Quantitative criteria for defining the performance of the supply chain
| Macro-category | Criterion | Description | Type | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 - Purchasing | C1,1 – Reduction of purchase costs compared to the previous year | Percentage reduction in the purchase cost of direct materials that the purchasing function has achieved compared to the previous year | Benefit | 1, 2 |
| C1,2 – Reliability of the purchase budget | Percentage of reliability of the purchase budget (for direct materials), based on the expected budget and the actual purchase turnover | Benefit | 3 | |
| C2 - Planning | C2,1 – Warehouse turnover index | Referred to the inbound warehouse | Benefit | 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 |
| C2,2 – Inbound on time pieces (number) | The number of pieces (direct materials only) that arrived on time, as planned | Benefit | 4, 6, 7 | |
| C2,3 – Inbound on time pieces (value) | The value of pieces (direct materials only) that arrived on time, as planned | Benefit | 4, 6, 7 | |
| C2,4 – Outbound on time finished products (number) | The number of finished products that have been delivered on time to the end customer | Benefit | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 | |
| C2,5 – Outbound on time finished products (value) | The value of finished products that have been delivered on time to the end customer | Benefit | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | |
| C2,6 – Emergency purchases | The purchase value of direct materials purchased in emergency conditions (with a lead time shorter than the agreed one) | Cost | 7 | |
| C3 – Internal logistics | C3,1 – Unitary cost of stocking the goods in the warehouse | The unitary cost of stocking direct materials in the warehouse dedicated to raw materials | Cost | 4, 5, 6 |
| C3,2 – Inventory accuracy | The difference between the theoretical value of the warehouse inventory relating to raw materials (considering only direct materials) and the actual value | Benefit | 5, 9 | |
| C3,3 – Value of the inventory adjustments | The value of the direct materials adjusted during the inventories made on the raw material warehouse | Cost | 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 | |
| C3,4 – Warehouse saturation level | The average occupancy level of the raw material warehouse compared to its nominal capacity | Benefit | 5 | |
| C4 – Transportation | C4,1 – Inbound transport costs | The costs incurred in inbound transport, compared to the purchase turnover of the goods for which the transport is actually paid | Cost | 5, 10, 11 |
| C4,2 – Outbound transport costs | The costs incurred in outbound transport, compared to the purchase turnover of the goods for which the transport is actually paid | Cost | 5, 10, 11 | |
| C4,3 –Inbound transport disruptions | The percentage of inbound transports during which disruptions occur (delays, damage, logistical problems, etc.) | Cost | 5, 6, 11, 12 | |
| C4,4 – Outbound transport disruptions | The percentage of outbound transports during which disruptions occur (delays, damage, logistical problems, etc.) | Cost | 5, 6, 11, 12 | |
| C5 – Quality | C5,1 – Cost of inbound non-conformities | The purchase value of direct non-compliant materials, compared to the total value of the purchase | Cost | 6, 7 |
| C5,2 – Inbound non-compliant pieces | The number of pieces (direct materials only) found to be non-compliant, compared to the total number of pieces purchased | Cost | 6 | |
| C5,3 – Rework hours needed | The hours of reworking of a product required due to a detected non-compliance, compared to the standard hours of processing of that product | Cost | 4 | |
| C5,4 – Cost of required rework | The costs incurred for reworking of products due to a detected non-conformity | Cost | 4, 6 | |
| C5,5 – Customer complaints for non-compliance | The number of products for which a complaint has been made by a customer due to a detected non-compliance, compared to the total number of products sold | Cost | 2, 4, 6, 8 | |
| C5,6 – Cost of customer complaints | The costs incurred for maintenance or replacement of the product due to a non-conformity detected by the customer | Cost | 2, 4, 6, 8 |
| Macro-category | Criterion | Description | Type | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 - Purchasing | C1,1 – Reduction of purchase costs compared to the previous year | Percentage reduction in the purchase cost of direct materials that the purchasing function has achieved compared to the previous year | Benefit | 1, 2 |
| C1,2 – Reliability of the purchase budget | Percentage of reliability of the purchase budget (for direct materials), based on the expected budget and the actual purchase turnover | Benefit | 3 | |
| C2 - Planning | C2,1 – Warehouse turnover index | Referred to the inbound warehouse | Benefit | 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 |
| C2,2 – Inbound on time pieces (number) | The number of pieces (direct materials only) that arrived on time, as planned | Benefit | 4, 6, 7 | |
| C2,3 – Inbound on time pieces (value) | The value of pieces (direct materials only) that arrived on time, as planned | Benefit | 4, 6, 7 | |
| C2,4 – Outbound on time finished products (number) | The number of finished products that have been delivered on time to the end customer | Benefit | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 | |
| C2,5 – Outbound on time finished products (value) | The value of finished products that have been delivered on time to the end customer | Benefit | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | |
| C2,6 – Emergency purchases | The purchase value of direct materials purchased in emergency conditions (with a lead time shorter than the agreed one) | Cost | 7 | |
| C3 – Internal logistics | C3,1 – Unitary cost of stocking the goods in the warehouse | The unitary cost of stocking direct materials in the warehouse dedicated to raw materials | Cost | 4, 5, 6 |
| C3,2 – Inventory accuracy | The difference between the theoretical value of the warehouse inventory relating to raw materials (considering only direct materials) and the actual value | Benefit | 5, 9 | |
| C3,3 – Value of the inventory adjustments | The value of the direct materials adjusted during the inventories made on the raw material warehouse | Cost | 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 | |
| C3,4 – Warehouse saturation level | The average occupancy level of the raw material warehouse compared to its nominal capacity | Benefit | 5 | |
| C4 – Transportation | C4,1 – Inbound transport costs | The costs incurred in inbound transport, compared to the purchase turnover of the goods for which the transport is actually paid | Cost | 5, 10, 11 |
| C4,2 – Outbound transport costs | The costs incurred in outbound transport, compared to the purchase turnover of the goods for which the transport is actually paid | Cost | 5, 10, 11 | |
| C4,3 –Inbound transport disruptions | The percentage of inbound transports during which disruptions occur (delays, damage, logistical problems, etc.) | Cost | 5, 6, 11, 12 | |
| C4,4 – Outbound transport disruptions | The percentage of outbound transports during which disruptions occur (delays, damage, logistical problems, etc.) | Cost | 5, 6, 11, 12 | |
| C5 – Quality | C5,1 – Cost of inbound non-conformities | The purchase value of direct non-compliant materials, compared to the total value of the purchase | Cost | 6, 7 |
| C5,2 – Inbound non-compliant pieces | The number of pieces (direct materials only) found to be non-compliant, compared to the total number of pieces purchased | Cost | 6 | |
| C5,3 – Rework hours needed | The hours of reworking of a product required due to a detected non-compliance, compared to the standard hours of processing of that product | Cost | 4 | |
| C5,4 – Cost of required rework | The costs incurred for reworking of products due to a detected non-conformity | Cost | 4, 6 | |
| C5,5 – Customer complaints for non-compliance | The number of products for which a complaint has been made by a customer due to a detected non-compliance, compared to the total number of products sold | Cost | 2, 4, 6, 8 | |
| C5,6 – Cost of customer complaints | The costs incurred for maintenance or replacement of the product due to a non-conformity detected by the customer | Cost | 2, 4, 6, 8 |
Note(s): References: (1) (Trkman et al., 2010); (2) (Thakkar et al., 2009); (3) (Vaidya and Hudnurkar, 2013); (4) (Bigliardi and Bottani, 2014); (5) (Anand and Grover, 2015); (6) (Vaidya and Hudnurkar, 2013); (7) (Gunasekaran et al., 2004); (8) (Beamon, 1999); (9) (Fleisch and Tell Kamp, 2005); (10) (Varma et al., 2008); (11) (Lai et al., 2002); (12) (Wilson, 2007)
Source(s): Table created by authors