Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

www.elsevier.com/locate/compind

A framework to analyse collaborative performance

France-Anne Gruat La Forme a,*, Valerie Botta Genoulaz b, Jean-Pierre Campagne b
a

Laboratoire LIESP, INSA-LYON, F-69621 Villeurbanne, Batiment Blaise Pascal, 7 Avenue Jean Capelle, France
Laboratoire LIESP, INSA-LYON, F-69621 Villeurbanne, Batiment Jules Verne, 19 Avenue Jean Capelle, France

Available online 8 June 2007

Abstract
When competitiveness, responsiveness and customer satisfaction are keywords of a successful management in a business area, companies
cannot work in an autonomous way anymore. They have to get closer to their supply chain partners and to optimize their relations, to interface and
to integrate their information systems and decision-making in order to synchronize product flows and activities. In this context, the general
framework proposed in this paper characterizes the performance of the collaboration in supply chains and it is based on two models: a collaboration
characterization model and a collaboration-oriented performance model, both based on main supply chain business processes. The framework
proposed has been instanced and validated on an industrial case study.
# 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Supply chain; Business process; Collaboration; Performance indicators; Industrial case study

1. Introduction
When competitiveness, responsiveness and customer satisfaction are keywords of a successful management in a business
area, companies cannot work in an autonomous way anymore,
but they have to get closer to their supply chain partners. A supply
chain is the whole system thanks to which, companies bring their
products and services up to their customers [1]. Indeed, the
industrial performance of a company depends more and more
strongly on its ability to optimize its relations with its partners,
suppliers or providers, to interface and to integrate its
information system and decision-makings, to synchronize its
products flows and activities. Owing to this problem, a company
has to rethink its organization, introduce new types of relation
with its partners, and increase the collaboration, the coordination
and the synchronization across the supply chain. This partnership
requires the establishment of processes of coordination,
collaboration or cooperation. One begins to speak about
collaborative supply chain [2] and the goal is to gain competitive
advantage, by improving overall performance with a holistic
perspective of the supply chain. An efficient collaboration across
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 4 72 43 62 34; fax: +33 4 72 43 85 38.
E-mail addresses: france-anne.gruat-la-forme@insa-lyon.fr
(F.-A. Gruat La Forme), valerie.botta@insa-lyon.fr (V.B. Genoulaz),
jean-pierre.campagne@insa-lyon.fr (J.-P. Campagne).
0166-3615/$ see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.007

the entire system is driven not only by the coordination of the

physical flows but also by the flow of different kinds of
information such as demand, capacity, inventory, scheduling,
through the supply chain. According to Barut et al. [3], the intercompany integration and coordination via information sharing
has become a key success factor to improve the supply chain
performance. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to the
issue of measuring the effectiveness of information sharing and
collaboration across the supply chain.
Facing this problem, the consortium COPILOTES
(Collaboration et Partage dInformation dans les chanes
LogistiquES - Collaboration and information sharing in supply
chains), supported by the Region Rhone-Alpes (France) works
on the improvement of supply chain performance via collaboration and information sharing. More precisely, the project aims at
bringing together companies, frameworks and tools allowing
them to qualify and to estimate the performance of their supply
chain, focusing on the different ways to collaborate with partners,
without forgetting related stakes and risks. This paper aims at
introducing one COPILOTES study about a general framework
characterizing the performance of the collaboration in supply
chains, by focusing on the exchanged information between
partners as well as on the exploitation of this sharing. Two models
compose this framework: one is focused on the collaboration
relationship characterisation and the other is a collaborationoriented performance model.

688

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

The following section surveys the related literature and

further isolates our contributions. Sections 3 and 4 describe the
collaboration characterisation model (cc model) and the
collaboration-oriented performance model (CoP model).
Section 5 presents the performance analysis that one can
realize from these two models and details a part of the results
obtained from the instantiation of the general framework on an
industrial case study.

2.1.2. Coopers model

Copper et al. [6] propose a conceptualization of supply chain
management, which includes three elements: the business
processes, the management components, and the structure of
the chain. The processes cut across the functions within a firm
and across other firms within the supply chain. Each firm in the
supply chain has its own set of functional silos that must be
related to each key supply chain process.

2. Literature review

2.1.3. SCOR model

The Supply Chain Councils SCOR-model [7] is an
international standard for process description and reorganization and considers five main supply chain processes: planning,
sourcing, production, delivering, and return activities. Through
a common set of definitions, performance indicators and best
practices, the SCOR-model is a framework for a common
language between supply chain partners concerning its five
management processes. Thanks to three levels of details, the
SCOR-model allows a company to analyze and configure its
supply chain according to its production type (make to stock,
make to order, etc.) and to its specific needs and requirements
(process mapping, operational process description, etc.).
Companies that use the SCOR-model describe their actual
processes (as is) in order to compare them to the standard
processes described by the SCOR-model and use the
performance indicators and best practices, they consider as
pertinent, to attain optimized processes (to be).

A supply chain is a network of organisations that are

involved, through upstream and downstream linkages, in
different processes and activities that produce value in the
form of products and services in the hand of the (ultimate)
customer [4]. The literature dealing with supply chain is rich
and has grown fast during the last few years. Among the works
realized on this subject, numerous terms emerge and some of
them need to be defined and explained before presenting the
core of this paper. In this literature review we present some
performance frameworks or supply chain models already
established and we specify notions like supply chain
processes, collaboration and performance indicators. Based
on this review, we elaborate two models, which compose a
general framework characterizing the performance of the
collaboration in supply chains.
2.1. Performance reference models
The collaborative performance within supply chains is still a
quite recent research subject. We identified five main process
reference models already established to analyse or evaluate a
supply chain: the strategic audit framework to improve supply
chain performance of Gilmour [5], the supply chain model of
Cooper et al. [6], the Supply Chain Councils SCOR-model [7],
the logistics audit guides of the ASLOG association [8] and
finally the EVALOG frame of Ref. [9]. Even if these models are
not collaboration oriented, they consider different supply chain
processes and supply chain performance measures.
2.1.1. Gilmours model
The strategic model proposed by Gilmour [5] describes both
a framework, which can be used to evaluate supply chain
processes and a group of benchmark measures, which can be
applied to supply chain processes.
The integrated supply chain model is used to examine the
logistics operations of the respondent companies. It comprises
six functional process capabilities, which are supported by
enabling capabilities in organisation characteristics and
information technology. An organisation with an integrative
approach to managing logistics will tend to have the majority of
these capabilities in place.
The measures are based on a set of capabilities, which
incorporate the extent of integration, and the use of technology
in the logistics processes of an organisation. The degree to
which logistics is used as a key element of overall strategy
formulation and implementation.

2.1.4. ASLOG audit

The logistics audit guide of the ASLOG association [8] is a
European standard looking to attain logistics excellence with
the help of ten supply chain processes: management, strategies
and planning, product conception and projects, sourcing,
production, moving, stock, sales, return and maintenance,
management of indicators, and permanent progress. Thanks to
an audit questionnaire concerning these processes and their
assessment, the logistics audit guide of the ASLOG association
allows a company to describe its actual processes (as is) and
to evaluate its logistics performance. Specifically trained,
ASLOG auditors analyse the situation of a company in order to
propose recommendations for continuous process improvement
(to be).
2.1.5. EVALOG guide
The logistics guide of the EVALOG organization [9] is a
worldwide evaluation frame of reference focused on the
automobile industry. Its approach is based on six topics: strategy
and improvement, organization, production plan and availability,
customer relationship, product and process control, supplier
relationship. Many questions are associated to each topic and
constitute a set of good practices for the automobile sector. The
referee company has to respond with a binary answer: Yes or No.
Each question is weighted with a priority criterion.
2.1.6. Synthesis
The EVALOG guide and the SCOR model are focused on
the internal processes of a company whereas the ASLOG audit

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

and the performance framework of Gilmour are more focused on

cross-processes along the supply chain. More precisely, the best
practices proposed by the ASLOG audit put emphasis on the
collaborative relationships between the actors and on the
activities integration across the supply chain. Two of the five
models quoted above distinguish various performance degrees to
attain. For the ASLOG audit, the nature of levels depends on the
topic: for example, for the risk aspect, degrees of maturity reflect
the risks control (0: risks are neither evaluated nor considered; 1:
risks are evaluated; 2: risks are restrained; 3: risks are under
control). For Gilmours model, the four levels proposed for each
practice represent a continuum of sophistication for each
capability component (strategy and organization, planning,
product flow, performance measurement and processes). Contrary to others performance models, Gilmour states that the
highest level is not necessarily appropriate for all companies or
industries. The cost of achieving it may not be justified.
To conclude, we can notice that most of these models are
structural frameworks (i.e. they specify a topology for the
performance management in supply chains), which are based on
a business process approach. A second kind of framework is
proposed in other works, based on procedural models, which
develop from the strategy a performance management. Nevertheless, the rate of development of structural frameworks is
outpacing procedural ones, that may explain the difficult
qualitative nature of the problem of formulating basic
performance procedure between companies in supply chain,
according to Folan and Browne [10]. That is why these authors
propose an extended enterprise performance measurement
framework that combines both of the structural and the
procedural natures. The first one is an extended enterprise
balanced scorecard offering a four perspective framework that
provide a generic structure for the management of performance
measures in extended enterprises. The procedural framework
provides a step-by-step generic process toward the selection and
implementation of measures.

