Contemporary Engineering Sciences, Vol. 2, 2009, no.

3, 117 - 138

Process Based Agile Supply Chain Model

According to BPR and IDEF 3.0 Concepts
Abbas Toloie Eshlaghy1

Industrial Management Department Ponak St. Hesarak Ave.

I.A.U.Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.
[email protected] ; [email protected]

Ali Rajabzadeh Ghatari

Tarbiat Modares University

IMPSC(Iranian Management Productivity Study Center)
Management Department, Tehran, Iran
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Hashem Nikoomaram

Business Management Ponak St. Hesarak Ave.I.A.U.Science and

Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
[email protected]

Hessam Zandhessami

Industrial Management Department Ponak St. Hesarak Ave.

I.A.U.Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran.
[email protected]

Abstract

Nowadays, growth and survival of organizations is due to applying an

effective method for systematic planning and executing that plan through
the organization. During earlier years, different concepts for organizational
change have been propounded and business processes has considered as a
conceptual framework for designing the structure of an organization. Appro-
priate identification, definition and mapping of key processes (Process Map)
would coordinate organizational component in order to achieve its objectives.
Process approach and process orientation are important issues that pioneer
1
Corresponding author
118 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

organizations should take care about. Acceptance of change with applying

different known approaches like: Reengineering, Kaisen (Japanese continual
improvement) and TQM are based on a primary assumption that organi-
zations should focus on their main mission i.e. satisfying customer needs.
Success in applying processes as organization constituents in this survey per-
suade researchers to develop a process based model to achieve agile supply
chain. This model emphasize on current models in supply chain agility on
one hand and on the basis and logic of IDEF model on other hand. Suggested
model applied in AeroSpace industry organization after confirmation of in-
dustry and academy experts. However, it has to be cited that founds of this
survey should be mentioned as a foresight idea for designing an organization
based on processes and as an attempt for receiving a practical and theoretical
feedback that take care practicability of suggested model.

Keywords: BPR, IDEF, SCM, Agility, Agile SCM

1 Introduction
In today’s ever-changing world, the only thing that doesn’t change is ’change’ it-
self. In a world increasingly driven by the three Cs: Customer, Competition and
Change, companies are on the lookout for new solutions for their business problems
(Hammer, Champy.J., 1993) Organizations typically compete along several com-
petitive dimensions, such as cost, quality, delivery, flexibility, etc. (Wheelwright,
1984). However, today’s hyper-competitive environment is characterized by con-
stant change and market unpredictability (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998). Complex
technological advances, shortened product life cycles, diverse customer requirements,
and increased demand for product variety in fragmented global markets have dras-
tically shortened market visibility and increased uncertainty. Given these perva-
sive changes, successful organizations have to remain competitive while adapting to
changing marketplace conditions (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998). Since, ”agility is
all about customer responsiveness and mastering market turbulence” (van Hoek et
al., 2001), agility is regarded as a necessary ingredient for improving competitive-
ness (Yusef et al., 1999). agility has received far less attention in the literature.
However, some studies have attempted to provide a conceptual definition of orga-
nizational agility. Sharifi and Zhang (1999) define it as, ”the ability to cope with
unexpected challenges, to survive unprecedented threats of business environment,
and to take advantage of changes as opportunities”, whereas Goldman et al. (1994)
describe an agile organization as, ”dynamic and having the potential to achieve a
competitive advantage. To be dynamic, an organization’s competitive strategy fo-
cuses on knowledge development and flexible processes that enable it to respond
to these changing circumstances ”. A more recent and comprehensive definition of
organizational agility is provided by Kidd (2000): ”An agile enterprise is a fast mov-
ing, adaptable and robust business. It is capable of rapid adaptation in response
Process based agile supply chain model 119

to unexpected and unpredicted changes and events, market opportunities, and cus-
tomer requirements”. Such a business is founded on processes and structures that
facilitate speed, adaptation and robustness and that deliver a coordinated enter-
prise that is capable of achieving competitive performance in a highly dynamic and
unpredictable business environment that is unsuited to current enterprise practices.
These definitions and interpretations clearly indicate that organizational agility is
a very broad and multi-dimensional concept, and involves several diverse aspects of
an organization. For example, Goldman et al. (1994) lists nine elements of orga-
nizational agility, such as customer dialogue and support, continuous improvement
and change, people support, and flexible and rapidly responding operations. Since
organizational agility involves many diverse issues, this paper focuses on identifying
the determinants of agility in an organization’s supply chain. Clearly, possessing
agility in the supply chain enables a manufacturing firm to achieve higher levels of
overall organizational agility. Supply chain agility enables an organization to re-
act quickly and more effectively to marketplace volatility and other uncertainties,
thereby allowing the firm to establish a superior competitive position. In addition,
firms with agile supply chain processes are more market sensitive, better capable of
synchronizing supply with demand, and able to achieve shorter cycle times. Given
that an organization’s supply chain agility directly impacts its ability to produce in-
novative products and deliver them to their customers, we believe an organization’s
supply chain agility is a critical factor affecting its overall global competitiveness.
While the benefits of supply chain agility are generally acknowledged, little research
exists which addresses how an organization can achieve supply chain agility during
process approach. This research addresses this gap by undertaking an exploratory
driven study to identify and develop critical factors that determine and influence an
organization’s supply chain agility. To achieve this goal, we develop a process based
framework of an organization’s supply chain agility. This framework on one hand,
establishes key factors that determine agility attributes of four critical processes of
the supply chain in a firm-new product development, sourcing, manufacturing, and
delivery-as well as factors that constitute the supply chain agility and the other hand,
determine a comprehensive approach to process based agile supply chain model.

