Page 88 - مجله مدیریت سبز - شماره 2 - نسخه فلش

Step 2.
Since the evaluation of different experts would lead to different matrices, we need to integrate the opinions of
different experts to form one synthetic pairwise comparison matrix. This step is unnecessary if there is only one expert in Step
1. The elements of the synthetic pairwise comparison matrix (~ a ij ) are calculated by using the geometric mean method
proposed by Buckley (1985):
2
1
? ? 1=E
~ a ij ¼ ~ a 5~ a 5…5~ a E ij (3)
ij
ij
The superscript in Equation (3) is the index referring to different experts with a total of E experts.
Step 3. Use the synthetic pairwise comparison matrix from Step 2. The fuzzy geometric mean (~ r i ) and fuzzy weights of each
criterion ( ~ w i ) are de?ned using Equations (4) and (5) respectively:
1=n
~ r i ¼?~ a i1 5~ a i2 5…5~ a in ? (4)
LCA رب ينتبم زبس يحارط باختنا يارب يبتارم هلسلس راتخاس زا هنومن کي -2 لو دج H.K. Chan et al. / The British Accounting Review 46 (2014) 344e360 ?1 351
هجيتن ر د
.ديآ يمر د يزاف تلاح زا ،ه دش هئارا )7( ?ل داعم ر د هک COA شور زا ه دافتسا اب ~ w i ¼ ~ r i 5?~ r 1 4…5~ r n ? (5)
ياهزاف
يبايزرا ياهرايعم اهرايعم تايح ?خرچ يبايزرا زين لقتسم ياهرايعم ينامزاس ياه درکلمع ،يطيحم ت??سيز يبايزرا هباشم
(13)
f
OP i ¼?LOP i ; MOP i ; UOP i ? Step 4. Since the calculation so far involves linguistic variables, the next step is to defuzzify the weights to form meaningful
يطيحم يبايزرا ياه هصخشم )...و ABS، PE( يّلک :کيتسلاپ .LC 11 اب ناوت يم ار هتفاي صيصخت OP i ره ي دنب هبتر ،FAHP درکيور زا ه دافتسا اب .دنوش يم
?gures for the analysis (e.g., ranking). Numerous methods exist in literature but Centre-of-Area (COA) is by far the most
: درک فيصوت ريز تمرف
و يژرنا ،ح??لاصم فر??صم .EA ،کيت??سلا( هژيو :کيت??سلاپ.LC H.K. Chan et al. / The British Accounting Review 46 (2014) 344e360 351
popular and easy to use (e.g., Hsieh et al., 2004). Assume the fuzzy weights of each criterion (w i ) can be expressed in the
H.K. Chan et al. / The British Accounting Review 46 (2014) 344e360
351
12
1 In ranking the organisational performance assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic decision can be made and a resulting
H.K. Chan et al. / The British Accounting Review 46 (2014) 344e360
رگي د عبانم )...و ه درشف following form: 351
H.K. Chan et al. / The British Accounting Review 46 (2014) 344e360 H.K. Chan 351
351 et al. / The British Accounting Review 46 (2014) 344e360
يزاس ه دامآ
f OR can be computed as follows:
اي بآ ،اوه يگ دولآ را??شتنا .EA fuzzy synthetic decision matrix f (13)
زلف .LC
OP i ¼?LOP i ; MOP i ; UOP i ? )13(
2 13 f ~ w i ¼?Lw i ; Mw i ; Uw i ? (13) (6)
f كاخ OP i ¼?LOP i ; MOP i ; UOP i ?
f LC
،اه تمواقم( يکينورتکلا ?عطق .LC
OP i ¼?LOP i ; MOP i ; UOP i ? OR ¼ OP5W (13) (14)
f 14
1
e
(13)
(13)
where Lw i ,Mw i ,Uw i represent the lower, middle and upper values of the fuzzy weight of the i-th criterion. The non-fuzzy (i.e.,
ينيب شيپ لباق يگ دولآ .EA
f
f
OP i ¼?LOP i ; MOP i ; UOP i ? )...و LC ،اه نزاخ In ranking the organisational performance assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic decision can be made and a resulting
OP i ¼?LOP i ; MOP i ; UOP i ?
ذاختا ناوت يم ار يياهن يبيکرت ميمصت ،ينامزاس درکلمع يبايزرا ياه هصخشم ي دنب هبتر ر د
3 In ranking the organisational performance assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic decision can be
defuzzi?ed) weight value of the i-th criterion (w i ) is given as: made and a resulting
تاعياض ديلوت .EA 4 )PCB( يپاچ را دم ?حفص .LC 15 fuzzy synthetic decision matrix OR can be computed as follows: ?
f decision can be made and a resulting
In ranking the organisational performance assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic
يزاف يبيکرت ميمصت سيرتام ناوت يم و درک
?
