International Journal of Production Research, 2015

Vol. 53, No. 16, 49174926, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1005251

A SCOR-based model for supply chain performance measurement: application in the footwear
industry
Miguel Afonso Sellitto*, Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira, Miriam Borchardt, Rosnaldo Incio da Silva and
Cludia Viviane Viegas

Production and Systems Graduate Program, UNISINOS, So Leopoldo, Brazil

(Received 29 April 2014; accepted 22 December 2014)

Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) is a widely employed model for SC performance assessment, regardless its
generic nature. This article presents a SCOR-based model for performance measurement in supply chains (SC) and apply
it in the context of Brazilian footwear industry. The model has two dimensions: SCOR processes (source, make, deliver
and return) and performance standards adapted from original SCOR (cost, quality, delivery and exibility). This structure
delivers a 4 4 matrix, with each component assessed under analytical hierarchy process. Using focus groups, SCs
experts weighted each component of the matrix regarding their relevance. Thereafter, SCs managers indicated respective
results. The SCs overall performance was obtained by adding the performance of all indicators. The model application
embraced one focal footwear manufacturer, four suppliers, three distribution channels and a return channel, with 85 indi-
cators assessed. The achieved performance for the whole SC is 75.29%.The main gaps were found in deliver process
(12.78 percentual points of difference between relevance and achieved proportions) and in exibility performance (9.82).
Further application is recommended in order to nd consolidated results.
Keywords: supply chain performance; performance measurement; SCOR model; strategic priorities

1. Introduction
Competitive markets force manufacturing companies to joint their own competences with capabilities of their partners
(Vijayvargiya and Dey 2010). Such arrangements, known as Supply Chains (SC), envisage the coordination of materials,
information and payments ows between individual companies (Gunasekaran, Patel, and Mcgaughey 2004). The main
goals are to optimise the overall performance and to achieve competitiveness to the entire SC (Lockamy and
Mccormack 2004). In this context, a comprehensive overall performance measurement system is increasingly required to
avoid unbalances and enable effective coordination. As SCs evolved from linear to complex structures, multidimensional
and multivariate analyses are required to perform their assessment (Chae 2009).
This paper develops and applies a model for Supply Chain Performance Measurement (SCPM) based on Supply
Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model. The model includes a multivariate structure, organised in a 4 4 matrix,
relating SCOR processes except plan (source, make, deliver, return, etc), and performance standards (reliability, respon-
siveness, agility, cost, assets, etc). For purposes of this model, such performance standards were translated as quality
(understood as reliability or perfect order fullment, and return as assets for clients satisfaction), delivery time (taken as
responsiveness or order fullment cycle time), exibility (or agility), and costs (total costs to serve, including inventory
budget and level of sales).
The consideration of planning, embraced by the plan process, although being a relevant part of SCOR model, repre-
sents a constraint in this study. Plan process was excluded because, for the analysed case, it is carried out only once a
year, while source, make, deliver and return measurements are more often performed their systematisation can occur
every three months or even once a month. Therefore, denition of performance requirements for the entire SC, aggre-
gated forecasting, new products development and inclusion of new partner, as well as replacement of current ones all
related to SCOR plan process are not relevant in such specic context, an initial application. In further, more mature
and continued applications, the plan process must be included.
An experimental application was carried out in a set of companies that compose part of a footwear SC in Sinos Valey,
Southern Brazil. A focus group formed by SCs experts weighted the constructs of the model under Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP). They expressed their judgment regarding relevance. Thereafter, managers of the SC indicated achieved

*Corresponding author. Email: sellitto@unisinos.br

2015 Taylor & Francis

4918 M.A. Sellitto et al.

performances for each construct. The main contribution of the article is an overall measurement framework that informs
the global performance of a SC and how the measuring results were obtained. Brazilian footwear industry is the third
main global shoes producer, and it is also a relevant source of jobs and income for the country (Navas-Alemn 2011).
Furthermore, as a fashion industry, it presents short product life cycles, tremendous product variety, volatile and unpre-
dictable demand, and long and inexible supply processes (Sen 2008, 571), which characterises risks and uncertainties
of SCPM (Sanayei et al. 2008). Therefore, it justies the need of such study, and signicant difculties for performance
measuring in the context of SC.
The scope of the study was limited to four suppliers; the focal company; three channels of distribution; and a return
channel. This article is organised as follows: in the second section, we review SCOR and AHP applications to SC per-
formance measuring; in the third, methodological procedures and model framework are presented; application, results,
discussion, with theoretical and practical implications are found in the fourth section; nal remarks, limitations and
suggestion for future research are indicated in the fth section.

