Literatura científica selecionada sobre o tema "DASIAS"

Denna deduktiva fallstudie har genomförts på företaget e-Component Sweden AB som tillverkar stål- och plåtdetaljer efter kundspecifikation. Företaget producerar huvudsakligen detaljer till den marknadsledande tiltrotatorn (grävmaskinens handled) från engcon. Studien avsåg att undersöka processen för hantering av avvikelser och kassationer. Det övergripande syftet var att, genom den relativt nya förbättringsmodellen DASIAS, studera en förbättringsmöjlighet med avseende på kvalitet genom att finna gap mellan nuläget och ett önskat nyläge. Därefter har lämpliga förbättringar samt en plan för implementering av förbättringarna föreslagits. Studien har tillämpat de metoder, verktyg och analyser som DASIAS föreskriver. Datainhämtning har skett genom observationer, intervjuer och dokumentinsamling. Resultatet visar att en förbättringsmöjlighet finns och har identifierat resurserna; metod, mätningar, material, maskin, mission och management som orsaker till förbättringsmöjligheten. Vidare     visar studien att det genom en optimerad process för hanteringen av avvikelser och kassationer efter justerade rutiner och arbetssätt som skapar förutsättningar för att börja process- och kvalitetsleda, finns möjlighet att förebygga och genom ständiga förbättringar minimera avvikelser och kassationer i produktionen. Tidigare studier, den teoretiska referensramen och denna studies resultat tyder på att de konkreta förslag på tvärvetenskapliga åtgärder som utarbetats skulle ge positiva effekter på företagets kvalitet. Analysen visar att det önskade nyläget skulle föra företaget närmare uppställda kund- och intressentkrav.<br>This deductive case study has been carried out at the company e-Component Sweden AB, which manufactures steel- and sheet metal details, to customer specifications. The company mainly produces details for the market-leading tiltrotator (the excavators wrist) from engcon. The purpose of the study was to examine the process for handling defects and deviations from the main production. The overall aim was to, through the relatively new possibility- and improvement model DASIAS, study an opportunity for improvement with regard to quality by identifying a gap between the current procedure and a desired new procedure. Thereafter, appropriate improvements including a plan for implementing the improvements has been proposed.  The study has applied the tools and analyzing methods as prescribed by DASIAS. Data has been collected through observations, interviews and document collection. The study's result suggests that there is an opportunity for improvement and have identified the resources method, measurements, materials, machine, mission and management as reasons for the improvement opportunity. Further, the study suggests that through an optimized process for handling defects and deviations – following adjusted routines and working methods and creating conditions for implementing process and quality management, there is an opportunity to prevent and through continuous improvements minimize defects and deviations in the main production. Previous studies, the theoretical frame of reference and the results of this study suggest that the concrete interdisciplinary measures proposed would have a positive impact on the company’s overall quality. The analysis shows that the desired new situation would bring the company closer to customer- and stakeholder requirements.

