Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017) 160 – 167

14th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, GCSM 3-5 October 2016, Stellenbosch,
South Africa

A maturity-based improvement method for eco-efficiency in

manufacturing systems
Lampros Litosa*, Darren Grayb, Brian Johnstonc, David Morgana, Steve Evansa
a
Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, 17 Charles Babbage Road, Cambridge, CB3 0FS, United Kingdom
b
Altro Floors Ltd, Works Road, Letchworth Garden City, SG6 1NW, United Kingdom
c
ASICS Corporation 7-1-1 Minatojima-Nakamachi, Chuo-ku, KOBE 650-8555, Japan

Abstract

Eco-efficiency has been portrayed by various global organizations in recent years, as an effective way of reducing industry’s
carbon footprint and safe-guard natural resources. It is a concept that has been reduced for simplicity into “doing more with less”.
However, very few studies address eco-efficiency through a holistic approach that can guide practitioners in achieving better
control over their manufacturing practices. Using design research methodology and based on previous empirical work, the
authors present a method that intends to help practitioners in factories achieve environmental performance improvements by
identifying system strengths and weaknesses. The method can be seen as consisting of two main modules: a maturity self-
assessment process and a practitioners’ workshop. Two case studies are presented here to show how the method can be applied
and help practitioners simplify and make eco-efficiency a manageable target.
©
© 2017 TheAuthors.
2016The Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V.B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing
Keywords: maturity, eco-efficiency, manufacturing systems, assessment

1. Introduction and research objectives

Sustainable manufacturing (SM) is defined as a way of making products that eliminates environmental hazards
(pollution prevention) and waste in energy and materials [1]. Abdul Rashid et al., identify eco-efficiency as an
important improvement strategy [1]. WBCSD proposes that: “Eco-efficiency is achieved by the delivery of

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +447745972437
E-mail address: ll443@cam.ac.uk

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.019
 Lampros Litos et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017) 160 – 167 161

competitively-priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively
reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life-cycle to a level at least in line with the earth’s
estimated carrying capacity”[2]. Helfat and Peteraf move that proposition under the lens of maturity stages: “The
maturity stage entails capability maintenance. This involves exercising the capability, which refreshes the
organizational memory. If exercised regularly, the capability becomes more deeply embedded in the memory
structure of the organization” [3].
The particular focus in this study is the role of manufacturing practices as internal capabilities that enable or
prevent companies from enacting eco-efficiency or doing more with less. Manufacturing practices are defined as: “a
bundle of behavioural routines, tools, and concepts used to accomplish a certain task” [4]. The paper builds up from
previous work by the same authors on maturity models and the way that practice maturity can be an indicator of eco-
efficiency in manufacturing systems [5]. The research objective in this study is to empirically understand the role of
practice maturity as ingredient of a sustainable manufacturing strategy [5]. Extending their work with their practice
maturity framework for eco-efficiency [5], the authors here set out to explore the following research question: “How
can manufacturing practice maturity be used to facilitate the development of long-term eco-efficient solutions in
factories?” The authors in this study are testing the idea of embedding maturity profiles assessment into a process
that can be used to identify strong system capabilities.

2. Research Methodology

This work is part of a greater doctoral research plan on eco-efficiency in manufacturing systems. The research
plan follows the design research methodology framework that has been developed by Blessing and Chakrabarti [6].
The methodology consists of four stages: 1) Research Clarification, 2) Descriptive Study I, 3) Prescriptive study and
4) Descriptive Study II.

2.1. The steps of the improvement method

In descriptive study I, the maturity grid was tested as a tool in three different ways: a) as a self-assessment tool, b)
through a workshop with industrial practitioners and c) as a case study interview guide [5]. The first two options are
combined in this study to form a process that can help the authors answer their research question. The authors
propose a two-phase process based on practice maturity assessment.
The first phase is a self-assessment process where the authors collect maturity profiles from practitioners working
within manufacturing systems. These maturity profiles are then reviewed by the authors in regards to the maturity
variability and the overall level of maturity. Particular focus in the analysis of the maturity profiles is given to the
alignment of profiles across three cascading organizational layers: top-management, management systems and
production processes (see figure 1. a,b,c). These layers are subdivided in dimensions of performance as in table 1
[5]. Each dimension is described in five maturity stages which have been populated with examples of manufacturing
practices. These practices are sorted in maturity stages based on their potential to enhance eco-efficiency. The
assumption behind that design is that the potential for eco-efficient manufacturing increases as manufacturing
practices move upwards in maturity. Practice maturity is described within the maturity grid with examples of
practices that are found in relative literature.

