Beamon

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Measuring supply chain performance

Benita M. Beamon
Article information:
To cite this document:
Benita M. Beamon, (1999),"Measuring supply chain performance", International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 19 Iss 3 pp. 275 - 292
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579910249714
Downloaded on: 31 March 2016, At: 01:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by ASU Libraries At 01:52 31 March 2016 (PT)
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 35924 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2009),"Developing key performance indicators for supply chain: an industry perspective",
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Iss 6 pp. 422-428 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540910995192
(2001),"The Supply Chain Management Processes", The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 13-36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09574090110806271
(1999),"Supply chain management: an empirical study of its impact on performance", International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 Iss 10 pp. 1034-1052 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443579910287064
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:352589 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Measuring supply chain Measuring
supply chain
performance performance
Benita M. Beamon
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, 275
Ohio, USA
Keywords Flexibility, Performance measurement, Supply chain
Abstract The process of choosing appropriate supply chain performance measures is difficult
due to the complexity of these systems. The paper presents an overview and evaluation of the
performance measures used in supply chain models and also presents a framework for the
selection of performance measurement systems for manufacturing supply chains. Three types of
performance measures are identified as necessary components in any supply chain performance
measurement system, and new flexibility measures for supply chains are developed.
1. Introduction
When analyzing system performance, qualitative evaluations such as ``good'',
``fair'', `àdequate'', and ``poor'' are vague and difficult to utilize in any
meaningful way. As a result, quantitative performance measures are often
preferred to such qualitative evaluations. A numerical performance measure
might be utilized because the data are readily available, or because it has been
used for a long time. However, the chosen numerical performance measure
may not adequately describe the system's performance, and may therefore be
as vague and difficult to utilize as the above qualitative evaluations. The
difficulty of developing appropriate performance measures extends beyond
these issues of context, to also include issues of scope, such as whether the
performance measure (or measurement system) should include a single
organization or many? Is the performance measurement to include one product
line or many?
Formally, a supply chain is an integrated process wherein raw materials are
manufactured into final products, then delivered to customers (via distribution,
retail, or both). A typical supply chain is depicted in Figure 1.
The supply chain depicted in Figure 1 contains four echelons (supply,
manufacturing, distribution, and consumers), where each level (or echelon) of
the chain may comprise numerous facilities. Thus, the complexity of the supply
chain arises from the number of echelons in the chain and the number of
facilities in each echelon. Given the inherent complexity of the typical supply
chain, selecting appropriate performance measures for supply chain analysis is
particularly critical, since the system of interest is generally large and complex.
The purpose of this research is to develop a framework for the selection of
supply chain performance measures.
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management,
The author would like to thank the editorial team and anonymous referees for their helpful Vol. 19 No. 3, 1999, pp. 275-292,
comments and suggested improvements. # MCB University Press, 0144-3577
IJOPM
19,3
276
Figure 1.
Supply chain
2. Performance measurement: background and previous work

When a procedure, a model, an approach, a case study, or other research is
undertaken, generally some measure of the system's performance is presented
and perhaps analyzed. A large number of different types of performance
measures have been used to characterize systems, particularly production,
distribution, and inventory systems. Such a large number of available
performance measures makes performance measure selection difficult.
Generally, performance measurement research focuses on analyzing
performance measurement systems that are already in use, categorizing
performance measures and then studying the measures within a category, and
building rules of thumb or frameworks by which performance measurement
systems can be developed for various types of systems.
Beamon (1996) presents a number of characteristics that are found in
effective performance measurement systems, and can therefore be used in
evaluation of these measurement systems. These characteristics include:
inclusiveness (measurement of all pertinent aspects), universality (allow for
comparison under various operating conditions), measurability (data required
are measurable), and consistency (measures consistent with organization
goals). Besides analyzing the measures based on their effectiveness,
benchmarking is another important method that is used in performance
measure evaluation. Benchmarking can be useful in that it can serve as a
means of identifying improvement opportunities. Camp (1989) provides an
excellent, comprehensive discussion of benchmarking.
In order to study the large number of performance measures available,
researchers have categorized them. Neely et al. (1995) present a few of the
categories in the literature, including: quality, time, flexibility, and cost. This
categorization is a useful tool in systems analysis. For example, a model may
be developed to improve one characteristic of a system, for example, time. The
model may then compare manufacturing lead time or due-date performance by
changing the system's configuration. In this way, a single type of measure has Measuring
been chosen, time, but within this category, many different specific measures of supply chain
time may be used. Thus, measures within a category can be compared and performance
analyzed, so that performance measure selection within a category may be
easier. Although with this approach, the performance category is already
determined.
One of the most difficult areas of performance measure selection is the 277
development of performance measurement systems. This involves the methods
by which an organization creates its measurement system. Important questions
must be addressed here: What to measure? How are multiple individual
measures integrated into a measurement system? How often to measure? How
and when are measures re-evaluated? Although all of the ideas important to
examining measurement systems already in place apply, the problem is more
difficult since the ``slate is blank'' and the goal is to create the ``best'' possible
measurement system for the supply chain or chains of interest. Neely et al.
(1995) note that different measurement frameworks have been developed and
others have provided criteria for the measurement system design. However, a
generally applicable systematic approach to performance measurement has not
been developed. Different types of systems require specific measurement
system characteristics, and therein lies the difficulty in creating such a general
approach. Thus, previous work has sought to develop various performance
measure frameworks for different types of systems that share certain critical
characteristics.
3. Supply chain performance measures

Supply chain management, analysis, and improvement is becoming increasingly
important. The literature includes approaches to supply chain management (see
Bytheway, 1995a; 1995b; Lamming 1996; New, 1996; Waters-Fuller, 1995), in
addition to supply chain models. The performance measures utilized in these
models directly affects their real-world applicability. This section describes and
evaluates the various types of performance measures that have been used in
supply chain modeling, and discusses the applicability of these measures.
3.1 Overview
Supply chain models have predominantly utilized two different performance
measures:
(1) cost; and
(2) a combination of cost and customer responsiveness.
Costs may include inventory costs and operating costs. Customer
responsiveness measures include lead time, stockout probability, and fill rate.
Table I summarizes the supply chain models available in the literature and the
corresponding performance measures used. These models use the listed
performance measures as objectives that are either minimized or maximized,
subject to various operational constraints.
IJOPM Measure Author(s)
19,3
Cost Cohen and Lee (1988)
Cohen and Lee (1989)
Cohen and Moon (1990)
Lee and Feitzinger (1995)
Pyke and Cohen (1993)
278 Pyke and Cohen (1994)
Tzafestas and Kapsiotis (1994)
Cost and activity time Arntzen et al. (1995)
Cost and customer responsiveness Altiok and Ranjan (1995)
Christy and Grout (1994)
Cook and Rogowski (1996)
Davis (1993)
Ishii et al. (1988)
Newhart et al. (1993)
Towill (1991)
Towill et al. (1992)
Wikner et al. (1991)
Table I. Customer responsiveness Lee and Billington (1993)
Performance measures Flexibility Voudouris (1996)
in supply chain
modeling Source: Adapted from Beamon (1998)
Other performance measures have been identified as appropriate for supply

chain analysis, but have not yet been used in supply chain modeling research.
Although these measures may be important characteristics of a supply chain,
their use in supply chain models is challenging, since the qualitative nature of
such measures makes them difficult to incorporate into quantitative models.
Examples of such measures are: customer satisfaction (Christopher, 1994),
information flow (Nicoll, 1994), supplier performance (Davis, 1993), and risk
management (Johnson and Randolph, 1995).
3.2 Evaluation of supply chain performance measures

Cost, activity time, customer responsiveness, and flexibility have all been used
as supply chain performance measures either singly or jointly. Yet the
measures used thus far possess some significant weaknesses. This section
evaluates and identifies the limitations of these supply chain performance
measures.
3.2.1 Single supply chain performance measures. The use of a single
performance measure is attractive because of its simplicity. However, one must
ensure that if a single performance measure is utilized, this measure adequately
describes the system performance. Beamon (1996) identified and evaluated
various individual supply chain performance measures. The author concluded
that significant weaknesses were present in each of the performance measures
evaluated, based on such criteria as inclusiveness, universality, measurability,
and consistency. Repeatedly, the most consistent weakness for these
performance measures was inclusiveness. In order for a measure to be
inclusive, it must measure all pertinent aspects of the supply chain. Consider an Measuring
example in which a company decides to use cost as the measure of supply chain supply chain
performance. Although the supply chain may be operating under minimum
cost, it may simultaneously demonstrate poor customer response time
performance
performance, or lack flexibility to meet random fluctuations in demand.
3.2.2 Cost as a single supply chain performance measure. As Table I
illustrates, cost is the performance measure of choice for many supply chain 279
models. Although cost as a resource measure is important, there are downfalls
to relying on cost as the sole performance measure. Maskell (1991) identifies
many shortcomings of traditional management accounting. The problems
include a lack of relevance of the cost categories, cost distortions (especially
overheads), and inflexibility, such as reports that are too late to be valuable. Lee
and Billington (1992) identify many pitfalls in supply chain management and
one identified pitfall is the incorrect assessment of inventory costs. The authors
identify two commonly omitted inventory costs:

(1) obsolescence; and
(2) rework due to engineering changes.
This problem is magnified by current cost accounting methods, such as
overhead calculations, and omitted inventory costs. Existing supply chain
models have typically restricted themselves to traditional cost measures, and
have not yet utilized the advantages of strategic cost management of the
supply chain. Shank and Govidarajan (1992) and Barker (1996) address
strategic cost management issues within the context of supply chains.
3.2.3 Strategic goals and supply chain performance measures. Maskell (1991)
suggests that the type of performance measures required for a manufacturing
organization are directly related to the manufacturing strategy chosen by the
company. The two reasons cited for establishing and maintaining this
relationship are:
(1) the company may determine if its performance is meeting its strategic
goals; and
(2) people in the organization will concentrate on what is measured; thus
the performance measure will steer company direction.
Consider the strategic goal examples in Table II and the corresponding implied
performance measures. Strategic goals seldom imply only one performance
Strategic goals Implied performance measurement system
Company Q will provide high quality custom Cost product quality

designed product at the lowest possible cost
ABC, Inc. will manufacture product X and Cost product lateness
consistently deliver the product to the
customer on time and at a low cost Table II.
XYZ, Inc. will produce high quality product Product quality flexibility Strategic goals and
which will meet future customer demands performance measures
IJOPM measure; they usually point to many, and are not always clearly defined. For
19,3 example, product quality can be measured in many different ways. Although it
may be difficult to choose the individual performance measures, it is vital that
the performance measures are related to the strategic goals of the organization.
3.2.4 Performance measure evaluation summary. Individual performance
measures used in supply chain analysis have been shown to be non-inclusive.
280 Consequently, important supply chain characteristics and their associated
interactions have been ignored. Measuring the use of resources, especially cost,
has also been identified as an important part of the supply chain. Many
strategic goals of organizations recognize not only the importance of
minimizing resources, but also the overall importance of the output of the
system. Additionally, ignoring the effects of uncertainty on the supply chain
results in a system that is unable to adapt to future changes.
Current supply chain performance measurement systems are inadequate
because they rely heavily on the use of cost as a primary (if not sole) measure,
they are not inclusive, they are often inconsistent with the strategic goals of the
organization, and do not consider the effects of uncertainty. That is, although
use of multiple supply chain performance measures may be commonplace in
real-world settings, it is not commonplace in supply chain modeling. A
performance measurement system for supply chain analysis must be developed
that addresses these issues. The next step, then, is to develop a framework for
measuring supply chain performance.
4. Toward a new framework for performance measurement

As previously mentioned, a supply chain performance measurement system
that consists of a single performance measure is generally inadequate since it is
not inclusive, ignores the interactions among important supply chain
characteristics, and ignores critical aspects of organizational strategic goals.
Strategic goals involve key elements that include the measurement of
resources, output and flexibility. Resources measures (generally cost) and
output measures (generally customer responsiveness) have been widely used in
supply chain models. Although flexibility has been limited in its application to
supply chains, many advantages exist to a flexible supply chain.
The use of resources, the desired output and flexibility (how well the system
reacts to uncertainty) have been identified as vital components to supply chain
success. Therefore, a supply chain measurement system must place emphasis
on three separate types of performance measures: resource measures (R),
output measures (O), and flexibility measures (F). Each of these three types of
performance measures has different goals, as illustrated in Table III. The
supply chain performance measurement system must measure each of the three
types (R, O and F), as each type is vital to the overall performance success of
the supply chain.
Each of the three types of measures has important characteristics and the
measure of each of these affects the others. The interrelationship among these
three types of measures is illustrated in Figure 2.
Performance Measuring
measure type Goal Purpose supply chain
performance
Resources High level of efficiency Efficient resource management is
critical to profitability
Output High level of customer service Without acceptable output,
customers will turn to other supply 281
chains
Flexibility Ability to respond to a changing In an uncertain environment, supply Table III.
environment chains must be able to respond to Goals of performance
change measure types
O F
Figure 2.
The supply chain
measurement system
Therefore, the supply chain performance measurement system must contain at

least one individual measure from each of the three identified types. The
individual measures chosen from each type must coincide with the
organization's strategic goals. This measurement system can then allow study
of the interactions among the measures or can at least ensure a minimum level
of performance in different areas. Each type of performance measure is
discussed in the following sub-sections.
4.1 Resources
Resource measures include: inventory levels, personnel requirements, equipment
utilization, energy usage, and cost. Resources are generally measured in terms of
the minimum requirements (quantity) or a composite efficiency measure.
Efficiency measures the utilization of the resources in the system that are used to
meet the system's objectives. Resource measurement is an important part of the
measurement system. Too few resources can negatively affect the output and the
flexibility of the system, while the deployment of too many resources artificially
increases the system's requirements.
One general goal of supply chain analysis is resource minimization.
Although a minimum level of output is often specified, the effect of reducing
resources on the flexibility of the supply chain is not often considered. A supply
chain may be reconfigured with reduced resources while present demands are
IJOPM met, but such short-term analyses do not account for the dynamic nature of
19,3 demand. In this way, resources are directly related to the system's output and
flexibility performance.
The following is an example list of supply chain resource performance
measures:
(1) Total cost. Total cost of resources used.
282
(2) Distribution costs. Total cost of distribution, including transportation
and handling costs.
(3) Manufacturing cost. Total cost of manufacturing, including labor,
maintenance, and re-work costs.
(4) Inventory. Costs associated with held inventory:
. Inventory investment. Investment value of held inventory.
. Inventory obsolescence. Costs associated with obsolete inventory;

sometimes includes spoilage.
. Work-in-process. Costs associated with work-in-process inventories.
. Finished goods. Costs associated with held finished goods
inventories.
(5) Return on investment (ROI). Measures the profitability of an
organization. The return on investment is generally given by the ratio of
net profit to total assets.
4.2 Output
Output measures include: customer responsiveness, quality, and the quantity
of final product produced. Many output performance measures are easily
represented numerically, such as:
. number of items produced;
. time required to produce a particular item or set of items;
. number of on-time deliveries (orders).
However, there are also many output performance measures that are much
more difficult to express numerically, such as:
. customer satisfaction;
. product quality.
A minimum level of output is often specified, although the relationship between
the costs required to achieve different output levels is not generally considered.
What is the added value or cost if the product is delivered early? Likewise,
what are the costs if the product is delivered late? Additionally, output
measures are based on short, finite time horizons, and address issues such as
how many did I produce today? Not how many can I produce tomorrow? Thus,
resources affect the output of a supply chain, and the output of the supply chain
system (quality, quantity, etc.) is important in determining the flexibility of the Measuring
system. supply chain
Output performance measures must not only correspond to the organization's performance
strategic goals, but must also correspond to the customers' goals and values,
since strategic goals generally address meeting customer requirements. For
example, Corbett (1992) identifies a furniture manufacturer that discovered that
their customers actually valued delivery reliability more than fast delivery. For 283
the customer, short lead times were secondary to having the product delivered on
time. Although lead times may be extremely important to the manufacturer, on-
time delivery was more important to the customer. In this case, both of these
output performance measures should be utilized.
The following is an example list of supply chain output performance
measures:
(1) Sales. Total revenue.
(2) Profit. Total revenue less expenses.

(3) Fill rate. Proportion of orders filled immediately:
. Target fill rate achievement. To what extent a target fill rate has been
achieved.
. Average item fill rate. Aggregate fill rate divided by the number of
items.
(4) On-time deliveries. Measures item, order, or product delivery
performance:
. Product lateness. Delivery date minus due date.
. Average lateness of orders. Aggregate lateness divided by the
number of orders.
. Average earliness of orders. Aggregate earliness divided by the
number of orders.
. Percent on-time deliveries. Percent of orders delivered on or before the
due date.
(5) Backorder/stockout. Measures item, order, or product availability
performance:
. Stockout probability. Instantaneous probability that a requested item
is out of stock.
. Number of backorders. Number of items backordered due to stockout.
. Number of stockouts. Number of requested items that are out of
stock.
. Average backorder level. Number of items backordered divided by
the number of items.
(6) Customer response time. Amount of time between an order and its
corresponding delivery.
IJOPM (7) Manufacturing lead time. Total amount of time required to produce a
19,3 particular item or batch.
(8) Shipping errors. Number of incorrect shipments made.
(9) Customer complaints. Number of customer complaints registered.
284 4.3 Flexibility

Some advantages of flexible supply chain systems are:
. Reductions in the number of backorders.
. Reductions in the number of lost sales.
. Reductions in the number of late orders.
. Increased customer satisfaction.
Ability to respond to and accommodate demand variations, such as
seasonality.
. Ability to respond to and accommodate periods of poor manufacturing
performance (machine breakdowns).
. Ability to respond to and accommodate periods of poor supplier
performance.
. Ability to respond to and accommodate periods of poor delivery
performance.
. Ability to respond to and accommodate new products, new markets, or
new competitors.
Flexibility, which is seldom used in supply chain analysis, can measure a
system's ability to accommodate volume and schedule fluctuations from
suppliers, manufacturers, and customers.
Indeed, flexibility is vital to the success of the supply chain, since the supply
chain exists in an uncertain environment. Slack (1991) identifies two types of
flexibility: range flexibility and response flexibility. Range flexibility is defined as
to what extent the operation can be changed. Response flexibility is defined as the
ease (in terms of cost, time, or both) with which the operation can be changed.
Although there will be a limit to the range and response flexibility of a supply
chain, the chain can be designed to adapt adequately to the uncertain environment.
For example, a reduction in system resources may negatively affect the
supply chain's flexibility. A supply chain may be currently utilizing its resources
efficiently, and producing the desired output, but will the supply chain be able to
adjust to changes in, for example: product demand, manufacturing unreliability,
the introduction of new products, or supplier shortages? Thus, flexibility is an
important consideration in supply chain performance.
5. A quantitative approach to flexibility measurement

Numerous flexibility measures for flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs) on
the machine and plant levels exist and have been well-studied. The interested
reader is referred to Sethi and Sethi (1990) and Gupta and Goyal (1989) Measuring
for comprehensive reviews of the literature in manufacturing system supply chain
flexibility. However, as previously stated, the measurement of flexibility in performance
larger, more complex systems, such as supply chain systems, has rarely been
addressed.
Flexibility measures are distinctly different from resource and output
measures. Slack (1983) indicates that flexibility measures potential behavior, 285
whereas other operational objectives are actually demonstrated by the system's
operating behavior (performance). Therefore, flexibility does not have to be
demonstrated by the system in order to exist. Slack (1983) identifies factors that
cause difficulty in measuring the flexibility of an entire production system.
These factors are:
. flexibility is a measure of potential;
. flexibility must be applied to other production objectives, such as

volume or delivery; and
. the multiple dimensions of flexibility (range and response).
Das (1996) concludes that since every manufacturing facility experiences
different changes to different degrees, and the diversity of these possible
changes is large, several different types of flexibilities may be appropriate.
Given the complexity of assessing a system's flexibility, various measures for
flexibility in manufacturing systems have been developed.
Slack (1991) defines system flexibility as the flexibility of the entire
operation. The author further identifies four types of system flexibility, as
shown in Table IV below. Each of these types of flexibility can be measured in
terms of range and response.
Each of these types of system flexibility could be applied to supply chain
systems. However, each type may not be appropriate for every supply chain.
Examining historical data for the system can indicate which flexibility measure
types are appropriate for the system of interest. Table V identifies supply chain
characteristics and their corresponding appropriate flexibility types.
Although these system flexibility types are applicable to supply chains,
many different types of FMS flexibilities have been identified in the literature.
Many of these types may have some application to specific supply chain
systems, these include machine, routing, process, product, expansion, market,
Flexibility type Definition
Volume flexibility The ability to change the output level of products

produced
Delivery flexibility The ability to change planned delivery dates
Mix flexibility The ability to change the variety of products produced
New product flexibility The ability to introduce and produce new products (this Table IV.
includes the modification of existing products) System flexibility types
IJOPM production, and program flexibility. However, given the universality of the
19,3 uncertain environment in which supply chain systems exist, volume flexibility
is commonly desirable. Even supply chains with relatively stationary demand
experience some variation.
5.1 Volume flexibility (Fv )

