Nagpur: Pace spearheads Zaheer Khan and Ashish Nehra revived India’s fortunes when they provided the vital breakthroughs of Mahela Jayawardene and Tillakaratne Dilshan respectively as going into the final 10 overs, the Nagpur ODI remained evenly poised.

The experienced Sri Lankan duo had added 66 runs for the third wicket as the visitors appeared to be cruising towards victory.

However, Nehra, who until then had gone for plenty of runs, redeemed himself when he ‘yorked’ Dilshan in the 36th over. Four overs later, it was Zaheer’s turn to celebrate as Jayawardene made a beeline to the dressing room to leave Sri Lanka at 238/4 after 40 overs.

Dilshan had slammed his second century on the trot, making 123 runs off just 113 balls, hitting 12 fours and 2 sixes.

Jayawardene made 39 runs.

India got a much needed lifeline when Sri Lankan captain Kumara Sangakkara ran himself out while attempting a non-existent single.

Sangakkara had backed too much down the pitch and by the time Tillakaratne Dilshan refused the run, Suresh Raina’s strong arm had already done the trick for India.

India sensed a window of opportunity, as after Sangakkara fell for 21 runs, spinners Ravindra Jadeja and Harbbhajan Singh chipped in with a few tight overs

Dilshan continued his rich vein of form as Sri Lanka had raced off to 100 runs in just the 14th over. Dilshan and Upal Tharanga provided a strong platform to Sri Lanka with a 102 run-partnership for the first wicket as the visitors started off earnestly in pursuit of the 302 run-target set by the Indians.

Their endeavor received a jolt, however, when Tharanga fell for 37 runs to Harbhajan Singh. He faced 42 balls and hit 5 fours.

Dilshan was firing on all cylinders as Indian bowlers strived hard for more success.

High on MSD; India amass 301/7

India recovered from a poor start and thanks largely to a fantastic century from skipper Mahendra Singh Dhoni, to post a very competitive 301/7 from their allotted 50 overs in the second one-dayer versus Sri Lanka at Nagpur on Friday.

While this was Dhoni’s second century on trot at this venue, the previous one having come just last month against the Australians, it was his 6th ODI ton overall.

Coming to bat with India trickily placed at 81/3 in the 17th over following Sachin Tendulkar’s dismissal, Dhoni anchored the Indian innings to perfection, playing perfect foil to stroke-players Virat Kohli (54 runs) and Suresh Raina (68 runs), before coming into his own in the final overs to propel India past the 300 run-mark.

Dhoni, who is the top-ranked batsman as per ICC’s ODI ratings, justified his top billing to the hilt throughout his 111 ball knock, scoring 107 runs with the aid of 8 fours and 2 towering sixes.

Virender Sehwag hits a four during the first one-day international cricket match between India and Sri Lanka, in Rajkot on Tuesday.

RAJKOT: Put in to bat, India scored a massive 414 for seven against Sri Lanka in the first cricket one-day international at Madhavrao Scindia stadium here today.Brief Score:India: 414 for 7 in 50 overs. (Virender Sehwag 146, MS Dhoni 72, Sachin Tendulkar 69; C Welgedara 2/63, N Kulasekara 2/65, D Fernando 2/66).Earlier Sri Lanka skipper Kumar Sangakkara won the toss and opted to field against India in the first cricket one-day international at Madhavrao stadium here today.India would be without middle-order batsman Yuvraj Singh, who has failed to recover from a finger injury. Virat Kohli, as expected, comes in place of Yuvraj.Also missing from the hosts’ final XI are Pragyan Ojha and Sudeep Tyagi.Sri Lanka will be without two star bowlers – spin legend Muttiah Muralitharan and paceman Lasith Malinga.While Malinga is down with flu, Murali is out due to finger injury.Teams:India: MS Dhoni(C), Virender Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar, Gautam Gambhir, Virat Kohli, Suresh Raina, Ravindra Jadeja, Harbhajan Singh, Praveen Kumar, Zaheer Khan and Ashish Nehra.Sri Lanka: Kumar Sangakkara (C), Upul Tharanga, Tillakratne Dilshan, Mahela Jayawardene, Thilan Samaraweera, Thilina Kandamby, Sanath Jayasuriya, Angelo Mathews, Nuwan Kulasekara, Dilhara Fernando and Chanaka Welegedara.

Delhi daredevils Win their 2nd league match of the Champions league T20 tournament after lossing their first encounter with Bush Rangers miserably.

Viru is the Man of the Match.Pidge(McGrath) was fantastic in his spell.McGrath is bowling in T2- after long long time I wonder how com he is so accurate.Man  that guy really really rocks.

Points table

Group B

Group C

Group D

(Lowry’s Data now updated)

Pre-Blog Stuff:

I became aware of the SG in late July/early August of 2009. By accident, I was using off the shelf oscillators and indicators in ways they’re not intended to be used and I saw something odd. At first I didn’t know what to make of the SG, didn’t know if what I was seeing was of any use or was valid in any way. Eventually I began to back test these indicators and realized they had potential.

During the week of August 17th, I made known in a post on OBG’s blog that I had come up with the Buy/Sell Signal Generator and that it was confirming a ’sell’ signal at that time. Later in that week, the most sensitive ‘A Indicator’ began showing weakness in downside momentum which I interpreted at the time as the beginning stages of a new ‘buy’ signal. The market had already had a pretty good bounce by that time, which was August 20th, but based on the signal the SG was giving I decided to go long late in the day of August 21st, 2009.

