Int. J.

Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108

A multiple attribute utility theory approach to lean
and green supply chain management
Yasutaka Kainuma
a,
, Nobuhiko Tawara
b
a
Tokyo Metropolitan University, 3-6-33, Azumacho, Akishima, Tokyo 196-8540, Japan
b
Musashi Institute of Technology, 1-28-1, Tamazutsumi, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 158-8557, Japan
Available online 6 December 2005
Abstract
There are a lot of metrics for evaluating the performance of supply chains. However, they may be aggregated as
leadtime, customer service, cost, and quality. In this connection the Environmental Protection Agency in the United
States issued in 2000 a practical guide called The Lean and Green Supply Chain. The purpose of the guidebook is to
demonstrate the opportunities for improving both nancial and environmental performance and to briey review
specic tools and methods.
In this paper, we rst extend the range of the supply chain to include re-use and recycling throughout the life cycle of
products and services. Using our denition, we propose the multiple attribute utility theory method for assessing a
supply chain. We consider this approach to be one of the the lean and green supply chain methods. We can then
evaluate the performance of a supply chain not only from a managerial viewpoint but also from an environmental
performance viewpoint. Secondly, we apply this technique to an application study and conrm the efciency of the
proposal.
r 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Supply chain management; Life cycle assessment; Lean and green supply chain
1. Introduction
Supply chain management is a business term
that has emerged in the last few years and is
gaining in popularity. The typical denition of the
term supply chain management (Bowersox and
Closs, 1996) is as follows:
The supply chain refers to all those activities
associated with the transformation and ow of
goods and services, including their attendant
information ows, from the sources of materials
to end users. Management refers to integration
of all these activities, both internal and external
to the rm.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe
0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.05.010

Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 42 543 3001;

fax: +81 42 543 3002.
E-mail address: kainuma@tmca.ac.jp (Y. Kainuma).
In this denition, the entities of the supply chain
are dened as manufacturer and its suppliers,
vendors, and customers. However, there are some
differing denitions for supply chains. For exam-
ple, literature discussing green supply chain
management and green purchasing has been
published (Asian Productivity Organization,
2001). The US Environmental Protection Agency
(2000) has also published a practical guide. In
these approaches, the companies have extensive
vendor selection and performance evaluation
processes, and tend to leverage staff resources
throughout the company to achieve environmental
goals. They typically expect their suppliers to go
beyond environmental compliance and undertake
efcient, green product design and/or life cycle
analysis activities. The UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle
Initiative was initiated in 2000 by a letter of intent
from UNEP and SETAC to cooperate in the
pursuit of the formulation of Life-Cycle Economy,
and the rst workshop took place in Tokyo (Halls,
2001). In November 2002 another new project
called A Life Cycle Approach to Sustainable
Consumption was created by the Society of Non-
Traditional Technology (2003). The aim of these
approaches is to reduce CO
2
emission and other
environmental loads from a customer viewpoint.
In this paper, we extended the extent of the
supply chain to include re-use and recycling
throughout the life cycle of products and services.
Fig. 1 shows the extent of a supply chain which
includes dismantling and decomposition. In Fig. 1,
the range enclosed by a dotted line is the typical
supply chain. Using our denition, we propose the
new metrics of a supply chain for lean and green
supply chain management. The metrics are supply
chain ROA (return on asset), customer satisfac-
tion, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). We
integrate these items by using a multi-attribute
utility function.
2. The framework of a multiple utility function
approach
Fig. 2 illustrates the evaluation structure of
the lean and green supply chain. In the typical
supply chain, we can use the metrics from a mana-
gement viewpoint: return on asset and customer
satisfaction(ROA). ROA can be represented by
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Raw
materials
Manufacturing Distribution
Retailer
Collection
Transportation
Dismantling
Decomposition
Use
Fig. 1. The range of the lean and green supply chain.
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 100
the average stock through a supply chain
and Customer Satisfaction can be represented
by the out-of-stock ratio. To this we add one
more metric, which is evaluated from the environ-
mental viewpoint. This approach is called lean
and green supply chain management in this
research.
Firstly, in order to analyze the inuence of
supply chain ROA and customer satisfaction, we
make computer simulations of simple two-stage
supply chain models. Model-1 follows the tradi-
tional pattern and does not provide for informa-
tion sharing in supply chains. In Model-2
customer demand information is shared in the
supply chain, in Model-3 supplier leadtime in-
formation is shared, and in Model-4 both demand
and leadtime information is shared.
Secondly, in order to quantitatively evaluate
the lean and green supply chain, we developed
a multi-attribute utility function of the supply
chain. The multi-attribute utility function is
constructed from three single-attribute utility
functions: supply chain ROA, customer satisfac-
tion, and LCA. We can evaluate the performance
of the supply chain not only from a managerial
standpoint but also from environmental aspects,
and conrm its efciency through an application
study.
3. Metrics from a managerial viewpoint
The variance in orders within a supply chain
may be larger than that of sales, and the distortion
tends to increase as they move upstream. This
phenomenon is known as the bullwhip effect
phenomenon (Lee et al. 1997), where orders to
the manufacturer or the supplier tend to have a
larger variance than the demand from the retailer
or the manufacturer, and the distortion moves
upstream becoming more severe as it advances.
Information sharing is generally known for
decreasing the variance of the bullwhip effect,
and this phenomenon is investigated through
simulation by using a simple supply chain model.
Lee et al. (1997), Gavirneni et al. (1999), Mason-
