Kenn Steger-Jensen

Heidi Dreyer

Hans-Henrik Hvolby

Ola Standhagen
email: ola.strandhagen@ntnu.no

Towards a Green and Sustainable Manufacturing Planning and Control Paradigm Using APS Technology

Keywords: Green, Sustainable, Manufacturing, Planning, Advanced Planning and Scheduling Systems, APS, Optimisation

des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

1

Introduction.

Manufacturing and production operations are considered the most substantial contributor to climate challenges and environmental degradation, for which reason manufacturing firms must be held responsible as well [START_REF] Beamon | Designing the green supply chain[END_REF]. The basic initiatives in dealing with climate challenges and environmental degradation have until recently mainly been green investments, which by experts have been referred to as 'business-as-usual' investments nowhere near what is perceived adequate. According to the World Economic Forum new approaches are necessary for creating and ensuring economic growth, sustainability and a stable future [START_REF]The Green Investment Report The ways and means to unlock private finance for green growth[END_REF]. One approach which is addressed in the literature and perceived as a necessity to achieve the environmental and sustainable goals, is changing businesses' manufacturing philosophy [START_REF] Beamon | Designing the green supply chain[END_REF][START_REF] Jiménez | Environmental performance as an operations objective[END_REF]. Changing a manufacturing philosophy entails a shift in the way production systems are operated and managed and contains strategies, principles and techniques on how to achieve one or more objectives. Historically, manufacturing philosophies have changed concurrently with the industrial evolution from the industrial revolution and Adam Smith's division of labor over the Lean and just-in-time principles derived in the early 20th century, to the quality revolution of the 1980s and the supply-chain revolution of the 1990s [START_REF] Srivastava | Green supply-chain management -A state-of-the-art literature review[END_REF]. Along with the evolution in production philosophies, there has been a natural progression in the way operational performance have been evaluated, where the main focus in the early stages of the industrial revolution was primarily on cost [5]. As competition has grown, the subsequent manufacturing philosophies have expanded this view, describing trade-offs between what have later been defined as the five performance objectives; quality, speed, dependability, flexibility and cost [5,[START_REF] Slack | Operations Management[END_REF].

As indicated, environmental management has not been considered an integral entity of operational performance in any of the production philosophies [START_REF] Beamon | Designing the green supply chain[END_REF]. Instead, environmental management was commenced in the 1970s as risk management with focus on waste and pollution. With profitability as a continued driver, the agenda of the 1980s and 1990s addressed product and process management to reduce waste and ensure reusability using life cycle assessments [START_REF] Beamon | Designing the green supply chain[END_REF].

In recent years, as the industrial evolution has become more and more influenced by the deterioration of the environment, overflowing waste, and increasing levels of pollution, a new paradigm has emerged within the manufacturing philosophy literature [START_REF] Srivastava | Green supply-chain management -A state-of-the-art literature review[END_REF]. According to Deif [START_REF] Deif | A system model for green manufacturing[END_REF] we see the rise of a green manufacturing paradigm, which includes eco-efficient strategies, that consumes less material and energy, substituting to cleaner and renewable input materials, reduces unwanted outputs and converting output to inputs. It is the manufacturing managers' awareness of its the production/product impact on the environment and the implementation of the green aspects into the planning and control models which are now necessary if realizing the green objectives in practice.

2

Literature study.

The sustainability of the industrial sector has become one of the most significant societal, political and business issues due to the fact that the manufacturing sector has a huge impact on the environment, economy and the quality of human life. The focus on the impact of manufacturing and supply chain activities including logistics and transportation has captured a huge academic and industrial interest which has led to significant contributions regarding figures and measures [START_REF] Dornfeld | Green Manufacturing: Fundamentals and Applications[END_REF][START_REF] Bunse | Integrating energy efficiency performance in production management -gap analysis between industrial needs and scientific literature[END_REF], concepts and strategies and methodologies and tools such as Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Since first formulated in the Bruntland report in 1987 [START_REF]World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)[END_REF] it seems like the literature agrees on the understanding of sustainability as being the industrial sector's ability to create its outcome in a way that minimizes the impact on the environment, within secure social and ethical condition and contribute to economy and value creating [START_REF] Manzan | A Study on Alternative Approaches to Instill Environmental Concerns in the Domain of Production Management of Industrial Firms[END_REF].

Looking into the literature that focus on the negative externalities from the manufacturing industry it is the toxic chemicals, waste, energy and water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint which is the main negative environmental impact from the industry ( [START_REF] Dornfeld | Green Manufacturing: Fundamentals and Applications[END_REF][START_REF] Despeisse | Industrial ecology at factory levela conceptual model[END_REF][START_REF] Garetti | Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges[END_REF]. According to the U.S. Toxic Release Inventory [14] the manufacturing industry is the second largest contributor in US of air emission, surface water discharges, land release and underground injections are the toxic chemicals [START_REF] Dornfeld | Green Manufacturing: Fundamentals and Applications[END_REF]. Furthermore the industry generates a large amount of waste, mainly in the form of solid and water waste but also other categories such as materials, and the amount of waste is more than the sum of all other sectors combined. The energy consumption is high and is mainly supplied from fossil fuels which contain various polluting elements such as carbon, sulfur and nitrogen that causes greenhouse gases and global warming. With this impact on the environment, and, manufacturers' profitability, the importance of improving the environmental performance is high.

Deif [START_REF] Deif | A system model for green manufacturing[END_REF] considers sustainability to be the concept and strategy while green manufacturing is the methodology, toolset and the way to dispose sustainability. Green manufacturing is regarded as the first step towards sustainable production and the ability to develop advanced manufacturing capabilities by involve the design and engineering activities in product development and/or the operations of production is critical for improving the environmentally performance of the manufacturing industry [START_REF] Klassen | The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance[END_REF]. According to Deif [START_REF] Deif | A system model for green manufacturing[END_REF] the existing literature consists of two types of contributions.

• The first type provides knowledge about the concept of green manufacturing covering topics as waste reduction activities, elimination of causal factors, and, green productivity measures, business models for using new material technologies and the use of sustainability information in decision support. • The second category is analytical tools and methods that have been developed in order to realize green manufacturing at different levels. Tools for product/process design analyses such as life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCA) used to evaluate the environmental impact of assets over the entire life cycle and Corporate social responsibility (CSR) used for taking the responsibility for the impact of their activities on customers, suppliers, employers, shareholders, community and the environment in all aspect of their operations. Important contributions have been made but interestingly very few studies seem to have focused on operations management and how production is planned and controlled and how the green elements actually could be taken into consideration in the higher and lower production planning levels. There is one exception and that is the work by Melnyk et al [16], who has developed a tool that integrates environmental concerns into the material planning activities. By using this kind of tools one does not only make managers aware of the environmental and emission effects associated with the production strategy, plan and schedule, it also triggers action such as changing the plan and the schedule. We have identified a gap in the current literature and a need for developing tools that allow managers to embed green aspects into the higher and lower production and control planning levels and by doing so to be able to take the right decisions in order to actually become more sustainable by simultaneously taking environmental and profit optimizing aspects into account.

3

Towards a green manufacturing planning and control paradigm.

Pursuing sustainability as a performance objective for manufacturing operations requires primary changes to the manufacturing planning and control system. This is chosen as a point of departure because such systems contain all essential activities that are used within a company for planning and controlling its manufacturing operations [START_REF] Silver E; Pyke | Inventory management and production planning and scheduling[END_REF].

The main goal of developing a "green" manufacturing planning and control framework is to include green parameters into the planning process alongside materials and resources (typically machines and operators) with the aim of reducing the amount of green sources used such as materials, energy and water. Melnyk [16] includes materials waste in the materials requirement planning (MRP) process by implementing a "Bill-Of-Waste", but although their paper is titled "Green MRP" the goal is not to reduce waste but merely to identify the waste created. In the literature study we have identified a list of authors dealing with Green Supply Chains, Green Manufacturing and Green Planning. However, none of these studies discuss how to include green parameters in the planning process.