Over the weekend of August 22nd/23rd, I began putting this blog together as a way to chronicle the signals from the Buy/Sell Signal Generator. I wanted to make the information the SG was giving available to the public so that visitors could audit the site and see for themselves if these signals were of any value. Based on the number of hits this site receives on a daily basis I know that most of the original visitor base sees the SG as nothing more than voodoo bunk as the vast majority of original visitors came only once or twice and have not returned. However, also based on the number of daily hits, I know that there is a small group of visitors who come here each day and who have found value in the information that the SG provides.

August 23rd, Incept Date:

The first post I put up is dated August 21st but posted on August 23rd. In that post I mentioned that I had gone long based on up ticks in the SG.

August 27th:

I posted that, based on down ticks in the SG and the fact that my long position finally went nicely green, that I sold to lock in gains. Also on this date I mention the E Indicator which is only useful at certain times. I mentioned that it was positioned very similarly to the way it was positioned during the February 2009 sell-off.

August 29th, a Saturday:

Based on weakness in the SG and especially the E Indicator, I began to warn of a possible sell-off and also said the sell-off should start no later than Tuesday, September 1st if a sell-off was going to occur at all.

August 31st:

The $SPX lost 8pts. The SG indicated that downside momentum was increasing. I warned again about the E Indicator and mentioned that in back testing when the E Indicator was positioned as it was at the time that dramatic moves followed. I also mentioned that, based on back testing, these dramatic moves were mostly to the down side.

Later that evening I went through a litany of indexes and basically warned against shorting as the market might meander about for a few days before revealing itself. Okay, so I got this part wrong. LOL.

September 1st:

$SPX drops 22pts. I posted intra-day that I was in awe, that the SG had warned of a dramatic move and that the move would probably be to the downside. Too bad I didn’t fully understand the E Indicator at the time so I wasn’t able to take advantage of the plunge. But at least I wasn’t long, either.

September 3rd:

I exit a small short position I had based on the $VIX having punched through the upper Bollinger Bands for three days and having closed outside of those BB’s on two of those occasions. Turns out using the SG along with the $VIX and BB’s works very well.

September 6th, Sunday:

I posted that I expected up ticks in several indicators for Tuesday, September 8th, the day after Labor Day. The $SPX had already rallied 22pts by then.

September 8th:

Had up ticks in all indicators and I warned shorts or anyone who was thinking of going short to rethink their strategies.

September 18th:

$SPX had moved 78pts from the September 2nd low. I was seeing a loss of momentum in the SG and I warned longs to consider hedging against a possible pull back. There were other warning signs as well, including a series of small dogi/spinning top candles similar to those that appeared before the 6/15 sell-off.

September 21st:

The SG continues to reveal a loss of market momentum even as the market continues to climb. I once again caution longs to consider hedging positions just to be safe.

September 22nd:

Based on up ticks in the key A Indicator, I said that hedging might not be necessary after all. I also mentioned that shorting wasn’t yet appropriate.

September 23rd:

$SPX drops 6pts. There are down ticks in 3 of 4 indicators for the $SPX. No down ticks for the $COMPQ. I say in the post that I had warned around 9/17 that no new long positions should be taken. I can’t find that information in the post for 9/17 or the posts before 9/17. Just pointing out this inconsistency.

I mention my concern over further down side especially the fact that the Transportation Index came under intense distribution with its highest volume day since July of 2008. I also warn about shorting while the market is above short term MA’s and without a confirming down side move.

September 24th:

$SPX drops 15pts. After the close, RIMM reports horrible earnings. I mention that I’ve put on a small short position. The SG for the $SPX has down ticks in three indicators but the SG in the $COMPQ has down ticks in all four indicators.

September 25th:

Down ticks in all indicators for both SG’s. I post a long list of sectors that had closed below their 20MA’s and say that a bounce on Monday, September 28th, was a strong possibility.

September 28th:

$SPX gains 18pts. I mention that I closed my short position in the AH session and was looking to get in on the long side the following day. There are still down ticks in all the indicators for each of the SG’s.

September 29th:

$SPX loses 2pts. The SG says it’s a lot worse than it appears and I warn again that longs might want to consider hedging.

September 30th:

$SPX loses 3pts. In a short post, I warn that downside momentum continues to build.

October 1st:

$SPX loses 28pts. Down ticks continue in all indicators. I mention that the $VIX had closed outside its upper BB and hint that a bounce might soon be in the works. I also post that I’m considering that the $SPX is in a bull flag formation and that I think that the down side will continue for as long as two weeks.

October 2nd:

$SPX loses 4pts. I see in the ‘A Indicator’ for the SG on the $SPX what I believe to be a climax signal. I then mention that the $VIX has closed way outside its upper Bollinger Band and say that I expect a bounce come Monday, October 5th. I place an order to get out of a short position I’m was holding at the time but failed to get out in the AH by one cent.

October 5th:

$SPX gains 15pts. I take advantage of early morning weakness to get out of my short position at BE, less the commission, and go long TNA simply based on the climax signal from Friday, October 2nd. Meanwhile, the SG produces down ticks in all indicators.

October 10th, Saturday:

Climax signal from October 2nd proves to be 100% accurate in signaling the end of that particular pull back. Through the course of the week, the $SPX blows through the upper bear flag (meant bull flag) resistance line, negates the ABC down structure, and adds about 36pts. Several of the indicators for the SG’s on the $SPX and the $COMPQ are moving up but the move is not impressive. As a result I remain bullish but very cautious.

