Captive: Shared

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Captive: Shared file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Captive: Shared book. Happy reading Captive: Shared Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Captive: Shared at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Captive: Shared Pocket Guide.

Introduction Outsourcing back-office processes that are often found in a Shared Services center continues to be popular as external service providers improve the quality of their services and methods for how to best transfer and manage work processes becomes routine. We have four regional centers, two of which are supported out of India. We use a spoke and hub model. We have 3 similarly sized captive shared service centers located in the US, Latin America, and Russia.

The majority of our BPO shared service resources are in India.

Closing Summary Business Process Outsourcing is an accepted and common part of the landscape for the design and delivery of Shared Services processes, and one of the many tools available as members work to delivery high quality and cost-effective solutions for their companies. Custom Web App Comentum. The preparation of the facilities usually take 4 to 8 months.

If you are a U. S, the only way to take advantage of the labor arbitrage from lower-cost markets in Latin America or Asia can only be through outsourcing.

Gartner Glossary

However, if reducing costs is not your main priority, and you are really looking to improve service and controls, and increase productivity and standardization, you could set up your captive center in the U. Having an established legal entity, an existing organization, an HR department, the know-how of the country, etc. However, in many cases, multinationals do not have a large operation to leverage in the ideal countries for shared services.

In this case, outsourcing can become a better alternative. The beauty of shared services is that you can combine different models to achieve your goals. For example, you may decide to start outsourcing your most transactional, lower risk activities such as AP, Cash Application and Reconciliations, and get significant savings in a short period of time, while simultaneously standing up a captive center for other activities that could also be centralized, but operated internally. In our experience, what will usually dictate the best path is how aggressive your saving targets are, and the timeframe to achieve those savings.

Additionally, although Komodo dragon microbiome sources skin, saliva, and feces proved to be independent from one another, human microbiome sources were not characterized by this same individuality, proving to be a mix of human and pet microbiomes see Fig. S4 in the supplemental material. Animals housed together will similarly potentially share individual-animal-specific microbial communities with each other, exposing those animals to more varied microbial diversity compared to solitary animals.

Additionally, both humans and their pets do go outside and are therefore exposed to more microbial diversity than captive animals housed individually in indoor enclosures. More studies need to be done to further define the effect of captivity on the microbiome and implications for disease, and how to utilize the microbiome to improve health in captive animals.

For example, humans may represent an important source of beneficial or harmful bacteria for captive animals, and studying aquarium and zoo animals that interact more with humans than do Komodo dragons i.


  1. No Greater Illusion?
  2. Article : How Captive Shared Service Centers Can Propel Shipping Companies!
  3. The Golden Tulip.
  4. Blog Archive!

It is only by characterizing the microbiomes of both wild and captive animals and by identifying important changes in environmental and even social interactions that have detrimental effects on the microbiome that we will be able to understand the precise connection between captivity, the microbiome, and health and disease. Sample collection. The skin, saliva, and feces of captive Komodo dragons housed individually were sampled at twelve U.

All samples were collected using sterile, double-headed swabs.

The Village of 100 Shared Services Centres

Skin was swabbed by firmly rubbing the swab across the designated area of skin for at least 10 s. Saliva was collected by either allowing the dragon to tongue flick the swab, catching drool, or by inserting the swab slightly into the mouth of the animal. Fecal material was collected by touching the surface of the swab heads to the surface of the feces just enough to turn the swab head the color of the feces.

Environmental materials at two zoos were also swabbed. Environmental objects at the Denver Zoo swabbed included rock, metal, plastic, glass, soil, wood, and plant material, while only soil and plant matter were sampled at the Honolulu Zoo. Komodo dragons were sampled during the summer or early fall months June to October of by their zoo caretakers.

Permissions

Each zoo received the same set of sampling instructions to ensure consistency of sample collection across all zoos. Briefly, each sample was amplified in triplicate and combined. A composite sample for sequencing was created by combining equimolar ratios of amplicons from the individual samples, followed by ethanol precipitation to remove any remaining contaminants and PCR artifacts. Data analysis. The forward read was quality filtered and demultiplexed according to the following parameters: no ambiguous bases allowed, only one mismatch in the barcode sequence allowed, and a minimum Phred quality score of Quality filtering resulted in 5,, high-quality sequences total.

