CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedía Technology 9 (2013) 22 - 32
CENTERIS 2013 - Conference on ENTERprise Information Systems / ProjMAN 2013 - International Conference on Project MANagement / HCIST 2013 - International Conference on Health and Social
Care Information Systems and Technologies
A Contribution to a Virtual Enterprise Taxonomy
Goran D. Putnik a,c, Maria Manuela Cruz-Cunha b,c*
a University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058 Guimaraes, Portugal b Polytechnic Institute of Câvado and Ave, Campus do IPCA, 4750-810 Vila Frescainha S. Martinho BCL, Portugal c CGIT Research Centre, University of Minho, Campus de Azurém, 4800-058 Guimaraes, Portugal
Abstract
This paper presents a taxonomy able to contribute to building a framework within the domain of Virtual Enterprises (VE). A VE taxonomy currently does not exist, and this lack is felt in the ambiguous way that some concepts are addressed, leading to a fragment understanding that hinders the development of the science of VE integration and management. The structure of the taxonomy developed is based on the view of the system as a 5-tuple consisting of Input, Control, Output, Mechanism, and Process, which is the underlying system-view in the well-know IDEF0 diagramming technique. In particular, this taxonomy addresses the VE extended lifecycle that implies the use of a meta-organization called Market of Resources, as an original contribution to the VE theory and practice. The taxonomy presented is constructed in a way to be easily complemented with other VE partial taxonomies that may be found in literature.
© 2013 The AuthorsPublishedbyElsevier Ltd.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of SCIKA - Association for Promotion and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge
Keywords: Virtual enterprise, taxonomy, Market of Resources
1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to present a taxonomy able to contribute to building a framework within the domain of Virtual Enterprise (VE), to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and contributions to scientific
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 965656566. E-mail address: mcunha@ipca.pt.
2212-0173 © 2013 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of SCIKA doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.003
- Association for Promotion and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge
knowledge, as well as to support negotiation, dialogue, trust building and sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge among VE stakeholders. Currently, such a taxonomy defining VE concepts or definitions, management, integration, reconfiguration and operation processes, tools and mechanisms, and underlying theories and approaches, does not exist, and this can be felt through the several dispersedly developed taxonomies that can be found in the literature. Although very rich, these taxonomies were specifically developed to cover aspects such as e-Commerce [1, 2], electronic negotiation [3-5], electronic contractualization [6, 7], collaboration in virtual enterprises [8], workflow support [9], supply chain networks strategies [10], just to mention a few, and although somehow related to the VE domain, naturally have not lead to unifying definitions and clear concepts, as this was not their underlying purpose.
Humans have always searched for order in the world and, implicitly, a reliable and valid classification of entities, and this is such more important in the scientific domain [11].
It can be verified that authors in general use some definitions and concepts interchangeably and ambiguously, so that in particular the understanding of VE integration, operation and management can be fragmented and hindered. Virtual Enterprises, Agile/Virtual Enterprises, Virtual Organizations, Smart Organizations, Networked Enterprises, Star Aliances, BM_Virtual Enterprises, to name just some, are designations of similar, complementary and overlapping models and concepts; in front of this, how can a manager, a policy maker, a researcher, a student, capture the correct sense of them all? What are their associated enabling technologies? And other similar questions related to the ambiguity of diverse definitions within the VE theory arise.
After a literature review on VE, the authors concluded that the literature provides a wide range of definitions, characteristics, models, typologies for VE, most of them overlapping and duplicated, and sometimes using different terms for the same dimensions. However, some of these works are superficial or incomplete, very focused and covering a narrow view, such as defining communication flows or defining typologies and coordination among VE members. Some of the contributions are not precisely taxonomies, but characterization efforts, sets of properties or characteristics of a given aspect/view of a VE.
But developing foundational taxonomies is not simple at all. The authors describe a set of key elements/ assumptions, focusing on a "system view" based taxonomy. The structure of the taxonomy developed is based on the view of the system as a 5-tuple consisting of Input, Control, Output, Mechanism, and Process, which is the underlying system-view in the well-know IDEF0 diagramming technique. In particular, this taxonomy addresses the VE extended lifecycle (proposed in [12]) which besides the traditional VE life cycle phases, implies the use of a meta-organization called Market of Resources (MR), as an original contribution to the VE theory and practice. This structure was intentionally used to facilitate the transposition and the relationship with other VE models already developed using IDEF0 representation, as well as to facilitate the use of IDEF0 and similar techniques in the conception and development of new models.
The taxonomy presented in the paper is expected to facilitate the sharing of knowledge in the domains of VE concepts or definitions, management, integration, reconfiguration and operation processes, tools and mechanisms, and underlying theories and approaches. The authors' taxonomy does not represent a merge of existing or already published partial taxonomies, that is, the taxonomy presented does not repeat what the literature already includes, as well as repeating the commonplaces, but it is constructed in a way to be easily complemented with other VE partial taxonomies that may be found in literature, in a form of new "branches" of the taxonomy "tree" that can be added ("grafted").
The paper is organized as follows: section two introduces basic concepts, section three states the building blocks for the introduction of the "system-based view" taxonomy, introducing the meta-enterprise called Market of Resources (MR) as an enabler of the VE model. Section four presents the taxonomy and finally section five draws conclusions of the undertaken research.
2. Background
This section makes a brief introduction to the basic concepts to be developed in the paper and refers several VE related taxonomies.
2.1 VE classifications and taxonomies
Gilchrist [13] explained the need to organize knowledge in taxonomies, and identified several triggers for this. Today the concept refers to the classification of things and to the principles underlying such a classification. Almost anything on earth may be classified according to some taxonomic scheme.
Literature has been offering VE classifications since the mid-nineties. Some of the main contributions towards the definition of VE related classifications, definitions, architectures and taxonomies and related functionalities and tools are offered by Sarkar et al. [14], Bichler & Segev [15] Ávila et al. [16], Bultje & Wijk [17], Bafoutsou & Mentzas [18], Choi et al. [19], Westphal et al. [20], Lomuscio et al. [3], Hudert et al. [5]. The various complementary contributions found (and many more could be added) show that the paradigms are defined with more or less extension and granularity and hence classifiable by some set of characteristics, principles, strategies, practices, enabling features, dimensions, etc.
2.2 The Virtual Enterprise Model
Concerning the question of the VE as a new organizational paradigm, and according to the authors' opinion, there are three fundamental features of the VE concept that make the fundamental difference between the VE and the "traditional" enterprise. These are:
• The dynamics of network reconfiguration,
• Virtuality, and
• External entities (meta- (virtual) enterprise structures) as environments for enabling, or supporting, the VE integration itself as well as to support reconfiguration dynamics.
The term and the concept "Virtual Enterprise" emerged already in the beginning of nineties and could be seen as the further optimization and perfection of the basic ideas about dynamic networking. However, unfortunately or not, until today, there is not a universally accepted definition, or model, of the VE.
It can then be summarized stating that a successful company must acquire the capability to achieve and explore the competitive advantage in synergy [21], i.e., using the best resources available to an organization, which requires a shift from "self-centred close-enterprises" [22] to dynamically reconfigurable collaborative networked structures, corresponding to the recent approaches of the Extended Enterprise [23], the Virtual Enterprise [24-26], the Agile Enterprise [27], the Virtual Value Chains [28], the Agile/Virtual Enterprise [2931], the Intelligent Enterprise [32], the Smart Organisation [33], the OPIM model (One Product Integrated Manufacturing) [34, 35] and other models, each with its characterising nuances. These models are generally addressed as Virtual Enterprise (VE) models. Therefore, a VE taxonomy should reflect the definitions of VE and their subsequent narrowed or specialized evolutions, and their elements and relationships.
3. A "System-based view" of a taxonomy for the VE Model
This section introduces the representation to be used in the taxonomy as well as presents and briefly explains the VE lifecycle based on a MR.
3.1 Structure and representation
A taxonomy can have several perspectives/ approaches/views or interpretations, which lead to different criteria for construction. In this section we introduce a system view based, following the view of the system as a 5-tuple consisting of Input, Control, Output, Mechanism, and Process, which is the underlying system-view in the well-know IDEF0 diagraming technique. In particular, the taxonomy presented follows an IDEFO-based representation of a VE structure, as defined in [36, 37].
The following connectors are used in the representation:
- disjunction e.g. A | B / - conjunction e.g. A / B
( | ) - alternative e.g. A ( | B)
3.2. The IDEF0 representation of the VE lifecycle based on a MR
There are five elements in the IDEF0 functional model: each process (or activity) of the system is represented by a box, where inputs are represented by the arrows flowing into the left hand side of an activity box and outputs are represented by arrows flowing out the right hand side. Inputs and outputs connect the process to other boxes (processes) - see Figure 1. The top of the box is reserved for control information or constraints on the activities and arrows in the base represent mechanisms that carry out the activity. The input, output, control and mechanism arrows are also defined as ICOMs.
control
Process -► output
mechanism
Fig. 1. IDEF0 representation
The IDEF notation represents some of the systems' principles: inputs are transformed into outputs, control flows constraints or restricts the conditions in which the transformation occurs and mechanisms describe how the functions are executed. All inputs are converted, by influence of mechanism and control, into output.
The MR is the environment for enabling and management of efficient configuration, and assuring virtuality, at low transaction costs and reduced risk of knowledge leakage. It is one of the main tools conceived in the BM_Virtual Enterprise Reference Model (BM_VEARM) for managing, controlling and enabling networking and dynamics [29].
The MR is an institutionalised organisational framework and service assuring the accomplishment of the competitiveness requirements for VE dynamic integration and business alignment [36, 38-40]. The operational aspect of the MR consists of an Internet-based intermediation service, mediating offer and demand of resources to dynamically integrate in a VE. Brokers act within the MR as intermediation agents for agility and virtuality. In this "virtual" environment, offer corresponds to resources providers (individuals, enterprises) that make their resources (products, components, operations) available, as potential partners for VE integration, and demand corresponds to client, the VE owner, the entity looking for resources to create/integrate/reconfigure a VE to satisfy the Customer.
The overall functioning of the MR is represented by an IDEF0 diagram in Figure 2. It consists of the creation and management of the MR itself (Process A.1.), as the environment to support the design and integration of the VE (Process A.2.) that, under the coordination of the environment, operates to produce a product to answer to a market opportunity (Process A.3.). The MR offers technical and procedural support for the activities of identifying potential partners, qualifying partners, and integrating the VE, as well as coordination and performance evaluation mechanisms.
Fig. 2. IDEF0 representation of the global process for the MR and for VE Design, Integration and Operation [37]
4. A Virtual Enterprise taxonomy
The VE taxonomy following the "system"-based view is presented in this section. A special focus was given to the approached of using the meta-institution MR as a tool for VE integration, operation and reconfiguration. Other approaches are expected to be developed in a near future.
Virtual Enterprise
1. Concepts ( | Approach ) /
2. Requirements ( | Input )
3. Processes ( | Activity )
4. Output ( | Result ) /
5. Tools ( | Mechanisms | Resources )
6. Management ( | Control | Constraints )
To simplify the presentation, the above six entries are detailed in six different subsections (4.1 to 4.6).
4.1 VE concepts or approaches
Virtual Enterprise 1. Concepts ( | Approach )
1.1. Supply chain
1.2. Extended Enterprise
1.3. Agile Enterprise
1.4. Smart organizations
1.5. Virtual Enterprise
1.6. Collaborative Networked Organization
1.7. Agile/Virtual Enterprise
1.8. BM_Virtual Enterprise
1.8.1. BM_Agile/Virtual Enterprise
1.8.2. BM_Virtual Enterprise
1.9. Ubiquitous Enterprise
1.9.1. BM_ VEARM based Ubiquitous Enterprise
1.9.2. Other
1.10. Virtual Organization
1.11. OPIM (One Product Integrated Manufacturing)
1.12. Other
4.2 VE requirements or inputs
2. Requirements ( | Input )
2.1. Objectives
2.1.1. I*PROMS objectives
2.1.1.1. Identification of the VE State-of-the-art
2.1.1.2. Identification of VE enabling factors and technologies
2.1.1.3. Identification of VE ontologies
2.1.1.4. Identification of a VE Road-map
2.1.1.5. VE Research Integration
2.1.2. Other objectives
2.1.3. Identification of the VE State-of-the-art
2.1.4. Identification of VE enabling factors and technologies
2.1.5. Identification of VE ontologies
2.1.6. Identification of a VE Road-map
2.1.7. VE Integration
2.1.8. Information discovery and integration
2.1.9. Resources taxonomy
2.3. Attributes and Functionalities
2. .3. . 1. Integrability ( | Interoperability
2. .3. 2. Distributivity
2. .3. 3. Agility ( | Dynamics )
2. .3. .4. Virtuality
2. .3. .5. Partnership coordination
2. 3. .6. Partner relationship
2. 3. .7. Responsiveness
2. 3. .8. Flexibility
2. 3. .9. Utilization of ICT
2. 3. . 10. Communication
2. 3. . 11. Price
2. 3. . 12. Cost
2. 3. .13. Quality
2. 3. . 14. Profit
2. 3. .15. Quick response
2. 3. . 16. Lead time
2. 3. . 17. Customer satisfaction
2. 3. . 18. Quick (pro-)action
2. 3. .19. Other
2.4. Domain
2.4.1. Manufacturing
2.4.2. Others
4.3 VE processes or activities
3. Processes ( | Activity )
3.1. Model 3 - BM_VEARM
3.1.1. Identification of the Opportunity /
3.1.2. Contractualisation with the Market of Resources /
3.1.3. Design and Integration ( | Reconfiguration ) /
3.1.4. Operation /
3.1.5. Dissolution (a special case of Reconfiguration).
3.2. Model 1 - PRODNET
3.2.1. Creation /
3.2.2. Operation /
3.2.3. Modification /
3.2.4. Dissolution
3.3. Model 2 - VERAM
3.3.1. Preliminary design /
3.3.2. Identification /
3.3.3. Concept /
3.3.4. Requirements /
3.3.5. Detailed design /
3.3.6. Implementation /
3.3.7. Operation /
3.3.8. Decommission
3.4. Other /
3.5. Integration
4.4 VE outputs or results
4. Output ( | Result )
4.1. Distributed Enterprise
4.2. Agile Enterprise
4.3. Agile/Virtual Enterprise
4.4. Virtual Enterprise
4.5. Ubiquitous Enterprise
4.6. Virtual Organization
4.7. Others
4.5 VE tools, mechanisms or resources
5. Tools ( | Mechanisms | Resources ) 5.1. Infrastructures
5.1.1. Organizational infrastructures
5.1.1.1. "Market of Resources" (MR)
5.1.1.2. E-alliances
5.1.1.3. E-market places
5.1.1.4. Electronic institutions
5.1.1.5. Virtual clusters
5.1.1.6. E-business community (Value-net)
5.1.1.7. "Guilds"
5.1.1.8. Breeding Environments
5.1.2. Information infrastructures
5.1.2.1. WWW directories and search machines
5.1.2.2. Portals
5.1.2.3. Internet-based catalogues
5.1.2.4. Electronic negotiation platforms / environments
5.1.2.5. E-marketplaces /
5.1.2.6. Attributes and Functionalities
5.1.3. Legal infrastructure /
5.1.4. Integration infrastructures
5.2. Integration dimensions /
5.3. Information models, systems and procedures /
5.4. Architecture ( | Reference models )
5.4.1. Informal
5.4.2. Formalized
5.4.3. Formal
5.5. Reference Models and specifications
5.5.1. Reference model representations /
5.5.2. Reference model(s) integration /
5.5.3. Reference model modifications /
5.5.4. Reference model extensions (for other views, e.g. information system,
implementation, domain specific)
5.5.5. Metrics and certification criteria for VE models and software developed under
the particular reference model
5.5.6. Other issues
5.6. Theories
5.6.1. Informal
5.6.2. Formalized
5.6.3. Formal
5.7. Representations classes for VE
5.7.1. Informal
5.7.1.1. Metaphor theory
5.7.1.2. Semiotics
5.7.2. Semi-formal
5.7.2.1. Flowchart
5.7.2.2. IDEF
5.7.2.3. Social actors networks theory
5.7.2.4. Multi-agent systems
5.7.3. Formal
5.7.3.1. Graphs
5.7.3.2. Petri-nets
5.7.3.3. Game theory
5.7 3.4. Deontic logic
5.7 3.5. Operational research
5.7 3.6. Ontology
5.7 3.7. 1st order Logic
5.7 3.8. 2nd order Logic
5.7 3.9. Algebra
5.7 3.10. Grammar
5.7 3.11. Automata
5.7 3.12. FDTs
5.7 3.13. Programming/Representation languages
5.7 3.14. Hybrid
5.7.4. Hybrid
5.7.5. Other
5.8. Communication tools /
5.9. Data base /
5.10. Knowledge base /
5.11. Data base manipulation mechanism
4.6 VE management, control or constraints
6. Management ( | Control | Constraints )
6.1. Processes /
6.2. Performance measures /
6.3. Tools 5. Conclusions
This is the first systematized and extended categorization covering part of the VE paradigm and associated concepts, and hence a totally innovative proposal. It is a large depiction of the VE concept, but without repeating commonplaces already covered by literature. However, under this perspective, one can say that this work is never complete!
Besides the magnitude and effort that a deeper and more complete taxonomy would require (unbearable with the limitations of the present text), the literature already contains a number of contributions that could allow to complete many concepts. This taxonomy represents a starting point towards a structured method for understanding a VE under a system-based view, with the potential to help identifying areas for future research and development, and to drive the design of new applications and environments to support this model. As said along the text, it is not meant to be a complete tool; instead it can be always upgraded /complemented, that is, a living tool.
References
[1] Lee, S., Park, Y., 2009. The classification and strategic management of services in e-commerce: Development of service taxonomy
based on customer perception, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, p. 9618-9624.
[2] Hsu, T.S., Chuang, S.P., Yang, C.L., Hsu, C.J., 2008. Study on business models for electronic commerce, in: Management of
Innovation and Technology, 2008. ICMIT 2008. 4th IEEE International Conference on, pp. 664-668.
[3] Lomuscio, A.R., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., 2003. A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce Int. J. Group
Decis. Negot., 12, p. 31-56.
[4] Strobel, M., Weinhardt, C., 2003. The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations Int. J. Group Decis. Negot., 12, p. 143-164.
[5] Hudert, S., Ludwig, H., Wirtz, G., 2009. Negotiating SLAs-An Approach for a Generic Negotiation Framework for WS-Agreement,
Journal of Grid Computing, 7, p. 225-246.
[6] Milosevic, Z., 2004. Inter-organisational collaborations supported by e-contracts, in: P.F. Linington, F. Gibson, S. Kulkami, J. Cole
(Eds.) Building the e-Service Society: e-Commerce, e-Business and e-Government, Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 413-429.
[7] Grosof, B.N., Poon, T.C., 2004. SweetDeal: Representing Agent Contracts with Exceptions Using Semantic Web Rules, Ontologies,
and Process Descriptions, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8, p. 61-97.
[8] Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., 2006. Collaborative Networks: Value creation in a knowledge society, in: K. Wang, G.
Kovacs, M. Wozny, M. Fang (Eds.) Knowledge Enterprise: Intelligent Strategies in Product Design, Manufacturing, and Management, Springer, Boston, pp. 26-40.
[9] Grefen, P., Vonk, J., 2006. A Taxonomy of Transactional Workflow Support, International Journal of Cooperative Information
Systems, 15, p. 87-118.
[10] Moller, C., 2006. The role of enterprise systems in supply chain networks\&\#58; a taxonomy of supply chain strategies, Int. J. of Networked and Virtual Organizations, 3, p. 156-171.
[11] Dunn, G., Everitt, B.S., 1982. An Introduction to Mathematical Taxonomy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[12] Cunha, M.M., Putnik, G.D., Ávila, P., 2005. Virtual Enterprises' Extended Life Cycle, Management, 9, p. 4-13.
[13] Gilchrist, A., 2003. Thesauri, taxonomies and ontologies - an etymological note, Journal of Documentation, 59, p. 7-18.
[14] Sarkar, M., Butler, B., Steinfield, C., 1995. Intermediaries and Cybermediaries: A Continuing Role for Mediating Players in the Electronic Commerce Marketplace, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1, p.
[15] Bichler, M., Segev, A., 1999. A Brokerage Framework for Electronic Commerce, Journal of Distributed and Paralel Databases, Special Issue on E-Commerce, 7, p. 133-148.
[16] Ávila, P., Putnik, G.D., Cunha, M.M., 2002. Brokerage Function in Agile/Virtual Enterprise Integration - A Literature Review, in: L.M. Camarinha-Matos (Ed.) Collaborative Business Ecosystems and Virtual Enterprises, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 65-72.
[17] Bultje, R., Wijk, J., 1998. Taxonomy of Virtual Organisations, Based on Definitions, Characteristics and Typology, VoNet: The Newsletter@http://www.virtual-organisation.net, 2, p. 7-20.
[18] Bafoutsou, G., Mentzas, G., 2002. Review and functional classification of collaborative systems, International Journal of Information Management, 22, p. 281-305.
[19] Choi, Y., Kang, M., Chae, H., Kim, K., 2008. An enterprise architecture framework for collaboration of virtual enterprise chains, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35, p. 1065-1078.
