by Pankaj CHANDRA* and Mihkel TOMBAK** N° 90/61!TM ... - Insead

*
"MODELS FOR THE EVALUATION OF
MANUFACTURING 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 de
Constance, Fontainebleau, 77305 Cedex, France.
Printed at INSEAD
Fontainebleau, France

MODELS FOR THE EVALUATION OF
MANUFACTURING FLEXIBILITY
Pankaj Chandra Mihkel M. Tornbak
August 14. 1990
'Of the Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and Dept. of
Technology Management, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France, respectively. This research was
supported by NSERC grant number OGP0042150, and INSEAD research grant number
2172.

Abstract
We present models by which flexibility for a manufacturing system can be
asessed. These models enable a manager to compare different systems with respect
to certain flexibility types. These models reflect the view that the flexibility
of 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 Introduction
Flexibility, along with cost, quality and service is an important aspect of manufacturing
strategy (Wheelwright, 1986). Throughout most of the industrial era a
great deal of attention was focused on the cost component in production. In the
1970's and 1980's, as a result of increased Japanese competitiveness, quality was
the factor which came into the limelight. Now, with product life cycles becoming
more compressed, firms are looking for a way of extending the design life of their
plant in order to get more from their capital investment. As a result of this change
in the market, together with the advent of new manufacturing technologies referred
to as "flexible manufacturing systems", flexibility is receiving more notice. The aim
of this investigation is to provide methods for the evaluation of certain key types of
production flexibility. Since flexibility is a function of the system layout and operation
this will enable managers to compare different manufacturing system designs.
Several researchers have developed alternative taxonomies for manufacturing
flexibility (Mandelbaum, 1978; Buzacott, 1982; Zelenovic, 1982; Browne, et. al.,
1984; Jaikumar, 1984; and Swarnidass, 1988). We make use of the terminology
proposed by Browne et. al. and develop measures for certain types of flexibility
described therein. In only three studies have measures of flexibility been developed
(Chatterjee, et. al., 1984, Graves, 1988, and Kumar, 1987). For a survey of flexibility
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 make
changes to a given set of parts. Browne et. al. state that process and product flexibility
are dependent on machine flexibility. They also assert that volume, expansion
and operation flexibility are dependent on routing flexibility (production flexibility
being a functioin of all the other seven types). Thus, the natural starting points to
develop evaluation procedures for manufacturing flexibility would be routing and
machine flexibility.
Chatterjee et. al. offered four different measures for routing flexibility. These
measures were: (i) the cardinality of the set of routings, (ii) the ratio of the number
of 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 module
center, and (iv) the possible trajectories through the module centers. An important
consideration ignored in these measures is the reliability of machines that make up
the system, i.e. if a particular machine has broken down the routes going through
that machine do not add to the flexibility of the system. Another factor neglected in
their measures was that of machine capacities, as machines with differing capacities
are weighted equally under their framework. The measure that we propose takes
both 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 normaliy
available to the variablility in the demand process. He then develops a relationship
of this flexibility measure with the inventory base stock level. This measure is for
a given product mix. Jaikumar (1984) argues that flexibility should be defined
over a given family of part types since an FMS is designed in that fashion. Once
the 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 assumes
a given part mix, although we seek to appraise different types of flexibility than
Graves. Kumar (1987) suggests that entropy (a concept used in thermodynamics
reflecting randomness or uncertainty in the system) may be a suitable measure of
However, we demonstrate situations in §2.1 in which this approach is not
appropriat e.
These measures of manufacturing flexibility (cardinality of the route set, rate
flexibility, and entropy) are difficult for managers to interpret. This, in turn, creates
complications for managing a production facility to attain flexibility. An empirical
survey revealed that, "As of mid-1983, no FMS installation in the U.S. was
being managed for flexibility" (Bessant and Haywood, 1986). This implies that
those who were managing the aforementioned FMS facilities were not aware of the
benefits of manufacturing flexibility. Our procedure demonstrates how operations
performance can translate into economic measures relevant for managers. In §2
we outline our proposed method for evaluating routing flexibility, in §3 we discuss
machine flexibility, and in §4 we present our conclusions.
2

2 Routing Flexibility
In this section we propose a method for appraising routing flexibility. As defined
by Browne et. al., routing flexibility is exhibited when machines breakdown, as
a result we incorporate the reliability of machines in our models. The system
design consists of machine centers and the materials handling system. The design
specification includes the reliability of the different machines, their capacities for
the each part type, and the precedence relationships. Reliability is defined as the
probability 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 process
in a given block of time. The procedure results in the computation of an expected
maximal cashflow for a given production system design and product mix which we
propose as an economic measure representing routing flexibility. We first present
the proposed procedure for the computation of the measure and then provide an
example and explain its relevante.
Consider a manufacturing system consisting of a number of machining centers
and a materials transfer system. This network can be represented by a random,
planar graph where the vertices (machining centers) are subject to failure. We
assume that the failures are independent. Models for the expected flow in networks
subject 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 can
be produced on machine k on path h.
3

• adk is the element of the arc-incidence matrix for product i indicating a connection
between machine 1 and k. The element is one if a connection exists
and 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 manufacturing
system should combine both the cardinality of the route set and the reliability
of the system. The measure we propose is the maximum expected contribution of
the system. Such a measure translates operational differences of systems into financial
terms which would be of greater use to managers evaluating various designs.
This measure can be computed by one of the following mathematical programming
models. The first model is formulated by considering flows over a given path as the
decision variable while the second model considers the flow between t.wo machines.
Path Formulation
Subject to:
RF = M AX E E ci • Xih
i h
tik
E E • X ih
i hlb,kh=1 Pk
E Xih
h
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 formulation
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 is
preferred when the network is sparse.
4

An alternative formulation is one which centers around the machine. In addition
to the previously defined variables we specify a new variable ya k to be the flow of
part i from machine I to machine k.
Machine Formulation
Subject to:
RF = MAX EEci.yiin
E Yslk E Wel = 0 V k,i (2.1)
l iata =1 lia,tà=1
E E tir
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 equivaient
to constraints (1.1) and (1.2), respectively. Constraint (2.1) is introduced in
this formulation to ensure the balance of flows, i.e. the number of units flowing
into a machine is equal to the number of units flowing out from a machine. This
formulation lias in it s worst case n•rn 2 variables and rz•m+n+m constraints. Consequently
this formulation is preferred when the network is dense. Both of the above
formulations are LP models which can be solved using a standard simplex code as
is 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 the
system is nondecreasing. We now give an example to illustrate the evaluation of
this flexibilit• measure.
2.1 An example
Let us use the procedure of the previous section to evaluate the following two
manufacturing system designs. The first system has two machines and load and
unload 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 units
Vk, d 1 = 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 3.5
2 3.5 3.4 4.9 4.0
The systems are illustrated in the following two figures, where the reliability of
the machines (pk V k) are the numbers in parentheses (i.e. the probability that
machine M1 is operating at a given point in time is 0.9 while for machine M2 it is
0.95).
(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 part
1 processed on machine 1, 67.71 units of part type 2 being processed on machine 1
and 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 of
part type 1 being processed on M3 and the processing of part type 2 being spread
out on all three machines (M1 producing 51.4 units, M2 producing 44.1 units, and
M3 producing 33.7 units).
7

