dedicated to the organization will work hard to help it succeed. With this in mind, recruiters must ask questions that provide information about a candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, interviewers should inquire about a candidate's greatest achievements throughout her career. Generally, loyal employees will have a track record of striving for excellence, resulting in a more competitive, innovative and profitable business. According to the Chief Executive Officer of the Cummins Group, 'one of the most crucial decisions that a leader will make is the choice of those who will support them. In a highly technological competitive market, Cummins requires people who are not only technically competent, well informed, loyal and committed but also capable of showing good judgement, often under pressure. When submitting a written tender for a contract, for example, the team working on it has to decide just what the company can promise to deliver, when and at what price. This can be particularly tricky when offering a new product for the first time e.g. what level of 'after sales service' should the tender include, based on the company's assessment of the risks associated with its new venture.

Improper recruitment and selection practices can often result in high turnover or involuntary separations. If a recruiter is not careful when analysing resumes and conducting interviews, she may hire an employee with a weak work ethic or a tendency to move quickly from one job to the next -- "job hopping." Recruiters should pay close attention to the lengths of time at each previous job and carefully check references. Another so-called "red flag" is a gradual decrease in responsibility. For example, if the candidate starts out working as a senior manager and slowly shows progression to a less complex role, this could indicate that he is not as competent as he claims.

Report
                      Finding and recruiting the right people is critical to the success of any business and is the key to sustained growth and retaining a competitive edge.
                      Recruiting staff is a very costly exercise. Cost is a major reason why effective recruitment and selection is important. There are many ways in which poor recruitment practices can result in financial losses. For example, if a candidate's competency is not accurately assessed, he may make mistakes that can hinder productivity. If he needs to be retrained or replaced, this takes up more company time that could otherwise be invested toward remaining competitive. When organisations choose the right people for the job, train them well and treat them appropriately, these people not only produce good results but also tend to stay with the organisation longer. In such circumstances, the organisation's initial and ongoing investment in them is well rewarded. An organisation may have all of the latest technology and the best physical resources, but if it does not have the right people it will struggle to achieve the results it requires. This is true across the whole spectrum of business activity e.g. schools, hospitals, legal practices, restaurants, airlines, and diesel engine manufacturers.
Cummins is well aware of the importance of 'getting it right'. Poor choices at the recruitment stage can prove expensive. The company needs to be sure of a candidate's technical competence. For example, if an engineer designs a component that fails and has to be re-engineered, the company loses both time and money and may incur penalty charges on any delay in fulfilling particular contracts. Time and money spent in recruiting that particular employee will have proved expensive and wasteful whilst a better candidate may not only have 'got away' but also gone to a competitor. Cummins was recently first to market with a complete range of engines that met new stringent environmental legislation. Their technical solution to meeting this legislation was completely different to the competitor's approach. Had it turned out to be ineffective or not to be approved by government authorities, it could have led to the downfall of the company. The responsibility of making the correct decision was shared by relatively few individuals.
In addition to technical competence and appropriate experience, an organisation needs to be sure that it can rely on candidates' goodwill, loyalty and commitment towards the organisation and its aims. Loyalty and productivity are linked. Employees who feel 

Report

Posted by Admin comments (0)

Content
              In this report I will be talking about why companies should recruit effectively, about awareness of wrong recruitment, about where companies should stop and take a deep look. I will be using Cummins Company as an example to make everything easier.
Summary
It is important to list the skills your new hire will need to fulfil his duties. You get much better results in your recruitment process if you advertise specific criteria that are relevant to the job. Include all necessary skills, and include a list of desired skills that are not necessary but that would enhance the candidate's chances. If you fail to do this, you might end up with a low-quality pool of candidates and wind up with limited choices to fill the open position.
Introduction

This report is made to help other companies understand how much important good recruitment is. Companies usually only thing about the profit, they don’t give much attention to recruitment process and that is one of the biggest reason why so much companies fail. Many businesses are investing millions of dollars daily on recruitment, when in fact they should be focusing on employee retention. An army of recruiters are being sent to the front line every day, while no one is manning the back door. If you were fighting a war, you’d be dead. I expect many companies will experience the same fate, if they don’t start focusing on keeping the talent they have and choosing the right people that they need. 

