Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

A hybrid multiple criteria decision making approach for measuring T

comprehensive performance of reverse logistics enterprises
⁎
Mohammed Najeeb Shaik, Walid Abdul-Kader
Faculty of Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario N9B3P4, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The area of reverse logistics has recently received considerable attention and is an important business policy. The
Reverse logistics performance measurement of reverse logistics is seldom studied due to the complexity and uncertainty of its
Performance measurement operations. This paper provides a multi-criteria performance measurement model to assess the reverse logistics
Multi-criteria decision making enterprise’s performance by considering performance attributes such as product lifecycle stages, strategies,
DEMATEL
processes, capabilities, and perspectives and measures. In developing the performance measurement model, a
ANP
AHP
hybrid multi-criteria approach combining DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and AHP methods are applied. Furthermore, the
Fuzzy set theory relative importance of these attributes and their criteria with respect to each other and their contribution to the
overall performance are affected by the competitive outlook considered by the reverse logistics enterprises. The
performance evaluation model developed in this paper incorporates relevant attributes and achieves a more
realistic representation of the enterprise’s performance by calculating the overall comprehensive performance
index. This study provides decision makers a basis for improving the reverse logistics enterprise performance.

1. Introduction management of RL enterprise, one wants to not only know which at-
tributes affect performance and which of their criteria affect these at-
Recently the interest for reverse logistics (RL) has increased since tributes, but also understand the degree of influence of each attribute.
many enterprises have realized the various advantages for their op- This requirement is satisfied by applying multi-criteria approaches
erations. Rogers and Tibben-Lembke (1999) define RL as the process of (Babic & Plazibat, 1998). Multi-criteria approaches are widely used in
planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, cost effective the literature for various purposes, including PM of enterprises in terms
flow of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods, and related of profitability and efficiency. There are many criteria and attributes
information from the point of consumption to the point of origin for the that impact the performance of RL enterprises. These criteria and at-
purpose of recapturing or creating value or proper disposal. According tributes can be summarized and classified into different constructs and
to Alvarezgil, Berrone, Husillos, and Lado (2007) the RL operations act as an effective reference for PM and decision-making. In the next
support enterprises with reduction of costs due to the low prices of raw paragraphs, we present the literature of various multi-criteria decision
materials and spare parts, and also generate revenues by reselling making methods (MCDM) applied for PM in RL.
materials and products after being scrapped. In a survey conducted by Ravi, Shankar, and Tiwari (2005) propose a combination of ba-
Pollock (2010), 87% of organizations indicated that the effective lanced scorecard and analytic network process (ANP) based approach
management of the RL was either ‘extremely important’ or ‘very im- for piloting RL operations for end-of-life computers. In another re-
portant’ to their operational and financial performance. Further, Skjott- search, Yellepeddi (2006) presents a quantitative methodology for re-
Larsen, Schary, Mikkola, and Kotzab (2007) presented that within the verse supply chain performance. It is based on balanced scorecard and
RL there are challenges; however, an important one would be the lack fuzzy ANP method for PM of RL in electronics industry. On the other
of performance measurement (PM) for return process efficiency. The hand, Jianhua, Lidong, and Zhangang (2009) discuss performance
PM system is a process to allocate responsibilities and decision making, evaluation of reverse supply chain by modifying the balanced scorecard
set the targets of performance, and give out the result by analyzing the and applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). Conversely,
achievement of the target (Cliville et al., 2006; Lee & Yang, 2011). In Huang et al. (2011) propose five assessment dimensions: financial
the literature, various integrated PM systems have been developed to performance, operational procedure, learning and growth, reverse re-
use as performance controlling and improvement tools within RL. In the lationship and flexibility and utilize ANP method for RL performance

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.N. Shaik), [email protected] (W. Abdul-Kader).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.06.007
Received 5 May 2016; Received in revised form 29 March 2018; Accepted 5 June 2018
Available online 15 June 2018
0360-8352/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

evaluation of recycled computers. A framework for a comprehensive of RL.

