Systems Development Case Study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Systems Development Case Study - Essay Example As Pepsico need to improve the control of its spending, this is the reason why Pepsico decided to implement Purchase to Pay. This way, Pepsico could more easily track and analyze purchases, negotiate important discounts on volumes and prevent the overcharged orders. Most of all, Pepsico's objective was to obtain a centralized database of vendors and to make the entire process easier. We are explained, that Pepsico used to pay each vendor at every purchase. With Purchase to Pay, Pepsico makes monthly payments for each vendor, making the entire process less bureaucratic and easier to follow as the vendor is provided itemized statement detailing each bill of lading, invoice number, the amount of each check, and the grand total. The systems development life cycle approach which would have been best used for Pepsico's project regards the nature of the waste that Pepsico suffers from its vendors. By approaching the problem directly where it comes from Pepsico is approaching the problem the best way. Identifying the source of the problem allowed Pepsico to dispose of a wide range of solutions to tackle the issue. Apparently, Purchase to Pay seems to be fitting. Pepsico states that they anticipate" a savings of more than $10 million in the system's first year of operation and more than $43 million over the next three years". If we are in the situation of putting up a systems development life cycle, in the case of Pepsico it woul... e are in the situation of putting up a systems development life cycle, in the case of Pepsico it would appear that vendors would result as an issue, mainly because they are initially the major part of the problem. We would have the difficult task to identify why there are some purchases that are overcharged by some vendors and incorporate these data to the system which would result in helping Pepsico negotiate volume discounts. However, this difficult task would become increasingly difficult as we have to face the other side of the problem, which are the staff of Pepsico who couldn't originally - by a lack of knowledge, training or data - identify the issue when dealing with vendors. In consequence, the investigation should reflect the need of Pepsico to have a better communication within the purchase department. The opportunity inside the environment would be the availability of the data to my disposition. Even though the purchase staff may not be aware of it, I believe that there will be an important mass of data at my disposal. Also, one of the others opportunity would be financial as I could never doubt that a company such as Pepsico would not have the sufficient budget for such an operation. On the other side, another issue, apart from the vendors could be time, as we have seen, important volumes are exchanged everyday. Therefore, Pepsico would need a very rapid answer and proposition to start saving money and minimize costs. I could not doubt finally, that the preliminary phase would not result in a "go" as I don't think any technical problem or incapacity would arise in the scope of the nature of the issue. Naturally, the enormous opportunity would be to initiate a systems development for Pepsico. Not only because I would be initiating such a program

Plato and Nietzsche on Authority Essay Example for Free

Plato and Nietzsche on Authority Essay Nietzsche and Plato have many similarities in their discussion of political philosophy. Both dislike and hold contempt for democracy, and both favour a meritocratically chosen elite holding authority. There are even many similarities between the characteristics that they require in the group. However, there are differences too. Nietzsche doesnt outline a strict theory of authority, as Plato does. His governmental system, although it hardly is, could be interpreted, and has been, in many different ways. And, although both of them think that they have justified their authority, there have been several discussions on to whether they are, and in what society they would be relevant. These discussions are perhaps at the core of finding the key differences and usable elements of their philosophies. The notion of authority can be discussed in two main senses. For one, it can be used to discuss a person or groups right to rule. The other is when you talk of someone being an authority on a topic. Both of these involve the subordination of personal judgement to that of another and most political theorists would consider this subordination to be binding. One of the main problems is if you should surrender your own personal judgement independent of the content of the authoritys ideas both Nietzsche and Plato would say that one should, as their leaders are both an authority on a topic and have the right to rule. When authority comes from knowledge, it doesnt necessarily mean that the authority has power, for example as in a teacher trying to control a class at a school. However, in politics, an effective authority must be allied to power. If the authority is recognised, then it is de facto authority. If it is justified, then it is de jure authority, and most de facto authorities claim that they are both de facto and de jure. Plato and Nietzsche both argue for a de facto authority (sensibly who wants to impose an authority that is ignored?) and they both outline what they believe to be justification for this authority. This justification is at the centre of much of political philosophy, as it is important to discover if the justification works. Authority differs, therefore, from justified power, as justified power in itself does not involve subordination of judgement if theyre not recognised, then they cannot require that people follow their rule. Legitimacy is also an issue. In a democratic state, electoral fraud would lead to a leader being illegitimate: there is also no guaranteed way to prevent electoral fraud. However, as Nietzsche and Plato are both anti-democracy, illegitimacy this way would obviously be an issue. However, if either of their desired leaders were to seize power (either by force or just accidentally falling into power), there would be definite issues with people who didnt believe their justification. In this case, their authority could be considered illegitimate. Plato, especially in Republic, gives epistemology and metaphysics substantial roles in political philosophy. In Platos ideally just city, philosophers would gain power, or, at the very least, rulers would have