Table1. The dimensions of the practice maturity assessment grid for eco-efficiency as per Litos and Evans, 2015 [4].

Processes Management systems Top-management

Energy usage Energy management KPIs & information management
Materials usage Resources management Company norms & values
Water usage Waste management Supply chain configuration
Process waste/pollution People management Product & process development
Human factor impact Suppliers relationships
Equipment performance
162 Lampros Litos et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017) 160 – 167

The authors demonstrate how they acquire and review maturity profiles from practitioners in two case studies, as
part of their maturity self-assessment and review process. The participants are presented a populated maturity grid
and essentially are asked to relate the maturity grid content to current practices in their manufacturing system. The
maturity profile is formulated by the selection of cells from top to bottom of the grid. The self-assessment is a
process where practitioners are informed by literature on practice maturity for eco-efficiency. This is the end of the
first phase of the application.

Table 2. Maturity grid dimension: “Human factor impact” on eco-efficiency at process layer. The cells provide
examples of practices that have been found to improve energy and resource efficiency. From left to right these are
sorted from level 1 or “a business as usual” to level 5 or “leading performance” [5].

Maturity
1 2 3 4 5
level:
Untrained Training in maintenance Training personnel to optimize the Cross-functional teams of people Continuous
Human personnel. No and energy/materials equipment performance. Training on that look for opportunities for improvement efforts
factor control over the savings. GMP's and good efficiency and reporting back to floor improvements. Understanding the from authorized
impact: process? Random housekeeping practices managers. Aim for establishment of people's skills at this level is also cross functional
operators per task? explored. standardized procedures. important for higher integration. personnel.

The second phase of the method is a workshop process where practitioners are invited to describe how their
system evolved in manufacturing practices over time and how they can use existing capabilities to gain higher eco-
efficiency. The workshop is a social process where practitioners inform research on how and whether their system
has matured towards higher eco-efficiency. The process is designed to generate dialogue between people with
different roles and perspectives about eco-efficiency in manufacturing. Its intended use is to help practitioners align
their perspectives on manufacturing practices towards an agreed improvement plan and actions that they can sustain
long term. The workshop concludes with a discussion about present and current capabilities. The workshop
facilitator openly summarises practitioners’ feedback with questions about what they think they are currently good at
and what they want to be good at in the long-run. The questions intend to give everyone a sense of how close they
are to achieving their future goals in terms of capabilities.
Two companies volunteered for this type of work but the complete process was carried out only in one case. This
is the first case of a flooring manufacturer in the UK. The second case study explores the relationships between three
companies that are part of a supply chain in the apparel industry. The work was driven by the corporate headquarters
in Europe (part of the global corporation). Only the first phase was accomplished in this case. The workshop process
was not manageable because of the distance between the involved parties and time constraints. However, this was
replaced by a follow-up dialogue on how to improve the environmental performance of the supply chain. The
dialogue was based on the first phase results.

2.2. Maturity grid verification - a case study with an aircraft company

This additional study is presented here as third party verification of the assumption that practice maturity is a
capable proxy of eco-efficiency. The company excels in manufacturing for aviation and can be considered as highly
mature in terms of manufacturing practices. The practitioners that took part in the prescriptive study of this work
were all working actively on energy and resource efficiency in manufacturing facilities (four different countries in
Europe). Their work and practices has previously been described in Lunt et al., [7,8]. It is an expert’s view on the
relationship between practice maturity and eco-efficiency. This part of the study belongs to the prescriptive part of
the research methodology. Prior to the assessment it was assumed that this study would generate high-level maturity
profiles. This was the selection criterion for this verification step.
The company operates in the aerospace sector and owns 11 manufacturing sites that employ approximately 50000
people across four European countries. Most of the sites are responsible for specific parts of the aircraft i.e. fuselage,
wings. These parts once manufactured are sent to two final assembly sites. Developing energy efficiency solutions in
manufacturing has practically been a major issue for the company for several years. It has not been until 2006 that a
corporate policy was developed that would formalize the efforts towards energy efficiency and set a 20% reduction
 Lampros Litos et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017) 160 – 167 163

