Saturday, March 7, 2020
The Risk Management Process and its Interactions with the Project lifecycle essay
The Risk Management Process and its Interactions with the Project lifecycle essay The Risk Management Process and its Interactions with the Project lifecycle essay The Risk Management Process and its Interactions with the Project lifecycle essayThe risk management process is the pivotal element of the project lifecycle because the successful implementation of the project and completion of its lifecycle depend on the accuracy and effectiveness of the risk management. In the contemporary business environment, it is virtually impossible to foresee all risks and threats that may affect projects, but the accurate analysis and assessment of existing risks and the elaboration of the risk management plan can help to prevent them or, at least, minimize the major risks, which the project may confront at any stage of its lifecycle (Chari, 2007). The risk management process should develop within the framework of the project lifecycle focusing on specific challenges that emerge at the specific stage of the project lifecycle. On the other hand, the risk management should also elaborate the holistic approach to the project lifecycle, risk assessment and preve ntion. Therefore, the risk management process should focus not only on every stage of the project lifecycle but also assess the project as a whole and elaborate the risk mitigation plan to prevent or, at least, minimize risks and threats the project may confront in the course of its lifecycle and, thus, minimize negative effects of risks and threats that may emerge.           Project lifecycle           The project lifecycle consists of four phases, including initiation, planning, implementation and evaluation. Each stage is equally important for the overall success of the project. Therefore risks associated with the implementation of every stage of the project lifecycle are dangerous and may threaten to the successful implementation of the project. The project team should analyze every stage of the project lifecycle to understand, identify and evaluate all possible risks, which the project may confront.           The initiation stage involves the elaboration of goals and essence of the project. As a rule, strategic goals are set and the vision of the project emerges. Risks emerging at this stage can affect the further development and implementation of the project. The initiation stage is the primary stage of the project lifecycle that gives the start to the project. Therefore, the initiation stage determines the trajectory of the development and implementation of the project and, thus, determines the overall success of the project lifecycle.           The planning stage is pivotal because it lays the foundation to the practical implementation of the project because the project team implements the project on the ground of the project plan. In this regard, researchers (Lucas Baroudi, 2002) recommend developing alternatives to the main project plan. Alternative plans help to choose different ways of the project implementation d epending on risks that affect the project and changes in the course of the implementation of the project both internal and external.           The implementation stage involves the implementation of the plan, which though is not always implemented succinctly because often changes to the plan are necessary to complete the project successfully. In this regard, researchers (Ponzi Koenig, 2002) recommend to accompany the implementation stage with the permanent monitoring and control over the implementation of the project plan to identify flaws of the plan and introduce changes to complete the project successfully and transit to the final stage of the project lifecycle – evaluation.           The evaluation stage is the last but not the least stage of the project lifecycle. The accuracy of the evaluation of the project determines the effectiveness of lessons learned by the project team from the project. Moreover, the adequate evaluation of the project helps organisations to take a decision on the further maintenance or completion of the project as well as to assess the overall effectiveness of the project and its impact on the organisational performance.           Risk analysis and assessment           The identification of the risk is the first and major step to the effective risk management and risk mitigation to prevent its negative impact on the project lifecycle. The identification of risks involves the analysis of each stage of the lifecycle of the project, identification of key stakeholders and analysis of possible risks that may emerge along with the preliminary assessment of possible effects, if those risks do occur.           Researchers (Finley, 2007) distinguish the following potential risks, which the project lifecycle may face, including: technical, costs, schedule, client, co ntractual, natural, financial, political, environmental, people. At the same time, the project team should be aware of the fact that each project is, to a certain extent, unique and, therefore, risks may vary depending on the project. The list of potential risks may be shorter or longer but the point is to identify risks succinctly and allocate resources properly. The proper allocation of resources means that the project team identifies risks and determines their probability and allocates resources required for the mitigation of those risks and elimination of their negative effects. Resources required for the risk management may vary but, as a rule, they include human resources, financial resources, equipment and other resources that may be required to manage risks effectively. In such a way, the risk assessment and analysis involve the identification of key risks and the probability of their occurrence.           In addition, risks analysis and ass essment involves the study of the impact of specific risks on the project lifecycle, which may vary from low to high impact. The project team should forecast the possible impact of every particular risk that may emerge in the course of the project. The analysis of the impact of specific risks helps the project team to allocate required resources and develop possible alternatives to mitigate risks and minimize their negative effects on the project. Risks may vary in terms of their impact on the project from low to high but the probability of their occurrence varies too.           