[20] Westphal, I., Thoben, K.-D., Seifert, M., 2010. Managing collaboration performance to govern virtual organizations, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21, p. 311-320.
[21] Yusuf, Y.Y., Sarhadi, M., Gunasekaran, A., 1999. Agile Manufacturing: The drivers, concepts and attributes, International Journal of Production Economics, 62, p. 33-43.
[22] Browne, J., Zhang, J., 1999. Extended and Virtual Enterprises: similarities and differences, International Journal of Agile Management Systems, 1, p. 30-36.
[23] Browne, J., Sacket, P.J., Wortmann, J.C., 1995. Future Manufacturing Systems - Towards the Extended Enterprise, Computers in Industry, 25, p. 235-254.
[24] Goldman, S., Nagel, R., Preiss, K., 1995. Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer, van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
[25] Drucker, P.F., 1990. The Emerging Theory of Manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, May/Jun, p. 94-102.
[26] Byrne, J.A., 1993. The Virtual Corporation: The Company of the Future will be the Ultimate in Adaptability, Business Week, p. 98103.
[27] Nagel, R., Dove, R., 1992. 21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise Strategy, in, Iacocca Institute, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
[28] Benjamin, R., Wigand, R., 1995. Electronic Markets and Virtual Value Chain on the Information Super Highway, Sloan Management Review, 36, p. 62-72.
[29] Putnik, G.D., 2000. BM_Virtual Enterprise Architecture Reference Model, in: A. Gunasekaran (Ed.) Agile Manufacturing: 21st Century Manufacturing Strategy, Elsevier Science Publ., UK, pp. 73-93.
[30] Cunha, M.M., Putnik, G.D., Ávila, P., 2000. Towards Focused Markets of Resources for Agile / Virtual Enterprise Integration, in: L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, H. Erbe (Eds.) Advances in Networked Enterprises: Virtual Organisations, Balanced Automation, and Systems Integration, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Berlin, pp. 15-24.
[31] Cunha, M.M., Putnik, G.D., Gunasekaran, A., 2002. Market of Resources as an Environment for Agile / Virtual Enterprise Dynamic Integration and for Business Alignment, in: O. Khalil, A. Gunasekaran (Eds.) Knowledge and Information Technology Management in the 21st Century Organisations: Human and Social Perspectives, Idea Group Publishing, London, pp. 169-190.
[32] Quinn, J.B., 1990. The Intelligent Enterprise, The Free Press, New York.
[33] Filos, E., Banahan, E., 2001. Towards the Smart Organization. An Emerging Organizational Paradigm and the Contribution of the European RTD Programmes, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 12, p. 101-119.
[34] Putnik, G.D., Silva, S.C., 1995. One-Product-Integrated-Manufacturing, in: L.M. Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesk (Eds.) Balanced Automation Systems - Architectures and Design Methods, Chapman & Hall, pp. 45-52.
[35] Putnik, G.D., 1997. Towards OPIM System, in: M.A. Younis, S. Eid (Eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, Cairo, pp. 675-678.
[36] Cunha, M.M., Putnik, G.D., Gunasekaran, A., Ávila, P., 2005. Market of Resources as a Virtual Enterprise Integration Enabler, in: G.D. Putnik, M.M. Cunha (Eds.) Virtual Enterprise Integration: Technological and Organizational Perspectives, Idea Group Publishing, London, pp. 145-165.
[37] Cunha, M.M., Putnik, G.D., 2006. Agile/Virtual Enterprise: Implementation and Management Support, Idea Group Publishing, London.
[38] Cunha, M.M., Putnik, G.D., 2005. Market of Resources for Agile/Virtual Enterprise Integration, in: M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Idea-Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 1891-1898.
[39] Cunha, M.M., Putnik, G.D., 2002. Discussion on Requirements for Agile/Virtual Enterprises Reconfigurability Dynamics: The Example of the Automotive Industry, in: L.M. Camarinha-Matos (Ed.) Collaborative Business Ecosystems and Virtual Enterprises, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 527-534.
[40] Cunha, M.M., Putnik, G.D., Gunasekaran, A., 2003. Market of Resources as an Environment for Agile/Virtual Enterprise Dynamic Integration and for Business Alignment, in: A. Gunasekaran, O. Khalil (Eds.) Knowledge and Information Technology Management in the 21st Century Organisations: Human and Social Perspectives, Idea Group Publishing, London, pp. 169-190.
