See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276929470

Modeling the performance measures

of world class manufacturing using
interpreting structural modeling

ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF MODELLING IN MANAGEMENT · MARCH 2015

DOI: 10.1108/JM2-05-2012-0015

CITATION READS

1 42

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Abhijeet Digalwar
Birla Institute of Technology and …
18 PUBLICATIONS 54 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Anil Jindal
Birla Institute of Technology and …
7 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Abhijeet Digalwar

Retrieved on: 23 February 2016
 Journal of Modelling in Management
Modeling the performance measures of world class manufacturing using
interpreting structural modeling
Abhijeet Keshaorao Digalwar Anil Jindal Kuldip Singh Sangwan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

Abhijeet Keshaorao Digalwar Anil Jindal Kuldip Singh Sangwan , (2015),"Modeling the performance
measures of world class manufacturing using interpreting structural modeling", Journal of Modelling in
Management, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 4 - 22
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-05-2012-0015
Downloaded on: 30 March 2015, At: 05:58 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 72 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 51 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Praveen Goyal, Zillur Rahman, Absar Ahmad Kazmi, (2015),"Identification and prioritization of
corporate sustainability practices using analytical hierarchy process", Journal of Modelling in
Management, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 23-49 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-09-2012-0030
Rania Abd Elmonem Shamah, Shaymaa M. Elssawabi, (2015),"Facing the open innovation gap:
measuring and building open innovation in supply chains", Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol.
10 Iss 1 pp. 50-75 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-02-2013-0009
Varinder Kumar Mittal, Kuldip Singh Sangwan, (2014),"Modeling drivers for successful adoption of
environmentally conscious manufacturing", Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp.
127-140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JM2-03-2013-0011

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 487998 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

download.
*Related content and download information correct at time of

JM2
10,1
4 structural modeling
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)
Received 8 May 2012
Revised 26 October 2012
8 February 2013
Accepted 27 November 2013
Journal of Modelling in
Management
Vol. 10 No. 1, 2015
pp. 4-22
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1746-5664
DOI 10.1108/JM2-05-2012-0015
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5664.htm
Modeling the performance
measures of world class
manufacturing using interpreting
Abhijeet Keshaorao Digalwar, Anil Jindal and
Kuldip Singh Sangwan
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and
Science Pilani, Pilani, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to study the performance measures of world class
manufacturing (WCM) and to establish relationship among them using interpretive structural modeling
(ISM).
Design/methodology/approach – The research paper presents a blend of theoretical framework
and practical applications. In the paper, 16 performance measures are identified from literature survey
and experts’ opinion, and then these are validated by questionnaire survey in India. Finally, ISM is used
to obtain structural relationship among these performance measures of WCM.
Findings – The results of the survey and the ISM methodology have been used to evolve the mutual
relationships among these performance measures.
Practical implications – The adoption of such an ISM-based model on WCM performance measures
in manufacturing organizations would help managers, decision-makers and practitioners of WCM in
better understanding of these performance measures and to focus on appropriate performance
measures while implementing WCM in their organizations.
Originality/value – Performance measures are of paramount importance for the implementation of
WCM practices. Knowing the key performance measures and relationship among them can help many
organizations to implement WCM practices. It is one of the foremost attempts to model performance
measures of WCM. The paper provides useful insights into the WCM practitioners, consultants and
researchers.
Keywords India, Performance management, Measurement, Modeling, ISM, WCM
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
An organization’s ability to survive depends on how well the organization adapts to
demands imposed by a changing environment. In modern history, organizations have
come and gone, and relatively few have outlived the people who worked in them.
Organizations that have survived for a century are rare. As global competition
intensifies, big companies whose names once meant power and prosperity are being
eclipsed and are dying off at an accelerated rate. In many cases, demise is the result of an
inability to adapt (Nicholas, 2010).
 The challenge of change in a business environment comes along many fronts: Interpreting
• Competitors introduce new products. structural
• Industries develop new processes and technologies. modeling
• The scope of what constitutes the business environment keeps expanding.

The business environment has expanded to put USA, Asian and European
organizations in direct competition. In many instances, Indian companies have not fared 5
well because what they have been accustomed to giving customers is no longer
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

adequate. This is not necessarily because they are doing a poorer job than before, but
rather because new competitors in the global market have changed the definition of
what constitutes a good job.
In many cases, the new competitors have been able to offer customers something
different in terms of products and services that are more innovative, of higher quality,
more tailored to their preferences and less costly, although customer expectations are
always expanding, and satisfaction tends to be a fleeting phenomenon. A company’s
survival and success now depend on its ability to continuously improve product and
services to meet and exceed customer expectations. The ability of a company to meet
new challenges posed by customers in world competitive market is the qualifying
criterion for being a world class manufacturing (WCM) organization.
WCM is based on continuous improvement, and it is measured in terms of producing
things better, faster and cheaper and being more agile. To improve products and
services, it is necessary to go far beyond the products and services themselves and to
examine and improve the materials and basic processes intrinsic to them; performance
measurement is thus synonymous with continuous process improvement.
Although a number of authors (Saraph et al., 1989; Joo et al., 2009; Gebauer et al., 2009;
Parveen and Rao, 2009; Oberoi et al., 2008; Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2008; Anand and
Kodali, 2009; Kounis and Panagopoulos, 2007; Field and Meile, 2008; Gunasekaran et al.,
2004) have identified various factors/variables/performance measures for total quality
management (TQM), green manufacturing, lean manufacturing, total productive
maintenance, supply chain management, etc., it has been observed that no work has yet
been reported on the development and validation of a set of performance measures,
which cover the entire domain of WCM. To bridge the research gap, this paper attempts
to identify and validate a set of performance measures for WCM covering the entire
domain of WCM. Modeling the performance measures of WCM using interpretive
structural modeling (ISM) and MICMAC analysis to classify the performance measures
in four clusters.

2. Literature review
2.1 Performance measures of WCM
In WCM, the focus is on continuous improvement. Performance measurements should,
therefore, activate continuous improvements. As organizations adopt WCM, they need
new method of performance measurement to assess the continuous improvement of the
organization.
Traditional performance measurement systems are invalid for the measurement of WCM
practices, as they are based on outdated traditional cost management systems, lagging
metrics, not related to corporate strategy, inflexible, expensive and contradict continuous
improvement. The traditional notion of productivity, which has been considered a good
 JM2 indicator of the performance and progress of an organization, also has many limitations. The
10,1 simple forms of productivity are misleading, whereas the aggregate ones are complicated
and neglected in practice (Digalwar and Sangwan, 2007).
In response to the need of new performance measurement, many researchers have
argued that the new strategic performance measure based on time and cost should be
used to drive improvement. However, systems solely based on time-based performance
6 measurement have the limitation of over-emphasizing the role of time and not
considering the impact of other operational performance measures such as quality,
flexibility, delivery, etc. with respect to time. To improve time performance, all
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

operational performance measures should be measured, controlled and improved.

Finally, various conceptual performance measurement frameworks have been
developed (Sink and Tuttle, 1989; Keegan et al., 1989; Dixon et al., 1990; Kaplan and
Norton, 1992; Cross and Lynch, 1991; McMohan and Browne, 1993; Prem Vrat et al.,
1998; EFQM, 1999; Neely et al., 2001). However, they also failed to capture the entire
domain of WCM performance measures. Some researchers made an attempt in that
direction by identifying the different set of performance measures (Digalwar, 2006,
Digalwar and Sangwan, 2011).
Saraph et al. (1989), Ahire et al. (1996), Black and Porter (1996) identified critical
factors of quality management – the role of management leadership and quality policy,
quality department, training, product/service design, supplier quality management,
process management, quality data and reporting, employee relation and customer focus.
Quality, cost, delivery reliability, lead time, flexibility and employee relationships are
the six factors identified by the Maskell (1991) as the key elements of WCM commonly
used by the world class companies. Flynn et al. (1994) recommended top management
support, quality information, process management, product design, work force
management, supplier involvement and customer involvement as the key performance
measures of WCM. However, the authors suggested manufacturing cost, employee
empowerment, flexibility and speed as additional performance measures of WCM.
Kasul and Motwani (1995) identified nine critical factors for word class operations –
management commitment, quality, customer service, vendor and material management,
advanced technology, facility control, flexibility, price/cost leadership and global
competitiveness. However, the identified performance measures were not tested and
validated. Francisco et al. (2003) proposed the need of measurement of knowledge
management activities for an organization that would like to become a world class
organization. Roy et al. (2000) proposed a framework to develop performance indicators
for knowledge management.
Seven critical factors for environmental management – top management
commitment, total involvement of employees, training, green product/process design,
supplier management, measurement and information management – are identified by
Wee and Quazi (2005). According to the authors, there is a need to focus on
environmental issues for improving the performance of organization.
Utzig (1988) has suggested the following list of operating measures for advanced
manufacturing – lead time, total value-added versus non-value added time and cost,
schedule performance, product quality, engineering change notices, machine hours per
part, plant/equipment/tooling reliability, cycle time, broad management/worker
involvement, problem support, high value-added design and forecast accuracy.
However, authors such as Hayes et al. (1980) or Schmenner (1991) proposed only
 productivity as a measure of manufacturing performance. Kennerley and Neely (2003) Interpreting
identified the need for a method that can be used for development of measures that can structural
span diverse industry group. Many other researchers such as (Joo et al., 2009; Gebauer
et al., 2009; Parveen and Rao, 2009; Oberoi et al., 2008; Dangayach and Deshmukh, 2008;
modeling
Anand and Kodali, 2009; Kounis and Panagopoulos, 2007; Field and Meile, 2008;
Gunasekaran et al., 2004) focus on different aspects and techniques of WCM like supply
chain management, TQM, manufacturing strategy, lean manufacturing, etc. 7
independently. No one has developed a framework which integrates all performance
measures and which can be used for continuous improvement of the organizations. Also
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

very limited literature is available on the performance measurement of WCM, which is

based either on examinations of current best practices or the authors’ personal
experience, indicates a need to:
• develop and validate a comprehensive set of performance measures and their
variables which take into account all the aspects of WCM; and
• develop a framework which integrates all performance measures and which can
be used for continuous improvement of the organizations rather than just a
monitoring and controlling tool.

