Proceedings of the 13th IFAC Symposium on

Information Control Problems in Manufacturing

Moscow, Russia, June 3-5, 2009

Supply Chain Performance Measurement: management models, performance

indicators and interoperability
Yves Ducq1, Lamia Berrah2

1
IMS-LAPS/GRAI, University of Bordeaux, UMR 5218 CNRS - 351 Cours de la Libération, 33405 Talence, France
2
LISTIC, University of Savoie, BP 806 - 74016 Annecy cedex, France
Email: {yves.ducq@laps.ims-bordeaux.fr; lamia.berrah@univ-savoie.fr}

Abstract: Complex Supply Chains cannot be controlled without a coherent decision system and a coherent
set of performance indicators. So, first of all, this paper presents a decision system model using GRAI
method. This model is presented at the global level (i.e. the whole supply chain level) and at the local level
(i.e. the level of each company of the chain). Then, performance indicators are proposed at both levels, using
ECOGRAI Method. But in order to collect and aggregate such performance indicators at the global level, it is
necessary for the various companies to use compatible decision support system. This leads to an
interoperability problem which is highlighted in the last part of this paper, insisting on solutions to solve this
problem.

Keywords: Supply Chain management - SCM, Performance Measurement System - PMS, SCOR model,
GRAI model, Interoperability.

model the SC (Villa, 2001). For instance, the SCOR (Supply

1. INTRODUCTION
The necessity of permanently increasing reactivity and
competitiveness of manufacturing companies has led industrial
decision-makers to look for new ways of management and
improvement. And running among which, we can find many
kind of concepts, such as, recently:
ƒ the lean philosophy for manufacturing improvement
(Woomack et al, 2003),
ƒ the virtual enterprises idea for dealing with the relations
between companies,
ƒ the Supply Chain Management SCM for the control when
the manufacturing system is defined through many
companies (Ayers, 2000),
ƒ …
In the current industrial context, manufacturing companies
cannot always produce all the components of the products they
propose. Thus, they either buy a large part of these components
from suppliers or subcontract their manufacturing with other
companies. This exchange of physical and information flows is
considered as a network. In term of manufacturing and logistics,
this network can be seen as a SC which connects via vendor-
customer relationships the ultimate customer to the ultimate
supplier (Barut et al, 2002). In this sense, the SC is defined as
the life cycle processes comprising physical, information,
financial and knowledge flows whose purpose is to satisfy end-
user requirements with products and services from multiple
linked suppliers (Ayers, 2000). In this context, management
must deal with the design, maintenance and operation of SC
processes, for the satisfaction of end-user needs (Ayers, 2000).
In order to help management, a lot of propositions are made to
Chain Operations Reference) model (SCC, 2008) proposes to
take the different SC flows into account in a common manner.
Indeed, by the set of defined categories of processes and sub-
processes, SCOR is able to represent the different types of
manufacturing organisation. So, it is easier for the decision-
makers to consider the whole SC, which is a necessary
condition to consider the consequences of their decision.
Besides, another important point concerns the measurement
of the SC performance (Beamon, 1998). This aspect remains
a difficult problem (Angerhofer et al, 2006), which is often
handled in two different ways:
ƒ the SC performance is the result of respectively, the
intra-organisational performance (Fortuin, 1988; Neely,
1999) of the different implied companies and, the
performance of the interaction between these companies
(Folan, 2005),
ƒ the SC is traditionally seen as a particular process, and
its performance is thus expressed w.r.t. the process
recommendations of the ISO 9000 standard.
According to the second vision, the current scorecards generally
collect sets of performance measurements - resulting from the
comparison of the assigned objectives and the measures
describing the considered processes or activities’ enactment -
about the processes of the SC, usually w.r.t. the SCOR model.
Nevertheless, the question of the overall performance resulting
from the process performances is rarely approached. Indeed,
performance indicators are associated to each process of SCOR,
thus providing information for local control. But the provided
performances are independently defined, as each process is
separately evaluated from the others. This partitioned vision is
not able to consider SC as a whole and thus to efficiently

