Simon Fraser University
?
S.00-74
Memorandum
TO: ?
Senate
FROM:
?
J.M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic
DATE: ?
August 16, 2000
SUBJECT: External Review - Faculty of Business Administration
External Reviews of academic units are conducted under Guidelines' approved
by Senate. The review process is intended to ensure that the quality of the department's
academic programs and research is high, that members of the department participate in
the administration of departments, and that the departmental environment is
conducive to the department's objectives. Under these Guidelines, Senate is expected to
receive advice from the new Senate Committee on University Priorities and to provide
feedback to the unit and the Dean.
The following materials are forwarded to Senate for consideration:
The External Review Report
The response to the External Review Report by the Faculty of Business
0 ?
Administration
The comments of the Vice-President, Academic
The recommendations from the Senate Committee on University Priorities
The Dean Pro Tem, Dr. Ernie Love will be available at Senate as a resource person.
Motion
That Senate concurs with the recommendation from the Senate Committee on
University Priorities concerning advice to the Faculty of Business Administration
on priority items resulting from the external review, as outlined in S.00- 74
The Guidelines can be found at
http://www.reg.sfu.ca/Senate/SenateComms/SCUP-ExReview.hbnl
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
• ?
Senate Committee on University Priorities
Memorandum
TO:
Senate ?
FRO ?
Ju Ith Osborne, Acting
Vice President, Academic
Acting Chair, SCUP
RE: Faculty of Business Administration
?
DATE: ?
12 July 2000
External Review
The Senate Committee on University Priorities has reviewed the External Review
Report prepared on the Faculty of Business Administration March 12, 1999, together
with the response from the Faculty and the Vice President, Academic.
SCUP was very disappointed in the quality of the external review and will be
providing suggestions to the Office of the Vice President, Academic to ensure that
reviews in the future are of more value to the academic unit and to the University.
SCUP recommends to Senate that the Faculty be advised to pursue the following as
priority items:
1.
The Faculty of Business Administration should prepare an overall research
plan for the Vice President, Academic and SCUP to increase faculty research
productivity for the Faculty of Business Administration. As part of the
research plan, the Faculty of Business Administration should identify
appropriate measures of evaluation and assessment to provide accountability.
A report on the Faculty's progress towards improved research productivity
should be provided September 1 annually to SCUP for each of the next three
years.
2.
Plans by the Faculty of Business Administration to develop a PhD program
are encouraged by SCUP but should be integrated into the Faculty's overall
strategy to increase research productivity.
3.
The Faculty of Business Administration should not eliminate the "day" MBA
program. The revisions underway within the Faculty to improve the
program should be continued and encouraged.
4.
The Faculty of Business Administration should review the considerable
unmet demand for business undergraduate programs and should consider
expanding admission to the Bachelor of Business Administration to meet the
demand.
c.: ?
E. Love
d.
sI,4
• ?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Office of the Vice President, Academic
?
MEMORANDUM
TO: Senate Committee on
?
FROM: J.M. Munro,
University Priorities
?
Vice President, Academic
SUBJECT: External Review, Faculty
?
DATE: June 8, 2000
of Business Administration
The report of the External Review Committee of the Faculty of Business
Administration was submitted on March 12, 1999 following the review visit on
February 3-5, 1999. The response of the Dean was submitted on May 30, 2000.
My comments on this external review and the submission from the Dean
is ?
are as follows.
1.
This is a very skimpy review - five pages on an academic unit with over 50
complement faculty and over 1500 FTEs in complex academic programs. Many
important dimensions are omitted (e.g., Co-operative Education) or given little
attention. The lack of content is exacerbated by the decision to devote 20
percent of the review to a commonplace "environmental scan".
2.
Some of the scan seems to be incorrect, or at least to suggest misleading
directions for the Faculty. For example, while demand is no doubt growing for
Lifelong learning in Business Administration, there is considerable unmet
demand for undergraduate business programs. Currently, about 15 percent of
new students identify Business Administration as their intended major yet
actual enrollment are less than 10 percent of the total. The Bachelor of
Business Administration has been the second most difficult program for
students to gain admission.
3.
The review is positive concerning the leadership and operations of the
Faculty yet later observations under the "weaknesses" and "threats" sections
seem to contradict this opinion. This confusion seems an inevitable
consequence of using the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats)
approach.
