Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
"MODELS FOR THE EVALUATION OFMANUFACTURING FLEXIBILITY"
by
Pankaj CHANDRA*and
Mihkel TOMBAK**
N° 90/61!TM
* Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
** Assistant Professor of Production and Operations Management, INSEAD, Boulevard deConstance, Fontainebleau, 77305 Cedex, France.
Printed at INSEADFontainebleau, France
MODELS FOR THE EVALUATION OFMANUFACTURING FLEXIBILITY
Pankaj Chandra Mihkel M. Tornbak
August 14. 1990
'Of the Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and Dept. ofTechnology Management, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France, respectively. This research wassupported by NSERC grant number OGP0042150, and INSEAD research grant number2172.
Abstract
We present models by which flexibility for a manufacturing system can beasessed. These models enable a manager to compare different systems with re-spect to certain flexibility types. These models reflect the view that the flexibilityof a system is a function of the technology as well as how well the system is managed.Two of the most fundamental types of flexibility, routing and machine flexibility,are examined. The efficacy of the met.hods are shown through numerical examples.
1 IntroductionFlexibility, along with cost, quality and service is an important aspect of manu-facturing strategy (Wheelwright, 1986). Throughout most of the industrial era agreat deal of attention was focused on the cost component in production. In the1970's and 1980's, as a result of increased Japanese competitiveness, quality wasthe factor which came into the limelight. Now, with product life cycles becomingmore compressed, firms are looking for a way of extending the design life of theirplant in order to get more from their capital investment. As a result of this changein the market, together with the advent of new manufacturing technologies referredto as "flexible manufacturing systems", flexibility is receiving more notice. The aimof this investigation is to provide methods for the evaluation of certain key types ofproduction flexibility. Since flexibility is a function of the system layout and opera-tion this will enable managers to compare different manufacturing system designs.
Several researchers have developed alternative taxonomies for manufacturingflexibility (Mandelbaum, 1978; Buzacott, 1982; Zelenovic, 1982; Browne, et. al.,1984; Jaikumar, 1984; and Swarnidass, 1988). We make use of the terminologyproposed by Browne et. al. and develop measures for certain types of flexibilitydescribed therein. In only three studies have measures of flexibility been developed(Chatterjee, et. al., 1984, Graves, 1988, and Kumar, 1987). For a survey of flex-ibility in manufacturing see Gupta and Goyal (1989) and Sethi and Sethi (1990).
Browne et. al.'s taxonomy breaks flexibility down into eight classes: routing.machine, process, product, volume, expansion, operation, and production flexibility.Routing flexibility gives the system the capability to continue producing a given set.of parts despite machine breakdown. Machine flexibility is the ability to easily makechanges to a given set of parts. Browne et. al. state that process and product flexi-bility are dependent on machine flexibility. They also assert that volume, expansionand operation flexibility are dependent on routing flexibility (production flexibilitybeing a functioin of all the other seven types). Thus, the natural starting points todevelop evaluation procedures for manufacturing flexibility would be routing andmachine flexibility.
Chatterjee et. al. offered four different measures for routing flexibility. Thesemeasures were: (i) the cardinality of the set of routings, (ii) the ratio of the numberof module centers capable of carrying out an operation on a certain part to the total
1
number of module centers, (iii) the number of alternative paths within a modulecenter, and (iv) the possible trajectories through the module centers. An importantconsideration ignored in these measures is the reliability of machines that make upthe system, i.e. if a particular machine has broken down the routes going throughthat machine do not add to the flexibility of the system. Another factor neglected intheir measures was that of machine capacities, as machines with differing capacitiesare weighted equally under their framework. The measure that we propose takesboth of these factors into account.
Graves (1988) provides a measure for what he calls rate flexibility (Browne et.al.'s volume flexibility) as the ratio of the slack in production capacity normaliyavailable to the variablility in the demand process. He then develops a relationshipof this flexibility measure with the inventory base stock level. This measure is fora given product mix. Jaikumar (1984) argues that flexibility should be definedover a given family of part types since an FMS is designed in that fashion. Oncethe family is chosen (which is difficult since it should be viable in the long run)the flexibility has to be defined within that domain. Our procedure also assumesa given part mix, although we seek to appraise different types of flexibility thanGraves. Kumar (1987) suggests that entropy (a concept used in thermodynamicsreflecting randomness or uncertainty in the system) may be a suitable measure of
However, we demonstrate situations in §2.1 in which this approach is notappropriat e.
These measures of manufacturing flexibility (cardinality of the route set, rateflexibility, and entropy) are difficult for managers to interpret. This, in turn, createscomplications for managing a production facility to attain flexibility. An empiri-cal survey revealed that, "As of mid-1983, no FMS installation in the U.S. wasbeing managed for flexibility" (Bessant and Haywood, 1986). This implies thatthose who were managing the aforementioned FMS facilities were not aware of thebenefits of manufacturing flexibility. Our procedure demonstrates how operationsperformance can translate into economic measures relevant for managers. In §2we outline our proposed method for evaluating routing flexibility, in §3 we discussmachine flexibility, and in §4 we present our conclusions.
2
2 Routing FlexibilityIn this section we propose a method for appraising routing flexibility. As definedby Browne et. al., routing flexibility is exhibited when machines breakdown, asa result we incorporate the reliability of machines in our models. The systemdesign consists of machine centers and the materials handling system. The designspecification includes the reliability of the different machines, their capacities forthe each part type, and the precedence relationships. Reliability is defined as theprobability that the machine is capable of performing an operation at a given time.Capacity is defined as the total number of units of a part type a machine can processin a given block of time. The procedure results in the computation of an expectedmaximal cashflow for a given production system design and product mix which wepropose as an economic measure representing routing flexibility. We first presentthe proposed procedure for the computation of the measure and then provide anexample and explain its relevante.
Consider a manufacturing system consisting of a number of machining centersand a materials transfer system. This network can be represented by a random,planar graph where the vertices (machining centers) are subject to failure. Weassume that the failures are independent. Models for the expected flow in networkssubject to arc failure are provided in Aneja and Nair (1980, 1982) and Wallace(1987).
We define the following parameters and variables:
• i is the index of the part type; i = 1, , m.
• k is the index for machine type; k = 1, , n.
• h is the index of an elementary path from the load to the unload station;h = 1, , H .
• i, k is the time required to process one unit of part i on machine k.
• Tk is the total number of hours available for processing at machine k.
• pi, is the probability that machine k is operating at a given point in time.
• b,kh is a zero-one parameter which if equa1 to one indicates that product i canbe produced on machine k on path h.
3
• adk is the element of the arc-incidence matrix for product i indicating a con-nection between machine 1 and k. The element is one if a connection existsand zero otherwise.
• ci is the contribution margin of part type i.
• d, is the minimum demand that must be satisfied for each part type i.
• x,h is the flow of part i on path h.
The performance measure to reflect the routing flexibility (RF) of the manufac-turing system should combine both the cardinality of the route set and the reliabilityof the system. The measure we propose is the maximum expected contribution ofthe system. Such a measure translates operational differences of systems into finan-cial terms which would be of greater use to managers evaluating various designs.This measure can be computed by one of the following mathematical programmingmodels. The first model is formulated by considering flows over a given path as thedecision variable while the second model considers the flow between t.wo machines.
Path Formulation
RF = M AX E E ci • Xihi h
Subject to:
tikE E • X ih
i hlb,kh=1 Pk
E Xihh
X ih
< Tk v k (1.1)
> d, v i (1.2)
> 0 V i,h (1.3)
(1.1) is the capacity constraint for each machine given the reliability of that ma-chine. 1.1 is the expected amount of time to process part i on machine k. Constraint
Pad
(1.2) ensures that certain minimal demand conditions are satisfied. This formula-tion involves n + constraints and m .(1 + EZ.:i k!Ckn-2 ) variables in the worst case(i.e. when the machine network is totally connected). Hence this formulation ispreferred when the network is sparse.
4
An alternative formulation is one which centers around the machine. In additionto the previously defined variables we specify a new variable yak to be the flow ofpart i from machine I to machine k.