and integrated approach of PM of RL enterprises is presented in Shaik In this study for the RL performance, it is important to identify and
and Abdul-Kader (2012). Their input-output model applied AHP for the understand the performance attributes and their criteria, whether they
prioritization and integrated the balanced scorecard and performance are interdependent of one another or they relate one to another only
prism. Recently, Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2014) present a comprehen- implicitly. To understand the relationships among the performance
sive PM and decision making model for RL enterprise and utilize DE- attributes and their criteria, this paper considers all the basic and var-
MATEL method for understanding the influencing criteria of perfor- ious relations among the performance attributes. Accordingly, the
mance attributes. Their paper presents the logic of development of paper proposes an analytic modeling and measurement process to op-
framework, various performance attributes such as product life cycle, erationalize the relationships by applying hybrid MCDM method. The
strategies, processes, capabilities, and perspectives are described and proposed hybrid MCDM method integrates DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and
the inner relationships of performance criteria of various performance AHP MCDM methods. The proposed research work further augments
attributes. In another study, Bansia, Jayson, Varkey, and Agrawal the previous study by Shaik and Abdul-Kader (2014), by addressing the
(2014) apply the balanced scorecard and fuzzy AHP for the develop- following: (1) To describe the performance attributes and their criteria;
ment of a PM system of RL for a battery manufacturer. Khalili- (2) To develop a network to understand the inter and inner dependent
Damghani and Najmodin (2014) present a conceptual model which relationships of the various criteria within the performance attributes;
measures PM of RL by identifying and classifying the most important (3) To propose a decision making model by applying the hybrid MCDM
factors in an auto industry. The model is verified by structural modeling methods; and (4) To present the PM and performance index for strategic
method and fit statistics that exhibit the influential factors and their planning by outlining the improvement and success of RL operations.
significance for PM of RL. Guimaraes and Salomon (2015) propose a The remainder of this paper now builds upon the understanding and
few aspects for the evaluation of RL in footwear industry and applied literature review from Section 1 and is further organized as follows:
ANP to understand the interrelation among the aspects. Using a quan- Section 2 provides the basic characteristics of the PM model and MCDM
titative analysis, Yogi (2015) presents an approach for PM for RL con- methods; Section 3 discusses the development of the comprehensive PM
sidering inventory indicators, flexibility measures and cylinder utiliza- model and methodology; Section 4 presents a numerical example study.
tion indicators in a case study for Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) Agency. Section 5 provides results and discussions and finally, conclusions are
Maulida, David, and Regina (2016) present a mathematical model of presented.
PM in a carpet reverse supply chain, particularly on carpet recycling
and refurbishing facilities. The performance metric is the ‘cost’ of return 2. Basic characteristics of the proposed comprehensive
product flow. The objective of the model is to minimize cost and they performance measurement model
considered the sum of all the costs associated with the RL process such
as, holding cost for returned products at the recovery centre warehouse, The proposed comprehensive PM model for RL enterprise combines
disassembly cost, refurbishment cost, transportation cost to manu- two different approaches: integrated PM systems and MCDM methods.
facture, transportation cost to landfill, transportation cost from manu- In this section, we present the basic characteristics of the PM frame-
facture plant to distributor, holding cost for parts at the manufacturing work for RL enterprises consisting of attributes and criteria for the
