The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

IJPPM
64,1
Capability/maturity based
model for logistics processes
assessment
28
Application to distribution processes
Received 2 August 2012
Revised 7 May 2013 Rachid Benmoussa
8 December 2013 Department of Industrial Engineering, Cadi Ayyad University (UCA/ENSAM),
6 March 2014
Accepted 15 March 2014 Marrakech, Morocco
Charkaoui Abdelkabir
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Industrial Management and Innovation,
Hassan 1st University, Settat, Morocco
Achraf Abd
Department of Industrial Engineering, Cadi Ayyad University (UCA/ENSAM),
Marrakesh, Morocco, and
Marouane Hassou
National School of Applied Sciences Marrakesh, Cadi Ayyad University (UCA),
Marrakech, Morocco

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to study how a general standardized processes assessment
capability/maturity model, such as Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), can be combined to
a standardized benchmark of logistics processes best practices, such as FD X50-604, to propose a new
approach that evaluates logistics processes capability/maturity.
Design/methodology/approach – First, an analysis study of CMMI model and X50-604 standard is
performed. In order to prove their coherence, a deep comparative analysis of CMMI and X50-604
practices is conducted. As illustration, the paper focuses on a particular application of this approach to
evaluate capability/maturity of distribution logistics activities. An industrial case study that aims the
validation of this particular application is finally conducted in a furniture company.
Findings – The authors estimate that the paper findings provide an operational guide for industrials
to evaluate their distribution processes that is a practical, verifiable, repeatable and extensible to other
logistics process areas and an interesting opportunity to evolve the standard FD X50-604 regarding
CMMI requirements to assess capability/maturity of logistics processes.
Originality/value – In general, the few capability/maturity-driven models analyzed in literature
present some limits that do not allow their diffusion in the industrial level, especially in logistics.
This study proposes a new approach based on standards that provide an operational guide for
industrials to evaluate their distribution processes based on capability/maturity concept.
Keywords Logistics, Distribution, Assessment, Capability/maturity, CMMI, FD X50-604
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Logistics processes evaluation is a major priority for business, a task that is difficult for
International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management a company given the complexity of these systems due to the large scope of involved
Vol. 64 No. 1, 2015
pp. 28-51
processes and actors. It is assumed that such assessment should be guided by a clear
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
and coherent vision and needs to have structured and appropriate methodological
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-08-2012-0084 tools. The literature review we conducted allowed us to divide the research models
dealing with logistics processes evaluation into two categories: performance Model for
measurement driven models, maturity measurement driven models. logistics
Performance measurement driven models aim to propose generic frameworks for
supply chain assessment (Bititci, 1995; Benmoussa et al., 2009; Bitton, 1990; Kaplan and
processes
Norton, 1996; SCOR, 2012). Estampe et al. (2010) analyze some of these models as well assessment
as other various models used to assess supply chains by highlighting their specific
characteristics and applicability in different contexts. They also offer an analytical grid 29
that helps managers evolve towards a model that is more suitable for their needs.
Maturity measurement driven models attempt to apply capability/maturity
concepts to the assessment of business processes of different areas including
supply chain. Battista et al. (2012) assume that many authors concentrate on the
development of new models of maturity focused on specific sectors especially on
the supply chain (Bolstorff and Rosenbaum, 2007; Garcia and Giachetti, 2010;
Hunsche, 2006; Johnson and McCormack, 2003; Kauremaa and Suzuki, 2007; Lambert,
2008; Lockamy and McCormack, 2004; Netland et al., 2007; Srai and Gregory, 2005).
Many authors have worked to define supply chain performance-related maturity
classifications that are not exclusively tied to the proper implementation of
intra-organizational processes (in the same way as quality approaches are), but also
rely on a company’s ability to integrate such practices into an inter-organizational
vision (Estampe et al., 2010).
To investigate the difference between these two categories, we began first to analyze
the definitions (perception) of both concepts. In management, performance is the
ultimate result of all the efforts of a company or organization. Through these efforts
company personnel seek to do the right things, the right way, quickly, at the right time,
at lower cost to produce good results that meet the needs and expectations of customers
and stakeholders; and meet other organization objectives. The performance measurement
process is done via performance indicators (Cerutti and Gattino, 1992). Unlike that for
performance, the literature on maturity does not contain an agreed definition. This
concept changes from one model to another depending of its scope: intra-organizational,
inter-organizational or full supply chain. According to the Capability Maturity Model
Integration(CMMI) definition (CMMI Product Team, 2000, 2002, 2007, 2010), the maturity
of an organization is the degree to which it has made explicit and consistent processes
that are documented, managed, measured, controlled and continuously improved.
Maturity level corresponds to achieving a uniform level of capability for a process group.
A level of capability measures the achievement (performance) of a process according
to a given level requirements. Pache and Spalanzani (2007) have proposed five levels of
maturity built around inter-organizational supply chain relationships, including any
relevant societal aspects: intra-organizational maturity (level 1), inter-organizational
maturity (level 2), extended inter-organizational maturity (level 3), multi-chain
maturity (level 4), societal maturity (level 5). The maturity classification proposed in
the Supply Chain Operations Reference model (Cohen and Roussel, 2004) relates to
companies’ ability to manage the full scope of a supply chain four levels of maturity:
functional integration (level 1), internal integration (level 2), external integration
(level 3) and inter-company collaboration (level 4). Battista et al. (2012) propose a
system that allows companies both to assess their logistics processes current status
and to outline an action plan for improvement, considering four key elements:
modelling, maturity, performance and improvement framework. They adopted
the five levels of maturity proposed by CMMI model (initial, managed, defined,
quantitatively managed and optimized).
IJPPM Our analysis of these two models shows that the capability/maturity concept
64,1 includes the concept of performance. In practice the capability/maturity of a system is
evaluated by its performance relative to specific objectives at each level. Thus, in
maturity models, performance is defined by level. To improve performance and
upgrade from one level to another, a hierarchical and incremental process should be
deployed. Unlike maturity, performance (as seen by performance measurement driven
30 models) is a global measure regarding a final or intermediate result of an organization.
For these reasons, we assume that a maturity-driven approach is more relevant than a
performance-driven approach.
In general, literature analysis shows that maturity-driven models present some
limits. Valadares et al. (2011) affirm that in some studies that praise and apply the
models of maturity as tools of analysis and optimization of the business processes,
there are some important limits that do not allow their diffusion at the industrial level,
especially in logistics:
• lack of a framework able to incorporate identification of the methodology of the
qualitative and quantitative relationships among the business performance
indicators (KPI), the strategic objectives and the improvement actions to be
undertaken in the process;
• no easy use of the existing frameworks in the industrial process, because of the
low flexibility of the modelling architecture of the business logistic processes
(Garcia and Giachetti, 2010);
• consumers find it hard to understand the criterion of process modelling and the
evaluation of the level of maturity (Visconti and Cook, 1998); and
• lack of a holistic framework able to incorporate a global vision of the business
logistic processes, caring about direct and indirect points of contact (Netland and
Alfnes, 2008).
More particularly, analysis of the few models cited in the literature that focus especially
on the assessment of logistics maturity in an intra-organizational scope, shows us some
specific limits related to the practical, relevance and repeatability criteria. The FD
X50-604 standard (X50) introduces the concept of “integrated logistics process” (ILP) as
a set of logistics processes performed in the intra-organizational scope and interfaces
between these processes. These processes are organized in six steps depending on the
nature of their involved activities (see Figure 2). In this paper, we adopt this concept as
a first consideration to answer some of the limits listed above (logistics processes
modelling limits).
Thus the present work deals with the following research question: “How to measure
effectively the maturity of the “ILP”, without the limits listed above?” To answer this
question, we formulated the following hypothesis: “The combination of CMMI and FD
X50-604 standard (X50) (AFNOR, 2010) can be used to measure ILP maturity”.
To justify this assumption, we first briefly introduce the two models. CMMI is a model
developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University
(CMMI Product Development Team, 2000). Basically, it serves as a reference to assess
the research and development skills of organizations to develop products and
provide efficient services. It is also commonly integrated into incremental processes
improvement of organizations. CMMI is a collection of best practices classified in
22 areas divided into five categories (Lamnabhi, 2008). It has applications in three
fields: software engineering, equipment engineering and systems engineering. Up to
date there is no application in logistics. In general, according to CMMI, if we have to Model for
create one (logistics application), it should be based on a collection of best practices in logistics
logistics. The X50 standard describes the global ILP steps. It serves as an assessment
performance reference of the various practices of this process. Thus, that standard does
processes
not seek to establish what would be a good process. It shows the link between the assessment
various activities and the nature of interfaces that allow ensuring its smooth running.
Thus, it can serve as a reference when analyzing a logistics site or operation to ensure 31
that all conditions are met ensuring the continuity of the process. At the conceptual
level, CMMI and X50 standard seem to be complementary to assess the maturity of ILP.
Indeed, the CMMI to assess the maturity of the logistics process requires a model of
best practices in this area. Although the X50 standard has a repository of best practices
in logistics, it does not allow the evaluation of the performance of these practices.
Consequently, the purpose of the present paper is to study how a general
standardized processes assessment capability/maturity model, such as CMMI, can be
combined to a standardized benchmark of logistics processes best practices, such as
X50, to evaluate ILP capability/maturity. After this introduction, the second section
presents the research methodology we have adopted. The third section analyses the
considered capability/maturity model (CMMI model). The fourth section summarizes
the considered logistics best practices standard (X50 standard). The fifth section
provides the CMMI and X50 comparison analysis. The sixth section presents the case
study applied to distribution logistics activities and illustrated through a furniture
company. The seventh section discusses the main results and the added value of our
work. Finally, the eighth section presents a conclusion and some perspectives.