I know tons of people who want to go short or are already short expecting some kind of major drop based on what I’m not sure and while the SG is hinting that adding new long positions right here might be risky or unwise it is in no way indicating that going short is appropriate. This could change Monday or any time after that but for the moment the SG says that being long is less risky than being short.
________________________________________________________________

In summary, in it’s short lifetime the SG has produced two very amazing calls, the call for a dramatic move that began to form in late August and the recent climax call from October 2nd, as well as several good calls. All in all, the SG does a good job of sensing when weakness turns to strength and when strength begins to turn to weakness. It works very well with the $VIX and helps to warn of potential turns in the market a few days before those turns occur which allows one the opportunity to get positioned in advance. However, as I have mentioned previously, the trend takes precedent and there are going to be times in the future where the SG is going to warn of a potential market turn but where those turns either don’t materialize at all or where those turns fizzle after a few days or points. Since the market is now in a major uptrend, the moves that fizzle are going to be the ones to the down side. Except during the mid-June to mid-July sell off, this has been the case and will most likely be the case at least in the near term.

So far I’m very impressed with the SG and I hope the SG is helping you in your trades in some little way. As long as the SG proves to be useful, I will continue to update this blog regularly.

Everything that I’ve just posted can be verified by looking through the site archives. Any editing I’ve done on any of the posts is so noted. No original post has ever been changed and any editing that I’ve done has been done as an addition.

Thank you, again, for helping keep this site semi-private.

Intended NTKOG: The kind of cheekily confident, vaguely feminist girl who can poke fun at the whole modern meatmarket scene with a most excellent pick-up line. Like, oh, say, holding up a card rating you from one to ten?

I am: usually drawn to men for qualities like wit, charisma, and advanced degrees in physics.

I am not: too into traditionally good-looking men anyway. (Pssst, Seth Rogen: call me!)

The Scene: Hanging out in the best pizza joint in New England College Town last weekend, chowing down on a bacon and mashed potato pizza with Justice, Muscles, and Karma (Justice’s roommate). One of us observed that the restaurant was a total sausagefest — not, of course, referring to the menu — and for a few minutes we discussed the relative aesthetic merits of the fellows swarming the tables. Then I reached for the pad in my bag, tore out five pices of paper, and starting ripping them neatly into halves.

“What are you–” Karma started. I scribbled a large number 1.

“Noooooooooo!” Justice and Muscles shouted in — I really wish I were exaggerating here — complete unison.

Huh. Apparently they’re hip to my tricks.

“I am embarrassed,” Justice kept repeating with increasing urgency, as I labelled the pieces with bold numerals from 7-10. “Just make sure you don’t forget to say how mortified I was.” (Got your back, girl.) But come on, I argued! I’m not going to hurt anyone’s feelings! I’m only going to give them nice, positive scores. It’s really just a way of giving an across-the-room compliment!

Though I noted in the back of my head that, in the case of a severe hair or wardrobe malfunction, the 9 could always be flipped to reveal a 6.

“You can’t get us kicked out of here,” Karma warned me. “They have the best pizza in town.” A weighty argument.

For the next half hour, I furtively raised what I thought to be the appropriate numbers in the direction of passing men, though I did not hold them up for all to see. Once the judging was in progress, my dining companions took even more issue with my project.

“He’s not a nine!” Justice shrieked, snatching the 7 slip from across the table, while Muscles shook his head in horrified disbelief and picked up the 8. At various points in the meal, each of the four of us had a different slip in front of us, grease soaking through its edges, while hotly disputing the attractiveness (or, uh, age — whoops!) of some passer-by.

Only once did the cards have a chance to get properly displayed. Near the end of the meal, Muscles left the table, and as he returned, sauntered in mock-casual slow-motion toward the table, pantomiming a “Who, me?” gesture. I threw the 10 card up high in the air. Justice noticed the card but not its target and stiffened, blushing radioactive through her sweater dress so hard I could practically feel it. “Put that down,” she hissed. But when Muscles sat back down and she realized what had happened, not only did she relax but, for once, didn’t even dispute my rating.

The Verdict: Okay, so I totally see why my companions didn’t want to be associated with this silliness, and certainly also how, done in a mean-spirited or caustic way, this would be an incredibly cruel thing to do in a bar or restaurant. However, I still hold that if you’re only doling out top-shelf ratings like 9s or 10s, and it’s done in an obviously light-hearted manner, this might be a pretty cute uber-cheesy line to try in a bar. I’d still be up for trying it sometime, if only for kitsch or novelty value.

I rate this idea an 8.0! And my friends a 1.0 for being jerkfaces! (But, I guess, a 10.0 in every other respect, so it all evens out.)

BONUS PRO TIP!

If you’ve ever tried discussing and reaching a group consensus with friends about mutual acquaintainces’ rating on the 10-scale, you might notice there’s a huge ratings discrepancy between men and women. This is because, as near as I can figure, men are much better at purely perceiving a person’s physical attractiveness, whereas at least the women I know have a hard time divorcing physical appearance from intangible (but important!) qualities.

Thus, I presented to you The Patented NTKOG 40-Scale! Simply assign each person 10 points each for: Looks; Personality; Intelligence; and Talent, and I think you’ll be AMAZED by how close the ratings com in! My totally arbitrary brightline for personal awesomeness is a 26: any lower, and people might stop returning your text messages. (Justice & Muscles are both 38s; the guy I went on a Jewish frat blind date dash with freshman year is a 7. Those are about the extremes.)