All attacks we have identified exploit the lack of endpoint anonymity and are aided by the effects of free riding. We have seen effective legal measures on all peer-to-peer technologies that are used to provide effectively global access to copyrighted material. Centralized web servers were effectively closed down. Napster was effectively closed down. Gnutella and Kazaa are under threat because of free rider weaknesses and lack of endpoint anonymity.
Lack of endpoint anonymity is a direct result of the globally accessible global object database, and it is the existence of the global database that most distinguishes the newer darknets from the earlier small worlds. At this point, it is hard to judge whether the darknet will be able to retain this global database in the long term, but it seems seems clear that legal setbacks to global-index peer-to-peer will continue to be severe.  

However, should Gnutella-style systems become unviable as darknets, systems, such as Freenet or Mnemosyne might take their place. Peer-to-peer networking and file sharing does seem to be entering into the mainstream – both for illegal and legal uses.  If we couple this with the rapid build-out of consumer broadband, the dropping price of storage, and the fact that personal computers are effectively establishing themselves as centers of home-entertainment, we suspect that peer-to-peer functionality will remain popular and become more widespread.

Users of gnutella who share objects they have stored are not anonymous. Current peer-to-peer networks permit the server endpoints to be determined, and if a peer-client can determine the IP address and affiliation of a peer, then so can a lawyer or government agency. This means that users who share copyrighted objects face some threat of legal action. This appears to be yet another explanation for free riding.
There are some possible technological workarounds to the absence of endpoint anonymity.  We could imagine anonymizing routers, overseas routers, object fragmentation, or some other means to complicate the effort required by law-enforcement to determine the original source of the copyrighted bits. For example, Freenet tries to hide the identity of the hosts storing any given object by means of a variety of heuristics, including routing the object through intermediate hosts and providing mechanisms for easy migration of objects to other hosts. Similarly, Mnemosyne [10] tries to organize object storage, such that individual hosts may not know what objects are stored on them. It is conjectured in [10] that this may amount to common-carrier status for the host. A detailed analysis of the legal or technical robustness of these systems is beyond the scope of this paper.

2.4.3 Attacks

In light of these weaknesses, attacks on gnutella-style darknets focus on their object storage and search infrastructures. Because of the prevalence of super-peers, the gnutella darknet depends on a relatively small set of powerful hosts, and these hosts are promising targets for attackers.
Darknet hosts owned by corporations are typically easily removed. Often, these hosts are set up by individual employees without the knowledge of corporate management. Generally corporations respect intellectual property laws. This together with their reluctance to become targets of lawsuits, and their centralized network of hierarchical management makes it relatively easy to remove darknet hosts in the corporate domain.
While the structures at universities are typically less hierarchical and strict than those of corporations, ultimately, similar rules apply. If the .com and .edu T1 and T3 lines were pulled from under a darknet, the usefulness of the network would suffer drastically.
This would leave DSL, ISDN, and cable-modem users as the high-bandwidth servers of objects. We believe limiting hosts to this class would present a far less effective piracy network today from the perspective of acquisition because of the relative rarity of high-bandwidth consumer connections, and hence users would abandon this darknet.  However, consumer broadband is becoming more popular, so in the long run it is probable that there will be adequate consumer bandwidth to support an effective consumer darknet.
The obvious next legal escalation is to bring direct or indirect (through the affiliation) challenges against users who share large libraries of copyrighted material.  This is already happening and the legal threats or actions appear to be successful [7]. This requires the collaboration of ISPs in identifying their customers, which appears to be forthcoming due to requirements that the carrier must take to avoid liability[1] and, in some cases, because of corporate ties between ISPs and content providers. Once again, free riding makes this attack strategy far more tractable.
It is hard to predict further legal escalation, but we note that the DMCA (digital millennium copyright act) is a far-reaching (although not fully tested) example of a law that is potentially quite powerful.  We believe it probable that there will be a few more rounds of technical innovations to sidestep existing laws, followed by new laws, or new interpretations of old laws, in the next few years.


[1] The Church of Scientology has been aggressive in pursuing ISPs that host its copyright material on newsgroups.  The suit that appeared most likely to result in a clear finding, filed against Netcom, was settled out of court. Hence it is still not clear whether an ISP has a responsibility to police the users of its network.

