Home

Footer

DeepDyve Logo
FacebookTwitter

Features

  • Search and discover articles on DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar
  • Read the full-text of open access and premium content
  • Organize articles with folders and bookmarks
  • Collaborate on and share articles and folders

Info

  • Pricing
  • Enterprise Plans
  • Browse Journals & Topics
  • About DeepDyve

Help

  • Help
  • Publishers
  • Contact Us

Popular Topics

  • COVID-19
  • Climate Change
  • Biopharmaceuticals
Terms |
Privacy |
Security |
Help |
Enterprise Plans |
Contact Us

Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2023 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Subject:
Management of Technology and Innovation
Publisher:
MCB UP Ltd —
Emerald Publishing
ISSN:
0144-3577
Scimago Journal Rank:
146

2023

Volume 43
Issue 13 (Mar)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (May)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2022

Volume 43
Issue 13 (Dec)
Volume 42
Issue 13 (Dec)Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2021

Volume 41
Issue 13 (Dec)Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Oct)Issue 8 (Sep)Issue 7 (Sep)Issue 6 (Aug)Issue 5 (Aug)Issue 4 (Jun)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)

2020

Volume 41
Issue 1 (Dec)
Volume 40
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Dec)Issue 10 (Dec)Issue 9 (Nov)Issue 7/8 (Nov)Issue 6 (Sep)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jun)Issue 3 (Apr)Issue 2 (Jan)Issue 1 (Jan)

2019

Volume 40
Issue 1 (Dec)
Volume 39
Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 9/10 (Nov)Issue 6/7/8 (Nov)Issue 5 (Aug)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Apr)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

2018

Volume 38
Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2017

Volume 37
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2016

Volume 36
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2015

Volume ahead-of-print
ahead-of-print (Nov)
Volume 35
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2014

Volume 34
Issue 12 (Oct)Issue 11 (Sep)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Jan)

2013

Volume 34
Issue 1 (Dec)
Volume 33
Issue 11/12 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2012

Volume 32
Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2011

Volume 31
Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2010

Volume 30
Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2009

Volume 29
Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2008

Volume 28
Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (Apr)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Feb)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2007

Volume 27
Issue 12 (Nov)Issue 11 (Oct)Issue 10 (Sep)Issue 9 (Aug)Issue 8 (Jul)Issue 7 (Jun)Issue 6 (May)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Mar)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2006

Volume 26
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2005

Volume 25
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2004

Volume 24
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2003

Volume 23
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2002

Volume 22
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

2001

Volume 21
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 5/6 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 1/2 (Jan)

2000

Volume 20
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1999

Volume 19
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 5/6 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1998

Volume 18
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 9/10 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1997

Volume 17
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1996

Volume 16
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1995

Volume 15
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1994

Volume 21
Issue 3 (Jun)
Volume 14
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1993

Volume 13
Issue 12 (Dec)Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1992

Volume 12
Issue 11 (Nov)Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 7/8 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1991

Volume 11
Issue 10 (Oct)Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1990

Volume 10
Issue 9 (Sep)Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1989

Volume 9
Issue 8 (Aug)Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1988

Volume 8
Issue 7 (Jul)Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1987

Volume 7
Issue 6 (Jun)Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1986

Volume 6
Issue 5 (May)Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1985

Volume 5
Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1984

Volume 4
Issue 4 (Apr)Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1983

Volume 3
Issue 3 (Mar)Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)

1982

Volume 2
Issue 3 (Mar)

1981

Volume 2
Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Feb)
Volume 1
Issue 3 (Jan)

1980

Volume 1
Issue 2 (Feb)Issue 1 (Jan)
journal article
LitStream Collection
Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study

Adam Paul Brunet; Steve New

2003 International Journal of Operations & Production Management

doi: 10.1108/01443570310506704

This paper reports the study of kaizen as practised in a selection of Japanese companies. After discussing the general understanding of kaizen and proposing a clear definition, the paper describes the methodology of the study, and presents findings from the research, taking Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) as a base model and comparing this with the data from other companies. The development of kaizen activity in NSC is presented together with a description of the current nature of kaizen , which is compared with other firms in the steel and automotive industries to assess uniformity. The paper concludes that kaizen evolves uniquely within each organisation, following changes to the organisation's business environment. Detailed implementations vary considerably between organisations, but all rely on kaizen to achieve targets as an integral element in the operations management system. This yields insights into kaizen 's sustainability, and points to its vulnerability to external economic conditions.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Strategic models for the development of obligation based inter‐firm relationships A study of the UK automotive industry

