Search results

In a manufacturing system, time performances are measures of system response speed to external influences. This speed depends on the resource allocation process (materials, equipment, labour) which is driven by finished‐product forecasts. Describes two essential steps, in order to develop a model for evaluating time performances which is able to detect crucial resources. The first step is represented by analysing forecast characteristics; the second step is expressed by a definition of the environment of manufacturing resources. The model, depicted in its structure and in its relationships with the most common business tools, has been tested in a number of manufacturing firms and the results are also shown.

This chapter aims to further integrate the results on the contextualised set of competencies. Specifically, this chapter will explain relevant pedagogical strategies such as seminars, expert-led workshops, experimentation, case studies, etc. to be used to develop these competencies. In addition to relating each strategy to a specific bundle of competencies, the chapter will conclude with contextualised pedagogical approaches that can be used to increase the relatedness and effectiveness of EE in developing countries.

This paper discusses the concept, definition and usage of Key Activity Indicators (KAIs) and their integration within a Performance Measurement and Management system (PMM).

The actual definition and application areas of the KAIs are determined through a systematic literature review. Successively, a thorough definition of Key Activity Indicators is provided, along with a set of criteria for their deployment. Lastly, a case involving a Large Scale Retail Trade (LSRT) company is reported to report an example for guiding KAIs adoption.

This research shows that the scientific background concerning KAIs is still not mature. Moreover, the paper defines the role of KAIs for measuring operational activities and their possible connection with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

Although KAIs have been introduced and discussed in the scientific literature; there is no evidence of criteria to deploy these indicators, leaving organizations without any guidance for their operational implementation.

From an academic standpoint, the study provides an overview of the usage of KAIs within the present scientific contributions, showing the advancements of this research field. From an industrial standpoint, the research proposes a set of criteria for the organizational deployment of KAIs.

The study investigates the concept of KAIs that, besides being originally conceived within World Class Manufacturing (WCM), has not received much attention in the scientific literature.

Warner Winslow Gardner's notes on The Institutional Theory of John R. Commons (1933) are published here for the first time, as far as the present editors can determine. The typewritten manuscript was found among the Robert Lee Hale papers at the Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Columbia University.² Gardner (1909–2003) was born in Richmond, Indiana. He went to Westtown School, a Quaker preparatory school in Pennsylvania for five years, and then to Swarthmore College, graduating in 1930. To escape unemployment, as he stated in his recorded reminiscences, Gardner took graduate work on a fellowship at Rutgers University, receiving a Master of Arts Degree in economics in 1931.³ From there he went to Columbia Law School, graduating in 1934. Quite significantly, Gardner attributed his decision of shifting from economics to law to his reading of Commons’ Legal Foundation of Capitalism:It would be 1930–31 and, in the course of that year, I read and was much impressed by a book by John R. Commons at the University of Wisconsin in which he tried to weave together economics and law. I thought, “aha,” here is a field that had real attraction and real potentiality. I ended up with an MA at the end of that year. Instead of going for a Ph.D. in economics, I thought I’d go to law school, study law and try to weave the two disciplines together into a meaningful structure. (Gardner, 1972, p. 16).