MOR ij ;
Each element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrixOR, OR ij ¼ LOR ij ;
fuzzy synthetic decision matrix OR can be computed as follows:
: درک هبساحم تروص نيا هب ار f g
UOR ij , with respect to the criterion LC ij
In ranking the organisational performance
In ranking the organisational performance assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic decision can be made and a resulting assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic decision can be made and a resulting (7)
، د د??جم ? دافت??سا ناک??ما .EA
f
w i ¼ ½?Uw i ? Lw i ???Mw i ? Lw i ??=3 ? Lw i
fuzzy synthetic decision matrix OR can be computed as follows:
can be estimated by the following equations:
يحطس بصن .LC
f
5
OR ¼ OP5W
fuzzy synthetic decision matrix OR can be computed as follows: 21 fuzzy synthetic decision matrix OR can be computed as follows: (14)
تفايزاب
f
f
f
f
e
The next step is to calculate the environment risk ratings of different criteria with respect to the ?ve environmental
Step 5.
يسيرتام بيکرت .LC
OR ¼ OP5W
f
22
e
f
ديلوت
يژرنا اي داوم يبايزاب و e LOR ij ¼ LOP ij ? LW ij OR ¼ OP5W )14( (14) (15) (14)
assessment attributes. The procedure is similar to Step 1 to Step 4 and the key difference is simply the object of the pairwise
f
f
OR ¼ OP5W
(14)
OR ¼ OP5W يّلک ژاتنوم .LC 23 Each element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrixOR, OR ij ¼ LOR ij ; (2014) 344e360 UOR ij , with respect to the criterion LC ij
comparison. A similar matrix as in Equation (2) should be constructed for different experts. A synthetic pairwise comparison
?
351
?
f g Review 46
MOR ij ;
(14) / The British Accounting
H.K. Chan et al.
e
e
f
f
f
f
(16)
)...و يريگ بلاق( زلف شزا درپ .LC LC ? ? matrix can then be calculated using the geometric mean method outlined in Step 2. Thereafter, the fuzzy geometric mean and
?
?
MOR ij ¼ MOP ij ? MW ij element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrixOR, OR ij ¼ LOR ij ;
MOR ij ;
ينعي يزاف يبيکرت ميمصت سيرتام رصنع ره
UOR ij , with respect to the criterion LC ij
f g
24
2
Each element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrixOR, OR ij ¼ LOR ij ; MOR ij ; UOR ij , with
f
Each g
can be estimated by the following equations: respect to the criterion LC ij
)...و قيرزت( کيتسلاپ شزا درپ .LC ? can be estimated by the following equations: fuzzy weights of each criterion with respect to different environmental attributes can be de?ned using Equation (4) and
?
UOR ij , with respect to the criterion
?
?
25
can be estimated by the following equations: ;
: دز نيمخت ،ريز تلا داعم اب LC ij طبترم ياهرايعم اب ناوت يم ار ¼ LOR ij ;
(17)
Each element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrixOR, OR ij ¼ LOR ij MOR ij ; Each element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrixOR, OR ij MOR ij ; UOR ij , with respect to the criterion LC ij
(15)
f g
f g
Equation (5). This is referred to as fuzzy environmental risk ratings, in contrast to the regular weightings for different criteria.
OP i ¼?LOP i ; MOP i ; UOP i
UOR ij ¼ UOP ij ? UW ij f
LOR ij ¼ LOP ij ? LW ij ?
can be estimated by the following equations: لوصحم حطس :ي دنب هتسب .LC can be estimated by the following equations: (13) (15)
(15)
LOR ij ¼ LOP ij ? LW ij
LOR ij ¼ LOP ij ? LW ij 31 ي دنب هتسب The rating of each attributed EA i can be expressed in the following format, analogous to Equation (6):
نتراک حطس :ي دنب هتسب .LC (16)
(16)
LOR ij ¼ LOP ij ? LW ij
LOR ij ¼ LOP ij ? LW ij 32 MOR ij ¼ MOP ij ? MW ij (15) )15( (15)
MOR ij ¼ MOP ij ? MW ij performance assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic decision can be made and a resulting
(16)
f
MOR ij ¼ MOP ij ? MW ij يتس د .LC 33 f LC 3 In ranking the organisational EA i ¼?LEA i ; MEA i ; UEA i ? (8)
Again, OR has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method.
fuzzy synthetic decision matrix
MOR ij ¼ MOP ij ? MW OR can be computed as follows:
(16)
UOR ij ¼ UOP ij ? UW ijse the weighing (i.e., contribution) of each criterion and life-cycle phase to
(16)
MOR ij ¼ MOP ij ? MW ij The objective of the above procedures is to analy ij f )16( (17)
(17)
In ranking the environmental assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic decision can be made and the resulting fuzzy
(17)
UOR ij ¼ UOP ij ? UW ij
UOR ij ¼ UOP ij ? UW ij the overall LCA. The FAHP method can also be used for the selection of design improvement alternatives. Below is
لقن و لمح .LC
عيزوت
synthetic decision matrix ER can be computed as: the case
ينامزاس درکلمع ياه هصخشم 41 )17( f
study to illustrate how the FAHP method can be used in a real-life application in relation to green product development.