689

chain functioning. Some of them are dedicated to supply chain

modelling, others to supply chain audit. All of them are based on
a process approach describing both upstream and downstream
activities of the supply chain. Based on these five main reference
models putting in perspective the question of integration between
different activities of a supply chain, we identified main supply
chain processes and we recognized similar processes named
differently in various reference models as presented in Table 1.
2.3. Collaboration and information sharing across the
supply chain
Collaboration is defined as a way by which all companies in a
supply chain are actively working together toward common
objectives, and is characterised by sharing information, knowledge, risks and profits. Concerning the collaboration relationship
across a supply chain, two main aspects are commonly
considered in numerous studies. On one hand, some works deal
with the intensity of the relation between the partners, from
simple information sharing to real partnership including the
sharing of the experiments until the sharing of risks and profits.
More precisely and gradually, the communication is firstly
unidirectional, then bidirectional, when the relation is
formalized we used to talk about industrial agreement, and
finally, the integrated communication is linked to the partnership
relation [11]. On the other hand, others studies deal with the
extent (or perimeter) of the collaboration, along the supply chain.
More precisely, Thierry [2] presents a progressive approach from
an internal exchange relation allowing the integration of internal
functions of procurement, production and distribution of a
company, to an integrated vision implying the relations spread to
all partners of the supply chain. Collaboration is also
characterised by information sharing between supply chain
stakeholders and main information exchanged across a
collaborative supply chain are classified in Table 2 [1216].

2.2. Business processes in supply chain modelling

2.4. Key performance indicators in collaborative supply

chain

The five reference models that we have identified and

presented in Section 2.1 describe elements related to supply

Supply chain performance is traditionally focussed on

operational logistics activities. For example, in a warehouse,

Table 1
Overview of processes in supply chain reference models
Gilmours model [5]

Coopers model [6]

SCOR model [7]

ASLOG audit [8]

EVAOLG guide [9]

Downstream part

Supplier partnering

Procurement

Source

Procurement

Supplier relationship
management

Internal part

Lean manufacturing

Manufacturing flow management

Make

Production

Lean manufacturing

Upstream part

Customer driven supply chain

Customer relationship management

Deliver

Distribution

Customer relationship
management

Demand driven sales planning

Efficient logistics

Customer service management

Demand management
Order fulfilment

Integrated SCM

Product development and

commercialization
Returns

Storage

Cross-supply chain

Sell

Return

Design

Plan

Return

Product development

690

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

Table 2
Overview of main information shared across collaborative supply chains
Downstream part SC

Internal part SC

Upstream part SC

Cross-supply chain

Replenishment order forecast

Inventory
Goods receipt
Supply lead-time
Inventory position
Backlog
Operating cost
Capacity
Mean of demand
Critical product availability
Quality parameters
Technical information (reorder point, security factor. . .)

Production order
Master production plan
Capacity plan
Bill of material
Production plan
Technical information

Sales forecast
Sales order/actual usage
Order delivery notes
Delivery forecast
Critical product availability

Product management profile

Product design
Market demand
Global performance measure
Traceability
Quality parameters

pallets per hour is a typical performance measure for receiving

and despatch. More recently many companies are becoming
more customer-oriented as shown with actual performance
assets. Many performance models propose both customer
facing measures KSF (Key Success Factor) and company
facing measures KPF (Key Performance Factor) [7,17]. KSF
have a decisive impact on the sector competitiveness and they
represent success stakes among customers. Generally, they are
external performance criteria (customers oriented) and they are
elements on which is based the competitive fight. For example,
a KSF can be the delivery lead-time for the upstream part of the
supply chain, or the on-time replenishment for the downstream
part of the supply chain. KPF result from the KSF, on the
company process point of view. They reflect internal
performance stakes and more often, they are not perceptible
to customers. A KPF is necessarily associated to a KSF as
illustrated in Fig. 1. For example, the KPF associated to the
delay facet (KSF) is related to the production flow aspect and
can be indicators such as the set-up time or the time to product
for example.
A company needs to have indicators to evaluate its
flexibility, reactivity, reliability and profitability. Benefits of
collaboration generally noticed are the flexibility improvement,
reactivity improvement, better resources utilization, shorter and
controlled delays, quality improvement and competencies
development [18]. Thus, many performance models and studies

related to the performance in supply chains propose some

typologies of key performance indicators: reactivity, flexibility,
reliability, quality, cost [7,10,18,19], precision, innovation and
environment [10]. At the strategic level, indicators are most of
the time financial measures (ex: profit margin) [20], but on the
tactical and operational level, indicators are more diversified:
for example, customer service level, customer response time, or
customer order fulfilment lead time are typical measures for the
supply chain upstream part performance. Concerning the
downstream part of the supply chain, a collaboration relationship has often an impact on the on time supplier performance or
on inventory accuracy criteria (etc.). A detailed framework
about the performance indicators impacted by the collaboration
is proposed in Section 4 and is based on a substantial literature
review [3,15,1924].
2.5. Concluding remarks
The main necessary notions to develop a framework to
analyze the collaborative performance of a company have
emerged from this literature review: information exchanged
between partners and exploitation of this sharing, integration of
activities, maturity degrees of collaboration, performance
indicators associated to good collaborative practices.
Two models compose the general framework proposed in
this paper. The first one is a collaboration characterization
model (cc model) and it is based on ten generic processes,
which emerged of the literature review (Section 2.2) and on the
main information exchanged across the supply chain (Section
2.3). The second one is related to the collaboration-oriented
performance model (CoP model) and it has been developed
based on the indicators highlighted in Section 2.4.
3. A collaboration characterization model (CC model)

Fig. 1. Set of performance indicators: customer facing measures and company

facing measures.

