Aligning Inventory With Strategic Priorities Across Factory Boundaries - More Than Moving Plates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: Aligning Inventory with Strategic Priorities Across Factory Boundaries – More than moving plates Authors: Lisa Johansson and Johanna Weber Supervisors: Jan Olhager, Professor at Engineering Logistics, Faculty of Engineering(LTH) at Lund University Alexandra Kristensson, Head of S&OP, GPHE at Alfa Laval AB Examiner: Louise Bildsten, Senior Lecturer at Engineering Logistics, Faculty of Engineering (LTH) at Lund University Problem Description: The case company’s supply chain is characterized by conflicting priorities between the two factory types. These differing priorities are perceived to complicate coordination between the factories and have created uncertainty in inventory management. The case company seeks perspectives on how inventory management can be adapted to better reflect different strategic focuses and align more closely with the overall business strategy. Therefore, the thesis study aims to design and evaluate alternative inventory management setups for the internal replenishment, tailored to the different prioritizations within the supply chain triangle Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how inventory should be managed in an internal replenishment setup between two factory types with different objectives, to align the inventory management with key strategic focus areas. Research Questions: RQ1: How is inventory of heat exchanger plates managed in the replenishment processes between CF and AF today? RQ2: How can inventory management of heat exchanger plates in the replenishment processes between CF and AF be improved according to the literature? RQ3: How can the inventory management of heat exchanger plates in the replenishment processes between CF and AF be improved based on different levels of focus placed on the three dimensions within the Supply Chain Triangle? Methodology: The thesis applies an embedded case study design with two units of analysis. Data was collected through interviews, observations, and archival data Conclusion: The study resulted in several suggested considerations and improvements for the case company’s inventory management of plates. Three scenarios corresponding to different levels of focus placed on the dimensions within the Supply Chain Triangle were developed and evaluated based on risks and trade-offs. Contribution: This thesis has been a complete elaboration between the two authors. Each author has been involved in every part of the process and contributed equally. Keywords: Inventory Management, Strategic Fit, Supply Chain Triangle, Inventory Positioning, Coordination
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".