A Systematic Methodology to Analyse the
Performance and Design Configurations of
Business Interoperability in Cooperative
Industrial Networks
Dissertação para obtenção do Grau de Doutor em Engenharia Industrial
Orientador: António Carlos Bárbara Grilo, Professor Doutor,
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Júri:
Presidente: Prof. Doutor Virgílio António Cruz Machado
Arguente(s): Prof. Doutora Ana Paula Ferreira Dias Barbosa Póvoa
Prof. Doutor José Fernando da Costa Oliveira
Vogais: Prof. Doutor Ricardo Luís Rosa Jardim Gonçalves
Prof. Doutor António José Freire Mourão
Prof. Doutora Susana Garrido Azevedo
Prof. Doutor João Pedro Mendonça de Assunção da Silva
Prof. Doutor António Carlos Bárbara Grilo
A Systematic Methodology to Analyse the
Performance and Design Configurations of
Business Interoperability in Cooperative
Industrial Networks
Dissertação para obtenção do Grau de Doutor em Engenharia Industrial
Orientador: António Carlos Bárbara Grilo, Professor Doutor,
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Júri:
Presidente: Prof. Doutor Virgílio António Cruz Machado
Arguente(s): Prof. Doutora Ana Paula Ferreira Dias Barbosa Póvoa
Prof. Doutor José Fernando da Costa Oliveira
Vogais: Prof. Doutor Ricardo Luís Rosa Jardim Gonçalves
Prof. Doutor António José Freire Mourão
Prof. Doutora Susana Garrido Azevedo
Prof. Doutor João Pedro Mendonça de Assunção da Silva
Prof. Doutor António Carlos Bárbara Grilo
© 2015 Izunildo Fernandes Cabral
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia and Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Copyright
This thesis is dedicated to the memory of Serafina Almeida Fernandes!
It has been an enjoyable project to write this thesis on modelling business interoperability in a context of cooperative industrial networks, which has been a challenging and fascinating subject. Because the topic is relevant in many areas of Operations Management research (e.g. business interoperability, business relationships and networks, cooperative industrial networks, Supply Chain Management, etc.), it has forced me to explore some new subjects, such as, complexity, cooperation, construction networks, Reverse Logistics, design and simulation methods. Working with experts in other fields has been a rich learning experience, and I was fortunate to have been able to interact with many outstanding people. Thus, a group of people will be listed here to acknowledge their special contributions.
First of all, I would like to express my warmest gratitude to my supervisor Professor António Grilo for his thoughtful guidance, help, encouragement, and most importantly for all the advices and constructive criticisms that have supported my development as a researcher. Thank you for your friendship, having faith in me and for how much I have learned from you!
I will also thank Professor António Gonçalves-Coelho and Professor António Freire Mourão for all fruitful discussions and support around the Axiomatic Design Theory. Your comments and feedback have constantly enabled me to understand how to improve my design skills and this research.
I am also grateful to the managers from the companies involved in this research who have given many hours of their time, and without which the empirical validation of this research would not be possible. In particular, I would like to highlight Paulo Silva from Valorpneu – Sociedade de Gestão de Pneus, Lda., Alexandra Fernandes from Renascimento – Gestão e Reciclagem de Resíduos, Lda., Jorge Bizarro from Transportes Bizarro Duarte, Lda., Pedro Barros from Biogoma – Sociedade de Reciclagem de Pneus, Lda., and Mirla Oliveira from Consulgal. Thank you for how much I learned from you!
I would like to extend my gratitude to Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia da Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa for its financial support provided through the Project PTDC/EME-GIN/115617/2009.
I also must show my appreciation to Arildo Melo for reviewing my simulation code and providing me thoughtful suggestions to improve the quality of the simulation models I have developed in the ambit of this thesis. I am also grateful to my PhD colleague Aneesh Zutshi for introducing me NetLogo and for all discussions on Agent-Based Modelling. Thanks also go to Carlos Agostinho, for his help around information systems interoperability.
PhD colleagues, particularly Pedro Espadinha Cruz, Raphaela Vidal and Ahmad Mehrbod for their support, encouragement, motivation and all the productive discussions.
A great thank to Professor Virgilio Cruz-Machado, Professor José Requeijo, Professor Virgínia Helena Machado, Professor Isabel Nunes, Professor Helena Navas, Professor Susana Duarte, Professor Rogério Puga Leal, Professor Ana Sofia Matos, Professor Alexandra Tenera, Professor Ana Paula Barroso, and Professor Nuno Martins Cavaco for their encouragement during the development of this thesis.
I also thank my friends, in particular Izaias Costa, Luís Martins, Elisângela Leiny Furtado, José Anilton Freire, Edilene Oliveira, Nivaldo Pontes, Crispiniano Furtado, Arito Melo, Moisés Pina, Paulino Gomes Rosa, Adérito dos Santos, Luís Brálio, Paulo Gaspar, and Diogo Carril Alves for being sources of motivation during this thesis development.
I would also like to make a truly unbounded thanks to my sister Maria Helena Fernandes Cabral and his husband José Manuel Mendes Pereira. It was difficult for me to proceed my studies in 2009, but it is with your help and financial support that has made me person I am today. Thanks for being there whenever I need you! Thanks also to my brothers Felisberto Fernandes Cabral and Norberto Fernandes Cabral for their, encouragement and emotional support.
A special and deep thank you is required to “nha Codé” Ariane, who with her love has given me an endless emotional support. Thank you for your reviewing my questionnaires and your lovely understanding!
Last but not the least, I offer my deepest and unbounded gratitude to my beloved mother Bibinha. There are no words to thank the sacrifices and efforts you made to ensure my education, without which, I would never be the person I am today. Eternally grateful mom!
