IFAC

IFAC Conference
Conference on
on Manufacturing
Manufacturing Modelling,
IFAC Conference
Management and on Manufacturing Modelling,
Control Modelling,
Management
IFAC and on
Conference
Management and Control
Manufacturing Modelling,
Control
June 28-30, 2016. Troyes, France Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Management
June and
and Control
28-30, 2016.
Management Troyes, France
Control
June 28-30, 2016. Troyes, France
ScienceDirect
IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-12 (2016) 1306–1311
Integration
Integration of
of Lean,
Lean, Agile,
Agile, Resilient
Resilient and
and Green
Green Paradigms
Paradigms in
in aa Business
Business Model
Model
Integration of Lean, Agile, Resilient
Perspective:
Integration of Lean, Agile, and Green
Theoretical
Resilient and Green Paradigms
Foundations
Paradigms in
in a
a Business
Business Model
Model
Perspective: Theoretical Foundations
Perspective: Theoretical Foundations
Perspective: Theoretical Foundations
Maria
Maria do do Rosário
Rosário Cabrita,*
Cabrita,* Susana Susana Duarte,**
Duarte,** Helena Helena Carvalho,***Virgílio
Carvalho,***Virgílio Cruz-Machado**** Cruz-Machado****
UNIDEMI, Maria do
Department Rosário
of Cabrita,*
Mechanical Susana
and Duarte,**
Industrial Helena
Engineering, Carvalho,***Virgílio
Faculty of Science and Cruz-Machado****
Technology, FCT,
Maria do Rosário Cabrita,* Susana Duarte,** Helena
UNIDEMI, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Carvalho,***Virgílio Cruz-Machado**** FCT, Universidade
Universidade
UNIDEMI, Department of MechanicalNova Nova
and de Lisboa,
de Lisboa,Engineering,
Industrial 2829-516 Caparica,
2829-516 Caparica,
Faculty Portugal;
of Science
Portugal; and Technology, FCT, Universidade
Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal;
Nova deEmails:* m.cabrita@fct.unl.pt
Lisboa, 2829-516
Emails:* Caparica, Portugal;
Emails:* m.cabrita@fct.unl.pt
m.cabrita@fct.unl.pt
Emails:*** ** scd@fct.unl.pt
m.cabrita@fct.unl.pt
** scd@fct.unl.pt
scd@fct.unl.pt
**
***
**
*** scd@fct.unl.pt
hmlc@fct.unl.pt
scd@fct.unl.pt
*** hmlc@fct.unl.pt
hmlc@fct.unl.pt
*** hmlc@fct.unl.pt
****
***
**** hmlc@fct.unl.pt
vcm@fct.unl.pt
vcm@fct.unl.pt
**** vcm@fct.unl.pt
****
**** vcm@fct.unl.pt
vcm@fct.unl.pt
Abstract:
Abstract:
Abstract:
Abstract:
In response to
Abstract: to the ongoing
ongoing multidimensional change change occurring in in the external
external environment organizations organizations
In
In response
response to the the ongoing multidimensional
multidimensional change occurring occurring in the the external environment
environment organizations
are
In
are beginning
response
beginning to to
the
to recognize
ongoing management
multidimensional paradigms
change as Lean,
occurring inAgile,
the Resilient
external and
environment Green (LARG) as
organizations
In
areresponse
beginning to recognize
to the management
management paradigms
ongoing multidimensional
recognize as
as Lean,
change occurring
paradigms Lean, inAgile, Resilient
the external
Agile, Resilient and
and Green
environment (LARG)
(LARG) as
Greenorganizations as
drivers
are to
beginning
drivers to achieveto sustainable
recognize competitive
management advantage.
paradigms asThe organizations
Lean, Agile, need
Resilient to and adaptGreenand create new
(LARG) as
are
drivers to achieve
beginning achieve sustainable
to recognize competitive
sustainablemanagement advantage.
advantage.asThe
competitiveparadigms The organizations
Lean, Agile, Resilient
organizations need
need to toand adapt
adaptGreenand create
create new
and (LARG) new as
business models.
drivers A systematic
systematic approach
approach to advantage.
integrate the LARG principlesneed in aa toBusiness Model Canvas
businesstomodels.
business achieveA
models. Asustainable
systematic competitive
approach to to integrate
integrate the The
the organizations
LARG
LARG principles
principles in in a Businessadapt and
Business Model
Modelcreate new
Canvas
Canvas
(BMC)
business
(BMC) perspective
models.
perspective A will be
systematic
will be aa step
step in the
approach
in the process
to of
integrate
process of achieving
the
achievingLARGthe
the ideal
ideal approach.
principles
approach.in a It
It will
Business
will provide
Model
provide aa broader
Canvas
broader
(BMC) perspective will be a step in the process of achieving the ideal approach. It will provide a broader
perspective
(BMC) perspective to identify willcritical
be a step factors
in theto include in the organization’s
the ideal business
approach.model, It willhow and why they
perspective
perspective to
to identify
identify critical
critical factors
factors toprocess
to include of
include in achieving
in the
the organization’s
organization’s business
business model,
model, provide
how
how and awhy
and broader
why they
they
are
are related,
perspective
related, to and
and which
identify are
which critical the conditions
are thefactors and
to include
conditions boundaries of these
in the organization’s
and boundaries relationships.
business model,
of these relationships. Although
how and
Although recognizing
why they
recognizing
some
are limitations
somerelated,
limitations when
when trying
and which are theto
trying align
align LARG
toconditions LARG andprinciples
boundariesand
principles of the
and these
the building blocks
blocks of
relationships.
building BMC,
BMC, this
Although
of research
recognizing
this research
some limitations when trying to align LARG principles and the building blocks of BMC, this research
aims
some
aims
some to to
to contribute
limitations
contributewhen
limitations whento the
to the
the discussion
trying to
discussion
trying align
to alignon on
on creating
LARG
creating
LARG an
principlesideal
an ideal
principlesidealandtype
type
andtypethe of
of
the of business
building
business
building models
blocks
models
blocks of to
BMC, be
to be
of BMC, integrate
this
this research
be integrate
integrate
research the
the
aims contribute to discussion creating an business models to the
LARG
aims to paradigm.
contribute
contribute to the discussion on creating an ideal type of business models to be integrate the
LARGtoparadigm.
aims paradigm. to the discussion on creating an ideal type of business models to be integrate the
LARG
©
LARG
LARG2016,
Keywords: IFAC
paradigm.
paradigm.
Keywords: Agile; (International
Agile; Business
Agile; Business
Business Model; Federation
Model; of
Business
Model; Business Automatic
Model
Business Model Control)
Canvas;
Model Canvas; Hosting
Green;
Canvas; Green;
Green; Lean; by
Lean; Elsevier
Lean; LARG LARG Ltd. All
paradigm;
LARG paradigm; rights reserved.
Resilient.
Resilient.
paradigm; Resilient. 
Keywords:
Keywords: Agile; Business Model; Business Model Canvas; Green; Lean; LARG paradigm; Resilient.
concepts.
concepts. This This will will support
support organizations
organizations to to identify
identify areas
areas
1. concepts. This will support organizations to identify areas
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION where they
concepts.
where theyThis can will
can focussupport
focus for the
for theorganizations
achievement of
achievement of
to profit. Also
identifyAlso
profit. it
areas
it
1. INTRODUCTION where they can focus for the achievement of profit. Also it
Organizations
Organizations are increasingly
are increasingly aware aware of of the strategic can
the strategic where
can assist
they
assist the
can
the decision
focus
decisionfor themaking process
achievement
making process of to implement
profit.
to Also
implement it
Organizations are increasingly aware of the strategic can assist the decision making process to implement
importance
Organizations
importance of
of are adopting
increasingly
adopting aa holistic
aware
holistic ofperspective
the
perspective strategicon
on strategies
can assist
strategies in
the
in aadecision
volatile
volatile and
making
and complex
process
complex to environment
implement
environment
importance of adopting a holistic perspective on strategies in a volatile and complex environment
competitiveness
importance
competitiveness
competitiveness of ingredients
adopting to
ingredients
ingredients to
toa promote
holistic and
promote
promote
sustain
perspective
and
and sustain
sustain their on characterized
their
their strategies inby
characterized by adynamic volatile
dynamic innovation
innovation processes
processes and
and complex and gradually
environment
gradually
situation in
competitiveness the market (Sangari et al., 2015). They are dominated
characterized by
dominated by new
by dynamic
by business
new businessinnovation models
business models (electronically
processes(electronically
models and gradually
(electronically
situation in the ingredients
market (Sangari to promoteet al., and 2015). sustain
Theytheirare dominated new
beginning
situation
beginning in
beginning
to
to recognize
to the marketthe
recognize
recognize
LARG
LARG management
the(Sangari
the LARG et al., 2015).
management
management
paradigms
They are
paradigms
paradigms as constructed).
as
as dominated by
constructed).
dominated
constructed).
BMs
by
BMs new
BMs
provide
new
provide
aa powerful
business
providebusiness powerful
a powerful
way
way for
models
models
way for
executives
executives to
(electronically
for(electronically
executives to
to
drivers
beginning
drivers toto achieve
recognize
toto recognize
achieve the sustainable
the LARG
sustainable competitive
management advantage
paradigms
competitiveparadigms advantage as analyze
constructed).
analyze
constructed). and communicate
BMs
and communicate
communicateprovide
BMs provide their their
a
their strategic
powerful
strategic
a powerful way choices
for
choices
waychoices (Shafer
executives
(Shafer to
for executives et
to
et
beginningto
drivers achieve LARG management
sustainable competitive advantage as analyze and strategic (Shafer et
(Carvalho
drivers
(Carvalho to et al.,
achieve
et achieve 2011). The
sustainable
2011).sustainable
al., 2011). The LARG LARG management
competitive
LARGcompetitive is about
advantage
managementadvantage is about
about al., al.,
al., 2005).
analyze
2005).
analyze andThe
The
andThe essence
communicate
essence of
communicate of a
of aatheirBM
their
BM is is
is in defining
strategic
in definingchoices
defining
strategic choicesthe manner
(Shafer
the manner
manner by
et
by
(Shafer byet
drivers toet
(Carvalho al., The management is 2005). essence BM in the
how
how Lean,
(Carvalho etAgile,
al.,
Lean, etAgile,
Agile, Resilient,
2011).
Resilient, The and
andLARG Green
Green paradigms
management
paradigms iscan can
is
canaboutact which
al.,
which the
2005).
the organization
The essence
organization delivers
of a
delivers BM
act which the organization delivers value to customers, entices value
is in
value to customers,
defining
to the
customers, entices
manner by
entices
(Carvalho
how Lean, al., 2011).