It is clear from the above example, that the cardinality of the route set is insufficient
for appraising a value of flexibility. In the example, System No. 2 has a
greater number of alternative routes (a higher cardinality of the route set) but is less
preferable. Thus, reliability must be incorporated along with the number of routes
in the evaluation of a manufacturing system. One could examine the possibility of
adding more machines on to the first network by using the method described in
Wallace (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 the
proportion of the total flow along path h) for the first sample system would give
a value of 0.688, and for the second design a value of 1.07. Thus, by this measure
the second system would again seem preferable. This is clearly driven by Kumar's
assumption that an essential feature of these measures is that they be monotonically
increasing with the number of paths (and consequently has the same characteristics
as the approach given by Chatterjee et. al.).
Increasing reliability, however, does not always imply an increase in contribution
as the analysis of a more complex machine network illustrates. Let Tic = 300 time
units Vk, d2 = 10 units with the part types having the following characteristics:
P rocessing Times (ik
Part M1 M2 M3 M4 Contribution (c,)
1 3.3 3.5 4.5 3.8
3.5
2 3.5 3.4 4.9 3.9 4.0
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 1
produced on route 1 and 33.67 and 44.11 units of part 2 produced on routes 1 and
2, respectively. In this system M2 and M3 are bottlenecks, so that increasing the
reliability of any one of those machines would yield an increased contribution. If
the reliability of M2 were increased, there would initially be an increase in RF, but
beyond 0.52, M4 becomes a bottleneck and any further increase in reliability of M2
brings no added contribution. Thus the RF line for System 3 in Figure 4 becomes
flat.
9

400
300
200
100
RF
500
System 3
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Reliability of M2
FIGURE 4 - RF vs. Reliability of M2
As can be seen from Figure 4, for any given reliability of M2 system 2 generates
more contribution than either system 1 or 3. Thus, system design No. 2 stochastically
dominates both system designs 1 and 3. With equal machine reliabilities
stochastic domination provides a clear indication of the superior performance of
one design over another. Stochastic domination, however, may not always be attainable.
For example, if we increased the reliabilities of machines in system 3 we
could obtain a situation where initially RF is greater in system 3 than 1, but as the
reliability 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 different
designs will be affected by the capacities of the machines. For example, System
No.1 could stochastically dominate System No. 2 if the Tk's for design No. 1-were
raised sufficiently.
10

3 Machine Flexibility
Machine flexibility (according to Browne et. al.) is dependent on the Base with
which one can make changes in order to produce a given set of part types. One
possible measure of this form of flexibility could be the time taken to set up the
machine to perform some operation on a different part type. DeGroote (1988) has
shown that with a decrease in set up time the scope of product designs produced
efficiently increases, thus demonstrating (as Browne et. al. anticipated) how product
flexibility is dependent on machine fiexibility. Rafler and Tombak (1990) have
shown the market conditions under which this type of flexibility is desireable. In
this section we propose a measure by which alternative manufacturing systems can
be evaluated with respect to machine flexibility. Since machine flexibility is not
only built into the design of the system but is also a function of how the system is
managed, 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 tool
magazine, standardized tools, number of axes, etc." as sources of machine flexibility.
Browne et. al. suggest that the appropriate measure for machine flexibility is the
time required to: replace worn-out or broken cutting tools, to change tools in a tool
magazine, t.o assemble or mount the new fixtures required, prepare cutting tools,
position the part, and changeover the numerical control program. We have choosen
t.o concentrate on the time required to change tools in a tool magazine, the lime
required to change the tool in the machine when the tool is in the magazine, and
the time required to assemble or mount the new fixtures required. We do so because
we believe that these factors are the most significant portion of set up time in many
cases.
In order to derive a model to evaluate machine fiexibility let us define the following:
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 magazine
if the tool for part j is diffèrent from that of part i (this assumes that each
tool can be picked from the tool magazine in the same amount of time), also
v,, = 0 if the tool for part j is the same as that for part i.
11

• u„ is the time to change the fixture if the fixture for part j is different from
that of part i
• s is the time required to change a tool in the tool magazine (this is considered
the sanie for all tools since it involves picking, placing, and returning tools to
the same location).
•
•
•
zij
=
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 a
given part mix one must solve the following mathematical program. We assume that
the tool changing time is the same for all tools but the fixture changing time may be
different for each part. This is based on observations of many FMSs where the tool
size and shapes do not vary as considerably as the part geometry. Assuming that
the machines were incapable of changing fixtures and tools simultaneously machine
flexibility (MF)can be evaluated using the following nonlinear integer programming
model.
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 second
terni 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 tool
interchanges. The implicit assumption for this formulation of the objective function
is that a certain amount of time is taken for each tool change. This is true of systems
which have a large central magazine from which tools travel back and forth and it
is not economical to have large local tool magazines. The constraint (3.1) forces
one to schedule m parts for production.
Note that Y is dynamic and changes with each reconfiguration of the tool magazine.
This reconfiguration is done by placing the next q tools demanded by the
forthcoming part sequence in the tool magazine.
If the machines are capable of making tool and fixture changes in parallel, then
objective function in the above model would be:
MAX (MIN( E E 2
• -tj • .1.1
i j
- ) MIN(s bi'(1 l'fr)zy )) (3.0B)
The use of b- (1-1b ' )'" in (3.0 B) implies that there is a set up each time the tool
9
magazine is exhausted and that the parts are sequenced in the order of tool usage.
The evaluation of machine flexiblity requires the simultaneous determination of
both the part sequence and the sequence of tools. In order to focus on the set
up times associated with machine characteristics (as discussed above) and to make
our analysis tractable we assume that the sequence of parts is given. This is not
unrealistic since due dates are often exogenously given to the operations manager.
Simple heuristics can be used to solve the above problem. If both the time
required to change tools in the magazine and the time to change the tool in the
machine dominat es over the time to change fixture, a reasonable heuristic would be
to 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 let
v,, = 1 if the tool for part i is diffèrent from part j and 0 otherwise. The resulting
problem formulation using (3.0A) is
MIN E E( Zii vij • + 10 • E E yi; • zij
i 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 tools
required being A, B, C, and B, respectively. Hence the v vs are as given in the
following matrix:
0 1 1 1
1 0 1 0
1 1 0 1
1 0 1 0
where, for example, th 2 = 1 since the tool for part 1 is A and the tool for part 2 is
B, thus setting up the machine for part 2 involves a tool change. Assuming that the
fixture and tool required by the first part is already in place the above expression
is then reduced to:
MIN {6 + 10 • (Y22 + Y23 + Y34)}"
This minimization involves choosing which tools belong in the magazine at a particular
state in production. We know that, biA re b 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 6 1 ,4 = b2B = 1. In order to process part. 3
we need to reconfigure the tool magazine since it does not contain tool C. Y is reset
to 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 is
one tool change removing tool A and replacing it with tool C at a cost of s. The
objective function value, MF, would then be 16. A better solution would be the
sequence 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 MF
of 15.
In the above models we have used set up times as a surrogate measure for evaluating
the effort required to make the necessary changes to produce a given set
of parts. This allows for the comparison of various manufacturing system designs
which are capable of producing the same part mix. The models also give the capability
of measuring the effort involved in producing varions sets of parts with the
saine production system. In such a case the model must be solved for each set
of parts. Thus these models could be applied to the allocation of sets of parts to
varions plants.
14

