Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThis article summarizes practitioner observations on three research questions. First, the factors that lead to the emergence and persistence of such teams. Second, the repercussions of siloed teams. And third, practical suggestions and recommendations that practitioners can employ to prevent silo formation or address existing silos. This article thus complements recent academic work that has previously explored the formation of silos.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used the input of current team leads from a focus group along with their consulting experience to explore these three research questions. The team lead input and consulting expertise are integrated with academic research on silos.FindingsThe emergence and persistence of silos was mostly attributed to company characteristics (size, growth and stakeholder management) as well as communication inefficiencies (lack of role clarity and ownership within teams), which in turn were impacted by situational variables (pandemic and turnover). The authors noted the effect of team composition effects, team competition and organizational changes (rapid growth and restructuring) as potential contributors to the formation and persistence of silos. The team lead experts and our consulting experiences were congruent with the literature focused on repercussions of silos, from poor information exchanges to inefficiencies, divisions and perceived isolation of teams from the organization. Solutions focused on project organization and documentation as well as the adoption of new decision-making tools and practices, and the creation of more exchange and learning opportunities. The authors added additional options to promote more visibility, appreciation, proactive monitoring within teams and organizational identification initiatives.Originality/valueThe current article adds a pragmatic perspective to silos and how organizations can address these when they become problematic and hinder performance and collaboration.

The Beirut port explosion on August 4, 2020, caused extensive destruction and significant casualties, prompting inquiries into its scale and impact on neighboring structures. Speculation arose regarding the role of the nearby port silos in shielding western Beirut from the blast. This study leverages insights from previous research and uses a tailored blast wave propagation model to settle the debate on the silos’ effectiveness in mitigating blast impacts. The analysis challenges prevailing notions: firstly, that the silos offered substantial protection, and secondly, the assumption linking the transient “window” phenomenon in the Wilson cloud to a similar opening in the preceding pressure front. Contrary to expectation, the pressure at the shock front remains continuous, albeit lower on the leeward side behind the silos. Downstream lateral regions experience pressure amplification due to the constructive interference of waves diffracted around the silos, with significant attenuation observed close (10 m) behind them—approximately 12%, 58%, and 2% of free-air values for overpressure, specific impulse, and specific energy, respectively. However, this shielding effect diminishes with distance, with the blast wave intensity largely restored at 450 m. Consequently, the silos’ shadowing effect was limited to nearby port structures and part of the Lebanese navy base, which still incurred severe damage. The lesser impact on western Beirut is attributed to its greater distance from the explosion rather than the silos’ protective influence. These findings suggest a reevaluation of urban disaster mitigation strategies, emphasizing geographical positioning over structural barriers and advocating for a holistic approach to urban resilience.

BackgroundSilage emits climate- and environment-relevant gases during fermentation and feed-out periods. This trial aimed to determine the unknown carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, ethanol, and ethyl acetate emissions of constant maize silage material over both periods. The results will be published in two consecutive articles (Part A: anaerobic fermentation period, Part B: aerobic storage period).MethodsThe untreated control (CON) was compared with the chemical additive treatment (CHE; 0.5 g sodium benzoate and 0.3 g potassium sorbate per kg fresh matter) and the biological additive treatment (BIO; 108 colony-forming units (CFU) Lentilactobacillus buchneri and 107 CFU Lactiplantibacillus plantarum per kg fresh matter). Barrel silos (n = 4) were connected to gas bags to quantify gas formation during anaerobic fermentation (30 or 135 ensiling days). Glass jar silos (n = 12) were used for laboratory silage analysis.ResultsCHE produced significantly (p < 0.05) less gas (6.7 ± 0.3 L per kg dry matter ensiled material (kgDM) until ensiling day 14.0 ± 0.0) and ethanol (8.6 ± 1.5 mg kgDM–1) than CON did (8.5 ± 0.2 L kgDM–1 until ensiling day 19.5 ± 6.4; 12.2 ± 1.5 (mg ethanol) kgDM–1). BIO indicates prolonged gas formation (9.1 ± 0.9 L kgDM–1 until ensiling day 61.3 ± 51.9; 12.0 ± 2.1 mg kgDM–1). CO2 is the main component of the gas formed. All treatments formed methane and nitrous oxide in small quantities. CON emitted significantly more CO2eq emissions than BIO and less than CHE (p < 0.05). Additives had no effect on ethyl acetate gas emissions. For BIO, ethanol concentrations in the material (rS = 0.609, p < 0.05) and gas quantities (rS = 0.691, p < 0.05) correlate with ethyl acetate gas quantities. All the treatments exhibited decreasing gas and CO2 quantities, and the dry matter mass increased between ensiling days 14 and 30 (− 0.810 ≤ rS ≤ 0.442; p < 0.05 to p = 0.20).ConclusionSilage generates climate- and environmental-relevant gases during fermentation and silage additives affect this pattern. Gas formation exceeds the fixation potential, and the carbon footprint of silage fermentation is negative.

Sind Mensch-Medien-Vernetzungen demokratiefähig? Wie können Demokratieoptionen greifen, wenn das Individuum in der technischen Vokabel der User*in aufgelöst wird? Wenn sich Demokratie im ständigen Zugang zu allen Informationen manifestiert, wie funktioniert sie in einem System, das Informationen ›vorsortiert‹? Die vorliegende Studie ist datentechnische Entwicklungsgeschichte und zukunftsorientiertes Gedankenexperiment zugleich. Ausgehend von der Annahme, dass eine zunehmende gesellschaftliche Digitalwerdung – insbesondere durch Social-Media-Kanäle wie Facebook, Instagram und Twitter – weitreichende Sozialveränderungen bis hin zum Gesellschaftsersatz auslöst, stellt Manfred Faßler kritische Fragen an die derzeitige Konstitution von Sozialem und Politischem und dabei den Demokratiebegriff in den Fokus seiner Überlegungen.

Sind Mensch-Medien-Vernetzungen demokratiefahig? Wie konnen Demokratieoptionen greifen, wenn das Individuum in der technischen Vokabel der User*in aufgelost wird? Wenn sich Demokratie im standigen Zugang zu allen Informationen manifestiert, wie funktioniert sie in einem System, das Informationen vorsortiert ? Die vorliegende Studie ist datentechnische Entwicklungsgeschichte und zukunftsorientiertes Gedankenexperiment zugleich. Ausgehend von der Annahme, dass eine zunehmende gesellschaftliche Digitalwerdung - insbesondere durch Social-Media-Kanale wie Facebook, Instagram und Twitter - weitreichende Sozialveranderungen bis hin zum Gesellschaftsersatz auslost, stellt Manfred Faler kritische Fragen an die derzeitige Konstitution von Sozialem und Politischem und dabei den Demokratiebegriff in den Fokus seiner Uberlegungen.