Zlatko Ećimović novi pomoćnik direktora sektora Proizvodnja u Podravci

zlatko-ecimovic-podravka-midiIz Podravke su danas objavili kako je na poziciju pomoćnika direktora poslovnog sektora Proizvodnja u toj prehrambenoj tvrtki od 1. rujna došao Zlatko Ećimović.

Ećimović je diplomirao strojarstvo na Fakultetu strojarstva i brodogradnje u Zagrebu 1996. godine, a u Podravku dolazi s pozicije v.d. direktora Proizvodnje pivovare Carlsberg Croatia.

Tijekom 11 godina staža u pivovari Zlatko Ećimović radio je na nizu radnih mjesta u proizvodnji rukovodeći procesima punjenja, održavanja i energetikom.

Uz to, sudjelovao je te i osobno vodio niz projekata kojima je glavni cilj bio optimizacija u smislu povećanja efikasnosti procesa i snižavanja troškova proizvodnje.

Ima veliko iskustvo u organizaciji proizvodnje, poboljšanju rezultata proizvodnje te uvođenju tzv. LEAN projekta u Carlsbergu. Također, intenzivno je radio i kao dio tima za razvoj novih proizvoda.

Prije rada u pivovari, Ećimović je četiri godine radio u Podravka Inženjeringu kao strojarski konstruktor. S obzirom na bogato iskustvo koje ima u poslovima proizvodnje, sudjelovat će u uvođenju LEAN projekta u Podravkinu proizvodnju te su očekivanja kako će znatno pridonijeti unapređenju poslovanja unutar sektora Proizvodnja, ističu iz Podravke.

Komentari

  1. Waleed kaže

    that “String theory is a fatnastic thing”; Weinberg wrote the preface to Joe Polchinski’s textbook “String Theory” and he is known to be a defender.Penrose does not like strings, as commented in the article about Wilczek’s review of his new book.I totally disagree that string theory has “undergone several drastic revisions”. Almost nothing that people were doing in the 1980s turned out to be wrong – even quantitatively. What you say is that usual misunderstanding the people say about physics – that Einstein effectively showed that Newton was an idiot, and so forth.It’s not a fair description of reality, and it’s not true in string theory either. In the 1980s, only the perturbative part of string theory was known, and people knew that they were missing non-perturbative physics, and they started to understand it in the mid 1990s.If you mean, by your “drastic revision”, the jump from bosonic string theory to superstring theory in the early 1970s, then it is was a change, but it was never really believed that *bosonic* string theory should be the theory of everything. By “string theory”, we usually mean “superstring theory”, and it has undergone no revisions that would identify the previous insights as wrong.It is also completely stupid to say that string theory has not explained any previously unexplained facts about Nature. String theory has shown that the low-energy physics must contain gauge groups, fermions organized in generations, chiral couplings, and it has predicted the existence of gravity. It has also explained the microscopic origin of black hole entropy which was not explained previously either.It’s clear that some outsiders don’t understand that these things were independent before string theory, but they became inevitably correlated and inseparable in string theory. You can’t create string theory with gauge groups but no gravity, for example. Gravity is a universal part of string theory.But there are just so many people who are not familiar even with the basics of string theory – I mean the things that the readers are supposed to learn from The Elegant Universe – and who say so many incorrent statements – like yours – that it is almost politically correct to assume that these wrong statements – like the “drastic revisions of string theory” – must be correct. They are not correct.Other statements of you, CIP, are also misleading. Concerning the number of solutions, I don’t think that it is really well-established that the number of vacua is super-large, but even if it will be, it will be a fact of Nature, not an argument against the laws of Nature, which is a complete nonsense. Whoever is dissatisfied with the laws of our Universe, the number of different states of objects within the Universe, and the number of stationary points of the scalar fields themselves, should move to a different Universe instead of writing idiotic complaints about the laws of physics. 😉

Odgovori

Vaša adresa e-pošte neće biti objavljena. Nužna polja su označena s *