286 Sethi and Sethi (1990) point out that a generalization of volume flexibility is to
measure the range of volumes in which the organization can run profitably. For
manufacturing systems, the development of volume flexibility measures has
generally considered the costs associated with volume changes. For the
development of a supply chain volume flexibility measure, we are interested in
how much of the demand can be met considering only the range of volumes
that are profitable.
The volume flexibility measure, Fv, measures the proportion of demand that
can be met by the supply chain system. First, we assume that demand volume
(D) is a random variable with an approximate normal distribution, i.e. D ~
(N D ; 2D ) and define Omin and Omax as the minimum and maximum profitable
output volume during any period, respectively. Now, assuming that the supply
chain of interest has sufficient data regarding demand volumes, then the
parameters of the distribution for DD ; 2D , corresponding to the mean
demand and demand variance, can be effectively estimated as D and S 2 ,
D
respectively, where
P dt
T
D
t1
1
T
and
P
T
2
SD2 dt d
t1
2
T 1
where dt is the demand during period t, and T is the number of periods
considered.
Flexibility type Supply chain system characteristics
Table V. Volume flexibility Variable demand

Supply chain system Delivery flexibility Delivery dates change regularly and costs are associated
characteristics and with not meeting new delivery dates
associated flexibility Mix flexibility Stationary demand for multiple product types
types New product flexibility Products with short life cycles
Then we can define volume flexibility (Fv ) as: Measuring

Omin D Omax D supply chain
Fv P D 3 performance
SD SD
or

Omax D Omin D 287
Fv 4
SD SD
where Fv 2 0; 1, and Fv represents the long-run proportion of demand that

can be met by the supply chain system. This relation is illustrated below in
Figure 3, in which the demand is standardized and represented as a standard
normal curve, with mean D and standard deviation D .
Example. Suppose a particular supply chain has 32 weeks of weekly demand
volume data available. These data are given below in Table VI.
Then, for this system,
P
T
dt

D t1
24:69 5
T
( 2(
Figure 3.
Standardized normal
demand distribution
Demand Demand Demand Demand

Period volume Period volume Period volume Period volume
(t) (units) (t) (units) (t) (units) (t) (units)
1 16 9 12 17 38 25 24
2 21 10 43 18 19 26 17
3 32 11 8 19 29 27 36
4 5 12 29 20 12 28 11
5 18 13 33 21 34 29 28
6 26 14 39 22 49 30 23 Table VI.
7 40 15 7 23 16 31 32 Weekly demand
8 31 16 15 24 30 32 17 volume (example)
IJOPM and v
uT
19,3 uP
u dt d 2
q

tt1

SD SD2 11:35 6
T 1
If the supply chain has a maximum profitable output volume of 50 units per
288 time period, and a minimum profitable output volume of five units per time
period, then the volume flexibility is given by:

50 24:69 5 24:69
Fv
11:35 11:35
2:23 1:73 0:9453: 7
5.2 Delivery flexibility (FD )

The ability to move planned delivery dates forward may be important in
supply chain management. This ability allows the supply chain to
accommodate rush orders and special orders, and will be described as delivery
flexibility. Delivery flexibility will be expressed as the percentage of slack time
by which the delivery time can be reduced. More specifically, define t as the
current time period, Lj as the due date period (or the latest time period during
which the delivery can be made) for job j, and Ej as the earliest time period
during which the delivery can be made for job j. If there are j = 1, . . ., J jobs in
the system, then the total slack time for all jobs j is given by the quantity
X J
Lj t ;
j1
and the minimum delivery time for all jobs j is given by
XJ
Ej t :
j1
Thus FD , the instantaneous delivery flexibility, may be measured as the
proportion of excess slack across all jobs j, which can be formally defined as:
PJ
Lj t Ej t
j1
FD 8
P
J
Lj t
j1
which simplifies to
P
J
Lj Ej
j1
FD 9
P
J
Lj t
j1
5.3 Mix flexibility (Fm ) Measuring
Mix flexibility, Fm , is similar to, and often used interchangeably with process supply chain
and job flexibility. Generally, mix flexibility measures either the range of performance
different product types that may be produced during a particular time period,
or the response time between product mix changes. More specifically, Slack
(1991) discusses measuring mix flexibility as:
. the number of different products that can be produced within a given
289
time period (product mix flexibility range); or
. the time required to produce a new product mix (product mix flexibility
response). Formally, the product mix flexibility range is given by:
Fm N t 10
where N t is the number of different product types that can be produced

within the time period t, with t > 0 and N t 2 I . The product mix flexibility
response, then, may be calculated as:
Fm Tij 11
where Tij is the changeover time required from product mix i to product mix j,
with Tij 0 for any i and j.
5.4 New product flexibility (Fn )

New product flexibility, Fn , is defined as the ease with which new products are
introduced to the system. The introduction of new products will generally
involve some time for development and set-up. Sethi and Sethi (1990) discuss
measuring product flexibility as either the time or cost required to add new
products to existing production operations. Time-based new product flexibility
may be formally expressed as:
Fn T 12
where T is the time required to add new products, with T 0. Similarly, cost-
based new product flexibility may be formally expressed as:
Fn C 13
where C is the time required to add new products, with C 0.
6. Summary and conclusion

Performance measurement selection is a critical step in the design and
evaluation of any system. Generally, the larger and more complex the system,
the more challenging it becomes to measure effectively. While there is an ever-
increasing number of supply chain models presented in the literature, there is
very little available in supply chain performance measure selection. As such,
many of the existing models use inappropriate or ineffective performance
measures that are limited in scope (non-inclusive). Of course, the use of simple
IJOPM performance measures is tempting, since simple measures are more easily
19,3 implemented into numerical models; however, by limiting the scope of the
performance measurement, these models ignore important performance trade-
offs. The effects of these performance trade-offs are magnified when the supply
chain is reconfigured on the basis of a non-inclusive measurement system. In
order to improve the effectiveness of supply chain models, performance
290 measures must be selected that will allow for a more complete and accurate
analysis.
This research discusses the importance of a supply chain system to achieve
simultaneously a high level of efficiency, a high level of customer service and
the ability to respond effectively to a changing environment. Previous work in
performance measurement has generally focused on:
. developing new performance measures for specific applications;
. benchmarking, as in Camp (1989); and

. categorizing existing performance measures, as in Neely et al. (1995).
The research presented here goes beyond this previous work by establishing a
foundation toward the development of a universal framework for the selection
of performance measures for supply chain systems. The categorization of
supply chain performance measures resulted in the identification of three types
of performance measures that are necessary components in any supply chain
performance measurement system: resource, output and flexibility. Although
many individual supply chain performance measures exist for resources and
output, the number of flexibility measures actually applied to supply chains is
few. Therefore, this paper also develops volume flexibility and delivery
flexibility measures for supply chains, and presents existing measures for mix
flexibility and new product flexibility. Supply chain models that utilize this
framework can more completely characterize the supply chain system and the
resulting reconfiguration effects, thus enabling the development of models that
are more complete, accurate, and therefore more effective.
References
Altiok, T. and Ranjan, R. (1995), ``Multi-stage, pull-type production/inventory systems'', IIE
Transactions, Vol. 27, pp. 190-200.
Arntzen, B.C., Brown, G.G., Harrison, T.P. and Trafton, L.L. (1995), ``Global supply chain
management at Digital Equipment Corporation'', INTERFACES, Vol. 25, pp. 69-93.
Barker, R.C. (1996), ``Value chain development: an account of some implementation problems'',
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 10, pp. 23-36.
Beamon, B.M. (1996), ``Performance measures in supply chain management'', Proceedings of the
1996 Conference on Agile and Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute, Troy, New York, NY, 2-3 October.
Beamon, B.M. (1998), ``Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods'', International
Journal of Production Economics.
Bytheway, A. (1995a), Information in the Supply Chain: Measuring Supply Chain Performance,
Cranfield School of Management Working Paper Series SWP195, March.
Bytheway, A. (1995b), A Review of Current Logistics Practice, Cranfield School of Management Measuring
Working Paper Series SWP1095, March.
Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior
supply chain
Performance, ASQS Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI. performance
Christopher, M. (1994), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Richard D. Irwin, Financial
Times, New York, NY.
Christy, D.P. and Grout, J.R. (1994), ``Safeguarding supply chain relationships'', International 291
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 36, pp. 233-42.
Cohen, M.A. and Lee, H.L. (1988), ``Strategic analysis of integrated production-distribution
systems: models and methods'', Operations Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 216-28.
Cohen, M.A. and Lee, H.L. (1989), ``Resource deployment analysis of global manufacturing and
distribution networks'', Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management, Vol. 2,
pp. 81-104.
Cohen, M.A. and Moon, S. (1990), `Ìmpact of production scale economies, manufacturing
complexity, and transportation costs on supply chain facility networks'', Journal of
Manufacturing and Operations Management, Vol. 3, pp. 269-92.

Cook, R.L. and Rogowski, R.A. (1996), `Àpplying JIT principles to continuous process
manufacturing supply chains'', Production and Inventory Management Journal, First
Quarter, pp. 12-17.
Corbett, L.M. (1992), ``Delivery windows a new view on improving manufacturing flexibility
and on-time delivery performance'', Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol.
33 No. 3, pp. 74-9.
Das, S.K. (1996), ``The measurement of flexibility in manufacturing systems'', International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8, pp. 67-93.
Davis, T. (1993), `Èffective supply chain management'', Sloan Management Review, pp. 35-46.
Gupta, Y.P. and Goyal, S. (1989), ``Flexibility of manufacturing systems: concepts and
measurements'', European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 119-35.
Ishii, K., Takahashi, K. and Muramatsu, R. (1988), `Ìntegrated production, inventory and
distribution systems'', International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 473-82.
Johnson, J.B. and Randolph, S. (1995), ``Brief: making alliances work using a computer-based
management system to integrate the supply chain'', Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 512-13.
Lamming, R. (1996), ``Squaring lean supply with supply chain management'', International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-96.
Lee, H.L. and Billington, C. (1992), ``Managing supply chain inventory: pitfalls and opportunies'',
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33, pp. 65-73.
Lee, H.L. and Billington, C. (1993), ``Material management in decentralized supply chains'',
Operations Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 835-47.
Lee, H.L. and Feitzinger, E. (1995), ``Product configuration and postponement for supply chain
efficiency'', Institute of Industrial Engineers, Fourth Industrial Engineering Research
Conference Proceedings, pp. 43-8.
Maskell, B.H. (1991), Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing, Productivity
Press, Portland, OR.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), ``Performance measurement system design'',
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
New, S.J. (1996), `À framework for analysing supply chain improvement'', International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 19-34.
IJOPM Newhart, D.D., Stott, K.L. and Vasko, F.J. (1993), ``Consolidating product sizes to minimize
inventory levels for a multi-stage production and distribution systems'', Journal of the
19,3 Operational Research Society, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 637-44.
Nicoll, A.D. (1994), `Ìntegrating logistics strategies'', Annual International Conference
Proceedings, American Production and Inventory Control Society, pp. 590-94.
Pyke, D.F. and Cohen, M.A. (1993), ``Performance characteristics of stochastic integrated
production-distribution systems'', European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 68 No. 1,
292 pp. 23-48.
Pyke, D.F. and Cohen, M.A. (1994), ``Multi-product integrated production-distribution systems'',
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 18-49.
Sethi, A.K. and Sethi, S.P. (1990), ``Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey'', International Journal
of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 289-328.
Shank, J.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1992), ``Strategic cost management and the value chain'',
Journal of Cost Management for the Manufacturing Industry, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 5-21.
Slack, N. (1983), ``Flexibility as a manufacturing objective'', International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 4-13.

Slack, N. (1991), The Manufacturing Advantage, Mercury Books, London.
Towill, D.R. (1991), ``Supply chain dynamics'', International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 197-208.
Towill, D.R., Naim, M.M. and Wikner, J. (1992), `Ìndustrial dynamics simulation models in the
design of supply chains'', International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 3-13.
Tzafestas, S. and Kapsiotis, G. (1994), ``Coordinated control of manufacturing/supply chains
using multi-level techniques'', Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 206-12.
Voudouris, V.T. (1996), ``Mathematical programming techniques to debottleneck the supply
chain of fine chemical industries'', Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 20,
Suppl. Pt B, pp. S1269-74.
Waters-Fuller, N. (1995), ``JIT purchasing and supply: a review of the literature'', International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 220-36.
Wikner, J., Towill, D.R. and Naim, M. (1991), ``Smoothing supply chain dynamics'', International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 231-48.
This article has been cited by:
1. Sanjay Sharma National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE) Mumbai India Mohd. Asif Gandhi
School of Engineering and Technology, Kalsekar Technical Campus Panvel India Philippe Gugler
University of Fribourg Fribourg Switzerland RajeshKr Singh DTU Gurgaon India Dr Rajesh Kr Singh .
2016. Exploring Correlations in Components of Green Supply Chain Practices and Green Supply Chain
Performance. Competitiveness Review 26:3. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Madalena Moreira, Benny Tjahjono. 2016. Applying performance measures to support decision-making
in supply chain operations: a case of beverage industry. International Journal of Production Research 54,
2345-2365. [CrossRef]
3. Ali Azadeh University of Tehran Tehran Iran, Islamic Republic of Mansour Zarrin University of Tehran
Tehran Iran, Islamic Republic of Nima Salehi University of Michigan Ann Arbor United States Zahir
Irani Brunel University London United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Zahir Irani Brunel
University London United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . 2016. Supplier selection
in closed loop supply chain by an integrated simulation-Taguchi-DEA approach. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management 29:3. . [Abstract] [PDF]

4. Paulo Sampaio, Maria Sameiro Carvalho and Ana Cristina Fernandes Huy Truong Quang Department
of Systems and Production, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal AND Department of Production and
Operation Management, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Paulo
Sampaio Department of Systems and Production, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Maria Sameiro
Carvalho Department of Systems and Production, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Ana Cristina
Fernandes Department of Systems and Production, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Duong Thi
Binh An Department of Industrial Management, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam Estela Vilhenac Department of Sciences, Polytechnic Institute of Cvado and Ave
(IPCA), Barcelos, Portugal AND Department of Biostatistics and Health Metrics, EPIUnit - Institute of
Public Health, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal . 2016. An extensive structural model of supply chain
quality management and firm performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 33:4,
444-464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Luiz Eduardo Simo, Mirian Buss Gonalves, Carlos Manuel Taboada Rodriguez. 2016. An approach to
assess logistics and ecological supply chain performance using postponement strategies. Ecological Indicators
63, 398-408. [CrossRef]
6. Irene Petrick, Carleen Maitland, Nicolai Pogrebnyakov. 2016. Unpacking Coordination Benefits in Supply
Networks: Findings from Manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management 54:10.1111/
jsbm.2016.54.issue-2, 582-597. [CrossRef]
7. Associate Professor Per Hilletofth, Professor Olli-Pekka Hilmola and Professor Yacan Wang Ming-
Chuan Chiu Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, National Tsing Hua
University, Hsinchu, Taiwan Yi-Hsuan Lin Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, National Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan . 2016. Simulation based method
considering design for additive manufacturing and supply chain. Industrial Management & Data Systems
116:2, 322-348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Baofeng Huo, Qiang Wang, Xiande Zhao, Sebastian Schuh. 2016. Threats and benefits of power
discrepancies between organisations: a supply chain perspective. International Journal of Production
Research 1-15. [CrossRef]
9. Qingqi Long. 2016. A multi-methodological collaborative simulation for inter-organizational supply chain
networks. Knowledge-Based Systems 96, 84-95. [CrossRef]
10. Claudia Colicchia, Alessandro Creazza, Fabrizio Dallari, Marco Melacini. 2016. Eco-efficient supply chain
networks: development of a design framework and application to a real case study. Production Planning
& Control 27, 157-168. [CrossRef]
11. Sang M Lee Department of Management, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA Jin
Sung Rha Department of International Business Administration, Dankook University, Yongin, South
Korea . 2016. Ambidextrous supply chain as a dynamic capability: building a resilient supply chain.
Management Decision 54:1, 2-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Patrik Appelqvist Amer Sports Corporation, Helsinki, Finland Flora Babongo Faculty of Business and
Economics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Valrie Chavez-Demoulin Faculty of Business
and Economics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Ari-Pekka Hameri Faculty of Business
and Economics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Tapio Niemi Faculty of Business and
Economics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland . 2016. Weather and supply chain performance
in sport goods distribution. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 44:2, 178-202.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Premaratne Samaranayake School of Business, University of Western Sydney. Penrith, Australia Tritos
Laosirihongthong Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University,

Bangkok, Thailand . 2016. Configuration of supply chain integration and delivery performance. Journal
of Modelling in Management 11:1, 43-74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Shradha Gawankar Operations & Supply Chain Management, National Institute of Industrial Engineering
(NITIE), Mumbai, India Sachin Kamble Operations & Supply Chain Management, National Institute of
Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India Rakesh Raut Operations & Supply Chain Management,
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India . 2016. Development, measurement
and validation of supply chain performance measurement (SCPM) scale in Indian retail sector.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:1, 25-60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Esra Ekinci Department of Industrial Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey Adil Baykasoglu
Department of Industrial Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey . 2016. Modelling
complexity in retail supply chains. Kybernetes 45:2, 297-322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Franois Galasso, Yves Ducq, Matthieu Lauras, Didier Gourc, Mamadou Camara. 2016. A method to select
a successful interoperability solution through a simulation approach. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing
27, 217-229. [CrossRef]
17. Cory Searcy. 2016. Measuring Enterprise Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 25:10.1002/
bse.v25.2, 120-133. [CrossRef]
18. Amin Maghsoudi Operations Management, School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau
Pinang, Malaysia Ala Pazirandeh Department of Business Administration, University of Gothenburg,
Gothenburg, Sweden . 2016. Visibility, resource sharing and performance in supply chain relationships:
insights from humanitarian practitioners. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:1,
19. Duncan McFarlane, Vaggelis Giannikas, Wenrong Lu. 2016. Intelligent logistics: Involving the customer.
Computers in Industry . [CrossRef]
20. Elisa Kusrini, Subagyo, Nur Aini Masruroh. 2016. Designing Performance Measurement For Supply
Chain's Actors And Regulator Using Scale Balanced Scorecard And Data Envelopment Analysis. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 105, 012032. [CrossRef]
21. Uche Okongwu, Matthieu Lauras, Julien Franois, Jean-Christophe Deschamps. 2016. Impact of the
integration of tactical supply chain planning determinants on performance. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems 38, 181-194. [CrossRef]
22. Han Wang, Richard Mastragostino, Christopher L.E. Swartz. 2016. Flexibility analysis of process supply
chain networks. Computers & Chemical Engineering 84, 409-421. [CrossRef]
23. Gokhan Egilmez, Murat Kucukvar, Yong Shin Park. 2016. Supply chain-linked sustainability assessment
of the US manufacturing: An ecosystem perspective. Sustainable Production and Consumption 5, 65-81.
[CrossRef]
24. Kottala Sri Yogi. 2015. Performance evaluation of reverse logistics: A case of LPG agency. Cogent Business
& Management 2, 1063229. [CrossRef]
25. Ching-Chin Chern, Tzi-Yuan Chou, Bo Hsiao. 2015. Assessing the efficiency of supply chain scheduling
algorithms using data envelopment analysis. Information Systems and e-Business Management . [CrossRef]
26. Dr Burcu Balcik Ira Haavisto Department of Supply Chain Management and Social Responsibility,
Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Jarrod Goentzel Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA . 2015. Measuring humanitarian supply chain performance in a multi-
goal context. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 5:3, 300-324. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
27. Dr Burcu Balcik Marianne Jahre Department of Industrial Management and Logistics, Lund University,
Lund, Sweden AND Department of Accounting, Auditing, and Business Analytics, BI Norwegian Business
School, Oslo, Norway Nathalie Fabbe-Costes CRET-LOG Research Centre, Aix-Marseille Universit,
Aix-en-Provence, France . 2015. How standards and modularity can improve humanitarian supply chain
responsiveness. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 5:3, 348-386. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
28. Roberto Chavez, Wantao Yu, Cristina Gimenez, Brian Fynes, Frank Wiengarten. 2015. Customer
integration and operational performance: The mediating role of information quality. Decision Support
29. Vicky Arnold, Tanya Benford, Joseph Canada, Steve G. Sutton. 2015. Leveraging integrated information
systems to enhance strategic flexibility and performance: The enabling role of enterprise risk management.
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 19, 1-16. [CrossRef]
30. Pui-Sze Chow, Yulan Wang, Tsan-Ming Choi, Bin Shen. 2015. An experimental study on the effects
of minimum profit share on supply chains with markdown contract: Risk and profit analysis. Omega 57,
85-97. [CrossRef]
31. Albert Munoz, Michelle Dunbar. 2015. On the quantification of operational supply chain resilience.
International Journal of Production Research 53, 6736-6751. [CrossRef]
32. Wojciech Piotrowicz Sad Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Richard Cuthbertson Sad
Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK . 2015. Performance measurement and metrics in
supply chains: an exploratory study. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
33. Hyun-Gi Hong. 2015. The Factors Affecting on The Implementation of Supply Chain Management
System. Journal of Digital Convergence 13, 255-261. [CrossRef]
34. Jos Holgun-Veras, Ning Xu, Miguel Jaller, John Mitchell. 2015. A Dynamic Spatial Price Equilibrium
Model of Integrated Urban Production-Transportation Operations Considering Freight Delivery Tours.
Transportation Science . [CrossRef]
35. V. Mani, Rajat Agrawal, Vinay Sharma. 2015. Impediments to Social Sustainability Adoption in the Supply
Chain: An ISM and MICMAC Analysis in Indian Manufacturing Industries. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management . [CrossRef]
36. Meriam Jardioui, Semaa Alami, Chafik OkarWhat are the critical success factors for the implementation
of supply chain performance measurement systems in SMEs 338-343. [CrossRef]
37. Wen-Lung Shiau, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Chia-Han Tsai. 2015. Supply chain management: exploring the
intellectual structure. Scientometrics 105, 215-230. [CrossRef]
38. Mohamed Bahroun, Slim HarbiRisk management in the modern retail supply chain: Lessons from a case
study and literature review 1161-1170. [CrossRef]
39. Siham Lakri, Zied JemaiPerformance measurement and management systems of supply chains: A review
of the challenges they raise 920-929. [CrossRef]
40. Suhaiza Zailani, Mohd Rizaimy Shaharudin, Khairul Razmi, Mohammad Iranmanesh. 2015. Influential
factors and performance of logistics outsourcing practices: an evidence of malaysian companies. Review of
Managerial Science . [CrossRef]
41. V. Mani Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India Rajat
Agrawal Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee, India Vinay Sharma Department of Management
Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India . 2015. Social sustainability in the supply chain:
analysis of enablers. Management Research Review 38:9, 1016-1042. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Francielly Hedler Staudt, Glgn Alpan, Maria Di Mascolo, Carlos M. Taboada Rodriguez. 2015.
Warehouse performance measurement: a literature review. International Journal of Production Research 53,
5524-5544. [CrossRef]
43. Hamid Jafari Jnkping University, Jnkping, Sweden . 2015. Logistics flexibility: a systematic review.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 64:7, 947-970. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
44. Ferry Jie, Kevin A. Parton, Mustafid. 2015. Supply chain performance flexibility in the Australian beef
industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 1-18. [CrossRef]
45. Baofeng Huo, Cheng Zhang, Xiande Zhao. 2015. The effect of IT and relationship commitment on supply
chain coordination: A contingency and configuration approach. Information & Management 52, 728-740.
[CrossRef]
46. Gottfried Seebacher, Herwig Winkler. 2015. A capability approach to evaluate supply chain flexibility.
International Journal of Production Economics 167, 177-186. [CrossRef]
47. Don Jyh-Fu Jeng. 2015. Generating a causal model of supply chain collaboration using the fuzzy
DEMATEL technique. Computers & Industrial Engineering 87, 283-295. [CrossRef]
48. Lszl Torjai, Judit Nagy, Attila Bai. 2015. Decision hierarchy, competitive priorities and indicators in
large-scale herbaceous biomass to energy supply chains. Biomass and Bioenergy 80, 321-329. [CrossRef]
49. Charles D'Haene Mdecins Sans Frontires, Brussels, Belgium Sara Verlinde Research Group MOBI
(Mobility, Logistics and Automotive Technology), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium Cathy
Macharis Research Group MOBI (Mobility, Logistics and Automotive Technology), Vrije Universiteit
Brussel, Brussels, Belgium . 2015. Measuring while moving (humanitarian supply chain performance
measurement status of research and current practice). Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain
Management 5:2, 146-161. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Imoh Antai Jnkping International Business School (JIBS), Jnkping, Sweden Crispin Mutshinda
Department of Mathematics & Computer Science, Mount Allison University, Sackville, Canada Richard
Owusu School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden . 2015. A 3-R principle
for characterizing failure in relief supply chains response to natural disasters. Journal of Humanitarian
Logistics and Supply Chain Management 5:2, 234-252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
51. Nur Amlya Binti Abd Majid, Nur Fazidah Binti Elias, Noraidah Sahari Ashaari, Hazura Binti
MohamedPreliminary study disruption in small and medium enterprise supply chain 87-92. [CrossRef]
52. Alireza Tajbakhsh DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Elkafi Hassini
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada . 2015. Performance measurement
of sustainable supply chains: a review and research questions. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management 64:6, 744-783. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Ahmed Attia Department of Business Management, Damanhour University, Damanhour, Egypt . 2015.
Testing the effect of marketing strategy alignment and triple-A supply chain on performance in Egypt.
EuroMed Journal of Business 10:2, 163-180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Anup Kumar School Of Management, IMS Unison University Dehradun, Noida, India Kampan Mukherjee
Indian Institute of Management Kashipur, Kashipur, India Amit Adlakha School of Management, IMS
Unison University Dehradun, Dehradun, India . 2015. Dynamic performance assessment of a supply chain
process. Business Process Management Journal 21:4, 743-770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Adriana Tirado, Mariana Morales, Odette Lobato-Calleros. 2015. Additional Indicators to Promote
Social Sustainability within Government Programs: Equity and Efficiency. Sustainability 7, 9251-9267.
[CrossRef]
56. Brge Sjbakk, Ottar Baks, Oksana Bondarenko, Tara Kamran. 2015. Designing a performance
measurement system to support materials management in engineer-to-order: a case study. Advances in
Manufacturing 3, 111-122. [CrossRef]
57. Mohit Tyagi, Pradeep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar. 2015. Assessment of Critical Enablers for Flexible Supply
Chain Performance Measurement System Using Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management 16, 115-132. [CrossRef]
58. Mohammad Tavassoli, Reza Farzipoor Saen, Gholam Reza Faramarzi. 2015. Developing network data
envelopment analysis model for supply chain performance measurement in the presence of zero data. Expert
Systems 32:10.1111/exsy.v32.3, 381-391. [CrossRef]
59. Richard Bitange Nyaoga, Mingzheng Wang, Peterson Obara Magutu. 2015. Does Capacity Utilization
Mediate the Relationship between Operations Constraint Management and Value Chain Performance
of Tea Processing Firms? Evidence from Kenya. International Strategic Management Review 3, 81-95.
[CrossRef]
60. Hyo-Won Kang, Grace W Y Wang, Hee-Seok Bang, Su-Han Woo. 2015. Economic performance and
corporate financial management of shipping firms. Maritime Economics & Logistics . [CrossRef]
61. Yuming Xiao. 2015. Flexibility measure analysis of supply chain. International Journal of Production
Research 53, 3161-3174. [CrossRef]
62. Rajesh Katiyar Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
Mukesh Kumar Barua Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee,
India Purushottam L. Meena School of Management, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury,
New York, USA . 2015. Modelling the measures of supply chain performance in the Indian automotive
industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:4, 665-696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. Sumit Gupta, G.S. Dangayach, Amit Kumar Singh, P.N. Rao. 2015. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Model for Evaluating Sustainable Manufacturing Practices in Indian Electrical Panel Industries. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 189, 208-216. [CrossRef]
64. Jairo R. Montoya-TorresDesigning sustainable supply chains based on the Triple Bottom Line approach
1-6. [CrossRef]
65. Christoph Bode, Stephan M. Wagner. 2015. Structural drivers of upstream supply chain complexity and
the frequency of supply chain disruptions. Journal of Operations Management 36, 215-228. [CrossRef]
66. Mattias Eriksson, Luc LeBel, Ola Lindroos. 2015. Management of outsourced forest harvesting operations
for better customer-contractor alignment. Forest Policy and Economics 53, 45-55. [CrossRef]
67. Konstantinos Petridis. 2015. Optimal design of multi-echelon supply chain networks under normally
distributed demand. Annals of Operations Research 227, 63-91. [CrossRef]
68. Yasushi Ueki. 2015. Trade costs and exportation: A comparison between enterprises in Southeast Asia and
Latin America. Journal of Business Research 68, 888-893. [CrossRef]
69. Chea Young Hwang, Chang-Kyo Suh. 2015. A Causality Analysis between SCM Integration and Firm
Performance. The Journal of Information Systems 24, 27-44. [CrossRef]
70. Marko Kohtamki and Petri Helo P. Chithambaranathan PSNA College of Engineering and Technology,
Dindigul, India Nachiappan Subramanian Nottingham University Business School China, Ningbo, China
PL.K. Palaniappan Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, India . 2015. An innovative framework
for performance analysis of members of supply chains. Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:2,
71. Marko Kohtamki and Petri Helo Ilkka Sillanp Department of Strategic Management, University of
Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland . 2015. Empirical study of measuring supply chain performance. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 22:2, 290-308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Kai Huang, Yiping Jiang, Yufei Yuan, Lindu Zhao. 2015. Modeling multiple humanitarian objectives in
emergency response to large-scale disasters. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review 75, 1-17. [CrossRef]
73. Oscar Rodrguez-Espndola, Juan Gaytn. 2015. Scenario-based preparedness plan for floods. Natural
Hazards 76, 1241-1262. [CrossRef]
74. Riccardo Silvi Department of Management Studies, University of Bologna, Forli, Italy Monica Bartolini
Department of Management Studies, University of Bologna, Forli, Italy Anna Raffoni Norwich Business
School, University of East Anglia, London, UK Franco Visani Department of Management Studies,
University of Bologna, Forli, Italy . 2015. The practice of strategic performance measurement systems.
[PDF]
75. Christoph Fuchs Business Administration, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany Andreas Otto
Business Administration, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany . 2015. Value of IT in supply
chain planning. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 28:1, 77-92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Ying Zhang, Lihua Wang, Jie Gao. 2015. Supplier collaboration and speed-to-market of new products:
the mediating and moderating effects. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing . [CrossRef]
77. Neeraj Anand College of Management and Economics Studies (LSCM), University of Petroleum and
Energy Studies, Dehradun, India Neha Grover College of Management and Economics Studies (LSCM),
University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India . 2015. Measuring retail supply chain
performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:1, 135-166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Santosh Kumar Sahu Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela,
India Saurav Datta Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela,
India Siba Sankar Mahapatra Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Rourkela, India . 2015. Appraisement and benchmarking of supply chain performance extent. Grey Systems:
Theory and Application 5:1, 2-30. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Liliana Avelar-Sosa, Jorge Luis Garca-Alcaraz, Osslan Osiris Vergara-Villegas, Aid Aracely Maldonado-
Macas, Giner Alor-Hernndez. 2015. Impact of traditional and international logistic policies in supply
chain performance. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 76, 913-925.
[CrossRef]
80. Ville Hallavo Department of Information and Service Economy, Aalto University School of Business,
Helsinki, Finland . 2015. Superior performance through supply chain fit: a synthesis. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 20:1, 71-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Martin Tanco Industrial Management Department, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
Daniel Jurburg Industrial Management Department, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay
Matias Escuder Industrial Management Department, Universidad de Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay .
2015. Main difficulties hindering supply chain performance: an exploratory analysis at Uruguayan SMEs.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:1, 11-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Trevor Cadden, Donna Marshall, Paul Humphreys, Ying Yang. 2015. Old habits die hard: exploring the
effect of supply chain dependency and culture on performance outcomes and relationship satisfaction.
Production Planning & Control 26, 53-77. [CrossRef]
83. K. Govindan, S. G. Azevedo, H. Carvalho, V. Cruz-Machado. 2015. Lean, green and resilient practices
influence on supply chain performance: interpretive structural modeling approach. International Journal
of Environmental Science and Technology 12, 15-34. [CrossRef]
84. Christopher L.E. Swartz, Han Wang, Richard MastragostinoOperability Analysis of Process Supply Chains
Toward the Development of a Sustainable Bioeconomy 355-384. [CrossRef]
85. David M. Gligor, Carol L. Esmark, Mary C. Holcomb. 2015. Performance outcomes of supply chain
agility: When should you be agile?. Journal of Operations Management 33-34, 71-82. [CrossRef]
86. Payman Ahi, Cory Searcy. 2015. An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and
sustainable supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production 86, 360-377. [CrossRef]
87. V. Nicodme Fassinou Hotegni, Willemien J. M. Lommen, Euloge K. Agbossou, Paul C. Struik. 2014.
Heterogeneity in pineapple fruit quality results from plant heterogeneity at flower induction. Frontiers in
Plant Science 5. . [CrossRef]
88. Injazz J. Chen, YeonYeob Lee, Antony Paulraj. 2014. Does a purchasing managers need for cognitive
closure (NFCC) affect decision-making uncertainty and supply chain performance?. International Journal
of Production Research 52, 6878-6898. [CrossRef]
89. Michael Mutingi, Herbert Mapfaira, Robert Monageng. 2014. Developing performance management
systems for the green supply chain. Journal of Remanufacturing 4. . [CrossRef]
90. Weihua Zhang, Marc Reimann. 2014. Towards a multi-objective performance assessment and optimization
model of a two-echelon supply chain using SCOR metrics. Central European Journal of Operations Research
22, 591-622. [CrossRef]
91. Ki-Hoon Lee, Yong Wu. 2014. Integrating sustainability performance measurement into logistics and
supply networks: A multi-methodological approach. The British Accounting Review 46, 361-378. [CrossRef]
92. Gregory R. Heim, David Xiaosong Peng, Shekhar Jayanthi. 2014. Longitudinal Analysis of Inhibitors
of Manufacturer Delivery Performance. Decision Sciences 45:10.1111/deci.2014.45.issue-6, 1117-1158.
[CrossRef]
93. Kannan Govindan, Susana G. Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz-Machado. 2014. Impact of supply chain
management practices on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 85, 212-225. [CrossRef]
94. Morteza Shafiee, Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, Hilda Saleh. 2014. Supply chain performance evaluation with
data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard approach. Applied Mathematical Modelling 38, 5092-5112.
[CrossRef]
95. David Gallear, Abby Ghobadian, Yanhong Li, Nicholas ORegan, Paul Childerhouse, Mohamed Naim.
2014. An environmental uncertainty-based diagnostic reference tool for evaluating the performance of
supply chain value streams. Production Planning & Control 25, 1182-1197. [CrossRef]
96. Sarah Schiffling Logistics Research Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK Maja Piecyk
Logistics Research Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK . 2014. Performance measurement in
humanitarian logistics: a customer-oriented approach. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain
97. M. Doukas, F. Psarommatis, D. Mourtzis. 2014. Planning of manufacturing networks using an intelligent
probabilistic approach for mass customised products. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 74, 1747-1758. [CrossRef]
98. Arpita Khare, Anshuman Khare. 2014. Harnessing Supply Chain Efficiency Through Information
Linkages. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 5:10.4018/
IJISSCM.20121001, 86-104. [CrossRef]
99. ManMohan S. Sodhi Cass Business School, City University London, London, UK Ekaterina Yatskovskaya
Cass Business School, City University London, London, UK . 2014. Developing a sustainability index
for companies efforts on responsible use of water. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
100. Florian Kache Chair of Supply Chain Management, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany Stefan Seuring
Chair of Supply Chain Management, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany . 2014. Linking collaboration
and integration to risk and performance in supply chains via a review of literature reviews. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19:5/6, 664-682. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Young-Joon Seo Plymouth Graduate School of Management, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK John
Dinwoodie Plymouth Graduate School of Management, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK Dong-Wook
Kwak Coventry Business School, Coventry University, Coventry, UK . 2014. The impact of innovativeness
on supply chain performance: is supply chain integration a missing link?. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 19:5/6, 733-746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
102. Seyedehfatemeh Golrizgashti. 2014. Supply chain value creation methodology under BSC approach.
Journal of Industrial Engineering International 10. . [CrossRef]
103. Khan Rai Waqas Azfar, Nawar Khan, Hamza Farooq Gabriel. 2014. Performance Measurement: A
Conceptual Framework for Supply Chain Practices. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150, 803-812.
[CrossRef]
104. Suresh Kumar Jakhar, Mukesh Kumar Barua. 2014. An integrated model of supply chain performance
evaluation and decision-making using structural equation modelling and fuzzy AHP. Production Planning
105. Dr Edgar E. Blanco and Dr Ely Laureano Paiva Emlio Della Bruna Jr Post-Graduate Program in
Production Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianpolis, Brazil Leonardo Ensslin
Post-Graduate Program in Business Administration, UNISUL University of Southern Santa Catarina,
Florianpolis, Brazil Sandra Rolim Ensslin Post-Graduate Program in Production Engineering, Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Florianpolis, Brazil . 2014. An MCDA-C application to evaluate supply
chain performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44:7, 597-616.
106. Supply Chain Simulation 205-226. [CrossRef]
107. Richard Mastragostino, Christopher L. E. Swartz. 2014. Dynamic Operability Analysis of Process Supply
Chains for Forest Industry Transformation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 53, 9825-9840.
[CrossRef]
108. Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Khulna University of
Engineering and Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh A.M.M. Nazmul Ahsan Department of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh .
2014. Lean supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance

109. Michael Bourlakis, George Maglaras, Emel Aktas, David Gallear, Christos Fotopoulos. 2014. Firm size
and sustainable performance in food supply chains: Insights from Greek SMEs. International Journal of
Production Economics 152, 112-130. [CrossRef]
110. Alexis Nsamzinshuti, Caroline Van Elslande, Ndiaye Balle AlassaneManaging hospital efficiency and
effectiveness: Designing a hospital performance measurement system 188-200. [CrossRef]
111. Ming Juan Ding School of Business IT and Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Ferry Jie
School of Business IT and Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Kevin A. Parton School
of Business, Charles Sturt University, Orange, Australia Margaret J. Matanda Department of Marketing,
Faculty of Business & Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia . 2014. Relationships between
quality of information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 25:1, 85-108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
112. Dr Stefan Schaltegger, Prof Roger Burritt Adolf Acquaye Kent Business School, University of Kent,
Canterbury, UK Andrea Genovese Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK John
Barrett Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds,
UK S.C. Lenny Koh Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK . 2014. Benchmarking
carbon emissions performance in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:3,
113. Dr Stefan Schaltegger, Prof Roger Burritt Chunguang Bai School of Management Science and
Engineering, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Dalian, China Joseph Sarkis WPI School
of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA . 2014. Determining and applying
sustainable supplier key performance indicators. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:3,
114. Maria Caridi, Antonella Moretto, Alessandro Perego, Angela Tumino. 2014. The benefits of supply chain
visibility: A value assessment model. International Journal of Production Economics 151, 1-19. [CrossRef]
115. Chen-Yang Cheng, Tzu-Li Chen, Yin-Yann Chen. 2014. An analysis of the structural complexity of supply
chain networks. Applied Mathematical Modelling 38, 2328-2344. [CrossRef]
116. Federico Caniato, Davide Luzzini, Stefano Ronchi. 2014. Purchasing performance management systems:
an empirical investigation. Production Planning & Control 25, 616-635. [CrossRef]
117. Pratima Mishra Department of Management and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology,
Hamirpur, India Rajiv Kumar Sharma Mechanical Engineering Department and Department of
Management and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur, India . 2014. A hybrid
framework based on SIPOC and Six Sigma DMAIC for improving process dimensions in supply chain
network. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 31:5, 522-546. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
118. Junxiao Liu School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Peter E.D.
Love School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Jim Smith Institute
of Sustainable Development and Architecture, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia Michael Regan
Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia Monty
Sutrisna Department of Construction Management, Curtin University, Perth, Australia . 2014. Public-
Private Partnerships: a review of theory and practice of performance measurement. International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 63:4, 499-512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
119. Samsul Islam Information Systems and Operations Management, The University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand Tava Olsen Information Systems and Operations Management, The University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand . 2014. Truck-sharing challenges for hinterland trucking companies. Business
Process Management Journal 20:2, 290-334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

120. Naoum K. Tsolakis, Christos A. Keramydas, Agorasti K. Toka, Dimitrios A. Aidonis, Eleftherios
T. Iakovou. 2014. Agrifood supply chain management: A comprehensive hierarchical decision-making
framework and a critical taxonomy. Biosystems Engineering 120, 47-64. [CrossRef]
121. Baofeng Huo, Xiande Zhao, Honggeng Zhou. 2014. The Effects of Competitive Environment on Supply
Chain Information Sharing and Performance: An Empirical Study in China. Production and Operations
Management 23:10.1111/poms.2014.23.issue-4, 552-569. [CrossRef]
122. Abderrahmane Sokri Defence Economics Team, DRDC CORA, Ottawa, Canada . 2014. Military supply
chain flexibility measures. Journal of Modelling in Management 9:1, 78-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
123. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Rahul Desai, Nilima Walde, P B KarandikarNano warehouse: A new concept
for grain storage in India 1-6. [CrossRef]
124. Richard Mastragostino, Shailesh Patel, Christopher L.E. Swartz. 2014. Robust decision making for hybrid
process supply chain systems via model predictive control. Computers & Chemical Engineering 62, 37-55.
[CrossRef]
125. Felix T.S. Chan, Ashutosh Nayak, Ratan Raj, Alain Yee-Loong Chong, Tiwari Manoj. 2014. An innovative
supply chain performance measurement system incorporating Research and Development (R&D) and
marketing policy. Computers & Industrial Engineering 69, 64-70. [CrossRef]
126. Steven Thompson, Peter Ekman, Daniel Selby, Jonathan Whitaker. 2014. A model to support IT
infrastructure planning and the allocation of IT governance authority. Decision Support Systems 59,
108-118. [CrossRef]
127. Masoud Esmaeilikia, Behnam Fahimnia, Joeseph Sarkis, Kannan Govindan, Arun Kumar, John Mo. 2014.
A tactical supply chain planning model with multiple flexibility options: an empirical evaluation. Annals
of Operations Research . [CrossRef]
128. Masoud Esmaeilikia, Behnam Fahimnia, Joeseph Sarkis, Kannan Govindan, Arun Kumar, John Mo. 2014.
Tactical supply chain planning models with inherent flexibility: definition and review. Annals of Operations
Research . [CrossRef]
129. Ing-Long Wu, Cheng-Hung Chuang, Chien-Hua Hsu. 2014. Information sharing and collaborative
behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of
130. Saadettin Erhan Kesen. 2014. Capacity-constrained supplier selection model with lost sales under stochastic
demand behaviour. Neural Computing and Applications 24, 347-356. [CrossRef]
131. Leandro C. Coelho, Jean-Franois Cordeau, Gilbert Laporte. 2014. Thirty Years of Inventory Routing.
Transportation Science 48, 1-19. [CrossRef]
132. Anoop Kumar Sahu Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela,
India Saurav Datta Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela,
India Siba Sankar Mahapatra Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
Rourkela, India . 2014. Supply chain performance benchmarking using grey-MOORA approach. Grey
Systems: Theory and Application 4:1, 24-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
133. Kunal Ganguly Operations Management and Decision Sciences, IMT Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad, India and
Operations Management, IIM Kashipur, Kashipur, India . 2014. Integration of analytic hierarchy process
and Dempster-Shafer theory for supplier performance measurement considering risk. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 63:1, 85-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
134. William Groves, John Collins, Maria Gini, Wolfgang Ketter. 2014. Agent-assisted supply chain
management: Analysis and lessons learned. Decision Support Systems 57, 274-284. [CrossRef]
135. Nenad Stefanovic. 2014. Proactive Supply Chain Performance Management with Predictive Analytics. The
Scientific World Journal 2014, 1-17. [CrossRef]
136. Mohit Tyagi, Pradeep Kumar, Dinesh Kumar. 2014. A Hybrid Approach using AHP-TOPSIS for
Analyzing e-SCM Performance. Procedia Engineering 97, 2195-2203. [CrossRef]
137. Sufian Qrunfleh, Monideepa Tarafdar. 2014. Supply chain information systems strategy: Impacts on supply
chain performance and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics 147, 340-350.
[CrossRef]
138. Roberto Cigolini, Margherita Pero, Tommaso Rossi, Andrea Sianesi. 2014. Linking supply chain
configuration to supply chain perfrmance: A discrete event simulation model. Simulation Modelling Practice
and Theory 40, 1-11. [CrossRef]
139. Weihua Liu, Zhicheng Liang, Shuqing Wang, Yang Liu, Wenchen Xie. 2014. Scheduling Performance
Evaluation of Logistics Service Supply Chain Based on the Dynamic Index Weight. Mathematical Problems
in Engineering 2014, 1-14. [CrossRef]
140. U.S. Bititci, S.U.O. Firat, P. Garengo. 2013. How to compare performances of firms operating in different
sectors?. Production Planning & Control 24, 1032-1049. [CrossRef]
141. Jing Chen, Haihong YuPerformance Simulation and Optimization of Agricultural Supply Chains 131-137.
[CrossRef]
142. Gyan Prakash, R. R. PantPerformance measurement of a dairy supply chain: A balance scorecard perspective
196-200. [CrossRef]
143. , Donghyun Choi. 2013. Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process to Determine Best Practices for Green
Supply Chain Management. Korean Journal of Logistics 21, 35-50. [CrossRef]
144. Per J. Agrell, Adel Hatami-Marbini. 2013. Frontier-based performance analysis models for supply chain
management: State of the art and research directions. Computers & Industrial Engineering 66, 567-583.
[CrossRef]
145. Sidong Xian, Dong Qiu, Shiyun Zhang. 2013. A Fuzzy Principal Component Analysis Approach to
Hierarchical Evaluation Model for Balanced Supply Chain Scorecard Grading. Journal of Optimization
Theory and Applications 159, 518-535. [CrossRef]
146. Jane Davies, Nitin Joglekar. 2013. Supply Chain Integration, Product Modularity, and Market Valuation:
Evidence from the Solar Energy Industry. Production and Operations Management 22, 1494-1508.
[CrossRef]
147. Teresa Wu, Simin Huang, Jennifer Blackhurst, Xiaoling Zhang, Shanshan Wang. 2013. Supply Chain Risk
Management: An Agent-Based Simulation to Study the Impact of Retail Stockouts. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management 60, 676-686. [CrossRef]
148. Carine Rongier, Matthieu Lauras, Franois Galasso, Didier Gourc. 2013. Towards a crisis performance-
measurement system. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 26, 1087-1102.
[CrossRef]
149. Rasib Khan, Md Munirul Haque, Ragib HasanModeling a secure supply chain integrity preservation
system 741-747. [CrossRef]
150. Christoph Fuchs. 2013. IT steigert die Supply-Chain-Leistung immer?. HMD Praxis der
Wirtschaftsinformatik 50, 107-114. [CrossRef]

