Similar to any investment decision, implementation of e-Work solutions requires a comprehensive rationalization from various perspectives, especially economy, productivity and sustainability. Considering e-Work, in general terms, as a sort of technology encapsulation (Nof, 2003 and 2007a), this chapter focuses on the prioritization of e-Work implementation plans. Realization of e-Work solutions depends highly on the demonstration of its inherent benefits to individual, networked e-Systems, and the users. The strategic requirements of an e-System are considered as a starting point to identify proper e-Work processes and solutions. As discussed earlier in this book, in line with the emergence of e-Systems, various e-Criteria are continuously evolving, which must be incorporated in the rationalization process as key performance indicators (e.g., reconfigurability and reusability of software and processes). Therefore, a robust framework is indeed required to support rationalization of e-Work implementation projects based on multiple (and somehow conflicting) e-Criteria.
In this chapter, basic operational strategies and traditional economic rationalization procedures are first reviewed. It is shown that traditional procedures cannot sufficiently address some emerging aspects of e-Work and disregard strategic benefits of technology. Several scenarios for production of goods and services are then analyzed in the form of value chains, corporative level strategy, business units strategies, and functional strategic planning to determine the operational strategies. Process specification is performed through Value Stream Maps (VSM) for each enterprise to achieve a cross-company operational specification. e-Work alternatives can then be evaluated through defining and prioritizing the implementation plans. Technology evaluation models are introduced for evaluating of the results. Such models conform the implementation plans for different e-Work alternatives. The goal is to maximize the benefits of enterprises and enhance the specification of e- Work processes and technologies through prioritizing the enterprise plans for research and development. Finally, a comprehensive Multi-Criteria Decision- Making (MCDM) framework, based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), is introduced for evaluation of e-Work alternatives based on multiple e-Criteria.
KeywordsData Envelopment Analysis Cash Flow Analytic Hierarchy Process Data Envelopment Analysis Model Balance Scorecard
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Aragon, C.B.: Collaborative analytics for astrophysics explorations. In: Nof, S.Y. (ed.) Springer Handbook of Automation, vol. 93, pp. 1645–1670. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
- 3.Boothroyd, G., Poli, C., Murch, L.E.: Automatic Assembly. Marcel Dekker, New York (1982)Google Scholar
- 5.Ceroni, J.: Economic Justification of Automation Systems. In: Nof, S.Y. (ed.) Springer Handbook of Automation, ch. 40, pp. 699–713 (2009)Google Scholar
- 7.Comella-Dorda, S., Dean, J., Lewis, G., Morris, E., Oberndorf, P., Harper, E.: A Process for COTS Software Product Evaluation (CMU/SEI-2003-TR-017) Pittsburgh, PA., Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (July 2004)Google Scholar
- 10.Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C.: Restoring our Competitive Edge – Competing Through Manufacturing. Wiley, New York (1984)Google Scholar
- 11.Hill, T.: Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases, 2nd edn. Palgrave, Hampshire (2000)Google Scholar
- 12.Irani, S.A., Zhou, J.: Value Stream Mapping of a Complete Product. Research memo. Department of Industrial, Welding and Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University (2011)Google Scholar
- 13.JBoss Application Server (2005), http://www.jboss.org/products/jbossas
- 14.Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The Balanced Scorecard. Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 71–78 (January-February 1992)Google Scholar
- 15.Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, 75–85 (January-February 1996a)Google Scholar
- 16.Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy. California Management Review, 53–79 (Fall 1996b)Google Scholar
- 20.Lewis, G.A., Wrage, L.: Approaches to Contructive Interoperability, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute CMU/SEI-2004-TR-020, ESC-TR-2004-020Google Scholar
- 21.Miltenburg, J.: Manufacturing Strategy - How to Formulate and Implement a Winning Plan. Productivity Press, Portland (1995)Google Scholar
- 22.Nof, S.Y.: Design of effective e-Work: Review of models, tools and emerging challenges. Production Planning and Control, Special Issue on e-Work: Models and Cases 15(8), 681 (2003)Google Scholar
- 24.Nof, S.Y.: Availability, integrability, and dependability – what are the limits in production and logistics. In: Proceedings of MCPL, Sibiu, Romania (September 2007b)Google Scholar
- 25.Oracle Corporation. Oracle Database (2005), http://www.oracle.com/database/
- 26.Porter, M.: Competitive Advantage. Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
- 27.Rother, M., Shook, J.: Learning to See. Version 1.2. Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline (1999)Google Scholar
- 32.Velásquez, J.D., Nof, S.Y.: Collaborative e-Work, e-Production, and e-Service. In: Nof, S.Y. (ed.) Springer Handbook of Automation, ch. 88, pp. 1549–1576 (2009)Google Scholar
- 33.Wallnau, K., Hissam, S., Seacord, R.: Building Systems from Commercial Components. Addison-Wesley, New York (2001)Google Scholar