2. SCPM: a review on SCOR and AHP applications

SCPM is essential for competitiveness (Bai and Sarkis 2012) because it provides information about strengths that need
to be kept and on weaknesses that shall be addressed. Limited knowledge is indeed observed when rms need to
cooperate with other rms in order to propose a SCPM system (Papakiriakopoulos and Pramatari 2010).
Methodological approaches have been proposed to SCPM: (1) combination of individual with collective indicators
(Bechtel and Jayaram 1997); (2) hierarchical systemic structures, as boxes-within-boxes (Simon 1999; Holmberg 2000;
Bourne et al. 2000; Chan 2003; Hausman 2003; Azevedo, Carvalho, and Cruz-Machado 2011); and (3) structures based
on reference models, as BSC perspectives (Brewer and Speh 2000; Kleijnen and Smits 2003; Bhagwat and Sharma
2007a), and SCOR model (Chae 2009; Bai and Sarkis 2012) or competitive priorities (Akyuz and Erman 2010).
AHP and other multi-criteria methods have been also used to prioritise metrics and strategic dimensions in SCPM
(Chan 2003; Agarwal, Shankar, and Tiwari 2006; Aramyan et al. 2007; Bhagwat and Sharma 2007b; Fu et al. 2010).
The combination of AHP and SCOR for such purposes is usual (Chae 2009; Papakiriakopoulos and Pramatari 2010;
Elgazzar et al. 2012). AHP is a decision-making tool that can help describe the general decision operation by decom-
posing acomp ex problem into a multi- level hierarchical structure of objectives, criteria, subcriteria and alternatives
(Wang, Huang, and Dismukes 2004, 3). It has been largely applied to SCPM. For instance, Subramanian and
Ramanathan (2012) performed a comprehensive recovery (291 peer-review studies) on logistics and SCM from 1990 to
2009, and found that the most addressed decisions themes of AHP applications are product and process design and
SCM assessment.
At the same time, SCOR model, established by the Supply Chain Council in 1996, is a widespread framework that
ts AHP procedures. SCOR consists of standard supply chain processes, standard performance attributes and metrics,
standard practices and standard job skills (Alomar and Pasek 2014, 630). Their main processes are plan, source, make,
deliver and return. In terms of performance, SCOR enables to assess reliability, responsiveness, agility, costs and assets.
Recently, combinations of AHP and other techniques for SCPM have blossomed in academic literature, mainly hav-
ing SCOR as structural basis. AHP, introduced in the 70s, remains as a useful and exible tool for SCPM, and criticism
around its application can be deemed more due to limited knowledge of reality coming from evaluators than due to the
tool itself (Forman 1993). Rabelo et al. (2007) used AHP, system dynamics and discrete-event simulation to model
activities in SC. They apply SCOR as background model. zgen et al. (2008) integrated AHP and multi-objective possi-
bilistic linear programming and fuzzy logics to evaluate and select suppliers. Naesens, Gelders, and Pintelon (2009)
combine SCOR elements, hierarchise them and applied AHP for multi-criteria decision-making. Mafakheri, Breton, and
Ghoniem (2011) proposed a two-stage multiple-criteria dynamic programming approach with AHP for ranking potential
suppliers, involving qualitative and quantitative attributes. Lu et al. (2013) proposed a fuzzy AHP for networking
management in collaborative SC, also employing SCOR.
Although several possibilities have been explored under AHP and SCOR jointly context, a critical view on their
form of application is presented by some scholars. Estampe et al. (2013) warn on the need for paying attention to differ-
ences on maturity levels among the chain partners, Cai et al. (2009) highlight the need for selection of key performance
indicators rather than whole models that cannot fully represent specic aspects in contextual-geographic realities of SC.
This is a similar point of view advocated by Clivill and Berrah (2012), that recommend adaptions in SCOR in order to
enable comparison of situations conventionally considered as incomparable. In the present study, we took in account
such caveats, mainly considering that Brazilian footwear industry, although consolidated, does not present itself as a
homogeneous supply chain. Rather than keep uniform and predictable relationships, this industrial sector stresses lot of
situations, in which information does not ow clearly and sufciently detailed among the partners some can present
 International Journal of Production Research 4919

higher, other lower levels of maturity and information availability. It justies a simplied use of AHP, as well as
adaptions in original SCOR standard for the purposes of this investigation.

