Buyukozkan 2011

Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 13731–13748
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Expert Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa
Designing a sustainable supply chain using an integrated analytic network

process and goal programming approach in quality function deployment
Gülçin Büyüközkan ⇑, Çiğdem Berkol
Galatasaray University, Industrial Engineering Department, Çırağan Caddesi No: 36 Ortaköy, Istanbul 34357, Turkey
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Keywords: Sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) provides economic, social end environmental require-
Sustainable supply chain ments in material and service flows occurring between suppliers, manufacturers and customers. SSCM
Analytic network process structure is considered as a prerequisite for a sustainable success. Thus designing an effective SCM struc-
Zero one goal programming ture provides competitive advantages for the companies. In order to achieve an effective design of this
Quality function deployment
structure, it is possible to apply quality function deployment (QFD) approach which is successfully
applied as an effective product and system development tool. This study presents a decision framework
where analytic network process (ANP) integrated QFD and zero-one goal programming (ZOGP) models
are used in order to determine the design requirements which are more effective in achieving a sustain-
able supply chain (SSC). The first phase of the QFD is the house of quality (HOQ) which transforms cus-
tomer requirements into product design requirements. In this study, after determining the sustainability
requirements named customer requirements (CRs) and design requirements (DRs) of a SSC, ANP is
employed to determine the importance levels in the HOQ considering the interrelationships among the
DRs and CRs. Furthermore ZOGP approach is used to take into account different objectives of the problem.
The proposed method is applied through a case study and obtained results are discussed.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Nowadays, it is not easy to achieve sustainability in a supply

