Bibliographic record
Abstract
This discussion paper takes a look at the changing requirements of businesses and at the capabilities of university management schools, in order to address the question: why does industry constantly complain about the shortage of managerial talent? There is no doubting the talent of professional engineers, but their contribution to business management is not good enough. The needs of businesses are investigated and it is suggested that three levels of management development should be visualised. However, companies tend to send selected staff on university management programmes as an act of faith, without becoming involved in programme design or delivery. This detachment is not discouraged by universities and reasons are explored briefly, but it is noted that 'management' cannot be regarded simply as a science or as an intellectual discipline. Programme delivery is visualised in four stages, with companies needing at least three and universities only able to deliver two at best. It is recommended, therefore, that programme design and delivery be regarded as an integrated activity, involving companies and universities. A revolutionary shift in working practices will be required. The experiences of the Engineering Management Partnership (EMP) in the UK are outlined, showing that the present programme, which meets many of the needs of industry, should be extended to include company-specific application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".