I mean, not that I really advocate assigning values to people’s attractiveness or your approval for them or anything. But it is quite an amusing activity over a pitcher or two…

This is a design I did for my wine DRINKING party tomorrow night…we may or may not use these, BUT in case someone likes somethin and the have the urge to write it down, this is what these are for!

Prolly upload some photos for tomorrows All Things Art!, but we’ll see…I never know.

I got the general concept of this wine score card from this chicky: yes,please

During a recession everyone hops on the ROI bandwagon as marketing dollars are scarce. As soon as the good times return and the marketing floodgates open, most marketers slide it to the back burner. However, for high-involvement brands ROI analysis is mandatory – in good times and bad times. At Kilgannon, we use a scorecard to make ROI analysis relevant, easily understood, and actionable.

But let’s start with what we mean by a high-involvement brand (HIB). This is a brand that has a long sales cycle and the customer perceives some risk with the purchase. It is the opposite of a consumer packaged-goods impulse purchase. Because of the long sales cycle, marketing investments have a long gestation period, sometimes more than a year. It is highly risky for a marketer to wait until the end of a sales cycle to evaluate the marketing spend. This is why milestones are important — to make sure the marketing stays on track.

Our clients have told us that the scorecard we’ve created has proven to be invaluable. For HIBs, the scorecard is like a breadcrumb trail that leads from the marketing activity to the ultimate sale. This process enables a marketer to see the contributions of each phase of marketing activity. In the early stages of the sales cycle this involves measuring the effectiveness of building brand awareness and attitude.

In the middle stages of the sales cycle, customers are beginning to shop for information about the product. This stage is one of the key differences between HIBs and consumer packaged goods. Since HIBs entail more risk, customers go through a research phase where they shop and learn more about the product before making their purchase decision.

Obtaining metrics on product research activity and how it interacts with your brand is essential to understand your ROI. Web analytics, search results, store traffic, call activity, requests for information, and other lead generation metrics are examples of the type of information that fills the middle stages of the scorecard.

The final area encompasses the more traditional financial metrics, such as sales revenue, market share, share of wallet, and willingness to recommend.

By consolidating all these metrics into one scorecard and trending the results, a marketer can monitor his marketing activities in the short term, while achieving his sales goals in the long term. We encourage every marketer of HIBs to use a scorecard so they can be sure their spend is as efficient as possible.

Sample Scorecard for Widget, Inc.

Started as a Young Adult: -50pts

Total points at creation: -50pts
Explanation: Starting as a young adult is nothing but privelage in Sims3. There is no downside such has failing/dropping out of collage. With the extra play time in the Young Adult age, regaining the lost points should be fairly simple. (Should)

Had I started as a male, I would have lost another 25 points due to the advantage of being able to produce offspring despite being in the ‘old age’ group. Again, the points lost would be easily reproduced… pun intended.

El clima de negocios para iniciar una empresa en México es de nivel medio, considera el presidente de Estudios para la Gobernabilidad del Insituto Panamericano de Alta Dirección de Empresas (IPADE Business School), Felipe González.

Con base en los resultados del Municipal “Score Card, Midiendo las Barreras Administrativas en México“, el jefe investigativo dijo que si bien, se han realizado reformas que permiten al país avanzar en el ámbito de la competitividad y salir del rezago, es necesario:

- Pasar a reformas de segunda generación.

- Avanzar en la transparencia, formalidad e igualdad de oportunidades en el clima de negocios.

- Simplificar trámites para obtener la licencia de funcionamiento de un negocio, tanto en México como en el resto de Latinoamérica.

- Mejorar los pasos para obtener el permiso de construcción.

- Facilitar el pago del impuesto al predial.

- Otro obstáculo que se observa y que tiene que ver con el tiempo que toma a las empresas realizar todos estos trámites, es la corrupción.

- Bajar los niveles de “informalidad” en los trámites.

Fuente: Notimex

http://altadireccion.wordpress.com

Tiger Woods went absolutely  “Berzerk Wolverine” status in the (PGA tour) Buick Open’s second round on Friday.  He slashed a 9 birdie 63 on to the score card.  At one point he cut open 5 straight bird-dogs.  I should also mention that Steve Lowery went crazy yesterday with a record 29 score on the front 9. Today, Tiger Woods is just a few shots out of the lead going into Saturday.  Tiger always plays well at the BUICK, but he may be making up for lost time here.  He has never finished worse than 11th at this gig.  If there is anything that can get in front of today’s super heroic performance from Tiger, what is it?

Šiuolaikinėje globalioje, sparčiai besikeičiančioje verslo aplinkoje sėkmingą organizacijos vystymąsi lemia ilgalaikį konkurencinį pranašumą sukuriantys strateginiai bei lankstūs ir efektyvūs operatyviniai verslo sprendimai.

Veiklos tikslai – strateginiai ir operaciniai, jų tarpusavio nesuderinamumas
Prieš priimant bet kokį sprendimą, yra suformuluojamas tam tikras tikslas (-ai). Jei šie tikslai yra tarpusavyje subalansuoti, tai vadovai gali dirbti kaip bendra, darniai veikianti komanda.

Deja, praktikoje būtent šio suderinamumo labiausia ir trūksta. Įmonės tikslus dažniausiai suformuluoja aukščiausio lygio vadovai (direktoriai, valdyba, mažesnėse įmonėse – akcininkai, kurie aktyviai formaliai ar neformaliai dalyvauja valdyme).

