24
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz] On: 16 November 2014, At: 06:28 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Production Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20 A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises Marcus Vinicius Drissen-Silva a & Ricardo J. Rabelo b a Post-Graduation Program of Electrical Engineering , Federal University of Santa Catarina , Brazil b Department of Automation and Systems , Federal University of Santa Catarina , Brazil Published online: 29 Jun 2009. To cite this article: Marcus Vinicius Drissen-Silva & Ricardo J. Rabelo (2009) A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises, International Journal of Production Research, 47:17, 4833-4854, DOI: 10.1080/00207540902847389 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540902847389 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 16 November 2014, At: 06:28Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ProductionResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

A collaborative decision supportframework for managing the evolutionof virtual enterprisesMarcus Vinicius Drissen-Silva a & Ricardo J. Rabelo ba Post-Graduation Program of Electrical Engineering , FederalUniversity of Santa Catarina , Brazilb Department of Automation and Systems , Federal University ofSanta Catarina , BrazilPublished online: 29 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Marcus Vinicius Drissen-Silva & Ricardo J. Rabelo (2009) A collaborativedecision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises, International Journalof Production Research, 47:17, 4833-4854, DOI: 10.1080/00207540902847389

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540902847389

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Page 2: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

International Journal of Production ResearchVol. 47, No. 17, 1 September 2009, 4833–4854

A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution

of virtual enterprises

Marcus Vinicius Drissen-Silvaa* and Ricardo J. Rabelob

aPost-Graduation Program of Electrical Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina,Brazil; bDepartment of Automation and Systems, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil

(Revision received April 2009)

During the operation phase of a virtual enterprise (VE) different kinds ofunexpected problems usually take place and they should be properly handled inorder to keep the VE goals. However, the nature of a VE imposes newrequirements as decisions should be taken in a distributed and decentralisedmanner due to members’ autonomy and independence. Besides quality, agility inthe decision-making is a must to guarantee success. For that, this paper presentsa framework that provides a supporting methodology for guiding VE membersalong the diverse steps in the problem resolution, including assistance in theirdiscussion. The framework relies on Business Process Management (BPM) andService Oriented Architecture (SOA) approaches, and the methodology onproject management reference models (focused on changes management). Adiscussion about the problem is driven by a semi-automated protocol conductedby a Distributed Collaborative Decision Support System for the Management ofVE Evolution (DSS-VE). The protocol delineates a sequence of steps to be takenbut is flexible to cope with partners’ heterogeneity and VE uniqueness. Theimpact of decisions can be evaluated via a distributed toolbox, containing a set oftechniques for performance measurement and evaluation analysis.

Keywords: collaborative discussion; decentralised decision-making; project man-agement; management of changes; virtual enterprises

1. Introduction

Increasing global competition has been forcing companies to participate in collaborativenetworks (CN) in order to reduce expenses, increase capacity, broaden markets andimprove themselves with the knowledge acquired with businesses. There are severalmanifestations of CN (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2005). This paper focuses on virtualenterprises (VEs).

A VE is seen as a dynamic, temporary and logical aggregation of autonomousenterprises that collaborate with each other to attend a given business opportunity or tocope with a specific need, where partners share risks, costs and benefits, and whoseoperation is achieved by a coordinated sharing of skills, resources, information and

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online

� 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/00207540902847389

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

knowledge, mostly supported by computer networks (Rabelo et al. 2004). A VE offersservices abroad as if it were a single organisation (Camarinha-Matos et al. 2005).

VE management ‘designates arrangement, allocation and coordination of the resourcesand their tasks, as well as their inter-organisational premises, to reach the VE goals,respecting time, cost and quality’ (Jansson and Eschenbaecher 2005). In fact, managinga VE involves plenty of activities, organised in a number of phases known as the VElifecycle (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 1999). They are: i) the creation phase,comprising the activities related to the VE planning and partners’ selection; ii) theoperation phase, comprising the activities related to the monitoring of the VE’s course;iii) the evolution phase, comprising the handling of the problems detected in the VEoperation; and iv) the dissolution phase, comprising the activities related to themanagement of all issues associated to the VE termination.

This paper focuses on the VE evolution phase and, more specifically, on proposinga framework for the VE evolution management. It is important to highlight some slightdifferences in the definitions made by some authors and imprecise identification of the‘border’ between the VE operation and evolution phases. In this paper, this border isconsidered as such: operation deals with the normal VE operation and monitoring,collecting data for performance measurement, both for internal purposes of the VBE andfor checking if the VE is operating according to the plan (settled in the creation phase).Evolution deals with any abnormal execution situation, i.e., it copes with problems that putthe VE at risk, demanding changes in its current plan. This risk is basically represented bythe delivery – or even non-delivery - of the contracted goods out of the contract’sspecifications. In the evolution, data for performance measurement is also collected, bothfor VBE (virtual organisation breeding environment) management and for providinga basis for solving the given problem.

Managing the VE evolution is seen as a global decision-making activity responsible forassisting the involved VE members in applying adequate methods, problem-solvingtechniques and computing support to handle problems that happen in a VE in order tokeep the VE’s goals. Examples of such problems include: anticipation or delay on parts/products delivery; partners’ performance below the established metrics; collaborative tasksnot properly accomplished; changes in the initial product’s specification; partners’replacement; order cancellation; logistic problems; among others.

In this work, it is of interest to study the evolution phase when companies belong toa VBE (Afsarmanesh and Camarinha-Matos 2005), so having common operatingprinciples and rules.

Unlike that of other types of CNs, like a supply chain or an extended enterprise,managing the VE evolution implies the consideration of additional requirements:

(1) Partners autonomy: VE members are completely autonomous and independent sothat there is not any dominant company that can force a decision;

(2) Partners heterogeneity: VE members have different cultures, organisationalpractices, IT constraints, etc., which are reflected in the way and in the underlyingvalues used in a decision-making process;

(3) Decentralised decision-making: besides the intrinsic distributed nature of a VE,there is not just one member (like the so-called VE coordinator) empowered to takeall the decisions and to communicate this to the others afterwards. Instead,decisions should be taken collaboratively (i.e., at inter-enterprise level), with all theaffected partners, regarding their rights and autonomy;

4834 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

(4) Governance: all members should be allowed to follow the discussions and to checkthe others’ opinions and decisions related to the problem – in a secure way – inorder to guarantee transparency, trust among partners, besides auditing;

(5) Information sharing: performance measurement in a VE should be supported toguarantee information reliability in problem detection and identification. Duringproblem solving, partners should seamlessly disclose information that is sensible,(e.g., capacity) in order to collaborate for reaching a globally feasible solution;

(6) Uniqueness: a VE is somehow unique. A business opportunity (BO) that generatesa VE, even for a similar product, can come from different customers, regions andcountries, which have different cultures, different regulations, different idioms andjargons, different standards, and which apply different metrics in terms of quality,manufacturing processes and environmental cares, to name just few issues.Moreover, the VE members, even for the same product, are not necessarily thesame, depending on the strategic elements taken into account at the creation ofthe alliance. This means that the way a problem has been solved in a given previousVE is not necessarily valid for another VE.