UOR ij ¼ UOP ij ? UW ij يزاس هريخذ .LC LC OR ¼ OP5W (17) (14) (17)
UOR ij ¼ UOP ij ? UW ij
e
f
f
ER ¼ EA5W
نامز .OP 1 42 4 Again, OR has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method. f e (9)
f
f
Again, OR has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method. f ~ weighing (i.e., contribution) of each criterion and life-cycle phase to
Again, OR has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method.
f
تيفيک .OP
5. Case study
The objective of the above procedures is to analyse theg ً
Each element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrixOR, OR ij ¼ LOR
where W is the criteria weight vector calculated in the previous step.
?
.درک جراخ يزاف تلاح زا ،COA شور زا ه دافتسا اب ار f ناوت يم ا د دجم
?
The objective of the above procedures is to analyse the weighing (i.e., contribution) of each criterion and life-cycle phase to ij ; MOR ij ; UOR ij , with respect to the ? criterion LC ij ?
تفايزاب تيلباق نازيم .LC
2
تايح ياهتنا
The objective of the above procedures is to analyse the weighing (i.e., contribution) of each criterion and
f g life-cycle phase to
51
the overall LCA. The FAHP method can also be used for the selection of design improvement alternatives. Below
Again, OR has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method. can be estimated by the following equations: Each element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrix ER, ER ij ¼ LER ij ; is the case UER ij , with respect to the criterion LC ij
هنيزه .OP
Again, OR has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method.
MER ij ;
f
f
the overall LCA. The FAHP method can also be used for the selection of design improvement alternatives. Below is the case
د دجم ? دافتسا نازيم .LC
3
the overall LCA. The FAHP method can also be used for the selection of design improvement alternatives. Below is the case
can be estimated by the following equations:
52
The product in this case study is a personal electronic product as reported in Yung et al. (2011). The manufacturer of the and life-cycle phase
The objective of the above procedures is
study to illustrate how the FAHP method can be used in a real-life application in relation to green product development. to
The objective of the above procedures is to analyse the weighing (i.e., contribution) of each criterion and life-cycle phase to to analyse the weighing (i.e., contribution) of each criterion
يريذپ فاطعنا .OP
LC
study to illustrate how the FAHP method can be used in a real-life application in relation to green product development.
يبايزاب نازيم .LC
study to illustrate how the FAHP method can be used in a real-life application in relation to green product development.
رايعم ره نزو نييعت ،يزاف يبتارم هلسلس ليلحت دنيارف ر د لااب ياه ماگ ماجنا زا ف ده
(15)
4
5
the overall LCA. The FAHP method can also be used for the selection of design improvement alternatives. Below is the case be used for the selection of design improvement alternatives. Below is the case (10)
53
product attempted to initiate an environmentally friendly product design program with the aim of developing a tool (i.e., LCA)
LOR ij ¼ LOP ij ? LW ij
the overall LCA. The FAHP method can also
LER ij ¼ LEA ij ? LW ij
باختنا يارب FAHP کينکت زا ناوت يم نينچمه .تسا يّلک LCA يارب تايح ?خرچ زاف و
study to illustrate how the FAHP method can be used in a real-life application in relation to MER ij ¼ MEA ij ? MW ij (16) (11)
study to illustrate how the FAHP method
to help the designers select the best green product development. can be used in a real-life application in relation to green
5. Case study product design options. In this study, we refer to the case to demonstrate how the product development.
5. Case study
MOR ij ¼
5. Case study MOP ij ? MW ij
proposed model can simplify new product development in a “green” perspective. It is not our intention to repeat the LCA for
اهنآ ساسارب اه شور هک تسا يياهرايعم باختنا ،تسا هلحرم نيرت يشلاچ هک ي دعب ?لحرم ده د يم ناشن ه دش ماجنا ي دروم ?علاطم ،هما دا ر د . درک ه دافتسا زين يحارط دوبهب ياه شور
The product in this case study is a personal electronic product as reported in Yung et al. (2011). The manufacturer of the
5. Case study
the product and the LCA results are not discussed in this paper. The proposed model instead aims to help screen out the
5. Case study The product in this case study is a personal electronic product as reported in Yung et al. (2011). The manufacturer of the (17) (12)
زبس لوصحم ?عسوت اب طبترم يعقاو دربراک کي ر د FAHP کينکت زا ناوت يم هنوگچ هک
UER ij ¼ UEA ij ? UW ij
ر د ي ديلک ياهرايعم ،)2011 ،ناراکمه و گنوي( هنومن هب هعجارم اب . د??ش دنهاوخ يبايزرا The product in this case study is a personal electronic product as reported in Yung et al. (2011). The manufacturer of the
UOR ij ¼ UOP ij ? UW ij
product attempted to initiate an environmentally friendly product design program with the aim of developing a tool (i.e., LCA)
product attempted to initiate an environmentally friendly product
design options for a subsequent LCA. design program with the aim of developing a tool (i.e., LCA)
. درک ه دافتسا
product attempted to initiate an environmentally friendly product design program with the aim of developing a tool (i.e., LCA)
to help the designers select the best product design options. In this study, we refer to the case to demonstrate how of the
دوش يم داجيا ،2 لو دج قباطم LCA رب ينتبم AHP بتارم هلسلس و ه دش فيرعت زاف ره
The product in this case study is a personal electronic product as
The overall objective is de?ned for the design selection following the procedures outlined in Section 3. The next and most The manufacturer
to help the designers select the best product design options. In this study, we refer to the case to demonstrate how the reported in Yung et al. (2011).