151. Fernando Robles Professor M. Lee Sang Department of Management, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, Nebraska, USA Sung Rha Jin Department of Management, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, Nebraska, USA Choi Donghyun Department of Management, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, Kansas, USA Noh Yonghwi College of Business Administration, Myongji University, Seoul,
South Korea . 2013. Pressures affecting green supply chain performance. Management Decision 51:8,
152. Heewook Choi, Hun-Koo Ha. 2013. The Priority of Supply Chain Designs for Humanitarian Relief with
AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process). Korean Journal of Logistics 21, 121-134. [CrossRef]
153. Yao-Fen Wang, Su-Ping Chen, Yi-Ching Lee, Chen-Tsang (Simon) Tsai. 2013. Developing green
management standards for restaurants: An application of green supply chain management. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 34, 263-273. [CrossRef]
154. Cassandra Elrod, Susan Murray, Sundeep Bande. 2013. A Review of Performance Metrics for Supply Chain
Management. Engineering Management Journal 25, 39-50. [CrossRef]
155. Faranak FattahiDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology,
Isfahan, Iran Ali S. NookabadiDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Isfahan University of
Technology, Isfahan, Iran Mahdi KadivarDepartment of Food Science, Isfahan University of Technology,
Isfahan, Iran. 2013. A model for measuring the performance of the meat supply chain. British Food Journal
156. Katri Karjalainen, Claire Moxham. 2013. Focus on Fairtrade: Propositions for Integrating Fairtrade and
Supply Chain Management Research. Journal of Business Ethics 116, 267-282. [CrossRef]
157. Christos Vidalakis, James Sommerville. 2013. Transportation responsiveness and efficiency within the
building supply chain. Building Research & Information 41, 469-481. [CrossRef]
158. Khalid A. Al-Mutawah. 2013. An Intelligent Approach to Assess Tacit Knowledge Fitness in Networked
Enterprises. International Journal of Technology Diffusion 2:10.4018/IJTD.20110401, 1-18. [CrossRef]
159. Abhijeet GhadgeSchool of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
Samir DaniSchool of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK Michael
ChesterSystems Engineering Innovation Centre, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK Roy
KalawskyResearch School of Systems Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. 2013.
A systems approach for modelling supply chain risks. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
160. Fei Ye, Zhiqiang Wang. 2013. Effects of information technology alignment and information sharing on
supply chain operational performance. Computers & Industrial Engineering 65, 370-377. [CrossRef]
161. Abirami Radhakrishnan, Dessa David, Douglas Hales, V. Sri Sridharan. 2013. Mapping the Critical
Links between Supply Chain Evaluation System and Supply Chain Integration Sustainability. International
Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences 2:10.4018/jsds.20110101, 44-65. [CrossRef]
162. Xuemei Fan, Shujun Zhang, Longzhao Wang, Yinsheng Yang, Kevin Hapeshi. 2013. An Evaluation Model
of Supply Chain Performances Using 5DBSC and LMBP Neural Network Algorithm. Journal of Bionic
Engineering 10, 383-395. [CrossRef]
163. Suraksha Gupta, V. Kumar. 2013. Sustainability as corporate culture of a brand for superior performance.
Journal of World Business 48, 311-320. [CrossRef]
164. Ferry JieSchool of Business IT and Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Kevin A.
PartonInstitute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Orange, Australia Rodney J.
CoxFaculty of Science, Charles Sturt University, Orange, Australia. 2013. Linking supply chain practices
to competitive advantage. British Food Journal 115:7, 1003-1024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
165. Johanna A. Badenhorst, Claus Maurer, Tersia Brevis-Landsberg. 2013. Developing measures for the
evaluation of information flow efficiency in supply chains. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain
Management 7. . [CrossRef]
166. Rajesh Rajaguru, Margaret Jekanyika Matanda. 2013. Effects of inter-organizational compatibility on
supply chain capabilities: Exploring the mediating role of inter-organizational information systems (IOIS)
integration. Industrial Marketing Management 42, 620-632. [CrossRef]
167. R. Ruiz-Femenia, G. Guilln-Goslbez, L. Jimnez, J.A. Caballero. 2013. Multi-objective optimization of
environmentally conscious chemical supply chains under demand uncertainty. Chemical Engineering Science
95, 1-11. [CrossRef]
168. Na FuLeadership, Innovation and Knowledge (LInK) Research Centre, DCU Business School, Dublin
City University, Dublin, Ireland Patrick C. FloodLeadership, Innovation and Knowledge (LInK) Research
Centre, HRM & Organizational Psychology Group, DCU Business School, Dublin City University,
Dublin, Ireland Janine BosakLeadership, Innovation and Knowledge (LInK) Research Centre, HRM
& Organizational Psychology Group, DCU Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Tim MorrisSad Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Philip O'ReganKemmy Business
School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 2013. Exploring the performance effect of HPWS on
professional service supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:3,
169. Patrik AppelqvistAmer Sports Corporation, Helsinki, Finland Valrie ChavezDemoulinFaculty
of Business and Economics (HEC), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland AriPekka
HameriFaculty of Business and Economics (HEC), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Jussi
HeikkilDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland Vincent
WautersAmer Sports Corporation, Helsinki, Finland. 2013. Turnaround across diverse global supply
chains using shared metrics and change methodology. International Journal of Operations & Production
170. Susana AzevedoManagement and Economics Department, University of Beira Interior, Covilh, Portugal
Helena CarvalhoMechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculdade de Cincias e Tecnologia da
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal V. CruzMachadoMechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Faculdade de Cincias e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal. 2013. Using
interpretive structural modelling to identify and rank performance measures. Baltic Journal of Management
171. Dewan Md Zahurul IslamNewRail, School of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Newcastle University,
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Thomas H. ZunderNewRail, School of Mechanical Systems Engineering,
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Ronald JornaMobycon, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
2013. Performance evaluation of an online benchmarking tool for European freight transport chains.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 20:2, 233-250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
172. Kaushik Subramanian, James B. Rawlings, Christos T. Maravelias, Jesus Flores-Cerrillo, Lawrence Megan.
2013. Integration of control theory and scheduling methods for supply chain management. Computers &
Chemical Engineering 51, 4-20. [CrossRef]
173. Jess Muuzuri, Jaime Beltrn, Enrique Martn, Luis Onieva. 2013. ISO 9001 and standardised logistics
management: an empirical analysis in Spanish small and medium-sized enterprises. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 24, 479-495. [CrossRef]
174. Dominique Estampe, Samir Lamouri, Jean-Luc Paris, Sakina Brahim-Djelloul. 2013. A framework for
analysing supply chain performance evaluation models. International Journal of Production Economics 142,
247-258. [CrossRef]
175. Dean Elmuti, Grace Khoury, Omar Omran, Ahmed S. Abou-Zaid. 2013. Challenges and Opportunities
of Health Care Supply Chain Management in the United States. Health Marketing Quarterly 30, 128-143.
[CrossRef]
176. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Padmabati Gahan. 2013. Supplier performance measurement in discrete
manufacturing industry-empirical study on Indian manufacturing sector. Journal of Business Economics and
Management 14, 330-347. [CrossRef]
177. Sanna PekkolaBased at the Lahti School of Innovation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti,
Finland. 2013. Managing a network by utilizing performance measurement information. Measuring Business
Excellence 17:1, 72-79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
178. Ian D. BlackmanBusiness and Information Systems, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK Christopher
P. HollandManchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Timothy
WestcottDirector of Treasury, EMEA, Motorola, Basingstoke, UK. 2013. Motorola's global financial
supply chain strategy. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:2, 132-147. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
179. Eelco van Asperen, Rommert Dekker. 2013. Centrality, flexibility and floating stocks: A quantitative
evaluation of port-of-entry choices. Maritime Economics & Logistics 15, 72-100. [CrossRef]
180. Constantin Blome, Tobias Schoenherr, Daniel Rexhausen. 2013. Antecedents and enablers of supply chain
agility and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective. International Journal of Production
181. P. Subramanian, N. Ramkumar, T.T. Narendran, K. Ganesh. 2013. PRISM: PRIority based SiMulated
annealing for a closed loop supply chain network design problem. Applied Soft Computing 13, 1121-1135.
[CrossRef]
182. Trevor CaddenDepartment of Management and Leadership, Ulster Business School, University of
Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK Donna MarshallUCD Business Schools, University College Dublin, Dublin,
Ireland Guangming CaoUniversity of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK. 2013. Opposites attract: organisational
culture and supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:1, 86-103.
183. Andrea Prinz, Thomas Bauernhansl. 2013. Risk-Value-Cost-based Optimization of Global Value-adding
Structures. Procedia CIRP 7, 103-108. [CrossRef]
184. Joachim Metternich, Jrg Bllhoff, Stefan Seifermann, Sebastian Beck. 2013. Volume and Mix Flexibility
Evaluation of Lean Production Systems. Procedia CIRP 9, 79-84. [CrossRef]
185. S Cannella, A P Barbosa-Pvoa, J M Framinan, S Relvas. 2013. Metrics for bullwhip effect analysis. Journal
of the Operational Research Society 64, 1-16. [CrossRef]
186. Ron Berger, Anat Hovav. 2013. Using a Dairy Management Information System to Facilitate Precision
Agriculture: The Case of the AfiMilk System. Information Systems Management 30, 21-34. [CrossRef]
187. Dmitry Ivanov, Boris Sokolov. 2013. Control and system-theoretic identification of the supply chain
dynamics domain for planning, analysis and adaptation of performance under uncertainty. European Journal
of Operational Research 224, 313-323. [CrossRef]
188. Dominik Pfeiffer, Sarah Anwander, Bernd HellingrathA Simulation Approach to Evaluate Supply Chain
Flexibility 1134-1143. [CrossRef]
189. Norberto Garca, Rubn Ruiz-Femenia, Jos A. Caballero. 2012. Teaching mathematical modeling software
for multiobjective optimization in chemical engineering courses. Education for Chemical Engineers 7, e169-
e180. [CrossRef]
190. Jing Yang, Hua Jiang. 2012. Fuzzy Evaluation on Supply Chains Overall Performance Based on AHM and
M(1,2,3). Journal of Software 7. . [CrossRef]
191. Johannes I. M. Halman, Johannes T. Voordijk. 2012. Balanced Framework for Measuring Performance of
Supply Chains in House Building. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 138, 1444-1450.
[CrossRef]
192. M. Aghdasi, S. E. Malihi, Y. Asadi, Sh. GhadamiCritical business objects and its applications in designing
performance management systems 1558-1562. [CrossRef]
193. Michael BourlakisBrunel Business School, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK George MaglarasDepartment
of Business Administration in Food and Agricultural Enterprises, University of Ioannina, Agrinio,
Greece Christos FotopoulosDepartment of Business Administration in Food and Agricultural Enterprises,
University of Ioannina, Agrinio, Greece. 2012. Creating a best value supply chain? Empirical evidence
from the Greek food chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management 23:3, 360-382. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
194. Ahmad Saleh ShatatFaculty of Business, Sohar University, Sohar, Oman Zulkifli Mohamed UdinCollege
of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia. 2012. The relationship between
ERP system and supply chain management performance in Malaysian manufacturing companies. Journal
of Enterprise Information Management 25:6, 576-604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
195. Karen Ka-Leung Moon, Candace Ying Yi, E.W.T. Ngai. 2012. An instrument for measuring supply chain
flexibility for the textile and clothing companies. European Journal of Operational Research 222, 191-203.
[CrossRef]
196. Leandro C. Coelho, Jean-Franois Cordeau, Gilbert Laporte. 2012. Consistency in multi-vehicle inventory-
routing. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 24, 270-287. [CrossRef]
197. Rohit Joshi, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar, Jimmy Gandhi. 2012. Performance improvement of cold chain
in an emerging economy. Production Planning & Control 23, 817-836. [CrossRef]
198. Sang-Gyun Na, Jian-Xin Wang. 2012. Factors Affecting Corporations Practice of Supply Chain
Management: With a Focus on Information Sharing and Performances. Journal of the Korea Safety
Management and Science 14, 193-205. [CrossRef]
199. Harri LorentzTurku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Juuso TyliTurku School
of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Tomi SolakiviTurku School of Economics, University
of Turku, Turku, Finland HanneMari HlinenTurku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku,
Finland Lauri OjalaTurku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 2012. Effects of
geographic dispersion on intrafirm supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 17:6, 611-626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
200. Baofeng HuoSchool of Management, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 2012. The impact of
supply chain integration on company performance: an organizational capability perspective. Supply Chain
201. Marco TiemanFaculty of Business Management, Universiti Tecknology MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia
Jack G.A.J. van der VorstLogistics, Decision and Information Sciences, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, The Netherlands Maznah Che GhazaliFaculty of Business Management, Universiti
Tecknology MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia. 2012. Principles in halal supply chain management. Journal of
Islamic Marketing 3:3, 217-243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
202. Sunhee Youn, Ma Ga (Mark) Yang, Paul Hong. 2012. Integrative leadership for effective supply chain
implementation: An empirical study of Korean firms. International Journal of Production Economics 139,
237-246. [CrossRef]
203. Izunildo Cabral, Antonio Grilo, Virglio Cruz-Machado. 2012. A decision-making model for Lean, Agile,
Resilient and Green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research 50, 4830-4845.
[CrossRef]
204. A. Najmi, A. Makui. 2012. A conceptual model for measuring supply chain's performance. Production
Planning & Control 23, 694-706. [CrossRef]
205. Amalia Nikolopoulou, Marianthi G. Ierapetritou. 2012. Optimal design of sustainable chemical processes
and supply chains: A review. Computers & Chemical Engineering 44, 94-103. [CrossRef]
206. N. Agami, M. Saleh, M. Rasmy. 2012. A Hybrid Dynamic Framework for Supply Chain Performance
Improvement. IEEE Systems Journal 6, 469-478. [CrossRef]
207. Umit Bititci, Patrizia Garengo, Viktor Drfler, Sai Nudurupati. 2012. Performance Measurement:
Challenges for Tomorrow*. International Journal of Management Reviews 14:10.1111/ijmr.2012.14.issue-3,
305-327. [CrossRef]
208. E. Simangunsong, L.C. Hendry, M. Stevenson. 2012. Supply-chain uncertainty: a review and theoretical
foundation for future research. International Journal of Production Research 50, 4493-4523. [CrossRef]
209. Giovanni Mazzuto, Maurizio Bevilacqua, Filippo Emanuele Ciarapica. 2012. Supply chain modelling and
managing, using timed coloured Petri nets: a case study. International Journal of Production Research 50,
4718-4733. [CrossRef]
210. Paul Hong, David Dobrzykowski, and Young Won ParkSufian QrunflehOperations and Information
Management Department, The University of Scranton, Scranton, Pennsylvania, USA Monideepa
TarafdarThe University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA T.S. RaguNathanThe University of Toledo,
Toledo, Ohio, USA. 2012. Examining alignment between supplier management practices and information
systems strategy. Benchmarking: An International Journal 19:4/5, 604-617. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
211. Kuo-Hsiung Chang, Hsu-Feng Huang. 2012. Using influence strategies to advance supplier delivery
flexibility: The moderating roles of trust and shared vision. Industrial Marketing Management 41, 849-860.
[CrossRef]
212. Ray Collins, Ximing Sun, Chong Guang Li. 2012. Are supply-chain relationships more influenced by
buyer-supplier relationships or the business environment of the country itself? Evidence from the China-
Australia trading relationship. Asia Pacific Business Review 18, 391-405. [CrossRef]
213. Marcelo BronzoFederal University of Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais, Brazil Marcos Paulo Valadares de
OliveiraFederal University of Esprito Santo, Esprito Santo, Brazil Kevin McCormackDRK Research,
Fuquay Varina, North Carolina, USA. 2012. Planning, capabilities, and performance: an integrated value
approach. Management Decision 50:6, 1001-1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
214. P.R.C. GopalDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India Jitesh ThakkarDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India. 2012. A review on supply chain performance
measures and metrics: 20002011. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:5,
215. Patrick Qiang, Anna Nagurney. 2012. A bi-criteria indicator to assess supply chain network performance
for critical needs under capacity and demand disruptions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice
46, 801-812. [CrossRef]
216. S. J. Gorane, R. kant, M. D. SinghFunctional benchmarking of organisations on the basis of supply chain
performance measures 146-151. [CrossRef]
217. Alessandro Creazza, Fabrizio Dallari, Tommaso Rossi. 2012. An integrated model for designing and
optimising an international logistics network. International Journal of Production Research 50, 2925-2939.
[CrossRef]
218. Daniel Rexhausen, Richard Pibernik, Gernot Kaiser. 2012. Customer-facing supply chain practicesThe
impact of demand and distribution management on supply chain success. Journal of Operations Management
30, 269-281. [CrossRef]
219. Janne Engblom, Tomi Solakivi, Juuso Tyli, Lauri Ojala. 2012. Multiple-method analysis of logistics
costs. International Journal of Production Economics 137, 29-35. [CrossRef]
220. Chunguang Bai, Joseph Sarkis. 2012. Supply-chain performance-measurement system management using
neighbourhood rough sets. International Journal of Production Research 50, 2484-2500. [CrossRef]
221. Orrin Cooper, Pandu Tadikamalla, Jennifer Shang. 2012. Selection of a Third-Party Logistics Provider:
Capturing the Interaction and Influence of Performance Metrics with the Analytical Network Process.
Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 19:10.1002/mcda.v19.3-4, 115-128. [CrossRef]
222. Antnio Mrcio Tavares ThomIndustrial Engineering Department, Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do
Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Luiz Felipe ScavardaCenter of Excellence in Optimization Solutions
(NExO), Industrial Engineering Department, Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil Nicole Suclla FernandezElectrical Engineering Department, Pontifcia Universidade Catlica
do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Annibal Jos ScavardaSchool of Business and Management,
American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. 2012. Sales and operations planning and
the firm performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:4, 359-381.
223. Vildan zkr, Hseyin Balgl. 2012. Modelling product-recovery processes in closed-loop supply-chain
network design. International Journal of Production Research 50, 2218-2233. [CrossRef]
224. Young-Chan Lee, Hyung-Jin Oh. 2012. An Empirical Study on Influencing Factors, Practice Level,
and Performance of Green Supply Chain Management. The Journal of Information Systems 21, 173-203.
[CrossRef]
225. Kwang-Oh Park. 2012. Empirical Research on Performance of SCM Adoption - Structural Equation
Modeling Approach -. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 12, 295-310. [CrossRef]
226. Xingxing ZuDepartment of Information Science and Systems, Morgan State University, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA Hale KaynakDepartment of Management, Marketing and International Business, The
University of TexasPan American, Edinburg, Texas, USA. 2012. An agency theory perspective on supply
chain quality management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 32:4, 423-446.
227. Parikshit CharanAssistant Professor at the Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Rohtak, India. 2012.
Supply chain performance issues in an automobile company: a SAPLAP analysis. Measuring Business
Excellence 16:1, 67-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
228. Madhawanand Mishra, Felix T.S. Chan. 2012. Impact evaluation of supply chain initiatives: a system
simulation methodology. International Journal of Production Research 50, 1554-1567. [CrossRef]
229. Heather Lutz, David O. Vang, William D. Raffield. 2012. Using game theory to predict supply chain
cooperation. Performance Improvement 51:10.1002/pfi.v51.3, 19-23. [CrossRef]
230. I-Chiang Wang. 2012. Cost Reduction in Supply Chain Management by Shorter Purchasing Lead-time:
A Case Study of Flexible Printed Circuit Boards. Journal of Applied Sciences 12, 271-278. [CrossRef]
231. Helena Carvalho, Susana Garrido Azevedo, V. Cruz-Machado. 2012. Agile and resilient approaches to
supply chain management: influence on performance and competitiveness. Logistics Research 4, 49-62.
[CrossRef]
232. Adisak Theeranuphattana, John C.S. Tang, Do Ba Khang. 2012. An Integrated Approach to Measuring
Supply Chain Performance. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems 11, 54-69. [CrossRef]
233. PoYoung ChuDepartment of Management Science, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
KuoHsiung ChangDepartment of International Business, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan Hsu
Feng HuangDepartment of Management Science, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
2012. How to increase supplier flexibility through social mechanisms and influence strategies?. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing 27:2, 115-131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
234. Ing-Long Wu, Ching-Hui Chang. 2012. Using the balanced scorecard in assessing the performance of e-
SCM diffusion: A multi-stage perspective. Decision Support Systems 52, 474-485. [CrossRef]
235. Gilberto Miller Devs Ganga, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti. 2011. A fuzzy logic approach to supply chain
performance management. International Journal of Production Economics 134, 177-187. [CrossRef]
236. Susana G. Azevedo, Helena Carvalho, V. Cruz Machado. 2011. The influence of green practices on supply
chain performance: A case study approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review 47, 850-871. [CrossRef]
237. Liu Tenghong, Chen LiThe Research for the Performance Evaluation Index System of Supply Chain
Based on Internet of Things 176-180. [CrossRef]
238. H. Lorentz, Y. Shi, O.P. Hilmola and J.S. SraiUsha RamanathanNewcastle Business School,
Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Angappa GunasekaranDepartment of Decision and
Information Sciences, Charlton College of Business, University of Massachusetts, North Dartmouth,
Massachusetts, USA Nachiappan SubramanianDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Thiagarajar
College of Engineering, Madurai, India. 2011. Supply chain collaboration performance metrics: a
conceptual framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:6, 856-872. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
239. Dr K.L. Choy, Dr Kris M.Y. Law, Prof S.C. Lenny KOHSwee Siong KuikSchool of Advanced
Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Sev
Verl NagalingamSchool of Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, University of
South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Yousef AmerSchool of Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical
Engineering, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 2011. Sustainable supply chain for
collaborative manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 22:8, 984-1001. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
240. R. Dhanalakshmi, P. Parthiban, K. Ganesh, T. Arunkumar. 2011. Genetic Algorithm to Solve Multi-
Period, Multi-Product, Bi-Echelon Supply Chain Network Design Problem. International Journal of
Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 2:10.4018/ijisscm.20091001, 24-42. [CrossRef]
241. Renata Gomes Frutuoso Braz, Luiz Felipe Scavarda, Roberto Antonio Martins. 2011. Reviewing and
improving performance measurement systems: An action research. International Journal of Production
Economics 133, 751-760. [CrossRef]
242. Roberto Cigolini, Margherita Pero, Tommaso Rossi. 2011. An object-oriented simulation meta-model to
analyse supply chain performance. International Journal of Production Research 49, 5917-5941. [CrossRef]
243. Hwal-Sik Chang, Jong-Hyun Jun, Kwang-Oh Park. 2011. A Study on the Impact of the RTE
Characteristics for SCM Performance. The Journal of Information Systems 20, 161-186. [CrossRef]
244. Su-Han Woo, Stephen Pettit, Anthony K C Beresford. 2011. Port evolution and performance in changing
logistics environments. Maritime Economics & Logistics 13, 250-277. [CrossRef]
245. W.H. IpDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, PR China S.L. ChanDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, PR China C.Y. LamDepartment of Industrial
and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, PR China.
2011. Modeling supply chain performance and stability. Industrial Management & Data Systems 111:8,
246. Rohit Joshi, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2011. A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based benchmarking framework
for performance improvement of a cold chain. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 10170-10182. [CrossRef]
247. Mahesh Srinivasan, Debmalya Mukherjee, Ajai S. Gaur. 2011. Buyersupplier partnership quality and
supply chain performance: Moderating role of risks, and environmental uncertainty. European Management
Journal 29, 260-271. [CrossRef]
248. Wiljeana J. Glover, Jennifer A. Farris, Eileen M. Van Aken, Toni L. Doolen. 2011. Critical success factors
for the sustainability of Kaizen event human resource outcomes: An empirical study. International Journal
of Production Economics 132, 197-213. [CrossRef]
249. Ci Chen, Hong Yan. 2011. Network DEA model for supply chain performance evaluation. European
Journal of Operational Research 213, 147-155. [CrossRef]
250. Nitesh Khilwani, M.K. Tiwari, Ihsan Sabuncuoglu. 2011. Hybrid Petri-nets for modelling and performance
evaluation of supply chains. International Journal of Production Research 49, 4627-4656. [CrossRef]
251. Richard CuthbertsonSad Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Wojciech PiotrowiczSad
Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2011. Performance measurement systems in supply
chains. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 60:6, 583-602. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
252. Kim Sundtoft HaldDepartment of Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg,
Denmark Chris EllegaardCopenhagen Business School, Center for Applied Market Science, Herning,
Denmark. 2011. Supplier evaluation processes: the shaping and reshaping of supplier performance.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31:8, 888-910. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
253. Carlos F. GomesISRInstitute of Systems and Robotics, School of Economics, University of Coimbra,
Coimbra, Portugal Mahmoud M. YasinDepartment of Management and Marketing, East Tennessee State
University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA. 2011. A systematic benchmarking perspective on performance
management of global small to mediumsized organizations. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:4,
254. Candace Y. YiInstitute of Textiles and Clothing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong
Kong E.W.T. NgaiDepartment of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, Hong Kong KL. MoonDepartment of Clothing and Textiles, Hanyang University, Seoul,
South Korea. 2011. Supply chain flexibility in an uncertain environment: exploratory findings from five
case studies. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 16:4, 271-283. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
255. Pamela P. Rogers, Divesh Ojha, Richard E. White. 2011. Conceptualising complementarities in
manufacturing flexibility: a comprehensive view. International Journal of Production Research 49,
3767-3793. [CrossRef]
256. Emilio Della Bruna Junior, Leonardo Ensslin, Sandra Rolim EnsslinSupply chain performance evaluation:
A case study in a company of equipment for refrigeration 969-978. [CrossRef]
257. M. Adel El-Baz. 2011. Fuzzy performance measurement of a supply chain in manufacturing companies.
Expert Systems with Applications 38, 6681-6688. [CrossRef]
258. Wen-Chih Chen, Chen-Fu Chien. 2011. Measuring relative performance of wafer fabrication operations:
a case study. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 22, 447-457. [CrossRef]
259. Fengye Wang, Zhiyong Huang, Aifen FengThe rate problem in bulk: A game theoretical model in logistics
network 517-520. [CrossRef]
260. Afdiman AnuarDepartment of Automotive Technology, Advanced Technology Training Center, Melaka,
Malaysia Rosnah Mohd YusuffDepartment of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. 2011. Manufacturing best practices in Malaysian small and medium
enterprises (SMEs). Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:3, 324-341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
261. Izunildo Cabral, Antonio Grilo, R. Puga-Leal, V. Cruz-MachadoAn information model in lean, agile,
resilient and green supply chains 776-780. [CrossRef]
262. Hiroko Nakamura, Shinji Suzuki, Tomobe Hironori, Yuya Kajikawa, Ichiro Sakata. 2011. Citation lag
analysis in supply chain research. Scientometrics 87, 221-232. [CrossRef]
263. Yinan Qi, Xiande Zhao, Chwen Sheu. 2011. The Impact of Competitive Strategy and Supply Chain
Strategy on Business Performance: The Role of Environmental Uncertainty*. Decision Sciences 42:10.1111/
deci.2011.42.issue-2, 371-389. [CrossRef]
264. HsinI HsiaoDepartment of Business Administration, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands Ron G.M. KempWageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen The Netherlands,
and Netherlands Competition Authority, The Hague, The Netherlands Jack G.A.J. van der
VorstOperations Research and Logistics Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
S.W.F. (Onno) OmtaDepartment of Business Administration, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands. 2011. Logistics outsourcing by Taiwanese and Dutch food processing industries. British Food
265. Ezutah Udoncy Olugu, Kuan Yew Wong, Awaludin Mohamed Shaharoun. 2011. Development of key
performance measures for the automobile green supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55,
567-579. [CrossRef]
266. Tzu-Su Li, L. C. Lin. 2011. A unified model for the implementation of both CMMI and 6. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 22, 407-424. [CrossRef]
267. Po-Young Chu, Kuo-Hsiung Chang, Hsu-Feng Huang. 2011. The Role of Social Mechanisms in
Promoting Supplier Flexibility. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 18, 155-187. [CrossRef]
268. Li LiuThe Effects of Manufacturing Firm's Supply Chain Performance on Competitive Advantage
1259-1262. [CrossRef]
269. Seyed Gholamreza Jalali Naini, Ali Reza Aliahmadi, Meisam Jafari-Eskandari. 2011. Designing a mixed
performance measurement system for environmental supply chain management using evolutionary game
theory and balanced scorecard: A case study of an auto industry supply chain. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 55, 593-603. [CrossRef]
270. Helena ForslundSchool of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, Vxj, Sweden. 2011. The size
of a logistics performance measurement system. Facilities 29:3/4, 133-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
271. Sander de Leeuw, Jeroen P. van den Berg. 2011. Improving operational performance by influencing
shopfloor behavior via performance management practices. Journal of Operations Management 29, 224-235.
[CrossRef]
272. Adrienn Molnr, Xavier Gellynck, Filiep Vanhonacker, Taras Gagalyuk, Wim Verbeke. 2011. Do chain
goals match consumer perceptions? the case of the traditional food sector in selected European Union
countries. Agribusiness 27:10.1002/agr.v27.2, 221-243. [CrossRef]
273. ByoungChun HaDepartment of Logistics/Supply Chain/Service Operations Management, School of
Business, Sogang University, Seoul, South Korea YangKyu ParkDepartment of Human Resource
Management and Organization Behavior, School of Business, Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea
Sungbin ChoDepartment of Management Science, School of Business, Sogang University, Seoul, South
Korea. 2011. Suppliers' affective trust and trust in competency in buyers. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 31:1, 56-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
274. Carlos F. GomesSchool of Economics, ISRInstitute of Systems and Robotics, University of Coimbra,
University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA Joo V. LisboaSchool of Economics, ISRInstitute of Systems
and Robotics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 2011. Performance measurement practices in
manufacturing firms revisited. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31:1, 5-30.
275. 2011. Volume Removed - Publisher's Disclaimer. Energy Procedia 13, 1-10380. [CrossRef]
276. Ehsan Nikbakhsh, Reza Zanjirani FarahaniHumanitarian Logistics Planning in Disaster Relief Operations
291-332. [CrossRef]
277. Ki Yeon Chung, Yoon Seok Chang, Hannu Vanharanta, Jussi Kantola. 2011. Evaluation of radio-frequency
identification projects in public sectors of Korea. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service
Industries 21:10.1002/hfm.v21.1, 44-51. [CrossRef]
278. Y. Boulaksil, M. Grunow, J.C. Fransoo. 2011. Capacity flexibility allocation in an outsourced supply chain
with reservation. International Journal of Production Economics 129, 111-118. [CrossRef]
279. Jan Holmstrm, Antti Tenhil, Mikko Krkkinen. 2011. Item dwell time in project inventories: A field
experiment. Computers in Industry 62, 99-106. [CrossRef]
280. Ing-Long Wu, Cheng-Hung Chuang. 2010. Examining the diffusion of electronic supply chain
management with external antecedents and firm performance: A multi-stage analysis. Decision Support
281. Sirirat Pungchompoo, Apichat SopadangA supply chain performance measurement improved with
integrated methods FDSM, MOO and DEA part I: A conceptual of performance measurement framework
in Thailand: Frozen shrimp chains 235-239. [CrossRef]
282. AVINASH D. SARODE, V. K. SUNNAPWAR, P. M. KHODKE. 2010. IMPROVING
EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPPLY CHAIN BY SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE SUPPLIER: AN
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS APPROACH. Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems 09,
129-144. [CrossRef]
283. Chunguang BaiSchool of Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, People's Republic of
China Joseph SarkisGraduate School of Management, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
Xiaopeng WeiSchool of Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, People's Republic of
China. 2010. Addressing key sustainable supply chain management issues using rough set methodology.
Management Research Review 33:12, 1113-1127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
284. Anna TrifilovaClever G. EsturilhoFederal Technological University Paran (UTFPR), Curitiba, Brazil
Renault, Curitiba, Brazil Carla EstorilioFederal Technological University Paran (UTFPR), Curitiba,
Brazil. 2010. The deployment of manufacturing flexibility as a function of company strategy. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 21:8, 971-989. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
285. Carlo A. MoraMongeDepartment of Accounting and Information Systems, New Mexico State University,
Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA Arash AzadeganDepartment of Management, New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA Marvin E. GonzalezSchool of Business, University of
Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 2010. Assessing the impact of webbased electronic
commerce use on the organizational benefits of a firm. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:6,
286. Wei-hua Zhang, Lin-lin Hou, Wan-hua QiuAssessing supply chain performance based on problem
discovery and analysis 1271-1275. [CrossRef]
287. Dimitris PapakiriakopoulosELTRUN, Department of Management Science and Technology, Athens
University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece Katerina PramatariELTRUN, Department of
Management Science and Technology, Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece.
2010. Collaborative performance measurement in supply chain. Industrial Management & Data Systems
288. Lie-Chien Lin, Tzu-Su Li. 2010. An integrated framework for supply chain performance measurement
using six-sigma metrics. Software Quality Journal 18, 387-406. [CrossRef]
289. Erik Hofmann, Herbert Kotzab. 2010. A SUPPLY CHAIN-ORIENTED APPROACH OF WORKING
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT. Journal of Business Logistics 31:10.1002/jbl.2010.31.issue-2, 305-330.
[CrossRef]
290. Jeong Soo ParkDepartment of Business Administration, Hanyang Cyber University, Seoul, South Korea
Deok Shin ChangCollege of Business Administration, Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea. 2010. A
study on the difference of supply chain performance from the fitness between competitive priorities and
supplier selection criteria. Asian Journal on Quality 11:2, 183-189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
291. Ogan M. YigitbasiogluDepartment of Accounting, Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland. 2010.
Information sharing with key suppliers: a transaction cost theory perspective. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 40:7, 550-578. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
292. Margarita Protopappa-Sieke, Ralf W. Seifert. 2010. Interrelating operational and financial performance
measurements in inventory control. European Journal of Operational Research 204, 439-448. [CrossRef]
293. You-Shyang Chen, Ching-Hsue Cheng, Chien-Jung Lai. 2010. A hybrid procedure for extracting rules of
production performance in the automobile parts industry. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 21, 423-437.
[CrossRef]
294. YING LIAO, PAUL HONG, S. SUBBA RAO. 2010. SUPPLY MANAGEMENT, SUPPLY
FLEXIBILITY AND PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF
MANUFACTURING FIRMS. Journal of Supply Chain Management 46, 6-22. [CrossRef]
295. Fernando Bernardi de SouzaSo Paulo State University (UNESP), Bauru, Brazil Slvio R.I. PiresMethodist
University of Piracicaba (UNIMEP), Piracicaba, Brazil. 2010. Theory of constraints contributions to
outbound logistics. Management Research Review 33:7, 683-700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
296. 2010. Erratum. British Food Journal 112:6, 653-667. [Abstract] [PDF]
297. Professor Joseph SarkisSarah ShawLogistics Institute, University of Hull, Hull, UK, David B.
GrantLogistics Institute, University of Hull, Hull, UK John ManganSchool of Marine Science and
Technology, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK. 2010. Developing environmental supply chain
performance measures. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:3, 320-339. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
298. Jianfeng Li, Jun Zhai, Yan Chen, Yuhong JiangSupply chain dynamic simulation with information
coordination V1-279-V1-283. [CrossRef]
299. Ingo Westphal, Klaus-Dieter Thoben, Marcus Seifert. 2010. Managing collaboration performance to
govern virtual organizations. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 21, 311-320. [CrossRef]
300. DongYoung KimCoggin College of Business, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
Vinod KumarSprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Uma KumarSprott School
of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. 2010. Performance assessment framework for supply
chain partnership. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15:3, 187-195. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
301. Liu Yongsheng, Ji LiDesign of Early Warning Indicator System for Enterprise Logistics Risks Based on
Balanced Scorecard 27-31. [CrossRef]
302. , , , Kim, Hyun-Soo. 2010. Framework for ROI Analysis of RFID System: Focused on
Manufacturing Industry. Korean Journal of Logistics 18, 103-120. [CrossRef]
303. Hu Song, Xiao LeiThe Analysis and Coordination of the Cooperation Risk in Supply Network 3447-3450.
[CrossRef]
304. Xiaohang BiResearch on Distribution Performance Evaluation of Agile Supply Chain 1-4. [CrossRef]
305. Kim P. BrycesonSchool of Integrative Systems, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Geoff
SlaughterSchool of Accounting Economics and Finance, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba,
Australia. 2010. Alignment of performance metrics in a multienterprise agribusiness. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 59:4, 325-350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
306. Hsiao-Lan Wei, Eric T G Wang. 2010. The strategic value of supply chain visibility: increasing the ability
to reconfigure. European Journal of Information Systems 19, 238-249. [CrossRef]
307. Roland Bardy. 2010. Comparative supply chain performance: Measuring cross-cultural effects. The
example of the Bratislava regional automotive manufacturing cluster. Knowledge and Process Management
17, 95-110. [CrossRef]
308. Ezutah Udoncy Olugu, Kuan Yew Wong, Awaludin Mohamed Shaharoun. 2010. A Comprehensive
Approach in Assessing the Performance of an Automobile Closed-Loop Supply Chain. Sustainability 2,
871-889. [CrossRef]
309. Sarita Koendjbiharie, Otto Koppius, Peter Vervest, Eric van HeckNetwork transparency and the
performance of dynamic business networks 197-202. [CrossRef]
310. Michel Leseure and Mel HudsonSmithJrme ChandesCooperacin Logstica Solidaria, Lima, Peru
and Universit de la Mditerrane (AixMarseille 2), Marseille, France Gilles PachUniversit de la
Mditerrane (AixMarseille 2), Marseille, France BEM Bordeaux Management School, Bordeaux,
France. 2010. Investigating humanitarian logistics issues: from operations management to strategic action.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21:3, 320-340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
311. Jos A. Faria, Eusbio Nunes, Manuel A. Matos. 2010. Cost and quality of service analysis of production
systems based on the cumulative downtime. International Journal of Production Research 48, 1653-1684.
[CrossRef]
312. Gunjan SoniMechanical Engineering Group, Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani,
India Rambabu KodaliMechanical Engineering Group, Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS),
Pilani, India. 2010. Internal benchmarking for assessment of supply chain performance. Benchmarking: An
313. H.I. Hsiao, R.G.M. Kemp, J.G.A.J. van der Vorst, S.W.F. (Onno) Omta. 2010. A classification of logistic
outsourcing levels and their impact on service performance: Evidence from the food processing industry.
314. Elcio M. Tachizawa, Cristina Gimenez. 2010. Supply flexibility strategies in Spanish firms: Results from
a survey. International Journal of Production Economics 124, 214-224. [CrossRef]
315. Jussi LehtinenBoston Consulting Group, Helsinki, Finland Tuomas AholaHelsinki University of
Technology, Espoo, Finland. 2010. Is performance measurement suitable for an extended enterprise?.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 30:2, 181-204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
316. Govindan MarthandanFaculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia Chun Meng
TangFaculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia. 2010. Information technology
evaluation: issues and challenges. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 12:1, 37-55. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
317. Jianfeng Li, Yan Chen, Shuyong Liu, Gang SunPort supply chain simulation based on system dynamics
method 428-432. [CrossRef]
318. Harri Lorentz, Pervez N. Ghauri. 2010. Demand supply network opportunity development processes in
emerging markets: Positioning for strategy realization in Russia. Industrial Marketing Management 39,
240-251. [CrossRef]
319. A Jayant, S K Jhamb, P Gupta, S K GargSCM: An integrated approach for effective management: A case
study of manufacturing unit 221-225. [CrossRef]
320. Margherita Pero, Tommaso Rossi, Carlo No, Andrea Sianesi. 2010. An exploratory study of the
relation between supply chain topological features and supply chain performance. International Journal of
321. Paolo TaticchiLuca CagnazzoDepartment of Industrial Engineering, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
Paolo TaticchiDepartment of Electronic and Information Engineering, University of Perugia, Perugia,
Italy Alessandro BrunDepartment of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di
Milano, Milan, Italy. 2010. The role of performance measurement systems to support quality improvement
initiatives at supply chain level. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 59:2,
322. Jiulong ZhuEvaluation of supply chain performance based on BP neural network V1-495-V1-499.
[CrossRef]
323. tienne St-Jean, Luc LeBel. 2010. La dpendance commerciale et lautonomie dcisionnelle influencent-
elles la performance et les choix stratgiques?. Revue internationale P.M.E.: conomie et gestion de la petite
et moyenne entreprise 23, 95. [CrossRef]
324. Adrienn Molnr, Xavier Gellynck, Robert Weaver. 2010. Chain member perception of chain performance:
the role of relationship quality. Journal on Chain and Network Science 10, 27-49. [CrossRef]
325. Barbara B. Flynn, Baofeng Huo, Xiande Zhao. 2010. The impact of supply chain integration on
performance: A contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management 28, 58-71.
[CrossRef]
326. Jose Jaime Arana Coronado, Jos Bijman, Onno Omta, Alfons Oude Lansink. 2010. Relationship
characteristics and performance in fresh produce supply chains: the case of the Mexican avocado industry.
Journal on Chain and Network Science 10, 1-15. [CrossRef]
327. Nurcin Celik, Young-Jun SonSequential Monte Carlo-based fidelity selection in dynamic-data-driven
adaptive multi-scale simulations (DDDAMS) 2281-2293. [CrossRef]
328. Rajat Bhagwat, Milind Kumar Sharma. 2009. An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model for
performance measurement of supply chain management. Production Planning & Control 20, 678-690.
[CrossRef]
329. Yinan Qi, Kenneth K. Boyer, Xiande Zhao. 2009. Supply Chain Strategy, Product Characteristics,
and Performance Impact: Evidence from Chinese Manufacturers. Decision Sciences 40:10.1111/
deci.2009.40.issue-4, 667-695. [CrossRef]
330. Kim Sundtoft Hald, Carlos Cordn, Thomas E. Vollmann. 2009. Towards an understanding of attraction
in buyersupplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management 38, 960-970. [CrossRef]
331. Marc Reimann, Philippe Schiltknecht. 2009. Studying the interdependence of contractual and operational
flexibilities in the market of specialty chemicals. European Journal of Operational Research 198, 760-772.
[CrossRef]
332. Andrea J. CullenSchool of Computing, Informatics and Media, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK
Margaret TaylorSchool of Management, Bradford University, Bradford, UK. 2009. Critical success factors
for B2B ecommerce use within the UK NHS pharmaceutical supply chain. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 29:11, 1156-1185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
333. Murali SambasivanFaculty of Economics and Management/Graduate School of Management, Universiti
Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia Tamizarasu NandanHitachi Malaysia, Bandar Baru Bangi, Malaysia
Zainal Abidin MohamedFaculty of Economics and Management/Graduate School of Management,
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. 2009. Consolidation of performance measures in a supply
chain environment. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 22:6, 660-689. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
334. Peter H. Tatham, Karen M. Spens and David TaylorSabine F. SchulzLogistics Department, University
of Technology Berlin, Berlin, Germany Ian HeighGlobal Emergency Group, Middleburg, Virginia, USA.
2009. Logistics performance management in action within a humanitarian organization. Management
Research News 32:11, 1038-1049. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
335. J. Q. Chang, G. Cheng, X.F. MaStudy on supply chain partnership selection based on grey matter element
method 1607-1610. [CrossRef]
336. Khalid Al-Mutawah, Vincent Lee, Yen Cheung. 2009. A new multi-agent system framework for tacit
knowledge management in manufacturing supply chains. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 20, 593-610.
[CrossRef]
337. Xiao Li, Xin Jian Gu, Zheng Gang Liu. 2009. A strategic performance measurement system for firms across
supply and demand chains on the analogy of ecological succession. Ecological Economics 68, 2918-2929.
[CrossRef]
338. Ming-ming Liu, Hong-jun Xiao, Shun-dong GaoThe Study of the New Mode of the Strategic
Management Based on the Construction and the Evaluation of Value-Assisted Management System 1-4.
[CrossRef]
339. Jie Li, Shouming ChenFuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process for Evaluating Online Bookstores 1-4.
[CrossRef]
340. Hee-Cheol Moon, , . 2009. Determinants and Performance of Supply Chain Partnership Levels of
Korean Companies in China. The e-Business Studies 10, 343-369. [CrossRef]
341. Dr Hokey MinJitesh ThakkarMechanical Engineering Department, A.D. Patel Institute of Technology,
Vitthal Udyognagar, India Arun KandaMechanical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of
Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India S.G. DeshmukhMechanical Engineering Department, Indian
Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India IIITM Gwalior, Gwalior, India. 2009. Supply
chain performance measurement framework for small and medium scale enterprises. Benchmarking: An
342. Olivia Pinon, Kelly Fry, John-Paul ClarkeThe Air Transportation System as a Supply Chain . [CrossRef]
343. ChiehYu LinDepartment of International Business, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan
YiHui HoDepartment of International Business, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan. 2009.
RFID technology adoption and supply chain performance: an empirical study in China's logistics industry.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:5, 369-378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
344. Ming-Lang Tseng, Jui Hsiang Chiang, Lawrence W. Lan. 2009. Selection of optimal supplier in supply
chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Computers & Industrial
Engineering 57, 330-340. [CrossRef]
345. Chen YaoliConstruction of Supply Chain Quality Performance Measurement System Based on the
Excellent Performance Criteria 89-91. [CrossRef]
346. Lie-Chien Lin, Tzu-Su Li, Judy P. Kiang. 2009. A continual improvement framework with integration of
CMMI and six-sigma model for auto industry. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 25:10.1002/
qre.v25:5, 551-569. [CrossRef]
347. G. Weichhart, C. StaryCollaborative Learning in Automotive Ecosystems 235-240. [CrossRef]
348. Lusine H. Aramyan, Miranda P.M. Meuwissen, Alfons G.J.M. Oude Lansink, Jack G.A.J. van der Vorst,
Olaf van Kooten, Ivo A. van der Lans. 2009. The perceived impact of quality assurance systems on tomato
supply chain performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 20, 633-653. [CrossRef]
349. Sarah Jinhui WuGraduate School of Business Administration, Fordham University, New York, New
York, USA David J. ClossDepartment of Supply Chain Management, The Eli Broad Graduate School of
Management, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA. 2009. The impact of integrating
return components planning with purchasing decisions on purchasing performance. The International
Journal of Logistics Management 20:1, 57-78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
350. Ioannis ManikasSchool of Agricultural Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki,
Greece Leon A. TerryPlant Science Laboratory, Institute of BioScience and Technology, Cranfield
University, Cranfield, UK. 2009. A case study assessment of the operational performance of a multiple fresh
produce distribution centre in the UK. British Food Journal 111:5, 421-435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
351. P. Richard Martin, J. Wayne Patterson. 2009. On measuring company performance within a supply chain.
International Journal of Production Research 47, 2449-2460. [CrossRef]
352. Murali SambasivanGraduate School of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia Zainal
Abidin MohamedFaculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Tamizarasu NandanGraduate School of Management, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. 2009.
Performance measures and metrics for esupply chains. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 22:3,
353. Herwig Winkler. 2009. How to improve supply chain flexibility using strategic supply chain networks.
Logistics Research 1, 15-25. [CrossRef]
354. F. T. S. Chan, R. Bhagwat, S. Wadhwa. 2009. Study on suppliers flexibility in supply chains: is real-time
control necessary?. International Journal of Production Research 47, 965-987. [CrossRef]
355. Xiaoyong ZhangLEI, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands Lusine
H. AramyanLEI, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Hague, The Netherlands. 2009. A
conceptual framework for supply chain governance. China Agricultural Economic Review 1:2, 136-154.
356. Arif Khan KManagement Development Institute, Gurgaon, India B. BakkappaInstitute of Management
Studies, Kuvempu University, Davangere, India Bhimaraya A. MetriManagement Development Institute,
Gurgaon, India B.S. SahayInstitute of Management and Technology, Ghaziabad, India. 2009. Impact of
agile supply chains' delivery practices on firms' performance: cluster analysis and validation. Supply Chain
357. Gyngyi KovcsSupply Chain Management and Corporate Geography, Department of Marketing, Hanken
School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Peter TathamCentre for Human Systems, Cranfield University,
Cranfield, UK. 2009. Humanitarian logistics performance in the light of gender. International Journal of
358. A. Senthil Kumar, R. Jeyapaul, A. Noorul Haq. 2009. Analysing the performance of supply chain designs.
International Journal of Business Performance Management 11, 72. [CrossRef]
359. Liu Yongsheng, Ji LiDesign of Early Warning Indicator System of Enterprise Logistics Risk Based on
Supply Chain Management 918-923. [CrossRef]
360. Olga Ormandjieva, Victoria MikhnovskyEnterprise Integration Performance Modeling and Measurement
Based on Category Theory 432-437. [CrossRef]
361. Guojun Ji, Bingrong GuoStudy on the performance evaluation of sustainable tourism supply chain based
on balanced scorecard 652-657. [CrossRef]
362. Ygal Bendavid, lisabeth Lefebvre, Louis A. Lefebvre, Samuel Fosso-Wamba. 2009. Key performance
indicators for the evaluation of RFID-enabled B-to-B e-commerce applications: the case of a five-layer
supply chain. Information Systems and e-Business Management 7, 1-20. [CrossRef]
363. A. Ramaa, T. M. Rangaswamy, K. N. SubramanyaA Review of Literature on Performance Measurement
of Supply Chain Network 802-807. [CrossRef]
364. Jian Cai, Xiangdong Liu, Zhihui Xiao, Jin Liu. 2009. Improving supply chain performance management:
A systematic approach to analyzing iterative KPI accomplishment. Decision Support Systems 46, 512-521.
[CrossRef]
365. Ming-Chang Lee, Mei-Wen HanKnowledge Value Chain Model Implemented for Supply Chain
Management Performance 606-611. [CrossRef]
366. Gunjan Soni, Rambabu Kodali. 2009. Performance value analysis for the justification of the leagile supply
chain. International Journal of Business Performance Management 11, 96. [CrossRef]
367. Kim Bryceson, Geoff SlaughterIntegrated Autonomy A Modeling-Based Investigation of Agrifood Supply
Chain Performance 334-339. [CrossRef]
368. Marcello BragliaDipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Nucleare e della Produzione, Facolt di Ingegneria,
Universit di Pisa, Pisa, Italy Marco FrosoliniDipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Nucleare e della
Produzione, Facolt di Ingegneria, Universit di Pisa, Pisa, Italy Francesco ZammoriDipartimento di
Ingegneria Meccanica, Nucleare e della Produzione, Facolt di Ingegneria, Universit di Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
2008. Overall equipment effectiveness of a manufacturing line (OEEML). Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 20:1, 8-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
369. Anu Bask and Karen SpensHelena ForslundDepartment of Logistics and Supply Chain Management,
School of Management and Economics, Vxj University, Vxj, Sweden Patrik JonssonDivision of
Logistics and Transportation, Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden StigArne MattssonDepartment of Logistics and Supply
Chain Management, School of Management and Economics, Vxj University, Vxj, Sweden. 2008.
Ordertodelivery process performance in delivery scheduling environments. International Journal of
370. Chyan Yang, Yi-fen SuThe impact of ERP implementation on corporate SCM performance: From an
operational and information integration perspective 1668-1672. [CrossRef]
371. Rajesh K. PillaniaArif Khan KOperations Management Area, Management Development Institute,
Sukhrali, Gurgaon, India Rajesh K. PillaniaManagement Development Institute, Sukhrali, Gurgaon, India
and Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 2008. Strategic sourcing for supply chain agility
and firms' performance. Management Decision 46:10, 1508-1530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
372. Pravin KumarDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
Ravi ShankarDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
Surendra S. YadavDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi,
India. 2008. Flexibility in global supply chain: modeling the enablers. Journal of Modelling in Management
373. David Walters and Stan GlaserElizabeth BarberSchool of Business, University of New South Wales,
Canberra, Australia. 2008. How to measure the value in value chains. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 38:9, 685-698. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
374. Jose A. Faria. 2008. A canonical model for the analysis of manufacturing systems. Production Planning &
Control 19, 632-644. [CrossRef]
375. Wing S. Chow, Christian N. Madu, Chu-Hua Kuei, Min H. Lu, Chinho Lin, Hojung Tseng. 2008.
Supply chain management in the US and Taiwan: An empirical study. Omega 36, 665-679. [CrossRef]
376. Qi YueA Case Study of Supply Chain Management and Competitive Advantage in Manufacturing 1-4.
[CrossRef]
377. Fabio Krakovics, Jos Eugenio Leal, Paulo Mendes, Rafael Lorenzo Santos. 2008. Defining and calibrating
performance indicators of a 4PL in the chemical industry in Brazil. International Journal of Production
378. Margot J. Hutchins, John W. Sutherland. 2008. An exploration of measures of social sustainability and
their application to supply chain decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1688-1698. [CrossRef]
379. C.Y. LamDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, People's Republic of China S.L. ChanDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, People's Republic of China W.H. IpDepartment
of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, People's
Republic of China C.W. LauDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Kowloon, People's Republic of China. 2008. Collaborative supply chain network
using embedded genetic algorithms. Industrial Management & Data Systems 108:8, 1101-1110. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
380. Harri LorentzLogistics, Turku School of Economics, Rehtorinpellonkatu, Turku, Finland. 2008.
Collaboration in FinnishRussian supply chains. Baltic Journal of Management 3:3, 246-265. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]

381. Wei Liu, Wen-shun Li, Wendy HuangStudy on managing effects of information technology applied on
transportation 1687-1692. [CrossRef]
382. Gyan Prakash, Kripa ShankerAchieving competitive advantage and organisational performance through
service quality initiatives in the supply chain 1104-1109. [CrossRef]
383. Matthew WallerAlan BlankleyDepartment of Accounting, University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. 2008. A conceptual model for evaluating the financial impact of supply
chain management technology investments. The International Journal of Logistics Management 19:2,
384. Parikshit CharanDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi,
India Ravi ShankarDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi,
India Rajat K. BaisyaDepartment of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New
Delhi, India. 2008. Analysis of interactions among the variables of supply chain performance measurement
system implementation. Business Process Management Journal 14:4, 512-529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
385. Anupam GhoshICFAI Institute for Management Teachers, ICFAI University, Hyderabad, India Jane
FedorowiczBentley College, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. 2008. The role of trust in supply chain
governance. Business Process Management Journal 14:4, 453-470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
386. Siddharth VarmaInstitute of Management Education, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, India Subhash
WadhwaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India S.G.
DeshmukhDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India.
2008. Evaluating petroleum supply chain performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 20:3,
387. CheeCheng ChenDepartment of Business Administration, National Pingtung University of Science and
Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan, Republic of China. 2008. A model for customerfocused objectivebased
performance evaluation of logistics service providers. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 20:3,
388. Tae-Soo Moon, Sung-Bae Kang. 2008. An Empirical Study on the Influence of Environmental,
Organizational, IS Characteristics on the Organizational Balanced Performance of SCM Systems. The
Journal of Information Systems 17, 1-26. [CrossRef]
389. Kevin McCormackNorth Carolina State University, Fuquay Varina, North Carolina, USA Marcelo Bronzo
LadeiraCEPEAD/UFMG NIPELOG/UFMG, Rua Curitiba, Centro, Belo Horizonte/MG, Brazil
Marcos Paulo Valadares de OliveiraCEPEAD/UFMG, Rua Oliveira, Cruzeiro, Belo Horizonte/MG, Brazil.
2008. Supply chain maturity and performance in Brazil. Supply Chain Management: An International
390. Richard CuthbertsonSaid Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Wojciech PiotrowiczSaid
Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2008. Supply chain best practices identification and
categorisation of measures and benefits. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management
391. Yolanda Polo-Redondo, Jess Cambra-Fierro. 2008. Influence of the standardization of a firm's productive
process on the long-term orientation of its supply relationships: An empirical study. Industrial Marketing
Management 37, 407-420. [CrossRef]
392. Chieh-Yu Lin. 2008. Determinants of the adoption of technological innovations by logistics service
providers in China. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 7, 19-38.
[CrossRef]
393. Blent SezenDepartment of Business Administration, Gebze Institute of Technology, Gebze, Turkey.
2008. Relative effects of design, integration and information sharing on supply chain performance. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 13:3, 233-240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
394. Marc Wouters, Celeste Wilderom. 2008. Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling
formalization: A longitudinal field study of a logistics department. Accounting, Organizations and Society
33, 488-516. [CrossRef]
395. Shams-Ur Rahman. 2008. Quality management in logistics services: A comparison of practices between
manufacturing companies and logistics firms in Australia. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
19, 535-550. [CrossRef]
396. Francesco Longo, Giovanni Mirabelli. 2008. An advanced supply chain management tool based on
modeling and simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering 54, 570-588. [CrossRef]
397. S. Wadhwa, A. Saxena, F. T. S. Chan. 2008. Framework for flexibility in dynamic supply chain
management. International Journal of Production Research 46, 1373-1404. [CrossRef]
398. Dean ElmutiLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston,
Illinois, USA William MinnisLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, Eastern Illinois
University, Charleston, Illinois, USA Michael AbebeLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences,
Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA. 2008. Longitudinal assessment of an integrated
industrial supply chain. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13:2, 151-159. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
399. Wai Peng WongDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore Kuan Yew WongFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia.
2008. A review on benchmarking of supply chain performance measures. Benchmarking: An International
400. Paul D. CousinsManchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Benn
LawsonSchool of Management and Economics, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK Brian
SquireManchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2008. Performance
measurement in strategic buyersupplier relationships. International Journal of Operations & Production
401. rni Halldrsson and Gunnar StefnssonJuuso TyliDepartment of Business Technology, Helsinki
School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Lotta HkkinenTurku School of Economics, Business Research
and Development Centre, Turku, Finland Lauri OjalaDepartment of Marketing, Turku School of
Economics, Turku, Finland Tapio NaulaDepartment of Marketing, Turku School of Economics, Turku,
Finland. 2008. Logistics and financial performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
402. Dr Adam Lindgreen and Dr Martin HingleyHull University, UK and Harper Adams University College,
UKJacques TrienekensDepartment of Business Administration, Wageningen University, Wageningen,
The Netherlands Ruud van UffelenAgriculturalEconomics Research Institute, WURLEI, Wageningen,
The Netherlands Jeremy DebaireDepartment of Business Administration, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, The Netherlands Onno OmtaDepartment of Business Administration, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 2008. Assessment of innovation and performance in the fruit
chain. British Food Journal 110:1, 98-127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
403. Benita M. BeamonUniversity of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Burcu BalcikUniversity of
Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2008. Performance measurement in humanitarian relief chains.
International Journal of Public Sector Management 21:1, 4-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
404. Chun-Wang Li, Ming-Hung Shu, Chun-Yan LiEvaluating Supply Chain Performance Based on Delivery
Performance Analysis Chart Approach 48-48. [CrossRef]
405. Lidong WangEvaluation of operational performance of supply chain: Based on the analyses of conformity
character and dissipative structure in supply chain 2411-2414. [CrossRef]
406. Sander De Leeuw, Loek Beekman. 2008. Supply chain-oriented performance measurement for automotive
spare parts. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management 8, 56. [CrossRef]
407. Kee-Hung Lai, Christina W.Y. Wong, T.C.E. Cheng. 2008. A coordination-theoretic investigation of
the impact of electronic integration on logistics performance. Information & Management 45, 10-20.
[CrossRef]
408. Ming-Hon Hwang, Hsin Rau. 2008. Establishment of an outsourcing selection model for supply chain
management. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences 29, 129-151. [CrossRef]
409. Ning Liu, Jia Jiang, Dong ShaoResearch on the method about performance of the whole ecotype supply
chain 2485-2489. [CrossRef]
410. Adisak TheeranuphattanaSchool of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand
John C.S. TangSchool of Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand. 2007.
A conceptual model of performance measurement for supply chains. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
411. Yingli WangCardiff University Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre, Cardiff, UK Chandra S.
LalwaniBusiness School, The University of Hull Logistics Institute, Hull, UK. 2007. Using ebusiness to
enable customised logistics sustainability. The International Journal of Logistics Management 18:3, 402-419.
412. Mustafa zbayrak, Theopisti C. Papadopoulou, Melek Akgun. 2007. Systems dynamics modelling of a
manufacturing supply chain system. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 15, 1338-1355. [CrossRef]
413. Chang Won LeeDepartment of Venture Management, Jinju National University, Jinju, South Korea Ik
Whan G. KwonDepartment of Decision Sciences and MIS, Consortium for Supply Chain Management
Studies, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri, USA Dennis SeveranceSchool of Business, University
of MichiganAnn Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2007. Relationship between supply chain
performance and degree of linkage among supplier, internal integration, and customer. Supply Chain
414. Mihalis GiannakisWarwick Business School, Coventry, UK. 2007. Performance measurement of supplier
relationships. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12:6, 400-411. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
415. Elcio Mendona TachizawaDepartment of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona,
Spain Cristina Gimnez ThomsenESADE Business School, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain.
2007. Drivers and sources of supply flexibility: an exploratory study. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 27:10, 1115-1136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
416. Paul Folan, Jim Browne, Harinder Jagdev. 2007. Performance: Its meaning and content for today's business
research. Computers in Industry 58, 605-620. [CrossRef]
417. Paolo Gaiardelli, Nicola Saccani, Lucrezia Songini. 2007. Performance measurement of the after-sales
service networkEvidence from the automotive industry. Computers in Industry 58, 698-708. [CrossRef]
418. Roman Wecker, Bernd W. Wirtz. 2007. Erfolgswirkung des internetbasierten Supply Chain Managements.
Zeitschrift fr Betriebswirtschaft 77, 911-954. [CrossRef]
419. Bin Ma, L.X.X. Xia, R. LimModeling supply chain's reconfigurability using fuzzy logic 234-241.
[CrossRef]
420. Pierre HadayaDepartment of Management and Technology, cole des Sciences de la Gestion, Universit
du Qubec Montral, Montreal, Canada Luc CassiviDepartment of Management and Technology, cole
des Sciences de la Gestion, Universit du Qubec Montral, Montreal, Canada. 2007. The role of joint
collaboration planning actions in a demanddriven supply chain. Industrial Management & Data Systems
421. Helena ForslundDepartment of Logistics and Supply Chain Management, School of Management and
Economics, Vxj University, Vxj, Sweden Patrik JonssonDivision of Logistics and Transportation,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gteborg, Sweden. 2007. Dyadic integration of the performance
management process. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37:7, 546-567.
422. Jia Jiang, Gui-Chu Mao, Rui-Jiang WangStudy on the Performance Evaluation of the Whole Ecotype
Supply Chain 243-248. [CrossRef]
423. Mike Bourne, Steven Melnyk and Norman FaullHelena ForslundDepartment of Logistics and Supply
Chain Management, School of Management and Economics, Vxj University, Vxj, Sweden. 2007. The
impact of performance management on customers' expected logistics performance. International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 27:8, 901-918. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
424. Mike Bourne, Steven Melnyk and Norman FaullChris MorganCLSCM, Cranfield School of Management,
Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK Adam DewhurstCLSCM, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield
University, Cranfield, UK. 2007. Using SPC to measure a national supermarket chain's suppliers'
performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27:8, 874-900. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
425. Chieh-Yu Lin. 2007. Supply chain performance and the adoption of new logistics technologies for logistics
service providers in Taiwan. Journal of Statistics and Management Systems 10, 519-543. [CrossRef]
426. Lusine H. AramyanWageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands Alfons G.J.M. Oude
LansinkWageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands Jack G.A.J. van der VorstWageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands Olaf van KootenWageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands. 2007. Performance measurement in agrifood supply chains: a case study. Supply Chain
427. Mark StevensonDepartment of Management Science, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster
University, Lancaster, UK Martin SpringDepartment of Management Science, Lancaster University
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. 2007. Flexibility from a supply chain
perspective: definition and review. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 27:7,
428. Angappa Gunasekaran, Bulent Kobu. 2007. Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain
management: a review of recent literature (19952004) for research and applications. International Journal
of Production Research 45, 2819-2840. [CrossRef]
429. Walter W. C. Chung, Kim Hua Tan and S. C. Lenny KohK.L. ChoyDepartment of Industrial and
Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People's Republic of
China Harry K.H. ChowDepartment of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China W.B. LeeDepartment of Industrial and
Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, People's Republic
of China Felix T.S. ChanDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China. 2007. Development of performance
measurement system in managing supplier relationship for maintenance logistics providers. Benchmarking:
An International Journal 14:3, 352-368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
430. WenAn Tan, Weiming Shen, Jianmin Zhao. 2007. A methodology for dynamic enterprise process
performance evaluation. Computers in Industry 58, 474-485. [CrossRef]
431. Kathryn CormicanCIMRU, Industrial Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Michael CunninghamCIMRU, Industrial Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
2007. Supplier performance evaluation: lessons from a large multinational organisation. Journal of
432. Juan Jos Alfaro SaizDepartment of Business Organisation, Financial Economy and Accounting,
Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain Angel Ortiz BasDepartment of Business Organisation,
Financial Economy and Accounting, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain Ral Rodrguez
RodrguezDepartment of Business Organisation, Financial Economy and Accounting, Polytechnic
University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 2007. Performance measurement system for enterprise networks.
[PDF]
433. Abby Ghobadian, Nicholas O'Regan, Howard Thomas and David GallearKobe NaesensCentre
for Industrial Management, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium Ludo GeldersCentre for
Industrial Management, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium Liliane PintelonCentre for Industrial
Management, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium. 2007. A swift response tool for measuring the
strategic fit for resource pooling: a case study. Management Decision 45:3, 434-449. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
434. Balram Avittathur, Paul Swamidass. 2007. Matching plant flexibility and supplier flexibility: Lessons from
small suppliers of U.S. manufacturing plants in India. Journal of Operations Management 25, 717-735.
[CrossRef]
435. Ana Maria Garcia Perez, Marian Garcia Martinez. 2007. The agrifood cooperative netchain. A theoretical
framework to study its configuration. Food Economics - Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C 4, 31-39.
[CrossRef]
436. Shankar PurbeyIndian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India Kampan MukherjeeIndian School of
Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India Chandan BharIndian School of Mines, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India.
2007. Performance measurement system for healthcare processes. International Journal of Productivity and
437. Jan Olhager, Erik Selldin. 2007. Manufacturing planning and control approaches: market alignment and
performance. International Journal of Production Research 45, 1469-1484. [CrossRef]
438. S.C.L. Koh and S.M. SaadJeff PursgloveHull City Council, Kingston upon Hull, UK Mike
SimpsonSheffield University Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 2007.
Benchmarking the performance of English universities. Benchmarking: An International Journal 14:1,
439. Samuel H. Huang, Harshal Keskar. 2007. Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection.
440. Su-Yun Shin, Jeong-Ah Cho. 2007. A Study on the Factor and Performance of e-Supply Chain
Management for Internet Fashion Shopping Malls. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles
31, 95-106. [CrossRef]
441. Hsiao-lan Wei, Eric WangCreating Strategic Value from Supply Chain Visibility- the Dynamic Capabilities
View 7-7. [CrossRef]
442. Zhengping Li, Xiaoxia Xu, Arun KumarSupply chain performance evaluation from structural and
operational levels 1131-1140. [CrossRef]
443. Laura XU Xiao Xia, Bin Ma, Roland LimAHP based supply chain performance measurement system
1308-1315. [CrossRef]
444. JEAN-PAUL RODRIGUE. 2006. Transportation and the Geographical and Functional Integration of
Global Production Networks. Growth and Change 37:10.1111/grow.2006.37.issue-4, 510-525. [CrossRef]
445. Pan Jingming, Ma Hongjiang, Tang XiaowoStudy on Multi-Products Supply Chain Volume Flexibility
Decision Model Related to Producing Under Demand Uncertainty 1409-1414. [CrossRef]
446. Bernhard J. Angerhofer, Marios C. Angelides. 2006. A model and a performance measurement system for
collaborative supply chains. Decision Support Systems 42, 283-301. [CrossRef]
447. Subhashish Samaddar, Satish Nargundkar, Marcia Daley. 2006. Inter-organizational information sharing:
The role of supply network configuration and partner goal congruence. European Journal of Operational
448. Qingyu ZhangDepartment of Economics and Decision Sciences, Arkansas State University, Jonesboro,
Arkansas, USA Mark A. VonderembseDepartment of Management, The University of Toledo, Toledo,
Ohio, USA JeenSu LimDepartment of Marketing, The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA. 2006.
Spanning flexibility: supply chain information dissemination drives strategy development and customer
satisfaction. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:5, 390-399. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
449. Tommaso Buganza, Roberto Verganti. 2006. Life-Cycle Flexibility: How to Measure and Improve the
Innovative Capability in Turbulent Environments. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23:10.1111/
jpim.2006.23.issue-5, 393-407. [CrossRef]
450. Fiorenzo Franceschini, Maurizio Galetto, Domenico Maisano, Luciano Viticchi. 2006. The Condition
of Uniqueness in Manufacturing Process Representation by Performance/Quality Indicators. Quality and
Reliability Engineering International 22:10.1002/qre.v22:5, 567-580. [CrossRef]
451. K. VasileiouCranfield University, Silsoe, UK J. MorrisCranfield University, Silsoe, UK. 2006. The
sustainability of the supply chain for fresh potatoes in Britain. Supply Chain Management: An International
452. Yildirim YilmazAkdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey Umit BititciUniversity of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
2006. Performance measurement in the value chain: manufacturing v. tourism. International Journal of
453. Pedro M. ReyesHankamer School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA. 2006. A game theory
approach for solving the transshipment problem: a supply chain management strategy teaching tool. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 11:4, 288-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
454. Siddharth VarmaUniversity of Petroleum and Energy Studies, New Delhi, India Subhash
WadhwaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India S.G.
DeshmukhDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India.
2006. Implementing supply chain management in a firm: issues and remedies. Asia Pacific Journal of
Marketing and Logistics 18:3, 223-243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
455. V. Mahadevan, J. Agbinya, R. BraunAnalyzing Usability Alternatives in Multi-criteria Decision Making
During ERP Training 296-309. [CrossRef]