Machine Formulation
RF = MAX EEci.yiin
Subject to:
E Yslk E Wel = 0 V k,i (2.1)l ia ta =1 lia,tà=1
tirE E 5 Tk k (2.2)
=1 Pk
E y, i, > d, V i (2.3)4,1,=1
ydb. > 0 V i,l,k (2.4)
where n is the index for the unload station. Constraints (2.2) and (2.3) are equiv-aient to constraints (1.1) and (1.2), respectively. Constraint (2.1) is introduced inthis formulation to ensure the balance of flows, i.e. the number of units flowinginto a machine is equal to the number of units flowing out from a machine. Thisformulation lias in it s worst case n•rn 2 variables and rz•m+n+m constraints. Conse-quently this formulation is preferred when the network is dense. Both of the aboveformulations are LP models which can be solved using a standard simplex code asis done in the example in the following section.
From bot.h of the above models it is clear that with increasing reliability (p's)and capacity (T's) of the components in the system, the expected thruput of thesystem is nondecreasing. We now give an example to illustrate the evaluation ofthis flexibilit• measure.
2.1 An example
Let us use the procedure of the previous section to evaluate the following twomanufacturing system designs. The first system has two machines and load andunload stations (Figure 1) while, the second differs in that it has a third machine
5
(Figure 2) and the reliability of the machines are different. Let Tk = 300 time unitsVk, d1 = d2 = 10 units with the part types having the following characteristics:
P rocessing Times (t,k)Part M1 M2 M3 Contribution (c,)1 3.3 3.5 4.5 3.52 3.5 3.4 4.9 4.0
The systems are illustrated in the following two figures, where the reliability ofthe machines (pk V k) are the numbers in parentheses (i.e. the probability thatmachine M1 is operating at a given point in time is 0.9 while for machine M2 it is0.95).
(0.9)
Figure 1 - Sample System Design No. 1
6
The routes for each part type in this system are:
1. L - M1 - U
2. L - M2 - U
This system yields an optimal expected contribution of 641.2 with 10 units of part1 processed on machine 1, 67.71 units of part type 2 being processed on machine 1and 83.82 units processed on machine 2. The design of the second system is,
(0.6)
Figure 2 - Semple System Design No. 2
The routes for each part type in this system are:
1. L - M1 - U
2. L - M2 - U
3. L - M3 - U
This system yields a lower optimal expected contribution of 551.9 with 10 units ofpart type 1 being processed on M3 and the processing of part type 2 being spreadout on all three machines (M1 producing 51.4 units, M2 producing 44.1 units, andM3 producing 33.7 units).
7
P rocessing Times (ikPart M1 M2 M3 M4 Contribution (c,)12
3.33.5
3.53.4
4.54.9
3.83.9
3.54.0
It is clear from the above example, that the cardinality of the route set is in-sufficient for appraising a value of flexibility. In the example, System No. 2 has agreater number of alternative routes (a higher cardinality of the route set) but is lesspreferable. Thus, reliability must be incorporated along with the number of routesin the evaluation of a manufacturing system. One could examine the possibility ofadding more machines on to the first network by using the method described inWallace (1987).
It can also be shown from the examples that the entropy measures of Kumar(1987) are inadequate. His first measure (–Eh phIn(ph) where ph represents theproportion of the total flow along path h) for the first sample system would givea value of 0.688, and for the second design a value of 1.07. Thus, by this measurethe second system would again seem preferable. This is clearly driven by Kumar'sassumption that an essential feature of these measures is that they be monotonicallyincreasing with the number of paths (and consequently has the same characteristicsas the approach given by Chatterjee et. al.).
Increasing reliability, however, does not always imply an increase in contributionas the analysis of a more complex machine network illustrates. Let Tic = 300 timeunits Vk, d2 = 10 units with the part types having the following characteristics:
8
(0.6)
(0.7)
Load Unloadi
Figure 3 - Sample System Design No. 3
The routes for each part type in this system are:
1. L-M1-M3- U
2. L - M2 - M4 - U
3. L - M2 - M3 - U
The optimal solution in this system yields an RF of 346.16 with 10 units of part 1produced on route 1 and 33.67 and 44.11 units of part 2 produced on routes 1 and2, respectively. In this system M2 and M3 are bottlenecks, so that increasing thereliability of any one of those machines would yield an increased contribution. Ifthe reliability of M2 were increased, there would initially be an increase in RF, butbeyond 0.52, M4 becomes a bottleneck and any further increase in reliability of M2brings no added contribution. Thus the RF line for System 3 in Figure 4 becomesflat.
9
400
300
200
100
System 3
RF
500
0.1 0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8 1.0Reliability of M2
FIGURE 4 - RF vs. Reliability of M2
As can be seen from Figure 4, for any given reliability of M2 system 2 generatesmore contribution than either system 1 or 3. Thus, system design No. 2 stochas-tically dominates both system designs 1 and 3. With equal machine reliabilitiesstochastic domination provides a clear indication of the superior performance ofone design over another. Stochastic domination, however, may not always be at-tainable. For example, if we increased the reliabilities of machines in system 3 wecould obtain a situation where initially RF is greater in system 3 than 1, but as thereliability of M2 increases RF of system 3 goes below that of design 1.
It is also evident that for the same reliability the value of flexibility for differentdesigns will be affected by the capacities of the machines. For example, SystemNo.1 could stochastically dominate System No. 2 if the Tk 's for design No. 1-wereraised sufficiently.
10
3 Machine FlexibilityMachine flexibility (according to Browne et. al.) is dependent on the Base withwhich one can make changes in order to produce a given set of part types. Onepossible measure of this form of flexibility could be the time taken to set up themachine to perform some operation on a different part type. DeGroote (1988) hasshown that with a decrease in set up time the scope of product designs producedefficiently increases, thus demonstrating (as Browne et. al. anticipated) how prod-uct flexibility is dependent on machine fiexibility. Rafler and Tombak (1990) haveshown the market conditions under which this type of flexibility is desireable. Inthis section we propose a measure by which alternative manufacturing systems canbe evaluated with respect to machine flexibility. Since machine flexibility is notonly built into the design of the system but is also a function of how the system ismanaged, our measure can also be used for control of operations.
Sethi and Sethi (1990) point to "numerical control, easily accessible programs,automatic tool changing ability, sophisticated part loading devices, size of the toolmagazine, standardized tools, number of axes, etc." as sources of machine flexibility.Browne et. al. suggest that the appropriate measure for machine flexibility is thetime required to: replace worn-out or broken cutting tools, to change tools in a toolmagazine, t.o assemble or mount the new fixtures required, prepare cutting tools,position the part, and changeover the numerical control program. We have choosent.o concentrate on the time required to change tools in a tool magazine, the limerequired to change the tool in the machine when the tool is in the magazine, andthe time required to assemble or mount the new fixtures required. We do so becausewe believe that these factors are the most significant portion of set up time in manycases.
In order to derive a model to evaluate machine fiexibility let us define the fol-lowing:
j are indices for part types; i = 1, ... ,m; j = 1, , m.
• q is the maximum number of too:s that can fit in a tool magazine
• is the time to position the tool in the machine from the tool magazineif the tool for part j is diffèrent from that of part i (this assumes that eachtool can be picked from the tool magazine in the same amount of time), alsov,, = 0 if the tool for part j is the same as that for part i.
11
•zij
• u„ is the time to change the fixture if the fixture for part j is different fromthat of part i
• s is the time required to change a tool in the tool magazine (this is consideredthe sanie for all tools since it involves picking, placing, and returning tools tothe same location).
•1 if part i requires tool r
=0 otherwise
1 if part i precedes part j on the machine- 0 otherwise
•f 0 if bi, = 1 and b„,. = 1 for any r E Y
Y' ) 1 1 otherwise
where Y is the set of tools in the tool magazine since the last tool change.
In order to find the minimum set up time for a given manufacturing system and agiven part mix one must solve the following mathematical program. We assume thatthe tool changing time is the same for all tools but the fixture changing time may bedifferent for each part. This is based on observations of many FMSs where the toolsize and shapes do not vary as considerably as the part geometry. Assuming thatthe machines were incapable of changing fixtures and tools simultaneously machineflexibility (MF)can be evaluated using the following nonlinear integer programmingmodel.
MF = MINE E Vii • zji E E Ujj • Zij .5 • EE ij • (3.0A)
Subject to:E E m — 1 (3.1)
j
Yij Zji E (0,1) V i, j (3.2)
The first term in the objective function is the tool positioning time, the secondterni is the fixture positioning time, and the third term is the time required for
12
tool interchanges. For (3.0 A), (E, E ) yij •z,j ) gives the number of distinct toolinterchanges. The implicit assumption for this formulation of the objective functionis that a certain amount of time is taken for each tool change. This is true of systemswhich have a large central magazine from which tools travel back and forth and itis not economical to have large local tool magazines. The constraint (3.1) forcesone to schedule m parts for production.
