Development of a leagile transformation methodology for product development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a leagile transformation model for product development that guides manufacturers in the construction of a road map and the management of its deployment in line with both lean and agile improvement objectives. Design/methodology/approach – An intervention qualitative and transformative research approach was adopted in order to develop required knowledge to theorise professional practice made from rigorous observations of facts. The research project took place over a period of two and a half years, in partnership with an international firm that develops and produces a wide range of luxury products. Findings – The application of the methodology proved that a lean transformation does not have to be generated only by the field needs but it can follow a mixed approach where a top-down transformation management linked with strategic objectives is deployed without compromising implication and needs from people on the field. The right balance can be found between the strategic aspect of transformation and the incremental aspect on the field of lean paradigms. Research limitations/implications – For complete validation and widespread scientific application, the model should be tested in other sectors and industries. Practical implications – The application case of the leagile model in several divisions of a luxury organisation proved that the proposed approach can be used as a guide for manufacturer in the construction of an improvement road map and in the management of its deployment. The application cases enabled a number of positive results to be generated and measured on quantitative indicators such as service ratio for new products for which, one of the divisions saw an increase of 30 per cent. The approach created a positive revolution among development team members by its potential in terms of communication, steering, benchmarking and knowledge system. Originality/value – The model supports the identification and prioritisation of improvement initiatives by focusing on the levers for improvement that meet the needs and objectives of transformation, as well as the organisation’s maturity level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it