MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540560883 · doi:10.5430/jha.v5n6p90

Breadth vs. depth: How to start deploying the daily management system for your lean transformation

2016· article· en· W2540560883 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dala Taher, Sylvain Landry, John Toussaint

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentProcess managementComputer scienceProcess (computing)Operations managementManagement systemLean manufacturingBusinessEngineeringSoftware engineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a health care organization that has adopted Lean methodologies, a Lean Management System provides the means to sustain the Lean transformation. The Lean Daily Management System (LDMS) is an element within the comprehensive Lean Management System; it addresses the management of daily operations and centers around continuous improvement at the process level. This paper proposes a framework for organizations about to start their deployment of LDMS; it focuses on how to introduce LDMS and how to manage its dissemination. After a literature review, a deployment model that addresses these key points is produced. In developing the model, the question of whether to concentrate on deploying a comprehensive LDMS in one area at a time or to introduce a simplified version of LDMS to the entire organization at once is examined. Who is expected to play the greater role in deploying LDMS in any area is also studied; whether it is executives, middle managers, or front line staff. In order to test the validity and applicability of the deployment model, field research was conducted in three Canadian hospitals that have already begun their deployment of a management system.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.021
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207