The man named Gil Perez and he did not know how she got in that place.

Some people who read this story assumes that in a way, Gil Perez teleportation has experienced so they can appear mysteriously in Mexico.

Other historians doubt the accuracy of this story and consider it a hoax or an urban legend is very old. Historian Mike Dash for example, consider this story can not be trusted because the record about it emerged in the 17th century, about a century after the emergence of Perez in Mexico.

But, it seems, is quite interesting to listen to the experience of Gil Perez. Problem believe it or not, I leave to each reader.

As I mentioned above, Gil Perez suddenly appeared in the Plaza Mayor in Mexico City on October 24, 1593. It was Perez Palacio del Gobernador in uniform, soldiers guard the governor’s palace in Filipinos.

At that Filipinos were under Spanish rule, and Perez is a Spanish soldier stationed in the region.

The mysterious is how Perez could be in place.

According to him, he did not understand how he could appear in that place. When asked by the guards who found him, Perez replied:

“My name is Gil Perez. Problem is why I am standing here is because I’m running the command given to me. This morning, I was ordered to keep watch at the door of the governor’s palace in Manila. But, I know exactly if this place is not the governor’s mansion and it seems I’m not in Manila. I do not know why and how I could be here. “

According to him, when he was on duty at the palace of the governor in Filipinos. Then, he felt dizzy and almost fainted. Then, he leaned against the wall and closed his eyes for a moment.

When he opened his eyes again, the whole scene in front of him has changed.

Now he was in Mexico City.

Perez admitted that he did not understand why he could change places.

He also recalled that the night before she appeared in Mexico, Filipinos governor, Gomez Perez Dasmarinas, had been murdered by Chinese pirates in the Moluccas.

When told that he was in Mexico, Perez refused to believe that on 23 October, he was still in Manila and get orders for duty. Therefore, it is impossible he could be in a place very far away in one day.

Mexico authorities are aware of this strange event Perez immediately put into jail because it was considered as deserters and practicing devil worship.

Perez rejected the notion that he is a devil worshiper. He said he had migrated from Filipinos to Mexico in a way that can not be understood. Because it does not get any errors on him, Perez left in jail for two months.

Until then, no one to trust Perez to a Spanish merchant ship arrived in Mexico two months after Perez was jailed.

Merchant ships came from Manila and brought the shocking news.

The news was confirmed facts given by Gil Perez about killing the governor of Filipinos by Chinese pirates on October 23, 1593, the night before Perez appeared in the Plaza Mayor.

How Gil Perez could know this fact?

If he was found on October 24, then, it was impossible he could know this information because a message takes many months to arrive at their destination on time.

Not only that, the ship was even brought a witness who swore that he saw Perez was in Manila on 23 October 1593.

Hearing this, the authorities in Mexico to immediately release and return it to the Filipinos Perez where he again was assigned as a soldier guards the governor’s palace.

Although the story is difficult to be confirmed, but a note of the existing Perez in the 17th century is quite interesting because in those days, the idea of ​​teleportation has not been known at all. And Perez’s case eventually became one of the many cases of mysterious medieval unresolved.

References: enigma blog.

The reopening of the case of Natalie Wood, 30 years after her mysterious death, reminds us that many movie stars disappearances sealed under the ambiguous phrase “under mysterious circumstances’.

Wood, who never hid his fear of water, shocked the world by appearing, on November 29, 1981, drowned in the vicinity of Santa Catalina Island in California. She spent the weekend with her husband Robert Wagner and actor Christopher Walken.

She created a legend centered on a crime of passion. Proponents of this theory has never believed the police report that he considered his death as an accident. New information, which led to reverting to the case, give rise to a new set of reflections.

OTHER CASES

Almost a year later, Grace Kelly was killed in a traffic accident on the roads of Monte Carlo when he was in the car with her daughter Stephanie. The most popular version is that he was the youngest of the Grimaldi who was driving the car.