Lisbon, April 2015
Acknowledgments ... iii
List of Figures ... ix
List of Tables ... xi
List of Abbreviations and Symbols ... xv
Abstract ... xxi
Resumo ... xxiii
Chapter 1
Introduction ... 1
1.1 Problem background ... 1
1.2 Rationale for this research ... 6
1.3 Research questions and propositions ... 8
1.4 Objective ... 10
1.5 Methodological approach ... 10
1.6 Outline of the thesis ... 11
1.7 Summary ... 13
Chapter 2
Business relationships and networks ... 15
2.1 Business relationships ... 15
2.1.1 The business relationship perspective ... 15
2.1.2 The initial IMP interaction model ... 16
2.1.3 Types of business relationships ... 19
2.1.4 Characteristics of business relationships ... 24
2.2 Network theory and analysis: an overview... 25
2.2.1 Network complexity ... 27
2.2.2 Network effects ... 28
2.2.3 What are business networks? ... 30
2.2.4 The IMP network approach ... 30
2.2.5 Criticisms of network approaches ... 32
2.2.6 Interdependence in business networks ... 34
2.3 Manufacturing networks ... 38
2.3.1 Manufacturing network structure ... 38
2.3.2 Managerial challenges in manufacturing networks ... 41
2.4 Construction networks ... 43
2.4.1 Construction network structure ... 43
2.4.2 Managerial challenges in construction networks ... 47
2.5 Summary ... 51
Chapter 3
Business interoperability ... 53
3.1 Interoperability: from a technical to a business perspective... 53
3.2 Fundamental concepts of business interoperability ... 56
3.2.1 Business interoperability and related concepts ... 56
3.3 Existing interoperability models and frameworks ... 58
3.3.1 The IDEAS Interoperability Framework ... 60
3.3.2 The Layers of Coalition Interoperability ... 62
3.3.3 The ATHENA Interoperability Framework ... 63
3.3.4 The European Interoperability Framework ... 65
3.4 Existing interoperability maturity models ... 73
3.4.1 Levels of Information Systems Interoperability ... 75
3.4.2 Organisational Interoperability Maturity Model ... 77
3.4.3 Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model ... 79
3.4.4 EIMM – Enterprise Interoperability Maturity Model ... 80
3.4.5 Levels of Business Interoperability ... 82
3.4.6 Barriers driven methodology maturity model ... 86
3.4.7 MMEI – Maturity Model for Enterprise Interoperability ... 87
3.4.8 Maturity Model for Interoperability Potential Measurement ... 90
3.4.9 An Interoperability Model for Ultra Large Scale Systems ... 91
3.5 Empirical studies on the impact of business interoperability ... 92
3.6 Summary ... 99
Chapter 4
Methods for modelling complex systems and networks ... 101
4.1 Design methods: an overview ... 101
4.2 Axiomatic Design Theory ... 102
4.2.1 The concept of domains ... 103
4.2.2 Mapping from domain to domain ... 104
4.2.3 Design axioms ... 105
4.2.4 Areas of application ... 111
4.2.5 Challenges and limitations of the Axiomatic Design Theory ... 113
4.2.6 Rationale for choosing the Axiomatic Design Theory ... 116
4.3 Simulation modelling: an overview ... 117
4.3.1 Purposes of simulation ... 118
4.3.2 Rationale and motivation for simulation modelling ... 119
4.3.3 Types of simulation models ... 122
4.4 Agent-based modelling and simulation ... 123
4.4.1 Properties of agents ... 125
4.4.2 When is agent-based modelling appropriate? ... 126
4.4.3 Areas of application ... 129
4.4.4 Challenges and limitations in using Agent-Based Simulation ... 133
4.4.5 Rationale for choosing Agent-Based Simulation ... 134
4.5 Summary ... 137
Chapter 5
The proposed methodology ... 139
5.1 Storyline ... 139
5.2 Proposed modelling approach and framework ... 141
5.3 Characterisation of the dimensions of business interoperability ... 145
5.3.1 Business strategy ... 148
5.3.2 Management of external relationships ... 149
5.3.3 Cooperative business processes ... 151
5.3.4 Products and services ... 153
5.3.5 Employees and work culture ... 153
5.3.6 Knowledge management ... 155
5.3.7 Business semantics ... 156
5.3.8 Information systems ... 157
5.3.9 Information quality ... 158
5.3.10 Network minute details ... 162
5.4 The theoretical Axiomatic Design model of interoperable industrial networks ... 163
6.1 Background and motivation for Reverse Logistics ... 172
6.2 Test of the theoretical Axiomatic Design model ... 174
6.3 Development of the theoretical business interoperability maturity model ... 187
6.4 Test of the theoretical Agent-Based Simulation model ... 187
6.4.1 Computational experiments and simulation outputs ... 190
6.5 Summary ... 191
Chapter 7
Research philosophy, strategy and design ... 193
7.1 Research philosophy ... 193
7.1.1 Positivist versus constructivist paradigms ... 193
7.1.2 Quantitative and qualitative research ... 194
7.1.3 The philosophical position of this thesis ... 196
7.2 Research approach ... 199
7.3 Research strategy ... 201
7.3.1 Case study research ... 201
7.3.2 Rationale for the chosen strategy: case study research ... 203
7.3.3 Challenges of case study research strategy ... 205
7.4 Research design ... 205
7.4.1 Brief overview ... 205
7.4.2 Unit of analysis ... 206
7.4.3 Case study design: multiple cases ... 208
7.4.4 Selecting cases ... 209
7.4.5 Data collection method... 209
7.4.6 Data analysis ... 212
7.4.7 Quality of the research design ... 213
7.5 Summary ... 214
Chapter 8
Empirical validation: case studies ... 217
8.1 Case studies overview... 217
8.2 Case Study 1: Valorpneu network ... 218
8.2.1 Characterisation of the network ... 218
8.2.2 Characterisation of the participants ... 221
8.2.3 Adopted modelling approach ... 224
8.2.4 Description of the SGPU working model... 224
8.2.5 Data for validating the theoretical Agent-Based Simulation model ... 230
8.2.6 Demonstration and validation of the theoretical Agent-Based Simulation model ... 239
8.2.7 Simulation experiment and results ... 246
8.2.8 Analysis of the case ... 258
8.3 Case Study 2: Dam Baixo Sabor network ... 262
8.3.1 Characterisation of the network ... 262
8.3.2 Adopted modelling approach ... 263
8.3.3 Description of the current business scenario ... 264
8.3.4 Description of the future business scenario ... 267
8.3.5 Data for validating the application of the proposed methodology ... 271
8.3.6 Demonstration and validation of the theoretical Axiomatic Design model ... 272
8.3.7 Demonstration of the theoretical business interoperability maturity model... 289
8.3.8 Demonstration and validation of theoretical Agent-Based Simulation model ... 291
8.3.9 Simulation experiment and results ... 292
8.3.10 Analysis of the case ... 295
8.4 Cross-case analysis ... 295
9.3 Theoretical implications ... 300
9.4 Managerial implications ... 301
9.5 Limitations ... 302
9.6 Future research ... 303
References ... 305
Appendices ... 329
Appendix A – Case study protocol ... 329
Appendix B – A fragment of the interview guide ... 333
Appendix C – Valorpneu Network Business Process Diagram ... 339
Figure 2.1: The initial IMP interaction model ... 17
Figure 2.2
: Extended company’s value net
... 20
Figure 2.3: The structure of a linear manufacturing network ... 40
Figure 2.4: A representation of a non-linear manufacturing network ... 40
Figure 2.5: An example of a construction network structure ... 44
Figure 3.1: IDEAS interoperability framework ... 60
Figure 3.2: Interoperability on different layers of an enterprise ... 61
Figure 3.3: The layers of coalition interoperability ... 62
