通过比较多标准准绳方法建立供应链观察站

M. Butturi, F. Lolli, R. Gamberini
{"title":"通过比较多标准准绳方法建立供应链观察站","authors":"M. Butturi, F. Lolli, R. Gamberini","doi":"10.1108/bij-02-2023-0089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis study presents the development of a supply chain (SC) observatory, which is a benchmarking solution to support companies within the same industry in understanding their positioning in terms of SC performance.Design/methodology/approachA case study is used to demonstrate the set-up of the observatory. Twelve experts on automatic equipment for the wrapping and packaging industry were asked to select a set of performance criteria taken from the literature and evaluate their importance for the chosen industry using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. To handle the high number of criteria without requiring a high amount of time-consuming effort from decision-makers (DMs), five subjective, parsimonious methods for criteria weighting are applied and compared.FindingsA benchmarking methodology is presented and discussed, aimed at DMs in the considered industry. Ten companies were ranked with regard to SC performance. The ranking solution of the companies was on average robust since the general structure of the ranking was very similar for all five weighting methodologies, though simplified-analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was the method with the greatest ability to discriminate between the criteria of importance and was considered faster to carry out and more quickly understood by the decision-makers.Originality/valueDeveloping an SC observatory usually requires managing a large number of alternatives and criteria. The developed methodology uses parsimonious weighting methods, providing DMs with an easy-to-use and time-saving tool. A future research step will be to complete the methodology by defining the minimum variation required for one or more criteria to reach a specific position in the ranking through the implementation of a post-fact analysis.","PeriodicalId":502853,"journal":{"name":"Benchmarking: An International Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Set up a supply chain observatory through the comparison of multi-criteria parsimonious methods\",\"authors\":\"M. Butturi, F. Lolli, R. Gamberini\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/bij-02-2023-0089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis study presents the development of a supply chain (SC) observatory, which is a benchmarking solution to support companies within the same industry in understanding their positioning in terms of SC performance.Design/methodology/approachA case study is used to demonstrate the set-up of the observatory. Twelve experts on automatic equipment for the wrapping and packaging industry were asked to select a set of performance criteria taken from the literature and evaluate their importance for the chosen industry using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. To handle the high number of criteria without requiring a high amount of time-consuming effort from decision-makers (DMs), five subjective, parsimonious methods for criteria weighting are applied and compared.FindingsA benchmarking methodology is presented and discussed, aimed at DMs in the considered industry. Ten companies were ranked with regard to SC performance. The ranking solution of the companies was on average robust since the general structure of the ranking was very similar for all five weighting methodologies, though simplified-analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was the method with the greatest ability to discriminate between the criteria of importance and was considered faster to carry out and more quickly understood by the decision-makers.Originality/valueDeveloping an SC observatory usually requires managing a large number of alternatives and criteria. The developed methodology uses parsimonious weighting methods, providing DMs with an easy-to-use and time-saving tool. A future research step will be to complete the methodology by defining the minimum variation required for one or more criteria to reach a specific position in the ranking through the implementation of a post-fact analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":502853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Benchmarking: An International Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Benchmarking: An International Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-02-2023-0089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Benchmarking: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-02-2023-0089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 本研究介绍了供应链(SC)观察站的开发情况,该观察站是一种基准解决方案,可帮助同行业公司了解其在供应链绩效方面的定位。12 位包装行业自动设备专家被要求从文献中选择一套性能标准,并使用多标准决策 (MCDM) 技术评估其对所选行业的重要性。为了处理大量标准,同时又不要求决策者(DMs)耗费大量时间和精力,我们采用了五种主观、简洁的标准加权方法,并对这些方法进行了比较。根据 SC 业绩对十家公司进行了排名。这些公司的排序方案平均而言是稳健的,因为所有五种加权方法的排序总体结构都非常相似,但简化分析层次过程(AHP)是区分重要标准能力最强的方法,被认为执行起来更快,决策者也更容易理解。所开发的方法采用了简便的加权方法,为管理者提供了一个易于使用且节省时间的工具。未来的研究步骤将是通过实施事后分析,确定一个或多个标准在排序中达到特定位置所需的最小变化,从而完善该方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Set up a supply chain observatory through the comparison of multi-criteria parsimonious methods
PurposeThis study presents the development of a supply chain (SC) observatory, which is a benchmarking solution to support companies within the same industry in understanding their positioning in terms of SC performance.Design/methodology/approachA case study is used to demonstrate the set-up of the observatory. Twelve experts on automatic equipment for the wrapping and packaging industry were asked to select a set of performance criteria taken from the literature and evaluate their importance for the chosen industry using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. To handle the high number of criteria without requiring a high amount of time-consuming effort from decision-makers (DMs), five subjective, parsimonious methods for criteria weighting are applied and compared.FindingsA benchmarking methodology is presented and discussed, aimed at DMs in the considered industry. Ten companies were ranked with regard to SC performance. The ranking solution of the companies was on average robust since the general structure of the ranking was very similar for all five weighting methodologies, though simplified-analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was the method with the greatest ability to discriminate between the criteria of importance and was considered faster to carry out and more quickly understood by the decision-makers.Originality/valueDeveloping an SC observatory usually requires managing a large number of alternatives and criteria. The developed methodology uses parsimonious weighting methods, providing DMs with an easy-to-use and time-saving tool. A future research step will be to complete the methodology by defining the minimum variation required for one or more criteria to reach a specific position in the ranking through the implementation of a post-fact analysis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信