Can firm age account for productivity differences?

The productivity of enterprises is an important indicator, for individual enterprises as well as for policy makers. For individual firms, their productivity is a main determinant of their performance, while the aggregate productivity is one of the main determinants of economic growth. In this study we examine the relationship between the age of firms and the level and growth rate of productivity, focusing on firms of at least 10 years of age. For these firms, we will examine the following two research questions: How does the distribution of firm productivity (as characterised by mean and standard deviation) change over age cohorts? To which extent are differences in productivity between individual firms related to firm age?

On the relationship between firm age and productivity growth

For young firms, a clear relationship exists between firm age and productivity. Various studies have shown that the productivity level of new firms is below the average level, while the productivity growth rate of (surviving) young firms is above average. During the first few years, the average level of productivity tends to increase while the average growth rate tends to decrease. For elder, established firms, the relationship between age and productivity becomes less clear. Established firms show on average a positive growth rate, but whether this growth rate is related to the specific age of these firms is not well established. In this study we examine the relationship between the age of firms and their productivity growth, for establishes firms, where establishes firms are defined as firms of at least 10 years of age. Our research question is: to which extent are differences in productivity growth rates between individual firms related to firm age?

Time requirements for administrative activities; an investigation into firm size effects

This paper examines the assumption that activity time is independent of firm size (measured by the number of employees). Existing theories on (dis)economies of scale and scope and wage differentials are unclear on what to expect. For relatively complex activities such as becoming familiar with information obligations or checking agreements and declarations, the activity time might be related to the number of employees. For activities such as receiving, copying and sending information and documents, no theoretical arguments have been identified that suggest a firm-size effect. For the empirical examination of the existence of a relationship between firm size and activity time, data is used that were gathered in two projects applying the MISTRAL approach. This results in a dataset with information on many different activities, with only a few observations for each activity. By using a relative measure for activity time, observations for different activities can be combined in the analysis. To this end, relative activity time is defined as the ratio between the measured activity time and the standardized activity time for a certain activity. The empirical results suggest that, within the examined policy areas, firm size has no noticeable relationship with activity times. First of all, there exists no significant difference in average relative activity time between firms of different size classes. There are also no significant correlations between these variables. Next, these results are confirmed by regression analysis, where relative activity time is estimated as a function of firm size and other variables that might be of influence on activity time (such as experience of employees, the presence of a specific department for administrative activities, and whether additional adaptations and/or computations are required for a specific activity). Relative activity time tends to be higher for activities that require additional adaptations, but is independent of the size of the firm.

Numerical Optimization of Underactuated Flexure-Based Grippers

Robotic manipulation in the agri-food industry faces several issues, including object variation, fragility and food safety. Underactuated flexure-based gripper allow passive adaptation to object variation, whilst monolithic flexure joints drive down cost, part-count, hygiene requirements, contamination and wear. However, designing flexure-based grippers presents challenges in achieving sufficient support stiffness, load-bearing capacity and joint deflection. Additionally, modeling the non-linear flexure behavior may become computationally expensive, especially under wide a variety of load cases, limiting the optimization approaches to simple structures and joints. In this work we present an interleaved computational optimization algorithm for underactuated flexure-based grippers, aimed at maximizing the range of graspable circular objects under a given load. This method achieves a superior design faster than state-of-the-art methods that optimize all design parameters simultaneously. A prototype constructed using rapid-prototyping validates the usage of the design method, and experimentally illustrates gripper performance

Task Shifting and Health System Design: Report of the Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH)