in energy by the year 2020 across all manufacturing sites. The resources available for the implementation of
improvements were based on lean practices, manufacturing engineering implementations and research and
development [8].
Evidence show a good agreement of manufacturing practices across all sites (see figure 1.a). Each dot on the grid
represents a practitioner’s perception about the manufacturing practices that they witness in their factory. Figure 1.a
shows the perceptions about practice maturity across 5 manufacturing sites in different countries. There is a
relatively low degree of variability and the dots overall are concentrated around the third maturity level. This is
especially true about their factory systems and top-management layers which is further aligned to other studies in
this company [8,9]. Variability between practitioners’ perceptions can be seen as a weakness in the system as
opposed to everyone having similar perceptions about what practices they use in manufacturing. Highlighting
variability of perceptions is also the reason why the authors chose a scatter representation for maturity profiles. This
enhanced readability compared to connected vertical lines (Baumgartner and Ebner used vertical lines for profiles
[10]).
Overall, the maturity assessment output here is aligned to the proactive behaviour that the company exhibits in
pursue of eco-efficient manufacturing processes. As it can be seen in figure 1.a, the assessment shows adaptation of
mature manufacturing practices. The authors see these results as alignment between high maturity in practice and
high eco-efficiency potential. Contextual information about the companies that participate here is useful in order to
interpret results more accurately. The evidence from this maturity assessment is used to verify that companies that
use mature manufacturing practices can be expected to show proactive environmental behaviours and align the EP
improvement process to their manufacturing strategies. Alignment with strategy is seen as a key ingredient to
sustainable levels of EP. Therefore, it is expected that eco-efficient companies employ high maturity practices
(profiles move to the right of the grid).

3. Application and Results

3.1. Case study 1 – flooring industry

This company manufactures resilient, slip-resistant flooring and it is located in the UK. It has been family owned
for the past 100 years and is expanding its manufacturing capacity in support of a six-fold growth plan for the next
20 years. The managing director (also 3rd generation owner) envisions that the company can achieve this growth
level as it is something that has happened a couple of times before in their corporate history. Currently, they supply
markets globally and aim to add more global customers and make more exports in the future to support their growth
vision. Through participation to this research project, the manufacturing director expressed the desire to improve
their manufacturing efficiencies with additional environmental performance improvements. Previous work on
sustainable manufacturing in this company focused more on the product life-cycle assessment and in-house waste
recycling [11].
Eight senior level managers, with 4 to 20 years of experience in the company, were introduced to the framework
on one-to-one recorded sessions. The research scope was explained and the participants were introduced to the
maturity assessment in 15minute sessions. The sessions were arranged to fit into people’s daily tasks and be as less
intrusive as possible in their calendars. The assessments from their peers were shown only after the session was over
so their perceptions wouldn’t be affected. A visit in the manufacturing floor was also arranged after the sessions for
the researcher to have a closer look at the manufacturing system. It has been found that receiving contextual
information about the manufacturing system helps the researcher to better understand the output of the self-
assessments.

3.2. Case study 2 – Apparel supply chain

The sporting goods industry is characterized by mass volume production and distributed manufacturing across
different geographical regions, which involves high levels of resource consumption, waste and other environmental
emissions [12]. In a recent review study on the apparel industry O’Rourke identifies several issues that need to be
addressed in the context of sustainable manufacturing [13]. Within that context, operational practices that support
164 Lampros Litos et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017) 160 – 167

