• Home
  • Axiomatic Design and Sustainable Balanced Scorecard Application for LARG Supply Chain Design in a Hesitant Fuzzy Environment

Share To

Article Url


Manuscript ID : IMJ-2106-1633 (R1) Visit : 97 Page: 43 - 64

10.30495/imj.2022.688572

Article Type: Original Research

Axiomatic Design and Sustainable Balanced Scorecard Application for LARG Supply Chain Design in a Hesitant Fuzzy Environment

Subject Areas : Industrial Management

Abedin Eftekhari 1 ( Industrial Management Department, Faculty of Business and Economics, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran )
Gholamreza Jamali 2 ( Industrial Management Department, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran )
Alinaghi Mosleh Shirazi 3 ( Faculty of Management and Economics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran )

Received: 2021-06-05 Accepted : 2021-10-16 Published : 2022-01-28

Keywords: Axiomatic Design, Best-worst Method, Sustainable Balanced Scorecard, Hesitant Fuzzy, LARG Supply Chain,

Abstract :

Much has been written about various approaches which pay attention to supply chain from specific angles. One of the new approaches is an integration of Lean, Agile, Resilient, and Green (LARG) that benefiting from the advantages of different approaches and avoiding their disadvantages. This study aims to present a model for analyzing LARG supply chain using Axiomatic Design (AD) and Sustainable Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) in a Hesitant Fuzzy (HF) environment in automaker industry. The study process consisted of two stages: designing stage and evaluating stage. In the first stage, the Functional Requirements (FR) and chain Design Parameters (DP) identified in the LARG supply chain based on the Delphi technique and literature review. In the second stage an integration of information axiom, the Best-Worst Method (BWM), SBSC and hesitant fuzzy logic was used to analyze supply chain in Iran automaker industry. The results showed all 21 indicators are met in both independence and information axioms. Among LARG supply chain criteria, customer requirements, and timely delivery of the car to the customer is the most important and the use of multi-purpose labor and up-to-date machinery is the least important. Among sustainable balanced scorecard perspectives, growth and learning perspectives are the most important and internal processes perspective is the least important. The model with integrating LARG supply chain using AD and SBSC in a hesitant fuzzy environment has caused the designed model to have many capabilities compared to the existing models.

References:


