Search results

Workload contribution calculation approaches in the existing literature overestimate or underestimate indirect workload, which increases both workload fluctuation and shop floor throughput performance. This study optimizes a Corrected Aggregate Workload (CAW) approach to control the workload contribution of workstations and Work In Progress (WIP) levels, thereby improving the shop floor throughput performance.

This study adopts simulation experiment by SimPy, and experimental factors are: (1) two workload contribution methods (CAW method and considering Position Corrected Aggregate Workload [PCAW] method); (2) two release methods (LUMS COR release and immediate release); (3) eleven workload norms for LUMS COR release (from 7- to 15-time units), and infinite workload norm for immediate release; and (4) two dispatching rules (First Come First Served, FCFS and Operation Due Date, ODD). Each scenario is replicated 100 times, and for each replication data are collected for 10,000 time units, being the warm-up period set to 3,000-time units.

The results of this study confirm that the PCAW calculation method outperforms the CAW method, especially during higher workload norm levels. The PCAW method is considered the better solution in practice due to its excellent performance in terms of percentage tardiness and mean tardiness time. The efficient workload contribution approach, as discussed in this study, has the potential to offset delivery performance loss that results from throughput performance loss.

This study proposes a novel approach that considers the workstations’ position in the routing of the job and the position of jobs CAW method. The results demonstrated that it allows shop floor throughput time to be short and feasible. It controls WIP by workload contribution of workstations, resulting in a lean shop floor. Therefore, workload contribution calculation is of particular significance for high-variety Make-To-Order (MTO) companies.

This study aims to provide an overall framework that connects and explains a macro-perspective of the findings from the five studies of this special issue. Through this, we aim to answer two main questions: How can Lean and Industry 4.0 be integrated, and what are the outcomes for workers from such integration?

The special issue received 64 papers that were evaluated in multiple stages until this final sample of five papers that describe different facets of the integration between Lean and Industry 4.0 and their relationship with worker activities. In this introduction, we review the main findings of these five studies and propose an integrative view and associated propositions. A discussion provides directions to advance the field further.

The framework shows that when Lean and Industry 4.0 are integrated, companies will face two types of tensions, dialectical and paradoxical, which require different managerial approaches. By managing such tensions, the Lean-Industry 4.0 integration can help improve social performance, as well as develop systematic problem-solving and cumulative learning capabilities. Five important themes for this field of research are outlined: the importance of work routines, legitimation, competence, sense and mental flexibility.

This study brings a new theoretical perspective to the integration of Lean with Industry 4.0-related digital technologies. The results go beyond the usual view of improving operational performance and dig into the effects on workers. It also shows that the integration process relies on and can enhance human capabilities such as learning and problem-solving.

This study focuses on (re-)introducing computer simulation as a part of the research paradigm. Simulation is a widely applied research method in supply chain and operations management. However, leading journals, such as the International Journal of Operations and Production Management, have often been reluctant to accept simulation studies. This study provides guidelines on how to conduct simulation research that advances theory, is relevant, and matters.

This study pooled the viewpoints of the editorial team of the International Journal of Operations and Production Management and authors of simulation studies. The authors debated their views and outlined why simulation is important and what a compelling simulation should look like.

There is an increasing importance of considering uncertainty, an increasing interest in dynamic phenomena, such as the transient response(s) to disruptions, and an increasing need to consider complementary outcomes, such as sustainability, which many researchers believe can be tackled by big data and modern analytical tools. But building, elaborating, and testing theory by purposeful experimentation is the strength of computer simulation. The authors therefore argue that simulation should play an important role in supply chain and operations management research, but for this, it also has to evolve away from simply generating and analyzing data. Four types of simulation research with much promise are outlined: empirical grounded simulation, simulation that establishes causality, simulation that supplements machine learning, artificial intelligence and analytics and simulation for sensitive environments.

This study identifies reasons why simulation is important for understanding and responding to today's business and societal challenges, it provides some guidance on how to design good simulation studies in this context and it links simulation to empirical research and theory going beyond multimethod studies.