2 Literature review
The importance and benefits of adopting process oriented perspectives of business
value are well recognized within the academic literature (Crowston and Treacy 1986;
Bakos 1987; Gordon 1989; Kauffman and Weill 1989; Wilson 1993) and its perceived
significance by practitioners is indicated by the recent interest in process innovation
and reengineering (Davenport 1993; Hammer and Champy 1993). Some of the recent
headlines in the popular press read, ”Wal-Mart reduces restocking time from six
weeks to thirty-six hours.”” Hewlett Packard’s assembly time for server computers
touches new low- four minutes.” ”Taco Bell’s sales soars from 500millionto3 billion
120 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

(Grover,Varun., Malhotra, Manoj.1995).” The reason behind these success stories is

business process reengineering.

2.1 Definition of business processes

Pall (1987) believed that a business process involves the combination of people, ma-
terial, energy, equipment, and so on to achieve a certain goal. Murray (1991) placed
greater emphasis on effectiveness and proposed that business process involves a
combination of functions or tasks, which can be integrated to create products and
services. Moreover, Murray also noted that business processes can be improved and
redesigned to maximize process efficiency and effectiveness. After all the organiza-
tion is only as effective as its processes (Hunt, 1996. Hammer and Champy, 1993)
”A business process is a series of steps designed to produce a product or a service. It
includes all the activities that deliver particular results for a given customer (exter-
nal or internal) (Mayer, Richard, Dewitte, Paula, 1998),.” Processes are currently
invisible and unnamed because people think about the individual departments more
often than the process with which all of them are involved. So companies that are
currently used to talking in terms of departments such as marketing and manufactur-
ing must switch to giving names to the processes that they do such that they express
the beginning and end states. These names should imply all the work that gets done
between the start and finish. For example, order fulfillment can be called order to
payment process(Hammer and Champy, 1993). Davenport and Short (1990) define
business process as ”a set of logically related tasks intended to achieve a defined
business outcome”. A process is ”a structured, measured set of activities designed
to achieve a specified output for a particular customer or market”. A process thus
implies a strong emphasis on how work is done within an organization (Daven-
port 1993, Mooney et al, 1996). Davenport and Short consider that processes have
two important characteristics: o Customer (internal or external) involvement, and
o Crossing organizational boundaries, i.e., they occur across or between organiza-
tional subunits. One technique for identifying business processes in an organization
is the value chain method proposed by Porter and Millar (1985). Take purchasing
from suppliers for example: this process often involves employees in the production,
purchasing, inventory control, and accounting units. From the procurement process
demonstrates that successful business processes depend on inter-unit cooperation.
In summary, using the scholarly definition of a business process, this study concludes
that a business process can achieve certain goals, including various activities required
by tangible production and intangible services and support. Additionally, each ac-
tivity within the business process must know the information required to support
the operation. Organization operational model is limited by organization technology
adoption. The introduction of new technologies challenges old operational models
and rules. Moreover, the advance of information technology revises old theories and
business operation regulations step by step (Hammer and Champy, 1993). Talking
Process based agile supply chain model 121

about the importance of processes just as companies have organization charts, they
should also have what are called process maps to give a picture of how work flows
through the company. Process mapping provides tools and a proven methodology
for identifying current As-Is business processes and can be used to provide a To-Be
roadmap for reengineering the product and service business enterprise functions.
It is the critical link that reengineering team can apply to better understand and
significantly improve business processes and bottom-line performance (Hunt, 1996.
Hammer and Champy, 1993). Having identified and mapped the processes, deciding
which ones need to be reengineered and in what order is the million-dollar question.
No company can take up the unenviable task of reengineering all the processes simul-
taneously. Generally they make their choices based on three criteria: dysfunction:
which processes are functioning the worst?; importance: which are the most critical
and influential in terms of customer satisfaction; feasibility: which are the processes
that are most likely to be successfully reengineered(Hammer and Champy, 1993).

2.2 Business Process Reengineering (BPR)

The IS professional literature increasingly suggests that achievement of significant
business value is attainable only in combination with business process re-engineering
prior to the application of IT. Hammer and Champy (1993) describe business reengi-
neering as the ”fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of an entire business
system ....., to achieve dramatic improvements in critical measures of performance.”
Davenport (1993) uses the term ”process innovation” to include any ”radical change”
initiative as distinct from incremental process improvements. The most common ra-
tionale for process innovation is improved financial performance, typically through
cost reduction. Other process-based objectives, including time reduction, improved
quality, improved customer service, are assumed to result in higher levels of sales or
reduced cost of production. The continuing demand for business process improve-
ments has resulted in a proliferation of consultants, methodologies, techniques, and
tools for conducting BPR projects (Kettinger, Teng, and Guha 1997). A report by
Prosci (2003) states that good reengineering projects design and implement solu-
tions that are customer focused, capitalize on best practices and learning from oth-
ers, are designed for the future, and produce significant bottom-line improvements
for the business. A study done by Kettinger et al. (1997) places these method-
ologies, techniques and tools (MTTs) into a classification framework that permits
project planners to assess the ”fit” between their unique organizational problems
and available MTTs. Kettinger et al. (1997) use eleven categories of BPR tech-
niques. These categories can be used as a ”primary index” for understanding and
learning reengineering techniques. Muthu, Whitman, and Cheraghi (1999) during
an Investigation of business process reengineering methodologies summarized fifth
methodologies which listed as shown in table 1. The methodologies were cited by
1: Underdown (1997), 2: Harrison and Pratt (1993), 3: Furey (1993), 4: Mayer and
122 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

Dewitte (1998), 5: Manganelli and Klein (1994).