3
2
4. The review recommends elimination of the "Day" MBA Program. The Dean's
to
response
address
notes
some
that
of the
changes
reviewers'
have been
concerns
made
and
in this
that
program
they failed
which
to understand
would seem
?
is
the extensive integration of this program with other parts of the Faculty. With
about 100 FTEs, the Day MBA program is one of the largest graduate programs
in the University and even its replacement, as the reviewers recommend would
have to be very carefully executed.
5.
The reviewers recommend more financial responsibility for the Faculty Level;
the Dean's response endorses this view. The decentralization of Faculty
budgets at Simon Fraser in the early 1990s did lead to much more Faculty-level
control than previously but it is still the case that the Faculty of Business
Administration has a smaller share of the total operating budget of all the
Faculties than its share of weighted FTEs. Also, while there has been some
redirection of tuition fee revenues from general revenue to the Faculty, more
could be considered.
6.
The concerns in the review and response over faculty compensation levels
have been addressed by allowing increases in market differentials for newly
hired faculty. However, this may not be enough and several faculty searches
have been unsuccessful this year, apparently because of uncompetitive
salaries. A comprehensive review of this issue including both recruiting
7.
problems
The review
and the
is quite
situation
critical
of
of
at[
two
current
aspects
faculty
of the
seems
commitment
to be needed.of
current
?
0
faculty to their responsibilities to the Faculty of Business Administration. Both
a Low level of research productivity and a Lack of involvement in programs and
with students are cited. The Dean's response notes improved service to
students and efforts to support research, especially among new faculty
members. This is a difficult and important issue and it may be one that can
only be addressed over time as the faculty complement is renewed. The
critical statements about Lack of faculty commitment to programs and
students, although vague, would seem to merit some attention.
cc. J. Waterhouse
?
fA
0
4
• ?
Simon Fraser University
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
?
MEMORANDUM
DATE: ?
May 30, 2000
TO: ?
Jock Munro, VP Academicsz7
FROM: ?
John H. Waterhouse, ?
-,
-, ' .&:•
SUBJECT: ?
FBA External Review,'
/ ?
-
Please find attached the Faculty of Business Administration's response to the May 30,
2000, External Review.
The Faculty will be pleased to respond to SCUP's questions on this document at its June
14th meeting.
.
Faculty of Business Administration Response to the External?
Review
May 30, 2000
The external review report made five recommendations, to:
1.
Eliminate the day MBA program
2.
Establish financial responsibility at the Faculty level,
3.
Address faculty compensation in innovative ways,
4.
Increase research productivity, and
5.
Increase faculty commitment to the programs.
Our actions on these recommendations are as follows:
The Day MBA Program
Since receiving the external review, the Faculty has devoted considerable energy to
examining whether the Day MBA program should be eliminated and, if not, how it
should be revised. The Faculty has concluded that the Specialist MBA program should
not be eliminated. The Faculty feels that the external review failed to appreciate the
extent to which the MBA program is integrated into Faculty activities. MBA students
projects
provide the
and
bulk
theses
of
to
the
augment
Faculty's
their
teaching
own research
assistants.
programs.
Many faculty
Thus, eliminating
members use
the
MBADay
?
is
MBA program entirely would require significant and possibly disruptive changes to the
undergraduate program and faculty research.
Some modifications have been made to the Day MBA program and more will be
proposed in the near future. The program has moved back to its original form of a one
year MBA for BBA graduates. The Graduate Diploma in Business is now available for
those students who wish to pursue a MBA without a BBA. Due to this reorganization,
the number of MBA courses has been reduced by 40-50 percent, without causing delays
for students in getting required courses in a timely manner. Applications to the program
have greatly increased in quantity and quality over the past year and students are now
graduating in 3-4 semesters. The program director, Professor Zaichkowsky, has worked
successfully to increase student morale, the support services available to students and the
sequencing and availability of courses.
Revisions to be proposed in the near future will further improve the program. These are
likely to include a new focus in portfolio management, a designation in consulting
management and further focus in available areas of concentration.
Financial Responsibility at the Faculty Level
(I',
•
?
The Faculty of Business Administration works, of course, within the context of Simon
Fraser University as a whole. Within this framework, financial responsibility has, to
some extent, been decentralized over the past several years. This policy has provided the
Faculty with more control over staff salary fallouts and over some program fees. Even
so, the Faculty of Business Administration has less financial autonomy than is the case in
many Canadian Business Faculties.