Figure 3.4: ATHENA interoperability framework ... 64
Figure 3.5: E-health interoperability framework ... 66
Figure 3.6: The enterprise interoperability framework ... 67
Figure 3.7: Business interoperability parameters ... 72
Figure 3.8: LISI reference model ... 76
Figure 3.9: Layers of C2 support ... 78
Figure 3.10: The levels of conceptual interoperability model ... 79
Figure 3.11: Enterprise interoperability maturity model ... 81
Figure 3.12: Business partners and level of business interoperability ... 85
Figure 3.13: Cooperation dynamics versus level of business interoperability ... 86
Figure 3.14: Structure of an MMEI level ... 88
Figure 4.1: Design thinking ... 102
Figure 4.2: The mapping process between the four domains of the Axiomatic Design Theory
... 103
Figure 4.3: Types of design matrix in the Axiomatic Design Theory ... 108
Figure 4.4: The process of decomposition: zigzagging between the functional domain and the
physical domain ... 109
Figure 4.5: Ways to study a system ... 119
Figure 5.1: The storyline ... 141
Figure 5.2: Proposed modelling approach ... 142
Figure 5.3: Theoretical modelling framework ... 144
Figure 5.4: The dimensions of business interoperability ... 147
Figure 5.5: Proposed theoretical Axiomatic Design model ... 163
Figure 5.6: Steps to implement the the theoretical Axiomatic Design model ... 165
Figure 5.7: The proposed ABS model ... 167
Figure 6.1: The structure of the considered RL cooperative automotive network ... 171
Figure 6.2: Relationships among level 1 FRs and DPs ... 177
Figure 6.3: Design matrix for level 1 FRs ... 178
Figure 6.4: Design matrix for level 2 FR
1... 179
Figure 6.5: Design matrix for level 2 FR
2... 180
Figure 6.6: Design matrix for level 2 FR
3... 182
Figure 6.7: Design matrix for level 2 FR
7... 184
Figure 6.8: Design matrix for level 2 FR
8... 185
Figure 6.9: Design matrix for level 3 FR
3.6... 186
Figure 7.1: Deductive versus inductive research approaches ... 200
Figure 8.1: Evolution of the number of producers and distributors, from 2003 to 2014 ... 220
Figure 8.5: Steps to implement the theoretical ABS model ... 244
Figure 8.6: Options for changing the simulation parameters ... 248
Figure 8.7: The environment for agents’ interactions
... 249
Figure 8.8: Plots to monitor the performance measures over time ... 250
Figure 8.9: Structure of the Dam Baixo Sabor network ... 262
Figure 8.10: Information flow in the present business scenario ... 264
Figure 8.11: Identification of concrete characteristics and concreting plan in the present
business scenario ... 265
Figure 8.12: Samples collection and testing in the present business scenario ... 266
Figure 8.13: Test results analysis and concrete characteristic stress calculation in the present
business scenario ... 267
Figure 8.14: Workflow for the future business scenario ... 267
Figure 8.15: Sequence of implementation of business processes in the future business scenario
... 269
Figure 8.16: Design matrix for level 1 FRs (Dam Baixo Sabor construction project) ... 273
Figure 8.17: Design matrix for level 2 FR
3... 275
Figure 8.18: Design matrix for level 2 FR
6... 278
Figure 8.19: Design matrix for level 3 FR
3.1... 280
Figure 8.20: Design matrix for level 3 FR
3.4... 281
Figure 8.21: Design matrix for level 3 FR
6.4... 283
Figure 8.22: Design matrix for level 3 FR
6.7... 284
Figure 8.23: Design matrix for level 4 FR
3.4.1... 285
Figure 8.24: Design matrix for level 4 FR
3.4.2... 285
Figure 8.25: Design matrix for level 4 FR
3.4.3... 286
Figure 8.26: Design matrix for level 4 FR
3.4.4... 288
Table 2.1: Interdependence, complexity, and potential for business interoperability problems
... 36
Table 3.1: Business interoperability framework ... 69
Table 3.2: Categories and criteria in the business interoperability framework ... 70
Table 3.3: Levels of business interoperability in the BIF ... 83
Table 3.4: Maturity levels for the criterion “Trust” in category “Employees
an
d culture”
... 84
Table 3.5: Interoperability potentiality measurement ... 86
Table 3.6: Overview of MMEI maturity levels ... 87
Table 3.7: Description of the MMEI level 0 ... 89
Table 3.8: Description of the MMEI level 4 ... 89
Table 5.1: The dimensions of business interoperability ... 148
Table 5.2: Relevant sub-dimensions of business strategy ... 149
Table 5.3: Relevant sub-dimensions of management of external relationships ... 151
Table 5.4: Relevant sub-dimensions of cooperative business processes ... 152
Table 5.5: Relevant sub-dimensions of products and services ... 153
Table 5.6: Relevant sub-dimensions of employees and work culture ... 154
Table 5.7: Relevant sub-dimensions of knowledge management system ... 155
Table 5.8: Relevant sub-dimensions of business semantics ... 156
Table 5.9: Relevant sub-dimensions of information systems ... 158
Table 5.10: Relevant sub-dimensions of information quality ... 161
Table 5.11: Relevant sub-dimensions of network minute details ... 162
Table 6.1: Decomposition of the level 1 FRs and their related DPs and PVs ... 177
Table 6.2: Decomposition of FR
1to the level 2 FRs ... 179
Table 6.3: Decomposition of FR
2to the level 2 FRs ... 180
Table 6.4: Decomposition of FR
3to the level 2 FRs ... 181
Table 6.5: Decomposition of FR
7to the level 2 FRs ... 183
Table 6.6: Decomposition of FR
8to the level 2 FRs ... 184
Table 6.7: Decomposition of FR
3.6to the level 3 FRs ... 186
Table 6.8: The proposed theoretical business interoperability maturity model ... 187
Table 6.9: Evolution of the average ALBI and RLBI ... 188
Table 6.10: Overview on the performance measures ... 189
Table 6.11: Potential impact of the BIDSs on the performance measures ... 189
Table 6.12: Overview of the probability of the impact according to the business
interoperability distance ... 189
Table 6.13: Average values of the performance measures ... 190
Table 7.1: Key characteristics of positivist and constructivist paradigms ... 194
Table 7.2: Quality criteria of the case studies design ... 214
Table 8.1: Companies’ and managers’ profiles
... 222
Table 8.2: Ecovalue charged from 2009 to present ... 225
Table 8.3: Categories of tyres at collection points ... 226
Table 8.4: Interaction and decision-making rules in the ambit of SGPU ... 228
Table 8.5: Overview on the BIDSs used in the dyad between Valorpneu and producers, and
related FRs ... 230
Table 8.8: Overview on the BIDSs used in the dyad between Valorpneu and Energy
Recoveries, and related FRs ... 232
Table 8.9: Overview on the BIDSs used in the dyad between Valorpneu and Transporters, and
related FRs ... 232
Table 8.10: Overview on the BIDSs used between Valorpneu and all operators, and related
FRs ... 233
Table 8.11: Overview of the ALBI and RLBI for BIDSs related to cooperation goals ... 234
Table 8.12: Overview of the ALBI and RLBI for BIDSs related to management of external
relationships ... 234
Table 8.13: Overview of the ALBI and RLBI for BIDSs related to collaborative business
processes ... 235
Table 8.14: Overview of the ALBI and RLBI for the BIDSs related to information systems
... 235
Table 8.15: Overview of the ALBI and RLBI for the BIDSs related information quality .... 235
Table 8.16: SGPU performance measures (2007
–
2014) ... 236
Table 8.17: Chain of evidences on the BIDSs implemented in the ambit of SGPU and