3. Methodological procedures: SCOR adaption and expert assessment under AHP

In the following subsections we describe: (3.1) the procedures for the adaptation from SCOR in performance assessment
criteria; (3.2) the research design; (3.3) the weight assignment of each adopted criteria using AHP process, under the
evaluation of six experts of the SC.

3.1 Procedures for adaptation from SCOR model

SCOR model (SCC 1996) proposes source, make, deliver and return all underpinned by plan as main processes for
SCPM. Source relates to order and receive materials and products. Make means schedule and manufacture, repair, remanu-
facture or recycle materials and products. Deliver includes pick, pack and ship orders. Request relates to approve and
determine disposal of products and assets. In our model, this set of processes was crossed with SCOR performance criteria.
Originally, SCOR performance criteria embrace reliability perfect order fullment; responsiveness order fullment
cycle time; agility exibility, adaptability, value-at-risk; cost total cost to serve; and assets cash-to-cash cycle time,
return on assets, return on working capital. Based on classic strategic competitive priorities cost, quality, delivery time
and exibility proposed by Ward et al. (1998), we took such aspects as labels in SCOR performance criteria adaption,
because they t better for our modelling purpose. We kept the cost criteria as it is stated in original SCOR, but considered
quality as reliability; delivery time as responsiveness and agility as exibility, because many authors take exibility as part
of agility (Swafford, Soumen, and Murthy 2006; Huang and Keskar 2007; Vinodh et al. 2013).
Footwear industry is featured by fashion and product variety, so product cycles are usually fast, and the intensive
pressure for on-time delivery is a critical issue that many times brings low-quality levels. This context lead us to choose
the following subclasses for performance assessment: (i) costs: percentages of product, logistics and sales budgets,
percentage of recovered value and inventory level; (ii) quality: percentages of scrap and rework, accepted orders, client
satisfaction, return, remanufactured products and recycled amounts; (iii) delivery time: percentages of fast delivery,
on-time delivery and average time of deliver; (iv) exibility: average number of products in the mix, average lot size
and average time for modication. Table 1 shows the basic 4 4 matrix with built indicators from SCOR model.

3.2 Research design

For the research purpose, it was considered a set of nine rms that form a part of a footwear SC: the focal company M1
(shoe assembler), four suppliers (S1S4, which provide raw material, subsystems, packaging and paints for M1), three
distribution channels and sales (DS1DS3) and a return channel (RT1). Figure 1 illustrates the hard core of the SC.

3.3 Weight assignment for adopted criteria

In the second semester of 2012, researchers conducted focus group sessions with six managers from the footwear SCM.
Indicators listed in Table 1 were weighted under AHP, which uses pair-wise comparisons. Matrices of preferences and
Table 1. Assignment of indicators from adapted SCOR model.

Cost Quality Delivery time Flexibility

Source % product budget % scrap and rework % fast delivery average number of products in a mix
Inventory level % orders accepted % on-time delivery average lot size
average time of delivery average time for modication
Make % product budget % scrap and rework % fast delivery average number of products in a mix
Inventory level % orders accepted % on-time delivery average lot size
average time of delivery average time for modication
Deliver % logistic budget % client satisfaction % fast delivery average number of products in a mix
% sales budget % return % on-time delivery average lot size
average time of delivery
Return % logistic budget % remanufactured % fast delivery average number of products in a mix
% recovered value % recycled % on-time delivery average lot size
average time of delivery
4920 M.A. Sellitto et al.

DS1
S1

Make

M1 DS2

S2

Deliver
DS3

S3

S4

RT1
Source
Return

Figure 1. Hard core of the SC.

Table 2. Preference matrix of performance criteria.

Cost Flexibility Delivery time Quality Vector (%) CR (%)

Cost 1 1 1/2 2 1/2 3 1/2 41.6 0.7

Flexibility 2/3 1 2 3 30.8
Delivery time 2/5 1/2 1 2 17.4
Quality 2/7 1/3 1/2 1 10.2

Table 3. Preference matrix of prioritisation of processes.

