ArticleScientific reports2025
Integrating decision tools for efficient operations management through innovative approaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a dynamic business environment, operations management (OM) is essential for enhancing efficiency, minimizing costs, and promoting sustainable growth. Traditional OM methods frequently encounter difficulties in balancing various criteria, including cost, quality, resource utilization, and adaptability, resulting in a lack of clear guidance for organizations in selecting optimal strategies. This study presents a novel decision-support framework that combines objective and subjective insights to improve OM strategy selection. This research is distinguished by its innovative integration of three advanced methodologies: CRITIC (Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) for objective weighting, CIMAS (Criteria Importance Assessment) for subjective weight determination, and WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment) for comprehensive strategy ranking. This hybrid weighting approach signifies a notable progression in operations management research, facilitating a balanced and practical evaluation of competing strategies. This study assesses five advanced OM approaches: lean management, automation, sustainability-driven operations, flexible workforce allocation, and data-driven decision-making, in relation to eight essential performance criteria. Our findings indicate that data-driven decision-making is a prominent strategy for achieving operational excellence, whereas alternative approaches exhibit distinct advantages across various performance dimensions. The results highlight the significant potential of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques in assisting operations management leaders and policymakers in making informed, performance-oriented decisions. This study redefines the future of operations management by addressing efficiency and sustainability goals, offering a practical roadmap for organizations facing complex operational challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.