• Shimon Y. NofEmail author
  • Jose Ceroni
  • Wootae Jeong
  • Mohsen Moghaddam
Part of the Automation, Collaboration, & E-Services book series (ACES, volume 2)


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.


Data Envelopment Analysis Cash Flow Analytic Hierarchy Process Data Envelopment Analysis Model Balance Scorecard 
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. 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
  2. 2.
    Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W.: Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 30(9), 1078–1092 (1984)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boothroyd, G., Poli, C., Murch, L.E.: Automatic Assembly. Marcel Dekker, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bozarth, C.C., Berry, W.L.: Measuring the congruence between market requirements and manufacturing: a methodology and illustration. Decision Sciences 28, 121–150 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E.: Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2, 429–444 (1978)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Cook, W.D., Tone, K., Zhu, J.: Data Envelopment Analysis: Prior to Choosing a Model. Omega 44, 1–4 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eilat, H., Golany, B., Shtub, A.: Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: A DEA based methodology. European Journal of Operational Research 172, 1018–1039 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C.: Restoring our Competitive Edge – Competing Through Manufacturing. Wiley, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill, T.: Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases, 2nd edn. Palgrave, Hampshire (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 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. 13.
    JBoss Application Server (2005),
  14. 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. 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. 16.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Linking the Balanced Scorecard to Strategy. California Management Review, 53–79 (Fall 1996b)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, Y., Lee, J.: Manufacturing strategy and production systems: an integrated framework. Journal of Operations Management 11, 3–15 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leong, G.K., Snyder, D.L., Ward, P.T.: Research in the process and content of manufacturing strategy. Omega 18, 109–122 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewis, G.A.: An Approach to Analysis and Design for COTS-Based Systems. In: Franch, X., Port, D. (eds.) ICCBSS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3412, pp. 236–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 21.
    Miltenburg, J.: Manufacturing Strategy - How to Formulate and Implement a Winning Plan. Productivity Press, Portland (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Nof, S.Y.: Collaborative control theory for e-Work, e-Production, and e-Service. Annual Reviews in Control 31, 281–292 (2007a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 25.
    Oracle Corporation. Oracle Database (2005),
  26. 26.
    Porter, M.: Competitive Advantage. Free Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rother, M., Shook, J.: Learning to See. Version 1.2. Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saaty, T.: Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Service Sciences 1(1), 83–98 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schroeder, D.M., Congden, S.W., Gopinath, C.: Linking competitive strategy and manufacturing process technology. Journal of Management Studies 32, 163–189 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seok, H.S., Nof, S.Y., Filip, F.G.: Sustainability Decision Support System based on Collaborative Control Theory. Annual Reviews in Control 36(1), 85–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sheu, C.: Linking market factors to manufacturing design. Omega – International Journal of Management Science 22, 269–282 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 33.
    Wallnau, K., Hissam, S., Seacord, R.: Building Systems from Commercial Components. Addison-Wesley, New York (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shimon Y. Nof
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jose Ceroni
    • 2
  • Wootae Jeong
    • 3
  • Mohsen Moghaddam
    • 4
  1. 1.PRISM Center & School of IEPurdue University West LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.School of Industrial Engineering Catholic University of ValparaísoValparaísoChile
  3. 3.Korea Railroad Research Institute UiwangRepublic of South Korea
  4. 4.PRISM Center & School of IE Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations