A GESTÃO DE EMPRESAS JUNIORES DE CURSOS DISTINTOS DENTRO DE UMA UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL: UM INDICADOR DAS DIFICULDADES ENCONTRADAS [chapter]

Leyla Bianca dos Santos Silva, Laura Marina Valencia Niño, Denise Carvalho Takenaka, Ariele da Silva Moreira, Nilson Sales dos Santos
2020 Sistematizando Práticas para Administrar 2  
APRESENTAÇÃO Esta obra é composta por pesquisas realizadas por professores e alunos na área de gestão, todas elas selecionadas e ordenadas pelas suas contribuições genuínas e relevantes dentro dos temas propostos. Os desafios da gestão em nossos dias estão sobretudo relacionados ao enorme dinamismo e incertezas do ambiente de negócios, e suas rápidas e profundas transformações tecnológicas, culturais, sociais e econômicas. A visão ampla do gestor, além dos temas diretamente associados a seus
more » ... ócios é fundamental para a sobrevivência neste ambiente mutante. Esperamos que a leitura dos trabalhos selecionados nesta obra gere reflexões e novas ideias nos leitores, razão de ser de nosso trabalho. Os organizadores gostariam de agradecer aos autores e editores pelo espírito de parceria e confiança. ABSTRACT: During the last years, the electricity sector has experienced great changes, especially within the economic regulation. After receiving Sistematizando Práticas para Administrar 2 Capítulo 1 13 combination of Aes Sul (UN 12), Eletropaulo (UN 3) and Light (UN 4). CEMIG (UN 9) has a strong rural character, while its latter two peers have an urban characteristic. Thus, it is expected that this Unit Network will increase its effi ciency in Model 3, which includes customer density. From this comparison, the model results indicate that there must be a 65% reduction in the number of employees. Under Model 2, to which quality of supply was added to the analysis, 17 UNs are effi cient, and 11 UNs are located in low lightning incidence areas. The average effi ciency show that some Unit Networks rank high in Model 2 while they rank low in Model 1. Elektro has better results. Elektro (UN 1) has an effi ciency of 0.45 in Model 1, where quality is not included. In Model 2, the same UN has an effi ciency of 0.84, an increase of 0.44 in effi ciency score. This indicates that the Model 1 can penalize Unit Networks that are effi cient in quality of supply. Elektro (UN 1) peers are Aes Sul (UN 9), Eletropaulo (UN 3) and Piratininga (UN 1); the latter belongs to the distribution company with the lowest SAIDI in Brazil. Thus, Elektro (UN 1) showed an effi ciency increase due to quality of supply because it has a SAIDI of 6.8 h, and its peers in Model 2 have 16.7, 7.1 and 5.0 h, respectively. Comparing UN 1 with other UNs of Elektro, it has the second smallest SAIDI of the company, surpassed only by UN 8, which operates in the most industrialised region of the concession area. Light (UN 5) had an effi ciency of 0.72 in Model 1; in Model 2 it achieved the A. Çelen. "Efficiency and productivity (TFP) of the Turkish electricity distribution companies: An application of two-stage (DEA&Tobit) analysis", Energy Policy, 2013. A. Charnes, W. Cooper, E. Rhodes. "Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units", European Sistematizando Práticas para Administrar 2 Capítulo 1
doi:10.22533/at.ed.81320100213 fatcat:gpco6ynbvfgo3eqzdlyjrfb3v4