4 Conclusion
We have provided several models for the evaluation of alternative manufacturing
system designs with respect to routing and machine flexibility. These models facilitate
the design/technology choice process by providing a link between operational
performance and economic implications.
We present two models by which routing flexibilty can be assessed. The resulting
measure is the maximum contribution in monetary terms which is easily interpreted.
These models incorporate factors such as reliability of the machines and the capacity
available for production. Machine fiexibility is assessed by the minimum set up time
required to produce a given set of parts. The utility of this measure could be seen
in choosing a design or in deciding the portfolio of part types to be produced on a
given system. This measure clearly shows that flexibility is a function of operational
considerations such as sequencing of parts and the positioning of tools. It also shows
what impact such operational decisions have on the plant finances.
Clearly further work is required to strengthen the link between operational measures
of a manufacturing system and the corresponding impact on a firm's financial
status. hout models defining such links managers will continue to have difficulty
assessing investments which contribute to a firm's manufacturing flexibility. Operational
measures of the other types manufacturing flexibility eg. process, product.,
volume, etc.. also need to be developed. Finally. relationships between the different
types of fiexibility need to be more clearly established.
15

References
Aneja, Y., and K. Nair, 1980. "Maximal expected flow in a network subject to arc
failures", Networks, Vol. 10, pp. 45-57.
Aneja, Y., and K. Nair, 1982. "Multicommodity network flows with probabilistic
losses", 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. "Classification
of flexible manufacturing systems", The FMS Magazine, April, pp. 114-117.
Buzacott, J., 1982. "The fundamental principles of flexibility in manufacturing
systems", Proceedings of Me lst International Conference on Flexible Manufacturing
Systems, Brighton, U.K., (20- 22 October).
Chatterjee. A.. M. Cohen, W. Maxwell, 1984. "Manufacturing flexibility: Models
and measurements", Prodceedings of Me 2nd International Conference on Flexible
Manufacturing Systems, Detroit, MI.
DeGroote, X., 1988. "The manufacturing/marketing interface", Wharton Decision
Sciences Working Paper No. 88-09-06.
Gupta, Y.P., and S. Goyal, " Flexibility of Manufacturing Systems: Concepts and
Measurements", 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", International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 25, No. 7, pp 957-966.
Mandelbaum, M., 1978. "Flexibility in decision making: an exploration and unification",
Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
11511er L-H. and M. Tombak, 1990. "Strategic choice of flexible production technologies
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", forthcoming
in: International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems.
16

Swamidass, P., 1988. "Manufacturing flexibility", Operations Managment Association
Monograph No. 2 (Jan.).
Wallace, S., 1987. "Investing in arcs in a network to maximize the expected max
flow", 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

111r4
16101 Arnoul DE MEYER
$6/02 Philippe A. NAERT
Mutai WEVERBER011
and Guide VERSWUVEL
86103 Michael BRAM
$6/04 Spyros MAKRIDAK1S
and Michèle H1BON
86/05 Charles A. WYPLOSZ
86/04 Frincesee OIAVAll1,
leff R. SHEEN end
Charles A. WYPLOSZ
86/07 Douglas L. MacLACHLAN
and Spyros MAIOUDAKIS
116/40 lord de la TORR/1 and
David H.NEC1CAR
86/09 Philippe C. HASPISLA011
•Parmalliss matirai ridas fer
inienatienal 'pendions', Second Draft: Mach 3.
1986.
"Caneeplardlais the *nt* portereee
dhersilled Berna: the reine and mature ef Me
empan» kellneme primes". Februmy 1986.
86/10 R. MOENART. •Anairin& the Mme temerine
Annuel DE MEYER. technologies' demalurity".
J. BARBE and
D. DESCHOOLMEESTER.
IIMARMAKINMEIZISME5 86/11 Philippe A. NAERT •hm •Lydienne," te •Pinklnnisetien•r
and Alain BULTEZ miapeeNjirl elidedishmt *maties rade
affecta prordeffstr.
'The R & D/Production interface".
•Suldertive estimation M integrating
tenemmientimi budast and amaties
decisimm: • une ande. lsnuary 1986.
•Speneerthip and the tiffueitie of orgenisational
Innevatier: a prefuninary rieur•
•Cenlideare Intervale,: an empirkel
investiestien fer the serins M the M-Compatitian".
nste en the redut-dm ef the werkweek",
luly 1985.
"The nal an imite rale and Hm fierai
mem& ef a eatend remonte diennere,
Revised version: Fenian 1986.
"Jedloweei Mme M ides fent satine
February 1986.
86112 Roser BETANCOURT
and David GAUTSCHI
R6/I3 S.P. ANDERSON
and Damien NEVEN
86/14 Charles WALDMAN
86/15 Mihkel TOMBAK and
Arnaud DE MEYER
86/16 B. Eapen ECKBO end
Henvig M. LANOOHR
06/17 David B. IEMISON
86/18 lames TEBOUL
and V. MALLERS!'
86/19 Rob R. WElTZ
86/20 Albert CORHAY.
Gabriel HAWAWINI
and Pierre A. MICHEL
04/21 Albee CORHAY,
Gabriel A. HAWAWINI
and Pierre A. MICHEL
66/22 Albee CORHAY,
Gabriel A. HAWAWINI
and Pierre A. MICHEL
April 1986.
meneenice d niait Mas", Revised
•Spatial emapetitiesa à le Cannet".
"Cempandeen internatieraele dm marial bridas In
tassante", lune 1983.
"Hem the memserial attitudes ef fines nier
PINS iller from semer manuthaterine lInns:
earvey reenkedune 1986.
L. plume des offre milients. In mie
enfermai« et le eme•W dm inonder& de
«Math dm mciltde.
"Strate* capaidIty Menefer M arenérithe
Minutiers", May 1986.
"Tema* eperatiend deBodlar ef
servies". 1986.
•Neserathwt a tawdolge-batel
faveratiag adviees•.
'The priekte «made eue lie Lanka steak
44491•11e: eemensity and sine pestinse,
lune 1986.
Itisk-promis se mari M U.S. and
European «in markets", Penny 1986.
•Seasomity in the risk-cairn relatienr&ips
sente international evideme", luly 1986.