plant warehouse, new part cost from a supplier, production cost and framework and MCDM methods applied for the understanding the re-
new product holding cost at manufacture plant warehouse. Roxana, lationships among the attributes of the PM framework.
Behrouz, and Mahdi (2016) propose assessing of dairy organization’s
performance in the RL area by integrating balanced scorecard and data 2.1. Performance measurement framework with attributes and criteria
envelopment analysis, and further using fuzzy AHP for ranking weights.
They considered five perspectives including innovation and growth, The PM is useful in benchmarking or setting standards for com-
internal and external process, costumer, environmental, and financial. parison with best practices in other enterprises. The long-term success is
Steffen, Sebastian, Matthias, and Rolf (2017) develop the holistic ap- the logical consequence of successfully managing operations, by in-
proach for PM system to assess international reverse supply chains cluding the critical areas into the performance model of an enterprise
based on the balanced scorecard and apply AHP to calculate the per- accurately (Kaplan & Norton, 1992; Letza, 1996).
formance index from citizenship and legislation, financial, stakeholder, The PM system model of RL developed here is applied in the fol-
process, innovation and growth and flexibility perspectives. lowing steps: (1) presentation of the areas of success; i.e., performance
From the above review of literature, it is evident that the PM of RL is attributes, their criteria and performance measures, which are used to
presented by utilizing established performance frameworks such as measure the performance level as described by Shaik and Abdul-Kader
balanced scorecard, modified balanced scorecard and examining sev- (2014); (2) calculation of the relative weights of the inner dependent
eral various factors which contribute to RL performance. All the above- and interdependent relationships of criteria and attributes of success by
mentioned research works have applied only one of the MCDM methods using the hybrid model (DEMATEL and fuzzy ANP and AHP methods);
for PM of RL. The evidence of only one MCDM method is also confirmed and (3) rating the RL performance in each performance measure and
by a systematic study on MCDM methods and applications (Rezaei, computing the overall performance score of the enterprise. These steps
2015). So, the reason for a hybrid method is a pressing need for a are further developed in the following sections; and a numerical ex-
comprehensive PM that clearly contributes to the existing literature for ample is provided to illustrate the applicability of the comprehensive
PM of RL. In the literature, we find hybrid or a combination of MCDM PM model for RL enterprise.
methods is applied in different areas. Alam-Tabriz, Rajabani, and Per the first step, the comprehensive PM of RL enterprise is identi-
Farrokh (2014) apply hybrid MCDM consisting of DEMATEL, ANP and fied by the performance attributes such as product lifecycle, strategies,
TOPSIS for supplier selection problem. Uygun, Tekez, Kacamak, and operational processes, enterprise capabilities, performance perspectives
Simsir (2014) utilize hybrid DEMATEL, ANP and TOPSIS MCDM with their criteria and key performance measures. The performance
methods for evaluating and ranking projects. For the analysis of PESTEL attribute ‘product life cycle’ is considered, since the RL requirements
(political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, environment and are affected by various forms during the lifecycle of the product. The
legal) factors, Yuksel (2012) present a combined model of AHP, ANP five criteria of product lifecycle considered are: introduction (INT)
and DEMATEL methods. Yang and Tzeng (2011) illustrate the best phase; growth (GRO) phase; maturity (MAT) phase; decline (DEC)
vendor selection by applying hybrid DEMATEL and ANP methods. Al- phase; and obsolete (OBS) phase (Yellepeddi, 2006). In the introduction
though the combined use of DEMATEL and ANP is used in different phase, RL can play an important role in fixing quality problems due to
areas, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time it is used for PM warranty by collecting information on returned products, looking for

