|WikiProject Companies||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Economics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This article completely misses one whole area associated with "resource management" (it probably misses others as well) - that to do with land or natural resources - which I thought it would discuss, based as it was on a link coming from an article on Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
- The author of this article is not talking about environmental or ecological resource management. He/she is talking about the techniques used in business to manage a firm's resources (including inventory, financial, and human resources). It should be moved to Resource management (business). mydogategodshat 06:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the potential move, especially since there is a complementary natural resource management article, which is somewhat different from land management or environmental management or fisheries management or forest management. All of these are ultimately concerned with resources and their management. A Resource Management lead article might offer a very general introduction and provide links to all of these (and maybe more). What is the process for moving an article? Eliezg 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"See also" section is added
For the time being, only one entry is appended
kindly prvoide material on resource management
Specifically for IT resources (such as computers, network equipment, storage equipment, and connections), the term resource managment is often applied, but also often the term asset management. What exactly is their relationship, or are they the same? Note: if you look up asset management, you end up at investments, so asset management does not seem to be defined for IT resources yet. Can we define it here (if it is strongly related to resource management), or do we need create a new topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
"The goal is 100% utlization" is not appropriate everywhere or for all resources. "Utilization" is the opposite of "Avaiability". For example, when all the ticketing agents are busy, that is 100% utilization, but when you're standing in line as a consumer, you would prefer one agent to be under-utilized, waiting for you, and therefore available to you.
If you don't have availability, you don't have reserve capacity for changes in demand, problem solving, absences, and so on. I would restate the goal of Resource Management to be optimizing productivity AND effectiveness, they are usually a trade off. Which is why most companies set a goal closer to 80% as a target for utilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlbmiles (talk • contribs) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)