Activity Methodology 1 Methodology 2

1 Develop vision, strategy Determine customer requirements, goals for the process
2 Create desired culture Map and measure the existing process
3 Integrate, improve enterprise Analyze and modify existing process
4 Develop technology solution Design the reengineered process
5 Implement the reengineered process

Activity Methodology 3 Methodology 4 Methodology 5

1 Set direction Motivating reengineered Preparation
2 Baseline and benchmark Justifying reengineered Identification
3 Create the vision Planning reengineered Vision
4 Launch problem solving projects Setting up for reengineered Technical, social design
5 Design improvements As Is description, analysis Transformation
6 Implement change To- Be design and validation
7 Embed continuous improvement Implementation
Table 1: An Investigation of the Methodologies of Business Process Reengineering (Muthu,
Whitman, and Cheraghi(1999) )

Firstly to implement process approach, organization needs to prepare process

map. IDEF model can help mapping the process.

2.3 IDEF0 CONCEPTS

The desire of the U.S. Air Force to reduce costs and lead times by assisting the
aerospace industry in its modernization efforts is evidenced in its many ”Tech Mod”
(Technology Modernization) programs. A similar goal, but using an industry-wide
target rather than individual companies, was established under the ICAM (Inte-
grated Computer Aided Manufacturing) Program. In ICAM, the goal was to de-
velop ”generic subsystems” which could be used by a large number of companies
to provide a significant upgrade to the industry as a whole. These ”subsystems”
provide support for common functions such as management of information, shop
floor scheduling and materials handling. This ambitious goal needed a common
”baseline” communication vehicle around which to plan, develop and implement
the subsystems in the individual aerospace companies. The baseline was called the
”Architecture of Manufacturing”, since it was to provide an industry-wide ”archi-
tecture” showing how industry works today and around which generic subsystems
could be planned, developed and implemented. To develop the architecture, a ”lan-
guage” was needed in which to express and document current aerospace industry
operations. At the outset of ICAM, the Air Force issued a Request for Proposal to
build the architecture. An activity modeling technique was specified as the expres-
sive language (where an activity was defined as a manufacturing cell or operational
unit)( FIPS PUBS, 1993).
Process based agile supply chain model 123

2.3.1 Activity Modeling Graphics

IDEF’s roots began to form when the Air Force, in response to the identification of
the need to improve manufacturing operations, established the Integrated Computer-
Aided Manufacturing (ICAM) program in the mid-1970s. The requirement to model
functions (processes), data, and dynamic (behavioral) elements of the manufactur-
ing operations resulted in the initial selection of the Structured Analysis and Design
Technique (SADT) method (SADT is a registered trademark of SofTech). SADT
was developed by SofTech’s Doug Ross in the early 1970s. A subset of SADT was
the basis for the Air Force’s ICAM language notation. A major development from
the ICAM program was the Integrated Definition methodology or IDEF as it is now
called (Wisnosky, Dennis, Batteau, 1990). This methodology was to be used as
a regimented approach to analyzing an enterprise, capturing ”as-is” process mod-
els, and for modeling activities (organizational units) within an enterprise. Thus,
an enterprise could develop a basis for process improvement planning and have a
foundation to define information requirements.

2.3.2 The IDEF Family of Methods

The IDEF0 method is used to specify function models, which are ”what do I do”
models. These are descriptive models that show the high-level activities of a process.
As shown in Figure 1, the model indicates major activities and the input, control,
output, and mechanisms associated with each major activity. IDEF0 models let
the modeler portray a view of the process, the inputs (I), controls (C) over the
process, outputs (O), and the mechanisms (M) acting on the process (these are
collectively referred to as ICOMs, pronounced ”eye coms”). The processes can be
further decomposed to show lower-level activities and ICOMs, but at some point
the required view may require another notation be used to portray such things as
branch control. Figure 1 is an abstract view of IDEF0 notation.
inputs:items that trigger the activity
controls controls:quide or requlate the activity
? mechanisms:systems,people,equipment
inputs - function - outputs used to perform the activity
6 output:results of performing the activity
mechanisms

Fig 1: ICOM concept in IDEF modeling (Hanrahan, 1995)

IDEF1 is used for information modeling, which captures conceptual views of the
enterprise’s information. It is an analysis method to capture, communicate, ana-
124 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

lyze, and understand the information needs of the enterprise. The models simply
identify the enterprise’s concepts of information such as department and employee
and the concept that there is a relationship between the two, such as employee
works in a department. IDEF1 is not a method for designing the database, but is
a tool for the enterprise to understand the information it deals with, so informa-
tion resource management can be supported. IDEF1X is used for data modeling,
which captures the logical view of the enterprise’s data and is based on an en-
tity relationship model. It is a design method for logical database design once the
information system requirements are known. The focus is on the actual data ele-
ments of the information system to be developed. IDEF2 Simulation Model Design
method is used to represent time varying behavior of resources in a manufacturing
system. It has been replaced by various commercial products and notations. The
IDEF3 Process Description Capture method is used to capture behavioral aspects
of a system (Mayer, et al. 1992) From domain experts, descriptions are captured
in which the precedence and causality relationships between activities and events
of the process are shown. Thus, IDEF3 is a structured method used to express
how a system or an organization works and show different user views of the system.
IDEF3 consists of two modeling modes: the Process Flow Description (PFD), which
describes how things actually work in the organization, and the Object State Tran-
sition Description (OSTD), which summarizes an object’s allowable transitions in a
particular process. The PFD provides a process- centric view, and the OSTD view
provides, among other elements, entry and exit criteria. These two complementary
views more than adequately describe a process. The IDEF4 object-oriented design
method was developed to support the object-oriented paradigm. IDEF4 supports
the object-oriented design method. It currently supports design to implement C
language applications. IDEF 5 through IDEF14 has not been pursued in depth at
this time. Some academic work has been done in several areas, and the future of
these methods is uncertain. IDEF 5 through 14 exists today in various stages and
is intended to provide the capability to describe additional views listed in Table 2.
Process based agile supply chain model 125