Resilient, The and LARG Green management
paradigms aboutact
together,
how bringing
Lean,bringing
together,
together,
the best
Agile, Resilient,
bringing
best for
the best and
the for Green
for the
the organizations
organizations
paradigms canwork
the organizations
work
workact customers
which
customers
customers the to to
pay
organization
to pay
pay for
for value,
delivers
for value,
value,
and
and converts
and value
converts
converts
those
to customers,
those payments
those payments
payments
to
entices
to
to
efficiently;
together,
efficiently; the combination
bringing
the the
combination best can
can be
for
be considered
the as
organizations
considered as the
the formula
work
formula profit
customers
profit (Teece,
to
(Teece, pay 2010).
for
2010). value,Defining
and
Defining the
converts
the LARG
those
LARG principles,
payments to
principles,
efficiently; the combination can be considered as the formula profit (Teece, 2010). Defining the LARG principles,
to
to achieve
efficiently;
achieve sustainable
the combination
sustainable businesses
businessescan beand
and competitive
considered
competitive as advantage.
the formula
advantage. techniques,
profit
techniques,(Teece, practices
practices2010). or
or tools
Defining
tools to
to be
be applied
the
applied in
LARG
in each
each element
element of
principles,
of
to achieve sustainable businesses and competitive advantage.
However,
achieve managing
sustainabledifferent paradigms methodologies in the
the BM
BM will be
be anan ground-breaking step
step inin this research topic.
to
However, managing businesses
different and competitive
paradigms advantage.
methodologies in aa techniques, willpractices or tools to be applied
ground-breaking in each
this element
research of
topic.
synchronized
However, managing
synchronized way
way is is a difficult
is different task
difficultparadigms due their different
methodologies ways
in a This This
the
This BM article
will
article becontributes
an to
ground-breaking
contributes to the the theoretical
step
the theoreticalin
theoretical this discussion
research
discussion on
topic.
on
synchronized way aa difficult task due
task due their
their different ways
different ways the BM will becontributes
article an ground-breakingto step in this discussion
research topic. on
of action
action (Yaakub creating aa potential model
model for to enhancing LARG management.
synchronized
of
synchronized
of action (Yaakub
(Yaakubway and
way is aa Mustafa,
is
and
and difficult
difficult task
Mustafa,
Mustafa,
2015).
2015).
task
2015).dueSome
due their authors
their
Some
Some differentbelieve
different
authors
authors ways
believe
believe This article
creating
This
ways creating article contributes
potential
contributes
a potential model for
to
for the theoretical
the theoretical
enhancing
enhancing LARG discussion
LARGdiscussion
management.
management. on
on
that
of these
action
that four
(Yaakub
these(Yaakub approaches
and
four approaches
approaches –
Mustafa, leanness,
2015). agility,
Some resilience
authors and
believe The premise
creating
The premise
premise a of
potential this
of this paper
model
thismodel
paper for is
for that
is that linking
enhancing
that LARG
LARG
linking LARG principles
principles to
management.
LARGmanagement. to
of action
that these four and Mustafa, leanness,
–– leanness, agility,
2015). agility,
Some authorsresilience
resilience and creating
believe
and The a potential
of paper is enhancing
linking LARG principles to
greenness
that these
greenness –
fourimply
imply
– imply some
approaches overlapping
–
some overlappingleanness,
overlapping areas
agility, between
resilience
areas between
between them,
and
them, the
The
the BM may
premise
BM may help
of
help thisorganizations
paper
organizations is that to
to better
linking
better understand
LARG
understand how they
principles
how they
to
that these four
greenness – approaches
some – leanness, agility,areas resiliencethem,and the BM may help organizations to better understand how they
and, inin some
greenness
and, some– cases some
imply
cases one or
one or two are
overlapping
two are subsets
subsets
areas of other
between
of (e.g. create
other them,
(e.g. the BM
create competitive
may
competitivehelp advantage.
organizations
advantage. to better understand how they
and, in some cases one or two are subsets of other (e.g. create competitive advantage.
Sarkis,in 2001;
some Shah casesand oneWard, 2003). A growing number of
and,
Sarkis,
Sarkis, 2001;
2001; Shah
Shah and
and or two
Ward,
Ward, are subsets
2003).
2003). A
A growing
growing of other
number
number of create competitive advantage.
(e.g.
of
research
Sarkis,
research studies
2001; Shah
studies on
onand Lean,
Ward,
Lean, Agile,
2003).
Agile, Resilient,
A growing
Resilient, and
number
and Green
Green of 2. LARG PRACTICES IN MANAGEMENT
research studies on Lean, Agile, Resilient, and Green
(LARG) 2. LARG
LARG PRACTICES
PRACTICES IN IN MANAGEMENT
(LARG) paradigms
research studies onhave
paradigms have dealt
Lean,
dealtAgile,not
not only
only with
with the
Resilient, drivers
the and
drivers and
and 2.
