The use of conventional manufacturing methods is mainly limited by the size of the production run and the geometrical complexity of the component, and as a result we are occasionally forced to use processes and tools that increase the final cost of the element being produced. Additive manufacturing techniques provide major competitive advantages due to the fact that they adapt to the geometrical complexity and customised design of the part to be manufactured. The following may also be achieved according to field of application: lighter weight products, multimaterial products, ergonomic products, efficient short production runs, fewer assembly errors and, therefore, lower associated costs, lower tool investment costs, a combination of different manufacturing processes, an optimised use of materials, and a more sustainable manufacturing process. Additive manufacturing is seen as being one of the major revolutionary industrial processes of the next few years. Additive manufacturing has several alternatives ranging from simple RepRap machines to complex fused metal deposition systems. This paper will expand upon the structural design of the machines, their history, classification, the alternatives existing today, materials used and their characteristics, the technology limitations, and also the prospects that are opening up for different technologies both in the professional field of innovation and the academic field of research. It is important to say that the choice of technology is directly dependent on the particular application being planned: first the application and then the technology.

No abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to look at small to medium‐sized enterprises' (SMEs') approach to learning and innovation.Design/methodology/approachThe first research direction focuses on the internal and external sources for learning used in the innovation process. A second research direction focuses on the main types of innovation SMEs engage in along with some of the obstacles or constraints identified within the innovation process. In order to answer the research questions set, the authors conducted a survey among 161 Romanian SMEs from various economic sectors and covering different geographical areas.FindingsRomanian SMEs display a learning orientation related to innovation, using best practices within the organization and networking with external partners as internal sources for learning, whereas in terms of external support for learning, SMEs consider changes that take place on the market, changes in technology and the input from experts and consultants. Concerning the innovation type, Romanian SMEs are very much oriented towards innovation in their business model, at the same time being faced with various constraints such as lack of funds and high costs involved.Practical implicationsFirstly, in what concerns the organizational learning dimension, the need for SMEs to focus on strengthening the collaboration with universities (higher education area), as the research pointed out that only few SMEs rely on universities and educational institutions in acquiring knowledge. Secondly, to focus on innovation and manage innovation activities as a core competency inside the firm in relation to designing a process of organizational change in SMEs, which should enhance drastically the performance of such initiatives.Originality/valueSo far, few studies have been conducted on innovation and knowledge creation in South‐Eastern European SMEs. The findings presented in the paper offer a holistic view of the innovation approach in Romanian SMEs, emphasizing the predominant type of innovation implemented along with specific constraints applied. The originality of the paper also relates to the fact that few studies conducted in Romania on SMEs focus on the internal and external sources of knowledge in the innovation process.

This paper proposes an expansion of the Lean 5S methodology, which includes the concept of Safety–Security as 6S. Implementation was done by a standardized process tested in a pilot area that is part of the Integrated Industrial Manufacturing System Laboratory at the Higher Technical School of Engineering (ICAI). The additional 6S phase (Safety-Security) thoroughly reviews all areas of an industrial plant by analyzing the risks at each workstation, which let employees be fitted out with protection resources depending on each of their personal characteristics and to guarantee the safety of the workstation by strictly complying with occupational safety and health and machinery use standards, which must hold a CE certificate of compliance. The main objective was to increase the scope of 5S methodology to respond to the occupational safety and health needs for machines required in optimizing production processes. It is important to remember that companies must guarantee that their employees use personal protection equipment (PPE) at their work posts or stations that protect them properly from risks to their health and safety and that cannot be prevented or sufficiently limited by using collective means of protection or by adopting work organization measures. The industrial resources employed in the pilot area chosen for 6S implementation were a sheet metal deformation and cutting line comprised of a punch press, feeder, and winder, as well as a conventional machine tool with minimum safety specifications and without CE certification. Until now, there had been no plans to implement a 6S tool in this laboratory. However, given that the existing safety risk to operators is high, the implementation has led to obtaining optimal results, which justify the success of the 6S methodology proposal. In short, it lets us advance towards the zero accident target.

No abstract