Journal of Environmental Management (2002) 64, 261–272

doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0498, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

A hierarchic metric approach for integration

of green issues in manufacturing: a paper
recycling application
Christian N. Madu* , Chuhua Kuei and Ifeanyi E. Madu
Department of Management & Management Science, Lubin School of Business, Pace University,
1 Pace Plaza, New York, NY 10038, USA
Received 1 June 1998; accepted 3 July 2001

This paper presents a hierarchic framework for environmentally conscious design. The framework integrates both
product designers and stakeholders to evaluate not only the product features but also its environmental burden. In
evaluating the product’s burden, a life cycle assessment of the product is conducted through input-output analysis
so that a comprehensive inventory of the product’s actions and reactions to the environment could be documented.
The analytic hierarchy procedure (AHP) is used to develop priority indices for customer requirements to highlight key
features that must be present in the product. Subsequently, the quality function deployment is used to match design
requirements to customer requirements. A cost-effective design plan is then finally developed. This framework adopts
a systemic approach and ensures that environmentally conscious products are designed and manufactured.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Environmentally conscious manufacturing, green design, paper recycling.

Introduction traditional role has been to look at the product

There is a growing interest in environmentally
conscious manufacturing. The current focus on
environmental manufacturing is different from
the traditional focus on pollution control. Here,
the emphasis is on life cycle assessment. Prod-
ucts or processes are seen as interacting with
the environment and could have chain reaction
effect on environmental pollution. Thus, rather
than looking at any product or process in isola-
tion, the manufacturer needs to adopt a cradle-
to-grave approach of the product or process. For
example, how much energy is expended in unit
product manufacturing, how much resources are
used, and how much waste is created, what are
the product requirements for transportation and
distribution? These are not issues that product
designers are accustomed to considering. Their
Ł
Corresponding author. Email: chrismadu@aol.com
by itself and design products that meet specific
guidelines and may be environmental pollution
laws. Today’s focus is different. Manufacturers
must take a product stewardship approach and
this will predict their survival in today’s competi-
tive environment. Ayers (1989) makes an analogy
between an industrial economy and an ecologi-
cal system. He notes that all living things need
food and energy to grow and as they discharge
wastes, such wastes become part of the food chain.
Thus, there is no waste actually incurred since
this cyclic loop continues. In contrast, industrial
economies have generated a tremendous amount
of waste that is often not reused or properly dis-
posed of. Industrial societies are increasingly faced
with the problems of hazardous waste manage-
ment, locating new landfills, and the depletion of
raw materials. Rather than continuing with this
cycle of waste and extravagance, Ayres (1989) pro-
posed that industrial economies should find better
ways to convert wastes from one industry into input

0301–4797/02/030261C12 $35.00/0 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd.

6 C. N. Madu et al.
 A hierarchic metric approach for integration 7

in another industry. Traditionally, the focus (2) Evaluation of their product life cycles.
This implies has been on building equipment design This also will
interdependence quality products that and material revolutionize the
between industries are reliable and cost selection for traditional accounting
where one industry’s effective. But the environmentability. practices of evaluating
output could become shift towards ‘green (3) Environmental direct costs of
another’s input. This manufacturing’ has impact assessment manufacturing designs
cycle of depen- dence introduced new of manufac- turing since some aspects of
or reuse of material dimensions in product processes and environmental
is generally referred and process design. As product designs. management systems
to as recycling and manufacturers focus (4) Effectiveness may not be easily
its goal is to on ways to effectively of waste quantified in terms of
eliminate or reduce disassemble, recover, collection cost.
waste. Unfortunately, and reuse materials, systems. There is a growing
sometimes, it may not management of a (5) Ease of number of research
be technologically product’s life cycle has disassembly and projects in ‘green
efficient to recycle all become increasingly reclamation of scraps. manufacturing’ but
pos- sible wastes; important (Dillion and (6) Economics of many of these tend to
therefore, some form of Baram, 1991; Roy and recycling. focus on the
wastes may still be Whelan, 1992; Dillion, (7) Safe disposal of technical aspects of
incurred. 1994). The hazardous wastes and product life cycle
This notion of management of a compo- assessment
minimizing waste product through its nents. (Navinchandra, 1991;
and, thereby, life cycle is known as These issues pose Scott Mathews and
prolonging the life of product stewardship new challenges in Lave, 1995) and fail
raw materials is in the (Dillion and Baram, designing for to integrate societal
heart of the United 1991). This concept is environment, as and consumer
Nations Brundtland a ‘systematic company manufacturers now influence in design for
Report of 1987. This efforts to reduce have to take a ‘cradle environmentability.
report notes that ‘the product risks to health to grave’ approach in This is akin to the
challenge faced by all and the environment managing era of quality control
is to achieve a over all the significant when engineers
sustainable world segments of a designed what they
economy where the product life cycle’ and believed to be suitable
needs of all the world’s focus on the following products and pushed
people are met without aspects of them into the market
compromising the environmentally without getting
ability of future conscious customers’
generations to meet manufacturing: involvement.
their needs’. This Ultimately, these
(
report calls for products failed
1
sustainable because they failed to
)
development. Duncan capture what the
(1992) defines consumers perceived to
E
sustainable be of quality to them.
a
development as an Manufacturers then
s
‘economic policy, which recognized through
e
teaches that society the application of
can make the total quality
appropriate allocation o
management that
f
of resources between customers are their
environmental most important assets
maintenance, r and must be part of
consumption, and e any design strategy to
investment’. c ensure the
To effectively design y acceptability of their
environmentally c
products.
l
conscious products, In this paper,
i
there must be a shift therefore, we present
n
from the traditional a frame- work that
g
design paradigm. shows how customers
.
 8 C. N. Madu et al.

