## 5 Results
### Analysis of Improvement Effects before and after Implementation  
To comprehensively evaluate the improvement effects before and after implementation, an analysis was conducted on the enhancement of four capability domains: information traceability, production efficiency, cost control, and quality control. Multiple key indicators were selected under each capability domain to measure the operational status of the workshop. Additionally, a nine-point scale method was employed to scientifically assess the importance of each indicator, with a particular focus on performance in areas such as information traceability, quality control, and the reduction of non-value-added time. To determine the weight coefficients of the evaluation indicators, the Full Consistency Method (FUCOM) was utilized to ascertain the specific weight for each indicator. The advantage of this method lies in minimizing the deviation between the weight coefficients and the estimated comparative priorities, ensuring the accuracy and consistency of the weight coefficients. The indicator parameters and weight coefficients used for evaluation are shown in Table 12; the main evaluation indicators under the traceability capability domain include traceability coverage (denoted as I\({}_{1}\)), traceability accuracy (denoted as I\({}_{2}\)), and traceability response speed (denoted as I\({}_{3}\)). The main evaluation indicators under the  
Figure 17: Implementation of Traceability of Manufacturing Process Information. (**a**) Traceability of Order Progress, (**b**) Traceability of Work in Process, (**c**) Traceability of Quality Information. production efficiency capability domain include cycle time (denoted as I\({}_{4}\)) and equipment maintenance response time (denoted as I\({}_{5}\)). The main evaluation indicators under the cost control capability domain include material outbound operation time (denoted as I\({}_{6}\)), finished products inbound time (denoted as I\({}_{7}\)), raw material waste (denoted as I\({}_{8}\)), and work-in-progress transfer time (denoted as I\({}_{9}\)). The main evaluation indicators under the quality control capability domain include pass rate (denoted as I\({}_{10}\)) and error-proofing status of materials (denoted as I\({}_{11}\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  
Based on the data requirements of the four capability domains and eleven parameters, the average daily operational data of the workshop was continuously collected and recorded for 15 days before and after implementation, as shown in Table 13.  
Since the values of the indicators contain data of different dimensions and scales, normalization was applied to these raw data for ease of subsequent analysis and comparison (as shown in Formula (21)). Then, the scores for the four capability domains and the total score for workshop operations were calculated. \[x^{\prime}=\frac{x-x_{\text{min}}}{x_{\text{max}}-x_{\text{min}}} \tag{21}\]  
The score for each capability domain is the weighted sum of all indicator parameters under that domain, as shown in Formula (22). For indicators where smaller parameter values are better, the weight coefficient is negative; for indicators where larger parameter values are better, the weight coefficient is positive. _Score of the capability domain \(=\sum(\text{Weight of the indicator}\times\text{Value of the indicator})\)_  
The overall score for workshop operation is the sum of the scores from all capability domains, as shown in Formula (23). \[\text{Total score}=\sum\text{Score of the capability domains} \tag{23}\]  
Based on the calculation principles outlined in Formulas (21)-(23), the average scores for the capability domains and the total daily scores were obtained for the 15 days before and after project implementation. As shown in Figure 18, the average levels of the four capability domains have improved post-implementation, particularly in traceability and quality control, which saw significant enhancements.