chain without considering budget limitations or the fact that a pro-
For some years companies and environmental authorities have ject may not be efficient or enough to achieve sustainability. To
been increasing their awareness in incorporating environmental is- achieve sustainability effectively it is necessary to achieve
sues into their respective systems. Terms such as environmental improvements in economic, social and environmental area. Any
design, sustainable design, environmentally-conscious processes project should take into account these three aspects of the sustain-
or products, clean technologies, and green products or systems ability and the investment cost. Designing a sustainable supply
are now becoming widely important (Halog, Schultmann, & Rentz, chain is a critical process which can lead a total failure when the
2001). As the environmental consciousness has become a funda- time comes to apply. In addition to this any application in a partic-
mental design focus for both production and service systems, sup- ular point of a supply chain affects instantly the entire supply
ply chains that combine manufacturing and service systems gained chain. That is why in order to decide what steps to take for a sus-
importance in environmental area. Recently, the first objective of a tainable supply chain design; some decision methods must be
supply chain was to manage the ‘‘better quality-low cost’’ paradox used. Quality function deployment (QFD) as a well known method
and other requirements of stakeholders. However as an effect of has a large application area within the sustainability framework,
the globalization quality and cost are no longer considered as com- such as sustainable product development, improvement analysis
petitive differences in supply chain management (SCM). Sustain- and design process. In this study in order to design effectively a
able supply chain (SSC) on the other hand provides competitive sustainable supply chain, QFD approach is used as it is a commonly
advantages to the companies as it offers the opportunity to differ- used tool for environmentally conscious design process. Some of
entiate from other companies by being equitable in the fair utiliza- those studies in the literature are Madu, Kuei, and Madu (2002),
tion of natural resources, prudent enough not to harm the Sakao (2007), Kuo, Wub, and Shieh (2009). The first phase of the
environment, being socially responsible in terms of equal human QFD is the house of quality (HOQ) which is the key strategic tool
development, ensuring health and safety of employees and con- to determine the DRs that satisfy the CRs. Determining the relative
tributing to humanity and the environment. importance of customer requirements (CRs) and design require-
ments (DRs) is an important step of the QFD. In order to determine
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 227 4480. their relative importance several methods are applied by many
E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Büyüközkan). authors. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy set theory and
0957-4174/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.171
13732 G. Büyüközkan, Ç. Berkol / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 13731–13748
analytic network process (ANP) are the frequently used methods. Klassen, & Jayaraman, 2007), is acquiring importance for the public
AHP combined QFD methodologies are used by many authors such and for industry. Until 10 years ago, the unique aim of business
as Lu, Madu, Kuei, and Winokur (1994), Madu and Kuei (1994), was to achieve the maximum economic profit or to improve the
Madu, Kuei, Aheto, and Winokur (1994b), Park and Kim (1998), customer service but now environmental topics play a very impor-
Wang, Xie, and Goh (1998), Lam and Zhao (1998), Koksal and tant role, becoming a central point of the strategic and operative
Eğitman (1998), Zakarian and Kusiak (1999), Partovi and Epperly management policies (Feretti et al., 2007). There is a great aware-
(1999), Partovi (1999), Chuang (2001), Partovi and Corredoira ness of sustainability and environmental responsibility in acade-
(2002), Partovi (2001), Hsiao (2002), Kwong and Bai (2002, mia and business. The top global companies (Exxon Mobil,
2003), Madu et al. (2002), Myint (2003), Bhattacharya, Sarkar, General Electric, Royal Dutch/Shell, Daimler Chrysler, Toyota Mo-
and Mukherjee (2005), Hanumaiah and Mukherjee (2006), Partovi tor, Hitachi, Sony, etc.) put headings such as ‘‘Sustainability and
(2007), Presley, Meade, and Sarkis (2007), Çelik, Cebi, Kahraman, Environment,’’ ‘‘Environmental Initiatives,’’ ‘‘Environmental Activi-
and Er (2009), and Georgiou, Gotzamani, Andronikidis, and ties,’’ or ‘‘Environmental Leadership’’ on the front pages of their
Paltayian (2008). On the other hand as AHP includes an assump- websites and in recent years we have witnessed an abundance of
tion about the independence among elements under a hierarchical calls for papers that bridge operations and environmental issues
structure, it does not consider the possible interrelationships (De Brito & Van Der Laan, 2008). Lately the number of companies
among DRs and CRs. Thus the ANP method which takes into ac- who think that sustainability and profitability are not mutually
count the interrelationships among DRs and CRs is used in this exclusive concepts is increasing. Their common perspective is that
study in order to obtain a well-built model as in many other the sustainability creates longterm shareholder value as it is an
studies like Karsak, Sozer, and Alptekin (2002), Partovi (2001), obligation for companies to meet the needs of their shareholders
Lin, Cheng, Tseng, and Tsai (2010), Partovi and Corredoira (2002), while sustaining the resources that will be needed in the future.
Kahraman, Ertay, and Büyüközkan (2006), Iranmanesh and Tabrizi The scarcity of raw materials such as fossil fuels and water, new
(2009), Lee, Wu, and Tzeng (2008), Andronikidis, Georgiou, regulations of governments and the global awareness about sus-
Gotzamani, and Kamvysi (2009), Alptekin and Isiklar (2005), Pal, tainability leads companies to develop sustainable strategies.
Ravı, and Bhargava (2007), Georgiou et al. (2008), and Büyüközkan, These companies use various strategies and tools to assess their
Ertay, Kahraman, and Ruan (2004). In this paper, the methodology economic, social and environmental impacts associated with sus-
proposed integrates two decision making techniques, ANP and zero tainability, such as environmental management systems, pollution
one goal programming (ZOGP) for determining the DRs that will be prevention, waste minimization, design for environment and clean
considered in designing the sustainable supply chain. The ZOGP is technology programs.
used in order to determine the DRs to be considered in the design
process satisfying the ANP results and the goal named ‘‘cost’’ in this
study. 2.2. Sustainability in supply chain
zzzzThe plan of the article is as follows. In Section 2, definition
of the sustainability concept and its appearance in supply chain is As the connection between markets and sources, demand and
given. Section 3 announces the application areas of QFD in general supply has increased the strategic relevance of SCM, in today’s com-
and then presents literature survey of the sustainable QFD. Section petitive world maintaining an efficient and flexible supply chain be-
4 presents literature surveys of ANP combined QFD and integrated came critical for every enterprise. With the increasing acceptance of
ANP&ZOGP combined QFD approaches. And then the decision ISO 14001 environmental standards, there is a greater role for supply
methodology is given. In Section 5, the proposed QFD based sus- chain management in organizational environmental practice
tainable SCM framework is presented. Finally in Section 6 the deci- (Sarkis, 2003). In order to retain and strengthen their competitive
sion framework is illustrated via a case study. edge in the market, organizations need to coordinate and integrate
all their business operations with sustainability considerations. A fo-
cus on supply chain is a step towards the broader adoption and
2. Sustainability in supply chain development of sustainability, since the supply chain considers the
product from initial processing of raw materials to delivery to the
2.1. The concept of the sustainability customer. However, sustainability also must integrate issues and
flows that extend beyond the core of supply chain management:
Earth as a resource system has a limited capacity for supporting product design, manufacturing by-products, by-products produced
a growing human population with an intensive exchange of mate- during product use, product life extension, product end-of-life, and
rials and energy with its environment (Tsoulfas & Pappis, 2006). recovery processes at end-of-life (Linton et al., 2007). Sustainability
Due to the media and academia, the potential long-term implica- involves the multiple objectives of social, economic and environ-
tions of overusing these resources are known better. In recent mental sustainability. For social sustainability, products should en-
years, interest in environment preservation is increasing, and sure that the needs of population are met. For economic
emerging as real business targets (Feretti, Zanoni, Zavanella, & sustainability, the goal of supply chain optimization and scheduling
Diana, 2007). As a result, many countries have started to enforce is maximizing the profits, i.e. maximizing products values with min-
environmental legislations and regulations for controlling the use imum raw materials, inventory and production costs. For resources
of products, processes and wastes that may be detrimental to the sustainability, as for environmental sustainability, non-renewable
environment (Lee, Kang, Hsu, & Hung, 2009). The European Parlia- resources consumption should be minimized, the resource use
ment views this concept of sustainability as so critical to the future should be efficient to minimize wastes generated and permanent
of the EU that current and future legislation must integrate sus- environmental damage should not be allowed (Zhou, Cheng, &
tainability into implementation orders. Considering the earlier Hua, 2000). Integrating sustainability into the supply chain has sev-
influence of the EU in the area of quality management and the glo- eral advantages. A SSCM reduces waste created and thereby realizes
bal adoption of ISO 9001 certification, the influence of the EU about cost savings through the entire supply chain while increasing the
the sustainability can be estimated. revenue and the market share as the preference for sustainable orga-
At this point sustainability, generally defined as ‘‘using re- nizations increases. In addition to this, sustainability helps to hire
sources to meet the needs of the present without compromising talented employees who pay attention to the organization’s environ-
the ability of future generations to meet their own’’ (Linton, mental behavior. On the other hand, it also increases the employee
G. Büyüközkan, Ç. Berkol / Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 13731–13748 13733
productivity and creates higher retention of most talented employ- 3.2. Sustainable QFD
ees as it renders their work meaningful. Review, all these advantages
mentioned in this section highly depend on design effectiveness due Besides the classical QFD approaches, there exist extended ap-
to the multi perspective structure of SSC. Another important issue proaches which combine different issues with stakeholder require-
about the design process of a SSC is that the sustainability it self is ments. In earlier studies, QFD method was used for each of the
a novel concept in literature even tough the number of studies about three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and
the sustainability and the SSC increased recently. Design process is a social) separately. Recently, QFD used in studies where sustainabil-
critical step for establishing an effective SSC. On the other hand, QFD ity is examined as a whole concept. In this section, a literature sur-
method is used in several studies to determine the design require- vey about environmentally conscious and sustainable QFD
ments of a product or service. As it is an effective technique used applications is presented.
in many different studies, in this study QFD approach is utilized for Zhang, Wang, and Zhang (1999) improve the green QFD by
determining how to build an effective sustainable supply chain de- developing a new methodology called green QFD II which com-
sign. This technique is presented later in this study. bines Life cycle analysis (LCA) and life cycle costing (LCC) into
QFD matrices and provides a mechanism to deploy customer, envi-
ronmental and costing requirements throughout the entire prod-
uct development process. Masui, Sakao, Kobayashi, and Inaba
3. Sustainable QFD (2003) developed a QFD named quality function deployment for
environment (QFDE) based on four-phase methodology for design
3.1. Quality function deployment for environment (DFE) in the early stage of new product develop-
ment process. Reyes and Wright (2001) develop a four-phase
Quality function deployment (QFD) is an implement to translate methodology. In phase 1 and phase 2, eco profile strategies are
customer needs into product technical requirements of new prod- defined and prioritized using AHP. In phase 3 and phase 4, eco-
ucts and services (Chan & Wu, 2002). The QFD was first introduced performance strategies are identified and associated with eco
by Akao in 1972 at Mitsubishi’s Kobe shipyard site, and then Toy- profile strategies using QFD. Madu et al. (2002) present a step by
ota and its suppliers developed it further for a rust prevention step approach for environmentally conscious design. First, AHP is
study. It became increasingly popular in the Western world in used to prioritize customer requirements. Then, QFD is used to
the 1980s. After the concept of QFD was introduced in the US match design requirements to customer requirements. A cost-
through auto manufacturers and parts suppliers, many US firms, effective design plan is finally developed by applying Taguchi
such as Procter & Gamble, Raychem, Digital Equipment, Hewlett- experimental design and Taguchi loss function. Bovea and Wang
Packard, AT&T, GM, and Ford, applied QFD to improving communi- (2003) introduce an approach for identifying environmental
cation, product development, and measurement of processes and improvement options by taking customer preferences into
systems (Halog et al., 2001). It has been successfully applied in account. The LCA methodology is applied to evaluate the environ-
many organizations to improve processes and build competitive mental profile of a product while a fuzzy approach based on the
advantages. Being one of these quality tools, QFD has been defined House of Quality in the QFD methodology provides a more quanti-
by its originator Akao, 1992 as ‘‘a method for developing a design tative method for evaluating the imprecision of the customer pref-
quality aimed at satisfying the customer and then translating the erences. Sakao (2007) extends the Masui et al. (2003) by
customer’s demands into design targets and major quality assur- integrating LCA and theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) into
ance points to be used throughout the production phase’’. QFD QFD. Sakao proposes a general design methodology to effectively
can be defined as an overall concept that provides a means of support environmentally consciousness design of products using
translating the needs of customers through the various stages of QFDE. Halog et al. (2001) search for the answer of how a given pro-
product planning, engineering and manufacturing into a final prod- cess or technique can be improved to qualify as an environmen-
uct (Sharma, Rawani, & Barahate, 2008). tally conscious one at a given budget constraint by using the QFD
Much variation of QFD has been extensively studied recently. It method for the improvement analysis. Kuo et al. (2009) develop
is reviewed in terms of application areas and methodological an Eco-quality function deployment (Eco-QFD) to aid a product de-
issues (Sohn & Choi, 2001). According to Sharma et al. (2008) the sign team in considering environmental concerns. Beside from
functional field of QFD can be grouped in 3 categories, which are: these studies focused on environmental aspect of the sustainability
there are several studies focused on environmental, economic and
(1) Primary functional field including QFD usage in product social aspects of the sustainability where sustainable QFD (SQFD) is
development, customer requirement analysis and quality
management system.
Table 1
(2) Secondary functional field including QFD usage in concurrent
Literature survey for environmental QFD.
engineering, management sciences, planning, operation
research, education, software and expert systems (including Author SCOPE (environmentally Method Secondary Year
conscious) methods
artificial intelligence, artificial neural network and fuzzy
logic). Zhang et al. Product development GQFD II LCA, LCC 1999
Halog et al. Improvement analysis QFD 2001
(3) Tertiary functional field including QFD’s functions such as
Reyes and Eco performance analysis QFD AHP 2001
construction, cost, food, the environment and decision- Wright
making. Madu et al. Design process QFD AHP, Taguchi 2002
Bovea and Improvement analysis QFD LCA 2003
QFD is applied in various areas which are mentioned previously. Wang
Masui et al. Product development QFDE 2003
There exist numerous studies that combine QFD and the environ-
Halog Improvement analysis S-QFD 2004
mental concepts. Here in this study we will use a QFD model in or- Sakao Design process QFDE LCA, TRIZ 2007
der to define supply chain requirements to achieve a certain level Utne Improvement analysis S-QFD AHP 2009
of sustainability. In other words, this study is based on QFD usage Kuo et al. Design process eco- 2009
QFD
in environmental area. That is the reason why a survey about the
Lin et al. Product development S-QFD ANP 2010
QFD and its usage in environmental area will be cited below.
utilized. Lin et al. (2010) applies an ANP combined fuzzy QFD mod- Iranmanesh and Tabrizi (2009) presented an ANP combined
el where HOWs are environmental, social and economic produc- QFD framework to determine the most important elements of
tion requirements and WHATs are sustainable production new product development in information technology.
indicators for original equipment manufacturing. Halog (2004) Lee et al. (2008) proposed an ANP combined QFD model. They
proposes a methodology where the ‘‘sustainable concept compari- illustrated the model by using the empirical example of Partovi
son house’’ is used to evaluate the design options with respect to and Corredoira (2002) where the ANP and the AHP were used to-
customer’s quality requirements, environment requirements and gether for different purposes.
economic requirements criteria and to choose the optimal sustain- Andronikidis et al. (2009) applied ANP combined QFD in bank-
able option for system improvement. Utne (2009) applies QFD ing sector aiming at prioritizing customer selection criteria.
technique to improve sustainability in the Norwegian fishing fleet. Alptekin and Isiklar (2005) applied the ANP combined QFD ap-
Stakeholder needs of the fishing fleet are presented with respect to proach to the electronic learning (e-learning) area in order to eval-
three aspects of sustainability (environmental, social and economic uate different e-learning products provided by the higher
requirements) in the proposed QFD approach. The Table 1 summa- education institutions in Turkey.
rizes studies mentioned in this section. Pal et al. (2007) employed an ANP integrated QFD methodology
to determine and prioritize the engineering requirements of a cast
part, based on the customer needs, in order to select and evaluate
4. Integrated ANP & ZOGP approach in QFD an appropriate route for tooling fabrication.
Georgiou et al. (2008) developed a QFD model that supports
4.1. ANP combined QFD capacity expansion decisions for banks based on customers’ needs
and bank selection criteria combined with AHP and ANP where
AHP includes an assumption about the independence among ele- ANP used to determine the intensity of synergistic effects among
ments under a hierarchical structure. To solve the independence column variables at each phase.
assumption of the AHP, the ANP was developed by Saaty. ANP gener- Büyüközkan et al. (2004) used the ANP integrated QFD on a
alizes the widely used multi-criteria decision making tool, the AHP, hypothetical writing instrument design example. ANP here was
by replacing hierarchies with networks. The AHP is a well-known used to prioritize design requirements by taking into account the
technique that decomposes a problem into several levels in such a degree of the interdependence between the customer needs and
way that they form a hierarchy. Each element in the hierarchy is sup- design requirements and the inner dependence among them. The
posed to be independent, and a relative ratio scale of measurement is studies mentioned in this survey are shown in Table 2.
derived from pairwise comparisons of the elements in a level of the
hierarchy with respect to an element of the preceding level. How-
4.2. Integrated ANP & goal programming approach in QFD
ever, in many cases, there is interdependence among criteria and
alternatives. The ANP can be used as an effective tool in those cases
As mentioned before, there are several analytic techniques com-
where the interactions among the elements of a system form a net-
bined with QFD in order to determine the relative importance
work structure (Alptekin & Isiklar, 2005).
weights of DRs such as AHP, fuzzy set theory, linear programming,
Apart from AHP, the ANP has been used in conjunction with
ANP etc. ANP method considers the interrelationships among CRs
QFD in numerous studies. AHP employs a unidirectional hierarchi-
and DRs and as in this study there are interdependences between
cal relationship among clusters, while ANP enables interrelation-
DRs and CRs, ANP method is considered suitable for this study.
ships not only among the clusters but also between the elements
On the other hand an effective design should take into account
of a cluster (Andronikidis et al. 2009). In this study an ANP com-
the organization’s goal, thus the goal programming (GP) method
bined QFD will be employed. A literature survey of the studies
is utilized in this study. There are several studies where these
where ANP integrated QFD models were used, is given in this
two techniques are used together or combined with QFD. Tsai,
section.
Hsu, Chen, Lin, and Chen (2009), Tsai and Chou (2009), Wey and
Karsak et al. (2002) suggested product planning in QFD using a
Wu (2007), Tsai, Leu, Liu, Lin, and Shaw (2010), Chang, Wey, and
combined analytic network process and goal programming ap-
proach to determine the design requirements of a writing
instrument. Table 2
Partovi (2001) while combining AHP and QFD methods for Literature survey for ANP application in QFD.
quantifying strategic service vision used also ANP to determine
Author Year Specific areas Applications
the intensity of column variables. Similarly, Partovi (2007) used
Pantovi 2001 Service quantifying Organization
ANP combined QFD to quantify the relative importance of cus-
Karsak et al. 2002 Product design selection Manufacturing
tomer requirements in order to determine the best process for a Pantovi and 2002 Game rule selection Sports
new facility of a manufacturing system. Corredoira
Lin et al. (2010) applied QFD and ANP to analyze the environ- Buyukozkan et al. 2004 Product design selection Manufacturing
mental production requirements for original equipment manufac- Alptekin and 2005 E-learning product evaluation Higher
Isiklar education
turing (OEM) firm in Taiwan. ANP was employed to represent the Kahnaman et al. 2006 Product design selection Manufacturing
interdependence relations between ‘‘Whats’’ (environmental pro- Pantovi 2007 Facility location selection Logistics
duction requirements) and ‘‘Hows’’ (sustainable production indica- Pal et al. 2007 Engineering requirement Manufacturing
tors) which are two major components of the HOQ matrices. selection
Lee et al. 2008 Game rule selection Sports
Partovi and Corredoira (2002) presented a QFD model where
Geongiou et al. 2008 Capacity expansion decision Banking
ANP was used for prioritizing and designing rule changes for the support
game of soccer in order to make it more attractive to soccer Inanmanesh and 2009 Product design selection Technology
enthusiasts. Tabnizi
Kahraman et al. (2006) presented a fuzzy ANP integrated QFD Andnonikidis et al. 2009 Customer selection Banking
prioritizing
approach applied in a Turkish Company producing PVC window Lin et al. 2010 Environmental production Manufacturing
and door systems. Here, ANP was used to obtain the coefficients requirement
of the objective function.
Tseng (2009), and Lee and Kim (2000) used in their studies ANP Determine the preference ratings of the DRs with respect to sec-
and GP techniques. As mentioned before ANP and GP combined ond type metrics by pairwise comparisons. Here the only sec-
QFD methodology is also used in several studies. Karsak et al. ond type goal is ‘‘feasibility’’.
(2002) proposes such a methodology in order to determine the Compute the adjusted unit measures concerning the resource
DRs to be considered in designing a product. Their paper presents limitations and the adjusted priorities of the DRs with respect
a zero-one goal programming methodology that includes impor- to second type metrics to account for dependencies encoun-
tance levels of DRs derived using the ANP and other goals. Kahr- tered in the HOQ.
aman et al. (2006) use a fuzzy ANP and GP combined QFD Calculate the relative importance weights of the determined
methodology to determine the DRs to be considered in designing goals using pairwise comparisons.
a product. Tolga and Alptekin (2008) present an ANP and GP com- Formulate and solve ZOGP model to determine the set of prod-
bined QFD methodology where the fuzzy set theory implemented uct technical requirements to be considered in the design
ANP is used to incorporate the inner dependencies among the process.
CRs and DRs of the QFD and the GP method in order to optimize
the use of the limited budget of the product development process. The first step of the algorithm is the identification of the cus-
Lee, Kang, Yang, and Lin (2009b) incorporate QFD with the superm- tomer requirements and DRs. Then, the determination of the
atrix approach of ANP and the fuzzy set theory to calculate the pri- importance of the customer requirements, which corresponds to
orities of DRs and construct a goal programming model by the first step of the matrix manipulation concept of the ANP. Next,
considering the results of the ANP and other additional goals, in or- we fill the body of the house by the weights obtained through com-
der to select the most suitable DRs. The Table 3 summarizes stud- paring the DRs with respect to each customer need, and then,
ies mentioned in this section. obtaining the interdependent priorities of the DRs by analyzing
The ANP and GP combined QFD methodology is usually used in dependence among the customer requirements and DRs, respec-
product planning area. This study differs from the studies men- tively. The super matrix representation of the QFD model used in
tioned in this section, by the fact that it is the first study that uses this paper is as follows:
these techniques in order to achieve sustainable supply chain.
4.3. The decision methodology
The decision algorithm addresses the problem of determining