IDEF Type Description

IDEF0 Function Modeling
IDEF1 Information Modeling
IDEF1X Data Modeling
IDEF2 Simulation Model Design
IDEF3 Process Description Capture
IDEF4 Object- Oriented Design
IDEF5 Ontology Description Capture
IDEF6 Design Rationale Capture
IDEF8 User Interface Modeling
IDEF9 Scenario- Driven IS Design
IDEF10 Implementation Architecture Modeling
IDEF11 Information Artifact Modeling
IDEF12 Organization Modeling
IDEF13 Three Schema Mapping Design
IDEF14 Network Design
Table 2: Suite of IDEF Methods (Current and in Development) (Mayer, et al.)

2.4 Value chain

Porter advocates using value chain analysis rather than analysis of value added as
a better approach to the study of the economic and institutional outcomes of tech-
nology use. Venkatraman (1991) adopts the value chain framework in his discussion
of ”IT-induced business reconfiguration.” Rockhart and Short (1991) also employ a
value-chain perspective to consider the role of IT at the behavioral level in support-
ing the networked organization and the management of interdependence. Davenport
(1993) in his discussion of the role of IT in supporting process innovation provides
what is probably the most comprehensive analysis of the interaction of IT and or-
ganizations from a process perspective.
Z
Firm in frastructure Z
Z
Human resources Z
Z
profit Z
It/technoloog Z
~
Z
3

procurement margin 

inbond outbound marketing 

logistics operations logestics sales service 


Fig 2: Porter’s value chain

The idea of the value chain is based on the process view of organizations, the
idea of seeing a manufacturing (or service) organization as a system, made up of
subsystems each with inputs, transformation processes and outputs. Inputs, trans-
formation processes, and outputs involve the acquisition and consumption of re-
sources - money, labor, materials, equipment, buildings, land, administration and
126 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

management. How value chain activities are carried out determines costs and affects
profits. Most organizations engage in hundreds, even thousands, of activities in the
process of converting inputs to outputs. These activities can be classified generally
as either primary or support activities that all businesses must undertake in some
form. According to Porter (1985), the primary activities are: ” Inbound Logistics -
involve relationships with suppliers and include all the activities required to receive,
store, and disseminate inputs. ” Operations - are all the activities required to trans-
form inputs into outputs (products and services). ” Outbound Logistics - include
all the activities required to collect, store, and distribute the output. ” Marketing
and Sales - activities inform buyers about products and services, induce buyers to
purchase them, and facilitate their purchase. ” Service - includes all the activities
required to keep the product or service working effectively for the buyer after it
is sold and delivered. Secondary activities are: ” Procurement - is the acquisition
of inputs, or resources, for the firm. ” Human Resource management - consists of
all activities involved in recruiting, hiring, training, developing, compensating and
(if necessary) dismissing or laying off personnel. ” Technological Development -
pertains to the equipment, hardware, software, procedures and technical knowledge
brought to bear in the firm’s transformation of inputs into outputs. ” Infrastruc-
ture - serves the company’s needs and ties its various parts together, it consists of
functions or departments such as accounting, legal, finance, planning, public affairs,
government relations, quality assurance and general management.

2.5 SCOR model

Conceptual framework was designed based on porter’s value chain and SCOR model.
According to Bovet Martha (2000), a supply chain includes activities such as mate-
rial sourcing, production scheduling, and the physical distribution system, backed up
by the necessary information flows. Procurement, manufacturing, inventory man-
agement, warehousing, and transportation are typically considered part of the sup-
ply chain organization. Marketing, sales, finance, and strategic planning are not.
Product development, demand forecasting, order entry, channel management, cus-
tomer service, and accounts payable and receivable lie in a grey area; in theory,
they are part of the supply chain process, but they are seldom included within the
supply chain organization. Importantly, it also embodies the information systems
so necessary to monitor all of those activities (Bovet Martha, 2000). Today, many
companies have recognized the Supply-Chain Operations Reference model (SCOR)
as a powerful and robust tool to describe, analyze, and improve the supply chain
(Fig.3).
 Process based agile supply chain model 127
 
Plan
 
   
Plan Plan
 66 

66 66
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
Source Make Deliver
Deliver Source Make Deliver Source Make Deliver Source
 



 
 
 
  


 
   
      
 
Return Return Return Return Return Return

  Return Return   

   

Suppillers’ Suppiller Your Company Costomer Costomer’s

Suppiller Internal or External Internal or External Costomer

Fig 3: SCOR- Supply chain operation reference model (Supply Chain Council 2005)