Vidurinio lygio vadovai, kurie tiesiogiai yra atsakingi už verslo procesus, nusistato konkrečius uždavinius, dažnai nederindami vienas su kitu, neįsisąmoninę jiems skirtų tikslų esmės ir pasiekimo kriterijų. Jie dažniausia siekia įtikti aukštesnio lygio vadovams, kurie vertina jų veiklą, todėl neretai pasirenka ne optimalų sprendimo būdą ir racionalius kaštus, o lengviausią būdą ir ilgalaikėje perspektyvoje neefektyvius kaštus.

Kaip suderinti veiklos tikslus
Vienas efektyviausių ir plačiai naudojamų įmonės strateginių tikslų ir kasdieninės veiklos subalansavimo būdų – veiklos vertinimo sistemos diegimas.

Yra sukurta daugybė įmonės veiklos vertinimo alternatyvų, tačiau dauguma tiek konsultantų, tiek įmonių vadovų išskiria subalansuotų rodiklių sistemą (angl. balanced scorecard – BSC).

BSC plačiai naudojama ne tik daugelyje išsivysčiusių šalių (JAV, D. Britanijoje, ir kt.), bet ir rytų Europoje -Rusijoje, Ukrainoje bei Lietuvoje. Šios veiklos vertinimo sistemos paplitimas rodo jos
universalumą ir jos taikymo potencialą Lietuvos įmonėse.

Subalansuotų rodiklių sistema (BSC)
Pagal šią sistemą organizacija vertinama 4 perspektyvų kontekste::
· Mokymosi ir augimo – kaip sukurti į tobulėjimą orientuotą komandą ir inovacinį potencialą;
· Verslo procesų – kaip optimizuoti vidinius procesus?
· Klientų – kaip pozicionuoti įmonę klientų sąmonėje?
· Finansinė – kaip maksimizuoti įmonės vertę?

BSC sistemos kūrimas apima šiuos etapus:
· Uždavinių, skirtų detalizuoti strateginius tikslus, parinkimas ir tarpusavio susiejimas;
· Veiklos vertinimo rodiklių ir jų normatyvų parinkimas;
· Programų, skirtų pasiekti užsibrėžtas rodiklių normas, parinkimas/ sukūrimas ;
· Periodinis veiklos vertinimas (matavimas) ir sistemos korekcijos.

Kokia BSC sistemos nauda?
Subalansuotų rodiklių sistemos nauda:
· Panaikinti atotrūkį tarp strateginių tikslų ir kasdieninės veiklos;
· Įvertinti ir tinkamai reaguoti i suinteresuotųjų grupių poreikius bei lūkesčius;
· Įvertinti konkretaus projekto vykdymo tikslingumą;
· Įvertinti strategiją ir atlikti reikiamas korekcijas;
· Optimizuoti vidinius procesus;

BSC apima tiek finansinius, tiek nefinansinius rodiklius. Sistema laikoma subalansuota , kai finansiniai rodikliai nedominuoja – sudaro mažiau nei pusę (žr. žemiau).

Finansiniai rodikliai – neparodo pilno ir savalaikio veiklos paveikslo
Dažnas vadovas išgirdęs apie rodiklius, kalbą kreipia link finansinės atskaitomybės, galima išgirsti posakį – “čia kur buhalterė skaičiuoja”. Tačiau net išmanydami finansinės atskaitomybės parengimo principus, manote, kad paanalizavę finansinę atskaitomybę, žinote, kokia imonės padėtis?

Neapsigaukite! Sekančių metų, o gal net ketvirčio, atskaitomybėje rezultatai gali būti jau visai kiti ir apie tai sužinosite per vėlai. Kodėl taip yra? Atsakymas paprastas – finansinė atskaitomybė rengiama remiantis istorine situacija (kartais kelių menesių senumo), o vadovui reikia spręsti uždavinius, ką daryti šiandien ir rytoj.

Kita vertus, organizacijoje finansinius rodiklius supranta ir savo veikloje jais vadovaujasi tik nedidelė dalis darbuotojų. Tačiau pardavėjams svarbus naujų klientų skaičius, užsakymo vertė; tiekimo skyriaus darbuotojamas – vieno pristatymo kaina/laikas; personalo specialistui – darbuotojų kaita, darbuotojo pritraukimo kaštai ir pan.

BSC kaip tik ir skirta visiems įmonės skyriams, ir net kiekvienam darbuotojui, jei reikia.
Kiekvienas gali matyti savo indėlį į bendrą rezultatą. Kita vertus, darbuotojų vertinimas tampa objektyvesnis, nereikia užsiiminėti mikromenedžmentu – kada atėjo į darbą, kiek laiko rūkė ar gėrė kavą. Taigi ir verslo kontrolė tampa efektyvesnė.

Ar galima/verta BSC sistemą diegti kiekvienam?
Iš principo – taip, tačiau prieš diegimą siūlyčiau atsižvelgti į tam tikras sąlygas :

· Veikianti formali, tinkamai iškomunikuota strategija – dažnai vadovai ar akcininkai dėl įvairių sumetimų slepia nuo savo pavaldinių įmonės tikslus, tuo pačiau apsunkindami tų pačių tikslų pasiekimą. Paplitęs pasakymas – “naudojamos darbuotojų kojos ir rankos, nors šalia to galima būtų panaudoti ir jų galvą (protą)”;

· Į pokyčius ir tobulėjimą orientuota organizacijos vidinė kultūra – dažnai noras keistis yra daugiau deklaratyvus – daug kalbama diskutuojama, kuriami įvairiausi planai, kurie vėliau tiesiog nugula vadovų stalčiuose. Kartais apsiribojama “kosmetiniais pakeitimais”. Šioje vietoje labai tiktų Č.Darvino žymus teiginys – evoliucijos procese išlieka ne stipriausi (juk dinozaurai išnyko), o geriausiai prisitaikantys;

· Resursai ir kompetencija veiklos planavimo ir kontrolės srityje – dažnai vadovas perskaitęs vieną ar kitą verslo romaną, pasiraitoja rankas ir kimba vykdyti “optimizaciją”. Tačiau neturėdamas pakankamai kompetencijos ir pokyčių vykdymui būtino kantrumo, nusivilia nepasiekęs greitų rezultatų. Juk nenorime, kad ištikus sveikatos problemoms, mums operaciją darytų nepatyręs chirurgas. Visada geriau pasikliauti specialistais.

