Glen Ray Howard passed away on March 8, 2012. He was born in Louisville, Ky., on July 11, 1956. His first job was at a KFC in Louisville and he reported directly to Colonel Sanders – a story he loved repeating. Glen began his career in the automotive industry right out of high school picking and packing orders and driving the local delivery truck for Moog Louisville Warehouse. He first entered the sales side of the industry when he took a southeastern rep position with Borg Warner. Howard advanced his way up in sales and marketing in his position at Republic Parts Inc. from 1980 to1987 before moving to Camel Tire Care Products in Muskogee, Okla., in 1987. He then went to work for Wolverine Blue Racer and Crane Cams Inc., where he remained for 19 years, taking a short break from 2005 to 2006 with S&B Filters Inc. out of Ontario, Calif. Howard returned to Crane Cams and became VP of sales and marketing from 2006 to 2009. He was most recently employed by United Engine and Machine out of Carson City, Nev. He loved the automotive industry and had great respect for his customers and competitors alike. He will be truly missed by so many. Howard leaves behind two sons Kyle and Ryan, who are both in college. His untimely death has placed a financial strain on the boys’ college funds. Those who would like to help Glen’s boys complete their education, can make checks payable to: Kyle and Ryan Howard, 425 Quail Hill Drive, Debary, FL 32713. AdvertisementClick Here to Read MoreAdvertisement,Lubrication Specialties Inc. (LSI), manufacturer of Hot Shot’s Secret brand of performance additives and oils, recently announced the expansion of senior leadership. Steve deMoulpied joins LSI as the company’s chief operating officer (COO). AdvertisementClick Here to Read MoreAdvertisement LSI President Brett Tennar says, “Steve’s success in developing operational strategies that improves the bottom line, builds teamwork, reduces waste and ensures quality product development and distribution checks many of the boxes of what we were looking for in a COO. This, coupled with his career in the Air Force working with highly technical systems and his in-depth understanding of Lean Six Sigma and Business Process Management sealed our offer. As our tagline states, our products are Powered by Science. This data driven approach is one reason why our company has grown exponentially as we employ the most advanced technology to product development. I am confident that Steve is the right person to drive operational strategy for our diverse and growing brands.” Advertisement With more than 20 years of experience across multiple industries and functional areas, deMoulpied has particular expertise in organizations with complex technical products. Combined, his prior positions have required a spectrum of skills in corporate strategy, operations improvement, product quality, and revenue cycle management. He has an impressive history of utilizing data driven problem solving (Lean Six Sigma) and project management (PMP and CSM) to achieve strategic goals surrounding customer satisfaction, operational efficiency and improved profit. DeMoulpied comes to LSI from the Private Client Services practice of Ernst & Young where he managed strategy & operations improvement engagements for privately held client businesses. Some of his prior roles include VP of strategic development, director of strategic initiatives, and Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt at OptumHealth, UnitedHealth Group’s health services business, as well as Lean Six Sigma Black Belt at General Electric, where he applied operations improvement principles to customer service, supply chain and product development. A successful entrepreneur, deMoulpied is also the founder of PrestoFresh, a Cleveland-based e-commerce food/grocery business. DeMoulpied has a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Management from the United States Air Force Academy and a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Dayton in Marketing and International Business. He served six years with the USAF overseeing the development of technology used on fighter aircraft and the E-3 Surveillance aircraft, finishing his career honorably as Captain.