2. Methodology
To test the hypothesis stated in the introduction and thus respond to the main research
question, we have adopted a two-step approach. The first step aims to support the
validity of the proposal at the theoretical level. Thus we studied the conceptual
coherence of CMMI and X50 to measure ILP maturity. To achieve this goal, we first
tried to understand and synthesize the concepts of CMMI (Table I) and their
relationships (Figure 1). We focused mainly on the concept of capability level, generic

Process area A set of specific practices contributing to a common finality realization

Category Grouping of process areas
Specific practice Practice that contributes to achieving the process area goal
Generic practice Practice that helps to qualify the capability level with which specific
practices are implemented
Generic goal Result to be achieved by the efficient execution of a generic practice
Specific goal Result to be achieved by the efficient execution of a specific practice
Capability level Is associated with a generic goal to characterize a process in term of respect
to this goal (0 to 5)
Maturity level Corresponds to a common capability level for a group of process areas
CMMI Assessment Method that compares the actual practices of an organizational unit with
those expected in the CMMI model
Typical indicator Kind of evidence for a generic or specific practice execution
of achievement:
Objective evidence Traces left behind the implementation of a generic or specific practice Table I.
Organizational unit Part of the organization being CMMI assessed CMMI key concepts,
Application case Implementation case of a practice in the organizational unit synthesized from
Organizational scope Sample of application cases Lamnabhi (2008)
IJPPM Capability Level
corresponds Generic Goal is deployed
Generic Practice * has * Typical Indicator
1 *
64,1 1
*
*
has verified by Direct
Specific Practice *
Category
cover
1 * * Indirect

