Managers are usually responsible for the control of the level of several process variables, such as cost, quality, rate of output, and so on. The levels of these process variables are known as the states of the system, and they may be represented by the values either of a continuous variable or by a discrete variable. It is assumed that these states can be ordered in terms of their desirability. Some processes may move only from a more desirable to a less desirable state while others may shift in either direction. These shifts may occur with or without the intervention of the manager. The control system is a plan formulated by management to indicate when intervention should take place. Three types of control systems are generally possible. The first involves no intervention by the manager until a breakdown of the process occurs. This approach is to be favored when the continued operation of the control system is less costly than the benefits to be derived from intervention. The second type of control system consists of periodic intervention by the manager for purposes of adjusting or otherwise influencing the process. The most compelling reason for this approach lies in its ease of application. The third approach bases the intervention decision on information obtained from the process. This information is typically obtained by sampling. The present paper will concentrate on this third type of control system. Several components are incorporated into any control system. First, the manager must establish the variable or variables to be controlled. He must

Journal Article A Note on a Covariance Matrix with its Application to the Two-Parameter Hypothesis on Risky-Asset Choice Get access T. Ichiishi T. Ichiishi Keio University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 36, Issue 2, April 1969, Pages 254–256, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296842 Published: 01 April 1969 Article history Received: 29 February 1968 Revision received: 31 October 1968 Published: 01 April 1969

The classic 1955 paper of Lorie and Savage has stimulated the development of mathematical programming approaches to the analysis of capital budgeting problems. A problem that they considered has been succinctly stated as:given the net present value of a set of independent investment alternatives, and given the required outlays for the projects in each of two time periods, find the subset of projects which maximizes the total net present value of the accepted ones while simultaneously satisfying a constraint on the outlays in each of the two periods.

The cycle, 153. — High-income products, 155. — Product variations, 158. — Economics of scale, 160. — Transportation and tariffs, 160. — Conclusions, 161.

It will be convenient to consider in detail one specific form of security option: common stock purchase warrants. The model to be constructed can be extended mutatis mutanidis to any convertible security; Section 4 explicitly relates the model of warrant price to convertible bond price. A common stock purchase warrant is a security which the holder may exchange, at his option, for equity capital. The exchange may be effected by surrendering the warrant and a prespecified sum of money before a prespecified date to the corporation issuing the common stock. The act of conversion is usually called the exercise of the warrant, and the accompanying money the exercise price. Let X be the price of a unit of common, let Y be the price of a warrant, and let A be the exercise price of Y. For the remainder of this study, we shall measure X and Y in units of A so that Y/A = y is the price of 1/A warrants and X/A = x is the price of 1/A common shares. In this way, y plus $1 can be converted into shares

Journal Article Marshallian External Economies and Gains from Trade between Similar Countries Get access T. Negishi T. Negishi University of Minnesota and University of Tokyo Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 1969, Pages 131–135, https://doi.org/10.2307/2296352 Published: 01 January 1969 Article history Received: 12 November 1967 Revision received: 19 August 1968 Published: 01 January 1969

The article discusses the capacity of utilization and efficiency varience. Efficiency variance is analogous to the usual fixed overhead efficiency variance. The aim of this article is to clarify the framework and to appraise the place of an efficiency variance within that framework. Distinctions between effectiveness and efficiency are frequently very helpful in discussing planning and controlling. Effectiveness is the accomplishment of a desired objective. Efficiency is an optimum relationship between input and output. Efficiency is monitored by other means via the usual labor efficiency variances and similar variances that analyze variable cost factors. The use of an efficiency variance is helpful because it often explains why capacity was ineffectively utilized. However, for reasons explained in an earlier article, expressing the efficiency variance in terms of historical costs is objectionable. The association of the capacity efficiency variance with the expected idle capacity variance is an unnecessary direct link that may be more confusing than helpful.

The most serious shortcoming in today's determined drive toward larger and more complex business information systems could well be the very device which has stimulated this drive-the computer. Large quantities of time, effort, and imagination have been devoted to the development of what appears to be the glamorous aspects of the computer. This article has urged attention to the importance of adequate computer system controls. As more comprehensive and complicated computer systems are developed it will become even more critical to have adequate controls. Control is not provided, however, by employing a miscellaneous set of checks throughout a processing system. Control is provided through a well defined design established and directed by executives at the highest level in the firm. control is effectively employed only when it is applied in accord with a specific concept which gives direction to the creation of the processing system from the executive level (macro) in the firm down through the design level (inter-mediate) and finally to the specific machine control level (micro). Certainly, control over computer processing is absolutely essential and without adequate control it is entirely possible that the computer will be the weakest link in an information processing system.