978-3-902661-43-2/09/$20.00 © 2009 IFAC 2053 10.3182/20090603-3-RU-2001.0498

13th IFAC INCOM (INCOM'09)
Moscow, Russia, June 3-5, 2009
control it. In this sense, the involved indicators must be
enriched by the knowledge of the links between them (Lohman
et al, 2004; Cliville et al, 2007). Therefore, the interest for an
overall performance expression for all or a part of the SC is
acknowledged, as is the case for process control in individual
companies. More precisely, for a SC, this expression helps
decision-makers to (Chan et al, 2003):
ƒ compare different organizations (e.g. the localization of
the warehouses),
ƒ manage and improve the whole SC (e.g. a change of
supplier, the transition from make-to-stock to assembly-
to-order…),
ƒ evaluate effect of local actions on the whole
performance,
ƒ benchmark all or a part of the SC (e.g. the delivery
reliability is worse than the median of the class).
But in order to implement such performance evaluation, two
conditions must be satisfied:
ƒ the coherent definition of the performance expressions,
both local and global ones,
ƒ the “interoperability” of decisional tool components
(ETL, datawarehouse, OLAP).
The first condition is related to the performance structure,
which is widely considered in the literature. Most of the
Performance Measurement Systems – PMS’s - proposals are
logical frameworks for linking strategic objectives,
structuring the tactical and operational criteria affecting them
(Ravelomanantsoa, 2006). For instance, the SMART (System
Measurement Analysis and Reporting Technique) model
proposes to break down the objectives of the company along
four levels – company, business units, business operating
units and departments and work centres - according to ten
measures such as delay, quality, customer satisfaction…
(Cross et al, 1989). The ABC/ABM (Activity Based
Costing/Activity Based Modelling) model identifies the
activities and processes which generate value in the company
(Brimson, 1991). The BSC (Balanced Scorecard) defines four
axes (criteria) - processes, organisational learning, financial
and customers - in order to express company performance
(Kaplan et al, 1996). In the same way, the PPMS (Process
Performance Measurement System) measures the company
performance according to five aspects - financial, innovation,
customer, societal and employee (Kueng et al, 1999). The
ECOGRAI approach identifies three criteria - delay, quality
and cost – for the definition of multi-criteria performance,
and this for all the processes/activities of the company (Ducq,
1999). In addition, quantitative approaches have been
proposed in order to deal with the performance expressions,
at the different levels, proposing to quantify the aggregation
link between them (Berrah et al, 2004). The MACBETH
(Multi Attractiveness Categorical Based Evaluation
TecHnique) methodology (Bana e costa et al, 2004) has been
thus used to coherently express both the elementary and the
global performance expressions. Ensuring the coherence
requirement implies that first the elementary expressions
must be “commensurate”, i.e. two identical values (e.g. 0.8)
according to two different criteria (e.g. lead_time and quality)
must have the same meaning for the decision-makers.
2054
Second, the aggregation operator must be “significant” w.r.t.
the elementary expressions. For example, if the aggregation
operator is the arithmetic mean, the significance condition is
translated into the following proposition: for each criterion,
the same difference between two values must have the same
meaning (e.g. [0.8 - 0.5] and [0.4 - 0.1]). This condition
ensures that an elementary performance can be compensated
by another one (Krantz et al, 1971).
Besides, the problem of SC performance measurement cannot
be only focused on the definition of PMS’s but also on their
implementation. According to the second condition
mentioned before, the main problem is to make the PMS’s
software communicating in order to calculate the aggregated
performance expression at the SC level. This communication
implies not only an “interoperability” from an IT point of
view but also the necessity to have coherent performance
expressions in the database of each company in order to
express the global performance by aggregating them.
This study presents some reflections about the notion of PMS’s
“interoperability” in a SCM context. More precisely, the aim of
this work is to think about the necessary conditions to the
definition of indicators and aggregation mechanisms in a SCM
context. So, we present first some modelling principles and
points of view around both the global control of a SC and the
local control of each of the involved companies. These
principles are mainly based on both the SCOR model and the
GRAI Methodology, these approaches being complementary.
We suggest thus how they can be combined. The fourth section
concerns reference models for the global and local controls
using the concepts of the two described models. We propose
then performance indicators associated to the global and local
controls. Finally, we focus on some elements to ensure
interoperability in the SC, in particular thanks to enterprise
models. For concluding, we discuss about the main challenges
to have a coherent and efficient SC and in particular the need of
interoperability between chain members at different levels.
2. SCM: GLOBAL AND LOCAL POINTS OF VIEW
In the frame of a SC, the suppliers, customers, sub-contractors
of various levels must be considered as partners working
together for the benefits of all in winning-winning relationships.
In reality, the relationships are often very different and not
symmetric in particular for SME’s (Breuil, 2000). The main
manufacturer wants to influence the chain in order to achieve
his own objectives and to promote his interests to the detriment
of those of other partners. This is one of the symptoms of the
lack of global SC control and in particular of the lack of global
objectives definition toward which all the suppliers and
customers must tend. Indeed, in a lot of SC configurations, the
global control exists but is imposed by the main manufacturer
and is not negotiated with the different partners.
The second problem encountered concerns the uncertainty in
the forecasts and in the planning in SC. It is obvious that even if
the uncertainty exists for each member of the SC, it is amplified
upstream from the chain and leads to an amplification of the
variation of the demand for these partners: this is the “Bull-
whip effect” (Lee, 1997).
A third problem concerns the incapacity for the main