Traditional enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems do not optimize materials and resource usage but merely calculate the requirement for materials and resources. Therefore, ERP-systems are not able to support our definition of "Green Planning" in terms of optimized planning taking all resources such as materials, operators, energy and water into consideration. This is, however, partly possible in advanced planning and scheduling (APS) systems. In the following we will discuss how this is possible in existing implementations of APS and how to bring APS further towards green manufacturing.

3.1

Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) Systems.

APS systems use complex mathematical algorithms to plan and schedule production within specified constraints and to derive optimal product-mix solutions. APSsystems aim at reducing costs of goods sold and to increase customer satisfaction by making the right products at the right times, using an optimal combination of manufacturing resources. APS systems are hence able to generate far more realistic and reliable production plans than ERP systems [18,[START_REF] Hvolby | Technical and Industrial Issues of Advanced Planning and Scheduling (APS) Systems[END_REF]. When multiple objectives exist in a manufacturing environment, and most of these are in conflict with each another, an approach is needed for modelling and evaluating the trade-off among the conflicting objectives. Here two options exist: Constraint based planning and optimization. The two approaches are discussed in the following.

Constraint based planning.

Constrained based planning is based on hard and soft (or goal) constraints. Its distinguished feature is that the objectives can be stated as minimising deviations from prespecified goals. Hard constraints are not overruled, whereas soft constraints are overruled, if necessary. As no plan optimisation objectives or criteria are considered this option produces a feasible but not necessarily an optimal plan. Therefore, APSsystems use a hidden plan objective function, which drives the planning and trade-off among the soft constraints. The hidden plan objective function is defined as minimizing plan cost.

It is possible to select one and only one "domain", either demand or supply, to be a hard constraint. If the demand domain is selected as a hard constraint, customer due dates are enforced while material and capacity availability become soft constraints. If the supply domain is selected as a hard constraint, the capacity constraints are enforced, while demand due dates might be overruled. At the same time there is an option to determine whether the constrained plan enforces material, resource capacity or both. Resource capacity constraints are subdivided into operation resources, sourcing resources (supplier, inventory) and transportation resources.

In addition to hard and soft constraints it is possible to use business rules and demand priorities. Business rules are part of the master data and used as explicit decisions made on the supply domain when there are more options to choose among in the plan generation. Business rules are ranked by use of priorities of given topics such as sourcing of capacity, supplier and items. As an example, material requirements are fulfilled from rank 1 suppliers before sourcing from lower ranking suppliers independent of costs.

Rules play an important role in constraint based planning systems by avoiding the traditional (time-consuming) re-planning and re-scheduling after plan generation. If environmental factors are included in the master data and used as well in the business rules and demand priorities it will be possible to support green planning parameters.

3.1.2

Optimisation.

Optimised plans are generated based on plan objectives, penalty factors and constraints beside the hard and soft constraints. The constraint-based rules are exchanged with decision variables and penalty factors, instead of the hidden object function and business rules and demand priorities. To optimise a total plan the APS engine needs one single mutual measure -money -in terms of costs and on profits. In the optimisation the soft constraints might be overruled if this reduces the total costs. For example, demand priority and supplier allocation ranks could be overruled to reach the best profit. If a rank 2 supplier results in lower cost than a rank 1 supplier does, orders will be allocated to the rank 2 supplier(s).

In connection with the objective function, three parameters can be weighted: ontime delivery, inventory turns and plan profit. Besides the objectives, a number of decision variables can be used to achieve the wanted business goals. A planner can use multiple objective criteria to evaluate plans for an unlimited number of decision variables. The decision variables are almost the same as the rules used in CBP without objectives, but in CBP with objectives there are alternative and substitutional conditions considered according to bills and routes.

The decision variables are all time-phased and include supplier sources, routings, BOM's, items, resources, production and purchasing quantities, transportation and safety stock levels. The optimisation seeks the best combination of these decisions.

The optimisation satisfies weighted objectives and takes the penalty factors related to these decision variables into consideration. The following penalty cost factors are used explicitly in relation to decision variables: late demand, safety stock level, exceeding material, exceeding resource capacity and exceeding transportation resource capacity. A planner enters percentages to indicate how important it is that those outcomes do not occur in your plan. The optimisation process drives penalties out of the solution, and tends to drive the most costly penalty factors out first. A high degree of accuracy in setting penalty factors is not as important as the relationship between penalty factors. When the APS system makes decisions to avoid late demand, it will place higher priority to keeping large sales orders on time. When the penalty for late demand is higher than the penalty for exceeding resource capacity (factor times work order resource cost), the solution will tend to plan overtime work in order to avoid late delivery. In general, all penalty factors work this way.

3.2

Including green objectives.

The optimised planning as described above is based on a cost perspective, whereas the constraint based planning is based on business rules and demand priorities. When performing its optimization, the APS system has one unique measure: costs ($). One can discuss whether it is possible to measure green (environmental) factors in terms of costs. Some measures, such as water and CO2, may be directly linked to costs whereas outlet of detergents may have specific requirements as to what level is accepted by the government. The latter (here defined as "environmental related factors") is therefore more difficult to include in a financial-based optimization.

Current APS systems have some opportunities for supporting green planning. The most obvious solution is to include green factors in the bill-of-materials (BOM) and the routings. This could for example be done by adding a "CO2" or "WATER" component in the BOM and an "ENERGY" resource in the routing. As APS can handle alternative routings and BOM's it would be possible to offer some kind of environmental optimisation. This approach works for cost related factors but not for environmental related factors. Currently, APS enables a configuration of the plan optimization in terms of weighting the following objectives:

-Plan profit -Inventory turns -On-time delivery One obvious improvement option is to add one more objective to satisfy environmental issues, especially to enable an optimisation of the non-cost related factors. In the following table the options in current APS systems are highlighted.

Constraints based Planning

Optimization based Planning

Objectives/ Decisions variables

Hidden objective function containing cost related to pollution factors:

Requirement on environment factors (air, water and energy) is need in the master data, to calculate the

Profit based optimisation:

As for CBP, requirements on environment factors is need in the master data Sustainability based optimisation: Not possible today, but environment impact of pollution factors in the current object function is need or a unique objective for total pollution of sustainability environment in the object function is need to calculate the sustainability.

Constraints Demand priorities:

Where delivery to customer contain less pollution factors

Hard constraints:

As today, but since environment impact of pollution factors is not discrete and unique defined, they are modelled as resources in the master data.

Business Rules:

Where sourcing contain less pollution factors Soft constraints: Not possible today, since environment impact of pollution factors is not discrete and unique defined.

Penalty Factors

None as constraints are not overruled

Late demand and Exceeding material, inventory, transportation, machine and labour capacity. As today, but modelled as resources in the master data. Sustainability based penalty: Not possible today, since environment impact of pollution factors is not discrete and unique defined.

4

Conclusion.

The effective use of Advanced Planning and Scheduling Systems is a step in the right direction towards generating more realistic and reliable plans. However, optimisation and its objectives and penalty factors within manufacturing systems do not yet support 'green planning' from a sustainability point of view. The optimised plan is based on a cost perspective, which does not always lead to a sustainable plan whereas the constraint based plan is based on business rules and priority, which for the current release is too simple for green planning.

The planner has to know a lot about green production conditions and cost structures to be capable of using optimization. The optimisation is based on a data structure, which does not directly support green planning parameters. The gap between current models and methods in APS systems and models and methods directly supporting green planning is an area for further research.

Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Danish Business Innovation Fund for supporting the project which this research is a part of and to Chris Martin for assistance in editing.


Hanne O Finnestrand
email: hanne.o.finnestrand@sintef.no

Kristoffer Magerøy
email: kristoffer.mageroy@sintef.no

The Domestication of Global XPS at Local Production Sites

Keywords: XPS, domestication, case study, operations management 1

Inspired by the success created by Toyota and its Toyota Production System (TPS), many large multinational corporations have developed their own company-specific production systems (XPSs). However, it varies to what degree local production sites have made use of the global corporate's PS and in what way it has had any effect on the local site's work practice. In this paper we discuss the technical, social, and cultural factors of the implementation of XPS through the lenses of domestication theory. This study indicates that a rational implementation of global XPS' is all practical, symbolic, and cognitive, and that development of new technology as well as production systems is a multi-sited process. Hence, corporates as well as local sites need to take account for how local managers and employees are involved in the implementation process.