  1. Afonso, H., & Do Rosário Cabrita, M. (2015). Developing a lean supply chain performance framework in a SME: a perspective based on the balanced scorecard. Procedia Engineering, 131, 270-279.
    2.
  2. Azevedo, S., Carvalho, H., & Cruz Machado, V. (2011). A proposal of large supply chain management practices and a performance measurement system. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and eLearning, 1(1), 7-14.
    3.
  3. Balaji, M., Velmurugan, V., & Subashree, C. (2015). TADS: An assessment methodology for agile supply chains. Journal of applied research and technology, 13(5), 504-509.
    4.
  4. Benitez, R., Lopez, C., & Real, J. (2020). Environmental benefits of lean, green and resilient supply chain management: The case of the aerospace sector. Cleaner production, 65, 455-459.
    5.
  5. Bergström, J., Van Winsen, R., & Henriqson, E. (2015). On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 131-141.
    6.
  6. Bongeun, G., & Joohee, L. (2019). Design of reliability critical system using axiomatic design with FMECA. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 11-21.
    7.
  7. Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., & Danese, P. (2015). Successful lean implementation: Organizational culture and soft lean practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 160, 182-201.
    8.
  8. Carvalho, H., & Azevedo, S. (2014). Trade-offs among lean, agile, resilient and green paradigms in supply chain management: a case study approach. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on management science and engineering management (pp. 953-968). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    9.
  9. Carvalho, H., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2011). Integrating Lean, Agile, Resilience and Green Paradigms in Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Management, 28-47.
    10.
  10. Carvalho, H., & Machado, V. (2009). Lean, agile, resilient and green supply chain: a review. Third International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 3-
    11.
  11. Carvalho, H., Barroso, A.P., Machado, V. H., Azevedo, S., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62(1), 329-341.
    12.
  12. Dieste, M., Panizzolo, R., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Anosike, A. (2019). The relationship between lean and environmental performance: practices and measures. Journal of cleaner production, 224, 120-131.
    13.
  13. Espadinha, C. P., Grilo, A., Puga, L., & Cruz, M. (2011). A model for evaluating Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green practices interoperability in supply chains. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEM, Singapore, 1209-1213.
    14.
  14. Ghassemieh, R., Jamali, G., & Karimi Asl, E. (2015). Analysis of large supply chain management approach in the cement industry through a combination of multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Journal of Industrial Management, 7(4), 813-836. [in Persian]
    15.
  15. Horvath, L. (2001). The Key to Value Creation in Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Management. International Journal, 6(5), 205–207.
    16.
  16. Hou, G., Wang, Y., & Xin, B. (2019). A coordinated strategy for sustainable supply chain management with product sustainability, environmental effect and social reputation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 1143-1156.
    17.
  17. Hristov, I., Chirico, A., & Appo, A. (2019). Sustainability Value Creation, Survival, and Growth of the Company: A Critical Perspective in the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC). Sustainability, 11, 2119.
    18.
  18. Jamali, G., & Falah, M. (2017). Agility of supply chain for oil and gas and petrochemical equipment supporting businesses. Business Management Exploration, 9(17), 32-53. [in Persian]
    19.
  19. Jamali, G., & Karimi Asl, E. (2018A). Evaluation of LARG Supply Chain Competitive Strategies based on Gap Analysis in Cement Industry. Production and Operations Management, 9(1), 29-54 [in Persian]
    20.
  20. Jamali, G., & Karimi Asl, E. (2018b). Competitive positioning for LARG Supply Chain in Cement Industry and its Strategic Requirements Importance-Performance Analysis. Industrial Management Studies, 16(50), 53-77. [in Persian]
    21.
  21. Jamali, G., Karimi Asl, E., Zolfani, S., & Saparauskas, J. (2017). Analysing LARG supply chain management management competitive strategies in Iranian cement industries. Economic a Management, 3, 70-83.
    22.
  22. Jasti, N. V. K., & Kurra, S. (2017). An empirical investigation on lean supply chain management frameworks in Indian manufacturing industry. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
    23.
  23. Kakhki, M., & Hosseini, S. (2014). Providing a framework for the pure logistics by improvisation-oriented design. Tehran, Tehran University. [in Persian]
    24.
  24. Maleki, M., & Cruz Machado, V. (2013). Generic integration of lean, agile, resilient, and green practices in automotive supply chain. Review of International Comparative Management, 14(2): 237- 248.
    25.
  25. Merve, G., & Gulcin, B. (2019). Analysis of Digital Transformation Strategies with an Integrated Fuzzy AHP-Axiomatic Design Methodology. International Federation of Automatic Control, 1186-1191.
    26.
  26. Padala, S., & Maheswari, J. (2020). Axiomatic design framework for changeability in design for construction projects. Asian J Civ. Eng., 21: 201–215.
    27.
  27. Patriarca, R., Bergström, J., Di Gravio, G., & Costantino, F. (2018). Resilience engineering: Current status of the research and future challenges. Safety Science, 102, 79-100.
    28.
  28. Rachid, B., Roland, D., Sebastien, D., & Ivana, R. (2017). Risk Management Approach for Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green Supply Chain. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 11(4), 742-75.
    29.
  29. Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: Some Properties and A Linear Model. Omega 64, 126–130.
    30.
  30. Shafiei, M., Momeni, M., & Koochak Dezfooli, M. (2019). Stable balanced scorecard in the evaluation of management systems based on the DEMATEL-FANP approach (Case study: Gas companies in Fars province). Productivity management, 44. [in Persian]
    31.
  31. Sheikh, R. (2011). Identifying the influential factors in selecting car using the axiomatic design principles. Master Thesis, Shahroud University of Technology. [in Persian]
    32.
  32. Siddhartha, & Sachan, A. (2016). Review of agile supply chain implementation frameworks. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 8(1), 27-45.
    33.
  33. Suh, N. P. (1990). Design of thinking design Machine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA/USA. Elsevier, Science Direct, 145-146.
    34.
  34. Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 6(25), 529-539.
    35.
  35. Xiaomei, M., & Huchang, L. (2019). An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the average solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best worst method. Journal of Computers & Industrial Engineering.
    36.
  36. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2008). Green supply chain management implications for closing the loop. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics.
    37.

 

_||_

  1. Afonso, H., & Do Rosário Cabrita, M. (2015). Developing a lean supply chain performance framework in a SME: a perspective based on the balanced scorecard. Procedia Engineering, 131, 270-279.
    2.
  2. Azevedo, S., Carvalho, H., & Cruz Machado, V. (2011). A proposal of large supply chain management practices and a performance measurement system. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and eLearning, 1(1), 7-14.
    3.
  3. Balaji, M., Velmurugan, V., & Subashree, C. (2015). TADS: An assessment methodology for agile supply chains. Journal of applied research and technology, 13(5), 504-509.
    4.
  4. Benitez, R., Lopez, C., & Real, J. (2020). Environmental benefits of lean, green and resilient supply chain management: The case of the aerospace sector. Cleaner production, 65, 455-459.
    5.
  5. Bergström, J., Van Winsen, R., & Henriqson, E. (2015). On the rationale of resilience in the domain of safety: A literature review. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 141, 131-141.
    6.
  6. Bongeun, G., & Joohee, L. (2019). Design of reliability critical system using axiomatic design with FMECA. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 11-21.
    7.
  7. Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S., & Danese, P. (2015). Successful lean implementation: Organizational culture and soft lean practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 160, 182-201.
    8.
  8. Carvalho, H., & Azevedo, S. (2014). Trade-offs among lean, agile, resilient and green paradigms in supply chain management: a case study approach. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on management science and engineering management (pp. 953-968). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    9.
  9. Carvalho, H., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2011). Integrating Lean, Agile, Resilience and Green Paradigms in Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Management, 28-47.
    10.
  10. Carvalho, H., & Machado, V. (2009). Lean, agile, resilient and green supply chain: a review. Third International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 3-
    11.
  11. Carvalho, H., Barroso, A.P., Machado, V. H., Azevedo, S., & Cruz-Machado, V. (2012). Supply chain redesign for resilience using simulation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62(1), 329-341.
    12.
  12. Dieste, M., Panizzolo, R., Garza-Reyes, J. A., & Anosike, A. (2019). The relationship between lean and environmental performance: practices and measures. Journal of cleaner production, 224, 120-131.
    13.
  13. Espadinha, C. P., Grilo, A., Puga, L., & Cruz, M. (2011). A model for evaluating Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green practices interoperability in supply chains. Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEM, Singapore, 1209-1213.
    14.
  14. Ghassemieh, R., Jamali, G., & Karimi Asl, E. (2015). Analysis of large supply chain management approach in the cement industry through a combination of multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Journal of Industrial Management, 7(4), 813-836. [in Persian]
    15.
  15. Horvath, L. (2001). The Key to Value Creation in Supply Chain Management. Supply Chain Management. International Journal, 6(5), 205–207.
    16.
  16. Hou, G., Wang, Y., & Xin, B. (2019). A coordinated strategy for sustainable supply chain management with product sustainability, environmental effect and social reputation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 1143-1156.
    17.
  17. Hristov, I., Chirico, A., & Appo, A. (2019). Sustainability Value Creation, Survival, and Growth of the Company: A Critical Perspective in the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC). Sustainability, 11, 2119.
    18.
  18. Jamali, G., & Falah, M. (2017). Agility of supply chain for oil and gas and petrochemical equipment supporting businesses. Business Management Exploration, 9(17), 32-53. [in Persian]
    19.
  19. Jamali, G., & Karimi Asl, E. (2018A). Evaluation of LARG Supply Chain Competitive Strategies based on Gap Analysis in Cement Industry. Production and Operations Management, 9(1), 29-54 [in Persian]
    20.
  20. Jamali, G., & Karimi Asl, E. (2018b). Competitive positioning for LARG Supply Chain in Cement Industry and its Strategic Requirements Importance-Performance Analysis. Industrial Management Studies, 16(50), 53-77. [in Persian]
    21.
  21. Jamali, G., Karimi Asl, E., Zolfani, S., & Saparauskas, J. (2017). Analysing LARG supply chain management management competitive strategies in Iranian cement industries. Economic a Management, 3, 70-83.
    22.
  22. Jasti, N. V. K., & Kurra, S. (2017). An empirical investigation on lean supply chain management frameworks in Indian manufacturing industry. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
    23.
  23. Kakhki, M., & Hosseini, S. (2014). Providing a framework for the pure logistics by improvisation-oriented design. Tehran, Tehran University. [in Persian]
    24.
  24. Maleki, M., & Cruz Machado, V. (2013). Generic integration of lean, agile, resilient, and green practices in automotive supply chain. Review of International Comparative Management, 14(2): 237- 248.
    25.
  25. Merve, G., & Gulcin, B. (2019). Analysis of Digital Transformation Strategies with an Integrated Fuzzy AHP-Axiomatic Design Methodology. International Federation of Automatic Control, 1186-1191.
    26.
  26. Padala, S., & Maheswari, J. (2020). Axiomatic design framework for changeability in design for construction projects. Asian J Civ. Eng., 21: 201–215.
    27.
  27. Patriarca, R., Bergström, J., Di Gravio, G., & Costantino, F. (2018). Resilience engineering: Current status of the research and future challenges. Safety Science, 102, 79-100.
    28.
  28. Rachid, B., Roland, D., Sebastien, D., & Ivana, R. (2017). Risk Management Approach for Lean, Agile, Resilient and Green Supply Chain. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 11(4), 742-75.
    29.
  29. Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method: Some Properties and A Linear Model. Omega 64, 126–130.
    30.
  30. Shafiei, M., Momeni, M., & Koochak Dezfooli, M. (2019). Stable balanced scorecard in the evaluation of management systems based on the DEMATEL-FANP approach (Case study: Gas companies in Fars province). Productivity management, 44. [in Persian]
    31.
  31. Sheikh, R. (2011). Identifying the influential factors in selecting car using the axiomatic design principles. Master Thesis, Shahroud University of Technology. [in Persian]
    32.
  32. Siddhartha, & Sachan, A. (2016). Review of agile supply chain implementation frameworks. International Journal of Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, 8(1), 27-45.
    33.
  33. Suh, N. P. (1990). Design of thinking design Machine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA/USA. Elsevier, Science Direct, 145-146.
    34.
  34. Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 6(25), 529-539.
    35.
  35. Xiaomei, M., & Huchang, L. (2019). An integrated approach to multiple criteria decision making based on the average solution and normalized weights of criteria deduced by the hesitant fuzzy best worst method. Journal of Computers & Industrial Engineering.
    36.
  36. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. (2008). Green supply chain management implications for closing the loop. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics.
    37.

 

Sanad

Sanad is a platform for managing Azad University publications

Links

Related Centers

Technical Support

Official pages

The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2024

Home| Login| About Us| Contact Us|
[فارسی] [العربية] [fa] [ar]