Imagine a health professional in any European country who fell asleep in 1960 and awoke in a health facility in 2019. Much of what the observer saw would be quite different. There would be many more patients who were surviving into old age thanks to advances in therapy. Many of the treatments that they were receiving would be much more complex, involving radically new techniques such as laparoscopic or even robotic surgery, and they would be amazed by the advances in diagnostic capacity. Yet, in many health systems, some things would have changed very little. Among them would be the traditional roles of different types of health worker, with responsibility for certain task being reserved for those with particular qualifications based on custom and practice rather than on evidence. This opinion argues that this situation must change. There is now an impressive body of evidence that things can often be done differently. This does not mean that they should be. Change is only appropriate where it helps to achieve the goals of the health system and allows it to provide better care in ways that are more responsive to the needs of users. Tasks can be shifted from health workers to patients and their carers, to machines, and to other health workers. Where these shifts have been evaluated, they often, but not always, are associated with outcomes that are as good or even better than with the status quo. However, the results are often context dependent, and it cannot be assumed that what works in one situation will apply equally to another. What matters is the evidence, rather than traditional, but often obsolete rules. If a health system can ensure that tasks are being undertaken by those most appropriate to do them, it will enhance patient care. However, change is often difficult. Those involved must be convinced of the rationale for change and must be supported in implementing it. This should recognise that any change in roles will have implication for their status and thus existing hierarchies. It may also be necessary to challenge outdated legislative or regulatory barriers. Finally, it is essential the changes are evaluated, results are documented, and lessons are learned, both in relation to what works and in what circumstances. Task shifting, where it is based on robust evidence and implemented effectively, can make a major contribution to health outcomes and to the sustainability of health systems. It is not, however, a panacea for all of the challenges health systems face.Představte si zdravotnického odborníka v kterékoli evropské zemi, který usnul v roce 1960 a probudil se ve zdravotnickém zařízení v roce 2019. Hodně z toho, co by pozorovatel viděl, by bylo úplně jiné. Bylo by mnohem více pacientů, kteří přežili do stáří díky pokrokům v terapii. Mnoho z ošetření, které dostávali, by bylo mnohem složitější, zahrnovalo radikálně nové techniky, jako je laparoskopická nebo dokonce robotická chirurgie, a byl by ohromen pokrokem v diagnostickém rozsahu. Přesto by se v mnoha zdravotnických systémech některé věci změnily jen velmi málo. Mezi nimi by byly tradiční role různých typů zdravotnických pracovníků, přičemž odpovědnost za určitý úkol by byla vyhrazena těm, kteří mají zvláštní kvalifikaci založenou spíše na zvyklostech a praxi než na důkazech. Toto stanovisko tvrdí, že se tato situace musí změnit. Nyní existuje impozantní soubor důkazů, že věci lze často dělat jinak. To neznamená, že by měli být jinak dělány. Změna je vhodná pouze tam, kde pomáhá dosahovat cílů zdravotnického systému a umožňuje jí poskytovat lepší péči způsoby, které lépe reagují na potřeby uživatelů. Úkoly lze převádět ze zdravotnických pracovníků na pacienty a jejich pečovatele, na stroje a další zdravotnické pracovníky. Tam, kde byly tyto posuny vyhodnoceny, jsou často, ale ne vždy, spojeny s výsledky, které jsou stejně dobré nebo dokonce lepší než za současného stavu. Výsledky jsou však často závislé na kontextu a nelze předpokládat, že to, co funguje v jedné situaci, se bude vztahovat stejně na jiné. Důležitý je důkaz spíše než tradiční, ale často zastaralá pravidla. Pokud zdravotní systém může zajistit, že osoby, které jsou pro ně nejvhodnější, plní správně alokované úkoly, zlepší se péče o pacienty. Změna je však často obtížná. Zúčastněné strany musí být přesvědčeny o důvodech změny a musí být podporovány při jejich provádění. Musí uznat, že každá změna rolí bude mít dopad na jejich stav, a tedy na existující hierarchie. Může být také třeba změnit zastaralé legislativní nebo regulační překážky. Nakonec je nezbytné, aby byly změny vyhodnoceny, výsledky zdokumentovány a vedly k ponaučení, co funguje a za jakých okolností. Posun úkolů, činností a kompetencí, pokud je založen na spolehlivých důkazech a je účinně prováděn, může významně přispět k lepším výsledkům v oblasti zdraví a k udržitelnosti zdravotních systémů. Nejedná se však o všelék na všechny výzvy, kterým zdravotnické systémy čelí.Imagine a health professional in any European country who fell asleep in 1960 and awoke in a health facility in 2019. Much of what the observer saw would be quite different. There would be many more patients who were surviving into old age thanks to advances in therapy. Many of the treatments that they were receiving would be much more complex, involving radically new techniques such as laparoscopic or even robotic surgery, and they would be amazed by the advances in diagnostic capacity. Yet, in many health systems, some things would have changed very little. Among them would be the traditional roles of different types of health worker, with responsibility for certain task being reserved for those with particular qualifications based on custom and practice rather than on evidence. This opinion argues that this situation must change. There is now an impressive body of evidence that things can often be done differently. This does not mean that they should be. Change is only appropriate where it helps to achieve the goals of the health system and allows it to provide better care in ways that are more responsive to the needs of users. Tasks can be shifted from health workers to patients and their carers, to machines, and to other health workers. Where these shifts have been evaluated, they often, but not always, are associated with outcomes that are as good or even better than with the status quo. However, the results are often context dependent, and it cannot be assumed that what works in one situation will apply equally to another. What matters is the evidence, rather than traditional, but often obsolete rules. If a health system can ensure that tasks are being undertaken by those most appropriate to do them, it will enhance patient care. However, change is often difficult. Those involved must be convinced of the rationale for change and must be supported in implementing it. This should recognise that any change in roles will have implication for their status and thus existing hierarchies. It may also be necessary to challenge outdated legislative or regulatory barriers. Finally, it is essential the changes are evaluated, results are documented, and lessons are learned, both in relation to what works and in what circumstances. Task shifting, where it is based on robust evidence and implemented effectively, can make a major contribution to health outcomes and to the sustainability of health systems. It is not, however, a panacea for all of the challenges health systems face