Introduction

Inspired by the success created and maintained by Toyota and its Toyota Production System (TPS), many large multinational corporations have developed their own company-specific production systems (XPSs) [START_REF] Netland | Exploring the phenomenon of company-specific production systems: One-best-way or own-best-way[END_REF]. Examples are Boing Production System, Electrolux Manufacturing System, Elkem Business System and Volvo Production System. While 'PS' is an abbreviation for 'production system' or something similar (e.g. TPS), the 'X' stands for the company name.

The amount of foreign investments in the Norwegian industry have grown substantially the last decade, and today foreign owned firms constitute 30% of the employment in the industry [START_REF] Ulstein | Indutrielt eierskap i Norge[END_REF]. In numbers it has nearly been a doubling from just above 800 companies in 2003 to nearly 1600 companies in 2010. Combined with the growing numbers of XPSs, this leads to an increase of Norwegian manufacturing firms facing the challenge of implementing such a system. However, it varies to what degree local production sites have made use of the corporates' production systems and in what way it has had any effect on the local sites' work practice. Hence, an emerging and important question is: How can we understand the process of implementing global XPS in local production companies? In order to study this, we have made use of domestication theory and have addressed this through a multiple case-study of three Norwegian manufacturing companies owned by global corporates. Domestication -a theoretical introduction. In order to understand the technical, social, and cultural factors [START_REF] Bakardjieva | The Internet in Everyday Life: Computer Networking from the Standpoint of the Domestic User[END_REF] of the implementation of XPS, we make use of domestication theory. Domestication in a figurative sense is to make something taken from an outside world applicable, meaningful and useful to a local world. The concept was taken up by the field of science and technology studies to describe how innovations and new technologies are appropriated by users [START_REF] Hirsch | Introduction[END_REF]. Domestication theory holds that technological adoption is an interactive process, opposed to a view where technology forces culture and organization to be reshapedalso called technology determinism.

Within studies of sociology of technology, domestication is a concept developed to describe and analyse processes of technology acceptance, rejection and use [START_REF] Berker | Introduction[END_REF]. In this paradigm, technology is usually understood as a particular artefact such as domestication of the car [START_REF] Østby | Flukten fra Detroit: Bilens integrasjon i det norske samfunnet[END_REF], domestication of multimedia technologies [START_REF] Brosveet | Fishing for fun and profit? National domestication of multimedia: the case of Norway[END_REF], or the domestication of the mobile phone [START_REF] Sørensen | Domestication: the enactment of technology[END_REF]. An XPS is not one specific technology or artefact. It is rather a bundle of technologies and practices, and although several companies have made efforts in designing their own XPSs, there is still a tight relationship between different XPSs today and the technical understanding of the TPS and lean production [START_REF] Netland | Exploring the phenomenon of company-specific production systems: One-best-way or own-best-way[END_REF].

When we chose to analyse the implementation processes of XPSs within this framework, it is because domestication theory goes longer than contingency theory [START_REF] Swink | Capturing the competitive advantages of AMT: Designmanufacturing integration as a complementary asset[END_REF] or organizational learning theories [START_REF] Argyris | Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective[END_REF] in including the social dimensions of implementation processes. More specifically, domestication theory focuses on the construction of meaning; hence Sørensen et al. [START_REF] Sørensen | Against linearity -On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology[END_REF] argue that to domesticate technology means to negotiate its meaning and practice in a dynamic, interactive manner. They claim that this negotiation implies that technologies as well as social relations are transformed. Based on this, Sørensen et al. [START_REF] Sørensen | Against linearity -On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology[END_REF] developed three main, generic sets of dimensions when analysing the implementation of technology.

The first dimension is the construction of a set of practices related to the new technology. This could mean routines of using the technology, but also the establishment and development of institutions to support and regulate this. Second, the construction of meaning of the technology, including the role the technology eventually could play in relation to the identities of the actors involved, and finally, the cognitive processes related to learning of practice as well as meaning [START_REF] Sørensen | Domestication: the enactment of technology[END_REF], [START_REF] Sørensen | Against linearity -On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology[END_REF]. The latter dimension requires that the practice or system is integrated into social practice of action. We will make use of these three features when analysing the empirical material.

Methodology

We have carried out instrumental case studies in three different manufacturing companies in order to develop an understanding of domestication of XPS. An instrumental case study provides insight into a particular issue, redraw generalizations, or build theory [START_REF] Stake | Multiple Case Study Analysis[END_REF]. As with most instrumental case studies, the research team wanted to build new theory by building on and testing existing theorynamely how domestication theory known from science and technology studies [START_REF] Hirsch | Introduction[END_REF] informs the implementation of a company specific production system, also called XPS. The multiple case study design enables us to reveal complementary aspects of the phenomenon.

The research team has made individual case reports for all three companies based on mainly three data sources: (1) semi-structural interviews with key personnel such as production managers, shop stewards, HR-managers, and blue collar operators; (2) informal conversations with operators when visiting the production; and (3) available information on the companies' web pages and other written materials developed mainly in order to promote the company and the company group.

Case studies

The presentation of each case study starts with a short introduction to the company, followed by a summary of the most relevant findings. In order to anonymize the companies, we have named them company A, B, and C.

Company A.

Company A has about 115 employees and develops and produces advanced tools for a world-wide market within mechanical and petroleum industry. Some years ago the company was bought by its exclusive sale channel; a hightechnology, engineering group with advanced products and representations in more than 130 countries. First, this change did not cause any implementation of an XPS, however later the corporate launched a common improvement program.

The company has gone through many changes over the last years, also before becoming part of the corporate. For many years they invested in organizational factors such as establishment of autonomous teams, improved communication within and between production teams, some of the lean principles, and widespread unionmanagement cooperation. The way company A has chosen to involve both the union and production workers as a development partner is quite unique. Their organizational approach has led to a number of extensive development projects with the aim to decentralize decision making to the shop floor in order to be more efficient and flexible. Clearly, the corporate bought a flexible organization capable and used to change.

Also, just before company A merged with the corporate, the company moved into totally new premises. When moving from dark and crowded premises at the old production site, the production workers could suddenly enjoy panoramic view through enormous windows and eat delicious lunch in the company's cafeteria.

In the beginning, both employees and managers found the transition of ownership to be quite smooth. The difference was in most cases described as positive. The managers claimed that the corporate offers a world market for their core product and increases the general robustness of the plant. The employees emphasized that being part of a larger corporate gives them the opportunity to work at other facilities.

Also, in the first two-three years after the transition company A was allowed to operate pretty much as they wantedor at least the same way as prior to the acquisition. The HR-manager described the autonomy and freedom like this: "I went to a crash course at the [corporate] in 2009 where we went through the HR-practices at [corporate]. They advised us to make use of those things we liked. They had extensive experience and many good work practices, but we didn't have to copy everything". However, later on this changed quite a lot when the company group decided to implement a corporate production system and we received the following e-mail from the production manager: "We will increase the speed of Lean production implementation; this will be done through a global [corporate] production system". The HR-manager explained that she experienced much more standardization within the corporate through this process and now everything had to be related to the corporate's visions. Also, because she had to follow up all the new systems, and even participate in developing them, she felt that she was not as available in the production area as before. She said: "the ambition is to be more available for the employees, but in practice I'm not".

Company B.

Company B is a first tier supplier to the global aviation industry, manufacturing highly complex engine products and employs approximately 600 people. As the company has been introduced to a new XPS twice the last decade, this case study provides interesting findings in that respect. The last change was a result of shifting ownership, which also led to increased attention from the head quarter as the company is now part of a major business area within the corporate, in opposite to being part of a business area only constituting a few percent of the total activity.

When introduced to the first XPS, the company experienced that they did not get any clear advice on how and where to start the implementation process. However, they ended up with a quick fix implementation upfront due to a scheduled assessment. The result was that the assessment got a lot more attention than the long term continuous work improvement. The former COO named this way of working as "a Norwegian manufacturing cultureone based on quick fixes". This working culture can be further explained as a task force of engineers moving continuously around in the factory to solve present challenges regarding quality, delivery, etc.