10
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

common problems, and providing valuable feedback to the concerned assumptions by developing their personal and organizational skills,
departments to eliminate these errors. In the growth phase, the col- knowledge, and abilities. Relationship capabilities are a set of in-
lection centre will gain experience in diagnosing what is wrong with tangible assets that reflect a series of interactions occurring between the
each product and learn how to process these returns. As the volume of stakeholders; namely: the degree of involvement, communication
returns increases, the enterprise will have to identify disposal options quality, long-term relationship orientation, and information sharing
for the product. In the maturity phase, RL must focus on taking ad- between them. Technological resource capability helps the enterprises
vantage of every possible opportunity for reducing costs or increasing to diffuse product information effectively across all relevant functional
revenues. In the declining phase, the product returns will depend on the areas of the reverse logistics network. Process capability is an important
enterprise’s returns policy. In the obsolete phase, the product can be element in an enterprise’s endeavour to improve its performance. The
treated as obsolete, if its manufacturing is discontinued or if the tech- enterprises should focus on reducing costs; build agility and flexibility
nology is outdated or may not be economically feasible or when the into their processes, and seek better product and market differentiation.
product reaches the end of its life. Financial capability concerns with the application to the finance func-
To satisfy the needs of the enterprise’s stakeholders, various stra- tion. The financial capabilities include five aspects, such as liquidity,
tegies are developed. In this study, seven criteria that support RL are financial leverage, asset turnover, profitability, and market value.
considered: stakeholder satisfaction (STS); implementing new tech- Innovation capability is not only for increasing the enterprises’ com-
nology (NGT); eco-compatibility (ECC); strategic alliances (STA); petitiveness, but primarily to ensure their survival.
knowledge management (KMT); value recovery (VAR); (Yellepeddi, Further, linking these above-mentioned attributes are the perfor-
2006) and disposition strategy (DIS). For the stakeholder satisfaction, mance perspectives. The six performance perspectives that affect the
the stakeholder strategies and policies should be streamlined, so that all PM of RL are: financial (FIP); processes (internal and external) (PRP);
stakeholder requirements are met. An efficient and effective new stakeholder (STP); innovation and growth (IGP); environmental (EVP);
technology infrastructure is very much needed to improve the RL op- and social (SOP). Financial perspective emphasizes achieving financial
erations during various phases of product returns and to store and success while providing value to the investors and shareholders and
handle vast data of various products. The eco-compatibility which is the increasing business profitability. Stakeholder perspective encourages
requirement to meet environmental performance has significant impact the decision and policy makers to concentrate on accomplishing the
for RL enterprises. Strategic alliances with various channel partners and objectives while providing value to the stakeholders. Processes (internal
other members of the RL network must realize that the individual at- and external) perspective concentrates on meeting the demands and
tempts at product reclamation cannot be handled economically, timely, requirements of stakeholders while achieving productivity and effi-
socially, and environmentally. Knowledge management, which is a ciency in the work flows. Innovation and growth perspective focuses on
multi-discipline approach, is about the best utilization of knowledge bringing efficiency through continuous improvement of the infra-
within the network to achieve the enterprise objectives. The benefits structure via innovation and learning for the achievement of the ob-
obtained by the enterprises from an effective value-recovery strategy jectives. Environmental perspective concentrates on achieving an en-
are: reduction in resources, monetary value from product recovery, vironmentally caring RL that meets the regulations while maintaining
disposal costs, and resale of products. The disposition strategy options efficiency. Social perspective focuses on building good image by
are often industry or product-specific and depend upon the character- meeting the obligations and expectations of communities and society.
istics of the product such as price/value, cost to transport, shelf life of Table 1 presents the identified objectives and performance measures for
the product, and market demand patterns. the performance perspectives.
The processes support and execute the strategies. The processes
criteria are: gate keeping (GTK); collection (COL); transportation 2.2. Multi-criteria decision making methods
(TRN); sorting and storing (SAS); asset recovery (ASR) (Yellepeddi,
2006), information systems (INS); and disposal system (DIS). Gate The selection criteria for suitable MCDM methods to determine a
keeping is a process that is encountered once a customer declares the comprehensive PM of RL enterprise include: (i) methods can utilize
need to return a product back to the enterprise. At this juncture, the both types of data (quantitative and qualitative) together; (ii) methods
enterprise preliminarily filters which products are allowed to enter the can perform well in a situation where a large number of alternatives
RL system, and which are to be rejected due to non-functionality. and criteria are to be considered; (iii) they should be flexible so that the
Collection involves the pick-up of returned products. The actual decision makers can show their preferences over different evaluation
movement of returned products, components, and materials from one criteria; and (iv) methods should be easy to use and understand for
point to another within the RL network is termed as transportation those involved in the decision process (e.g. decision makers and sta-
process. Once the returned products are received and accumulated, keholders). The PM of RL enterprise is a complex MCDM problem
segregating each product into different categories to decide what to do containing many performance attributes and criteria with complex re-
with them, such as processing, selling, or disposing, is considered as lationships which may have trade-offs, interact with each other and also
sorting, and storing. To maximize the returns and to minimize costs interrelated. Hence the integrated MCDM model combining the
related to disposition of returned products, the asset recovery is done by DEMATEL with ANP and AHP methods can be effectively used to solve
categorizing them as surplus, obsolete, scrap, waste, and excess mate- the intricate and tangled problem of understanding the complex
rial products. The information system interacts with all elements and structure of the causal relationships, and defining the priorities of the
improves information sharing and information transparency through criteria, which assist in RL decisions. In this study to construct a useful
the entire RL network (Lambert, Riopel, & Abdul-Kader, 2011). The model, DEMATEL method is applied to visualize the structure of com-
disposal system is the exit and is sending the products to their desired plicated causal relationships among the criteria and attributes of the PM
destinations in the RL system. system, to detect the cause and effect interaction and obtain the in-
In any enterprise, capabilities are needed to operate and enhance fluence level among them, and also depict an inner relationship map.
processes. In this research, organizational learning, and human re- Next, ANP is employed to overcome the problems of dependence be-
source capability (OHC); relationships capability (RLC); technological tween and feedback among PM attributes and measurement criteria,
resource capability (TGC); process capability (PRC); financial capability determine the structural relationships and the interdependent re-
(FIC); and innovation capability (INC) are considered as capabilities lationships among all attributes and criteria, adopt these influence level
criteria. Organizational learning and human resource capability occur values as the base of normalization supermatrix for calculating weights
when enterprises with learning capabilities encourage employees to to obtain the relative importance of each criterion. And finally AHP is
question organizational and industry norms and challenge existing used to calculate and evaluate the relative weights of measurement