to engage sincerely and adequately in philosophy. Plato also suggests a rigorous training program for his philosopher-kings they must have their emotions properly trained. Would this lack of emotion make for a good authority? Many would say that you cannot be emotional about your leadership because then your judgement would be swayed by too many subjective factors. However, the thought of a leader without emotion is particularly daunting how would they know what would affect the population, and more importantly how? Emotions are an important part of human life, and a great leader would have to understand (and this would usually be best understood by feeling the emotions oneself) human life to be effective. Plato argues that this would come from knowledge of the Forms, the per fect example of something there is one for every notion that exists on earth. The Form of tables, the Form of emotions, or even the Form of drinks are all said to exist. The meticulous training includes imparting knowledge about these forms and prepares the mind for this abstract thought by rigorously training the rulers in mathematics. The philosophers knowledge of the Forms would include knowledge of the Form of Good, which is the keystone of the system, and therefore is essential for order. If one takes the Forms to be a true (or even just realistic) idea then it is sensible for a leader to understand what the true notion of good is. If one knows good then one can use this mould to create a good system, which is surely more reliable than basing it on subjective ideas. The Forms are like a religion, which makes Platos system almost a theocracy (unlike the authority of Nietzsche) and this has been implemented as a political system before. In the past, however, people have become dissatisfied with the religion that they are forced to agree with. Atheism is becoming more and more accepted than before, as many new scientific discoveries render God less and less plausible, and as Nietzsche would put it, less useful as a concept. All this taken into account means that knowledge of the Forms probably wouldnt be useful for an authority (especially in a modern era), but it is not necessarily a bad idea for an authority figure to be well versed in philosophy. Philosophy introduces abstract thought (like Plato suggested) and calls for knowledge in logic. Abstract thought is useful when trying to find theories that fit with the real world where would physics and chemistry be without abstract thought concerning the atom? Another key question on the subject of religion was raised by Nietzsche. Is there anything that can be taken from religion, even if one wasnt to be imposing religion onto a state, as Plato does? Nietzsche believes that, although religion in itself is too dogmatic and God is useless as a concept, the passion behind religion is admirable, and would be one of the key characteristics of his new philosophers. Nietzsches new philosopher, as opposed to the more traditional concept of Plato, would be more like a contemporary artist than a contemporary philosopher. They would not even necessarily be searching for the truth. These new philosophers are the Ubermensch and coupled with this think outside the box attitude, they have a strong Will to Power, which makes them the perfect leader. They crave solitude, when independence is not necessary or normally preferred, which Nietzsche says is an example of exercising the will to power over oneself he also calls it a privilege of the strong. Plato agrees, and says that the philosopher follows truth alone. These new philosopher overmen dont follow the rules that are currently put in place by Christianity and slave morality like self-sacrifice for ones neighbour and self-denial. Similarly to Platos philosopher kings, these Ubermensch/new philosophers are uncommitted to anyone or anything, and they are not afraid to break the boundaries currently put in place by political authorities. - Of course, these philosophers that are in power must be significantly different from those that we call philosophers today. Nietzsche says that every great philosophy so far has been just the personal confession of its author meaning that philosophy is subjective and just based and what you want to believe and think. Here, social class, education, religion, parents and friends all play a part in what you write down as your philosophy. As previously mentioned, Nietzsche wants to use people who a free thinkers, someone that yearns to be set free from the crowd. Plato agrees when Adeimantus says that people who study philosophy too long become weird, roguish creatures, useless to society philosophers arent currently as useful to politics as they should be, according to both theories of authority. There are other examples of when a more metaphysical concept has been implemented by an authority. Religious people often hold God (rather than the Forms or the free thinkers of Nietzsche) as the ultimate authority, and although we have discussed briefly the problems with making this the law of a state (as in theocracy), this religious politics may not be a bad idea. For example, if those with authority look to God for advice on political matters, it gives them a chance to think about and receive information (either from God, or simply thinking it through in prayer, or even through the morals in religious scripture this neednt be a discussion of religious philosophy) about what may be the better decision. Obviously, if we take the Forms to be incorrect (as most people do), then God would be the ultimate good, which means that those that understand God would have to hold the power, rather than philosophers. Of course, there has to be a line drawn between looking to God (or another spiritual being) for advice and forcing views on other people. Plato would argue that the people dont know what is good for them, and so should trust whatever the authority says, but this isnt a realistic idea for people of today, who have fought for free speech for centuries. Nietzsche would both agree and disagree with this. He would agree in that the Ubermensch are the only ones that can be truly rulers, and that the vast majority of people dont know whats good for them. However, he wouldnt necessarily say that this was a bad thing, as if slaves are happy being slaves, then they have less of the Will to Power and therefore do (in a sense) know whats good for themselves personally. Of course, even if we convert Platos theory on Authority to be based around any religious ideals then it is still an argument against democracy in that if an Authority must have something to be a good ruler, there is no point in asking the untrained masses to vote for a good ruler. They wouldnt, presumably, be able to understand the Forms, or God, sufficiently enough to choose an Authority (or even understand that there could be an Authority) that would do the job to Platos standards. Another Platos philosopher kings rely on their knowledge of the Forms to provide their moral code, which is then implemented upon the Republic. The Form of the Good provides the perfect moral code upon which to base the real (material) moral code. This is one of the main reasons why Plato requires his rulers to have philosophical knowledge they need to know the moral code upon which to base their own. Nietzsche, on the other hand, believes that everything is subjective, based on experience and opinion of the individual. This means that his philosopher supermen dont need to implement a moral code; their only morals are the will to power. Even if this seems like a good idea within the context of Platos Republic, this Authority wouldnt make sense in todays politics. For example, there are many various types of religion, and within those religions, thousands of sub-sets. This means that, even without using the Forms, that this theocracy idea couldnt be imposed without some force (the implications of which will be discussed later). Secondly, using one type of morality based on dogmatic principles wouldnt hold sway for a similar reason there would be complaints (or even uprisings) about the lack of freedoms this gives. These are practical reasons for the change not to take place. However, there are implications even if this were to be used in an ideal society (where all good ideas based upon an interchangeable ultimate value would be easily implemented with consequences). Its not ideal, from many viewpoints, to force everyone to hold the same viewpoint (although Plato would argue that there is only one true viewpoint) and Nietzsches subjectivism would agree. Human nature would be indulged in an ideal world, if happiness was the ultimate value, and this calls for freedom to be a central concept of any Authority. Freedom to vote, to those in the UK, seems to be a basic human right with few restrictions. This means that democracy would seem to be part of an ideal society in pursuit of happiness. There are good reasons for this we all have subjective opinions (as Nietzsche rightly said) and these need to be reflected in the way we are governed by an authority. For example, in most other situations, we would consult someone who we believe to be an authority on a subject. If we are ill, we talk to a doctor. If we want to dine out, we will consult a restaurant critic. Therefore, it seems sensible to leave governmental decisions to those with political knowledge. However, the teaching of medicine is universally taught in a similar (if not identical) way there is little room for a subjective opinion. The more subjective something is, the less we can trust it. The restaurant critic, for example, will sway our views either way, but it probably wont be the final judgment. The reason it will still sway us is that there is still good and bad food. Politics, however, is different. Everything in politics is completely dependant on moral views, upbringing, teaching, the media and even the way your brain works. We cannot trust teachers of politics to be completely impartial when teaching the political theories. Teachers of religious studies are usually biased towards Christianity in this country, and politics teachers would probably be the same. People wouldnt be happy with simply going along with what the politicians say thats why people have died for democracy. Everyone has different views, and democracy is the best way to incorporate all (or most) of these when creating a government. There is, however, a problem with the amount of democracy to allow. The current system in the United Kingdom is for people to vote in a representative that they trust to make similar decisions to those that they would choose. Of course, the representative cannot be trusted to have exactly the same views, and therefore, should the vote be more open? If people were allowed to vote on any topic that interests them, what would happen? The government may be forced to ban petrol cars. The main question is, is it really democratic once elected? The system in the UK is not fully democratic. Plato would argue that the only way for a government to make truly right decisions (and therefore decisions that the public would have to agree with theres nothing to disagree with if something is right) is for them to know good be trained in abstract thought and philosophy. So democracy, to be worthwhile, perhaps needs to be more democratic, or Plato and Nietzsche have the right idea. Jeremy Bentham famously associated utilitarianism with democracy he believed that one vote per person would lead the the greatest good for the greatest number. This is because human nature naturally tends to lead us towards pleasure, as opposed to pain. And, because everyone has this same desire towards pleasure, democracy would effectively allow all of us to vote for pleasure, so to speak. This seems like a more feasible idea than relying on someone who, although in theory doesnt have personal interests, probably would be biased. Humans do tend to avoid pain, so an open vote would lead us away from pain. Change Nietzsche quotes on asceticism! Another important feature that both Nietzsche and Plato mention in their political philosophy is asceticism. Nietzsche mentions that the tests of self-deprivation that (Christians mostly) pervade Western society are bad wherever religious neurosis has appeared on earth, we find it tied up with three dangerous dietary rules: isolation, fasting, and sexual abstinence. However, further on in Beyond Good and Evil, he seemingly changes his mind. He advocates appropriating, injuring, overpowering those who are foreign and weaker; oppression, harshness, forcing ones own forms on others, incorporation, and at the very least, at the very mildest, exploitation which would surely induce suffering, especially when considered with a modern mind. He then goes on to say in 270 that Profound suffering ennobles; it separates. Even earlier on, in 40, he says that everything deep loves a mask surely a sign of internal suffering is being hidden? Presumably, deep is a good thing, as his description of his new philosophers necessitates that they are deep creatures. Plato, on the other hand, consistently advocates an ascetic lifestyle, especially when he is discussing his people in authority. They do not care for pleasures of this world: those of body or money. We can apply the same thoughts to asceticism as we can to Platos philosopher without emotion. If a leader doesnt care for pleasures of this world, then surely they cannot truly understand the pleasures of this world whether they are philosophers or not. If the authority was supposed to be similar to a Christian God, then it would be omnipotent, and therefore know and understand everything a priori. However, neither Plato nor Nietzsche advocates a Christian God as the best authority and neither of them suggests that the leader would be omnipotent. Therefore, it would make sense to disagree with asceticism on the grounds that it would cause the perfect leader to have a lack of understanding about typical human pleasures. It will be evident by now that Nietzsche (and Plato, to an extent) advocates an oligarchy (albeit meritocratic) both place small groups of people in charge of the general public. They both have similar attitudes towards democracy, as well. Plato dismisses democracy he thinks that liberty (557b) and equality (558c) lead to a break down of all the essential characteristics of a philosopher-king. Evidently the very existence of a ruling class of philosopher kings is controversial to the central themes of democracy. liberty leads to a lack of self-discipline. He doesnt believe in equality as some humans are superior. Nietzsche has a similar idea he mentions that Every enhancement in the type man up to this point has been the work of an aristocratic society, which shows that he believes that an aristocratic society will further mans development. Although Plato seems to advocate a meritocratic oligarchy (although he wouldnt admit it), he doesnt recommend that his republic be based around money (also known as a plutocracy) where a small group of rich people, similar to an aristocracy, rule the lower classes. This would lead to an economic inequality between classes, which would create an environment which leads to and breeds beggars and thieves. It could also lead to a revolution between the rich and the poor. Another argument against plutocracies occurs in chapter VIII, Socrates says that wealth doesnt allow a pilot to navigate a ship, so wealth wouldnt allow an authority to rule a republic. Money seems to be a key problem with many theories of authority. It is often said that money corrupts people, so it could be argued that in any governmental system where the authority gets paid or is chosen because of its wealth would be corrupt. However, it is not practical to impose this most people associate power with money either subconsciously or consciously. The authority, even if chosen democratically, would want some reward for having to rule a country, and money is the usual and probably most desired reward. In The Prince, Machiavelli justified using force to gain and retain political power, and it, therefore, justifies any actions simply done to gain power. This may, of course, have influenced Nietzsche, who also advocates gaining power by force. In 257, he mentions that every noble (not in the typical sense) civilisation has descended from barbarians, and that any decent (and therefore aristocratic) society requires slavery. Plato agrees with this, he says that the most majestic society and man is tyranny and the tyrant. Although there are sections in The Republic where Plato seems to advocate violence, such as 465 where he says Arguments can be settled with fists, there and then, as they arise, when he discusses his perfect State he seems to believe that it will just come into being. For example, in 502, he mentions that the only way it could come about by a philosopher wiping the slate of human habits and society clean. This could, obviously, mean the annihilation of the human race, but it seems to mean just cleansing the mind of incorrect ideas. He then acknowledges that putting it into practice would be difficult which it wouldnt, if they just forced people into obeying, which makes it seem like he hopes that one day, it will happen, but he is not going to force it. More examples of this anti-force opinion occur when he is discussing the types of government that he is against timarchy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. He explains that oligarchy and tyranny can only come about by using force private wealth means that people feel that they have the right to keep the populace down by force. Democracy, he believes, causes excessive liberty, which then causes its own downfall. From this comes a tyrant, who is not afraid of murder and stirs up war. Another point he makes is that it is simply never right to harm anyone at any time which obviously is a specific way of showing his feelings on violence and this would apply to taking a country or state by force. Of course, this helps to illustrate a key difference between power and authority. For example, we all have in us the physical strength to murder (although, obviously, we dont usually have the mental state to want to do it) and this is power in one sense just like a dictator killing thousands of people because he can. However, an authority differs from this in that it would be classed as capital punishment. So what is the difference? Why does an authority have the right and others do not? If an authority is de jure (with justification) although it may be difficult for some to think when murder would be justified then all its actions could be seen as justified by proxy, as if an authority is justified, the decisions they make would be somehow related to the reason they are in power. For example, Plato justifies his philosopher-kings by saying that they are the only ones who can have true knowledge of the forms, and, if this is true, then they know the Form of Good. So, if they murdered someone, then it would be based upon something theyve seen in the innate Form of Good. The balance between freedom and authority comes into question when discussing issues like the above. Even though the authority may be justified on its own terms, it may not be necessarily right. Using Plato as an example again, the theory of the Forms is now commonly thought to be incorrect, and people wouldnt accept that as a reason to allow capital punishment. Even if there was a truly irrefutable source of justification, people will always have differing views, especially on such an important topic. So how does an authority find the perfect balance between power and authority? Authoritarianism is a social theory popular with dictators and the like. It supports, at the totalitarian end of the spectrum, the total subjection of personal opinions (usually through oppression) and enforcing strict control upon those that live in the state. It often involves what many political philosophies would see as an erosion of civil rights and freedoms lack of a private life and suppression of religious beliefs, for example. Obviously, there are differing degrees of authoritarianism and even the most democratic and liberal state must exercise its authority upon those within the state, but finding the right balance is important. Both Nietzsche and Plato advocate the subordination of those under the command of the philosophers, which means that their theories would be less easily accepted today than they would have been in the past. As previously mentioned, people have fought (and still are, particularly from the 20th century until today) for their civil rights and this includes their freedom, which means that an authoritarian government, like those advocated by Nietzsche and Plato, would be more difficult to impose today than ever before. This calls into question obedience to the state. The more democratic the state, the more free speech and dissent is usually allowed. However, as neither Plato nor Nietzsche advocate democracy, it is required to understand when disobedience would be allowed. Of course, both would say that their state would be obedient at all times, but this is unrealistic. In a theocracy, the state executes the law of God. In Plato, God can be easily exchanged for The Forms. However, what would happen if people were to disagree with Platos theory, as many do? Would they be justified in breaking the law of something that they dont believe in? A true authority would mean that the law would either be unbreakable morally or that their authority was so powerful that people could not, or would not, break the law. However, as has been seen, it is difficult to see where Plato or Nietzsches arguments would lead to such an authority. Although disobedience of the law is obviously illegal, sometimes mass disobedience, in the UK at least, can lead to a change of law. Plato would disagree that this is even possible. If duty to the State is accepted, it is still possible to find examples when the law can be disobeyed. As the duty of the state is to protect the people (and, for my example, this includes their freedom), state infringement of this freedom could cause the person involve to break the law to retrieve their liberty. Another issue arises (in the case of democratic government and perhaps in Nietzsches subjective government) in that if the majority part enforces a law, should the minority who didnt vote be forced to follow it? It wasnt their choice for that law to be enforced. Of course, with major things that infringe on human rights, like murder and domestic violence, should be universally enforced, but what about poll tax and property protection? If it was enforced by a government of authority that imposed itself, this could be an issue in that it is unfair to enforce laws that almost all of the population disagree with. In some cases, it could be considered immoral, but Plato would disagree, as the Rulers are following the only moral code that exists. Platos philosopher kings rely on their knowledge of the Forms to provide their moral code, which is then implemented upon the republic. The Form of the Good provides the perfect moral code upon which to base the real (material) moral code. This is one of the main reasons why Plato requires his rulers to have philosophical knowledge they need to know the moral code upon which to base their own. Nietzsche, however, believes that everything is subjective, based on experience and opinion of the individual. This means that his philosopher supermen dont need to implement a moral code; as previously mentioned, their only moral is the will to power. Nietzsche never specifically argues for a government system like we have today. For example, he mentions that his free spirits should be in power, but also says that religion should be allowed for the common people. This shows, slightly patronisingly, that he is not expecting the common people to understand the rulers (much like the lower classes today are note expected to understand politics) which is obviously a very sweeping judgement, and could be considered as harsh and pro-Big Brighter in support of a tyrannical state. Although Nietzsche did support tyrant, he did appreciate the subjectivism of morals and opinion, and was not advocating forcing ones views upon others (unlike Hitler). His lack of respect for democracy is not the only thing that calls into question modern government. He doesnt even specify if there should be a (totalitarian?) leader at all, merely that the free spirits would hold power as such. His appreciation of subjectivity means that a leader would not strictly work: all views are different, so no leader would be truly right. The free spirit seems merely to be an authority to show others with the will to power what they can achieve. Conclusion Both of these systems involve elements of the totalitarian about them. Plato seems to advocate both communism in monetary matters and lifestyle and the complete opposite when it comes to defining differences between peoples. He argues strongly for different classes of people, like Nietzsche, and for an authority that is placed in power with no choice. Its not as bad as it seems, if one agrees with the justification of the argument however, it would be a long struggle for people to accept it. Nietzsche, on the other hand, has often been blamed for inspiring Hitler (which is untrue, as Nietzsche despised racism and anti-Semitism), and it is easy to see why, as he advocates gaining authority by force, relishes in aristocratic barbarianism, and believes that there are levels of people. This means that their theories on authority arent very practical, and neither de jure or de facto, particularly by modern standards. A preferable system, therefore, would be a mix of Platos equality for women, Nietzsches appreciation for the artistic nature, and (include other philosophers). Of course, its unforeseeable to be able to find a perfect authority, one who is justified, true, moral and recognised. As Nietzsche said, all philosophy to date has been personal confession if this is true (which it seems likely to be), then there will never be a perfect authority, justified and recognised by all.