Based on the SCOR approach, the Supply Chain Council (2005) defined a supply
chain as follows: ”The supply chain encompasses every effort involved in producing
and delivering a final product, from the supplier’s supplier to the customer’s cus-
tomer. Five basic processes - plan, source, make, deliver and return - broadly define
these efforts, which include managing supply and demand, sourcing raw materials
and parts, manufacturing and assembly, warehousing and inventory tracking, order
entry and order management, distribution across all channels, and delivery to the
customer.” The supply chain involves five distinct basic processes, as the Supply
Chain Council has defined. These processes are (Supply Chain Council 2005): plan
(processes that balance aggregate demand and supply to develop a course of action
which best meets sourcing, production and delivery requirements), source (processes
that procure goods and services to meet planned or actual demand), make (processes
that transform product to a finished state to meet planned or actual demand), de-
liver (processes that provide finished goods and services to meet planned or actual
demand, typically including order management, transportation management, and
distribution management, and return (processes associated with returning or receiv-
ing returned products or their parts, such as pallets, for any reason). The SCOR
model is actually a process reference model that has been developed and endorsed by
the Supply Chain Council as the cross-industry standard diagnostic tool for SCM.
It is the only supply chain framework found that links performance measures, best
practices, and software requirements to a detailed business process model (Supply
Chain Council 2005).
128 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

3 Theoretical development
Unfortunately, there are little published studies in the literature, to the best of our
knowledge, which render a model of agile supply chain according to process approach
provide a formal definition of supply chain agility. This paper develops a process
oriented conceptual framework of the business value chain and agile supply chain,
and the subsequent effects on firm performance. The benefits of such a process ori-
ented perspective are as above. First, a process focus should enhance the validity of
the business value assessment. Second, the approach offers considerable insight into
the processes by which value is created. An important benefit of process oriented
studies is the ability to move beyond correlation evidence to explanation of the tech-
nological features, process characteristics, organizational settings, and competitive
environments conducive to producing business values. The supply chain and its
performance are one of the most important subjects for high level managers. Orga-
nizations are faces the variety of criteria and dimension which managers really can’t
clarify the barrier between them. The process approach alignment is not identified
by organizational strategies and organizational approach to change. The drivers of
agility in process approach are not indentifying. Which external factors move supply
chain to supply chain agility is an important question. Is there any director fac-
tor to control the agility activities and decisions? Which mechanisms and enablers
help the supply chain to be agile? Or to make a supply chain more agile which
tools, techniques and resources are exactly required? All of these question are not
identify and clarifying in standalone process approach. As we described, the impor-
tance and benefits of adopting process approach perspectives of business value are
well recognized within the academic literature. With developing a theoretical model
which contains the process approach strengths and cover the weakness of this model
(which mention above) we will make a good chance to managers and leaders to lead
the organization supply chain agility. Based on this developed model managers can
design a useful roadmap to achieving supply chain agility. So in this article we pro-
posed a Process based agile supply chain which integrated with IDEF3.0 model. As
we discuss in literature review, the IDEF model deliver 4 dimensions though ICOM
concept (input/Drivers. Control/Strategies, mechanism/agility characteristics and
enablers, output/performance indicator). Via this integrated model we can cover
process approach.

3.1 Conceptual framework of process based agile supply

chain (PBASC)
Parallel developments in the areas of agility and SCM led to the introduction of an
agile supply chain (e.g. Harrison et al. 1999, Christopher 2000). While agility is
accepted widely as a winning strategy for growth, even a basis for survival in certain
business environments, the idea of creating agile supply chains has become a logical
 Process based agile supply chain model 129

step for companies (Ismail Sharifi 2005). Agility in a supply chain, according to Is-
mail Sharifi (2005), is the ability of the supply chain as a whole and its members to
rapidly align the network and its operations to dynamic and turbulent requirements
of the customers. The main focus is on running businesses in network structures
with an adequate level of agility to respond to changes as well as proactively an-
ticipate changes and seek new emerging opportunities. Compared with the general
definitions as agility, agility in a supply chain context might be defined simply as
(Sharp et al. 1999): ”Agility is the ability of a supply chain to rapidly respond to
changes in market and customer demands”. In the 1990s, the research interest was
focused on finding systematic ways for manufacturers to approach agility in their
supply chains. Van Hoek (2005) observes that three characteristics of supply chain
operations can be earmarked as directly related to becoming agile: 1) mastering
and benefiting from variance, 2) rapid responsiveness, and 3) unique or small vol-
ume responsiveness. In addition, many researchers provide conceptual overviews,
different reference and mature models of agility (e.g. Kidd 1994, Dove 1994, Preiss
et al. 1996, 1997, and 2005 .Goldman et al. 1995, Gunasekaran 1998, Gunasekaran
1999, Sharp et al. 1999, Christopher 1998, Christopher 2000, Christopher Towill
20002001, Sharifi Zhang 2001, Yusuf et al. 2001, and Weber 2002). In this study
based on different models of process approach and ICOM concept in IDEF model,
the basic model and conceptual framework designed. Figure 4 is conceptual frame-
work.