greener operations need to be assessed on their alignment to manufacturing strategy and the overall business strategy
[14]. What makes this alignment even more challenging, is the particular configuration of this outsourced production
system where brand headquarters and product developers are in different and geographically remote locations.
Recently, a number of brands have come together within the Sustainable Apparel Coalition to develop the “Higg”
sustainability index1 1[http://apparelcoalition.org/the-higg-index]. These efforts can be integrated into tools for
product design, material selection, sourcing, manufacturing, use-phase interventions, and end-of-life management
[13].
Tier 3 suppliers provide dyes and yarn to the fabric manufacturer. This is then supplied to the garment
manufacturer. This process is regulated by a service provider which is an independent authority and has an open
communication channel for all matters with the brand headquarters. The service provider mediates for matters like
pricing or product specifications and customer demands in a close loop between tier 1 and tier 2 suppliers with the
brand headquarters. Two environmental managers from the corporate headquarters, 2 managers from production in
Tier1 supplier and 4 managers from production from Tier2 supplier were involved in this study. Email exchange was
the main method of communication with the authors due to time and location restrictions. Interviews took place in
person and over the phone with the HQ managers. It has to be noticed that each dot on their maturity assessment in
figure 1.c. represents an agreed position between the participants in each company in the supply chain. The
implications of such an assessment for the overall process will be discussed in the following section.

4.3 Results and cross-case analysis

In figures 1b and 1c the reader can observe the shape of the maturity assessment for the flooring manufacturer and
the apparel supply chain respectively:

a b c

Fig. 1. (a)Aerospace (benchmark); (b) Flooring manufacturer; (c) Apparel supply chain

4.3.1 Flooring manufacturer – Phase 1: maturity self-assessment

There are two main observations in this maturity assessment. The first one is the variability of the practitioners’
perceptions about the manufacturing practices in their factory. The variability is present at most dimensions,
spreading between maturity levels 1 and 4, with most dots concentrating in levels 1 and 2. There is only one cell
where all eight perceptions converge: “Company norms and values”. It is maturity level 2 cell that is described as:
“There is top-management commitment for improvement across a range of functions (no evidence of strategy behind
this). Urgency is not clearly understood by people. Push for improvements in general”. The fact that all eight
practitioners could relate in that description about company norms and values is a strong signal that internal
communication and cascade of information requires attention. It also means that the sustainability vision in the
company requires more detail in order to be better understood by people. Looking at the maturity assessment
vertically, one may comment that the company employs practices that may be characterized more “business as
usual” (left side of the grid). However, there were people that could relate to practices in that manufacturing system
that were more advanced. This is particularly true for the dimensions of “process waste” and “human factor” at the
process layer.

4.3.2 Flooring manufacturer – Phase 2: workshop

 Lampros Litos et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017) 160 – 167 165

The second phase of the maturity based process was performed in this case. Following up from the self-assessments,
practitioners from a range of roles in manufacturing took part in this phase (not all previous participants were
available on the day). Overall, 7 practitioners took part on the day. The workshop consists of two exercises. The first
exercise requires people to provide evidence of best practice in their factory, sorted in chronological order for the
past 15 years until 2015 (year of the workshop). Repositionable post-it notes were used for this process. The
maturity grid was printed in empty templates in A0-size posters with only the title from each maturity dimension
being kept. Table 2 demonstrates this in one of the grid dimensions. The second exercise asked participants to
provide milestones of best manufacturing practice in each dimension for the next 10 years. For both exercises,
participants were asked to provide indications of manufacturing capabilities or organizational resources that enabled
past practices or would enable future ones. At the end of the workshop, practitioners were asked to review their
inputs and consider what they need to be good at in the future in order to achieve their future goals as expressed
through practices.

Table 2. Example of process level evolution on energy consumption.

Chronological evolution
1999 2008 2015 2020 2025
Don’t OPB (packaging) Recycling inc. Recycling Upgrade of Measurement Fundamental re- Prioritise
Process energy

measure it! energy machine system 5 capabilities. design of equipment specific projects
energy Energy plus efficiency for energy efficiency + resources

Better control over Better control

required output + over required
waste material output and waste
material

The process revealed a gap between what practitioners perceived to be good at today and what they expressed they
wanted to achieve in the future in terms of eco-efficiency. For example, expressions such as “we are good in
troubleshooting” was found to be in contrast to the future desire of “being fully engaged and collaborate”. The
contrast refers to a reactive statement about troubleshooting with an ingredient of proactive behaviour: collaboration
(see [8,15]). The contrast between existing and future capabilities was based upon the theoretical assumption of
building up from existing capabilities [4,16,17].