Marilyn Monroe and Romy Schneider, two icons of film with tortured lives, died from a combination of alcohol and drugs, opening the door to speculation about possible suicide. In the first were known emotional instability, hers relations with the Mafia and the Kennedys. All this was the perfect material for the conspiracy theory.

The second was struck by the tragic death of her son, who was pierced accidentally by the gate of his house while trying to climb it, so it never cleared up if too much medicine was voluntary or not.

Recently, the drugs also ended the life of Heath Ledger, found dead in his apartment in New York in 2008, just before releasing the film that won the Oscar, “The Dark Knight.”

Suicide was ruled out. The same happened in the case of Brittany Murphy, who died in December 2009. The causes of death of the young were a mixture of pneumonia and anemia, but died shortly after her widower, Simon Monjack, it was rumored that the cause was the toxic effect of a fungus caused by the humidity in your home. Never could be demonstrated.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.”

Because I agree with: Abraham Lincoln, I stand in affirmation in today’s resolved which is: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

My value in today’s debate is the Categorical Imperative which states that anything that is rationally considered immoral, should be considered immoral by every rational person. This value achieves the resolved because as I will prove, there are things humans ought not do to animals because they are immoral, and therefore animals should have the moral entitlement to not having those things done to them. When humans are doing things they ought not to do, Justice is being violated. If animals had no rights at all, humans would be admitting that there is no abuse toward an animal worthy of their consideration, and in-turn state that it is impossible to be immoral towards an animal.

My criterion in this round shall be Protection from Immorality, because my value can will be achieved when I rationally prove that abusing animals is wrong.

I will now move on to discuss some vital definitions and later proceed to discuss some of the current harms being done to animals that are definitely immoral and deserve action.

Definitions: (Oxford Dictionaries):
Right – A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way:

Animal – a living organism that feeds on organic matter , typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli:

Justice – The quality of being fair and reasonable.

I, in my following contentions, will prove that animals deserve some moral entitlements as the definition of rights requires.

1: Animals Deserve the Right to Not be Treated As They Are in Factory Farms

Farm factories are vast areas where farm animals are brutally harvested for their body parts. These factories don’t care about their animals or the environment they are harming around them. For example, we can examine the treatment of chickens in these farm factories. According to farmsanctuary.org Male chicks are not worth anything because they don’t produce eggs. To dispose of these male chicks, they are either chucked in a can to die there slowly, or ground up alive and put in fertilizer. Sometimes they are not killed immediately in these grinding situations, and they experience unspeakable horrors because of it. Different situations, just as extreme, occur towards pigs, cows and sheep. In addition to the ridiculous methods of disposal of unworthy farm animals, these animals are also treated with terrible breeding methods, constant painful disease, tortuously small spaces, constant bleeding and bruising from sharp wire cages, and severe mental conditions from unnatural living.

The harmful treatment of animals in factory farms is horrid and therefore is not just by any means, because causing pain and suffering in that way not just. I believe chickens deserve the right to a less painful death, and pigs; cows deserve to live in a non-disease ridden environment. To argue that animals don’t deserve rights at all would be to argue that it is okay for them to be ground up in vats or shoved into a cage too small to move in and which cuts into their skin. Even if they get these minimal rights, which would be the moral thing to do, we can have justice.

2: Animals Deserve Moral Entitlements Simply by Sharing Similar Characteristics to Humans

According to Animal Planet,  Chimpanzees can make and use tools, hunt collectively, and are capable of advanced problem-solving. They are also able to learn sign language to communicate with humans and can remember the name sign for individuals they have not seen for several years. Does this sound like a mindless creature to you? Chimpanzees are self-aware and are able to love and make decisions which makes them the slightly dumbed down version of humans. Simply because we have better brain power makes us slightly better at surviving, but it doesn’t make it right to hurt the lesser species. For instance, if a more advanced species came along than humans, it would not be okay to start killing us off. The same should go for chimpanzees who are simply a less advanced version of humans. Furthermore, chimpanzees use their intellectual gifts to maintain their complex social groups, where they form strong bonds and observe elaborate hierarchical structure. Strong bonds mean they develop friendships and have emotional connections to each other, which to sever would be immoral.