Therefore, it is possible to roughly group risks into four main categories: risks that have the low impact and are unlikely to occur; risks that have the low impact but are likely to occur; risks that have the high impact but are not likely to occur; and risks that have the high impact and are likely to occur (Schein, 2009). The latter are the most dangerous risks, which the project management team should come prepared to and be ready to confront at any stage of the project lifecycle. Nevertheless, the project team should not underestimate minor risks too. In fact, low risks may have a considerable impact on the project lifecycle, if they remain unaddressed by the project team. Such risks will steadily undermine the implementation of the project that may lead to its failure. In addition, different risks may have a different impact on different stages of the project lifecycle (Seitanidi, 2008). For example, risks that may emerge at the planning stage may cause the failure of the project at the implementation stage, if they remain unaddressed at the planning stage. Similarly, risks that emerge at the initiation stage may lead to the failure of the project at the planning stage. In such a way, risks should not only be identified, analyzed and assessed properly, but also the project team should respond immediately to any risk that is identified in the course of the project lifecycle.           Risk mitigation to the project lifecycle           Researchers (Peters, 2002) distinguish different risk mitigation strategies that help to identify risks and respond to them effectively. At the same time, risk mitigation strategies include: risk avoidance, risk sharing, risk reduction, and risk transfer (Wisner, et al., 2004). Each strategy is applied depending on the nature of the risk and its impact on the project lifecycle or particular stage of the project lifecycle.           The risk avoidance implies the careful risk management strategy, when the project team attempts to minimize all the risks by elaborating the most secure project management strategy. However, even though this strategy seems to be very efficient because it leads to the avoidance of risks, but, in actuality, such strategy makes the implementation of the project extr emely challenging. Researchers (Royse, Thyer, Padgett, Logan, 2006) insist that the risk avoidance may lead to the refusal of the project team from daring and potentially highly beneficial projects because of certain risks associated with their implementation and the focus on mediocre projects that are safer, but also they are less profitable compared to more daring ones.           The risk sharing is quite challenging strategy because it admits the occurrence of certain risks but the team management does not try to avoid it but confronts those risks and shares the responsibility and mitigation of risks between different stakeholders or project team members. For example, a project may involve the risk of increase of its costs that will raise the burden of additional funding of the project. While using the risk sharing strategy, the project management team members can invest equal shares to cover extra expenses required for the successful accomplish ment of the project.           The risk reduction is an efficient strategy, which involves the reduction of risks by means of the preparedness of the project team for their emergence (Schmitt Simonson, 2007). As the project team comes prepared to risks, the team can allocate resources and develop effective strategy to reduce the negative impact of risks on the project lifecycle. As a result, the risk reduction strategy helps to reduce negative effects of risks on the project lifecycle.           As for the risk transfer strategy, this strategy is also quite effective because it involves the transfer of risks from the most vulnerable stakeholder or part of the project to the least one (Viardot, 2011). For example, a company working on the construction project can use the subcontractor, who is more experienced and prepared to the risk mitigation, to complete certain stage of the construction. As a result, if the risk occurs, the subcontractor will deal with the risk management. Such risk transfer is effective because the subcontractor will be more efficient in the risk management compared to the company working on the construction project due to more extensive experience and better preparedness to such risks.           The risk mitigation should remain intact during the entire project lifecycle. In such a way, the project management team will always come prepared to risks and prevent them from occurrence or manage them effectively, if they occur. The risk mitigation should also focus on the project lifecycle as the whole to tackle risks that may be not identified at specific stages of the project lifecycle.           Contingency planContingency plan can secure risks and prevent the overall failure of the project lifecycle. The project plan should always involve alternatives or, at least one alternative, which can come into acti on, when either risk starts undermining the project and threatening to the project lifecycle. In addition, project managers should also plan contingency funds, which are funds set aside and used, in case of risks start interfering into the implementation of the project and affecting negatively the project lifecycle. The contingency plan contributes to the overall helps to back-up the risk management initial plan and minimize the negative impact of risks on the project lifecycle.Correlation between the project lifecycle and risk management processEach stage of the lifecycle should have all possible risks to be identified and measured in terms of their impact on the particular stage of the project lifecycle. Second, the risk mitigation plan for each stage of the project lifecycle should be elaborated and implemented respectively to the implementation of the project and progress of its lifecycle. Third, the contingency plan should be developed for each stage of the project lifecycle to ensure that the project management team will come prepared to confront risks and introduce reserves and extra funding and other resources to deal with risks, if the prepared risk mitigation plan fails. Finally, the project management team should elaborate the general risk mitigation plan along with the contingency plan that will help to plan the risk management for the entire project lifecycle.ConclusionThus, the project plan should be a flexible plan to maintain the project lifecycle successfully and mitigate risks emerging in the course of the implementation of the project at any stage of its lifecycle. The identification, assessment and analysis of risks help the project team to elaborate the risk mitigation plan. The risk mitigation plan, in its turn, helps to decrease the negative impact of risks on the project lifecycle and facilitates the successful accomplishment of the project. In addition, the risk management process should also include the contingency plan that will help the project team to accumulate resources and develop alternative plans to deal with emerging risks.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