estimated impact ... 237
Table 8.18: Impact of the follow up visits to Collection Points ... 238
Table 8.19: Impact of the introduction of the system for evaluating the quality of the services
provided by Collection Points ... 238
Table 8.20: Impact of the introduction of the system for evaluating the quality of the services
provided by Transporters ... 238
Table 8.21: Impact of the System for sorting used tyres at Collection Points ... 239
Table 8.22: Relationships between BIDSs and performance measures ... 240
Table 8.23: ALBI and RLBI for each BIDS ... 241
Table 8.24: Assumptions made for Case Study 1 ... 242
Table 8.25: Simulation outputs for the process of declaring tyres introduced into the market
... 250
Table 8.26: Simulation outputs for the process of routing tyres at Managing Entity ... 251
Table 8.27: Simulation outputs for the process of discharges of tyres at Collection Points .. 252
Table 8.28: Simulation outputs for final inventory level at Collection Points, Recyclers and
Energy Recoveries ... 253
Table 8.29: Simulation outputs of Transporters regarding the process of delivering charges at
Recyclers and Energy Recoveries ... 254
Table 8.30: Simulation outputs for Collection Points regarding the process of delivering
charges at Recyclers and Energy Recoveries ... 255
Table 8.31: Simulation outputs of cost for Collection Points due to contaminated,
non-conforming and rejected charges at Recyclers and Energy Recoveries ... 256
Table 8.32: Simulation outputs of washing fee imposed by Recyclers and Energy Recoveries
to Collection Points, due to contaminated charges ... 256
Table 8.33: Simulation outputs of Recyclers and Energy Recoveries regarding the process of
receiving charges from Collection Points ... 257
Table 8.34: Simulation outputs - flow of tyres from Collection Points to Recyclers and Energy
Recoveries ... 258
Table 8.38: Decomposition of FR
3to the level 2 FRs ... 275
Table 8.39: Decomposition of FR
6to the level 2 FRs ... 277
Table 8.40: Decomposition of FR
3.1to the level 3 FRs ... 279
Table 8.41: Decomposition of FR
3.4to the level 3 FRs ... 280
Table 8.42: Decomposition of FR
6.4to the level 3 FRs ... 282
Table 8.43: Decomposition of FR
6.7to the level 3 FRs ... 283
Table 8.44: Decomposition of FR
3.4.1to the level 4 FRs ... 284
Table 8.45: Decomposition of FR
3.4.2to the level 4 FRs ... 285
Table 8.46: Decomposition of FR
3.4.3to the level 4 FRs ... 286
Table 8.47: Decomposition of FR
3.4.4to the level 4 FRs ... 287
Table 8.48: Decomposition of FR
3.4.5to the level 4 FRs ... 288
Table 8.49: BIDSs and corresponding levels of business interoperability ... 290
Table 8.50: Assumptions made for Case Study 2 ... 292
Table 8.51: Simulation results (t < 256) ... 293
A Assumption
ABM Agent-Based Modelling
ABS Agent-Based Simulation
ACAP Associação Automóvel de Portugal
AEC Architecture, Engineering and Construction
ALBI Actual Level of Business Interoperability
ANIRP Associação Nacional dos Industriais de Recauchutagem de Pneus
APIB Associação Portuguese dos Industriais de Borracha
ASAE Autoridade de Segurança Alimentar e Económica
ATHENA Advanced Technologies for Interoperability of Heterogeneous Enterprise Networks and their Applications
AV Action Variables
BIDS Business Interoperability Design Solution
BIF Business Interoperability Framework
BIM Building Information Model
BIP Business Interoperability Parameter
BIQMM Business Interoperability Quotient Measurement Model
BP Business Process
BPD Business Process Diagram
BPMN Business Process Model and Notation
B2B Business to Business
Cs Constraints
CA Customer Attribute
CAD Computer-Aided Design
CAE Computer-Aided Engineering
CAM Computer-Aided Manufacturing
CP Collection Point
CPD Collaborative Product Development
CRESCENDO Collaborative and Robust Engineering using Simulation Capability Enabling Next Design Optimisation
CSCW Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
CTM Customer
CTT Contractor
C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
D Designer
DES Discrete Event Simulation
DfX Design for X
DoD Department of Defense
DP Design Parameter
DSM Design Structure Matrix
DV Decision Variables
DVD Digital Versatile Disc
ECOLEAD European Collaborative Networked Organisations Leadership Initiative
EDI Electronic Data Interchange
EIF European Interoperability Framework
EIMM Enterprise Interoperability Maturity Model
ER Energy Recovery
ETRMA European Tyre & Rubber Manufacturers’ Association
EU European Union
FIFA Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FITMAN Future Internet Technologies for MANufacturing industries
GVA Gross Value Added
ICAD International Conference on Axiomatic Design
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IDEAS Interoperability Development for Enterprise Application and Software
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IMP Industrial Marketing and Purchasing
INE Instituto Nacional de Estatística
IOS Inter-organisational Systems
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
ISE Institution of Structural Engineers
ISO International Organization for Standardization
IT Information Technology
JADE Java Agent DEvelopment
JIT Just in Time
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LCIM Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model
LISI Levels of Information System Interoperability
MAS Multi Agent Systems
MAUT Multi Attribute Utility Theory
MCDM Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
MMEI Maturity Model for Enterprise Interoperability
MW Megawhatt
N Normal Distribution
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NC3TA NATO C3 Technical Architecture
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
OIMM Organisational Interoperability Maturity Model
OM Operations Management
PAID Procedures, Applications, Infrastructure, and Data
PIPs Partner Interface Processes
PV Process Variable
QFD Quality Function Deployment
R Recycler
R&D Research and Development
RFID Radio Frequency Identification
RL Reverse Logistics
RLBI Required Level of Business Interoperability
RQ Research Question
RTI Research Triangle Institute
S Supervisor
SC Supply Chain
SCM Supply Chain Management
SCN Supply Chain Network
SEI Software Engineering Institute
SEM Structural Equations Modelling
SGPU Sistema Integrado de Gestão de Pneus Usados
SME Small and Medium Enterprise
SNA Social Network Analysis
Std Standard Deviation
T Transporter
TRIZ Theory of Inventive Problem Solving
UK United Kingdom
US United States
TRIZ Theory of Inventive Problem Solving
WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipments
WSJ Wall Street Journal
XML eXtensible Markup Language
Mean