or consumers can play Re

an integral part in
environmentally sea
conscious rch
manufacturing. The ba
customers will work
with the manufacturer ck
to come up with gro
finished products that
meet their
un
environmental d
expectations. An
illustration of the Environmental
application of this
procedure in paper
consciousness is
recycling is presented.
increasingly, becoming
In fact, current prac-
a fundamental part
tices among
of the overall
manufacturers show
that they have indeed
recognized the need to
integrate consumers
and other major
stakeholders in their
design for
environment. The
response by automobile
com- panies to
produce cleaner cars
is a reaction to
increasing legislative
initiatives to limit the
emis- sion of carbon
into the atmosphere.
Other cases in point
include collaboration
agreements between
McDonald’s and the
Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF)
that led to McDonald’s
switching from the use
of polystyrene
containers to
recyclable paper wrap
to package its fast
food products in order
to reduce solid waste;
collaboration between
the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company and
the Natural Resource
Defense Council, and
that between the New
England Electric
System and the
Conserva- tion Law
Foundation to develop
recyclable energy
supply systems.
A hierarchic metric approach for integration 9
10 C. N. Madu et al.

corporate culture and representatives to have corporate ‘relatively new

is helping to discuss the issues policies in place area’ since there is
reshape corporate facing the electronics for pollution often the tendency
strategies (Business and computer prevention efforts, to misunderstand
and industries. however, ‘because what environmen-
Strategic Planning A Environmental issues environ- mentally tal conscious
Culture of were listed as the conscious manufacturing is.
Competitiveness, major challenge for technology is a This is not the
Quality, and the industry and as relatively new area,
same as the
Environmental one that will pose the these programs
traditional focus on
Concern). While the greatest challenge for have not included
environmen- tal
concern for global competitiveness extensive
protection that
environmental issues (Environmental equipment
substitution or relied mostly on
may not be new, Consciousness: A
proactive pollution
however, the wave of Strategic
development of prevention. Rather,
environmental Competitiveness Issue
environmental it adopts a cradle-
consideration in for the Electronics and
corporations is Computer Industry, conscious tech- to-grave approach
certainly new. Part of 1993). This is nology’. It is of both the product
this may be explained important to the US important to and the process of
by the increasing economy given that highlight the production. Hence,
environmental the electronic and phrase the increasing
legislatures and the computer industry is importance of life
public concerns about the largest cycle assessment.
the use of limited manufacturing (2) The group also
natural resources and employer and noted that
the degradation of the accounts for 11% of ‘technicians and
environment due to the US gross engi- neers are not
increasing pollution domestic product. currently educated
and accumulation of This group identified in design for
wastes. Probasco and key issues, which are environment
Heimlich (2000) note presented in the form concepts or in life-
that concerned of strategic cycle approaches to
consumers are now recommendations to an environmentally
asking questions about make the industry conscious
the materials used for competitive. Two of electronics
production, the their manufacturing
process of production, recommendations that industry. The pub-
the energy and water are related to the lic perception and
usage for production, content of this paper
decision-making
and even the are listed below:
about risks should
transportation and
(1) To develop a be addressed’.
distribution
cohesive policy
requirements for the The second
that will fos- ter
product as well as the recommendation
environmental
impact of the use of clearly pointed out
consciousness in
the product.
the indus- try. that, due to lack of
Consumers need to be
This will require education on
correctly answered so
the involvement environmen- tally
they can make better
of top management conscious
environmental
of individual manufacturing, the
purchasing decisions.
companies to technicians and
As a result of the
develop viable engineers are
increasing concern for
corporate therefore unable to
the environment, on
environmental adequately con- sider
April 1992, the Chief
poli- cies. The the public perception
Technical Officers of the
recommendation and decision-making
Computer Systems
also acknowledged about the risks that
Policy Project (CSPP)
that although may be involved.
member companies
many electronic Further, it is
met with the US
manufacturers
federal laboratory important to integrate
 A hierarchic metric approach for integration 11

life-cycle assessment Roadmap, 2000). Thus,

in product design. Such the focus has to shift
integration calls for a from facility-oriented
holistic or systemic ‘end-of-pipe’ approach
approach in product of the 1970s to
designing. There is process-oriented
therefore, a need to approach of the
develop a method to 1980s and the greater
enable the product concern from the
designers to 1990s of the
understand not only environmental burdens
the per- ceptions of the of products, processes
different stakeholders and facilities. A
that may be involved product stewardship
but also, how products orientation is
and processes are therefore, advocated.
linked by their To properly address
environmental these
burdens. Knowledge of
such information could
help to drastically,
mini- mize pollution,
conserve energy and
resources, and achieve
environmentally
conscious
manufacturing. Evans
and McAloone (2000)
lend support to these
recommendations when
they note that
‘incorporat- ing
environmentally sound
decisions into product
design is a new
challenge for
designers. Compe- tent
designers are practiced
in cost-based decision-
making in order to
produce high quality
products that are on-
time and cost effective.’
They also point out that
environmental
concerns can not be
easily adapted in the
design phase if they
continue to be alien to
the designers. It is
further argued that
the traditional
concern of
manufacturers of sim-
ply complying with
environmental
standards is no longer
adequate in today’s
environment (Business
Environment
12 C. N. Madu et al.