is deployed Objective Evidence

32 belongs
Concept Level
* Affirmation
*
1 collect
belongs Process Area cover
Maturity Level * Specific Goal Exploitation Level
finality *
Figure 1. * CMMI
Result 1 1 Organizational Scope
CMMI concepts and Assessement
their relationships
expressed with an
UML class diagram 1
*
Organizational Unit Application Case
(self-made)

goals, generic practices and typical indicators of achievement (Table II). The result of this
study is presented in Section 3. Then we tried to understand and synthesize the concept
of “ILP” as it is presented in X50 standard. We have focused on the six stages of this
process (Figure 2) as well as the concepts used by the standard (Section 4.1) to describe
these steps and their relationships (Figure 3). The result of this study is presented in
Section 4. Finally, we conducted a comparison of the two formalisms to highlight the
differences and similarities. To achieve this goal, we examined whether the generic
practices of CMMI already classified by capability level are covered by the practices
of each stage of X50. The result of this comparison is presented in Section 5 (Table III).
To support the validity of the proposal in terms of application and to provide an
adequate deployment process, we took the second step of conducting a case study in a
furniture company. The case study focused on the step 4 of the ILP that describes the
distribution logistics practices according to X50 standard. Several reasons led to this
decision. First, it was impractical to consider all the ILP stages in one paper regarding
the consistency and the complexity induced by this work. Second, the case study is
considered only as a pilot project that aims to test the validity of the proposal and
decide on its effective integration process in a company. Finally, when we requested the
company to evaluate its logistics processes, it chose to focus on one of the four ILP
stages, namely the distribution stage. The company faces a range of difficulties
to master its distribution process and to achieve suitable customer satisfaction.
The methodology involved three steps:
(1) deep analysis of the logistics practices of X50 step 4 “sell and distribute” (Table IV);
(2) classification of the step 4 logistics practices achievement indicators regarding
the CMMI capability level required ones (Table V); and
(3) assessment process deployment within the company that involves, the logistics
distribution process modelling (Figures A1 and A2), the comparison of its
deliverables with the CMMI requirements (Table A1) and finally the elaboration
of the corrective action plan resulting from the gaps between the referential and
the assessed processes.
The results of the case study are presented in Section 6.
Generic goal Ref. Generic practice Typical indicators of achievement Ref.

GG1. The process supports and
enables the fulfillment of specific
objectives of the process area by
transforming work products
identified in the input into work
products identified in the output
GG2. The process is
institutionalized as a managed
process
GP1.1 Perform the specific practices of the process
area to develop work products and provide
services to achieve the specific objectives of
the process area
GP2.1 Establish and maintain an organizational
directive to plan and execute the process
GP2.2 Establish and maintain the plan for executing
the process
GP2.3 Provide adequate resources for performing
the process, developing the work products,
and providing the services of the process
GP2.4 Assign responsibility and authority for
performing the process, developing the work
products, and providing the services of the
process
GP2.5 Train the people performing or supporting the
process as needed
GP2.6 Place designated work products of the
process under appropriate levels of control
Refer to indicators of achievement of practices TIA1.1
associated with each process area
Directive covering the organizational process TIA2.1
Plan to execute the process TIA2.2
Definition and availability of Human, material TIA2.3
and software resources needed to execute the
process
Definition of responsibilities to execute the TIA2.4
process
Plan for acquiring the skills necessary to TIA2.5
perform the process
Records showing that the provisions of the
plan of acquiring skills are implemented
List of work products resulting from the TIA2.6
execution of processes to manage
configuration
Plan of Configuration Management
Work products resulting from the process
execution

(continued )
assessment
processes
logistics

achievement,

Lamnabhi (2008)
Model for

indicators of
33

synthesized from
and typical
Capability level goal
Table II.
 34
64,1
IJPPM

Table II.
Generic goal Ref. Generic practice Typical indicators of achievement Ref.

GP2.7 Identify and involve the relevant stakeholders
as planned
GP2.8 Monitor and control the process against the
plan for performing the process and take
appropriate corrective action
GP2.9 Objectively evaluate adherence of the process
against its process description, standards, and
procedures and address non-compliance
GP2.10 Review the activities, status and results of the
process with higher level management and
resolve issues
GG3. The process is GP3.1 Establish and maintain the description of a
institutionalized as a defined process
defined process
GP3.2 Collect work product, measures, measurement
results, and improvement information derived
from planning and performing the process to
support the future use and improvement of
the organization’s processes and process
assets
GG4. The process is GP4.1 Establish and maintain quantitative
institutionalized as a quantitatively objectives for the process that deals with
managed process quality and process performance and are
based on customer needs and business
objectives
List of stakeholders TIA2.7
Plan of stakeholder involvement
Recording showing the involvement of
stakeholders
Records of progress reviews activities TIA2.8
Corrective actions (deviations from the plan)
Recorded measurements of the actual values
of planning parameters, and their comparison
to the plan
Process audit report TIA2.9
Corrective actions
Recordings from the process reviews with TIA2.10
officials
Description of the process derived from the TIA3.1
organization’s standard processes and
predefined adaptation rules
Experiments, measurements, and proposals TIA3.2
for improvement deducted from the execution
of the process, collected and made available at
the organization
Definition of quantitative quality goals for TIA4.1
products and processes based on customer
needs and business objectives of the
organization

(continued )
Generic goal Ref. Generic practice Typical indicators of achievement Ref.