Food production methods in large functions

Food production methods in large functions Introduction The terms of food and beverage services gone from home forms a considerable element of the performance of the hotel and catering industry and like the industry of which it is a fraction , the food and beverage function is characterised both by its variety and its size. Outlets contain private and public division establishments and them choice from small privately-owned apprehension to large international organisations and from top-security reformatory catering to catering in the most luxurious hotels. In this assignment I will try to find out the characteristics of food production and food and beverage service systems and food production and food and beverage service systems. Task 01 Discuss the characteristics of food production and food and beverage service systems. Characteristics of the food and beverage sector A vital part of everyday life Major contributor to the national economy Generates employment Promotes diversity through many different food concepts cuisines An chance to enjoy the company of friends, family and colleagues Fulfils basic needs Food is a basic need for everyday life Food Production Methods Food production may be definite as that phase of the food flow mainly apprehensive with the dispensation of raw; semi prepared, or prepared foodstuffs. The resulting product may be in a ready to provide state, for example in the conventional method (cook serve); or it may experience some form of protection, for example cook-chill or cook-freeze, before being served to the consumer. Production systems Traditional Centralised Sous-vide Cook-chill Cook-freeze batch cooking call-order Traditional method In the conservative parties method, the majority of food is purchased raw, very little falling into what we now call the ‘’convenience foods’’ category. Facilities are presented for the receipt and storage of goods, the preparation, cooking, holding and service of food. The traditional method is used in most kitchen concern. Cook-Freeze method The expression cook-freeze refers to a catering system based on the full cooking of food pursued by fast freezing, with storage at a controlled low temperature of -18C or under. The method is related to cook-chill apart from refrigeration temperatures. Blast Freezing To decrease the time spent in danger zone, a specially considered Blast Chilling or Freezer is required measure refrigeration equipment just is not competent of removing heat fast sufficient. Blast Chilling The temperature must be concentrated from +70C to +3C or below within 90 minutes. Blast Thawing To de-ice food, the air approximately needs to be relatively heater than the food itself so that heat can be transferred from air to food to dissolve the ice. Hazard zone is between +8 C and +68C, where microorganisms multiply fastest, for as little time as achievable. The germs split into two each 20 minutes. Sous –vide method Sous-vide are more fresh food processing technique residential in the late 1970s. The sous-vide methods of food construction (vacuum cooking at exact temperature 138 degrees and time). Centralised distribution This method is frequently adopted by huge chains that are looking to subcontract all or measurement of their food production. Cook-Chill method This method is a catering coordination based on normal preparation and cooking of food pursued by rapid chilling and storage space. The Chilled food necessitates low capital outlay and minimum workforce. Service Systems Table/Plate service Counter/Buffet service A la carte Table d’hà ´tel Silver service Family service Flambà © service Specialist food service Table/ Service Food is organized, placed on individual tableware and delivered to the consumers. This method is used in the hotel and self-determining restaurants. Buffet service Food is prepared in move forwards. Big quantities of food then placed in containers and served from a table in the restaurant. Used in consultation and banqueting. Family/ English service Food is prepared and placed in dishes. Server then transportations to restaurant, it is placed in the centre of tables. Chinese and Middle Eastern Cultures. Silver/Russian service Food is prepared/ cooked, placed on hot silver containers. some fine dining, consultation and banqueting. A la carte Hotel or restaurant meal consisting of several differently priced dishes which are cooked frequently when ordered from a menu. A guest orders independently and pays for them separately. Table d’hà ´tel Is generally a restaurant meal consisting of a predetermined number of already prepared dishes, at a fixed price for a complete meal for one person. Flambà © service/Gueridon Food is prepared but not cooked. Attendant puts food on a convenient trolley and transfer into front of house neighbourhood. The food is prepared in front of the guests. Specialist food service A food overhaul specialist may arrange a selection of meals. Most employers require their food service specialist to have at slightest a high school diploma. Acquaintance of specialist food service should consist of: basic food handling, nutrition, sanitation measures. Discuss factors affecting recipes and menus for specific systems. Factors affecting recipes and menus for specific systems Size of operation Objectives of the operation Quality of the operation Nature of the menu Quality of customers Budget of the customers Customer needs Availability of resources The others factors affecting menu and recipes for specific system Size of the kitchen, consumer’s contentment, and price of items programmed, management