Deliver Make Source Return Vector (%) CR (%)

Deliver 1 2 2 1/2 4 1/2 46.4 0.3

Make 1/2 1 1 1/2 3 26.1
Source 2/5 2/3 1 2 18.2
Return 2/9 1/3 1/2 1 9.3

Table 4. Distribution of importance of performance dimensions.

Cost (%) Quality (%) Delivery time (%) Flexibility (%) Total (%)

41.6 10.2 17.4 30.8 100

Source 18.2% 7.5 1.9 3.2 5.6
Make 26.1% 10.8 2.7 4.5 8.0
Deliver 46.4% 19.3 4.7 8.1 14.3
Return 9.3% 3.9 1.0 1.6 2.9
Total 100% 100
 International Journal of Production Research 4921

nal priority vectors are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Consistency ratios (CR) are acceptable (Saaty 1980), since CR <<
10%.
The multiplying of i processes performances and j priorities assignments gives the best desired results for each Aij
cell indicator. If two or more indicators are assigned to the same cell, the prioritisation is uniformly distributed. Table 4
shows the prioritisation of cells.

4. Application, results and discussion

Researchers carried out extra evaluations rounds with managers, this time supported by the planning staff of the SCM.
It resulted in a set of performance ranges for each indicator. A range is a numerical space in which the indicator is
expected to be found at any time. Only in anomalous situation the indicator lays outside the range. For instance, for the
indicator % scrap and rework (lower is better), belonging to the cell [Source, Quality], the accepted range is 51%.
Observed values that are equal or less than 1% receive 100% of the importance assigned to the indicator. Observed val-
ues equal or higher than 5% are reduced to null. Intermediate values are rated in proportional percentages (for example,
2.5% of scrap or rework means 62.5% of the assigned importance, 0.23% in S1). For indicators like % on-time delivery
(higher is better), the opposite is applied. Two assumptions were admitted: rms in the same process have equal
importance; and indicators in the same priority level have equal importance as well.
There were several choices for range time of data collection. For the sake of simplication, obtained values in the
month before the collection were considered. Table 5 shows the whole SCPM model with application. It includes, for
each rm: processes, priorities of performance and indicators, with respective percentual importance. The relevance of
each indicator is given by multiplying importances of process and priority of performance, with this result divided by
the number of indicators in the priority and the number of rms in the process. For example, the rst indicator, % prod-
uct budget, has an importance of 0.95%. It results from [18.2 41.6%] divided by [4 2]). The model also includes
instantaneous measured values (in percentages) and the value added by the current situation of the indicators, in percent-
age points (pp.). The performance of each rm and process is the sum of the contributions of the respective indicators.
The SC overall performance is delivered by the sum of the contributions of all the indicators. In this application, it
reaches 75.3%

4.1 Discussion, theoretical and practical implications

SCPM assumes that performance indicators of the same rm and performance priorities are correlated (Alomar and
Pasek 2014), implying that a single action can inuence more than one indicator (Nudurupati et al. 2011). For example,
in cost priority, a single action, such as introducing lean manufacturing, can increase % product budget and decrease
Inventory level. In quality, automatised inspection can decrease % scrap and rework and increase % orders accepted. In
delivery time, adoption of distribution centres can increase both % of fast deliveries and % of on-time deliveries, and
decrease Average time of delivery. In exibility, fast set-up in bottleneck machines can increase the average number of
products in the mix and reduce the average lot size.
Gaps related to comparisons between importance and performance can unveil inferences on how well resources are
or are not allocated (Xu, Li, and Wu 2009). The performance of a process is given by adding individual performances
of all indicators that belongs to the same process. The same reasoning is valid for performance. Higher gaps inform
what processes and priorities must be readdressed. Table 6 shows importance and performance of processes and priori-
ties and respective gaps, in percentage points (pp.).
The process and priority with higher gaps are, respectively, delivery and exibility. In delivery, the company with
higher gap is D1. A complete rank is presented in Table 7. The table presents the absolute and normalised gap for
companies, obtained by dividing each absolute gap by the sum of all gaps. D1 and M1 are the companies that most
contribute for the lack of overall performance.
Table 8 presents the gaps in exibility by process. Emphasis should be focused in improving exibility in the deliver
process, beginning by company D1.
Besides such practical implications of the SCOR-based model application, we can highlight strategic aspects related
to resources allocation in the SC. Key indicators based on SCOR help to assess whether strategic alignment is or not
present in terms of performance and resources allocation (Cai et al. 2009). Figure 2 shows the relationship between rela-
tive performance and importance for (a) processes and (b) priorities. In (a), delivery is out of proportionality, as well as
quality in (b). Both can be reweighted in resources allocation. Managers reported that, in the past, most investments
were made in the focal company, which now has higher performance than others, although the most important process
now is delivery. They also informed that, for many years, quality was the main requirement of customers. As the quality
4922 M.A. Sellitto et al.