Jones and Towill (1999) have indicated that
manufacturers tend to share information with
their suppliers in order to reduce uncertainty in
supply chains. However, the extent of the benets
that can be credited to information sharing among
the different entities has not been well quantied.
In addition, Lee et al. (2000) has examined the
impact of the autocorrelation coefcient and the
leadtime on the benet of information sharing in a
two-stage supply chain. In the research article,
however, the benets of demand information
sharing and leadtime information sharing have
been conrmed separately.
In this study, as described above, four models
are presented. To gain insights into its inuence on
suppliers and retailers in supply chains this study
rst probes the impact of demand information
sharing using a simple model. Furthermore, the
impact of leadtime information and the combina-
tion of various kinds of information in the supply
chain are investigated. Simulation is used in a
computational study to validate the hypothesis of
the impact of information sharing.
Hypothesis. : Information sharing is benecial to
all the entities in terms of decreasing the bullwhip
effect and inventories in supply chains.
The research demonstrates that customer de-
mand information sharing is benecial for decreas-
ing the bullwhip effect, and furthermore, that
information sharing of customer demand and
supplier leadtime is benecial for the elements
that make up a supply chain, such as average stock
levels and customer service.
In this section, the model and the hypothesis are
introduced. A supply chain consists of entities with
different objectives, all of which are involved in the
procurement of raw materials, production and the
delivery of products to the customer. Performance
ARTICLE IN PRESS
LCA
Supply chain
ROA
Customer
satisfaction
Integrating
assessment
Fig. 2. The structure of evaluation of lean and green supply
chain.
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 101
of the supply chain is measured by means of cost,
leadtime, quality and service. Recent studies have
shown that the quick dissemination of relevant
information can signicantly enhance the perfor-
mance of a supply chain. Information sharing in
one form or another and with few differences
occurs between every pair of interacting entities in
a supply chain. Suppliers, manufacturers, and
retailers tend to reveal information about custo-
mer demand, inventory, and supplier leadtime.
Currently, the entities within the supply chain are
beginning to change their operations. They are
beginning to cooperate more, especially with
regard to information sharing, which is benecial
for reducing the bullwhip effect and improving the
performance of the supply chain.
3.1. Model
For the purposes of this study, a supply chain
model with a two-stage ow is introduced. The
concepts of the model are demonstrated. Fig. 3
shows the two-stage supply chain model as an
example of a case with no information sharing,
whereas Figs. 46 represent three models of
information sharing. Fig. 4 demonstrates demand
information sharing; Fig. 5 describes supplier
leadtime information sharing, and Fig. 6 is for
both kinds of information sharing. Information
sharing could have a benecial or detrimental
effect on an entity depending on the type of
information and with whom it is shared (Baganha
and Cohen, 1998). It is especially important to
clarify what information is benecial for an entity
in a supply chain.
3.2. Reorder point
The ordering system is outlined. Each entity in
the supply chain orders goods according to an
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Order
Delivery
Stage 1 Stage 2
Fig. 3. Supply chain model without information sharing;
Model-1.
Order
Delivery
Information
Stage 1 Stage 2
Fig. 4. Supply chain model with demand information sharing;
Model-2.
Order
Delivery
Information
Stage 1
Stage 2
Fig. 5. Supply chain model with lead time information sharing;
Model-3.
Order
Delivery
Information
Stage 1 Stage 2
Fig. 6. Supply chain model with the both kinds of information
sharing; Model-4.
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 102
ordering point system. The sequence of events in
the simulation is as follows:
+ Single-item is assumed.
+ Stochastic demand occurs.
+ Customer orders goods to stage one.
+ Unfullled demand is lost.
(1) Without information sharing: Model-1. In the
case of no information sharing between supply
chain partners, a reorder point formula is given by
K
i
=

D
i
T
i
u(a)

T
i
p
^ s
D
i
, (1)
where K
i
is the reorder point, ith stage;

D
i
the
average demand, ith stage; T
i
the leadtime, ith
stage; u(a) the safety coefcient; a the out-of-stock
rate; and ^ s
D
i
the demand standard deviation , ith
stage.
(2) With information sharing: Models-2, Model-
3, and Model-4. In the case of information sharing
between the supply chain partners, the reorder
point formula is also given by
K
i
= K
i1


D
1
T
i
u(a)

T
i
p
^ s
D
1
(iX2). (2)
In this formula, the reorder point is driven by
the sum of the echelon inventory and the existing
inventory in the model. This is different from an
ordinary reorder point.
3.3. Evaluation
There are many measurements for evaluating
the performance of supply chains. However, they
may be aggregated as leadtime, customer service,
cost, and quality. In this study, the performance of
the supply chain is evaluated from the following
measurements:
(1) Sum of ratio of variance,
X
n
i=1
F
i
(I) =
V
1
(O)
V(D)

V
2
(O)
V(D)

V
n
(O)
V(D)
: (3)
(2) Average stock.
Average stock in the supply chain is given by
Eq. (3):

I =
1
n
X
n
i=1
I
i
, (4)
where I
i
= inventory, ith stage.
(3) Out-of-stock ratio.
The rst measurement, the sum of the variance
ratio, evaluates the degree of the reduction in the
bullwhip effect in supply chains brought about by
information sharing. The second, average stock,
evaluates the performance of total supply chains.
This measurement has the same meaning as the
ROA, and this is a measurement that favors
business. The third measurement, out-of-stock
ratio, evaluates and favors customer service.
4. Computational analysis
4.1. Computational study
This section is a description of the experimental
setup and the results of the computational study.
The conditions in the simulation are as follows:
(1) Stochastic demand with auto-correlation
occurs: N(10,5
2
).
(2) The order quantity of the rst stage is 100,
second 200.
(3) The leadtime of stage one has variance, and the
leadtime of stage two is xed.
(4) The leadtime distribution of stage two is
assumed to be a Poisson distribution.
(5) Out-of-stock rate a = 0:025, u(a) = 1:96 is
assumed.
(6) The number of iterations is 1000.
The demand series using this computational
study are illustrated in Figs. 7 and 8. Fig. 7 shows
a random demand series and Fig. 8 shows a strong
auto-correlated demand series.
4.2. Results and discussion
Each of the experiments for 1000 periods was
conducted. In each experiment, a set of seeds was
used for random number generation as demand
series. First, we conrmed that information shar-
ing is effective for decreasing the bullwhip effect in
the simulations. As a result, Fig. 9 shows the
average inventory of the supply chain resulting
from the simulation. This gure demonstrates that
the three kinds of information sharing are useful
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 103
for a reduction of the average stock, especially, the
average stock of Model-3 and Model-4 are at the
lower level.
Fig. 10 shows the results of the out-of-stock
ratios for the four models. From this gure,
we conrmed that information sharing is very
efcient in maintaining out-of-stock ratios at
specic levels. From these simulation results it
can be seen that customer demand information
sharing is benecial for decreasing the bullwhip
effect, and furthermore, that information sharing
of customer demand and supplier leadtime is
benecial for the elements that make up a supply
chain, such as average stock levels and customer
service.
The above results on decreasing bullwhip effect
and inventories in supply chains validate our
Hypothesis, which states that information sharing
is benecial to all the entities in term of decreasing
the bullwhip effect and inventories in supply
chains.
5. Metrics from an environmental viewpoint
5.1. Lean and green supply chain
We evaluate the extended supply chain by using
the structure in Fig. 2. From this structure, we are
able to evaluate the supply chain from the supply
chain ROA, i.e. average stock, customer satisfac-
tion, out-of-stock ratio. And the LCA (Kainuma
and Tawara, 1998). LCA is a measure of the effect
on the environment and the contribution to the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
D
e
m
a
n
d
Period
Fig. 7. Demand series with auto correlation l = 0:0.
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
D
e
m
a
n
d
Period
Fig. 8. Demand series with auto correlation l = 0:8.
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