Control:organizational strategies
?
agility drivers: Organization agility
Market Operational/main process Organizational
customer Value Performance
requirement- NPD Sourcing MFG Delivery chain
- Financial
Performance
technological Operational
innovation, Enablers and managerial process agility Performance
social
6
Mechanism:Agility enablers

Fig 4: PBASC as a part of value chain agility (comprehensive model)

Based on comprehensive model (as shown in fig.4) we deep to the supply chain
process as operational or main organizational processes and as a part of organiza-
tion’s value chain (fig 5). The following subsections offer a more detailed explanation
of the key constructs in the theoretical framework. In fig 5 the organizational strate-
gies in agility and supply chain strategy are aligned with organizational strategy,
supply chain performance is aligned with business performance.
 130 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

Control:
organizational strategies
in agility/supply chain
strategies

agility arivers: planning - Supply chain

Market Performance:
customer Service level
requirment, - NPD Sourcing MFG Delivery - Cost
technological Qulity
innovation, responsibility
 Return
social factor Timspeed
Competency

supply chain agility:

Market sensitivity
process integration
Virtual integration
Network base
Fig5: Agile Supply chain process based on SCOR Porter’s value chain (PBASC second level)

3.2 Framework for supply chain agility

The proposed framework adopts the process-based view of an organization’s supply

chain, consisting of four key processes: new product development, sourcing, manu-
facturing, and delivery (Cohen and Mallik, 1997; Zhang et al., 2002; Rayport and
Sviokla, 1995; Porter, 1998). These components correspond to the source, make, and
deliver processes adopted in the well established and well practiced SCOR model
and porter’s value chain. In the model shown in Fig. 7 we hypothesize that the
key antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility are the inherent performance agility
dimensions within each of the four supply chain processes. Together, the combined
effect of these supply chain process impacts an organization’s supply chain agility,
i.e., the supply chain’s capability to adapt or respond in a speedy manner to a
changing marketplace environment. Each process agility, in turn, is determined by
key dimensions of agility.
 Process based agile supply chain model 131

New product Time

Development speed


AA
K

A

A

A

* Quality
Sourcing A

iP
P  responsibility
PP A  

PP

PPA Agile supply
PA


 
chain
XX
J XXX
 XX

  J XX
z
 J
Manufacturing 
)

J Cost

J

J


^
J
Delivery service level
competency

Fig6: Agile supply chain theoretical model based on process approach

The following subsections offer a more detailed explanation of the key constructs
in the process based supply chain agility.

NPD speed time Q

s New product
Q
NPD cost XX
Q
z
X
NPD quality responsibility - Development S
1


NPD Competency  6 S
S
? S
Sourcing speed time PP S
q
P
:

 S
Sourcing cost 3

7
 Sourcing HH
Sourcing quality responsibility  HH SS 
w
Sourcing Competency  6 HHj Supply
Chain Agility
Mfg speed time PP ? *

 
P
q 
Mfg cost  - Manufacturing   
1
 
Mfg quality responsibility  3
 (MFG) 
Mfg Competency  
6 
Delivery speed time XX ?  R SCOR focus
z
X 
Delivery cost  -
*
 Delivery 
 >

Delivery quality responsibility  
Delivery Competency 

Fig7: Framework of international supply chain agility

We choose to address an organization’s internal supply chain, rather than its ex-
tended supply chain, which includes the firm’s suppliers’ and customers’ supply chain
132 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

processes (Lee et al., 1997; Lin et al., 2000). While possessing agility over a firm’s
extended supply chain is desirable, a firm has less control over its external processes
compared to its own. Also, from a practical viewpoint, it would be difficult, if not
impossible; to investigate the agility of every process in an organization’s extended
supply chain. By focusing on the key processes in a firm’s internal supply chain, we
have sought to keep this study more tractable, while gaining an understanding of a
firm’s supply chain agility that are within the firm’s domain of control.

4 Research steps
Following Quivy and Campenhoudt (1988) survey methodology, to develop the
model we do three steps as shown in fig8. Theoretical development and concep-
tual framework were done according to literature review, theory development and
expert comment.

Initial problem/question
?
Exploratory survey
Exploratory Literature Development
interriews review
?
Theoretical development 
1

?
Conceptual framework
? Construct

Observation 
2
?
Data analysis
? Compare

Conclusion 
3
Fig 8: survey Methodology

This study sought to choose respondents who can be expected to have the best
knowledge about the operation and management of the supply chain. Based on
literature and recommendations from practitioners, it was decided to choose clear-
sighted in university and managers who are at higher managerial levels as respon-
dents for the current study. The final version of the questionnaire, measuring all
the items on a five point scale, was administrated to 22 target respondents. A sig-
nificant problem with organizational-level research is that senior and executive-level
managers receive many requests to participate and have very limited time. Because
this interdisciplinary research collects information from several functional areas, the
Process based agile supply chain model 133

size and scope of the research instruments must be large and time consuming to
complete. This further contributes to the low response rate. While the response
rate was less than desired, the makeup of respondent pool was considered excellent.
About half of the respondents are managers, some identified them as supply chain
manager, plant manager, logistics manager or IT manager in the questionnaire. And
half are professors who are deep in supply chain management and more than five
articles in this context.

5 Research implications and limitations

The present study validates the SCM practice construct that has generally been
poorly defined and about whose meaning there has been a high degree of variability
in people understands (Monczka, Morgan, 1997). Although some organizations have
realized the importance of implementing SCM, they often do not know exactly what
to implement, due to a lack of understanding of what constitutes a comprehensive
set of SCM practices. By proposing, developing, and validating a multi-dimensional,
operational measure of the construct of PBASC, and by demonstrating its efficacy in
enhancing organizational performance and competitive advantage, the present study
provides SCM managers with a useful tool for evaluating the comprehensiveness of
their current SCM practices. We have shown that agile supply chain composed of
the agility drivers and business strategies, as external factor and market sensitiv-
ity, virtual integration, process integration and network base on supply chain main
process(new product development, sourcing, manufacturing and delivery)- the five
major components of process based agile Supply chain. Through the analysis, it was
demonstrated that PBASC dimension may directly impact business performance.
The findings of this research thus point to the importance of PBASC dimension and
practices to the organization. The proposed model designed as integrated approach.
To develop we must test the model for several industries and service enterprise.
As today’s competition is moving from ”among organizations” to ”between supply
chains”, more and more organizations are increasingly adopting SCM with customer
requirements and expectations.