decisions costs, availability of items, type of service, customer’s value, and demographic features, food habits and predilections, flavour and appearance of dishes, nutritional importance. Menu can be an outstanding selling tool to supplement the indicative selling of staff. Customer perceptions: keeping your consumers happy can be harder than you suppose. Happy customers result in: (repeat sales, positive company image, and high quality customer’s referrals) Space and equipment in the kitchen will manipulate the composition of the menu; Every establishment has a intention food cost to be achieved, the cost, preparation and production of the food items, have to well the target. Business stand up for profit; it is difficult for menu fashionable to make a customer and business friendly menu, to cover all costs. Accessibility of ingredients in seasonality and suppliers require be taken into reflection. Colour balance is essential; customers should be able to ‘eat with their eyes’. Ethnicity and nutritional value: Nutritional balance is important to make certain that the dishes are produced as nutritiously as potential (protein, carbohydrates, and vitamins). Menu is made for customer contentment, but if the items do not costume customer’s ethnicity and nutritional importance then it is a big difficulty. As we have only 60 guests, a medium kitchen is enough, the constituents we use in our menu are straightforward to find, and two or three waitress will be enough. Buffet/Counter service has the next advantages: can be provide a large number of people, customer have choice, customers are part of the development, fewer staff required, service staff require less skills, fewer objections due to their decision-making; Disadvantages: Queuing, food presentation can be pretentious; food can run out, food excellence affected due to temperature and mixing service crockery. Plate service has the next advantages: presentation, placed on individual plates, quality, portion control. Disadvantages of Plate service are: Require high quality and highly skilled chefs; consumers sometimes have to remain for food delivery. Conclusion Modern day food and beverage processes are progressing to get better in the quality, and the service. Professionalism is increasing, through improved training and development. The quality of service is becoming the generally important differentiating factor when consumers are choosing between different establishments. In this assignment I wrote about characteristics of food production and food and beverage service systems and affecting recipes and menus for specific systems.

Fundamentals of Research Essay -- Research Analysis

It has always been human nature to seek answers, find solutions to problems, observe, and bring awareness of discoveries. This process of inquiry has become more sophisticated and daunting throughout time. Nevertheless, curiosity and the need to progress remains the same. Many regard research as gathering information and using facts to support findings (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010, pg. 1-2). Nevertheless, Leedy and Ormrod (2010), define research as "a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information (data) in order to increase our understanding of a phenomenon about which we are interested or concerned" (Leedy & Ormond, 2010, pg. 2). Nunan's definition (as cited in Mustafa, 2011), describes research as having a "question, problem, hypothesis, data, analysis and interpretation of analysis" (p. 24). Reaching the goal is the culmination of the research; in this case, the goal for conducting a doctoral research is to improve the music education curriculum and prov ide an excellent learning opportunity for all students including students with disabilities to experience academic success. The current music curriculum's design appears to be standard for all students including students with disabilities. Because of inclusion, children with learning disabilities participate with non-disabled children in music. At a recent music therapy workshop, teachers expressed concerns regarding how to support students with learning needs. Inquiry on the current music curriculum and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 initiated the following questions: Is the NCLB working to meet all students' learning needs as well as support music teachers with appropriate education resources? How have core subject state assessmen... ... Preservice music teachers' perceptions of fieldwork experiences in a special needs classroom. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(2), 152-168. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Mustafa, R. F. (2011). The P.O.E.ms of educational research: A beginners' concise guide. International Education Studies, 4(3), 23-30. Pellitteri, J. (2000). Music therapy in the special education setting. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(3&4),379-391. Retrieved from http://www.soundconnectionsmt.com/docs/Music%20Therapy%20in%20Special%20Education. Zdzinski, S.F., & Barnes, G.V. (2002). Development and validation of a string performance rating scale. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(3), 245-255. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview.214475469? accounted=

One Way You Can Lower the Cost of Produce Essay

One way you can lower the cost of produce and be sure of their origin is to grow your own. Even in urban centers people are doing so. Go on the internet and see how you can as well. Discuss and describe one way you can make this happen whether in a dining facility or at home. Produce cost will be lower if you grow them at your home because it will reduce many of the cost that is associated with if you have to buy them in the supermarket or the food/vegetable market. The cost of labor will be reduce, the cost of transportation; whether it’s by land or a combination of land, sea, and ship will also be reduced. These costs are trickle down to the consumers which at time cause the end product to be very expensive. For the people living in the urban areas there are several option which they can explore to cultivate their own produce. One of such is if they have a piece of land in their yard, they can plant different vegetables on the land. It doesn’t have to be in abundance, a root or two of the different vegetables. If the piece of land that is not dirt, if it is concrete they can build vegetable beds off the ground and plant their produce there. Another option is to use flower plots to plant your vegetables, this takes up a lot less space and give you the same results, your own produce. When you grow your own produce you have control over the type of fertilizer you used on your crops and you can allow them to grow within their own natural timing. Some of the produce one can grow are; carrots, cucumbers, tomatoes, and sweet pepper. These are short crops that once control will not take up a lot of space. These produce sometimes cost a lost if you have to buy them, and since most people are becoming health conscience they are a part of their daily meals. You can imagine how much you can save and the peace of mind you can get not worrying about how they were grown when you grow your own produce. Growing your own produce is all good, I see no negative to it and it should be something we all practice so that we can have more disposable income, eat healthier, and contribute to the protection of the ozone layer.

Aragonese essays

Aragonese essays Aragonese, a language deemed endangered by the UNESCO Redbook on endangered languages, is a Romance language that was once spoken throughout Spain. Today this language is limited mainly to the historical province of Aragn and certain parts of Navarra (Salminen). With an estimated total of thirty thousand speakers out of an ethnic group of two million, the use of Aragonese, or fabla in colloquial terms, is slowly diminishing and possibly disappearing (Ethnologue). These days it remains a mother-tongue in only a few areas of Aragon as it is replaced by Castilian, the more dominant language of the area. Aragon is a community located in the northeastern section of Spain. Its surroundings include France to the north, Valencia to the south, and Castile-La Mancha, Castile-Leon, La Rioja, and Navarre to the west. Zaragoza, the capital, is one of the largest provinces in Aragon, in addition to the provinces of Huesca and Teruel. Spoken in a province of Spain, Aragonese consists of many words similar to the Castilian language-more commonly known as Spanish. Aragonese is considered a Romance language and therefore shares many similarities with other romance languages derived from Latin such as Spanish and Catalan. It is classified by the Ethnologue as a Pyrenean language, under the subcategory of Pyrenean-Mozarabic which belongs to the family of Western languages, further belonging to the Italo-Western category. Phonetically, Aragonese sounds similar to Spanish, but Aragonese maintains a few traits unlike Spanish. In Aragonese, the initial F is kept while in Spanish it is dropped (Aragonese Language). For example the word filiu in Aragonese, meaning son, is hijo in Spanish. In Aragonese, filiu is pronounced fillo which is very similar to hijo, but contains the letter F. Also, unlike Spanish, Aragonese keeps the Latin B us...

Chinese essays

Chinese essays In 1800 Asia was relatively unknown to the rest of the world. China was the most powerful country in the East. It was headed by the Quing dynasty that came from Manchuria even though Manchurians were a minority in China. China held on to its culture and the Quings did not try to change it. This was the reason that they were able to rule over a majority for such a long period of time. China had 2 major philosophies: a. Confucianism- set up a structure in society that taught to respect elders. Everyone knew their place in society and must respect that place. Honorable men were internally moral and also externally moral. Confucius thought that leaders should be honorable. Confucianism tries to preserve to social harmony. b. Taoism- Concerned with the mystical. Tries to preserve balance in the universe. Taoism means the way. Peking was the capital of China and the Forbidden City was where the emperor lived. No one else was allowed in the city. The Mandarins ran the government. They took a sort of civil service exam that tested them on various Confucian texts. These people were in the minority because they were wealthy and educated. A vast majority of the people were peasants. These peasants had a higher standard of living that the peasants in Europe. The dynasties than ran the country did so because they had the mandate of heaven. The fell when they lost the mandate of heaven. This happened when there was war, economic problems, or natural disasters. Quing Long was the emperor that brought China to its height. Other countries around China were considered tributaries. China felt that it was the leader of the world and most East Asian countries accepted this. They looked to China as a way to run their culture. China restricted Europeans from entering. The city of Canton was set up as a trade port for the Europeans. Merchants could live in special areas of the city for up to 6 months. Weste ...