伯明翰代写assignment:公开大学课程
ASSIGNMENT代写

伯明翰代写assignment:公开大学课程

2017-06-06 00:59

公开大学课程t840“技术管理”,是最初的研究技术管理方面的技术知识和作为一个查询和动作过程。在试图了解不对称社会恐怖组织可能在复杂性理论的理解,在大学开设的课程b822创新Jane Henry,创新和变革的一个很好的起点在了解背景复杂性理论提供。智能故障电流的职业,在最近的恐怖暴行的光,导致了许多国防导向的期刊文章专门的军事情报,这些将被用来扩大研究。伊万斯(2009)批评智力周期在寻求理解的过程中出现的故障。他讨论了进程之间的关系(技术咨询和行动)和信息(技术知识);一是在公开大学课程t837信息集中系统由休斯等人的关键”。伊万斯和休斯是固定的信息流内的技术载体,即。伊万斯讨论的经营理念如情报、监视、目标捕获和侦察(ISTAR),而休斯等人的研究,在更详细的级别,电磁辐射。然而,两者的哲学方法有许多共同之处。而休斯成功地讨论为什么信息系统存在,模拟真实世界;伊万斯未能超越现有方法的内在批判技术管理,并最终转化处理技术的神器。这种趋势继续与智力故障有关的其他文章。在不涉及技术与后果的文章,Honig(2008)讨论为什么袭击继续发生,但又不确定的东西,休斯在t837立即识别技术相关的信息系统的价值只有当他们模型的信息内容从环境中得出的(技术知识)。
伯明翰代写assignment:公开大学课程
The Open University course T840 'Technology Management', underpins the initial research into technology management with regard to technology as knowledge and as a process of enquiry and action. Whilst seeking to understand how asymmetric societal-terrorist groups might be understood in the light of complexity theory, Jane Henry in the Open University Course B822 'Creativity, Innovation & Change' provides a useful starting point in understanding the background to complexity theory. The current occupation with intelligence failure, in the light of recent terrorist atrocities, has led to many defence orientated journal articles dealing specifically with military intelligence, and these will be utilised to expand the research.Evans (2009) critiques the intelligence cycle in seeking to understand where failures are occurring in the process. He discusses the relationship between process (technology as enquiry and action) and information (technology as knowledge); something that is seen as key by Hughes et al in the the Open University Course T837 'Information Focused Systems'. Both Evans and Hughes are fixated by information flow within the context of technical carriers, viz. Evans discusses operating concepts such as Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR), whilst Hughes et al explores, at a more detailed level, electromagnetic radiation. Nevertheless, the philosophical approach for both has much in common. Whereas Hughes succeeds in discussing why information systems exist, to model the real world; Evans fails to move beyond an internal critique of existing approaches to technology management, and ultimately reverts to dealing with technology as artifact. This trend continues in other articles concerned with intelligence failure. In an article less concerned with technology than with consequences, Honig (2008) discusses why surprise attacks continue to happen, but again does not identify something that Hughes in T837 immediately recognizes - technology related information systems have value only when they model information content drawn from the environment (technology as knowledge).