Daugiau apie BSC sistemą galima sužinoti seminarų metu. Seminarai gali vykti įmonėje.

पिटारा के क्रिकेट स्कोर कार्ड पर आई पी एल के स्कोर भी उपलब्ध हैं। बस पिटारा टूलबार डाउनलोड कीजिये और क्रिकेट बटन पर क्लिक कीजिये। एक छोटा सा विजेट स्क्रीन पर तैरने लगेगा। आप इसे स्क्रीन पर कहीं भी खिसका सकते हैं। जब चाहे मिनिमाईज़ कर सकते हैं। यह विजेट अपने आप रिफ्रेश होता है और हमेशा ताजा स्कोर ही दिखाता है।

Gamer Gang Tip: When starting your first turn on Risk, remember to deploy your troops otherwise you will be totally fucked up for the rest of the game.

So The Gamer Gang had it’s second session of New Risk recently. Present was myself, Llengib, Mr Clueless and his partner (who we’re going to call Cleo). As you can probably guess by the title of this post and the above tip it did not go that well for my good self.

This time around we went for the straight objective-based win. Objectives in New Risk are like the secret missions of old risk, just without the secret bit. They’re also openly displayed on the board so any player can go for them. There are four minor objectives and four major objectives (things like capture two enemy capitals, occupy two continents or hold 8 cities, etc). If you get three objectives you win the game.

We portioned out the territories and immediately I had a big division of forces. I had no real center of power aside from two territories in both Australia and South America so these are what I decided to concentrate on. It was my aim to control these two continents early in the game and then build up my forces from there.

South America was going to be tough because Llengib was virtually unopposed in North America and across the Atlantic I had Cleo with a firm grip on Africa. Worse still was the fact that both of those players went before. Given how I’d built my troops up in Argentina there could be no doubt about my intent so I knew there would be a battle or two.

Australia looked much better though. I had two territories while Llengib and Mr Clueless had the other two.

As Cleo and Llengib took their turns things looked well. Aside from a few pushes into my South American territories from Cleo I was able to hold all my key countries coming in to my turn.

Then I fucked up. Instead of recruiting and deploying my troops at the start of my turn (which would have given me quite a nice boost of troops) I just went straight into the attacking part.

Here was how the board was for me. I had Argentina and Venezuela in South America and New Guinea and Eastern Australia in Australia. These got all of my troops. This meant that I had a sizable force in these four territories which could have given the optical illusion that I had already placed my troops. This also meant that I was able to conquer Brazil and Peru in South America and Western Australia and Indonesia in Australia giving me two continents on my first turn. A staggering achievement which provided me with a major objective and a bonus, an extra defensive die. This was to be the only lasting benefit of my first turn.

As Mr Clueless took his turn and and began deploying his recruits I realised my mistake. Shocked at my idiocy I asked if I could deploy them now but only into territories I held before I started my turn. Mr Clueless vetoed this and from that point on my fate was sealed. On his turn Mr Clueless took a bite of of my Australian territories and I never recovered from there.

Note: Look into developing a Gamer Gang voting process for situations like this. Majority rules.

Perhaps through pity Cleo and Llengib agreed not to attack my South American holdings but by then it was too late. I was a spent force in this game. An annoyance but never a threat. Sure, I tried to reassert myself in Australia but the dice abandoned me and once that happened I simply stopped caring.

Despite my idiocy I actually managed to stay in the game for some time thanks entirely to the extra defensive dice. This was a godsend. It changed every combat encounter. No longer did I have a numerical disadvantage when someone was attacking me. My main opponent was Mr Clueless as he attempted to purge me from Australia. Wave after wave of his troops were crushed against my superior defenses.

Gamer Gang Tip: The extra defensive die is an awesome deterrent so get it if you can. It’s like the New Risk version of a missile defense shield.

My goodwill with Cleo and Llengib was not to last however. As soon as it became unnecessary for them to worry about me being a threat they struck. Once again the extra defensive die made my opponents bleed for every inch but in the end their sheer numbers ended me. My capital fell to Llengib and with that I was done. My horror game had come to an end.

Llengib eventually won the night bringing the score card to:

Mr Clueless 1, Llengib 1, reg5000 nil.

Still, there’s always next time.

Cuttack: Virender Sehwag lit up the fifth one-dayer with a scintillating 91 as India thumped England by six wickets to stretch their lead to 5-0 at the Barabati Stadium on Wednesday.

Chasing a victory target of 271, openers Sehwag (91) and Sachin Tendulkar (50) made it look like a stroll in the park and raised 136 runs in less that 20 overs before a mini collapse rekindled England’s hopes of securing that elusive win in the series.

Mahendra Singh Dhoni (50) and Suresh Raina (53 not out), however, played sensible cricket as the hosts got past the target with 6.2 overs to spare.

