Unraveling the dynamics of lean manufacturing enablers on operational performance
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
Purpose Lean manufacturing (LM) is essential for businesses to remain competitive in today’s global economy and to meet the needs of consumers from three separate perspectives: price, dependability and production schedules. A fundamental goal of this research is to how lean management in manufacturing organization may improve product value for the customer, address customer concerns, minimize costs and boost the firm’s profitability. Design/methodology/approach The extensive literature analysis identified a number of LM enablers and manufacturing industry factors that might favorably affect the organizations operational performance. Initially, 16 enablers of LM and 16 factors operational performance were identified, which were later reduced to 8 factors each. After that, Grey-DEMATEL technique was applied to investigate the relationships between the factors by categorizing elements into two groups (cause and effect) and ranking them within each category. Findings The results show that F4 (Work Force Development) and F7 (Six Sigma) were the key enablers of LM. Similarly, F12 (Maintain Better inventory control/optimize inventory level) and F14 (Reduce conversion cost) are the key effect factors of operational performance. It eliminates inefficiencies in the production process and internal storage requirements while retaining a high level of dependability and flexibility in response to customer demands. Originality/value LM has unquestionably been a popular method for improving the production efficiency of industrial sectors for the last two decades. Despite the fact that LM has helped several firms reduce waste and thereby improve a range of efficiency metrics, many businesses are still struggling to effectively transform into lean firms. While previous studies have explored LM’s significance and its influence on different aspects of organizational metrics in various industries, this research pioneers in probing into the nuanced relationship between LM enablers and OP in a critical and procedure-intensive industry.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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