Investing in lean manufacturing practices: an environmental and operational perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lean manufacturing practices (LMPs) and corporate environmental sustainability are becoming inextricably linked. Throughout the lean and green debate, many organisations have recognised that LMPs have implications for their sustainable development and competitive positioning. Not only LMPs are complex on their own, but when perceived from an environmental sustainability perspective, the decision to implement an LMP can become even more intricate. Although general tools exist, the lack of effective decision-making tools to help in the implementation of LMPs with an environmental sustainability dimension is palpable. Thus, this study tackles the aforementioned decision problem by incorporating environmental and operational performance outcome expectations as these expectations are viewed in light of the ease of implementation of various LMPs. A novel multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model for evaluation of LMPs is developed in this respect. The model integrates a three-parameter interval grey number with rough set theory and the TODIM method. The model is run using empirical data from six manufacturing organisations. The findings facilitate the identification of a ‘locus of investments’ for a better selection of LMPs. The robustness of the decision support model developed is assessed through sensitivity analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".