This paper identifies, discusses and models the performance measures of WCM, based
on widely used ISM technique.

2.2 Interpretive structural modeling

ISM is an interactive learning process. It has been used for over 25 years by specially
trained consultants to help their client understand complex situations and find solution
to complex problems (Mohammed et al., 2008). ISM, first proposed by Warfield (1974), is
a computer-assisted learning process that enables individuals or group to develop a map
of complex relationship between the many elements involved in complex situation. ISM
allows researchers and managers to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship
among key issues. The method is interpretive in that the group’s judgment decides
whether and how items are related; it is structural in that on the basis of the relationship,
an overall structure is extracted from a complex set of items; and it is modeling in that
the specific relationship and overall structure are portrayed in a diagraph model (Sage,
1977). In this, a set of different and directly related variables affecting the system under
consideration is structured into a comprehensive systematic model.
Saxena et al. (1992) applied the ISM methodology to the case of energy-conservation
in Indian cement industry. Sharma et al. (1995) used ISM methodology to develop a
hierarchy of actions required to achieve the future objectives of waste management in India.
Mandal and Deshmukh (1994) used the ISM methodology to analyze some of the important
vendor selection criteria and have shown the inter-relationship of criteria and their levels.
These criteria have also been categorized depending on their driver power and dependence.
Ravi and Shankar (2005) used ISM for analysis of interaction among the barriers of reverse
logistics. Singh et al. (2007) used ISM for modeling the critical success factors for
implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs). Singh and Kant (2008)
used ISM approach for showing the relationships among knowledge management barriers.
Ramesh et al. (2010) modeled the barriers of supply chain collaboration by using ISM. Soti
et al. (2010) used ISM for modeling the enablers of Six Sigma. Jindal and Sangwan (2011) used
ISM for modeling the barrier of reverse logistics implementation in Indian industry.
 JM2 3. Methodology
10,1 3.1 Performance measures
To determine the performance measures and variables of WCM, the first step is to carry
out an exploratory study. Studies are performed by various researchers addressing
performance measures/critical success factors/essentials/foundation blocks for WCM.
The literature is reviewed, with an objective to find out all the performance measures related
8 to the WCM; these are called foundation blocks/essentials/requirements/enablers/success
factors or performance measures. The next step is screening the performance measures
and their variables with the help of WCM practitioners/experts. Many experts were
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

approached, having a very good exposure of WCM deployment, most of them were
head/president/vice president/general manager/senior manager for WCM activities, to
participate in the study, but because of some or other reasons, supports from only five
experts could be obtained. The selected experts were from different backgrounds, like
electronics goods manufacturing industry, process industry, automobile industry and
engineering industry, and one expert was from academic field. The diversified group
of experts is useful to ensure better coverage of all sectors and take care of missing
parameters. The available literature about WCM performance measures was discussed
with them. However, it can be stated that it is an exploratory research. A numbers of
brainstorming sessions were held to screen final list of 16 performance measures and
172 variables. Finally, unanimously agreed upon performance measures are: top
management commitment, knowledge management, employee training, innovation and
technology, employee empowerment, environmental health and safety, supplier
management, production planning and control, quality, flexibility, speed, cost, customer
involvement, customer satisfaction, customer services and company growth.
A structured questionnaire was developed based on literature findings and earlier
selected experts’ opinion. A comprehensive questionnaire was used to find out number
of WCM-related issues in Indian manufacturing industries, but because the paper is
focused on modeling of WCM performance measures by using ISM only, the detailed
discussion of variables and complete questionnaire is not in the scope of the paper.
However, interested researchers/readers may read Digalwar and Sangwan (2007) for
complete list of variables, their development and instrument validation.
A sample of 125 experts from private sector, public sector and government
manufacturing organizations (or divisions of these large organizations) was identified
as per the snowball sampling procedure and invited to participate in the study. Along
with snowball sampling method, in-person survey was considered appropriate for
investigation. Finally, 87 responses were received on a Likert’s scale of 1-5; where a rating of
5 indicated the very important and 1 indicated the least important performance measure. All
the respondents selected were already exposed to a good number of WCM implementation
projects. The sample shows that 33 per cent respondents are managers/engineers, 36 per
cent are senior managers/senior superintendents/senior engineers and rest 31 per cent are
general managers/additional general managers/divisional general managers/directors/
deputy directors/chief engineers. Experience of the respondents’ ranged from 5 to 40 years.
They have average total experience of 15.82 years (median 15.5 years). A greater proportion
of respondents have experience between 15 and 30 years. Almost all responding companies
have a written Vision/Mission statement, quality policy statement and safety policy
statement. All these companies had implemented at least one of the WCM practices such as
TQM, lean manufacturing (LM), total productive maintenance (TPM), cellular
 manufacturing system (CMS), AMT, Six Sigma and JIT in their organization. Significant Interpreting
proportions (90 per cent) of respondents have shown their interest in performance structural
measurement activities and wished to be informed of the results.
To test the reliability and consistency of the performance measures, Cronbach’s
modeling
alpha is calculated for each performance measure by using SPSS 11.5 for Windows.
Values of Cronbach’s alpha are above the significance value of 0.60 for all performance
measures, which is acceptable for the internal consistence of the scale (Black and Porter, 9
1996; Nunnally, 1978). The mean value of all performance measures are found to be
satisfactory high, which indicates proper selection of performance measures in the
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