Considering that a VE is usually a grasp-driven alliance for a short-term BO, the majorchallenge for decision-making that respects those requirements is to be agile. This meansthat, once identified, a problem should be solved as fast as possible, with high quality,relying on trustworthy information. It has to also be taken into account that enterprisesare often involved in several VEs simultaneously and that some of them are inter-related.Therefore, managing the evolution of a VE requires an ample spectrum of issues that makedecision-making extremely complex. As most VE members are composed of SMEs, whosegeneral limitations are very known, this difficulty is even harder.

Despite the technological complexity it represents, current approaches do not offera comprehensive, flexible and holistic environment for the management of the VEevolution phase. Such approaches (e.g., Rabelo and Pereira-Klen 2002, Noran 2007,Hodık and Stach 2008, Negretto et al. 2008) usually provide some supporting elements butonly to the ‘VE coordinator’ (or equivalent), who is considered the only one allowed tohave the global view and information about the situation, and who centralises the decision.On the other hand, a decentralised scenario imposes the need for having severaldiscussions over the network. This is not efficient in practice as discussions are usuallycarried out without much organisation, being very easy to lose focus. Thus, decision-making is not that fast and has (potentially) low global quality.

In this context, this paper presents results of a qualitative, applied and exploratoryresearch, focusing on how collaborative discussions among the VE partners – and furtherdecision-making – can be accomplished more effectively within the VE evolution phase.The general approach is to provide a supporting framework and methodology that cansystematise, guide and assist VE members’ managers in the discussions about a specificproblem towards its resolution. This methodology is represented by a decision protocol.It corresponds to general decision blocks grouped in a macro sequence of actions that areinstantiated according to the various specificities of each VBE, VE and types of problems,considering those six requirements previously mentioned.

This paper is an extended and very refined version of the work published inDrissen-Silvaand Rabelo (2008). It is organised as follows: Section 1 presented a general analysis of therequirements for VE management and the complexity to deal with this in the evolutionphase. Section 2 gives an overview of the management theories andmethodologies that have

International Journal of Production Research 4835

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

being used in distributed management activities. Section 3 introduces the proposedframework. Section 4 gives an example of the distributed and collaborative decision supportenvironment and decision protocol. Section 5 presents the conclusions.

2. The management of virtual enterprises evolution

Distributed decision-making is not a new research topic and many works have beendeveloped during the last decade concerning this matter, especially in the form ofdistributed decision support systems (Bostrom et al. 2003). Actually, the work presented inthis paper follows the same line but it adds diverse elements and requirements from theVE area. As previously said, the envisaged methodology included in the framework aimsat assisting managers to solve problems during the VE evolution in a collaborative way.The approach addressed in this paper is anchored in the following scenario:

‘Partners, although being distributed and autonomous, belong to a VBE so they sharecommon operating principles. One of the main principles is that they rely on each other andthey should collaborate towards reaching a globally feasible solution for a problem that takesplace during the VE operation. Partners should solve the problem related to the VE they areinvolved in and, hence, they should discuss it through a computing network (e.g., theInternet). The discussion should be structured in order to be focused and to have potentiallybetter quality, making use of a shared distributed decision-making environment. Thisstructure should be connected to the business processes management, and not somethingtreated as an isolated event. Besides that, it should be flexible and adaptive regarding theproblem and the VE characteristics. However, there is not one very predefined protocol forevery single problem. This does not seem very realistic as a VE tends to be so unique andproblems so particular for a given business context and VE composition that partners shouldhave some freedom to exchange ideas while they evaluate possibilities against theiravailabilities. This evaluation should be made via an easy access to the most commonmanagerial supporting software tools in order to facilitate SME managers’ activities. Afterthis, they should have means to evaluate the impact of their decisions before acting. All thisshould be supported by adequate ICT infrastructures, which can also provide the necessarysecurity in the communications and access rights.’

In order to cope with this scenario and with those requirements previously mentioned,six aspects have to be supported by a comprehensive decision-making environment for theVE evolution: 1) partners’ discussion; 2) methodological guidance; 3) modular and flexibleexecution of decision protocols, aligning business and processes; 4) performance measure-ment; 5) performance evaluation; and 6) ICT Infrastructure. The following subsectionsprovide a resumed revision of the most important techniques used to support these sixaspects. The methodological approach followed in this work is to use existing theoreticaland software results related to these aspects and to combine and adapt them respecting theenvisaged environment. The following subsections depict each of these aspects, pointingout some existing works that are somehow incorporated in the framework’s architecture(explained in Section 3).

2.1 Partners’ discussion

This issue is related to endowing partners with a collaborative environment where they canexchange information towards problem resolution. In this sense, groupware or CSCWtools (Wulf et al. 2008) are largely used nowadays to support multiple users working onrelated tasks in local and remote networks. However, they cope with a partial – and

4836 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

perhaps less complex – part of the problem. The issue here is not only to make partners

interact with each other, but also to globally coordinate their discussions about each

identified problem, and as fast as possible. Besides that, it is necessary to integrate

information for further auditing, giving transparency to the whole process, as well as

to regulate partners’ involvement and information access as long as decisions are taken.

After a review in the literature, three works have been found that offer elements for this

desired environment.HERMES (Karacapilidis and Papadias 2001) is a support system used for

collaborative decision-making via argumentation. It helps in the solution of non-

structured problems, coordinating a joint discussion among decision makers. It offers an

online discussion about one or more specific subjects, where each participant can

suggest alternatives to the problem or simply point out their pros and cons in relation

to current alternatives. There is an association of weights that considers the positioning

in favour of or against the suggestions, hence providing a global overview about the

opinions.Delphi is a classical method (Dalkey and Helmer 1963) created with the purpose of

finding a consensus about a given topic of discussion but without confrontation.

Essentially, a summary of the opinions is elaborated along diverse rounds and it is sent

back to the participants keeping the names anonymous. The process continues until the

consensus/final decision or opinion is reached.In Rabelo et al. (2008) an integrated suite of web-based groupware services considering

the CN’s requirements is presented. This suite includes the services of instant messaging,

mailing, discussion forum, calendar, wiki, content management system, and news and

announcement. One interesting feature of the instant messaging service is the possibility of

having private discussion rooms, allowing several parallel discussions involving all

partners and some rooms only available for authorised partners.

2.2 Methodological guidance

The methodology’s goal is to prevent partners from dealing with the problem without any

guidance, losing time and resources, which can hazard the VE’s business. An approach for

that is to see a VE as a project, making use of project management reference models. This

means partners are guided during the problem resolution through a set of steps grounded

on project management.One of the most relevant foundations to support VE as a project is the Project

Management Body of Knowledge, or just PMBOK (PMBOK 2004). PMBOK states that ‘a

project is a temporary effort to create a unique product or service’. Respecting the VE

evolution phase and the VE definition (see Section 1), and this definition, it is argued that

a VE can be seen as a project as both are temporary and unique in view of the creation of

a product or service or to cope with a specific collaboration need. Jansson and

Eschenbaecher (2005) advocate that managing a VE is more than managing a project as

the VE creation require a long and previous preparation. However, this also embraces the

VE creation phase, whereas the focus here is the VE evolution phase, i.e., the VE is already

in execution.In spite of it being a very comprehensive model, PMBOK is too general for handling

changes in projects subjected to constant change – which is the case of a VE – and for

which other models have been proposed (see below).

International Journal of Production Research 4837

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Another project model is the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI 2006),

which has been fundamentally used in the area of software development. It presents

a decision and resolution analysis with more details (compared to PMBOK), and gives

a strong foundation to assist organisations in the improvement of their processes and their

capacity to manage the development, acquisition and maintenance of products and

services. Some CMMI steps can be useful in the development of an agile method for the

VE concept, but it is too focused on software development business processes.The Agile Project Management (APM) model faces the changing need as an adaptation

in the exploration of alternatives that can fit to new scenes. APM was essentially created

for projects which demand more agility and dynamism (Leite 2004), presenting

a deeper set of actions for handling changes. There are other management models

that handle changes in a project, namely ECM – Engineering Change Management

(Tavcar and Duhovnik 2005), CC – Configuration Control (Military Handbook 2001) and

CM – Change Management (Van der Weerd 2007). In general, they organise the phases of

change management in four macro phases: i) need of change identification, where the causes

of the problem and the affected members are identified in order to prepare a change

solicitation; ii) change proposal, where the members that are going to participate in the

change analysis are defined; iii) change planning, where the different possible scenarios to

solve the problem are evaluated via general evaluations, and; iv) implementation, where the

most suitable alternative for the problem is settled and the new project’s parameters are

reconfigured.All these reference models are very general and they can be instantiated to any type of

VE topology. As such, any managerial style and model, different support techniques,

management tools and performance evaluation methods can be applied in each case

(Karvonen et al. 2005). Nevertheless, the models are (naturally) too generic to be ready-

made for use in VE evolution scenarios. Therefore, in spite of the extreme importance of

their foundations, they should be adapted for that.

2.3 Decision protocols

Decision protocols are seen in this work as an instrument to systemise a set of actions

where there is a strong human intervention, to standardise and to enhance their execution

efficiency. In the context of a VE, three works can be mentioned as they were the only ones

found out in the literature that offer some computer assistance for handling decision

protocols.The ILMSS system (Rabelo et al. 1998) was developed to systemise logistic actions in

extended enterprises following a predefined and general decision-protocol. The DBPMS

system (Rabelo et al. 2000) was an evolution of ILMSS, and it was developed to

coordinate conflicts among partners in a supply chain applying a modular but fixed

approach to generate decision protocols. SC2 (Rabelo and Pereira-Klen 2002) was a multi-

agent system developed as an evolution of DBPMS. One of its agents was responsible for

managing conflicts that took place along the execution of tasks in dynamic supply chains.

The decision ‘blocks’ were chosen by an agent but the blocks had a high granularity.Another relevant particularity – and limitation – of these three works is that they assumed

that the main coordinator was the only one who could trigger the process of looking for

solutions close to members when problems arose, as well as the only one who could make

suggestions, who could have access to the others’ information, and who took the decision.

4838 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Besides that, these works only dealt with rescheduling and basic actions towards partners’

replacement. As it was stressed in the previous section, managing VE evolution requires

several other features and types of actions.The VOM Toolkit (Pechoucek and Hodık 2007) is an integrated environment that has

been developed to help the VE coordinator in doing several activities, such as VE

performance monitoring, alerting about changes in the expected performance, and

rescheduling and reconfiguration simulation to optimise the VE performance. However,

likewise in those other three systems, it is left totally to the VE coordinator to implement

the corrections to solve the conflict. No guidelines or supporting methodology are offered

to help in these activities.Another perspective is that all these works – and some other more recent ones (e.g.,

Hodık and Stach 2008, Muller et al. 2008, Negretto et al. 2008) – are, however,

disconnected from the companies’ global operation ambient. This means that the decision-

making process is carried out separated from the other processes. In practice, this obliges

managers to switch from one environment to another and to cope with different sources of

information (this is a problem as SMEs usually have several basic problems of systems

integration). A sound alternative for that is the BPM (Business Process Management)

approach (Grefen et al. 2008) and the SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) paradigm

(Ordanini and Pasisni 2008). BPM provides foundations for a loose-coupled, modular,

composite and integrated definition of business processes. From the process execution

point of view, BPM tools generate BPEL (Business Process Execution Language) files as

output, allowing a direct integration among business level (BPM) and execution level

(SOA/web services). There are both commercial and academic supporting tools for that

(e.g., Oracle BPEL Designer, IBM WebSphere). This combination can provide the notion

of flexible and modular decision protocols.

2.4 Performance measurement and monitoring

Performance measurement and monitoring look to the current situation of the production

system, treating the problem in the (VE) operation phase. The goal of this aspect from the

VE evolution management point of view is to offer conditions for the VE partners to

measure their own performance and to check their capacity in order to gain more

confidence when deciding about how with respect to the given problem. This involves,

therefore, monitoring (i.e., gathering of internal information) and further analysis

(performance measurement).There are a number of performance measurement models. Two of the most relevant

ones are the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and SCOR (Supply Chain Operation Reference).BSC is a method that ‘translates the mission and the view of companies in a wide group

of performance measures which is a foundation to a measurement system and strategic

management’ (Kaplan and Norton 1997). It allows managers to identify which of the

activities could be considered as critical for the well functioning of the organisation that

are directly responsible for the generation of value to the shareholders, clients, partners,

providers and to the community.SCOR is the cross-industry de facto standard diagnostic tool for supply chain

management grounded on three fundamental perspectives: processes, performance

indicators, and best practices (Supply Chain Council 2005). SCOR is based on five

distinct management processes: plan, source, make, deliver, and return, which have many

International Journal of Production Research 4839

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

standard performance indicators associated to them. The goal is to optimise and integrateprocesses and logistics while attending to client needs.

In terms of performance indicators, Baldo et al. (2008) has developed a framework toidentify the most relevant performance indicators that should be applied to a VE regardingthe characteristics of the business opportunity and involved partners.

