MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7081933094 · doi:10.11159/icmie25.144

Operational Model to Improve On-Time Delivery: A Peruvian Case Study in Metalworking SMEs Integrating Lean Tools and TPM

2025· article· en· W7081933094 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetalworkingLean manufacturingWork (physics)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Peruvian metalworking sector has historically faced delays in deliveries due to poor process standardization and inadequate equipment maintenance.While previous studies have addressed Lean tools separately, limited empirical evidence exists regarding their integrated application within a single model for SMEs in this sector.This research addressed key challenges-machine stoppages, production delays, and disorganized workspaces-through an operational model combining Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), 5S, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), and Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED), validated through simulation and pilot implementation.SOP was defined as a standardized set of instructions ensuring the correct execution of operational tasks.The 5S tool increased audit scores from 34.4% to 84.3%, TPM improved OEE from 24% to 67%, and SMED and SOP together reduced changeover time by 64.8 minutes.The findings demonstrated measurable gains in productivity and process organization.At the industrial level, the model provides practical implications for SMEs aiming to enhance operational performance in emerging markets with resource and time constraints.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→