earliest confirmed domestic dog anywhere so far is from a burial site in Germany called Bonn-Oberkassel, which has joint human and dog interments dated to 14,000 years ago. The earliest confirmed domesticated dog in China was found in the early Neolithic (7000–5800 BCE) Jiahu site in Henan Province. Evidence for co-existence of dogs and humans, but not necessarily domestication, comes from Upper Paleolithic sites in Europe. These hold evidence for dog interaction with humans and include  Goyet Cave  in Belgium,  Chauvet  cave in France, and  Predmosti in the Czech Republic. European Mesolithic sites like Skateholm (5250–3700 BC) in Sweden have dog burials, proving the value of the furry beasts to hunter-gatherer settlements. Danger Cave in Utah is currently the earliest case of dog burial in the Americas, at about 11,000 years ago, likely a descendant of Asian dogs. Continued interbreeding with wolves, a characteristic found throughout the life history of dogs everywhere, has apparently resulted in the hybrid black wolf found in the Americas. Black fur coloration is a dog characteristic, not originally found in wolves. Dogs as Persons Some studies of dog burials dated to the Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic Kitoi period in the Cis-Baikal region of Siberia suggests that in some cases, dogs were awarded person-hood and treated equally to fellow humans. A dog burial at the Shamanaka site was a male, middle-aged dog which had suffered injuries to its spine, injuries from which it recovered. The burial, radiocarbon dated to ~6,200 years ago (cal BP), was interred in a formal cemetery, and in a similar manner to the humans within that cemetery. The dog may well have lived as a family member. A wolf burial at the Lokomotiv-Raisovet cemetery (~7,300 cal BP) was also an older adult male. The wolfs diet (from stable isotope analysis) was made up of deer, not grain, and although its teeth were worn, there is no direct evidence that this wolf was part of the community. Nevertheless, it too was buried in a formal cemetery. These burials are exceptions, but not that rare: there are others, but there is also is evidence that fisher-hunters in Baikal consumed dogs and wolves, as their burned and fragmented bones appear in refuse pits. Archaeologist Robert Losey and associates, who conducted this study, suggest that these are indications that Kitoi hunter-gatherers considered that at least these individual dogs were persons. Modern Breeds and Ancient Origins Evidence for the appearance of breed variation is found in several European Upper Paleolithic sites. Medium-sized dogs (with wither heights between 45–60 cm) have been identified in Natufian sites in the Near East dated to ~15,500-11,000 cal BP). Medium to large dogs (wither heights above 60 cm) have been identified in Germany (Kniegrotte), Russia (Eliseevichi I), and Ukraine (Mezin), ~17,000-13,000 cal BP). Small dogs (wither heights under 45 cm) have been identified in Germany (Oberkassel, Teufelsbrucke, and Oelknitz), Switzerland (Hauterive-Champreveyres), France (Saint-Thibaud-de-Couz, Pont dAmbon) and Spain (Erralia) between ~15,000-12,300 cal BP. See the investigations by archaeologist Maud Pionnier-Capitan and associates for more information. A recent study of pieces of DNA called SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphism) which have been identified as markers for modern dog breeds and published in 2012 (Larson et al) comes to some surprising conclusions: that despite the clear evidence for marked size differentiation in very early dogs (e.g., small, medium and large dogs found at Svaerdborg), this has nothing to do with current dog breeds. The oldest modern dog breeds are no more than 500 years old, and most date only from ~150 years ago. Theories of Modern Breed Origination Scholars now agree that most of the dog breeds we see today are recent developments. However, the astounding variation in dogs is a relic of their ancient and varied domestication processes. Breeds vary in size from the one pound (.5 kilogram) teacup poodles to giant mastiffs weighing over 200 lbs (90 kg). In addition, breeds have different limb, body, and skull proportions, and they also vary in abilities, with some breeds developed with special skills such as herding, retrieving, scent detection, and guiding. That may be because domestication occurred while humans were all hunter-gatherers at the time, leading extensively migrant lifeways. Dogs spread with them, and thus so for a while dog and human populations developed in geographic isolation for a time. Eventually, however, human population growth and trade networks meant people reconnected, and that, say scholars, led to the genetic admixture in the dog population. When dog breeds began to be actively developed about 500 years ago, they were created out of a fairly homogenous gene pool, from dogs with mixed genetic heritages which had been developed in widely disparate locations. Since the creation of kennel clubs, breeding has been selective: but even that was disrupted by World Wars I and II, when breeding populations all over the world were decimated or went extinct. Dog breeders have since reestablished such breeds using a handful of individuals or combining similar breeds. Sources Botiguà © LR, Song S, Scheu A, Gopalan S, Pendleton AL, Oetjens M, Taravella AM, Seregà ©ly T, Zeeb-Lanz A, Arbogast R-M et al. 2017. Ancient European dog genomes reveal continuity since the Early Neolithic. Nature Communications 8:16082.Frantz LAF, Mullin VE, Pionnier-Capitan M, Lebrasseur O, Ollivier M, Perri A, Linderholm A, Mattiangeli V, Teasdale MD, Dimopoulos EA et al. 2016. Genomic and archaeological evidence suggests a dual origin of domestic dogs. Science 352(6293):1228–1231.Freedman AH, Lohmueller KE, and Wayne RK. 2016. Evolutionary History, Selective Sweeps, and Deleterious Variation in the Dog. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 47(1):73–96.Geiger M, Evin A, Snchez-Villagra MR, Gascho D, Mainini C, and Zollikofer CPE. 2017. Neomorphosis and heterochrony of skull shape in dog domestication. Scientific Reports 7(1):13443.Perri A. 2016. A wolf in dogs clothing: Initial dog domestication and Pleistocene wolf variation. Journal of Archaeolog ical Science 68(Supplement C):1–4. Wang G-D, Zhai W, Yang H-C, Wang L, Zhong L, Liu Y-H, Fan R-X, Yin T-T, Zhu C-L, Poyarkov AD et al. 2015. Out of southern East Asia: the natural history of domestic dogs across the world. Cell Research 26:21.