A decision support system model for technology transfer

Technology transfer is the process by which technology originating at one institutional setting is adapted for use in another. A major impediment to the implementation of new technologies to assist with mangerial decision-making problems is a lack of communication between the technology and management communities. Development of a tool designed to bridge the technology transfer gap was the goal of this research. The result is a prototype software package which may be used on an interactive computer terminal by a manager for assistance in designing a decision support system (DSS). The four primary research tasks were:

1. Develop a conceptual model of the DSS design process.
2. Select and adapt, or create, appropriate software to mechanize the model.
3. Develop a knowledge base to describe the interactiveness of various organization variables and managerial decision-making needs.
4. Collect and analyze interview data and implement resultant production rules on the model.

Tasks 1 and 2 were accomplished first to establish the feasibility of this effort. An interview instrument was developed for Task 3. And, corporate managers from several firms were interviewed to accomplish Task 4. Using this data, a prototype production rule model (called DECAIDS for DECISION AIDS) was constructed which supports managerial decision-making from the EMYCIN production rule system used at Stanford University. The purpose of this article is to introduce the need for a Decision Support System Model. A complete copy of this research can be obtained through University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106, from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California 93940, or the Defense Technical Information Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. The title is “An Interactive Decision Support System for Technology Transfer Pertaining to Organization and Management”, 1980.     

Cost Benefit Study of the New Covent Garden Market

The Hon. Editor has received the following letter commenting on Professor Kirk's and Mr. Sloyan's article on the New Covent Garden Market (Vol. 56 Spring 1978). The author is lecturer in applied economics in the Department of Social and Economic Research, University of Glasgow. Mr. Heald's letter is followed by a reply by Professor Kirk on behalf of Mr. Sloyan and himself.     

Rewriting Roe v. Wade

Presented in this essay are suggestions for rewriting Roe vs. Wade, the case that resulted in the establishment of a constitutional right to abortion. Essentially, the argument is 1 of equal protection. It is suggested that abortion be viewed as presenting a problem that might be termed "the law of samaritanism" -- the law regarding obligations imposed on certain individuals to provide assistance to others. In American law it is a deeply rooted principle that an individual is ordinarily not required to volunteer assistance to another individual who is in danger or in need of aid. The argument presented maintains that if a pregnant woman is required to carry the fetus to term and deliver it, then she is being compelled to be a Good Samaritan. It is argued further that if the generally limited scope of obligations of samaritanism under current law are considered, and the special nature of the burdens imposed on pregnant women by laws forbidding abortion are also considered, the obvious conclusion is that the equal protection clause forbids imposition of these burdens on pregnant women. The argument is developed in a lengthy form and calls for an extended discussion of the law of samaritanism. The uniqueness of the abortion case also creates problems as the equal protection argument is approached, and an approach to equal protection questions is sketched.     

Comparative approaches to R & D policy coordination

Approaches to the interagency coordination of R & D policy adopted by the governments of five West European countries and the United States are described and analyzed comparatively in terms of four variables: (1) procedures; (2) aims; (3) distribution and sources of influence among participating agencies; and (4) the frame of reference which orders governmental actions in R & D for coordination purposes. Differences stem from general features of policy formation within each system and changes over time in the conception and goals of science policy. The inherent ambiguities of the coordination concept and the difficulties in defining the perfectly coordinated system are the primary obstacles in evaluating coordination formats both within and across systems.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in Washington, D.C., September 1977.