issues, there is a greater need for effective partner-
ship between the manufacturer and its stakehold-
ers. These stakeholders greatly impact business
success and environmental performance and may
often derail fundamental organizational focus on
its primary business if environmental issues are
not adequately addressed. Thus, environmental
processes are recommended to be front-end inte-
grated rather than ‘end-of-pipe reactive’ in the
strategic planning and decision making of the firm
(Business Environment Roadmap, 2000). This can
only be achieved if businesses include the impor-
tant stakeholders at the product design stage.
Only then will businesses be able to understand
the concerns of stakeholders and include key envi-
ronmental factors of interests to them in product
and/or process designs. This concept challenges the
traditional role of engineers or technicians as that
of simply designing products and considering envi-
ronmental factors as they see fit without resort to
the stakeholders that the manufacturer serves.
The present paper proposes a method to integrate
stakeholders in environmentally conscious manu-
facturing decision making process and in develop-
ing an environmentally conscious-based design for
products and/or processes. A hierarchic framework
that systematically analyzes ‘customer’ or
‘stake- holder’ requirements with the active
participation of the stakeholders in the product
design stage is introduced. All the
environmental factors and product features
identified are prioritized based on their
importance to the stakeholders. Manu- facturers
design requirements are then matched with
stakeholder requirements. Through this pro- cess,
the key customer requirements are identified and
a design strategy can be developed. The paper uses
two popular techniques – the analytic hierar- chy
process – a multicriteria decision making model for
prioritizing customer requirements for prod- uct
features; and quality function deployment for
matching customer requirements to design require-
ments. Finally, a design strategy is developed
using Taguchi Experimental Design. An
illustration of the proposed framework is shown
for a paper- recycling problem.
Green design framework
White waste paper. (1) The customer is the essence of any business. Busi-
Packaging waste paper or brown paper. (2) nesses must design and manufacture products and
Households or ‘mixed’ waste paper. (3) provide services that meet customers’ needs and
Coated paper. (4) expectations. It is, therefore, important that the
Old newspaper. (5) customer is part of the products and services
A hierarchic metric approach for integration 13
delivery process. Most literature on environmen-
tal quality management systems start by noting
that there has been a growing interest in making
products and providing services that are envi-
ronmentally friendly. This increased interest in
environmentally friendly products and services is,
to a large extent, due to growing concerns about
environmental pollution and disturbances by the
general public. People are worried about the qual-
ity of the air they breathe, the lack of quality
open space in their communities, pollution of the
groundwater supply, the greenhouse effect and the
destruction of ozone layer, and the ineffectiveness
in the management and disposal of solid and toxic
wastes. They understand that the inability to
man- age these environmental problems will,
ultimately, degrade the quality of life on earth.
As a result of these concerns, many nations and
international agencies have embarked on
developing new guide- lines and legislatures that
can help manufacturers as well as consumers to
be more environmen- tally conscious. For
example, many nations now have the equivalent
of the United States Envi- ronmental Protection
Agency, which as the name shows, operates by
developing and guiding poli- cies to protect the
environment. Also, international bodies such as
the United Nations and the Inter- national
Organization for Standards (ISO) have been
very active in developing guidelines and
procedures to effectively manage environmental
pollution. Understanding the role of consumers
will help manufacturers and service providers to
design products that meet consumers’ expecta-
tions and will, in turn, give them a competitive
edge.
It is important that manufacturers start their
design from the viewpoint of the consumer or
major environmental stakeholders. For example,
the framework shown in Figure 1 starts with a
particular objective. In the paper-recycling prob-
lem, the customer needs to select a recycled paper
that meets certain standard needs. The quality or
the grade of paper selected depends on the specifi-
cations of the print job the customer will
undertake. For example, for jobs that demand
high quality, recycled white waste paper may
be of utmost importance; low quality recycled
papers such as old newspapers may be sufficient
for other jobs. Consumers can rate their
application orientation by basing quality in the
following order:
 Select recycled paper
to meet desired needs
Customer
requirements

Weight Optical Environmental Cost

Dimensional
brightness friendliness Performance stiffness effectiveness

Customer Grade A Grade B Grade C

options Paper Paper Paper

Design
requirements List of design requirements in the QFD matrix

Design plan Develop design plan based on the key parameters for each grade

Evaluation Evaluate total cost for each grade

Direct cost
(manufacturing Environmental Input-output
cost) and social cost analysis

Select grade with

Life cycle
minimum cost assessment

Figure 1. Green design framework.

