Search

Our aim in this paper is to highlight the relative impact of activity variability on the completion time of different project configurations. We show that there is. in general no categorical connection between the stage of a project in its life-cycle and the impact of increased activity variability on the expected remaining project duration. Thus investing resources to decrease activity variability is. in general. as important in the early stages of the project life-cycle as it is in the later stages. However, our analysis suggests that in projects with dominant critical paths. it pays to invest resources to reduce activity variability at an early stage rather than at a later stage in the project. We apply some of our analytical results to gain insights into the issue of structuring project activities into work packets and assigning the work packets to project teams. We extend our framework to examine different modes of subcontracting projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "A robustness approach to international sourcing," by G. J. Gutierrez and P. Kouvelis, published in a previous issue.

Introduction: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a commonly utilized therapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions. The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) has recommended that the placement of percutaneous SCS leads be performed in an awake patient capable of providing feedback. It is not currently known how commonly this recommendation is adhered to by physicians in clinical practice. This article presents the findings of a survey designed to answer this important question. Methods: We conducted a survey of the active membership of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) regarding practice patterns with SCS therapy. We analyzed the percent of respondents who indicated that they use deep sedation and general anesthesia during SCS placement as well as any reported complications. Results: Many practitioners frequently utilize deep sedation as well as general anesthesia when performing SCS implants. Our findings demonstrate that 77% of physicians reported that they utilize deep sedation for permanent SCS implants at times, and 45% of physicians reported the use of general anesthesia for 10 kHz implants. Additionally, 94% of physicians reported that they have never had a complication related to the use of general anesthesia for a spinal cord stimulator placement. Conclusions: This survey provides initial data on SCS practices among a large cohort of clinicians who utilize SCS. SCS lead placement under deep sedation and general anesthesia appears to be common practice for many physicians who perform implants. This survey should stimulate further research on this topic, given that the current safety guidelines and the rate of physicians reporting the use of deep sedation and general anesthesia for spinal cord stimulator placement remain at odds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]