A Proposed Framework in Developing Sustainable Manufacturing Initiatives Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37266/ISER.2015v3i1.pp7-16Abstract
This paper proposes an evaluation framework of input elements in developing sustainable manufacturing (SM) initiatives using the hierarchical structure of sustainability indicators set developed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (US NIST) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Determining priority input elements in the development process is essential to ensure that SM initiatives are responsive to the demands of sustainability at firm level. This evaluation exposes a challenge due to the multi-criteria nature of the problem and the presence of subjective criteria with limited available information on their measurement systems. The use of AHP in the context of the hierarchical structure of the US NIST sustainability indicators set provides a comprehensive and promising approach in identifying fundamental inputs in developing effective programs and initiatives that address sustainability. The contribution of this work lies on presenting a framework that could guide decision-makers, in a way that is simple and comprehensive, in their attempt to promote sustainability. Results and implications are reported in this work.
References
Alonso, J.A. and Lamata, M.T. (2006). Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: a new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(4), 445-459.
Baskaran, V., Nachiappan, S. and Rahman, S. (2012). Indian textile suppliers’ sustainability evaluation using the grey approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(2), 647-658.
Böhringer, C. and Jochem, P.E.P. (2007). Measuring the immesurable – A survey of sustainability indices. Ecological Indicators, 63(1), 1-8.
Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, p. 6.
Chaabane, A., Ramudhin, A. and Paquet, M. (2012). Design of sustainable supply chains under the emission trading scheme. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(1), 37-49.
Chatzimouratidis, A. and Pilavachi, P. (2009). Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Energy Policy, 37(3), 778-787.
Chen, C.C., Shih, H.S., Shyur, H.J. and Wu, K.S. (2012). A business strategy selection of green supply chain management via an analytic network process. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 64(8), 2544-2557.
Chiacchio, M.S. (2011). Early impact assessment for sustainable development of enabling technologies. Total Quality Management and Excellence, 39(3), 1-6.
Cho, K.T. (2003). Multicriteria decision methods: an attempt to evaluate and unify. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 37(9-10), 1099-1119.
de Brucker, K., Macharis, C. and Verbeke, A. (2013). Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: a stakeholder management approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 224(1), 122-131.
de Silva, N., Jawahir, I.S., Dillon, Jr. O. and Russell, M. (2009). A new comprehensive methodology for the evaluation of product sustainability at the design and development stage of consumer electronic products. International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, 1(3), 251-264.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone.
Garbie, I.H. (2011). Framework of manufacturing enterprises sustainability incorporating globalization issues. In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, Los Angeles, CA USA.
Gupta, A., Vangari, R., Jayal, A. D. and Jawahir, I. S. (2011). Priority evaluation of product metrics for sustainable manufacturing. In: A. Bernard, editor. Global Product Development, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 631-641.
Heijungs, R., Huppes, G. and Guinee, J.B. (2010). Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies: toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 95(3), 422-428.
Herva, M. and Roca, E. (2013). Review of combined approaches and multi-criteria analysis for corporate environmental evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 39, 355-371.
Jain, S. and Kibira, D. (2010). A framework for multi-resolution modeling of sustainable manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference, B. Johansson, S. Jain, J. Montoya-Torres, J. Hugan, and E. Yücesan, eds., 3423-3434.
Jawahir, I.S., Rouch, K.E., Dillon, O.W., Holloway, L. and Hall, A. (2007). Design for Sustainability (DFS): New Challenges in Developing and Implementing a Curriculum for Next Generation Design and Manufacturing Engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(6), 1053-1064.
Joung, C.B, Carrell, J., Sarkar, P. and Feng, S.C. (2013). Categorization of indicators for sustainable manufacturing. Ecological Indicators, 24, 148-157.
Kovac, M. (2012). Comparison of foresights in the manufacturing research. Transfer Inovacii, 23, 284-288.
Krajnc, D. and Glavic, P. (2005). A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43(2), 189-208.
Kravanja, Z. and Cucek, L. (2013). Multi-objective optimization for generating sustainable solutions considering total effects on the environment. Applied Energy, 101, 67-80.
Mayer, A.L. (2008). Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environment International, 34(2), 277-291.
Promentilla, M.A.B., Furuichi, T., Ishii, K. and Tanikawa, N. (2006). Evaluation of remedial countermeasures using the analytic network process. Waste Management, 26(12), 1410-1421.
Ragas, A.M.J., Knapen, M.J., van de Heuvel, P.J.M., Eijkenboom, R.G.F.T.M., Buise, C.L. and van de Laar, B.J. (1995). Towards a sustainability indicator for production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3(1-2), 123-129.
Rosen, M.A., and Kishawy, H.A. (2012). Sustainable manufacturing and design: concepts, practices and needs. Sustainability, 4(2), 154-174.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T. L. (2007). Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: Generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 860-891.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: applications to decisions under risk. European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1(1), 122-196.
Singh, R.K., Murty, H.R., Gupta, S.K. and Dikshit, A.K. (2012). An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281-299.
SMIR. (2011). Sustainable Manufacturing Indicator Repository, http://www.nist.gov/el/msid/smir.cfm
Subramanian, N. and Ramanathan, R. (2012). A review of applications of analytic hierarchy process in operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2), 215-241.
Tseng, M.L., Chiang, J.H. and Lan, L.W. (2009a). Selection of optimal supplier in supply chain management strategy with analytic network process and choquet integral. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 57(1), 330-340.
Tseng, M.L., Divinagracia, L. and Divinagracia, R. (2009b). Evaluating firm’s sustainable production indicators in uncertainty. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 57(4), 1393-1403.
Vaidya, O.S. and Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29.
Vinodh, S. and Jeya Girubha, R. (2012). PROMETHEE based sustainable concept selection. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 36(11), 5301-5308.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
The copyediting stage is intended to improve the flow, clarity, grammar, wording, and formatting of the article. It represents the last chance for the author to make any substantial changes to the text because the next stage is restricted to typos and formatting corrections. The file to be copyedited is in Word or .rtf format and therefore can easily be edited as a word processing document. The set of instructions displayed here proposes two approaches to copyediting. One is based on Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature and requires that the copy editor, editor, and author have access to this program. A second system, which is software independent, has been borrowed, with permission, from the Harvard Educational Review. The journal editor is in a position to modify these instructions, so suggestions can be made to improve the process for this journal.
