A Methodology for Interoperability Evaluation in Supply Chains based on Causal Performance Measurement Models

This paper proposes a framework and a methodology for evaluating and improving the interoperability for each partner collaborating in a supply chain. The definition of this framework is based on two principles. The first one is that there are two kinds of activities in a business process: non-value-added (NVA) activities and business activities. In our work, NVA activities are those dedicated to interoperability alignment. The second principle is that process Performance Indicators (PIs) can be used to measure interoperability. The framework uses a causal performance measurement model (CPMM) to allow an understanding of how interoperability can influence the achievement of all the partners’ objectives. The methodology is based on the framework. It is aimed to provide support for managing the evolution of the supply chain towards interoperability. An application of the methodology to an industrial case study is presented.

[1]  Mark Kasunic,et al.  Measuring Systems Interoperability: Challenges and Opportunities , 2001 .

[2]  S. Dudoit,et al.  Asymptotics of cross-validated risk estimation in estimator selection and performance assessment , 2005 .

[3]  David R. Jacques,et al.  The Interoperability Score , 2007 .

[4]  Guy Doumeingts.  GEM: GRAI evolution method: a case study , 2001, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[5]  Daniel Plakosh,et al.  System of Systems Interoperability (SOSI): Final Report , 2004 .

[6]  Frank Buytendijk.  Dealing with Dilemmas: Where Business Analytics Fall Short , 2010 .

[7]  John M. Colombi,et al.  Survey on Interoperability Measurement , 2007 .

[8]  Eugenia Cioaca,et al.  Towards a structured approach to building qualitative reasoning models and simulations , 2008, Ecol. Informatics.

[9]  Benjamin Kuipers,et al.  Qualitative reasoning: Modeling and simulation with incomplete knowledge , 1994, Autom..

[10]  David Chen,et al.  An Approach for Enterprise Interoperability Measurement , 2008, MoDISE-EUS.

[11]  S. Blanc,et al.  Contribution à la caractérisation et à l'évaluation de l'interopérabilité pour les entreprises collaboratives , 2006 .

[12]  Melody Y. Kiang,et al.  Qualitative reasoning in business, finance, and economics: Introduction , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[13]  Hervé Panetto,et al.  Towards a classification framework for interoperability of enterprise applications , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf..

[14]  R. Westbrook,et al.  Linking Actions to Profits in Strategic Decision Making , 2001 .

[15]  Noel Sproles,et al.  Formulating measures of effectiveness , 2002 .

[16]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The strategy map: guide to aligning intangible assets , 2004 .

[17]  Guy Doumeingts,et al.  Using IIAM to Assess Interoperability Investments: a Case Study , 2007, IESA.

[18]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes , 2003 .

[19]  Andreas Tolk,et al.  The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model , 2003 .

[20]  Benjamin J. Kaipers,et al.  Qualitative Simulation , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Emilio Paolucci,et al.  Using organizational analysis and enterprise modelling in SMEs IDEF0 for , 1998, Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf..

[22]  Christine Legner,et al.  Interoperability Impact Assessment Model: An Overview , 2007, IESA.

[23]  Yves Ducq,et al.  How to measure interoperability: Concept and approach , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE).

[24]  Guy Doumeingts,et al.  Architectures for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future , 2008, Comput. Ind..