Once the decision is made a determination of
customer requirements or attributes are deter-
mined. These customer attributes generally
consist of the weight of the paper, optical
brightness, envi- ronmental friendliness,
performance, dimensional stiffness, and cost.
However, in considering the environmental
friendliness of the product, the focus should be on
product life cycle assessment. Alter- native
products or substitutes are considered to
determine which will create less environmental
burden. The use of bleaching agents to clean recy-
cled paper, conservation of forestry by using
recycle paper, and other environmental
components of the product are investigated. As
shown in Figure 1, any of these attributes may be
present in any of the grades of paper selected by
the customer. However, they may have different
priorities depending on the grade. For example,
when a consumer is interested in white waste
paper as opposed to old newspaper, it will be
expected that attributes such as opti- cal
brightness and dimensional stiffness will be
very important. Conversely, the cost will be higher
for a white waste paper than for old newspaper. To
improve optical brightness for example, the
process of de-inking to remove contaminants will
be more extensive in white waste paper. This will
consume more time, energy and labor and may
also require the addition of bleaching and other
optical bright- ness agents to remove
contaminants. These efforts may create additional
environmental burdens that must be investigated
and perhaps, possible sub- stitutes evaluated.
Similarly, when dimensional stiffness is very
important, it may become neces- sary to combine
a higher percentage of virgin pulp with the
recycled fiber, thereby, making this paper less
environmentally friendly. Taking a product life
cycle assessment view, it is seen here that the use
of white paper may create more environmental
bur- den. For example, it may require high
percentage of virgin pulp, use bleaching and de-
inking chemicals that may potentially, become
contaminants to the environment, create more
waste disposal problem,
and consume more energy resources such as water part of the life-cycle assessment. This analysis will
and fossil fuels. It is therefore, not sufficient to consider the impact of the product in the different
stop at this point. The ‘environmental friendliness’ industrial sectors it passes through over its life
requirement for this product could be slated for cycle and by so doing; we can capture all the costs
further discussion. A separate framework such as that may be related to the product. Of course,
the House of Quality may be created just for this product life cycle assessment is often difficult to
criterion and alternatives or substitutes to the use accomplish but it is a necessity in reducing a
of white paper looked at to determine the different product’s environmental burden.
options for white paper that could be integrated Sometimes more than one grade of paper may
in the framework. Some of the options may be able to accomplish the desired needs of the
include determining the minimum level of virgin customer. In such instances the final choice will
fiber that could be present to achieve acceptable be based on the grade that has the minimum
quality white paper. Thus, there are costs and total cost. Note again, that cost here includes the
benefits associated to whatever grade of paper the cost of environmental burden.
consumer needs. We shall illustrate this framework by the appli-
Once a particular group of paper type (i.e. Grade cation of known models at each stage of the
A) is selected and customer requirements are iden- frame- work. The steps for conducting the green
tified and prioritized, the next phase is to develop design are given in Figure 2.
the design requirements. This involves designing
for ease of manufacture. The manufacturer has
to identify the design strategies that will enable
it to satisfy customer requirements. Each of the Prioritize customer
AHP
requirement
attributes identified by the consumer can be bro-
ken down into a list of design requirements. For
example, dimensional stiffness can be broken down
to include the addition of virgin pulp, starch, Match requirements
with design needs QFD
stronger coating, and the use of less filler con-
tent, while optical brightness many include factors
such as the use of an optical brightness agent and
coating, longevity, bleaching, and de-inking pro- Develop
design plan Taguchi method
cesses. To produce environmentally friendly paper,
we may look at issues such as the percentage of
total recycled paper, percentage of post-consumer
fiber, and the levels of chlorine-free or tree-free Evaluate costs Taguchi loss function
fiber present.
Once the key design requirements are identified
by matching them with customer requirements,
an optimal design plan is identified and the Select grade
specific level for each design requirement is found.
Sensitivity analysis also may be conducted on this Figure 2. Steps for green design.
design plan. The final phase is to evaluate the
cost that may be involved and this should include
Table 1. Using AHP to prioritize customer require-
both the direct and indirect costs. The direct cost
ments – grade a paper
should include known costs such as those that
constitute the production cost, while the indirect C D P E O W
cost should include environmental and social cost.
It is necessary in evaluating the environmental 1/5 1/6 1/8 1/4 1/2 1 W
1/4 1/5 1/8 1/2 1 2 O
and social cost to adopt a more systemic view of 1/2 1/4 1/5 1 2 4 E
cost. This will involve the use of life-cycle 5 4 1 5 8 8 P
assessment models. For example, the cost of the 2 1 1/4 4 5 6 D
product should be traced through its life by 1 1/2 1/5 2 4 5 C
tracing its pollution
discharges and resources utilization as the product W: Weight.
changes hands from producers to consumers. Since O: Optical brightness.
in recycling, we extend the life of the product by E: Environmental friendliness.
P: Performance.
extending its usage and application, it is D: Dimensional stiffness.
important that an economic input-output C: Cost effectiveness.
analysis becomes
Determining stakeholders and consideration of the (3) It allows a team
design requirements to prob- lem by of stakeholders to
priorities for
meet such demands. identifying all the reach a consensus
customer important factors
The manufacturer is on the different
requirement also in a better position that may influence priorities while
s to estimate the costs a particular maintaining
that may be involved decision consistency in their
In the discussion and the influence of alternative. judgment.
above, we noted the such costs on the (2) It allows for the use (4) It allows the
importance of finding desirabil- ity of the of important consideration of
what customers’ product. Some of this stakeholders in the both quantitative
requirements are. This information may not decision-making and qualitative
could be done through be available or known process. factors in the
the currently popular to the customer or the decision-making
use of market surveys. stakeholder. process.
The data collected is It is important that (5) It helps to break
then sta- tistically down a complex
the needs of the
analyzed to identify problem into
customers or
which factors or subproblems by
stakeholders are
requirements systematically
prioritized. It is
customers consider to analyzing the
preferable to use a subproblems.
be of signifi- cance. For structured approach in
the sake of illustration, (6) Its application may
prioritizing such facilitate the
we assume that the six needs. This will
factors or customer acceptance of the
ensure the consistency final outcome by
requirements given in of the priorities and members of the
Table 1 have been decisions that are group.
found to be made. We recommend
statistically significant that the analytic Since the AHP has
in meeting the hierarchy process been widely discussed
customers’ needs in a (AHP) be used in this in the literature, we
recycled paper. These step. The AHP has shall not elaborate
six factors need to be much on it. However,
been applied in many
ranked in terms of we must note that it
decision and policy-
priorities. We is based on a pairwise
oriented problems and
recommend that a comparison of factors
is the subject of much
focus group be formed by using a Likert- type
discussion in academic
for each grade of paper scale such as the 9-
literature and point scale to assign
and then that the textbooks. Saaty (1980)
appropriate focus group the decision-makers
developed the AHP. He judgment. The
works jointly with the defines it as a ‘multi-
manufacturer to definition of these
criteria decision weights will range
determine the priority method that uses from a scale of 1
of these factors. The hierarchic or network (equal importance) to a
role of the focus group structures to represent scale of 9 (absolute
will be to discuss the a decision problem importance) with
importance of each and then develops intermediary points.
factor in light of the priorities for the An inverse is used for
stake- holder’s needs. alternatives based on reciprocals. As we
The manufacturer the decision makers’ noted above, the AHP
plays a role as a judgments throughout measures the
facilitator in these the system’ (p. 157). consistency in the
discussions, but, more The AHP’s role in decision-makers
impor- tantly, can decision making can be judgment. This is
provide valuable broken down as important in noting
information such as follows: the rationality of the
the technical feasibility decision-maker. All
of some of the (1) It allows a quality decisions are
proposals from systematic rational but not all
rational decisions lead stiffness D 0Ð218, and
to quality outcomes. Cost
As we have seen in effectivenessD0Ð141.
this discussion, a Clearly, from this
group of decision- example, we see that
makers or a single the most important
decision- maker can factor to the customer
be used in applying for Grade B paper is
the AHP. With a performance, followed
single decision-maker, by dimensional
it is easy to stiffness,
implement. However,
with a group, the
problem becomes more
complicated since there
is the possibility for
wide divergence in
the opinions of the
decision or policy
makers. So, the
priorities evaluated by
group cannot simply
be taken at face
value but needs to be
further assessed.
Madu (1994)
developed a method
to improve the
quality of these
priorities through the
application of quality
confidence procedures
and Madu and Kuei
(1995) later showed
how stability in the
priorities can be
achieved when AHP is
used in group decision
making. We
recommend that these
techniques be applied
jointly with the AHP.
Table 1 shows a
simulated weight
assignment for
customer requirements
assuming that the
customer is interested
in a Grade B paper.
Based on these
assignments and the
application of the AHP,
we calculated the
priorities as follows:
WeightD0Ð033,
Optical
brightnessD0Ð044,
Envi- ronmental
friendliness D 0Ð089,
Performance D
0Ð472, Dimensional
and cost effectiveness. Other factors do not seem
to be of high importance. These weights need to be
taken into consideration in determining the design
requirements.
Designing for ease of manufacture
The next phase is to address how the customers’
design requirements can be satisfied through
design. Customers have identified and ranked
their requirements and it is important that the
man- ufacturer meets these requirements to
maintain customer loyalty. A popular method to
address the
‘hows’ in order to meet the ‘wants’ of the cus-
tomers is known as quality function deployment
(QFD). The American Supplier Institute, 1989,
defines QFD as ‘a system of translating consumer
requirements into appropriate company require-
ments at each stage from research and product
development to engineering and manufacturing to
marketing/sales and distribution.’ QFD is a way of
listening to the voice of the customer and articu-
lating it in the product design and development.
It helps the manufacturer to better allocate and
manage its resources so that the wants of the cus-
tomer can be satisfied. Although QFD has had a
lot of application in the quality management lit-
erature, as Vonderembse and Raghunathan (1997)
noted, QFD is not just a quality tool but can also
be an important planning tool for developing new
products and enhancing existing ones.
In this phase, the customers’ requirements
devel- oped from the AHP stage are aligned
with the manufacturer’s design. A correlation
matrix is developed to show the interrelationships
between the customer and design requirements.
Again, in this phase, it is important to use focused
groups or teams. Symbols are used to denote
relationships, which could be either positive or
negative in each cell of the matrix. Table 2 shows
the QFD matrix. Negative correlation may
indicate conflicts since potential trade-off
decisions may be required. Such conflicts need to
be resolved at an early planning stage. The
symbols used in this matrix can be con- verted to
numbers as shown in Table 2 where @ D 9,
# D 3, and CD 1. These symbols are standard
sym- bols used in designing the ‘House of
Quality’ or quality function deployment that is
derived from quality management literature.
These assignments in the table are then
normalized by weighting them with the priority
indices generated from the AHP for each
customer requirement. Based on this, the column
total is determined. The higher the col- umn
total, the more important the design factor.
Generally, the final output of a QFD matrix is the
design requirement of the final product. The
Ameri- can Supplier Institute, 1989, recommends
selecting the significant few from this matrix in
order to maximize the efficiency and the
effectiveness of meeting the customer’s needs.
Without such a con- sideration, the manufacturer
will be overwhelmed with several factors that may
not significantly help to meet the customers’
needs. Consequently, we established a score of
5 or above for a design

