Content uploaded by Martín G. Marchetta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martín G. Marchetta on May 02, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
A framework for measuring logistics performance in the wine industry
Fernanda A. Garcia
a,
n
, Martin G. Marchetta
a
, Mauricio Camargo
b
, Laure Morel
b
,
Raymundo Q. Forradellas
a
a
School of Engineering, National University of Cuyo, Centro Universitario, CC405 (M5500AAT) Mendoza, Argentina
b
Research Team in Innovative Processes (EA N3767 ERPI), ENSGSI, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, 8 rue Bastien Lepage, BP 90647 (54010) Nancy Cedex, France
article info
Article history:
Received 11 August 2010
Accepted 1 August 2011
Available online 17 August 2011
Keywords:
Logistics benchmarking
Performance measurement systems
Wine industry
Wine supply chain
abstract
Nowadays, in order for wine companies to reach a world-class standard, it is necessary to implement
the industry best practices and continuously adapt their logistics processes. Through benchmarking,
these enterprises can find opportunities for improvement. So far, little research in benchmarking and
performance measurement has been developed for the wine industry. In this paper a logistics
benchmarking framework for the wine industry is proposed. A benchmarking study considering
several wineries from Mendoza (Argentina) is presented as a case study, in order to demonstrate the
validity of the developed framework.
&2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In a global economy and competitive and dynamic environ-
ment, Supply Chain Management (SCM) is a key strategic factor
for increasing organizational effectiveness. Wine companies
around the world are realizing the importance of supply chains
and the impact of their performance on the business.
The importance of the wine industry worldwide can be
measured by its business and operations volume. According to a
study of the International Wine and Spirit Record (IWSR, 2010), in
2010 the wine world market reached 23.6 billion liters, repre-
senting 183.1 billion dollars, a growth of 4.5% from 2005. For 2014
an increase of 3.2% is expected.
Logistics activities in the wine industry are becoming more
and more important. New markets are appearing as a conse-
quence of the economic development of some emerging countries
such as China, Russia and the Asia-Pacific region. Moreover, the
IWSR (2010) report indicates that today 25% of wine bottles
consumed are imported wines, and this proportion will be higher
in the next years. Therefore, an increase of the logistics operations
in the wine industry is expected.
Additionally, different segments of wines, from table to super
premium, need particular logistics activities. For example Dollet
and Diaz (2010), studied the premium and super-premium wines,
a market driven by time-to-market and customization, and they
proposed a multi-level network orchestration SCM model for this
specific market. On the other hand, for commodity wines the
fierce competition for existent and new markets leads to search
for supply chain strategies in order to reduce transportation cost.
Roy and Cordery (2010) proposed a collective procurement
approach for growers and wine producers, and export in bulk
rather in bottles. Furthermore, Wen et al. (2010) applied the
Quality Function Deployment methodology to identify customer
segments and infer wine taste but also scale operation and supply
chain strategy for this growing market.
Supply Chain Management is important for wineries world-
wide because they compete in an international marketplace
where, even though the production is rather flat (Fig. 1), the
‘‘old world wine producers’’ tend to decrease their wine produc-
tion and consumption while ‘‘new world wine producers’’ are
becoming more aggressive, offering very high quality wines at
more competitive prices. Moreover, due to the complexity of the
different segments, the traditional dichotomy ‘‘old world’’/‘‘new
world’’ does not have sense anymore (Banks and Overton, 2010),
as each production country has different supply integration levels,
winery sizes and production styles (traditional, modern, artisanal,
closely tied to place and vintage, large-scale industrial production
for a mass market). Therefore, wine producers have to be able to
better meet their customers’ demands at a more affordable cost
and ensure few stock outs on store shelves. This evolution has
resulted in a growing necessity to higher inventory turns, service
level and improved customer satisfaction.
Therefore, improving supply chain’s effectiveness and effi-
ciency becomes a critical factor to remain competitive in a
marketplace that is more and more global, and where competi-
tion is tougher and tougher. The Wine Supply Chain (WSC) is
a very complex system due to several aspects: the nature of the
product (which forces the use of a mixed push/pull schema), the
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe
Int. J. Production Economics
0925-5273/$ - see front matter &2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.08.003
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ54 261 4135000x2128; fax: þ54 261 4380120.
E-mail addresses: fgarcia@fing.uncu.edu.ar (F.A. Garcia),
mmarchetta@fing.uncu.edu.ar (M.G. Marchetta),
Mauricio.Camargo@ensgsi.inpl-nancy.fr (M. Camargo),
Laure.Morel@ensgsi.inpl-nancy.fr (L. Morel), kike@uncu.edu.ar (R.Q. Forradellas).
Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298
Author's personal copy
number of actors and relationships between them, the multi-tier
systems in distribution cycle of some countries, the requirements
of final customers, the continuous pressure of local and external
competitors in the market and the legal constraints of distribu-
tion, among others. Some of these characteristics, like the mixed
push/pull schemas, apply to other industries as well, particularly
alcoholic beverage industries and agro-food industries.
For wine companies it is increasingly important to integrate
logistics processes along the supply chain and to improve the
performance of each process to reach a world-class standard. In
order to improve the performance, it needs to be measured, so the
definition of a consistent and world-class performance measure-
ment framework, and the execution of benchmarking studies to
acquire knowledge about the organization’s performance related to
its competitors and to the leadersoftheindustry,isanimportant
tool for reaching world-class standards (Frazelle, 2002).
Many organizations have improved their logistics processes per-
formance through the implementation of the industry best practices.
However, little attention has been given so far to the performance
evaluation, and hence, to the measures and metrics in the wine
industry. Benchmarking is the search of those best practices that will
lead to the superior performance of a company (Camp, 1989).
In this paper a description of the WSC is presented along with
a hierarchical benchmarking framework for measuring the per-
formance of logistics processes along the WSC. Additionally, a list
of potential problems and the relation between these problems
and the corresponding indicators of the hierarchy is presented.
Finally, the results of a benchmarking study conducted on a
sample of wineries from Mendoza (Argentina), is described.
2. Benchmarking background
During the past years, different works related to supply chain
performance measurement have been developed following dif-
ferent approaches, e.g. different scopes (all logistics activities vs.
individual logistics processes), different techniques (grouping
indicators within dimensions, Data Envelopment Analysis,
multi-criteria analysis, etc.). These works have different objec-
tives (e.g. measuring internal performance, benchmarking,
extracting knowledge in the form of dependency relationships
between indicators, etc.). The proposed models and techniques
have been applied in different industries and company sizes (e.g.
manufacturing, hardware and software, textile and garment, etc.).
In this section, a review of the recent literature is presented to
illustrate the use of performance measurement in different
industries, settings and with different objectives.
Bhagwat and Sharma (2007) developed a balance scorecard
approach for supply chain management focused on small and
medium sized enterprises. The availability of indicators that this
kind of dashboards provides has made possible to obtain a
quantitative perspective of the dynamics of distributed logistics
chains. This has opened the possibility of implementing tools
already developed for internal logistics chains, such us the
implementation of information systems, costs management, opti-
mization systems or multi-criteria decision support.
In recent years, the impact of information systems on logistics
activities has grown. Performance of information systems activities
has been measured following several perspectives (Martinsons et al.,
1999), and the relation between IT implementation, Supply Chain
Integration and Supply Chain Performance has also been researched
(Li et al., 2009). Bayraktar et al. (2009) presentedastudyonwhich
they have empirically tested a framework identifying the causal
links among SCM and information systems practices.
Finding the exact performance evaluation of the SCM in inven-
tory level minimizing the total cost has also been studied (Kojima
et al., 2008), and performance measurement systems have been
applied to particular cases, such as manufacturing organizations
(Lohman et al., 2004). Muchiri et al. (2010) presented a conceptual
framework for guiding the definition of performance indicators for
supporting the alignment of maintenance objectives with manufac-
turing and corporate objectives. Neely et al. (1996) identified
different aspects that define a performance measurement system,
and surveyed the use of structured processes for defining such
systems, including more than 850 SMEs in the UK, which indicates
that using structured approaches simplifies this task and improves
the quality of the systems obtained.
Danese and Kalchschmidt (in press) investigated the impact of
forecasting variables on companies’ performance. Pinheiro de Lima
et al. (2009) presented a process to integrate operations strategy to
the design of operations performance measurement systems. Xu
et al. (2009) studied the main uncertainty factors affecting the
supply chain performance evaluation, and developed a performance
evaluation model based on Rough Data Envelopment Analysis.
Kulmala et al. (2009) propose to include leadership behavior in
performance measurement in order to improve that area.
Outsourcing of logistics activities has become a common
practice applied by companies to focus on their core competen-
cies, what has yielded the need to measure performance of service
providers. Krakovics et al. (2008) discussed the definition and
design of a quantitative system to measure logistics performance
when logistics activities are outsourced to 3PL (Third-Party-
Logistics). Wong and Karia (2009) identified strategic logistics
resources acquired and bundled by logistics service providers to
achieve competitive advantage. Bustinza et al. (2010) presented a
model to study the impact of outsourcing on the firm’s compe-
titive capabilities. Hsiao et al. (2010) presented a research frame-
work to assess the effect of the outsourcing decision at 4 levels
Fig. 1. New/Old World wine countries average production (Source: OIV – International Organization of Vine and Wine).
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298 285
Author's personal copy
(transportation, packing, transportation management and distri-
bution network management). Awasthi et al. (2010) proposed a
fuzzy multi-criteria approach for evaluating environmental per-
formance of suppliers.
Many benchmarking studies have been carried out in the past
years in the integrated supply chain (Andersen et al., 1999)in
several industries like manufacturing (Stewart, 1995;Voss et al.,
1995;Collins et al., 1996;Voss et al., 1997;Hines, 1998;Geary
and Zonnenberg, 2000;Choy, 2002;Cooper and Edgett, 2003),
software and hardware (Cohen et al., 1997;Beitz and Wieczorek,
2000;Hamilton, 2006), transport (BizSys, 2006), port (Bichou,
2007) and textile and garment (Jolly-Desodt et al., 2006), among
others. Lai et al. (2004) conducted a benchmarking study of
companies in the transport logistics industry of Hong Kong,
considering efficiency (economic use of resources) and effective-
ness (fulfillment of customer requirements) measures, using a
framework based on the SCOR model.
Pestana and Peypoch (2009) applied a two step Data Envelop-
ment Analysis (DEA) procedure to evaluate the operational perfor-
mance of a sample of the Association of European Airlines.
Schmidberger et al. (2009) developed a holistic performance mea-
surement system (PMS) for airport ramp service providers with a
process-based perspective, and conducted a benchmarking study in
several European hub airports. The authors followed the action
research approach for defining the PMS, which associates weights to
the measures in an Analytical Hierarchical Process, and groups
measures into the perspectives of the Balanced Scorecard (BSC).
Benchmarking studies developed follow a wide range of
approaches, including definition of measurement indicators for
specific domains, defining best practices for improving efficiency
in a specific industry, modeling different processes to measure its
performance and the use of a tool to benchmark a specific domain.
In the particular case of the wine industry there are some bench-
marking studies focusing on particular aspects, such as the financial
and economic performance of the enterprises (Deloitte and
Winemakers’ Federation of Australia, 2004;Deloitte and New
Zealand Winegrowers, 2008), the energy efficiency opportunities
(Galitsky et al., 2005), and the changes that have happened in the
wine industry and their impact in old world and new world wine
countries, from the demand, innovation, supply chain structure and
institutional framework perspectives (Cusmano et al., 2010).
Although there are works related to logistics benchmarking in
others industries such as in warehousing and distribution opera-
tions (Hackman et al., 2001) and in manufacturing industry
(IAC, 2000), there are few works on logistics benchmarking in
the wine industry. On the other hand, aspects other than logistics
have been researched within the wine industry in previous
works: supply cycle, production and distribution cycle, analysis
of the situation of different countries, sustainability, etc. (Duraj
et al., 2000;Adamo, 2004;Sheu et al., 2005;Colman and P¨
aster,
2007;Musee et al., 2007;Alturria et al., 2008;Dunstall et al.,
2008;Ferrer et al., 2008;Gabzdylova et al., 2009).
Therefore, there are no integrated supply-chain-wide frameworks
to measure logistics performance in the wine industry. Only sepa-
rated measures have been presented (Bailey, 2003), but no inte-
grated framework covering the whole supply chain has been found
in the literature. The definition of an integrated and consistent
framework for measuring the logistics performance in the wine
industry, and its evaluation in a case study, is the focus of this article.
3. Wine supply chain
Considering the complexities of the WSC detailed in Section 1,itis
difficult for managers to make appropriate decisions and to measure
and improve logistics performance without a model of the supply
chain including its actors and relationships (Lambertetal.,2008).
Therefore, it is necessary to count with a formal and generic model of
the WSC, which represents all the possible instances.
Every SC consists of several nodes which can be called ‘‘actors’’
(Gigler et al., 2002). Each actor is a character, a link of the chain, a
part played by a performer. Fig. 2 shows the actors of a generic WSC,
who are connected through material flows (represented by contin-
uous lines) and information flows (represented by dotted lines).
Even though different products have different customer require-
ments and cannot be satisfied by a single SC strategy, a generic
representation of the WSC is presented, which means that it
contains the more general SC, and it can be instantiated into many
particular cases. This representative model has been defined follow-
ing the supply chain modeling approach described by Lambert et al.
(2008), and considering: (a) literature review and analysis,
(b) through extensive observation of real wineries and other actors
in the WSC, and (c) using information gathered by means of
questionnaires and interviews made to people of different wineries
and other WSC actors in Mendoza, Argentina (Garcia, 2009).
Grape Grower: The Grape Grower is responsible for the
production and harvest of the grapes (GS1, 2005). This node
Fig. 2. Wine supply chain.
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298286
Author's personal copy
is one of the most important within the WSC because the final
quality of the wine is directly related to the quality of the
grapes (Adamo, 2004). The main activities of grape growers
are: planting the grapes, cultivating and pruning the vines,
eliminating the inadequate vineyards, fertilizing the vineyards,
controlling plagues, harvesting grapes, etc.
Raw Materials Supplier: This actor provides Wine Producers
and Fillers/Packers with all the supplies needed for wine-
making or filling and packing. The main activities are: receive
new orders from wineries and/or Fillers/Packers, prepare
orders, send supplies to the wineries and Fillers/Packers, store
supplies, etc.
Wine Producer: Wine producers are responsible for receiving
grapes, the elaboration, manufacture and/or blending of wine
products. Depending on the type of wine that is going to be
elaborated, the process is different (Llera and Martinengo, 2004).
In general, the main activities to elaborate wine are: receiving
and weighing the grapes, crushing, stemming and pressing juice,
addition of sulfite and decanting, addition of yeast, fermentation,
refrigeration, clarification and stabilization, temperature control,
storage in stainless steels tanks or oak barrels, filtration, pre-
paration for bottling, maturation in bottle, etc. Several aspects of
the WSC will be different depending on the segment of wine
produced, such as the number and quality of vineyards used, the
number and the quality of supplies, the packing and labels of the
wine, etc. (Adamo, 2004).
Filler/Packer: Fillers/Packers are responsible for the reception,
analysis, filling, packing and dispatch of finished goods (GS1,
2005). The Filler/Packer receives containers of bulk wine from
the Wine Producer, and then the wine is filled into different
kinds of packages. Consumer units, such as bottles, bag-in-box,
tetra packs, etc. are produced from the wine batches supplied.
The next step is packing into consumer units into cartons and
pallets or other logistic units.
Freight Forwarder: This actor organizes the shipment planning,
which is the process of choosing shipment frequencies and
deciding for each shipment which orders should be assigned. It
also includes the safe and efficient movement of goods on behalf
of an exporter, importer or another company or person, some-
times including dealing with packing and storage. Typical
activities include (Frazelle, 2002): researching and planning the
most appropriate route for a shipment (taking into account the
nature of the goods, cost, transit time and security), arranging
appropriate packing (taking into account climate, terrain, weight,
nature of goods and cost) and delivering or warehousing of goods
at their final destination.
Freight operators: They supply service for transporting goods
from the Winery to the Importer or to other actors (distributor,
wholesaler, retailer, etc.), by air, through airline services, by
sea through shipping lines or by road and rail through different
operators. The courier could be an express/parcel carrier
trucking company, an ocean liner, a railroad or an air carrier/
integrator (Frazelle, 2002).
Importer: This actor buys goods from the Wine Producer and
is responsible for the reception, storage, inventory manage-
ment and dispatch of finished goods, which receives from the
Freight Forwarder through the Freight Operator. The Importer
sales and delivers finished goods to the Wholesaler or Dis-
tributor of the destination country depending on the distribu-
tion channel used in the country.
Finished Goods Distributor: This actor is responsible for the
reception, storage, inventory management and dispatch of
finished goods, as well as re-packing and re-labeling as per
specific customer requirements required (GS1, 2005).
Wholesaler: The Wholesaler receives pallets and cartons from
the Finished Goods Distributor and picks and dispatches goods
to the retails stores. They put new orders to the Finished
Goods Distributor, to the Importer and may also buy directly
from the winery.
Retailer: The Retailer receives finished goods from the Fin-
ished Goods Distributor or the Wholesaler depending on the
distribution channel. The retailer sells consumer units (bottles,
cartons) to the Final Consumer. The different sales’ channels
are: hyper/supermarket, liquor stores, drugs stores, specialist
store, hotels, restaurants, catering, clubs, etc.
Final Consumer: This is the final customer of the SC. Final
customers may buy finished goods directly from some wine-
ries, or they can make an indirect order of new products when
they go to the store or supermarket and chose some kind of
wine. These orders are almost always placed in-site during the
customer’s visits to the retailer’s shop (Adamo, 2004).
4. Proposed framework
The term benchmarking implies the measurement through a
collection of metrics to adequately quantify the performance of
processes. These quantitative analyses may be complemented
with qualitative ones in order to support decision making pro-
cesses, for example by exploring good or bad practices to imple-
ment or improve once the values of the metrics have been
obtained and contrasted against target values.
These metrics should be selected and maintained as a system.
For an organization to arrive to a world-class standard it is
necessary to implement a set of world-class logistics per-
formance indicators (Frazelle, 2002). Through the measurement
of logistics performance along the WSC it is possible to under-
stand the industry’s best practices through which it is easier
for a winery to fulfill the customers’ requirements, to better
understand the WSC dynamics, which helps to find bottlenecks
all along the chain, and finally to have a diagnosis of the
wineries with respect to their competitors and the industry
leaders, which helps to develop new strategies to become more
competitive.
In order to define a set of key logistics performance indicators
for a winery, it is important to specify classification dimensions
for these indicators. The SCOR model (Supply Chain Council,
2010) defines a single classification dimension for metrics: the
performance attributes. In this work, following the approach
described by Frazelle (2002), we propose two classification
dimensions, namely the performance attributes and the logistics
processes. Both attributes and processes are guides to apply the
relevant framework indicators for a particular situation, since
they group performance metrics.
4.1. Performance attributes
The SCOR model (Supply Chain Council, 2010) defines 5 per-
formance attributes (reliability, responsiveness, agility, costs and
assets). Some of these performance attributes are also considered
in the approach proposed by Frazelle (2002), who states that from
the logistics point of view every business competes on the basis of
financial performance, productivity performance, quality perfor-
mance, and cycle time performance. Garcia et al. (2009) adapted
these categories for defining the following 4 performance attri-
butes related to logistics processes in the WSC, which we adopt in
this work: Quality,Timeliness,Logistics Cost,Productivity and
Capacity. Quality is related to both process and product quality
along the WSC. Measuring the quality performance of logistics
processes and products is the way to improve these processes
and at the same time insure the customer’s satisfaction level.
Timeliness is related to the response time of the supply chain to
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298 287
Author's personal copy
satisfy the customer’s requirements; Logistics Cost is related to
logistics financial performance; and Productivity & Capacity is
related to the efficiency of the resources usage.
4.2. Logistics processes
Logistics performance is measured along Logistics Processes.
Based on the logistics activities identified by Frazelle (2002),we
defined the following 6 logistics processes: Supply,Production
and Bottling,Inventory Management,Warehousing,Transpor-
tation and Distribution and Customer Response. Supply includes
all activities related to the purchase of supplies, management of
suppliers, products income, etc. Production and Bottling includes
all the activities related to the wine elaboration process, bottling
(including bottles, bag-in-box, etc.) and packing. Inventory Man-
agement, includes all the activities of planning, inventory admin-
istration, inventory moving, etc. Warehousing involves all
warehouse management from product reception and picking to
container loading. Transportation and Distribution includes all
the activities of distribution and transportation of the wine orders
to arrive to the customer location. Finally, Customer Response
includes all the activities related to customer services, order
entry, order processing, follow up, etc. Fig. 3 shows the relation
between these two classification dimensions.
The figure shows how a performance attribute can be measured
through all the logistics process. For example, considering the
response time, it represents the lead time of suppliers in the supply
process, the elaboration and bottling time in the production process,
the transportation time in the distribution process, etc.
4.3. Key performance indicators hierarchy
Within this work, we consider the winery point of view, i.e. we
consider the winery as the focal company (Lambert et al., 2008).
In order to make the performance measurement framework
manageable, considering the complexity of the WSC, the number
of actors and its dynamics, the generic catalog of indicators is
structured in a hierarchy of three levels. Although the classifica-
tion dimensions are not the same, nor the specific metrics defined
on each level, the idea of including several aggregation levels was
inspired in the SCOR model (Supply Chain Council, 2010).
The first level contains indicators that reflect the global
performance of the winery as well as the whole WSC. These first
level indicators will show the result of the efficiency of several
activities performed along the WSC by different actors, and they
represent high level aggregated results. The combined use of
these indicators will help to further understand the overall
logistics performance of the enterprise taking into account qual-
ity, logistics costs, time, and productivity.
As we go down through the hierarchy, the number of indica-
tors at each level grows, thus providing more detailed measures
for each combination of performance attribute and logistics
process. The second level contains indicators to measure perfor-
mance of the enterprise in the same performance attributes and
logistics processes previously described, but the information is
shown in more detail than it is in the first level.
The third level measures the performance of the operations of
the organization. This level is related to the everyday operations
of the enterprise, with the purpose of improving its performance.
As the previous level, the lower level indicators complement the
high levels of the hierarchy with further details.
This generic catalog is composed of a great number of
indicators (the second and third levels of the hierarchy are shown
in the appendices). This does not mean that every actor of the
WSC will use the whole hierarchy. Each actor will instantiate
the framework depending on the strategy of the enterprise and
the structure of its supply chain, that is, depending on the place
the company occupies within the supply chain.
Some KPI (Key Performance Indicators) of the framework have
been adapted from different authors’ frameworks (Frazelle, 2002;
Choy, 2002;Lo et al., 2005) and others have been defined
specifically for measuring the integrated WSC performance.
The selection and adaptation of indicators from the other
frameworks, as well as the definition of the new indicators
not included in previous works were done through question-
naires, observation and interviews to people of different actors
of the WSC in Argentina. The adaptation of metrics included
in the other frameworks, as well as the new indicators added
convey much of the particularities of the wine industry that
might be generalized to other alcoholic beverage or agri-food
industries.
Fig. 4 shows the KPI hierarchy, including the three aggregation
levels, the four performance attributes defined, and the six
logistics processes performed within the winery where each
indicator must be measured.
This figure also shows the indicators’ relation from one level to
the other. For example, for measuring the time consumed in the
warehousing process, there is one key performance indicator in
the first level which shows the average time of the process, and if
a deeper analysis is required, the second and the third level
indicators can be analyzed to find the causes of the performance
problems. One first level key performance indicator can be related
to one or more second level indicators (though this is not a
taxonomic decomposition; the lower level indicators give more
details of high level indicators, but they do not define them
directly), and the same applies to the second and third levels of
the hierarchy. Table 1 shows all the first level indicators, a
description and the formula.
Fig. 3. Logistics processes and performance attributes (Source: elaborated by authors).
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298288
Author's personal copy
All the formulas have to be used considering a specific period
of time, defined at the moment of the implementation of the
framework, (e.g. annually, monthly, daily, etc).
Tables 2 and 3 present the details of the second level
indicators related to the Total Logistics Cycle Time and Resources
Utilization Percentage first level indicators, which are used in the
case study.
Fig. 5 graphically shows all the periods measured within the
Total Logistic Cycle Time.
4.4. Different uses of the framework
Considering the wine supply chain described earlier, several
instantiations are possible depending on the wine segment
Fig. 4. Key performance indicators hierarchy.
Table 1
Key performance indicators—1st level of indicators.
Performance
attribute
Indicator name Description Formula
Quality Supplier performance index It measures the supplier’s performance (including the
average of claims made by the winery to the supplier
in a specific period of time) PNumber of perfect purchase orders/number of
placed purchase orders (1)
Right quality grapes
percentage
It is a rate of the quantity of grapes obtained with the
right quality during harvest (in a specific period of
time) PQuantity of grapes of right quality obtained/total
quantity of grapes obtained (2)
Production performance
index
It is a rate of perfectly produced units in a specific
period of time POrders produced as planned without failures and
rejections/total orders from customer (3)
Inventory performance index It shows the global performance of all activities of
inventory in a specific period of time PLower level indicators performance/total number
of lower level indicators (4)
Warehousing performance
index
It is related to the performance of all activities of
warehousing processes performed in a specific period
of time PNumbers of items received or put away or picked
or shipped correctly and without damages/number
of items manipulated (5)
Customer satisfaction index It measures the customer’s satisfaction during a
specific period of time P[PQuantity of perfect customer
i
/total orders
entered for customer
i
]/number of customers (6)
Perfect order percentage Is the rate of orders that were perfectly produced,
bottled, without damages, with perfect
documentation, and with no claims from the
customer received in a specific period of time
PQuantity order without any problems/total
orders (7)
Timeliness New demand response time It is the average time the supplier takes to respond to
demand of new supplies P[Reception date–new demand confirmation
date]/total number of new demands (8)
Total production cycle time It is the average time needed for elaborating and
aging the product, including quality tasting and
bottling time PQuality tasting cycle timeþelaboration cycle
timeþaging cycle time þbottling cycle time/total
number of order produced (9)
Delivery cycle time It is the average freight transport time. From the
moment the order is ready in the warehouse to the
reception by the customer. P[Reception date by customer–order ready date in
the Warehouse]/total number of delivered orders
(10)
Total logistics cycle time It is the average time elapsed between the customer
order placement and the moment the order is
delivered in the customer’s location P[Reception datetransaction confirmation date]/
total number of orders (11)
Logistics
costs
Total logistics cost It is the aggregated cost of all logistics activities
considered in a specific period of time
Supply log. costþproduction log. cost þinventory
log. costþwarehouse log. cost þtransportation log.
costþlog. cost of returns from
customersþcustomer response logistics cost (12)
Total logistics cost
contribution
It is the contribution of the Total Logistics Cost to the
enterprise’s total operational costs considered in a
specific period of time
Total logistics cost/total operational cost (19)
Productivity
and
capacity
Resources utilization
percentage
It measures the average utilization level of the
winery’s resources, within a specific period of time,
as compared with the total capacity of each resource PUtilization % of resource i/number of resources
(20)
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298 289
Author's personal copy
produced, the market, the actor in the supply chain, etc. For
example, a winery that delivers in the overseas market under a
FOB (Free-On-Board) schema has a particular supply chain, as
shown in Fig. 6.
According to the definition appeared in the INCOTERMS,
1
FOB
means that the winery sells, delivers and is responsible for the
finished goods up to the boarding port, from where the goods will
be transported to the destination country.
Fig. 7 shows another example, the supply chain of the Whole-
saler, on which the visibility is restricted up to the Importer (the
wholesaler usually has not access to information and material
flows between wineries, freight operators, etc.)
These figures show a great difference between the wine
producer and the actors in the distribution cycle. For the whole-
saler the application of the framework is different than it is for the
winery. For example, if the lead-time of the importer is measured
considering the wholesaler’s supply chain, it will include the
Importer to Final Distributor cycle time and Finished Goods
Table 2
Second level indicators related to the total logistics cycle Time.
1st level indicator 2nd Level
indicator
Description Formula
Total logistic cycle
Time
Order processing
CT
Is the period elapsed from the moment the order is entered in
the winery until the moment the order is released to the
warehouse P[Order prepared at warehouse
dateconfirmation transaction date]/total
orders requested (21)
Purchase order CT If the supplies are not available from stock and a purchase is
needed it measures the average time of the procurement
process P[Purchase orders reception datepurchase
order confirmation date]/total purchase orders
(22)
Bottling CT It measures the average time needed for bottling the wine. It
includes the scheduling, filling, covering, labeling and packing
of the order. P[Finished bottling date/timestart bottling
date/time]/total orders produced (23)
Warehouse CT It measures the average time required to prepare the order in
the warehouse, including picking, packing and shipping
MTS (Make-to-Stock) P[Order prepared at the
warehouse dateorder transaction confirmed
date]/total orders prepared
MTO (Make-to-Order) P[Order prepared at the
warehouse datefinished bottling date]/total
orders prepared (24)
Delivery CT It includes waiting for loading, travel time and unloading time
in the customer’s site. P[Received date in customer locationorder
prepared in the warehouse date]/total orders
delivered (25)
Table 3
Second level indicators related to the resources utilization percentage.
1st level indicator 2nd level indicator Description Formula
Resources utilization
percentage
Capacity utilization bottling
machines
Used capacity of bottling machines
compared with their full capacity
[Quantity bottles/product bottled]/
bottling machines full capacity (bottle/
product per hour) (26)
Warehouse utilization
percentage
Storage location that are occupied compared
with full capacity
Location occupied/Total number of
location in warehouse (27)
Cellar utilization capacity Storage for wine aging that are occupied in
comparison with cellar full capacity
Used capacity/cellar full capacity(28)
Fig. 5. Total logistics CT.
1
The Incoterms are formulated and updated by the International Chamber of
Commerce which regulates the norms, obligations and rights on international
commerce trades.
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298290
Author's personal copy
Distributor to Wholesaler cycle time in order to arrive to the
wholesaler’s warehouse. Therefore, it covers the time elapsed
from the moment the order is prepared in the importer’s ware-
house until the order is delivered in the wholesaler’s location.
Considering the winery’s supply chain, the Lead-time covers the
Internal Lead-time of the winery, the Freight Operator cycle time,
the Port-to-Port cycle time, and the Port-to-Importer cycle time in
order to deliver the product to the importer (which is the
customer for the company because it follows a FOB sales strat-
egy). This lead-time covers the time elapsed from the moment the
order is prepared in the winery’s warehouse until the order
arrives to the importer’s location.
Fig. 8 shows an overall schema of how the framework is
instantiated for different actors of the WSC. The framework is the
same for all of them, but depending on the actor and its strategy,
the instantiation is different. Some indicators will be useful for
some actors, while others will be useful for other actors. The key
is that the hierarchy counts with several indicators in the three
levels which, depending on the actor and the strategy followed,
will be ‘‘activated’’ (i.e. be meaningful) on each case. In some
cases the majority of these indicators are used together following
the relations that exist between them in order to facilitate the
decision making process and to have a better understanding of
the processes as a whole.
4.5. Applying the framework
A concrete example of instantiation (i.e. selection of relevant
indicators) is shown in order to illustrate the application of the
framework. Consider the Lead-time (Total Logistic Cycle Time)
indicator in the context of the winery’s and the wholesaler’s
supply chains previously described.
For the Winery’s supply chain the lead-time includes: the
Production Cycle Time (including order processing, procurement
and bottling), and the Freight Forwarder Cycle Time, including the
Freight Operator Cycle Time (order picking in the winery, trans-
portation, freight consolidation, etc. up to the origin port); the
Port-to-Port Cycle Time; and the Port-to-Importer Cycle Time (up to
the importer’s warehouse). In the overseas market, the Importer
is usually the winery’s customer. Therefore, in some cases the
winery’s lead-time is considered only up to the origin port since
under FOB, it is usually the importer who takes care of the
transportation operations carried out from that point on.
For the Wholesaler’s supply chain the lead-time includes: Final
Distributor to Wholesaler Cycle Time, which is the elapsed time
between the moment the Wholesaler puts an order to the Dis-
tributor and the moment on which finished goods arrive to whole-
saler’s facility; the Wholesaler to Retailer Cycle Time (time between
order entering and arrival of finished goods to retailer’s facility).
This example aimed at highlighting the differences in the
application of the framework depending on the actor in the
WSC who uses the framework.
5. Case study
A comparison of the logistics performance of 6 wineries from
Mendoza (Argentina) is presented as a case study. There are more
Fig. 6. Winery’s supply chain.
Fig. 7. Wholesaler’s supply chain.
Fig. 8. Framework instantiation for different actors along the WSC.
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298 291
Author's personal copy
than 1000 wineries at Mendoza, with different sizes and markets,
and only some of the KPI defined in the framework (Section 4)
were measured and evaluated. Therefore, this study was con-
ducted as an initial validation of the proposed framework and it is
not a complete benchmarking study of the wine industry in
Argentina, neither considering the wineries compared, nor from
the point of view of the indicators measured.
These wineries belong to different segments considering the
production volume and size of the organization. However, we
selected them because an important part of their production goes
to the overseas market and because they produce wines of similar
quality and price segments, which make their logistics operations
comparable. Additionally, the aspects measured were normalized
and compared in order to obtain performance gaps from their
logistics performance. Tables with the main results are shown in
the appendices.
The required data was collected by means of questionnaires.
These questionnaires were prepared and tested with people of the
participant wineries, in order to make relevant questions and to
get the appropriate information.
5.1. Wineries background information
The percentage of the production volume of the wineries of the
study for overseas markets ranges from 45% to 98%. The wine
segment delivered to these markets is of high quality wines. Some
super premium wines are only available for overseas markets. The
main markets are USA, Brazil, Mexico, China, Holland, United
Kingdom and Canada.
Different production strategies are followed by wineries when an
order arrives: bottle to order, label to order, packing to order or make to
stock (deliver to order) (Garcia, 2009). Winery 1, winery 2, and winery
4followalabel to order strategy. They use the previously bottled wine
and they label the order when the confirmation from the customer
arrives. This strategy is followed because of several reasons. Premium
wines need extra aging process in bottle, which helps to increase
wine quality. Additionally, this strategy helps wineries to save time in
order to have a faster response to demand. Another reason for using
this strategy is that when exporting, labels need to be customized
because they must contain importers’ information, and some specific
data depending on the destination country (language, regulations,
dates, etc). Therefore, labels (sometimes just second labels) need to be
printed as late as possible (once all these parameters are known).
After this process, the preparation and transportation processes begin.
Winery 5 follows a make to stock strategy, because it can
forecast the demand and plan its production and bottling pro-
cesses for the most important customers.
Winery 3 and Winery 6 follow a bottle to order strategy when
the order arrives. Although this strategy implies an extra time for
bottling process and for the procurement of supplies, it reduces
the risks related to obsolescence of the labels.
5.2. Performance comparison
5.2.1. KPI
As exposed in Section 4.4, not every actor in the WSC uses all the
indicators for measuring the performance or doing a benchmark
study. The indicators selected (i.e. the framework instantiation) may
depend on the segment of the wines produced, the market, etc.
Therefore, only some indicators of the framework were evaluated in
this case study, which were selected according to the feedback
received from the wineries that participated in the study. These
wineries indicated that the impact of logistics in their business was
mainly related to the timeliness and resources utilization perfor-
mance attributes.
The first and second level KPI measured and benchmarked in
the study are:
1. Total Logistics Cycle Time
3.1 Order Processing Cycle Time
3.2 Purchase Order Cycle Time
3.3 Bottling Cycle Time
3.4 Delivery Cycle Time (partially)
2. Resources Utilization Percentage
5.1 Capacity Utilization Bottling Machines
5.2 Warehouse Utilization Percentage
5.3 Cellar Utilization Capacity
Regarding the Delivery Cycle Time indicator, the transporta-
tion time beyond the origin port was not included in the
evaluation since, according to the wineries that participated in
the study, they did not have control over the subsequent stages,
and their visibility was restricted.
In the following sections, the values measured for these KPI,
along with an analysis of the gaps found between the wineries is
presented.
5.2.2. Timeliness
Fig. 9a shows the average lead-time of all wineries. As said
before, the transportation time from the origin port to the
reception of the order in the importer’s warehouse was not
considered. The lead-time shown in Fig. 9a includes the values
of the first 4 indicators of the previous section, namely: Total
Logistics Cycle Time (Order Processing Cycle Time, Purchase
Order Cycle Time, Bottling Cycle Time and Delivery Cycle Time
until the origin port).
Fig. 9b shows how each cycle influences the total lead-time of
each winery. Winery 4 has the shorter lead-time, with 11 days to
prepare and put the order in the ship. Some good practices for
having this result are: work with a make to stock strategy for
highly rotating products, and work with a label to order strategy
for the other products, but only putting second labels when the
order arrives. Bottling and labeling processes are scheduled
following sales forecasting, and considering delivery dates for
confirmed orders.
The average lead time is 28 days. The BIC (Best-in-Class) is 11
days and the WIC (Worst-in-Class) is 40 days.
Fig. 10 shows the average delay of local suppliers for each type
of key supply. This is an alternative view of the purchase order
cycle time, in which the purchase time has been split across
different supplies averaging each winery’s average. As can be
seen, labels are the most critical supply, and they have the longest
delay. This is an aspect that affects wineries which follow a JIT
(Just in Time) strategy, because they have to buy supplies when
the order is confirmed. In order to reduce the lead-time, it is
better to have a security stock of some supplies. However,
maintaining a stock of labels conveys a risk of obsolescence
because the specific information related to regulations of the
destination countries may change. Similarly, bottles are very
fragile which may cause losses due to breakage.
Wineries which have long lead-times are mainly influenced by
the suppliers’ lead-times. For those wineries who buy supplies JIT
this becomes a problem and a different strategy must be imple-
mented in order to reduce delivery times, such as collaborative
forecasting.
Fig. 11 shows the number of clients of each winery from overseas
market. It is important to mention that Winery 4, the one who has
the shortest lead-time, has a small number of customers in the
overseas market. Winery 6, whose 98% of production is devoted to
overseas market, has also a small number of clients.
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298292
Author's personal copy
Fig. 10. Suppliers’ delays.
Fig. 9. (a) Average internal lead-time and (b) internal lead-time composition.
Fig. 11. Number of clients from overseas market.
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298 293
Author's personal copy
5.2.3. Productivity and capacity
All wineries, except Winery 4 have their own bottling and
labeling lines. Winery 4 rents an external line for bottling and
labeling for the first label. Second labels are put manually.
Fig. 12 shows used and wasted capacity of filling lines. Winery
5 has six filling and labeling integrated lines and 4 extra labeling
lines. Although each winery has different bottling capacities, a
large percentage of wasted capacity can be observed.
All wineries have warehouses for supplies and finished goods.
The utilization percentage of finished goods warehouses is shown
in Fig. 13.
Some wineries use finished goods warehouses to age the
bottled wine. Others have specific spaces devoted to age the
wine. Fig. 14 shows aging capacity in bottle (i.e. Cellar Utilization
Capacity the indicator).
If we consider the first level KPI ‘‘Resources Utilization Per-
centage’’ for each winery (Table 4), it is possible to summarize
the level of utilization of the described resources (filling lines,
warehouses, aging capacity and vat capacity), as shown in table
and Fig. 15.
From this information it can be observed that winery 2 is
getting more than 80% of utilization of its resources in average.
Wineries 1, 3 and 5 are near it, with more than 70%. Wineries
4 and 6, on the other hand, should implement and consider
different strategies in order to improve their resources’ utilization
(which is below 60%).
Fig. 12. Filling lines used and wasted capacity.
Fig. 13. Finished goods warehouse used and wasted capacity.
Fig. 14. Used and wasted capacity of aging in bottle.
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298294
Author's personal copy
5.3. Analysis of the performance gaps
In order to illustrate how this analysis may be useful for an
organization, consider the Winery 4. It has the shortest lead-time
of all the wineries analyzed, so it is the BIC of this study regarding
that indicator. In order to achieve this, it implements different
strategies for fulfilling customers’ orders. However, the resources
utilization percentage is 50%. Therefore, this is a potential
improvement area for the winery.
Through the study conducted, some good practices were
discovered. In order to get a good average performance, it is
convenient to define different strategies for each product, custo-
mer, destination country, rotation level, etc. This allows the
winery to give the most suitable treatment to products, custo-
mers and markets with similar conditions, such as stability of the
demand, seasonality and buying volumes. Another strategy is to
maintain security stocks of those key supplies which have long
lead times and that have no obsolescence problems.
Standardization of data of first labels allows the winery to
avoid modifying them for each kind of customer. This makes it
possible to keep stock of first labels and to reduce the impact of
forecasting deviations regarding this supply. Additionally, second
labels (which contain customizable data) may also contain some
fixed (common) data, and be reprinted with the customized data
as needed. Making collaborative forecasting with customers and
suppliers is another desirable practice, although it is almost not
applied.
In each case, it is necessary to determine the logistics cost (e.g.
supplies warehousing costs) in order to identify the optimum
strategy. The same analysis may be extended to the other
indicators in the framework, and more good practices may be
identified in a similar way.
6. Conclusions and future work
In this paper a framework for performance measurement and
benchmarking in the wine industry was presented. A descriptive
model of the WSC was proposed including a representation of all
actorswhoworktobringtheproduct to the final consumer. For each
actor in the supply chain, a description of the main activities was
presented. Material flows and information flows were identified
along the WSC. A framework composed of KPI for measuring logistics
performance was presented. Additionally, formulae, description and
different scenarios for implementing the framework were explained.
AcasestudywaspresentedforasetofwineriesfromMendoza
(Argentina), in order to illustrate the framework application and to
compare logistics performance. Results of the comparison were
exposed and explained along with a description of wineries’ good
practices found during the study.
The contributions of this research include the definition and
representation of a model for the WSC, and a framework of KPI for
measuring logistics performance along the wine supply chain.
Additionally, a set of guidelines were described as part of the case
study in order to illustrate the instantiation of the framework, and
a benchmarking study conducted over a sample of 6 wineries
from Mendoza (Argentina) was presented for illustrating the
application of the framework.
With this model and the proposed framework, companies in
the wine industry can have a better understanding of the relations
and the complex dynamics present in the WSC. This could
help them to focus on processes to improve, on new strategies
or goals, on supply chain and resources optimization to increment
final consumer’s satisfaction level, and to lower costs and
delivery times.
Future work will be carried out along three main directions.
First, a more comprehensive benchmarking study will be per-
formed in the Argentine wine industry using this model and the
framework defined, in order to identify a wider scope of indus-
try’s best practices. Additionally, a deeper verification will be
done and a comparison of the WSC of different countries will be
carried out, to show the variety of instances and diversity of
operations.
Second, additional aspects of the descriptive model of the WSC
presented in this work, which includes actors, relations and flows,
will be formalized. Simulation and formal mathematical models
Fig. 15. Resource utilization percentage.
Table 4
Computation of the resources utilization percentage.
Winery 1 Winery 2 Winery 3 Winery 4 Winery 5 Winery 6
Filling and labeling line utilization 50 60 90 75 80 80
Wine aging in bottle capacity 100 100 50 50 50
Warehouse utilization 80 90 90 25 70 50
Resources utilization (%) 77 83 77 50 75 60
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298 295
Author's personal copy
of different logistics aspects will be developed based on this
descriptive model, as tools for wineries to evaluate different
scenarios and make better decisions. Different aspects will be
included in these models, such as timing, inventory, capacity and
costs. Therefore, the descriptive model presented in this work will
be a guide for creating and integrating such mathematical and
simulation models.
Moreover, from the data collected in the study, different
production strategies were observed (bottle to order, label to
order, packing to order and make to stock). A correlation study of
metrics performance, context situation (target market, wine
segment, etc.) and production strategy will give more information
on how each strategy is and should be determined. Advanced
multi-criteria techniques will be used such as Choquet integral or
AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), thus enabling the wineries to
setup optimization models for each case.
Finally, the third line for future work will include general-
ization of the model (both the descriptive supply chain model and
the performance measurement framework) to other industries,
especially other alcoholic beverage and agro-food industries (e.g.
olive oil).
Acknowledgments
This research was jointly developed by the School of Engineer-
ing (UNCuyo, Argentina) and E
´cole Nationale Supe
´rieure en Ge
´nie
des Syst
emes Industriels (INPL, France), under the PREMER F-599
and ARFITEC ARF-08-04 programs. We would like to thank our
colleagues from the Wine Supply Chain Council for their com-
ments and discussions.
Appendix A
See Tables A1–A6.
Table A1
First and second level indicators—quality.
First level indicators Second level indicators
Quality
Supplier satisfaction index Claims due to quality fails
Claims due to out of time deliveries
Claims due to costs
Right quality grapes percentage Bad quality due to transport of grapes
Bad quality due to storage of grapes
Bad quality due to harvest
Bad quality due to climate
Production performance index Product unit perfectly produced
Inventory performance index Forecast accuracy
Inventory obsolescence
Out of stock occurrences
Inventory accuracy
Warehousing performance index Receiving performance index
Shipping performance Index
Warehouse damage percentage
Customer satisfaction index Claims due to quality fails
Claims due to out of time deliveries
Claims due to costs
Perfect order percentage Perfect purchase order percentage
Product unit perfectly bottled percentage
Order perfectly fillable percentage—fill rate
Order perfectly picked and packed
Orders perfectly delivered percentage
Orders perfectly received
Table A2
First and second level indicators—timeliness.
First level indicators Second level indicators
Timeliness
Total logistic cycle time Order processing cycle time
Return processing cycle time
Backorder duration
Purchase order cycle time
Total bottling cycle time
Warehouse order cycle time
Deliver cycle time
Total production cycle time Quality tasting cycle time
Manufacturing and aging cycle time
Total bottling and label cycle time
Deliver cycle time Lead time for overseas market
Lead time for domestic market
Vehicle load/unload time
Delayed in traffic time
New demand response time
Table A3
First and second level indicators—logistics cost.
First level indicators Second level indicators
Logistic costs
Total logistic cost Supplier total logistic cost
Production total logistics cost
Inventory cost
Total cost of warehouse
Transportation total logistics cost
Cost to return from customers
Total customer response cost
Total logistic cost
contribution
Supply cost as contribution to supply chain total
logistics cost
Production cost contribution as to supply chain
total logistics cost
Inventory cost as contribution to supply chain
total logistics cost
Warehouse cost as contribution to supply chain
total logistics cost
Transportation cost as contribution to supply
chain total logistics cost
Urgencies cost as contribution to supply chain
total logistics cost
Return cost as contribution to supply chain total
logistics cost
Customer response cost as contribution to
supply chain total logistics cost
Table A4
First and second level indicators—production and capacity.
First level indicators Second level indicators
Production and capacity
Resources utilization
percentage
Winery reception capacity
Purchase Order launched per person-hour
Number of suppliers managed
Capacity utilization filling/labeling machines
Inventory turnover
Inventory turnover of supply
Storage density
Warehouse utilization percentage
Cellar utilization capacity
Material handling equipment utilization
Percentage of full-load trailer/container capacity
utilized per shipment
Transport/vehicle productivity
Customer Orders processed per vendor—hour
Requirements fill percentage
Repalletizing of cartons percentage
Re-pack bottles percentage
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298296
Author's personal copy
References
Adamo, C., 2004. A Global perspective of the Wine Supply chain—The case of
Argentinean Wineries and the U.S. Market. M.Sc. Thesis. Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Alturria, L., Solsona, J.E., Antoniolli, E.R., Winter, P., Ceresa, A.M., 2008. Wine
making: defects in the process that originate costs of nonquality. Rev. FCA
UNCuyo XL (1), 1–16.
Andersen, B., Fagerhaug, T., Randmn
˜l, S., Schuldmaier, J., Prenninger, J., 1999.
Benchmarking supply chain management: finding best practices. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing 14 (5/6), 378–389.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S., Goyal, S.K., 2010. A fuzzy multicriteria approach for
evaluating environmental performance of suppliers. International Journal of
Production Economics 126, 370–378.
Bailey, R., 2003. Measuring for success in the wine industry. The Australian & New
Zealand Wine Industry Journal 18, 3.
Banks, G., Overton, J., 2010. Old world, new world, third world: reconceptualising
the worlds of wine. Journal of Wine Research 21 (1), 57–75.
Bayraktar, E., Demirbag, M., Lenny Koh, S.C., Tatoglu, E., Zaim, H., 2009. A causal
analysis of the impact of information systems and supply chain manage-
ment practices on operational performance: evidence from manufacturing
SMEs in Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics 122,
133–149.
Beitz, A., Wieczorek, I., 2000. Applying benchmarking to learn from best practices.
In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Product Focused
Software Process Improvement, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1840,
pp. 59–72.
Bhagwat, R., Sharma, M.K., 2007. Performance measurement of supply chain
management: a balanced scorecard approach. Computers & Industrial Engi-
neering 53, 43–62.
Bichou, K., 2007. Review of port performance approaches and a supply chain
framework to port performance benchmarking. Researching Transportation
Economics 17, 567–598.
BizSys, 2006. Transport Company Benchmarking Study, joint initiative of: BizSys
Partner Reference Group, Transport Distribution and Logistics Industry Round
Table, The Victorian Government’s Department of Innovation, Industry and
Regional Development, Victorian Transport Association, bRex Pty Ltd.
Bustinza, O.F., Arias-Aranda, D., Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L., 2010. Outsourcing, com-
petitive capabilities and performance: an empirical study in service firms.
International Journal of Production Economics 126, 276–288.
Camp, R., 1989. Benchmarking: the search for industry best practices that lead to
superior performance, 1st ed. Productivity Press.
Choy, K.L., 2002. An intelligent supplier management tool for benchmarking
suppliers in outsource manufacturing. Expert Systems with Applications 22,
213–224.
Cohen, M., Zheng, Y.-S., Agrawal, V., 1997. Service parts logistics: a benchmark
analysis. IIE Transactions 29 (8), 627–639.
Collins, R., Cordon, C., Julien, D., 1996. Lessons from the made in Switzerland
study: what makes a world-class manufacturer? European Management
Journal 14 (6), 576–589.
Colman T., P¨
aster P., 2007. Red, white and ‘‘green’’: the cost of carbon in the global
wine trade. The American Association of WineEconomists, Working Paper No 9.
Cooper, R., Edgett, S., 2003. Benchmarking best practices: performance results and
the role of senior management. Product Development Institute Inc., White
Paper No 32.
Cusmano, L., Morrison, A., Rabellotti, R., 2010. Catching up trajectories in the wine
sector: a comparative study of Chile, Italy, and South Africa. World Develop-
ment 38 (11), 1588–1602. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.05.002.
Danese, P., Kalchschmidt, M., 2010. The impact of forecasting on companies’
performance: Analysis in a multivariate setting. International Journal of
Production Economics, in press, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.016.
Table A5
Benchmarking results. General information and lead-times.
Winery 1 Winery 2 Winery 3 Winery 4 Winery 5 Winery 6
Annual production capacity (l) 1,000,000 12,000,000 3,750,000 1,300,000 – 2,700,000
Real annual production (l) 1,000,000 12,000,000 3,750,000 840,000 6,000,000 1,000,000
Percentage of production for
Exportation (%)
60 45 60 90 60 98
Main Production Strategy Label to order Label to order Bottle to order Make to stock and
label to order
(second label)
Make to stock
(bottleþlabel þ
packing)
Bottle to order
Average size of orders (l) 9000 9900 9000 4000 3750 9900
Percentage of wasted space in
containers (%)
9.09 0 9.09 59.60 62.12 0
Lead-time
Internal lead-time (days) 18 21 30 7 23 35
Winery to port cycle time
(days)
2232 23
Waiting time in port (days) 5 5 2 2 2 2
Supplies transport cycle time National suppliers
Bottles 7 30 2 15 15 30
Corks 30 3 15 10
Capsules 7 30 5 15 15 17
Labels 20 20 19 25 15 23
Number of customers
(international)
60 60 40 25 70 25
Most important destination
country
Mexico, Brazil,
USA, China
USA, Holland,
Canada
Brazil USA UK, Canada,
USA, Mexico,
USA, Brazil
Table A6
Benchmarking results. Resources utilization.
Winery 1 Winery 2 Winery 3 Winery 4 Winery 5 Winery 6
Filling line capacity (bottles/hour) 2000 12,000 4500 2500 30,000 2500
Percentage of work-time (filling) 50 60 90 75 80 80
Percentage of idle time (filling) 10 40 10 17 12 12
Labeling line capacity 1000
Percentage of work-time (labeling) 90
Percentage of idle time (labeling) 25
Finished products’ warehouse capacity (bottles) 72,000 1,200,000 660,000 600,000 – 92,400
Percentage of finished goods warehouse used capacity 80 90 90 25 70 50
Wine aging in bottle capacity used (bottles) 300,000 60,000 352,500 600,000 – 40,000
Vat capacity 1,600.000 10,800,000 2,000,000 1,690,000 242,000,000 3,000,000
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298 297
Author's personal copy
Deloitte and New Zealand Winegrowers, 2008. New Zealand Wine Industry
Benchmarking Survey, Vintage 2007. A joint publication from Deloitte and
New Zealand Winegrowers.
Dollet, J.N., Diaz, A., 2010. Network orchestration in response to customized mass
markets of premium wines and spirits. Supply Chain Forum: An International
Journal 11, 1.
Dunstall, S., Higgins, A., Sciberras, P., 2008. Innovation opportunities in bulk wine
transport. CSIRO–Sinclair-Knight-Mertz Report.
Duraj, V., Miles, J.A., Meyers, J.M., Faucett, J.A., Janowitz, I.L., Tarter, M.E., Tejeda,
D.G., Smith, R.H., Weber, E.A., 2000. Harvesting aids for reducing ergonomics
risk factors in wine grape hand harvesting. University of California Agricultural
Ergonomics Research Center.
Ferrer, J.C., Mac Cawley, A., Maturana, S., Toloza, S., Vera, J., 2008. An optimization
approach for scheduling wine grape harvest operations. International Journal
of Production Economics 112, 985–999.
Frazelle, E.H., 2002. Supply Chain Strategy The Logistics of Supply Chain Manage-
ment. Mc Graw-Hill.
Gabzdylova, B., Raffensperger, J.F., Castka, P., 2009. Sustainability in the New
Zealand wine industry: drivers, stakeholders and practices. Journal of Cleaner
Production 17, 992–998.
Galitsky C., Radspieler A., Healy P., Zechiel S., 2005. Benchmarking and self-
assessment in the wine industry. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACEEE Summer
Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry.
Garcia, F.A., 2009. Modeling and Measuring Logistics Performance in the Wine
Supply Chain: The Case of the Argentine Wine Industry. M.Sc. Thesis. School of
Engineering, National University of Cuyo, Argentina.
Garcia, A.F., Camargo, M., Marchetta, M.G., Forradellas, R., 2009. A framework for
logistics benchmarking in the wine industry. In: Proceedings of the 18th
International Conference on Management of Technology (IAMOT).
Geary, S., Zonnenberg, J.P., 2000. What it means to be best in class. Supply Chain
Management Review 4 (3), 42–48.
Gigler, J.K., Hendrix, E.M.T., Heesen, R.A., van den Hazelkamp, V.G.W., Meerdink, G.,
2002. On optimisation of agri chains by dynamic programming. European
Journal of Operational Research 139, 613–625.
GS1 Wine Supply Chain Traceability, 2005. EAN-UCC Standards App Guideline.
Hackman, S., Frazelle, E., Griffin, P., Griffin, S., Vlasta, D., 2001. Benchmarking
warehousing and distribution operations: an input–output approach. Journal
of Productivity Analysis 16, 79–100.
Hamilton, J., 2006. Benchmarking on-line services industries. Journal of Systems
Science and Systems Engineering 15 (1), 48–69.
Hines, P., 1998. Benchmarking toyota’s supply chain: Japan vs. U.K. Long Range
Planning 31 (6), 911–918.
Hsiao, H.I., Kemp, R.G.M., van der Vorst, J.G.A.J., Omta, S.W.F.O., 2010. A classifica-
tion of logistic outsourcing levels and their impact on service performance:
evidence from the food processing industry. International Journal of Produc-
tion Economics 124, 75–86.
IAC, 2000. Tercer Estudio de Benchmarking en Indicadores Logı
´sticos y Scordcard
en ECR y EHCR, IAC Colombia.
IWSR, 2010. The International Wine & Spirit Record Forecast report 2011–2015,
November 2010 (/http://www.iwsr.co.uk/S).
Jolly-Desodt, A.-M., Rabenasolol, B., Lo, J.L.W., 2006. Benchmarking of the textile
garment Supply Chain using the SCOR model. International Conference on
Service Systems and Service Management 2, 1427–1432.
Kojima, M., Nakashima, K., Ohno, K., 2008. Performance evaluation of SCM in JIT
environment. International Journal of Production Economics 115, 439–443.
Krakovics, F., Leal, J.E., Mendes Jr., P., Santos, R.L., 2008. Defining and calibrating
performance indicators of a 4PL in the chemical industry in Brazil. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 115, 502–514.
Kulmala, H.I., Ahoniemi, L., Nissinen, V., 2009. Performance through measuring
leader’s profiles: an empirical study. International Journal of Production
Economics 122, 385–394.
Lai, K.-H., Ngai, E.W.T., Cheng, T.C.E., 2004. An empirical study of supply chain
performance in transport logistics. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics 87, 321–331.
Lambert, D., Garcia-Dastugue, S., Croxton, K., Knemeyer, A.M., Rogers, D., Goldsby,
T.J., Gardner, J.T., Pohlen, T.L., Leuschner, R., 2008. Supply Chain Management:
Processes, Partnerships, Performance, 3rd edition Supply Chain Management
Institute.
Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L., Sohal, A.S., 2009. The impact of IT implementation on
supply chain integration and performance. International Journal of Production
Economics 120, 125–138.
Llera, J., Martinengo, N., 2004. Flow diagrams for quality control system design
white wine processing. Rev FCA UNCuyo XXXVI (1), 101–110.
Lo, J.L.W., Camargo, M., Rabenasolo, B., Jolly-Desodt, A.M., 2005. Benchmarking
supply chain performance in the textile and clothing industry. Textile Asia 36,
58–62.
Lohman, C., Fortuin, L., Wouters, M., 2004. Designing a performance measurement
system: a case study. European Journal of Operational Research 156, 267–286.
Martinsons, M., Davison, R., Tse, D., 1999. The balanced scorecard: a foundation for
the strategic management of information systems. Decision Support Systems
25, 71–88.
Muchiri, P., Pintelon, L., Gelders, L., Martin, H., 2010. Development of maintenance
function performance measurement framework and indicators. International
Journal of Production Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.04.039.
Musee, N., Lorenzen, L., Aldrich, C., 2007. Cellar waste minimization in the wine
industry: a systems approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 417–431.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Gregory, M., Richards, H., 1996. Performance
measurement system design: should process based approaches be adopted?
International Journal of Production Economics 46–47, 423–431.
Pestana, Barros C., Peypoch, N., 2009. An evaluation of European airlines’ opera-
tional performance. International Journal of Production Economics 122,
525–533.
Pinheiro de Lima, E., Gouvea da Costa, S.E., Reis de Faria, A., 2009. Taking
operations strategy into practice: developing a process for defining priorities
and performance measures. International Journal of Production Economics
122, 403–418.
Roy, R.N., Cordery, N., 2010. Comparing and improving value chain-supply chain in
the three most important wine regions of New Zealand. International Journal
of Value Chain Management 4 (3), 288–303.
Schmidberger, S., Bals, L., Hartmann, E., Jahns, C., 2009. Ground handling services
at European hub airports: development of a performance measurement
system for benchmarking. International Journal of Production Economics
117 (1), 104–116.
Sheu, J.B., Chou, Y.-H., Hu, C.-C., 2005. An integrated logistics operational model for
green-supply chain management. Transportation Research, Part E 41,
287–313.
Stewart, G., 1995. Supply chain performance benchmarking study reveals keys to
supply chain excellence. Logistics Information Management 8 (2), 38–44.
Supply Chain Council, 2010. Supply Chain Operation Reference Model (SCOR
Model), /http://supply-chain.orgS.
Voss, C.A., ˚
Ahlstr¨
om, P., Blackmon, K., 1997. Benchmarking and operational
performance: some empirical results. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 17 (10), 1046–1058.
Voss, C., Blackmon, K., Hanson, P., Oak, B., 1995. The competitiveness of European
manufacturing—a four country study. Business Strategy Review 6 (1), 1–25.
Wen, H., Tong, J., Yao S., 2010. The demand chain management for new world
winery: Key features of Chinese wine market. In: ICLEM 2010: Logistics for
Sustained Economic Development—Infrastructure, Information, Integration,
Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference of Logistics Engineering and
Management, vol. 387, pp. 4385–4391.
Deloitte, Winemakers’ Federation of Australia, 2004. Annual Financial Benchmark-
ing Survey for Australian Wine Industry, 2004 regional report. A joint project
of Deloitte and the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia.
Wong, C.Y., Karia, N., 2009. Explaining the competitive advantage of logistics
service providers: A resource-based view approach. International Journal of
Production Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.08.026.
Xu, J., Li, B., Wu, D., 2009. Rough data envelopment analysis and its application to
supply chain performance evaluation. International Journal of Production
Economics 122, 628–638.
F.A. Garcia et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 135 (2012) 284–298298