Note that Y is dynamic and changes with each reconfiguration of the tool mag-azine. This reconfiguration is done by placing the next q tools demanded by theforthcoming part sequence in the tool magazine.
If the machines are capable of making tool and fixture changes in parallel, thenobjective function in the above model would be:
MAX (MIN( E E 2• -tj • .1.1- ) MIN(s bi' (1 l'fr)zy )) (3.0B)i j
The use of b b- (1-1 ' ) '" in (3.0 B) implies that there is a set up each time the tool9
magazine is exhausted and that the parts are sequenced in the order of tool usage.
The evaluation of machine flexiblity requires the simultaneous determination ofboth the part sequence and the sequence of tools. In order to focus on the setup times associated with machine characteristics (as discussed above) and to makeour analysis tractable we assume that the sequence of parts is given. This is notunrealistic since due dates are often exogenously given to the operations manager.
Simple heuristics can be used to solve the above problem. If both the timerequired to change tools in the magazine and the time to change the tool in themachine dominat es over the time to change fixture, a reasonable heuristic would beto group the parts by tool used. If, conversely, the fixture changing time dominates,the parts could be grouped by fixture utilized.
3.1 An example
Say u i; = 1 V i j and 0 otherwise, and let s = 10, q = 2, and m = 4. Also letv,, = 1 if the tool for part i is diffèrent from part j and 0 otherwise. The resultingproblem formulation using (3.0A) is
MIN E E( Zii vij • + 10 • E E yi; • ziji� i i iei
13
Subject to:E zi; _� 3
E (0,1) V i,j (3.1)
Let the sequence in which the parts are to be processed be 1, 2, 3, 4 with toolsrequired being A, B, C, and B, respectively. Hence the v vs are as given in thefollowing matrix:
0 1 1 11 0 1 01 1 0 11 0 1 0
where, for example, th 2 = 1 since the tool for part 1 is A and the tool for part 2 isB, thus setting up the machine for part 2 involves a tool change. Assuming that thefixture and tool required by the first part is already in place the above expressionis then reduced to:
MIN {6 + 10 • (Y22 + Y23 + Y34)}"
This minimization involves choosing which tools belong in the magazine at a par-ticular state in production. We know that, b iA bre b2B = b3B = b4c = 1 with ail other
= 0. Let the initial configuration of the tool magazine contain tools A and B,i.e. let. Y = {A, B}. Then, y12 = 0 since 61 ,4 = b2B = 1. In order to process part. 3we need to reconfigure the tool magazine since it does not contain tool C. Y is resetto Y = {B,C} since tools B and C are the next two tools required. Then y23 = 1,since b2B = 1 but 634 = b3B = 0 , and y34 = 0, since bac = b4B = 1. The result isone tool change removing tool A and replacing it with tool C at a cost of s. Theobjective function value, MF, would then be 16. A better solution would be thesequence 1, 2, 4, 3, which has the same number of tool changes to the tool magazine(one), yet fewer tool changes to the machine (two instead of three), yielding an MFof 15.
In the above models we have used set up times as a surrogate measure for eval-uating the effort required to make the necessary changes to produce a given setof parts. This allows for the comparison of various manufacturing system designswhich are capable of producing the same part mix. The models also give the capa-bility of measuring the effort involved in producing varions sets of parts with thesaine production system. In such a case the model must be solved for each setof parts. Thus these models could be applied to the allocation of sets of parts tovarions plants.
14
4 ConclusionWe have provided several models for the evaluation of alternative manufacturingsystem designs with respect to routing and machine flexibility. These models facil-itate the design/technology choice process by providing a link between operationalperformance and economic implications.
We present two models by which routing flexibilty can be assessed. The resultingmeasure is the maximum contribution in monetary terms which is easily interpreted.These models incorporate factors such as reliability of the machines and the capacityavailable for production. Machine fiexibility is assessed by the minimum set up timerequired to produce a given set of parts. The utility of this measure could be seenin choosing a design or in deciding the portfolio of part types to be produced on agiven system. This measure clearly shows that flexibility is a function of operationalconsiderations such as sequencing of parts and the positioning of tools. It also showswhat impact such operational decisions have on the plant finances.
Clearly further work is required to strengthen the link between operational mea-sures of a manufacturing system and the corresponding impact on a firm's financialstatus. hout models defining such links managers will continue to have difficultyassessing investments which contribute to a firm's manufacturing flexibility. Oper-ational measures of the other types manufacturing flexibility eg. process, product.,volume, etc.. also need to be developed. Finally. relationships between the differenttypes of fiexibility need to be more clearly established.
15
References
Aneja, Y., and K. Nair, 1980. "Maximal expected flow in a network subject to arcfailures", Networks, Vol. 10, pp. 45-57.
Aneja, Y., and K. Nair, 1982. "Multicommodity network flows with probabilisticlosses", Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 9 (September), pp. 1080-1086.
Bessant, J., and B. Haywood, 1986, "Flexibility in Manufacturing Systems", OMEGA,
14, No. 6, pp. 465-473.
Browne, J., D. Dubois, K. Rathmill, S. Sethi, and K. Stecke, 1984. "Classificationof flexible manufacturing systems", The FMS Magazine, April, pp. 114-117.
Buzacott, J., 1982. "The fundamental principles of flexibility in manufacturingsystems", Proceedings of Me lst International Conference on Flexible ManufacturingSystems, Brighton, U.K., (20- 22 October).
Chatterjee. A.. M. Cohen, W. Maxwell, 1984. "Manufacturing flexibility: Modelsand measurements", Prodceedings of Me 2nd International Conference on FlexibleManufacturing Systems, Detroit, MI.
DeGroote, X., 1988. "The manufacturing/marketing interface", Wharton DecisionSciences Working Paper No. 88-09-06.
Gupta, Y.P., and S. Goyal, " Flexibility of Manufacturing Systems: Concepts andMeasurements", European Journal of Operational Research, 43, pp. 119-135.
Jaikumar, R., 1984. "Flexible manufacturing systems: A managerial perspective",Harvard Business School Working Paper.
Kumar, V., 1987. "Entropic measures of manufacturing flexibility", InternationalJournal of Production Research, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp 957-966.
Mandelbaum, M., 1978. "Flexibility in decision making: an exploration and unifi-cation", Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto,Ontario, Canada.
11511er L-H. and M. Tombak, 1990. "Strategic choice of flexible production tech-nologies and welfare implications", Journal of Industrial Economics, XXXVII, No.4 (June), pp. 417-431.
Sethi, A., and S. Sethi, 1990, "Flexibility in manufacturing: A Survey", forthcomingin: International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems.
16
Swamidass, P., 1988. "Manufacturing flexibility", Operations Managment Associa-tion Monograph No. 2 (Jan.).
Wallace, S., 1987. "Investing in arcs in a network to maximize the expected maxflow", Networks, Vol. 17, pp. 87-103.
Zelenovic, D., 1982. "Flexibility - A condition for effective production systems",International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 319-337 (May-June).
17
116/40 lord de la TORR/1 andDavid H.NEC1CAR
86/09 Philippe C. HASPISLA011
•Parmalliss matirai ridas ferinienatienal 'pendions', Second Draft: Mach 3.1986.
"Caneeplardlais the *nt* portereeedhersilled Berna: the reine and mature ef Meempan» kellneme primes". Februmy 1986.
86/10
R. MOENART. •Anairin& the Mme temerineAnnuel DE MEYER. technologies' demalurity".J. BARBE andD. DESCHOOLMEESTER.
IIMARMAKINMEIZISME5
86/11
Philippe A. NAERT
•hm •Lydienne," te •Pinklnnisetien•rand Alain BULTEZ miapeeNjirl elidedishmt *maties rade
affecta prordeffstr.
111r4
16101 Arnoul DE MEYER
$6/02 Philippe A. NAERTMutai WEVERBER011and Guide VERSWUVEL
86103 Michael BRAM
$6/04 Spyros MAKRIDAK1Sand Michèle H1BON
86/05 Charles A. WYPLOSZ
86/04 Frincesee OIAVAll1,leff R. SHEEN endCharles A. WYPLOSZ
86/07 Douglas L. MacLACHLANand Spyros MAIOUDAKIS
'The R & D/Production interface".