456. Changrui Ren, Jin Dong, Hongwei Ding, Wei WangA SCOR-Based Framework for Supply Chain
Performance Management 1130-1135. [CrossRef]
457. P. Folan, P. Higgins, J. Browne. 2006. A communications framework for extended enterprise performance
measurement. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19, 301-314. [CrossRef]
458. Shamsur RahmanThe University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. 2006. Quality management in
logistics: an examination of industry practices. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:3,
459. Benita M. BeamonIndustrial Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA Stephen
A. KotlebaIndustrial Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2006. Inventory
management support systems for emergency humanitarian relief operations in South Sudan. The
International Journal of Logistics Management 17:2, 187-212. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
460. Luc CassiviDepartment of Management and Technology, cole des Sciences de la Gestion, Universit
du Qubec Montral, Montreal, Canada. 2006. Collaboration planning in a supply chain. Supply Chain
461. S. Sivadasan, J. Efstathiou, A. Calinescu, L. Huaccho Huatuco. 2006. Advances on measuring the
operational complexity of suppliercustomer systems. European Journal of Operational Research 171,
208-226. [CrossRef]
462. Jillian MacBryde and Zoe RadnorJairo R. MontoyaTorresPontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogota,
Colombia. 2006. Manufacturing performance evaluation in wafer semiconductor factories. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55:3/4, 300-310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
463. Jillian MacBryde and Zoe RadnorCraig ShepherdThe Institute of Work Psychology, The University
of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK Hannes GnterETH Zurich, Organization Work and Technology Group,
Zurich, Switzerland. 2006. Measuring supply chain performance: current research and future directions.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55:3/4, 242-258. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
464. Kanchana Kanchanasuntorn, Anulark Techanitisawad. 2006. An approximate periodic model for fixed-life
perishable products in a two-echelon inventorydistribution system. International Journal of Production
465. Patricia M. SwaffordDepartment of Information Systems and Operations Management, University of
Texas, Arlington, Texas, USA Soumen GhoshGeorgia Institute of Technology, College of Management,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA Nagesh N. MurthyLundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon, USA. 2006. A framework for assessing value chain agility. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 26:2, 118-140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
466. Carlos F. GomesSchool of Economics, Institute of Systems and Robotics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra,
Portugal Mahmoud M. YasinDepartment of Management and Marketing, East Tennessee State University,
Johnson City, Tennessee, USA Joo V. LisboaSchool of Economics, Institute of Systems and Robotics,
University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 2006. Performance measurement practices in manufacturing
firms: an empirical investigation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 17:2, 144-167.
467. Angappa Gunasekaran and Goran D. PutnikMohammed SaadBristol Business School, University of the
West of England, Bristol, UK Bhaskar PatelKITS, Ramtek, Nagpur, India. 2006. An investigation of supply
chain performance measurement in the Indian automotive sector. Benchmarking: An International Journal
13:1/2, 36-53. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
468. P. Gary JarrettKaiser, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 2006. An analysis of international health care logistics.
Leadership in Health Services 19:1, 1-10. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
469. Marco BusiDepartment of Production and Quality Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway and SINTEF Industrial Management, Trondheim, Norway Umit S.
BititciCentre for Strategic Manufacturing, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. 2006. Collaborative
performance management: present gaps and future research. International Journal of Productivity and
470. Tony Davila, Marc WoutersManagement Accounting in the Manufacturing Sector: Managing Costs at the
Design and Production Stages 831-858. [CrossRef]
471. M. Dotoli, M.P. Fanti, C. Meloni, MengChu Zhou. 2006. Design and optimization of integrated E-supply
chain for agile and environmentally conscious manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 36, 62-75. [CrossRef]
472. E.T.G. Wang, J.C.F. Tai, Hsiao-Lan WeiIT-Enabled Virtual Integration as a Mechanism for Mediating
the Impact of Environmental Uncertainty on Supply Chain Performance 7c-7c. [CrossRef]
473. Stephan Vachon, Robert D. Klassen. 2006. Green project partnership in the supply chain: the case of the
package printing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 661-671. [CrossRef]
474. Hulya Julie YaziciCollege of Business, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, USA.
2005. Influence of flexibilities on manufacturing cells for faster delivery using simulation. Journal of
475. Andy NeelyCranfield School of Management, Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield, UK. 2005.
The evolution of performance measurement research. International Journal of Operations & Production
476. Gary GrahamChee Yew WongCenter for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
Jan Stentoft ArlbjrnUniversity of Southern Denmark, Engstein, Denmark John JohansenCenter for
Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 2005. Supply chain management practices
in toy supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 10:5, 367-378. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
477. Marc WoutersSchool of Business, Public Administration and Technology, University of Twente, Twente,
The Netherlands Mark SportelAccenture Technology Solutions, Twente, The Netherlands. 2005. The
role of existing measures in developing and implementing performance measurement systems. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:11, 1062-1082. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
478. M. Dotoli, M. P. Fanti *, C. Meloni, M. C. Zhou. 2005. A multi-level approach for network design of
integrated supply chains. International Journal of Production Research 43, 4267-4287. [CrossRef]
479. LiLing HsuNational Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2005.
SCM system effects on performance for interaction between suppliers and buyers. Industrial Management
& Data Systems 105:7, 857-875. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
480. Jalal AshayeriDepartment of Econometrics and Operations Research, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The
Netherlands Willem SelenMacquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, New South
Wales, Australia. 2005. An application of a unified capacity planning system. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 25:9, 917-937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
481. Paul Folan, Jim Browne. 2005. A review of performance measurement: Towards performance management.
Computers in Industry 56, 663-680. [CrossRef]
482. P. Folan *, J. Browne. 2005. Development of an extended enterprise performance measurement system.
Production Planning & Control 16, 531-544. [CrossRef]
483. Pedro M. Reyes. 2005. Logistics networks: A game theory application for solving the transshipment
problem. Applied Mathematics and Computation 168, 1419-1431. [CrossRef]
484. Aref A. HervaniDivision of Business Administration, Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia, USA
Marilyn M. HelmsDivision of Business Administration, Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia, USA
Joseph SarkisGraduate School of Management, Clark University, Worcester, Massachussets, USA. 2005.
Performance measurement for green supply chain management. Benchmarking: An International Journal
485. Tosanwunmi C. Maku, Terry R. Collins, Mario G. Beruvides. 2005. The impact of human interaction on
supply chain management practices. Performance Improvement 44:10.1002/pfi.v44:7, 26-33. [CrossRef]
486. T. Wu, P. O'Grady *. 2005. A network-based approach to integrated supply chain design. Production
Planning & Control 16, 444-453. [CrossRef]
487. Photis M. Panayides, Meko So. 2005. Logistics service providerclient relationships. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 41, 179-200. [CrossRef]
488. Roberto Verganti, Tommaso Buganza. 2005. Design Inertia: Designing for Life-Cycle Flexibility in
Internet-Based Services*. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22:10.1111/jpim.2005.22.issue-3,
223-237. [CrossRef]
489. Amit SachanManagement Development Institute, Gurgaon, India B.S. SahayManagement Development
Institute, Gurgaon, India Dinesh SharmaManagement Development Institute, Gurgaon, India. 2005.
Developing Indian grain supply chain cost model: a system dynamics approach. International Journal of
490. Umit S. BititciCentre for Strategic Manufacturing, DMEM, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Kepa
MendibilCentre for Strategic Manufacturing, DMEM, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Veronica
MartinezCranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK Pavel AlboresAston
Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. 2005. Measuring and managing performance
in extended enterprises. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:4, 333-353.
491. Mrio AugustoInstitute of Systems and Robotics, School of Economics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra,
Portugal Jos FigueiraInstitute of Systems and Robotics, School of Economics, University of Coimbra,
Coimbra, Portugal Joo LisboaInstitute of Systems and Robotics, School of Economics, University of
Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Mahmoud YasinDepartment of Management and Marketing, East Tennessee
State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA. 2005. An application of a multicriteria approach
to assessing the performance of Portugal's economic sectors. European Business Review 17:2, 113-132.
492. David Walters *. 2005. Performance planning and control in virtual business structures. Production Planning
493. Kim Langfield-Smith, David Smith. 2005. Performance Measures in Supply Chains. Australian Accounting
Review 15:10.1111/auar.2005.15.issue-35, 39-51. [CrossRef]
494. Carlos F. GomesInstructor in the Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra, Instituto de
Sistemas e Robtica, Coimbra, Portugal Mahmoud M. YasinProfessor of Management, Department of
Management and Marketing, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA Joo V.
LisboaProfessor of Management, in the Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra, Instituto de
Sistemas e Robtica, Coimbra, Portugal. 2004. A literature review of manufacturing performance measures
and measurement in an organizational context: a framework and direction for future research. Journal of
495. Nelson K. H. Tang, Helen Benton, Doug Love, Pvel Albores, Peter Ball, Jill MacBryde, Nick Boughton,
Paul Drake. 2004. Developing an enterprise simulator to support electronic supply-chain management for
B2B electronic business. Production Planning & Control 15, 572-583. [CrossRef]
496. Clemens Lohman, Leonard Fortuin, Marc Wouters. 2004. Designing a performance measurement system:
A case study. European Journal of Operational Research 156, 267-286. [CrossRef]
497. Carlos F. GomesFaculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra, Instituto de Sistemas e Robtica,
University, Johnson City, Tennessee, USA Joo V. LisboaFaculdade de Economia da Universidade de
Coimbra, Instituto de Sistemas e Robtica, Coimbra, Portugal. 2004. An examination of manufacturing
organizations' performance evaluation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24:5,
498. Carlo RafeleAssistant Professor in the Department of Production Systems and Business Economics,
Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.. 2004. Logistic service measurement: a reference framework. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management 15:3, 280-290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
499. Injazz J Chen, Antony Paulraj. 2004. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and
measurements. Journal of Operations Management 22, 119-150. [CrossRef]
500. Kee-Hung Lai, E.W.T Ngai, T.C.E Cheng. 2004. An empirical study of supply chain performance in
transport logistics. International Journal of Production Economics 87, 321-331. [CrossRef]
501. I. J. Chen, A. Paulraj. 2004. Understanding supply chain management: critical research and a theoretical
framework. International Journal of Production Research 42, 131-163. [CrossRef]
502. J. SchmitzUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK K.W. PlattsUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
2003. Roles of supplier performance measurement: indication from a study in the automotive industry.
Management Decision 41:8, 711-721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
503. Ronald E. Giachetti, Luis D. Martinez, Oscar A. Senz, Chin-Sheng Chen. 2003. Analysis of the structural
measures of flexibility and agility using a measurement theoretical framework. International Journal of
504. Felix T.S. ChanDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong H.J. QiDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong H.K. ChanDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems
Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Henry C.W. LauDepartment of Industrial and
Systems Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Ralph W.L. IpDepartment of
Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
2003. A conceptual model of performance measurement for supply chains. Management Decision 41:7,
505. M B Masuku, J F Kirsten, C J Van Rooyen, S Perret. 2003. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN SMALL-HOLDER SUGARCANE GROWERS AND MILLERS IN THE SUGAR
INDUSTRY SUPPLY CHAIN IN SWAZILAND. Agrekon 42, 183-199. [CrossRef]
506. Felix T.S. ChanFelix T.S. Chan is an Associate Professor in the Department of Industrial and
Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.H.J. QiH.J. Qi is
a Research Student, in the Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.. 2003. An innovative performance measurement method for supply
chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 8:3, 209-223. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
507. Felix T.S. ChanDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing System Engineering, The University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong H.J. QiDepartment of Industrial and Manufacturing System Engineering, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 2003. Feasibility of performance measurement system for supply
chain: a processbased approach and measures. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 14:3, 179-190. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
508. lisabeth Lefebvre, Luc Cassivi, Louis A. Lefebvre, Pierre-Majorique Lger. 2003. E-collaboration within
one supply chain and its impact on firms innovativeness and performance. Information Systems and e-
Business Management 1, 157-173. [CrossRef]
509. E. Lefebvre, L. Cassivi, L.A. Lefebvre, P.-M. LegerAn empirical investigation of the impact of electronic
collaboration tools on performance of a supply chain 10 pp.. [CrossRef]
510. Shamsur RahmanInstitute of Transport Studies, School of Business, The University of Sydney, Sydney,
Australia. 2002. The theory of constraints thinking process approach to developing strategies in supply
chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 32:10, 809-828. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
511. Kee-hung Lai, E.W.T Ngai, T.C.E Cheng. 2002. Measures for evaluating supply chain performance
in transport logistics. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 38, 439-456.
[CrossRef]
512. F. T. S. Chan, H. J. Qi. 2002. A fuzzy basis channel-spanning performance measurement method for supply
chain management. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture 216, 1155-1167. [CrossRef]
513. S. Vachon, R.D. Klassen. 2002. An exploratory investigation of the effects of supply chain complexity on
delivery performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49, 218-230. [CrossRef]
514. A.M. AhmedBradford University School of Management, European Centre for Total Quality
Management, Bradford, UK. 2002. Virtual integrated performance measurement. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management 19:4, 414-441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
515. Fredrik Persson, Jan Olhager. 2002. Performance simulation of supply chain designs. International Journal
of Production Economics 77, 231-245. [CrossRef]
516. Dean Elmuti. 2002. The Perceived Impact of Supply Chain Management on Organizational Effectiveness.
The Journal of Supply Chain Management 38:10.1111/jscm.2002.38.issue-3, 49-57. [CrossRef]
517. S. SivadasanManufacturing Systems Research Group, Department of Engineering Science, University of
Oxford, Oxford, UK J. EfstathiouManufacturing Systems Research Group, Department of Engineering
Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK G. FrizelleInstitute for Manufacturing, Department
of Engineering, Mill Lane, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK R. ShiraziInstitute for
Manufacturing, Department of Engineering, Mill Lane, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
A. CalinescuManufacturing Systems Research Group, Department of Engineering Science, University
of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 2002. An informationtheoretic methodology for measuring the operational
complexity of suppliercustomer systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management

