Ruptures and interruptions in supply chains (SC) can cause large financial losses and undermine the reputation of firms. In this respect, there is growing interest among researchers in the theme of supply chain risk management (SCRM). SCRM involves analysis carried out in various steps. However, researchers diverge over the number and content of these steps. In light of this problem, the aim of the present study was to analyze whether it is possible to apply the ISO 31000 standard as a systematic procedure for SCRM. And, if so, how the standard can be implemented in the SCRM context, as a framework in a specific company. Through a systematic literature review, we compared and harmonized the risk management steps proposed by researches about SCRM. Additionally we developed a pathway to identify and prioritize which ISO 31000:2009 risk assessment tools and techniques are supposed to integrate a procedure for SCRM, based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), exemplified in an automotive supply chain. Based on the research findings, we infer that ISO 31000 can be used beneficially as a standardized method to perform SCRM, as long as tools and techniques are selected according to the company needs and business characteristics.

A comparative study was used to outline the literature in the research topic. This paper aims to present a bibliometric study of multi-criteria decision-making methods most applied in publications from 1990 to 2014. Our research presented relations of papers published in the Web of Science Core Collection, regarding the following keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process and Supply Chain. The research evidenced that the Analytic Hierarchy Process has been the method most applied in publications from 1993. It also showed the analysis of the predecessor and successor citation network for the selected publications under topics as supplier selection, supply development, performance measurement and value chain through the CitNetExplore software.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Resumo: Os modelos de referência para o processo de desenvolvimento de produtos podem contribuir para facilitar a compreensão e a comunicação entre os coordenadores do projeto do produto, para auxiliar nas decisões sobre as funções da gestão do projeto, tais como o planejamento e organização. O presente trabalho tem como objetivo analisar a literatura sobre os modelos para o processo de desenvolvimento de produtos e propor sugestões para pesquisas futuras. O método de pesquisa utilizado foi de cunho conceitual-teórico e o resultado obtido foi a identificação dos setores industriais que não possuem modelos de referência para o processo de desenvolvimento de produtos, tais como o militar, biotecnológico, naval e Arranjos Produtivos Locais, de acordo com a literatura pesquisada. Além disso, o resultado mais significativo obtido pelo estudo é a percepção de que existe uma tendência de desenvolver modelos mais específicos para cada setor industrial. As principais contribuições deste trabalho são mapear os estudos já realizados sobre a adaptação de modelos de referência para o PDP e identificar lacunas para pesquisas futuras nesta área de conhecimento. Palavras-chave: PDP. Modelos de desenvolvimento de produtos. Dimensões do PDP.

Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM) is an important issue for organizations that spend considerable amounts of investments on personnel training annually. Although these investments present positive effects, the manner to assess the effectiveness of the training is unclear. Training, whose characteristics are intangible, is sometimes difficult to be assessed. This research has carried out a multi-criteria training assessment for GSCM through the four top-level processes of Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR) i.e., Plan, Source, Make and Deliver. Analytic Hierarchy Process was applied in the training assessment. In the chemical industry where our study was performed, the SCOR top-level processes were considered criteria, whereas Individual and Organizational Benefits alternatives. The modeling considered pairwise judgments for criteria, and ratings or absolute measure for alternatives. The analysis revealed that training essentially contributes to the organization, resulting in 87% for Organizational Benefits, and 77% for Individual Benefits. Organizational Benefits focused on the use of the best practices in GSCM and on the common understanding of vocabulary and processes. In addition, Individual Benefits increased knowledge and skills in GSCM. This result, presented to managers of the company, was validated as consistent and feasible.

No abstract