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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

A proposed maturity model to Warehouse

performance
improve warehouse performance
Loay Salhieh and Waed Alswaer
German Jordanian University, Amman, Jordan

Abstract
Received 15 February 2021
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a maturity model to improve warehouse performance. Revised 30 April 2021
Design/methodology/approach – This paper will follow De Bruin et al’s (2005) suggested six relevant Accepted 1 May 2021
phases: scope, design, populate, test, deploy and maintain in developing the proposed maturity model. This
study concentrates on the first five phases.
Findings – The proposed warehouse maturity model can be used as descriptive, benchmarking and a
prescriptive with a road map for improvement.
Practical implications – The warehouse maturity model was proposed to let warehouse managers evaluate
their practices and assess them by maturity level. Then, the proposed warehouse maturity model can be
utilized to develop a set of plans for conducting projects to improve the warehouse practices, techniques
and tools.
Originality/value – The proposed warehouse maturity model contributes to fill the shortages of maturity
model addressing the warehouse environment. In particular, it provides a useful tool to establish the overall
maturity level of a warehouse system. The proposed maturity model supports strategic decisions oriented
toward improvement capabilities of the warehouse and to compete based on service level provided.
Keywords Warehouse performance, Maturity model, Jordan, Warehouse practices
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
A business function audit can assess how current arrangements contribute to the purpose,
aims of the organization and how these arrangements support stability, and manage the
obligations and expectations (Cannings and Hills, 2012). It is essentially a comparison of
“what is” and “what should be.” This presents two fundamental challenges–measuring “what
is,” and defining “what should be.” In line with assessing current state and desired state,
researchers have developed a variety of maturity models in the business context, such as
strategic analysis, production management, process management, software engineering
(Paulk et al., 1993), innovation domain, quality management, marketing management, and so
on. Because of the broad range of potential applications, maturity models have gained
popularity in both management and science (Asdeckar and Felch, 2018; Wendler, 2012).
These models provided an understanding for the issue and promoted development actions.
By knowing the company’s present state compared to the ideal maturity state, it is possible to
know how far the goal is. Furthermore, Schiele (2007) puts it: “Maturity model describes
auditable stages which an organization is expected to go through in its quest for greater
sophistication.” In addition, the supply chain and logistics domain also developed their own
maturity models to assess current state and ideal state as listed in Table 1.
Despite the existence of maturity models for the supply chain (McCormack et al., 2008;
Reyes and Giachetti, 2010) and performance measurement systems (Wettstein and Kueng,
2002), there is no specific maturity model for the warehousing function to improve
performance. However, there are preliminary efforts to develop lean warehouse maturity
models, assessment tools, best practices and warehouse audit (Shan, 2008; Sobanski, 2009;
Mahfouz, 2011; Dehdari, 2013; De Visser, 2014; Dotoli et al., 2015; Andjelkovi
c et al., 2016; International Journal of
Bogale, 2016; Teka, 2017; Razik et al., 2017). Razik et al. (2017) proposed a warehouse maturity Productivity and Performance
Management
model questionnaire aimed at identifying major problems handicapping warehousing © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
performance improvement in the Moroccan companies. However, the proposed model only DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-01-2021-0043
IJPPM addresses obstacles to improve warehouse performance and not a comprehensive model in
nature. Furthermore, all initiatives were too specific to achieve a comprehensive model to
assess all aspects of warehouse related issues and too limited in their scope. In addition, the
preliminary efforts to address a warehouse performance did not pinpoint the impacts of
warehouse practices and the causes.
Warehousing plays a crucial and important role in modern supply chains and have an
essential role in global logistics systems to ensure high levels of customer service and overall
performance of the supply chain (Ozt€€ urko glu et al., 2014). Therefore, the motivation and aim
of this study is to propose a maturity-audit model as a common ground among researchers
and practitioners to advance theory and practice related to improving warehouse
performance regardless of the type of industry they serve. This study provides three key
contributions. First, it reviews available efforts to improve warehouse operations and
consequently performance and discuss these efforts in developing the proposed model.
Second, the proposed maturity-audit model is comprehensive as it includes aggregate and
profile performance measures (Søgaard et al., 2019). Third, the nature of the proposed model
can be used as descriptive, benchmarking and a prescriptive as there is a call for more
prescriptive maturity models (Tarhan et al., 2016).
The remainder of this article structured as follows. Section two provides the theoretical
background and related literature. Section three provides a proposed road map for warehouse
improvement, and section four discusses results. Finally, conclusion and suggestions for
future research discussed.

2. Theoretical background and related literature review

The objective of this section is twofold. First, present a brief description of scholars’
initiatives to improve warehouse operations and consequently performance. The second
objective presents literature related to methodology to develop maturity models.

2.1 Initiatives to improve warehouse operations

There are a variety of initiatives to evaluate current state of a warehouse from different
perspectives such as performance, profiling and best practices utilized by a warehouse.
2.1.1 Performance perspective. The purpose of auditing warehouse performance is to get
an early warning of trouble, to facilitate the search for best practices, and create an audit trail
that records progress in improving the utilization of space and time (Neely et al., 1995). There
are several reasons for measuring performance: for improving performance, for avoiding
inconveniences before it is too late, for monitoring customer relations, for process and cost
control and for maintaining quality (Ackerman, 2004; Faber et al., 2013; Jothimani and
Sarmah, 2014). The main instruments for assessing performance are performance indicators,
also named key performance indicators (Liviu et al., 2009). They are specific characteristics of
the process, which are measured in order to describe if the process is realized according to

Maturity model Author

Maturity models in supply chain sustainability Correia et al. (2017)

The supply chain process management maturity model Oliveira et al. (2011)
Table 1. Maturity model for the delivery process in supply chains Asdecker and Felch (2018)
The supply chain and Supply chain capability maturity model Reyes and Giachetti (2010)
logistics domain The logistic maturity model Battista and Schiraldi (2013)
maturity models Purchasing maturity models Søgaard et al. (2019)
pre-established standards (goals). Accordingly, scholars have proposed a variety of Warehouse
performance initiatives to evaluate current state of a warehouse that addressed performance
performance on the aggregate and specific activities in the warehouse environment
(Goomas et al., 2011; Lao et al., 2011; Ramaa et al., 2012; Saetta et al., 2012; Yang and Chen,
2012; Cao and Jiang, 2013; Faber et al., 2013). However, the aggregation of indicators can
considerably simplify the analysis of a system, summarizing the information of a given set of
subindicators (Franceschini et al., 2006). On the aggregate level, performance measures must
consider the existing indicators of the warehouse activities and knowing that there are limits
in the decision-maker’s ability to process large sets of performance expressions (Clivill
e et al.,
2007). Furthermore, the aggregate operational performance measure must answer the
question “Overall, how well are we doing?” (Melnyk et al., 2004; Clivill
e et al., 2007; Rodriguez
et al., 2009; Staudt et al., 2015; Laosirihongthong et al., 2018). Accordingly, this study will
consider aggregated (integrated) performance measures as recommended by Staudt et al.
(2015) and Laosirihongthong et al. (2018). However, the aim of maturity-audit model is to
investigate the existence of such measure, and if exist how far are they from best-in-class
operations. Therefore, this study will adopt performance measures that are used by most
professionals as reported by the Warehousing Education and Research Council (2015) as
listed in Table 2. Furthermore, Axelsson and Frankel (2014) developed a performance
measurement system for warehouse activities as presented in Table 3. In other words, if these
data are captured at the activity level, then warehouse performance indicators listed in
Table 2 are calculated.
2.1.2 Activity profiling perspective. Activity profiling serves as a baseline to identify
problems connected to information and material handling in the warehouse operation. In the
end, the activity profiling will justify investments and enable required improvements
(Bartholdi and Hackman, 2011). Lewczuk and Zak _ (2013) explain that activity profiling
involves the analysis of historical data, product characteristics and locations, packing
patterns and warehouse layout. All these factors are important when identifying potential