Table 5. Model for the SCPM.

Process Performance Firm Indicator Importance (%) Measured (%) % value added

Source Cost S1 % product budget 0.95 74 0.70 pp.

18.2% 41.6% Inventory level 0.95 65 0.62 pp.
Quality % scrap and rework 0.23 90 0.21 pp.
10.2% % orders accepted 0.23 85 0.20 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 0.26 45 0.12 pp.
17.4% % on-time delivery 0.26 72 0.19 pp.
Average time of delivery 0.26 71 0.19 pp.
Flexibility Average number of products in mix 0.47 68 0.32 pp.
30.8% Average lot size 0.47 85 0.40 pp.
Average time for modication 0.47 60 0.28 pp.
Cost S2 % product budget 0.95 92 0.87 pp.
Inventory level 0.95 80 0.76 pp.
Quality % scrap and rework 0.23 89 0.21 pp.
% orders accepted 0.23 88 0.20 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 0.26 65 0.17 pp.
% on-time delivery 0.26 67 0.18 pp.
Average time of delivery 0.26 58 0.15 pp.
Flexibility Average number of products in mix 0.47 66 0.31 pp.
Average lot size 0.47 69 0.32 pp.
Average time for modication 0.47 62 0.29 pp.
Cost S3 % product budget 0.95 85 0.80 pp.
Inventory level 0.95 76 0.72 pp.
Quality % scrap and rework 0.23 94 0.22 pp.
% orders accepted 0.23 93 0.22 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 0.26 55 0.15 pp.
% on-time delivery 0.26 50 0.13 pp.
Average time of delivery 0.26 65 0.17 pp.
Flexibility Average number of products in mix 0.47 78 0.36 pp.
Average lot size 0.47 65 0.30 pp.
Average time for modication 0.47 64 0.30 pp.
Cost S4 % product budget 0.95 78 0.74 pp.
Inventory level 0.95 82 0.78 pp.
Quality % scrap and rework 0.23 93 0.22 pp.
% orders accepted 0.23 92 0.21 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 0.26 54 0.14 pp.
% on-time delivery 0.26 72 0.19 pp.
Average time of delivery 0.26 75 0.20 pp.
Flexibility Average number of products in mix 0.47 55 0.26 pp.
Average lot size 0.47 60 0.28 pp.
Average time for modication 0.47 75 0.35 pp.
Total = 18.20 13.41 pp.

Make Cost M1 % product budget 5.43 97 5.27 pp.

26.1% Inventory level 5.43 92 4.99 pp.
Quality % scrap and rework 1.33 94 1.25 pp.
% orders accepted 1.33 92 1.22 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 1.51 35 0.53 pp.
% on-time delivery 1.51 48 0.73 pp.
Average time of delivery 1.51 56 0.85 pp.
Flexibility Average number of products in mix 2.68 84 2.25 pp.
Average lot size 2.68 92 2.47 pp.
Average time for modication 2.68 90 2.41 pp.
Total = 26.10 21.97 pp.

Deliver Cost D1 % logistic budget 3.22 72 2.32 pp.

46.4% % sales budget 3.22 88 2.83 pp.
Quality % client satisfaction 0.79 75 0.59 pp.
% return 0.79 82 0.65 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 0.90 71 0.64 pp.
% on-time delivery 0.90 50 0.45 pp.
Average time of delivery 0.90 55 0.49 pp.

(Continued)
 International Journal of Production Research 4923

Table 5. (Continued).

Process Performance Firm Indicator Importance (%) Measured (%) % value added

Flexibility Average number of products in mix 2.38 40 0.95 pp.

Average lot size 2.38 44 1.05 pp.
Cost D2 % logistic budget 3.22 87 2.80 pp.
% sales budget 3.22 92 2.96 pp.
Quality % client satisfaction 0.79 71 0.56 pp.
% return 0.79 83 0.65 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 0.90 45 0.40 pp.
% on-time delivery 0.90 55 0.49 pp.
Average time of delivery 0.90 54 0.48 pp.
Flexibility Average number of products in mix 2.38 68 1.62 pp.
Average lot size 2.38 86 2.05 pp.
Cost D3 % logistic budget 3.22 92 2.96 pp.
% sales budget 3.22 88 2.83 pp.
Quality % client satisfaction 0.79 87 0.69 pp.
% return 0.79 91 0.72 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 0.90 65 0.58 pp.
% on-time delivery 0.90 77 0.69 pp.
Average time of delivery 0.90 88 0.79 pp.
Flexibility Average number of products in mix 2.38 45 1.07 pp.
Average lot size 2.38 55 1.31 pp.
Total = 46.40 33.63 pp.

Return Cost RT1 % logistic budget 1.93 75 1.45 pp.

9.3% % recovered value 1.93 55 1.06 pp.
Quality % remanufactured 0.47 45 0.21 pp.
% recycled 0.47 70 0.33 pp.
Delivery % fast delivery 0.54 60 0.32 pp.
% on-time delivery 0.54 85 0.46 pp.
Average time of delivery 0.54 70 0.38 pp.
Flexibility Average number of products in mix 1.43 75 1.07 pp.
Average lot size 1.43 70 1.00 pp.
Total = 9.30 6.30 pp.
100.0% Overall = 100.00 75.30%

Table 6. Overall performance and gaps.

Process Relevance (%) Achieved (%) Gap Performance Relevance (%) Achieved (%) Gap

Source 18.16 13.41 4.76 pp. Cost 41.56 35.45 6.11 pp.
Make 26.09 21.97 4.12 pp. Quality 10.22 8.56 1.66 pp.
Deliver 46.41 33.63 12.78 pp. Delivery time 17.38 10.26 7.12 pp.
Return 9.34 6.30 3.04 pp. Flexibility 30.84 21.02 9.82 pp.

Table 7. Gaps and prioritisation by companies.

Company Gap Prioritisation (%)

S1 1.34 pp. 5.41

S2 1.09 pp. 4.41
S3 1.18 pp. 4.76
S4 1.19 pp. 4.81
M1 4.13 pp. 16.73
D1 5.50 pp. 22.27
D2 3.44 pp. 13.94
D3 3.83 pp. 15.49
RT1 3.00 pp. 12.16
Total = 100.00
4924 M.A. Sellitto et al.

Table 8. Gaps in exibility and prioritisation by processes.

Process Gap in exibility (%) Prioritisation (%)

Source 1.84 18.78

Make 0.91 9.32
Deliver 6.24 63.84
Return 0.79 8.06
Total = 100.00

Figure 2. Relationship between performance and importance for (a) processes and (b) priorities.

requirements of customers are now totally achieved, quality is no longer a problem and its importance decreased. It
shows changing in maturity level of the whole SC (Estampe et al. 2013), and reinforces the need for continuous SCPM
in order to adapt the prioritisation of value for customers.

5. Final remarks, limitations and suggestions

The main conclusions of this research are: (1) the proposed model offered an overall value that informs to what extent
strategy was achieved at the time of the study; (2) the model showed how the results were achieved, enabling compa-
nies with low contribution to the result to readdress their processes and priorities; (3) particularly for D1 company, their
delivery and exibility aspects must be reshaped in order to quickly increase the overall performance of the SC.
SCPM is a growing eld of study with signicant improvement in the last decades, mainly in collaborative aspects
(Ramanathan 2014). In such respect, we recognise the limits of the proposed model regarding the advancement of
SCPM combined techniques, as already presented in other studies (Rabelo et al. 2007; zgen et al. 2008; Naesens,
Gelders, and Pintelon 2009; Mafakheri, Breton, and Ghoniem 2011; Lu et al. 2013). Nevertheless, we highlight the dif-
culties for sophisticated applications of SCPM in ill-structured sectors as footwear industry, which usually presents
rough levels of performance among the partners of the same chain. Besides improvements in the proposed SCOR-based
model itself, we recommend the introduction of a variable related to the cost for strategy correction, and changes in
range time of data selection to provide different perspectives of assessment. For further research, we suggest the
introduction of the plan process of the SCOR model in the measurement, as well as similar applications in SC of other
industrial elds, with diverse structures like automotive, petrochemical, steel, paper and pulp, textile, and electronic
industries.

Acknowledgement
The research was funded by CNPq Brazil, the Brazilian agency of scientic research, under the process number [483271/2009-8]. We
are grateful to the practitioners that participated of the research. The authors declare that they have no conict of interest involving
the entire research, including those listed in the Disclosure of conicts of interest session of the T&F Author Services page.
 International Journal of Production Research 4925

Funding
The research was funded by CNPq Brazil, the Brazilian agency of scientic research, under the process number 483271/2009-8.

References

Agarwal, A., R. Shankar, and M. Tiwari. 2006. Modeling the Metrics of Lean, Agile and Leagile Supply Chain: An ANP-based
Approach. European Journal of Operational Research 173 (1): 211225.
Akyuz, A., and E. Erman. 2010. Supply Chain Performance Measurement: A Literature Review. International Journal of
Production Research 48 (17): 51375155.
Alomar, M., and Z. J. Pasek. 2014. Linking Supply Chain Strategy and Processes to Performance Improvement. Procedia 47th
Conference on Manufacturing Systems CIRP 17: 628634.
Aramyan, L., A. Lansink, J. van der Vorst, and O. van Kooten. 2007. Performance Measurement in Agri-food Supply Chains: A
Case Study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12 (4): 304315.
Azevedo, S., H. Carvalho, and V. Cruz-Machado. 2011. A Proposal of LARG Supply Chain Management Practices and a
Performance Measurement System. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning 1 (1):
714.
Bai, C., and J. Sarkis. 2012. Supply-chain Performance-measurement System Management Using Neighbourhood Rough Sets.
International Journal of Production Research 50 (9): 24842500.
Bechtel, C., and J. Jayaram. 1997. Supply Chain Management: A Strategic Perspective. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 8 (1): 1534.
Bhagwat, R., and M. Sharma. 2007a. Performance Measurement of Supply Chain Management: A Balanced Scorecard Approach.
Computers & Industrial Engineering 53 (1): 4362.
Bhagwat, R., and M. Sharma. 2007b. Performance Measurement of Supply Chain Management Using the Analytical Hierarchy
Process. Production Planning & Control 18 (8): 666680.
Bourne, M., A. Neely, J. Mills, K. Platts, and M. Wilcox. 2000. Designing, Implementing and Updating Performance Measurement
Systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20 (7): 754771.
Brewer, P., and T. Speh. 2000. Using the Balanced Scorecard to Measure Supply Chain Performance. Journal of Business Logistics
21 (1): 7593.
Cai, J., X. Liu, Z. Xiao, and J. Liu. 2009. Improving Supply Chain Performance Management: A Systematic Approach to Analyzing
Iterative KPI Accomplishment. Decision Support Systems 46 (2): 512521.
Chae, B. 2009. Developing Key Performance Indicators for Supply Chain: An Industry Perspective. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 14 (6): 422428.
Chan, F. 2003. Performance Measurement in a Supply Chain. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 21
(7): 534548, 2003.
Clivill, V., and L. Berrah. 2012. Overall Performance Measurement in a Supply Chain: Towards a Supplier-prime Manufacturer
Based Model. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 23 (6): 24592469.
Elgazzar, S., T. Nicoleta, N. Hubbard, and D. L. Leach. 2012. Linking Supply Chain Processes Performance to a Companys
Financial Strategic Objectives. European Journal of Operational Research 223 (1): 276289.
Estampe, D., S. Lamouri, J. L. Paris, and S. Brahim-Djelloul. 2013. A Framework for Analysing Supply Chain Performance
Evaluation Models. International Journal of Production Economics 142: 247258.
Forman, E. H. 1993. Facts and Fictions about the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17, 4-5:
1926.
Fu, H. P., K. K. Chu, C. W. Lin, and C. R. Chen. 2010. A Study on Factors for Retailers Implementing CPFR A Fuzzy AHP
Analysis. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 19 (2): 192209.
Gunasekaran, A., C. Patel, and R. McGaughey. 2004. A Framework for Supply Chain Performance Measurement. International
Journal of Production Economics 87 (3): 333347.
Hausman, W. 2003. Supply Chain Performance Metrics. In The Practice of Supply Chain Management: Where Theory and
Application Converge, edited by T. Harrison, H. Lee, and J. Neale, 6173. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
Holmberg, S. 2000. A Systems Perspective on Supply Chain Measurements. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 30 (10): 847868.
Huang, S. H., and H. Keskar. 2007. Comprehensive and Congurable Metrics for Supplier Selection. International Journal of
Production Economics 105: 510523.
Kleijnen, J., and M. Smits. 2003. Performance Metrics in Supply Chain Management. Journal of the Operational Research Society
54: 507514.
Lockamy III, A., and K. McCormack. 2004. Linking SCOR Planning Practices to Supply Chain Performance: An Exploratory
Study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24 (12): 11921218.
Lu, T. P., A. J. Trappey, Y. K. Chen, and Y. D. Chang. 2013. Collaborative Design and Analysis of Supply Chain Network
Management Key Processes Model. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 36 (6): 15031511.
4926 M.A. Sellitto et al.

Mafakheri, S., M. Breton, and A. Ghoniem. 2011. Supplier Selection-order Allocation: A Two-stage Multiple Criteria Dynamic
Programming Approach. International Journal of Production Economics 132: 5257.
Naesens, K., L. Gelders, and L. Pintelon. 2009. A Swift Response Framework for Measuring the Strategic Fit for a Horizontal
Collaborative Initiative. International Journal of Production Economics 121: 550561.
Navas-Alemn, L. 2011. The Impact of Operating in Multiple Value Chains for Upgrading: The Case of the Brazilian Furniture and
Footwear Industries. World Development, 39 (8): 13861397.
Nudurupati, S. S., U. S. Bititci, V. Kumar, and F. T. S. Chan. 2011. State of the Art Literature Review on Performance
Measurement. Computers & Industrial Engineering 60: 279290.
zgen, D., S. nt, B. Glsn, and U. R. Tuzkaya. 2008. A Two-phase Possibilistic Linear Programming Methodology for
Multi-objective Supplier Evaluation and Order Allocation Problems. Information Sciences 178: 485500.
Papakiriakopoulos, D., and K. Pramatari. 2010. Collaborative Performance Measurement in Supply Chain. Industrial Management
& Data Systems 110 (9): 12971318.
Rabelo, L., H. Eskandari, T. Shaalan, and M. Helal. 2007. Value Chain Analysis Using Hybrid Simulation and AHP. International
Journal of Production Economics 105: 536547.
Ramanathan, U. 2014. Performance of Supply Chain Collaboration A Simulation Study. Expert Systems with Applications 41:
210220.
Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sanayei, A., S. F. Mousavi, M. R. Abdi, and A. Mohaghar. 2008. An Integrated Group Decision-making Process for Supplier
Selection and Order Allocation Using Multi-attribute Utility Theory and Linear Programming. Journal of the Franklin Institute
345: 731747.
SCC (Supply Chain Council). 1996. What is SCOR? Accessed January 2013. http://supply-chain.org/scor
Sen, A. 2008. The US Fashion Industry: A Supply Chain Review. International Journal of Production Economics 114: 571593.
Simon, H. 1999. The Architecture of Complexity. In Facets of Systems Sciences. edited by G. Klin (org.), 457476. New York:
Plenum Press.
Subramanian, N., and R. Ramanathan. 2012. A Review of Applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in Operations Management.
International Journal of Production Economics 138: 215241.
Swafford, P. M., G. Soumen, and N. Murthy. 2006. The Antecedents of Supply Chain Agility of a Firm: Scale Development and
Model Testing. Journal of Operations Management 24: 170188.
Vijayvargiya, A., and A. Dey. 2010. An Analytical Approach for Selection of a Logistics Provider. Management Decision 48 (3):
403418.
Vinodh, S., S. R. Devadasan, K. E. K. Vimala, and D. Kumar. 2013. Design of Agile Supply Chain Assessment Model and Its Case
Study in an Indian Automotive Components Manufacturing Organization. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 32: 620631.
Wang, G., S. H. Huang, and J. P. Dismukes. 2004. Product-driven Supply Chain Selection Using Integrated Multi-criteria
Decision-making Methodology. International Journal of Production Economics 91: 115.
Ward, P., J. McCreery, L. Ritzman, and S. Deven. 1998. Competitive Priorities in Operations Management. Decision Sciences 29
(4): 10351046.
Xu, J., B. Li, and D. Wu. 2009. Rough Data Envelopment Analysis and Its Application to Supply Chain Performance Evaluation.
International Journal of Production Economics 122: 628638.
Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.