86/23 Arnaud DE MEYER
86/24 David OAUTSCH1
and Wilde R. RAO
86/25 H. Pater GRAY
and Ingo WALTER
$6/26 Barry EICHENOREEN
and Charles WYPLOSZ
96/27 Karel COOL
and Immun DIERICIOC
•An mderstary Mudy NI the «Migration of
infime« Min» mannfactnrins•,
July 1986.
"A molhoriaMsy for apecinution and
asgreption product concept festins",
My 1986.
"Protection", Muguet 1986.
"Tbe montamic comeseemes of the Franc
foinean •, September 1986.
"Nasse, rith-return rektionshipe is
imminem etnutegy: pendu er treuil?•,
October 1986.
86/28 Manfred RETS DB VRIES "Interpelins afflanhational Mats.
and Demy MILLER
86/29 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
Manfred KETS DE VRIES
86/31 Arnaud DE MEYER
Arnold DE MEYER,
NAKANE.
Jeffrey G. MILLER
and Km« FERDOWS
86/32 Karel COOL
and Den SCHENDEL
86/33 Enlai BALTENSPERGER
and 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 inondas
fmancial etabBity: • crono-country,
comparative perspective", Angola 1986.
Revieed November 1986.
86/31 Philippe HASPESLAOH
and David JEMISON
16/35 Jean DERMINE
86/36 Albert CORHAY and
Gabriel H AWAWINI
86/37 David GAUTSCHI and
Roger BETANCOURT
86/38 Gabriel HAWAWINI
86/39 Gabriel HAWAWINI
Plerve MICHEL
and Albert CORHAY
86/10 Chacun WYPLOSZ
86/41 Kami FERDOWS
and Maltant SKINNER
86142 Kaon FERDOWS
and Per LINDBERG
16/13 Demi« NEVEN
86/14 Ingemar DIERICIOC
1987
Carmen MATUTE.%
and Damien NEVEN
17/01 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
•Atenisitionn mythe and redite, July 1986.
•Mermarins the mark« vaine of a bank, a
primer', November 1986.
"Sommally Ibo rielt-rstome
men. Mtenmtiond evidence", July 1986.
evolobinn af «Mi«
atome Intermetalion".
"Plnendal innovatins nul ment
ihmelopeonts in the Firme eapll marint•,
Updated: Semember 1916.
•Ibo pians «tomme elloths on On
11rnmele Melk onciamsof • renemeinatian of
the «idem", Novernber1986.
capital Boum ilbendlimilm »d the EMS, a
rmcb parometive•. Dmernber 1916.
"Manulatterins ln a mn perepeetive,
1986.
•PMS aI indicalar et mehrturis
obfflese, December 1916.
Y« en efielnum of Nmillinium in
hote/fing's nyder, November 1916.
"'Vains aidai tem end tammtilies",
December 1916.
•Priennere of leadenddp•.

*7/02 Claude VIALLET 'An spirleal ration of international
87/03 David CIAUTSCIII
end Visitais RAO
071$1 Sumatra GHOSHAL and
Christopher BARTLEIT
07/05 Arnold DE MEYER
end Kaon FERDOWS
07/06 Anie K. SAIN,
Chrietian PINSON and
Nam* K. MALHOTRA
07/07 Rolf RANZ and
Gabriel HAWAW1NI
B7/00 Manfred KETS DE VIUES
07/09 Lister VICKERT,
Mort PILIUNOTON
end Paul READ
87/10 André LAURENT
B7/11 Robert FILDES nad
Syros MAKTUD/UCD
87/12 Fernando BART:NAM
and André LAURENT
07/13 Sumantra OHOSHAL
and Nitin NOHRIA
87/14 Lundi. GABEL
muet priebe •, November 1986.
'A naelbodology fer specifitation and
agentgation i product concept testine,
Revised Vernon: Jenuery 1987.
•OrganizIng fer ismovatiews: ose of the
andtinational corporation', Februery 1987.
•Managerial focal points in manuftetering
einem•, Febtuary 1987.
•Cultswer loyally as a constnet in the
marketing of banian services", July 1986.
Meade peins rd stock mue«
anentaire, Febfuery 1987.
'leaders Mis tiret manage, Februery 1987.
•Enhepresewrial activities of European
MEM% Marat 1987.
'A tubard view of erganiantional change,
Mach 1987
"PawastIng and lem Assetions•, Match
1987.
"Ife Janea Head: lemming houe the superinr
and onbordinate faces of the nunamer's Joe.
Apeil 1987.
•Multinatimed corperatiens as differentiated
sfflorliO, April 1987.
•Predert Standards and Cotupetitive
Strategy: An M'Iris of the Principle •. May
1987.
*7/15 Spyroe MA/CRIDAKIS
87/16 Susan SCHNEIDER
and Roger DUNBAR
87/17 André LAURENT and
Fernando BARTOLOME
07/111 Reinhard ANGEIMAR and
auietoph LIEBSCHER
*7/19 David BE00 end
Charles WYPLOSZ
T7/20 Spyroe MAKIUDAKIS
87/21 Susan SCHNEIDER
87/22 Sumo SCHNEIDER
87123 Roger BETANCOURT
David OAUTSCHI
07/24 C.B. DERR end
André LAURENT
II7/25 A. K. SAIN,
N. K. MALHOTRA and
Christian PINSON
S7/26 Roger BETANCOURT
end David GAUTSCHI
111ETAPORECASTING: Won of Improving
ForeceatIng. Aemsracy and Usefalnese,
May 1987.
°Tabo►« attoopts: what dom the hulguage
tell .7, lune 1987.
'Ampers' cognitive nue fer npwaml and
dovnnvand relatienehipe, lune 1987.
•Patate and the Empesa Itietechuiegy
bri: a nady of largo European phannaesutical
firme, lune 1987.
'Why the EMS? Dynamite Ore and de
equillbrim paie rugine, May 1987.
'A new approads ft Mattatleal fertertia•,
lune 1987.
"Strategy Temandedbless Ihe impact ennemi
collnr •, Revimd: Isly 1987.
•Connielble lamaient structurel and
nudivotienal conengunces•, Anna 1987.
'ne dormi Ter rad prulacts and the
bonashotil prodattion ami* rem *wu an
complensentarigr end enhatitntablity".
'Ibo neural end Marra «net
theeendeal and creaucalbsral perspective,
Sein 1987.
rolseelnam of MDS canfleamtions
the face of inconeldete date, Marat 1987,
Revised: Italy 1987.
"Denuend trompemeaaritien, hmehold
production and ratai araortmente, Italy
1987.