GP4.2 Stabilize the performance of one or more
sub-processes to determine the process
capability to achieve targets set for quality
and process performance
GG5. The process is GP5.1 Ensure continuous improvement of the
institutionalized as an optimization process in fulfilling the relevant business
process objectives of the organization
GP5.2 Identify and correct the root causes of defects
and other problems in the process
Selection of sub-processes and their attributes TIA4.2
that will be statistically managed
Recorded measurements showing the
performance stability of these sub-processes
Process performance prediction
Process performance measures collected at
the organization
Selection of the improvements that help to TIA5.1
achieve quality and process performance
goals
Reports of improvements assessment on pilot
operations
Deployment plan of adopted improvements
Measures demonstrating the effectiveness of
improvement actions undertaken
Impact of capitalized improvements at the
organizational level
Selection of defects or problems to be TIA5.2
addressed
Measurements showing the effectiveness of
the taken corrective actions
Records showing the capitalization of
analysis and defaults processing data and
problems at the organization
assessment
processes
logistics
Model for

35

Table II.
IJPPM Business process Necessary outputs to mastering the overall process Control process

64,1 1 – Identify needs and

set goals

2 – Design and develop

the logistics system

36
3 – Produce

4 – Sell and distribute

5 – Provide logistical support

(after sales service...)

Figure 2. 6 – Master the Supply chain management system

The X50-604
standard steps
Source: AFNOR (2010)

Planning

Programming
Generic practice
Integrated logistics process
Executing
1
contains Control
is kind of
6
Step contains Operation has 1 Framework
title Specific Goal
Figure 3. 4
The standard’s has

X50-604 concepts and has *

has has Input
their relationships *
1
expressed in a UML Output
class diagram Support Box *

(self-made) Permanent Data

3. CMMI model presentation

3.1 Key concepts
CMMI has been developed by SEI since the 1990s. The CMMI process acts as a
best practice model to assess and to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of
product and service development performance. We present in this section the
CMMI key concepts (Table I) and their relationships (Figure 1) used in this paper
(Lamnabhi, 2008):

3.2 Capability levels characteristics

The CMMI model has several levels of capability. Each of them is associated with
a generic goal. We review the main characteristics that define these capabilities.
 Model for
logistics
processes
assessment

37

Table III.
Coherence between
CMMI generic
practices and the
X50-604 standard
steps (self-made)

Capability level 0: the process is described as incomplete. Its implementation is only

partially meeting the expected content of the process area.
Capability level 1: the process is described as performed. A performed process is an
implemented process that fully satisfies the expected content of the process area. All
the specific objectives of the process area are satisfied.
Capability level 2: the process is described as managed. A managed process is a
process that is planned and executed according to a directive; employs qualified
personnel and adequate resources; involves stakeholders; is monitored and reviewed;
and whose compliance to a defined process is verified.
Capability level 3: the process is described as defined. A defined process is a managed
process that is “tailored” from the organization’s set of standard processes according to
the organization’s guidelines and contributes to experience capitalization.
Capability level 4: the process is described as being managed quantitatively.
A quantitatively managed process is a process defined and controlled using statistical
 38
64,1
IJPPM

Table IV.

AFNOR (2010)
synthesized from
practices according
to the standard X50,
Distribution logistics
Step Operation Framework Inputs Permanent data Outputs

Step 4: sell and Prepare the Strategic Plan: service Market forecasts of Previous Manufacturing Marketing plan,
distribute Manufacturing and objectives, organization, demand (by type of and Sales plan. Article Distribution plan (called
Sales Plan (MSP) and budget items, customers, etc.) database. Warhousing and Logistics Plan). Plan and
the distribution State of the stock or transportation existing schedule of critical
resource plan (DRP) portfolio. Stock objective capacities. Suppliers and resources needs: internal
per family service provider and external needs
availability. Trained
manpower
Prepare the Master Distribution plan Master Production Article database. Available Master Distribution
Distribution Schedule. Marketing capacity. Scale Schedule (MDS). Carriers
Schedule (MDS) Plan. Storage Plan. transportation booking. Packaging
Packaging stock status orders
Start executing Master Distribution Customer orders. Terms of sale and credit. Transport documents.
logistics distribution Schedule (MDS). Delivery orders Sequencing rules of order Delivery reports
activities Contracts with logistics picking. Sequencing rules of
subcontractors shipments Rules for safe
transport
Control of the Delivery programme Delivery reports. Means of control: indicators, Gaps and proposed
distribution Litigation and errors or dashboards (service quality corrections
operations broken report and costs)
 Step 4 according to X50 standard: sell and distribute
Typical Process/operation: 1 Process/operation: 2 Process/operation: 3 Process/operation: 4
indicators of Prepare the Prepare the Master Start executing logistics Control of the
achievement Manufacturing and Sales Distribution Schedule distribution activities distribution operations
(TIA) Plan (MSP) and the (MDS)
Distribution Resource
Plan (DRP)
CMMI
Capability level 0 No generic practice is required
Capability level 1 TIA1.1 Distribution Plan Master Distribution Transport documents Gaps
Plan and schedule of Schedule (MDS), Delivery reports Proposed corrections
critical resources needs: Carriers reservation
internal and external Orders of packaging
needs

Capability level 2 TIA2.1 Directive covering the Directive covering the Directive covering the: Directive covering the
organization of organization of: logistics distribution organization of:
sales forecasting logistics distribution execution activities delivery control
sales plan and production programming and activities
plan harmonization preparing activities
evaluation of resources
needed for distribution
(MO, equipment, suppliers
and service providers)
TIA2.2 Procedure of Procedure of: Procedure of: Procedure of:
forecast preparation and warhousing and orders record orders and deliveries
calculation transportation needs delivery monitoring
MSP elaboration calculation gaps and errors
transport booking correction