questionnaire. The results of statistical analysis are shown in Table I.

3.2 Stepwise method for ISM

To facilitate a better understanding of the performance measures of WCM, an analysis
of drivers, inter-relationship, hierarchy of importance and classification of
interventional levels would be essential. The various steps used in ISM methodology are
as discussed below:
• In total, 16 performance measures are selected based on literature and experts’
opinion.
• A contextual relationship is established among the enablers obtained in above
point.
• A structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) is developed for performance
measures, as shown in Table II, which indicates pairwise relationship among
performance measures of WCM.
• Develop a reachability matrix from the SSIM, and checking the matrix for
transitivity. Transitivity of the contextual relation is a basic assumption in ISM
which states that if element A is related to B and B is related to C, then A is related
to C partitioning of reachability matrix into different levels.

Performance
measure no. Performance measure name No. of variables Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha

1 Knowledge Management 10 4.42 0.95 0.897

2 Employee Training 19 3.62 0.98 0.945
3 Innovation and Technology 8 3.84 0.80 0.837
4 Customer Involvement 5 4.23 0.87 0.884
5 Employee Empowerment 14 3.78 0.87 0.944
6 Top Management Commitment 14 4.34 0.74 0.923
7 Cost 5 3.72 0.92 0.922
8 Speed 10 3.66 0.95 0.791
9 Flexibility 11 3.61 0.88 0.846
10 Environmental Health and Safety 15 4.06 0.85 0.949
11 Quality 9 4.28 0.66 0.907
12 Production, Planning and Control 12 4.04 0.78 0.856
13 Supplier Management 13 3.85 0.84 0.905 Table I.
14 Customer Satisfaction 8 4.02 0.78 0.776 Summary of
15 Customer Services 12 4.16 0.69 0.937 reliability and
16 Company Growth 7 4.05 0.77 0.692 consistency analysis
 JM2 Performance Performance measure
10,1 measure no. Performance measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1 Knowledge Management 1 X O O V A V V V V V V V V V V
2 Employee Training 1 X O V A V V V V V V V V V V
3 Innovation and Technology 1 X V A V V V V V V V V V V
10 4 Customer Involvement 1 V A V V V V V V V V V V
5 Employee Empowerment 1 A V V V V V V V V V V
6 Top Management Commitment 1 V V V V V V V V V V
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

7 Cost 1 X O O O O O V V V
8 Speed 1 X O O O O V V V
9 Flexibility 1 X O O O V V V
10 Environmental Health and Safety 1 X O O V V V
11 Quality 1 X O V V V
12 Production, Planning and Control 1 X V V V
13 Supplier Management 1 V V V
Table II. 14 Customer Satisfaction 1 A V
Structural self- 15 Customer Service 1 V
interaction matrix 16 Company Growth 1

• Based on the relationships given above in the reachability matrix, draw an ISM
model.
• Review the ISM model to check for conceptual inconsistency and make the
necessary modifications.

The following shows the development of an ISM of 16 performance measures for the
implementation of WCM in Indian manufacturing industry:
The ISM methodology suggests the use of the experts’ opinion in developing
contextual relationship among the variables. For identifying the contextual relationship
among the performance measures, which are critical for successful deployment of WCM,
earlier selected five experts were consulted. Four symbols are used to denote the
directional relationship among the performance measures:
(1) V. performance measure i will help alleviates performance measure j.
(2) A. performance measure j will be alleviated by performance measure i.
(3) X. performance measure i and j will help each other.
(4) O. performance measure i and j are unrelated.

