Development of Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Performance Measurement in Service Industries

• – University of Muhammadiyah Gresik and Industrial Engineering Doctorate Student at Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya. 60111. Indonesia
• – Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology, Surabaya. 60111. Indonesia environment and social [7]. SSC need performance

  Keywords

  From the disadvantages, it ’s required SSCPM system for service industries needs : a). involve all SC actors in determining performance indicators, standards and measurement, b). intangibility characteristics to be performance indicator, c). describes priorities and relationship between performance indicators for each perspective and or between other perspective to facilitate decision maker at the level of operational, tactical and strategic, c). can be implemented in several types of service industries.

  Disadvantages of SSCPM in service industry are lack of interaction and coordination between SC actors in determine performance indicators, metric, and assessment [13], lack of interrelationships and or interdependency between indicators of sustainability aspect to determine causal links impact on operational SSC [4], [14], [15], performance indicators for social aspect still less explored [15], [16]. Besides that, the main characteristic of service is intangibility, so SSCPM system for service industries must attention about intangibility aspect to be performance indicator [17].

  SSCPM frameworks have developed in service industry. Life cycle thinking used in laboratory service [8], Quality Function Deployment (QFD) used in logistic provider [9] , Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) used in banking [10], Service SC Environmental Performance Evaluation (SSCEPE) based on multi criteria decision making (MCDM) in medical support service provider and catering service [11]. SSCPM framework able to develop based on risk management, environment management, social responsibility, health and safety [12].

  Now, economic sustainability is not enough. Stakeholders (governance, NGOs, community, customers) have been pressured focal firm and SC for commitment to environment and social sustainability [4], [5]. Evaluation of SC impact on the economic, social and environment called SSC [6]. SSC implementation in service industries can increase the profit and minimize negative impact for measurement system for measuring of success standards that called SSCPM.

  I. INTRODUCTION The service industries have significant contribution in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a country [1] and became a driving force in national economy growth [2], [3]. SC concept can implement to make efficient and effective management of service industry [1]. SC objective are minimize cost and maximize profit for economic sustainability.

  sustainability aspect, leveling of SC, ANP and system dynamics.

  Abstract - The growth of service industries have been significant relation with economic growth. Service industries need a new paradigm for maintains the growth, likes supply chain (SC) and performance measurement. Main objective of SC is economic sustainability. Application of sustainability was not enough on the economic aspect, but also environmental and social. Evaluation of SC impact on the economic, social and environment called sustainable SC (SSC). SSC implementation in service industries can be increase the profit and minimize negative impact for environment and social. SSC need performance measurement system for measuring of success standards that called SSC performance measurement (SSCPM). SSCPM frameworks in service industry have developed, but still lack in interaction and interrelation between indicators based on sustainability aspects and perspectives. This study propose a new SSCPM framework based on balanced scorecard (BSC), leveling of SC, analytical networking process (ANP) and system dynamics. BSC adoption used to determine performance perspectives and performance indicators based on sustainability aspects (economic, environment and social) and to make strategy map for system dynamics causal loop and stock and flow diagram. Leveling SC is used to look decision maker authority to a performance indicator. ANP used to determine perspective weight. System dynamics used to analyze of relationship and interrelationship between indicators based on perspectives and sustainability aspects. Implement of a framework able to predict and to control service industry performance at the future based on system behavior.

  2 Department of Industrial Engineering

  1 Department of Industrial Engineering

  2

  2 , Iwan Vanany

  1 , Suparno

  Development of Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Supply Chain Performance Measurement in Service Industries Eko Budi Leksono

• – service industries, SSCPM, BSC,

  BSC is dynamic and innovative performance measurement model and can developed base on situation and needs [18]. BSC can show relationship between indicators with strategy map. From the reason, SSCPM based on BSC has developed [19], [20]. SSCPM framework based on BSC model can implement to service industry with other methods: Analytical Network Process (ANP) and dynamic system simulation. ANP on BSC used to determine weight of indicator and perspective based on indicators interrelationship and interdependency [20]. System dynamics simulation on BSC used to analyze of strategy map as causal loop. Causal loop can be developed into stock and flow diagram. Stock and flow diagram can simulate based on perspectives weight and indicators value of performance at the past [21], [22].

