Knowledge bases building to partners assessment in virtual enterprise using the weighted point evaluation method.
Rosu, Sebastian Marius ; Dragoi, George
1. INTRODUCTION
The production process does not continue in a single company in a
same geographic location. Companies feel the need to focus on their core
competence and join together in virtual industrial groups, dispersed
geographically to meet requirements of new products/services required in
the market (Rosu et al., 2009). Also, the most classic examples of
organizational network can be found in several fields of economy such as
automotive; this trend is prevalent in many other areas, including
agriculture and food industry. Hereby, the concept of virtual enterprise
(VE) appears. The computers network and telecommunications, and other
tools of information technology support cooperation between enterprises
involved in a VE (Camarinha-Matos et al., 1997). Modern enterprise with
a production type virtual enterprise is a geographically distributed
system that is found in the following functions (Husband & Bair,
2007): receiving orders and quick response to them; setting the
structure on the virtual communication network; global planning system;
local system planning and authorizing; control proactively at VE level;
reactive control at alliance VE partner level. These functions provide:
verifying real-time orders, in terms of opportunities for achievement
(feasibility) and terms of delivery; VE configuration through
negotiation and determination/ verification of the ability to deliver
products on time limits set by contract; establishment of order
necessary to meet the order, and optimization of consumption and routes
to maximize profits; acquisition and processing of data for monitoring
the status of orders to avoid delays in delivery; control at the local
and VE level and the manufacturer level, aiming to maintain the virtual
alliance in normal operation area; exchange of information necessary
virtual organization, to support all the functions provided; standard
interfaces to other applications that VE interconnect (Ash, 2007).
Choosing partners to partnership creation (see figure 1) is very
important when seeking to increase the competitiveness of the enterprise
in a virtual enterprise system. In this new era of information, the
fundamental sources of wealth are knowledge and communication, and not
natural resources or labour work. In fact, knowledge management is a new
area within information technology and management, a new field among the
strategy, culture and information system an organization.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
In this context, wealth happens when a Virtual Enterprise uses its
own knowledge to generate more efficient and effective processes
(Garfield, 2007). Future partners must hold a series of further
advantages specific needs of the organization, such as: contractual
compliance, communication and collaboration skills; products and
services at competitive prices, availability for technological changes,
flexibility and quality standards compliance. Partners should look not
only at a single point of view. An overview to highlight the qualities
and defects partner must be obtained. The partner's evaluation
methods can be mono-criterion or multi-criterion. The partner's
assessment based on only one criterion is used infrequently because of
the limited modeling of reality. In practical work should be considered
more influence. Analysis based on one criterion may be insufficient or
even false. For example, offers the most favorable price can generate
some problems in processing the resource in question, which involves
other costs. For practical work there are a number of assessment methods
based on more criterions such as: note system, the weighted point
evaluation method (WPEM), process with rates, process with indices,
determining a profile, a three-dimensional analysis, etc. Of these we
will discuss about WPEM.
2. THE PARTNERS EVALUATION IN VE
The WPEM is the most used method of evaluating partners and
corresponding reasoning cost-utility analysis. Assessment involves going
through the following steps: establishing a criteria for evaluating
partners; establishing a degree of importance of each criterion; grant
for each criterion; an assessment notes the benefits (e.g. note from 0
to 1); weighting the degree of criterion importance with the assessment
note for partner benefits; assessment of the partner, through the
special valuation information; comparing results of the partners
evaluation. Point models are based on a maximum score assigned to the
criterion chosen (see an example in table 1). The advantage compared to
other systems is that the individual criteria may be assigned a
different matter. Criterion with the highest importance received the
highest weighting factor.
Assessment of performance objectives is done in two stages, by
awarding points. The maximum value can be freely determined, but it must
be the same for all criteria. In phase II note with weight is multiplied
and the highest value obtained corresponds to the best partner. We
analyze this partners evaluation method and using an expert systems
generator VP-Expert (we used the expert system generator--VP-Expert
version 2.1) we built the knowledge base EVAL.KBS (see figure 2).
Weighting factors for each factor associated with a variable key is
inserted from the keyboard. Production rules form the knowledge
representation model used in this work.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
In the EVAL.KBS knowledge base (KB) there is if-then structure
rules excluding the rules for inference engine operations. Finally,
depending on the score partner receives final assessment. Partner can be
classified as Good, Average or Unsatisfactory, depending on the total
score obtained at the end of the query (see figure 2). In case you have
several partners who obtain the qualification Good choice can be based
on the number Good grades obtained in the assessment criteria. A
partnership can be defined as a temporary alliance formed in order to
achieve some common goals, created between the various organizations
concerned, which may be state organizations, private organizations, NGOs
and social partners.
3. CONCLUSION
In this system, partners (initiators) can organize various
activities, presentations and discussions on the project purpose.. After
the actors involvement may be organized a partnership meeting. The
partnership can be established for a fixed period, which may be shorter
or longer. The parties concerned can sign a contract on partnership
activities agreed. The partnership can develop on several levels (see
figure 3), and may consist of simple coordination of the partners or may
be in the form of cooperation and / or collaboration. Partners can bring
together various resources, such as products and equipment, technology,
access to services, expertise in a particular field etc.
This work was realized at the UPB-PREMINV Research Centre. The
validation of this solution by a case study in the PROGPROC research
project is to determine the new organization type for integrating the
virtual enterprise medium and to outsource shared resources from
UPB-PREMINV research centre to industrial partners. We intend that our
future work in this area includes building other knowledge bases to
support eventually all SMEs departments activities.
4. REFERENCES
Ash, J. (2007). Next Generation Knowledge Management, Ark Group,
ISBN 978-1-906355-00-5
Camarinha-Matos, L.M.; Carelli, R.; Pellicer, J. & Martin, M.
(1997). Towards the virtual enterprise in food industry, ISIP'97
Proceedings, Lisbon, May, Chapman & Hall Press, ISBN 0-412-79950-2
Garfield, S. (2007). Implementing a successful KM programme, Ark
Group, ISBN 0-9554867-2-6
Husband, J. & Bair, J. (2007). Making Knowledge Work: Impact of
Web, Ark Group, ISBN 978-1-906355-09-8
Rosu, S.M.; Dragoi, G. & Guran M. (2009). A Knowledge
Management Scenario to Support Knowledge Application Development in
SMEs. AECE, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp 8-15, ISSN 1582-7445
ROSU, Sebastian Marius& DRAGOI, George *
* Supervisor, Mentor
Tab. 1. The partner's evaluation using WPEM
Key Weight Associated
variable factor
1. What 2 Presenting Immediately
are the the offer At time
deadlines is made: After some time
for the
partner? Sending Immediately
samples is At time
made: After some time
The Short
delivery Average
time of Big
products
is:
Technical Immediately
changes After a time
are made: During much
Contractual Strictly
deadlines Small delays
are met: sometimes
occur
Often delays
occur
Weighted Value 1
2. How 1 Behavior in Good
good it is discussions, Acceptable
working? negotiations Bad
is:
Respect Strictly
given Generaly yes
word: No
Management Permanent
team Sometimes
participation Rarely
in solving
problems
is:
Weighted Value 2
Total score
Qualifying GOOD / AVERAGE / UNSATISFACTORY
Key Associated Weight PARTNER A
variable factor
Weighted
Points value
1. What Immediately 0.1 1 0.1
are the At time 0.5 ...
deadlines After some time 0 ...
for the
partner? Immediately 0.1 1 ...
At time 0.5 0.05
After some time 0 ...
Short 0.2 1 0.2
Average 0.5 ...
Big 0 ...
Immediately 0.6 1 ...
After a time 0.5 0.3
During much 0 ...
Strictly 1 1 ...
Small delays 0.5 0.5
sometimes 0 ...
occur
Often delays
occur
Weighted Value 1 2 1.15
2. How Good 0.4 1 0.4
good it is Acceptable 0.5 ...
working? Bad 0 ...
Strictly 0.4 1 ...
Generaly yes 0.5 0.2
No 0 ...
Permanent 0.2 1 ...
Sometimes 0.5 0.1
Rarely 0 ...
Weighted Value 2 1 0.7
Total score 10 1.15 + 0.7 + ... =
Qualifying
