Evolution in the strategic manufacturing planning process of organizations
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
Abstract This study examines how strategic manufacturing planning processes vary systematically with respect to planning characteristics, and how the planning process appears to evolve over time. Through an empirical evaluation of over 200 U.S. manufacturers, we document the existence of four strategic manufacturing planning groups. These groups vary with respect to the degrees of “rationality” and “adaptability” of planning. In addition, the strategic manufacturing planning history and level of planning maturity differs between these groups, providing evidence that the planning process changes and evolves over time from “non‐rational adaptive” mode towards a more “rational adaptive” approach. Firms between these polar extremes appear to take different paths in their movement toward a “rational adaptive” mode, with some “focusing on rationality” first and others “focusing on adaptability” first. We also show that irrespective of the firm's environment, a greater degree of “rational adaptivity” is correlated with better planning outcomes and business performance. As such, it represents a “best practice” approach to strategic manufacturing planning. Insights created by this work not only make an important contribution to the manufacturing strategy literature, but can also be used by senior manufacturing managers to facilitate their progress towards more effective planning.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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