Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe the overall equipment cost loss (OECL) methodology and an implementation of this methodology, to compare the outcomes of OECL with those of overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), and finally to identify the benefits offered by this new methodology.

The proposed methodology, OECL, combines six large loss models and a financial model in the performance evaluation of equipment. The six large losses are converted into monetary units. OECL is a new way of evaluating equipment performance that differs from the original OEE methodology and overcomes some of the limitations of OEE. This new methodology can be used to rank problematic machines by accounting for production elements together with finance elements.

The OECL and OEE methodologies rank problematic machines differently.

Efforts were made in this research to identify factors affecting OECL outcomes, but it was found that it was not possible to apply OECL to all scenarios.

The OECL model can be implemented in a real manufacturing company to help decision-makers better determine the magnitudes of equipment problems and rank problematic pieces of equipment appropriately.

This OECL method is able to overcome some of OEE’s weaknesses. It can properly prioritise problematic machines by considering both cost and losses.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how misalignments between the organizational climate (measured as information‐processing demand) and the leadership style (measured as information‐processing capability) may result in negative performance consequences.

The empirical part of the paper is based on questionnaire data. Key informant is the CEO and thus there is a focus on the CEO's perception of climate and leadership style. Data are subjected to regression analysis.

The results indicate that misalignments between climate and leadership style are problematic for organizational performance. This is supported by the empirical findings that show partial support for three out of four hypotheses and full support for the fourth hypothesis.

Data cover information on Danish small‐ and medium‐sized firms. These cross‐sectional data and cannot study the effects of misalignments over time.

Because the findings show that misalignments between climate and leadership style are problematic to organizational level of performance, this implies that in case of misfits either the climate or the leadership style must be changed.

The main contribution of the paper is that the framework allows an explicit understanding of which managerial actions are needed to manage particular types of climate. Further, the framework enables an understanding of how misalignments may result in poor performance.