In terms of techniques, OLAP (On-line Analytical Processing) is an approach to quicklyprovide answers to analytical queries that are multi-dimensional in nature (sales, marketing,budgeting, forecasting, capacity, etc.). Via the so-called OLAP cube, it allows for complexanalytical and ad-hoc queries with a rapid execution time based on historicaldata facilitating decision-making (adapted from Lechtenborger and Vossenm 2003, andMoon et al. 2007).

2.5 Performance evaluation

Performance evaluation aims at providing decision elements based on performancemeasurement results. The goal of this aspect in the context of VE evolution management isto provide partners with techniques that help them to evaluate the impact of their decisionsat their companies along the discussion process. At the same time, it allows the VEcoordinator to evaluate the global solution before validating the final decision.

According to Jain (1991), the three techniques of performance evaluation are:(i) analytical modelling; (ii) simulation; and (iii) direct measurement. Each one has prosand cons, and there are several considerations to decide which technique is better to use,like modelling time, data acquisition, model complexity, execution time, required skills,among others. Actually, simulation has been attracting a large number of users due to itsintrinsic capability for creating and evaluating what-if scenarios, capturing the dynamicbehaviour of the system (Johnsson and Johansson 2003). On the other hand, analyticalmodels are more adequate when near-optimum solutions are needed. Capacity planning isa sensible part as most of the problems that used to happen in the VE operation requirechanges in the companies’ production capacity.

2.6 ICT infrastructure

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructures are a means tosupport all (or almost all) the transactions among partners in a CN. Actually, this is one ofthe conditions to work as such. In the context of VE evolution and decision-making,(secure) ICT infrastructures are responsible for providing the necessary functionalities toallow partners in making all the previously mentioned tasks: partners’ discussion,methodological guidance, decision protocols, performance measurement and monitoring,and performance evaluation.

Security is a crucial issue to provide the required trust building in CNs. Sowa andSniezynski (2007) developed a security framework that controls information accessdynamically according to partners’ roles in a VE. This guarantees that all the sensibleinformation can be accessed only by authorised partners. Yet, that the information comesfrom recognised and authenticated partners and sources.

Rabelo et al. (2008) developed an integrated, web-based and on-demand ICTinfrastructure devoted to cope with CN requirements. Although it currently has notimplemented all those necessary functionalities to support the VE evolution phase (at leastin the way the problem is approached in this paper), it is open to receive new functions.

4840 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

The combination and some adaptations in these works are seen as a feasible startingpoint to support the envisaged distributed and collaborative decision support scenario.

3. Proposed framework

The previous section has presented the scenario for the management of VE evolution aswell as the aspects to support it. In order to cope with all of them, a framework has beenconceived. This framework gathers such aspects and groups them into four categories, orpillars: human, organisational, knowledge and technological. The essential rationale of thesefour pillars is to enable humans to discuss and to decide about a problem related to a givenorganisational process, applying a set of organisational procedures and methods, usinginformation and knowledge available in the VBE’s repositories, all this supported by a sortof ICT (technological) tools. That discussion is framed by a decision protocol (conceivedusing project management foundations) and to be carried out within a distributed andcollaborative decision support environment. Thus, the decision protocol is the mechanismwhich ‘links’ the four pillars according to the particular problem to be solved within theVE evolution phase. Figure 1 shows the framework.

The human pillar represents people, i.e., the VE companies’ managers who use theirtacit knowledge and collaborative attitude to help solving the problem that came from theVE operation phase. It embraces the empowered managers and the experts that can(re)configure the decision protocols. The organsational pillar comprises intra and inter-enterprises processes, ontologies as well as working methods, techniques and proceduresthat should be involved in a distributed and collaborative decision-making process.

Figure 1. Framework for VE evolution management.

International Journal of Production Research 4841

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

It embraces companies’ business processes themselves, project management, performance

measurement and performance evaluation methods and techniques, and decisionprocedures and rules to be followed. The knowledge pillar comprises explicit information

and knowledge that are available in the VBE’s repositories and that managers can have

access to for helping in the decision-making process. This embraces lessons learned, bestpractices as well as information about partners, regulations, historical data, etc. The

technological pillar refers to all kinds of ICT tools, platforms and security artefacts that

should be available to support managers in managing the processes accessing suitable

methods. It embraces OLAP, BPM, simulators and groupware tools, besides databases,ontology management systems and the general computing infrastructure for systems

deployment, security, communication, interoperation and services management.It is important to point out an issue about the human pillar. SMEs have many

difficulties in terms of management skills, and working in collaborative networks requires

several levels of additional preparedness (Afsarmanesh and Camarinha-Matos 2005).

In fact, it seems unrealistic to assume that VE partners are already prepared and know themost relevant managerial and performance evaluation techniques and methods that can

help them during the discussions and decision-making. If on one hand their experience and

knowledge are of extreme importance for that, on the other hand they are insufficient fordealing with all the intrinsic complexity that managing the VE evolution represents.

Therefore, in order to effectively support the use of the proposed framework, it is essential

that VE partners are also empowered with adequate training. Klen et al. (2008) hasproposed a methodology for training VBE members that relies on governance and

individual competence on VE management. The goal is to ensure that managers can

indeed be prepared to work under this new working paradigm.Although some authors (e.g., Loss et al. 2007) advocate that knowledge would be

embedded in the organisational, technological and human pillars, in this work this term is

used in a more restricted way. In the proposed framework, it is of interest to emphasise the

complementary type of explicit knowledge existing in the VBE that can help in thedecisions, in this case the best practices, historical data (lessons learned) and the general

knowledge VBE has about its members (profiles, competence, etc.).

3.1 Framework architecture

The four framework’s pillars are operated through three concrete elements: the decision

protocol, the distributed and collaborative decision support computing environment, andthe ICT Toolbox. They all form the Distributed Collaborative Decision Support System

for the Management of VE Evolution (DSS-VE). Figure 2 presents the framework

architecture, also illustrating the relation of the elements with the pillars. Yet, it shows thethree different types of actors that are involved in the discussions about the problem

detected in the VE operation. It is to be highlighted that the fact that all transactions –

involving both humans and systems – are carried out over computing networks making useof an adequate ICT supporting infrastructure.

3.1.1 Decision protocol

The decision protocol is a sequence of steps that defines the activities that have to be executed

in given situations within a given context to solve a problem. Conceptually, it shouldindicate what has to be done, why, by whom, where, when, how, and with which resources.