6 Conclusion
Based on the literature review, theory development, and expert comments, this
research provides insights for discrete part manufacturing firms that design, imple-
ment, and participate in supply chains. It defines the dimension of process based
supply chain agility, and it provides a framework for understanding process based
agile supply chains (PBASC). Agile supply chains impact the business performance
and affect by business strategy. PBASC employ a comprehensive dimension and
factor which is impact on value chain agility and focus on process steps to meet cus-
134 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

tomer requirement and expectations as a competitive advantage. PBASC respond to

rapidly changing, continually fragmenting global markets by being dynamic, context-
specific, growth-oriented, and customer focused.

References
[1] Bakos, J.Y., ”Dependent Variables for the Study of Firm and Industry-Level
Impacts of Information Technology”,Proceedings of the Eight International
Conference on Information Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 10-23, 1987.

[2] Barney, Dennis, ”Process Definition Guidebook”, January 1995.

[3] Bovet D Martha J, Value Nets,” Breaking the Supply Chain to Unlock Hidden
Profits”, John Wiley Sons, New York, NY, 2000.

[4] Brown, S., Eisenhardt, K.M., ”Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured
Chaos”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1998.

[5] Christopher M Towill D,” Supply chain migration from lean and functional to
agile and customized”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
5(4): 206-213, 2000.

[6] Christopher M Towill D,” An integrated model for the design of agile supply
chains”, 2001.

[7] Christopher M, ”Logistics and Supply Chain Management - Strategies for Re-
ducing Cost and Improving Service”, Prentice-Hall, 1998.

[8] Christopher M, ”The Agile Supply Chain. Competing in Volatile Markets”,

Industrial Marketing Management 29: 37-44, 2000.

[9] Cohen, M.A., Mallik, S.,” Global supply chain research and applications”, Pro-
duction and Operation Management 6 (3), 193- 210, 1997.

[10] Crowston, K., and M.E. Treacy, ”Assessing the Impacts of Information Technol-
ogy on EnterpriseLevel Performance,” Proceedings of the Seventh International
Conference on Information Systems”, (San Diego, Ca.; 1986), pp 377. Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., c1977), 1986.

[11] Davenport,T. H. ,”Reengineering the Corporation”, Sloan Management Re-

view, 1993.

[12] Davenport,T. H. Short, J. E. ,”The new industrial engineering: information

technology and business process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31
(4) (Summer 1990), pp. 11-27,1993.
Process based agile supply chain model 135

[13] Dove R , ”The meaning of life and the meaning of agility”, Production Magazine
106(11), 14-15,1994.
[14] FIPS PUBS, ”Announcing the Standard for INTEGRATION DEFINITION
FOR FUNCTION MODELING (IDEF0)”, Draft Federal Information Process-
ing Standards Publication, 1993.
[15] Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N., Preiss, K., ”Agile Competitors and Virtual Or-
ganizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer”, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, New York, 1994.
[16] Gordon, R.J., Comments made at Panel 12 ”Information Technology and the
Productivity Paradox,” Tenth International Conference on Information Sys-
tems, 1989.
[17] Grover,Varun., Malhotra, Manoj.K., ”Business Process Reengineering: A tuto-
rial on the concept,evolution, method, technology and application”, Journal of
Operations Management 15 (1997) 193-213,1995.
[18] Gunasekaran A, ”Agile manufacturing: enablers, and an implementation frame-
work”, International Journal of Production Economics 36(5): 1223-1247, 1998.
[19] Gunasekaran A, agile manufacturing: A framework for research and develop-
ment. International Journal of Economics 62: 87-105, 1999.
[20] Hammer,M., Champy.J., ”Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for
Business Revolution”, Harper Collins, London,1993.
[21] Hanrahan, Robert P.,” The IDEF Process Modeling Method-
ology Software Technology ”Support Center sited in:
http://stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/1995/jun/idef.asp,1995.
[22] Harrison A, Christopher M van Hoek R, ”Creating the Agile Supply Chain”,
Corby, Institute of Transport and Logistics, 1999.
[23] Hunt, Daniel.V., ”Process Mapping: How to Reengineer your Business Pro-
cess”, John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York,1996.
[24] ICAM Architecture Part II, Volume V ,”Information Modeling Manual
(IDEF1)”, AFWAL-TR-81-4023, Materials Laboratory, Air Force Wright Aero-
nautical Laboratories, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base, Ohio 45433, June 1981.
[25] ICAM Configuration Management, Volume II,”ICAM Documentation Stan-
dards for Systems Development Methodology (SDM)”, AFWAL-TR-82-4157,
Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433,
October 1983.
136 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

[26] Ismail HS Sharifi H ,” Supply Chain Design for supply Chain: A balanced
approach to building agile supply chain.”, In: Andersin HE, Niemi R Hirvonen
V (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on Agility - ICAM 2005,
Helsinki, Finland, July 2005, Helsinki University of Technology, 187-193,2005.

[27] Kauffman R.J., Weill, P., ”An Evaluative Framework for Research on the Per-
formance Effects of Information Technology Investment,” Proceedings of the
Tenth International Conference on Information Systems, Boston, pp. 377-388,
1989.