Using the closed-reference workflow, only Additionally, all samples with less than 3, reads per sample were removed from the OTU table, resulting in a total of samples used in downstream analyses. The number of observed species and the Shannon diversity index were calculated for each sample in the data set with at least 3, reads. The OTU table corresponding to these samples was randomly subsampled 10 times at a sequencing depth from 10 sequences per sample to 3, sequences per sample in steps of sequences. The alpha diversity metrics were then calculated on the resulting rarefied OTU tables.

Statistical analyses were performed to determine significant differences in alpha diversity between body site and body site plus environment within the Komodo dragon cohort. Statistical analyses were performed using a nonparametric t test with Monte Carlo permutations to calculate the P value. Principal-component analysis PCoA was applied to the resulting distance matrix, and plots were generated using Emperor software Beta diversity analyses performed on combined Komodo dragon-amphibian and Komodo dragon-human data sets followed the same protocol, with the Komodo dragon-amphibian data set rarefied to 5, sequences per sample and the Komodo dragon-human data set rarefied to 5, sequences per sample.

To analyze the significance of sample groupings, anosim nonparametric, permutations and permanova nonparametric, permutations tests were performed on the UniFrac distance matrices. We further compared distances by performing two sample t tests permutations to determine whether the distance distributions between Komodo dragons and their environment differed from those between humans and pets and their environment or amphibians and their environment.

The rarefied OTU table containing only environmental samples was the input for a leave-one-out random forest analysis. Group classifications were performed on the enclosures as indicated by the individual dragon residing in each enclosure. SourceTracker 38 is a tool that uses a Bayesian model jointly with Gibbs sampling to quantify the number of taxa that a set of source environments contributes to a sink environment. The reverse SourceTracker analyses defining host samples as sinks and environmental samples as sources were also performed on all three data sets.

Defining a Captive or BPO Sourcing Strategy for Shared Services

Additionally, leave-one-out source sample predictions were run in parallel for each SourceTracker analyses to test the independence of each source. While taxonomic composition analyses compared Denver and Honolulu zoo samples, only Denver zoo samples were utilized for SourceTracker analyses, as both the variety and number of environmental samples collected from the Denver Zoo were more extensive than those collected from the Honolulu Zoo.

We assessed sample clustering using the anosim and permanova statistical tests. We thank Jessica Metcalf for reading and providing feedback on the manuscript and Elaine Wolfe for her contribution to Fig. We also thank all of the zoos that participated in this study and generously donated samples. Sloan Foundation. Templeton Foundation. This work was supported in part by the U. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4. NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail.

We do not retain these email addresses. Skip to main content. Research Article Host-Microbe Biology. Embriette R. Hyde , Jose A.

Some important criteria:

McKenzie , Jack A. Gilbert , Rob Knight. Ashley Shade , Editor. Michigan State University. ABSTRACT Examining the way in which animals, including those in captivity, interact with their environment is extremely important for studying ecological processes and developing sophisticated animal husbandry.

Guernsey's Captive Insurance Expertise Shared With Hong Kong Audience - Insurance - Hong Kong

RESULTS In the current study, we obtained skin, saliva, and fecal samples from 37 Komodo dragons in 12 zoos across the United States, in addition to 49 environmental samples from two of these zoos samples total. Table S1 Performance of the leave-one-out random forest classifier when classifying samples from individual Komodo dragon enclosures. The number of environmental samples belonging to individual Komodo dragon enclosures identified by animal name that were correctly assigned to their enclosure of origin by the classifier are listed, with the corresponding class errors.

Figure S1 A Box-and-whisker plots illustrate the median, maximum, minimum, and first and third quartiles of the distribution of the number of observed OTUs and the Shannon diversity index for Komodo dragon fecal, saliva, skin, and environmental microbial communities. Table S3 The number of OTUs and Shannon diversity index of each environmental material sampled from captive Komodo dragon enclosures at a rarefaction depth of 3, sequences per sample. Figure S2 Stacked bar charts illustrate the mean relative abundances of bacterial taxa detected in Komodo dragon saliva, skin, feces, and environmental samples collected from the Denver and Honolulu zoos at the phylum A and B , class C and D , order E and F , and family G and H levels.

Figure S3 SourceTracker analysis revealed that the microbial communities of the majority of environmental sample types are sourced from Komodo dragon skin, saliva, and feces rather than unknown sources i.