Solving the Thermal Challenge in Power-Dense CubeSats with Water Heat Pipes

This paper describes the results of a project researching the application of water heat pipes in CubeSats. Heat pipes are proposed to solve for the increase in CubeSat power density, being one of the main thermal challenges appearing in high-performance missions. Commercial off the shelve water heat pipes have been tested and a proof-of-concept design has been made showing the flexibility of heat pipe integration. Thermal tests reflecting a common hot- and cold case experienced in low-Earth orbit, have been carried out. These tests have proven that the water heat pipe is capable of keeping a single component generating a continuous heat dissipation of 10W, within a reasonable temperature range and successfully start-up from a frozen state before temperature limits are breached. The outcome of this research has shown that water heat pipes can be the thermal solution for high performance CubeSat missions

Staying at work with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain:a qualitative study of workers' experiences

BACKGROUND: Many people with chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal pain (CMP) have decreased work ability. The majority, however, stays at work despite their pain. Knowledge about workers who stay at work despite chronic pain is limited, narrowing our views on work participation. The aim of this study was to explore why people with CMP stay at work despite pain (motivators) and how they manage to maintain working (success factors). METHODS: A semi-structured interview was conducted among 21 subjects who stay at work despite CMP. Participants were included through purposeful sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and imported into computer software Atlas.ti. Data was analyzed by means of thematic analysis. The interviews consisted of open questions such as: "Why are you working with pain?" or "How do you manage working while having pain?" RESULTS: A total of 16 motivators and 52 success factors emerged in the interviews. Motivators were categorized into four themes: work as value, work as therapy, work as income generator, and work as responsibility. Success factors were categorized into five themes: personal characteristics, adjustment latitude, coping with pain, use of healthcare services, and pain beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Personal characteristics, well-developed self-management skills, and motivation to work may be considered to be important success factors and prerequisites for staying at work, resulting in behaviors promoting staying at work such as: raising adjustment latitude, changing pain-coping strategies, organizing modifications and conditions at work, finding access to healthcare services, and asking for support. Motivators and success factors for staying at work may be used for interventions in rehabilitation and occupational medicine, to prevent absenteeism, or to promote a sustainable return to work. This qualitative study has evoked new hypotheses about staying at work; quantitative studies on staying at work are needed to obtain further evidence