518. Danny C. K. Ho, K. F. Au, Edward Newton. 2002. Empirical research on supply chain management:
A critical review and recommendations. International Journal of Production Research 40, 4415-4430.
[CrossRef]
519. Shui-ying Zhou, Rong-qiu Chen. 2001. A decision model for selecting participants in supply chain. Journal
of Shanghai University (English Edition) 5, 341-344. [CrossRef]
520. Michael MilgateMichael Milgate is a Lecturer in the Department of Business, Macquarie University,
New South Wales, Australia.. 2001. Supply chain complexity and delivery performance: an international
exploratory study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 6:3, 106-118. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
521. Willem SelenProfessor of Operations Management at Vesalius College, Free University, Brussels, Belgium,
and the School of Business, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.. 2001. Learning in the new
business school setting: a collaborative model. The Learning Organization 8:3, 106-113. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
522. Alberto De Toni, Guido Nassimbeni. 2001. A method for the evaluation of suppliers co-design effort.
523. Michail Kagioglou, Rachel Cooper, Ghassan Aouad. 2001. Performance management in construction: a
conceptual framework. Construction Management and Economics 19, 85-95. [CrossRef]
524. Mara Jess Senz, Maria Pilar Lambn, Eva NavarroFlexible Supply Chains 211-238. [CrossRef]
525. Changrui Ren, Yueting Chai, Yi LiuActive performance management in supply chains 6036-6041.
[CrossRef]
526. Edward SweeneySupply Chain Integration 1-26. [CrossRef]
527. P. Udomleartprasert, C. JungthirapanichThe supportive infrastructures enhancing the supply chain
performance 1203-1207. [CrossRef]
528. Edward SweeneySupply Chain Integration 221-246. [CrossRef]
529. Abirami Radhakrishnan, Dessa David, Douglas Hales, V. Sri SridharanMapping the Critical Links between
Supply Chain Evaluation System and Supply Chain Integration Sustainability 329-352. [CrossRef]
530. Kijpokin KasemsapEncouraging Supply Chain Networks and Customer Loyalty in Global Supply Chain
87-112. [CrossRef]
531. Albalicia Martnez Hernndez, Mario Cant Sifuentes, Miguel Gastn Cedillo CamposA Multicriteria
Tool for Evaluating Performance of Service Suppliers 173-194. [CrossRef]
532. Xiande Zhao, Baofeng Huo, Barbara Flynn, Jeff YeungEffect of Customer Power on Supply Chain
Integration and Performance 191-218. [CrossRef]
533. Neha GroverPerformance Measurement: 212-241. [CrossRef]
534. Z.X. ChenSupplier-buyer coordination management in Chinese enterprise 1264-1268. [CrossRef]
535. Dehua ZhouAn empirical study of the role of postponement application in reducing supply chain
complexity 448-453. [CrossRef]
536. Laura Xu Xiao Xia, W. Lee, Chai Lai Sing, Li ZhengpingPerformance metrics design framework for
software focused supply chain 176-180. [CrossRef]
537. Chunhua Tian, Yueting Chai, Yi Liu, Shouju RenPerformance management in supply chain 4934-4939.
[CrossRef]
538. R. Dhanalakshmi, P. Parthiban, K. Ganesh, T. ArunkumarGenetic Algorithm to Solve Multi-Period,

Multi-Product, Bi-Echelon Supply Chain Network Design Problem 275-289. [CrossRef]
539. Xiande Zhao, Baofeng Huo, Barbara Flynn, Jeff YeungEffect of Customer Power on Supply Chain
Integration and Performance 1260-1287. [CrossRef]
540. Amit Kumar Marwah, Girish Thakar, R. C. GuptaA New Approach to Supply Chain Performance
Measurement: 111-128. [CrossRef]
541. Roman Gumzej, Brigita GajekIntroducing Quality of Service Criteria into Supply Chain Management for
Excellence 70-85. [CrossRef]
542. M. Dotoli, M.P. Fanti, C. MeloniCandidate selection for network design of distributed manufacturing
systems 1613-1618. [CrossRef]
543. S.J. Passey, R.P. Nagarajan, G. Nagappan, K.H. Chai, A.C. BrombacherChallenges faced in adopting a
supplier performance measurement framework to support the NPD process 998-1002. [CrossRef]
544. Paulo Mendes, Jos Eugenio LealOutsourcing Execution in Transportation and Distribution 91-119.
[CrossRef]
545. Khalid A. Al-MutawahAn Intelligent Approach to Assess Tacit Knowledge Fitness in Networked
Enterprises 32-50. [CrossRef]
546. Dong Won Yi, Soung Hie Kim, Nak Hyun KimCombined modeling with multi-agent systems and
simulation: its application to harbor supply chain management 1615-1624. [CrossRef]
547. M. Dotoli, M.P. Fanti, C. Meloni, M.C. ZhouA decision support system for the supply chain configuration
2667-2672. [CrossRef]

Beamon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beamon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beamon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic discussed in the document?

What is the main topic discussed in the document?

What challenges are mentioned regarding adopting a supplier performance measurement framework?

What challenges are mentioned regarding adopting a supplier performance measurement framework?

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Measuring supply chain performance

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

2. Performance measurement: background and previous work

3. Supply chain performance measures

Other performance measures have been identified as appropriate for supply

3.2 Evaluation of supply chain performance measures

identify two commonly omitted inventory costs:

Strategic goals Implied performance measurement system

Company Q will provide high quality custom Cost product quality

4. Toward a new framework for performance measurement

Therefore, the supply chain performance measurement system must contain at

. Inventory obsolescence. Costs associated with obsolete inventory;

(2) Profit. Total revenue less expenses.

284 4.3 Flexibility

5. A quantitative approach to flexibility measurement

. flexibility must be applied to other production objectives, such as

Flexibility type Definition

Volume flexibility The ability to change the output level of products

5.1 Volume flexibility (Fv )

Flexibility type Supply chain system characteristics

Table V. Volume flexibility Variable demand

where Fv 2 0; 1, and Fv represents the long-run proportion of demand that

Demand Demand Demand Demand

5.2 Delivery flexibility (FD )

where N t is the number of different product types that can be produced

5.4 New product flexibility (Fn )

where C is the time required to add new products, with C  0.

6. Summary and conclusion

. benchmarking, as in Camp (1989); and

Manufacturing and Operations Management, Vol. 3, pp. 269-92.

Production Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 4-13.

Information Management 29:3. . [Abstract] [PDF]

Laosirihongthong Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University,

Management 63:5, 588-612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Process Management Journal 20:2, 290-334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Wirtschaftsinformatik 50, 107-114. [CrossRef]

[Full Text] [PDF]

During ERP Training 296-309. [CrossRef]

22:1, 80-102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

538. R. Dhanalakshmi, P. Parthiban, K. Ganesh, T. ArunkumarGenetic Algorithm to Solve Multi-Period,

You might also like

where C is the time required to add new products, with C 0.