This thesis proposes a methodology for modelling business interoperability in a context of cooperative industrial networks. The purpose is to develop a methodology that enables the design of cooperative industrial network platforms that are able to deliver business interoperability and the analysis of its impact on the performance of these platforms. To achieve the proposed objective, two modelling tools have been employed: the Axiomatic Design Theory for the design of interoperable platforms; and Agent-Based Simulation for the analysis of the impact of business interoperability. The sequence of the application of the two modelling tools depends on the scenario under analysis, i.e. whether the cooperative industrial network platform exists or not. If the cooperative industrial network platform does not exist, the methodology suggests first the application of the Axiomatic Design Theory to design different configurations of interoperable cooperative industrial network platforms, and then the use of Agent-Based Simulation to analyse or predict the business interoperability and operational performance of the designed configurations. Otherwise, one should start by analysing the performance of the existing platform and based on the achieved results, decide whether it is necessary to redesign it or not. If the redesign is needed, simulation is once again used to predict the performance of the redesigned platform. To explain how those two modelling tools can be applied in practice, a theoretical modelling framework, a theoretical Axiomatic Design model and a theoretical Agent-Based Simulation model are proposed. To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed methodology and/or to validate the proposed theoretical models, a case study regarding a Portuguese Reverse Logistics cooperative network (Valorpneu network) and a case study regarding a Portuguese construction project (Dam Baixo Sabor network) are presented. The findings of the application of the proposed methodology to these two case studies suggest that indeed the Axiomatic Design Theory can effectively contribute in the design of interoperable cooperative industrial network platforms and that Agent-Based Simulation provides an effective set of tools for analysing the impact of business interoperability on the performance of those platforms. However, these conclusions cannot be generalised as only two case studies have been carried out. In terms of relevance to theory, this is the first time that the network effect is addressed in the analysis of the impact of business interoperability on the performance of networked companies and also the first time that a holistic approach is proposed to design interoperable cooperative industrial network platforms. Regarding the practical implications, the proposed methodology is intended to provide industrial managers a management tool that can guide them easily, and in practical and systematic way, in the design of configurations of interoperable cooperative industrial network platforms and/or in the analysis of the impact of business interoperability on the performance of their companies and the networks where their companies operate.
Esta tese propõe uma metodologia para modelar a interoperabilidade de negócio num contexto de redes industriais de cooperação. O objectivo é desenvolver uma metodologia que permite desenhar plataformas de redes industriais de cooperação capazes de garantir interoperabilidade de negócio e analisar o seu impacto no desempenho dessas plataformas. Para alcançar o objetivo proposto, dois métodos de modelação foram utilizados: a Teoria Axiomática do Projeto para o desenho de plataformas interoperáveis; e a Simulação Baseada em Agentes para a análise de impacto da interoperabilidade de negócio. A sequência de utilização dos dois métodos de modelação depende do cenário em análise, ou seja, se a plataforma de rede industrial de cooperação existe ou não. Caso a plataforma de cooperação não existir, a metodologia sugere em primeiro lugar a utilização da Teoria Axiomática do Projeto para desenhar configurações de plataformas de redes industriais de cooperação interoperáveis, e depois a utilização da Simulação Baseada em Agentes para analisar ou prever o desempenho de interoperabilidade de negócio e operacional das configurações desenhadas. Caso contrário, deve-se começar por analisar o desempenho da plataforma existente e baseado nos resultados, decidir se é necessário redesenhá-la ou não. Caso seja necessário redesenhar, deve-se utilizar novamente a simulação para prever o desempenho da plataforma redesenhada. Para explicar a forma como os dois métodos de modelação podem ser aplicados na prática, uma framework teórica, um modelo teórico baseado na Teoria Axiomática e um modelo teórico de
Simulação Baseado em Agentes são propostos. A metodologia proposta e os respetivos modelos teóricos são validados através de um caso de estudo sobre uma rede de cooperação Portuguesa de logística inversa (rede Valorpneu) e um caso de estudo sobre um projeto de construção Português (rede de construção da barragem Baixo Sabor). Os resultados da aplicação da metodologia proposta aos dois casos de estudo sugerem que de fato a Teoria Axiomática do Projeto pode contribuir efetivamente no desenho de plataformas de redes industriais de cooperação interoperáveis e que a Simulação Baseada em Agentes fornece um conjunto de ferramentas efetivas para analisar o impacto da interoperabilidade de negócio no desempenho dessas plataformas. No entanto, estas conclusões não devem ser generalizadas uma vez que apenas dois casos de estudo foram realizados. Em termos de relevância para a teoria, esta é a primeira vez que o efeito rede é abordado na análise do impacto da interoperabilidade de negócio no desempenho de empresas ligadas em rede e também a primeira vez que uma abordagem holística é proposta para desenhar plataformas de redes industriais de cooperação interoperáveis. Em relação às implicações práticas, a metodologia proposta visa fornecer aos gestores industriais uma ferramenta de gestão que pode guiá-los de forma fácil, prática e sistemática no desenho de configurações de plataformas de redes industriais de cooperação interoperáveis e/ou na análise do impacto da interoperabilidade de negócio no desempenho das suas empresas e as redes onde as mesmas operam.
Chapter 1
Introduction
This chapter presents a general introduction to the PhD thesis, describes the problem background, and provides rationale and motivation for the research. It defines the Research Questions and their underlying propositions and sets the research objective. It also positions the research within the Operations Management arena and, explains the methodological approach adopted throughout this research.
“The more valuable to a person is the result of its action, the more likely he is to perform the action”
(Emerson 1976) (p. 340)
1.1
Problem background
Industrial networks are important for the development of any economy. Within this context, manufacturing and construction are referred to as two dominant sectors in the global economy. Their economic importance are evident: for instance, manufacturing is the driving force of Europe’s economy, contributing over €6.553 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and providing more than 30 million jobs; it covers approximately 230 000 companies with 20 or more employees, from more than 25 different industrial sectors, and generates annually over €1.535 billion of value added (Flegel 2006, EPoSS 2013). Regarding to the European construction industry, it supports the EU economy by providing it with buildings and infra-structure that supports all other economic and social activities. It is the largest economic activity representing over 10% of EU GDP and the biggest industrial employer with about 20 million workers while another 20 million are indirectly affected by its activity (von Bose and Fischer 2013).