•Suldertive estimation M integratingtenemmientimi budast and amatiesdecisimm: • une ande. lsnuary 1986.
•Speneerthip and the tiffueitie of orgenisationalInnevatier: a prefuninary rieur•
•Cenlideare Intervale,: an empirkelinvestiestien fer the serins M the M-Compatitian".
nste en the redut-dm ef the werkweek",luly 1985.
"The nal an imite rale and Hm fieraimem& ef a eatend remonte diennere,Revised version: Fenian 1986.
"Jedloweei Mme M ides fent satineFebruary 1986.
86112 Roser BETANCOURTand David GAUTSCHI
R6/I3 S.P. ANDERSONand Damien NEVEN
86/14 Charles WALDMAN
86/15 Mihkel TOMBAK andArnaud DE MEYER
86/16 B. Eapen ECKBO endHenvig M. LANOOHR
06/17 David B. IEMISON
86/18 lames TEBOULand V. MALLERS!'
meneenice d niait Mas", RevisedApril 1986.
•Spatial emapetitiesa à le Cannet".
"Cempandeen internatieraele dm marial bridas Intassante", lune 1983.
"Hem the memserial attitudes ef fines nierPINS iller from semer manuthaterine lInns:earvey reenkedune 1986.
L. plume des offre milients. In mieenfermai« et le eme•W dm inonder& de«Math dm mciltde.
"Strate* capaidIty Menefer M arenéritheMinutiers", May 1986.
"Tema* eperatiend deBodlar efservies". 1986.
86/19 Rob R. WElTZ
86/20 Albert CORHAY.Gabriel HAWAWINIand Pierre A. MICHEL
04/21 Albee CORHAY,Gabriel A. HAWAWINIand Pierre A. MICHEL
66/22 Albee CORHAY,Gabriel A. HAWAWINIand Pierre A. MICHEL
•Neserathwt a tawdolge-batelfaveratiag adviees•.
'The priekte «made eue lie Lanka steak
44491•11e: eemensity and sine pestinse,lune 1986.
Itisk-promis se mari M U.S. andEuropean «in markets", Penny 1986.
•Seasomity in the risk-cairn relatienr&ipssente international evideme", luly 1986.
$6/26 Barry EICHENOREENand Charles WYPLOSZ
96/27 Karel COOLand Immun DIERICIOC
"Tbe montamic comeseemes of the Francfoinean •, September 1986.
"Nasse, rith-return rektionshipe isimminem etnutegy: pendu er treuil?•,October 1986.
86/28 Manfred RETS DB VRIES "Interpelins afflanhational Mats.and Demy MILLER
86/23 Arnaud DE MEYER
86/24 David OAUTSCH1and Wilde R. RAO
86/25 H. Pater GRAYand Ingo WALTER
•An mderstary Mudy NI the «Migration of
infime« Min» mannfactnrins•,July 1986.
"A molhoriaMsy for apecinution andasgreption product concept festins",My 1986.
"Protection", Muguet 1986.
86/31 Philippe HASPESLAOHand David JEMISON
16/35 Jean DERMINE
86/36 Albert CORHAY andGabriel H AWAWINI
86/37 David GAUTSCHI andRoger BETANCOURT
•Atenisitionn mythe and redite, July 1986.
•Mermarins the mark« vaine of a bank, aprimer', November 1986.
"Sommally Ibo rielt-rstomemen. Mtenmtiond evidence", July 1986.
evolobinn af «Mi«atome Intermetalion".
86/38 Gabriel HAWAWINI
86/39 Gabriel HAWAWINIPlerve MICHELand Albert CORHAY
"Plnendal innovatins nul mentihmelopeonts in the Firme eapll marint•,Updated: Semember 1916.
•Ibo pians «tomme elloths on On11rnmele Melk onciamsof • renemeinatian ofthe «idem", Novernber1986.
86/29 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
Manfred KETS DE VRIES
86/31 Arnaud DE MEYER
Arnold DE MEYER,NAKANE.
Jeffrey G. MILLERand Km« FERDOWS
86/32 Karel COOLand Den SCHENDEL
86/33 Enlai BALTENSPERGERand Jean DERMINE
'My Meer the hadar7".
onttanien same: the red 'tory.
•Pledbilityt ibe neut romprai« baffle",October 1986.
"Pledbility: the ne« competitive baffle",Revieed Venins: Marck 1987.
l'adonnante di ferons. mem strate*meup naembere", October 1986.
elle robe of public poney ba inondasfmancial etabBity: • crono-country,comparative perspective", Angola 1986.Revieed November 1986.
86/10 Chacun WYPLOSZ
86/41 Kami FERDOWSand Maltant SKINNER
86142 Kaon FERDOWSand Per LINDBERG
16/13 Demi« NEVEN
86/14 Ingemar DIERICIOCCarmen MATUTE.%and Damien NEVEN
1987
17/01
Manfred KETS DE VRIES
capital Boum ilbendlimilm »d the EMS, armcb parometive•. Dmernber 1916.
"Manulatterins ln a mn perepeetive,1986.
•PMS aI indicalar et mehrturisobfflese, December 1916.
Y« en efielnum of Nmillinium inhote/fing's nyder, November 1916.
"'Vains aidai tem end tammtilies",December 1916.
•Priennere of leadenddp•.
*7/02 Claude VIALLET 'An spirleal ration of internationalmuet priebe • , November 1986.
87/03 David CIAUTSCIIIend Visitais RAO
071$1 Sumatra GHOSHAL andChristopher BARTLEIT
07/05 Arnold DE MEYERend Kaon FERDOWS
07/06 Anie K. SAIN,Chrietian PINSON andNam* K. MALHOTRA
07/07 Rolf RANZ andGabriel HAWAW1NI
B7/00 Manfred KETS DE VIUES
07/09 Lister VICKERT,Mort PILIUNOTONend Paul READ
87/10 André LAURENT
B7/11 Robert FILDES nadSyros MAKTUD/UCD
'A naelbodology fer specifitation andagentgation i product concept testine,Revised Vernon: Jenuery 1987.
•OrganizIng fer ismovatiews: ose of theandtinational corporation', Februery 1987.
•Managerial focal points in manufteteringeinem•, Febtuary 1987.
•Cultswer loyally as a constnet in themarketing of banian services", July 1986.
Meade peins rd stock mue«anentaire, Febfuery 1987.
'leaders Mis tiret manage, Februery 1987.
•Enhepresewrial activities of EuropeanMEM% Marat 1987.
'A tubard view of erganiantional change,Mach 1987
"PawastIng and lem Assetions•, Match1987.
"Ife Janea Head: lemming houe the superinrand onbordinate faces of the nunamer's Joe.Apeil 1987.
•Multinatimed corperatiens as differentiatedsfflorliO, April 1987.
•Predert Standards and CotupetitiveStrategy: An M'Iris of the Principle •. May1987.
111ETAPORECASTING: Won of ImprovingForeceatIng. Aemsracy and Usefalnese,May 1987.
°Tabo►« attoopts: what dom the hulguagetell .7, lune 1987.
'Ampers' cognitive nue fer npwaml anddovnnvand relatienehipe, lune 1987.
•Patate and the Empesa Itietechuiegybri: a nady of largo European phannaesuticalfirme, lune 1987.
'Why the EMS? Dynamite Ore and deequillbrim paie rugine, May 1987.
'A new approads ft Mattatleal fertertia•,lune 1987.
"Strategy Temandedbless Ihe impact ennemicollnr •, Revimd: Isly 1987.
•Connielble lamaient structurel andnudivotienal conengunces•, Anna 1987.
'ne dormi Ter rad prulacts and thebonashotil prodattion ami* rem *wu ancomplensentarigr end enhatitntablity".
'Ibo neural end Marra «nettheeendeal and creaucalbsral perspective,Sein 1987.
rolseelnam of MDS canfleamtionsthe face of inconeldete date, Marat 1987,Revised: Italy 1987.
"Denuend trompemeaaritien, hmeholdproduction and ratai araortmente, Italy1987.
