33. Rakennuttajakoulutuksen tutkielmat

Julkaisu koostuu kahdeksasta 33. rakennuttajakoulutuksen tutkielmasta: (1) Andersson, Kalevi: Aikataulujen kehittäminen ja valvonta osana urakkaohjelmaa. (2) Koponen, Juhani: Urakkaohjelman vaatimukset aikataulusta, laadunvarmistuksesta ja raportoinnista. (3) Lähteinen, Markku: Tietoliikenneverkon rakentamisvaiheaikataulun laadinta ja seuranta. (4) Pöllänen, Markku: Arkistonmuodostussuunnitelman laatiminen julkisen rakennuttajan. rakennushankkeisiin ja olemassa olevaan rakennuskantaan. (5) Ristola, Juhani: Miten urakkaohjelmassa pitäisi esittää vaatimukset seuraavista asioista: aikataulun laadinta, valvonta ja korjaavien toimenpiteiden käsittely osapuolten kesken; laadunvarmistussuunnitelman teko, tulosten dokumentointi tilaajalle sekä korjaavista toimenpiteistä sopiminen; tilaajaa kiinnostavat työmaan tilannetta koskevat raportoitavat asiat ja niistä sopimisen prosessi. (6) Seppälä, Arvo: Miten urakkaohjelmassa pitäisi esittää vaatimukset seuraavista asioista: aikataulun laadinta, valvonta ja korjaavien toimenpiteiden käsittely osapuolten kesken; laadunvarmistussuunnitelman teko, tulosten dokumentointi tilaajalle sekä korjaavista toimenpiteistä sopiminen; tilaajaa kiinnostavat työmaan tilannetta koskevat raportoitavat asiat ja niistä sopimisen prosessi. (7) Sirkiä, Esa: Vesiväylähankkeen tiedonkulku tilaajan näkökulmasta. (8) Toivanen, Lasse: Haastavien kattomuotojen suunnittelunohjaus ja rakennuttaminen Espoon koulurakennushankkeissa

Track loader kinematics

We study the problem to teleoperate a Caterpillar 973c track loader. The track loader and a system for teleoperation are described. A tested and working kinematic model used for dead reckoning is also presented. Track speed sensors combined with a rate gyro are used as input to the model. The model shows good results when tested and compared to a GPS navigation system.Godkänd; 2010; 20100812 (hf)Optimerad framkomlighet för tunga terrängfordo

Authors Instructors Examiner

types of KM-systems have been developed. Recent research within the IS- and CSCW-communities has identified general problem areas concerning KM-systems particularly designed to support the management of competencies. In this thesis we address two problem areas with KM-systems; knowledge evaluation and knowledge empowerment. Knowledge evaluation concerns the evaluation of the competence of teams and groups of various sizes. Knowledge empowerment is about the identification of employees ' aims, directions and ambitions regarding competence development. We have addressed these problem areas by conducting a case study at Guide Konsult AB (now a part of Framfab). We have designed an add-on module for visualising status and development of competencies to Guide’s existing KM-system Kompetenstorget and evaluated a KM-system for visualising competence patterns, i.e. the add-on module and Kompetenstorget. The main results of our research are; (1) different fields of application for the KMsystem for visualising competence patterns, such as the possibility to manage towards organisational goals and to staff assignments according to the competence interests of the employees, (2) design implications concerning the fields of application including consultants ’ availability and scope limitations regarding competence interests, (3) recommendations regarding the assurance of data quality including using the KM-system when staffing assignments and providing an incentive for the consultants to use the KM-system

Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members

Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes