Search results

Cross-Border Business Development in the Dutch-German Borderland

Like a marker pen on a map, the Covid-19 pandemic drastically highlighted the persisting existence of borders that used to play an ever decreasing role in people´s perception and behavior over the last decades. Yes, inner European borders are open in normal times. Yes, people, goods, services and ideas are crossing the border between Germany and the Netherlands freely. Yet we see that the border can turn into a barrier again quickly and effectively and it does so in many dimensions, some of them being not easily visible. Barriers hinder growth, development and exchange and in spite of our progress in creating a borderless Europe, borders still create barriers in many domains. Differing labor law, social security and tax systems, heterogeneous education models, small and big cultural differences, language barriers and more can impose severe limitations on people and businesses as they cross the border to travel, shop, work, hire, produce, buy, sell, study and research. Borders are of all times and will therefore always exist. But as they did so for a long time, huge opportunities can be found in overcoming the barriers they create. The border must not necessarily be a dividing line between two systems. It has the potential to become a center of growth and progress that build on joint efforts, cross-border cooperation, mutual learning and healthy competition. Developing this inherent potential of border regions asks for politics, businesses and research & education on both sides of the border to work together. The research group Cross-Border Business Development at Fontys University of Applied Science in Venlo conducts applied research on the impact of the national border on people and businesses in the Dutch-German border area. Students, employees, border commuters, entrepreneurs and employers all face opportunities as well as challenges due to the border. In collaboration with these stakeholders, the research chair aims to create knowledge and provide solutions towards a Dutch-German labor market, an innovative Dutch-German borderland and a futureproof Cross-Border economic ecosystem. This collection is not about the borderland in times of COVID-19. Giving meaning to the borderland is an ongoing process that started long before the pandemic and will continue far beyond. The links that have been established across the border and those that will in the future are multifaceted and so are the topics in this collection. Vincent Pijnenburg outlines a broader and introductory perspective on the dynamics in the Dutch-German borderland.. Carla Arts observes shopping behavior of cross-border consumers in the Euregion Rhine-Meuse-North. Jan Lucas explores the interdependencies of the Dutch and German economies. Jean Louis Steevensz presents a cross-border co-creation servitization project between a Dutch supplier and a German customer. Vincent Pijnenburg and Patrick Szillat analyze the exitence of clusters in the Dutch-German borderland. Christina Masch and Janina Ulrich provide research on students job search preferences with a focus on the cross-border labor market. Sonja Floto-Stammen and Natalia Naranjo-Guevara contribute a study of the market for insect-based food in Germany and the Netherlands. Niklas Meisel investigates the differences in the German and Dutch response to the Covid-19 crisis. Finally, Tolga Yildiz and Patrick Szillat show differences in product-orientation and customer-orientation between Dutch and German small and medium sized companies. This collection shows how rich and different the links across the border are and how manifold the perspectives and fields for a cross-border approach to regional development can be. This publication is as well an invitation. Grasping the opportunities that the border location entails requires cooperation across professional fields and scientific disciplines, between politics, business and researchers. It needs the contact with and the contribution of the people in the region. So do what we strive for with our cross-border research agenda: connect!

How Operators Design Their Human-Cobot Interdependencies

Collaborative Robots Entering the Factory Floor

Using the latest industrial robot technology, the collaborative robot (cobot), industrial manufacturers work towards high-mix low-volume production systems that could satisfy a diversifying customer demand. As the utilization of the cobot’s potential depends on the dynamic interaction with operators, one would expect HR professionals to play a central role in this implementation process. However, cobot-related literature is unanimous: HR is not involved. This is in line with the results of our study in 2019 on seventeen cobot experiments in Dutch industrial manufacturing companies. To explore what human cobot collaboration emerges when engineers and line managers take the lead in their design, we revisited the data from our previous interview study (N=53). HR was absent in all implementations. We found that line managers and engineers prepared operators for rigid human-cobot collaborations that were aimed at getting the cobot to work, enhancing production efficiency and handling a few batches of mass-produced goods (low-mix, high-volume). Furthermore, the collaborations all showed signs of being difficult to sustain over time and posed a direct threat to operators’ well-being. To protect operators’ future of work and build towards interdependent human-cobot collaboration suitable for high-mix low-volume production, we propose an approach in which operators themselves, and HR too, are much more involved in the cobot implementation process. Operators should be allowed and supported to design, program, operate, and repair as much of their human-cobot workstations themselves as possible. To support this, HR has to familiarize itself with the cobot technology, secure operators’ decision latitude, facilitate the required support, and become the work design expert that helps operators co-design sustainable cobot applications that optimally utilize the strengths of both man and machine.

Cartilage tissue turnover increases with high- compared to low-intensity resistance training in patients with knee OA

ObjectivesTo investigate cartilage tissue turnover in response to a supervised 12-week exercise-related joint loading training program followed by a 6-month period of unsupervised training in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). To study the difference in cartilage tissue turnover between high- and low-resistance training.MethodPatients with knee OA were randomized into either high-intensity or low-intensity resistance supervised training (two sessions per week) for 3 months and unsupervised training for 6 months. Blood samples were collected before and after the supervised training period and after the follow-up period. Biomarkers huARGS, C2M, and PRO-C2, quantifying cartilage tissue turnover, were measured by ELISA. Changes in biomarker levels over time within and between groups were analyzed using linear mixed models with baseline values as covariates.ResultshuARGS and C2M levels increased after training and at follow-up in both low- and high-intensity exercise groups. No changes were found in PRO-C2. The huARGS level in the high-intensity resistance training group increased significantly compared to the low-intensity resistance training group after resistance training (p = 0.029) and at follow-up (p = 0.003).ConclusionCartilage tissue turnover and cartilage degradation appear to increase in response to a 3-month exercise-related joint loading training program and at 6-month follow-up, with no evident difference in type II collagen formation. Aggrecan remodeling increased more with high-intensity resistance training than with low-intensity exercise.These exploratory biomarker results, indicating more cartilage degeneration in the high-intensity group, in combination with no clinical outcome differences of the VIDEX study, may argue against high-intensity training.

Relevante factoren voor de prestatie in High Mix Low Volume productieomgevingen

Toeleverende bedrijven in de Brainport regio zijn veelal te typeren als high mix low volume (HMLV) productieomgevingen. Deze bedrijven kenmerken zich door een breed aanbod aan mogelijke producten (grote variëteit in producten), die veelal in lage volumes geproduceerd worden. Vaak zijn dit klantspecifieke producten die eenmalig, of incidenteel geproduceerd worden. Deze bedrijven focussen zich traditioneel op efficiënt gebruik van resources, waarbij bezettingsgraad en kostendekking relevant zijn. De toenemende klantvraag in de regio leidt tot druk op de productiecapaciteit. Een eerste intuïtieve reactie van deze bedrijven is om de bezettingsgraad van machines verder te verhogen. Om de kosten (Cost) beheersbaar te houden, wordt niet direct geïnvesteerd in extra capaciteit. Een ongewenst neveneffect is dat tijdigheid (Delivery, zoals levertijden, leverbetrouwbaarheid, flexibiliteit) en kwaliteit (Quality) verder onder druk komen te staan. De ogenschijnlijke tegenstrijdigheid tussen kosten en tijdigheid in deze HMLV-productieomgevingen, is een vaak terugkomend vraagstuk bij praktijkgerichte onderzoeken die door Fontys Technische Bedrijfskunde studenten uitgevoerd worden. Dit resulteert in de volgende onderzoeksvraag: Welke subaspecten zijn mogelijk relevant voor de prestatie met betrekking tot Quality, Delivery en Cost (QDC) van een HMLV-productieomgeving?

Relevant factors for the performance in High Mix Low Volume production environments

Companies in the Brainport region are often characterized as high mix low volume (HMLV) production environments. These companies are distinguished by a wide range of possible products (high product variety), which are produced in low volumes. These are often customer-specific products that are produced once or incidentally. Traditionally, these companies focus on efficient use of resources, where utilisation rate and cost coverage are relevant. The increasing customer demand in the region leads to pressure on production capacity. An initial intuitive response from these companies is to further increase the utilisation rate of machines. To keep costs manageable, the company tries to avoid investing in additional capacity. An undesirable side effect is increasing pressure on timeliness (delivery, such as lead times, delivery reliability, flexibility) and quality. The apparent contradiction between costs and timeliness in these HMLV production environments is a recurring issue in practice-oriented research conducted by Fontys Industrial Engineering and Management students. This results in the following research question: Which sub-aspects may be relevant to the performance regarding Quality, Delivery, and Cost (QDC) of an HMLV production environment?