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•,
Jonathan HAMILTON
W. Dentier MACLEOD
and 1. F. TRISSE
Martine QUINZII and
I. F. TRISSE
Arnaud DE MEYER
Yves DOZ Mid
Amy SHUEN
Kano FERDOWS and
Arnoud DE MEYER
P. 1. LEDERER end
J. F. TRISSE
Manfred KETS DE VRIES
Lundis LABEL
Susan SCHNEIDER
Auge« 1987.
Gabriel HAWAWINI •Centreibm lbe interesteste risk of banda
ne introduction te dorades amines and
imenaniandoe aramides". September 1987.
Soma SCHNEIDER and •Interpretinsi alrategir behevior: basic
Pad SHRIVASTAVA asemptions amen in erannisatioes",
September 1987
"Spatial compeRtion and the Core". Auge«
1987.
'On üe eptionality of certnd rimes",
September 1987.
*Germa. Plomb and Bridai manefecterinsr
Malades Mue different than one Baas",
September 1987.
•A mem frennewerk fer atudydas
couperai» between fines', September 1917.
"%reps» manefarturers: the anearli
templatency. letiebts froc 6.19117
European naminfacturina Ratures survey".
October 1987.
•Compeddve Mention en netwerks ander
distrimMatery September 1987.
'Primer' ef leadership', Revised version
October 1987.
"Privadsstion: Its motives nad likely
cessernmeres", October 1987.
"Strategy forundaten: the impact of Mimai
culture", October 1987.
87/39 Manfred KETS DE VRIES
87/40 CUIR« MATUTES and
Pierre REGIBEAU
87/41 Gabriel HAWAWINI end
Claude VIALLET
87/42 Damien NEVEN and
Jacques-F. TRISSE
87/43 Jean GABSZEWICZ and
Jacques-F. TRISSE
87/44 locution HAMILTON,
lacquerF. TRISSE
and Anita WESKAMP
87/43 Karel COOL,
David JEMISON and
Intenter DIERICRX
87/46 Werner DIERICIC7C
and Karts COOL.
*8/01 Michel LAWRENCE and
Spyme MAKRIDAKIS
88/03 Spyros MAICRIDAKIS
88/03 lame. TEBOUL
"The da* dde of CEO anceendoe,
November 1987.
"Piedra emeasdbillty and die seepe of
entre, November 1987.
•Sereerity. ire proche and tbe
relationabip between tbe rirk and die retenu
of Freneb comme docks*, November 1987
"Cenatinias bednental nad vertical
differesdadon: de @dorlote of nias-sain
differestintion", December 1987.
"Leention", December 1987.
`Spatial diarimimilent Bertrand vs.
Courant in • needef urbanisa cheire".
December 1987.
•Iledems stridor, roba Medan and
Yak-rotent reintisardipat a taud
interpolation% December 1987.
•Ami Onk anemeuldien rad santdeabillly
ef compotidire advantage% December 1987.
•Faelese affadis birman' fanera and
confidence intervele, 1•1111/117 1988.
•Predktith recarder rd aber ternies
peinas', %mari I988.
"Deindeatriallse senke fer mongte, lenuary
1988.

88104 Sua« SCHNEIDER
88/05 Charles WYPLOSZ
88/06 Reinhard ANCELAIAR
88/07 Ingmar DIERICIOC
and Karel COOL
811/011 Roinhard ANGELMAR
and 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 end
Lars•Hendrik RÔLLER
Pladonsi vs. corporal* rdtore: implications
fer Imam ramure. managemen •, lanuary
1988.
Mn mirer dollar: le Hampe out of
de •, lamary 1988.
"Les melte dam lee maux de
tishilertion", lanuary 1988.
▪ Coameddve
advantage: a remue baud
rentrertiv •, lenuary 1988.
"hues in die ready of orrsalzational
rogaltion •, February 1918.
' rire fonneso and validai denier dame
biaise February 1918.
.-hostos envase dandard matira
ire fenns", Febmary 1988.
•Mea stermary Mute/ as ore ordlibrium
bien Mater: ne siude-rreniat
properte, February 1988.
"Beim anns Md mafflu in the 21st
restore, Fsbnary 1918
•AledlIqualn i orenalsodund Ife: the
orrarisation man revis:te •, Febnary 1988.
"MW inlarrutesa of straleides: m ready of
the hume of CHO. on the
...pends.", Mach 1988.
'The pruhation of and retenu from
inthatrial karinatiso: un er000metric
itnalysis for • oleveloping country. December
1987.
*8/16 Gabriel HAWAWINi
68/17 Miami BURDA
88/18 Michael BURDA
88/19 Mi. LAWRENCE and
Spyros MAKRIDAKIS
88/20 Jean DERMINE,
Damien NEVEU and
1.F. THISSE
88/21 lames TEBOUL
88/22 Larreendrik RÔLLER
88/23 Sjur Didrik FLAM
and Georges ZACCOUR
88/24 B. Barn EC1C110 and
Herrig LANOOHR
88/25 Evert« S. OARDNER
and Spyms MAKRIDAKIS
oMM« eflkinary and rode pritiott
internadond «Mense and Impliratisas for
global invendue Mach 1988.
•Monorollstie tonsreddon, tub of
nenboent and de labre« of European
sploymene, September 1987.
•Itellecdons an rame Compliquant" In
Farop •, November 1987, revised Fermi?,
1988.
•Inolvédkul Mao lek...mente of
maddeare", Marck 1988.
•Fortfeo selortion boy merl Bade, an
annilibdua mode, Mach 1918.
"Doindulrldise amies fer onnie, Marck
1980 018/03 Ruile.
"Power Quendiellidellus lei ta
Aveulira Io AT&T•, May 1987 (Radia
Marck 198111.
•Errallirat de Narbeaarast dmu h rarreld
ernpdnaduImsenehlssbdoner
lamie ouverte d • furia& rollaridtar,
Mars 1988.
• airratadon &dure, mur of Mme
takeover 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« eirdlibrion
end George. ZACCOUR multatage eropolies•, April 1988.