Cooperation can be defined as the “teammates behavioural decisions about whether to act in promoting the objectives of the team” (Sinclair 2003) or as “the extent to which individual members work together toward the accomplishment of team-level goals” (Yu and Cable 2011). It is an essential process through which team effectiveness can be actualised and improved as it was found that if members of a group cooperate, they perform better (Puck and Pregernig 2014). For example, Grilo and Jardim-Goncalves (2010) argue that cooperation enables companies to obtain mutual benefits by sharing or partitioning work. van Fenema and Loebbecke (2014) acknowledge that inter-company cooperation enables value creation that exceeds what companies can achieve on their own, which is to say that it enables to create synergy among them. Kaminski et al. (2008) observed that cooperation with suppliers and customers for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) could promote new product development.
A study carried out by Zeng et al. (2010) found that there are significant positive relationships between inter-company cooperation, cooperation with intermediary institutions, cooperation with research organisations and innovation performance. A cooperative industrial network is referred to as a set of three or more companies with different competences, but symbiotic interests that join and efficiently combine the most suitable set of skills and resources (e.g. knowledge, capital, assets) for a time interval in order to achieve common set of objectives, and make use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to coordinate, develop and support their activities (Chituc et al. 2008). As a result of that changing business context to a cooperative and network-driven economy, competition has been occurring not only between companies but between Supply Chains (SCs) and networks (Mills et al. 2004). Min and Zhou (2002) also pointed out that individual companies no longer compete as independent entities with unique brand names, but rather as integral parts of SC links. The paradigm is also supported by Vernadat (2010), who advocates that none of business entities or organisations be they industrial firms, service companies, public organisations or government agencies and institutions can operate in isolation anymore. But the recognition of this paradigm is not new. For instance, Håkansson and Snehota (1989) discussed twenty five years ago: “no business is an island”. Also, Christopher (1992), twenty two years ago, emphasised: “competition in the future will not be between individual organisations but between competing SCs”.
confidentiality issues, different cultures or methods of work, different decision-making approaches, different legal bases (legislations and regulations are not the same, data protection legislations may be different), high system heterogeneity, legacy systems, multiple sources of data, various data formats, heterogeneity of ICT solutions from different vendors (computer networks, operating systems, application serves, database systems, etc.), syntactic and semantic heterogeneity of information, semantic gap, i.e. different interpretations of the same concept, database schema integration with naming problems (e.g. homonyms and synonyms), different mechanisms to protect Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), etc. (see: (Vernadat 2010)).
As pointed out by Whitman and Panetto (2006), one of the main barriers to an effective interoperation among companies arises from the fact that systems that support the functions in many companies were created independently. The concept of business interoperability thus emerges as a key solution for overcoming those problems and to contribute for a better interoperation among networked companies. Business interoperability can be defined as “a field of activity with the aim to improve the manner in which organisations, by means of ICTs, interoperate with other organisations, or with other business units of the same organisation, in order to conduct their business” Li et al. (2008). Put it simple, it
refers to the property of two or more business units (be they of the same organisation or different organisations) which enables them to work together (e.g. (Gottschalk 2009)). Hence, in a simple definition, one can say that business interoperability refers to the philosophy or practices that focus on the improvement of the way in which two or more companies, as well as their internal systems, work together. In other words, it aims at removing the barriers that difficult the interoperation between two or more companies, which implies that instead of focusing on the internal business processes of a company, the managers should focus on the relationships that their companies have with their business partners. Therefore, business interoperability should be viewed as a property of business relationships. This is supported, for instance, by Legner and Wende (2006) who advocated that business interoperability describes the business relationships between a company and its partners, e.g. customers, suppliers or service providers.
implemented”. Jardim-Goncalves et al. (2012c) point out that “business interoperability is a high-impact productivity factor within both the private and public sector, affecting the overall quality, yield time, and cost of transactions, as well as the design of manufacturing operations and digital public services”.According to Li et al. (2008), “business interoperability enables companies to, for instance, build partnerships, deliver new products and services, and/or become more cost efficient”. To Panetto et al. (2012), “the more entities are interoperable the more the execution time of process activities is reduced, and a better interoperability of entities usually implies better business satisfaction since they will spend less time in non-added value activities for seamless operation”.
Interoperable here is referred to as ‘able to interoperate”, according to the Webster Dictionary. Interoperability can also deliver value by reducing the risk that companies must encounter in business. One example is that interoperability can significantly reduce the risk of information systems investment by reducing or eliminating hardware, software and communications compatibility issues (Li et al. 2008). Another example is when companies use interoperability for inventory visibility aiming at reducing the “bullwhip effect” (for managing forecast-driven SCs) (Li et al. 2008).
Business interoperability is considered a challenge conditioning the success of the companies’ deployment (Panetto et al. 2012). The lack of interoperability could disturb the creation of new markets, networks, can diminish innovation and competitiveness of business groups (Agostinho 2012) and may disturb creation of collaborative work and networked systems (Jardim-Goncalves et al.
2012c). To Ray (2002), “the lack of interoperability between systems is becoming one of the principal barriers to achievement the time-to-market demanded by today’s competitive environment”. Although the discussion on business value of business interoperability seems to be consensual, only very few empirical studies have been conducted on the analysis of its impact on the performance of organisations, mainly in the context of cooperative industrial networks. Following, an overview of those studies is provided.
A second study prepared for NIST by RTI International and the Logistic Management Institute, to identify and estimate the efficiency losses in the US capital facility industry resulting from inadequate business interoperability amongst Computer-Aided Design (CAD), engineering and software systems, estimates the cost of inadequate business interoperability in the US capital facilities industry to be US $15.8 billion per year, representing between one and two per cent of industry revenue (Gallaher et al. 2004). The third study, also prepared for the NIST by RTI International, estimated the economic impact of inadequate integration to be in excess of US $5 billion for the automotive industry, and almost US $3.9 billion for the electronics industry (White et al. 2004).
A more recent study, conducted by Loukis and Charalabidis (2013), to investigate the effect of adopting three types of information systems interoperability standards (industry-specific, proprietary and eXtensible Markup Language (XML1)-based ones) on the four important perspectives of business performance proposed by the balanced scorecard approach (financial, customers, internal business processes, learning and innovation), concludes that all three examined types of information system interoperability standards increase considerably the positive impact of a firm’s ICT infrastructure on the above four perspectives of business performance. According to this study, the adoption of industry-specific interoperability standards has the highest positive effects, while XML-based and proprietary standards have similar lower positive effects. Furthermore, these effects of the industry-specific information system interoperability standards are quite strong, as they are of similar magnitude with the corresponding effects of the degree of development of firm’s intra -organisational/internal information systems, and of higher magnitude than the corresponding effects of the degree of development of firm’s e-sales information systems (Loukis and Charalabidis 2013).