s
t
o
c
k
Variance of the time
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
Model-4
Fig. 9. The results of average stock in computational analysis.
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Variance of lead time
O
u
t
-
o
f
-
s
t
o
c
k

r
a
t
i
o

(
%
)
Model-1
Model-2
Model-3
Model-4
Fig. 10. The results of out-of-stock ratio in computational
analysis.
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 104
social aspect. For LCA problems with multiple
issues or objectives, the problem is rst decom-
posed into single objectives and attributes. The
attributes are then used to measure the degree to
which an objective is achieved by a management
option; attributes should be meaningful to the
issue, measurable, predictable, comprehensive, and
non-overlapping. The identication of objectives
and attributes leads to a consensus concerning the
nature of the LCA. The subsequent analysis
should focus on estimating the effects of various
management actions on the levels of the attributes.
In this paper, an environmental decision can
involve energy use, water pollution, solid waste,
and air pollution. On the other hand, a contribu-
tion of products or services is measured by the
degree of satisfaction. The overall goal is to make
a trade-off between minimizing environmental
effects and maximizing the contribution.
To assess the extended supply chain is a multi-
criteria optimization problem, which can be
considered in the following form:
max
x
i
cX
{f
1
(x); f
2
(x); . . . ; f
n
(x)], (5)
where f
i
c R
1
; i = 1; 2 . . . ; n; is an objective func-
tion of n-dimensional decision variables, and x and
X is a set of feasible decisions.
Consider this overall optimization problem (4)
in a decomposed form
max
x
i
cX
U{f
1
(x
1
); f
2
(x
2
); . . . ; f
n
(x
n
)], (6)
where i is a n
1
-dimensional decision variable in a
subsystem i. The function U in (5) is an overall
preference function. The multi-attribute utility
theory assesses in a different form as follows:
sup
x
i
cX
U{u
1
(x
1
); u
2
(x
2
); . . . ; u
n
(x
n
)]. (7)
In this formulation, x
i
denotes the measure
of effectiveness of each objective. In addition,
u
i
(x
i
) is a single-attribute utility function, and
X is an attribute space, which is constructed
{x
1
; x
2
; . . . ; x
n
].
The multi-criteria optimization problem is de-
signed to specify the functional form of formula-
tion (6). Along the lines of Keeney and Raiffa
(1993), under the assumption of preferential and
utility independence, function (6) is assessed in the
following way:
Additive utility function:
U(x
1
; x
2
; . . . ; x
n
) =
X
n
i=1
k
i
u
i
(x
i
); if
X
n
i=1
k
i
= 1;
(8)
or multiplicative utility function:
U(x
1
; x
2
; . . . x
n
) =
1
k
Y
n
i=1
{1 Kk
i
u
i
(x
i
)] 1
" #
,
if
X
n
i=1
k
i
a1; (9)
where
(1) U and u
i
are utility functions scaled from 0 to
1,0 - k
i
- 1; i = 1; 2; . . . ; n, and
(2) K is a scaling constant. When
P
n
i=1
k
i
a1, then
K > 1 is a nonzero solution to 1 K =
Q
k
i=1
(1 Kk
i
).
The procedures for identifying the type of
single-attribute utility function are as follows:
(1) Designate the worst level u(x
0
) and the best
level u(x
+
), in order to determine the degree of
sufciency of the attribute.
(2) Set the degree of sufciency of the worst level
to 0, and that of the best level to 1.
(3) Estimate the certainty equivalent value at the
level x
0.5
for which the utility value equals 0.5
(See the appendix). If the certainty equivalent
is x
0:5
= (x
0
x
+
)=2, then the utility function is
a risk neutral type. Otherwise, the utility
function is identied as either a risk aversion
type or a risk prone type.
(4) For a utility function of a risk aversion type or
that of a risk prone type, estimate the
unknown parameters, a, b, and c, by applying
the NewtonRaphson method to the three
points x
0
, x
0.5
, and x
*
(Kainuma et al., 1986).
u
i
(x
i
) = a b exp(cx
i
), (10)
u
i
(x
i
) = a bx
i
. (11)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 105
Eq. (10) is for risk aversion type and risk prone
type functions, which except for initial conditions
are essentially the same. Eq. (11) is identied as the
risk neutral utility function. Fig. 11 illustrates
three types of single-attribute utility function, risk
averse, risk neutral, and risk prone.
5.2. A case study
When discussing lean and green supply chain
management, it is useful to evaluate the opinions
of other researchers in the management eld as
well as in the environmental management eld.
For this reason, we conducted interview examina-
tion for a researcher as the decision makers in this
case study. First, single-attribute utility functions
were identied using the 5050-chance lottery
technique. The identied single-attribute utility
functions for x
1
, x
2
, x
3
are as follows:
u
1
(x
1
) = 6:919{1 exp(0:135x
1
)],
u
2
(x
2
) = 1:846{1 exp(0:0078x
2
)],
u
3
(x
3
) =
x
3
100
.
Figs. 1214 illustrate the single-utility function
for x
1
; x
2
; x
3
, respectively. u
1
(x
1
) is single-attribute
utility function for LCA, u
2
(x
2
), supply chain
ROA, u
3
(x
3
), customer satisfaction. Fig. 12 shows
the utility function is risk prone, Fig. 13 risk
averse, and Fig. 14 risk neutral. From these
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1
0.5
0
Attribute value
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
Risk aversion
Risk neutral
Risk prone
Fig. 11. Three types of single-attribute utility function.
0 50 100
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Attribute value
U
t
i
l
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
Fig. 12. Single-attribute utility function for attribute x
1
. This
function type is downwards convex, i.e., risk prone.
0 50 100
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Attribute value
U
t
i
l
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
Fig. 13. Single-attribute utility function for attribute x
2
. This
function type is upwards convex, i.e., risk aversion.
0 50 100
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Attribute value
U
t
i
l
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
