تاثیر مدیریت مزرعه بر ارزش سیستم های اطلاعات مدیریت
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|7289||2001||19 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7950 کلمه|
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله شامل 7950 کلمه می باشد.
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 30, Issues 1–3, February 2001, Pages 51–69
The value of management information systems (MISs) arises from improved managerial decision making and, therefore, will vary from farm to farm. Insight into this variation will be of use not only to farmers who consider (new) MIS investments, but also to companies that design and market MISs. In this study, the impact of farm management on the value of sow-herd MISs is investigated. Within the same research population, farm management is assessed with two conceptually different classification approaches — the sociological ‘style of farming’ approach and the farm-economic ‘management level’ approach. Management levels of sow farmers turned out to be positively correlated with MIS value (r=0.35, P=0.02). Although farmers with high management levels tend to be better informed anyway than farmers with low management levels, they get more added value from MISs.
Management information systems (MISs) are systems designed to provide daily production information at the individual animal level that is of potential value in making management decisions (Boehlje and Eidman, 1984). MIS value arises from improved managerial decision making (Hamilton and Chervany, 1981) and, therefore, will vary from farm to farm. The value is affected by goals and competence of the farmer(s), and characteristics of the farm, such as the size of the farm (Rougoor et al., 1998). Insight into the variation of MIS value among farms will be of use not only to farmers who consider (new) MIS investments, but also to companies that design and market MISs (King et al., 1990). Moreover, farm advisors can use this insight to more specifically support farmers in improving farm results with MISs. Characteristics of farms and farmers have been studied extensively in relationship with farm performance (e.g. Alleblas, 1988, Mok and Van den Tillaart, 1990 and Rougoor et al., 1998), and in relationship with MIS use (Putler and Zilberman, 1988, Batte et al., 1990 and Jarvis, 1990). The purpose of the present study is to determine the impact of farm management on MIS value. We build upon an earlier survey study using panel data of 71 pig farms in the southern part of The Netherlands (Verstegen et al., 1995). Unlike many cross-sectional MIS evaluation studies, this study could investigate farm performance over time. A unique dataset was created by merging survey data collected on the same farms in 1983 and 1992. Farm developments before and after MIS use were compared. Results indicate that, from the second year of MIS use onward, average production of the MIS farms (adjusted for farm, trend, and learning effects) increased by 0.56 piglets raised per sow per year. Conversion of this important production indicator into monetary terms showed that MIS use resulted in a profit of US$15–17 per sow per year, meaning a return on investment of 220–348% and 7.7–8.7% of the typical Dutch income per sow per year. The study also revealed that MIS effects between farms differed significantly. In this paper, we relate these differences in MIS effects to farm management. Within the same research population, farm management is assessed with two conceptually different classification approaches that are commonly used — the sociological ‘style of farming’ approach (Van der Ploeg, 1990) and the farm-economic ‘management level’ approach (Alleblas, 1988).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The survey study of Verstegen et al. (1995) showed that MIS value differs significantly between farms. In this paper, the sociological ‘style of farming’ approach and the farm-economic ‘management level’ approach were applied to further explain these differences. For this purpose, the ‘management level’ approach turned out to provide a better explanation for the differences than the ‘style of farming’ approach. Management levels of sow farmers were positively correlated with MIS value (r=0.35, P=0.02). This means that, although farmers with high management levels tend to be better informed anyway than farmers with low management levels, they get more added value from MISs. Also, positive relationships exist between management level and farm size, and between farm size and MIS value (although MIS value is defined as improvement in piglets per year at a sow level). Apparently, common-cause effects of management level occur, enhancing farm size and piglets per sow per year at the same time. Further research is needed to investigate the value of MISs in avoiding lower sow performances with increasing farm scales, and the opportunities to improve farmers’ management levels and, consequently, MIS benefits.