Supply Chain Evaluation Using SCOR Model Case Study of Kia Electrode Shargh Co.

Proper supply chain performance plays a key role in the success of an organization and the sustainable achievement of its goals, and in particular its profitability. In this regard, the establishment of a supply chain assessment system is recommended to identify the weaknesses and continuous improvement. Before starting the recovery process, having a clear picture of the existing supply chain structure as well as the current method of carrying out all of the procedures and related activities is essential. Therefore, there is a need for a strong and complete instrument to support the identification and evaluation phase of the supply chain. In this context, there are several models in which the Supply Chain Reference Model (SCOR) is a valuable tool for this purpose. The SCOR model has been introduced as a reference process model that includes technical terms, definitions and terms, and measurement metrics that explain the standard processes and adapt supply chain activities to the best practices that are nowadays a very useful technique for managers. In this paper, we evaluate the supply chain of the Kia Electrode Shargh Company based on the SCOR model. Based on this, it is first necessary to study and explain the various aspects of the evaluation based on the SCOR model. The evaluation indicators are developed and evaluated by the Kia Electrode East Company. In this research, questionnaires were designed based on the third level indicators of the SCOR model and the values ​​of the indicators were measured by qualitative Likert scale. The questionnaires were completed in cooperation with the experts and staff of the Kia Electrode Shargh Company, customers and suppliers of the company. Then, the data obtained from the questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS software. Finally, the results of the statistical analysis of the data indicate that Kia Electrode Shargh has an appropriate status in terms of performance evaluation in three indexes of reliability, agility and cost, and in two indicators of accountability and asset management is inappropriate and should be improved.