Faculty Compensation
Faculty compensation continues to be a serious threat to the Faculty. Attracting and
retaining high quality faculty members is perhaps more difficult now than was the case
when the external review report was written. For example this year eight out of ten offers
extended to potential entry-level faculty were rejected, primarily for financial reasons. In
some instances, salary offers that were, by Simon Fraser University standards very good,
were twenty to twenty-five per-cent below offers from other Canadian Universities.
While faculty recruitment is clearly an issue of major concern, unless compensation
problems can be effectively addressed, faculty retention may well become an issue of
critical concern. As compensation levels for business faculty around the world continue
to rise, the problem of "raiding" by other institutions is expected to increase. This
situation has the potential to worsen quickly as faculty with high research profiles are
targeted by both Canadian, American and other business faculties. It will also be
•
?
exacerbated by the incidence of increasing salary compression not to mention inversion --
which in our opinion is imminent.
Increase Research Productivity
The Faculty of Business Administration recognizes the importance of high quality
research and has taken several steps to increase activity in this area. Historically,
teaching workloads have been higher in the Faculty than in other academic units of SFU.
This anomaly was recognized in the three-year plans completed in 1998 and steps were
taken to address at least a portion of the problem by creating eight new faculty positions.
This will increase research productivity directly by the new faculty hired and indirectly
by reducing faculty teaching workloads. In addition, the Faculty has allocated new
research funds to research on management of technology. More faculty members have
been encouraged to apply for external research grants.
While the Faculty of Business Administration boasts a significant number of successful
MBA programs it has historically avoided a Ph.D. program due to anticipated high
operational costs. There is however, growing consensus within the faculty, that the costs
of a doctoral program are now worth incurring. This is because of the perceived value
that a doctoral program will contribute to faculty research. A task force is currently
exploring the viability and structure of a doctoral program in the FBA.
0 ?
Increase Faculty Commitment to Programs.
if
The Faculty has taken several steps to increase its service to students. Several initiatives
have been taken to increase the availability of Co-op spaces and to increase the service
provided to students who are in the Co-op program. The Faculty and University have
allocated resources to establish an Employment and Career Services center in the Faculty.
This Center provides a range of services that facilitate the transition for students from
study to work. Direct admission from high school to the Faculty has provided
opportunities to increase student esprit de corps by creating more student-centered
activities. Overall, we believe, based on student teaching and alumni surveys, that
student satisfaction with the quality of teaching and service provided by the Faculty of
Business Administration is high.
In summary, we believe that the external review affirmed that the Faculty has a great
number of strengths, including the EMBA program, high levels of collegiality, high
quality students and teaching, high quality and committed staff support and a strong sense
of direction. The steps noted above will increase the overall quality of our programs and
Faculty.
.
40
S
OP 00-04
S ?
External Review Report
Faculty of Business Administration
Simon Fraser University
Feb.3 —5,1999
A review of the programs of the Faculty of Business Administration of Simon Fraser University
occurred on February 3 -
5,
1999. The review team consisted of:
Dr. John Gordon, Alcan/NSERC/SSHRC Chair in Management and Technology,
Queen's University
Lynne Pearson, Dean of Commerce, University of Saskatchewan
Gary Sundem, Julius A. Roller Professor of Accounting, University of Washington
Brian Lewis, Professor and Director of the School of Communication, Simon Fraser
University
Before the review team visited the campus, it received and reviewed materials prepared by-the-
Faculty of Business Administration. A copy of the schedule for the site visit is included as an
appendix to this report. The following report is based on information gathered both before and
during the site visit.
Overview: Innovative Efforts to Overcome Im
posed
Constraints
The Faculty of Business Administration is best characterized as a unit that is struggling to
maintain quality through a variety of innovative efforts in an environment that has both
S
?
constrained resources and also restrictions on the actions possible to augment the resources.
Although program quality remains high, it is not clear that this quality can be maintained (to say
nothing about being enhanced) without significant flexibility to supplement the revenues
currently being received.
The Environment
The evaluation of the Faculty of Business Administration must take place within the
environment of business education globally, within Canada, and in the Vancouver metropolitan
area. Several global and Canadian trends will impact the Faculty:
- Demand for business education is growing, but the main growth is not in undergraduate
or full-time MBA programs. Future growth will come primarily in life-long-learning
programs such as executive development programs and part-time MBA programs.
- Business education is becoming more competitive. Top-rated programs are expandin
into new markets (including the B.C. market) through distance learning. Private
companies are beginning to compete with colleges and universities to provide
business education.
- Government support for higher education is shrinking in real terms, and prospects for
reversing this trend are not good.
- MBA programs are seeking market niches, often through specialization of programs.