Earlier put in to bat, Kevin Pietersen (111 not out) added 89 runs with Paul Collingwood (40) and another 112 for the unconquered fifth wicket with Owais Shah (66 not out) to guide England to a respectable total of 270 for four wickets.

Sehwag was at his swashbuckling best and it was a bad omen for the visitors when the Delhi opener carved three boundaries in a Steve Harmison over.

Tendulkar was not fully quiet either and despite playing a couple of streaky shots early in his innings, the Mumbaikar found boundaries easy to come by.

Desperate to stem the boundary flow, Pietersen took a gamble and introduced spinner Graeme Swann in the Powerplay but with Sehwag was in a murderous mood, and the ploy boomeranged.

Sehwag went berserk in that highly productive over which went 0,1 (wide),4,6,4,4,2 as the batsman cruised to his fifty. Pietersen naturally didn’t delay in taking the battered spinner off the attack.

Tendulkar hit Andrew Flintoff for back-to-back boundaries and a single off Harmison took him to his 90th fifty but the batsman was soon castled by the pacer after his 57-ball knock. Tendulkar’s exit triggered a mini-collapse and from 136 for no loss, India suddenly slumped to 156 for three with in-form Yuvraj Singh (6) and Sehwag also back in the hut.

Ravi Bopara caught Yuvraj off his own bowling and Stuart Broad then trapped Sehwag in front of the stumps although replays suggested the ball was missing leg. Sehwag’s 73-ball 91 was studded with 15 boundaries and a six.

England suddenly seemed to be back in the game but Dhoni and Raina played smart cricket to shut England out.

Dhoni’s 61-ball 50 included five fours, while Raina’s (unbeaten) 53 came at a run a ball with eight hits to the fence.

Earlier, Pietersen led from the front and slammed his first century as ODI captain as England posted a modest 270 for four wickets.

England sent Alastair Cook (11) to open the innings with Ravi Bopara (24) but the opening stand yielded only 33 and it were Pietersen’s crucial partnerships with Collingwood and Shah that powered England past the 250-mark.

Pietersen’s 128-ball 111 was studded with 10 boundaries and a six, while Shah’s unbeaten 66 came off 57 balls with nine fours in it.

For India, Zaheer Khan grabbed two wickets conceding 60 runs in his 10 overs.

Even a change in the opening combination could not do the trick for England and both Cook and Bopara looked tentative as they survived a couple of lbw decisions.

Playing his first match of the series, Cook eventually became Zaheer’s first victim in the sixth over when Sachin Tendulkar took a waist-high catch at first slip. Pietersen joined Bopara in the middle and began to score at a brisk pace. The duo added 35 runs for the second wicket when Zaheer removed Bopara in the 10th over.

Having completed his fifty, Pietersen went after Harbhajan, hitting the off-spinner for a boundary and following it up with a towering six over long-on to complete his 3000 runs in this format of the game.

The duo had raised 89 runs for the third wicket when Collingwood was dismissed by a Harbhajan enticer.

Dhoni’s move of replacing Yuvraj with Ishant paid dividends as the lanky pacer dismissed Andrew Flintoff for a duck to reduce England to 158 for four.

Pietersen was then joined in the middle by in-form Shah and the duo milked the Indian attack with consummate ease.

Having pocketed the seven-ODI series by winning the first four matches on the trot, the Indian think-tank fielded Rohit Sharma and Irfan Pathan for Gautam Gambhir and Munaf Patel.

England too effected two changes leaving out Ian Bell and James Anderson with Cook and Steve Harmison figuring in the playing XI.

With the impending triple election saga this fall (US + Canadian Federal Elections + Halifax Municipal Elections), it appears that many local news outlets in Halifax have determined that US and Canadian federal elections are more worthy of coverage than the more relevant Halifax municipal elections. Therefore, that leaves social media to do as much as we can to cover this important event and scrutinize the candidates so the public can make an informed decision when they head to the polls.

First, allow me to clarify the parameters of this review. This review will not delve into the experience of each candidate. It will not scrutinize them on key issues either. While important, a review as thorough as that is simply beyond my capacity for time. Therefore, I hope readers will accept my attempt at deciphering the suitability of a candidate based solely on: Their use of technology in their campaign.

My reasoning is simple:

1. For a city to grow and prosper, it must have a vision of how it wants its future to look like, and appoint capable people to lead it towards that future,
2. Any talk of working towards or within ‘the future ultimately involves some form of interaction with the tools of this future, namely existing and upcoming technologies that are designed to provide leaders with the ability to efficiently and productively collect, analyze, and communicate information.

In other words, if a candidate can not collect, analyze, understand, and communicate information quickly, accurately, and efficiently, then they will not be able to plan/implement/respond in a timely manner to the continuous pace of changes that are needed for a successful march towards the future. Of course, this is only a problem if a united vision of the future is present and if there is a collective will on council to achieve it within this lifetime.

THE SCORE CARD below will attempt to reflect a candidate’s ability to work with the communication tools of existing mainstream technologies (the internet), which may tell whether or not a candidate has access to the tools that open a world beyond Halifax or their district for their consideration, tools that allow this candidate to draw on this world’s marvel when it’s time to envision the future of Halifax as a city with its place in Canada and the world.

You may disagree with the above criteria. Certainly, an elections candidate can serve his/her immediate district constituents very well without ever having to send a single email. “What’s that Bob? Need snow plows to clear your cul-de-sac twice a day? I’ll call the person responsible and see what can be done about that right away.”

However, I contend that a candidate that can get the street plowed AND use the internet is infinitely more productive, and more informed. But that’s just me.