11
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Table 1
“Performance Perspectives” and “Performance Measures” for comprehensive performance measurement of reverse logistics enterprise (Shaik & Abdul-Kader, 2012).
Performance perspective Objectives Performance measure

Financial To reduce the overall cost of the RL operations and capture maximum value Total RL costs (TRLC)
Total capital input (TCPI)
Annual sales of returned products (ASRP)
Revenue recovered (RVRD)

Process To meet the demands of stakeholders, while achieving effectiveness and efficiency in the RL cycle time (RLCT)
work flows Network capacity (NTCP)
Transport capacity (TPCP)
Recovery efficiency rate (RERR)

Stakeholder To improve stakeholder view of RL operations to increase stakeholder satisfaction Customer Satisfaction (CUSS)
Government Satisfaction (GOVS)
Employee Satisfaction (EMPS)
Investor Satisfaction (IVTS)

Innovation and Growth To develop new RL operations and for continuous improvement competitive in the market Management initiatives & Employee competency (MIEC)
Information Technology capability (ITCP)
Process technology innovation capability (PTIC)
Product life cycle reviews (PLCR)

Environmental To meet the regulations while maintaining the efficiency Overall environmental compliance (OECP)
Materials utilization (MTUT)
Energy utilization (EGUT)
Disposing capacity (DPCP)

Social To meet the expectations of communities and society Corporate image (CPIG)
Relationships (RLSP)
Safety (SAFT)
Security (SECT)

attributes such as perspectives based on the effects of performance one’s perception or judgment to a number. For the PM RL enterprise, to
measures. The general view of the proposed RL performance evaluation handle the uncertainty of judgements, when comparing the criteria
methodology, which integrates various MCDM methods, is shown in among the performance attributes, fuzzy theory is applied. Zadeh
Fig. 1. In the following sub-sections, the selected MCDM methods are (1965) presented the fuzzy set theory while dealing with fuzzy phe-
briefly described and their application is presented. nomena which are uncertain, unspecific, incomplete, and otherwise
difficult to define accurately. The theory of fuzzy set is based upon the
2.2.1. DEMATEL method concept of relative graded membership. The value of membership is 1,
DEMATEL (Gabus & Fontela, 1973) is one of the powerful decision if it belongs to the set, or 0, if it is not a member of the set. Hence, a
making methods. The following are the DEMATEL steps as per Lin and fuzzy set is a set of elements that may contain varying degrees of
Tzeng (2009): membership within the set. Fuzzy numbers are a fuzzy subset of real
numbers, and they represent an expanded version of a confidence in-
Step 1: Generating the initial direct-relation matrix terval. According to the definition made by Dubois and Prade (1978), a
Step 2: Normalizing the direct-relation matrix fuzzy number M is of a fuzzy set, and its membership function is
Step 3: Obtaining the total-relation matrix μM (x ): R → [0, 1](0 ⩽ μM (x ) ⩽ 1, x ∈ X ), where x represents the cri-
Step 4: Compute dispatcher (cause) and receiver (effect) groups terion, and is described by the following characteristics:
Step 5: Obtain the impact-diagraph map
Step 6: Obtaining the dependence matrix 1. μM (x ) is continuous mapping from real number R to the closed in-
terval [0,1].
2.2.2. The analytic network process 2. μM (x ) is of a convex fuzzy subset.
3. μM (x ) is the normalization of a fuzzy subset, which means that there
Determining the relationship of a network structure, or the degree
exists a number x 0 that makes μM (x 0) = 1.
of interdependence is the most important function of ANP. According to
Saaty (1996), ANP can resolve problems with dependence or feedback
between criteria. These criteria primarily divide the problems into 2.2.3.1. Triangular fuzzy numbers. This study applies triangular fuzzy
different clusters, and every cluster includes multiple criteria. Struc- numbers (TFN) as membership functions to evaluate the preferences of
turing a problem involving functional dependence allows for feedback the group of decision makers. The rational to use the triangular fuzzy
among clusters. Hence, it is a network system. There are five major numbers is because such representations are intuitive, computationally
steps in applying the ANP technique (Saaty, 1996): simple, and useful in promoting representation and information
processing in a fuzzy environment. This study applies triangular fuzzy
Step 1: Network structure for evaluation numbers as membership functions to evaluate the preferences of the
Step 2: Pairwise comparisons group of decision makers. For example, M = (l, m, r) can be defined as a
Step 3: Calculate relative weights triangular fuzzy number if its membership function can be denoted as
Step 4: Formation of supermatrix and calculation follows in Eq. (1):
Step 5: Priorities of the criteria
⎧0 x<l
⎪ (x −l)/(m−l) l⩽x⩽m
μM (x ) =
2.2.3. Fuzzy theory and fuzzy numbers ⎨ (r −x )/(r −m) m⩽x⩽r
The use of the discrete scale of 1–9 in ANP to represent the verbal ⎪0 x>r (1)
⎩
judgment in pairwise comparisons has the advantage of simplicity, but
it does not consider the uncertainty associated with the mapping of A triangular fuzzy number, Mi, is shown in Fig. 2. It is characterized by