Performance indicator Description Best-in-Class

Perfect order (from This index entails orders received on time, in correct quantities, ≥96.8%
supplier) index correct articles, damage free with correct documentation.
Therefore, this index is calculated by multiplying performance
indicators from Table 3 (R1*R2*R3*R4)
Perfect put-away index This index entails time to put away goods from dock into storage ≥99.95%
areas (racks and shelves), items in correct locations, damage free
because of put away activity. Therefore, this index is calculated
by multiplying performance indicators from Table 3
(PT1*PT2*PT3)
Perfect picking index This index entails number of orders picked per hour, accuracy of ≥99.95%
picked orders, damage free because of picking activities, and no
back orders. Therefore, this index is calculated by multiplying
performance indicators from Table 3 (P1*P2*P3*P4)
Perfect order (customer) This index entails orders shipped on time, complete orders, ≥99%
index damage free, with accurate documentations. Therefore, this
index is calculated by multiplying performance indicators from
Table 3 (D1*D2*D3*D4)
Perfect warehouse index This overall index entails multiplication of (Perfect order (from ≥95.74%
supplier) index * perfect put-away index * perfect picking index *
perfect order (customer) index) Table 2.
Safety (accidents per Number of accidents per a year 1 accident per Integrated warehouse
year) year performance measures
IJPPM Warehouse
activity Performance indicator Description Best-in-Class

Receiving
PR1 % of on time orders Orders received on time ≥99%
(supplier)
PR2 % of complete orders Orders received in correct quantities and ≥99.5%
correct articles
PR3 % of supplier orders The number of orders that are processed ≥99%
received damage free damage free as a percentage of total orders
PR4 % of accurate received Received orders have correct documentation ≥99.26%
documents
Put-away
PT1 % Dock-to-Stock cycle less Equals the time, typically measured in hours, ≥95%
than 2 h required to put away goods
PT2 Put away accuracy How many items are in the correct storage 100%
locations?
PT3 % SKU damage free How many items are damaged as a result of ≥99.9%
put away activity?
Picking
PP1 % # orders picked/hr Picks per person and time unit ≥24 orders
greater than or equal 24
orders
PP2 % of picking accuracy This measure the accuracy of the order ≥99.84%
picking process against errors caught prior to
shipment, such as during packaging
PP3 % of SKU damage free How many items damaged because of Picking ≥99.9%
activity?
PP4 % of orders shipped with The portion of total orders that shipped on ≥99.5%
no back orders time with no back orders
Despatch/shipping
PD1 % of orders shipped on The percentage of orders shipped at the ≥99.87%
time planned time, meaning off the dock and in
transit to final destination
PD2 % of orders complete Measure Complete orders ≥99.5%
PD3 % of orders delivered How many items damaged because of ≥99.9%
Table 3. damage free delivery?
Warehouse activity PD4 % of orders accurately Shipping documentation accuracy ≥99.9%
measures documented

improvements. Therefore, armed with activity profiling knowledge, you can start to make
decisions about the changes in processes, capacity, throughput and inventory that will yield
greater efficiency and the flexibility to adapt to both your internal customers’ and external
customers’ needs. This study categorizes activity profiling into three main categories:
purchase order profile, customer order profiles and item activity profiles. The purpose of the
purchase order profiling is to use it in receiving and put-away process design. With help
of purchase order profile it is possible to plan receiving mode disposition, put-away batch
sizing and put-away tour construction and is an inbound activity. However, a customer order
profile deals with behavior of customer orders and is an outbound activity, i.e. ordering
patterns of the customer order (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2011). Frazelle (2002) emphasized
that how the customer orders products has an impact on the expected work in a warehouse,
as each order is a shopping list containing a single or a number of pick lines. These pick lines
generates travel to the item location and subsequently packing, checking and shipping to the Warehouse
customer (Lewczuk and Zak, _ 2013). According to Frazelle (2002), there are different performance
components of customer order profiles as shown in Table 4. On the other hand, the main
assignment of the item activity profiling is to designate for each item where it should be
located in the warehouse, how much space it requires for storage and to what storage mode it
should be located (Frazelle, 2002). It will also profile popularity and volume for an individual
item (Park, 2012). Another factor identified by the item activity profiling is which items that
tend to be ordered together, and this information is important for the decision of storage
location in the warehouse (De Koster et al., 2007). The different components of item activity
profiling are presented in Table 4 (Bartholdi and Hackman, 2011; Frazelle, 2002).
2.1.3 Best practices perspective. Borrowing from supply chain management practices, we
can define warehouse practices as a set of activities undertaken in an organization to promote
effective management of its warehouse operations. The understanding and practicing of
warehouse operation best practices has become an essential prerequisite for staying
competitive in the global race and for enhancing profitably (Richards, 2017). However, despite
the increased attention paid to warehousing, the literature has not been able to offer much by
way of guidance to help the practice of warehouse except the book published by Richards
(2017). Furthermore, it is impossible to agree on a common set of practices and standard
operating procedures that fits all, giving the type of the warehouse, goods handled and the
industry it serves (Pires et al., 2017). In addition, there are a variety of organizations reporting
their own warehouse practices, standard operating procedures and warehouse audit
checklists based on claimed best practices in the warehouse environment. However, there are
warehouse practices related to quality, lean, waste reductions and sort, set in order, shine,
standardize, and sustain (5S) practices that could be implemented in any warehouse
environment (Mustafa, 2015; Harun et al., 2017; Asdeckar and Felch, 2018). Accordingly,
Salhieh et al. (2019) and Abushaikha et al. (2018) have showed that all warehouse
environments can adopt a proposed set of waste reduction practices. In addition, they showed
the impact these waste reduction practices have on warehouse operational performance.
Allied with waste reduction, 5S plus safety lean tool is able to eliminate many of the forms of
waste, create and enhance visual management and can reduce potential for errors in
warehousing management (Mustafa, 2015). Furthermore, previous studies claimed that there

Impact on
warehouse
Planning and Required activity
design issues Key questions profile Profile components measures

Receiving and Receiving mode Purchase Order mix distributions, PT1; PD1
put-away disposition, put-away order profile lines per receipt
process design batch sizing, Put-away (POP) distribution, lines and cube
tour construction per receipt distribution
Order picking Order batch size, pick Customer Order mix distributions, PP1; PD1
and shipping wave planning, picking order profile lines per order distribution,
process design tour construction, (COP) lines and cube per order
shipping mode distribution
disposition
Slotting Zone definition, storage Item activity Popularity profile, cube PT2; PP1; PD1 Table 4.
mode selection and profile (IAP) movement/volume profile, Activity profiling and
sizing, pick face sizing, order completion profile, its impact on
item location assignment demand correlation profile, warehouse
demand variable profile performance indicators
IJPPM is a relationship between 5S plus safety lean tool and warehouse operational performance
(Gergova, 2010; Mustafa, 2015; Srinivasan et al., 2016). Therefore, since the aim of this study is
to propose a comprehensive maturity-audit model that fits all warehouses regardless of type,
goods handled and industry served, this study will adopt waste reduction practices and 5S
plus safety lean tool under the practice domain of the proposed maturity-audit model. Tables
5 and 6 presents a description of waste reduction practices and lean 6S (5S þ safety) (Gamage
et al., 2012; Skeldon et al., 2014; Srinivasan et al., 2016; Salhieh et al., 2019) adopted in this
study respectively. However, this study will not represent the “Sustain” step in the proposed
maturity model, since this step is the final phase of 5S plus safety lean, which assures that the
changes sustained.

