Showing papers by "Aetna published in 1986"
Patent•
25 Jun 1986TL;DR: In this paper, a self-aligning clutch release bearing and carrier sleeve assembly is presented, which is adapted to adjust the rotation orientation of the bearing to coincide with the second axis of rotation of the clutch fingers.
Abstract: A self-aligning clutch release bearing and carrier sleeve assembly includes a carrier sleeve which defines a first axis and a bearing adapted to be brought into engagement with rotating clutch fingers or the like of a clutch mechanism, which clutch fingers rotate about a second axis which may not be exactly coincidental with the first axis. The bearing and carrier sleeve assembly is adapted to adjust the rotation orientation of the bearing to coincide with the second axis of rotation of the clutch fingers. This bearing and carrier sleeve assembly comprises: a bearing including a generally annular thrust face for engagement with the clutch fingers and first and second annular raceways having a plurality of bearing elements disposed therebetween, one of the raceways rotating in unison with the thrust face and the other of the raceways being coupled with the carrier sleeve. A mounting arrangement is provided for grippingly engaging the second raceway for mounting the same to the carrier sleeve. The second raceway having an annular radially inwardly extending shoulder portion and the mounting arrangement defines a recess of complementary form for receiving the raceway shoulder portion therewithin. The raceway shoulder portion terminates at a position radially spaced apart from a radially innermost end of the recess for permitting a predetermined amount of radial movement of the bearing relative to the carrier sleeve while substantially preventing axial movement of the bearing relative to the carrier sleeve.
17 citations
1 Apr 1986
TL;DR: The purpose of this panel is to explore the basic question: How can this intrinsically de-stabilizing technology be designed and implemented in a way which supports the organization, without destroying it?
Abstract: At a time when more and different people are using more and different computer systems, there is growing awareness that if technology is to give companies the “competitive edge” they are seeking, it must be used to support business goals. This means that systems must work within the existing organization to improve and extend its functioning. This also means that the design of these systems must enhance the organization, not disrupt it. Yet technology is, by its very nature, a stimulus for change. The question then becomes: How can this intrinsically de-stabilizing technology be designed and implemented in a way which supports the organization, without destroying it? It is the purpose of this panel to explore this basic question.Sociotechnical systems theory is a method to deal with this dilemma. At its core is the assumption that to be successful, technology must be designed in tandem with the receiving organization. So-called socio-tech focuses on how the organization can use technology, in an attempt to establish a “best fit” between the technical and the social aspects of the workplace. This is in contrast both to “old style” systems design, which concentrates on technical aspects only and to the “traditional” Human Factors approach, which considers how to design for “typical” users and how they think and perceive. (Some people have dubbed this new approach “Macroergonomics” as a way of distinguishing it from this more traditional Human Factors approach.)
2 citations
3 Dec 1986
TL;DR: All approaches acknowledge that the primary act in the process of collaboration is communication, and Weber's concern for impersonality in bureaucracy could not have made sense in a world without instigation, hence impersonal communications.
Abstract: Theories of human collaboration vary widely. Some emphasize cooperation. Others observe the inev i tab i l i ty of confl ict. Collaboration, in this context, does not mean happy agreement on ends. Machiavelli's Prince, for example, makes no claim that achieving purpose in consort with others is free of confl ict and self-interest. All approaches acknowledge, at least impl ic i t ly, that the primary act iv i ty in the process of collaboration is communication. For example, Weber's concern for impersonality in bureaucracy [10] could not have made sense in a world without inst i tut ional , hence impersonal communications.