The Truman Doctrine Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words
The Truman Doctrine - Essay Example Truman argued that if the countries received no support at that time of the urgent need brought about by war, grave consequences would emerge. Many authors have written vastly about the Truman Doctrine as discussed in this essay. According to Lykogiannis (104), Truman believed that the war was a threat not only to international peace but also to the national security of the United States. President Truman asked the United States Congress to provide economic and military support to democratic nations facing war, hence the Truman doctrine. The Truman doctrine changed the United States foreign policy effectively. Historians considered the doctrine as the genesis of the cold war (Freeland 77). The Greek Communist war got support from the Soviet Union who posed as a threat to the Greek policy makers. The United States, through the request of President Truman, provided close to half a billion dollars financial aid to both Greek and Turkey. The Truman Doctrine developed to the United States policy of supporting free people who get subjected to armed minor groups of people or by external pressures. According to President Truman, the doctrine was for the best interest of the United States at large. The doctrine had a strategic goal despite supporting the majority rights (Spalding 55). Economically, Greece lacks sufficient natural resources, thus making it a poor country compared to other developed countries. The country has suffered four years of cruel invasion making economic and social development difficult. Politically, the country had suffered immense destruction from German liberation, and inflation rates remained high. These tragic conditions forced the emergence of a militant minority giving rise to political chaos. This has made Greece’s economic recovery slow and difficult as the country struggles to reconstruct. The financial aid given by United States helped boost the country economic status but was not enough to
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
Description of My House Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words
Description of My House - Essay Example As soon as my friend pressed the grapes which were ripe in nature, the grapes crushed and the juice from the grapes started flowing into her hands and from her hands, the juice started spilling on her wrist until she removed her hands and shook them hard to drop off the juices from the grapes. The ripe grapes are quite thick in juice and have a taste which combines both sweetness and a slightly sour savor.In Japan, the color â€Å"purple†is connected to wealth and a person with a lot of money. These were the remarks made by my friends when they saw the purple grapes that simply looked so rich that the backyard seemed like it was one of a very rich individual. The purple grapes made us feel as fresh and pure as if we had just woken up from our sleep. The smell of the purple grapes was similar to the smell of the jam bottle that I open every day simply to spread on my bread and eat it. The purple color even made us feel as if we were at a party where purple lights moved around the dance floor making the crowd go crazy and dance all night. Simply the sight of purple made us remember our school days when we used to fight for the purple color crayons because every single little kid in the class wanted to grab color purple and start using it. This extended our talk about our school days and the fun we used to have as kids. The mix of the purple and the red grapes took our memories to the recent wedding event that we all attended together at a friend’s place. The purple color even made us feel as if we were at a party where purple lights moved around the dance floor making the crowd go crazy and dance all night. Simply the sight of purple made us remember our school days when we used to fight for the purple color crayons because every single little kid in the class wanted to grab color purple and start using it. This extended our talk about our school days and the fun we used to have as kids. The mix of the purple and the red grapes took our memories to the recent wedding event that we all attended together at a friend’s place. My friends started with a mix of white and purple colored curtains that were used to decorate the entire arena. The whitewash of my backyard along with the purple color grapes gave us the feeling as if we were at one of the tables of the wedding we attended (Fruit and Vegetables 6).
Monday, January 27, 2020
Assessment Of The Iranian Contra Affair Politics Essay
Assessment Of The Iranian Contra Affair Politics Essay The Iran-Contra affair was a controversial political scandal that dealt with senior US figures who had been facilitating the sale of arms to Iran, that was under an arms embargo, to secure the release of the hostages and to fund the Nicaraguan anticommunist rebel contras. While these two scandals were unconnected the contras would not have been able to be funded without the cash flow that the Iranian weapons money created. The operation began as a way to improve U.S. -Iranian relations during a time of extreme turmoil between the countries. The plan was to ship weapons to Israel who would in turn give them to a relatively moderate politically influential group of Iranians. Israel would in turn be resupplied and receive a payment from them. In return for the arms the Iranian recipients had promised to do everything in their power to have the 6 U.S. hostages, who were being held captive by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah. The