Chimpanzees are not the only animal that deserves rights because they have all of the characteristics that make humans worthwhile, because according to Animal Planet,  dolphins are extremely social animals. Schools of dolphins can be observed in the world’s oceans surfing, racing, leaping, spinning, whistling and otherwise enjoying themselves. They also have a sophisticated “language,” though humans have only begun to unravel it. Furthermore, dolphins use tools in their natural environment.

Obviously, many animals have qualities that merit moral entitlement simply because they share some of the characteristics that humans value.

Conclusion:
It is because of my belief that no animal should be treated as those mentioned in factory farms, and that it would be  immoral to deny moral entitlements all animals that I stand in firm affirmation in today’s debate.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Value: Justice because the resolved gives us what we are trying to accomplish in today’s debate which is Justice, my case will be focused on accomplishing the resolved, and therefore I must choose Justice as my value which means the quality of being fair and reasonable.

Criteria: Utilitarianism which refers to the most good for the most living creatures. When it comes to matters of the treatment of all living creatures, it is important to make a choice based on the option that is the most fair and reasonable, which can be determined by utilitarianism.

Definitions according to Oxford Dictionaries:
Require – specify as compulsory.
Recognition – acknowledgment of somethings existence, validity, or legality.

and my final definition which may be the most vital in today’s debate is:

Animal Rights – Rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans.

If you put this all together, to affirm this resolved is to say that all humans should be legally obliged to not hunt animals or use them for medical research. I will tell you why this is wrong in my following contentions

1: We Must Test on Animals for Medical Purposes
Sub Point 1:
If we were to require the recognition of animal rights, multiple human lives would be lost because medicine would not be tested. Since diseases are constantly evolving, not producing new medicine would mean a new pandemic every time a new strain of disease comes into existence. It is a small exchange to hurt a few animals to protect millions of human lives from even worse suffering. According to the National Academies Press, “By infecting animals with certain microbes, Koch, Pasteur, and other researchers were able to identify the germs causing anthrax, rabies, diphtheria, and plague. These discoveries have allowed scientists to develop vaccines for animals and people made from weakened germs. “ These tests gave way to the salvation of millions of people.

Sub Point 2:
Furthermore, many surgical advancements arise from the testing on animals. According to the NAP, Organ transplants and coronary artery bypasses require that blood vessels be sewn together. The technique of sewing blood vessels together was developed through surgeries on dogs and cats by Alexis Carrel, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1912. Carrel tested on dogs and cats because these organs had a chance of being rejected and the animals had a chance of dying. The whole world, knowing the consequences of the testing on those dogs and cats tested on, decided that Carrel’s research was worthy of a Nobel Prize.

2: The affirming of this resolved would eliminate animal services such as the police K-9 unit.  
This is because the definition of animal rights includes living free from other services to humans, and therefore the K-9 sector of our executive branch would be nullified.
According to the the El Dorado California Police Department and agreed upon by Police Departments across the US, Police service dogs are currently being used nationwide for high risk searches for suspects hiding in buildings or areas, tracking, search and rescue locating victims, jail/prison systems officer protection and cell extraction of inmates, evidence detection, narcotic detection, explosive detection, accelerant detection, disaster search locating victims, human remains detection, locating victims of avalanches, locating suspects for Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and lately, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection.
As you can see, these K-9’s entire lives are spent as a service to humans, but it is completely worth it.

3: The affirmation of this resolved would eliminate hunting, causing societal chaos.
In almost every society, meat is used as a source of food. In some, meat is necessary for survival, especially in areas of harsh climate where plants don’t grow abundantly. These societies would be forced to abandon their hunting and move to a less extreme climate, causing overpopulation and unnecessary conflict. Furthermore, societies which contain a population of people who’s economy is based around the meat industry would be crushed because an entire sector of the economy would be eliminated at once. Farmers would be out of luck, and all of the people involved with the production and transportation of meat would be forced to find a new lively hood.

