MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Theory of Constraints and the Make‐or‐Buy Decision: An Update and Review

2005· article· en· W1999640598 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Supply Chain Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOperations Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The make‐or‐buy decision has traditionally been made using standard cost accounting methods. In this Journal , Gardiner and Blackstone (1991) made a strong case for incorporating the bottleneck capacity into the decision. However, their method did not guarantee the best solution for the more complicated make‐or‐buy problem. Additionally, their approach in some cases allowed organizations to forego opportunities for profit improvement. Since the publication of the Gardiner and Blackstone research, spreadsheets with in‐built Linear Programming (LP) based optimizers allow for quick “what‐if” analyses that encourage efforts toward optimal solutions for complicated problems. This article is a review and update of the Gardiner and Blackstone methodology based on spreadsheet LP that provides enhanced solutions in complex environments with multiple products and bottleneck situations. Specific managerial implications are offered.

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 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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.317 · 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