Another visible characteristic of the first attempt was the lack of commitment among leaders. They did not oppose it, but could indisputable been more supportive. It is reasonable to believe that the lack of commitment is in coherence to the little focus put on training. Only a couple of white-collar employees were sent to the corporate academy. In contrast, the implementation of the second XPS involved an extensive training program embracing everyone within the factory and starting with the top management. The program was mandatory and ended with an evaluation focused on productivity. Increased training has resulted in a management team more dedicated to lean than previously. In addition, each site in the corporate needs to assign one continuous improvement leader, providing even more focus and leadership.

As a consequence of the increased focus at productivity, there are now much higher expectations to short-term results. One manager shares his concern: "We have an increased focus on on-time delivery and details regarding flow, quality etc., this is to such an extent that I'm afraid it overruns the need for also maintaining a long term focus". He experiences an anglo-american style of leadership within the corporate, and explains that "it is taken for granted that manager at the top has detailed insight into everything". This is quite opposite to the Scandinavian management practice.

Company C. Company C has recently been in a situation very much like to company B, as a change of ownership have led to the introduction of a new XPS. The company counts around 550 employees and operates in the automotive industry, now as a part of a global division within that field.

A couple of years after introducing the new XPS, company C experienced that the implementation varied extensively among departments. People in many departments did not feel a belonging to the lean based regime and some related to it as one specific tool, e.g. 5S, the visual boards or even cleaning. "For many of us out here, the corporate system is equal with cleaning" one shop-floor worker commented. The company therefore developed a roadmap for further implementation to secure a more standardized way, and many employees have recently gone through a course. While interviewees holding administrative or support positions regard the course valuable, operators regard it less valuable and say they lack follow-up and do not clearly see how to utilize their new knowledge into their daily work. One respondent puts it this way:

"The course has little to do with our everyday work. It would be better if we looked upon and focused at what we do daily."

Not only do the employees struggle with getting a grasp of the content of the new XPS, they are also struggling with seeing the differences compared to the previous, and more self-developed operating system. One experienced worker comments: "To my understanding it is pretty much the same. It just changes name from year to year."

Another issue that appeared through the interviews was management involvement. Shop floor workers have experienced less commitment among team leaders and top managers than before introducing the latest XPS. One comments that "they [managers] must be out here in the production and look at what we do. [...] it is important that they [managers] are visible in the production from time to time".

Discussion

Routines. Introduced to a new XPS, companies need new practices, routines and institutions to domesticate the system effectively. Basically, the corporate system must be acquired and placed in the company [START_REF] Sørensen | Against linearity -On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology[END_REF]. As an XPS normally contains a vast amount of principles, tools and techniques, the local production unit "receives" a large package of such elements when introduced to an XPS. However, as the case studies show, both company B and C have received this package without a following guideline or a schedule for how to grasp it. In company B this resulted in a shallow implementation only due to some assessments, while in company C the degree of implementation varied extensively among departments leading them to make their own roadmap for further work. Such a roadmap would probably have been the solution for company B as well, if they were not introduced to a new XPS that early. Furthermore, the findings reveal that the commitment to the previous selfdeveloped operating system in company C was higher than the commitment to the [corporate] operating system. A locally developed roadmap for further implementation will probably help on this, but the effects still remains to be observed. The diverging perception among employees regarding the recently given courses indicates that the implementation process needs to be adapted even at a department level. All together this shows the importance of local adjustments and adaptation.

Construction of meaning.

Leaning on domestication theory, the actors that must relate to the XPS usually negotiate the meaning of it and practice in a dynamic, interactive manner. This negotiation implies that the XPS or work systems, as well as social relations are transformed. People read their previous experiences and agendas into new experiences, and the way they talk about it, use it or even misuse it influences the character of the XPS. In other words, the cultural appropriation of the XPS in a local setting is a multidimensional process. We see interesting and informing examples of this process in our cases. In company A, the transition from local own company with its own system to the global corporate system was described as "smooth" by the local managers. It is likely that their freedom and permission to choose practices from the corporate's "tool box" explains this quite seamless merging. However, it is not unlikely that the positive experience and attitude toward the takeover was more a result of new facilities. As one of the production workers said: "We moved right before we became part of [corporate], and those things we were negative towards before was the facilities at the old place. The new place was like a dream".

She continues by saying: "It is difficult to say what's a result of what; the new facility or being part of [the corporate]"

. This illustrates well how seemingly random events have great influence on well-planned strategiesevents that can turn plans and strategies in wanted directions or in undesirable directions just because the local company with its employees ascribe certain meaning to the corporate's new strategy.

The construction of meaning is also evident in company C. For instance, it varied to what degree the different departments in the company had made use of the XPS although they were actually offered the same XPS. Of course, the implementation phase in itself is important here; employees who do not have any or limited knowledge of the XPS will not be able to make use of the tools and work forms. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with company C as the employees had experienced with an earlier XPS. But the previous experiences influence how the company see or understand the new XPS, and in this case primarily two practices of action are evident. First how the XPS, as based on lean manufacturing, is interpreted as a collection of tools such as 5S only, and responded to accordingly, and second that the employees interpret it as "pretty much the same" and therefore continue the same way as before. The employees lack of ownership and ignorance of the XPS both undermine it as a useful system and in some cases turns it into something it was not meant to be by the designers, such as a "corporate system equal with cleaning" or local practices just with a different name.

Learning of practice. Domestication is both pragmatic and a potential issue of conflict. New technology and "know-how" must be domesticated in order to be integrated into local culture, but not all new technology and work forms are domesticated, and different people domesticate different kinds of knowledge and technology [START_REF] Sørensen | Against linearity -On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology[END_REF]. Conflicts arising from domestication may be related to different local interests and roles such as gender, age, and managers versus subordinates. Furthermore, conflicts may be related to the relationship between the XPS designers on the one hand and the local actors' creativity and ability to make use of the new system on the other. The imple-mentation and use of the XPS is understood in relation to the company's social practice of action or culture such as how the company carries out leadership, their values, and company specific "do and don'ts". These may or may not be explicit and articulated by the managers and the employees. In other words, in what way the XPS eventually is embedded in the local site's social practice of action is dependent on how well it fits with the actors' self-understanding and culture.

In both company A and B, potential conflicts in the domestication process seem to be ascribed in what the companies describe as a Scandinavian work form. In company B, the corporate's management style with "increased focus on on-time delivery and everyday details", may fit badly with the local company's self-understanding as highly autonomous on all levels. The same is valid for company A which in addition to an autonomous work force has invested a lot of time, effort and pride in involving both union and production workers as development partners. It is possible that the XPS must be adapted to this social practice of action or that the local enterprise ascribes the XPS new meaning previously described as construction of meaning. In any case, the domestication of XPS will not leave it unchanged, and it is reasonable that the local company with its employees will make use of it differently as a result of the company's routines and institutions. Furthermore, such will affect how the users interpret the new system and give new meaning or re-construct it, and finally how well the XPS fit with the users' self-understanding, culture, or social practice of action.

Implications

In this paper we have made use of domestication theory in order to understand the technical, social, and cultural factors regarding the implementation of XPSs in three different production companies. Etymologically speaking, domestication is related to the home, the domestic setting. However, we have used the word as an analytical concept in order to bring new understanding into the implementation process of new work-and production systems designed by somebody who is not the end user of the system. There is however some differences between the domestication of technology in a broader sense at home and in the work place. The implementation of XPSs in companies are usually acquired by managers and support functions in the corporate in order to achieve some goals [START_REF] Netland | Exploring the phenomenon of company-specific production systems: One-best-way or own-best-way[END_REF], and even if the process of implementation may not be as rational as many managers and consultants want it to be, managers are usually able to influence the outcome by controlling the information and training offered to employees [START_REF] Sørensen | Against linearity -On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology[END_REF].