Green
2. LARG PRACTICES INal.
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
practices
(LARG) of LARG
practices paradigms
of LARG have (Carvalho
dealt not
(Carvalho et al., 2011;
only2011;
et al., Tseng
with Tseng and
the drivers Lin, 2.
and According
and Lin, LARG
According to PRACTICES
to Carvalho
Carvalho et IN
et MANAGEMENT
(2011) the the tradeoffs between between
2011; Carvalho et al., 2013) but also with the relationship According to Carvalho et al. (2011) al. (2011) the tradeoffs
tradeoffs between
practices
2011;
practices
2011; of
Carvalho LARG
of LARG
Carvalho et al.,
et (Carvalho
al., 2013) but
(Carvalho
2013) et
but al.,
et al.,
also 2011;
also2011;with the
with Tseng
the
Tseng and Lin,
relationship
and Lin, LARG
relationship LARG
According management
to
management Carvalho paradigms
et
paradigms al. are
(2011)
are actual
the
actual issues
tradeoffs
issues and may
between
and may
between LARG and operational and/or economic LARG management paradigms are actual issues and may
2011;
between Carvalho
2011; Carvalho
between LARG
LARG et al.,
et al., and 2013)
and2013) but
operational also
but also with
operational with the
and/or relationship
economic LARG
the relationship
and/or economic help
help supply chains,
management
supply chains, and its
paradigms
and its organizations,
are
organizations,actual to become
issues
to become and more
may
more
performance (e.g. help supply chains, and its organizations, to become more
between
between LARG
performance
performance (e.g. Hallgren
LARG
(e.g. and and
and
Hallgren
Hallgren and Olhager,
Olhager, 2009;
operational
operational
and Olhager, and/orChavez
and/or
2009;
2009; Chavez
Chavez
et
et al.,
economic
economic
et al., efficient,
al., help supply
help supply
efficient, streamlined
chains, and
chains,
streamlined and
and
and sustainable.
its
its organizations,
organizations,
sustainable. With
With this
to
to
this statement,
become
become more
more
statement, it
it
2013;
2013; Eckstein
performance
Eckstein et al.,
(e.g.
et al., 2015).and Olhager, 2009; Chavez et al., is possible to conclude that the differences between these
Hallgren
2015).
2013; Eckstein et al., 2015). efficient,
is possible streamlined
to conclude andthatsustainable. With this
the differences statement,
between it
these
2013;research
The Ecksteindeveloped
et al., 2015). until now allowed to understanding paradigms
is possible lie
is possible
paradigms to in
lie
to in their
conclude
their
conclude focus.
that Therefore,
focus.
that the differences
Therefore,
the the
differences
the LARG
between
LARG
between business
these
business
these
The research
The research developed
developed until until now now allowed
allowed to to understanding paradigms lie in their focus.
understanding management is not a destination but a long-term journey. Therefore, the LARG business
the paradigms lie
management lie is in not
isin theiraa focus.
not focus.
destination Therefore, the
but aa the LARG business
long-term business
journey.
The relevance
The
the
the research
relevance
to
to expand
research developed
relevance to expand until
developed
expand
its
its scope
until
its now
scope
to
to areas
now allowed
scope areasto
allowed
to areas toalso considered
understanding
also
understanding
also considered paradigms
considered management
Factors
management such as
is
their
industrial
not a
destination Therefore,
sector,
destination
but
supply
but a
LARG
long-term
chain,
long-term
journey.
people and
journey.
strategic
the but
relevance
strategic with
but withto
with knowledge
expand
knowledge its gaps,
scope
gaps, likelike
to
like the
areas development
also
the developmentconsidered
development of a Factors
management
Factors such
such as
is
as industrial
not a
industrial sector,
destination
sector,
of aa leadership, processes and strategy influence the way of supply
but
supplya chain,
long-term
chain, people
people and
journey.
and
the relevance
strategic but to expand
knowledge its scope
gaps, to areas
the also considered of doing
Business but
strategic
Business Model
Modelwith (BM)
knowledge
(BM) integrating
gaps,
integrating the the
like
the LARG
LARG management
development
management of a Factors
leadership,
leadership, such as
processes
processes industrial
and
and sector,
strategy
strategy supply
influence
influence chain,
the
the way
waypeople
of
of and
doing
doing
Business Model (BM) integrating the LARG management
Business Model (BM) integrating the LARG management leadership, processes and strategy influence the way of doing
2405-8963 © 2016,
Copyright IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright ©
Copyright © 2016
2016 IFAC
IFAC 1306
1306
Peer review©under
2016 IFAC
responsibility 1306
of International Federation of Automatic Control.
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 IFAC
© 2016 IFAC 1306
1306
10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.704
 IFAC MIM 2016
June 28-30, 2016. Troyes, France Maria do Rosário Cabrita et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-12 (2016) 1306–1311 1307
business. The challenge to implement a LARG business is to
define the ideal formula for their business. On the other hand,
figuring out how to capture value from LARG is a key
element of a BM design.
2.1. Lean
Lean concept was popularized by the authors Womack et al.
(1990). Lean strives to identify and eliminate all non-value
added activities which are a potential source of improvement
in any kind of business process. The perception of lean is the
reduction of waste and the subsequent cost reduction, quality
improvement, better use of resources and deliver value to
customers (Pakdil and Leonard, 2014). The goal of lean
management is to be highly responsive to customer demand
by reducing waste. Lean management aims at producing
products and services at the lowest cost and as fast as
required by the customer. According to Pakdil and Leonard
(2014) the management based on lean principles enables
organizations to gain increasingly high levels of efficiency,
competitiveness at the lowest cost, with high levels of
productivity, speed of delivery, minimum stock levels and
optimum quality. Lean should be developed throughout the
organization and requires a climate of innovation, an
infrastructure to support it, and complete management
commitment (Wyton and Payne, 2014).