*7/19
David BE00 endCharles WYPLOSZ
T7/20
Spyroe MAKIUDAKIS
87/21
Susan SCHNEIDER
87/22
Sumo SCHNEIDER
87123
Roger BETANCOURTDavid OAUTSCHI
87/16
Susan SCHNEIDERand Roger DUNBAR
87/17
André LAURENT andFernando BARTOLOME
07/111
Reinhard ANGEIMAR andauietoph LIEBSCHER
*7/15 Spyroe MA/CRIDAKIS
87/12 Fernando BART:NAMand André LAURENT
07/13 Sumantra OHOSHALand Nitin NOHRIA
87/14 Lundi. GABEL
II7/25
A. K. SAIN,N. K. MALHOTRA andChristian PINSON
S7/26
Roger BETANCOURTend David GAUTSCHI
07/24
C.B. DERR endAndré LAURENT
Jonathan HAMILTONW. Dentier MACLEODand 1. F. TRISSE
Martine QUINZII andI. F. TRISSE
Arnaud DE MEYER
Yves DOZ MidAmy SHUEN
Kano FERDOWS andArnoud DE MEYER
P. 1. LEDERER endJ. F. TRISSE
Manfred KETS DE VRIES
Lundis LABEL
Susan SCHNEIDER
"Spatial compeRtion and the Core". Auge«1987.
'On üe eptionality of certnd rimes",September 1987.
*Germa. Plomb and Bridai manefecterinsrMalades Mue different than one Baas",September 1987.
•A mem frennewerk fer atudydascouperai» between fines', September 1917.
"%reps» manefarturers: the anearlitemplatency. letiebts froc 6.19117European naminfacturina Ratures survey".October 1987.
•Compeddve Mention en netwerks anderdistrimMatery September 1987.
'Primer' ef leadership', Revised versionOctober 1987.
"Privadsstion: Its motives nad likelycessernmeres", October 1987.
"Strategy forundaten: the impact of Mimaiculture", October 1987.
"The da* dde of CEO anceendoe,November 1987.
"Piedra emeasdbillty and die seepe ofentre, November 1987.
•Sereerity. ire proche and tberelationabip between tbe rirk and die retenuof Freneb comme docks*, November 1987
"Cenatinias bednental nad verticaldifferesdadon: de @dorlote of nias-saindifferestintion", December 1987.
"Leention", December 1987.
`Spatial diarimimilent Bertrand vs.Courant in • needef urbanisa cheire".December 1987.
•Iledems stridor, roba Medan andYak-rotent reintisardipat a taudinterpolation% December 1987.
•Ami Onk anemeuldien rad santdeabilllyef compotidire advantage% December 1987.
•Faelese affadis birman' fanera andconfidence intervele, 1•1111/117 1988.
•Predktith recarder rd aber terniespeinas', %mari I988.
"Deindeatriallse senke fer mongte, lenuary1988.
87/21
87/28
t7/29
87/30
87/31
87/33
87/33
87/34
87135
87136
87/37
87/3/1
Miami BURDA els Imre r moka sbortnae in Eerope•,Auge« 1987.
Gabriel HAWAWINI
•Centreibm lbe interesteste risk of bandane introduction te dorades amines andimenaniandoe aramides". September 1987.
Soma SCHNEIDER and
•Interpretinsi alrategir behevior: basicPad SHRIVASTAVA asemptions amen in erannisatioes",
September 1987
88/03
lame. TEBOUL
*8/01
Michel LAWRENCE andSpyme MAKRIDAKIS
88/03
Spyros MAICRIDAKIS
87/43
Jean GABSZEWICZ andJacques-F. TRISSE
87/44
locution HAMILTON,lacquerF. TRISSEand Anita WESKAMP
87/43
Karel COOL,David JEMISON andIntenter DIERICRX
87/46
Werner DIERICIC7Cand Karts COOL.
87/39
Manfred KETS DE VRIES
87/40
CUIR« MATUTES andPierre REGIBEAU
87/41 Gabriel HAWAWINI endClaude VIALLET
87/42
Damien NEVEN andJacques-F. TRISSE
88104 Sua« SCHNEIDER
88/05
Charles WYPLOSZ
88/06
Reinhard ANCELAIAR
88/07
Ingmar DIERICIOCand Karel COOL
811/011
Roinhard ANGELMARand Susan SCHNEIDER
18/09
Bernard SINCLAIR-DESCAGNE
11111111
Iman' SINCLAM-DESOAGNÉ
88/11 Bernord SINCLAIR-DESCAON11
88/12
Spyros MA/UUDAJUS
88/13
Manfred KETS DB VICES
88/14
Abia NOEL
18/15
And DBDLAUKAR endLars•Hendrik RÔLLER
Pladonsi vs. corporal* rdtore: implicationsfer Imam ramure. managemen •, lanuary1988.
Mn mirer dollar: le Hampe out ofde •, lamary 1988.
"Les melte dam lee maux detishilertion", lanuary 1988.
C▪ oameddve advantage: a remue baudrentrertiv •, lenuary 1988.
"hues in die ready of orrsalzationalrogaltion•, February 1918.
' rire fonneso and validai denier damebiaise February 1918.
.-hostos envase dandard matiraire fenns", Febmary 1988.
•Mea stermary Mute/ as ore ordlibriumbien Mater: ne siude-rreniatproperte, February 1988.
"Beim anns Md mafflu in the 21strestore, Fsbnary 1918
•AledlIqualn i orenalsodund Ife: theorrarisation man revis:te •, Febnary 1988.
"MW inlarrutesa of straleides: m ready ofthe hume of CHO. on the...pends.", Mach 1988.
'The pruhation of and retenu frominthatrial karinatiso: un er000metricitnalysis for • oleveloping country. December1987.
*8/16 Gabriel HAWAWINi
68/17 Miami BURDA
88/18 Michael BURDA
88/19 Mi. LAWRENCE andSpyros MAKRIDAKIS
88/20 Jean DERMINE,Damien NEVEU and1.F. THISSE
88/21 lames TEBOUL
88/22 Larreendrik RÔLLER
88/23 Sjur Didrik FLAM
and Georges ZACCOUR
88/24
B. Barn EC1C110 andHerrig LANOOHR
88/25
Evert« S. OARDNERand Spyms MAKRIDAKIS
oMM« eflkinary and rode pritiottinternadond «Mense and Impliratisas forglobal invendue Mach 1988.
•Monorollstie tonsreddon, tub ofnenboent and de labre« of Europeansploymene, September 1987.
•Itellecdons an rame Compliquant" InFarop •, November 1987, revised Fermi?,1988.
•Inolvédkul Mao lek...mente ofmaddeare", Marck 1988.
•Fortfeo selortion boy merl Bade, anannilibdua mode, Mach 1918.
"Doindulrldise amies fer onnie, Marck1980 018/03 Ruile.
"Power Quendiellidellus lei taAveulira Io AT&T•, May 1987 (RadiaMarck 198111.
•Errallirat de Narbeaarast dmu h rarreldernpdnaduImsenehlssbdonerlamie ouverte d • furia& rollaridtar,Mars 1988.
• airratadon &dure, mur of Mmetakeover mol& hèle rad Frimas
tender offres la Trame, loly 1985, Shah• April 1988.
• lbe robre ef forareadre, April 1988.
rd/26
Sjur Dittrik FLAM
"Sentimenreddre Clown« eirdlibrionend George. ZACCOUR
multatage eropolies•, April 1988.
88/39
88/40
88/11
118142
88/43
88/44
88/43
88/46
88/47
88/48
88/49
88/30
88/31
84/27 Murupppa KRISHNA/4Lare-Hendrik RÔLLER
88/24 Sumatra OHOSHAL andC. A. BARTLETT
11/29 Nared K. MALHOTRA,awiallan PINSON andMun K. /MN
48/34 Catherine C. ECKELand Theo VERMAELEN
11/31
Sumatra OHOSHALChriatopher BARTLETT
W32 Kant PERDOWS andDavid SACKRIDER
88/33 Matkel M. TOMBAK
88/34 Moltke! M. TOMB«
88/33 Mihkel M. TOMBAC
88/M Vikas IIIIREWALA sudBmee BUCHANAN
88/37
Mu:nappa KRISHNANLars-Hendrik RÔLLER
Manfred KETS DB VRIES
"Tatry lame with rendable eaparity",April 1988.
onitInational corporation an a network:peramedves from interoroanizational
6114/7•. May 1988.