In line with theory and empirical work on domestication of technology and the analysis of the three cases in this paper, we will emphasize particularly three implications when implementing global XPSs in companies. First, this study indicates that a rational implementation is not solely an instrumental action. The implementation phase is practical, symbolic, and cognitive. Second, in many cases the local use of an XPS is embedded in an asymmetric relationship between the assumed expertise of its designers and the assumed non-expertise of its users. In other words, there exists an idea of correct and incorrect usage that is predefined by the designers and the corpo-rate. In principle, users are supposed to acquire knowledge from the designer in order to be able to use the XPS in the correct manner. Domestication theory represented by Sørensen et al [START_REF] Sørensen | Against linearity -On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology[END_REF] confronts this linear understanding of design and implementation and stress that the end product is designed through a multi-sited process.

Finally, because an implementation process is all practical, symbolic, and cognitive, and because development of new technology as well as production systems is a multi-sited process, corporates as well as local sites need to take account for how local managers and employees are involved in the implementation process. One way of achieving this could be by making the multi-sited process explicit and involve employees and unions early on in developing a roadmap and a training program specific for the local production site. Hence the effects of such could be of interest to further research.


Paola Fantini
email: paola.fantini@fondazione.polimi.it

Claudio Palasciano
email: claudio.palasciano@polimi.it

Marco Taisch

Cecilia Berlin

Caroline Adams

Johan Stahre
email: johan.stahre@chalmers.se

Socially Sustainable Manufacturing: Exploring the European Landscape

Keywords:

scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Within the framework of the SO SMART (Socially Sustainable Manufacturing for the Factories of the Future) project, this paper reports on a study for exploring the European landscape of social sustainability-related practices and concerns, both from a corporate and societal perspective. The central concept of SO SMART is in fact to investigate social sustainability from a "balanced Eco-system" perspective, taking into account the viewpoints of the individual, industry and society [START_REF] Omann | Assessing Social Sustainability -The Social Dimension of Sustainability in a Socio-Economic Scenario[END_REF]. Sustainability is an anthropocentric value that essentially pursues inter-and intragenerational justice [START_REF] Omann | Assessing Social Sustainability -The Social Dimension of Sustainability in a Socio-Economic Scenario[END_REF]. Modern discourse regarding sustainability propagates a triad view, first discussed at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro earth summit [START_REF]REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT[END_REF] and addressing the three "pillars" of economic, environmental and social sustainability as equal and par-allel concerns; however, they have so far not been given the same focus. Particularly the social dimension has not been sufficiently explored [START_REF] Omann | Assessing Social Sustainability -The Social Dimension of Sustainability in a Socio-Economic Scenario[END_REF] [START_REF] Colantonio | Social Sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging themes and assessment methods[END_REF] and the European Factory of the Future Research Association has indicated that social sustainability in manufacturing is among the main challenges and opportunities of the recently issued 2014-2020 Roadmap. The roadmap promotes research to increase human achievements in future European manufacturing to create sustainable, safe and attractive workplaces for Europe 2020, and to achieve sustainable care and responsibility for employees and citizens in global supply chains [START_REF]FACTORIES OF THE FUTURE MULTIANNUAL ROADMAP FOR THE CONTRACTUAL PPP UNDER HORIZON 2020[END_REF].

Literature specially referring to social sustainability for manufacturing is rather limited and dispersed over different scopes: the global, super-national and national level for industry, public authorities and academia [START_REF] Jovane | The incoming global technological and industrial revolution towards competitive sustainable manufacturing[END_REF], the engineering field [START_REF] Garetti | Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges[END_REF], science, engineering and manufacturing and the challenges ahead [START_REF] Haapala | A Review of Engineering Research in Sustainable Manufacturing[END_REF], [START_REF] Lanz | Information flows in Future Advanced Manufacturing Ecosystems[END_REF], [START_REF] Berlin | Social Sustainability Challenges for European Manufacturing Industry: Attract, Recruit and Sustain[END_REF], [START_REF] Fantini | Social sustainability:perspectives on the role of manufacturing[END_REF].

The scope of social sustainability for manufacturing still appears insufficiently explored and, considering the substantial socio-economic impact of this sector, further investigations and developments are potentially promising.

2

Research approach

The approach followed to obtain a preliminary view of the socially sustainable European manufacturing landscape encompasses: a literature study, which is not reported in this paper directly but through the references in the following steps; an analysis framework; an explorative study, including interviews to stakeholders and a survey to manufacturing companies.

Analysis framework

The set of relevant topics identified during the literature study paved the way for the development of an analysis framework, addressing three main facets: A. Profile of social sustainability, reflecting how sustainability is understood and enacted/interpreted, on the basis of sustainability reporting standard practices (i.e. [START_REF]Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures[END_REF]) and of some innovative concepts related to cultural factors derived from the literature analysis; B. Practices for social sustainability, describing the specific actions and practices in place, mostly based on well-established sustainability frameworks; C. Maturity and measurement of social sustainability, defining the implementation level, grounded on well-established reporting standards and further tailored to the purpose of the survey, taking into account the sustainability profile and additional concepts derived from the literature study.

The following paragraphs report, for each facet, some of the most significant topics identified to be addressed in the survey, along with the references from the literature research that were used to shape the questionnaires.

A. Profile of social sustainability

─ Dimensions and relevance of sustainability. The survey addressed the relevance attributed to economic, environmental and social sustainability. Among the main references [START_REF]2005 World Summit Outcome[END_REF], [START_REF] Elkington | Partnership from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business[END_REF](triple bottom line) and [START_REF] Hubbard | Measuring Organizational Performance: beyond the Triple Bottom Line[END_REF] (related issues). ─ Scope of social sustainability. The survey queried whether broad areas (social themes, labour policies, social equity in the supply chain, community involvement and CSR) are considered in the scope of social sustainability for manufacturing. The topics were adapted from impact categories, i.e. [START_REF] Joung | Categorization of indicators for sustainable manufacturing[END_REF] and social sustainability terms and definitions [START_REF] Mckenzie | Social Sustainability: towards some definitions[END_REF], [START_REF] Vallance | What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts[END_REF]. ─ Drivers and barriers. The survey investigated the relevance attributed to a list of drivers and barriers that affect social sustainability intentions and performances. References were found in [START_REF] Walker | Sustainable supply chain management across the UK private sector[END_REF] (variety of barriers and enablers), [START_REF] Reinmann | Local stakeholders and local legitimacy: MNEs' social strategies in emerging economies[END_REF] (driving forces towards CSR), [START_REF] Collins | Sustainability Practices: Trends in New Zealand[END_REF] (internal and external pressure). ─ Orientation towards the stakeholders. The survey aimed at identifying the prevailing attitudes towards stakeholders, distinguishing if the target is the benefit of the company, of the stakeholders or of a wider community, based on [START_REF] Bingham | A Stakeholder Identity Orientation Approach to Corporate Social Performance in Family Firms[END_REF], [START_REF] Searcy | Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda[END_REF], [START_REF] Perrini | Deconstructing the Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance[END_REF]. ─ Philosophy of social responsiveness. The survey researched the prevailing type of commitment towards social requirements along a reactivity -proactivity scale [START_REF] Elkington | Partnership from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business[END_REF].

The extreme of the scale has been tentatively extended to include the representation of the Creating Shared Value perspective [START_REF] Carrol | Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct[END_REF].

B. Practices for social sustainability

─ Social sustainability Practices. The survey queries about the social sustainability practices deployed. Labor practices: human capital development, work-life balance, learning, talent management, employees' turnover and satisfaction management, temporary work, etc. Stakeholders and communities practices: supply chain code of conduct, customer relationship management, risk and crises management, etc.. See [START_REF] Collins | Sustainability Practices: Trends in New Zealand[END_REF], [START_REF] Theyel | Stakeholders relations and sustainability practices of US small and medium-sized manufacturers[END_REF], [START_REF] Dow | Dow Jones Sustainability World Index Guide[END_REF], [START_REF]Discovering ISO 26000[END_REF], [START_REF] Morali | A Review of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices in Canada[END_REF], [START_REF] Ameer | Sustainability Practices and Corporate Financial Performance: A Study Based on the Top Global Corporations[END_REF], [START_REF]SAM Research Corporate Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire[END_REF].

C. Maturity and measurement of social sustainability

─ Social Sustainability vision and values. The survey aims at determining the degree of clarity, understanding and acceptance of the social sustainability vision within the company, based on [START_REF]2005 World Summit Outcome[END_REF], [START_REF] Elkington | Partnership from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business[END_REF] (relevance of setting and communicating the vision) and [START_REF] Porter | Creating Shared Value[END_REF] (issues related to disseminating the vision within the organization). ─ Implementation of social sustainability in the systems and processes. The questions aim at assessing to what extent social sustainability is integrated into practices and affects activities [START_REF] Hockerts | The SusTainAbility Radar[END_REF]. ─ Relationship with the stakeholders. The topic concerns the involvement of different categories of stakeholders in the process of defining, implementing and evaluating sustainable performance. References come for [START_REF] Omann | Assessing Social Sustainability -The Social Dimension of Sustainability in a Socio-Economic Scenario[END_REF], [START_REF] Porter | Creating Shared Value[END_REF], [START_REF] Jovane | The incoming global technological and industrial revolution towards competitive sustainable manufacturing[END_REF] (competitors, suppliers, investors and NGOs) and [START_REF] Garetti | Sustainable manufacturing: trends and research challenges[END_REF] (current/ prospective workers, local community). ─ Social sustainability periodical reporting. Inquiries about the reporting methods, actors and procedures. The questions have taken into account [START_REF] Grauler | Understanding the beliefs, actions and outcomes of sustainability reporting: An experimental approach[END_REF] (readers' expectations and following actions and [START_REF] Hubbard | Measuring Organizational Performance: beyond the Triple Bottom Line[END_REF] (stakeholders involvement).

Explorative Study

The study, including a survey and stakeholders' interviews, was intentionally stated to be a pilot effort targeted at the following objectives: a) to verify whether the topics and themes identified by reviewing the scientific literature are adequate to represent social sustainability orientations and practices in manufacturing; and if not, to explore missing concepts or perspectives; b) to obtain a preliminary picture of how social sustainability is currently conceived and implemented in European manufacturing.

The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions structured on the analysis framework described in 2.1, complemented with open questions. The survey was deployed online, targeting a sample of European industrial actors and stakeholders. The first pilot phase reached 9 countries and 8 industrial sectors, eliciting a pilot sample of 21 responses, including small and large enterprises, both national and multinational, with different situations and trends in terms of profitability and employment development.

To gain a multi-level eco-systemic perspective, the interviews were conducted mainly with stakeholders from various societal functions concerned with social sustainability. The interviews were semi-structured and aimed to identify any areas and practices of social collaboration between company and societal stakeholders, again with questions based on the analysis framework. Through the SO SMART project partners' networks, 8 individuals representing local or regional authorities, trade unions and enterprises were interviewed as relevant stakeholders affected by company practices of social sustainability. Interviewed stakeholders represented Public Authorities at NUTS 1 levels 2 and 3, Local Authorities, Industrial Associations and Trade Unions.

Preliminary landscape

Taking into account the previously stated pilot nature of the respondent sample, the survey and the interviews to manufacturing companies shows wide recognition among the respondents of the relevance of the triad of economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability; however, the importance of the latter is slightly less perceived. Moreover, the broad social themes are considered partially or not in the scope of social sustainability for manufacturing, ranking below labor policies, community involvement and social equity in the supply chain. The survey responses also suggested that the most important drivers influencing a company's level of action are: positive pressure exerted both by internal stakeholders (i.e. top management and employees) and external stakeholders (customers and local authorities) 2 and the explicit alignment of social sustainability with the company's strategy. Moreover, the survey, complemented by the interview results, highlighted that some important barriers to social sustainability still need to be addressed in order to progress towards a more extended and fully deployed social sustainability, namely: the difficulty in evaluating the benefits coming from social sustainability practices, in 1 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/index.cfm?TargetUrl=DSP_PUB_WELC particular the difficulty of translating them into easily measurable and quantifiable terms; the existence of unsupportive cultures, both at the organizational and societal level, that promote values and behaviors not aligned to social sustainability principles; the lack of strong collaborative relationships with stakeholders in order to develop shared visions and strategies to achieve common goals. Although in the presence of some ambiguities, findings seem to outline a population of manufacturers on the whole who are aware of the relevance of social sustainability; who in most of the cases have developed their vision and culture; who have identified, adopted and implemented practices; and who have set up reporting. However, some heterogeneities and discrepancies require further elaboration. The respondents seem to have different levels of understanding and adhesion with reference to social sustainability, which we may exemplify through two "polar" types. The type of "cold/recent adopters", who seem to start from mere acknowledgement of the relevance of social sustainability with a prevalent inward focus, leading to the definition of a vision that remains fuzzy, not accepted/internalized at all levels of the organization nor incorporated in a planning and control process. This type implements specific practices mostly addressing employees and has them integrated in existing processes, in some cases issuing reports about the activities carried out and the resources employed.

A different type is that of the "warm/mature adopters", who embrace social sustainability, consider a wider scope including external stakeholders whom they approach for collaboration, have clearly defined visions and strategies and have deployed them, or are in the process of deploying them, through an integrated framework and a closed-loop planning and control cycle, using performance indicators, involving external stakeholders and/or leveraging external data sources.

We can draw here some preliminary directions for further research, which most likely has to shed more light on the potential multiplicity of socially sustainable manufacturing types, here preliminarily condensed in the two "polar" types evidenced above. Furthermore it seems some investigation should be performed in more detail on i) the role of the temporal/maturity dimension, in order to better distinguish the degree of interest towards social sustainability from the duration of experience, and ii) the assessment and reporting methodologies enacted and the performance indicators monitored by companies.

Discussion

The work presented in this paper constitutes a pilot step supporting a wider research and road-mapping effort aimed at developing new models for sustainable manufacturing ecosystems pursuing social, environmental and economic performance objectives.

In the survey, difficulties occurred in interpreting some results: this may indicate that some sub-categories need to be more clearly defined. In terms of deployment, the survey reached a limited number of actors, so it is not sufficient to represent the manufacturing sector as a whole, but it is still valuable as a preliminary exploration. Fur-ther issues to address in continued efforts include better coverage of the variety of stakeholders and industry sectors.

Some deficiencies are intrinsic of the survey format, which helped us to highlight current practices, but could not support the elicitation of needs. The individual interviews, aiming at complementing the survey with the desired richness, provided additional elements useful for interpreting the results and for pointing out preliminary directions for further exploratory activities.

In the prosecution of the research, in order to encourage the emergence and development of novel visions, approaches that better leverage the interaction among groups of people and stimulate new ideas (such as Delphi, focus groups or workshops) will be exploited.

Conclusions

In spite of the pilot nature of the study deployment, the research has enabled drawing of a preliminary picture of socially sustainable manufacturing, as currently understood and implemented in Europe. The findings are useful to point out relevant directions and topics for later exploration in collaborative workshop formats and similar. The preliminary results from the survey and interviews appear to confirm the substantial comprehensiveness of the framework obtained from literature.

The findings also contribute to the creation of a basis of shared knowledge as a prerequisite for developing a collective vision for socially sustainable manufacturing ecosystems, requiring the involvement and coordination of multiple organizations. Further work is planned within the SO SMART project to address these challenges.

For the majority of the enterprises, employees and customers, followed by public authorities and trade unions, are the main stakeholders that enterprises interact with.

Acknowledgements

This paper has been developed within the EC funded project SO SMART (GA.608734).


Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge

Matthias Kalverkamp
email: matthias.kalverkamp@uni-oldenburg.de

Margherita Forcolin
email: margherita.forcolin@cetim.org

Hans Westerheim
email: hansw@idi.ntnu.no

Marco Franke

Klaus-Dieter Thoben

Hans Wes- Terheim

Collaborative Serious Games for Awareness on Shared Resources in Supply Chain Management

Keywords: Serious Games, Shared resources, Logistics, CPS 1

des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Introduction

Today manufacturing is often a complex process involving several partners around the world [START_REF] D'aveni | The age of temporary competitive advantage[END_REF] and based on economy of scale principles [START_REF] Reichwald | Interaktive Wertschöpfung[END_REF]. It results in long brittle supply chains with a considerable contribution to the CO 2 emissions [3]. The supply chain can be seen as an ecosystem of different actors with different needs, acting in a dynamic environment [START_REF]Compendium, Download[END_REF]. Customer response, exception management, scheduling, prediction and forecasting are some of the key factors that have to be continuously improved and monitored [START_REF] Dhl | Delivering Tomorrow, Customer Needs in 2020 and Beyond -A Global Delphi Study[END_REF], thus, monitoring the quality of service, supply chain visibility and security have becoming major factors determining logistics processes besides e.g. costs, duration, and carbon footprint [3,[START_REF]Compendium, Download[END_REF][START_REF] Dhl | Delivering Tomorrow, Customer Needs in 2020 and Beyond -A Global Delphi Study[END_REF].

The European manufacturing industry's basis is build by innovative SMEs with an excellent R&D base that allows them to thrive on the world market. However, due to the trend toward more customized products with shorter life-cycle the marginal cost per product is increasing and low efficiency of the logistics system is a challenge to overcome for reducing the costs and emissions. Studies reveal that the utilization of e.g. trucks on the roads vary between 30 to 50% [7], partly caused by the reduced size of each product and more efficient packaging, but also because the transport capacity was not adjusted correspondingly [START_REF] Simchi-Levi | Is It Time to Rethink Your Manufacturing Stratgy[END_REF][START_REF]International Trade Statistics[END_REF]. The trend to reduce the waste of resources is not specific to the manufacturing industry, but combined with the increasing world market prices for raw materials the incentives to be as sustainable as possible are stronger. Thus, the ability to share resources, innovate and to drive the implementation and deployment of emergent ICT will play a key role for their competitiveness.

In comparison to the manufacturing area where more and more strategic partnerships are (e.g. extended/virtual enterprises) formed along the supply chain, similar concepts are hardly deployed in the logistics field, even though a better utilisation would lead to cost savings, improved environmental balance and a more sustainable business models, but it also requires trust, coordination, joint planning and problem solving [START_REF] Minh ; Min | SC collaboration: what's happening?[END_REF]. Business to business (B2B) technology enables a set of complex business processes across distinct operating entities. This allows participants along the entire supply chain to share decision-making, workflow, and capabilities. Furthermore, the technology enables participants to collaboratively design, build, sell and service products faster, more efficiently, and more cost effectively on a global scale. The cooperation can be described in terms of integration within the scope of the network as well as in terms of the strength of the inter-organisational bond [11,[START_REF] Braziotis | [END_REF]. This paper aims at identifying and analysing different barriers for an increased access to shared resource. The second part of the paper deals with potential means to reduce and overcome some of these barriers by providing teaching concepts for awareness raising of the opportunities shared resources may give.

A need for a shift towards production ecosystems

The traditional supply chain is product-centric, mostly focusing more on production cost reduction than on also including environmental and societal impacts into the optimisation strategy (i.e. using multi-criteria strategies). Consequently, for many years production was delocalized in remote low labour cost countries far from the market. This strategy worked well as long as the transport costs were low and the customer did not care so much about environmental and societal impact in the countries of production or for the environmental impact of transport. This perception has been slightly changed, and both customers and low cost countries' governments pay more attention to the societal and environmental impacts of the transportation. In addition, most of these countries are now facing increasing wealth, and thus also increasing wages. Thus, there is a need for new production strategies and, thanks to enhancements in ICT technologies; demand driven optimization strategies have been developed [START_REF] Hesmer | Supporting the ideation processes by a collaborative online based toolset[END_REF] both considering new production possibilities (i.e. 3D printing) and local sourcing trends. Looking ahead, these trends will enforce changes at different levels. On the supply side a market transformation is foreseeable towards more operational cooperation between the different players in the logistics field. Current resistance factors, mostly market protection and lack of trust, will have to be overcome. On the demand side, further globalisation, increases in product variants, personalized solutions and ecommerce might lead to a future establishment of "selling less of more" practices. For the logistics and manufacturing sectors, this will mean that environment-sensitive clients will be at the same time demanding fast and highly customised services. Both producer and the suppliers will profit from collaborative production by sharing resources and access to information through less inventory, less transport costs and improved resource utilisation as well as through a better environmental balance, but it has a negative influence on their flexibility: The requested delivery date by the customer strongly depends on the agreement with suppliers when they can deliver the needed components, which again depends on their production capacity. Sharing resources leads to less flexibility, since the access to the production means or logistics transport means is not only depending on in-house priorities but also on agreements with other collaboration partners. In addition, use of shared resources does increase the complexity of planning and reduces the freedom in the decision making process. This, in combination with the increasing pressure from customers and suppliers for transparent communication and information provision of product properties (e.g. process parameters used, components included) and related information (e.g. on-time according to plan, quality aspects), forces manufacturing companies to think of new ways to utilize the available infrastructure and intelligently add new technological applications. In order to enable innovative cost-and resource-effective product solutions, with a minimal ecological footprint throughout the lifecycle, a holistic view on the supply chain and all its stakeholders (i.e. also the LSPs, transports companies and customs etc as well as manufacturer) should be considered. The challenge of mastering the complexity of applying a shared resource concept in a supply chain context can be envisaged from Ousterhouts layered model, showing the goods and information flow as well as the interaction among stakeholders at different layers in the supply chain (fig. 1).

Figure 1: Oosterhouts layered Model [START_REF] Van Oosterhout | Visibility Platforms for Enhancing Supply Chain Security: a Case Study in the Port of Rotterdam[END_REF] Based on fig. 1, it appears that the shared resource approach puts several complex requirements both on the collaboration between the stakeholders as well as on the ICT infrastructure, and thus may be a source for the low deployment and many of the existing barriers.

3

Challenges and barriers for improved cooperation and the access to shared resources

The hard global competition, inter-dependencies among stakeholders, tight schedules leads to need for better utilization of available resources. The innovation in the use of shared resources consists of bringing together the resources and capabilities of different stakeholders in a supply chain (e.g. logistics services, providers and shippers) to address the optimisation and sustainability challenges faced by the logistics and transport domain. In Europe, several manufacturers, suppliers and logistics and transport service providers are micro and small enterprises. These companies possess profound, specialized competences [START_REF] Lee | Open innovation in SMEs: An intermediated network model[END_REF], but do often face a shortage in access to resources, in terms of human resources, funding as well as complementary assets and technologies [START_REF] Madrid-Guijarro | Barriers to innovation among Spanish manufacturing SMEs[END_REF]. Collaboration giving access to new, shared resources will ensure a better overall utilization [START_REF] Alter | Metamodel for Service Analysis and Design Based on an Operational View of Service and Service Systems[END_REF]. A better utilitsation of resources can be realized today, by adding more intelligence in the existing ICT solutions as well as by increasing the adoption and integration of on-cargo and on-vehicle technologies as well as by using existing SCM tools for planning and execution, but is scarcely adopted. Thus in order to understand the low use, a survey was carried out in order to identify barriers that can limit uptake of new ways of sharing or using innovative solutions. When analyzing the limitation regarding the sharing of information, it was clear that a main problem is the lack of trust among the stakeholders [START_REF]Compendium, Download[END_REF]. Trust between the involved organizations is however a pre-requisite and can only be achieved through long-term relationships between the actors and contracts that decrease the distance between the companies. Looking at common practice within the supply chain today, the use of short-term contracts is high. Shared resources require that more data needs to be processed and analyzed than if the resources are only used within a company, since the planning comprises not only own needs but also those of the collaborative partners. This leads the need for systems interoperability between the actors involved and a need for single, easy to use collaborative platforms, linked to the legacy systems. This becomes more important when the number of smaller-size organizations involved (e.g. such as smallholders, consumers purchasing groups, etc.) is high and when the logistics infrastructure is shared. In addition to barriers related to sharing of information at a technical level, which is a well-known barrier, and for which concepts like federated platforms etc are in place, there are also barriers related to the business models. Most innovative business models are based on the perception that collaboration can lead to better results for everyone involved. For introducing them, models of how these results are to be split will have to be put in place from an early stage Such models should lead to quantifiable results and be very clear in their use and they should allow for synergy gain calculation and redistribution. Furthermore, business models that involve the collaboration of various actors during the physical delivery process require common or compatible operational practices among the actors involved. This is a typical barrier found in most cases of horizontal or vertical coopera-tion in the supply chain. In addition, as mentioned above sharing resources has a direct influence on the flexibility, thus sharing infrastructure (especially physical one) among various partners requires clearly defined practices. Finally, the last area analyzed is related to organizational issues -the decision making process differs among the different stakeholders. This in turn, increases the complexity as well as the challenge to keep the decision-making process transparent (local, central, management level etc.); in addition the concept of shared resources can only be realized throughout the supply chain by implementing advances ICT. The adoption of innovative technologies implies changes in the workforce of an organization. New expertise is required while skills acquired previously may become obsolete. In emerging technologies there are few people with the necessary competences. Additionally, the adoption of innovative technologies may result in frustration to the employees that have to change the way they normally used to do their job. All in all, so far it has not been possible to measure/assess the positive effect of the shared resources concepts in across the supply chain to such an extent that it has broadly uptaken and implemented. The next section will therefore discuss approaches based on experiential learning that might be used in order to create the required understanding of advantages and limitations of shared resources.