  SSC definition is:

• –[31], intangibility assets (capacity and competency of human resources) [1]
• –[3], [23], [27], [29], demand management [1], [2], [23], [27], [29], suppliers and customers relationship
• –[3], [23], [27]
• –[30]. SC service criteria can be used as a guide in setting performance perspective on SC performance measurement.

  the use of materials, energy, or water and to find more eco efficient solutions by improving supply chain management [40]. SSCPM in service industries is a

  SSC performance is a company ’s capacity to reduce

  Sustainable SCPM (SSCPM) in service industries

  The SCPM objectives are identify of successful SC practices, consumer needs identification, improving processes, identify of bottlenecks and waste problems, opportunities identification, help make decisions in real conditions, knowing progress, support to communication, transparency and cooperation [38]. SCPM in service industry more responsive, efficient and can be used controllable tool [39]. SCPM research areas : dynamic modeling, process maturity relationship with performance, priorities and relationships between KPIs, HR and organization, partnership / collaboration, trends, evolution of network integration, measurement characteristics and size used, benchmarking, sustainability [38].

  SC Performance Measurement (SCPM) in service industries

  SSC research area: reporting, governance, integration into CSR practices, performance measurement, standardization and control, collaboration [36]. SSC researches have lack on the complexity and confusion in determining success indicators [37] and less attention to social issues [16].

  .” [4] “ the creation of coordinated SC through the voluntary integration of economic, environmental, and social considerations with key inter-organizational business systems designed to efficiently and effectively manage the material, information, and capital flows associated with the procurement, production, and distribution of products or services in order to meet stakeholder requirements and improve the profitability, competitiveness, and resilience of the organization over the short- and long- term.” [35]

  ” [34] “…the management of SC operations, resources, information, and funds in order to maximize the SC profitability while at the same time minimizing the environmental impact and maximizing the social well- being

  “ as the management of material and other flows and cooperation among organization in the SC to achieve three objectives of sustainable development : environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

  Impact evaluation of SC on the economic, social and environmental integration called SSC. SSC is a relatively new concept in the service sector [12]. SSC aims to deliver quality products and services across the SC while increasing effectiveness, reducing waste and costs, and being environmentally responsible [12]

  The research question is how to develop of SSCPM framework based on BSC that integrate with ANP and system dynamics simulation for service industries.

  Sustainable SC (SSC) in service industries

  .

  Research opportunities in service SC are communication, coordination, collaboration, customer satisfaction, profitability, performance measurement and sustainability [2], [23], [32], [33]. Effective supplier and customer relationship management play a key role in the service SC [12]

  ”. Application of this definition is prefer to the SOSC [26]. Some criteria on service SC are information and technology [2], [23], [28]

  “ as the management information, processes, capacity, service performance and funds from earliest suppliers to the ultimate customers [27] ”. Application of this definition is prefer to the PSSC [26]. “ as the network of suppliers, service providers, consumers and other supporting units that performs the functions of transaction of resources required to produce services, transformation of these resources into supporting and core services, and the delivery of these services to customers [23]

  Definition of service SC is:

  Services characteristic are intangibility, inseparability of production and consumption, heterogeneity, perishable, client based relationships & customer contract, labor intensive [23]. SC research on service industry is service SC development, and then service SC has an evolution of SC implementation on manufacturing [2], [23] –[25]. Services SC are often characterized with high customer involvements, less structured processing, and intangible products that may not be standardized or stored [12]. Service SC categories are Service Only SC (SOSC) and Product Service SC (PSSC) [26]. SOSC defined as SC systems in which the products are pure services, and physical products do not play a role. SOSCs examples: healthcare, tourism, telecommunication service provider, educations, finance, etc. PSSC defined as SC systems in which the products are services and physical products do play a role. PSSCs examples: restaurant, retail, product design, logistic service provider, etc.