2.2 Model development

Maturity models date back to the late 1980s, attributed to the work of the Carnegie
Mellon University (Paulk, 2009). Maturity models can be seen as an audit tool for
evaluating the current stage of a measured issue (Aho, 2012), and representing theories
of stage-based evolution, their basic purpose consists in describing stages and
maturation paths. Rummler and Brache (1995) metaphorically refer to such audit tools
as engines for continuously improving systems, roadmaps for guiding organizations and
blueprints for designing new entities. The concept of maturity has enjoyed widespread
attention from academics in numerous fields. Although it is most widely used in the
software industry and engineering, it is also been used in many other arenas (R€oglinger
et al., 2012). Some applications have been developed in areas such as industrial
maintenance (Macchi and Fumagalli, 2013), product development (Farrukh et al., 2003),
logistics (Battista and Schiraldi, 2013), collaboration (Campos et al., 2013), quality
management systems (Morsal et al., 2009), and environmental concerns (Ormazabal and
Sarriegi, 2014), purchasing (Søgaard et al., 2019), supply chain (Reyes and Giachetti,
2010) among others. However, there are quite a few maturity models in existence these
days, particularly to assess warehouse maturity, which seems to be a knowledge gap
that necessitates further investigation. For example, Asdecker and Felch (2018)
discussed digitization maturity level which included the warehouse environment.
Furthermore, scholars have introduced models to assess lean maturity in the warehouse
environment (Sobanski, 2009; Overboom et al., 2010; Dehdari, 2013). In addition, Razik
et al. (2017) proposed a maturity model for the warehousing function in Moroccan
companies based on the concept of critical success factors.
Typically, maturity models classified according to three application-specific purposes
(Becker et al., 2009; De Bruin et al., 2005; Iversen et al., 1999; Maier et al., 2009; P€oppelbuß and
R€oglinger, 2011) descriptive, prescriptive and comparative. A maturity model serves a
descriptive purpose of use if applied for assessments. While a maturity model serves as a
comparative purpose of use if it allows for internal or external benchmarking (P€oppelbuß and
R€oglinger, 2011). However, a maturity model serves a prescriptive purpose of use if it
indicates how to identify desirable maturity levels and provides guidelines on improvement
measures (Becker et al., 2009). This study claims that the developed maturity model
encompasses the three characteristics as it can be used as descriptive, benchmarking and
prescriptive as will be demonstrated in results section in this study. Furthermore, this study
will follow Asdeckar and Felch’s (2018) methodology in developing the study proposed
warehouse maturity model. Accordingly, this study believes that the proposed warehouse
maturity model is a pertinent field problem; therefore, we consider design science research
(DSR) to represent an appropriate foundation (Van Aken, 2005), which focuses on the
development and application of artifacts (Hevner et al., 2004). However, this study focuses on
the design and evaluation phases of DSR by thoroughly describing the model’s development
Warehouse Impact on warehouse
Warehouse
activity items Item description activity measures performance
Receiving (R)
R1 As a warehouse manager, you are involved with purchasing PR2; PR3
in specifying and agreeing the packaging, items per carton,
carton per pallet, and labeling requirement
R2 You ask your suppliers to send deliveries with the most PR3
suitable packaging for you
R3 You specify a time schedule for the suppliers to make the PR1
delivery
R4 You receive a notification from the suppliers/shipper before a PT1
delivery arrives at your warehouse. (ASN 5 advanced
shipping notification)
R5 You are able to plan the correct equipment (forklift trollies, PR3; PT1
powered trucks and pallets jacks) to use in unloading before
the delivery arrives
R6 You are able to plan enough labor to unload the delivery PT1
before it arrives
R7 You are able to plan sufficient space to unload the delivery PT1
before it arrives. You have always stock-keeping units (SKU)
master data available, e.g. for new products, that you are able
to store and handle these products appropriately?
R8 You perform cross-docking operations when possible or D1; D2
needed
R9 It is easy to identify deliveries from suppliers (product, PR2; PR4; PT1
description, pack quantity)
R10 You do carry out inspections and quality checks on most of PR2; PR3
the goods received. In other words, you do count and identify
100% of the received products
R11 You usually breakdown deliveries into smaller or lager PP1
increments (pallets to cartons or vice versa) for storage based
on data collected from customer orders. In other words, you
do not require deliveries from your supplier in the normal
selling quantity in order to increase the speed of throughput
and simplify picking. (You do not order in logistics units)
Put-away (PA)
PA1 We have a system (computerized or warehouse manager) PT1; PT2
which allocate product locations prior to offloading and
instruct the operator as to where to place the goods
PA2 You notice any delays in put-away because of labor or PT1
equipment occupied or missing
PA3 The rack configuration is flexible enough to accommodate PT1
size of pallet received from suppliers
PA4 You create a time schedule to separate the operations of the PD1, PT3
put-away and picking team
Picking (P)
P1 You slot the heaviest SKUs in weight at the locations nearest PP1
to the start points of the pick
P2 You slot items that usually sold together next to each other PP1
P3 You use technologies in picking operations such as pick-to- PP1; PP2
Table 5.
light, voice picking etc.
Waste reduction
P4 You use double (volume and frequency) ABC categorization PP1 practices and its
in order to slot SKUs impact on warehouse
performance indicators
(continued )
IJPPM Warehouse Impact on warehouse
activity items Item description activity measures

P5 Fastest-moving SKUs placed in the middle row so that the PP1

order picker does not have to spend time bending and
stretching
P6 The picker pick the exact quantity required PP2; PD2
P7 You use a warehouse management system to create an PP1
efficient route within the warehouse in the picking process
Despatch/shipping (D)
D1 There is sufficient space at the loading bay to stage the loads PD1
D2 Truck arrivals are subject to a system in the shipping area PD1
D3 We have grids marked out on the warehouse floor at the PD1
despatch area to replicate the floor area of the largest vehicle
D4 Vehicles at the despatch bay do not wait a long time until the PD1
despatch team is ready
D5 At our warehouse, the checking of vehicle papers at the PD4
despatch bay ensures the match of the SKUs to the right
vehicles
D6 Despatch operator checks and inspects that picked SKUs and PD2
Table 5. quantities are correct

€
and evaluation (Osterle et al., 2011). Therefore, we build on the often cited generic six phases
of maturity development presented by De Bruin et al. (2005).
2.2.1 Model development methodology. De Bruin et al. (2005) suggested six relevant phases:
scope, design, populate, test, deploy and maintain. This study concentrates on the first five
phases, because the sixth phase would require a longitudinal study, which suggested as
future research.
2.2.1.1 Maturity model scope. The first phase defines the scope and boundaries of the
model, which can be either general or domain-specific. Moreover, stakeholders that can assist
in model development or benefit from the application of the model must be identified.
Therefore, the proposed model’s scope designed for third-part logistics firms, and thus
domain-specific. Moreover, two types of stakeholders’ considered relevant for model
development: academia and industry. Therefore, the development process builds on available
publications and original empirical work to adequately represent the practitioners.
2.2.1.2 Design. The second phase determines the architecture of the model based on five
subcriteria: audience, method of application, driver of application, respondents and
application. It is important to define the target audience to meet their needs. Accordingly,
the targeted audience is warehouse managers (because they are responsible for developing
and maintaining the developed maturity model), as well as external auditors and consultants
(because they are often engaged in guiding organizational change). The major drivers of the
model’s application are market dynamics that force organizations to rethink their business
models. The respondents are warehouse managers and mid-level staff, as they possess the
expertise to assess their warehouse maturity capabilities. The model can be applied to
multiple entities (third-part logistics, private warehouses and public warehouses) in multiple
regions. After clarifying why and how the model is applied, the stages and dimensions must
be defined as discussed in the following two subsections.
2.2.1.2.1. Maturity stages of warehouse. According to De Bruin et al. (2005), the number of
stages may vary from model to model, but what is important is that the final stages are
distinct and well-defined, and that there is a logical progression through stages. They also
stress the need to provide a summary of the major requirements and measures of the stages.
 Impact on warehouse
Warehouse
Category Activity description activity measures performance
Sort
S1.1 Only the required stock and packaging present in the work area PT1; Safety
S1.2 Only the required tools and equipment are present in the work area PT1; PD1; Safety
S1.3 Only the required paperwork is present in the work area (signage) PR4; PD4
Straighten
S2.1 Location for all stock are clearly defined and labeled PT1; PT2; PP1; PP2; Safety
S2.2 Equipment and tools properly labeled and have a clearly defined PT1; PP1; Safety
storage location
S2.3 Paper work/scanners/voice equipment properly labeled and has PT1; PP1
clearly defined location
S2.4 Walkways, access to equipment and work area boundaries clearly PT1; PP1; PD1; Safety
defined and marked
Shine
S3.1 Storage containers, shelving/racking and storage areas are clean PT3; Safety
and damage free
S3.2 Tools and equipment are fully maintained, clean and damage free PT1; PT3; PP1; PP3; PD1;
PD3; Safety
S3.3 Work surface are clean and damage free PP1; safety
S3.4 Cleaning equipment available and neatly stored PP1
Standardize
S4.1 Tools, equipment, paperwork stored neatly and returned PT1; PP1; PD1
immediately after use
S4.2 Maintenance records for tools and materials handling equipment PT3; PD3
are easily accessible and up to date
S4.3 Waste products (waste oil, rubbish) consistently cleaned up and Safety
removed from work area
Safety
S6.1 Are employees wearing suitable PPE (personal protective Safety
equipment) required for their current work?
S6.2 Walkways and access to safety equipment are clearly identified and Safety
unobstructed (no hazards or obstacles in the way of fire
extinguishers, emergency access doors)
S6.3 Is the working environment suitable for the work in hand (lighting, Safety Table 6.
air quality, temperature)? 6S audit tool and its
S6.4 Are the equipment and tools provided correctly for the current work Safety impact on warehouse
activity? performance indicators

Therefore, maturity stages represent a certain level of maturity and enable the improvement
of the selected domain in a targeted way (Fraser et al., 2002). Each stage requires an
appropriate denotation and a general description. Since warehouse maturity is relatively a
new research domain, this study proposes four stages as shown in Table 7.

Maturity stage Description

Negligible Less than 25% of domain activities practiced or implemented

Low More than or equal to 25% and less than 50% of domain activities practiced or implemented Table 7.
Moderate More than or Equal to 50% and Less than 75% of domain activities practiced or implemented Warehouse maturity-
High More than or equal to 75% of domain activities practiced or implemented auditable stages
IJPPM 2.2.1.2.2. Model dimensions of warehouse maturity. The aforementioned proposed stages are
applied to the model’s dimensions. Furthermore, the inclusion of several dimensions allows
for the modeling of complex domains. Each dimension may represent a different maturity
stage, which facilitates detailed analyses and the identification of specific opportunities to
make improvements. Furthermore, the model’s dimensions add specific content to the
previously defined maturity stages (Fraser et al., 2002). Each dimension consists of elements
or activities that allow a detailed understanding of the described phenomenon (Fraser et al.,
2002). Methodologically, an appropriate denotation and a general definition of each element
are required (De Bruin et al., 2005). The four stages are applied to five dimensions (integrated
warehouse performance measures, warehouse activity measures, activity profiling, waste
reduction practices and 6S audit tool). Each dimension has several elements as shown in
Tables 2–6 respectively. Furthermore, this study will use a yes/no scale since a specific and
accurate answer is measured. In other words, is the warehouse practicing the measured
element and is it implemented through some type of standard operating procedures.
2.2.1.3 Maturity model population. The third phase broaches the issue of the specific
content of the model by defining model components and subcomponents. A component
denotes what needs to be measured. According to De Bruin et al. (2005), components can be
defined by a review of the literature or the use of empirical approaches such as stakeholder
interviews, surveys, focus groups and case studies. Accordingly, this study has used a
literature review to denote components in every dimension, and then used a structured
interview to confirm relevancy of the items in every dimension. Therefore, participants in the
structured interview were asked to rate the relevance of the identified items within each of the
proposed dimensions on a four-tiered Likert scale (not relevant, marginally relevant, relevant
and highly relevant). The participants in the structured interview chosen from several
sources are shown in Table 8. Overall, all of the cited elements seem relevant for the
warehouse with averages varying from 2.83 to 3.81.
2.2.1.4 Maturity model testing. The fourth phase tests the validity and reliability of the
model to strengthen the populated model’s relevance and rigor. The model’s validity
guarantees that the model measures what it intends to measure, whereas reliability refers to
whether the results are exact and repeatable. De Bruin et al. (2005) suggested several methods
to ensure the model’s validity and reliability, such as case studies, surveys and literature
reviews. They conclude that “[. . .] the manner in which testing is undertaken can vary
between models clarifying why and how the model is applied, the stages and dimensions
must be defined. Accordingly, since all proposed dimensions and items within borrowed from
previous research as discussed in the literature review section, therefore, the validity and
reliability of the dimensions confirmed.
2.2.1.5 Deploy. The fifth phase combines the model’s distribution within business practice
for determining its generalizability. De Bruin et al. (2005) proposed a two-step procedure to
ensure the general acceptance of the model: applying the model to one of the involved
stakeholders and applying the model to organizations that did not participate in the model’s

Source Criteria Number

German flying profess program (Logistics)
practiced at German Jordanian University
Logistics faculty members at German
Jordanian University
Table 8. Students enrolled in the Master Logistics
Participants in the program at German Jordanian University
structured interview
Have practical and academic expertise in assessing 3
warehouse environment
Have published and teach warehouse course 2
Graduated or preparing their thesis, and have a 3
practical warehouse expertise more than five years as
general managers or managers
development and testing. Since the development of the model was the authors’ responsibility, Warehouse
then the proposed model applied to two third-part logistics companies operated in Jordan as performance
discussed in the results section. Figure 1 provides an overview of the final model. The detailed
description of the items related to dimensions is presented in Tables 2–6.

3. A diagnostic model for improvement

Maturity models following a prescriptive purpose of use need to include improvement
measures for each maturity level and available level of granularity in the sense of good or best
practices (P€oppelbuß and R€oglinger, 2011). Furthermore, Ahlemann et al. (2005) require
prescriptive maturity models to disclose potential for improvement. Therefore, maturity
models expected to disclose current and desirable maturity levels and to include respective
improvement measures (Becker et al., 2009). In addition, Rummler and Brache (1995)
metaphorically refer to such tools as engines for continuously improving systems, roadmaps
for guiding organizations and blueprints for designing new entities. Therefore, this study
must first establish a correlation between items proposed in the activity profile, waste
reduction practices, 6S and warehouse activity measures. Although there are few studies that
established a correlation between these items and warehouse performance measures
(Frazelle, 2002; De Koster et al., 2007; Gergova, 2010; Bartholdi and Hackman, 2011; Park,
_
2012; Lewczuk and Zak, 2013; Mustafa, 2015; Abushaikha and Salhieh, 2016; Srinivasan et al.,
2016; Salhieh et al., 2019), but there was no correlation specifically with the proposed
warehouse activity measures. Therefore, in order to establish a correlation between profiling
activities, waste reduction practices and 6S with warehouse activities measures, a Delphi
technique is used. The Delphi technique is especially appropriate when expert opinions are
often the only source of information (Rowe and Wright, 1999). It is not surprising that a
number of supply chain researchers have used the Delphi technique, as research in supply
chain management still needs more grounding in order to be developed as a discipline
(Melnyk et al., 2009; Markmann et al., 2013; Piecyk and McKinnon, 2013; Abushaikha and
Salhieh, 2016; Salhieh et al., 2019). In addition to literature scarcity addressing maturity
models in the warehouse, another major reason that makes the Delphi technique the most
appropriate to develop such a correlation is the complexity of the subject which requires the

Figure 1.
Overview of the
warehouse maturity-
audit model
IJPPM knowledge of experts who understand the different practices that would produce
improvements in the warehouse environment.
The Delphi technique is a method for consensus building by using a series of
questionnaires to collect data from a panel of selected subjects (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963;
Linstone et al., 1975). Theoretically, the Delphi process continuously iterated until consensus
is determined. However, researchers pointed out three iterations are often sufficient to collect
the needed information and to reach a consensus in most cases (Custer et al., 1999; Ludwig,
1997). Furthermore, Delphi studies pointed out that the first iteration is a “brainstorming”
stage, where panelists respond to open-ended questions, which serve as the cornerstone of
soliciting specific information in later iterations (Custer et al., 1999; Piecyk and McKinnon,
2013). Accordingly, this study has sent a matrix structure of the different items proposed in
activity profiling, waste reduction, 6S and warehouse activity measures. The respondents
asked to rate the correlation score based on the following scores:
0 5 No correlation
1 5 The item only remotely affects the warehouse activity measure
3 5 The process input has a moderate effect on warehouse activity measure
9 5 The process input has a direct and strong effect on warehouse activity measure
For determining consensus in later iterations, decision rules were established. For example, at
least 70% of Delphi subjects need to rate three or nine. For the size of experts’ panel, Okoli and
Pawlowski (2004) recommended 10–18, other studies indicated that a minimum panel size of
10–15 is needed (Sitlington and Coetzer, 2015).
In the context of this study, we needed to devise criteria for the selection of experts,
practitioners and academics, as well as addressing the issue of the number and size of panel to
use (Brill et al., 2006; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). For practitioners, it was decided that they
must have a minimum of five-year experience as warehouse operations manager. With
respect to academics, the study employed three criteria: academic qualifications, experience
in teaching warehousing and scholarly publication history in warehousing subjects. As for
the experts’ panel size, 12 panelists were selected (50 percent practitioners and 50 percent
academics) from our network of German and Jordanian lecturers and consultants. The results
of the first iteration, with justification of each score analyzed and accordingly correlations
with scores of three or nine retained if at least 70% of Delphi subjects rate three or nine. The
results used for the second round of data collection, and participants were required agree or
disagree. In the second round, areas of disagreement and agreement identified and consensus
began forming. Correlations that scored less than 70% of agreement removed from the next
round. In the third and final round, each participant received again the matrix that included
the items and ratings summarized from the second round and asked to revise their judgments.
Based on the response of this round, Kendall’s W, also known as Kendall’s coefficient of
concordance, used to estimate the level of consensus between the panelists. According to
Schmidt (1997), a value of Kendall’s W of 0.7 or higher can be interpreted as strong agreement,
and the results of Kendall’s W were higher than 0.7. Based on the results, the items that
correlate with warehouse activity measures are finalized as shown in Tables 4–6.
Consequently, the proposed roadmap as shown in Figure 2 would accompany the proposed
maturity model for improvement purposes based on Delphi results.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Maturity assessment in two third-party logistics providers
Two third-party logistics providers (A and B) participated in the application (their names not
provided due to confidentiality agreements) of the proposed maturity model. Company A
 Integrated Warehouse
Performance Measures
Perfect warehouse Index = (Perfect order (from supplier) Index * Perfect put-
away Index * Perfect picking Index * Perfect order (customer) Index)
Warehouse
Perfect order (from
supplier) index
Perfect put-
away index
Perfect picking
index
Perfect order
(customer) index
performance
Safety
Warehouse Acvity measures PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PT1 PT2 PT3 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PD1 PD2 PD3 PD4
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Receiving R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
PA1
PA2
Put-away
PA3
Best Practices
PA4
P1
P2
P3
Picking P4
P5
P6
P7
D1
D2
D3
shipping
D4
D5
D6

Purchase order profile POP

Activity Profiling
Customer order profile COP

Item acvity profile. IAP

S1.1
Sort S1.2
S1.3
S2.1
S2.2
Straighten
S2.3
S2.4
S3.1
S3.2
6S Audit Tool Shine
S3.3
S3.4
S4.1
Standardize S4.2
S4.3
S6.1
Figure 2.
S6.2 Roadmap for
Safety
S6.3 improvement
S6.4

handles 1,000 SKUs, while company B handles 500 SKUs. A panel consists of general
manager, warehouse manager and supervisors selected in each investigated company, to
obtain the relative implementation for each dimension proposed in the maturity model.
However, the authors have physically audited the implementation of the 6S lean tool in the
investigated companies and rated this dimension based on observation. As a first step,
Table 9 shows the results of the investigated dimensions’ proposed in the maturity model,
IJPPM Company A Company B
Warehouse activity measures Item (Y/N) Value (measures) (Y/N) Value (measures)

Perfect order (from supplier) index PR1 N N

PR2 Y 99.81 N
PR3 Y 99.1 N
PR4 Y 100 N
Perfect put-away index PT1 N N
PT2 N N
PT3 Y 99.9 N
Perfect picking index PP1 N
PP2 Y 99.96 N
PP3 Y 100 N
PP4 Y 97 N
Perfect order (customer) index PD1 Y 100 N
PD2 Y 99.9 N
PD3 Y 99.9 N
PD4 Y 100 N
Safety Safety Y 3 per year 4 per year
Activity profiling POP N N
COP N N
IAP N N
Best practices
Receiving R1 N N
R2 N N
R3 Y Y
R4 N Y
R5 Y Y
R6 Y Y
R7 Y N
R8 Y N
R9 Y Y
R10 N Y
R11 Y N
Put-away PA1 Y N
PA2 Y Y
PA3 N Y
PA4 Y Y
Picking P1 N N
P2 N Y
P3 N N
P4 N N
P5 N N
P6 Y Y
P7 N Y
Shipping D1 Y Y
D2 Y Y
D3 N N
D4 N Y
D5 Y Y
D6 Y Y
6S audit tool
Sort S1.1 N Y
Table 9. S1.2 N Y
Maturity dimensions S1.3 Y N
measures (current
status) (continued )
 Company A Company B
Warehouse
Warehouse activity measures Item (Y/N) Value (measures) (Y/N) Value (measures) performance
Straighten S2.1 Y Y
S2.2 Y Y
S2.3 Y Y
S2.4 N N
Shine S3.1 Y Y
S3.2 Y Y
S3.3 Y Y
S3.4 Y N
Standardize S4.1 N Y
S4.2 N Y
S4.3 Y Y
Safety S6.1 N Y
S6.2 N Y
S6.3 Y Y
S6.4 Y N Table 9.

and Table 10 presents maturity level results for each investigated dimension regarding their
usage. The previous two tables are used as is current situation of the two companies.
Therefore, Table 10 shows that company “A” utilized 75% of proposed warehouse activity
measures and did not utilize any profiling techniques. Furthermore, company “A”
implements 50% of proposed waste reduction practices, and practiced 56% of 6S audit
tools. In contrast, company “B” did not utilize any of the proposed warehouse activity
measures nor any activity profiling techniques. However, company “B” utilized 61% of waste
reduction practices and practiced 78% of 6S audit tool.
As a second step to use the proposed warehouse maturity model as a benchmark, a request
to measure the missing warehouse performance indicators send to the company to report
such an indicator over a week period. Accordingly, Table 11 presents warehouse
performance indicators for both companies with best in-class measures. Table 11 shows
that company “A” is performing much better than company “B”, but below best in-class
measures except on perfect order (customer) index measures. However, company “B” is
performing much lower than best in-class measures on all warehouse activity measures.
Furthermore, the results from Table 11 show the width of the gap between company’s
warehouse performance and best in-class, and reflect the magnitude of improvement
initiatives to lessen the gap.
Consequently, as a third step, the company may use the proposed road map to improve
warehouse activity performance. Therefore, by comparing the current situation and the
proposed road map, the company can determine areas of improvement as shown in Figure 3.
For example, suppose company “A” decided to improve perfect put-away index from current
situation (91.7%) to best in-class (99.95%), then the company should start implementing the
followings: R4, PA3, POP, IAP, S1.1, S1.2, S2.4, S4.1 and S4.2.

Company A Company B
Value Maturity level Value Maturity level

Warehouse activity measures 75.00% Stage 4: high 0.00% Stage 1: negligible Table 10.
Activity profiling 0.00% Stage 1: negligible 0.00% Stage 1: negligible Results of maturity
Waste-reduction practices 50.00% Stage 3: moderate 61.00% Stage 3: moderate levels for company “A
6S audit tool 56.00% Stage 3: moderate 78.00% Stage 4: high and B”
IJPPM Company A (%) Company B (%) Best-in-Class

Perfect order (from supplier) index 97.0 83.9 ≥ 99.95%

PR1 98.1 95.3 ≥99%
PR2 99.81 97.2 ≥99.5%
PR3 99.1 96.2 ≥99%
PR4 100 94.2 ≥99.26%
Perfect put-away index 91.7 70.4 ≥ 99.95%
PT1 93.4 89.5 ≥95%
PT2 98.3 90.2 100%
PT3 99.9 87.2 ≥99.9%
Perfect picking index 89.2 57.7 ≥ 99%
PP1 22 (92%) 19 (79%) ≥ 24 orders (100%)
PP2 99.96 90 ≥99.84%
PP3 100 91.2 ≥99.9%
PP4 97 89 ≥99.5%
Perfect order (customer) index 99.8 77.0 ≥ 95.74%
Table 11. PD1 100 95.2 ≥99.87%
Warehouse PD2 99.9 94 ≥99.5%
performance indicators PD3 99.9 93.2 ≥99.9%
with best in-class PD4 100 92.3 ≥99.9%
measures Safety 3 per year 4 per year 1 accident per year

5. Conclusion and future research

Enterprises seek to have tools, models or methodologies to help them improve their business
processes. This paper described the development and application of a warehouse maturity
model. This is a meta-model aggregate and organizes initiatives to improve warehouse
management as identified from previous research and practical experiences. In addition, the
proposed maturity model is comprehensive in the sense that can be used as evaluating as is
status, benchmark and prescriptive with a road map to improvements. This study suggests
that measurement and performance system, in the form of maturity models developed from
best-in class perspective, can significantly contribute to the warehouse improvement
initiatives. In addition, the study has presented a roadmap on the manner in which
warehouses can adopt more sophisticated warehouse practices to improve their performance.
Furthermore, as for warehouse activities, use of self-administered maturity model along with
the implementation of the changes that lead to the higher levels of maturity prescribed by the
model and supported by the use of diagnostic model to improvement can be a valuable input
into warehouse management.
From the academic perspective, the proposed warehouse maturity model contributes to fill
the shortages of maturity model addressing the warehouse environment. In particular, it
provides a useful tool to establish the overall maturity level of a warehouse system. The
proposed maturity model supports strategic decisions oriented toward improvement
capabilities of the warehouse and to compete based on service level provided. From the
point of view of practical, maturity models have broad application, in that they emphasize
performance measurement and continuous process improvement in whatever process or
activities involved. The warehouse maturity model proposed to let warehouse managers
evaluate their practices and assess them by maturity level. Then, the proposed warehouse
maturity model can be utilized to develop a set of plans for conducting projects to improve the
warehouse practices, techniques and tools.
Our findings are beset with limitations, some of which stimulate further research. First,
this study focuses on the design and evaluation phases of DSR by thoroughly describing the
 Integrated Warehouse
Performance Measures
Warehouse
Perfect put- performance
away index Company "A" Improvement Iniaves
Warehouse Acvity measures PT1 PT2 PT3
R1 N
R2 N
R3 Y
R4 N
R5 Y
Receiving R6 Y
R7 Y
R8 Y
R9 Y
R10 N
R11 Y
PA1 Y
PA2 Y
Put-away
PA3 N
Best Practices
PA4 Y
P1 N
P2 N
P3 N
Picking P4 N
P5 N
P6 Y
P7 N
D1 Y
D2 Y
D3 N
shipping
D4 N
D5 Y
D6 Y

Purchase order profile POP N

Activity Profiling
Customer order profile COP N

Item acvity profile. IAP N

S1.1 N
Sort S1.2 N
S1.3 Y
S2.1 Y
S2.2 Y
Straighten
S2.3 Y
S2.4 N
S3.1 Y
S3.2 Y
Shine
6S Audit Tool S3.3 Y
S3.4 N
S4.1 N
Standardize S4.2 N Figure 3.
S4.3 Y Company “A”
S6.1 N improvement
S6.2 N initiatives for perfect
Safety
S6.3 Y put-away index
S6.4 Y
 model’s development and evaluation (Osterle € et al., 2011). However, the sixth phase
IJPPM
“maintain” requires a longitudinal study. Second, this study only applied to two third-party
logistics service providers. Third, this study have considered performance criteria identified
by best in-class from the perspective of improving services and did not consider others as cost
and productivity measures. Following are questions for future research:
(1) What are the main barriers that must be overcome by warehouse managers when
they decide to apply the proposed warehouse maturity model oriented to the control
and improvement of warehouse processes?
(2) Is there a precedence of improvement activities in the proposed warehouse maturity
model beyond the basic and advance categories indicated in this research?
(3) Does the proposed warehouse maturity model have enough generalizability to be
implemented in different warehouse environments?
(4) What are the costs involved in the planning and implementing of the proposed
warehouse maturity models?

References
Abushaikha, I. and Salhieh, L. (2016), “Assessing the driving forces for greening business practices:
empirical evidence from the United Arab Emirates’ logistics service industry”, South African
Journal of Business Management, Sabinet, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 59-69.
Abushaikha, I., Salhieh, L. and Towers, N. (2018), “Improving distribution and business performance
through lean warehousing”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 46 No. 8, pp. 780-800, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-03-2018-0059.
Ackerman, K.B. (2004), Auditing Warehouse Performance, Ackerman Publications, Columbus, OH.
Ahlemann, F., Schroeder, C. and Teuteberg, F. (2005), “Kompetenz- und Reifegradmodelle f€
ur das
Projektmanagement. Grundlagen, Vergleich und Einsatz”, Universit€at. FB Wirtschafts-
wissenschaften, Organisation u. Wirtschaftsinformatik (ISPRI-Arbeitsbericht, 01/2005),
Osnabr€uck.
Aho, M. (2012), “What is your PMI? A model for assessing the maturity of performance management
in organizations”, PMA 2012 Conf.
Andjelkovi
c, A., Radosavljevi
c, M. and Stosi
c, D. (2016), “Effects of Lean tools in achieving Lean
warehousing”, Economic Themes, De Gruyter Open, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 517-534.
Asdecker, B. and Felch, V. (2018), “Development of an Industry 4.0 maturity model for the delivery
process in supply chains”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 840-883.
Axelsson, P. and Frankel, J. (2014), Performance Measurement System for Warehouse Activities Based
on the SCOR Model, Thesis, Departement of Industrial Management and Logistic Faculty of
Engineering Lund University, Sweden.
Bartholdi, J. and Hackman, S. (2011), Warehouse and Distribution Science, the Supply Chain and
Logistics Institute, School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Atlanta.
Battista, C. and Schiraldi, M.M. (2013), “The logistic maturity model: application to a fashion
company”, International Journal of Engineering Business Management, Vol. 5, No. Godiste
2013, pp. 5-29.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and P€oppelbuß, J. (2009), “Developing maturity models for IT management–
A procedure model and its application”, Business and Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 213-222.
Bogale, T. (2016), “Assessment of warehouse performance: a case of ethiopian trading enterprise”,
PhD Thesis, Addis Ababa University.
Brill, J.M., Bishop, M. and Walker, A.E. (2006), “The competencies and characteristics required of an Warehouse
effective project manager: a web-based Delphi study”, Educational Technology Research and
Development, Springer, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 115-140. performance
Campos, C., Chalmeta, R., Grangel, R. and Poler, R. (2013), “Maturity model for interoperability
potential measurement”, Information Systems Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 218-234.
Cannings, A. and Hills, T. (2012), “A framework for auditing HR: strengthening the role of HR in the
organisation”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 139-149.
Cao, W. and Jiang, P. (2013), “Modelling on service capability maturity and resource configuration for
public warehouse product service systems”, International Journal of Production Research,
Taylor & Francis, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1898-1921.
Clivill
e, V., Berrah, L. and Mauris, G. (2007), “Quantitative expression and aggregation of performance
measurements based on the MACBETH multi-criteria method”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Elsevier, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 171-189.
Correia, E., Carvalho, H., Azevedo, S. and Govindan, K. (2017), “Maturity models in supply chain
sustainability: a systematic literature review”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 64.
Custer, R.L., Scarcella, J.A. and Stewart, B.R. (1999), “The modified Delphi technique: a rotational
modification”, Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963), “An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of
experts”, Management Science, INFORMS, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 458-467.
De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U. and Rosemann, M. (2005), “Understanding the main phases of
developing a maturity assessment model”, ACIS 2005 Proceedings, Vol. 109, available at: http://
aisel.aisnet.org/acis2005/109.
De Koster, R., Le-Duc, T. and Roodbergen, K.J. (2007), “Design and control of warehouse order picking:
a literature review”, European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, Vol. 182 No. 2,
pp. 481-501,.
De Visser, J.J. (2014), Lean in the Warehouse, Holanda, Rotterdam.
Dehdari, P. (2013), “Measuring the impact of techniques on performance indicators in logistics
operations”, PhD Thesis, Karlsruher Instituts f€
ur Technologie, Karlsruhe.
Dotoli, M., Epicoco, N., Falagario, M. and Cavone, G. (2015), “A timed Petri nets model for performance
evaluation of intermodal freight transport terminals”, IEEE Transactions on Automation
Science and Engineering, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 842-857.
Faber, N., de Koster, M.B.M. and Smidts, A. (2013), “Organizing warehouse management”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 9,
pp. 1230-1256, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-12-2011-0471.
Farrukh, C., Fraser, P. and Gregory, M. (2003), “Development of a structured approach to assessing
practice in product development collaborations”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers - Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Sage Publications, London, Vol. 217
No. 8, pp. 1131-1144.
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., Maisano, D. and Viticchie, L. (2006), “The condition of uniqueness in
manufacturing process representation by performance/quality indicators”, Quality and
Reliability Engineering International, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 567-580.
Fraser, P., Moultrie, J. and Gregory, M. (2002), “The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing
product development capability”, IEEE International Engineering Management Conference,
IEEE, Vol. 1, pp. 244-249.
Frazelle, E. (2002), Supply Chain Strategy: The Logistics of Supply Chain Management, McGrraw Hill,
New York.
Gamage, J., Vilasini, P., Perera, H. and Wijenatha, L. (2012), “Impact of lean manufacturing on
performance and organisational culture: a case study of an apparel manufacturer in Sri Lanka”,
IJPPM The Third International Conference on Engineering, Project and Production Management
(EPPM), UK, pp. 423-436.
Gergova, I. (2010), Warehouse Improvement with Lean 5S: A Case Study of Ulstein Verft AS, Master’s
Thesis, Høgskolen i Molde.
Goomas, D.T., Smith, S.M. and Ludwig, T.D. (2011), “Business activity monitoring: real-time group
goals and feedback using an overhead scoreboard in a distribution center”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 196-209.
Harun, M.F., Habidin, N.F., Latip, N.A.M. and others (2017), “The relationship between 5S lean tool
and WP of FMCG Warehouse in Peninsular Malaysia”, The International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 1019-1025.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004), “Design science in information systems
research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 75-105.
Iversen, J., Nielsen, P.A. and Norbjerg, J. (1999), “Situated assessment of problems in software
development”, ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems,
ACM New York, NY, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 66-81.
Jothimani, D. and Sarmah, S. (2014), “Supply chain performance measurement for third party
logistics”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 944-963.
Lao, S., Choy, K., Ho, G., Tsim, Y. and Chung, N. (2011), “Determination of the success factors in
supply chain networks: a Hong Kong-based manufacturer’s perspective”, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 34-48, doi: 10.1108/13683041111113231.
Laosirihongthong, T., Adebanjo, D., Samaranayake, P., Subramanian, N. and Boon-itt, S. (2018),
“Prioritizing warehouse performance measures in contemporary supply chains”, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 67 No. 9, pp. 1703-1726, doi: 10.1108/
IJPPM-03-2018-0105.
Lewczuk, K. and Zak,_ J. (2013), “Supportive role of dynamic order picking area in distribution
warehouse”, Journal of Traffic and Logistics Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 37-40.
Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. and others (1975), The Delphi Method, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Liviu, I., Ana-Maria, T., Emil, C. and others (2009), “Warehouse performance measurement-a case
study”, Annals of Faculty of Economics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 307-312.
Ludwig, B. (1997), “Predicting the future: have you considered using the Delphi methodology”, Journal
of Extension, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1-4.
Macchi, M. and Fumagalli, L. (2013), “A maintenance maturity assessment method for the
manufacturing industry”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 295-315, doi: 10.1108/JQME-05-2013-0027.
Mahfouz, A. (2011), An Integrated Framework to Assess ‘Leanness’ Performance in Distribution
Centres, Dublin Institute of Technology.
Maier, A., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P.J. (2009), “Developing maturity grids for assessing
organisational capabilities: practitioner guidance”, 4th International Conference on
Management Consulting: Academy of Management.