Denna deduktiva fallstudie har genomförts på företaget e-Component Sweden AB som tillverkar stål- och plåtdetaljer efter kundspecifikation. Företaget producerar huvudsakligen detaljer till den marknadsledande tiltrotatorn (grävmaskinens handled) från engcon. Studien avsåg att undersöka processen för hantering av avvikelser och kassationer. Det övergripande syftet var att, genom den relativt nya förbättringsmodellen DASIAS, studera en förbättringsmöjlighet med avseende på kvalitet genom att finna gap mellan nuläget och ett önskat nyläge. Därefter har lämpliga förbättringar samt en plan för implementering av förbättringarna föreslagits.  Studien har tillämpat de metoder, verktyg och analyser som DASIAS föreskriver. Datainhämtning har skett genom observationer, intervjuer och dokumentinsamling. Resultatet visar att en förbättringsmöjlighet finns och har identifierat resurserna; metod, mätningar, material, maskin, mission och management som orsaker till förbättringsmöjligheten. Vidare  visar studien att det genom en optimerad process för hanteringen av avvikelser och kassationer efter justerade rutiner och arbetssätt som skapar förutsättningar för att börja process- och kvalitetsleda, finns möjlighet att förebygga och genom ständiga förbättringar minimera avvikelser och kassationer i produktionen. Tidigare studier, den teoretiska referensramen och denna studies resultat tyder på att de konkreta förslag på tvärvetenskapliga åtgärder som utarbetats skulle ge positiva effekter på företagets kvalitet. Analysen visar att det önskade nyläget skulle föra företaget närmare uppställda kund- och intressentkrav.<br>This deductive case study has been carried out at the company e-Component Sweden AB, which manufactures steel- and sheet metal details, to customer specifications. The company mainly produces details for the market-leading tiltrotator (the excavators wrist) from engcon. The purpose of the study was to examine the process for handling defects and deviations from the main production. The overall aim was to, through the relatively new possibility- and improvement model DASIAS, study an opportunity for improvement with regard to quality by identifying a gap between the current procedure and a desired new procedure. Thereafter, appropriate improvements including a plan for implementing the improvements has been proposed.  The study has applied the tools and analyzing methods as prescribed by DASIAS. Data has been collected through observations, interviews and document collection. The study's result suggests that there is an opportunity for improvement and have identified the resources method, measurements, materials, machine, mission and management as reasons for the improvement opportunity. Further, the study suggests that through an optimized process for handling defects and deviations – following adjusted routines and working methods and creating conditions for implementing process and quality management, there is an opportunity to prevent and through continuous improvements minimize defects and deviations in the main production. Previous studies, the theoretical frame of reference and the results of this study suggest that the concrete interdisciplinary measures proposed would have a positive impact on the company’s overall quality. The analysis shows that the desired new situation would bring the company closer to customer- and stakeholder requirements.

Esta Tese consiste em uma análise crítica da controvérsia e da sua racionalidade, a racionalidade soft, conforme concebidas por Marcelo Dascal. A controvérsia (com sua racionalidade do razoável) é uma das modalidades da tricotomia de tipos ideais de interações polêmicas de Dascal, a qual é formada, ainda, por discussão (e sua racionalidade hard) – modelo ideal de debate intelectual – e disputa (e sua irracionalidade). Embora as interações polêmicas sejam campo de atividade da racionalidade, na filosofia da ciência, visões idealizadas da prática científica caracterizaram as polêmicas como fenômenos marginais na história da ciência, ignorando-as como o âmbito próprio do desenvolvimento crítico do saber científico. As interações polêmicas, neste trabalho, são exploradas a partir de um referencial pragmático, pois Dascal indica a pragmática de base griceana como instrumental inicial de análise das controvérsias. Ao mesmo tempo em que se corrobora essa indicação, tenta-se mostrar que a pragmática griceana é adequada para este fim justamente por ser guiada por uma racionalidade soft (sendo o tema da racionalidade na pragmática pontuado, mas pouco explorado por Paul Grice). A tese proposta é de que a teoria de Dascal sobre a controvérsia e a racionalidade soft propicia uma releitura da atividade crítica na ciência (e da atividade crítica em geral) – antes concebida apenas nos termos da discussão e da disputa e de suas (ir)racionalidades – resgatando aspectos outrora ignorados, ou taxados como racionalmente intratáveis e relegados ao irracionalismo, e lançando novas perspectivas para o conhecimento e para nossas vidas. O foco no modelo hard de racionalidade ofuscou – e até negou – outras possibilidades para a razão. Contudo, já em Aristóteles há diferentes concepções de racionalidade (para diferentes conhecimentos), as quais contribuem até hoje para com a filosofia. Assim, busca-se averiguar, na comparação com Aristóteles, em que pontos a teoria das racionalidades Dascal é realmente inovadora. Objetiva-se, a partir da investigação da conceituação, do escopo de atuação e das estratégias empregadas pela controvérsia e sua racionalidade soft, apresentar as consequências filosóficas dessa polêmica e de sua racionalidade: a des-dicotomização, a dialética da tolerância, a viabilidade de conclusões razoáveis ou convincentes, a possibilidade da emersão de ideias inovadoras, a consideração do papel da audiência e do contexto nas polêmicas intelectuais (e nas polêmicas em geral).<br>This Thesis consists in a critical analysis of the controversy and its rationality, the soft rationality, as they are conceived by Marcelo Dascal. The controversy (and its soft rationality) is one type of the Dascal’s ideal types of polemical interactions trichotomy, which is formed, yet, by discussion (and its hard rationality) – the ideal intellectual debate model – and dispute (and its irrationality). Although the polemical interactions are field for rational activity of rationality, in the philosophy of science, ideal visions of scientific practice characterized the polemics as marginal phenomena in the history of science, ignoring them as the proper place for the critical development of the scientific knowledge. The polemical interactions, in this work, are explored by a pragmatical referential, because Dascal indicates the Grice-based pragmatics as the initial instrument for the analysis of the controversies. At the same time that we corroborate this indication, we try to show that the gricean pragmatics is proper to this aim precisely because it is guided by a soft rationality (the rationality issue is pointed, but little explored by Paul Grice). The propounded thesis is that the Dascal’s theory about the controversy and the soft rationality propitiate rereading about the critical activity in science (and about the critical activity in general). Previously, such an activity was conceived only in the terms of discussion and dispute and their (ir)rationalities – redeeming aspects that were ignored, or classified as rationally intractable, and relegated to irrationalism, and launching new perspectives for knowledge and for our lives. The focus on the hard model of rationality overshadowed – and even denied – other possibilities for reason. Nevertheless, already in Aristotle there are different conceptions of rationality (for different knowledges), which still contribute to philosophy. Therefore, we seek to ascertain Marcelo Dascal’s proposal with Aristotle’s, those points on which Dascal’s theory of rationality is innovating. We aim, at starting from the investigation about the conceptualization, the scope of work and the strategies employed by the controversy and its soft rationality, to present the philosophical consequences of this polemic and its rationality: the de-dichotomization, the dialectics of tolerance, the viability of reasonable or convincing conclusions, the possibility of innovating ideas emersion, the consideration of the roles of audience and context in intellectual polemics (and in polemics in general).

Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2015-05-28T14:32:39Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Luiz Davi Mazzei .pdf: 793792 bytes, checksum: 4b2e144e136353e4c3ab7238c81cbe9f (MD5)<br>Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-28T14:32:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luiz Davi Mazzei .pdf: 793792 bytes, checksum: 4b2e144e136353e4c3ab7238c81cbe9f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014<br>Nenhuma<br>Esta tese analisa a posição de dois filósofos, Paul Feyerabend e Marcelo Dascal, representativos do pensamento filosófico ocidental do final do século XX e início do século XXI, sobre a racionalidade. A questão da racionalidade é tema recorrente na filosofia da ciência, desde Aristóteles até os filósofos contemporâneos. Paul Feyerabend faz críticas à ideia de uma racionalidade única e, especialmente, ao racionalismo crítico como a versão mais recente dos racionalismos subjacentes à concepção de ciência. Marcelo Dascal também critica a ideia de que haja uma única forma de racionalidade da ciência. Embora ambos critiquem o racionalismo, exibem uma divergência marcante: enquanto Feyerabend, em sua critica desfralda a bandeira do irracionalismo em oposição ao racionalismo, Dascal amplia o entendimento de racionalidade, distinguindo duas racionalidades: a ideia da racionalidade como tradicionalmente entendida, baseada na demonstração – denominada por ele racionalidade hard– e a ideia de racionalidade que dá conta do provável, do possível e de nossas escolhas entre alternativas – a racionalidade soft.A última dá suporte à sua teoria das controvérsias (que inclui a tipologia: ‘discussão’, ‘disputa’ e ‘controvérsia’), vista por Dascal como motor do desenvolvimento científico. A tese proposta é a de que se Feyerabend houvesse conhecido o conceito de racionalidade soft de Dascal, poderia não ter recorrido ao irracionalismo e tampouco teria ficado preso à dicotomia racionalidade hard-irracionalidade, tendo sido ele um crítico das dicotomias, assim como Dascal o é. Em apoio à tese proposta, examinam-se os argumentos dos filósofos em torno a pontos temáticos centrais, reconhecendo como possível um debate imaginário entre os dois filósofos, sob a forma de uma controvérsia. A análise desses argumentos parte das críticas que ambos fazem ao racionalismo e as implicações dessa crítica para a visão de ciência de cada filósofo. As interações polêmicas (‘discussão’, ‘disputa’ e ‘controvérsia’) de Dascal e as ‘trocas abertas’ e ‘trocas fechadas’ de Feyerabend revelam pontos de uma plataforma comum de análise. As trocas guiadas, tal como as discussões, se desenvolvem a partir do compartilhamento de pressupostos e da adoção, em comum acordo, das regras que irão orientar o debate. As trocas abertas, assim como as controvérsias, permitem a exploração de alternativas, as regras não são fixadas a priori, mas vão se construindo ao longo do debate. O contexto tem influencia nesse tipo de interação ao mesmo tempo em que é influenciado por ela. O modelo das controvérsias ou das trocas abertas apoia-se em uma posição filosófica pragmática, fugindo das conotações geralmente atribuídas a essa posição e tem implicações éticas que transcendem o âmbito da ciência. Esse modelo baseia-se em um modelo dialético novo, em uma dialética da tolerância, aberta à exploração de alternativas e pautada no respeito ao outro, à sua capacidade cognitiva e de deliberação para realizar um empreendimento comum.<br>This thesis analyses the arguments on Rationality of two philosophers, Paul Feyerabend and Marcelo Dascal, who represent ideas of western philosophy in the late 20th century and beginning of the 21th century. The argument of Rationality has been a recurrent idea regarding the Philosophy of Science, from Aristotle up to current date. On his work, Paul Feyerabend criticizes both concepts of a single rationality and the critical rationality as a contemporary version of the rationalities underlying the conception of science. As Paul Feyerabend, Marcelo Dascal also criticizes the notion of the existence of a single idea for science rationalism, but both of them diverge. While Feyerabend defends the idea of irrationalism as opposed to rationalism, Dascal expands the understanding of rationality, distinguishing two modes: the traditional, based on demonstration, called hard rationality and the idea of rationality based on the probable, and our choices between both alternatives, called soft rationality. The latter supports of his theory of controversies (including the typology: ‘discussion’, ‘dispute’ and ‘controversy’), is seen by Dascal as the engine of scientific development. The thesis proposes that, if Feyerabend have had known the concept of Dascal’s soft rationality, he might not have had to resort to irrationalism and would not have been stuck to the dichotomy of the hard rationality - irrationality. In support of the thesis, the central themes from the arguments of both philosophers are examined, recognizing a possible imaginary debate between them, under the shape of a controversy. The analysis of the arguments is based on their critique of rationalism and their implications to a vision of science. Dascal’s interactions (‘discussion’, ‘dispute’ and ‘controversy’) and Feyerabend’s ‘open exchange’ and ‘closed exchange’ reveals a common platform for analysis. The exchanges, as well as discussions, develop based on sharing the assumptions and rules that oriented the debate. The open exchanges, as well as the controversies, allowed the exploration of alternatives, the rules were not a priori, but evolved with the debate. The context influenced that type of interaction andwas also influenced by it. The controversy model or the open exchanges model is based on a pragmatic philosophy, avoiding the usual notions attached to this position and implies ethics that are beyond the realms of science. This model is based on a new dialectic, on dialectic of tolerance and it opens to explore alternatives based on respect and common understanding.