MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1821368351 · doi:10.4102/jtscm.v9i1.192

The integration of lean, green and best practice business principles

2015· article· en· W1821368351 on OpenAlexaff
Annelize Wiese, Rose Luke, Gert Heyns, Noleen Pisa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transport and Supply Chain Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsTransport Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceSustainabilityBusinessSustainable businessLean manufacturingProcess managementLean project managementTriple bottom lineMarketingOperations managementIndustrial organizationManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Whilst there are separate streams of established research on lean, green and best practice initiatives, the intersection of these three strategic principles has not been addressed extensively in the past.Objectives: In this study a framework to integrate lean, green and best practice principles into an integrated business model was developed as a strategy for businesses to develop sustainable competitive advantages.Method: A descriptive case study was conducted on Toyota South Africa Motors (TSAM) to understand whether a clear link between the company’s environmental approach, lean principles and established best practice culture could be determined. In addition, the case study tested the view that the implementation of these three principles concurrently resulted in improved business results.Results: The main findings of the study revealed that TSAM’s commitment to lean, green and best practice business principles contributed and was directly linked to its business success in terms of sales and market position.Conclusion: It is recommended that businesses implement an integrated lean, green and best practice business model as a strategy to reduce costs and sustainably enhance profitably and competitiveness.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Transport and Supply Chain ManagementSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207