Data obtained from questionnaire survey are used to classify performance measures
into two kinds of pair of performance measures. The first kind of pairs of
performance measure is not having any significant correlation coefficients, whereas
the second kind of pairs is having pair of performance measure with significant
correlation coefficient. For example, 1-3 is a pair with no significant correlation, and
1 and 5 is a pair with significant correlation. The pairs with no significant
correlation are given as Code-O in SSIM. To achieve bidirectional relationship,
group judgment method is used. ISM methodology suggests the use of the experts’
opinions based on various management techniques such as brain storming, nominal
technique, etc. in developing contextual relationship among the variables
 (Mohammed et al., 2008). Experts’ opinions have been recommended and used by Interpreting
Mohammed et al. (2008), Mandal and Deshmukh (1994) and Saxena et al. (1992). The structural
steps taken to achieve appropriate type of directionality are mentioned below: modeling
All possible pairs of performance measures with significant correlation were
selected, and experts from different manufacturing industries were requested to classify
relation between two performance measures as A, V or X. The written opinions of
experts were taken in a closed box to avoid initial bias in thinking process. Experts were 11
allowed to go to their workplace to consolidate their opinion by actual experience. After
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

a period of two weeks, second round of meeting was called. Experts were asked to again
vote for A, V or X kind of relationship between a pair of performance measures. Finally,
mismatch of opinion were opened for discussion. The unanimously agreed upon final
pairwise relationship is shown in SSIM.
Reachability matrix is developed from SSIM, and matrix is checked for
transitivity. By transitivity embedding, the modified reachability matrix is
obtained. The SSIM is transformed into a binary matrix, called the initial
reachability matrix by substituting V, A, X and O by 1 and 0 as per the case. The
rules used for substitution are:
• If the (i, j) entry in SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry in reachabilty matrix becomes
1and the (j, i) entry becomes 0.
• If the (i, j) entry in SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes
0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.
• If the (i, j) entry in SSIM is X, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes
1 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 1.
• If the (i, j) entry in SSIM is O, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes
0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0.

Following these rules, initial reachability matrix for enablers is obtained (Table III).
The final reachability matrix is obtained by incorporating the transitivity (Table III).
The transitivity is checked, by checking if element i leads to element j and element j leads
to element k, then element i should lead to element k. The driving power and dependency
of each performance measures to be used in MICMAC analysis are also shown in
Table III.
The reachability matrix obtained in previous step is partitioned into different levels.
The reachability set and antecedent set for each parameter are found out from final
reachability matrix (Warfield, 1974). The reachability set for a particular performance
measure consists of the performance measure itself and the other performance
measures, which may help in achieving them. Then, the intersection sets of these sets are
derived for all variables. The variables for which the reachability and the intersection
sets are the same are given the top level in ISM hierarchy, which would not help achieve
any other performance measure above their own level. After the identification of the
top-level performance measure, it is discarded from other remaining performance
measures. The interactive procedure continues till all performance measures are found
out. The performance measure along with their reachability set, antecedent set,
intersection set and the levels are shown in Table IV. The identified levels aids in
building the diagram and the final model of ISM.
 JM2 Performance Performance measure
10,1 measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Driving power

1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
12 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Table III. 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3
Initial reachability 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
matrix Dependence 5 5 5 5 6 1 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 15 14 16

Based on the relationship obtained in reachability matrix, a directed graph is drawn, and
the transitive links are removed. The resultant diagram is an ISM for performance
measures of WCM (Figure 1).
Matrice d’Impacts croises-multipication applique= an classment (cross-impact matrix
multiplication applied to classification) is abbreviated as MICMAC. The MICMAC
principle is based on multiplication properties of matrices (Sharma et al., 1995). The
main objective of MICMAC analysis is to analyze the drive power and dependence
power of the variables (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994). Based on their driving power and
dependency power, the performance measures are divided into four categories, as
explained below and shown in Figure 2.
(1) Autonomous performance measures: These performance measures have weak
drive power and weak dependence. They are relatively disconnected from the
system, with which they have few links, which may be very strong. From the
MICMAC analysis, there in no autonomous performance measure.
(2) Linkage performance measures: These have strong drive power as well as strong
dependence. They are also unstable. Any action on them will have an effect on
others and also a feed- back effect on themselves. From Figure 2 it is observed
that cost, speed, flexibility, environmental health and safety, quality, production
planning and control and supplier management are linkage performance
measures.
(3) Dependent performance measures: This category includes those performance
measures which have weak drive power but strong dependence power. From
MICMAC analysis, customer satisfaction, customer service and company
growth are dependent performance measures.
(4) Independent performance measures: These have strong drive power but weak
dependence power. It is generally observed that a performance measure with a
 Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

Barrier Reachability Antecendent Intersection Level

1st iteration
1 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
2 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
3 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
4 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
5 5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6 5
6 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 6 6
7 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
8 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
9 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
10 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
11 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
12 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
14 14,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 14
15 14,15,16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 15
16 16 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 16 1st
2nd iteration
1 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
2 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
3 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
4 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
5 5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6 5
6 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 6 6
7 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
8 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
9 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
10 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
11 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
12 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
14 14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 14 2nd
15 14,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 15
(continued)