There are also evidences of the impact of business interoperability from the aeronautic industry. According to Matlack (2006), in 2006, Airbus® assumed that the design software used at different Airbus factories wasn't compatible. As a result, workers discovered that the pre-assembled bundles containing hundreds of miles delivered from a German factory to the assembly line in France didn't fit properly into the plane. The consequence of this business interoperability problem was 2-year delay in the A380 plane manufacturing and $6 billion in cost. Giving the significance of such impacts, the CRESCENDO2project addressed the Vision 2020 objectives for the aeronautical industry’s Strategic Research Agenda. The expected contributions are the achievement of 10% reduction in the development lifecycle duration and cost, 50% reduction in rework, and finally, 20% reduction in the cost of physical tests (CRESCENDO 2009).
1 XML – eXtensible Markup Language (www.w3.org/XML/)
2CRESCENDO
1.2
Rationale for this research
Bearing in mind the value proposition of business interoperability as well as its managerial challenges discussed earlier, different initiatives have been carried out with the aim of establishing a solution that can be used as a reference to deal with business interoperability challenges and to improve the ability of connected systems (computers, software, business units, etc.) to interoperate. In addition to the studies already mentioned earlier, other important contributions were analysed [The Quantification of Interoperability (Mensh et al. 1989), Levels of Information System Interoperability (LISI) (DoD
1998), Organisational Interoperability Maturity Model (OIMM) (Clark and Jones 1999), NATO C3 Technical Architecture (NATO 2003), The Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (Tolk and Muguira 2003), IDEAS3 Interoperability Framework (IDEAS 2003d, IDEAS 2003c, IDEAS 2003e), European Interoperability Framework (EIF) (iDABC 2004, ISA 2011), ECOLEAD4 (Romero et al. 2006), Business Interoperability Framework (BIF) (ATHENA 2007), The ATHENA5 Interoperability Framework (Berre et al. 2007), Interoperability Classification Framework (Panetto 2007), Barriers Driven Methodology for Enterprise Interoperability (Chen and Daclin 2007), Approach for Enterprise Interoperability Measurement (Chen et al. 2008b), Maturity Levels for Interoperability in Digital Government (Gottschalk 2009), Levels of Conceptual Interoperability Model (Wang et al. 2009), Sustainable interoperability: The future of Internet based industrial enterprises (Jardim-Goncalves et al. 2012c), Business Interoperability Quotient Measurement Model (BIQMM) (Zutshi et al. 2012),
Systematisation of Interoperability Body of Knowledge: the foundation for Enterprise Interoperability as a science (Jardim-Goncalves et al. 2012b), Reference framework for enhanced interoperable
collaborative networks in industrial organisations (Jardim-Goncalves et al. 2012a), Maturity model for
enterprise interoperability (Guédria et al. 2013), Maturity Model for Interoperability Potential Measurement (Campos et al. 2013), An interoperability model for ultra large scale systems (Rezaei et al. 2014b), Developing enterprise collaboration: a methodology to implement and improve interoperability (Daclin et al. 2014), A step-by-step methodology for enterprise interoperability
projects (Chalmeta and Pazos 2014), The interoperability force in the ERP field (Boza et al. 2015),
etc.].
Although these works contributed to the development of a remarkable amount of body of knowledge, a comprehensive solution to deal with business interoperability is still missing, mainly in a context of complex industrial networks. For instance, Grilo et al. (2013) pointed out that although there is a considerable effort in interoperability standards development, there still exists today a failure to
3
deliver seamless Architecture, Engineering and Construction (AEC) interoperability. Corella et al. (2013) also agree that there are few real practical examples of an SC interoperability framework that can be used as a reference. Indeed, the literature reveals that there are still significant research gaps that need to be addressed.
First, much of the existing researches have focused: on the characterisation of the dimensions of business interoperability and their related sub-dimensions (e.g. (ATHENA 2007, Panetto et al. 2012,
Zutshi et al. 2012)), or on the definition of business interoperability maturity models for evaluating the
levels of interoperability between systems (e.g. (DoD 1998, ATHENA 2007, Campos et al. 2013,
Guédria et al. 2013)). Second, most of those works have focused on the study of individual
dimensions of business interoperability, e.g. information systems (e.g. (DoD 1998, Loukis and Charalabidis 2013)), semantic (Luis 2009) or on the integration of only few dimensions, e.g. media, languages, standards, requirements, environment, procedures, and human factors dimensions (e.g. (Mensh et al. 1989)), business, knowledge and ICT dimensions (e.g. (IDEAS 2003e)), organisational,
semantic and technical dimensions (e.g. (iDABC 2004, Vernadat 2010)), business, process, services and data dimensions (e.g.(Chen 2006b)), technical, syntactic, semantic, and organisational dimensions (e.g. (Rezaei et al. 2014b)). Whereas nowadays business networks pose additional challenges to building interoperable business platforms, a holistic approach is needed in order to capture all the dimensions responsible for the interaction among networked companies. This is important because in the context of business networking, interoperability is to cover not only strategic, organisational, operational, technical and sematic aspects of interoperability, but also the factors related to the products and services, knowledge management, and network minute details. For example, Corella et al. (2013) agree that frameworks with a holistic view must be designed to guide the process of improving business interoperability.
The main purpose of an interoperability framework is to provide an organising mechanism so that concepts, problems and knowledge on enterprise interoperability can be represented in a more structured way (Chen et al. 2008a). Vernadat (2007) also highlights that interoperable business
systems (be they SCs, extended enterprises, or any form of virtual organisations) must be designed, controlled, and appraised from a holistic and systemic point of view. Nevertheless, even those works that have explored the issues of business interoperability in a more holistic perspective (e.g. (ATHENA 2007, Zutshi et al. 2012, Rezaei et al. 2014c)) did not provide an explanation on how to
Martin 1999, Brunnermeier and Martin 2002, Gallaher et al. 2004, Loukis and Charalabidis 2013)). A gap exists in knowledge on how to develop a holistic approach that supports the modelling of business interoperability in a context of complex business networks (e.g. cooperative industrial networks). In particular, the issues on how to design and redesign interoperable business platforms and how to analyse the impact of business interoperability on the performance of these platforms, both in a context of complex industrial networks, still have no answer. For instance, Panetto et al. (2012) highlight the need of real tools (e.g. design and simulation tools) for modelling large-scale systems such as cooperative business networks as one of the grand challenges in nowadays manufacturing systems. These gaps therefore form the rationale for this thesis.
1.3
Research questions and propositions
As a result of exploring and defining the rationale for this thesis, two Research Questions (RQs) were formulated:
RQ1: How can we design business platforms that are able to deliver business interoperability in a
context of complex cooperative industrial networks?
This research question seeks to shed light a debate on how to design interoperable business platforms, not in a context of dyad business relationships but in a context of complex cooperative industrial networks. Specifically, it is intended to explore the appropriateness of existing design methods for designing different configurations for interoperable business platforms and then choose the most suited, according to the research question addressed. As the aim is to figure out a method that enables an effective alignment of all the dimensions of business interoperability, their decomposition to more detailed levels, and the identification of the corresponding design solutions in each level of decomposition, the Axiomatic Design theory, introduced by Suh (1990, 2001) was chosen. Thus, the following proposition was set.