Table 2. QFD matrix

Customer Functional characteristics AHP

rating requirement
F14 F13 F12 F11 F10 F9 F8 F7 F6 F5 F4 F3 F2 F1

0Ð033 C C C C W
# 0Ð044 C # @ # @ C C C C @ @ @ @ O
# 0Ð089 # C # # C # # # @ @ # @ @ E
@ 0Ð472 C C C C C C C C # @ @ @ @ P
# 0Ð218 C C C C C C @ @ @ @ D
# 0Ð141 C C C C C C C @ # # # # C
Column total 7Ð83 7Ð83 7Ð33 7Ð83 3Ð75 1Ð18 1Ð14 1Ð18 1Ð14 1Ð01 1Ð28 1Ð06 1Ð00 5Ð72

@: 9 #: 3 C: 1

Bleaching F11: Starch content F6: Use virgin fiber F1:

Longevity F12: Less filler content F7: Number of times paper is recycled F2:
acid-free status F13: Use stronger coating F8: Strength of the fiber F3:
Use post-consumption fiber F14: Use optical brightening agent F9: Level of contaminants in the paper F4:
De-inking F10: Cost of recycling F5:
Xn
Column totalj D Pi Rij ; iD1, 2, . . . , n; jD1, 2, . . . , m
iD1

Pi is the AHP rating. Rij is the numerical score assigned between customer requirement i and functional characteristic j.
requirement to be consumption fiber, and the performance factors, each at two
considered important. level of contaminant measure for the paper. levels, the number of
None that in Table 2, have the strong Notice that this factor factor combinations is
while we considered 14 influence on customer was identified as the 25 . Thus, a total of 32
design factors, only five requirements. This most important design points will be
met this requirement. tentative conclusion is customer attribute. required for the
Thus, to satisfy the based solely on experts’ Performance is experiment. However,
customer requirements opinions. A follow-up expressed as a function the number of design
laid out for Grade B empirical study is of the other five points needed can be
paper by this team of needed to determine at functional significantly reduced if
customers, the design what levels these characteristics listed all the higher-order
requirement should functional charac- above. Since we have interactions, such as
focus on F1: Use of teristics should be five the three-factor
virgin fiber, F2: considered in the interactions, can be
Number of times paper design stage and, also, neglected. To design
has been recycled, F3: to statistically assess our experiment
Strength of the fiber, their significance. This efficiently, we consider
F4: Level of is done using the only the main factor
contaminant in the Taguchi experimental effects and their two-
paper, and F14: Use of meth- ods. The five factor interaction
post-consumption fiber. factors and their effects. The reason
corresponding levels being that more than
(i.e. options) are stated a two-factor
Developing a as follows: interaction is very
Taguchi difficult to explain and
experimental ADLevel of may not have any
design plan practical relevance
virgin fiber (70%
(Hicks, 1973). As a
The next phase is to or 30%) result, five hypotheses
develop a design plan for main factor effects
BDFrequency of
based on the five on Y can be stated as
design requirements. recycled paper follows:
In previous sec- tions, used (1 or 4)
AHP was used to Hi DFactor
identify the priority CDStrength of
i has
weights for each fiber (High or
no
customer requirement
item. Through that Low) impact
exercise, the DDUse post- on the
‘performance’ of the
paper seems to be the consumption fiber perfor
most important (Pre- or Post-) mance
customer requirement
with a rating of EDLevel of of the
0Ð472. Furthermore, contaminant paper
QFD was also used to
(Weak or Strong) produc
investigate the
relationship between t,
cus- tomer Levels 1 and 2 for
requirements and each factor w
functional correspond to the h
characteristics. It order of presentation in e
turned out that five our definitions above. r
functional For example, for e
characteristics, factor A, Level 1
namely, level of implies 70 percent i
virgin fiber, frequency virgin fiber while Level D
of recy- cled paper 2 implies 30 percent A
used, strength of fiber, virgin fiber. The ,
use of post- dependent variable is
denoted as Y and it is
B graph) is
, available and
easier to interpret,
C thus making it
, useful for practical
purposes.
D (4) The statistical
, procedure is easy
to follow.
a (5) Significant and/or
n robust controllable
d factors can easily
be identified.
E Because of these
. advantages, Taguchi’s
Another hypothesis approach has found
can be stated for the widespread
two- factor interaction applications. To
effects Y, as follows: accommo- date five v
factors with two levels,
Hj and all the possi- ble
DInter two-factor interaction
effects, an
action experimental design
j has plan with only sixteen
experimental trials can
no
be established. This is
impact also known as a25–1
on the frac- tional factorial