- Top business schools are privatizing their programs. Not only the private universities,
but also state-supported universities, are offering programs at full market prices and
investing the proceeds into enhancing program quality.
- Student bodies are becoming increasingly diverse, both in ethnic background and in
types of interests.
- Markets for faculty are becoming more competitive. Many Ph.D. programs were cut
back in size when demand slackened in the early and mid- 1990s, but now the baby-
40
boom echo is creating more demand for business education. Therefore, demand for
business faculty is increasing and the supply is short, putting upward pressure on
faculty salaries.
- External financial support for business schools is growing and is becoming essential to
keep program quality competitive. In Canada this is primarily support from
businesses; alumni support is small, especially compared to that in the U.S., and the
prospect for large increases in alumni support is not great.
- Partnerships between business schools and companies and professional associations are
growing. Just-in-time education, focused on the specific needs of an organization, is
growing, in contrast to general business education of students prior to entering the
workforce.
- Professional certification programs are growing, providing new markets for business
education. Specialized education programs, both within universities and in the
private sector, are meeting this demand.
Other factors are unique to or especially important to the lower British Columbia and Simon
Fraser University environments:
- Vancouver has changed from a resource-based economy to one that focuses on
financial services, high technology companies, and international trade. It continues to
be dominated by small and medium-sized companies; there are few corporate head.
offices.
- The British Columbia government has frozen tuition at current levels and has imposed a
faculty salary cap, both of which severely constrain the Faculty of Business
Administration.
- Simon Fraser University maintains its historical orientation to liberal arts education and
egalitarian governance.
- Individual units at Simon Fraser University (and at British Columbia universities, in
general) have little control of their revenues.
Streng
ths of the Facult y
of Business Administration
Despite many imposed constraints, the Faculty of Business Administration has many strong
points:
- The Dean has an innovative vision for the Faculty, and the faculty seem supportive of
?
this vision. The Dean has good lines of communication with faculty and staff.
- The school operations are running smoothly. Support staff are strong, committed, and
contented. The Associate Dean to whom most staff report was praised for his
interactions with staff.
- The EMBA programs are clearly the Faculty's flagship programs. They are well
managed and serve an important market.
- Faculty collegiality is high. There appears to be little infighting among faculty.
- The physical facilities at both the Burnaby and downtown campuses are very good.
- There is a strong advisory board that is willing to devote time and energy to benefit the
business programs.
- The quality of teaching is high. Students have mainly praise for the quality of teaching.
-'- lv
. ?
- The co-op program is loved by the students and provides needed connections with the
business community.
- Computer support, especially the potential of the Lohn lab, is strong.
- The $600,000 increase in budget, if it truly comes to fruition, is a much-needed infusion
of resources.
- Cooperation between the leadership of Business Administration and the Economics
department has improved, although scars of the separation of the two areas remain.
Weaknesses of the Facult y
of Business Administration
Like any organization, the Faculty of Business Administration has weaknesses. The good thing
is that the faculty and administration recognize most of the weaknesses and are trying to address
them:
- The day MBA program does not meet a market need. The students in the program are
quite satisfied, and the educational quality of the program is high. However, by
striving to be a good general management, practice-oriented program as well as a
good research program, it accomplishes neither of these objectives well.
The research productivity of the faculty is less than would be desired. This is evident in
?
the lack of grants as well as the scarcity of publications in major academic journals.
- There is a lack of community on the Burnaby campus. It is a commuter campus, and
the trimester system hinders the formation of cohort groups of students. Still, a
stronger community focus would improve the programs.
. ?
- Faculty operate too much as independent contractors. They teach well, but most have
little commitment to the undergraduate program or to service to the school. The
faculty, like the students, have a commuter mentality. Most are seldom in their
offices when they have no specific reason to be there.
- There is little program assessment, especially of the undergraduate program. Tying
assessment to the Faculty's mission would help assure that the mission is being met.
- The evaluation of teaching depends too much on student evaluations. There is a lack of
a good peer review process.
- There are pockets of resistance to change. However, the most significant obstacle to
?
change is inertia created by the structure of the egalitarian bureaucratic system.
- The new masters programs are being developed very independently with little
coordination. There may be synergies across programs. At least there should be a
"branding" across programs to take advantage of the common publicity of the
programs to create a consistent SFU image.
- There is a shortage of student advisors, especially for such a flexible undergraduate
program where students have many choices to make. The current advisors are very
efficient, making the most of limited resources, but students are being shortchanged
by the lack of resources devoted to advising.