It is vital, in order to be fair and reasonable, for people to be able to hunt, use animals for law enforcement and transportation, and above all to be used for medical testing. For all these reasons I stand in firm NEGATION of today’s resolved.

Facts: Samuel Worcester was a resident of the state of Vermont sent to The Cherokee Nation as a missionary. Yet the state of Georgia does not permit U.S citizens to enter The Cherokee Nation unless they receive a passport from the governor. Worcester argued that this Georgia law broke Indian sovereignty treaties, which are held at a federal level. Worcester was convicted by the state of Georgia and sentence to four years hard labor at a penitentiary.

Issue: Wether the act of legislature of Georgia, under which the plaintiff in error has been prosecuted and condemned, be consistent with, or repugnant to, the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States.

Held: No.

Rationale: The court ruled that only the United States had the authority to make treaties and regulations with Native Americans. Georgia has absolutely no authority in the matter, the plaintiff was on tribal land. All treaties offer a federal jurisdiction. However, treaties made with The Cherokee Nation promise “the benefit and comfort” and “prevention of injuries and oppression” of these Indians, yet the United States still has control over their trading regulations and regulation of all affairs. Therefore the treaty is hypocritical considering that the articles state that The Cherokee are capable of governing themselves, and may ascertain boundaries between themselves and the United States. Thus the treaty has been renewed several times, and specific pledges have been added. Such as allowing The Cherokee Nation to punish citizens whom are unlawfully in their land. The United States has also pledged to recognize Indian Nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries. States only have jurisdiction over Native lands if they are being invaded.

Bhutto, the first female prime minister in the Muslim world, was killed in a gun and suicide attack in 2007 in one of the most shocking events in Pakistan’s turbulent history.

An anti-terrorism court indicted the seven men in a hearing held behind closed door in the city of Rawalpindi for security reasons.

“They have been charged with conspiracy as well as abetment in the murder,” Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ali, a government prosecutor, told Reuters.

The charismatic Bhutto was killed on December 27, 2007 as she waved to a crowd through the sunroof of a sports utility vehicle following an election rally in Rawalpindi weeks after she returned to Pakistan from a self-imposed exile after striking a deal with then military ruler Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf’s government had blamed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud for the killing. Mehsud was killed in a U.S. drone strike near the Afghan border in 2009.

The five Taliban militants were charged with “criminal conspiracy” for bringing the suicide bomber from the tribal belt in the northwest to Rawalpindi where he carried out the attack, another prosecutor Mohammad Azhar said.

The police officers, including Saud Aziz, who was then Rawalpindi police chief, were charged with breach of security by “changing the security plan for BB (Benazir Bhutto),” he added.

Musharraf, who lives in exile in Dubai and London, also faces accusations of failing to provide adequate security to Bhutto.

The anti-terrorism court in February issued an arrest warrant for him and later declared him fugitive of law after he failed to respond to these accusations.

In August, the court ordered the confiscation of all property and the freezing of Musharraf’s bank accounts in Pakistan after he again failed to respond.

The prosecutor Ali said the court would deal with Musharraf’s issue later.

A report by a U.N. commission of inquiry released last year said any credible investigation should not rule out the possibility that members of Pakistan’s military and security establishment were involved in the killing, though it did not say who it believed was guilty.

It heavily criticized Pakistani authorities, saying they had “severely hampered” the investigation.

Musharraf has denied suggestions that he or his security agencies had any role in Bhutto’s murder.

After her death, Bhutto’s party won general elections in 2008 by riding a wave of public sympathy and ultimately forced Musharraf to step down.

Bhutto widower, Asif Ali Zardari, has been the president of the country since then.

(Reporting by Zeeshan Haider; Editing by Ed Lane)

Mosley said Murray never would have founded the clinic if he had been greedy, as prosecutors have previously suggested.

“When you went to the doctor, in his office, you did not see a sign when you walked in that (said), ‘Pay at the time that services rendered’,” Mosley said. “You did not see a sign that said present ID or your insurance card … You saw the doctor first.”

