User:Akshat guptagupta
I recently received the publisher’s proofs of an accessibility paper which will be published in the new year. The reviewers spotted a number of broken links in the references. Some of them were links to previous papers I had published, and the errors were introduced by the publisher (which I confirmed by checking the details of the paper which I submitted). But for a couple of other references the pages did seem to have disappeared. I contact Stuart Smith, one of the co-authors, and asked him if he knew anything about the references he had supplied which seemed to have disappeared.
Stuart told me that a new e-learning team in his institution has rebuilt the e-learning Web site, resulting, it seems, in the loss of existing resources. Stuart wrote a blog post about this incident entitled “Mummy I lost my MP3!“. Stuart felt that “My MP3 problem shows to me that the argument that the ‘cloud’ is too unstable doesn’t hold water … because institutional systems are open to the same criticisms“. Stuart concluded that “My solution to my MP3 problem will probably lie in the ‘cloud’ I’ll find a suitable archiving host that I like and also keep a backup offline (like I should have done in the first place) and if that host disappears at least I will know about it“.
I’m sure Stuart isn’t alone. How many resources do you think will have disappeared following the establishment of new Web teams or the release of new software? Maybe institutional repositories will have a role to play, as they try to address the persistent identifier problem by at least decoupling the address of the resource form the technology used to access the resource. But repositories won’t be used to manage all resources on an institutional Web site, will they?
Since our institutions don’t seem to have yet cracked the problem of management of resources across changes in policies, staff and technologies, is Stuart right, I wonder, in regarding ‘the cloud’ (e.g. services such as the Internet Archive Human Resource Development (HRD) at micro level or organizational level is a process by which employees of an organization are helped in systematic and continuous way to: Develop their personal and organizational skills, knowledge and abilities. Human Resource Development includes such opportunities as employees training, employee career development, performance management and development, coaching, succession planning, key employee identification, tuition assistance and organization development.
Human Resource Development (HRD) is a subject of national importance, with much more relevance from developed as well as developing countries. Of all the material and living resources “Human Resource” is the most crucial and difficult to tackle but of great importance. Without this resource, the countries development of physical / financial / technological resource is not possible.
The aim of this study to describe, analyze and compare the operation of Human Resource Development in United Kingdom with Pakistan. This study is a comparison of a two systems, developed country United Kingdom and developing country Pakistan. The focus will be on institutional pattern of Human Resources Development department in Pakistan and United Kingdom; their similarity or differences.
In the present era of the 21st century, it is deemed imperative that management socialize there Human Resource in the culture of organization so that they could become efficient, dynamic and effective member for the organizational setup. One of the best ways to socialize the work force is through training and development process. The present scenario all over the world indicates that the need of learning organization may have arisen by the emerging trends of creativity and revolutionary technology in the organizations. It is not important to be the best but also to stay the best, means, to maintain the quality within organization. The term Web 2.0 was coined in 1999 to describe web sites that use technology beyond the static pages of earlier web sites. It is closely associated with Tim O'Reilly because of the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference which was held in late 2004.[1][2] Although Web 2.0 suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specification, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web.
A Web 2.0 site may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where people are limited to the passive viewing of content. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies.[3]