Table IV.
13
modeling
structural
Interpreting
 Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

14
10,1
JM2

Table IV.
Barrier Reachability Antecendent Intersection Level

3rd iteration
1 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
3 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
4 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
5 5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,5,6 5
6 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 6 6
7 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
8 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
9 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
10 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
11 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
12 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13
15 15 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15 15 3rd
4th iteration
1 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
2 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
3 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
4 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
5 5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6 5
6 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 6 6
7 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 4th
8 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 4th
9 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 4th
10 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 4th
11 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 4th
12 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 4th
13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 7,8,9,10,11,12,13 4th
(continued)
 Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

Barrier Reachability Antecendent Intersection Level

5th iteration
1 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
2 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
3 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
4 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4
5 5 1,2,3,4,5,6 5 5th
6 1,2,3,4,5,6 6 6
6th iteration
1 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4 6th
2 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4 6th
3 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4 6th
4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,6 1,2,3,4 6th
6 1,2,3,4,6 6 6 7th

Table IV.
15
modeling
structural
Interpreting
 JM2
10,1

16
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

Figure 1.
ISM model

very strong drive power, called the “key performance measure”, falls into the
category of independent or linkage performance measures. It is observed that
knowledge management, employee training, innovation and technology,
customer involvement, employee empowerment and top management
commitment are the key performance measures of WCM.

Figure 2 shows the clustering of performance measures based on MICMAC analysis.

4. Conclusion
This paper has tried to identify performance measures for successful assessment of
WCM practices. Better performance of organization on different measures in
comparison to its competitors will lead to its competitiveness in the global market.
Successful implementation of WCM depends on different performance measures; total
16 performance measures and their 172 variables were identified in present study. For
establishing a relationship between these performance measures, ISM approach has
been applied. It has also helped in determining drive and dependence powers of all
measures. It is observed that top management commitment is the major driver for
implementing WCM. Effective top management commitment will improve organization
performance in terms of knowledge management, employee training, innovation and
technology and customer involvement. Further improvements in the above-mentioned
factors will help in empowering the employees and improving operational performances
like cost, quality, speed, flexibility, environmental health and safety, production
 Interpreting
structural
modeling

17
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

Figure 2.
MICMAC analysis

planning and control, supplier management of the organization that leads to the
improvement of customer service and satisfaction which ultimately converts in
company growth. In this research, through ISM, a relationship model among different
performance measures has been developed on the basis of industry experts’ opinion.
The adoption of such an ISM-based model on WCM performance measures in
manufacturing organizations would help managers, decision-makers and practitioners
of WCM in better understanding of these performance measures and to focus on
appropriate performance measures while implementing WCM in their organizations.
Structural equation modeling, also commonly known as linear structural relationship
approach, has the capability of testing the validity of such hypothetical model.
Therefore, it may be applied in the future research to test the validity of this model.

References
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996), “Development and validation of TQM
implementation construct”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R.B. (2009), “Development of a framework for lean manufacturing
systems”, International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 5,
pp. 687-716.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), “Identification of critical factors of TQM”, Decision Science,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Cross, K.F. and Lynch, R.L. (1991), “The SMART way to define and sustain success”, National
Productivity Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
 JM2 Dangayach, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008), “Implementation of manufacturing strategy: a
multisector study of the Indian manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Services
10,1 and Operations Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Digalwar, A.K. (2006), “Development and validation of performance measures for world class
manufacturing”, Ph.D. Thesis, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani.
Digalwar, A.K. and Sangwan, K.S. (2007), “Development and validation of performance measures
18 for world class manufacturing practices in India”, Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