Experiencing more frequent, system-wide disruptions, such as pandemics and geopolitical conflicts, supply chains can be largely destabilized by a lack of materials, services or components. Supply chain resilience (SCRES) constitutes the network ability to recover after and survive during such unexpected events. To enhance the understanding of SCRES as a system-wide quality, this study tests a comprehensive SCRES model with data from multiple industries.

The study proposes a theoretical framework conceptualizing SCRES as system quality, extending the classical proactive/reactive taxonomy by multiple system states consisting of the supply system properties, behaviors and responses to disruptions. Underlying hypotheses were tested using an online survey. The sample consists of 219 responses from German industries. Maximum likelihood structural equation modeling (ML-SEM) and moderation analysis were used for analyzing the survey data. The study was particularly designed to elaborate on supply chain theory.

Two pathways of parallel SCRES building were identified: proactive preparedness via anticipation and reactive responsiveness via agility. Both system responses are primarily built simultaneously rather than successively. The present study further provides empirical evidence on the central role of visibility and velocity in achieving comprehensive SCRES, while flexibility only exerts short-term support after a disruption. The study additionally points to potential “spillover effects” such as the vital role of proactive SCRES in achieving reactive responsiveness.

The present study confirms and expands existing theories on SCRES. While stressing the multidimensionality of SCRES, it theorizes the (inter-)temporal evolution of a system and offers practical guidelines for SCRES building in various industrial contexts. It thus supports the transformation toward more resilient and viable supply chains, contributing to the increasing efforts of middle-range theory building to achieve an overarching theory. The study also points to potential future research avenues.

Supply chains must rebuild for resilience to respond to challenges posed by systemwide disruptions. Unlike past disruptions that were narrow in impact and short-term in duration, the Covid pandemic presented a systemic disruption and revealed shortcomings in responses. This study outlines an approach to rebuilding supply chains for resilience, integrating innovation in areas critical to supply chain management.

The study is based on extensive debates among the authors and their peers. The authors focus on three areas deemed fundamental to supply chain resilience: (1) forecasting, the starting point of supply chain planning, (2) the practices of supply chain risk management and (3) product design, the starting point of supply chain design. The authors’ debated and pooled their viewpoints to outline key changes to these areas in response to systemwide disruptions, supported by a narrative literature review of the evolving research, to identify research opportunities.

All three areas have evolved in response to the changed perspective on supply chain risk instigated by the pandemic and resulting in systemwide disruptions. Forecasting, or prediction generally, is evolving from statistical and time-series methods to human-augmented forecasting supplemented with visual analytics. Risk management has transitioned from enterprise to supply chain risk management to tackling systemic risk. Finally, product design principles have evolved from design-for-manufacturability to design-for-adaptability. All three approaches must work together.

The authors outline the evolution in research directions for forecasting, risk management and product design and present innovative research opportunities for building supply chain resilience against systemwide disruptions.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Integration of Industry 4.0 technologies with Lean Manufacturing principles can help realize benefits that include positive impacts on learning, problem solving and social performance. But achieving these outcomes demands relevant management approaches to deal with the dialectic and paradoxical tensions that this alignment can pose.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

Being acquainted with both lean and action learning in theory and in practice, this study finds that the theoretical complementarity of these two research streams has traditionally been underexploited. In this conceptual paper, this study aims to advance the theoretical understanding of lean by exploring the complementarity of lean thinking and action learning leading to a proposed integrated theory of these two research streams. Target audience is the operations management research community.

By deliberately adopting a process of theorising, this paper explores, reflects upon and combines individual experiences of researching, teaching and engaging in lean and action learning as operations management scholars.

Having taken a gemba walk through the literature and practices of lean and action learning, this study views and notices a systematic and complementary relationship between the two domains. The overlapping theoretical and practical complementarities of lean and action learning suggest that these two research streams are ripe for synthesis into an integrated theory. This finding provides an opportunity to (1) progress towards an integrative design of interventions leading to more sustainable lean system adoptions and (2) add new depth to our theoretical explanation of the success and failures of lean system adoptions.

This paper contributes an original integrated theory perspective on lean and action learning.