"Gnome« cognitive romplenity and dmion-, -nallity of atultidianensional «antwelkenratieas", May 1988.
"bu flonelal fanent from Chernoby1:pereeptlent and remdatory romane", May1988.
*Cemaina, adeptIon, anal «frima ofInnoreatione by onboidiariat of amdlinatiotudcorporatime, lune 1988.
"hatermationd mannfortoring: politise/4enta for surcem", lune 1988.
"111e Importance of lieribility Inraanufarterino•, lune 1988.
Medblity: r important dreriralannfarearkedune 19M.
'A etratecir mir* of inmehnent lnmannforinries ristenne, luly 19118.
•A Perdre* Test of the NID Model thatControls for Non-statiosarite, lune 1988.
•Iterdatino hire-Liabolty Compethion T.Improve Wenn', luly 19M.
elle »Aman Rale of Favy A %motte.Filer i Mfflagelnelgr. APril sg.
Manfred KETS DE VRIES
Jouet LAKONISHOKThe° VERMAELEN
Charles WYPLOSZ
Paul EVANS
B. SINCLAIR-DESOAONt
Emin: MAHMOUD endSpyros MAKRIDA/CIS
Robert KORAICZYKand Claude VIALLET
Yves DOZ andAmy SHUEN
Main BULTEZ,Els OUSBRECHTS,Philippe NAERT andNet VANDEN ABEELE
Miehael BURDA
Nadudie DIERKENS
Rob WEITZ andArnoud DE MEYER
Rob WEITZ
"Ifs Leader d Mines : abdealReflertioan •, My 1988.
*Amadeu mire Wieder moudremneene tuer offers", Moud 1981.
•Aasymetry i Ope 8413: intentimal ormetannier, Mou« 1988.
"Orominadomi *Memnon in thetramnaeland enterprie, lune 19M.
'Grum amidon enomet mer limplanalBamako rationality", Septembor 1988.
"Ife MM of am art aml fatum iridiumemaldning foremate, September 1988.
"Am omphirtdioniadenlim of illerrdarlsaut pridme. November 1986, reviesdAuge« 1988.
'Tram Meut Io mime« orgeatframeiverk fer partnerdhlp •, Auge« 1988.
*Amman** amis bamum mhellaneleente baud by retallers•. September 1988.
Itellertleme an 'Wall anomploymene lnUmm, II•, Amal 1988 revient &member1988.
• alionnatien noyer dry ad Mablyleptember 1988.
whiammiao ami« maman from brelan*roue monades', October 1987.
"Tedmologr, work, and the eriaisatlee:the import of moere moteme", /n'y 1988.
118/51
Nam SCHNEIDED andRehdiand ANOELMAR
88/53
Manfied KETS DB VRIES
98154
Lam-Hendrik RÔLLERand Mihkel M. TOMBAK
1/a►S5
Peter BOSSAERTIand Piero H111.10.4
88/S6
Piero MILLION
Uni Wilfried VANDONACKERand Lydie PRICE
Martin IOLDUPP
Michiel BURDA
88/61 Lam-Hendrik RÔLLER
IWO Cynthia VAN HUILE,Theo VERMAELEN andPaul DE WOUTERS
°Cogailisn Bad organizationd ariaSM% mirbane the none?", September 1988.
'Animer lhappened to the piaompher-idng: the leader% addiction t. power,September 1988.
g ale* choke of flexible /inductiontechnologies end wdfare implicatione.October 19U
'Matha of memsts tees «contingentchar met priciae BI ode , October 1988.
linemeted portfolios and the violation atue randiser malt hymalmain Adntionalempirical evidence and inptication for testset omet /ricins modela• , Une 190.
"Dota transferabillIty: meknating ne rumineaffect of Daum 'venin haned on Inamical»Mg •, October 1918.
"Ibo iMormemeal structure of decidonmainte: ■ mariol eomparlana approach taorgannationai choke, November 1988.
lis Mamie rosit the /signe Sorsestimais of the Chenard Gate 11 mode.with US tiot •, September 1988.
"ModeOng mot sinstare: the Bel Systemmente'. November 190.
lieselation, taos and the matit« forcorporste control in Belgium% September1988.
88/63 Fernando NASCIMENTOand Wilfried R.vANNONACKER
88/61 Kant.. FERDOWS
88/65 Arnoud DE MEYERand Kami FERDOWS
88/66 Nathalie DIERKENS
88/67
Paul S. ADLER andKami FERDOWS
89/01
Joyce K. BYRER andTanit JELASSI
8913
Louis A. LE BLANCend Tolet /ELASSI
89/03
Bette H. JONES andTawfik IELASSI
89/04 Kaon FERDOWS andAmoud DE MEYER
89/05 Manin KILDUFP andReinhard ANOELMAR
89/06 Mihkel M. TOMBAK andB. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNE
'Strate* pattue of differentiated camusdurables ha a dyminde dnopoly: a numerkelanalysle, October 19U.
°Chu/4 *Mak reins fer isiernationalfacteriee, December 190.
"Quality lm, technology dons', October 190
"A diression af sari nomnareshdonsation ansymetryt the example of literaMid %Our Bodel or the importance af thesas« stintinni et the lin", December 1988.
▪ chier lechnelogy affinera, December1988.
"Ibo impact seing*. tinerim en DSSDaine". Item,
•DSS mftwere adieliens a melple Misti*chien mulhedelege, lemary 1989.
ntiegetishm emport: the offerts oftimpnlerintemention and amati 1nd en bargaiingsenne, /smog 1989.
'Ladin impniemont ka monnfachningpeelormancs In mann of a mn theary",January 1919.
•Slareell hiaerry er dure «Nue? Theeffets of *se, enitwe, and performance oninstitntionatiation in inniatedorganization •, boum 1989.
"Coordinating mannfaciarieg and haine«strategies: l e, February 1989.
1181511 B. SINCLAIR-DESOAONE •Asseming œmen* inegniatity", Novemberand Mâtai M. TOMBAK
1988.
89/07 Damien J. NEVEM
89/08
Arnaud DE MEYER and
HeIhnut SCHOTTE
89/09 Damien NEVEM,
Carmen MATUTE!, and
Marcel CORSTJENS
89/111 Netbdie DIERICENS,Bruno GERARD and
Pierre HIWON
Manfred 10ETS DE VRIES
end Main NOEL
89/12 Wilfried VANHONACKER
89/13 Manfred PIM DE VRIES
Reinhard ANOELMAR
Min
Reirbard ANOELMAR
89/16
Wilfried VANHONACKER,
Donald LEHMANN and
%mn. SULTAN
89/17
Oillee AMADO,
Claude FAUCHEUX end
André LAURENT
°Structurel alemlnient ln Eurepeen renieIsanidie. Some rien from industrialermaisatIon°, lanuary 1989.
•Tree in Me ambrant* ef nehmenand Meir offerte en the menacerai structurein the European Connemity, Jsnuary 1989.
•Brand preeferatiaa and eatry deterrence°,February 1989.
*A emolost Med appreach ta the vilenie*ef the amas in place and the mem*epperbenitise ef the fine •, December 1988.
•Undentandies the leadmetrateay interface:appentis* ef Me etrategic rebtionship
&Mordue neether, February 1989.
Taenatbra enraie reeperree medels whenMe data ma subject te raffermi temporalneigniatien•January 1989.
• lbe hamar indemne: a die:pieds,pismanenen In evandostimal KW, February1989.
Tree« imentient • rail fer nanntieveadvautage•, Match 1989.
nivalleseg a en.% melba imeradenperfennam •, Match 1989.
°Cembhdai rend and averse data in humnprenden made, Felnuary 1989.
•Chreereet ersaufsationnel et nonnecullundlem contrastes france-marricaine.Match 1989.
89/18
Srinivasen BAL►K-RISHNAN and
Mitchell KOZA
89/19
Wilfried VANHONACKER,
Donald LEHMANN end
Fereene SULTAN
89/20
Wilfried VANHONACIŒRend Rumen WINER
89/21
Arnaud de MEYER end
Kama FERDOWS
89/22
Manfred Kiffs DE VRIES
and Sydney PERZOW
89/23
Robert KOltAJCZYK andClaude VIALLEF
89/24
Martin KILDUFP endMitchel ABOLAF1A
89/25
Roger BETANCOURT end
David GAUTSCH1
89/26 Charles BEAN.
