MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118045864 · doi:10.5267/j.uscm.2020.10.001

The effect of manufacturing agility competencies on lean manufacturing in increasing operational performance

2020· article· en· W3118045864 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Budianto Budianto, Surachman Surachman, Djumilah Hadiwidjojo, Rofiaty Rofiaty

Bibliographic record

VenueUncertain Supply Chain Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLean manufacturingBusinessStructural equation modelingProcess managementManufacturing engineeringManufacturingProcess (computing)Manufacturing processLean laboratoryOperations managementComputer scienceMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to assess the success of implementing Lean Manufacturing (LM) practices in food companies in Indonesia through the mediating role of Manufacturing Agility Competencies (MAC) to improve Operational Performance (OP). The method used is survey method. The study uses a positivist paradigm to see the effect of Lean manufacturing on operational performance. Testing used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) by the Partial Least Square (PLS) approach. Finding of this study reveals that lean manufacturing practices have no positive effect on operational performance in Indonesian food industries. Meanwhile, the mediating role of Manufacturing Agility Competencies has succeeded in increasing the effect of Lean Manufacturing on operational performance. The originality of the research lies in the process of forming Manufacturing Agility Competencies as a strategy with a long process based on the experiences and observations made in food companies in Indonesia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUncertain Supply Chain ManagementSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207