The product in this case study is a personal electronic product as reported in Yung et al. (2011). The manufacturer of the Finally, ER has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method given by Equation (7). the
f
to help the designers select the best product design options. In this study, we refer to the case to demonstrate how the
proposed model can simplify new product development in a “green” perspective. It is not our intention to repeat the LCA for
product attempted to initiate an environmentally friendly product design program with the aim of developing a tool (i.e., LCA)
product attempted to initiate an environmentally friendly product design program with the aim of developing a tool (i.e., LCA) Similar to the environmental assessment, the organisational performances of individual criteria are also assessed. Using
challenging step is to choose the criteria against which the alternatives will be evaluated. With reference to the case (Yung
proposed model can simplify new product development in a “green” perspective. It is not our intention to repeat the LCA for
لماک LCA کي هک يتروص ر د .) دنا ه دش ه دا د شيامن شخب نيا ر د يباختنا ياهرايعم طقف(
Again, OR has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method.
proposed model can simplify new product development in a “green” perspective. It is not our intention to repeat the LCA for
f
the product and the LCA results are not discussed in this paper. The proposed model instead aims to help screen out the
the product and the LCA results are not discussed in this paper. The proposed model instead aims to help screen out the study, we refer to the case to
ي دروم ?علاطم
to help the designers select the best product design options. In this
to help the designers select the best product design options. In this study, we refer to the case to demonstrate how the the same FAHP approach, the rating of each attributed OP i can be expressed in the following format:
et al., 2011), the key criteria in each phase are identi?ed and the hierarchy of the LCA-based AHP is constructed as shown in demonstrate how the
يروآ عمج ،3 شخب ر د دوجوم ياه لاور ساسارب ار طبترم تاعلاطا دياب ، دشاب هتفاين هعسوت
The objective of the above procedures is to analyse the weighing (i.e., contribution) of each criterion and life-cycle phase to
the product and the LCA results are not discussed in this paper. The proposed model instead aims to help screen out the
proposed model can simplify new product development in a “green” perspective. It is not our intention to repeat the
design options for a subsequent LCA. LCA for development in a “green” perspective. It is not our intention to repeat the LCA for
proposed model can simplify new product
Table 2 (only the selected criteria are shown here for demonstration purposes). If a full LCA has not been developed, the
design options for a subsequent LCA.
)2011( ناراکمه و گنوي شرازگ سا??سارب ي دروم ?علاطم نيا ر د دوجوم لوصحم
Step 2.
Since the evaluation of different experts would lead to different matrices, we need to integrate the opinions of
design options for a subsequent LCA. also be used for the selection of design improvement alternatives. Below is the case
the overall LCA. The FAHP method can
و يطيحم درکلمع يا هسياقم ياه ي دنب هبتر صيصخت يارب FAHP شور ،سپ??س . درک
The overall objective is de?ned for the design selection following the procedures outlined in Section 3. The next and most
the product and the LCA results are not discussed in this paper.
related information should be collected according to the procedures outlined in Section 3. The proposed model instead aims to help screen out the
The overall objective is de?ned for the design selection following the procedures outlined in Section 3. The next and most
the product and the LCA results are not discussed in this paper. The proposed model instead aims to help screen out the expert in Step
different experts to form one synthetic pairwise comparison matrix. This step is unnecessary if there is only one
يحارط ?مانرب تسا شلات ر د لوصحم ? دننک ديلوت .تسا يصخش يکينورتکلا لوصحم کي
study to illustrate how the FAHP method can be used in a real-life application in relation to green product development.
The overall objective is de?ned for the design selection following the procedures outlined in Section 3. The next and most
داجيا ،)4 شخب ر د 1 ماگ( هلحرم نيلوا . دوش يم ه درب راک هب ،فلتخم ياه حرط يبايزرا يارب
challenging step is to choose the criteria against which the alternatives will be evaluated. With reference to the case (Yung
design options for a subsequent LCA.