Edmond MALEMAUD,Peter BERNHOLZ.Francesco CHAVAll/
and Marke WYPLOSZ
89/27
David KRACKHARDT end
Martin KILDUFF
89/28
Menin KILDUFF
"Infermalisn asymnetry, market Mure adjrnst-weeness: !Mary sud evidence•,Match 1989.
°C..endidep relent and amuse data in laserrearanien medeb", Revised Match 1989.
•A rader. rendent Minier muid steinice•, Revised Match 1989.
I▪ diome .f matarlerhe inprevemenPutronamee r pselennance°, April 1989.
•WhatlaOnreMefcharatter Inpricheandyeld• April 1989.
°Tapie Mt menin Mi the prieMs effente mem. NOM' April 1989.
secW daignant et materOrmainatlensi tmellat r triai draina•zApril 1989.
•Tem ammed chanweerblin ef retallmadone end Meir eznennic cememumes•Match 1989.
"Meeremenseeie /Mes far 1993: entransition end iller", Apte 1989.
°Prientithip pattenn end cubera,attendue: the centrai ef ernanizadenalennity*, April 1989.
°TM Interpereenal etranere ef deciden.rein: a ucW csiaparben sperme teereenisational chaire', Revised April 1989.
89/29 Robert 000E1. andleen-Claude LARRECHE
89/30 Lare-Hendrik ROLLERand M'artel M. TOMBAK
89/31 Mielres1 C. BURDA andStefan OERLACH
89/32 Peter HAUO endTarrlik lELASSI
89/33 Bernard SINCLAPI-DESGAGNÉ
89/34
Sumatra OHOSHAL andNittin NOHRIA
89/35 Jean DERMINE andlemme H1LLION
89138 Martin ICILDUPP
Manfred ms rel VRIES
89138 Manfred RETS DE VRIES
89/39 Robert KORAICZYK andClaude VIALLET
89/40 Bele CHAKRAVARTHY
fer 1992: po dort strennthad asegraphle tonnage, May 1989.
*compaties and lairentment ire FleadeTeelmelegiee, May 1989.
latertemnameal prima and Ume US tradebalance i durable anode, luly 1989.
'Apolealina and «dundee of a muid-«Beria derinlen support system for thedynanie section of U.S. ananufactarinalocations% May 1989.
*Dada. attelle i monapermirtieisdnetriee, May 1989.
•Repiden varlety venus idlared rem:arammeinst emporattrividen relationshipsthe M-Forer ergeniudiee, May 1989.
•Depeall rate eau. and the merls« valueef bealme: The ers of Prame 1971-1981•,May 1989.
•A dlepuilland apprends te eedal nehreetts:Ise tas d maendsatisnal chaire, May 1989.
•Ife argaisatlead fo* balancine aleader% balaie, May 1989.
CIZO Nase, /une 1989.
•A. melte! heelednathan of Ineernatimmedmet prieine, (Revised lune 1989).
"Illnanetement mass for inmevaden andprodnethim", lune 1989.
89/42 Robert ANSON andTarrEk /ELASSI
89/43 Miami BURDA
89/44 %lep CHARRAVARTHYand Peler LORANCE
89/43 Rob wEnz and
Atimoud DE MEYER
89/46 Marcel CORSTIENS,Carmen MATUTES endDamien NEVEN
89/47 Manfred RETS DE VRIEIand Martine MEAD
89/48 Damien NEVER andLat.-Hendrik RÔLLER
89/49 lem DERMINB
89/30 Jean DERMINE
89/31 Spyros MAKRIDAIGS
89/32 Arnaud DE MEYER
89/33 Spyroa MAKRJDARIS
89/54 3. RALAKRISHNAN
and Mitchell KOZA
•A dieveimmend frainewerk fer eammenter-enppertad teenet reeehrtien*, /My 1989.
"A nuée en Béai ante and taverne. bene%in aquilibeium mmangdomseal", lune 1989.
"Stratesie adaptation fa unalti-baisafinne•, lune 1989.
Itfrarmairea minet systems: a framewarit andrare saide, lune 1989.
•Fatry Enersaregeasert*, Mi 1989.
nte elsbd chai_ i lenderoldp andaraandratima Yawl tad eautroverdee, April1989.
• bamper inlesmiles and Inde filme,Aue« 1989.
num emintry emitraf and archalmarealline, July 1989.
apedallbaslian lof Ineneini inatiludem.the EF tender. Amena 1919.
'Mas dandatient a nem nomma& te doretaries foraemtlat •, luly 1919.
•Sherlimhe devalipment mie Umm smannfarturee's perspective, Aue« 1989.
"V/by enadrYaa werhar, luly 1989.
•Oramehmdm cab and a theam 'U MMemmure, September 1989.
89/41 B. SINCLAIR-DESOAONEand Nathalie DIERKENS
"le strate:rie napply of preridene, lune1989.
89/33 H. SCHUITE ellurambpateme enaperatien in information 89/67 Peter BOSSAERTS and "Morisot nderoslrechne efforts gtechnology", Septale« 1989. (FIN) Pierre HILIJON pamenmaant inerrmatIon i am Foreign
enchonge men• December 1989.119/36 Wilfried VANHONACICER
end Lydie PRICE'On As penclical neefimis of metrantalyidsmalts", Septenéer 1989.
im89/37 Taeiwon KIM. 'Market yen» end the &fusion of
Lare-Hendrik RÔLLERend Madre! TOMBAK
randtimmanct tatnalogies", september 1989. 90/01TM/EP/AC
B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNE "Untiveidalde Meer January 1990.
89/38 Lara-Hendrik RÔLUIR "Strette porta of amble production 9042 Miclutel BURDA Ittonspsilotis Compelltion. CNR M(EF,T00 and Mitkel TOMBAK kchnoindes", October 1989. EP Adjwatamt, and the Belmvisar of Earepoon
Manufachnins Enaploymenr, humary 1990.89/39(OB)
Manfred KETS DE VUES,Mena ZEVADI.
"Locus of eanbrol and entrepremenrelip: athrmstemdry comparative nue, October 90/03 Arnaud DE MEYER "Mannimaent of Conmmokation In
Main NOEL endMihkel TOMBAK
1989. TM Interintimard Reminell and Development",lanuary 1990.
89411 Enver YUCESAN end •Slmuladion graphe fer design and mamie of 90/04 GaMiel HAWAWINI end "Ibo Tronsfernalisitif the Empan(1M) Lee SCHRUBEN dIscrehe 'vent ohnidatian models", October FIN/EP Eric RJUENDRA Fbanntial Sanies bintryt Prim
1969. Pi*___—. en N ladapration•, January 1990.
8941 Sem SCHNEIDER and •Mterprelinp ad reapeadiai to **kik 90/03 Gabriel HAWAWINI and "Emme Eger Minehalm Tomei 1992(AIII) Arnoud DE MEYER salues: The import of national eulenre". FIN/EP Bertrand 1ACQUILLAT end Eisend% lame, 1990.
October 1989.90/06 Gabriel HAWAWINI and "Inétpraden of Emplie Eger Mark*:
Arnold DE MEYER •Tothnnlopy Mutin and haternationd RADopersitione, October 1989.
FIN/EP Eric RA1ENDRA hapliestimaa of StrutInnd Champ fer RoyMarket harticipmis te and Boyard 1992",lenway 1990.
89/63 Enver YUCESAN end •Erpdvaiste of simulations: A empli(1M) Lee SCURUBEN approncl •, November 1989. 9047 Gabriel HAWAWINI "Slink Modal Amuie and the »Mn et
89/64 Enver YUCESAN end 'Campin:11y et shauledee modela: A grueFIN/EP Finie an the Tally, Stock Enthannee,
lareary 1990.(TM) Los SCIIRUBEN litteretir spnrancr, November 1989.
90/08 Tewfik IELASSI end "Modales MOI MCDSS: What Ment89/611 Soumit,* DUITA and "MARS: A martien and anedtions TM/EP B. SINCLAIR-DESOAGNÉ Edda?", larmary 1990.
(TM,AC, FIN)
Piao BONISSONE reareaing syntem", November 1989.90/09EP/FIN
Alberti) GIOVANNINIend lm WON PARK
"Capital Controls and Internadand Tradenome, lenuary 1990.
89/66 B. SINCLAIR-DESOAGNÉ 'On dee reemIntion of prontreneent(TM,Er) November 1989. 90/10 loyer BRYER end *The /spart of Lm panse Thermies on DSS
TM Tinvtik 1ELASSI Dia1011". lenuary 1990.
90/21 Roy SMITH ad "Retinfignretien ef the Gisiel Sereines90/1I Enver YUCESAN A. Ovitirview of Free/une Demis FIN Ingo WALTER industry M the 1990%•, Febnury 1990.TM Methedeleuy fer Fridetion Sensitivity
Annlyeis°,1enuery 1990. 90122 >go WALTER •Enrayer Phineriel Inburnien IiiFIN Impludem fer the United States•, Februery
90/12EP
Mich»! BURDA °Structurel Channe, Unemployment Bene%end He Unemployieent: A U.S.-Europe..
1990.
Comprisse, Jenuary 1990. 90/23 Damien NEVEN •EEC Inhoretien tem* 1992: SeineEP/SM Distribetiend Aspects', Revieed December
90/13 Soundtre DUTTA end •Appnenniete Remuais shoot Teeepend 1919TM Shan SNEXIIAR Ceentreints in Red Timm Planeing end
Senreledenuery 1990. 90/24 Lare Tyge NIELSEN ondes Poires M CAJT •, lenuery 1990.FIN/EP
90114 Albert ANOEFIRN end •Vbend Inlerodive Modelling and IntelligentTM Hune-lekob LOTIII DU: Punies Theory bite Pm-tir •, lanuary
1990.90125F1N/EP
Lare Tyge NIELSEN •Enneere of EinWheimn M CAM*,lenuery 1990.
90n5 Arnaud DE MEYER, 9be Inlered Tubule /kid Renewei of. 90/26 Charles KADUSHIN and °My neheorhion ME Dulie Bleds andTM Dirk DESCHOOMBESTER.
Rudy MOENAERT endlen BARBE
Peines Uni with • Mature Terbeeieme,Imam 1990.
011/BP Miami BRIMM the Unilingue of Simien Neturke,Febreary 1990.
90/27 Abbe. FOROUOHI and •NSS Seledeuefflor Nelolloills
FINRichard LEVICH end "Te-DrIven Reinletery Dru: European
Phimdel Canters in the 1990r •, humTM TIWEk IELASSI Stimilhe FihnergY 1990.
hep WALTER1990. 90/28 Arnaud DE MEYER •Ibe Men.-etielep Cellbibldiel .0
TM Innemnee, Febreery 1990.90117PIN
Nathalie DIERKENS •bdiermotien Asymmetry end &mie Imu&,Renon lemery 1990. 90/29 Nathalie DIEJUCENS •A Dfieneelen of Courut Miment 'f
Wilfried VANHONACICER libnagenel Deriden Raies mn theF1N/AC Infeemoden Paymenetry°, boum 1990.
MKT Fainutius ef Dynensie Soles Rumen» 90/30 Lars Tyge NIELSEN •ni Eipud.d Urne of Pernelhe ofMedele•, Revieed Jimmy 1990. FIN/EP Amers•, Mach 1990.
90119 Bath JONES end "Ib. Effort of Computer InIerventiee 90/3I David GAUTSCHI and •91hat Delermime U.S. &tel Moubs•,
TM Tenfik /ELASSI Tisk Shunture en Bergeinins Onlreme,retenue 1990.
MKT/F,P
90/32
Roger BETANCOURT
Sriniveme BAUX-
Febniery 1990.
ledeuentien Asyrunetry, Adverse &bedon
9001TM
Tevlik IELASSI,Gregory KERSTEN and
A. Intredurilen to Green Deriden endNesetietion Support', February 1990.
SM R1SHNAN andMitchell KOZA
und bint-Venturem Minou land Endure,Revieed, leneary 1990.
Stanley ZIONTS 90/33OB
Cana SIEHL,David BOWEN and
9be Rob of Rites of Ineepreden M ServiceD'aveu°, Mue 1990.
Chridine PEARSON
9W45 Soinnitre DUTTA end "baggerelina) Che liguai mi Rde lame90/34FIN/El
Jean DERP40411 •llse Gala houe European BeaddemIntegratiem, ■ Cal fer • PrmArtive
TM Piero BONtSSONB Reasealag: The reedbilietle Ceemedg•,May 1990.
Compila» Tobey", April 1990.90/46 Sem« MAP3t1DMCIS "Expeeeellai Segeellist Tic Met et
hie Won PARR Mmes Utseeetainty and the Timm TM and Michèle H1BON beige V. end Ler Phutler eu Peel-EP Varyh• Risk Prenda in the Tem Striarbre
of Neminad laterent Rates •, December 1918,
Raviaed Mareh 1990. 90/47 Lydie PUCE and
Servie rentaethe Attente.
"limpepur Shen h NageraiMET Wilfried VANHONACKER Erprrl. i. Ihathieng Ihe Use et
90136 Arnoul DE MEYER •A. Earpirird Investigation te MehAueehis Rhea h Bayais.TM Maamfarturkg Strategies in European Ugolethe Revisse May 1990.
Induire, Aptil 1990.Ise WON PARK latermelleu es OS Teno &nem et
90137 Willima CATS-BARIL Itaethhe himmatioo Systems: Developiag EP luterai Meg: OughiSafflie ReheigthsTh1/011/SM Apormait te Open the Peasibles", April Perteniugu •, hue 1990.
1990.90/49 Sommital MITA *Appradrw msweil bY Auber le
Nin Wilfried VANHONACKER "Mmeguriai flw1 Behneimar nad the TM Answer Ne Quhisedase 1990.MICT Fatimatisa af Dymmaie Sales Renomme
PAIdgie, (Itevited Februery 1990). 90/30 Daniel COHEN and •Prise ad Traie RIlludi et %free RheeEP Charlet WYPLASZ Plgeheligh nul the bute af Haley
*In Louis LB BLANC and •Am Beshallem ad &Maks Mededelegy Ceintieedee, Aguil 1990.1M MASS Par Expeel System Siens•, May 1990.
911/SI Michael BURDA and *Cam talseur Megbet lime h flaira90/40 Maafrad KIRS DB VRIES Medan am the Couda lbe enne af Roberte EP Charles WYPLOSZ Soue Stylleed Phl •, hue 1990.OB Cale, April 1990.
90/51 Lars Tyge N1ELSEN 1b Utility et lothile Mar• Jas 1990.911141FIN/EP
Oebriel HAWAWIN/,bah* SWARY 'ad
'Ciel Martel Rame« te theAnammammall et Intentai. Baddag
FIN
90142
lk IMAN JANO
lled STEMM mad
Ledelatlee, Mme 1990.
•CheeValklegiug Ithrehieg Modela àEP
Michael Bada "IL Caregusees et Germa Rhum*ad Megutary Ude.• hes 1990.
MRT Wilfried YANHONACICER Meekeile. Renearele, Oteviaed April 1990). 90/S4 Modem NEVEM and Faverter flurdel Reesialigh AFe Colin MEYER Pngeewerk ter Nie Ardyil •, (Revisse
90/43 Robert ICORAJCZYIC end Melle RU Prends and the Priera ef May 1990).PIN Claude YIALLET Foreign Endure MW, May 1990.
90/55 Michael BURDA and geégeteupend Prie« ad the US Trade90144OB
Oillee AMADO,
Claude FAUCHEUX end*Ontamiontional Change and CadlwalRealities: Frame-Ameritam Contrasta• , April
EP Stefan GERLACH Balant •, (Revieed Italy 1990).
André LAURENT 1990.
90156 Damien NEVEN and "The Structure and Deternmituinb of East-WestEP Lars-Hendrik RÔLLER Tntde: A Prelintinary Analysis of the
Manufacturing Sector*, July 1990
90/57 Lars Tyge NIELSEN Comma Knowledge of a Multivariate AggregateFINIE?! Statistic", July 1990ni90158 Lars Type NIELSEN
"Comma Knowledge of Price and Espected Cost
FIN/EP/TM in sa Oligopolistic Marker, Augura 1990
90/59 Jean DERMINE and "Etonotnies of &ale andFIN Lars-Hendrik RÔLLER Scope in the French Mutuel Fonds (SICAV)
Industry", Augure 1990
90/601 Peri IZ and "An IMeractive Group Decision Aid forTM Tawfik IELASSI Multiobjective Protden►s: An Enspatical
Assument', Semember 1990