How often do you hear a groan when working with clients – especially those in the public sector – that if something goes wrong “It was the client’s fault” or “their procurement team were just not living in the real world”?It was refreshing earlier this year to read the paper “Building Government’s Commercial Capability” published by the Institute for Government acknowledging some of the past government failures to properly manage its contractors and consultants, leading to major financial losses.It is a clear acknowledgement that there are often failings in procuring and managing projects – accepted that they are not always construction projects – and that they must tackle the problems to improve.This is further reinforced by the Government Construction Strategy 2016-2020, the latest document seeking to make the industry more efficient.The various components of the strategy include smarter procurement, improving digital skills and increasing client capability, which if embraced could potentially save the government £3.7bn.The last point on increasing client capability, is perhaps the key element. Does the client, or the professional who the client has employed, have the all-round understanding of the business and what is needed to guarantee a satisfactory project outcome?And this is the point that ultimately becomes the clincher. Contractors and consultants should be asking themselves whether they have truly understood the client’s business in a way that might have avoided the problems in the first place.One useful piece of research from the Project Management Institute (PMI) highlights the fact that technical skills are clearly of utmost importance in delivering projects on time and on budget but they are not enough in today’s increasingly complex and competitive global marketplace. Companies are also seeking added skills in leadership and business intelligence — competencies that can help to support longer range strategic objectives that contribute to the bottom line.The PMI found that 71% of those surveyed around the world, strongly believe that special leadership skills are of crucial importance for the success of a project.The evaluation and feedback from this research by the PMI, resulted in its ‘Talent Triangle’ methodology, where the three sides of the triangle represent the talent necessary for successful project management. Project managers do of course need technical project management proficiency, but they also need leadership, strategic and business management expertise as well.The key word is ‘agility’ where project managers’ skills evolve into a comprehensive approach. Even at the technical, prescriptive level, they will need to be aware of innovative ways of thinking and modern technologies.It is easy for government to beat itself up for not having the commercial skills that come naturally to the private sector, but in some respects, why should it?They need to be creative and inventive and to keep abreast of technological developments that will enable them to be a cut above the rest. After all, technology is all about doing things faster, better, quicker, and cheaper.The skill sets of the project manager don’t only focus on the technical aspects they should also understand the client’s business model and what the client is aiming to achieve. This brings us back to that triangle of skills.It is important for the project manager to interpret a client’s strategic objectives and missions – how to implement a strategy and not just to act as a delivery manager.Some would argue that architects many years ago, lost the opportunity to secure the project management role for themselves because in many cases they only focused on design leaving their project management role to other professionals who were able to think on a wider playing field.Of course, it is right that the public sector should be looking at ways of improving its procurement processes and better managing private contractors but it is a two-way process.It is easy for government to beat itself up for not having the commercial skills that come naturally to the private sector, but in some respects, why should it? Let’s work on becoming more useful advisors to our clients.In conclusion don’t always assume it’s the client’s fault, “look to thyself” and be honest – could you have better understood your client’s business and provided solutions that reflect the needs of its business?Andrew McGuigan is senior associate project manager for Pellings
Liberty – Detention – Sentence of imprisonment for public protection Following the dismissal of their appeals before the House of Lords (see 4 All ER 255), three linked cases, in which the offenders had been sentenced to indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 with minimum terms or tariff periods of less than five years, were heard together before the European Court of Human Rights because they raised a similar issue of whether the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods had breached their right to liberty as guaranteed under article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. As well as contending that article 5(1) had been breached, the applicants also sought just satisfaction for non-pecuniary loss under article 41 of the convention. The issue for determination was whether there had been a violation of article 5(1) of the convention in respect of the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods. An issue arose as to whether one of the purposes of the applicants’ detention was their rehabilitation, particularly in the light of the fact that, by virtue of section 142 of the 2003 act, the sentencing objectives were disapplied in the case of sentences for IPP. Consideration was given to the delay in determining whether it had been safe to release the applicants and to reports on the impact on the applicants of the unavailability of treatment courses due to their detention at local prisons following the expiration of their tariff. The court ruled: (1) The object and purpose of article 5(1) was to ensure that no one was dispossessed of his liberty in an arbitrary fashion. The right of liberty was of fundamental importance. In order to assess whether an applicant’s detention post-tariff was arbitrary, the court had to have regard to the detention as a whole. While case law demonstrated that indeterminate detention for the public protection could be justified under article 5(1), it could not be allowed to open the door to arbitrary detention. For a deprivation of liberty not to be arbitrary there had to be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention. The requirement that detention not be arbitrary implied the need for a relationship of proportionality between the ground of