the DRs on which to focus in the design process considering the
predetermined goals. The algorithm can be divided into two major where w1 is a vector that represents the impact of the goal, namely
phases. In the first phase, we construct the HOQ using the ANP ap- achieving a supply chain that satisfies the company, on the cus-
proach, and in the second phase, we integrate the ANP results with tomer requirements, W2 is a matrix that denotes the impact of
a ZOGP model to determine the set of DRs to be concentrated on. the CRs on each of the DRs, W3 and W4 are the matrices that repre-
The ANP approach, which allows for modeling interrelationships sent the inner dependence of the CRs and the inner dependence of
within the HOQ, is employed to determine the representation of the DRs, respectively. Here, ‘impact’ denotes the potential of the
the voice of the customer in the HOQ, considered as one of the DRs to satisfy the requirements implicit in each of the customer
goals within the decision framework. There are other goals such requirements, and in a similar way for the customer requirements
as cost and feasibility that need to be taken into account in the in terms of the goal. The network representation of the QFD model
analysis. The unit budget costs with respect to DRs are determined, is depicted in Fig. 1. This is the case of a hierarchy with inner depen-
and the priorities of the DRs with respect to feasibility goal are ob- dence within components and no feedback.
tained using pairwise comparison. Following that, the adjusted pri- Using the notation given above, the interdependent priorities of
orities of the DRs with respect to this goal are calculated to account the customer requirements (wC) are computed by multiplying W3
for dependencies encountered in the HOQ. Then, the relative by w1, and similarly the interdependent priorities of the DRs
importance weights of the goals that are taken into consideration (WA) are obtained by multiplying W4 by W2. Then, the overall pri-
are computed employing pairwise comparisons. Finally, all the orities of the DRs (WANP), which reflect the interrelationships with-
previously calculated data are integrated within a ZOGP formula- in the HOQ, are calculated by multiplying WA and wC. In order to
tion to determine the DRs to be considered in the design process. determine the set of DRs that will be considered in product design,
A summary of the seven steps used in this study for ZOGP are as we construct a ZOGP model using the first phase results and goals
fallows:
Identify the CRs and DRs. Achieving Sustainability

Considering the interdependencies within the house of quality,
determine the overall priorities of the DRs using the ANP
approach.
Identify the unit measures and limits of the first type metrics
related to resource limitations. Here the only first type metric CRs
is ‘‘cost’’.
Table 3
Literature survey for ANP & GP combined QFD methods.
Author Scope Method Year

Karsak et al. Product development ANP & GP & QFD 2002
Kahraman et al. Product development Fuzzy ANP & GP & QFD 2006 DRs
Tolga and Alptekin Product development Fuzzy ANP & GP & QFD 2008
Lee et al. Product development Fuzzy ANP & GP & QFD 2009
Fig. 1. The network representation of the QFD model.
related to other metrics of the DRs such as cost, feasibility. The set which shows the relationship between CRs in rows and DRs in col-
of metrics contains two types of specifications: metrics that have umns (Partovi, 2007). The correlations showing the inner depen-
some sort of resource limitations, e.g. cost, and the second type dencies of DRs are located at the top and the inner dependencies
metrics that result in a rate of preference for DRs such as feasibil- of CRs are located at the left hand side of the HOQ. Fig. 3 shows
ity. In order to incorporate the second type metrics into the formu- the HOQ model applied in this study.
lation, we determine a preference rating for each DRs using It is evident that for completing the HOQ, a lot of data and cal-
pairwise comparisons, and we penalize the negative deviation of culations are necessary. The six steps to be followed and the calcu-
these metrics from 1 in the objective function, the general form lations required for building the HOQ are listed in this section
of the ZOGP model employed in the decision framework is as (Karsak et al., 2002).
follows:
þ 5.1.1. Step 1: List CRs