[28] Kidd PT,”Agile Manufacturing”, Forging New Frontiers. Addison-Wesley, Lon-

don, 1994.

[29] Kidd, P., ”Two definitions of agility”, http://www.cheshirehenbury. Com,2000.

[30] Mayer, Richard J., et al.,” IDEF Family of Methods for Concurrent Engineer-
ing and Business Reengineering Applications”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Inc.,
1992.

[31] Mayer, Richard.J., Dewitte, Paula.S., ”Delivering Results: Evolving BPR from
art to engineering”,1998.

[32] Monczka RM, Morgan J.,”What’s wrong with supplychain manage-

ment?”Purchasing; 122(1):69-72, 1997.

[33] Murray,R. J. ,”The quest for world class IT capability - IT is key to achieving
quality objects”, Journal of Information Systems Management, pp. 7-15, 1991.

[34] Pall,G. A. Quality Process Management, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1987.

[35] Pall.G.A. (1987).”Quality process management” .Prentice- hall. New Jersey,

1987.

[36] Porter M. E. Miller, V. E., ”How information gives you competitive advantage”,
Harvard Business Review, (July-August, 1985), pp. 149160, 2000.

[37] Porter, M.E.,”Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Per-

formance”, Free Press, New York City, 1985.

[38] Porter, M.E., ”On Competition,” Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge,
MA.

[39] Preiss K,”A systems perspective of lean and agile manufacturing”, Agility and
Global Competition 1 (1): 57-72, 1997.
Process based agile supply chain model 137

[40] Preiss K ,”Agility - the Origins, the Vision and the Reality”, In: Andersin
HE, Niemi E, Hirvonen V (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on
Agility - ICAM, Otaniemi, Finland, July 2005, Helsinki University of Technol-
ogy, 13-21,2005.
[41] Preiss K, Goldman SL Nagel RS,” Cooperative or compete: Building an ag-
ile business relationship,”Van Nostrand, Reinhold.process mapping, Omega,
27(5)515-524.1996.
[42] Quivy, Ramond. Campenhoudt, Luc Van,”Manuel de recherch en sciences
socials,”Bordas-Dunod.Paris, 1988.
[43] R. Bowman, ”Computers improve information flows”, Distribution, pp. 40-44,
1989.
[44] Radding and L. Tuck,” Tying it all together”, Computer Publishing:Magazine,
pp. 26-31,1991.
[45] Rayport, J.F., Sviokla, J.J., ”Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain”, Harvard
Business Review, November-December, 1995.
[46] Rockhart, J.J. Short,J.E.,”The Networked Organization and the Management
of Interdependence,” in Scott-Morton, M. S., The Corporation of the 1990s -
Information Technology and Organizational Transformation, (New York, NY:
Oxford University Press),1991.
[47] Sharifi H Zhang Z,” Agile manufacturing in practice - Application of the
methodology. International Journal of Operations Production Management
21(5/6): 772-794, 2001.
[48] Sharifi, H., Zhang, Z., ” A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organisations: an introduction”, International Journal of Production Economics
62, 7-22, 2001.
[49] Sharp, J.M., Irani, Z., Desai, S., ”Working towards agile manufacturing in the
UK industry”, International Journal of Production Economics 62, 155-169,1999.
[50] Supply Chain Council (2005) SCOR model. Cited
in September 2004 from: http://www.supplychain.
Org/page.ww?section=SCOR+Modelname=SCOR+Model.
[51] Swafford PM, Ghosh S Murthy NN ,” A framework for assessing value chain
agility”,International Journal of Operations Production Management 26(2):
118-140,2006
[52] Underdown, D. R.,” Transform Enterprise Methodology”, Unpublished Paper,
1997.
138 A. Toloie Eshlaghy et al

[53] Van Hoek R ,” Mitigating the minefield of pitfalls in creating the agile supply
chain”,In Andersin HE, Niemi E Hirvonen V (eds) Proceedings of the inter-
national conference on agility - ICAM 2005, Helsinki University of Technology,
Otaniemi, Finland,2005.

[54] Van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A., Christopher, M., ”Measuring agile capabilities in
the supply chain”, International Journal of Operations and Production Man-
agement 21 (1-2), 126-147, 2001.

[55] Venkatraman, N., ”IT-Induced Business Reconfiguration,” in Scott-Morton, M.

S., the Corporation of the 1990s - Information Technology and Organizational
Transformation, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991).

[56] Weber MM,”Measuring supply chain agility in the virtual organization”, Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics Management 32(7): 577-
590, 2002.

[57] Wheelwright, S.C., ”Manufacturing strategy: defining the missing link”, Strate-
gic Management Journal 5 (1), 77-318, 1984.

[58] Wilson, D., ”Assessing the Impact of Information Technology on Organizational

Performance,” in Banker, R.D., R.J. Kauffmann, and M.A. Mahmood, Strategic
Information Technology Management: Perspectives on Organisational Growth
and Competitive Advantage, (Harrisburg, PA: Idea Group Pubishing), 1993.

[59] Wisnosky, Dennis E., Allen W. Batteau, ”IDEF in Principle and Practice,”
GATEWAY, pp. 8-11, 1990.

[60] Yusef, Y.Y., Sarhadi, M., Gunasekaran, A., ” Agile manufacturing: the drivers,
concepts and attributes”, International Journal of Production Economics 62,
33-43, 1999.

[61] Zhang, Q., Vonderembrse, M.A., Lim, J., ” Value chain flexibility: a dichotomy
of competence and capability”, International Journal of Production Research
40 (3), 561-583, 2002.
Received: September, 2008