Search results

Powder bed fusion-laser beam (PBF-LB) is a rapidly growing manufacturing technology for producing Al-Si alloys. This technology can be used to produce high-pressure die-casting (HPDC) prototypes. The purpose of this paper is to understand the similarities and differences in the microstructures and properties of PBF-LB and HPDC alloys.

PBF-LB AlSi10Mg and HPDC AlSi10Mn plates with different thicknesses were manufactured. Iso-thermal heat treatment was conducted on PBF-LB bending plates. A detailed meso-micro-nanostructure analysis was performed. Tensile, bending and microhardness tests were conducted on both alloys.

The PBF-LB skin was highly textured and softer than its core, opposite to what is observed in the HPDC alloy. Increasing sample thickness increased the bulk strength for the PBF-LB alloy, contrasting with the decrease for the HPDC alloy. In addition, the tolerance to fracture initiation during bending deformation is greater for the HPDC material, probably due to its stronger skin region.

This knowledge is crucial to understand how geometry of parts may affect the properties of PBF-LB components. In particular, understanding the role of geometry is important when using PBF-LB as a HPDC prototype.

This is the first comprehensive meso-micro-nanostructure comparison of both PBF-LB and HPDC alloys from the millimetre to nanometre scale reported to date that also considers variations in the skin versus core microstructure and mechanical properties.

There is an urgent call for transitioning towards a circular economy (CE) in housing. Pivotal to this transition is implementing business models aligned with CE principles, such as the ones informed by the product-service system (PSS). However, incorporating the PSS into housing to realize a CE faces significant challenges within an industry characterized by systemic rigidity and institutional inertia. This study investigates the barriers faced in deploying the PSS and its CE potential in housing.

The authors conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders experienced in the deployment of PSS and CE in housing projects. Analysis used deductive coding, guided by institutional theory’s regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive pillars, followed by inductive coding development.

Twelve key barriers emerged across three pillars, underlying the significance of not only regulative but also normative and cultural-cognitive barriers. The findings indicate that the current institutional environment impedes the establishment of legitimacy for the deployment of PSS and its CE potential in housing.

Following the findings, a diversified institutional support system enabled by the collaborative effort of the government, managing and financing actors and industry associations is required to overcome deployment barriers.

This study advances knowledge at the intersection of housing and circular business model innovation. It connects theory to practice by applying institutional theory to real-world barriers in deploying the PSS for a CE in housing and lays the groundwork for practical changes.

Setbacks and failures are part of organizational life. While a recent body of literature pointed to the importance of recovery, resilience, and learning from failure in responding to and dealing with setback events, the setback itself and its underlying dimensions remain underexplored. However, how severe employees perceive a setback to be plays an integral role in how successfully they handle these events. Taking an event-oriented perspective on work-related setbacks, this study defines setback severity as the setback event’s novelty, disruptiveness, and criticality. Based on the current literature and prior operationalizations, the authors introduce and validate a three-dimensional measure of setback severity. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses provide support for the proposed three-dimensional model. Further analyses show that disruptiveness and criticality are significantly related to identity threat, emotional exhaustion, trauma, turnover intention, and thriving, while novelty is only related to turnover intention and thriving. The implications of the setback severity measure are discussed along with recommendations for future research.

Given the uncertain and often disruptive business environment, understanding how employees, teams, and organizations can recover from stress, build long-lasting resilience, and exploit failures as learning opportunities is key for employees’ well-being and organizational success. The book has been organized in three sections, each representing a major domain of inquiry: recovery, resilience, and learning. The chapters within each section elaborate on these domains, and each provides novel ideas and insights. The goal of this chapter is to summarize and integrate some themes and insights offered by the chapters in this book. Based on this summary and integration, the author will illuminate some exciting paths opened up by these chapters, which might be worth exploring further by other scholars in the future. Specifically, future research could benefit from (1) stronger integration of research on recovery, resilience, and learning from failure, (2) better understanding of the role of setbacks, failure, and adversity for recovery, resilience, and learning, and (3) investigations of the role of context for recovery, resilience, and learning from failure.

Successful teams tend to be highly cohesive and team cohesion to be particularly helpful in allowing teams and their members to sustain their success even in the most challenging times. One disillusioning consequence of this reciprocity between cohesion and performance would suggest that failures made by teams and/or their members likely jeopardize their success by preventing them from capitalizing on such virtuous circles associated with team cohesion. Yet, many teams uphold their performance despite the failures they have to cope with, suggesting that the potential vicious circles can be overcome. This chapter aims at illuminating the vicious and virtuous circles associated with team cohesion that are induced by either collective failures of teams or individual failures of their members. It therefore offers a multilevel perspective not only on the emergence and diffusion of failures at the individual and team levels, but also on the critical role that team cohesion plays for a team’s (dys)functional coping across these levels. It is theorized that collective failures triggered exogenously can help build team cohesion, and that whether endogenously-triggered collective failures bring about the vicious or the virtuous circles of team cohesion depends on whether the individual failures developing into collective failures are triggered endogenously or exogenously. The implications of this conceptual work are discussed in light of the literatures on error/failure management and group cohesiveness.

We are living in turbulent and uncertain times and organizations need to struggle with these circumstances in order to achieve their goals. More than ever, resilience capacity is an added value that organizations need to build to respond to obstacles in these challenging times. Resilience is a capacity of individuals, teams, organizations, communities, even society, that make them to overcome setbacks (such crises, changes, or turbulences) in a way that they not only survive but emerge even stronger. Previous research on resilience at different range of settings and groups show that resilience is a capacity that can be trained or build up. Therefore, the goal of this chapter is to review the main lines of action available to organizations that want to foster resilience at work. The chapter will review theoretical research on workplace resilience, and empirical research that links Human Resources Management and workplace resilience. Aspects covered include the role that corporate social responsibility toward employees, career development or work–family balance have in developing resilience. The chapter closes with a discussion of some practical guidelines for HR managers and practitioners.

This case aims to look at a small start‐up car maker called Loremo, Inc. in Marl, Germany, that hopes to thrive by challenging resource constraints with bold innovation.

The authors found Loremo as part of their five‐year long study looking at how innovation manages to flourish in firms despite resource scarcity.

The paper finds that Loremo engineers had no other choice but to make virtue of necessity, to develop their car with existing technology and affordable materials, but to reconsider the traditional principles of automobile engineering, which other companies take for granted.

The authors are doing research on companies that achieve bold innovation despite limited resources.

The Loremo engineers overcame the costly process that results from taking a “design stance,” a commitment to design parts to do a particular job.

Manufacturers in all the developed countries that are struggling with the need for radical innovation might take number of lessons from the tiny Loremo car company.