Proposition 1: The Axiomatic Design Theory can effectively contribute in the design of
interoperable business platforms to support the complexity of cooperative industrial networks.
RQ2: How can we analyse the impact of business interoperability on the performance of companies
in a context of complex cooperative industrial networks?
the performance of companies is that they did not address how the impact of business interoperability spreads over the network, that is, they did not take into account the network effect. This implies that the “network approach” will be adopted, which means that the relationships are viewed as part of a broader network structure, rather than as isolated entities (see e.g. (Håkansson and Snehota 1995)). As cooperative industrial networks consist of different and heterogeneous interacting agents (companies) with different behaviours, with different decision-making rules, and with different ability to influence the neighbour agents, it was realised that the dynamic and complexity of such networks need to be explored in a consistent and rational manner.
Thus, traditional approaches such as analytical modelling, Discrete Event Simulation (DES), Monte Carlo Simulation, Systems Dynamics are not considered as suitable to capture such complex interaction among a number of agents in the network, the non-linear impact of business interoperability over the network (e.g. a business interoperability problem in the network might have different impact in different agents), and the way business interoperability impact in one or more agents can spread to the neighbour agents, referred earlier as network effect. As highlighted by Panetto et al. (2012), to improve the level of business interoperability of their systems and applications, enterprises must have a suitable methodology to evaluate it, also appropriate for the assessment of the interoperability of the networked enterprise environment where they will operate. Among the various methods available for this, Agent-Based Simulation (ABS) (e.g. (Gilbert and Terna 2000, Gilbert 2008, Macal and North 2010, Railsback and Grimm 2011, Rand and Rust 2011, Helbing 2012, Held et al. 2014)) was chosen. This modelling tool has been widely used by researchers from different areas of
knowledge to understand and analyse complex patterns that results from the interaction of many individuals within an environment (Rand and Rust 2011), as are the cases of cooperative industrial networks. Therefore, the following proposition was made:
Proposition 2: Agent-Based Simulation provides an effective set of tools for analysing the impact of
business interoperability on the performance of companies in a context of complex cooperative
industrial networks.
1.4
Objective
By formulating the two research questions, this thesis addresses the issue of modelling business interoperability in a context of complex cooperative industrial networks with the aim of generating a more comprehensive picture of the impact of business interoperability phenomenon on the performance of companies, in a context cooperative networked environment. Specifically, the objective is to develop a methodology that can be used to design and redesign configurations of interoperable business platforms and to analyse the impact of business interoperability on the performance of these platforms, in contexts of complex cooperative industrial networks.
An important point to highlight here is that the aim of this thesis is not to provide “the solution” to the problem of lack of business interoperability among cooperative networked companies, rather to develop theoretical models that help to understand the problem of the impact of business interoperability on the performance of cooperative industrial networks and therefore contribute to the definition of ways to overcome them, through the redesign of the current cooperation arrangements.
1.5
Methodological approach
Considering that this research follows a qualitative deductive explanatory approach (see Section 7.5), the applied methodology (or research sequence) was designed according to a method generally adopted in this type of research. Specifically, the methodology employed to drive this research consists of the following four phases:
• Phase 1 – Problem statement: in this phase the area of interest has been defined as business
performance of companies, in a context of cooperative industrial networks. Accordingly, the Axiomatic Design Theory has been assumed to be appropriate to address the research question concerned with the design of interoperable industrial network platforms (Proposition 1) and ABS to address the research question concerned with the analysis of the impact (Proposition 2) (see Section 1.3);
• Phase 2 – Development of the proposed methodology: in this phase, the proposed
methodology has been developed. Taking into account that the research is proposition-driven (see Section 1.3), two theoretical models have been developed, one to guide the researcher in the design of configurations of interoperable industrial network platforms and another in the analysis of the impact of business interoperability on the performance of those platforms. Before starting the fieldwork, the two proposed theoretical models have been tested through application scenarios in order to ensure that they were robust enough to be applied in real business contexts (see Chapter 6). This was been achieved by reviewing the theoretical Axiomatic Design model with two experts on the Axiomatic Design Theory from the UNIDEMI6 research centre, and by reviewing the theoretical ABS model with two experts on Agent-Based Modelling (ABM), one from UNIDEMI and another from an IT Portuguese company.
• Phase 3 – Data collection: the third phase of the research consisted in collecting data to
explore the two research questions and to empirically validate the proposed methodology. Grounded on the type of research questions set, which are of how type, it was decided to adopt a case study research strategy. Face-to-face interviews and documents were defined as the methods for collecting data in the two case studies carried out (see Section 7.4.5, Section 8.2.5 and Section 8.3.7);
• Phase 4 – Analysis of the findings: in the last phase of the research, a within-case analysis of
each case study has been carried out, along with a horizontal comparison of the findings achieved in each case (i.e. cross-case analysis). Grounded on these analyses, conclusions have been drawn about the research questions and propositions set (see Chapter 9).
1.6
Outline of the thesis
This thesis consists of nine chapters, which are organised as follows: Chapter one has been the introduction chapter, which has stated the problem background, the rationale for this research, the research questions to be addressed as well as the propositions for addressing these research questions,
and the objective of the research. It also describes the methodological approach employed to address the research questions and achieve the research objective.
In Chapter two, the theoretical background in relation to business networks and relationships is described, with the focus on manufacturing and construction networks. The chapter begins by describing business relationships, with the emphasis on the business relationship perspective, the initial IMP interaction model, the type of business relationships and the characteristics of business relationships. Then, the main topics related to the network theory and analysis (network complexity, network effects) are reviewed before explaining what are business networks, the approaches used to study business networks (e.g. the IMP network approach) and criticisms of these approaches. The chapter ends with an overview on manufacturing and construction networks, mainly on managerial challenges faced by companies that operate in these two types of business networks.
Chapter three reports the state of the art on business interoperability research. The chapter starts to provide an historical evolution on the concept of interoperability, and explains how this concept has evolved from a technical to a business perspective. Following, the chapter discusses the fundamental concepts of business interoperability and compare them to related topics such as enterprise integration, compatibility, coordination and Supply Chain Management (SCM). Last, the chapter presents an extensive literature review on the existing (business) interoperability researches. These works are grouped into three categories: (1) business interoperability models and frameworks, (2) business interoperability maturity models, and (3) empirical studies on the impact of business interoperability.
Chapter four reviews the methods for modelling complex systems and networks makes an horizontal comparison between them in order to explain the rationale for choosing axiomatic to address the Research Question 1 (i.e. to design configurations of interoperable cooperative industrial network platforms) and ABS to address the Research Question 2 (i.e. to analyse the impact of business interoperability on the performance of cooperative industrial networks). The chapter also presents the areas of application of these two methods.