  Service SC

  II. METHODOLOGY

  relatively new research area and with limited number of studies and literature. SSCPM methods and indicators in service industries shown in table 1. TABLE 1 SSCPM methods and indicators in service industries

  III. RESULTS

  Sustainability indicators Authors Year Methods Economic Environment Social

  Models and methods used in the design of framework

  2006 Life cycle price, life cycle timeliness [8]

  are BSC, leveling of SC, ANP, and system dynamics

  thinking quality [9] 2013 QFD - cost - waste - community,

  simulation. Propose model for SSCPM conceptual

  reduction, reduction - health & framework for service industries shown in Figure 1.

• asset - energy safety utilization efficiency - laws & Design of SSCPM conceptual framework for service
• quality - reduced regulation,

  industries consist of 7 (seven) phase. First, determine of

• customer emission - relationship

  performance indicators based on sustainability aspect

  service - conservation 2014 DEA - assets - reputation

• number of

  [10]

  (economics, environments, and socials). Second, classify

• IT budget - customer green

  performance indicators to the performance perspectives

• number of satisfaction product employee
• CO2 (financial, customers, operational/internal busin
• profit emission

  information, innovation and learning). Indicators of

  2015 MCDM stakeholders - green - regulatory [11]

  innovation and learning perspectives especially based on

  technology - staff training

• environment - green

  intangibility assets. Third, classify of indicators for each

  friendly collaboration

  performance perspective to leveling of SC (strategic,

  materials - green image

• recycling,

  tactic, operational). Performance indicators determine

  reuse &

  based on sustainability aspects (economic, environment

  disposal 2016 CFA risk environment - social and social) has influence the decisions to be made at [12] management management, responsibility

  strategic, tactical, and operational levels [43]. Fourth,

• heath & safety

  make strategy map based on BSC as SSCPM causal loop

  Notes: QFD (quality function deployment), DEA (data envelopment

  diagram. Fifth, calculate of performance perspective

  analysis), MCDM (multi criteria decisions making), CFA (confirmatory functional analysis)

  weight using ANP. ANP used to determine weight of perspectives and or SC level based on interrelationship or

  Methodology

  interdependency between indicator on a perspective or The research methodology has 3 (three) stage: other perspectives. Sixth, system dynamics simulation

  First, we found SCPM and SSCPM framework based on required to analyze and to evaluate SSCPM causal loop.

  BSC, leveling of SC, system dynamics and ANP from the SSCPM causal loop will be develop for stock and flow literature review that inspire our framework. diagram. Stock and flow diagram input requires weight of

  TABLE 2 performance perspectives and value of performance SCPM and SSCPM framework based on BSC, indicators at the past at service industries. Seventh, leveling of SC, dynamic system and ANP analyze of simulation output for to illustrate performance behavior and to predict and to control of service industry

  Authors SCPM / Object Model performance at the future.

  SSCPM SC BSC System ANP

  Design of SSCPM conceptual framework for service

  level Dynamics [41] SCPM Manufacture √

  industries based on BSC that integrate with SC leveling,

  [42] SCPM Manufacture √

  system dynamics simulation and ANP more better than

  [43] SCPM Manufacture √ √

  SCPM and SSCPM previous model because this model

  [44] SCPM Manufacture √ [21] SCPM Manufacture √

  build by SC actors to determine performance indicators,

  [22] SCPM Service √ √

  standards and measurement, more attention to

  [20] SSCPM Manufacture √ √

  intangibility characteristics, can show interrelationship or The proposed SSCPM conceptual framework was interdependency between indicator on a perspective or built from table 2. SSCPM conceptual framework based other perspectives to facilitate all SC level to make on BSC integrated with leveling of SC, system dynamics decision more accurate. and ANP for service industries can be designed.

  Second, we found 5 (five) main perspective of service SC

  characteristics from literature review:

  IV. DISCUSSION

• Financial [13], [32], [45]
• –[48]
• Customers [2], [32], [45]
• –[47]

  The applied the SSCPM conceptual framework need

• Operational / Internal Business [2], [13], [45], [46], 5 (five) stage: First, determine of performance indicators

  [49], [43] based on literature review of sustainability aspect

• Information [47], [48], [50]
• –[52]

  (economics, environments and socials). Then, survey to

• Innovation & Learning [46], [43], [50], [53] supplie r’s manager, focal firm manager, customers and

  Third, we use focus group discussion with peer group for

  other stakeholder for confirm the performance indicators design of SSCPM conceptual framework.

  

Fourth, verification and validation can be done by based on literature review. Purpose this stage is determine

  applying SSCPM conceptual framework in service of performance indicators based on SC actors needed. In industries. this framework, amount of performance indicators for

  Strategic _{Tactic Operational} ^{FS1 FS2 FSn} _{FT1 FT2 FT3 …..}

  .

  Operationa l _Information Innovation & _{Learning (Intangibility assets) Tactic Operational}

  Indicators of economics, environments and socials Financial _{Strategic Customer Tactic} Operationa l _{Strategic SSCPM Internal Business Tactic}

  The adoption BSC model for SSCPM system development in service industries is able to show cause and effect relationships between performance indicators based on sustainability aspect (economic, environment and social), decision level of management on SC (strategic, tactic and operational) and performance perspectives (financial, customer, business process, information and innovation and learning). For innovation and learning perspective should be directed to the intangibility assets, includes human capital (skills, talent, knowledge), information capital (database, information system, network, technology infrastructure), organization capital (culture, leadership, employee alignment, teamwork, knowledge management) as performance indicators [17].

  system by compare value between performance outputs of system dynamics simulation with value of performance in service industries in current period.

  Fifth, result of the system need validation. Validation of

  ∑ strategic indicators < ∑ tactical indicators < ∑ operational indicators). Second, focus group discussion (FGD) between SC actors (suppliers, focal firm, customers and stakeholders) to classification of performance indicators based on management level and performance perspectives. Management level are strategic, tactic and operational. Performance perspectives for service industries determined based on literature review are financial, customer, business process, information and innovation and growth. Third, multi case study at service industries used to make relationship between indicators on a perspective or other perspectives for BSC strategy map. BSC strategy map can be used causal loop. In this stage, weight of perspectives and indicators can be calculated with ANP. Fourth, system dynamics simulation required to analyze causal loop and stock and flow diagram. The data input are indicators weight, perspectives weight and indicators value at the past. Result of system dynamics simulation can illustrate system of performance behavior in service industries and predict of performance value at the future.

  strategic level less than tactical level and performance indicators for tactical level less than operational level (

  … . ^ILOn

  … … .

  IOn _{ILS1 ILS2 ILSn ILT1 ILT2 ILT3} ….. … ^ILTn _ILO1 … …

  … . F Tn _{FO1 …} … . … … .

  … .

  … .

  … . ^ITn _IO1 … … … … .

  Operationa l _Strategic ^{IS1 IS2 ISn IT1 IT2 IT3} …..

  … . ^COn _{IBS1 IBS2 IBSn IBT1 IBT2 IBT3} ….. … ^IBTn _{IBO1 …} … . … … . … . ^IBOn _{Strategic Tactic}

  … … . … .

  … … .

  … . ^FOn _{CS1 CS2 CSn CT1 CT2 CT3} ….. … . ^CTn _CO1

  … .

  Figure 1 SSCPM conceptual framework

  [5] S. Shaw, D. B. Grant, and J. Mangan, “Developing environmental supply chain

  The output of system dynamics simulation can describe SSCPM behavior based on sustainability aspect or perspective indicators. SSCPM behavior able to seen from relationship between indicators and perspectives on stock and flow diagram. Besides that, the output also can evaluated and analyzed to performance predict and performance control on future, so services industries can implement something in order to improve its performance.

  Econ. , vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 69 –82, Nov. 2012.

  [4] E. Hassini, C. Surti, and C. Searcy, “A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metr ics,” Int. J. Prod.

  Chain Manag. An Int. J. , vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 346

  ,” Supply

  [3] M. Giannakis, “Management of service supply chains with a service-oriented reference model: the case of management consulting

  Hwang, “A framework for measuring the performance of service supply chain managemen t,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 801 –818, Apr. 2012.