plan eventually was broken down to a direct arms- for-hostages scheme that came to light in November of 1986 during the Reagan-Bush administration. Although November of 1986 is when the scandal came to light the origins came about seven years earlier in November of 1979 when nearly 500 Iranian students took over the American embassy taking 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. This was important because it was an earmark of one of the first major conflicts with the country of Iran. (Historycommons.org) Then in early 1980 the Israeli government proposed a deal to secretly sell arms to Iran as a means to gain diplomatic ground and a way to get the 52 hostages released, however President Carter angrily declines. The Israeli government then went on with the plan by themselves secretly supplying weapons to Iran shortly after. With the change in presidency from Carter to Reagan the US geared up to begin the shipment of arms to Iran through Israel. This however was illegal due to the Arms export act, which requires written permission from the U.S. for a nation, in this case Israel to transfer U.S. made arms to a third party. (Jonathanpoll ard.org) In a popular conspiracy theory, the October Surprise is said that Ronald Reagan conspired with the Islamic Republic of Iran to beat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 U.S. presidential election. The deal was apparently to have the Khomeini government keep the U.S. hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran until after the election, damaging Carters candidacy, afterwards Reagan would reward them with armaments. (danielpipes.org) This theory gained little notoriety due to it being relatively unbelievable until the Iran-Contra scandal came to light in 1986. After the commanding victory over President Jimmy Carter Reagan is sworn in to office and all 52 hostages are released ending the 444 days of captivity. (Danielpipes.org) The new Administration publicly maintained a hard line against Iran, a nation with little popularity due to the hostage taking and the murder of the CIA station Chief. Reagans Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, was quoted saying, Let me state categorically today there will be no military equipment provided to the government of Iran. However within weeks of this statement senior officials in the administration began putting together a continuing package of secret arms sales to Iran. (jonathanpollard.org) In 1982 Vice President George H. W. Bush asked CIA Agent and national Security Council Official Donald Gregg to serve as his national security adviser and foreign policy adviser who agreed and retired from the CIA. The two worked closely with CIA agent Felix Rodriguez, who was known for the interrogation and eventual execution of revolutionary Che Guevara, to help put together a covert operation to supply the Nicaraguan Contras with money, supplies, and weapons. Rodriguez and North later strike up a deal to divert funds and weapons to the Contras. Rodriguezs job was to set up the servicing of CIA transport planes at the Air Base. Later that year in December the first Boland Amendment restricted government support for Contras; the bill restricted US humanitarian aid to the Contras, and prohibited the use of U.S. funds for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua. However the administration managed to get around the first of the three Boland Amendments by saying their he lp was only designed to force the group in charge, the Sandinistas to come to a peace agreement with the anticommunist Contras, and not to entirely bring the Nicaraguan government down. (spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk) March 17, 1983 the three had a secret meeting in the White House, which resulted in the National Security Council establishing a secret scheme to provide aid to the Contras. Rodriguez was placed in charge of the supply depot and placed at Llopango Air Base in El Salvador. In October of 1985 Congress modified the Boland Amendment by approving to send $27 million in non-lethal aid. (historycommons.org) As a result of this Reagan creates the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office, or the NHAO in the State Department for the purpose of administering the money to the Contras. In the first of the NHAO organizations meetings Oliver North offered the services of Rodriguez to assist in distributing the $27 million in humanitarian aid meant for the Contras. Through the Air Base i n Llopango the legal NHAO and the illegal North fund distribution merge into one secret group. In 1984 Reagan publicly claimed to end aid to the Contras in accordance with the Boland Amendments. However men in his administration continue to support them. Late in 1985 Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams joined the National Security Council and then joined Oliver North and Alan Fliers as the principal members of the Restricted Interagency Group (RIG), which worked on Central American Affairs for the Reagan Administration. Abrams, a large supporter of the anticommunists in Nicaragua became aware of Norths plans to divert Congresss approved 27 million dollars directly to the Contras despite being prohibited to do so. In effect Abrams became directly involved with in the illegal procedures to help the Nicaraguan rebel forces. Unaware of the illegal weapons exchange Congress approved another 100 million dollars for military and non-arms aid to the Contras. (Historycommons.org) In the month of August in 1983 the conservative talk show host Barbara Studley established GeoMiliTech (GMT) Consultants Corporation. After the start of the company a large number of right-wing, high ranking American and Israeli military officials became associated with the company, which had offices in both Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv. The Company began selling arms to Iran through Israel and North Korea. According to several authorities the motives for Israel are clear, which were to have the Iran-Iraq war go on as long as possible and to be as destructive as physically possible, however the motive for the U.S. is much less clear. Many believe that the founding of GMT was the beginning of the arms dealing to Iran by the U.S.. Later in the year the American government started Operation Staunch which asked other countries not to sell arms to Iran in hopes that it would bring peace talks in the Iran-Iraq war. In January of 1984 Iran was officially named a state sponsor of internation al terrorism, because of the large number of militant actions Hezbollah had been committing throughout the Middle East and Europe, a label that has not been lifted to date. In early March 1984 CIA Station Chief in Beirut, William Buckley, was kidnapped by the Muslim organization Islamic Jihad. Buckley would die in 1985 after 15 months of captivity. Buckleys kidnapping along with at least five others was a cited reason for the arms dealing to Iran, which spurred such controversy. (Historycommons.org) On May 8, 1984 the American reverend Benjamin Weir became the first in a string of kidnappings by Hezbollah in Beirut. He was held captive until September 1985, allegedly only being released due to the Israeli arms sales to Iran during the same year. In August of 1984 the National Security Advisor McFarlane asks the United States government to reconsider Iran as a sponsor for terrorism, but is denied. In December Peter Kilburn, a professor at the American University of Beirut became the second victim of kidnapping by Hezbollah militants, later to be murdered in 1986 for the US military strikes against Libya. In January of 1985 the second American pastor, Fri ar Lawrence Jenco, was kidnapped by the Hezbollah and would not be freed until July of 1986. The militant group Hezbollah kidnapped three more men in 1985, including reporter Terry Anderson, hospital administrator David Jacobsen, and an employee of Beiruts American University Thomas Sutherland, all of the men would eventually be released. Anderson was held hostage for seven years, which was considerably longer than any other American captive, and was released in 1991 due to the end of the civil war in Lebanon. (Nytimes.com) On June 11, 1985 the pro-Iran and pro-Iraq factions inside the White House met a boiling point when Robert McFarlanes National Security Council staff drafts the presidential directive supporting America helping Iran obtain weapons, whereas the opposing side headed by Secretary of State George Shultz and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger remarked that the directive was almost too absurd to comment onà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ However the arms-for-hostage deal went on as planned even with the strong objections by Shultz and Weinberger. After the Iranian sponsored Hezbollah kidnapped two more Americans, Reagan makes the statement that Iran is in a confederation of terrorist statesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ a new, international version of Murder Incorporated. And also went on record as saying, America will never make concessions to terrorists. Although privately authorizing his National Security Advisor, McFarlane, to make contact with Iran. McFarlanes plan was to win influence in Iran by helping it win in its war with Iraq. Reagan believed that the improvement in relations would help in the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by the Iran backed Hezbollah. (Nytimes.com) In July of 1985 Israeli representatives met with Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar for the first time to discuss brokering the United States-Iranian arms deal authorized by President Reagan, during this meeting the plan to have Israel sell arms to Iran while having America replenish Israeli stockpiles on weapons. (pbs.org) On August 6, 1985 Reagan hosted a meeting in the White House having to do with the arms-for-hostage deal with Iran, and is allegedly told by McFarlane that the Iranians will see to it that the Hezbollah in return for U.S. and Israeli arms will release four American hostages. Later that year in August Israel sent 96 TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, however no hostages were released. In September, the now ex-National Security Advisor McFarlane takes twenty-three tons of weapons to Iran . (pbs.org) In September America had its first success in the arms-for-hostages arrangement, where Israel sold 500 U.S.-made TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran. As a result of the sale Iran released American hostage Benjamin Weir after over a year of captivity. In November of 1985 the CIA sent 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles on a CIA fronted plane to Iran by way of Israel only to have the Iranians reject the missiles because they did not meet their requirements after test firing. After the transfer of weapons the deputy director of the CIA, John McMahon, reportedly said that the agency could no longer provide covert assistance to Iran without written permission by president Reagan himself. Not even a month later Reagan agrees and authorizes the sale of missiles from that point on as well as retroactively. However that document was destroyed nearly a year later. (Nytimes.com) A day after the president signed the arms-for-hostages deal the pro-Iraq defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger warne d Reagan that There was no way in which this kind of transfer could be made if that particular act governed. However the president felt that the American public could not forgive him if he were not able to save the American hostages lives due to legality. (Jonathanpollard.org) Oliver North, the National Security Council, or NSC staffer who handled the Iran-Contra dealings told the Israeli Defense Ministry officials that he would use the profits from any future arms sales to Iran to directly fund the anti-communist freedom fighters Contras. In early 1986 North set up a network that illegally diverted funds from the Iranian arms sale to the Nicaraguan Contras by using the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, or the BCCI to channel the money to the Contras. The arms money from Iran was sent from the White House controlled account to Saudi Arabia to hide the origins and then deposited into the BCCI bank account controlled by the Nicaraguan rebel leader Adolfo Calero. In January of 1986 several White House officials met including Vice President George H. W. Bush, President Ronald Reagan, Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and CIA Director William Casey to discuss whether or not the U.S. should continue on with the ar ms-for-hostages dealings with Iran. Weinberger and Shultz are as they have been from the very beginning against any and all dealings with the terrorist state of Iran. Bush did not express an opinion either way, however later that month President Reagan will sign the authorization needed for the U.S. to allow Israel to sell 4,000 U.S.-made antitank missiles. According to several White House officials both the President and Vice president believed, that supporting Iran thwarts Soviet plans for Middle East domination, and by his own personal sorrow over the plight of the hostages. With the 1986 elections coming up however there were plenty of political reasons to continue with the arms dealings in hope that the hostages would be released before the November elections. Many of the chief facilitators admitted to the political concerns, saying that they had to meet a deadline on releasing the hostages. The U.S. actually tried to make an ultimatum saying that all hostages would have to be released in order to receive the antitank missiles, however Iran refused which caused a deadlock, which lasted for nearly a month. (Jonathanpollard.org) When the deadlock ended in late February the U.S. sent between 1500-2000 TOW antitank missiles to Israel who in turn sent them to Iran. At this time Oliver North diverted $12 million in money from the arms sale in Iran to the Nicaraguan Contra leader by way of the BCCI. At this time Gene Wheaton, a co-owner to a cargo airline, National Air, was being enlisted by North to help fly in supplies and arms to the Contras. Wheaton tentatively agreed until he became informed that the retired General Richard Secord would be involved in the affair. Wheaton had a personal dispute with Secord over a government contract dealing with humanitarian aid to insurgents such as Mujaheddin of Afghanistan and the Nicaraguan Contras. With Secord in the picture Wheaton refused to go along with the plan and actually went to William Casey, head of the CIA. H owever, Casey does little to nothing over the issue saying that it was not of government concern. Wheaton then notified several reporters of the San Francisco Examiner of the dealings. In mid-September of 1986 the U.S. was planning on forcing Iran to trade hostages for arms. The plan seemed to work until the Lebanese militant Hezbollah group controlled by Iran simply kidnapped more Americans after the release of other hostages. In October the U.S. puts pressure on Iraq to increase bombings in Iran to create a greater need of military assistance by America. This plan began to work when Iraq in fact increased the bombings but the arms-for-hostages dealing was exposed in a Lebanese newspaper as well as some U.S. papers. With the public aware of the potentially criminal acts committed by the Reagan administration support for any more weapons dealings collapses. After the information was leaked most of the pro-Iranian faction inside the White House left office leaving a large pro-Iraqi side which would remain in power until Reagans term was over. In the last months of the administration U.S. military and economic aid for Iraq met an all-time high even giving Iraq the te chnology for long-range ballistic missile, chemical weapons, and even nuclear weapons. (Jonathanpollard.org) On October 5, 1986 a CIA transport plane carrying weapons and supplies for the Contras was shot down by the Sandinista, which brought the U.S. connection to the Contras to light. The Nicaraguan Sandinistas exposed the United States after interrogating the sole survivor of the plane crash, Eugene Hasenfus, who said that he had made ten other deliveries to Nicaragua including six from Llopango. (Nytimes.com) All government officials at that time lied about any involvement in the illegal support of the Contras. Both the story of the arms-for-hostages deal in the Lebanese paper and the CIA transport plane being shot down exposed the dirty dealings the Reagan administration had been committing beginning the Iran-Contra scandal. In Reagans address to the nation speech he denied the allegations of any arms sales to Iran, however he does admit to honorable involvement, such as to renew relations with that nation, to bring an end to the Iran-Iraq war, to eliminate Irans sponsorship of terrorism, and to effect the release of the US hostages being imprisoned by Hezbollah. (reagan.utexas.edu) Later when the facts came to light Reagan and several other senior officials stated that all of the Iranian negotiations were on a strict need to know basis, and that the appropriate Congressmen were notified and informed properly. (reagan.utexas.edu) However an investigation was done on the dealings but a large amount of information was destroyed, and many stated that Attorney General Edwin Meese, who was in c harge of the investigation, was not interested in finding the facts since he refused help from the FBI and did not take notes in his interviews. Oliver North, whom many believe as the mastermind of the operation held several shredding parties at that time to destroy thousands of documents that would likely implicate White House officials in criminal acts. The Iran-Contra investigation later faulted Meese for not using standard investigating techniques. However Meese finds a document that verifies the $12 million that was diverted from the arms dealings in Iran to the Contras in Oliver Norths desk. Meese notified Reagan about the diversion of funds, and tells several senior officials about the acts. Reagan realized that he could actually be impeached on the grounds that they broke the Boland Amendment, but Meese allegedly created a case for deniability for the president. In late November Meese revealed the Iran-Contra funding connection, Oliver North is immediately fired, while other officials are forced to resign. In December Reagan appointed former Texas Senator John Tower to head a commission to investigate the Iran-Contra affair. The investigation lasted for three months. In January of 1987 Reagan admitted to authorizing the sale of missiles to Iran in front of the Tower Commission. A day before the head of the CIA, William Casey, is set to testify before the Senate on the affair he has two seizures and is hospitalized, later dying of brain cancer making him unable to testify. The Tower Commission found that the Iran-Contra affair was a rogue operation and that Reagan himself was largely unaware of the dealings. The majority report cam out in November of 1987 stating that the clandestine financing operation undermined the powers of Congress as a coequal branch and subverted the Constitution. Although no major reforms would come as a result of the majority report. Four men were indicted on multiple felony charges as a result of it including: former National Security Advisor John Poindexter, Oliver North, Richard Secord, and Albert Hakim. North and Poindexter are both convicted and sentenced to jail time, however both convictions are overturned. In the end no high-ranking public official was found guilty of anything more than perjuring themselves in front of Congress, however the Iran-Contra scandal tarnished the reputation of many. This scandal seems to disprove that justice is indeed blind in this country, since many high ranking officials with even more powerful allies were guilty of committing serious crimes but were never punished because of who they knew. I feel that this is an incident that should be remembered for many years, and hopefully it will never be repeated.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Analysis of Ethanol in Moonshine