13th IFAC INCOM (INCOM'09)
Moscow, Russia, June 3-5, 2009
manufacturer to understand the performance requirements of
each member. This leads him to look for a continuous reduction
of costs from his partners until sometimes to the death of this
subcontractor. This disappearance can imply to look for other
partners with lost of time and lost of money. More frequent is
the lack of communication and exchange of information
between the members who are not then aware on the load
planning and constraints upstream from the chain. But in a
collaborative work, quicker is not always better and less
expensive not always desirable. So, finally, each member gives
a greater importance to his own objectives instead of SC global
ones. That is why we think that an efficient management system
at the local and global levels connected with an efficient PMS is
an appropriate solution to avoid above problems.
The first tentative to have a more integrated SCM is to integrate
the information system. This is often set up by the
implementation of a common ERP or an APS or a SCM
software tool. Nevertheless, this integration by the way of
information is not sufficient if the decisional control is not
strongly defined. In this sense, we choose to implement this
control with two different dimensions: at the global level, we
propose to have a global decision system covering the whole
functions of the SC; at the local level, with a complete
decisional system for each member coherently with the global
one. In order to define these global and the local control
systems, we propose to use enterprise models like SCOR and
GRAI Methodology (Doumeingts, 2001). Both models are
considered because of their complementarities. The SCOR
model is well detailed but restricted to a specific part of a
supply chain. The GRAI Model is more generic but can be
extended to all parts of a SC, from the commercial to the
recycling through the design activities. The interests of
enterprise modelling methods as GRAI methodology are to:
ƒ represent and then to understand and design decisional
mechanisms,
ƒ allow a relevant and rapid specification of ERP or APS or
SCM software tools,
ƒ involve future users of the SC in the definition of the
control system and in particular in the definition of
objectives, decision variables and performance indicators;
knowing that the non appropriateness of human resources
to the SC principles and specifications is often a cause of
failure for the implementation of the chain,
ƒ allow the standardisation of business processes for all the
members of the chain. This standardisation is an
important point to facilitate the implementation of
common IT tools,
ƒ show the cooperation relationships and to allow a
continuous progress of the running of the supply chain
with updating the knowledge and then of the models. This
can support the complete implementation of quality
accreditation for the chain.
3. THE SCOR AND GRAI MODELS
3.1. The SCOR Model
The SCOR model (SCC, 2008) is a cross-industry standard for
modelling and improving complete or partial SCM system. It
has been developed and supported by the Supply-Chain Council
SCC, an independent not-for-profit corporation founded in
2055
1996. The SCOR model has been revised many times to meet
members needs and requirements. The version 6.0 is the latest
version of the model. The model is highly scalable and can be
used to configure and improve the complete extended SC or
only a small part of it. SCOR offers a common language that
can be used by each partner of the extended SC. It allows a
good communication through the different parts of the chain. It
also offers standard metrics for each management processes and
benchmarking of SC performance for different industries.
More precisely, SCOR distinguish four abstraction levels, going
from the more generic one (level 1) to the more particular (level
4). At level 1, the scope of the SC and the performance targets
set are defined, by the analysis of the gaps with the competition
performances. Each company of the SC is described through
five processes: Plan – Source – Make – Deliver – Return. At
level 2, the company is configuring its “as is” SC and the “to
be” by implementing its operation strategies. Namely, the level
1 processes are specified (e.g. the Source process is identified in
the S1 process i.e. Source Stocked Product process, or the S2
process i.e. Source Make-to-Order Product or the S3 process
i.e. Source Engineer-to-Order Product). At level 3, the
processes of level 2 are deployed into sub-processes according
to the company organization. At level 4, the activities which
constitute the sub-processes are defined specifically w.r.t. the
organization of the company. The implementation level is not
included in the SCOR model definition.
3.2 The GRAI Model
Our purpose is not to describe the GRAI method. Therefore, for
a best understanding we only propose a short description of the
GRAI grid because this concerns the main formalism for the
decisional modelling. The GRAI grid takes up the hierarchical
and functional approach. It allows identifying the set of decision
centres of the studied system, as well as their links. The GRAI
grid is presented in the form of a matrix (figure 1) with:
ƒ the managerial axis or control axis which represents the
various decision levels which can be found in the
company. This axis is decomposed hierarchically in
several levels, defined by the horizon and the period of
decision making.
ƒ the function axis which describes the various activities
required to the product life cycle. It is decomposed into
several functions which group a set of activities having a
same identified finality (engineering, manufacturing,
quality, maintenance, delivery, recycling...). Each function
of this axis can be decomposed in three control functions:
to manage the products (internal or external, it means
procurement and purchasing), to manage the resources
(human or technical) and to plan (to synchronize at each
level product and resource management).
A decision centre is defined as the set of decisions made in one
function and one decision level. The decision centres are
controlling a part of the physical system more or less global
depending on the decision level (at a higher or less level), the
whole GRAI Grid controlling the whole physical system. The
links between decision centres can be information links – one
decision centre uses the information coming from other
decision centres to make the decision – or decisional links: the
13th IFAC INCOM (INCOM'09)
Moscow, Russia, June 3-5, 2009