(continued )
assessment
processes

achievement
logistics

indicators (self-made)
practices
Model for

Distribution logistics
39

Table V.
 40
64,1
IJPPM

Table V.
DRP elaboration packaging needs calculation stock administration
required orders emission consumables and
packaging supply
equipment maintenance
safety, health and
environment adherence
TIA2.3 List of available needed resources: manpower, equipment and software
TIA2.4 Evidence attached to the directive and the process execution plan, presenting responsibilities allocation
TIA2.5 Adaptation plan and staff training
Records showing the adaptation plan and training execution
TIA2.6 Work products: Work products: Work products: Work products:
Marketing plan Master Distribution Transport documents. Gaps
Distribution plan Schedule (MDS) Delivery reports Proposed corrections
Carriers booking
Plan and schedule of Packaging orders
critical resources needs:
internal and external
needs
Work products configuration management plan (CMP)
Work products resulting from the process execution of CMP
TIA2.7 List of stakeholders: customers, suppliers, logistics providers […]
Records of stakeholders Records of stakeholders Records of stakeholders Records of
involvement in the involvement in the process involvement in the process stakeholders
process of MSP and DRP of MDS elaboration of distribution operations involvement in the
elaboration exécussion process of distribution
execution control
TIA2.8 Progress reviews activities reports
Corrective actions regarding the initial plan
Records of actual measurements of planning and comparison with the initial plan parameters
Relative to MSP and DRP Relative to MDS elaboration Relative to execussion of Relative to control of
elaboration distribution operations distribution operations
execution

(continued )
 TIA2.9 Process audit report; Corrective actions
Relative to MSP and DRP Relative to MDS elaboration Relative to execussion of Relative to control of
elaboration distribution operations distribution operations
TIA2.10 Recordings from the process reviews with officials execution
Relative to MSP and DRP Relative to MDS elaboration Relative to execussion of Relative to control of
elaboration distribution operations distribution operations
execution
Capability level 3 TIA3.1 The text of the X50 standard does not explicitly cover the practices associated with these three levels
TIA3.2
Capability level 4 TIA4.1
TIA4.2
Capability level 5 TIA5.1
TIA5.2
assessment
processes
logistics
Model for

41

Table V.
IJPPM tools. Quantitative objectives for quality and performance are established and used to
64,1 manage the process. The process becomes quantitatively predictable by eliminating
special causes of variation.
Capability level 5: the process is described as being in optimization. An optimization
process is a quantitatively managed process and improved by understanding the
common causes of variation. The process is enhanced on an ongoing basis through
42 incremental and innovative improvements.

4. The X50-604 (X50) standard presentation

4.1 Key concepts
Describing the global ILP steps, the X50 standard aims to serve as an assessment
performance reference of the various practices of this process. Thus, that standard does
not seek to establish what would be a good process. It shows the link between the
various activities and the nature of interfaces that allow ensuring its smooth running.
Thus, it can serve as a reference when analyzing a logistics site or operation to ensure
that all conditions are met ensuring the continuity of the process. We present briefly the
organization of this standard in Figure 2. For more details, the reader may consult a
specialized document (AFNOR, 2010).
The X50 standard consists of six steps. Each step includes four operations. The core
activity of each operation is one of the following generic practices: planning,
programming, executing and control. The standard describes each step according to
the following formalism:
• Framework: in which the operation is executed. This framework is usually
defined by the output of the operation immediately upstream.
• Operation: its objective is, within the framework defined by the operation
upstream and with the support of permanent data, to transform the input to
obtain the desired output.
• Input: information to be processed by the operation within the framework set by
the operation immediately upstream in order to obtain the desired output.
• Output: subject of the input transformation. In the case of logistics, it is mainly
a plan, a programme, an execution instruction, etc.
• Permanent data: data necessary for the input transformation. This data may
require an update, but neither their content nor their value is changed by the
operation for which they are used.

5. Coherence between the X50 standard and the CMMI model

The proposed approach is based on the coupling of a capability/maturity assessment
model (CMMI) and a benchmark for logistics processes best practices (X50). This paper
is the first to analyze the differences and similarities between these two models.
Table III shows the correspondence, between the CMMI generic practices and the X50
standard practices, on the basis of their identified common practices: planning,
programming, execution, control and correction proposition, standardization,
capitalization, setting goals, monitoring performance and improvement. Five cases
are possible, as explained in the legend of Table III:
• A generic practice CMMI can be also generic for an X50 step.
• A generic practice CMMI can be specific for an X50 step.
 • A generic practice CMMI may be partially covered by an X50 practice. Model for
• A generic practice CMMI cannot be covered by any X50 practice. logistics
• A generic practice CMMI cannot be covered directly for a given X50 step. Instead, processes
it can match by declination from another step. assessment
The result of the comparison is presented in a two-dimensional grid. The lines indicate
the steps of the ILP process as it is seen by the standard. The columns show the 43
different types of practice driven from CMMI model and the X50 standard. For
example: GP2.2 “Establish and maintain the plan for executing the process” is a
planning practice that contributes to the achievement of capability level 2. As all X50
stages begin by planning practice, GP2.2 has to be considered for all stages during an
ILP assessment. Thus this practice is also generic for X50 and is located at the
intersection of all the lines and the “planning” column. Thus, each practice listed in
Table II is analyzed and placed according to its content in the appropriate cells. The
final result is placed in Table III.

6. Case study
6.1 Distribution logistics practices analysis
The step 4 (sell and distribute) of the X50 standard is divided into four operations
(processes). Table IV presents these operations as well as their context, inputs,
permanent data and outputs.

6.2 Distribution logistics practices achievement indicators

To highlight the company distribution logistics practices achievement indicators, we
have conducted a deep analysis of the X50 standard step 4 in order to find out the
indicators that correspond to the CMMI required ones. Then, we have classified these
indicators by operation/process type and CMMI capability level. The result of this work
is presented in Table V.