Why use serious games

General trends supporting the use of shared resources like the Internet of Things will impact significantly on the supply chain as a whole. On the one side allowing, monitoring and handling goods through distributed computing infrastructures and, on the other side, allowing easy publication, retrieval and composition of freight information service.

A successful introduction, implementation and operation of advanced technical solutions necessary for using share resources is not only a matter of hardware and software, but it does imply changes both in the organizational structure of the stakeholders' organizations as well as in the working environment of the employees. Thus, a key to a successful implementation of shared resources concept in supply chains is to increase the awareness [START_REF] Fawcett | Mitigating the Myopia of Dominant Logics: On Differential Performance and Strategic Supply Chain Research[END_REF]. Due to its high motivation factor and the possibility to let the participants play an active role, the use of experiential learning forms has been increasing within education at all levels [START_REF] Baalsrud Hauge | Deploying serious games for management in higher education: Lessons learned and good practices[END_REF][START_REF] Campbell | Experiences with the use of supply chain software in education[END_REF][START_REF] Lewis | Game playing and operations management education[END_REF]. With SCM and OR education, serious games are regularly used to overcome the gap between theory and practices. The most famous one is still the Beer Game [START_REF] Forrester | Industrial Dynamics. A major breakthrough for decision makers[END_REF] was developed by MIT to simulate the dynamics of a supply chain explaining the bullwhip effect which has been digitalized into online gaming format and systems thinking [START_REF] Forrester | Industrial Dynamics. A major breakthrough for decision makers[END_REF]. Games focusing at different areas of SCM including manufacturing can be found in [START_REF] Baalsrud Hauge | Deploying serious games for management in higher education: Lessons learned and good practices[END_REF][START_REF] Campbell | Experiences with the use of supply chain software in education[END_REF][START_REF] Lewis | Game playing and operations management education[END_REF][START_REF] Zhou | Learning and practising supply chain management strategies from a business simulation game: a comprehensive supply chain simulation[END_REF][START_REF] Corriere | Shortfall: An Educational Game on Environmental Issues in Supply Chain Management[END_REF].

Within the vocational training, there are several examples on how SG are used in the executive training for decades as well as examples on how games can be used in the training of operational personnel [START_REF] Azadegan | Serious games adoption in corporate training[END_REF]28]. Most of these games are multi-player games, not only focussing on the specific problem, but also aiming at conveying the players the importance of communication and collaboration in a supply chain context through their own experience in the gaming environment. Through such games, the players also experience that information sharing and trust are key factors for successful and sustainable collaboration in supply chains.

The above discussed challenges and barriers for implementing shared resources in the supply chain require knowledge and skills about the mid-and long-term impact of collaboration decisions on security, trust, operational practices and gain-share. Looking at available games used for SCM [START_REF] Lewis | Game playing and operations management education[END_REF][START_REF] Macdonald | Decision making in the beer game and supply chain performance[END_REF] the collaboration and trust raising aspect is covered in several games, and games like the Fresh Connection, also take business consideration into account at a certain level. But a thorough analysis also reveals that they do not cover all barriers like the challenge visualising gain sharing models as well as how to optimise the utilisation of machine and transport capabilities by a high degree of flexibility. Depending on how games like Shortfall and the Lean Leap Logistics Games, the Beer game [START_REF] Zhou | Learning and practising supply chain management strategies from a business simulation game: a comprehensive supply chain simulation[END_REF][START_REF] Corriere | Shortfall: An Educational Game on Environmental Issues in Supply Chain Management[END_REF] are embedded in a learning unit, these games can be used to discuss and make the players aware and able to understand how these barriers are related, but their simulation models does not mirror the complexity well enough for the topic of shared resources and therefore need to be extended in order to fully cover the complexity. Still unsolved is the question on how to develop simulation models mirroring the reality of the complex interaction better, and thus able to demonstrate the challenges of ownership of a shared resource etc. (what happens if a partner needs access to a shared resource while it is occupied?), still being so transparent that the players understand the inter-dependencies between their decision and the impact this have in the game? In addition to the knowledge about potential collaboration benefits, game solutions would need to incorporate strategic (and operative) decisions and their impact on the benefits of shared resources. Furthermore, it is important for an awareness raising game, that the player experience the boundaries being able to discover that these change in different environment. This requires that multi-criteria decision making processes in highly dynamic systems can be simplified in different levels and be adapted to be applied in different scenarios/settings. This again however requires a high degree of field specific knowledge and a flexible simulation model.

However, these requirements would increase the complexity of games which often may contradict the learning outcome because it may undermine the transmission of the learning objectives by causing confusion. The players may not have the ability anymore, to comprehend their actions and decisions and to reflect them in front of the game results. In order to avioid this and to take the indivdual learning and awareness raising need into account, we use a concept based on scaffolding principle, In a first step we intend to realise a prototype by using a game engine with an authoring tool allowing constructing several scenarios focussing on different aspects and with different levels (both related to complexity and prior need of knowledge). This will require use of learning analytics in order to monitor and trace the gained skills and also for giving the players and the system feedback.

Conclusion

Manufacturing has become a complex process resulting in long brittle supply chains with considerable contributions to the global resource demand and its environmental impact. Materials in short supply and customer requirements trigger market stakeholders to reduce the waste of resources and to be more sustainable. Therefore, the ability to share resources, innovate and to implement emergent ICT becomes more important for the competitiveness and sustainability of businesses and companies. Sharing resources puts high standards on trust, gain-sharing, the use of ICT etc. Furthermore, although well known in supply chain management, the logistics sector is struggling to find approaches to collaborate and to share.

Among the identified barriers trust, the management of big data, interoperability issues and the costs of integration seems to be of high importance, but also the lack of understanding of the concept and its advantages contributes to the low penetration rate. This paper looked at the use of SG as a tool for increasing this awareness, and several games that cover some of the aspects and that could be used for overcoming the barrier were identified. This analysis of existing supply chain games revealed their potential but also remaining weaknesses and gaps, both related to the lack of accurate simulation models, as well as suitable ways of balance the reality of the real world with the simplification necessary for awareness raising of complex systems. Here, more research has to be carried out. New games for the discussed purpose would have gone ahead profound research to balance complexity and learning objectives. This research is complemented by the development of advanced serious game (engines), able to handle more indicators and providing substantial feedback and analysis of the game progress. Improved learning analytics will help to develop and evaluate such advanced environments.

Acknowledgements. The research reported in this paper has been partially supported by the European Union, particularly through the projects: GaLA: The European Network of Excellence on Serious Games (FP7-ICT-2009.4.2-258169) www.galanoe.eu and LOGINN (GA 314338).