   : A Review of the Literature,” vol. 1, no. December, pp. 31

  “Supply Chain Frameworks for the Service Industry

  REFERENCES [1] J. Drzymalski,

  The limitation of this study is only conceptual framework. There need implementation and validation at service industries at the future. Future research need implementation of this conceptual framework at service industries with 5 (five) stage. First, identify sustainability performance indicator based on literature review and SC actor ’s requirement. Second, classify of performance indicators based on management level and performance perspectives. Third, make relationship between indicators on a perspective or other perspectives by BSC strategy map and calculate of indicators and perspectives weight by ANP. BSC strategy map can be made causal loop of SSCPM. Fourth, analyze causal loop and stock and flow diagram by system dynamics simulation. Fived, system validation by comparing value between performance outputs of system dynamics simulation with value of performance in service industries in current period. If system dynamics simulation output similar with value of performance in the current period, so the system is valid. .

  V. CONCLUSION the academic research and managerial implications could be explored more in the future

  System dynamics simulation can make with 2 (two) alternatives. First alternative based on performance perspectives (financial, customer, operation/process business, information, innovation and learning), second alternative based on sustainability aspect (economic, environment and social). Each simulation alternative will be run with stock and flow diagram.

  Furthermore, causal loop diagram on system dynamics can be developed into a stock and flow diagram. Stock and flow diagram able to simulate based on sustainability aspect or performance perspectives. The stock and flow diagram need inputs. The input for stock and flow diagram scenario are data of value of performance indicators at the past from service industries and weight of performance indicators and performance perspectives. The weight of performance indicators and performance perspectives can calculate by ANP.

  Causal loop scenario in this framework can be designed into 2 (two) alternatives, based on sustainability aspects (economic, environment and social) or based by a performance perspective (financial, customer, operation/process business, information, innovation and learning). Each alternative can simulate with computer program.

• –42, 2012. [2] D. W. Cho, Y. H. Lee, S. H. Ahn, and M. K.
• – 361, 2011.
• –339, 2010. framework based on balanced scorecard (BSC) that integrate with leveling of SC, analytical networking process (ANP) and system dynamics simulation for service industries. This framework can be used as guidance to measure of sustainable SC performance, because can help manager to show interrelation between
• –1082, Nov. 2007.

  ,” Benchmarking An Int. J., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 324

  G. M. Rynja and D. C. Moy, “Laboratory service evaluation: laboratory product model and the supply chain

  [8]

  Further, this framework can simulate performance measure by system dynamics simulation based on performance perspectives or sustainability aspect. Both

  Managemen t,” J. Hosp. Mark. Manag., pp. 1–31, 2014. social and environment) and or performance perspectives.

  X. Xu and D. Gursoy, “A Conceptual Framework of Sustainable Hospitality Supply Chain performance indicators and can predict performance value at the future based on sustainability aspects (economic,

  Oper. Manag. , vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1075

  J. Linton, R. Klassen, and V. Jayaraman, “Sustainable supply chains: An introduction,” J.

  [6] [7]

  This study has proposed a new SSCPM conceptual performance measur es,” Benchmarking An Int. J., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 320

• –336, 2006. Cause and effect relationships between performance indicators explain on BSC strategy map. There are positive and negative interrelationships and interdependencies between performance indicators on a perspective or between other perspectives. BSC strategy map able to used causal loop scenario based on system dynamics simulation [22].
• –124, 2007. M. Giannakis,

• –1312, 2016.

  “Measuring Service Supply Chain Management Process es : The Application of the Q-Sort Technique, ” Int. J.

  [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

  ,” J.

  [9] G. Büyüközkan and G. Cifci, “An integrated QFD system for collaborative supply chain partners

  247, no. 3, pp. 685 –698, 2015. L. M. Ellram and W. L. Tate,

  “Understanding and Managing the Services Supply Chain

  ,” J. Supply

  Chain Manag. , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 17 –32, 2004.

  X. Li, X. J. Gu, and Z. G. Liu, “A strategic performance measurement system for firms across supply and demand chains on the analogy of ecological succession

  ,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 2918 –2929, Oct. 2009. S. Boon-itt and C. Pongpanarat,

• – 257, 2014. P. Beske-janssen, M. P. Johnson, and S. Schaltegger,
• – 221, 2011.
• – what has been achieved ?,” Supply

• – 680, 2015.