- Career counseling and placement are also under-funded. The services are heading in
the right direction, but capacity is insufficient to provide the services students need.
- Alumni relations are very weak, including simply tracking alumni.
- There is little good financial data on programs. This prevents a business-like
.
?
management of programs.
- A small problem may be created by the back-door entry to the undergraduate program.
Closing this possibility by, for example, requiring that the last 15 business credits be
-I-
II
taken after being admitted to the program, might be more fair and help the planning
process. ?
40
-
A weakness in teaching in one area of the EMBA program was consistently noted by
students.
Threats to Pro
g
ram Quality
There are five main external threats to the quality of business education in the Faculty of
Business Administration. These are not areas that the Faculty can directly affect, but they must
be recognized in developing a strategy for the Faculty:
- Tuition freeze
- Salary cap
- Competition from outside
- Lack of control of revenues
- Bureaucratic inertia
The tuition freeze and salary cap are especially troublesome because they put Simon Fraser
University (and other B.C. universities) at a competitive disadvantage in a market where
competitors are poised to take advantage. Actions that might ameliorate the effects of the tuition
freeze and salary cap are constrained by bureaucratic inertia and lack of control of revenues. The
best hope seems to be flexibility on the last two items, because these are at least partially
controlled by the SFU administration.
Despite
Opportunities
many constraints,
?
there are still many opportunities that might be pursued by the Faculty
0
of Business Administration:
- Develop programs for specialized MBA markets, especially those directed to the needs
of the lower B.C. area. The new programs in financial services and management of
technology are good examples.
- Focus on programs for small business and entrepreneurs. Such programs fit the needs
of the community.
- Develop new forms of delivery of educational services. The GDBA is a good example.
- Take advantage of open faculty positions to shape the faculty to meet the needs of new
programs. The possibility of as many as 16 new faculty in the next few years creates
an opportunity to better tie the faculty skills and abilities to the Faculty's mission.
- The downtown location, facilities, and reputation provide a great advantage. There is
an opportunity to build on these.
- Explore business/education partnerships. The Advisory Board may be key in
developing these.
- Explore links with other parts of the campus, especially in the technology transfer area.
- Expand links with UBC. The financial services MBA may lead to other cooperative
ventures.
- Price new programs at market value.
0
Recommendations
The review team has selected what it believes are the five most important issues for the Faculty
of Business Administration to address:
1)
Eliminate the day MBA program. We realize that this will be controversial, but limited
resources make a sharper focus essential. The program seems to exist primarily to support
faculty research, but the market is better served by the specialized MBA programs under
development. This recommendation would not necessarily cut the link between teaching and
research. Instead, it could lead to a different type of relationship between teaching and
research, with more applied research being developed from experiences teaching in the
specialized programs. It would also open up more contacts with the business community.
2)
Establish financial responsibility at the Faculty level. The Faculty should receive some
authority over its revenues and responsibility for its expenses. This will require better
financial information than is currently available, in addition to more flexibility in managing
resources.
3)
Address faculty compensation in innovative ways. There are three problems in salaries: a)
the salary cap, b) overall salary levels, and c) incentives through merit pay. Each must be
addressed and ways found around the imposed constraints.
4)
Research productivity should be increased. If programs are changed, there may be a natural
change in the types of research that faculty undertake, and methods of motivating and
evaluating research consistent with the Faculty's mission may need to be developed.
5)
More faculty commitment to the programs, especially the undergraduate program, and to
service to the Faculty of Business Administration and its students is needed. The co-op
program may be one way to get faculty more involved with undergraduate students. Faculty
involvement in a community is a necessary precedent to more student involvement.
f/3
C
C)
V
I-
a)
N
N
=
V
2
>
a)
=
I-
.0
E
I-
U
I-
.0
I-
0
0
0
0
C)
C)
0.
C)
2 ?
= -
?
c ?
C44
o c
?
o c
?
o
?
%fl
wl
?
'fl ?
U
u
-
?
C14
en
?
U ?
U U
?
U ?
U U U U
u
-
c30
0
?
02 UU U ?
U U U U U
=
?
.-. ?
.
.5
.
? -
0
- ?
.
.0) ?
• ?
0
V
Ll
—Q
CI
- ?
-
C
QC.)
d
ou
—
W
?
ca
= =
V ?
U
0
1
0
?
u
—
V
. ?
- ?
.0
° ?
E
Ec
.0
?
.=2
• ?
U ?
em
0
=
CA ?