Analysis of Ethanol in Moonshine| Using the GC-MS| Jennifer Greene| â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€- 4 May 2012 â€â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€- 4 May 2012 Introduction: In this experiment gas chromatography is applied to separate the water-ethanol mixture. This method is often used in the determination of alcohol in blood or urine. One obvious application is when law enforcement agencies need to determine whether or not someone is inebriated. In these cases, high sensitivity is required since 0. 1% blood alcohol content is considered to be legally intoxicated in most states.Our own determination will deal with higher concentrations (up to 25% by volume) which are more typical of alcohol levels found in many alcoholic beverages. Chromatography is a physical method of separation in which the co mponents to be separated are distributed between two phases, one of the phases constituting a stationary bed of large surface area, the other being a fluid that percolates through or along the stationary bed Gas chromatography (GC) is a powerful and widely used tool for the separation, identification and quantitation of components in a mixture.In this technique, a sample is converted to the vapor state and a flowing stream of carrier gas (often helium or nitrogen) sweeps the sample into a thermally-controlled column. In the case of gas-liquid chromatography, the column is usually packed with solid particles that are coated with a non-volatile liquid, referred to as the stationary phase. As the sample mixture moves through the column, sample components that interact strongly with the stationary phase spend more time in the stationary phase vs. the moving gas phase and thus require more time to move through the column.The goal of GC is to separate and detect components of a mixture as efficiently as possible and it is thus desirable to have a measure of the efficiency of a given chromatographic column. One common way to express column efficiency is by calculating the height equivalent to a theoretical plate (HETP) which is the length of the column divided by the number of theoretical plates. HETP = l/n The number of theoretical plates (n) of a column with respect to a particular compound can be found using the following equation: N = 16(tr/w)2 = 5. 55(tr/w1/2)2Where w is the peak width measured in the same units as tr and w1/2 is the peak width measured at half of the peak height. Materials: GC-MS with database| Vials with lids| Cherry moonshine| Disposable pipettes| Ethanol 100%| | Procedure: 1. Set up procedure to: Set â€Å"Detector A†On (Thermal Conductivity Detector) Packed Column Head Pressure: 30 psi Column: Carbowax 20M, 1/8†³ OD, length = 6 feet Oven Temperature: 110 °C Detector Temperature: 150 °C Injection Temperature: 150 °C 2. Wit h the disposable pipette fill separate vials with the cherry moonshine and pure ethanol. . Run the procedure then define the ethanol peak with three additional peaks. This is the chromatograph for Cherry Moonshine. This is the chromatograph for Cherry Moonshine. Data: The blue arrows are pointing to the ethanol peak. The blue arrows are pointing to the ethanol peak. Conclusion: Chromatography is a physical method of separation in which the components to be separated are distributed between two phases, one of the phases constituting a stationary bed of large surface area, the other being a fluid that percolates through or along the stationary bed.Gas chromatography (GC) is a powerful and widely used tool for the separation, identification and quantitation of components in a mixture. In this technique, a sample is converted to the vapor state and a flowing stream of carrier gas (often helium or nitrogen) sweeps the sample into a thermally-controlled column. In the case of gas-liquid c hromatography, the column is usually packed with solid particles that are coated with a non-volatile liquid, referred to as the stationary phase.As the sample mixture moves through the column, sample components that interact strongly with the stationary phase spend more time in the stationary phase vs. the moving gas phase and thus require more time to move through the column. This experiment demonstrated how the analysis of an unknown substance can be determined from the separate peaks. If you select an individual peak on the chromatograph, the database will bring up possible matches of the compound.You would need to look at the mass spectrograph of that peak to see if it matches the compound of interest. If it does, then you have confirmed one compound that is present in the substance. If it is not a match, continue to search the database until you confirm the peak’s identity. From this experiment, the peak for ethanol was not determined using the mass spectrograph of the g as chromatography; however, we ran pure ethanol on the GC-MS and compared the two chromatographs to determine the ethanol peak.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Brainstorming draft