detention relied upon and the detention in question. Where a government sought to rely solely on the risk posed by offenders to the public in order to justify their continued detention, regard had to be had to the need to encourage the rehabilitation of those offenders. In cases concerning indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for the protection of the public, a real opportunity for rehabilitation was a necessary element of any part of the detention which was to be justified solely by reference to public protection. Accordingly, one of the purposes of the applicants’ detention had been their rehabilitation. While article 5(1) did not impose any absolute requirement for prisoners to have immediate access to all courses they might require, any restrictions or delays encountered as a result of resource considerations had to be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind that whether a particular course was made available to a particular prisoner depended entirely on the actions of the authorities (see , , , , ,  of the judgment). In the instant case, where the government had sought to rely solely on the risk posed by offenders to the public in order to justify their continued detention, it had been required to provide the applicants with reasonable opportunities to undertake courses aimed at helping them to address their offending behaviour and the risks they posed. It was significant that substantial periods of time had passed in respect of each of the applicants before they had even begun to make any progress in their sentences. It was clear that the delays were the result of a lack of resources, and it was significant that the inadequate resources at issue in the instant case appeared to be the consequence of the introduction of draconian measures for indeterminate detention without the necessary planning and without realistic consideration of the impact of the measures. Further, the length of the delays in the applicants’ cases had been considerable. It followed, in those circumstances, that there had been a violation of article 5(1) of the convention in respect of the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods, and until steps were taken to progress them through the prison system with a view to providing them with access to appropriate rehabilitative courses (see , - of the judgment). A declaration would be made that there had been a violation of article 5(1) of the convention in respect of the applicants’ detention following the expiry of their tariff periods and until steps were taken to progress them through the prison system with a view to providing them with access to appropriate rehabilitative courses (see  of the judgment). Lawless v Ireland (No 3) (application 332/57) 1 EHRR 15 considered; Winterwerp v Netherlands (application 6301/73) 2 EHRR 387 considered; Guzzardi v Italy (application 7367/76) 3 EHRR 333 considered; Bouamar v Belgium (application 9106/80)  ECHR 9106/80 considered; Saadi v United Kingdom (Application No 13229/03)  ECHR 13229/03 considered. (2) Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the applicants would be awarded €3,000 (in the case of J); €6,200 (in the case of W); and €8,000 (in the case of L) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see  of the judgment). James and others v United Kingdom (app nos 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09): European Court of Human Rights (Judges Lech Garlicki (president), David Thór Björgvinsson, Nicolas Bratza, George Nicolaou, Zdravka Kalaydjieva, Nebojša Vucinic, Vincent De Gaetano): 18 September 2012 Join our LinkedIn Human Rights sub-group
Bergeser ke pihak produsen, seri A320 neo merupakan salah satu produk yang luar biasa dan kompleks dama industri kedirgantaraan global – dimana ada empat jalur perakitan pesawat ini yang tersebar di seluruh dunia, mulai dari Hamburg, Amerika Serikat, Perancis, dan Cina.A320neo sendiri memulai debutnya di udara pada Januari 2016 bersama Lufthansa sebagai operator perdananya.Seiring berjalannya waktu, pihak Airbus mulai melakukan perubahan pada pesawat ini, terbukti dengan ditawarkannya opsi baru bagi pihak maskapai yang ingin lebih menghemat bahan bakar hingga 15 persen. Adapun opsi mesin untuk pesawat ini adalah CFM International LEAP-1A dan Pratt & Whitney PW1000G – keduanya didaulat dapat melakukan penghematan bahan bakar sekitar 16 persen ketimbang turbofan generasi sebelumnya. Penghematan dari segi bahan bakar ini juga berdampak pada penurunan biaya perawatan hingga 20 persen besarnya.Baca Juga: Hadir dengan Beragam Fitur Terbaru, Kenapa Penjualan A330neo Masih Lesu?Varian narrowbody milik Airbus ini tentu menjadi sorotan utama setelah moda serupa milik saingannya, Boeing dengan keluarga 737 MAX-nya kini tengah dilanda musibah besar-besaran. Setelah varian 737 MAX terpaksa di-grounded-kan secara massal pasca dua kecelakaan maut yang melibatkan Lion Air dan Ethiopian Airlines dalam rentang waktu kurang lebih lima bulan ini, kini isu terbaru yang menyerang tubuh perusahaan asal Amerika Serikat ini adalah ditemukannya retakan pada varian 737 NG.Bisakah ini disebut sebagai momen lengsernya Boeing dari tahta tertinggi penyedia pesawat jet komersial di dunia?Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading… RelatedTarung Keluarga Boeing 737 vs Keluarga Airbus A320, Siapa yang Akan Menang?26/03/2019In “Featured”Tersebar Isu Soal Kenyamanan Penumpang, Terlalu Dinikah Airbus Luncurkan A321XLR?21/06/2019In “Featured”Airbus A320Neo: Tawarkan Kabin Lebih Senyap, Inilah Pesawat Terbaru Citilink27/02/2017In “Domestik” Sumber: Airbus Maskapai terkemuka asa India, IndiGo beberapa waktu belakang menjadi sorotan media massa, pasalnya maskapai ini menerima pesawat jet narrowbody A321neo special. Mengapa spesial? Karena ini merupakan pesawat ke-1000 dari keluarga A320neo yang dikirimkan Airbus kepada para pelanggannya yang tersebar di seluruh dunia. Tentu saja, pengiriman ini menjadi sangat berarti bagi pihak Airbus karena secara tidak tertulis, pihak produsen pesawat asal Eropa ini sudah berhasil menumbangkan kedigdayaan Boeing yang kini posisinya tengah tersandung sejumlah kasus.Baca Juga: Di Balik Prahara Boeing 737 MAX 8, Mampukah Airbus ‘Curi’ Ceruk Pasar?Sebagaimana yang dilansir KabarPenumpang.com dari laman airway1.com (13/10), IndiGo sendiri diketahui sebagai pelanggan keluarga A320neo terbesar di dunia, dengan total 224 pesawat Airbus yang dioperasikan dan 345 lainnya masih dalam tahap pemesanan. Adapun model keluarga A320neo pertama diterima oleh pihak maskapai pada Maret 2016 silam, dan berselang kurang lebih tiga setengah tahun kemudian (Oktober 2019), pihak maskapai telah mengoperasikan 129 unit Airbus A320-200, 89 unit A320neo, dan enam unit A321neo.