Markmann, C., Darkow, I.-L. and Von Der Gracht, H. (2013), “A Delphi-based risk analysis—
identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain security in a multi-stakeholder
environment”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, Vol. 80 No. 9,
pp. 1815-1833.
McCormack, K., Bronzo Ladeira, M. and Paulo Valadares de Oliveira, M. (2008), “Supply chain
maturity and performance in Brazil”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 272-282.
Melnyk, S.A., Stewart, D.M. and Swink, M. (2004), “Metrics and performance measurement in
operations management: dealing with the metrics maze”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 209-218.
Melnyk, S.A., Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J., Burns, L.J. and Sandor, J. (2009), “Mapping the future of Warehouse
supply chain management: a Delphi study”, International Journal of Production Research,
Taylor & Francis, Vol. 47 No. 16, pp. 4629-4653. performance
Morsal, S., Ismail, M. and Osman, M. (2009), “Developing a self-assessment model to measure QMS
maturity in ISO certified manufacturing companies”, Journal of Scientific and Industrial
Research (JSIR), Vol. 68, pp. 329-353.
Mustafa, M.S. (2015), “A theoretical model of lean warehousing”, PhD Thesis, Politecnico di Torino.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: a literature
review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004), “The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
considerations and applications”, Information and Management, Elsevier, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Ormazabal, M. and Sarriegi, J. (2014), “Environmental management evolution: empirical evidence from
Spain and Italy”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 73-88.
Oliveira, M., Ladeira, M. and Mccormack, K. (2011), The Supply Chain Process Management Maturity
Model SCPM3. 10.5772/18961.
€
Osterle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., Loos, P., Mertens, P., Oberweis,
A. and Sinz, E. (2011), “Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research”,
European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 7-10.
Overboom, M., De Haan, J., Naus, A. and others. (2010), “Measuring the degree of leanness in logistics
service providers: development of a measurement tool”, Proceedings of the 17th International
Annual EurOMA Conference: Managing Operations in Service Economies, Eds. Sousa.
€
Ozt€
urko € Gue, K.R. and Meller, R.D. (2014), “A constructive aisle design model for unit-load
glu, O.,
warehouses with multiple pickup and deposit points”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 236 No. 1, pp. 382-394.
Park, B.C. (2012), “Order picking: issues, systems and models”, in 2012th edn, Springer London,
London, pp. 1-30.
Paulk, M.C. (2009), “A history of the capability maturity model for software”, ASQ Software Quality
Professional, Citeseer, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 5-19.
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B. and Weber, C.V. (1993), “Capability maturity model, version 1.1”,
IEEE Software, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 18-27.
Piecyk, M.I. and McKinnon, A.C. (2013), “Application of the delphi method to the forecasting OF
long-term trends IN road freight, logistics and related CO2 emissions”, International Journal
of Transport Economics/Rivista Internazionale Di Economia Dei Trasporti, JSTOR,
pp. 241-266.
Pires, M., Pratas, J., Liz, J. and Amorim, P. (2017), “A framework for designing backroom areas in
grocery stores”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 230-252, doi: 10.1108/IJRDM-01-2016-0004.
P€oppelbuß, J. and R€oglinger, M. (2011), “What makes a useful maturity model? a framework of general
design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management”,
ECIS, p. 28.
Ramaa, A., Subramanya, K. and Rangaswamy, T. (2012), “Impact of warehouse management system
in a supply chain”, International Journal of Computer Applications, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 14-20.
Razik, M., RADI, B. and OKAR, C. (2017), “Development of a maturity model for the warehousing
function in Moroccan companies”, International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 280-290.
Reyes, H.G. and Giachetti, R. (2010), “Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in
Mexico”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 415-424.
IJPPM Richards, G. (2017), Warehouse Management: A Complete Guide to Improving Efficiency and
Minimizing Costs in the Modern Warehouse, Kogan Page Publishers, London.
R€oglinger, M., P€oppelbuß, J. and Becker, J. (2012), “Maturity models in business process management”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 328-346, Emerald Group Publishing.
Rodriguez, R.R., Saiz, J.J.A. and Bas, A.O. (2009), “Quantitative relationships between key performance
indicators for supporting decision-making processes”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 60 No. 2,
pp. 104-113.
Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (1999), “The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis”,
International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 353-375,.
Rummler, G.A. and Brache, A.P. (1995), Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on
the Organization Chart, The Jossey-Bass Management Series, ERIC, San Francisco, CA.
Saetta, S., Paolini, L., Tiacci, L. and Altiok, T. (2012), “A decomposition approach for the performance
analysis of a serial multi-echelon supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research,
Taylor & Francis, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 2380-2395.
Salhieh, L., Altarazi, S. and Abushaikha, I. (2019), “Quantifying and ranking the ‘7-Deadly’ Wastes in a
warehouse environment”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 94-115, doi: 10.1108/TQM-06-
2018-0077.
Schiele, H. (2007), “Supply-management maturity, cost savings and purchasing absorptive capacity:
testing the procurement–performance link”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 274-293.
Schmidt, R.C. (1997), “Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques”, Decision
Sciences, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 763-774.
Shan, R.S. (2008), “The role of assessment in a lean transformation”, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Sitlington, H. and Coetzer, A. (2015), “Using the Delphi technique to support curriculum development”,
Education þ Training, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 306-321, doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2014-0010.
Skeldon, S.C., Simmons, A., Hersey, K., Finelli, A., Jewett, M.A., Zlotta, A.R. and Fleshner, N.E. (2014),
“Lean methodology improves efficiency in outpatient academic uro-oncology clinics”, Urology,
Elsevier, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 992-998.
Søgaard, B., Skipworth, H.D., Bourlakis, M., Mena, C. and Wilding, R. (2019), “Facing disruptive
technologies: aligning purchasing maturity to contingencies”, Supply Chain Management:
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 147-169.
Sobanski, E.B. (2009), “Assessing lean warehousing: development and validation of alean assessment
tool–a doctoral dissertation”, PhD Thesis, Oklahoma State University.
Srinivasan, S., Ikuma, L.H., Shakouri, M., Nahmens, I. and Harvey, C. (2016), “5S impact on safety
climate of manufacturing workers”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 364-378, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-07-2015-0053.
Staudt, F.H., Alpan, G., Di Mascolo, M. and Rodriguez, C.M.T. (2015), “Warehouse performance
measurement: a literature review”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 18,
pp. 5524-5544.
Tarhan, A., Turetken, O. and Reijers, H.A. (2016), “Business process maturity models: a systematic
literature review”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 75, pp. 122-134.
Teka, A. (2017), “Assessment of Warehousing Practices: A Case of Finfine Furniture Factory S. Co”,
PhD Thesis, Addis Ababa University, avaialble at: http://localhost:80/xmlui/handle/
123456789/12866.
Van Aken, J.E. (2005), “Management research as a design science: articulating the research products of
mode 2 knowledge production in management”, British Journal of Management, Wiley Online
Library, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Wendler, R. (2012), “The maturity of maturity model research: a systematic mapping study”, Warehouse
Information and Software Technology, Vol. 54 No. 12, pp. 1317-1339.
performance
Wettstein, T. and Kueng, P. (2002), “A maturity model for performance measurement systems”, WIT
Transactions on Information and Communication Technologies, Vol. 26, pp. 113-122.
Yang, L. and Chen, J. (2012), “Information systems utilization to improve distribution center
performance: from the perspective of task characteristics and customers”, Advances in
Information Sciences and Service Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 230-238.

About the authors

Dr. Loay Salhieh, Professor of Industrial Engineering at German Jordanian University, joined the faculty
in 2010. Dr. Loay has a PhD in Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering from Wayne State University,
Detroit, Michigan, USA, May 2002. Loay’s research interests include warehousing, transportation,
inventory, operations and supply chain management. Loay Salhieh is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: loay.salhieh@gju.edu.jo
Eng. Waed Alswaer has a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering. She works as Projects’ Officer
at the Deanship of Scientific Research at the German Jordanian University.

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