84/27 Murupppa KRISHNA/4
Lare-Hendrik RÔLLER
88/24 Sumatra OHOSHAL and
C. A. BARTLETT
11/29 Nared K. MALHOTRA,
awiallan PINSON and
Mun K. /MN
48/34 Catherine C. ECKEL
and Theo VERMAELEN
11/31 Sumatra OHOSHAL
Chriatopher BARTLETT
W32 Kant PERDOWS and
David SACKRIDER
88/33 Matkel M. TOMBAK
88/34 Moltke! M. TOMB«
88/33 Mihkel M. TOMBAC
88/M Vikas IIIIREWALA sud
Bmee BUCHANAN
88/37 Mu:nappa KRISHNAN
Lars-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 dm
ion-, -nallity of atultidianensional «an
twelkenratieas", May 1988.
"bu flonelal fanent from Chernoby1:
pereeptlent and remdatory romane", May
1988.
*Cemaina, adeptIon, anal «frima of
Innoreatione by onboidiariat of amdlinatiotud
corporatime, lune 1988.
"hatermationd mannfortoring: politise/4
enta for surcem", lune 1988.
"111e Importance of lieribility In
raanufarterino•, lune 1988.
Medblity: r important drerir
alannfarearkedune 19M.
'A etratecir mir* of inmehnent ln
mannforinries ristenne, luly 19118.
•A Perdre* Test of the NID Model that
Controls 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.
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
Manfred KETS DE VRIES
Jouet LAKONISHOK
The° VERMAELEN
Charles WYPLOSZ
Paul EVANS
B. SINCLAIR-DESOAONt
Emin: MAHMOUD end
Spyros MAKRIDA/CIS
Robert KORAICZYK
and Claude VIALLET
Yves DOZ and
Amy SHUEN
Main BULTEZ,
Els OUSBRECHTS,
Philippe NAERT and
Net VANDEN ABEELE
Miehael BURDA
Nadudie DIERKENS
Rob WEITZ and
Arnoud DE MEYER
Rob WEITZ
"Ifs Leader d Mines : abdeal
Reflertioan •, My 1988.
*Amadeu mire Wieder moud
remneene tuer offers", Moud 1981.
•Aasymetry i Ope 8413: intentimal or
metannier, Mou« 1988.
"Orominadomi *Memnon in the
tramnaeland enterprie, lune 19M.
'Grum amidon enomet mer limplanal
Bamako rationality", Septembor 1988.
"Ife MM of am art aml fatum iridium
emaldning foremate, September 1988.
"Am omphirtdioniadenlim of illerrdarl
saut pridme. November 1986, reviesd
Auge« 1988.
'Tram Meut Io mime« orgeat
frameiverk fer partnerdhlp •, Auge« 1988.
*Amman** amis bamum mhellane
leente baud by retallers•. September 1988.
Itellertleme an 'Wall anomploymene ln
Umm, II •, Amal 1988 revient &member
1988.
• alionnatien noyer dry ad Mably
leptember 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 and
Rehdiand ANOELMAR
88/53 Manfied KETS DB VRIES
98154 Lam-Hendrik RÔLLER
and Mihkel M. TOMBAK
1/a►S5 Peter BOSSAERTI
and Piero H111.10.4
88/S6 Piero MILLION
Uni Wilfried VANDONACKER
and Lydie PRICE
Martin IOLDUPP
Michiel BURDA
88/61 Lam-Hendrik RÔLLER
IWO Cynthia VAN HUILE,
Theo VERMAELEN and
Paul DE WOUTERS
°Cogailisn Bad organizationd aria
SM% mirbane the none?", September 1988.
'Animer lhappened to the piaompher-
idng: the leader% addiction t. power,
September 1988.
g ale* choke of flexible /induction
technologies end wdfare implicatione.
October 19U
' Matha of memsts tees «contingent
char met priciae BI ode , October 1988.
linemeted portfolios and the violation a
tue randiser malt hymalmain Adntional
empirical evidence and inptication for tests
et omet /ricins modela•, Une 190.
"Dota transferabillIty: meknating ne rumine
affect of Daum 'venin haned on Inamical
»Mg •, October 1918.
1181511 B. SINCLAIR-DESOAONE •Asseming œmen* inegniatity", November
and Mâtai M. TOMBAK 1988.
"Ibo iMormemeal structure of decidon
mainte: ■ mariol eomparlana approach ta
organnationai choke, November 1988.
lis Mamie rosit the /signe Sors
estimais of the Chenard Gate 11 mode.
with US tiot •, September 1988.
"ModeOng mot sinstare: the Bel System
mente'. November 190.
lieselation, taos and the matit« for
corporste control in Belgium% September
1988.
88/63 Fernando NASCIMENTO
and Wilfried R.
vANNONACKER
88/61 Kant.. FERDOWS
88/65 Arnoud DE MEYER
and Kami FERDOWS
88/66 Nathalie DIERKENS
88/67 Paul S. ADLER and
Kami FERDOWS
89/01 Joyce K. BYRER and
Tanit JELASSI
8913 Louis A. LE BLANC
end Tolet /ELASSI
89/03 Bette H. JONES and
Tawfik IELASSI
89/04 Kaon FERDOWS and
Amoud DE MEYER
89/05 Manin KILDUFP and
Reinhard ANOELMAR
89/06 Mihkel M. TOMBAK and
B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNE
' Strate* pattue of differentiated camus
durables ha a dyminde dnopoly: a numerkel
analysle, October 19U.
°Chu/4 *Mak reins fer isiernational
facteriee, December 190.
"Quality lm, technology dons', October 190
"A diression af sari nomnares
hdonsation ansymetryt the example of litera
Mid %Our Bodel or the importance af the
sas« stintinni et the lin", December 1988.
▪ chier lechnelogy affinera, December
1988.
"Ibo impact seing*. tinerim en DSS
Daine". Item,
•DSS mftwere adieliens a melple Misti
*chien mulhedelege, lemary 1989.
ntiegetishm emport: the offerts oftimpnler
intemention and amati 1nd en bargaiing
senne, /smog 1989.
'Ladin impniemont ka monnfachning
peelormancs In mann of a mn theary",
January 1919.
•Slareell hiaerry er dure «Nue? The
effets of *se, enitwe, and performance on
institntionatiation in inniated
organization •, boum 1989.
"Coordinating mannfaciarieg and haine«
strategies: l e, February 1989.