Digalwar, A.K. and Sangwan, K.S. (2011), “An overview of Existing performance measurement
frameworks in the context of world class manufacturing performance measurement”,
International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 60-82.
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990), The New Performance Challenge – Measuring
Operations for World-class Competition, Dow Jones- Irwin, Homewool.
EFQM (1999), Assessing for Excellence: A Practical Guide for Self-Assessment, Brussels
Representative Office, Belgium.
Field, J.M. and Meile, L.C. (2008), “Supplier relations and supply chain performance in financial
services processes”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 185-206.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Flynn, E.J., Sakakibara, S. and Bates, K.A. (1997), “World-class
manufacturing project- overview and selected results”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 671-685.
Francisco, M., Roy, R., Wegen, B. and Steele, A. (2003), “A framework to create key performance
indicators for knowledge management solutions”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 46-62.
Gebauer, H., Kickuth, M. and, Friedji, T. (2009), “Lean management practices in the
pharmaceutical industry”, International Journal of Services and Operations Management,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 463-481.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey, R.E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain
performance measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 1,
pp. 333-347.
Hayes, R.H. and Abernathy, W.J. (1980), “Managing our way to economic decline”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 67-77.
Jindal, A. and Sangwan, K.S. (2011), “Development of an interpretive structural model of barriers
to reverse logistics implementation in Indian industry”, Glocalized Solutions for
Sustainability in Manufacturing, Proceedings of the 18th CIRP International Conference,
2-4 May, Technische Universitat Braunschweig, Braunschweig, pp. 448-453.
Joo, S.J., Messer, G.H. and Bradshaw, R. (2009), “The performance evaluation of existing suppliers
using data envelopment analysis”, International Journal of Services and Operations
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 429-443.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard - measures that drive performance”,
Harward Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 71-79.
Kasul, R.A. and Motwani, J.G. (1995), “Performance measurements in world class operations a
strategic model”, Benchmarking for Quality Management and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 20-36.
Keegan, D.P., Eiler, R.G. and Jones, C.R. (1989), “Are your performance measures obsolete?”,
Management Accounting, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 45-50.
 Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2003), “Measuring performance in a changing business Interpreting
environment”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 213-229.
structural
Kounis, L.D. and Panagopoulos, N. (2007), “Total quality management and benchmarking:
modeling
bridging the gap in the public sector”, International Journal of Services and Operations
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 245-259.
Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994), “Vendor selection using ISM”, International Journal of 19
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 52-59.
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

Maskell, B. (1991), Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing: A Model for
American Companies, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mohammed, I.R., Shankar, R. and Banwet, D.K. (2008), “Creating flex-lean-agile value chain by
outsourcing: an ISM based interventional roadmap”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 338-389.
Neely, A., Adams, C. and Crowe, P. (2001), “The performance prism in practice”, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 6-12.
Nicholas, J.M. (2010), Competitive Manufacturing Management, Tata McGraw Hill, New York,
NY.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oberoi, J.S., Khamba, J.S. and Kiran, S.R. (2008), “An empirical examination of advanced
manufacturing technology and sourcing practices in developing manufacturing
flexibilities” International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 4 No. 6,
pp. 652-671.
Parveen, M. and Rao, T.V.V.L.N. (2009), “An integrated approach to design and analysis of lean
manufacturing system: a perspective of lean supply chain”, International Journal of
Services and Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 175-208.
Prem, V., Sardana, G.D. and Sahay, B.S. (1998), Productivity Management: A Systems Approachs,
Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi.
Ramesh, A., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2010), “Modelling the barriers of supply chain
collaboration”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 176-193.
Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions among the barriers of reverse logistics”,
Technology Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 1011-1029.
Roy, R. del-Rey-Chamorro, F., van Wegen, B. and Steele, A. (2000), “A framework to create a
performance indicators in knowledge management” Proceeding PAKM’00, Basel,
pp. 181-187.
Sage, A.P. (1977), Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large-scale Systems,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 91-164.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), “An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management”, Decision Sciences Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-829.
Saxena, J., Sushil, P. and Vrat, P. (1992), “Scenario building: a critical study of energy conservation
in the Indian cement industry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 121-146.
Schmenner, R.W. (1991), “International factory productivity gains”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 229-254.
Sharma, H.D., Gupta, A.D. and Sushil (1995), “The objectives of waste management in India: a
future inquiry”, Technology Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 285-309.
 JM2 Singh, M.D. and Kant, R. (2008), “Knowledge management barriers: an interpretive structural
modeling approach”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
10,1 Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 141-150.
Singh, R.K., Garg, S.K., Deshmukh, S.G. and Kumar, M. (2007), “Modelling of critical success
factors for implementation os AMTs”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 232-250.
20 Sink, D.S. and Tuttle, T.C. (1989), Planning and Measurement of Your Organization of the Future,
Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross.
Soti, A., Shankar, R. and Kaushal, O.P. (2010), “Modelling the enablers of six sigma using
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

interpretive structural modeling”, Journal of Modeling in Management, Vol. 5 No. 2,

pp. 121-141.
Utzig, L.J. (1988), “CMS performance measurement”, in Berliner, C. and Brimson, J.A. (Eds), Cost
Management for Today’s Advanced Manufacturing: The CAM-I Conceptual Design,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Warfield, J.W. (1974), “Developing interconnected matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE
Transcript on Systems, Men and Cybernetics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51-81.
Wee, Y.S. and Quazi, H.A. (2005), “Development and validation of critical factors of environmental
management”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 96-114.
White, G. (1996), “A survey and taxonomy of strategy-related performance measures for
manufacturing”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 42-61.