X
s
di d X
m
min xANP
1 ðd1 Þ þ xi þ i þ xi ðdi Þ Quality function deployment starts with a list of goals/objec-
i¼2
Ri Ri i¼sþ1 tives. This list is often named as the WHATs that a customer
X
n requirements or expects in a particular product or service. This is
þ
s:t: wANP
j xj þ d1 d1 ¼1 the voice of the customers collected from a rigorous process (Lin
j¼1
X et al., 2010).
þ
r ij xj þ di di ¼ Ri ; i ¼ 2; . . . ; s
X þ 5.1.2. Step 2: List DRs
wij xj þ di di ¼ 1; i ¼ s þ 1; . . . ; m
Design requirements are engineering characteristics or techni-
þ
xj 2 f0; 1g; j ¼ 1; . . . ; n di ; di P 0; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m cal descriptors (also called HOWs) that will affect one or more of
the customer requirements. The DRs are used to determine how
where xi is the weight of the goal i, (i = 1, . . ., m); di is negative
þ well the company satisfies the customer requirements. Customer
deviation variable of the ith goal; di is positive deviation variable
requirements tell the company ‘what to do’ while the DRs tell
of the ith goal; xj is binary selection variable representing the jth
‘how to do it’.
DR (j = 1, . . ., n); wANP
j is interdependent priority of the jth DR; rij is
amount of the ith resource used by the jth DR (i = 2, . . ., s;
5.1.3. Step 3: Relative importance of the CRs
j = 1, . . ., n); wij is preference rating of the jth DR with respect to
Since the collected and organized data from the customer usu-
the metric i; Ri is the limitation of the ith resource.
ally contain too many needs to deal with simultaneously, they
must be rated.
5. Proposed QFD based sustainable SCM framework
5.1.4. Step 4: Develop a relationship matrix between CRs and DRs
A typical QFD system usually has four interlinked phases where The purpose of building a HOQ is to compare the customer
four matrices that integrate the customer requirements, design requirements and design requirements determining their respec-
specifications, product or part characteristics, manufacturing pro- tive degree of relationships. Tracing the relationships between
cesses, and operations conditions or control are used (Partovi, 2007). the customer requirements and design requirements may be very
Four-Phases of QFD are illustrated in Fig. 2 and summarized as confusing, because each customer requirement may affect more
follows (Chan & Wu, 1998): than one design requirement and vice versa. It is common to use
symbols to represent the degree of relationship between the cus-
– Phase I: The first phase of the QFD system is the house of quality tomer requirements and technical descriptors. The conventional
(HOQ), which translates customer requirements (WHATs) into HOQ employs a rating scale e.g. 1–3–9, or 1–5–9 to indicate the de-
technical measures (HOWs). gree (weak, medium or strong) of strength between CRs and DRs
– Phase II: QFD’s second phase is parts deployment, which trans- (Park & Kim, 1998). In this study, numbers are used to denote
lates key technical measures (new WHATs) determined in the the relationship between CRs and DRs.
previous phase into parts characteristics (HOWs).
– Phase III: The third phase is process planning, which translates 5.1.5. Step-5: Inner dependence among the CRs
key parts characteristics (new WHATs) obtained in the previous In general, customer requirements have inner dependence
stage into process operations (HOWs). among them. Some of them will support each other whereas others
– Phase IV: Finally, production planning, which translates key will adversely affect the achievement of others. These supporting
process operations (new WHATs) into day-to-day production and conflicting needs can be identified by a correlation matrix
requirements (HOWs). emphasizing necessary trade-offs.
The starting point of any QFD project is the CRs that are then con- 5.1.6. Step 6: Develop an interrelationship matrix among DRs
verted into technical DRs. The translation uses the matrix called the The roof of the HOQ, called the correlation matrix, is used to
house of quality (HOQ) which is used for identifying CRs and estab- identify any interrelationship between each of the design require-
lishing priorities of DRs to satisfy the CRs. As the four-phase based ments. The correlation matrix is a triangular table attached to the
QFD model is usually used in process planning problems where design requirements. Symbols are used to describe the strength of
more than one translation is required, in this study the HOQ method the interrelationships; for example:
is applied. It means that building a HOQ which links the CRs and DRs
of a sustainable supply chain is sufficient for this study. A solid circle () represents a strong positive relationship.
A circle (o) represents a positive relationship.
5.1. Completing house of quality A cross (X) represents a negative relationship.
An asterisk (⁄) represents a strong negative relationship.
The HOQ is the primary planning tool in QFD. It is a conceptual
map that provides the means for interfunctional planning and 5.1.7. Step 7: Overall priorities of the DRs and additional goals
communication of customer requirements and technical responses Here the results obtained from preceding steps are used to cal-
(Wang et al., 1998). HOQ contains in the body section a matrix culate a final rank order of HOWs, also called DR ratings.
Fig. 2. Quality function deployment: the four interlinked phases (Chan & Wu, 1998).
Inner Dependence
among DRs
Importance
DRs
CRs
Inner
Dependence
among CRs Relative
Importance
of CRs
TOTAL
GOAL 1 Relationship
GOAL 2 between CRs
and DRs
Overall Priorities of
DRs and Additional
Fig. 3. The HOQ.
5.2. Customer requirements process industries, all the three types of sustainability objectives
mentioned above should be considered (Zhou et al., 2000). CRs
The first step of building a HOQ, as mentioned in the previous used in this study are determined trough several studies in the
section, is to determine the CRs that are also called as ‘‘WHATs’’. scope of sustainability. These CRs are also enriched by the opinions
The CRs used in this study are the sustainability needs of a supply of an expert with SCM experience. Total cost (Zhang et al., 1999),
chain. Economic Benefit (Zhou et al., 2000), equity use and inventory
Sustainability is an interdisciplinary issue and has its roots both management are selected as economic requirements, fuel usage,
in physical and social sciences. The need for sustainability is emissions (Lin et al., 2010; Masui et al., 2003; Utne, 2009), waste
embedded in achieving a balance between economic activities created (Lin et al., 2010) as environmental requirements and health
and associated environmental and social impacts. Sustainability and security (Lin et al., 2010), laws and regulation as social require-
could also be viewed in terms of ‘‘triple bottom line’’ (TBL) concept. ments. The CRs mentioned in this section are shown in Fig. 4.
Essentially it means that sustainability efforts need to be assessed
in terms of impact on social, economic, and environmental aspects.
The TBL implies that a company creates more value over the long
run and encounters fewer risks if it takes into consideration the
SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN
environmental (planet), social (people), and financial issues (profit)
as compared to a company that focuses merely on the profit. This
concept is also symbolized in literature by ‘‘triple P’’ which means
planet, people, and profit (Stonebraker, Goldhar, & Nassos, 2009). ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL
For social sustainability, products should ensure that the needs of
population are met. For economic sustainability, the goal of supply
chain optimization and scheduling is maximizing the profits, i.e.
Total Cost
maximizing products values with minimum raw materials, inven- Fuel Usage Health and Security
Economic Benefit
tory and production costs. As for environmental sustainability, Emissions Laws and Regulations
Equity Use
non-renewable resources consumption should be minimized, re- Inventory Management Waste Created
source use should be efficient to minimize wastes generated and
permanent environmental damage should not be allowed. When
we deal with sustainable supply chain optimization of continuous Fig. 4. Sustainable supply chain needs (CRs).
Table 4 matrices are presented, and the resulting weight vectors are gener-
DRs used in case study. ally provided without the corresponding pairwise comparison
DR1 Labor education in subjects like technology use and process matrices in the illustration. All the matrices used in calculations
DR2 Cooperation with suppliers are presented in Appendix A.
DR3 Optimized workflow
DR4 Priority to secondary raw materials in usage
DR5 Treat hazardous materials safely
Step 1. As mentioned before, the QFD product planning process
DR6 Use effective accounting systems and management tools begins with the determination of the CRs and then the DRs. In
DR7 Inventory effectiveness our model, there are nine CRs and forty DRs cited in detail in
DR8 Design packaging for refilling or recycling previous sections.
DR9 Produce using minimum energy and materials
Step 2. In this step, the relative importance of the CRs is deter-
DR10 Product based logistic applications
DR11 Fuel conservative transportation mined by asking the following question: ‘Which CR should be
DR12 Integration of new technologies emphasized more in designing a sustainable supply chain
DR13 Impose environmental standards on suppliers (SSC), and how much more?’ Assuming that there is no depen-
DR14 Respecting supplier’s right dence among the CRs, the following eigenvector is obtained by
DR15 Property rights
DR16 Effective precautions for accidents
performing pairwise comparisons with respect to the goal of
DR17 Transportation effectiveness achieving the best design.
DR18 Outsourcing
0 1
0:164
B 0:171 C
B C
B C
B 0:108 C
5.3. Design requirements B C
B C
B 0:098 C
B C
The DRs cited in this study are based mainly on the expert opin- W1 ¼ B C
B 0:093 C
ions and supported by the studies of Tsoulfas and Pappis (2006), B C
B 0:101 C
Zhu and Sarkis (2004), Zhu, Sarkis, and Lai (2007) and Lin et al. B C
B 0:085 C
(2010). In addition to these studies, the literature survey stated B C
B C
earlier in this study is used in order to determine the DRs related @ 0:093 A
to the CRs. DRs of a sustainable supply chain used in this study 0:087
are shown in Table 4.
Then, assuming that there is no dependence among the DRs, they
are compared with respect to each CR. For example, one of the pos-
6. Case study sible questions for determining the degree of relative importance of
the DRs for inventory management can be as follows: ‘What is the
Energy sector is one of the important sectors for the sustainabil- relative importance of DR9 (produce using minimum energy and
ity applications. It is getting more important as the energy con- materials) when compared to DR3 (optimized workflow with re-
sumption increases and the energy resources decreases in the spect to total cost)? yielding 2 as represented in Table 5. Then, for
world. On the other hand economic problems and environmental the remaining CRs the degree of relative importance of the DRs
problems like global warming influence energy companies to are calculated in the same way and presented in Table 6. The trans-
achieve sustainability. Thus, the energy sector is a suitable sector pose of the data shown in Table 6 will be placed in the body of the
for SSCM studies. The fuel sector which has a SC that is closely re- HOQ.