0.
U
VU ?
2
=—
.0
. ?
2
0.. ?
U
Cd
6.
'I
?
'c0
?
-
.
0=
old 0
?
?
C ?
I-
V ?
2
2
IM S
o ?
U
I-
00
?
=
I- ? - ?
-
0.
E
?
rA
0..
00v
0 0
?
.0
0
— ..0
..cl)
' ?
E ?
.5-
C)V
coo
0
6.
?
0
?
EA
cs ?
03
.5
,.E
I-
CI
OV
- *
?
?
-0V
N
— E9'-
cn .0
?
Z ?
C)
•E
ca = U
?
0 ?
i..
o ?
= ?
V ?
C
? ...
ba
E
'I ?
a ?
2
?
2-
?
0
?
0 ' •,
?
L
?
)
.E ?
gj
.2
to ?
u
0
gj
?
2c0 ?
0
'..'-
?
=
U ?
V() ?
0 ?
4
.1
oO.0
=
ZOE
?
2
•V
?
0 ?
V
Oc#, ?
< U -I0..
—
0
?
0
'1
. ?
0
. ?
0
?
0
?
'10
0 ?
0 0 0 0 8
m H
a ?
—
0
*1.
U
U
0
In
ON
lt
C'
ILI
S4
E
0
>
00
c'i
r'i
0
-
.
<0
0
2
=
o
0
ca
0
".
0
0
0=
0
a
L)
Oa)
0
0
0
-
e
?
>
.E
a)
•
i...
=_a) ?
— a)
a)
0
?
co
.
=
2
•
a)
0
0
.Eo
rA
o
..2
o
•=
2a).E
-
)
-
a)
0
Cd
0
,..
E
=
a)
—.0
3
-Ea
a)2
.. ?
•E0
•=a)
-
I-
cz
-
a)
N
0
a)
o
(
a )
E.02E
?
E
<
.
C,
E-
--
0
-
0
0
I.;
2
—
=
=
.0
0
?
E
2
=
0
'
n
W-
a)
0
=
>
2a)
.CI
.0
a)
=S
!
Ea)u
0
=
CnO
CM
10E
Z.
.
.0
.0
a)
._...
<
<
•EE
0
48
cc ?
In
.
2
oO
=
=
=
03
0
0
-
0
.9
bo
.0
o
0Q
=
CA
.0
0
CI)
0
.
=
—0gtE
0 —
<
to to
a)
=
.o=00
-
=
'
..=
0
U;
0=
2
.-
0bI-4
Q
0
16.E
0=
go
Z
.
1.
22
I ?
=
CA
I
I
a) ?
p
tF
o
V
cc
-
W
CA
0C)c
<
.
a)
a)i.
• ?
...a)a)
—
Cd
..•E
E
E
2 ?
- 0<
E
E-
2
a)
0
-
4.
p.
c
a-,N-
l
ch
a)
0
=
Ci'
0
-
.-
Z
I
E
i2
cc
E
60
5:
-
U
gj
0.0
a)a)
'°0V) rA
<
p.;
a)0
0.
=--.
S
O
0
In
?
'no
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
In
—
0
..
'n
in
fl
In
cn
In
In
o
-
??
-
-
-
,
In
tn
-
N
cr
I',
V
U
-
2—
0
0
0
c
0
1
1
C14
0
ri
0
r1
0
cn
V
-
2
en
tn
m
'.r
n
'n
'r
a
0 0
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
•0
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
2o
0
U
o
0
EC)E.
o
U
rA
2
cc
-
E
Do
.
1.4
.
.
.
.
3
•0
<U
ca
Go
0
=
ca
C.)
2
V
0
bO
C)E
.
Cd
-S
0
L5
E
N
bO
CA
I-.
.
U
.
.ca
?
cl
ra
EA
.
.4
E.
0
.0
c
QbO
.
-
N
U
.
C)
Q
0
bO
.-
co
U
--
0o
ca
ca
•
-.
0
0
.0
0c
•
'
E
C)
co)
0
=
u
.— U
V
ca
C.
0
I
E
o
' ?
0
-
Cl,
<
U
2
OU
E
0
°
..b.0
0__
.
bO
0.
Cl
Z
•
E
0
U0
w
2
4.
.E
00
Cl)
.
C)
5<
Q
E-
94 u
o
I1i
'i
0
0
.68 u
e'
o
0
- 0
8
8
8
-
.-
—
—
.o
ri ó
CI) Z
en
cv
I',