decision frame. This decision frame is a hierarchical link and policy to the definition of the quality action plan at the tactical
represent the transmission of the decision items (objectives, level. As mentioned above, two functions are added: the
decision variables, constrains and criteria) from one decision sale/marketing and the design. The Sale/marketing function
centre to another to allow the decision-making. manages the sales of the SC from the sale forecast and
marketing strategy to the customer re-launch planning. The
4. MODELLING OF GLOBAL AND LOCAL CONTROLS Design function prepares and then manages the co-design
Now, how is-it possible to use the concepts of SCOR and GRAI between the SC partners. Note that at the strategic level, it s
models for defining global and local controls of SC? In this necessary to define the technologies to be used and developed
combination, we would like to keep the functions of SCOR and, at the tactical level, the new products to design and the
with adding some other relevant ones to have the most complete existing ones to modify. One can remark that at the global
model for SCM. This model is based, at two levels, on the control level, the problem of capacity and resource management
GRAI formalism, especially the GRAI Grid. is not clearly a concern because this is planned at the local level
in each company involved in the chain.
4.1. The global control
4.2. The local control
The interest of SCOR model is to provide reference functions to
control the SC. The interest of GRAI model is to define the The reference model that is presented below is not mandatory
decision centres related to these functions and to add those applicable to all the partners of the SC. This gives guidelines to
which are missed in the SCOR model, in particular the implement local control (Fig. 2). This model is composed also
management of, design, sales and marketing. of three decision levels. It is not interesting to increase the
number of decision level because this leads to a less reactive
Three decision levels are proposed in the control structure. A decisional structure, the results of decisions taking more time to
strategic level aims to define the SC goals and in particular the go from the strategic to the operational levels. Moreover, most
business plan for two years reconsidered every six months. A of the partners of a SC are SME’s whose the decisional
first tactical level aims to set up the means to reach the goals structure needs often to be very reactive to potential events.
through the definition of the method of work and
communication means. The decisions are made for one year The two first levels - strategic and tactical - allow making the
and reconsidered every three months. The global control (Fig. synchronisation (i.e. the coherence of decisions) between the
1) includes a second tactical level in order to optimise monthly global SC and the running of each member. They allow
the flow of products in the supply chain. This optimisation is ensuring the coherence of all decisions. The operational level is
made for six months and reconsidered every month. The value mainly guided by the scheduling and launching decisions.
of horizon and periods are based on our experience of the These are made for one month and reconsidered every week.
requirements for an efficient global control. Indeed, the value of External
information
To manage sales
To manage design
of products
To manage
procurement and
purchasing
To synchronise
To manage
resources
To DELIVER
SC products
To manage
QUALITY and
returns
Internal information

horizons must be superior to the value of the cycle of controlled

(SOURCE)
IE F F F F F F F II
H = 1 an
H= 1 years

activities.
To decide new Investment
P P=
= 33mois
months Firm orders - Consolidated To define To negociate
projects - To set up To define planning in human Quality steering Suppliers
Existing potential forecasts for all procurement transportation
co- enterprise MPS and technical board review performances
partners enterprise products parameters contracts
design projects resources
Strategic level