design options for a subsequent LCA. Thereafter, the FAHP method is used to assign comparative ratings of environmental performance to the different designs
challenging step is to choose the criteria against which the alternatives will be evaluated. With reference to the case (Yung
1. The elements of the synthetic pairwise comparison matrix (~ a ij ) are calculated by using the geometric mean method
challenging step is to choose the criteria against which the alternatives will be evaluated. With reference to the case (Yung
)LCA دننام( رازبا کي ?عسوت ،نآ ف ده و دنک زاغآ ار ت??سيز طيحم اب راگزا??س لوصحم
being assessed. The ?rst step (Step 1 in Section 4) is to construct a pairwise comparison among the criteria from different 3. The next and most
The overall objective is de?ned for the design selection following
et al., 2011), the key criteria in each phase are identi?ed and the hierarchy of the LCA-based AHP is constructed as shown in
The overall objective is de?ned for the design selection following the procedures outlined in Section 3. The next and most
proposed by Buckley (1985):
et al., 2011), the key criteria in each phase are identi?ed and the hierarchy of the LCA-based AHP is constructed as shown in the procedures outlined in Section
ره يراگزاس تبسن .تسا فلتخم ناگربخ هاگ دي د زا يياهرايعم نايم يجوز ???سياقم کي
5. Case study
et al., 2011), the key criteria in each phase are identi?ed and the hierarchy of the LCA-based AHP is constructed as shown in
نيا ر د . دنک يم کمک لوصحم يحارط ياه هنيزگ نيرتهب باختنا ر د ناحارط هب هک تسا
Table 2 (only the selected criteria are shown here for demonstration purposes). If a full LCA has not been developed, the
Table 2 (only the selected criteria are shown here for demonstration purposes). If a full LCA has not been developed, the
challenging step is to choose the criteria against which the alternatives will be evaluated. With reference to the case (Yung
challenging step is to choose the criteria against which the alternatives will be evaluated. With refer
experts. The consistency ratio of each judgement is simultaneously calculated and checked to ensure that it is lower than orence to the case (Yung
يواسم اي رتمک هکنيا نيمضت يارب و هتفرگ رارق هبساحم دروم يهباشم لکش هب زين يسررب
? 1=E
?
Table 2 (only the selected criteria are shown here for demonstration purposes). If a full LCA has not been developed, the
E
1
2
(3)
~ a ij ¼ ~ a 5~ a 5…5~ a
دناوت يم ي داهنشيپ ل دم هنوگچ ميه د ناشن
related information should be collected according to the procedures outlined in Section 3. shown in identi?ed and the hierarchy of the LCA-based
equal to 0.1.
et al., 2011), the key criteria in each phase are identi?ed and the hierarchy of the LCA-based AHP is constructed as phase areرم هنومن نيا هب زين ام ،هعلاطم
related information should be collected according to the procedures outlined in Section 3. AHP is constructed as shown in
et al., 2011), the key criteria in eachات مينک يم هعجا
ij
ij
ij
The product in this case study is a personal electronic product as reported in Yung et al.
.دوش يم يسررب ،تسا 0,1
related information should be collected according to the procedures outlined in Section 3. (2011). The manufacturer of the
Thereafter, the FAHP method is used to assign comparative ratings of environmental performance to the different designs
Thereafter, the FAHP method is used to assign comparative ratings of environmental performance to the different designs
Table 2 (only the selected criteria are shown
Table 2 (only the selected criteria are shown here for demonstration purposes). If a full LCA has not been developed, the here for demonstration purposes). If a full LCA has not been developed, the
لوصحم يارب LCA رارکت ام ف ده . دنک ه داس »زبس« درکيور اب ار دي دج لوصحم ?عسوت
product attempted to initiate an environmentally friendly product design program with the aim of developing a tool (i.e., LCA)
Thereafter, the FAHP method is used to assign comparative ratings of environmental performance to the different designs
The superscript in Equation (3) is the index referring
يزاف و يبيکرت سيرتام ي دنب لومرف يارب ناگربخ مامت يبايزرا زا ،مو د ???لحرم ر د to different experts with a total of E experts.
being assessed. The ?rst step (Step 1 in Section 4) is to construct a pairwise comparison among the criteria from different
being assessed. The ?rst step (Step 1 in Section 4) is to construct a pairwise comparison among the criteria from different
related information should be collected according to the procedures outlined in Section 3.
related information should be collected according to the procedures outlined in Section 3.
هب کمک ،ي داهنشيپ ل دم ف ده اما ، دنا ه دشن فيصوت هلاقم نيا ر د زين LCA جياتن و تسين
to help the designers select the best product design options. In this study, we refer to the case to demonstrate how the
being assessed. The ?rst step (Step 1 in Section 4) is to construct a pairwise comparison among the criteria from different
experts. The consistency ratio of
Table 2 each judgement is simultaneously calculated and checked to ensure that it is lower than or
experts. The consistency ratio of each judgement is simultaneously calculated and checked to ensure that it is lower than or
Thereafter, the FAHP method is used to assign comparative ratings of environmental performance to the different designs
Step 3.
تايح ?خرچ ياهزاف زا ه دافتسا اب . د??ش ه دافتسا ،)3( ?ل داعم قيرط زا 2 هب يجوز ???سياقم Step 2. The fuzzy geometric mean (~ r i ) and fuzzy
Use the synthetic pairwise comparison matrix from
Thereafter, the FAHP method is used to assign comparative ratings of environmental performance to the different designs weights of each
proposed model can simplify new product development in a “green” perspective. It is not our intention to repeat the LCA for
experts. The consistency ratio of each judgement is simultaneously calculated and checked to ensure that it is lower than or
An example of hierarchy structure for LCA based green design selection.
equal to 0.1.
criterion ( ~ w i ) are de?ned using Equations (4) and (5) respectively:
being assessed. The ?rst step (Step 1 in Section 4) is to construct a pairwise comparison .تسا ي دعب LCA يارب يحارط ياه هنيزگ يزاسا دج
being assessed. The ?rst step (Step 1 in Section 4) is to construct a pairwise comparison among the criteria from different
equal to 0.1. among the criteria from different
.تسا ه دش ه دا د شيامن 3 لو دج ر د يبيکرت يجوز ?سياقم سيرتام ،لاثم کي ناونع هب
equal to 0.1. the LCA results are not discussed in this paper. The proposed model instead aims to help screen out the
the product and
.تسا ه دش فيرعت يحارط باختنا يارب يّلک ف ده ،3 شخب ر د اه ماگ فيصوت زا دعب
Life-cycle phases
Criteria
experts. The consistency ratio of each judgement is simultaneously calculated and checked to ensure that it is lower than or
experts. The consistency ratio of each judgement is simultaneously calculated and checked to ensure that it is lower than or Assessment criteria
1=n
يزاف ياه نزو و )~ r i ¼?~ a i1 5~ a i2 5…5~ a in ??ب??ساحم ،)3 ماگ( ي دعب ???لحرم
design options for a subsequent LCA.
( يزا??ف ي??س دنه نيگنايم
(4)
LC 11 . Plastic: general (ABS, PE, etc.)
equal to 0.1.
equal to 0.1. Table 2 LC 1 . Procurement Table 2 overall objective is de?ned for the design selection following the procedures outlined in Section 3. The next and most
Environmental Assessment Attributes
The
?1
An example of hierarchy structure for LCA based green design selection. LC 12 . Plastic: special (rubber, high impact, etc) (5) EA 1 . Consumption of material, energy and
Table 2
An example of hierarchy structure for LCA based green design selection. alternatives will be evaluated. With reference to the case (Yung
LC 13 . Metal choose the criteria against which the
~ w i ¼ ~ r i 5?~ r 1 4…5~ r n ? challenging step is to other resources
Assessment criteria
Life-cycle phases Criteria An example of hierarchy structure for LCA based green design selection. EA 2 . Emission to air, water or soil
LC 14 . Electronic component (resistors, capacitors,
et al., 2011), the
Life-cycle phases key criteria in each phase are identi?ed and the hierarchy of the LCA-based AHP is constructed as shown in
Table 2
Criteria
Table 2 )دنا ه دش ه دا د شيامن )L,M,U( لکش هب يزاف ياه تيوضع( تايح ?خرچ فلتخم ياهزاف يارب يبيکرت يجوز ?سياقم سيرتام -3 لو دج Assessment criteria
LC 1 . Procurement calculation so far involves linguistic variables, the next step
Step 4. Since the
Environmental Assessment Attributes
Assessment criteria
Life-cycle phases
An example of hierarchy structure for LCA basedwn here for demonstration purposes). If a full LCA has not been developed, the
Table 2 (only the selected criteria are sho
An example of hierarchy structure for LCA based green design selection. LC 11 . Plastic: general (ABS, PE, etc.) LCD, etc) is to defuzzify the weights to form meaningful EA 3 . Anticipated pollution Environmental Assessment Attributes
Criteria green design selection.
LC 11 . Plastic: general (ABS, PE, etc.)
LC 1 . Procurement
L
L
L
L
L
LC 12 . Plastic: special (rubber, high impact,
?gures for the analysis (e.g., ranking). Numerous methods exist in literature 4 LC 11 . Plastic: general (ABS, PE, etc.) EA 4 . Generation of waste material
LC 15 . Printed Circuit Board (PCB) EA 1 . Consumption of material, energy andetc) but Centre-of-Area (COA) is by far the most
2
1
3
5
related information
LC 1 . Procurement should be collected according to the procedures outlined in Section 3.
Environmental Assessment Attributes
Life-cycle phases Criteria LC 2 . Production Life-cycle phases LC 12 . Plastic: special (rubber, high impact, etc) EA 1 . Consumption of material, energy and
EA 5 . Possibility of re-use, recycling, and criteria
Assessment criteria
Criteria
Assessment
other resources
LC 13 . Metal
LC 21 . Surface mount
popular and easy to use (e.g., Hsieh et al., 2004). Assume the fuzzy weights of each criterion (w i ) can be expressed in the other resources the different designs
EA 1 . Consumption of material, energy and
LC 12 . Plastic: special (rubber, high impact, etc)
)6.32, 7.35, 7.94(
)6.93, 7.94, 8.49(
)1.41, 2.45, 3.46(
LC 13 . Metal assign comparative ratings of environmental performance to
LC 22 . Die bonding )4.47, 5.48, 6.48(
Thereafter, the FAHP method is used to
L
recovery of materials and/or energy
EA 2 . Emission to air, water or soil
LC 1 . Procurement following form: )1, 1, 1( LC 14 . Electronic component (resistors, capacitors, LC 14 . Electronic component (resistors, capacitors, EA 2 . Emission to air, water or soil
LC 1 . Procurement
Environmental Assessment Attributes general (ABS, PE, etc.)
