Production Network Design and Specialty Chemicals

Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 594)


Many different definitions of the term supply chain exist in literature (cf. Ganeshan et al. 1999, p. 842). Christopher (2005, p. 17) defines the supply chain as a “ of organizations that are involved, through upstream and downstream linkages, in the different processes and activities that produce value in the form of products and services in the hands of the ultimate consumer”. Typically, a supply chain consists of suppliers, production sites, storage facilities, distribution facilities and customers linked by material, information and financial flows. As shown in Figure 2, a supply chain can be spread across several facilities located in different countries that might belong to different companies. At the same time, depending on the product portfolio, a company is usually part of numerous supply chains (cf. Lambert and Cooper 2000, p. 69).


Supply Chain Network Design Supply Chain Management Production Network Specialty Chemical 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    cf. Günther and Tempelmeier (2005), p. 27; Chopra and Meindl (2004), pp. 7–8; Simchi-Levi et al. (2003), p. 15; Miller (2002), pp. 2–6; Schmidt and Wilhelm (2000); Zäpfel (2000), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    cf. Shah (2005), p. 1226; Chopra and Meindl (2004), p. 99; Simchi-Levi et al. (2003), p. 15; Tsiakis et al. (2001), pp. 3585–3586; Neumann et al. (2002), pp. 254–256; Goetschalckx (2000), p. 79; Götze (1995), pp. 50–51; Verter and Dincer (1995), pp. 264–265.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Source: Günther (2005), p. 10. The structures of particular APS are discussed in Fleischmann and Meyr (2003), pp. 509–516.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Source: Jordan and Graves (1995), p. 582.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Cf. (as of 2007-03-04).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    For the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive location science cf. also Krarup and Pruzan (1990), p. 2.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    cf. Jung (2004), pp. 60–70; Haigh (1990), p. 27; Peskin and Halpern (1990); Wardrep (1985); Stafford (1980), pp. 44–155; Timmermann (1972), p. 390; Behrens (1971), pp. 47–81; Rüschenpöhler (1958), pp. 83–176.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    This paragraph is based on Blömer (1999), pp. 5–9; Günther (1998), p. 356; Packowski (1996), pp. 33–39 and Corsten and May (1994), pp. 873–880 where further details on the topic can be found.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    For details on the Nanjing site see for example Roth (2005) or the BASF website at Scholar
  10. 11.
    cf. for example McPadden (2001); N.N. (2000).Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    This chapter is based on Yang (2004, pp. 17–24), Blömer (1999, pp. 9–18) and Kölbel and Schulze (1967, pp. 15–36).Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Microreaction technology is described in detail in Ehrfeld et al. (2000). Wille et al. (2004) describe an application in specialty chemicals.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    The information on Rohm and Haas’ production network is taken from the 2005 annual report (cf. Rohm and Haas (2006), pp. 36–37).Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    This paragraph is based on the company history published on Scholar
  15. 16.
    Schmenner et al. (1987) explicitly study the relative importance of location factors at the state and actual location level.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    The planning process is based on the general planning process as proposed by Hahn and Hungenberg (2001, pp. 45–47) consisting of the four phases problem definition, identification of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives and decision. Vos and Akkermans (1996, p. 64) employ a similar planning process for production network design and Mintzberg et al. (1976) find that similarly structured decision processes are typically employed in strategic decision situations.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    cf. Günther and Tempelmeier (2005), pp. 67–68; Bankhofer (2000), p. 339; Emmrich (1997), pp. 245–247; Lüder and Küpper (1983), pp. 97–98 and 139–151.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    cf. Hagedorn (1994), pp. 27–30; Hummel (1997), pp. 85–95.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    Adapted from Bankhofer (2001), p. 96.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Source: Hahn and Hungenberg (2001), pp. 806–807 with modifications by the author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Personalised recommendations