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 renie
Isanidie. Some rien from industrial
ermaisatIon°, lanuary 1989.
•Tree in Me ambrant* ef nehmen
and Meir offerte en the menacerai structure
in 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 when
Me data ma subject te raffermi temporal
neigniatien •January 1989.
• lbe hamar indemne: a die:pieds,
pismanenen In evandostimal KW, February
1989.
Tree« imentient • rail fer nanntieve
advautage•, Match 1989.
nivalleseg a en.% melba imeraden
perfennam •, Match 1989.
°Cembhdai rend and averse data in hum
nprenden made, Felnuary 1989.
•Chreereet ersaufsationnel et nonne
cullundlem 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 VANHONACIŒR
end Rumen WINER
89/21 Arnaud de MEYER end
Kama FERDOWS
89/22 Manfred Kiffs DE VRIES
and Sydney PERZOW
89/23 Robert KOltAJCZYK and
Claude VIALLEF
89/24 Martin KILDUFP end
Mitchel 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 ad
jrnst-weeness: !Mary sud evidence•,
Match 1989.
°C..endidep relent and amuse data in laser
rearanien medeb", Revised Match 1989.
•A rader. rendent Minier muid st
einice•, Revised Match 1989.
▪ Idiome
.f matarlerhe inprevemen
Putronamee r pselennance°, April 1989.
•WhatlaOnreMefcharatter In
pricheandyeld• April 1989.
°Tapie Mt menin Mi the prieMs ef
fente mem. NOM' April 1989.
secW daignant et mater
Ormainatlensi tmellat r triai draina•
zApril 1989.
•Tem ammed chanweerblin ef retall
madone end Meir eznennic cememumes•
Match 1989.
"Meeremenseeie /Mes far 1993: en
transition end iller", Apte 1989.
°Prientithip pattenn end cubera,
attendue: the centrai ef ernanizadenal
ennity*, April 1989.
°TM Interpereenal etranere ef deciden
.rein: a ucW csiaparben sperme te
ereenisational chaire', Revised April 1989.

89/29 Robert 000E1. and
leen-Claude LARRECHE
89/30 Lare-Hendrik ROLLER
and M'artel M. TOMBAK
89/31 Mielres1 C. BURDA and
Stefan OERLACH
89/32 Peter HAUO end
Tarrlik lELASSI
89/33 Bernard SINCLAPI-
DESGAGNÉ
89/34 Sumatra OHOSHAL and
Nittin NOHRIA
89/35 Jean DERMINE and
lemme H1LLION
89138 Martin ICILDUPP
Manfred ms rel VRIES
89138 Manfred RETS DE VRIES
89/39 Robert KORAICZYK and
Claude VIALLET
89/40 Bele CHAKRAVARTHY
89/41 B. SINCLAIR-DESOAONE
and Nathalie DIERKENS
fer 1992: po dort strennth
ad asegraphle tonnage, May 1989.
*compaties and lairentment ire Fleade
Teelmelegiee, May 1989.
latertemnameal prima and Ume US trade
balance i durable anode, luly 1989.
'Apolealina and «dundee of a muid-
«Beria derinlen support system for the
dynanie section of U.S. ananufactarina
locations% May 1989.
*Dada. attelle i monapermirtie
isdnetriee, May 1989.
•Repiden varlety venus idlared rem:
arammeinst emporattrividen relationships
the M-Forer ergeniudiee, May 1989.
•Depeall rate eau. and the merls« value
ef 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 a
leader% balaie, May 1989.
CIZO Nase, /une 1989.
•A. melte! heelednathan of Ineernatimmed
met prieine, (Revised lune 1989).
"Illnanetement mass for inmevaden and
prodnethim", lune 1989.
"le strate:rie napply of preridene, lune
1989.
89/42 Robert ANSON and
TarrEk /ELASSI
89/43 Miami BURDA
89/44 %lep CHARRAVARTHY
and Peler LORANCE
89/43 Rob wEnz and
Atimoud DE MEYER
89/46 Marcel CORSTIENS,
Carmen MATUTES end
Damien NEVEN
89/47 Manfred RETS DE VRIEI
and Martine MEAD
89/48 Damien NEVER and
Lat.-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-baisa
finne•, lune 1989.
Itfrarmairea minet systems: a framewarit and
rare saide, lune 1989.
•Fatry Enersaregeasert*, Mi 1989.
nte elsbd chai_ i lenderoldp and
araandratima Yawl tad eautroverdee, April
1989.
• bamper inlesmiles and Inde filme,
Aue« 1989.
num emintry emitraf and archal
marealline, July 1989.
apedallbaslian lof Ineneini inatiludem.
the EF tender. Amena 1919.
'Mas dandatient a nem nomma& te dore
taries foraemtlat •, luly 1919.
•Sherlimhe devalipment mie Umm s
mannfarturee's perspective, Aue« 1989.
"V/by enadrYaa werhar, luly 1989.
•Oramehmdm cab and a theam 'U MM
emmure, September 1989.