6.3 Assessment process deployment in a furniture company

One of the major actors in the field of decoration, Medflex Company operates in
the field of interior furnishings. Created in 1996, it has an area of 8,600 m2 located
between administration, show room, and spacious and functional workshops covering
a production line of bedding, upholstery and carpentry.
The analysis of the distribution business in Medflex is modelled formally by two
major processes: the order receipt process (Figure A1) and the loading and delivery
process (Figure A2).
After distribution logistics process modelling, we compared the deliverables of those
processes with the CMMI requirements presented in Table V. Score rates used in this
study are as follow:
• 0: does not exist;
• 1: informal but exist;
• 2: partially match; and
• 3: completely match.
The result of this activity is presented in the Table A1. Analysis of the results
presented in this table shows that the distribution business is not at capability level 1.
IJPPM Thus, we have proceeded to elaborate the corrective action plan resulting from the
64,1 gaps between the capability level 1 requirement and the assessed processes. This plan
involves four actions:
(1) creating of procedure and typical indicator of achievement for planning and
scheduling of internal and external critical resources needs;
44 (2) formalize the process of booking carriers;
(3) creating of procedure and typical indicator of achievement that collect gaps
between planning and execution; and
(4) creating of procedure and typical indicator of achievement that collect the
proposed corrections and the results of their execution to face the gaps.

7. Discussion
Results show a partial coherence between the CMMI and the X50 standard for
assessing the maturity of the ILP. In fact, the analysis of Table III shows that:
(1) GP1.1 generic practice is not mentioned in this table. This practice refers in fact
to specific practices that constitute the core business naturally involved in the
X50 standard steps.
(2) The CMMI level 2 generic practices correspond fully to the generic practices of
the X50 standard steps.
(3) Some generic practices for CMMI are specific to the X50 standard. This is the
case of GP3.2, GP4.1, GP4.2, GP5.1 and GP5.2 (covered by steps 1 and
6 practices).
(4) CMMI practices of standardization are only and partially covered by a single
step of the standard (Step 2. Produce).
(5) CMMI practices of setting process objectives are not covered explicitly by all
the steps. They are the subject of step 1 and declined implicitly on the
other steps.
(6) CMMI practices of capitalization, performance monitoring and improvement
are not covered explicitly by all the steps. They are the subject of step 6 and are
declined implicitly on the other steps.
We can assume that the proposed model can be used directly to assess the CMMI
level 2. The assessment of levels 3-5, however, requires deep analysis to identify best
practices additional to the standard (see Table V). Indeed, level 3 standardization
practices are very rarely covered (partially in step 2). While the practices of steps 1 and
6 are drafted inconsistently, with the practices of CMMI levels 4 and 5 despite the
adequacy of their objectives (see Table III). Indeed:
• The specific objectives set globally for the ILP in step 1 are not explicitly broken
down on the various operations of the other process steps.
• The solutions proposed in step 6 for the integrated global logistics process
improvement are very general. In fact, there is almost no best practices ready to
use being identified.
• The integrated global logistics process control and performance monitoring
system is not declined on the different steps and operations.
In practical terms, the results and the accumulated experience of the case study has Model for
shown that the proposed approach fills the gaps identified in the methods reported in logistics
the literature. In fact, our approach is quite practical, verifiable and repeatable to assess
ILP maturity at level 2, mainly because it is based on standards that are coherent
processes
for this level. assessment
This experience has enabled us also to offer an adequate operationalization of the
proposed approach based on the exploitation of Table V. Figure A3 presents the 45
proposed process of evaluating logistics distribution activities in companies. This
process involves three phases:
• Search for objective evidence: this consists of extracting the typical indicators for
a given level from Table V and find out the corresponding objective evidence in
the organization.
• Appreciation: this consists of checking the degree of adequacy between the
typical indicators of achievement and objective evidence. The non-adequacy
results in a non-compliance and leads to recommendations. Adequacy is
synonymous with acquisition of the concerned capability level and drives the
processing of achievement indicators and objective evidence of the next level.
• Recommendation: this consists, in the non-compliance case, of providing the
actions to be taken to reach the capability level concerned.