Fully distributed peer-to-peer systems do not present the single points of failure that led to the demise of central MP3 servers and Napster. It is natural to ask how robust these systems are and what form potential attacks could take. We observe the following weaknesses in Gnutella-like systems:
·         Free riding
·         Lack of anonymity

2.4.1 Free Riding

Peer-to-peer systems are often thought of as fully decentralized networks with copies of objects uniformly distributed among the hosts. While this is possible in principle, in practice, it is not the case. Recent measurements of libraries shared by gnutella peers indicate that the majority of content is provided by a tiny fraction of the hosts [1].  In effect, although gnutella appears to be a peer-to-peer network of cooperating hosts, in actual fact it has evolved to effectively be another largely centralized system – see Fig. 2. Free riding (i.e. downloading objects without sharing them) by many gnutella users appears to be main cause of this development. Widespread free riding removes much of the power of network dynamics and may reduce a peer-to-peer network into a simple unidirectional distribution system from a small number of sources to a large number of destinations. Of course, if this is the case, then the vulnerabilities that we observed in centralized systems (e.g. FTP-servers) are present again. Free riding and the emergence of super-peers have several causes:
Peer-to-peer file sharing assumes that a significant fraction of users adhere to the somewhat post-capitalist idea of sacrificing their own resources for the “common good” of the network. Most free-riders do not seem to adopt this idea. For example, with 56 kbps modems still being the network connection for most users, allowing uploads constitutes a tangible bandwidth sacrifice. One approach is to make collaboration mandatory. For example, Freenet [6] clients are required to contribute some disk space. However, enforcing such requirements without a central infrastructure is difficult.
Existing infrastructure is another reason for the existence of super-peers. There are vast differences in the resources available to different types of hosts. For example, a T3 connection provides the combined bandwidth of about one thousand 56 kbps telephone connections.

The realization that centralized networks are not robust to attack (be it legal or technical) has spurred much of the innovation in peer-to-peer networking and file sharing technologies. In this section, we examine architectures that have evolved. Early systems were flawed because critical components remained centralized (Napster) or because of inefficiencies and lack of scalability of the protocol (gnutella) [17]. It should be noted that the problem of object location in a massively distributed, rapidly changing, heterogeneous system was new at the time peer-to-peer systems emerged. Efficient and highly scalable protocols have been proposed since then
The realization that centralized networks are not robust to attack (be it legal or technical) has spurred much of the innovation in peer-to-peer networking and file sharing technologies. In this section, we examine architectures that have evolved. Early systems were flawed because critical components remained centralized (Napster) or because of inefficiencies and lack of scalability of the protocol (gnutella) [17]. It should be noted that the problem of object location in a massively distributed, rapidly changing, heterogeneous system was new at the time peer-to-peer systems emerged. Efficient and highly scalable protocols have been proposed since then [9,23].

2.3.1. Napster
Napster was the service that ignited peer-to-peer file sharing in 1999 [14]. There should be little doubt that a major portion of the massive (for the time) traffic on Napster was of copyrighted objects being transferred in a peer-to-peer model in violation of copyright law. Napster succeeded where central servers had failed by relying on the distributed storage of objects not under the control of Napster. This moved the injection, storage, network distribution, and consumption of objects to users.
However, Napster retained a centralized database[1] with a searchable index on the file name. The centralized database itself became a legal target [15].  Napster was first enjoined to deny certain queries (e.g. “Metallica”) and then to police its network for all copyrighted content.  As the size of the darknet indexed by Napster shrank, so did the number of users.  This illustrates a general characteristic of darknets: there is positive feedback between the size of the object library and aggregate bandwidth and the appeal of the network for its users.

2.3.2. Gnutella

The next technology that sparked public interest in peer-to-peer file sharing was Gnutella. In addition to distributed object storage, Gnutella uses a fully distributed database described more fully in [13]. Gnutella does not rely upon any centralized server or service – a peer just needs the IP address of one or a few participating peers to (in principle) reach any host on the Gnutella darknet.  Second, Gnutella is not really “run” by anyone: it is an open protocol and anyone can write a Gnutella client application. Finally, Gnutella and its descendants go beyond sharing audio and have substantial non-infringing uses. This changes its legal standing markedly and puts it in a similar category to email. That is, email has substantial non-infringing use, and so email itself is not under legal threat even though it may be used to transfer copyrighted material unlawfully.

[1] Napster used a farm of weakly coupled databases with clients attaching to just one of the server hosts. 

About this blog

Copyright 2009 - Science Blog

Blogspot Theme designed by: Ray Creations, Ray Hosting.