Network Compatibility Blocs as Basis of Partner’s Selection

  • Salah Zouggar
  • Marc Zolghadri
  • Xin Zhang
  • Philippe Girard
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 338)


The aim of this paper is to contribute to partner’s network design beyond the common partner’s selection process usually made in the literature. The originality of our approach lies in compatibility concept that comes to consolidate the ordinary approach of partner’s selection. We suggest the use of product architecture to extract its related network of partners that would be analyzed with paying attention not only to the efficiency of each required partner within the network, but also to its compatibility with other actors. The gBOMO (generalised Bill Of Materials and Operations) concept becomes significant tool that we intensively use in order to detect the imperatives of realization phase of manufactured product. We will develop exploratory ideas about the network compatibility blocs. These ideas allow a better understanding of partner’s compatibility requirements within network.


Network design product architecture partner selection 


  1. 1.
    Huang, S.H., Keskar, H.: Comprehensive and configurable metrics for supplier selection. International Journal of Production Economics 105, 510–523 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petersen, K.J., Handfield, R.B., Ragatz, G.L.: Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management 23(3/4), 371–388 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Junkkari, J.: Higher product complexity and shorter development time continuous challenge to design and test environment. In: Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition, pp. 2–3 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J., Zhang, Y.: Product modularity: definitions and benefits. Journal of Engineering Design 14(3), 295–313 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kusiak, A.: Integrated product and process design: a modularity perspective. Journal of Engineering Design 13(3), 223–231 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ro, Y.K., Liker, J.K., Fixson, S.K.: Modularity as a strategy for supply chain coordination: the case of US auto. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 54(1), 172–189 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine, C.H.: Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage. Perseus Books, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zolghadri, M., Baron, C., Girard, P.: Modelling mutual dependencies between products architecture and network of partners. International Journal of Product Development (2008) (to be printed)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jiao, J., Tseng, M.M., Ma, Q., Zou, Y.: Generic Bill-of-Materials-and-Operations for high variety production management. CERA 4(8), 297–321 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zouggar, S., Zolghadri, M., Girard, P.: Performance improvement in supply chains through better partners’ selection. In: Proceedings of 13th IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zouggar, S., Zolghadri, M., Girard, P.: Modelling product and partners network architectures to identify hidden dependencies. In: Proceedings of CIRP Design Conference (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salah Zouggar
    • 1
  • Marc Zolghadri
    • 1
  • Xin Zhang
    • 1
  • Philippe Girard
    • 1
  1. 1.IMS - LAPS/GRAIUniversity of Bordeaux, UMR 5218CNRSTalence CedexFRANCE

Personalised recommendations