Paul D. Cousins; Michael J. Crone

2003 International Journal of Operations & Production Management

doi: 10.1108/01443570310506713

This paper seeks to examine the link between the academic debates on obligation contracting and its successful implementation as a mode of governance. The literature reports that firms are increasingly entering into long‐term, high dependency exchanges as a result of: increased demand for quality goods, demand for variability of goods, demand for constant innovation, severe price competition and increasing technology costs. These changes are forcing firms to enter into complex relationships with other firms in order to remain competitive. Examples of such relationships are: relational contracting, network organisations, strategic alliances and horizontal co‐operation. The increase in number and complexity of these exchanges in an environment characterised by uncertainty has led to the increased interest in the use of obligation contracting. Furthermore, this interest has been reinforced by the changing nature of products being exchanged. More knowledge‐based products and information‐based modes of production necessitate the sharing of strategically sensitive data. Hence the rise of importance of obligation contracting is not only due to the increased number of complex exchanges in uncertain environments, but also the very nature of the goods being exchanged.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Measures vs actions: the balanced scorecard in Swedish Law Enforcement

Salvador Carmona; Anders Grönlund

2003 International Journal of Operations & Production Management

doi: 10.1108/01443570310506722

Studies of organizational performance have overwhelmingly relied on evidence gathered from private sector firms. Nevertheless, the past several years have witnessed increasing interest in enhancing effectiveness and efficiency in the public sector, in turn generating considerable investment in the deployment of performance metrics in such settings. Though extant evidence provides many perceptive insights into the specifics of performance frameworks in public sector organizations, little is known about the measurement of organizational performance in police work. Our investigation drew upon the deployment of the balanced scorecard in Swedish Law Enforcement, an organization that long ago implemented the new paradigm of policing, which consisted of enhancing the quality of urban life on the mere making of arrests. Results from this investigation concur with other studies indicating that public sector organizations tend to assume a stakeholder perspective on performance measurement. In particular, Swedish Law Enforcement developed a set of measures of external success and internal performance that addressed present, past, and future time dimensions. Implementation of the balanced scorecard in police work, though, raised some problems. Our study details concern about the aggregation of non‐financial performance measures. More importantly, some crucial areas in the new concept of policing (such as community policing) were neglected by the system. Conversely, the system focused on monitoring some easy‐to‐measure indicators that provided a traditional view of police work while some crucial areas of policing were not measured. This focus ultimately lessened the operational potential of the balanced scorecard system. Our study also puts forward some suggestions for future research in this area.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Drivers of volume flexibility requirements in manufacturing plants

Adegoke Oke

2003 International Journal of Operations & Production Management

doi: 10.1108/01443570310506731

This paper presents the results of a major survey and case study of UK manufacturing plants in six major industrial sectors: electronics, process, engineering (capital), engineering (consumer), household goods and food. The paper explores the conditions under which volume flexibility is required by manufacturing plants. The major driver of volume flexibility requirements in manufacturing plants was found to be demand variability regardless of differences in sector, product and other plant characteristics. Other major drivers of volume flexibility were demand uncertainty, short product life‐cycle, short product shelf life, supply chain complexity and action of competitors. The applicability of most of these drivers is independent of the industrial sector. Drivers may be generic or may be dependent on the contextual or sectoral characteristics specific to a plant. The requirement for volume flexibility is, therefore, dictated by the specific conditions which a plant is faced with, and the degree of volume flexibility required varies widely.
journal article
LitStream Collection
Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of research units

Santanu Roy; P.S. Nagpaul; Pratap K.J. Mohapatra

2003 International Journal of Operations & Production Management

doi: 10.1108/01443570310506740

Research and development (R&D) effectiveness has traditionally been measured in quantitative terms using measures such as the number of published papers (in journals, conference proceedings, etc.); patents; technologies successfully transferred or the external cash flow secured by a R&D organization. These are at times coupled with qualitative indicators such as the impact factor of the journals in which the papers are published and science citation index. However, all these measures often fail to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of research units (RUs) that carry out technological innovation projects. The present study examines this important conceptual question. The study attempts to develop a subjective measure of effectiveness of RU functioning within the laboratories under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India, in terms of peer review at four levels – self assessment, head of the RU, external scientific, and external administrative evaluators, using data from 236 RUs working in different laboratories functioning under CSIR. The measurement model component of structural equation modeling methodology using the LISREL 7.16 program has been adopted as the primary methodology for the study. In the measurement model presented, the observed indicators of the different effectiveness measure concepts (R&D effectiveness, user‐oriented effectiveness, administrative effectiveness and recognition) are assumed to possess causal relations with one another. Since subjective measures have not only weak measurement properties, but are also influenced by systematic and random measurement errors, the model's reliability and construct validity – both in terms of convergent validity and discriminate validity – have been ascertained.
Browse All Journals

Related Journals:

European Journal of Innovation ManagementInnovation: Management, Policy and PracticeInternational Journal of Services and Standards