The framework characterizing collaboration in supply

chains focuses on information exchanged between partners
as well as on the exploitation of this sharing. Thus, this first
model is based on many facets such as the characterization of
the perimeter of the exchanges along the supply chain, the use
of this collaboration, its intensity and its regularity.

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

691

borative practices are defined. For each collaborative

practice, the third axis distinguishes four levels of intensity
and extent in the relation between the entities concerned by
the shared information as detailed in Fig. 3. Definition of the
two axes processes and dimensions are given in Tables 3
and 4, respectively.

Fig. 2. Processes of the collaboration characterization model.

3.1. Structure of the collaboration characterization model

We propose a three-dimensional model as proposed in
Fig. 2. The first axis lists the ten relevant processes of the
supply chain management, presented in Fig. 2. They result
from the literature review presented in Section 2.2. The
second axis allows studying these processes on various
dimensions such as strategy and organization, planning and
product flows. For each process and each dimension, two
intentions are distinguished: reactive and proactive colla-

3.1.1. Proactive and reactive collaboration relationship

A reactive collaborative practice is engaged when the
company activates a collaborative relationship after a stimulus
of its partner, in order to improve the local and global
performance. This stimulus can be information, a data or a
request and is considered as an input for the collaborative
action.
A pro-active collaboration is engaged when the company
activates spontaneously the collaborative relationship without
any external stimulus. The pro-active collaboration is closely
related to the company sense of anticipation. The information
communicated from the company to its partners is considered
as the input of the collaborative action.
We make a distinction between two types of collaboration in
order to underline firstly the trigger factor (internal or external
initiative) of the collaboration relationship and secondly to
highlight the risk generated by the information sharing. In [25],
the authors underline: For some information, retailers
acknowledged that providing additional information to
manufacturers would offer some saving to the manufacturers,
but many retailers were sceptical about the benefits for their
firms in sharing information with manufacturers. Thus, the

Fig. 3. Structure of the collaboration characterization model (CC model).

692

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

Table 3
Definition of the 10 processes of the CC model
Processes
Customer Driven Supply Chain means the importance given by the company to its customers in its organization and mode of functioning
The name of Gilmours process [5] has been adopted but this process integrates customer relationship management of [6,9], customer service
management and order fulfilment of [6], and sell of [8]
Demand Driven Sales Planning means the knowledge that the company have, about the customers demand and the real impact of this information in
its organization and mode of functioning
The name of Gilmours [5] process has been adopted but this process integrates Demand management of [6]
Transport and Distribution means the activities bound to the traffic and to the storing of finished products, from the company to the customer, and
the associated management rules
This process integrates Efficient logistics of Gilmours [5], Deliver of [7] and Distribution of [8]
Lean Manufacturing concerns all the operations proposed to improve and to optimize the efficiency of the production of the focus company,
including the work-in-progress
The name of Gilmours (99) process and Evalog process has been adopted but this process integrates manufacturing flow management of [6],
make of [7], production of [8]
Supplier Collaboration concerns the level of collaboration and integration of the suppliers in the purchasing process of components or raw materials
of the company
This process integrates supplier partnering of Gilmour [5], Source of [7], Supplier relationship management of [9]
Supply Logistics concerns the activities bound to the traffic and to the storing of components or raw materials, from the supplier to the stocks of the focus
company, and the associated management rules
This process integrates procurement of [6,8], Source of the [7], storage of the [8]
Integrated Supply Chain Management concerns the integration of activities and characteristics of suppliers and customers in the organization
and the mode of functioning of the focus company [5]
Reverse Logistics concerns the activities bound to the reverse logistics, from customers to the company and from the company to its suppliers
This process integrates return of [68]
Product Design concerns the activities from the phase of design to the phase of commercialization of new products
Product Development and Product Evolution concerns the activities of modification and evolution until their commercialization of the
existing products
This process integrates product development and commercialization of [6], and product development of [9]

collaboration effort is different when the company integrates

information from its partners to collaborate with them
(reactive collaboration) and when it provides its partners
with information about its plans, strategy ( pro-active
collaboration). The risk is more important for the focal
company than for its partners, and the benefits are not
necessarily equal for the two concerned entities. To sum up,
according to us, pro-active collaborative practices are more
difficult to implement because of an asymmetry of the profits,
because these practices are susceptible to compromise some
more important stakes.
3.1.2. Maturity levels in a collaboration relationship
To each collaborative practice, four levels practices have
been established in order to characterize and measure the
intensity and the extent of the relation between partners. The

generic axis characterizing the four levels is proposed in

Fig. 3.
3.1.3. Illustration of collaborative practices
As an example of those collaborative relationships, the
proactive and reactive collaboration practices for the process
Supply logistic are allocated among the three dimensions
strategy and organization, planning and product flow. The
generic maturity axis has been instanced in Fig. 4. A company
shows reactive collaboration behaviour when:
 On the strategic level, the company considers its suppliers
strategy and constraints to elaborate its supply and
inventories strategy.
 On the tactical level, the company includes its suppliers
constraints in his replenishment planning.

Table 4
Definition of the three dimensions of the CC model
Dimension
Strategy and organization declines the elements of strategy and organization for each attribute of the supply chain, defining for the long term, the
strategy and the organization of the company
Planning declines for each attribute, all principles, methods and activities that a company use to organize and to schedule its activities for the middle
term and prepare their execution
Product Flow declines all elements of management and tracking of products from the operational steps to the final step of its realization, mainly on
short term

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

693

4. A Collaboration-oriented performance model (CoP

model)
Collaborative actions across organization and throughout
the supply chain can significantly enhance individual and
global performance. Various indicators, which illustrate the
impact of potential collaborative practice benefits, allow the
measure of the performance. These performance indicators
can be classified in order to propose a structured set of
indicators.
4.1. A set of performance indicators
Fig. 4. Illustration of the maturity levels for the supply logistics process.

 On the operational level, the company is able to provide

information about its product flow at its suppliers request.
A company shows pro-active collaboration behaviour when:
 On the strategic level, the company announces information
related to its sourcing strategy, goals or stakes to its suppliers,
in order to improve the supply performance.
 On the tactical level, the company shares its projected supply
planning with its suppliers in order to validate it with them.
 On the operational level, the company systematically shares
information on its inventories with its suppliers in order to
synchronize and optimize the supply flow.
As an example of the collaboration maturity associated to
each collaborative practice, the four levels for the process
Supply logistic are allocated among the dimension strategy
and the pro-active intention as follows:
 Level 1: The company does not announce information related
to its sourcing strategy, goals or stakes to its suppliers.
 Level 2: Punctually and for some key suppliers, the company
announces information related to its sourcing strategy, goals
or stakes, in order to improve the supply performance.
 Level 3: Regularly and for some key suppliers, the company
announces information related to its sourcing strategy, goals
or stakes, in order to improve the supply performance.
 Level 4: Regularly and for the whole of its key suppliers, the
company announces information related to its sourcing
strategy, goals or stakes, in order to improve the supply
performance.
3.2. Collaborative profile
Filling the CC model allows the manufacturer to rank among
one of the four levels for each process each dimension (strategy
and organization, planning, product flow) and each intention
(proactive and reactive). He realizes a real picture of his
company, of his internal and external collaborative practices.
This picture is in fact the collaborative profile of the company.
Several analyses are possible from the collaborative profile of a
company and they will be detailed in Section 5.

The main benefits that one can obtain from collaborative

practices with partners are improvement of flexibility, reactivity
and quality, better resources utilization, shorter and controlled
delays. The set of performance indicators associated to the CC
model described in Section 3 has to reflect this performance
classification. From a literature review, we have selected the
main performance indicators impacted by collaboration
relationships throughout the supply chain. They have been
classified and they depend on the supply chain perimeter
(downstream, internal, upstream part of the supply chain (SC)
and cross-supply chain) (see Section 2). We keep a well-known
classification adopted by many models: reactivityreliability
flexibilityquality and cost assessment. The set of performance
measures makes the distinction between customer facing
indicators and company oriented indicators as explained in
Section 2 (KSF and KPF). Table 5 represents the whole of
selected indicators on which the CoP model is based.
4.2. Perceived collaboration-oriented performance profile
From the CoP model, we aim at obtaining the perceived
collaboration-oriented performance profile of a company. To
compare it with the collaboration profile resulting from the CC
model, and to exploit it for a relevant analysis, the maturity axis
used to define the four maturity levels of the CC model is reused
for the CoP model. For example, for the on-time delivery
indicator, the four levels are defined as follows:
 Level 1: The company is not satisfied with the reached
performance level related to the reliability of its delivery
activity.
 Level 2: Punctually and for some distributors, the company is
satisfied with the reached performance level related to the
reliability of its delivery.
 Level 3: Regularly and for some distributors, the company is
satisfied with the reached performance level related to the
reliability of its delivery.
 Level 4: Regularly and for the whole of its main distributors,
the company is satisfied with the reached performance level
related to the reliability of its delivery relation between
collaborative practices and performance indicators.
The general framework analysing the collaboration performance of a company is based on both CC model and CoP