LC 11 . Plastic:
Environmental Assessment Attributes
LC 11 . Plastic: general (ABS, PE, etc.)
1
LC 13 . Metal
other resources
LC 23 . General assembly (Step 1 in Section 4) is to construct a pairwise comparison among the
EA 3 . Anticipated pollution
LCD, etc)
LC 12 . Plastic: special (rubber, high impact, etc) being assessed. The ?rst step LC 12 . Plastic: Organisational Performance Attributescriteria from different
EA 1 . Consumption of material, energy and special (rubber, high impact, etc)
EA 1 . Consumption of material, energy and
LC 14 . Electronic component (resistors, capacitors,
EA 3 . Anticipated pollution or soil
EA 2 . Emission to air, water
LCD, etc) . Generation of waste material
OP 1 . Time
)1, 1, 1(
)4.90, 6.00, 6.71(
)4.00, 5.20, 6.00(
L 2 LC 2 . Production LC 15 . Printed Circuit Board (PCB) other resourcesratio of each judgement is simultaneously calculated and checked to ensure that it is lower than or
)0.29, 0.41, 0.71(
)1.73, 2.83, 3.87(
LC 24 . Metal processing (stamping, etc)
experts. The consistency
EA 4 Metal
other resources
(6)
LC 13 .
EA 3 . Anticipated pollution
LCD, etc)
EA 4 . Generation of waste material
~ w i ¼?Lw i
LC 13 . Metal ; Mw i ; Uw i ?
LC 15 . Printed Circuit Board (PCB)
EA 5 . Possibility of re-use, recycling, and
LC 21 . Surface mount
LC 25 . Plastic processing (injection, etc)
OP 2 . Quality
EA 2 . Emission to air, water or soil . Electronic component (resistors, capacitors,
EA 2 . Emission to air, water or soil
LC 14 . Electronic component (resistors, capacitors,
equal to 0.1.
LC 15 . Printed Circuit
EA 4 . Generation of waste material
LC 21 . Surface mount Board (PCB)
LC 14
LC 2 . Production
LC 31 Packaging: product level recovery of materials and/or energy
LC 22 . Die bonding
LC3. Packaging
EA 3 . Anticipated pollution
)1, 1, 1(
)0.17, 0.19, 0.25(
LCD, etc)
EA 3 . Anticipated pollution
)0.26, 0.35, 0.58(
)0.13, 0.14, 0.16(
L
LCD, etc) The non-fuzzy (i.e.,
where Lw i ,Mw i ,Uw i represent the lower, middle and upper values of the fuzzy weight of the i-th criterion. )1.00, 1.41, 1.73( OP 3 . Cost EA 5 . Possibility of re-use, recycling, and
recovery of materials and/or energy and
LC 21 . Surface mount
LC 2 . Production
EA 5 . Possibility of re-use, recycling,
LC 22 . Die bonding Performance Attributes
Organisational
LC 23 . General assembly
LC 32 . Packaging: carton level
3
EA 4 . Generation of waste material
LC 15 . Printed Circuit Board (PCB) i-th criterion (w i ) is given as:
defuzzi?ed) weight value of the LC 24 . Metal processing (stamping, etc) EA 4 . Generation of waste material . Printed Circuit Board (PCB) OP 4 . Flexibility Organisational Performance Attributes
LC 22 . Die bonding
recovery of materials and/or energy
LC 15
LC 23 . General assembly
OP 1 . Time
LC 33 . Manual
LC 2 . Production
LC 2 . Production L LC 21 . Surface mount )0.26, 0.35, 0.58( Table 2 )1.73, 2.83, 3.87( )1, 1, 1( OP 2 . Quality )3.46, 4.58, 5.66( EA 5 . Possibility of re-use, recycling, and
EA 5 . Possibility of re-use, recycling, and
LC 21 . Surface mount
Organisational Performance Attributes
)0.15, 0.18, 0.22(
LC 23 . General assembly
LC 24 . Metal processing (stamping, etc)
LC 25 . Plastic processing (injection, etc)
LC4. Distribution
LC 41 Transportation
4 LC 22 . Die bonding Lw i ???Mw i ? Lw i ??=3 ? Lw i recovery of materials and/or energy Die bonding (7) OP 1 . Time
recovery of materials and/or energy
LC 22 .
w i ¼ ½?Uw i ?
OP 1 . Time
LC 24 . Metal processing (stamping, etc)
LC3. Packaging LC 31 Packaging: product level Organisational Performance Attributes assembly OP 2 . Quality
OP 3 . Cost design selection.