  K. Dey, “Green supply chain performance

  scoreca rd : a collaborative decision-making [35] P. Ahi and C. Searcy,

  Rev. , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 53 –79, 1996.

  H. Reefke and M. Trocchi, “Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains

   : design and development guidelin es,” Int. J. Product.

  Perform. Manag. , vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 805 –826, 2013.

  C. Low and Y. H. Chen, “A model measurement

  [21]

  698 –714, 2014. supply chain managemen t,” J. Clean. Prod., vol.

  “A comparative literature approach ,” Prod. Plan. Control, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. analysis of definitions for green and sustainable

  Prod. , vol. 16, pp. 1545 –1551, 2008.

  S. Seuring, J. Sarkis, M. Muller, and Purba Rao, [20]

  An introduction to the special issue, ” J. Clean. measurement using fuzzy ANP-based balanced

  Innov. Manag. Technol. , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 217

  A. Y.-L. Chong and L. Zhou, “Demand chain management: Relationships between external antecedents, web-based integration and service innovation performance

  ,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 154, pp. 48 –58, Aug. 2014. L. M. Ellram and M. C. Cooper,

  “Supply Chain Management  : It’s all about the journey, not the destination ,” J. Supply Chain Manag., vol. 50, no.

  “Linking the Balanced Scorecard to strategy ,” Calif. Manage.

  “A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measuremen t,” Marit. Policy Manag., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 47 – 67, 2004. N. Seth, S. G. Deshmukh, and P. Vrat,

  “A conceptual model for quality of service in the supply chain ,” Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.

  Manag. , vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 547 –575, 2006.

  1, pp. 8 –21, 2014. K. Bichou and R. Gray,

   : similar ideas , unaligned concepts ,” Meas. Bus. Excell., vol. 8, no. 3, pp.

  18 –27, 2006. R. S. Kaplan and D. P. Norton,

  Procedia CIRP , vol. 12, pp. 324 –329, 2013.

  [10] [11] [12] framework with multiple formatted and incomplete preferences

   : A sustainable supply chain application Gülc, ” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 13, pp. 3931 –3941, 2013.

  A. Tajbakhsh and E. Hassini, “A data envelopment analysis approach to evaluate sustainability in supply chain networks ,” J. Clean.

  Prod. , Aug. 2014.

  P. Chithambaranathan, N. Subramanian, and A. Gunasekaran,

  “Int . J . Production Economics Service supply chain environmental performance evaluation using grey based hybrid MCDM approach ,” Intern. J. Prod. Econ., no. 2006, pp.

  1 –14, 2015. M. Hussain, M. Khan, and R. Al-aomar,

  “A framework for supply chain sustainability in service industry with Confirmatory Factor Analysis

  ,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 55, pp. 1301

  [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

  Manuf. Syst. , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 180 –188, Jan.

  2013. K. Tracht, A. Niestegge, and P. Schuh,

  “Demand Planning based on Performance Measurement Systems in Closed Loop Supply Chains

  ,”

  T. Baltacioglu, E. Ada, M. D. Kaplan, O. Yurt And, and Y. Cem Kaplan,

  B. Marr and C. Adams, “The balanced scorecard and intangible assets

  “A New Framework for Service Supply Chains ,” Serv. Ind. J., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 105

  “Conceptualizing and managing service supply chains ,” Serv. Ind. J., vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1809 –1823, 2011. M. Habib,

  “Supply chain management : theory and its future perspectiv es,” vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 79– 87, 2010.

  Y. Wang, S. W. Wallace, B. Shen, and T. Choi, “Service supply chain management : A review of operational models ✩

  ,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

  X. Zhang, H. Song, and G. Q. Huang, “Tourism supply chain management: A new research agenda,

  ” Tour. Manag., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 345– 358, Jun. 2009. S. Oetjen and M. Ziefle,

  “A visual ergonomic evaluation of different screen types and screen technologies with respect to discrimination performance

  .,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 40, no. 1, pp.