Further reading
Azzone, G. and Noci, G. (1998), “Identifying effective PMSs for the deployment of green
manufacturing strategy”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 308-335.
Bose, R. (2004), “Knowledge management metrics”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 104 No. 6, pp. 457-468.
Chan, F.T.S., Qi, H.J., Chan, H.K., Lau, H.C.W. and Ip, R.W.L. (2003), “A conceptual model of
performance measurement for supply chains”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7,
pp. 635-642.
Dangayach, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2003), “Evidence of manufacturing strategies in Indian
industry: a survey”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 279-298.
De Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (1997), “Manufacturing flexibility: a literature review”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1587-1617.
Digalwar, A.K. and Metri, B.A. (2005), “Performance measurement framework for world class
manufacturing”, International Journal of Applied Management & Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 83-102.
Garvin, D.A. (1988), Managing Quality, Free Press, New York, NY.
Gerwin, D. (1993), “Manufacturing flexibility: a strategic perspective”, Management Science,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 395-410.
Ghalayini, A.M. and Noble, J.S. (1996), “The changing basis of performance measurement”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 63-80.
Gosselin, M. (2005), “An empirical study of performance measurement in manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production & Performance Management, Vol. 54 Nos 5/6,
pp. 419-437.
 Gronholdt, L. and Martensen, A. (2009), “Management practices driving sustained business Interpreting
success”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 47-55.
structural
Jungman, H., Okkonen, J., Rasila, T. and Seppa, M. (2004), “Use of performance measurement in
V2C activity”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 175-189.
modeling
Kock, N.F. Jr, McQueen, R.J. and Corner, J.L. (1997), “The nature of data information and
knowledge exchange in business processes: implications for process improvement and
organizational learning”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 70-80. 21
Krause, O. (2003), “Beyond BSC a process based approach to performance management”,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 4-14.
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

McMahon, C. and Browne, J. (1993), CAD/CAM - From Principles to Practice, Addison-Wesley,

London.
Mathur, A., Dangayach, G.S., Mittal, M.L. and Sharma, M.K. (2011), “Performance measurement in
automated manufacturing”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Motwani, J. (2001), “Critical factors and performance measures of TQM”, The TQM Magazine,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 292-300.
Neely, A. (1998), Measuring Business Excellence, Profile Books, London.
Neely, A.D., Mills, J.F., Gregory, M.J. and Platts, K.W. (1995), “Performance measurement system
design – a literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Nwokah, N.G. (2009), “Customer focus, competitor focus and marketing performance”, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 20-28.
Pinheiro de Lima, E., Gouvea da Costa, S.E. and Angelis, J.J. (2009), “Strategic performance
measurement systems: a discussion about their role”, Measuring Business Excellence,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 39-48.
Sethi, A.K. and Sethi, S.P. (1990), “Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey”, International Journal of
Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 289-328.
Singh, Bhim, Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2010), “Development of index for measurement of
leanness: study of an Indian auto component industry”, Measuring Business Excellence,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 46-53.
Singh, H., Motwani, J. and Kumar, A. (2000), “A review and analysis of the state of the art research
on productivity measurement”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 5,
pp. 234-241.

About the authors

Abhijeet Keshaorao Digalwar received his PhD from BITS Pilani, India. Presently, he is working
as an Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering. He has over 15 years of teaching experience
at graduate and post-graduate levels. His areas of interest are performance measurement systems,
WCM, TQM, green manufacturing, knowledge management and manufacturing strategy. He has
published more than 30 papers in national/international conferences and international journals.
He is a life-time member of Indian Society of Technical Education and a member of Performance
Measurement Association, UK. He is a reviewer of many prestigious national and international
journals as well as working as an editorial board member for International Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, Asian Journal of Industrial Engineering and Research Journal of
Business Management of Academic Journal Inc. of USA. Abhijeet Keshaorao Digalwar is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: akdigalwar@gmail.com
Anil Jindal is presently working as a Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering Department of BITS
Pilani, India, and pursuing his PhD in the area of reverse logistics. Before joining BITS Pilani, he
completed his BE in Mechanical Engineering from Punjab Technical University and ME from
 JM2 Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, India. His areas of interest include reverse logistics,
supply chain management and performance measurement systems.
10,1 Kuldip Singh Sangwan did his BE and ME from Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, and
PhD from BITS, Pilani. He is presently working as an Associate Professor with Mechanical
Engineering Department and Chief Workshop Unit, BITS, Pilani, and has over 18 years of
teaching experience at graduate and post-graduate levels. He has published a monogram on
concurrent engineering and many research papers in national and international journals. He has
22 organized various training programs and conferences in the areas of his research interest in the
institute. He is a reviewer of many prestigious national and international journals. His areas of
research interest are CMS, green manufacturing, sustainable manufacturing, WCM, TPM,
Downloaded by BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & SCIENCE At 05:58 30 March 2015 (PT)

concurrent engineering, operations management and application of fuzzy mathematics, genetic

algorithms, simulated annealing and neural networks in design of manufacturing system. Dr
Sangwan is a life-time member of Institution of Engineers (India), Society of Operations
Management and Indian Society of Technical Education.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com