To manage H H=
= 6 6mois
months
To manage SC To manage Firm sales for
External To manage design procurement and To PLAN Supply To MAKE SC To DELIVER P P=
= 11mois
month To allocate design To define orders for To define
sales and QUALITY and Internal information enterprise products Adjustment of Monthly delivery To define quality Status of
information of SC products purchasing Chain Products SC products Orders resources for each critical enterprise load
marketing returns - Customer capacity planning action plan resources
(SOURCE) design projects procurements planning
relaunch planning
IE F F F F F F F II Tactical level
H = 2 ans H H=
= 1 1mois
H= 2 years Competition - To identify new To define quality month
P P=
= 66mois Activity planning - To define the new Logistic strategy
months Benchmarking partners and their Supply Chain Supply Chain policy Sales and SC P P=
= 11semaine
week Validation of orders To follow and To define short
Sale forecasts - technologies for (which means for Scheduling and Re-alloccation of To define urgent To launch quality Status of
results - Customer role and Business planning Production Plan (documentation, results Orders and scheduling re-orient the term orders - to
Marketing strategy the SC products which area..) launching resources delivery means actions production system
expectations relationships accreditation..) with all customers projects relaunch suppliers
Strategic level Operational level
H = 1 an Planning of To sign frame IE F F F F F F F II
H= 1 years contracts and to To define methods
P P=
= 33mois Firm orders - prospection for new SC Master To negociate

Fig. 2. The local control structure.

months To decide new refine relationships of work and Quality steering Suppliers
Existing potential customers - Production transportation
products to design - to define communication board review performances
partners Consolidated procurement
Schedule contracts
means in the SC
forecasts parameters
Tactical level

The decision centres (in yellow) concern the management of

H = 6 mois
H= 6 months To manage the
P P=
= 11mois
month Firm sales -
modifications to To evaluate critical To optimise flows Load planning at Monthly delivery To define quality Production status
Orders Customer relaunch
existing SC procurements of products the SC level planning action plan of partners
planning

resources in production or design. They allow adapting the

products
Tactical level
IE F F F F F F F II

Fig. 1. The global control structure. capacity of the member to the requirements of the SC. The
decision centres (in green) concern the synchronisation between
The Source function manages the procurements and the product management and resource management. This is the
purchasing of SC products from the identification of key production planning of each member. Of course, a lot of
partners with role and relationships to the definition of orders solutions can exist for decision centres as well as for links
for critical material. between decision centres.
The Make function plans the production inside the SC and in The principles of other functions are the same than for the
particular to determine a production plan and then a master global control but more detailed and more specific to each
production schedule and a global load planning for the whole member of the chain. For instance, the products are all managed
SC in order to avoid overload of one partner which could affect together and not considered separately if they belong to the SC
all those downstream. products or not. Indeed, it is completely possible for a member
The Deliver function manages the external logistic of the SC to produce some items for the SC and others to sell directly to
from the strategy – which transportation means for which customers.
delivery area- to the monthly delivery planning to the final
customers. 5. TOWARDS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The Quality-Returns function manages quality of products DEFINITION
inside the SC and returns from customers including recycling This section deals with the definition of relevant performance
decisions. This starts at the strategic level from the quality indicators to support the management at the various levels. As