American wedding normally takes place in a church, where all guests gather. â€Å"Here comes the best man, flower girls, exchanging vows and rings, and the wedding music. The wedding ceremony is conducted by the priest. He formally asks the invitees whether they have any objection for this marriage and getting the positive response from the invitees, the priest asks the couple to exchange wedding rings and then the couple is marked as husband and wife†. Furthermore, the priest and guests congratulate, embrace and kiss the just married.On the other hand, modern Americans often wish to arrange an unforgettable wedding and invite the priest to a location of their choice, some of them even insist on underwater wedding. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans the traditional style and arrangement in the place of worship. Indian wedding, conversely to American, usually takes place outdoors, under a canopy called a mandap. The couple sits on carpets under the mandap, and the par ties, invited by the couple, locate around this place. In addition, the priest, as opposed to American wedding asks neither the guest’s ‘blessing’ nor the bride’s and bridegroom’s consent.After being declared the couple as husband and wife, the couple exchange their rings and receive congratulations, moreover, their parents wash their feet in the special water with flower petals . Then, the man and the woman begin to invoke deities like Svaha, who is known as a marital happiness-giver and the priest announces the traditional long list of wishes, which include abundance, successful reproduction, friendship, harmony and happiness. The ideological background of American wedding refers rather to the Christian doctrine than to American culture.Due to the fact that the Bible obliges individuals to create families, the institute of marriage in viewed as sacred and blessed by God. Family in Christian religion is viewed as a self-sufficient entity, where, ho wever procreation must take place; this reminder is usually provided in the priest’s congratulations, addressed to the just married. On the contrary, the settings of Indian wedding ceremony suggest that family is first and foremost a natural phenomenon, that’s why the bride’s and bridegroom’s compliances are even not questioned, – the deities (supernatural forces) have selected them as a prospective family.On the other hand, the two cultural traditions share common view on the meaning of the wedding ring as a symbol of unity and infinity of marital happiness. In America, the bride is supposed to wear a white dress and a veil, which should point to the fact that the broom hasn’t seen the brie before the wedding, so if he doesn’t like her, he will have an opportunity to refuse. The broom, in turn, is required to wear a black suit, alleged as his ‘Sunday best’.As opposed to American wedding, in Indian ceremony, the bride and broom are expected to wear bright and rich colors – the woman should wear a red sari, draped around her head in order to underline her modesty. The man should have a kafni (long shirt, which reaches his knees) and pijamo (leggings) on. In addition, the groom is encouraged to wear a turban. In addition, the bride should put the national Indian decoration, known as mehndi, on her hands and feet . The only common aspect of both styles is the obligation to wear beautiful holiday clothes, which should not be put on again.As for the roles, the major roles in both Indian and American weddings are played by the bride, broom and the priest. Similarly, important roles are attributed to the man’s and woman’s parents and the groom’s best friend or brother (best man), who should accompany him in both traditions. Furthermore, in both cultures, the number of guests determines the happiness of marital life thus, both American and Indian couples seek to invite all relati ves from the bride’s and broom’s lines.In both Indian and American weddings flowers play central role, in terms of the scope of attributes employed. Indian couples are sprinkled with light flowers, as the plants are viewed as positive symbols, bringing about luck and harmony. American bride should have a bouquet in her hands and throw it behind her back once she participates in the ring exchange. However, in Indian weddings, money is valued, so the spot where the ceremony takes place is covered with coins.
Friday, January 3, 2020
The Call Centre and Tengo Ltd. Essay - 2957 Words
TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 03 POOR CUSTOMER QUALITY†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 03 HIGH LABOR TURNOVER IN THE CALL CENTRE†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 04 REMEDY â€Å"TURNOVER††¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 05 IS TURNOVER LIKELY TO BE UNIVERSALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL?... 06 CONCLUSION†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 07 RECOMMENDATIONS†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 08 REFERENCES†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 12 INTRODUCTION: The main objective that focus on this report is to analysis the â€Å"employee perspective issues†that are mainly concerning and involving the employees who are contribute to the poor services quality of the Tengo Ltd. The report is mainly focusing some key areas that are including some key suggestions and it may be overcome the direct and indirect†¦show more content†¦For the reason of restructuring employees are always stressful and their service quality fall down. The restructuring process mainly detached the job rotation which is the key area to develop the employee ability and get equal advantages of service quality as well as job satisfaction. Frenkel et al. (1999) describe that, the great job satisfaction is being connected by the end appearance of the work. This categorization can be useful where complaint management, for illustration, is expected to stick to the previous, even as the technical help is being possible to be related with concluding. In addition the beginning of differentiation and the task spelization between units can also be talk about comparative to low satisfaction, required multiplicity and boredom as achievable â€Å"push†factors. The additional issue apprehensions terms and conditions of worker at Tengo and it seems that better Tengo and call centre’s (other than pay) existing at other close by call centers. The restructuring and content of morale is too likely to be important. Tengo’s payment method is higher than others call centre. However the work environment is not friendly that’s why employees are discouraged and dissatisfied with their job. The less favorable facilitates includes work longer shift comparing nearby call center’s employees, employees are received few holidays and very few opportunity for training and development. Only payment is not the key criteria to
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)