Combining simple motion measurement, lean analysis technique and historical data review for countering negative labor cost variance: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Negative labor cost variance (NLCV) is an important problem in many manufacturing companies today. NLCV refers to the situation that expected or standard costs are less than actual labor costs in production. Management of NLCV, including the identification of causes for NLCV and the elimination or significant reduction of NLCV, is the topic discussed in this paper. The question studied in this paper is thus: what is an effective methodology in the environment of strong privacy protection to identify causes for NLCV and to significantly reduce it? The study presented in this paper proposed a methodology by combining a simple motion measurement (stopwatch), lean analysis techniques, and historical data review to study the NLCV problem. A case study was taken on a particular company called ABC to test the effectiveness of this methodology. Specifically, the result of the study revealed that (1) the employees in ABC waited for one reason or the other for almost 5 h (idle time) in a 16-h daily operation period (2 shifts running at 8 h each), which accounts for 32% of the total productive time, and (2) the elimination of the waiting time or idle time over the years concerned could account for 83% of all identified wastes in ABC. Through this case study, the effectiveness of the proposed methodology was demonstrated and the applicability of the proposed methodology was also implied.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".