Search results

In medical applications, it is crucial to evaluate the geometric accuracy of rapid prototyping (RP) models. Current research on evaluating geometric accuracy has focused on identifying two or more specific anatomical landmarks on the original structure and the RP model, and comparing their corresponding linear distances. Such kind of accuracy metrics is ambiguous and may induce misrepresentations of the actual errors. The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative method and metrics to measure the accuracy of RP models.

The authors propose an accuracy metric composed of two different approaches: a global accuracy evaluation using volumetric intersection indexes calculated over segmented Computed Tomography scans of the original object and the RP model. Second, a local error metric that is computed from the surfaces of the original object and the RP model. This local error is rendered in a 3D surface using a color code, that allow differentiating regions where the model is overestimated, underestimated, or correctly estimated. Global and local error measurements are performed after rigid body registration, segmentation and triangulation.

The results show that the method can be applied to different objects without any modification, and provide simple, meaningful and precise quantitative indexes to measure the geometric accuracy of RP models.

The paper presents a new approach to characterize the geometric errors in RP models using global indexes and a local surface distribution of the errors. It requires minimum human intervention and it can be applied without any modification to any kind of object.

This paper aims to problematize the lack of different worldviews on international management (IM), and the virtual silence in Latin America regarding this field within the context of the ongoing crisis of neoliberal policies and discourse.

This paper embraces a decolonial Latin American perspective based on developments in international relations (IR). A major reason for this dialogue is that critical debates within IR have been overlooked by both mainstream and critical literature on management, despite the intrinsic relation between decolonial arguments and IR and the increasing importance of management, and IM, within the realm of international relations to both “centers” and “peripheries”.

The interdisciplinary dialogue put forward in this paper goes beyond those borders established by the “center” and imposed on subalterns. Accordingly then, this might be taken as a particular way of putting into practice a decolonial Latin American perspective. It aims to go beyond some “universal” standpoint as the IR literature shows that the universal standpoint in relation to the “peripheries” tends to be mobilized by the “centers”. It is understood that the construction of a critical Latin American perspective is a way of creating better conditions for “cross‐cultural encounters” not only in global terms, but also within Latin America.

Rethinking IM through a critical perspective inspired by IR has implications for teaching, research and other types of practice in both IM and IR in Latin America.

The paper aims to foster a Latin American perspective rather than a general perspective. Instead of merely disengaging the “center”, the paper embraces, from a critical position inspired by IR, the current argument in US literature that the core of IM comprises a strong commitment to cross‐cultural issues, diversity, and eclecticism.

This paper aims to draw on international relations (IR) literature to analyze, from a critical standpoint, recent developments in international business (IB) and international management (IM) in the USA, and the emerging debate between mainstream and critical researchers in Anglo‐American literature. It also aims to show that these important undertakings overshadow the political role of international disciplines and constrain the development of a critical perspective in IB from Latin America.

Based on an interdisciplinary approach, this paper addresses the main debates on IR regarding the “international” and the control of international fields of knowledge by the great powers to foster a critical perspective in IB from Latin America.

Critique from a universal perspective which does not differentiate IB and IM in the Anglo‐American literature is important, but constrains the appraisal of specific national and regional issues that are of vital importance to the development of a critical perspective in IB from Latin America.

This critical perspective moves beyond disciplinary boundaries and raises implications for research and teaching of IB and IM in Latin America.

This paper problematizes, from a perspective focused on the political economy of knowledge, the overlooking of debates about the “international” and of specific conditions that both enable and constrain the development of fields of knowledge from a less asymmetrical standpoint.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how the type of ownership and control moderates the effect of the board social capital on the implied cost of capital. To do so, the authors analyzed the effect of the board social capital by the relational resources present in its direct and heterogenous ties, considering the predictions of analysts about the implied cost of capital.

The data panel comprised 137 companies listed on the Brazilian stock exchange between the years of 2002 and 2015, generating a total of 535 observations. The authors check the robustness of the results through instrumental variables and systems of equations, as well as compete for the effect of board social capital both by the board and ownership structures.

Results show that the board relational resources, both in direct and heterogeneous ties, significantly reduce the implied cost of capital for private companies, but not for state-owned companies. Board social capital reduces the cost of capital even when the results compete with the board structure and concentration of ownership, being able to mitigate the discount in the cost of capital by the presence of dominant shareholders.

This study uses a more theoretically and empirically comprehensive measure of board social capital than the majority of studies that use only network position indicators. So, contrasting the effect of this measure on the implied cost of capital between private and state-owned companies, the authors also demonstrate that the board social capital can mitigate the discount by ownership concentration on the implied cost of capital.

Strategic management researchers in Europe challenged the historical concern of the field with economic performance. As a result corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been transformed into a key strategic issue. Given the large amount of social problems in Latin America, much of them related to the large amount of foreign direct investments inflows over the last decade, the growing literature on strategic corporate social responsibility (SCSR) produced in the US has been reproduced in the region by consulting firms, big corporations firms and strategic management researchers. Drawing upon critical arguments of Latin American scholars on the dominance of the US literature in the region and on problematic outcomes of the large amount of foreign direct investments inflows this paper develops a critical analysis on the so‐called SCSR. The vantage point construed by big corporations within the fields of strategic management and organization studies, the increasing dependence of the field of strategic management on corporate resources, and the decreasing power of the state and civil society in relation to big corporations are pointed out as key issues for the development of a critical approach on SCSR in Latin America. In the end the author argues that the responsibilities of big corporations, especially in Latin America, are too important to be addressed only by the field of strategic management.

There is a great reliance on fiscal incentives to sustain the automotive industry competitiveness due to several structural problems, among them the inefficiency of the supply chain. This paper aims to compare the supply chain structure of traditional automotive industry with the supply chains from South Korea and China. Based on strategic decision and transaction cost theory, this comparison seeks to exploit the factors that led to the inefficiency of automotive supply chains.

The authors used a qualitative approach and applied a multi-method research. They conducted semi-structured interviews with six executives from automakers representing the selected countries, carried individual meetings during one workshop and used secondary data from several sources.

Concepts identified in the research such as reliability, supply chain governance and automaker competencies led the authors to propose that the traditional automakers have higher transaction costs when compared to the new automakers due to the horizontal structure of their supply chain. While new competitors have vertical upstream supply chains, which indicates better profitability, traditional automotive industry is horizontal, depends on fewer Tier 1 suppliers and is disconnected from Tier 2, impacting negatively in the transaction costs and supply chain management.

This study suggests that automotive executives rethink the current upstream supply chain model by identifying the competencies required for their current and future competitiveness and implementing a vertical integration of these competencies.

This research exploited the inefficiency of supply chain as one of the explanations for the low competitiveness of the national automotive industry.