LC 25 . Plastic processing (injection, etc)
An example of hierarchy structure for LCA based green
LC 42 . Storage
Organisational Performance Attributes
LC 23 . General
LC 23 . General assembly
LC 25 . Plastic processing (injection, etc)
OP 2 . Quality
OP 4 . Flexibility
LC 32 . Packaging: carton level
LC 31 Packaging: product level
LC3. Packaging
L
OP 3 . Cost
)0.58, 0.71, 1.00(
)0.12, 0.13, 0.14(
LC5. End-of-life
LC 51 . Extent of recyclability
OP 1 . Time criteria with respect to the ?ve environmental
Step 5. The next step is to calculate the )0.15, 0.17, 0.20( Life-cycle phases )0.18, 0.22, 0.29( )1, 1, 1( Assessment
LC 24 . Metal processing (stamping, etc) environment risk ratings of different
LC 24 . Metal processing (stamping, etc)
OP 1 . Time criteria
Criteria
LC3. Packaging
OP 3 . Cost
5
LC 31 Packaging: product level
LC 33 . Manual
OP 4 . Flexibility
LC 32 . Packaging: carton level
LC 52 . Extent of reuse
LC 25 . Plastic processing (injection, etc)
LC 25 . Plastic processing (injection, etc) is similar to Step 1 to Step 4 and the key
assessment attributes. The procedure LC 41 Transportation LC 1 . Procurement LC 11 . Plastic: general (ABS, PE, Environmental Assessment Attributes
OP 2 . Quality difference is simply the object of the pairwise
OP 2 . Quality
OP 4 . Flexibility
LC 32 . Packaging: carton level etc.)
LC4. Distribution
LC 33 . Manual
LC 53 . Extent of recovery
OP 3 . Cost
LC3. Packaging
OP 3 . Cost
LC 31 Packaging: product level in Equation (2) should be constructed for different experts. A synthetic pairwise comparison
LC 31 Packaging: product level
LC3. Packaging comparison. A similar matrix as LC 42 . Storage LC4. Distribution LC 12 . Plastic: special (rubber, high impact, etc) EA 1 . Consumption of material, energy and
LC 33 . Manual
LC 41 Transportation
OP 4 . Flexibility
OP 4 . Flexibility
LC 32 . Packaging: carton level
LC5. End-of-life be calculated using the geometric mean method outlined in
matrix can then LC 51 . Extent of recyclability LC4. Distribution Step 2. Thereafter, the fuzzy geometric mean and other resources
LC 32 . Packaging: carton level
LC 41 Transportation
LC 13 . Metal
LC 42 . Storage
LC 33 . Manual
fuzzy weights LC 52 . Extent of reuse LC5. End-of-life LC 14 . Electronic EA 2 . Emission to air, water or soil
LC 33 . Manual of each criterion with respect to different environmental attributes can be de?ned using Equation (4) and
LC 42 . Storage component (resistors, capacitors,
LC 51 . Extent of recyclability
LC 41 Transportation
LC 41 Transportation
LC4. Distribution Equation (5). This is referred to as fuzzy environmental risk LC4. Distribution LCD, etc) 86 ريذپ دي دـجت ياه يژرنا و EA 3 . Anticipated pollution
LC 53 . Extent of recovery ratings, in contrast to the regular weightings for different criteria.
LC 51 . Extent of recyclability
LC5. End-of-life
LC 52 . Extent of reuse
LC 42 . Storage
LC 42 . Storage
LC 52 . Extent of reuse
The rating of each attributed EA i can be expressed in the following format, analogous to Equation (6): EA 4 . Generation of waste material
LC 53 . Extent of recovery (PCB)
LC 15 . Printed Circuit Board
LC 51 . Extent of recyclability
LC5. End-of-life LC 51 . Extent of recyclability LC 2 . Production LC 21 . Surface mount مو د ?رامش لوا لاس EA 5 . Possibility of re-use, recycling, and
LC5. End-of-life
LC 53 . Extent of recovery
LC 52 . Extent of reuse LC 22 . Die bonding (8) recovery of materials and/or energy
LC 52 . Extent of reuse
EA i ¼?LEA i ; MEA i ; UEA i ?
f
LC 53 . Extent of recovery
LC 53 . Extent of recovery LC 23 . General assembly Organisational Performance Attributes
In ranking the environmental assessment attributes, the ?nal synthetic decision can be made and the resulting fuzzy OP 1 . Time
LC 24 . Metal processing (stamping, etc)
synthetic decision matrix ER can be computed as: LC 25 . Plastic processing (injection, etc) OP 2 . Quality
f
LC3. Packaging LC 31 Packaging: product level OP 3 . Cost
ER ¼ EA5W LC 32 . Packaging: carton level (9) OP 4 . Flexibility
f
f
e
LC 33 . Manual
where W is the criteria weight vector calculated in the previous step. LC 41 Transportation
~
LC4. Distribution
?
?
Each element of the fuzzy synthetic decision matrix ER, ER ij ¼ LER ij ; MER ij ; UER ij , with respect to the criterion LC ij
f g
LC 42 . Storage
can be estimated by the following equations:
LC5. End-of-life LC 51 . Extent of recyclability
LC 52 . Extent of reuse
LER ij ¼ LEA ij ? LW ij (10)
LC 53 . Extent of recovery
(11)
MER ij ¼ MEA ij ? MW ij
(12)
UER ij ¼ UEA ij ? UW ij
Finally, ER has to be defuzzi?ed using the COA method given by Equation (7).
f
Similar to the environmental assessment, the organisational performances of individual criteria are also assessed. Using
the same FAHP approach, the rating of each attributed OP i can be expressed in the following format: