Time Saver Standards for Interior Design and Space Planning MaxawY

Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 2022

El presente artículo tiene por objetivo describir la evolución de la herramienta del Cuadro de Mando Integral (CMI) desde la perspectiva teórica, destacando los elementos que se han mantenido y los que se han incorporado a lo largo de su trayectoria. Se emplea el método analítico-exploratorio y técnicas como revisión bibliográfica de las publicaciones de los autores originales, así como la literatura producida por académicos y expertos de negocios que han hallado formas innovadoras de implementación de esta herramienta empresarial. Los cambios ocurridos en el CMI hallados en la bibliografía fueron clasificadores de acuerdo a su contenido, los cuales dan cuenta de modicaciones para: abordar temáticas específicas; crear subsecciones en una perspectiva y adaptar el CMI para su aplicación en organizaciones públicas. Se concluye que la vigencia actual de esta herramienta de control de gestión obedece a su flexibilidad para ajustarse a cualquier organización.

The politics of the present is often cast as a fight for the future. Whether visions of post-capitalist technological utopia, nativist retrenchment, or apocalyptic disaster, the struggle for the future aims to resolve the deadlocks of the present. I take a sceptical stance on these ‘inventions of the future’, arguing that they risk detachment from the present and create substitute satisfactions to compensate for current weakness. Instead, in a more sober mode, I suggest de-inventing the future to assess the limits and tensions of contemporary forms of struggle. I speculatively consider the seeming absence or crisis of current forms of class struggle and the resulting inertia that results in the present moment. The fight for the future, I suggest, is fought now, but in a situation characterised by fragmentation and desperation.

Pédagogie Médicale, 2002

Conjunctive Explanations in Science and Religion , 2023

Before Darwin, the apparently purposeful ("teleological") features of biological organisms were widely believed to be explained by divine design. Many believe that the Darwinian revolution changed this picture, making design unnecessary for understanding biologyat least unless one rejects evolutionary biology. However, already early on somesuch as Darwin's friend, the American botanist Asa Graysaw evolution and biological design arguments as compatible. The advances in understanding conjunctive explanations, as well as advances in biological understanding, create the possibility for re-evaluating the debate between Darwin and Gray, and the question of the compatibility of evolution and design arguments. In this chapter, I begin by analysing the traditional antievolutionist and Darwinian case against compatibility and then proceed to the details of the Darwin-Gray exchange. Finally, I evaluate this exchange in light of present-day ideas and conclude by presenting a case for how design and evolution might be understood as complementary rather than contradictory explanations.