4842 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

The conception of the proposed protocol has considered three aspects: its generality, itsunderlying foundation, and its execution automation. As far as the generality is concerned,the protocol is not seen as a reference protocol that would be generic enough to compriseall possibilities of how every single different problem should be solved by/at certaincompanies related to a certain VE. Instead, it is seen as a basis on which particularprotocols can be derived, grounded on project management reference models, consideringthe VBE policies and operation rules. Figure 3 shows the proposed decision protocol.

This particularisation means that new steps can be added, some modified/adapted andsome disabled (Figure 4). The whole approach can be seen under three layers: basisprotocol, specific protocol, and computer aided. As said before, the basis protocol layer forthe VE evolution phase is the one showed in Figure 3, where the box outside the mainsquare contains activities within the VE operation phase. The specific protocol layerrepresents the one that would have been customised for a given VBE and that would beeffectively applied in the VEs created from it. The computer aided layer contains digitalinformation repositories and very concrete ICT tools and infrastructure that are used tosupport the diverse actions in a decision-making process. This is made available via an ICTtoolbox (see Section 3.1.3).

A modification in the basis protocol is, however, not made hard coded. Thanks toa BPM tool, the protocol is flexibly modelled and directly connected to the softwareservices that execute the protocol’s steps themselves. Therefore, if a modification is

Figure 2. Framework architecture.

International Journal of Production Research 4843

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

required, the user modifies the processes at BPM level (or even at the SOA level), but notat programming code level. However, a protocol particularisation has some restrictions.This refers to the second aspect of its design, which is the underlying foundation. Actually,the steps of the basis protocol comprehend the most typical ones presented in the changesmanagement reference models, and ECM in particular (see Section 2.2). Thus, users arenot allowed to change its essential logical structure (the macro steps Need of Change

Figure 3. Basis protocol for VE evolution management.

Figure 4. Multi-layered conceptual scenario of the proposed framework.

4844 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Identification,Change Proposal,Change Planning, and Implementation, as well as some oftheir sub-steps). Besides using ECM and adapting it to the VE evolution context, this workhas also used some ideas proposed in O’Neill (1995) when determining the most significantevents to handle in more strategic decisions. In resume, this proposed decision protocolrepresents the mentioned framework’s methodology and it is modelled via BPM and SOAbased tools.

In terms of the third aspect, the automation, it is partial. The BPM monitoring engineguides partners in the discussion as well as controls the execution of the protocol along theproject management/problem resolution phases. This control is done, however, only ata macro level. Partners are the ones who conduct the discussion itself, respecting theirautonomy, the needed transparency and the managerial style required for the situation.They can bring any information, knowledge and previous experience they think isimportant to the discussion, hence, also creating room for creative and clever decisions.Therefore, it seems there is not much sense to model this using closed-world protocols (likein Huang et al. 2008), or to use intelligent agents to guide the process (like in Sandholmand Lesser 1995, Costa et al. 2008) or to try to capture patterns of interactions captured bysocial protocols (like in Piccard 2007). In other words, the decision protocol helps in theguidance of the resolution process, formatting the main structure of the discussion process,but it does not automate the decision.

The consideration of the very VE particularities is tackled at a general level. This isbecause it is almost unfeasible to embed all regulations, wishes, cultural aspects, etc.,related to each VE into each instance of the protocol. The chosen approach is to put somegeneral questions about it at the Change Planning phase of the protocol in a way partnerscan be recalled to think about it during their discussion and further decision. The VBE’srepositories give support to this activity, allowing partners to access countries’ regulations,historical databases, etc.

A problem is not solved at once as it requires the resolution of many sub-problems.They in turn can demand diverse rounds of exchange of information, computer-aidedanalysis and managers’ opinions. The process ends when a considered good/feasiblesolution is achieved. After this, the control flow goes back to the VE operation phase.All the discussions and decisions are stored for future evaluation and eventual auditing.In the case that no solutions are found, the situation is sent to the tactic and strategic levels(which are out of the scope of the proposed model) in order to, for example, renegotiatea delivery date with the customer.

3.1.2 Partners’ discussion environment

This second element of the framework corresponds to the distributed collaborative decisionenvironment and it is the main element to support partners’ discussion over the network.

It is important to point out that VE partners are fundamentally composed of SMEs.Therefore, it is important to offer an easy and low cost way to support the access tomanagement methods, techniques and tools to help the involved people in the discussions,performance measurement and evaluation.

This underlying vision of this environment relies on the assumption that there is nosense in developing a wizard-like, expert systems, or agent-based decision support systemssolution that are used for modelling closed world problems (e.g., Baffo et al. 2008).Instead, partners should have room – with a methodological support and integrated withinthe companies’ business process environment – for exchanging ideas, exercising their

International Journal of Production Research 4845

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

creativity, and reasoning about particular cases based on the very current status of theinvolved companies.

In this environment, the actors involved in a discussion are the VE partners: 1) the VEcoordinator, who owns the business and who is, at last, responsible for it; 2) the VEmembers, who are the companies’ representatives in the given VE and; 3) an invited expert(e.g., the broker, a specialised technician, a VBE’s representative), an ad-hoc member whomay participate in the discussions and whose role is defined for each case.

This environment is controlled by the DSS-VE. Turban and Aronson (1998) proposeda classification for decision support systems. Considering the requirements previouslymentioned, the DSS-VE is of type:

. negotiation: decision about a problem is reached via a negotiation process, wherethe reaching of the solution involves relaxations of constraints and changes inthe plan;

. decentralised: the VE coordinator coordinates the discussion but the decisionitself emerges from the discussions;

. partially hierarchical: the VE coordinator has the power to validate the finaldecision achieved after a (non-hierarchical) discussion;

. multi-stage: a decision can be reached after several rounds of discussion;

. with semi-structured tasks: the problem and related information is partially madeavailable by the DSS-VE system and VBE’s information repositories, and thediscussion is generally assisted. The other part of the information and knowledgecome from the tacit knowledge of the own participants.

. multi-participant: several members can participate simultaneously in thediscussion;

. team-based: although autonomous and independent, VE members act collabora-tively as they share the same goal.

In order to give an overview on how the framework works, Figure 5 illustrates anabstract discussion scenario to be supported by theDSS-VEwhere partners would exchangetheir opinions about a given problem. Actually, DSS-VE will manage the interaction amongthree entities. One entity is the companies’ representatives, each one having a DSS-VE’sgraphical interface to interact with. Another entity is the set of ICT and networkinfrastructure tools (the ones common to all VBE members, and the local ones, accessibleonly by each company) and VBE’s information repositories (see next section). The thirdentity is the decision protocol, which will help in guiding the discussions.

After the problem has been detected, DSS-VE starts the protocol steps (Figure 3),within the Need of Change Identification phase. In this phase the goal is to identify theproblem reasons and to check if it can be solved by their own partner, without impactingthe other VE members. This reveals the strategy to involve the other partners only if theproblem cannot be solved at a ‘local’ level. For this, the VE coordinator and the partnerthat has generated the conflict (illustrated as Partner 1) discuss together (e.g., via chat andfile transfer), initially. After discussions and evaluations, if the problem is consideredsolved without needing the other partners, the protocol’s flow goes through other phases,the Change Proposal, Planning and Implementation phases. In the case the problem couldnot be solved, it is necessary to evaluate which partners were affected and that should thenbe involved in the collaborative discussion and decision-making. In the Change Proposalphase, the discussion is supported by the services that combine the ideas of HERMES andDelphi methods (see Section 2.1). The part inspired in HERMES aims to organise

4846 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

partners’ arguments in a concise structure, using an appropriate semantic, communicatingtheir suggestions but in a compiled way, including an association of weights to the mostimportant arguments. This aims at finding the better (and faster) consensus about theproblem. The part inspired in the Delphi method aims at avoiding direct confrontationsamong participants, which could generate counterproductive discussions. In this sense, allthe arguments are gathered by the VE coordinator who, in a first moment, acts as themoderator selecting, deleting, changing, or suggesting changes in the arguments receivedbefore they can be published to all participants. Actually, it is not the aim to restrainpartners conversation and information exchange, but rather to guarantee a fasterdiscussion and, mainly, that some sensible information (e.g., the precise level of capacity ofa given partner) can be disclosed to everybody. In this way, the VE coordinator has theoption to just say to the others that the given partner has ‘enough’ capacity.This discussion round, with the compiled opinions, is illustrated as grey frames inFigure 5, at each member’s side. The white frames illustrate the argumentation consolewhere partners express their opinions as well as where the VE coordinator receives them.He moderates the discussion via this console. After the arguments have been sent out tothe other participants, they can re-evaluate their considerations and make othersuggestions. This process continues until a consensus is reached (within the ChangePlanning phase).

The protocol is not fixed in its inner actions. Regarding VE uniqueness and topology,and the natural partners’ heterogeneity, the protocol can be different for each situation.

Figure 5. Illustration of the collaborative decision support environment.

International Journal of Production Research 4847

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

There are many possible scenarios that could influence the decision to be taken in order tosolve the current problem. In this way, the protocol acts as a reminder of some moreimportant questions so that partners can recall they should check them. For example, if anitem is delayed and the final customer is very important or the fine is too high, partners canagree on subcontracting part of the production in order to keep the delivery date. If theclient has a very rigorous quality control and he manages the suppliers’ certification levelquite tightly, perhaps it is not possible to hire any company, but one equivalent, and soforth. In the case of any other particular issues, partners should handle this, managed bythe VE coordinator. Once the problem is solved, the new VE’s parameters are set up(Implementation phase) and the control flow goes back to the VE operation phase.

This hypothetical argumentation scenario would be based on the results achievedhelped by a pool of tools for performance evaluation modelling, monitoring and tasksrescheduling, which can also involve the invited expert’s opinion (Change Planning). Someparticipants could use their own tools or the common toolbox (including the access to theVBE database) available to all participants to help in the discussions.

3.1.3 The toolbox

Traditionally, SMEs have many difficulties to access, use and maintain software, mainlydue to its costs and to the required expertise to do that. The toolbox concept wasintroduced in Bernhard (1992) with the goal of providing a pool of industrial software tohelp users from all departments of a single company to implement the CIM philosophy(Computer Integrated Manufacturing).

This concept was largely extended in Rabelo et al. (2008) through the development ofa web based distributed ICT infrastructure (ICT-I) devoted to CNs. The access to ICT-I istotally made in the form of services, which are invoked either by the user or by othersoftware services. Besides integrating many CN supporting tools, it provides access to theVBE’s information repositories. These tools cover the VE creation (Afsarmanesh et al.2008) and operation phases (Negretto et al. 2008). However, there are no specialisedservices for the VE evolution and dissolution phases yet.

Taking the ICT-I scalability facilities into account, the framework for the VE evolutionand associated protocol will be added to and seen as another class of services of ICT-I.This also involves some non-directed CN-related services, such as simulators, spreadsheets, CSCW, assisted methods and other supporting tools that help VE members alongthe protocol execution. This all corresponds to the computer aided layer illustrated inFigure 4.

In this work, these supporting tools are grouped into a logically centralised repositoryof ICT tools called ICT Toolbox. ICT Toolbox is therefore a pool of common tools thatare accessed via ICT-I – hence via the network – facilitating members’ acceptance and useof management methods. This, however, does not cover the existing local tools used byeach member at their companies. The Toolbox’s tools themselves can congregate both theset of tools previously agreed (or existing) in the VBE and tools that can be accessed ondemand from other providers.

4. The decision protocol: an example

In order to generally illustrate the protocol instantiation, let us imagine an example wherea VE would have been created to transform five regular cars into personalised vehicles for

4848 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

an automotive fair. In this case, there would be different partners responsible for thefollowing tasks: bodywork and painting, audio and video equipment, tyre supply, engineadaptation and calibration. As partners are placed in different cities, not more than100 km far from each other, which would be the best way to solve a one-week delay in oneof the necessary engines? Which tasks have to be delayed? Which partners would beaffected? Is it possible to simulate tasks rescheduling in order to minimise the delay?Would it not be better to acquire this engine from another supplier? Answers for these andother related questions can be expressed in a sequence of general steps to follow, aided bya collaborative discussion support.

If this kind of problem was caused by a failure in a component’s specification of theengine, what sequence of tasks might be executed to solve the problem? In the VEoperation phase the manager would have used OLAP cube to measure the VE indicatorsperformance and to have conditions to preview the problem and its consequences.After the conflict occurrence – therefore at the VE evolution phase and within the DSS-VE– the reference protocol (Figure 3) would be ‘instantiated’ for the given VE particularitiesand the problem circumstances, helping managers in the problem resolutionprocess. The steps below are a rough example of such instantiation based on the referenceprotocol.

(1) When the problem has been identified, the partner responsible for the problematicactivity has to inform the VE coordinator about the problem:

. The problem is that one engine has to be delayed for one week more;

. The protocol will ask the coordinator to decide if it is necessary to alert theother partners.

(2) Starting a discussion, both the coordinator and the engine’s supplier will try toidentify the reasons that have generated such a problem:

. A problem in the component’s specification of the engine is the reason;

. Some questions will be generated by the protocol helping them to findthe main reason, for example: if it was an insufficient capacity, if itwas any of broke, strike or blackout, supplier delay, or other possiblereasons;

. The answers to these questions have to be stored for future discussion withthe other participants.

(3) In parallel, they try to see which partners would be affected due to this problemand to which extent it is would affect the VE operation:

. The partners who have to wait for this engine supply are the ones whowould be affected by the problem. In this case, only the partners responsiblefor the engine installation and calibration would have to wait for the engine(due to the problematic engine).

