Search results

To describe the conduct and outcomes of a field experiment in a US manufacturing facility using goal setting and feedback as productivity improvement tools.

Initial studies were conducted to determine a baseline of performance. A two‐month field experiment was utilized to test and measure productivity. The field experiment involved the implementation of changes to three manufacturing cells for a six‐week period and the training of supervisors and staff. Researchers performed the collection of data, implementation of changes and training of workers.

Findings suggest that goal setting and timely feedback will lead to improved work performance, greater efficiency, and the establishment of more challenging goals. In addition, findings suggest that information systems which facilitate goal setting and feedback are more effective than traditional supervision systems at improving performance.

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, the time frame for the intervention was limited to two months. A longer data collection period could ensure the longevity of the conclusions of this analysis. Second, all subjects received verbal feedback followed by the addition of graphic feedback. Therefore, sequence effects cannot be ruled out. On an overall basis, though, the findings of this study can clearly be applied to a wide range of manufacturing organizations

The study is useful for all managers seeking a competitive advantage through improved productivity. It provides significant insight into ways to improve productivity through the use of goal setting and performance feedback implemented by information systems.

This paper fulfills a need for insight into methods for improving productivity, as well as offering practical aid to managers in the manufacturing industry.

Earliest localism was sited on a tree or hill or ford, crossroads or whenceways, where people assembled to talk, (Sax. witan), or trade, (Sax. staple), in eggs, fowl, fish or faggots. From such primitive beginnings many a great city has grown. Settlements and society brought changes; appointed headmen and officials, a cloak of legality, uplifted hands holding “men to witness”. Institutions tend to decay and many of these early forms passed away, but not the principle vital to the system. The parish an ecclesiastical institution, had no place until Saxons, originally heathens, became Christians and time came when Church, cottage and inn filled the lives of men, a state of localism in affairs which endured for centuries. The feudal system decayed and the vestry became the seat of local government. The novels of Thomas Hardy—and English literature boasts of no finer descriptions of life as it once was—depict this authority and the awe in which his smocked countrymen stood of “the vicar in his vestry”. The plague freed serfs and bondsmen, but events, such as the Poor Law of 1601, if anything, revived the parish as the organ of local government, but gradually secular and ecclesiastical aspects were divided and the great population explosion of the eighteenth century created necessity for subdivision of areas, which continued to serve the principle of localism however. The ballot box completed the eclipse of Church; it changed concepts of localism but not its importance in government.

Describes a field experiment conducted in a US automotive parts manufacturing plant to explore the impact of team goal setting, feedback and problem‐solving activities on product defect rates. Two manufacturing cells were randomly selected, with one cell serving as the treatment group and the other as the control group. The treatment group employed a team defect‐reduction goal‐setting approach, received daily performance feedback, and developed a group problem‐solving mechanism as part of the experimental treatment. The control group was physically isolated from the treatment group and performed their work under the organization’s traditional operating structure. The treatment group achieved a statistically significant reduction in product defect rates compared to the control group over the 15‐month period of this study. Discusses the implications of this study and suggests that a combination of team goal setting, feedback and problem‐solving practices can improve product quality and can be used as a starting point for an overall quality improvement effort.

Volume 25 celebrates the 25th year of publication for the American Journal of Business (AJB). Launched by eight MAC schools of business in March 1986, the Journal has featured more than 700 authors who have contributed more than 330 research articles at the intersection of theory and practice. From accounting to marketing, management to finance, the Journal prominently covers the breadth of the business disciplines as a general business outlet intended for both practitioners and academics. As the Journal reaches out beyond the MAC in sponsorship, authorship, and readership, we assess the Journal’s first quarter century of impact.

The purpose of this paper is to widen the understanding of the shifts the tourism industry experienced as it went though the Covid-19 pandemic. To contribute to this question, an empirical comparison is made between the supply of guided tours and sights at an urban destination in the pre- and postpandemic eras, thus gauging the changes in the guiding tours industry after the pandemic.

By conducting a convenience data gathering and a double-level analysis (tours analysis and sights analysis) on the tours and attractions supply at an urban destination, underlying trends come to light, related to the changes in the postpandemic era. This empirical comparison (2019 vs 2022) allows the authors to assess what has and has not changed in the postpandemic context.

Guided tours and attractions supply are evolving in the researched destination, but at a slow pace. Therefore, we conclude that long-term processes in destinations prevail over short-term disruptions, no matter how strong these disturbances are.

The results are of interest to practitioners as they facilitate a better assessment of the impacts of a crisis and greater awareness of the evolution of attractions in urban tourism. While the “staple tours” in a destination are always there, practitioners should keep an eye on new spaces in the city which the sector is opening up and also new touring trends.

This study is one of the few to empirically compare a pre- and postpandemic situation, as far as city-guided tours are concerned. It helps practitioners and authorities in urban destinations to assess the new trends that have emerged in the postpandemic era, and offers a two-level tool for tour analysis that could be applied to any urban destination.

THE serious and intractable housing problem persists to plague governments and embitter citizens. Why this is so can be gleaned from a few statistics.

Starting from the hypothesis of an ordinary/extraordinary tension that drives the link between tourist places and non-tourist places, this paper discusses the issue of tourist spatial delimitations. Rather than take such an issue for granted, the paper argues that the author needs to understand how the different actors within the tourism system create specific delimitations and how tourists deal with these delimitations. To pinpoint these tourist spatial delimitations, this paper considers three types of discourses: the discourse of local promoters, the discourse of guidebooks and the discourse of tourists. The purpose of this paper is to explain not only the tourist delimitations established by these actors but also the concordance between the guidebooks’ prescriptions, the public actors’ strategies and the tourists’ practices. In this empirical investigation, the author uses the case of Los Angeles and focuses more specifically on the two main tourist places within the agglomeration: Hollywood and Santa Monica. The argument supports the idea that political actors tend to develop what the author could consider a tourist secession, as the author tends to precisely delimit the designated area for the sake of efficiency. Guidebooks, which the author must consider because they are true and strong prescribers of tourist practices, draw their own tourist neighbourhoods. Finally, most tourists in Los Angeles conform to these delimitations and do not venture off the beaten track.

This paper examines three types of discourses: the discourse of local tourism promoters, the discourse of tourist guidebooks and the discourse of tourists. The purpose of the study is to explain not only the tourist delimitations established by these actors but also the concordance between the guidebooks’ prescriptions, the public actors’ strategies and the tourists’ practices. To conduct this analysis, this paper relied on an empirical survey (Lucas, 2014b) whose methodology used a range of different techniques. First, interviews with Convention and Visitors Bureau managers were performed to understand the delimitations established by the institutional actors directly in charge of the tourist development of those places. Second, the second kind of discourse considered here is that in guidebooks. Los Angeles is often included in guidebooks about California in general, albeit with a much shorter number of pages. Although all guidebooks were considered, the study mostly focused on those specifically dedicated to Los Angeles (Time Out, Rough Guide and Lonely Planet) to conduct a thick analysis of their discourses and to note the spatial delimitations that they established. The author must regard guidebooks as the prescribers of practices because they represent a source of information for tourists. The aim is to determine how tourists follow – or do not follow – the recommendations of guidebooks. Third, to understand these practices, the paper considers numerous interviews (approximately seventy) conducted with tourists.

Thus, in these two examples, the author has distinguished powerful delimitations of the tourist places created by promoters through their discourse, which provides information on how they promote the place through urban planning. This tourist staging, and all the specific processing of the place, contributes to a clear distinction between these places and the rest of the urban environment, allowing a very precise definition. The distinction is made from one street to another. However, these delimitations are mainly defined by the practices of the tourists: they have a very selective way of dealing with the public space of the two places concerned. They validate, update and thus make relevant the limits established by the institutional operators, sometimes performing even stricter operations of delimitation. This way of dealing with space is observed in the urban planning and in the discourses on the tourist places expressed in the guidebooks. There are no tactics to bypass, divert and subvert the spatial configuration settled by local authorities and guidebooks; tourists do not attempt to discover new places or to go off the beaten track (Maitland and Newman, 2009). Yet, this is not the only explanation for the way in which tourists occupy a place. Although the guidebooks perform the operations of delimitation and rank places (insisting on one place over another and highlighting what should be seen, where to go, etc.), they also exhaustively present the practices that one can perform, and how tourists deal with space either hints at their disregard of these tools or at individuals’ selection based on the information given. In Hollywood, as in Santa Monica, while the guidebooks exhaustively enumerate the numerous sites that might be interesting for tourist practices, the author observes a very important and discriminating concentration of these tourist practices within a precisely delimited perimeter, respectively, the Walk of Fame and the Ocean Front Walk: tourists walk from one street to another and from a full to an empty space. Thus, the author can support the idea that how tourists cope with space are temporary, delimited by highly targeted practices and restricted only to a few tourist places.

What about the ordinary/extraordinary dialectic? Most tourists do not look for something ordinary; yet, the entirety of what could be considered as “extraordinary” in one metropolis is not included in its tourism space. On the contrary, tourist places can also be seen as “ordinary.” Nevertheless, there is clearly a distinction observed through the discourses, but also in the practices, between an “inside” and an “outside” and between something extraordinary and one’s ordinary environment. One can interpret this result as an actual confirmation of the classic combination (tourist/sight/marker) that constitutes a “tourist attraction” (MacCannell, 1976, p. 44), which concerns a very specific way of dealing with space in Los Angeles. Tourists do not practice Los Angeles as the author might assume that they would typically practice other metropolises, e.g. strolling down the streets randomly. The two places examined in this paper are open to that kind of practice. One can consider that these places have a higher degree of urbanity than the average area of Los Angeles precisely because there are tourists. The density in terms of buildings is (relatively) more important and accompanied by a narrative construction of the urban space (the historic dimension of the buildings), and the public space has undergone specific urban planning and given special consideration, at least greater consideration than elsewhere. In these places, the author finds a concentration of population – the metropolitan crowd – that is otherwise very rare in Los Angeles. However, the tourists seem to have a limited interest in these attractions. These classic characteristics of urbanity do not seem to be regarded positively by a certain number of tourists and are not taken into consideration by tourists. This observation contrasts somewhat with the idea that dwelling touristically in a metropolis primarily entails the discovery of its urbanity (Equipe MIT, 2005). Discovering Los Angeles does not consist of experiencing the local society and of exploring the urban space but, rather, of performing specific practices in Los Angeles (seeing the Hollywood sign and the Stars and walking along the famous beaches). Two approaches can help us understand this gap: considering Los Angeles as a specific case or considering that the spatial configuration of Los Angeles enables us to bring out the logic at work in other metropolises but that would be too complex to distinguish here. Perhaps, the author finds both elements, and this reflection must invite the author to continue the discussion on the logic of tourists’ practice of metropolises: are they really looking for a maximal urbanity during their metropolitan experiences?