8. Conclusion
To conclude, the present research work provides, in general, a proof that a logistics
processes capability/maturity assessment approach based on the coupling of CMMI, as a
maturity model, and the X50 standard, as a source of logistics best practices is pertinent
at level 2. As an illustration, it presents a particular application of this approach to
distribution logistics activities and a case study in a furniture factory. We estimate that
this work has several implications. In the practical scope, it provides a new logistics
evaluation approach that is a practical, verifiable, repeatable and extensible to other
logistics process areas. In the research scope, it provides a comparative analysis between
the formalism of the CMMI model and the X50 standard practices; and highlights the X50
standard limits against the CMMI model requirements.
These findings provide an interesting opportunity to evolve the X50 standard
regarding CMMI requirements to assess capability/maturity of distribution logistics
processes. We summarize these opportunities in the following issues:
• decline explicitly Step 1 and Step 6 practices on the other steps;
• insert a section dealing with the standardization and configuration management
in each operation of each step; and
• provide key items that each operation output document type of each step should
include.
Finally, the CMMI model and the X50 standard are an interesting couple to transpose
for the evaluation of other logistics process areas. In each case, it suffices to rebuild,
based on the area’s best practices, the Table V. In the short term, we plan to address the
other operational steps (2, 3 and 5) of the X50 standard using the same approach.
The exploitation of CMMI model with other best practice standards for the assessment
of other process areas is an interesting piece of work we intend to lead shortly.
IJPPM References
64,1 AFNOR (2010), “FD X50-604”, available at: www.afnor.org (accessed 18 February 2014).
Battista, C., Fumi, A. and Schiraldi, M. (2012), “The logistic maturity model: guidelines for logistic
processes continuous improvement”, Paper Presented at Production and Operations
Management Society (POMS), Chicago, IL, 20-23 April, available at: www.pomsmeetings.
org/confproceedings/025/FullPapers/FullPaper_files/025-1329.pdf (accessed 20 February
46 2014).
Benmoussa, R., Derrouiche, R. and Bouras, A. (2009), “Méthode pratique pour le déploiement de
l’approche processus au sein d’une chaîne logistique”, Revue Française de Gestion
Industrielle, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 29-53.
Bititci, U.S. (1995), “Modelling of performance measurement systems in manufacturing
enterprises”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 137-147.
Bitton, M. (1990), “ECOGRAI : met́ hode de conception et d’implantation de systèmes de mesure de
performances pour les organisations industrielles”, doctoral dissertation, Bordeaux 1,
Bordeaux.
Bolstorff, P. and Rosenbaum, G. (2007), Supply Chain Excellence: A Handbook for Dramatic
Improvement Using the SCOR Model, Division of American Management Association
(AMACOM), New York, NY.
Cerutti, O. and Gattino, B. (1992), Indicateurs et Tableaux De Bord, AFNOR, Paris.
CMMI Product Development Team (2000), CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/
Integrated Product and Porcess Development, Version 1.02, Staged Representation,
Addison-Wesley, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
CMMI Product Team (2002), The People Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines For Improving The
Workforce, Addison-Wesley, Pittsburg.
CMMI Product Team (2007), CMMI for Acquisition, Version 1.2, Addison-Wesley,
Pittsburgh.
CMMI Product Team (2010), CMMI for Services, Version 1.3, Addison-Wesley, Pittsburgh.
Cohen, S. and Roussel, J. (2004), Strategic Supply Chain Management: The Five Disciplines for Top
Performance, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill.
Estampe, D., Lamouri S., Paris, J. and Brahim-Djelloul, S. (2010), “A framework for analysing
supply chain performance evaluation models”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 142 No. 2, pp. 247-258.
Garcia, H. and Giachetti, R. (2010), “Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in
Mexico”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 415-424.
Hunsche, C. (2006), “Introducing the design Chain”, Supply-Chain council.
Johnson, W.C. and McCormack, K.P. (2003), Supply Chain Networks and Business Process
Orientation: Advanced Strategies and Best Practices, CRC Press, New York, NY.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996), “Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy”, California
Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 53-79.
Kauremaa, J. and Suzuki, S. (2007), “Evaluating SCM practices with the SCM scorecard: evidence from
an international study”, Paper Presented at POMS 18th Annual Conference, Dallas, TX, 4-7
May, available at: www.lrg.tkk.fi/?q¼system/files/POMS_2007_Evaluating_SCM_
Practices_with_SCM_Scorecard.pdf (accessed 20 February 2014).
Lambert, D.M. (2008), Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance, Supply
Chain Management Institute, Terza edizione, Sarasota, FL.
Lamnabhi, M. (2008), Evaluer Avec CMMI Étape Par Étape, AFNOR, Paris.
Lockamy, A.III and McCormack, K. (2004), “The development of a supply chain management Model for
process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 272-278.
logistics
processes
Netland, T. and Alfnes, E. (2008), “A practical tool for supply chain improvement – experiences
with the supply chain maturity assessment test (SCMAT)”, Manufacturing Fundamentals: assessment
Necessity and Sufficiency 2008 Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on Production and
Operations Management, POM, Tokyo, pp. 956-969. 47
Netland, T.H., Alfnes, E. and Fauske, H. (2007), “How mature is your supply chain? – a supply
chain maturity assessment test”, Paper Presented at the 14th International EurOMA
Conference, Ankara, 17-20 June, available at: www.sintef.no/project/SMARTLOG/
Publikasjoner/2007/Netland%20et%20al%20_2007_%20How%20mature%20is%20your
%20supply%20chain.pdf (accessed 18 February 2014).
Pache, G. and Spalanzani, A. (2007), La Gestion Des Chaines Logistiques Multi-Acteurs:
Perspectives Stratégiques, Ed. PUG, Grenoble.
SCOR (2012), “Supply chain operation reference model SCOR 11.0”, available at: https://supply-
chain.org/f/SCOR11QRG.pdf (accessed 16 February 2014).
Srai, J. and Gregory, M. (2005), “Supply chain capability assessment of global operations using
maturity models”, in Demeter, K. (Ed.) Operations and Global Competitiveness Proceedings
of EurOMA 2005, Budapest, Lambert Academic Publishing, Köln, pp. 19-22.
Valadares, O., Ladeira, M.B. and McCormack, K.P. (2011), “The supply chain process
management maturity model – SCPM3”, in Onkal, D. (Ed.), Supply Chain Management –
Pathways for Research and Practice, InTech, Rijeka, pp. 201-218, available at: www.
intechopen.com/download/get/type/pdfs/id/17153 (accessed 18 February 2014).
Visconti, M. and Cook, C. (1998), “Evolution of a maturity model - critical evaluation and lessons
learned”, Software Quality Journal, Vol. 7 Nos 3-4, pp. 223-237.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

IJPPM Appendix
64,1
The Order form (green strain) is sent to the
Reception of the
logistics service by the sales department
Logistics Manager order from
representatives

48 This FOR_LOG_001 program aims to organize

Logistics Manager Establish Production the operation of loading and delivery by
program planning the delivery of completed orders

Verification is required to ensure that all

Logistics Manager
Checking the state of scheduled purchase orders are in progress of
/ Production
progress of the order execution to be delivered on time and this is
Manager
from done through a form displayed at the exit of
each production workshop

The program can be changed during the week

or day due to: (Raw material shortage,
Modification Breakdown, Client unavailable, changing
Program technical requirements of the product, etc.), In
Needed this case the sales department must inform the
Logistics department to be aware of these
NO changes.