694

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

Table 5
Classification of performance indicators influenced by collaboration relationships (CoP model)
Upstream part of the SC

Internal part of SC

Downstream part of SC

Cross-SC

On time production
Production plan adherence

On-time supplier performance

Inventory accuracy
Stock out probability
Sourcing plan adherence

Reverse plan adherence

Customers facing indicators: KPF

Reliability
Order fill rate
Quality
Product quality
Reactivity
Order fulfilment lead time
Customer query time
Flexibility
Flexibility of service system to
meet customer need
Financial
Sale price
Profit margin
Company facing indicators: KSP
Reliability
On-time delivery
Forecast accuracy
Delivery plan adherence
Quality

Production quality

Supplier quality performance

Reactivity

Delivery lead time

Production cycle time

Source cycle time

Supplier response time

Design cycle time

Reverse cycle time
Development cycle time
Total SC cycle time

Flexibility

Upside delivery flexibility

Production flexibility
Volume flexibility

Downside capacity flexibility

Mix product flexibility

Financial

Delivery cost
Inventory cost

Production cost
Resources utilization rate
Inventory cost

Purchasing cost
Replenishment cost
Inventory cost

Total supply cost

Total cash flow time
Reverse logistic cost
Design product cost

model. This framework is illustrated on the entity relationship

diagram in Fig. 4.
5. Performance analysis
In Sections 3 and 4, two models have been described. The
first one characterizes the collaborative situation of a company
and leads to the construction of its collaborative profile. The
second one characterizes the perceived collaboration-oriented
performance of this company and leads to the construction of its
perceived collaboration-oriented performance profile. From the
CC model only or from both of CC model and CoP model,
various industrial uses and kinds of analysis is possible.
5.1. Performance analysis from the CC model
Firstly, the use of the CC model ensures a manager a better
understanding about the notions related to collaborative
practices between partners. Indeed, different collaborative
practices are described for each process, each managerial
dimension and each dimension. This point is essential for the
manufacturers, according to Akintoyee et al. [26] for whom one
of the main reasons of failures of collaboration within the
supply chain takes its source in the misunderstanding of the
manager about the concepts of the supply chain management.
Secondly, the CC model allows for checking of the coherence
of company actions. First, filling the model allows the manager to
position himself on one of the four levels for each process, each
managerial dimension and each intention. Therefore, he

structures his discussion on the functioning of the company.

The goal is not to discover forces and weaknesses because the
purpose is not to reach level 4 every time. It depends on the
context (MTO, MTS. . .), the strategy, etc. . . The objective is to
confront for each process, the three dimensions to verify the
coherence of actions. The model allows showing the gaps
between the strategy of a company and the tactical and
operational collaborative practices, which are connected with it
. . . Do they really support the strategy? Are collaborative
practices aligned from the strategic level through the tactical and
the operational level? It is possible to check if the strategy that the
manager believes to set up is really supported by tactical and
operational collaborative practices, and on the other hand, it is
possible to see if the actions led correspond to a wished strategy.
In other words, the CC model allows verifying if the company
puts its actions, its resources, and its money in front of the
appropriated problems. If some gaps are detected, the model
helps to redefine and to prioritize actions to lead or to underline
the process to put under control. Furthermore instancing the
model 1 year later could follow the evolution of the company. Is
the situation more coherent? Has it improved? The CC model
could become a communication tool or a global reporting tool for
a top management team since it synthesizes collaborative actions
of the downstream and upstream processes.
5.2. Performance analysis from the general framework
Juxtaposing the profiles given by the collaborative characterisation model and the collaboration-oriented performance model

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

695

 Scenario 3: The perceived performance related to the

indicator A is superior to the levels reached for most of
associated collaborative practices.
5.3. Application of the two frameworks on the industrial
case study

Fig. 5. Entity relationship diagram of the framework analyzing the collaboration performance.

is a way to check the coherence between collaborative efforts and

the perceived performance, from radar diagrams. Each indicator
identified in Table 5 is associated to one or several collaborative
practice(s) as described in Fig. 4. For each collaborative practice
and each indicator, the manager has established its position on
one of the four proposed levels as described in Section 4.
Therefore, he has built his collaborative profile from the CC
model and his perceived performance profile from the CoP
model.
As an example, in Fig. 5, indicator A is impacted by six
collaborative practices (CP1 ! CP6). The performance level
concerning indicator A and the six practices are noticed on
the radar diagram radar. For each indicator three kinds of
situations may be observed as illustrated in Fig. 6:
 Scenario 1: The perceived performance related to the
indicator A is consistent with the levels reached for most
of associated collaborative practices. A way to improve the
performance of the indicator A could go through an increase
at the collaborative practices level.
 Scenario 2: The perceived performance related to the
indicator A is below the levels reached for most of associated
collaborative practices. In others words, collaborative efforts
seem to not bear fruit. For example, the reason for this
ineffectiveness could be explained by the context or the
information system, which does not support efficiently the
collaborative actions across the supply chain. . .