lated to the economic and the environmental dimensions of the Following that, the inner dependence among the CRs is deter-
sustainability is selected for this study. The methodology men- mined through analyzing the impact of each CR on other CRs by
tioned in the previous sections is applied in a case study where using pairwise comparisons. The CRs which do not have an impact
the DRs and CRs for the SCM of an ABC company of the fuel sector. on economic benefit are not included in comparison matrix. A pos-
The algorithm presented in Section 4 is applied to determine sible question is as follows: ‘What is the relative importance of To-
the DRs to be considered for achieving sustainability in a supply tal Cost when compared to Fuel Usage on achieving Economic
chain. The stepwise form of the application is given below. Due Benefit?’ resulting in 2 as denoted in Table 7. Then the eigenvectors
to space limitations, only a limited number of pairwise comparison obtained from pairwise comparisons are presented in Table 8. For
Table 5
Relative importance of the DRs for Total Cost.
Total cost DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR6 DR7 DR9 DR10 DR12 DR17 DR18 Relative importance
weights
DR1 Labor education in subjects like technology use 1.00 1.30 1.10 1.10 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.85 1.10 1.60 1.10 0.092
and process
DR2 Cooperation with suppliers 0.77 1.00 1.10 1.30 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.10 1.30 1.20 1.10 0.099
DR3 Optimized workflow 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.80 0.50 1.40 1.30 1.60 0.90 0.089
DR4 Priority to secondary raw materials in usage 0.91 0.77 1.05 1.00 0.95 1.20 0.90 0.85 0.85 1.05 0.50 0.080
DR6 Use effective accounting systems and 2.00 0.91 1.11 1.05 1.00 0.90 1.10 1.10 1.30 1.20 0.80 0.100
management tools
DR7 Inventory effectiveness 1.11 0.83 1.25 0.83 1.11 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.10 0.95 0.80 0.087
DR9 Produce using minimum energy and materials 1.11 0.91 Too 1.11 0.91 1.11 1.00 1.05 1.20 1.10 1.05 0.101
DR10 Product based logistic applications 1.18 0.91 0.71 1.18 0.91 1.18 0.95 1.00 1.50 1.30 1.10 0.096
DR12 Integration of new technologies 0.91 0.77 0.77 1.18 0.77 0.91 0.83 0.67 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.075
DR17 Transportation effectiveness 0.63 0.83 0.63 0.95 0.83 1.05 0.91 0.77 1.11 1.00 0.60 0.075
DR18 Outsourcing 0.91 0.91 1.11 2.00 1.25 1.25 0.95 0.91 1.43 1.67 1.00 0.106
Table 6
The column eigenvectors with respect to each CR.
W2 Total cost Economic Equity use Inventory Fuel usage Emissions Waste created Health and security Laws and regulations
benefit management
DR1 0.092 0.086 0 0.148 0 0 0 0.232 0.317
DR2 0.099 0.095 0 0 0.153 0.188 0 0 0
DR3 0.089 0.086 0 0 0.145 0 0 0 0
DR4 0.080 0.075 0 0 0 0 0.126 0 0
DR5 0 0 0 0 0 0.131 0.160 0.210 0
DR6 0.100 0.094 0.167 0.173 0 0 0 0 0
DR7 0.087 0.083 0.212 0.304 0 0 0 0 0
DR8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.115 0 0
DR9 0.101 0.094 0.225 0 0 0.190 0.153 0 0
DR10 0.096 0.090 0 0.206 0.211 0 0.151 0 0
DR11 0 0.059 0 0 0.125 0.119 0.097 0 0
DR12 0.075 0.070 0.166 0.133 0 0.120 0.097 0.193 0
DR13 0 0 0 0 0.098 0.152 0.102 0.164 0
DR14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.242
DR15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.237
DR16 0 0 0 0 0 0.100 0 0.201 0
DR17 0.075 0.070 0 0 0.133 0 0 0 0
DR18 0.106 0.098 0.229 0 0.135 0 0 0 0.204
Table 7
The inner dependence matrix of the customer needs with respect to economic benefit.
Economic benefit Total Equity Inventory Fuel Waste Health and Laws and Economic Relative
cost use management usage created security regulations benefit importance
Total cost 1 2.00 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.20 2.10 0.91 0.195
Equity use 0.5 1 0.90 1.10 1.20 1.50 1.50 0.56 0.110
Inventory 0.56 1.11 1 2.00 2.10 2.20 2.20 0.67 0.152
management
Fuel usage 0.5 0.91 0.50 1 1.80 1.60 1.80 0.5 0.109
waste created 0.45 0.83 0.48 0.56 1 2.00 1.90 0.48 0.096
Health and security 0.45 0.67 0.45 0.63 0.50 1 0.90 0.4 0.069
Laws and 0.48 0.67 0.45 0.56 0.53 1.11 1 0.4 0.071
regulations
Economic benefit 1.1 1.80 1.50 2.00 2.10 2.50 2.50 1 0.197
Table 8
The inner dependence matrix of the CRs.
W3 Total Economic Equity Inventory Fuel Emissions Waste Health and Laws and
cost benefit use management usage created security regulations
Total cost 0.270 0.195 0 0.253 0.363 0 0 0 0
Economic benefit 0 0.197 0.167 0.175 0.250 0 0 0 0
Equity use 0.126 0.110 0.285 0.120 0 0 0 0 0
Inventory 0.141 0.152 0.271 0.451 0 0 0 0 0
management
Fuel usage 0.160 0.109 0 0 0.387 0.435 0 0 0
Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0.377 0 0 0
Waste created 0.116 0.096 0 0 0 0.000 0.750 0 0
Health and security 0.090 0.069 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Laws and 0.098 0.071 0.277 0 0 0.18739817 0.250 0 1
regulations
Table 9
The inner dependence matrix of DRs with respect to effective use of accounting systems and management tools.
Effective use of accounting systems and management tools DR1 DR12 DR18 DR6 Relative importance
DR1 Labor education in subjects like technology use and process 1 2 1.5 0.67 0.290
DR12 Integration of new technologies 0.50 1 0.75 0.67 0.172
DR18 Outsourcing 0.67 1.33 1 0.77 0.220
DR6 Use effective accounting systems and management tools 1.5 1.5 1.3 1 0.319
the CRs that are independent the value assigned to the eigenvector mined and required pairwise comparisons are performed. We
weights is zero. utilize questions such as ‘What is the relative importance of Labor
Next, we deal with the dependence among the DRs. As previ- education in subjects like technology use and process when com-
ously accomplished for CRs, the inner dependencies are deter- pared to Integration of new technologies on controlling Effective
Table 10
The inner dependence matrix of the DRs.
W4 DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR5 DR6 DR7 DR8 DR9 DR10 DR11 DR12 DR13 DR14 DR15 DR16 DR17 DR18
DR1 1 0 0.206 0 0 0.290 0.187 0 0 0.154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR2 0 0.433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.172 0.224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.259 0
DR3 0 0 0.219 0 0 0 0.196 0 0.213 0.182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.242 0
DR4 0 0 0 0.225 0 0 0 0 0.298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR5 0 0 0 0 0.242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR6 0 0 0.170 0 0 0.319 0.200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR7 0 0 0.115 0 0 0 0.240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR8 0 0 0 0.194 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR9 0 0 0 0.248 0 0 0 0 0.317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR10 0 0.255 0 0.186 0.165 0 0 0 0 0.221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.209 0
DR12 0 0 0.133 0.148 0.142 0.172 0.178 0 0 0.218 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR13 0 0.135 0 0 0.136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
DR14 0 0.178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
DR15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
DR16 0 0 0 0 0.138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
DR17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.290 0
DR18 0 0 0.159 0 0.178 0.220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 1
use of accounting systems and management tools?’, yielding 2 as 0:181 DR1
shown in Table 9. The relative importance weights obtained from B 0:060 C B DR2 C
B 0:060 C B DR3 C
the pairwise comparisons are presented in Table 10. B C B C
B 0:026 C B DR4 C
Afterwards, we obtain the interdependent priorities of the CRs B C B C
B 0:011 C B DR5 C
as wC. B C B C
B 0:040 C B DR6 C
0 1 B C B C
0:136 B 0:022 C B DR7 C
B C B C
B 0:092 C B 0:017 C B DR8 C
B C B C B C
B C B 0:028 C B DR9 C
B 0:082 C W ANP ¼ W A wC ¼ B C¼B C
B 0:045 C B DR10 C
B C B C B C
B C B 0:042 C B DR11 C
B 0:122 C B C B C
B C B 0:142 C B DR12 C
wC ¼ W 3 w1 ¼ B 0:125 C
B
C B C B C
B C B 0:061 C B DR13 C
B 0:038 C B C B C
B C B 0:053 C B DR14 C
B 0:100 C B C B C
B C B 0:044 C B DR15 C
B C B C B C
@ 0:120 A B 0:034 C B DR16 C
@ A @ A
0:010 DR17
0:185 0:124 DR18
Then, the interdependent priorities of the DRs, WA, are calculated as The ANP analysis results indicate that the most important design
follows: WA = W4 W2 feature is the Labor education in subjects like technology use and
process with a relative importance value of 0.181, which is followed
0 1
0:17 0:16 0:09 0:32 0:06 0 0:02 0:23 0:32 by Integrating new technologies and Outsourcing which are slightly
B 0:10 0:10 0:04 0:05 0:15 0:11 0:06 0 0 C less important with a relative importance rate of 0.142 and 0.124,
B C
B C respectively.
B 0:09 0:09 0:09 0:10 0:10 0:04 0:06 0 0 C
B C Step 3. This step enables us to include the goals related to
B 0:05 0:05 0:07 0 0 0:06 0:07 0 0 C
B C resource limitations in the decision process. Cost budget is the
B C
B 0 0 0 0 0 0:03 0:04 0:05 0 C only resource limitation for this example. It is a special case
B C
B 0:06 0:06 0:10 0:12 0:02 0 0 0 0 C
B C Table 11
B C
B 0:03 0:03 0:05 0:07 0:02 0 0 0 0 C The unit cost of the DRs.
B C
B 0:02 0:01 0 0 0 0 0:14 0 0 C
B C DRs Cost in $
B C
B 0:05 0:05 0:07 0 0 0:6 0:08 0 0 C DR1 5000
WA ¼ B
B 0:06
C
B 0:06 0 0:05 0:09 0:7 0:08 0:03 0 CC DR2 2000
B C DR3 7000
B 0:02 0:07 0 0 0:15 0:12 0:10 0 0 C DR4 4000
B C
B 0:15 0:14 0:23 0:26 0:07 0:14 0:17 0:22 0 C DR5 8000
B C
B C DR6 4000
B 0:01 0:01 0 0 0:12 0:20 0:12 0:19 0 C
B C DR7 6000
B 0:02 0:02 0 0 0:03 0:03 0 0 0:24 C DR8 5000
B C
B C DR9 6000
B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0:24 C
B C DR10 7000
B 0 0 0 0 0 0:12 0:02 0:23 0 C
B C DR11 1000
B C DR12 9000
@ 0:02 0:02 0 0 0:04 0 0 0 0 A
DR13 3000
0:14 0:13 0:27 0:04 0:16 0:02 0:03 1:04 0:20 DR14 1000
DR15 2000
DR16 6000
Following that, overall priorities of the DRs (WANP), reflecting the
DR17 7000
interrelationships within the HOQ, are obtained by multiplying DR18 8000
WA and wC.
Importance
DRs
Relative
Weight
DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR5 DR6 DR7 DR8 DR9 DR10 DR11 DR12 DR13 DR14 DR15 DR16 DR17 DR18
CRs
CR1 0,092 0,099 0,089 0,080 0 0,100 0,087 0 0,101 0,096 0 0,075 0 0 0 0 0,075 0,106 0,164
CR2 0,086 0,095 0,086 0,075 0 0,094 0,083 0 0,094 0,090 0,059 0,070 0 0 0 0 0,070 0,098 0,171
CR3 0 0 0 0 0 0,167 0,212 0 0,225 0 0 0,166 0 0 0 0 0 0,229 0,108
CR4 0,185 0 0 0 0 0,173 0,304 0 0 0,206 0 0,133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,098
CR5 0 0,153 0,145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,211 0,125 0 0,098 0 0 0 0,133 0,135 0,093
CR6 0 0,188 0 0 0,131 0 0 0 0,190 0 0,119 0,120 0,152 0 0 0,100 0 0 0,101
CR7 0 0 0 0,126 0,160 0 0 0,115 0,153 0,151 0,097 0,097 0,102 0 0 0 0 0 0,085
CR8 0,232 0 0 0 0,210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,193 0,164 0 0 0,201 0 0 0,093
CR9 0,317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,242 0,237 0 0 0,204 0,087
TOTAL 0,181 0,060 0,060 0,026 0,011 0,040 0,022 0,017 0,028 0,045 0,042 0,142 0,061 0,053 0,044 0,034 0,010 0,124
Cost 9,800 5,283 6,955 2,687 1,933 3,665 2,240 5,776 2,896 4,115 2,460 14,931 4,355 1,355 2,000 7,104 2,027 11,417
Fig. 5. HOQ of the case study.
where a budget limit of 50.000$ is determined and the approx- Step 7. ZOGP model is constructed employing the equation
imate cost of the possible projects to improve the current situ- mentioned in Section 7 and using the data obtained from the
ation about each DR is shown in Table 11. previous steps as follows:
Step 4. This step allows for taking into account additional goals
named here as the second type metrics. However, in this exam- min

0:25d1 þ ð0:75=50Þd2
þ
ple any second type metric is considered.

s:t: 0:181X 1 þ 0:06X 2 þ 0:60X 3 þ 0:026X 4 þ 0:011X 5 þ 0:040X 6
Step 5. The weight vectors of DRs for cost budget, extendibility,
and manufacturability metrics need to reflect dependencies þ 0:022X 7 þ 0:017X 8 þ 0:028X 9 þ 0:045X 10
among the DRs that are denoted in the roof of the HOQ. In order þ 0:042X 11 þ 0:142X 12 þ 0:061X 13 þ 0:053X 14 þ 0:044X 15
to incorporate the adjustment for dependencies, the inner þ
þ 0:034X 16 þ 0:010X 17 þ 0:124X 18 þ d1 d1 ¼ 1
dependence matrix of the DRs (W4) is multiplied with the unit
9:800X 1 þ 5:283X 2 þ 6:955X 3 þ 2:687X 4 þ 1:933X 5 þ 3:665X 6
cost vector of the DRs (c), resulting in the adjusted unit cost vec-
0
tor (C ) given below: þ 2:240X 7 þ 5:776X 8 þ 2:896X 9 þ 4:115X 10
þ 2:460X 11 þ 14:931X 12 þ 4:355X 13 þ 1:355X 14 þ 2:000X 15
0 1 0 1
9:800 DR1 þ 7:104X 16 þ 2:027X 17 þ 11:417X 18 þ d2 d2 ¼ 50
þ
B 5:283 C B DR2 C
B C B C X j 2 f0; 1g; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; 18
þ
d1 ; d1 P 0; i ¼ 1; 2:
B 6:955 C B DR3 C
B C B C
B C B C
B 2:687 C B DR4 C
B C B C The results of the model solved using LINDO software are as
B 1:913 C B DR5 C
B C B C follows:
B 3:665 C B DR6 C
B C B C
B C B C
B 2:240 C B DR7 C x1 ¼ 1; x2 ¼ 1; x3 ¼ 0; x4 ¼ 1; x5 ¼ 0; x6 ¼ 1; x7
B C B C
B 5:776 C B DR8 C
B C B C ¼ 0; x8 ¼ 0; x9 ¼ 1; x10 ¼ 1; x11 ¼ 1; x12 ¼ 0; x13
B 2:896 C B DR9 C
0 B C B C ¼ 1; x14 ¼ 1; x15 ¼ 1; x16 ¼ 0; x17 ¼ 0; x18 ¼ 1:
C ¼ W4 c ¼ B C¼B C
B 4:115 C B DR10 C
B C B C
B 2:460 C B DR11 C According to the ZOGP solution, labor education in subjects like
B C B C
B 14:931 C B DR12 C technology use and process, cooperation with suppliers, priority
B C B C
B C B C to secondary raw materials in usage, use effective accounting sys-
B 4:355 C B DR13 C
B C B C
B 1:355 C B DR14 C tems and management tools, produce using minimum energy and
B C B C
B 2:000 C B DR15 C materials, product based logistic applications, fuel conservative
B C B C
B C B C transportation, impose environmental standards on suppliers,
B 7:104 C B DR16 C
B C B C respecting supplier’s right, property rights and outsourcing are
@ 2:027 A @ DR17 A
the selected DRs to be considered in achieving sustainability in a
11:417 DR18 supply chain.
The HOQ obtained using all the data from the previous steps is de- Table 12
picted in Fig. 5. Relative importance weights of the goals.
Step 6. In this step, we determine the weights of the goals con-
ANP Cost Relative importance
sidered in the design of a SSC by employing pairwise compari-
sons. The pairwise comparison matrix and the resulting relative ANP 1 0.333 0.25
Cost 3 1 0.75
importance weight vector (x) is given in Table 12.
7. Conclusion In order to create a better understanding, the concept of sus-

tainability and its function in the supply chain are also discussed
In today’s competitive business environment, the importance of and literature surveys about the ANP combined QFD, ANP & GP
an effective supply chain management is increasing. Until recently, combined QFD and Sustainable QFD applications are given. After
stakeholder needs were focused on economic expectations such as the description of the proposed framework, the decision procedure
reduced cost, inventory management, etc. As the environmentally is demonstrated via a case study. The decision methodology pre-
consciousness increased, stakeholder needs changed. Sustainabil- sented in this study can be extended for real-world applications
ity became an important requirement for production systems, of QFD by considering additional resource limitations, goals, cus-
service systems and thus for supply chains. In this paper, a novel tomer requirements and design requirements. On the other hand,
methodology to determine the design requirements of a sustain- in this study crisp numbers are used, a model using fuzzy numbers
able supply chain is presented. The methodology starts with the can be presented in future studies and the results obtained from
identification of the sustainability requirements named CRs and crisp numbers and fuzzy numbers can be compared.
DRs of a sustainable SC. Then supermatrix approach of ANP
incorporated with the QFD is used to consider the interdependen- Acknowledgments
cies among CRs and DRs. Finally the results of ANP and the relative
importance weights of the additional goals are used in zero one GP The authors would like to express their deep gratitude towards
in order to determine the most suitable DRs of a sustainable SC. the industrial experts.
Appendix A
Pairwise comparisons among CRs with respect to the goal of achieving sustainability, where there is no dependence among CRs:
CRs Total Economic Equity Inventory Fuel Emissions Waste Health and Laws and w1
Total cost 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.20 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.80 3.00 0.164
Economic benefit 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.171
Equity use 0.67 0.50 1.00 0.80 1.80 1.10 1.20 1.60 0.90 0.108
Inventory 0.83 0.67 1.25 1.00 0.60 0.80 1.20 0.90 1.10 0.098
management
Fuel usage 0.67 0.50 0.56 1.67 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.90 1.10 0.093
Emissions 0.67 0.50 0.91 1.25 1.11 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.25 0.101
waste created 0.50 0.50 0.83 0.83 1.25 0.91 1.00 0.80 0.90 0.085
Health and security 0.56 0.67 0.63 1.11 1.11 0.91 1.25 1.00 0.90 0.093
Laws and regulations 0.33 0.50 1.11 0.91 0.91 0.80 1.11 1.11 1.00 0.087
Comparison matrices of DRs with respect to each CR, where there is no dependence among the DRs:
Total cost DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR6 DR7 DR9 DR10 DR12 DR17 DR18 Relative
importance weights
DR1 1,00 1.30 1.10 1.10 0.50 0.90 0.90 0.85 1.10 1.60 1.10 0.092
DR2 0.77 1.00 1.10 1.30 1.10 1.20 1.10 1.10 1.30 1.20 1.10 0.099
DR3 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.80 0.50 1.40 1.30 1.60 0.90 0.089
DR4 0.91 0.77 1.05 1.00 0.95 1.20 0.90 0.85 0.85 1.05 0.50 0.080
DR6 2.00 0.91 1.11 1.05 1.00 0.90 1.10 1.10 1.30 1.20 0.80 0.100
DR7 1.11 0.83 1.25 0.83 1.11 1.00 0.90 0.85 1.10 0.95 0.80 0.087
DR9 1.11 0.91 2.00 1.11 0.91 1.11 1.00 1.05 1.20 1.10 1.05 0.101
DR10 1.18 0.91 0.71 1.18 0.91 1.18 0.95 1.00 1.50 1.30 1.10 0.096
DR12 0.91 0.77 0.77 1.18 0.77 0.91 0.83 0.67 1.00 0.90 0.70 0.075
DR17 0.63 0.83 0.63 0.95 0.83 1.05 0.91 0.77 1.11 1.00 0.60 0.075
DR18 0.91 0.91 1.11 2.00 1.25 1.25 0.95 0.91 1.43 1.67 1.00 0.106
Economic benefit DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR6 DR7 DR9 DR10 DR11 DR12 DR17 DR18 Relative
importance weights
DR1 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.086
DR2 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.095
DR3 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.086
DR4 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.075
DR6 0.16 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.094
DR7 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.083
DR9 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.094
Appendix A (continued)
Economic benefit DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR6 DR7 DR9 DR10 DR11 DR12 DR17 DR18 Relative
importance weights
DR10 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.090
DR11 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.059
DR12 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.070
DR17 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.070
DR18 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.098
Equity use DR6 DR9 DR12 DR18 DR7 Relative

importance weights
DR6 0.13 0.39 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.109
DR9 0.07 0.19 0.33 0.27 0.26 0.261
DR12 0.19 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.17 0.174
DR18 0.34 0.16 0.18 0.23 0.24 0.239
DR7 0.27 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.217
Inventory management DR1 DR6 DR7 DR10 DR12 Relative

importance weights
DR1 0.18 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.185
DR6 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.17 0.18 0.173
DR7 0.30 0.25 0.31 0.38 0.28 0.304
DR10 0.23 0.19 0.15 0.19 0.26 0.206
DR12 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.13 0.133
Fuel usage DR2 DR3 DR10 DR11 DR13 DR17 DR18 Relative
importance weights
DR2 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.153
DR3 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.145
DR10 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.27 0.20 0.211
DR11 0.19 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.125
DR13 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.098
DR17 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.133
DR18 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.135
Emissions DR2 DR5 DR9 DR11 DR12 DR13 DR16 Relative

importance weights
DR2 0.18 0.20 0.15 0.24 0.24 0.13 0.18 0.188
DR5 0.12 0.13 0.21 0.11 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.131
DR9 0.22 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.18 0.190
DR11 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.119
DR12 0.09 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.120
DR13 0.20 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.152
DR16 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.100
Waste created DR4 DR5 DR8 DR9 DR10 DR11 DR12 DR13 Relative
importance weights
DR4 0.12 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.09 0.126
DR5 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.160
DR8 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.115
DR9 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.153
DR10 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.151
DR11 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.097
DR12 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.097
DR13 0.14 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.102
Health and security DR1 DR5 DR12 DR13 DR16 Relative

importance weights
DR1 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.232
DR5 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.210
DR12 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.193
DR13 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.20 0.164
DR16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.201
Laws and regulations DR1 DR14 DR15 DR18 Relative

importance weights
DR1 0.32 0.31 0.33 0.31 0.317
DR14 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.242
DR15 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.237
DR18 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.204
Matrix W2 established using the column eigenvectors with respect to each CR:
cost benefit use manage men usage created security regulations
DR1 0.092 0.086 0 0.148 0 0 0 0.232 0.317
DR2 0.099 0.095 0 0 0.153 0.188 0 0 0
DR3 0.089 0.086 0 0 0.145 0 0 0 0
DR4 0.080 0.075 0 0 0 0 0.126 0 0
DR5 0 0 0 0 0 0.131 0.160 0.210 0
DR6 0.100 0.094 0.167 0.173 0 0 0 0 0
DR7 0.087 0.083 0.212 0.304 0 0 0 0 0
DR8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.115 0 0
DR9 0.101 0.094 0.225 0 0 0.190 0.153 0 0
DR10 0.096 0.090 0 0.206 0.211 0 0.151 0 0
DR11 0 0.059 0 0 0.125 0.119 0.097 0 0
DR12 0.075 0.070 0.166 0.133 0 0.120 0.097 0.193 0
DR13 0 0 0 0 0.098 0.152 0.102 0.164 0
DR14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.242
DR15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.237
DR16 0 0 0 0 0 0.100 0 0.201 0
DR17 0.075 0.070 0 0 0.133 0 0 0 0
DR18 0.106 0.098 0.229 0 0.135 0 0 0 0.204
Pairwise comparison matrices where the inner dependences among the CRs are determined through analyzing the impact of each CR on
other CRs:
Inventory management Total cost Economic benefit Equity use Inventory management Relative
importance weights
Total cost 1.000 1.800 2.000 0.500 0.253
Economic 0.556 1.000 2.000 0.333 0.175
Equity use 0.500 0.500 1.000 0.333 0.120
Inventory management 2.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 0.451
Total cost Equity Inventory Fuel Waste Health and Laws and Total Relative
use management usage created security regulations cost importance
weights
Equity use 1.000 0.900 0.700 1.100 1.200 1.200 0.667 0.126
Inventory 1.111 1.000 0.900 1.200 1.300 1.200 0.769 0.141
Fuel usage 1.429 1.111 1.000 2.000 1.800 1.500 0.400 0.160
Waste created 0.909 0.833 0.500 1.000 1.800 1.500 0.333 0.116
Health and 0.833 0.769 0.556 0.556 1.000 0.900 0.333 0.090
security
Laws and 0.833 0.833 0.667 0.667 1.111 1.000 0.333 0.098
regulations
Total cost 1.500 1.300 2.500 3.000 3.000 3.000 1.000 0.270
Economic Total Equity Inventory Fuel Waste Health and Laws and Economic Relative
benefit cost use management usage created security regulations benefit importance
weights
Total cost 1.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.200 2.200 2.100 0.909 0.195
Equity use 0.500 1.000 0.900 1.100 1.200 1.500 1.500 0.556 0.110
Inventory 0.556 1.111 1.000 2.000 2.100 2.200 2.200 0.667 0.152
Fuel usage 0.500 0.909 0.500 1.000 1.800 1.600 1.800 0.500 0.109
Economic Total Equity Inventory Fuel Waste Health and Laws and Economic Relative
benefit cost use management usage created security regulations benefit importance
weights
Waste 0.455 0.833 0.476 0.556 1.000 2.000 1.900 0.476 0.096
created
Health and 0.455 0.667 0.455 0.625 0.500 1.000 0.900 0.400 0.069
security
Laws and 0.476 0.667 0.455 0.556 0.526 1.111 1.000 0.400 0.071
regulations
Economic 1.100 1.800 1.500 2.000 2.100 2.500 2.500 1.000 0.197
benefit
Equity use Economic benefit Inventory management Laws and regulations Equity use Relative
importance weights
Economic benefit 1.000 0.600 0.500 0.714 0.167
Inventory management 1.667 1.000 1.100 0.833 0.271
Laws and regulations 2.000 0.909 1.000 0.909 0.277
Equity use 1.400 1.200 1.100 1.000 0.285
Emissions Fuel usage Laws and regulations Emissions Relative

importance weights
Fuel usage 1.000 3.000 0.909 1.305
Laws and regulations 0.333 1.000 0.625 0.562
Emissions 1.100 1.600 1.000 1.132
Fuel usage Total cost Economic benefit Fuel usage Relative

importance weights
Total cost 1.000 1.500 0.909 0.363
Economic benefit 0.667 1.000 0.667 0.250
Fuel usage 1.100 1.500 1.000 0.387
The inner dependence matrix W3 of the CRs:
Total cost 0.270 0.195 0 0.253 0.363 0 0 0 0
Economic 0 0.197 0.167 0.175 0.250 0 0 0 0
benefit
Equity use 0.126 0.110 0.285 0.120 0 0 0 0 0
Inventory 0.141 0.152 0.271 0.451 0 0 0 0 0
management
Fuel usage 0.160 0.109 0 0 0.387 0.435 0 0 0
Emissions 0 0 0 0 0 0.377 0 0 0
Waste created 0.116 0.096 0 0 0 0.187 0.750 0 0
Health and 0.090 0.069 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
security
Laws and 0.098 0.071 0.277 0 0 0.250 0.250 0 1
regulations
Pairwise comparison matrices where the inner dependences among the DRs are determined through analyzing the impact of each DR on
other DRs:
Cooperation with suppliers DR10 DR13 DR14 DR2 Relative

importance weights
DR10 1.00 2.00 1.50 0.56 0.255
DR13 0.50 1.00 0.60 0.40 0.135
DR14 0.67 1.67 1.00 0.33 0.178
DR2 1.80 2.50 3.00 1.00 0.433
Optimized workflow DR1 DR6 DR7 DR12 DR18 DR3 Relative

importance weights
DR1 1.00 1.50 1.70 1.80 1.10 0.83 0.21
DR6 0.67 1.00 1.50 1.60 1.10 0.77 0.17
DR7 0.59 0.67 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.67 0.11
DR12 0.56 0.63 1.25 1.00 0.80 0.83 0.13
DR18 0.91 0.91 1.67 1.25 1.00 0.50 0.16
DR3 1.20 1.30 1.50 1.20 2.00 1.00 0.22
Priority to secondary raw materials in usage DR8 DR9 DR10 DR12 DR4 Relative
importance weights
DR8 1.00 0.80 1.10 1.20 0.91 0.19
DR9 1.25 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.83 0.25
DR10 0.91 0.67 1.00 1.50 0.83 0.19
DR12 0.83 0.50 0.67 1.00 0.83 0.15
DR4 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 0.22
Treat hazardous materials safely DR10 DR12 DR13 DR16 DR18 DR5 Relative
importance weights
DR10 1.00 1.20 1.30 1.10 1.20 0.50 0.165
DR12 0.83 1.00 0.90 1.10 0.80 0.67 0.142
DR13 0.77 1.11 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.56 0.136
DR16 0.91 0.91 1.11 1.00 0.60 0.67 0.138
DR18 0.83 1.25 1.25 1.67 1.00 0.77 0.178
DR5 2.00 1.50 1.80 1.50 1.30 1.00 0.242
Effective systems use of accounting and management tools DR1 DR12 DR18 DR6 Relative
importance weights
DR1 1.000 2.000 1.500 0.667 0.290
DR12 0.500 1.000 0.750 0.667 0.172
DR18 0.667 1.333 1.000 0.769 0.220
DR6 1.500 1.500 1.300 1.000 0.319
Inventory effectiveness DR1 DR3 DR6 DR12 DR7 Relative

importance weights
DR1 1.000 0.700 1.100 1.200 0.769 0.187
DR3 1.429 1.000 0.800 1.100 0.714 0.196
DR6 0.909 1.250 1.000 1.200 0.769 0.200
DR12 0.833 0.909 0.833 1.000 0.909 0.178
DR7 1.300 1.400 1.300 1.100 1.000 0.240
Produce using minimum energy and materials DR2 DR3 DR4 DR9 Relative
importance weights
DR2 1.000 0.900 0.500 0.556 0.172
DR3 1.111 1.000 0.800 0.667 0.213
DR4 2.000 1.250 1.000 0.909 0.298
DR9 1.800 1.500 1.100 1.000 0.317
Product based logistic applications DR1 DR2 DR12 DR18 DR10 Relative
importance weights
DR1 1.000 0.800 0.600 0.700 0.833 0.154
DR2 1.250 1.000 1.100 1.500 0.909 0.224
DR12 1.667 0.909 1.000 1.200 0.909 0.218
DR3 1.429 0.667 0.833 1.000 0.833 0.182
DR10 1.200 1.100 1.100 1.200 1.000 0.221
Transportation effectiveness DR2 DR3 DR11 DR17 Relative

importance weights
DR2 1.000 1.100 1.300 0.833 0.259
DR3 0.909 1.000 1.100 0.909 0.242
DR11 0.769 0.909 1.000 0.714 0.209
DR17 1.200 1.100 1.400 1.000 0.290
The inner dependence matrix W4 of the DRs:
4 DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR5 DR6 DR7 DR8 DR9 DR10 DR11 DR12 DR13 DR14 DR15 DR16 DR17 DR18
DR1 1 0 0.206 0 0 0.290 0.187 0 0 0.154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR2 0 0.433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.172 0.224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.259 0
DR3 0 0 0.219 0 0 0 0.196 0 0.213 0.182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.242 0
DR4 0 0 0 0.225 0 0 0 0 0.298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR5 0 0 0 0 0.242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR6 0 0 0.170 0 0 0.319 0.200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR7 0 0 0.115 0 0 0 0.240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR8 0 0 0 0.194 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR9 0 0 0 0.248 0 0 0 0 0.317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR10 0 0.255 0 0.186 0.165 0 0 0 0 0.221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.209 0
DR12 0 0 0.133 0.148 0.142 0.172 0.178 0 0 0.218 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
DR13 0 0.135 0 0 0.136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
DR14 0 0.178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
DR15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
DR16 0 0 0 0 0.138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
DR17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.290 0
DR18 0 0 0.159 0 0.178 0.220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
References Halog, A. (2004). An approach to selection of sustainable product improvement

alternatives with data uncertainty. Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 4,
3–19.
Alptekin, E., & Isiklar, G. (2005). An application of quality function deployment:
Halog, A., Schultmann, F., & Rentz, O. (2001). Using quality function deployment for
Evaluation of e-learning products in Turkey. In Proceedings of the 35th
technique selection for optimum environmental performance improvement.
international conference on computers and industrial engineering (Vol. 1, pp.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 9, 387–394.
99–104).
Hanumaiah, N. B., & Mukherjee, R. N. P. (2006). Rapid hard tooling process selection
Andronikidis, A., Georgiou, A. C., Gotzamani, K., & Kamvysi, K. (2009). The
using QFD–AHP methodology. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
application of quality function deployment in service quality management.
17(3), 332–350.
Total Quality Management Journal, 21(4), 319–333.
Hsiao, S. W. (2002). Concurrent design method for developing a new product.
Bhattacharya, A., Sarkar, B., & Mukherjee, S. K. (2005). Integrating AHP with QFD for
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29, 41–55.
robot selection under requirement perspective. International Journal of
Iranmanesh, H., & Tabrizi, B. H. (2009). An Integrated framework for customer-
Production Research, 43(17), 3671–3685.
oriented web design using QFD, Kano Model and ANP. Computers and Industrial
Bovea, M. D., & Wang, B. (2003). Identifying environmental improvement options by
Engineering, International Conference (pp. 1674–1679).
combining life cycle assessment and fuzzy set theory. International Journal of
Kahraman, C., Ertay, T., & Büyüközkan, G. (2006). A fuzzy optimization model for
Production Research, 41(3), 593–609.
QFD planning process using analytic network approach. European Journal of
Büyüközkan, G., Ertay, T., Kahraman, C., & Ruan, D. (2004). Determining the
Operational Research, 171, 390–411.
importance weights for the design requirements in the house of quality using
Karsak, E., Sozer, S., & Alptekin, E. S. (2002). Product planning in QFD using a
the fuzzy analytic network approach. International Journal of Intelligent Systems,
combined analytic network process and goal programming approach.
19, 443–461.
Computers and Industrial Engineering, 44(1), 171–190.
Çelik, M., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C., & Er, I. D. (2009). An integrated fuzzy QFD model
Koksal, G., & Eğitman, A. (1998). Planning and design of industrial engineering
proposal on routing of shipping investment decisions in crude oil tanker
education quality. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 35, 639–642.
market. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 6227–6235.
Kuo, T. C., Wub, H. H., & Shieh, J. I. (2009). Integration of environmental
Chan, L. K., & Wu, M. L. (1998). Prioritizing the technical measures in quality
considerations in quality function deployment by using fuzzy logic. Expert
function deployment. Quality Engineering, 10(3), 467–479.
Systems with Applications, 36, 7148–7156.
Chan, L. K., & Wu, M. L. (2002). Quality function deployment: A literature review.
Kwong, C. K., & Bai, H. (2002). A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of
European Journal of Operational Research, 143, 463–497.
importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment.
Chang, Y. H., Wey, W. M., & Tseng, H. Y. (2009). Using ANP priorities with goal
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 13, 367–377.
programming for revitalization strategies in historic transport: A case study of
Lam, K., & Zhao, X. (1998). An application of quality function deployment to
the Alishan Forest Railway. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 8682–8690.
improve the quality of teaching. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Chuang, P. T. (2001). Combining the analytic hierarchy process and quality function
Management, 15(4), 389–413.
deployment for a location decision from a requirement perspective.
Lee, J. W., & Kim, S. H. (2000). Using analytic network process and goal
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 18, 842–849.
programming for interdependent information system project selection.
De Brito, M. P., & Van Der Laan, E. A. (2008). Supply chain management and
Computers and Operations Research, 27, 367–382.
sustainability: Procrastinating a holistic integration. IEMC – Europe 2008:
Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H., Hsu, C., & Hung, H. (2009a). A green supplier selection model
International engineering management conference proceedings (pp. 389–392).
for high-tech industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 7917–7927.
Feretti, I., Zanoni, S., Zavanella, L., & Diana, A. (2007). Greening the aluminum supply
Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H., Yang, C., & Lin, C. (2009b). An evaluation framework for
chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 108, 236–245.
product planning using FANP, QFD and multi-choice goal programming.
Georgiou, A. C., Gotzamani, K., Andronikidis, A., & Paltayian, G. N. (2008). Combined
International Journal of Production Research, 47, 1–21.
QFD, AHP and ANP approach for quality improvement and capacity expansion
Lee, Y. T., Wu, W. W., & Tzeng, G. H. (2008). An effective decision-making method
the Greek banking sector: Some preliminary results. 11th Quality management
using a combined QFD and ANP approach. WSEAS Transactions on Business and
and organizational development conference: Attaining sustainability from
Economics, 5(12), 541–551.
organizational excellence to sustainable excellence.
Lin, Y. H., Cheng, H. P., Tseng, M. L., & Tsai, J. C. C. (2010). Using QFD and ANP to Sharma, J. R., Rawani, A. M., & Barahate, M. (2008). Quality function deployment: A
analyze the environmental production requirements in linguistic preferences. comprehensive literature review. International Journal of Data Analysis
Expert Systems with Applications, 37(3), 2186–2196. Techniques and Strategies, 1(1), 78–103.
Linton, J. D., Klassen, R., & Jayaraman, V. (2007). Sustainable supply chains: An Stonebraker, P. W., Goldhar, J., & Nassos, G. (2009). Weak links in the supply chain:
introduction. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 1075–1082. Measuring fragility and sustainability. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Lu, M. H., Madu, C. N., Kuei, C., & Winokur, D. (1994). Integrating QFD, AHP and Management, 20(2), 161–177.
benchmarking in strategic marketing. Journal of Business and Industrial Tolga, E., & Alptekin, S. E. (2008). Product evaluation and development process using
Marketing, 9(1), 41–50. a fuzzy compromise-based goal programming approach. Journal of Intelligent
Madu, C. N., Kuei, C. H., & Madu, I. E. (2002). A hierarchic metric approach for and Fuzzy Systems, 19, 285–301.
integration of green issues in manufacturing: A paper recycling application. Sohn, S. Y., & Choi, I. S. (2001). Fuzzy QFD for supply chain management with
Journal of Environmental Management, 64, 261–272. reliability consideration. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 72,
Madu, C. N., & Kuei, C. H. (1994). Optimum information technology for socioeconomic 327–334.
development. Information Management and Computer Security, 2(1), 4–11. Tsai, W. H., Hsu, J. L., Chen, C. H., Lin, W. R., & Chen, S. P. (2009). An integrated
Madu, C. N., Kuei, C. H., Aheto, J., & Winokur, D. (1994b). Integrating total quality approach for selecting corporate social responsibility programs and costs
management in the adoption of new technologies. Benchmarking For Quality evaluation in the international tourist hotel. International Journal of Hospitality
Management and Technology, 1(3), 52–66. Management, 1, 1–12.
Masui, K., Sakao, T., Kobayashi, M., & Inaba, A. (2003). Applying quality function Tsai, W. H., & Chou, W. C. (2009). Selecting management systems for sustainable
deployment to environmentally conscious design. International Journal of development in SMEs: A novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and
Quality and Reliability Management, 20(1), 90–106. ZOGP. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 1444–1458.
Myint, S. (2003). A framework of an intelligent quality function deployment (IQFD) Tsai, W. H., Leu, J. D., Liu, J. Y., Lin, S. J., & Shaw, M. J. (2010). A MCDM approach for
For discrete assembly environment. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 45, sourcing strategy mix decision in IT projects. Expert Systems with Applications,
269–283. 37, 3870–3886.
Pal, D. K., Ravı, B., & Bhargava, L. S. (2007). Rapid tooling route selection for metal Tsoulfas, G. T., & Pappis, C. P. (2006). Environmental principles applicable to supply
casting using QFD–ANP methodology. International Journal of Computer chains design and operation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 1593–1602.
Integrated Manufacturing, 20(4), 338–354. Utne, I. B. (2009). Improving the environmental performance of the fishing fleet by
Park, T., & Kim, K. (1998). Determination of an optimal set of design requirements use of quality function deployment (QFD). Journal of Cleaner Production, 17,
using house of quality. Journal of Operations Management, 16, 569–581. 724–731.
Partovi, F. Y. (1999). A quality function deployment approach to strategic capital Wang, H., Xie, M., & Goh, T. N. (1998). A comparative study of the prioritization
budgeting. Engineering Economist, 44(3), 239–260. matrix method and the analytic hierarchy process technique in quality function
Partovi, F. Y. (2001). An analytic model to quantify strategic service vision. deployment. Journal of Total Quality Management, 9(6), 421–430.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(5), 476–499. Wey, W. M., & Wu, K. Y. (2007). Using ANP priorities with goal programming in
Partovi, F. Y. (2007). An analytical model of process choice in the chemical industry. resource allocation in transportation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46,
International Journal of Production Economics, 105, 213–227. 985–1000.
Partovi, F. Y., & Corredoira, R. A. (2002). Quality function deployment for the good of Zakarian, A., & Kusiak, A. (1999). Forming teams: An analytical approach. IIE
soccer. European Journal of Operational Research, 137, 642–656. Transactions, 31, 85–97.
Partovi, F. Y., & Epperly, J. M. (1999). A quality function deployment approach to Zhang, Y., Wang, H.-P., & Zhang, C. (1999). Green QFD-II: A life cycle approach for
task organization in peacekeeping force design. Socio-Economic Planning environmentally conscious manufacturing by integrating LCA and LCC into QFD
Sciences, 33, 131–149. matrices. International Journal of Production Research, 37(5), 1075–1091.
Presley, A., Meade, L., & Sarkis, J. (2007). A strategic sustainability justification Zhou, Z., Cheng, S., & Hua, B. (2000). Supply chain optimization of continuous
methodology for organizational decisions: A reverse logistics illustration. process industries with sustainability considerations. Computers and Chemical
International Journal of Production Research, 45(18), 4595–4620. Engineering, 24, 1151–1158.
Reyes, D. E. S., & Wright, T. L. (2001). A design for the environment methodology to Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2004). Relationships between operational practices and
support an environmental management system. Integrated Manufacturing performance among early adopters of green supply chain management
Systems, 12(5), 323–332. practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations
Sakao, T. (2007). A QFD-centred design methodology for environmentally conscious Management, 22, 265–289.
product design. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18), 4143–4162. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2007). Initiatives and outcomes of green supply chain
Sarkis, J. (2003). A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management implementation by Chinese manufacturer. Journal of
management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 397–409. Environmental Management, 85, 179–189.

Buyukozkan 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buyukozkan 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buyukozkan 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 13731–13748

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

Designing a sustainable supply chain using an integrated analytic network

1. Introduction Nowadays, it is not easy to achieve sustainability in a supply

4.3. The decision methodology

The decision algorithm addresses the problem of determining

Identify the CRs and DRs. Achieving Sustainability

Author Scope Method Year

Fig. 3. The HOQ.

Fig. 5. HOQ of the case study.

ple any second type metric is considered.

7. Conclusion In order to create a better understanding, the concept of sus-

Equity use DR6 DR9 DR12 DR18 DR7 Relative

Inventory management DR1 DR6 DR7 DR10 DR12 Relative

Emissions DR2 DR5 DR9 DR11 DR12 DR13 DR16 Relative

Health and security DR1 DR5 DR12 DR13 DR16 Relative

Laws and regulations DR1 DR14 DR15 DR18 Relative

Emissions Fuel usage Laws and regulations Emissions Relative

Fuel usage Total cost Economic beneﬁt Fuel usage Relative

The inner dependence matrix W3 of the CRs:

Cooperation with suppliers DR10 DR13 DR14 DR2 Relative

Optimized workﬂow DR1 DR6 DR7 DR12 DR18 DR3 Relative

Inventory effectiveness DR1 DR3 DR6 DR12 DR7 Relative

Transportation effectiveness DR2 DR3 DR11 DR17 Relative

The inner dependence matrix W4 of the DRs:

References Halog, A. (2004). An approach to selection of sustainable product improvement

You might also like