Yes
Logistics Manager The review and the update of the
Review and up date FOR_LOG_002 delivery schedule is made in
the delivery schedule coordination with the Sales department and
production Department

Validation of the In case of approval of the Service Production

Logistics Manager delivery schedule and the sales department

Figure A1.
Order receipt process Preparation for According to the associated procedure
Logistics Manager delivery (PRO_LOG_003)
(self-made)
 This schedule is prepared from the delivery
program edited by the sales department (see
Model for
Logistics Manager Prepare delivery schedule
schedule FOR_LOG_002) logistics
processes
Logistics Manager Manage and organize the
delivery schedules
The implementation of human and material
resources as needed. Note: The update
assessment
schedule is based on the changes expressed
by the sales department
49
NO
Assistant of delivery Products Inform the This latter inform the sales
available Logistics department of the company
Manager
Yes

Assistant of delivery Get the delivery

voucher

Assistant of delivery / The warehouseman of the finished goods

Prepare the delivery
Warehouseman / provides the deliverers the corresponding
schedule and the products
Delivery Drivers products to the delivery voucher to put them
to deliver
in the loading area

By making sure of the conformity of the

Assistant of delivery Approves the delivery Delivery voucher compared with the orders
voucher prepared in term of quantity and attributed
Reference.

Assistant of delivery Load and deliver Note: the quality control manager assists the
/ Delivery Drivers customer orders loading operation in some cases. (Furniture
carpentry).

Transmits the yellow strain The delivery voucher must be signed by the
Deliverer / Carrier of the delivery voucher to customer as the acknowledgement of receipt
the Logistics Manager of the requested goods

On A database reserved for this purpose Figure A2.

Logistics Manager Register the deliveries called (Delivery Report FOR_LOG_009) and Loading and delivery
made send it to the sales department process (self-made)
IJPPM Assessment Process Deployment
Capability Capability Level Capability Capability
64,1 Table 8
Level... (i =1, 2, 3, 4) Level i +1 Level...

Objective
(Typical indicator of Evidence
achievement level i ) Research

(Evidence)

50 Appreciation

(Compliant)
(Non-Compliant)

Recommendation Objective
Evidence
(Stop) Research

(Evidence)

(Typical indicator of Appreciation

achievement level i )

(Compliant)

(Non-Compliant) ....
Figure A3.
Assessment process Recommendation
deployment
(Stop)
expressed in an
UML activity
diagram (self-made)

Step 4 sell and distribute Entreprise

operations (according Typical indicators of indicators of
Capability level to X50 standard) achievement (TIA) achievement Score

Capability level 1 Process/operation: 1 Distribution Plan Delivery schedule 3

(FOR_LOG_001)
Prepare the Manufacturing Plan and schedule of None 0
and Sales Plan (MSP) and critical resources needs:
the Distribution Resource internal and external
Plan (DRP) needs
Process/operation: 2 Master Distribution Delivery schedule 3
Prepare the Master Schedule (MDS) (FOR_LOG_002)
Distribution Schedule (MDS) Carriers reservation
Orders of packaging Resource Planning 1
Table A1. Process/operation: 3 Transport documents Delivery note 3
Comparing the Start executing logistics Delivery reports Delivery Report 3
outcomes of distribution activities (FOR_LOG_009)
processes with Process/operation: 4 Gaps None 0
CMMI requirements Control of the distribution Proposed corrections None 0
(Self-made) operations
About the authors Model for
Rachid Benmoussa is a Professor and a Researcher at the National School of Applied Sciences of logistics
Marrakesh, Cadi Ayyad University (UCA), Morocco in the field of industrial engineering and
logistics. Author of several research papers and supervisor of several theses, his area of research processes
and expertise deal with business process engineering, information systems, industrial logistics, assessment
innovation and sustainable development. He is the Head of the Research Laboratory: Information
System, Logistics, Production Engineering (SyLPro), the President of the International
Conference “Industrial Systems and Logistics” (SILxx), a Member of the Engineering Science 51
Doctoral Center of UCA, a member of the scientific and organizing committees of several
international conferences, and the President of the Moroccan Association for Innovation
(AMINOV). Professor Rachid Benmoussa is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: benmoussa.ensa@gmail.com
Dr Charkaoui Abdelkabir has a Bacaleaureat General Certificate of Secondary Education in
Mathematics Sciences, a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science of Management and a Graduate
Degree in Logistics Engineering. He received his PhD in Logistics & SCM from the Cadi Ayyad
University of Marrakech. At present, he is working as an Assistant Professor in the Department
of Mechanical Engineering, Laboratory Industrial Management and Innovation (LIMI), Faculty of
Science and Technology of Settat (Morocco), at the Hassan 1st University. His research interests
are in operations management, logistics performance and maturity of lean manufacturing.
Achraf Abd is a PhD Candidate in Engineering Sciences and Applied Mathematics,
Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech, received an Engineering Degree from the National School of
Applied Sciences of Marrakech, Cadi Ayyad University Marrakesh. His research interests include
ERP project, risk management, system reliability, enterprise capability modelling, manufacturing
network performance, knowledge-oriented enterprise collaboration, and enterprise
interoperability.
Marouane Hassou received an Engineering Degree in Industrial and Logistics Engineering
from the National School of Applied Sciences of Marrakesh, Cadi Ayyad University Marrakesh,
with research interests primarily in logistics maturity model and supply chain management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com