design. With resolution
perfor V, the main factor
mance effects confound with
four-factor interaction
of the
effects, while two-
paper factor interaction
produc effects con- found with
three-factor interaction
t, effects. Since both the
three- and four-factor
where j D AB, AC, BC, interaction effects are
DE, AD, BD, CE, CD, not our concern, we do
BE, or AE. not bother with these
Taguchi experimental confounding patterns.
design approach is With only 16 design
chosen points, we are still able
for the current to estimate both the
study for the main factor
following reasons:
(1) It allows for the
use of a fractional
factorial design.
(2) Main effects and all
the possible
combinations
of the two-factor
interactions of
controllable factors
may be included.
(3) A graphical
technique (e.g. linear
 r E
effects and two-factor at different levels of :
g
interaction effects. One this particular factor, i
of the unique features one will have n L
of the Taguchi significantly different e
v
approach is the use of characteristics about f e
linear graphs. For a 22 the performance of the i l
b
experimental design, a paper. For those e o
corresponding linear factors not found to be r f
graph looks like this: significant, they could .
B: c
still be included in the Fr
3 o
design but at a level e n
1 ž ž q
2 that is deemed to cost t
u a
effective. e m
where a dot and its n i
assigned number T c n
indicate a main factor a y a
of n
effect and a connecting b re t
branch between two l c .
dots indicates two- e y
cl
factor interaction e
3
effects. For our 25–1 d
. p
design, corresponding
a
linear graphs are also p
D
available (Ross, 1988). e
er
With the aid of the u
s s
linear graph, i e
practitioners who have g d.
only a limited n C
:
knowledge of statistics St
and experimental p re
designs can easily l n
a gt
implement fractional h
n
factorial designs. of
Table 3 shows a th
Y E D e
design plan based on fi
Taguchi’s methods. The 0Ð999 Weak Pre- b
0Ð899 Strong Post- er
last column of Table
0Ð837 Strong Pre- .
3 shows the 0Ð801 Weak Post- D
performance rating of 0Ð901 Strong Pre- :
each design point. 0Ð987 Weak Post-
0Ð795 Weak Pre- U
This is done through s
expert evaluation. 0Ð831 Strong Post-
e
0Ð923 Strong Pre-
Next, we can carry out 0Ð975 Weak Post- p
additional analysis 0Ð799 Weak Pre- o
using the following 0Ð825 Strong Post- s
ANOVA procedure 0Ð960 Weak Pre- t
0Ð891 Strong Post- -
suggested by Taguchi. c
0Ð832 Strong Pre-
Table 4 shows the 0Ð751 Weak Post- o
final results obtained n
A s
from the ANOVA u
:
procedure. Factor C, m
or the strength of fiber, p
L t
is identified as the most e i
significant factor. As a v o
matter of fact, the e n
l
average rating of f
factor C’s first level is i
o b
0Ð94 while the average f e
rating of factor C’s r
second level is 0Ð81. It v .
is therefore, clear that i
T B E .
Ł
a
b 0 0
l :
Ð Ð
e 0 0 F
0 1
1
4 0 4
,
. 2 7
1
7 6 3
2 2
T ,
0
h
e 1 1 Ð
A C 9
C D 5
A
N D
2 3
O 4
Ð Ð
V Ð
5 6 6
A E E 7
- - .
t 0 0 Ł
a 5 5 Ł
b
l 1 1 :
e B B F
C E
Factor S.S. 1
,
1 0 1
D.F E Ð 3
- 0 ,
M.S.
0 0 0
6 0 Ð
FA 9
1 9
0Ð000552 1 6
D 9 D
1 E 9
B 1
Ð
4 0
E A 7
- E .
0
0
Ð 0
6
0 Ð
0
1 0
C
0 0 o
A
7 0
5
D s
6
6 2 t
0
5
Ð
1
C 0Ð070756 0 o
0 1 p
1
0
0Ð070756
2 P t
51Ð296ŁŁ o
D 1
o
i
l m
1
0
B
i
Ð e
0 D r z
0 r a
o
0 5
r t
4 Ð
6 6 : i
2 3 o
E 0
- Ð n
1 0
E 0Ð001024 0
5 0 Further cost analysis
1 1
0Ð001024 3 can be conducted to
0Ð74237 1 7 evaluate factor C’s
A C 9 two options: high
strength and low e
strength fiber paper.
An assumption can be k
made that the direct D
manufacturing costs c
for the high strength l
2
fiber paper are
$50/per unit, while
the low strength fiber .
paper costs only The variable c is
$30/per unit. Thus, defined as the loss
high strength fiber (determined by the
paper seems to be a accounting
more expensive department) caused by
alternative. Suppose falling below the lower
that management also tolerance limit, and l
knows the hidden cost is defined as the lower
(or social cost) for those tolerance limit
two different options. (determined by the
Social cost is defined as management team or
the cost caused by not the quality
manufacturing a improvement team).
product to meet The variable y is the
customers’ ultimate output value (or the
requirements. For this performance rating).
purpose, Taguchi’s Loss Suppose that c is US$
Function is selected 100 for our example; l
for this investigation. is determined as 0Ð9;
Since the larger the and two average
value of performance, ratings at two
the better it is, we different levels of
therefore choose factor C are 0Ð94, and
Taguchi’s ‘larger the 0Ð81, respectively, we
better’ loss function. can then
The loss function L is
defined as follows:

L
D
k
.
1
/
y
2

/
.
$
/
u
n
i
t
/

w
h
e
r
compute the can obtain the total customers can be (1) It addresses a key
constant k and costs for grade A and integrated in the initial problem facing
loss L as follows: grade C paper phase of product designers today.
products. design to prioritize While there are
K their needs. These increasing concern
needs are then about integrating
D C matched with stakeholders
U manufacturing and
S o design capabilities
perceptions on
envi- ronmental
$ n through the use of issues in product
c QFD and AHP. The
design, designers
1 significant factors
0 l identified are fur- ther
need to be offered a
0 u systematic
analyzed from a
. framework that will
0
s design perspective
enable them to do
through the
Ð i application of so.
9 o experimental design (2) The approach we
/ techniques. Further adopted showed
2 n that proven
analysis may be
possible when techniques could
D This paper presented different options be applied in this
U a hierarchic emerge. A good context. Further,
S framework to consider example would be cost we could prioritize
$ environmental issues analysis, which takes a the requirements of
in environmentally systemic perspective the stakeholder and
8 conscious about cost by looking match those
1 manufacturing. As at both direct costs requirements to
L.High Strength more and more man- such as man- design
Fiber/DUS$ ufacturers are ufacturing and requirements.
shifting their focus to production costs and (3) This process will
81.1/.0Ð94/2 /
the man- ufacture of indirect costs such as lead to the design
D an environmentally the social cost to of products that are
U friendly product, they society. To make the environmentally
S need to continue to framework more conscious and meet
$ address the ever- practicable, we have the aspirations of
9 changing needs of their presented an example
1Ð the stakeholders.
constituents. using a paper-recycling
7 (4) The approach of
Customers are increas- problem. How- ever, this paper by
L.Low Strength ingly aware of their the framework laid out
needs and want to including
Fiber/DUS$ here can be applied to
take part in designing stakeholders and
81.1/.0Ð81/2 / any environmentally
products that meet thereby,
conscious
D these needs. Man- considering
manufacturing project.
U ufacturers must In summary, our different
S integrate them in the study is innovative in worldviews will
$ decision- making several ways: help to develop a
1 process and, at the more compre-
2 same time, be able to hensive life cycle
3Ð design products that assessment of the
5 are technically particular product
feasible and cost or process by
If management takes effective. The evaluating the
into account the social hierarchic framework interde- pendence
cost, the resulting total presented here helps or links of the
cost for the high manufacturers to
strength fiber paper is production process
accomplish such goals. to other
US$ 141Ð7, while the It shows how
total cost for the low environmental
important burdens. This will
strength fiber paper is stakeholders or
US$ 153Ð5. Using our enable the effective
interest groups or
hierarchic model, one use of alternatives
 or substitute informed about the
products that may problem. The
create less problem with
environmental subjective esti-
burdens. mates is that
(5) A more subtle they are difficult
contribution of the to replicate. This is
paper is the fact often encountered
that stakeholders when human
are active decision making
participants in process is involved.
decisions regarding However, there are
product design. ways to reduce the
That builds a effect of subjectivity
partnership in group decision
between the making process.
manufacturer and The AHP as intro-
its stakeholders. duced by Saaty
Stakeholders and can measure the
the manufacturer consistency of the
are better able to decision making
understand each process. Further,
other’s worldviews Madu
and work in
harmony to
accomplish the
same goals. Such
partnership could
help the
manufacturer to
become more
competitive.

Finally, no model is
without some limits.
There are some
potential problems or
limitations that the
reader should be
aware of in using the
framework of this
paper. These
limitations and their
possible solutions are
identified below:

(1) The use of the

multicriteria
framework pro-
posed here requires
subjective
estimates from the
stakeholder group.
It is assumed that
mem- bers of this
group will have
adequate informa-
tion and will be
reasonably
 and Kuei (1995) Roadmap: Busi- ness (1993). Summary g
and Madu (1994) and Strategic Report sponsored in .
Planning, pp. 1–16, part by The United N
have intro- duced http://www. States Department of Y
techniques to mcc.com/env/roadmap/ Energy and coordinated :
achieve stability roadmap.planning.html. by The Microelectronics M
and confi- dence Dillion, P. S. (1994). and Computer c
respectively in the Salvageability by Technology Corporation G
design. IEEE (MCC), March 1993, r
multicriteria
Spectrum 31(8), 18–21. http://www.mcc.com/ a
decision making Dillion, P. and Baram, projects/env/study/sum w
process. M. S. (1991). Forces mary- -
(2) The decision shaping the report.html#RTFToC21 H
making process development and use . il
may take consid- of product stewardship Evans, S. and McAloone, l.
in the private sector. In T. (2000). The Roy, R. and Whelan, R. C.
erable amount of Conference on the (1992). Successful
economic life cycle,
time if it is not Greening of Industry. http://www.co- recycling through
effectively The Netherlands. design.co.uk/economic.h value-chain
moderated. It is Environmental tm. collaboration. Long
important that a consciousness: a Hicks, C. R. (1973). Range Plan- ning 25(4),
strategic competitive- Fundamental Concepts 62–71.
facilitator who is Saaty, T. L. (1980). The
ness issue for the in the Design of
knowledge about Electronics and Experiments. 2nd Analytic Hierarchy Process.
working with Computer Industry Edition. NY: Holt, New
teams is used to Rinehart and Winston. Y
moderate the Madu, C. N. (1994). A o
quality confidence r
process. k
procedure for GDSS
(3) There is also the application in :
problem of other multicriteria decision
design constraints analysis. IIE M
and resource Transactions 26(3), 31– c
39. G
allocation
Madu, C. N. and Kuei, r
problems. These a
C-H. (1995). Stability
problems are often analyses of group w
addressed through decision making. -
the use of Computers & H
optimization Industrial Engineering i
28(4), 881–892. l
techniques. l
Navinchandra, D. (1991).
Design for .
environmentabil- ity. Saaty, T. L. (1987). Rank
References Proceedings of the 1991 generation,
ASME Design Theory preservation, and
and Methodology reversal in the
American Supplier Conference. American analytic hierarchy
Institute (1989). Society of Mechan- ical decision process.
Quality Function Engineers, Miami, Decision Sciences 18,
Deployment Florida, pp. 1–10. 157–177.
Implementation Probasco, I. and Scott Mathews, H. and
Manual. Dearborn, Heimlich, J. E. Lave, L. B. (1995). Price
MI: American Supplier (2000). Guide- lines setting for green
Institute. for the design. IEEE, 304–309.
Ayres, R. (1989). Environmentally Vonderembse, M. A. and
Industrial metabolism. Conscious Consumer Raghunathan, T. S.
In Technology and http://ohioline.ag.ohio- (1997). Quality
Environment (J. H. state.edu/cd- function deployment’s
Ausubel and H. E. fact/0180.html. Ross, P. impact on product
Sladovich, eds). J. (1988). Taguchi development.
Washington, DC: Techniques for Quality International Journal
National Academy E of Quality Science
Press. n 2
Business and Strategic g (
Planning A Culture of i 4
Competi- tiveness, n )
Quality and e ,
Environmental Concern e
(2000). Electronics r 2
Industry i 5
Environmental n 3
–
2
7
1
.