Our case study is based on a company, which belongs to the

textile industry. It is an area in which, the increasing number of
customized and adjustable products induces high diversity,
important mix model and small batch orders. A well-established
way of overcoming competitors is to introduce new trends.
Innovation in design activities is a key success factor for this
company, which has the ambition to stay among the leaders of
its sector. To fulfil customers requirements and needs, the
company production strategy is a combination of MTO (Make
To Order) and ETO (Engineer To Order) policy. The goal of this
study is to investigate which collaboration relationships the
company keeps up across entities of its supply chain and to
observe the impacts of its collaborative practice on its
performance. The framework proposed in this paper has been
instanced on this company by the way of interviews with the
plant manager. An illustration of the potential analyses from the
application of the framework is proposed in this section and
some results are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
The collaborative profile given in Fig. 7 underlines that the
company reinforces its collaborative efforts on the upstream
part rather than on the downstream part of the supply chain.
Most of the points are positioned on level 3 for the upstream
side and on level 2 for the downstream side. This first remark
can be explained by the context of the company. The second
significant point concerns the two processes product design
and Product Development/Evolution for which the company
is much more collaborative than for the others processes (level
3 or 4), for the reactive intention as well as for the proactive one.
Integrating systematically all of the main partners who have a
main role in the innovation and design steps is the guiding
principle that the company has set itself. Its competitively
aspect is closely related to a very high quality of product, and a
long-term collaboration relationship is a way by which the
company hopes to succeed.
In a general way, the company does not have a real proactive
attitude neither for the strategic level nor for the tactical or

Fig. 6. Typologies of diagram radars for collaborative performance evaluation.

696

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

Fig. 7. Collaborative profile of the industrial case study.

operational levels. In other words, the company is not used to

communicate in advance information to its supply chain
partners. Faced with this assessment, a first discussion has been
engaged with the company and it turns out that this poorly
proactive collaborative situation is not linked to a willingness of
the company to protect some data. On the other hand, this
situation could be explained by a lack of suitable technology for
each of the three managerial levels. More precisely, its actual
information system is not efficient enough to simulate some
scenarios, to forecast the customers demand or to foresee some
strategic trends that may be communicated to its partners. The
planning system is not integrated enough to forecast the
replenishment or distribution activities and so the company is
not able to convey these plans to its supply chain partners.
Finally, on the operational point of view, the information
system of the company is not reactive enough to give some
relevant information about the product flow, its risks or hazards
to its partners in real time.
Concerning the results obtained from the CoP model, we
notice that the company evaluates most of the reliability
indicators on level 2. Furthermore, we observe in Fig. 7, that the
company evaluates itself on level 2 for most of proactive
collaborative practices related to the planning dimension. In

Fig. 8. A part of the perceived performance profile of the case study.

other words, this situation means that it communicates its

purchasing planning, its distribution planning, its replenishment planning. . . punctually and only to a part of its partners.
This could explained the bad result noticed for the reliability
indicator order fill rate for example, since all of these
proactive practices related to the planning dimension have an
impact on this indicator as described in Fig. 8.
Actually, two main projects are under development on the
strategic and tactical level in the company and they may
promote the diffusion of information across the supply chain.
This anticipation and this proactive information sharing could
have a significant and positive impact on the performance of the
reliability of the company if one believes the relationship
between collaborative practices and performance indicators
given in the framework.
6. Conclusion
The general framework presented in this paper characterizes
the performance of the collaboration throughout the supply
chain. It is composed by a collaboration characterization model
(CC model) and by a collaboration-oriented performance
model (CoP model). A collaboration profile and a perceived
collaboration-oriented performance profile result from these
two models. These two models are mainly structural and the
methodological analysis associated to the general framework
introduces a procedural dimension. Folan and Browne [10]
have already coupled these two aspects to obtain a complete
supply chain performance measurement system.
The application of this general framework on an industrial
case study allowed his validation. Furthermore, it allowed the
estimation of the coherence and the efficiency of collaborative
actions practiced by the company.
The research perspectives of this work are the design of a
context model to evaluate the pertinence of action regarding the
environment of a company. A technology and information
system point of view could also be helpful. The general

F.-A. Gruat La Forme et al. / Computers in Industry 58 (2007) 687697

framework could become a real decision-making tool to drive a

company towards its choices of strategies, actions and
information system to develop.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Regional Council of RhoneAlpes, France. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] C. Poirier, S.E. Reiter, La supply chain. Dunod; 2001.
[2] C. Thierry Gestion des chanes logistiques: mode`les et mise en uvre pour
laide a` la decision moyen terme. Memoire dhabilitation a` diriger des
recherches de luniversite de Toulouse II le mirail, http://www.univvalenciennes.fr/GDR-MACS/hdr/memoire_habilitation_CT.pdf; 2003.
[3] M. Barut, W. Faisst, J.J. Kanet, Measuring supply chain coupling: an
information system perspective, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 8 (3) (2002) 161171.
[4] M. Christopher, Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2nd ed.,
Financial Times/Prentice Hall, New York, 1998.
[5] P. Gilmour, A strategic audit framework to improve supply chain performance, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 5 (4) (1999) 283290.
[6] M. Cooper, D. Lambert, J. Pagh, Supply chain management: more than a
new name for logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management 8
(1) (1997) 6583.
[7] SCC Supply chain operations reference model: overview of SCOR version
7.0; Supply Chain council Inc. available on http://www.supplychain.org;
2006.
[8] ASLOG: ASsociation francaise pour la LOGistique. Available online
http://www.aslog.org; 2006.
[9] EVALOG: GLOBAL EVALOG frame of reference. Available online
http://www.galia.com; 2006.
[10] P. Folan, J. Browne, Development of an extended enterprise performance
measurement system, Production Planning and Control 16 (6) (2005) 531
544.
[11] M. Lauras, Methode de diagnostic et devaluation de performance par la
gestion des chanes logistiques, application a` la cooperation maison me`re
filiales internationales dans un groupe pharmaceutique et cosmetique.
The`se de doctorat de lINP Toulouse; 2004.
[12] E. Liu, A. Kumar, Leveraging information sharing to increase supply
chain configurability, in: Twenty-fourth international conference on information systems, 2003, 523537.
[13] J. Laux, G. Hung, K.L. Mak, Impact of information sharing on inventory
replenishment in divergent supply chains, International Journal of Production Research 41 (2004) 919941.
[14] R. Gaonkar, N. Viswanadham, Collaboration and information sharing in
global contract manufacturing network, Transactions on Mechatronics 6
(4) (2001) 366376.
[15] F. Sahin, E.P. Robinson, Information sharing and coordination in make to
order supply chain, Journal of Operations Management 23 (2005) 579
598.
[16] B. Shore, Information sharing in global supply chain systems, Journal of
Global Information Technology Management (2001) 2750.

697

[17] G. Garibaldi, Lanalyse strategique, comment concevoir les choix strategiques en situation concurrentielle. Les Editions dOrganisation 2001, 438
pp.
[18] P. Le Run, Mise en place de demarches collaboratives: generalites.
Techniques de lingenieur 2003; volAGL1, ref AG5230.
[19] L. Wu, Y. Song, Measuring integrated supply chain performance. Services
Systems and Services Management 2005, in: Proceedings of ICSSSM05;
vol. 1, 2005, pp. 9196.
[20] A. Gunasekaran, C. Patel, E. Ronald, A framework for supply chain
performance measurement, International Journal of Production and Economics 87 (2004) 333347.
[21] S. Li, B. Ragu-Nathan, S. Suba Rao, The impact of supply chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance,
The International Journal of Management Science 34 (2006) 107124.
[22] A. De Toni, G. Nassimbeni, A method for the evaluation of suppliers codesign effort, International Journal of Production Economics 72 (2001)
169180.
[23] AYADI S. Le supply chain management: vers une optimisation globale des
flux. Electronic working paper series; 2005, 17 pp.
[24] P.D. Cousins, R. Spekman, Strategic supply and the management of inter
and intra-organizational relationship, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management 9 (2003) 1929.
[25] A. Akintoyee, G. McIntosh, E. Fitzerald, A survey of supply chain
collaboration and management in the UK construction industry, European
Journal of Purchasing Supply Management 6 (3/4) (2000) 159168.
France-Anne Gruat La Forme received her engineering degree and her postgraduate certificate in
2004 from the INSA of Lyon, France. She is currently PhD student at the same Grande Ecole of
Engineering. She is a member of PRISMa laboratory.
Her main research interests include performance
measurement, collaboration and information sharing
in supply chains, and scheduling problem with parallel human resources.
Valerie Botta-Genoulaz is Professor in the Industrial Engineering Department of the National Institute of Applied Sciences (INSA) of Lyon, France,
and member of PRISMa laboratory. Her main
courses deal with production management and enterprise information systems. Five years experience in
industry, PhD in Computer Sciences, application
consultant Production Planning for SAP R/3, her
research interests are oriented on planning and management of supply chains (SCM), ERP and SCM
project management, enterprise and business process modelling.
Jean-Pierre Campagne is an electronics engineer of
INSA Lyon. He has a PHD degree in Computer
Science and he is Professor and Head of the Industrial Engineering Department in INSA Lyon. He is a
member of PRISMa laboratory. His main research
interests are production management and logistic
systems. He was the coordinator of Copilotes project.