The big question is: can a candidate’s awareness of technology (the internet, productivity and communications tools, etc.) be a good indicator of their capacity for visioning a future for Halifax? Does this mean this candidate is completely unfit for council duties? Is it more acceptable for a candidate to be less apt with technology, vision, and the future if these things are not a priority to their target voter? Where is the line drawn between individual district priorities and the priorities of the city as a whole? These are the questions that keep me up at night.

I will leave this determination to your individual and collective priorities for the city and your understanding of the qualifications you require of your elected leader to achieve these priorities.

So then, let’s proceed to the rankings!

Measurement Criteria:

To offer a fair comparison, we will mainly analyze a candidate’s use of the internet to communicate in their campaign. If a candidate is unable or unwilling to use the most basic form of today’s communication technologies (a website), then I am willing to safely assume that this candidate does not have the knowledge of the tools of today’s productive leaders and visionaries. But, again, that’s just me.

Candidates will get 1 point on their use of each of the following online communication tools in their campaign. This does not mean that the candidate has to know how to program or create any of the following. It would suffice if they were merely aware of their existence/importance and have directed the appropriate resources towards addressing them.

- Website Presence
- Website professionally built?
- Mobile version of website? (For text message campaigns)

- Website contains:
- Bio
- Platform
- Clear description of represented district boundaries
- Contact Info
- Form to join an email list or newsletter

- Press Kit:
- Downloadable/Printable High-Res Candidate Photo
- Downloadable/Printable High-Res Campaign Logo
- Downloadable/Printable Bio
- Downloadable/Printable Platform
- Notable Candidate Quotes
- Dated Press Releases
- Log of Candidate mentions in the media
- Voting Information
- Volunteer information
- Donations information
- Support information
- Online Support signup form
- Online Volunteer signup form
- Online Donations capability (Paypal, etc.)
- Useful links to related external information
- Video clips (1 point for each video up to a max of 5)

- Use of Social Media tools
- Presence on Social networks (Facebook, etc.)
- Presence on YouTube or other Vlog (Video Blog) sites
- Frequently updated Blog
- Provide link-back tags/banners/widgets
- Use of RSS (Really Simple Syndication)

With the limited time at hand, I am only able to rate candidate websites that I am able to easily find. For those who do not have a readily identifiable web presence, I have assumed they don’t have a website altogether and are therefore marked as ‘0’ in the score card. If you know that a candidate marked with a ‘0’ actually does have a website, please send the web address and I will revise their score accordingly.

Notes:

1. The information in the score card is accurate as of Friday September 19.
2. Please allow for human errors.
3. If a candidate has updated their website to include any of the above elements after Friday, let me know and I will update their score.
4. If you wish to apply your own criteria to rate the candidates, please feel free to use this score card format. You can download the Excel file by clicking here.

Here are some excerpts from the score card. Click on image to enlarge. The complete score card is available as a PDF file Here.

Bedford Candidate Online Campaign Analysis

Halifax Mayoral Online Campaign Scores

Downtown Candidate Online Campaign Analysis

I just read on the Golf Chick Blog that because Michelle Wie failed to sign her scorecard on Friday, she was disqualified from the State Farm Classic. Only the LPGA failed to tell her about it until she had completed her round the following day.

Wow, thats a little rediculous. Kind-of makes you think the LPGA is using her for her publicity, right?

According to an article on newsday, Sue Witters, the LPGA’s director of tournament competitions, disqualified Wie in a small office in an LPGA trailer at the golf course after asking her what had happened.

“She was like a little kid after you tell them there’s no Santa Claus,” Witters said.

Wow, that’s really bold. Especially after what Wie has done for the sport.

One of the most obvious area of improvement for professionals involved in customer knowledge and all types of analysis aiming to create strategic informations for the benefit of marketing decision makers is reporting. Too often, great findings are not optimized simply because the people like us are not able to present and communicate them in a way that is interesting, clear and action oriented. Let’s face, 9 out of 10 times analysts will get lost in way too many graphs, bullet points, numbers and questions for which not answer is provided.

Too help, here are a few prosentations related to score cards that I find worth your time. Personnaly, my fear with high level score cards is that they summarize too much … and they definitely don’t do justice to all the efforts that I put in to produce them. My only satisfaction with them is to see that the people I want to take action look at them, actually understand them and, oh my god!, start discussing action plans to improve the indicators.

Recent research by Martina Bjorkman and Jakob Svensson for the Centre for Economic Policy Research investigatez the impact of community based monitoring on the quality and quantity of health services in Uganda.

As communities began to monitor local health service providers, both the quality and quantity of health servicesimproved. One year into the program, Bjorkman and Svensson found large increases in utilization, significant weight-for-age gains of infants, and markedly lower deaths among children.

A Citizen Report Card methodology was used to record the experiences and preferences of communities and fed back to service providers. Communities also monitored whether their recommendations and desires were implemented. This mechanism created the incentives for improved health service delivery.

The results suggest that community monitoring can play an important role in improving service delivery when traditional top-down supervision is ineffective.

This project was designed by staff from Stockholm University and the World Bank, and implemented in cooperation with a number of Ugandan practitioners and 18 community-based organizations. The 50 project facilities (all in rural areas) were drawn from nine districts in Uganda and reached approximately 55,000 households. Thus the project has already shown that it can be brought to scale.

Macro-level research by political scientists has underlined the importance of the so-called ‘democratic dividend’. While the link between democracy and concrete benefits to citizens can seem tenuous on a large scale, this project demonstrates that the links are much clearer at a local level.

: : :