4.3.2 Apparel supply chain – Phase 1: maturity self-assessment

In figure 1.c. the reader can see the maturity assessment in the apparel supply chain. The practitioners involved
from each company had to discuss and agree on the position about what the manufacturing practice is that they have
in place in their company. This is not how the authors intended to run this assessment but valuable lessons can be
learned nevertheless regarding the application’s adoptability [18]. Similar to the previous assessment, there is great
variability of practice maturity between companies. In this case, the authors focused more on the variability in
maturity between companies in each horizontal dimension rather than the practices themselves – due to being agreed
profiles between practitioners. The variability in maturity indicated that these companies had different priorities for
improvement between each other. This was seen as a barrier for improvement from the apparel headquarters as a
pure supplier-customer price-based collaboration was traditionally in place [13].
Another observation is that variability tends to increase as one progresses higher in the organizational layers
across the three companies. Practice maturity is between levels 2 and 3 at the process layer, between levels 1 and 4 at
factory and manufacturing systems layer and between levels 1 and 5 at top-management layer. The results were
presented back to the companies that participated for review. As running the second phase workshop was difficult
due to location and time restrictions, discussions followed via email exchange. However, the email route was rather
ineffective and could not be sustained. Nevertheless, the participants indicated that improvement solutions for the
supply chain eco-efficiency had to take into account each company’s business and operational priorities.

4. Method evaluation

4.1. Method utility

The method generated structured discussions on EP improvements between people with various roles and
perspectives in the manufacturing system. The variability of the perceptions can be seen as barrier to EP
166 Lampros Litos et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017) 160 – 167

improvements [19]. However, the contribution of the maturity profiles method is about being able to acknowledge
and observe the variability between different stakeholders in the system. In these case studies it helped the
practitioners magnify where the barriers and opportunities can be found in the overall manufacturing system.
In regards to the utility of the method and how it may have helped practitioners, the following comments were
received: 1) by the engineering project manager in the flooring company: “It was a benefit for us all to have an open
and honest discussion with ourselves regarding eco-efficiency. We now just need to do the work internally to
understand where we need to be going with sustainability and what steps will add value most”; 2) the sustainability
manager in the apparel headquarters: “I really like how the tool is trying to identify root causes of performance
differences and to show a path to improve. That is valuable for suppliers, and the assessment is much easier to fill in
than the Higg Index. Also, looking at the different characteristics across the supply chain has been insightful. I hope
we can define an effective way of working with these supply chain partners using this as a starting point”.

4.2. Method limitations

Certain limitations need to be also acknowledged in regards to the method’s intended and actual use and its
application. It was observed that the usefulness of the method will take time to evaluate. Strong and imperative
improvements actions did not materialize based on the workshop or further discussions. More time may be required
to understand the long-term impacts of the method in the companies applied.
There are signs that the resource-based view theory is suitable substrate for this type of work. However, more
work is required to demonstrate clearly how companies can realize eco-efficiency improvements by recognizing
what their internal strengths and capabilities are. The method needs to adopt better, probably in the second phase to
help practitioners develop concrete and sustainable solutions for future deployment.
Contextual information is important to help the researchers understand the method’s output (profiles and
workshop outputs). Potentially this method can be applied internally by practitioners as they already understand the
context of their business or be used for training purposes for newcomers in the company. For research purposes, it is
advisable to gain some contextual information about the companies where the method is applied. This will help
researchers understand in-house terminology about practices and identify what the system strengths are quicker in
their maturity evaluation.

