高密度配线架选择指南

康普在去年推出新型超高密度配线架,可以在1U的机架空间内提供144个LC连接密度.对于某些用户来说,如此超高密度的好处多多,因为这些用户机房内的导向器几乎占据了机柜中所有的可用机架空间.     

A note on the balancing factors of gravity models

Application of the production constrained gravity-type spatial interaction model generally incorporates a “balancing of attractions” procedure to yield the fully constrained condition. Two techniques for balancing a singly constrained gravity model are compared in this note. These are the Federal Highways Administration adjusted attraction factor method and the Furness column and row balancing procedure. This comparison shows firstly that the two techniques are identical, and secondly that the balancing procedure results in an arbitrary distortion of the calibrated distribution function. Furthermore, some empirical results show that the balancing procedure does not necessarily improve the model's predictions on a cell by cell basis. These results indicate that balancing may be an unnecessary as well as undesirable step in the application of the singly constrained gravity model.     

Speeding Up the Pace of New Product Development

This study empirically investigates a wide array of factors that have been argued to differentiate fast from slow innovation processes from the perspective of the research and development organization. We test the effects of strategic orientation (criteria- and scope-related variables) and organizational capability (staffing- and structuring-related variables) on the speed of 75 new product development projects from ten large firms in several industries. Backward-elimination regression analysis revealed that (a) clear time-goals, longer tenure among team members, and parallel development increased speed, whereas (b) design for manufacturability, frequent product testing, and computer-aided design systems decreased speed. However, when projects were sorted by magnitude of change, different factors were found to influence the speed of radical and incremental projects. Moreover, some factors that sped up radical innovation (e.g., concept clarity, champion presence, co-location) were found to slow down incremental innovation. Together, the radical and incremental models explain differences in speed better than the general model. This suggests a contingency approach to speeding up innovation. Implications for researchers and managers are discussed.