  69 –81, Jan. 2009. M. Varsei, C. Soosay, B. Fahimnia, and J. Sarkis, “Framing sustainability performance of supply chains with multidimensional indicators

  ,” Supply

  Chain Manag. An Int. J. , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 242

  “20 years of performance measurement in sustainable supply chain management

  Chain Manag. An Int. J. , vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 664

A. Bhattacharya, P. Mohapatra, V. Kumar, and P. “Sustainability and supply chain management -

  52, pp. 329 measurement in the value chain: manufacturing v.

• –341, 2013. [36] O. Morali and C. Searcy, tourism “A Review of ,” Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag., vol.

  55, no. 5, pp. 371 Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices –389, 2006. in Canada, [50] J. Cai, X. Liu, Z. Xiao, and J. Liu, ” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 117, no. 3, pp.

  “Improving 635 supply chain performance management: A –658, Nov. 2012. [37] S. Matos and J. Hall, systematic approach to analyzing iterative KPI

  “Integrating sustainable accomplishmen development in the supply chain: The case of life t,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 512 cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural –521, Jan. 2009. biotechnology [51] L. L. Yap and C. L. Tan,

  ,” J. Oper. Manag., vol. 25, no. 6, “The Effect of Service pp. 1083 Supply Chain Management Practices on the –1102, Nov. 2007. [38]

  G. A. Akyuz and T. E. Erkan, Public Healthcare Organizational Performance “Supply chain

  ,” performance measurement: a literature review ,” vol. 3, no. 16, pp. 216 –224, 2012.

  Int. J. Prod. Res. , vol. 48, no. 17, pp. 5137 [52]

  D. Q. Chen, D. S. Preston, and W. Xia,

• –5155, Sep. 2010.

  “Enhancing hospital supply chain performance: A [39] Y. Kathawala and K. Abdou, relational view and empirical test “Supply chain ,” J. Oper. evaluation in the service industry  : A framework Manag. , vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 391 –408, Sep. 2013. development compared to manufacturing [53] R. Singh, H. S. Sandhu, B. A. Metri, and R. Kaur,

  ,”

  Manag. Audit. J. , vol. 18, no. 1 / 2, pp. 140 –149, “Relating organised retail supply chain,” J. Bus.

  2003.

  Perspect. , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 173 –190, 2010.

  [40]

E. Ortas, J. M. Moneva, and I. Álvarez,

  “Sustainable supply chain and company performanc e : A global examination,” Supply

• – Chain Manag. An Int. J. , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 332 350, 2014.

  [41] A. Gunasekaran, C. Patel, and R. E. McGaughey, “A framework for supply chain performance measuremen t,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 333

• –347, Feb. 2004. [42] R. Bhagwat and M. K. Sharma,

  “Performance measurement of supply chain management  : A balanced scorecard approach

  ,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 53, pp. 43

• –62, 2007. [43] R. Bhagwat and M. K. Sharma, “Performance measurement of supply chain management using the analytical hierarchy process ,” Prod. Plan.

  Control , vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 666 –680, 2009.

  [44] W. H. Ip, S. L. Chan, and C. Y. Lam, “Modeling supply chain performance and stability

  ,” Ind.

• – Manag. Data Syst. , vol. 111, no. 8, pp. 1332 1354, 2011.

  [45] C. Morgan, “Structure , speed and salience : performance measurement in the supply chain

  ,”

• – , vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 522 Bus. Process Manag. J. 536, 2004.

  [46] S. Schmidberger, L. Bals, E. Hartmann, and C.

  Jahns, “Ground handling services at European hub airports: Development of a performance measurement system for benchmarking ,” Int. J.

  Prod. Econ. , vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 104 –116, Jan.

  2009. [47] T. Wu, Y.-C. Jim Wu, Y. J. Chen, and M. Goh,

  “Aligning supply chain strategy with corporate environmental strategy: A contingency approach ,”

  Int. J. Prod. Econ. , vol. 147, pp. 220 –229, Jan.

  2014. [48] H. K. Lee and Y. Fernando

  , “The antecedents and outcomes of the medical tourism supply chain ,”

  Tour. Manag. , vol. 46, pp. 148 –157, Feb. 2015.

  [49] Y. Yilmaz and U. Bititci, “Performance