5. Conclusions

A few conclusions can be made about the method and its application:
1. The method challenges the practitioners’ perceptions about eco-efficiency and their perceived system's
strengths. The variability of perceptions may not be just between people but also between current and past
manufacturing practices (i.e. perception of being already efficient as per [20]. In the case in the apparel industry
the method also brought forward the variability in priorities that each manufacturer had within the supply chain
[19].
2. Manufacturing practice maturity can be used as an approximation of eco-efficiency. Companies exhibit
different capabilities in dealing with EP. Even though both case studies presented some good practice in EP
improvement (in specific dimensions of EP), this was not found to be aligned to financial performance
enhancement and/or aligned to their manufacturing strategy.
3. The variability of business priorities as a barrier for eco-efficiency is enhanced in the case of the supply chain.
As tier 1 and 2 suppliers are not part of the organization and supply other apparel companies, they are not
formally bind to follow specific corporate norms and values in regards to eco-efficiency from the corporate
headquarters. Their contribution to the overall eco-efficiency was proposed to be through EP improvements that
are relevant to their business. Therefore, a more inclusive improvement strategy for these factories may be
easier to implement and drive forward.
 Lampros Litos et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 8 (2017) 160 – 167 167

Nomenclature

EP Environmental Performance

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Romy Miltenburg from Asics Europe B.V. and John Patsavellas from Altro Floors Ltd. for
facilitating the overall research process and supporting research efforts. This work has been funded by EPSRC.

References

.[1] Abdul Rashid SH, Evans S, Longhurst P. A comparison of four sustainable manufacturing strategies.
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering. 2008;1:214–229.
[2] WBCSD. Vision 2050 - The new agenda for business - full report [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2013 Dec 16].
Available from: http://www.earthprint.com/productfocus.php?id=WBCSD0167.
[3] Helfat CE, Peteraf MA. The Dynamic Resource-Based View: Capability Lifecycles. Strategic Management
Journal. 2003;24:997–1010.
[4] Canato A, Ravasi D, Phillips N. Coerced Practice Implementation in Cases of Low Cultural Fit: Cultural
Change and Practice Adaptation During the Implementation of Six Sigma at 3m. Academy of Management
Journal. 2013;56:1724–1753.
[5] Litos L, Evans S. Maturity grid development for energy and resource efficiency management in factories and
early findings from its application. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering. 2015;32:37–54.
[6] Blessing LTM, Chakrabarti A. DRM, a design research methodology. 2009.
[7] Lunt P, Ball P, Andrew Levers. Barriers to industrial energy efficiency. Int J of Energy Sector Man.
2014;8:380–394.
[8] Lunt PAV, Ball PD, Kaladgew S. Integrating Energy Efficiency into Industrial Strategy – A Case Study from
the European Aerospace Sector. Procedia CIRP. 2015;26:241–246.
[9] Airbus Group Employees Launch Network To Improve Gender Balance [Internet]. airbusgroup. [cited 2015
Mar 18]. Available from: http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news-media/press-releases/Airbus-
Group/Financial_Communication/2015/03/20150306_airbus_group_gender_balance.html.
[10] Baumgartner RJ, Ebner D. Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels.
Sustainable Development. 2010;18:76–89.
[11] Günther A, Langowski H-C. Life cycle assessment study on resilient floor coverings. International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment. 1997;2:73–80.
[12] Subic A, Shabani B, Hedayati M, et al. Capability Framework for Sustainable Manufacturing of Sports Apparel
and Footwear. Sustainability. 2012;4:2127–2145.
[13] O’Rourke D. The science of sustainable supply chains. Science. 2014;344:1124–1127.
[14] Shi Y, Gregory M. International manufacturing networks—to develop global competitive capabilities. Journal
of Operations Management. 1998;195–214.
[15] Geffen CA, Rothenberg S. Suppliers and environmental innovation The automotive paint process. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2000;20:166–186.
[16] Claver E, López MD, Molina JF, et al. Environmental management and firm performance: A case study.
Journal of Environmental Management. 2007;84:606–619.
[17] Ferdows K, Thurnheer F. Building factory fitness. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management. 2011;31:916–934.
[18] Kerr C, Phaal R. Visualizing Roadmaps: A Design-Driven Approach. Research-Technology Management.
2015;58:45–54.
[19] Cagno E, Worrell E, Trianni A, et al. A novel approach for barriers to industrial energy efficiency. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013;19:290–308.
[20] Vine E, Hamrin J, Eyre N, et al. Public policy analysis of energy efficiency and load management in changing
electricity businesses. Energy Policy. 2003;31:405–430.