This paper presents the findings from a ‘Safety Differently’ (SD) case study in aviation, and specifically in a maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) organisation in Southeast Asia. The goal of the case study was to apply a new method of safety intervention that is part of the Safety Differently toolkit and utilises a bottom-up approach. This research tested the extent to which these interventions could be embedded into a continuous improvement program in a highly controlled environment, namely an Aviation MRO. The interventions (called micro-experiments, ME) are considered as a flexible tool, which allows testing of process improvements in a safe to fail way, empowering the lower levels of the organisation, challenging safety related issues and revealing key areas in need of transformation. The ideas for the interventions considered in the case study were retrieved from interviews conducted with 50 mechanics, and include issues to address aviation safety and occupational health as well as quality. We elected to include all three categories in this study as the ME approach is applicable to all of these. This MRO case study showcases the benefits and limitations of the ME in aviation, revealing the conditions under which it may become useful. Future studies should further explore the role of complex and heavily controlled industries in similar bottom up approaches, so that interventions can become part of a continuous improvement plan.
DOCUMENT
This survey is about recognizing patterns in the way Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) organize their procurement activities. The scope of the survey is limited to the key commodities of the SME.A key commodity is defined as the purchased product or service group which is essential for realizing the value proposition for the customers of the SME.Prior outcome of our research indicated the existence of four procurement oriented patterns in SMEs. 4 Procurement Oriented Patterns where part of the study: Pattern 1 Focal company: ICT turn-key designerValue proposition of the focal company: ICT Design and assembly of offices on a high quality level at a reasonable price. Operational excellence: standardization in commodities, low transaction costs internally and externallyPurchased key commodity: Standard ICT software and hardwarePattern 2 Focal company: Horse shoes manufacturerValue proposition of the focal company: Standard horse shoes assortment at reasonable prices in a competitive environmentPurchased key commodity: Standard quality iron, reliable deliveryPattern 3 Focal company: IT innovation driven companyValue proposition of the focal company: Developing innovative software made applicable for practical usage in devices at a reasonable pricePurchased key commodity: Delivering applicable solutions on the bases of regular soft- and hardware, to enable the companies’ innovative software function in practicePattern 4 Focal company: designer and manufacturer of trailersValue proposition of the focal company: Designing and manufacturing trailers tailor made for specific requirements of customersPurchased key commodity: Designing and manufacturing axles which align to the specific trailer wishes of the customer of the focal companyFINDINGS Pattern recognitionAbout 50 % of the respondents recognized the four presented patterns from own experience and/or read literature. Respondents also suggested pattern variants. It is concluded that this Delphi study strengthens the view that these patterns exist in SMEs. Further research may include further empirical testing of these patterns and their variants. Perceived strengths or weaknesses. Respondents mentioned a wide variety of strengths and weaknesses of the patterns. No clear conclusions can be drawn from this data. Adequacy of the pattern descriptions. One of the outcomes of this Delphi study is an improved conceptual framework for describing procurement activity patterns. This framework can be used for collecting SME data in future research, for example by modifying the existing survey questions which are used in the WIM research program to describe SME procurement activities. The improved model includes more variables and values than the initial model. Thus future research may lead to more detailed patterns descriptions. Missing patterns and pattern variantsApart from the suggested pattern variants, respondents do not miss patterns which are quite different from the four patterns suggested by the research team. Methodological remarksThe Delphi study method did not allow for fast feedback on panel member contributions and fast group think processes. For the future it is advised to consider other methods in similar cases, for example the World Cafe method.
DOCUMENT
Forensic reports use various types of conclusions, such as a categorical (CAT) conclusion or a likelihood ratio (LR). In order to correctly assess the evidence, users of forensic reports need to understand the conclusion and its evidential strength. The aim of this paper is to study the interpretation of the evidential strength of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals. In an online questionnaire 269 professionals assessed 768 reports on fingerprint examination and answered questions that measured self-proclaimed and actual understanding of the reports and conclusions. The reports entailed CAT, verbal LR and numerical LR conclusions with low or high evidential strength and were assessed by crime scene investigators, police detectives, public prosecutors, criminal lawyers, and judges. The results show that about a quarter of all questions measuring actual understanding of the reports were answered incorrectly. The CAT conclusion was best understood for the weak conclusions, the three strong conclusions were all assessed similarly. The weak CAT conclusion correctly emphasizes the uncertainty of any conclusion type used. However, most participants underestimated the strength of this weak CAT conclusion compared to the other weak conclusion types. Looking at the self-proclaimed understanding of all professionals, they in general overestimated their actual understanding of all conclusion types.
DOCUMENT
There's a growing recognition that the mainstream economic system contributes to environmental degradation and climate change. This jeopardizes human prosperity and poses existential risks for all life forms. Not waiting for global politics to solve the problems, Regenerative Placemakers show that we can organize ourselves differently. They engage with realigning human systems to work within planetary boundaries as a well-being economy. However, they face challenges, such as incorporating non-human voices and embracing the complexity of co-creation. Our transdisciplinary, exploratory research project aims to incorporate a lifecentric worldview in the collective transformation process when investigating: What tools, methods, and approaches the Stewards of Place could use to embody the ecosystems thinking and be able to integrate the needs and perspectives of nature in a process of decision-making, such that it is understandable and fitting for different types of contexts? Our research focuses on fostering a post-anthropocentric outlook, where human identity merges with broader ecosystems. Through the development of methodologies, we seek pathways to coexist harmoniously within diverse natural habitats, prioritizing ecosystem health. This perspective fundamentally shifts worldviews, placing ecosystem well-being at the forefront. Our goal is to cultivate an integrated approach to living that acknowledges and respects the interconnectedness of all life forms. Consortium Partners: Practice Partners are Regenerative Placemakers, referred to as Stewards of Place: Impact033's, IMPACT024's, and Oosterhout SDG's Local. Together with WEAllNL, they are optimizing conditions for innovative, regenerative leadership in the "Plekathon” pilot project, which will serve as a Living Lab for this participatory research. Changemaker: Stichting Wellbeing Economy Alliance Nederland (WEAllNL)- Bas Poppel leading development of a learning community of practice. Knowledge Partners: Avans’ Economy in Common Research Group: Lector Dr. Godelieve Spaas and researcher Ewelina Schraven, Miranda van Gendt (Plekmakers_), Luea Ritter (World Ethic Forum), and Nature as an Advisor, Inspiration, and Stakeholder.