2056
13th IFAC INCOM (INCOM'09)
Moscow, Russia, June 3-5, 2009

only an illustration of the approach, few indicators are presented
for two decision centres of the management models.
As we have previously said, performance indicators are defined
to verify the efficiency of actions on decision variables in the
achievement of objectives (Fortuin, 1988; Berrah et al., 2000).
The domain of Performance Measurement has been
investigated for more than twenty years to lead to a lot of
methods, developed either by researchers or practitioners, in
order to define and implement indicators. One can cite the most
famous ones or the more used or disseminated around the world
such as Balanced ScoreCard (Kaplan, 1996), the Performance
Prism (Neely, 2002), ECOGRAI (Ducq, 2005), IPMS (Bititci,
1997), Medori (Medori, 1998) or DPMS (Ghalayini, 1997).
All these methods have been developed independently based on
system theory, production management theory or accounting
methods, according to the background of designers, but none of
these approaches are dedicated to SC. Nevertheless, some of
them can be adapted to the SCM such as BSC, or Prism or
ECOGRAI. Moreover, several performance indicators were
defined for SC global measurement in the SCOR Model or in
the French Standard FD X50-605 (AFNOR 08).
So, it is proposed in the following to define the performance
indicators using ECOGRAI method because this is the most
well known by the authors and because its generic approach
allows adaptations with the SCM. Moreover, the method will
use the GRAI Grid previously presented.
Only two decision centres are presented: one at the global
control level: “Load planning at the SC level” and a second one
at the local control level: “To define enterprise load planning”.
These are important because a lack of load management
between partners can increase highly the total lead time.
ƒ To ensure the feasibility of enterprise MPS for all products,
ƒ To integrate capacity related to SC with the one concerned
by other enterprise products.
ƒ The proposed decision variables (action means to reach the
objectives) are:
ƒ To increase the capacity by supplementary hours or
temporary people,
ƒ To produce in advance.
ƒ The proposed performance indicators are:
ƒ Total stock,
ƒ Total capacity/permanent staff capacity.
6. CONCLUSION: INTEROPERABILITY PROBLEM
SOLVING FOR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
This paper considers the mechanisms to efficiently manage a
SC through the definition of management models and
performance indicators at the global and local levels. However,
this is possible to measure the whole performance of SC only
with interoperable performance measurement software tools.
The interoperability is defined as “the ability of two or more
systems or components to exchange information and to use the
information that has been exchanged” (Blanc, 2006).
Then, if we want to measure the performance of the whole SC,
from all the partners point of view, it is necessary to aggregate
measures from different partners and then from different
decision support systems. A decision support system is
composed of different software’s (Fig. 3).
DATA
ETL OLAP
WAREHOUSE

Objectives, decision variables and performance indicators can

Storage
be defined as follow.
Decision centre: ”Load planning at the supply chain level”
The objectives must be coherent with those of upper levels, i.e.
those of the decision centre “SC Master Production Schedule”.
The proposed objectives are: Fig. 3: The components of a decision system to support PMS.
ƒ To ensure the feasibility of SC MPS in terms of capacity, Then, enterprise models must be used to define parameters of
ƒ To minimise delays to 5% of total orders (service level). such kinds of systems. By solving interoperability of enterprise
models, the problem of data compatibility and aggregation can
ƒ The proposed decision variables (action means to reach the
be improved as shown in the figure 4 below.
objectives) are: ETL
DATA
OLAP
WAREHOUSE

ƒ To smooth the load without transferring capacity between Stora

ge

partners,
ƒ To anticipate production. Specifications for PM tool 1

ƒ The proposed performance indicators are: Aggregation of

performances
Enterprise 1 ETL
DATA
OLAP
Extraction of
ƒ Overload for each partner/normal capacity,
WAREHOUSE

knowledge SC
Enterprise
ƒ Number of products produced in advance, performance
Sto ra
ge

Modelling measurement

ƒ Supplementary capacity hours/total capacity hours, Specifications for SC decisions

ƒ Number of orders delivered on time / total number of Supply chain model
interoperable supply chain
PM tool
between enterprises 1&2
deliveries. Enterprise 2

Decision centre: “To define enterprise load planning” ETL

DATA
WAREHOUSE
OLAP

The objectives must be coherent with those of upper levels, i.e. Stora
ge

those of the decision centre “To define enterprise MPS”. The

Specifications for PM tool 2
proposed objectives are:
Fig. 4: use of SC enterprise models to ensure interoperability of