(4) The affected members are invited to discuss the problem and how it might besolved:

. Partners that would participate in the discussion about the problem are: thecoordinator with the engine supplier, and the partner(s) responsible for theengine’s installation and calibration;

. They can invite an expert to help them to find a solution.

International Journal of Production Research 4849

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 20: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

(5) Starting the discussion (to be conducted via the DSS-VE):

. The protocol will ask some questions to delineate the better attitude foreach case. For example, if there is a rigorous client constraint, geographiclimitations or other kind of inflexible constraint;

. Each participant should use available tools to preview which differentscenarios could be acceptable to reschedule the activities that have tobe done;

. They have to evaluate which scenario is the best for each one, and they haveto publish a suggestion for the problem resolution;

. The coordinator will evaluate the different suggestions from the ones whoare able or not able to offer confrontation between the participants, and thecoordinator has to publish to the others the compiled opinions to beconsidered in the group;

. This kind of suggestion exchange can offer directions for convergence ofideas based on more evaluated scenarios by different expertise opinions,using a mechanism of argumentation scores that calculates the weight ofdifferent suggestions acceptance.

(6) Different solutions might emerge:

. Suggest the partner to redo the component following the correctspecification (if there is trust and time to do it);

. Buy this component from another supplier, even if it is concurrent;

. Or keep discussing if the above solutions are not possible.

(7) In the last case, it is necessary to inform that the changes should consider the VEinitial goals and plan. Other solutions could be acceptable:

. Partner replacement;

. Do other activities and delay the car finalisation (which needs that engine)as little as possible;

. Purchase another engine from other supplier;

. Increase the production capacity or subcontract.

(8) Once agreed, the most suitable solution is settled in the VE plan and partners canmonitor the VE operation again. This means that VE evolution is ‘over’, users exitfrom the DSS-VE environment, and the VE management goes back to theoperation phase.

5. Conclusions

This paper has presented a framework that helps VE members in solving problems duringthe VE evolution phase. It is essentially composed of a decision protocol, a distributed andcollaborative decision support system, and a set of ICT supporting tools. It copes with theVE requirements for decision-making, mainly in which the members’ autonomy anddistribution as well as transparency in the discussions is concerned. It is assumed that VEmembers are SMEs and that they belong to a VBE, sharing common rules and principlesof operation.

4850 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 21: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Grounded on project management methodologies, decisions are guided and assisted by

a computing environment, where the VE members affected by the problem can use theirknowledge during the discussions as well as have access to information and managerial

methods.The whole environment is not isolated, but rather it is integrated to the other

companies’ processes by means of a BPM layer. This means that when a problem takesplace, the business processes required to tackle it are seen as a part of a wider VE

management process, which includes the VE creation, operation and dissolution (besidesthe evolution). In this sense, it is believed that the proposed framework provides the

necessary comprehensive, flexible and holistic environment for the management of the VEevolution phase, giving the potential for a more agile (rapid reaction and treatment of the

problem) and better quality decision-making (more reliable and feasible decision).Evidently, if a given partner decides to make a long simulation to check the decision

impact over his company, the whole decision process can take more time than itwas desired. However, this might be the price to pay to obtain a more globally reliable andcommitted decision.

If on one hand the proposed decision protocol is relatively generic, on the other hand it

is a concrete means to enable partners to be guided and assisted during the problem-solving regarding VEs uniqueness, i.e., the different ways of solving a problem by different

groups of members of different VEs. Yet, the protocol execution is not fully automated.Framed by the protocol’s phases, the involved VE members can use their tacit knowledge

in the discussions, can access supporting ICT tools and methods, and can use the explicitknowledge that is considered necessary for the particular moment. Discussions are both

supported by chat-like communication and by a mechanism inspired in Delphiand HERMES methods.

The next steps of this research will fundamentally comprise the implementation of theframework, taking advantage of open source software and already implemented software

tools, mainly ICT-I.

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by CNPq – The Brazilian Council for Research andScientific Development, and it has been developed in the scope of the Brazilian IFM project and theEuropean IST IP ECOLEAD project.

References

Afsarmanesh, H. and Camarinha-Matos, L.M., 2005. A framework for management of virtual

organization breeding environments. In: Proceedings of 6th IFIP working conference on virtual

enterprises, 26–28 September, Valencia, Spain. New York: Springer, 35–48.Afsarmanesh, H., et al., 2008. VBEmanagement system. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H.Afsarmanesh

and M. Ollus, eds. Methods and tools for collaborative networked organizations. New York:

Springer, 119–154.Baffo, I., Confessore, G., and Liotta, G., 2008. A reference model for distributed decision making

through a multiagent approach. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos and W. Picard, eds. Pervasive

collaborative networks. New York: Springer, 285–292.

International Journal of Production Research 4851

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 22: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Baldo, F., Rabelo. R.J., and Vallejos, R.V., 2008. Modeling performance indicators’ selection

process for VO partners’ suggestions. In: Proceedings of the 8th IFIP international conference

on information technology for balance automation systems – BASYS’2008, 23–25 June, Porto,

Portugal. New York: Springer, 67–76.Bernhard, R., 1992. CIM system planning toolbox, CIM-PLATO project survey and demonstrator.

In: Proceedings of CIM-PLATO workshop, 25–26 February, Karlsruhe, Germany, 94–107.Bostrom, R., Anson, R., and Clawson, V., 2003. Group facilitation and group support systems.

In: L.M. Jessup and J.S. Valacich, eds. Group support systems: new perspectives. New York:

Macmillan Publishing, 146–167.

Camarinha-Matos, L.M. and Afsarmanesh, H., 1999. The virtual enterprises concept.

In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos and H. Afsarmanesh, eds. Infrastructures for virtual enterprises:

networking industrial enterprises. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 3–14.Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., and Ollus, M., 2005. ECOLEAD: a holistic approach to

creation and management of dynamic virtual organizations. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos,

H. Afsarmanesh and A. Ortiz, eds. Collaborative networks and their breeding environments.

New York: Springer, 3–16.

CMMI, 2006. CMMI for development version 1.2. Tech. report DEV, V1.2. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie

Mellon – Software Engineering Institute.

Costa, R., et al., 2008. VirtualECare: group decision supported by idea generation and

argumentation. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos and W. Picard, eds. Pervasive collaborative

networks. New York: Springer, 293–300.Dalkey, N.C. and Helmer, O., 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the case of

experts. Management Science, 9 (3), 458–467.Drissen-Silva, M.V. and Rabelo, R.J., 2008. A model for dynamic generation of collaborative

decision protocols for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises. In: Proceedings of the 8th

IFIP international conference on information technology for balance automation systems –

BASYS’2008, 23–25 September, Porto, Portugal. New York: Springer, 105–114.Grefen, P., et al., 2008. Dynamic business network process management in instant virtual

enterprises. Computers in Industry, 60 (2), 86–103.Hodık, J. and Stach, J., 2008. Virtual organization simulation for operational management. In: 2008

IEEE CSM international conference on distributed human-machine systems, Athens, Greece,

170–175, ISBN 978-80-01-04027.

Huang, C., Chen, W., and Chen, J., 2008. Communication protocols for collaborative forecasting.

In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos and W. Picard, eds. Pervasive collaborative networks. New York:

Springer, 301–312.Jain, R., 1991. The art of computer systems performance analysis: techniques for experimental design,

measurement, simulation and modeling. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Jansson, K. and Eschenbaecher, J., 2005. Challenges in virtual organisations management – report on

methods for distributed business process management. Tech. report D32.1. ECOLEAD –

European Collaborative networked Organizations LEADership initiative. FP6 IP 506958,

309–314.

Johnsson, J. and Johansson, B., 2003. Discrete event simulation in a virtual enterprise environment:

a case study of multiple developers. In: Proceedings of 15th European simulation symposium

and exhibition, 26–29 October, Delft, the Netherlands.Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P., 1997. The strategy in action. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, [In

Portuguese].Karacapilidis, N. and Papadias, D., 2001. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative

decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems, 26 (4), 259–277.Karvonen, I., Salkari, I., and Ollus, M., 2005. Characterizing virtual organizations and their

management. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh and A. Ortiz, eds. Collaborative

networks and their breeding environments. New York: Springer, 193–204.

4852 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 23: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Klen, E.R., Pereira-Klen, A., and Loss, L., 2008. Selection of a virtual organization coordinator.

In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos and H. Afsarmanesh, eds. Collaborative networks: reference

modelling. New York: Springer, 297–310.Lechtenborger, J. and Vossenm, G., 2003. Multidimensional normal forms for data warehouse

design. Information Systems, 28 (5), 415–434.Leite, M.M., 2004. Implementation requirements of CRM strategies in SMEs: an approach based on

project management. Thesis (PhD). Federal University of Santa Catarina [In Portuguese].Loss, L., Pereira-Klen, A.A., and Rabelo, R.J., 2007. Towards learning collaborative networked

organizations. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh and P. Novaes, eds. Establishing

the foundation of collaborative networks. New York: Springer, 243–252.Military Handbook, 2001. Configuration management guidance. MIL-HDBK-61A(SE) Washington,

DC: Department of Defense.Moon, S.W., Kim, J.S., and Kwon, K.N., 2007. Effectiveness of OLAP-based cost data management

in construction cost estimate. Automation in Construction, 16 (3), 336–344.Muller, E., Horbach, S., and Ackermann, J., 2008. Decentralized decision making in non-

hierarchical networks. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos and W. Picard, eds. Pervasive collaborative

networks. New York: Springer, 277–284.

Negretto, H., et al., 2008. VO management solutions: VO management e-services.

In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh and M. Ollus, eds. Methods and tools for

collaborative networked organizations. New York: Springer, 257–274.Noran, O., 2007. A decision support framework for collaborative networks. In: L.M. Camarinha-

Matos, H. Afsarmanesh and P. Novaes, eds. Establishing the foundation of collaborative

networks. New York: Springer, 83–90.O’Neill, H., 1995. Decision support in the extended enterprise. Thesis (PhD). Cranfield University,

The CIM Institute, UK.Ordanini, A. and Pasisni, P., 2008. Service co-production and value co-creation: the case for

a service-oriented architecture (SOA). European Management Journal, 26 (5), 289–297.PMBOK, 2004. A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Newtown Square, PA: PMI

Standards Committee.Pechoucek, M., and Hodık, J., 2007. Virtual organisation management eServices version 1. Tech.

report D34.5. ECOLEAD project [online]. Available from: www.ecolead.org [Accessed 20

May 2008].Piccard, W., 2007. Support for power adaptation of social protocols for professional virtual

communities. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh and P. Novaes, eds. Establishing

the foundation of collaborative networks. New York: Springer, 363–370.

Rabelo, R.J., Pereira-Klen, A.A., and Spnisosa, L.M., 1998. Integrated logistics management

support system: an advanced coordination functionality for the virtual environment. In:

Proceedings of 5th IFAC workshop on intelligent manufacturing systems – IMS’98, 9–11

November, Gramado, Brazil, 195–202.Rabelo, R.J., Pereira-Klen, A.A., and Ferreira, A.C., 2000. For a smart coordination of distributed

business processes. In: Proceedings of 4th IEEE/IFIP international conference on balanced

automation systems, 27–29 September, Berlin, Germany, 378–385.

Rabelo, R.J. and Pereira-Klen, A.A., 2002. A multi-agent system for smart co-ordination

of dynamic supply chains. In: Proceedings of PRO-VE2002, 1–3 May, Sesimbra, Portugal,

312–319.Rabelo, R.J., Pereira-Klen, A.A., and Klen, E.R., 2004. Effective management of dynamic supply

chains. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 2 (3), 193–208.Rabelo, R.J., Redrigo-Castro, M., Conconi, A., and Sesana, M., 2008. The ECOLEAD plug & play

collaborative business infrastructure. In: L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh and

M. Ollus, eds. Methods and tools for collaborative networked organizations. New York:

Springer, 371–394.

International Journal of Production Research 4853

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 24: A collaborative decision support framework for managing the evolution of virtual enterprises

Sandholm, T. and Lesser, V., 1995. Issues in automated negotiation and electronic commerce:extending the contract net framework. In: Proceedings of first international conference onmultiagent systems – ICMAS’95, 12–14 June, San Francisco, USA, 328–335.

Sowa, G. and Sniezynski, T., 2007. Configurable multi-level security architecture for CNOs. Technical

report deliverable D64.1b [online]. Available from: www.ecolead.org [Accessed 19 April 2008].Supply Chain Council, 2005. Supply chain operations reference model, SCOR version 7.0 overview.

Available from: www.supply-chain.org [Accessed 12 December 2005].

Tavcar, J. and Duhovnik, J., 2005. Engineering change management in individual and massproduction. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 21 (3), 205–215.

Turban, E. and Aronson, J., 1998. Decision support systems and intelligent systems. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Simon and Schuster.Van der Weerd, I., 2007. Meta-modeling technique: method engineering 05/06 [online]. Available

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management_process#_ref-4 [Accessed 28

November 2007].Wulf, V., Pipek, V., and Won, M., 2008. Component-based tailorability: enabling highly flexible

software applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66 (1), 1–22.

4854 M.V. Drissen-Silva and R.J. Rabelo

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 06:

28 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014