Application of the quick scan audit methodology in an industrial filter production process

The quick scan audit methodology (QSAM) is an established investigative tool to assess the health of business processes and supply chains within short schedules. This study extends the standard QSAM procedure to include the simulation step. It also extends the QSAM to a wider industry platform by applying it into the precision mechanical engineering industry, where managers have been under competitive pressure to reduce an industrial filter production lead time. Following a review of the relevant literature, this paper presents the research design adopted in the study. The QSAM has been conducted using various data collection techniques (such as observations, process activity mapping, interviews, questionnaires, brainstorming and access to company documents) and data analysis methods (including cause and effect analysis, Pareto analysis and time series plot). This is followed by the development of a set of improvement strategies, namely, direct information sharing, priority planning, and additional data recording and analysis. In addition to testing the potential benefits of changing scheduling approaches for the paint plant, simulation has been utilized in this study as a communication means to increase employee participation in the QSAM process and enhance the audit accuracy. It has also provided the case company with a better understanding of the behaviour and characteristics of the system under study, thus facilitating more thoughtful decisions to improve the system. The paper concludes with further research opportunities derived from this study

Exploring types of focused factories in hospital care: a multiple case study

Background: Focusing on specific treatments or diseases is proposed as a way to increase the efficiency of hospital care. The definition of "focus" or "focused factory", however, lacks clarity. Examples in health care literature relate to very different organizations.\ud Our aim was to explore the application of the focused factory concept in hospital care, including an indication of its performance, resulting in a conceptual framework that can be helpful in further identifying different types of focused factories. Thus contributing to the understanding of the diversity of examples found in the literature. - \ud \ud Methods: We conducted a cross-case comparison of four multiple-case studies into hospital care. To cover a broad array of focus, different specialty fields were selected. Each study investigated the organizational context, the degree of focus, and the operational performance. Focus was measured using an instrument translated from industry. Data were collected using both qualitative and quantitative methods and included site visits. A descriptive analysis was performed at the case study and cross-case studies level. - \ud \ud Results: The operational performance per specialty field varied considerably, even when cases showed comparable degrees of focus. Cross-case comparison showed three focus domains. The product domain considered specialty based focused factories that treated patients for a single-specialty, but did not pursue a specific strategy nor adapted work-designs or layouts. The process domain considered delivery based focused factories that treated multiple groups of patients and often pursued strategies to improve efficiency and timeliness and adapted work-designs and physical layouts to minimize delays. The product-process domain considered procedure based focused factories that treated a single well-defined group of patients offering one type of treatment. The strategic focusing decisions and the design of the care delivery system appeared especially important for delivery and procedure based focused factories. - \ud \ud Conclusions: Focus in hospital care relates to limitations on the patient group treated and the range of services offered. Based on these two dimensions, we identified three types of focused factories: specialty based, delivery based, and procedure based. Focus could lead to better operational performance, but only when clear strategic focusing decisions are made

External Learning Opportunities and the Diffusion of Process Innovations to Small Firms: The Case of Programmable Automation

In this chapter, we are concerned with explaining which types of firms have failed to adopt well-known improvements in process technology. This problem has, of course, been the underlying concern of all studies of diffusion “to rationalize why, if a new technology is superior, it is not taken up by all potential adopters” (Stoneman, 1983). Drawing on various theoretical perspectives, we identify a number of different barriers to adoption. With data collected from a 1987 nationally representative sample of US establishments in 21 metal-working and machinery manufacturing industries, we then construct a multivariate logistic regression model to empirically test for the effects of these factors on the likelihood of adoption of a particular process innovation, namely programmable automation (PA) machine tools

Making a meaningful contribution to theory

Purpose – The need to make a “theoretical contribution” is a presumed mandate that permeates any researcher’s career in the Social Sciences, yet all too often this remains a source of confusion and frustration. The purpose of this paper is to reflect on, and further develops, the principal themes discussed in the “OM Theory” workshop in Dublin in 2011 and the special sessions at the 2011 and the 2013 EurOMA Conferences in Cambridge and Dublin. Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents six short essays that explore the role and use of theory in management research, and specifically ask what is a good or meaningful contribution to theory. The authors comment on the current state of theory in Operations Management (OM) (Harry Boer), the type of theories the authors have in OM (Chris Voss), the role of theory in increasing the general understanding of OM problems (Roger Schmenner), whether the authors can borrow theories from other fields or actually have theory “of our own” (Matthias Holweg), the different ways in which a contribution to theory can be made (Martin Kilduff), and how to construct a theoretical argument (Mark Pagell). Findings – The authors argue that theory is fundamental to OM research, but that it is not the inevitable starting point; discovery and observation are equally important and often neglected avenues to contributing to theory. Also, there is no one right way to making a contribution, yet consistency between ontology, epistemology, and claimed contribution is what matters. The authors further argue that the choice of theory is critical, as a common mistake is trying to contribute to high-level theories borrowed from other fields. Finally, the authors recommend using theory parsimoniously, yet with confidence. Originality/value – The paper presents a collection of viewpoints of senior scholars on the need for, and use of, theory in OM research