2057
13th IFAC INCOM (INCOM'09)
Moscow, Russia, June 3-5, 2009
SC PMS.
Current works are performed to ensure coherence between the
different sources of information (physical measurements and
managers’ expertise) involved in SC PMSs, and their IT
implementation in order to build interoperable decision support
systems.
REFERENCES
AFNOR FD X50-605. (2008) Les indicateurs de performance
en logistique. AFNOR (in french).
Angerhofer, B.J., and Angelides, M. C. (2006) A model and a
performance measurement system for collaborative supply
chains. Decision support system, 42:283-301.
Ayers J B. Handbook of Supply Chain Management (2000).
APICS Series on Resource management.
Bana e Costa C.A., De Corte J.M., Vansnick J. C. (2004) On
the mathematical foundations of MACBETH. Figueira J,
Greco S, Ehrgott M, editors. MCDA. Multiple Criteria
Decision Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Barut M, W. Faisst, J.J Kanet. (2002) Measuring supply
chain coupling: an information system perspective.
European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,
8: 161-171.
Beamon B. (1998) Supply chain design and analysis: models
and methods. International Journal on Production
Economics, 55: 281-294.
Berrah L., Mauris G., Haurat A., Foulloy L. (2000) Global
vision and performance indicators for an industrial
improvement approach. Computers in Industry, 43: 211-
225.
Berrah L., Mauris G., Vernadat F. (2004) Information
aggregation in industrial performance measurement :
rationales, issues and definitions. International Journal of
Production Research, 42: 4271-4293.
Bititci U.S., Carrie A.S., Mcdevitt L. (1997) Integrated
Performance Measurement System: a development guide.
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 17: pp 522-534.
Blanc S., (2006) Contribution à la caractérisation et
l'évaluation de l'interopérabilité pour les entreprises
collaboratives. Thèse de doctorat de l’Université Bordeaux
1, (in french).
Breuil, D., Malhéné, N. (2000) Intégration des PME dans la
supply chain. Revue Rencontres IUT Bordeaux, 4.
Brimson J.A. (1991) Activity Accounting. John Wiley and
Sons. New York.
Chan. F.T., (2003) Performance Measurement in a Supply
Chain. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology. (21): 534-548.
Clivillé, V., Berrah L., Mauris G. (2007) Quantitative
expression and aggregation of performance measurements
based on the MACBETH multi-criteria method.
International Journal of Production Economics, 105: 171-
189.
Cross, K.F., Lynch R.L. (1989) The SMART way to define
and sustain success. National Productivity Review. 8 (1):
23-33.
Doumeingts, G., Ducq, Y. (2001) Enterprise Modelling
2058
techniques to improve efficiency of enterprises.
International Journal of Production Planning and Control,
12.
Ducq Y. (1999) Contribution à une méthode d’analyse de la
cohérence des systèmes de production dans le cadre du
modèle GRAI. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Bordeaux.
(in french).
Ducq, Y., Vallespir, B. (2005) Definition and aggregation of a
Performance Measurement System in three Aeronautical
workshops using the ECOGRAI Method. International
Journal of Production Planning and Control, 16: 163-177.
Folan, P., Browne, J. (2005) A review of performance
measurement: Towards performance management.
Computers in Industry. 56: 663-680.
Fortuin L. (1988) Performance indicators - why, where and
how. European Journal of Operational Research, 34: 1-9.
Ghalayini, A.M., Noble, J.S., Crowe, T.J. (1997) An integrated
dynamic performance measurement system for improving
manufacturing competitiveness. Int. J. of Production
Economics, 48.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton D.P., (1996) Using the balanced
scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard
Business Review. 75-85.
Krantz, D.H., Luce, R.D., Suppes, P., Tversky, A. (1971)
Foundations of measurement, volume 1: Additive and
Polynomial Representations. Academic Press.
Kueng, P, Krahn, A.J., (1999) Building a Process Performance
Measurement System: Some Early Experiences. Journal of
Scientific & Industrial Research. 58: 149-159.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V; Wang, S. (1997) Information
distortion in a supply Chain: the bull-whip effect.
Management science. 43.
Lohman, C, Fortuin L, Wouters M. (2004) Designing a
performance measurement system: A case study. European
Journal of Operational Research. 156: 267-286.
Medori D., (1998) The development and implementation of an
integrated performance measurement framework.
Performance Measurement-Theory and Practice:
International Conference of European Operations
Management Association. 313-318.
Neely A. (1999) The performance measurement revolution:
why now and what next. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management. 19 (2): 205-228.
Neely, A., Adams, C., Kennerley, M. (2002) The performance
Prism – The scorecard for measuring and managing
Business Success. Edition Prentice Hall.
Ravelomanantsoa, M., Ducq, Y., Vallespir, B. (2006) A generic
framework for performance indicator system methods. 5th
International Conference on Theory and Practice in
Performance Measurement and Management.
Supply Chain Council. (2008) Model SCOR. version 8.
Villa A. (2001) Introducing some Supply Chain Management
problems. International Journal of Production
Economics, 73: 1-4.
Woomack, J.P., Jones D.T., (2003) Lean Thinking, Mackays of
Chatham Ltd, Chatham Kent.