89/33 H. SCHUITE ellurambpateme enaperatien in information 89/67 Peter BOSSAERTS and "Morisot nderoslrechne efforts g
119/36 Wilfried VANHONACICER
end Lydie PRICE
technology", Septale« 1989. (FIN) Pierre HILIJON pamenmaant inerrmatIon i am Foreign
'On As penclical neefimis of metrantalyids
malts", Septenéer 1989.
89/37 Taeiwon KIM. 'Market yen» end the &fusion of
Lare-Hendrik RÔLLER
end Madre! TOMBAK
im
randtimmanct tatnalogies", september 1989. 90/01
TM/EP/AC
enchonge men• December 1989.
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
89/39
(OB)
Manfred KETS DE VUES,
Mena ZEVADI.
Main NOEL end
Mihkel TOMBAK
"Locus of eanbrol and entrepremenrelip: a
Manufachnins Enaploymenr, humary 1990.
thrmstemdry comparative nue, October 90/03 Arnaud DE MEYER "Mannimaent of Conmmokation In
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.
Arnold DE MEYER •Tothnnlopy Mutin and haternationd RAD
opersitione, October 1989.
89/63 Enver YUCESAN end •Erpdvaiste of simulations: A empli
90/06 Gabriel HAWAWINI and "Inétpraden of Emplie Eger Mark*:
FIN/EP Eric RA1ENDRA hapliestimaa of StrutInnd Champ fer Roy
Market harticipmis te and Boyard 1992",
lenway 1990.
(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 grue
(TM) Los SCIIRUBEN litteretir spnrancr, November 1989.
FIN/EP Finie an the Tally, Stock Enthannee,
lareary 1990.
90/08 Tewfik IELASSI end "Modales MOI MCDSS: What Ment
89/611 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.
89/66 B. SINCLAIR-DESOAGNÉ 'On dee reemIntion of prontreneent
90/09
EP/FIN
Alberti) GIOVANNINI
end lm WON PARK
"Capital Controls and Internadand Trade
nome, lenuary 1990.
(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 Sereines
90/1I Enver YUCESAN A. Ovitirview of Free/une Demis FIN Ingo WALTER industry M the 1990%•, Febnury 1990.
TM Methedeleuy fer Fridetion Sensitivity
90/12
EP
Annlyeis°,1enuery 1990. 90122 >go WALTER •Enrayer Phineriel Inburnien Iii
FIN Impludem fer the United States•, Februery
Mich»! BURDA °Structurel Channe, Unemployment Bene%
end He Unemployieent: A U.S.-Europe..
Comprisse, Jenuary 1990. 90/23 Damien NEVEN •EEC Inhoretien tem* 1992: Seine
EP/SM Distribetiend Aspects', Revieed December
90/13 Soundtre DUTTA end •Appnenniete Remuais shoot Teeepend 1919
TM Shan SNEXIIAR Ceentreints in Red Timm Planeing end
90114 Albert ANOEFIRN end •Vbend Inlerodive Modelling and Intelligent
TM Hune-lekob LOTIII DU: Punies Theory bite Pm-tir •, lanuary
Senreledenuery 1990. 90/24 Lare Tyge NIELSEN ondes Poires M CAJT •, lenuery 1990.
1990.
FIN/EP
90125
F1N/EP
1990.
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 and
TM Dirk DESCHOOMBESTER.
FIN
90117
PIN
Rudy MOENAERT end
len BARBE
Peines Uni with • Mature Terbeeieme,
Imam 1990.
Richard LEVICH end "Te-DrIven Reinletery Dru: European
hep WALTER
Phimdel Canters in the 1990r •, hum
011/BP Miami BRIMM the Unilingue of Simien Neturke,
Febreary 1990.
90/27 Abbe. FOROUOHI and •NSS Seledeuefflor Nelolloills
TM TIWEk IELASSI Stimilhe FihnergY 1990.
1990. 90/28 Arnaud DE MEYER •Ibe Men.-etielep Cellbibldiel .0
TM Innemnee, Febreery 1990.
Nathalie DIERKENS •bdiermotien Asymmetry end &mie Imu&,
Wilfried VANHONACICER libnagenel Deriden Raies mn the
Renon lemery 1990. 90/29 Nathalie DIEJUCENS •A Dfieneelen of Courut Miment 'f
F1N/AC Infeemoden Paymenetry°, boum 1990.
MKT Fainutius ef Dynensie Soles Rumen» 90/30 Lars Tyge NIELSEN •ni Eipud.d Urne of Pernelhe of
Medele•, 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,
9001
TM
Tevlik IELASSI,
Gregory KERSTEN and
retenue 1990.
A. Intredurilen to Green Deriden end
Nesetietion Support', February 1990.
MKT/F,P
90/32
Stanley ZIONTS 90/33
SM
OB
Roger BETANCOURT
Sriniveme BAUX-
R1SHNAN and
Mitchell KOZA
Cana SIEHL,
David BOWEN and
Chridine PEARSON
Febniery 1990.
ledeuentien Asyrunetry, Adverse &bedon
und bint-Venturem Minou land Endure,
Revieed, leneary 1990.
9be Rob of Rites of Ineepreden M Service
D'aveu°, Mue 1990.

90/34
FIN/El
Jean DERP40411 •llse Gala houe European Beaddem
Integratiem, ■ Cal fer • PrmArtive
Compila» Tobey", April 1990.
9W45 Soinnitre DUTTA end "baggerelina) Che li guai mi Rde lame
TM Piero BONtSSONB Reasealag: The reedbilietle Ceemedg•,
May 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,
Servie rentaethe Attente.
Raviaed Mareh 1990. 90/47 Lydie PUCE and
"limpepur Shen h Nagerai
MET Wilfried VANHONACKER Erprrl. i. IhathiengIhe 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 Reheigths
Th1/011/SM Apormait te Open the Peasibles", April Perteniugu •, hue 1990.
1990.
Nin Wilfried VANHONACKER "Mmeguriai flw1 Behneimar nad the
90/49
TM
Sommital MITA *Appradrw msweil bY Auber le
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 Rhee
EP 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 flaira
90/40 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.
911141 Oebriel HAWAWIN/,
'Ciel Martel Rame« te the
FIN
FIN/EP bah* SWARY 'ad
Anammammall et Intentai. Baddag
lk IMAN JANO
Ledelatlee, Mme 1990.
Michael Bada "IL Caregusees et Germa Rhum*
EP
ad Megutary Ude.• hes 1990.
90142 lled STEMM mad
•CheeValklegiug Ithrehieg Modela à
MRT Wilfried YANHONACICER Meekeile. Renearele, Oteviaed April 1990). 90/S4 Modem NEVEM and Faverter flurdel Reesialigh A
Fe 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.
90144
OB
Oillee AMADO,
*Ontamiontional Change and Cadlwal
Claude FAUCHEUX end
Realities: Frame-Ameritam Contrasta• , April
André LAURENT 1990.
90/55 Michael BURDA and geégeteupend Prie« ad the US Trade
EP Stefan GERLACH Balant •, (Revieed Italy 1990).

90156 Damien NEVEN and "The Structure and Deternmituinb of East-West
EP Lars-Hendrik RÔLLER Tntde: A Prelintinary Analysis of the
Manufacturing Sector*, July 1990
90/57 Lars Tyge NIELSEN Comma Knowledge of a Multivariate Aggregate
FINIE?! Statistic", July 1990
ni
90158 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 and
FIN Lars-Hendrik RÔLLER Scope in the French Mutuel Fonds (SICAV)
Industry", Augure 1990
90/601 Peri IZ and "An IMeractive Group Decision Aid for
TM Tawfik IELASSI Multiobjective Protden►s: An Enspatical
Assument', Semember 1990