Fig. 14. Single-attribute utility function for attribute x
3
. This
function type is linear, i.e., risk neutral.
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 106
gures, the attitude of the decision maker towards
the risk can be claried.
Secondly, after trade-off examinations and the
p
1
-chance lottery technique are conducted for
decision maker, the multi-attribute utility function
is derived. The multi-attribute utility function for
the overall goal is as follows:
U
123
(x
1
; x
2
; x
3
) =
1
0:816
[{1 0:132u
1
(x
1
)]
{1 0:306u
2
(x
2
)]{1 0:374u
3
(x
3
)] 1].
This is written in the form of a combined three
single-attribute utility function. The supply chain
can therefore be conducted in a comprehensive
manner using this multi-attribute utility function.
In order to analyze the sensitivity of the utility
function, we vary the attribute values. The rst
trial is to move the value from 0.5 to 0.7 and the
second from 0.5 to 0.3. The result is illustrated
in Fig. 15, and this gure shows that the decision
makers emphasize the customer satisfaction.
Fig. 15 also shows that the second sensitive item
is the LCA.
6. Conclusions
In this study we considered the extent of lean
and green supply chain management. We dened
new ranges of supply chain management that can
evaluate the lean and green supply chain. We rst
performed computational experiments to analyze
the effect of information sharing in the supply
chain. We quantied the benets of information
sharing that can decrease the average stock level in
the supply chain and the out-of-stock ratio at a
retailer at a certain level. We then applied the
multi-attribute utility theory to the lean and green
supply chain. We derived single-attribute utility
functions and multi-attribute utility functions for a
decision maker, so we were able to quantify the
utility value of the supply chain. From the
sensitivity analysis of the utility function, we
observed the preference of the decision maker.
The results we obtained from our research is a case
of only one decision maker, we need to study
further research for other decision makers from
the viewpoint of management and consumers.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by Grant-
in-Aid for Scientic Research (C) from the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology, Japan.
Appendix. The method of setting the certainty
equivalent
Let L be a lottery yielding consequences X
1
and X
2
each with probability 0.5. We call this a
5050-chance lottery. The certainty equivalent of a
5050-chance lottery is an amount
^
X such that the
decision maker is indifferent to L and
^
X is certain.
We ask a decision maker some questions.
For example, the following questions may be
elicited while showing a decision maker the
questionnaires nos. 15 shown in Fig. 16, one at
a time.
There are two boxes M and L. Box M contains
100 lotteries having a performance value
^
X,
whereas Box L contains a 5050 lottery having
performance values X
1
and X
2
. Please write o; =
or 4 in the blank box to indicate whether you
would prefer Box M or Box L, from the
standpoint of performance Fig. 17 shows an
example set of responses.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
U
t
i
l
i
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
u1(x1) u2(x2) u3(x3)
Single-attribute utility function
(0.5,0.5,0.5)
0.50.7
0.50.3
Fig. 15. The results of sensitivity analysis.
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 107
The certainty equivalent is the answer for which
the respondent writes = . In this example, the
certainty equivalent is 200.
References
Asian Productivity Organization, 2001. Greening Supply
Chain: Enhancing Competitiveness through Green Produc-
tivity. Asian Productivity Organization.
Baganha, M.P., Cohen, M.A., 1998. The stabilizing of
inventory in supply chains. Operations Research 46,
S72S83.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., 1996. Logistical Management: The
Integrated Supply Chain Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gavirneni, S., Kapuscinski, R., Tayur, S., 1999. Value of
information in capacitated supply chains. Management
Science 45, 1624.
Halls S., 2001. Objective and Structure of the UNEP/SETAC
life cycle initiative. Proceedings of the First Workshop of
UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative.
Kainuma, Y., Hashimoto, K., Okamoto, S., Shiozawa, K.,
1986. Study on quantitative assessment for sense of value
application to decision analysis for selection of domestic
energy. Bulletin of Science and Engineering Research
Laboratory, Waseda University 115 pp. 1322.
Kainuma, Y., Tawara, N., 1998. A life-cycle assessment by
multi-criteria decision analysis. Proceedings of the 1st
KoreaJapan Joint Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Management, pp. 183186.
Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1993. Decisions with Multiple
Objectives Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V., Whang, S., 1997. Information
Distortion in a Supply Chain: the bullwhip effect. Manage-
ment Science 43, 546558.
Lee, H.L., So, K.C., Tang, C.S., 2000. The value of information
sharing in a two-level supply chain. Management Science
46, 626643.
Mason-Jones, R., Towill, D.R., 1999. Total cycle time
compression and the agile supply chain. International
Journal of Production Economics 62, 6173.
The Society of Non-Traditional Technology, 2003. Life Cycle
approaches for Sustainable Consumption, Proceedings of
the First International Workshop on Sustainable Con-
sumption.
US EPA, 2000. The Lean and Green Supply Chain: A Practical
Guide for Materials Managers and Supply Chain Managers
to Reduce Costs and Improve Environmental Performance,
US EPA.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
200
100
150
250
0, 300
300 0, 300
0, 300
0, 300
0, 300
<
<
=
>
>
No.1
No.2
No.3
No.5
No.4
Box M Box L
Fig. 17. An example set of responses.
200
100
150
250
0, 300
300 0, 300
0, 300
0, 300
0, 300
No.1
No.2
No.3
No.5
No.4
Box M Box L
Fig. 16. An example of question for a 5050 lottery technique.
Y. Kainuma, N. Tawara / Int. J. Production Economics 101 (2006) 99108 108