Last of five character witnesses

Murray continued to wipe his eyes for several moments after Mosley left the witness stand. She was the last of five character witnesses that Murray’s attorneys called during the doctor’s involuntary manslaughter trial. He has pleaded not guilty.

The trial recessed for the day after Mosley’s testimony and was expected to resume today with Murray’s final witnesses – a pair of medical experts.

Authorities contend Murray gave Jackson a fatal dose of the anaesthetic propofol in the singer’s bedroom on June 25, 2009. Defence attorneys claim the singer gave himself the fatal dose.

Gerry Causey, of Cedar City, Utah, said Murray treated him for a heart attack 11 years ago, and the cardiologist remains his best friend.

Compassionate doctor

Causey said he was not put to sleep at his request while Murray implanted a stent after fully explaining the procedure to him.

“I know his love, his compassion, his feelings for his patients,” Causey said. “He’s the best doctor I’ve ever been to.”

Murray, 58, last treated Causey in 2008. Causey said the doctor didn’t charge him his deductible for office visits.

“I just don’t think he did what he’s been accused of,” Causey said.

Another witness, Dennis Hix of Banning, California, said Murray performed a stent procedure for him for free.

Murray agreed to become Jackson’s personal physician for US$150,000 a month but was never paid because the singer died before the contract was signed.

Prosecutors have contended that Murray was heavily in debt and initially sought $5 million to treat Jackson as he prepared for a series of lucrative comeback concerts.

Another character witness, Andrew Guest, echoed Causey’s comments about Murray’s skill and care.

“He makes sure you’re OK, during the procedure, after the procedure,” said Guest, a locksmith at a casino in Las Vegas. “I’m alive today because of that man.”

Dr Murray’s team presented a 42-page document in court yesterday aimed at suggesting Jackson was under financial pressure to pull off a number of concerts in London, causing him to inject himself with the anaesthetic Propofol in an attempt to sleep, but Judge Pastor denied using it as evidence.

“It involves the fact finder getting taken on a side tour of accounting principles and law school. This is not a contractual dispute, this is a homicide case.”

The decision came after Deputy District Attorney David Walgren urged it be denied.

He said: “At every turn Conrad Murray, through his attorneys, have put the blame for his failures on Michael Jackson and this is just another attempt to do the same.”

Jackson ‘fearful’

Michael’s former physician Dr Allan Metzger has also claimed theThriller hitmaker was “fearful” about his concert responsibilities and had requested something intravenous to help him sleep as oral medication was no longer working.

Although he did not ask for a specific drug, Dr Metzger said Michael wanted “some form of anaesthetic”, later adding, “I think he used the word juice.”

However, he added, he would never have given in to his request, no matter how much money he was offered.

Dr Murray – who denies involuntary manslaughter – could face up to four years in jail if found guilty.

Rajat Gupta was expected to appear in federal court in Manhattan.

The two people, who have inside knowledge of the case, confirmed Tuesday night that Gupta intended to surrender but declined to say what the charges are. They spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the charges hadn’t been formally announced.

The Securities and Exchange Commissioner originally brought civil fraud charges against Gupta in March. The SEC alleged that, at the height of the financial crisis, he passed along privileged financial information that helped enrich Raj Rajaratnam, a former billionaire hedge fund manager who was the prime target of the criminal probe.

Gupta’s lawyer responded by accusing the SEC of launching a “flawed case premised in large part on unreliable evidence being used in an attempt to bring down a man of sterling reputation and remarkable achievements without the procedural safeguards historically accorded to all persons similarly charged.”

The Indian-born, Harvard-educated Gupta also has served on the boards of Procter & Gamble and the parent company for American Airlines. He was a guest at President Barack Obama’s first state dinner.

Gupta’s name played prominently at the criminal trial earlier this year of Rajaratnam, who was convicted after prosecutors used a trove of wiretaps on which he could be heard coaxing a crew of corporate tipsters into giving him an illegal edge on blockbuster trades.

Jurors heard testimony that at an Oct. 23, 2008, Goldman board meeting, members were told that the investment bank was facing a quarterly loss for the first time since it had gone public in 1999.

Prosecutors produced phone records showing Gupta called Rajaratnam 23 seconds after the meeting ended, causing Rajaratnam to sell his entire position in Goldman the next morning and save millions of dollars.

Rajaratnam also earned close to $1 million when Gupta told him that Goldman had received an offer from Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway to invest $5 billion in the banking giant, prosecutors said.

In one tape played at trial, Rajaratnam could be heard grilling Gupta about whether the Goldman Sachs board had discussed acquiring a commercial bank or an insurance company.

“Have you heard anything along that line?” Rajaratnam asked Gupta.

“Yeah,” Gupta responded. “This was a big discussion at the board meeting.”

Prosecutors sought to maximize the impact of the Gupta tape by calling Goldman Sachs chairman Lloyd Blankfein to testify that the phone call violated the investment bank’s confidentiality policies.

Gupta’s lawyer Gary P. Naftalis said Tuesday night that his client and Rajaratnam communicated for “legitimate reasons.” He said his client didn’t trade in any securities, didn’t tip Rajaratnam so he could trade and didn’t share in any profits.

“The facts demonstrate that Mr. Gupta is an innocent man and that he has always acted with honesty and integrity,” Naftalis said in an emailed statement.

Rajaratnam, who’s in his mid-50s, was sentenced earlier this year to 11 years in prison. His lawyers had argued for 6 1/2 to nine years. Defense attorney Terence Lynam asked the judge to show compassion because of Rajaratnam’s illnesses, saying: “He does not deserve to die in prison.”

The FBI’s New York office and the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan declined to comment about Gupta on Tuesday.

Souce: TOM HAYS | news.yahoo.com

     One such case study is the paper on the design of “knowledge work” (Painter, 2004).  Bert Painter is a consulting social scientist and associate of the British Columbia Research Council, Vancouver, Canada.  His website is in the business of developing and designing work organizations who embody a mutual gains strategy, supporting joint venture initiatives of employees and employers in office and manufacturing work (Modern Times Workplace, 2010).  The idea is to push action research (“learning by doing”), a term coined by German and American social psychologist Kurt Lewin in 1946 and the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in the 1950s through today, so that employees can participate in the decision-making process whereby change and improvements are made in a practical setting, as well as contributing meaningfully to social science knowledge and theory.

     What’s interesting about the mutual gains strategy is that the focus is in achieving economic competitiveness at high living standards.  The development of high levels of skill, adaptability and commitment from employees allows their employers to share in the returns by investing in ways that enhance employment security (Modern Times Workplace, 2010).
 
     What we can take away from this is a sense of not only expectations but also entitlements.  Yet the two are mostly motivated by personal means, are they not?  If so, this may very well affect implementation of socio-technical systems by the sheer fact that human emotions play a part in decisions about information, communication, policies and procedures.  Painter describes how electronic filing (E-File) systems had to be overcome since it took over most paperwork processing.  Naturally, the human instinct in this case was to shun it, and if we think about economic issues in the vein of employability, rightly so.  However, for the organization it makes perfect sense since it frees up resources and reduces downtime and dragged-out functions usually associated with the previous manual labor and coordination.

     The new IT solution was powerful for the WCB (Workers’ Compensation Board) of British Columbia, Canada, when they test piloted E-Filing, as it helped them with their information gathering, evidence weighing, and specialized knowledge applications for complex decisions regarding workers’ injury compensation claims throughout numerous industries (Painter, 2004).  It was well worth its weight, since 91% of the staff reported that it was a better system than the paper-based work process when it came to their medical claims information.

     This change in systems received “mixed” opinions and false starts.  Although claims were on hand at all times, some staff believed they were being overwhelmed by all that “paperwork”.  Too much documentation is easily accessible immediately when filed electronically, so they feel they must take care of it right away instead of later (Painter, 2004).  This could also be considered “information overload” where a caseload is virtually in one’s face every day.  More training is then required to have considerable “desk management” skills as it pertains to the E-File environment.  Because of a fear or backlash regarding “imaging” technology, the Compensation Employees’ Union was quite concerned that there were shortcomings to this new process as most staff members did not have any experience with personal computer systems.

     They finally used a Service Delivery Strategy (SDS), which was a socio-technical component on its own, with three concurrent objectives: (1) Customer Service improvements through timely claims payments, (2) Financial Savings improved workflow, cost management information, and reduced Short-Term Disability (STD) duration, and finally, (3) A Better Working Environment as a result of a skill-enhanced workforce and reduction of routine activities like paper filing (Painter, 2004).  E-Filing as an “infrastructure” was built as a holistic highway or platform for future functions at WCB.  Think about today’s digital world and how technology has helped and hurt.  It eliminated many jobs but also improved performance and efficiency for organizations.

     Take for example, the RESUMIX application, which is an automated resume-scanning system used by government agencies for recruitment purposes (ResumeEdge.com, 2010).  The software replaces manual reviewing of job applications by matching qualified candidates with open vacancies using OCR (optical character recognition) and other imaging technologies such as a patented skill-extraction “reader”.  This allows both hiring managers and Human Resources (HR) staff to identify required skills for a position.  It does not replace HR altogether however, as personnel are still needed to do a final review of resumes.  A computer simply can’t conduct interviews!  Painter’s argument about systems change reflected human change as well.

     For instance, an employee’s willingness to develop new skills and work practices is an adaptation of new rules that keeps them employed, to say the least.  The union bargained for a collective agreement that WCB would allow the time and support given to learn these new systems without fear of losing their job protection status (although attrition will always occur).  This is where socio-technical systems can either drive a wedge between humans and technology or it can enhance the entire outlook of all parties involved.  Proactive information sharing and problem solving was the best practice for them, and regular meetings about this then transpired.

     This “Tech Change” forum, guided by decision-makers with authority, would incorporate significant user participation in the design of the system and the organization.  The old, legacy systems run by dumb terminals and mainframes were restrictive, allowing for only e-mail messaging, claims registration, and ordinary file tracking.  A Distributed Data System (DSS) would be needed in order for a Local Area Network infrastructure with communication protocols to not only integrate data imaging software, but to automate workflow (Painter, 2004).

     This necessary change caused more “errors” than it did with paper files since an adjudicating officer’s handwriting was difficult to read and therefore the business rules were less enforceable then.  To successfully maintain E-File integrity, it needs to have forms, templates and “forced” data entry.  Designers must make them simple yet functional at the same time.  A feeling of “detachment” from a claim using E-File is relegated to the “institutional” feeling one gets as opposed to the personal “touch” with paper filing, however the new method of filtering and indexing helped sort, track and organize the files much faster.

     Because of this transparency, it was now more open to constant review by co-workers, which established “sanitized” information, increased accountability, and synchronization among staff (Painter, 2004).  “Cumulative” access was a thing of the past due to parallel processing.  The rational techniques of information systems practice and organizational dynamics with its social context are intertwined and almost symbiotic (Avgerou & McGrath, 2007).  This is why general senior managers must be involved in decisions along with IT managers.  It is an investment and necessity; otherwise enabling business objectives isn’t possible (Lacity, 2005).  This kind of technology, along with its related tasking or physicals adjacency, cannot develop “integrative” teamwork, but rather enable it instead.  The “knowledge work” can be beneficial yet must be tamed by a balanced socio-technical approach.

     The judgments of skilled human labor are irreplaceable, but it is the successful integration of both system and organizational design that should likely be implemented in sequence as opposed to all at once due to insufficient resources (Painter, 2004).  Change management needs to understand that there are no constants in the IT industry.  Without participatory consultation and design of the information system along with one’s business process, socio-technical design would fall flat.  E-File helped WCB transform themselves meaningfully without risk to professionals’ dignities and livelihoods – or even their sleep… well, maybe and maybe not!

(c) 2011 Cal Nguyen
http://blip.tv/dayzerotv/day-zero-episode-101-lethal-pilot-blipnew-5624752