2.2. Agile
Modern business organisations recognize agility to be a vital
strategy for survival in a competitive scenario. The basic
concept of agility is flexibility (Fan et al., 2007). Agility may
be seen as a dynamic capability (Teece et al., 1997) which
enables an organization to respond to uncertain and changing
business environment, and to sustain its position in the
market. Vijayasarathy and Turk (2012) identify training and
subjective norms as significant drivers of adoption of agile
processes and methods. Konecka (2010) stated that agility is
the best way to satisfy more demanding clients. This is due to
a lower risk of unsatisfying of the customers, lost orders and
too slow responses. The author argues that agile management
consists in carrying out the activities connected to strategy of
the diversification, to delivering the product that the
consumers cannot find elsewhere. As mentioned by Swafford
et al. (2006) agility is the supply chain’s capability to adapt
or respond in a speedy manner to a changing marketplace
environment. According to Christopher (2000), agile
manufacturing works well where demand is less predictable
and the requirement for variety is high. Sharp et. al. (1999)
identify agile manufacturing enablers as core competencies
such as virtual enterprise, rapid prototyping, concurrent
engineering, multi-skilled and flexible people, continuous
improvement, team working, change and risk management,
information technology and empowering.
2.3. Resilient
In general, resilience-based literature has been conceptual,
focusing on developing a knowledge base for specific areas
through establishing the fundamental concepts and principles
which are closely related with the capability and ability of a
system to return to its original state or move to a new, more
1307
desirable state after being disturbed (Christopher and Peck,
2004). This involves both the ability to deal with systematic
discontinuities as well as the capability to adapt to uncertain
environments (Bahmra et al., 2011). The objective is to limit
impact of disruptions on customers. Tomlin (2006)
summarizes the different approaches and identifies two major
strategies to achieve a resilience: mitigation and contingency.
2.4. Green
Environmental management issues have become increasingly
important in both public and private organizations in recent
years (Lozano and Valle`s, 2007; Länsiluoto and Järvenpää,
2010). An environmental management system can be for
instance a certification such as ISO 14000, the
implementation of green human resources practices (Renwick
et al., 2013) or a variety of green initiatives to stimulate
business playing a proactive role in environmental protection.
There are several reasons for organizations to considering
environmental issues, such as the improvement of image,
profitability, levels of emissions or customer satisfaction. .
The goal is to minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g.
air, water, and land pollution) and wasted resources from the
acquisition of raw materials, up to the final use and disposal
of products (Eltayeb et al., 2010). Green business is to adopt
environmentally friendly principles and practices that
improve the quality of life for customers and protect
resources (Karagűllea, 2012). Greening business operations
comprise practices such as reduce, reuse and recycle, and
rework, return and remanufacturing (Duarte and Cruz-
Machado, 2013).
2.5. Key drivers of LARG Paradigm
In this study we define “drivers” as internal motivators or
changes in the business environment that encourage
organizations to adopt LARG initiatives, as a way of
managing business to ensure competitive advantage.
Literature review (Hoffman, 2001; Wolf, 2011) shows that
some categories of constructs collectively motivate
organizations to adopt LARG initiatives (Table 1).
Table 1. LARG drivers
Lean  Competitive intensity of industry (cost leadership and
differentiation) (a)
 Cost savings; improve plant utilization, service
responsiveness and profit margin (b)
 First-pass correct output, reduced manufacturing lead time,
and increased productivity (c)
 Automation and price/cost consideration, widening
Agile customer choice and expectation priorities, integration and
proactivity and achieving manufacturing requirements in
synergy (d)
 Changes in market, competition, customer’s requirements,
technology, social factors (e)
Resilient  Customer dependence and supplier dependence, supplier
concentration and single sourcing, global sourcing (f)
 Regulatory compliance, market value, production cost (g)
Green  Environmental championing, monitoring (buyers), public and
regulatory pressure (h)
 Financial benefit, company image, environmental
conservation, compliance with regulations, stakeholders,
green innovation, supply chain requirements, customer
awareness, employee demands, internal motivations, market
trend, competitors (i)
IFAC MIM 2016
1308
June 28-30, 2016. Troyes, France Maria do Rosário Cabrita et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-12 (2016) 1306–1311

Legend: (a) Hallgren and Olhager (2009); (b) Zhou (2012); (c) Ghosh of the most developed BM ontologies has been advanced by
(2013); (d) Yusuf et al. (1999); (e) Sharifi and Zhang (1999); (f) Wagner and
Bode (2006); (g) Baines et al. (2012); (h) Lee and Klassen (2008); (i)
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2002). It is their ontology that will
Govindan et al. (2014). be taken forward in this work. The authors define and
describe the BM (Canvas) as a template of nine
interconnected components, as depicted in Fig 1. Main
LARG management is an integrated socio–technical system strengths are the visual representation of the BMC, the
whose main objective is to reduce waste, respond effectively centrality of value and the coverage of different dimensions
to changing customer needs, be able to adapt to new risk of a BM. Another positive point referred in the literature is
environment and adopt environmentally friendly principles that it is sufficiently detailed for academics, yet easily
and practices. It can be summarized as a series of individual understandable to entrepreneurs. Probably, the later is one of
management practices. A high level of consensus exists in the the reasons for its wide implementation and use in practice.
literature about the most characteristic of each approach as
mentioned in Table 2. Customer segments
Key Customer
Key Partners Activities Value Relationships Customer
Table 2. Focus of LARG approaches Proposition Segments
Key Customer
Lean Agile Resilient Green Resources Channels
Elimination of Effective Capability to Adoption of
waste response to adapt to new risk environmentally Cost structure Revenue Streams
changing environment friendly
Better use of customer needs principles and
Fig 1. The business model Canvas
resources practices

3. BUSINESS MODEL 4. Characteristics of LARG paradigm in a Business

Model perspective
The BM has become a key concept for strategy (McGrath,
2010) and is closely connected to business strategy, Although recognizing some limitations when trying to align
innovation management and economic theory (Teece, 2010). LARG principles and BMC’s building blocks, this work aims
Definitions of BM abound, each differing in their scope and to contribute to the discussion on creating an ideal type of a
conceptual focus (Zott et al., 2011). A BM describes the BM.
rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and 4.1. Value proposition
captures value (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010). Then, we At the centre of any BM is the organization‘s value
define a BM as consisting of two elements: i) what the proposition, and it refers to the products and services that
business does, and; ii) how the business makes money doing yield tangible results for the organization’s target customers.
these things. The BM comprises multiple organizational A organization‘s value proposition - the value that customers
characteristics which can be observed as a whole rather than are willing to pay for - is what makes it different from its
as the separate characteristics or components of the competitors and can create the competitive advantage. Figure
organization. The continuous shift towards a knowledge- 2 provides the main characteristics of the LARG management
based economy has brought to the fore the issue of how that generate value for the organization.
organizations formulate their business strategies
accommodating the complexity and dynamism of our What isis the
What the organization’s
organization’s product
product // service
service value
value proposition
proposition to
to the
the
environment (Viedma and Cabrita, 2012). Managers are customer? What
customer? What does
does itit do
do differently?
differently?
coming to realize that the organization’s success depends on Lean Agile Resilient Green
Lean Agile Resilient Green
the competitive quality of its knowledge-based assets, and the
successful application of these assets to its innovation and Establishcustomer-
Establish customer- Incorporate
Incorporate Assuringthe
Assuring the product
product Providing
Providing
defined value
defined value to
to customers’
customers’ deliveryand
delivery and services
services environmental
environmental
operational activities. The ability to create economic value separate value-added
separate value-added requirements
requirements in
in indisruptive
in disruptive friendly product
friendly product and
and
from those knowledge assets is highly contingent on the well- fromwaste
from waste product development
product conditions
development conditions services
services
formulated and well-implemented strategies, based on
business models where systematic innovation is seen as the
business driver. In response, new models of business are Fig 2. LARG vs. value proposition
emerging where the value chain have their hard nucleus in
the creation, dissemination, application and leverage of
intellectual resources (Cabrita et al., 2014). Because of this 4.2. Customer segments
focus on the intangibles, many business BM taxonomies can
be constructed; therefore, each BM definition may focus on Customers are the livelihood of every organization since they
different characteristics, and so is likely to produce a are the source of revenue streams. Successful organization
different set of classes. However, common to all definitions understand their customers and identify who the customer
of business is an emphasis on how a organization makes segments of their business models are. Figure 3 identify the
money creating value. Neither value creation nor value most appropriate customer segments for implementing
capture occurs in a vacuum. Both occur in a value network, LARG principles.
which can include suppliers, partners, distribution channels,
and coalitions that extend the company’s own resources. One

1308
 IFAC MIM 2016
June 28-30, 2016. Troyes, France
Maria do Rosário Cabrita et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-12 (2016) 1306–1311 1309

What types of customer does the organization target? Are they a niche / What are the mechanisms the organization uses to distribute value? These
mass market? could be physical or virtual.
Lean Agile Resilient Green Physical channels or web/mobile channels
Indifferently for any paradigm
High volume and low Low volume and High complexity High regulated
variety markets. high variety markets. with multiple markets from Fig 5. LARG vs. customer channels
Predictable demand Volatile demand dependencies environmental
markets perspective
4.5. Revenue streams
Fig 3. LARG vs. customer segments The BM´s sustainability depends on the organization’s
capacity to generate revenues from value creating and
4.3. Customer relationships customer relationships. Revenue streams come from the
A sound BM has a clear strategy for customer relationship segments of clients who are willing to pay for the value they
management for each customer segment, depending on each get from the organization’s offer (Figure 6).
value proposition the company offers them (customized or
How does the organization generate revenue from the customer? How does it
standardized relationship). The literature establishes customer get paid for its value?
relationships that are common to Lean, Agile, Resilient, and Optimize the supply chain; Reduce the lead time to market; Sourcing
Green paradigms, such as: i) Personal assistance: assistance alternative materials at a better price or value; internal movement toward
in a form of employee-customer interaction. Such assistance zero waste;
Indifferently for any paradigm
is performed either during sales, after sales, and/or both; ii)
Dedicated personal assistance: the most intimate and hands Fig 6. LARG vs. Revenue streams
on personal assistance where a sales representative is
assigned to handle all the needs of a special set of clients; iii) 4.6. Key activities
Self-service: the type of relationship that translates from the
indirect interaction between company and clients. Here, an The key activities describe the most important things an
organization provides the tools needed for the customers to organization must do to make its BM work. They are
serve themselves easily and effectively; iv) Automated activities to create and offer value proposition. Figure 7
services: a system similar to self-service but more contains the main practices or activities of LARG
personalized as it has the ability to identify individual management that generate value for the customer.
customers and his/her preferences; v) Communities: creating
a community allows for a direct interaction among different What activities are important to create value for the customer? What does the
“organization do’?
clients and the company. The community platform produces a
Lean Agile Resilient Green
scenario where knowledge can be shared and problems Improve Incorporate
solved between different clients, and; vi) Co-creation: a Reduce waste along responsiveness in Create redundancies environmental issues
the value chain product development in production and in product
personal relationship is created through the customer’s direct and production distribution development and
input in the final outcome of the company’s production
products/services. Figure 4 highlights that all the types of
customer relationship are valid for the LARG management. Fig 7. LARG vs. key activities

What sort of a relationship does a organization have with its customers? 4.7. Key resources
Personal assistance; Dedicated-personal assistance; Self-service; Automated To create value, resources and activities are
services; Communities; Co-creation.
Indifferently for any paradigm needed. Resources are needed to create and deliver
the value proposition. Resources can be physical,
Fig 4. LARG vs. customer relationship such as a commodities but they can also be
intellectual, such as knowledge, competency or
4.4. Customer channels experience. Other types of resources are financial
A organization reaches its customers through communication and human resources. Then, combining activities
and distribution channels. They are the interface between the with resources, value is created for an organization.
organization, its value proposition and the customers. They Figure 8 contains the identification of resources in
have become increasingly important in BM design because it LARG management that are needed to generate
can be an instrument of differentiation and a source of
value for the customer.
competitive advantage. A body of literature underlines
important transformations currently taking place on both the
demand and supply sides of the manufacturing industry
thanks to information and communication technology (ICT).
Now companies have the choice of using physical channels
or web/mobile channels to deliver their value proposition to
their customer segment (Figure 5).

1309
IFAC MIM 2016
1310
June 28-30, 2016. Troyes, France Maria do Rosário Cabrita et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-12 (2016) 1306–1311

What resources does the organization use to create value for customers? What competitive strategy of manufacturers. Journal of
are the organization’s assets? Industrial Engineering and Management, 5(1), 53-87.
Lean Agile Resilient Green
Human resources:
Bhamra, R., Dani, S. and Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the
Human resources: Physical resources: adaptive capacity Physical resources: concept, a literature review and future directions.
multidisciplinary flexible Physical resources: clean production and International Journal of Production Research, 49(18),
teams and cross- manufacturing cells redundancy eco-efficient
functional integration and rapid prototype Intellectual resources: technologies 5375-5393.
technologies recognize, identify, Intellectual Cabrita, M.R., Cruz-Machado, V. and Matos, F. (2014). How
and response to resources: green
disruptions knowledge to make eco-innovation a competitive strategy: A
perspective on the knowledge-based development. In
Eco-Innovation and the Development of Business
Fig 8. LARG vs. key resources Models: Lessons from Experience and New Frontiers in
Theory and Practice. Azevedo, S., Brandenburg, M.,
4.8. Key partners Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V. Chapter 3, Springer-
Verlag.
The key partners describe the network of suppliers and
Carvalho H., Duarte S., and Cruz-Machado, V. (2011). Lean,
partners that make a BM work. In a perspective of LARG
agile, resilient and green: Divergencies and synergies.
there are different key partners as highlighted in Figure 9.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 2(2), 151–179.
Carvalho, H., Azevedo, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2013). An
Who does the organization work with to deliver value? What sort of innovative agile and resilient index for the automotive
relationships does it engage in?
supply chain, International Journal of Agile Systems and
Lean Agile Resilient Green
Dynamic alliances, Collaboration with
Management, 6(3), 259-283.
Alliances, rapid partnership and Partnerships with material suppliers, Chavez, R., Gimenez, C., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F. and Yu,
partnerships and joint integrated suppliers and logistic logistic providers,
ventures at
W.(2013). Internal lean practices and operational
information systems providers to assure ONG, and other
operational level with with suppliers to a delivery reliability stakeholders to performance. International Journal of Operations and
suppliers to assure rapid response to reduce environmental Production Management, 33(5), 562-588.
waste reduction changes in markets impacts
Christopher, M., (2000). The agile supply chain: Competing
in volatile markets. Industrial Marketing Management,
Fig 9. LARG vs. key partners
Vol. 29(1), 37-44.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004). Building the Resilient
4.9. Cost structure Supply Chain. International Journal of Logistics
It describes all costs incurred to operate the BM. Each LARG Management, 15(2), 1-13.
paradigm is characterized by different cost structures (Figure Douglas W., Renwick, T. and Stuart M. (2013). Green human
10). resource management: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 1-14.
Duarte, S. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2013). Modelling lean and
What are the organization‘s costs in delivering upon its value proposition for
the customer? green: A review from business models. International
Lean Agile Resilient Green Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 4(3), 228-250.
Fixed cost with clean Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015).
Economies of scale Fixed cost with Fixed cost with production
technology; redundancies in technologies
The performance impact of supply chain agility and
Variable cost with materials and Variable cost with supply chain adaptability: The moderating effect of
new product resources acquisition of green
development materials and packing
product complexity, International Journal of Production
Research, 53(10), 3028-3046.
Fig 10. LARG vs. cost structure Eltayeb, K., Zailani, S. and Jayaraman, K. (2010). The
examination on the drivers for green purchasing adoption
among EMS 14001 certified companies in Malaysia.
6. CONCLUSIONS Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
This paper explores the potential of integrating LARG 21(2), 206-225.
principles with the BMC. The existing literature shows a Fan, Q., Xu, X.J., and Gong, Z.Y. (2007). Research on lean,
clear gap in the intersection of these two research areas. This agile and leagile supply chain. International conference
work addresses this knowledge gap, contributing to the on wireless communications, networking and mobile
discussion on creating an ideal type of BM to be adapted to computing, 21-25 September, Shanghai, China. New
the LARG paradigm. We argue that a la carte application of York: IEE, 1-15, 4902-4905.
LARG methods is not possible. The BMC is a step in the Ghosh, M. (2013). Lean manufacturing performance in
process of achieving the ideal approach. For future research it Indian manufacturing plants. Journal of Manufacturing
is suggested the application through a case study. Technology Management, 24(1), 113-122.
Govindan, K., Diabat, A., and Madan Shankar, K. (2014).
Analyzing the drivers of green manufacturing with fuzzy
REFERENCES approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96, 182-193.
Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009). Lean and agile
Baines, T., Brown, S., Benedettini, O., and Ball, P. (2012). manufacturing: External and internal drivers and
Examining green production and its role within the

1310
 IFAC MIM 2016
June 28-30, 2016. Troyes, France Maria do Rosário Cabrita et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 49-12 (2016) 1306–1311 1311
performance outcomes. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 29(10), 976–
999.
Hoffman, A.J. (2001). Linking organizational and field-level
analysis: the diffusion of corporate environmental
practice. Organization and Environment, 14, 133-156.
Karagüllea, A. (2012). Green business for sustainable
development and competitiveness: an overview of
Turkish logistics industry, Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 41, 456-460.
Konecka S. (2010). Lean and agile supply chain management
concept in the aspect of risk management. LogForum 6
(3). Available at: http://logforum.net/pdf/6_4_3_10.pdf
(Accessed date: October 12 2015).
Lee, S. Y., and Klassen, R. D. (2008). Drivers and enablers
that foster environmental management capabilities in
small and medium sized suppliers in supply chains.
Production and Operations Management, 17(6), 573-
586.
Lozano, M. and Valle´s, J. (2007). An analysis of the
implementation of an environmental management system
in a local public administration. Journal of
Environmental Management, 82(4), 495-511.
Länsiluoto, A. and Järvenpää, M. (2010). Collective action in
the implementation of a “greener” performance
measurement system. Journal of Accounting &
Organizational Change, 6(2), 200-227.
McGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven
approach. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 247–261.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2002). An e-Business Model
ontology for modeling e-Business. Proceedings of the
Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, June 17-19.
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model
Generation. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Pakdil, F. and Leonard, K.M. (2014). Criteria for a lean
organization: Development of a lean assessment tool.
International Journal of Production Research, 52(15),
4587-4607.
Renwick, D.., Redman, T., and Maguire, S. (2013). Green
Human Resource Management: A review and research
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,
15(1), 1–14.
Sangari M., Razmi J. and Zolfaghari, S. (2015).Developing a
practical evaluation framework for identifying critical
factors to achieve supply chain agility, Measurement 62,
205–214.
Sarkis, J. (2001). Benchmarking for agility. Benchmarking:
An International Journal 8(2), 88-107.
Shafer, S., Smith, H. and Linder, J. (2005). The power of
business models. Business Horizons, 48(3), pp.199-207.
Shah, R., Ward, P. (2003). Lean manufacturing: context,
practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Operations
Management 21(2), 129-149.
Sharifi, H., and Zhang, Z. (1999). Methodology for achieving
agility in manufacturing organisations: an introduction.
International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1),
7-22.
Sharp, J.M., Irani, Z., and Desai, S. (1999). Working towards
agile manufacturing in the UK industry. International
Journal of Production Economics, 62(1-2), 155-169.
1311
Swafford, P., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006). The
antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: Scale
development and model testing. Journal of Operations
Management, 24(2), 170-188.
Teece, D. (2010). Business models, business strategy and
innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172-194.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic
capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Tomlin, B. (2006). On the value of mitigation and
contingency strategies for managing supply chain
diruption risks. Management Science, 52 (5), 639-657.
Tseng, Y. and Lin, C. (2011). Enhancing enterprise agility by
deploying agile drivers, capabilities and providers.
Information Sciences 181, 3693–3708.
Viedma, J.M. and Cabrita, M.R. (2012). Entrepreneurial
Excellence in the Knowledge Economy: Intellectual
Capital Benchmarking Systems (ICBS). Palgrave
Macmillan, UK.
Vijayasarathy, L.., and Turk, D. (2012). Drivers of agile
software development use: Dialectic interplay between
benefits and hindrances. Information and Software
Technology, 54, 131-148.
Zott, C., Amit, R., and Massa, L. (2011). The business
model: Recent developments and future research.
Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.
Zhou, B. (2012). Lean principles, practices, and impacts: a
study on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
Annals of Operations Research, 1-18.
Yaakub, S. and Mustafa, H.K. (2015). Supply chain risk
management for the SME’s. Academic Journal of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 4(1), 151-158.
Yusuf, Y. Y., Sarhadi, M., and Gunasekaran, A. (1999).
Agile manufacturing: the drivers, concepts and attributes.
International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1),
33-43.
Wagner, S. M., and Bode, C. (2006). An empirical
investigation into supply chain vulnerability. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 12(6), 301-312.
Wolf, J. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management
integration: a qualitative analysis of the German
manufacturing industry. Journal of Business Ethics,
102(2), 221-235.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990). The machine
that changed to world. Free Press. New York.
Wyton, P. and Payne, R. (2014). Exploring the development
of competence in Lean management through action
learning groups: A study of the introduction of Lean to a
facilities management function. Action Learning:
Research and Practice, 11(1), 42-61.