12
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Comprehensive Performance Measurement of Reverse Logistics Enterprise Literature

review

Develop performance attributes and criteria for performance

measurement to build the framework

Expert Opinion Establish interdependencies between attributes and criteria Expert Opinion

Form direct-relation matrix

Construct fuzzy pairwise comparison
DEMATEL

matrices using TFN between attributes

Obtain normalized direct-relation matrix and criteria applying fuzzy ANP

Obtain total-relation matrix Calculate the crisp values and the

relative importance weights of the
matrices
Acquire inner dependence matrix

ANP
Check the consistency of the matrices

Meet the requirement

No
Yes
Form an unweighted supermatrix by entering the
weights obtained from fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy
ANP evaluations into appropriate columns

Integration of the inner dependence

matrix into the relevant columns of Form the weighted supermatrix by normalizing the
ANP supermatrix unweighted supermatrix so that the numbers in every
Expert Opinion column sum to one

Raise the weighted supermatrix to the high power

Establish the priorities of performance criteria
with respect to their corresponding attribute

Construct the pairwise comparison matrices

Obtain the interdependent
AHP

performance measurement
Calculate the relative importance weights of the attributes and criteria weights
matrices

Obtain the relative weights for the

Check the consistency of the matrices criteria

No
Meet the requirement Calculation of the overall
performance measurement index
Yes

Fig. 1. Performance measurement methodology for reverse logistics enterprise.

(li , mi , ri ) whereli ⩽ mi ⩽ ri . The parameters l, m, and r, respectively, into Crisp Scores (CFCS), which provide physical data based on the
indicate the lowest value, the middle value, and the largest value that results from a fuzzy set converted into crisp numbers. According to
describes a fuzzy event. The fuzzy linguistic variable is the one that membership functions, the total score can be found out as a weighted
replicates various aspects of human language. The definitions and average. Let Mij = (lijn , mijn , rijn ) , mean the degree of criterion i that
descriptions are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 3. affects criterion j and assessed by n experts. The CFCS method involves
a five-step algorithm as follows:

2.2.3.2. Converting fuzzy data into crisp scores – defuzzification Step 1: Normalization:
method. Opricovic and Tzeng (2003) propose Converting Fuzzy data

13
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

μ M
(x) 2.2.4. The analytic hierarchy process method
In the AHP method, the scale range 1–9 is assumed to sufficiently
represent decision makers’ perception. Saaty (1994) states that there
1 are three basic principles in the AHP method, which are as follows:

Step 1: Decomposition
Step 2: Comparative Judgment
0 x Step 3: Synthesis of Priority
l m r
In order to assess to what extent the priority weights represent ac-
Fig. 2. Membership function of the triangular fuzzy number.
tual judgements, the consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR)
are computed. The value of CI is ((λmax − n)/(n − 1)), where λmax is
Table 2 the principal eigenvalue of pairwise comparison matrix, and n is the
Linguistic expression for fuzzy scale. number of criteria being compared in the matrix. CR is the ratio be-
Linguistic variable for Fuzzy Triangular fuzzy Triangular fuzzy tween calculated CI and random index. If CR < 10%, the data acquired
importance number number reciprocal number is consistent; otherwise, it is inconsistent.

Just equal – (1,1,1) (1,1,1)

3. Development of the comprehensive performance measurement
Equally important M1 (1,1,3) (1/3,1,1)
Moderately important M2 (1,3,5) (1/5,1/3,1) model
Strongly important M3 (3,5,7) (1/7,1/5,1/3)
Very strongly M4 (5,7,9) (1/9,1/7,1/5) This section presents the development of the proposed hybrid
important
comprehensive PM model. The previous section discussed the perfor-
Extremely important M5 (7,9,9) (1/9,1/9,1/7)
mance attributes, their criteria and the MCDM methods utilized in this
study.
μ M
(x)
3.1. Construction of the performance measurement model
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
1 The construction of the model is necessary to reduce complexity in
the PM problem into manageable levels. This model clearly reflects the
0.5 enterprise’s value creating process. The product life cycle has a sig-
nificant impact on the performance of the RL thereby making it a more
complicated measurement process. The enterprise strategies depend on
0
1 3 5 7 9
x the product life cycle. Effective implementation of the strategy requires
the enterprise to reconstruct and improve the corresponding business
Fig. 3. A fuzzy membership functions for linguistic variable. processes. The highly effective and efficient working of business pro-
cesses needs the support of corresponding enterprise capability. The
(rijn−minlijn ) strategy is also considered from the point of perspectives, and then
xrijn = max every perspective will be translated into objective, key performance
Δmin
measures, and targets by which the strategy is gradually converted into
(mijn−minlijn ) an operating performance measures. Therefore, RL strategies, pro-
xmijn = max cesses, structure, capabilities, programs, and actions have a major im-
Δmin
pact on financial, social, and environmental aspects through RL per-
(lijn−minlijn ) formance. These lead to the development and selection of the
xlijn = max
Δmin performance measures.
max
As discussed earlier, there are various and many performance at-
where Δmin = maxrijn−minlijn tributes and criteria in PM of the RL enterprise and they are intricate
and interrelated. Hence, the hybrid MCDM model combining the
Step 2: Compute right (rs) and left (ls) normalized values: DEMATEL with fuzzy ANP and AHP methods are utilized. In this study
xrsijn = xrijn /(1 + xrijn−xmijn ) to construct a useful model, DEMATEL method is used to address the
complex interdependent relationships of PM attributes and to construct
xlsijn = xrijn /(1 + xmijn −xlijn ) a relation structure that includes the measurement criteria for evalua-
tion purposes. Next fuzzy ANP is employed to overcome the problems of
dependence between and feedback among PM attributes and their
Step 3: Compute total normalized crisp values:
measurement criteria. And finally, AHP is used to evaluate the mea-
x ijn = [xlsijn (1−xlsijn ) + xrsijn × xrsijn]/[1−xlsijn + xrsijn] surement attributes such as perspectives based on the effects of per-
formance measures. The network of the interaction of the various PM
attributes and their criteria is shown in Fig. 4.
Step 4: Compute crisp values:
max
z ijn = minlijn + x ijn × Δmin 3.2. Methodology for the proposed framework

The following are the steps of the methodology for a comprehensive

Step 5: Average crisp values:
instrument that can support RL enterprises in providing excellent and
1 1 outstanding services to all stakeholders:
z ij = (z ij + z ij2 + z ij3 + ⋯+z ijn )
n
Step 1: After setting the decision goal, identify the attributes and
criteria such as product lifecycle, strategies, processes, capabilities,

14
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Fig. 4. Network structure of performance measurement model for reverse logistics enterprise.

performance perspectives and performance measures. Then, con- Step 5: Calculate the Reverse Logistics Enterprise Overall
struct the structure of the model by forming a group of decision Comprehensive Performance Index (RLEOCPI) based on the in-
makers (see Fig. 4). formation presented in the previous steps. The approaches are pre-
Step 2: Establish the inner-relationships and the inter-relationships sented in the next section.
between the various clusters among the performance attributes and
their various criteria (see Fig. 4).
Step 3: Apply the DEMATEL method for various criteria of attri- 4. A numerical example study
butes, fuzzy ANP method for clusters of various attributes and AHP
method for prioritizing the performance measures (see Fig. 1). These To show the applicability of the proposed methodology, a numerical
MCDM methods are described in the previous sections. example is presented to analyze, understand the relationships, and
Step 4: Synthesize the data collected and analyzed from the earlier calculate their relative weights. The initial step is to form a group of
steps. This step describes the procedure for the analysis utilizing decision makers from the enterprise, and determine various aspects and
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and AHP methods. The submatrix and the attributes of performance required by the enterprise. Generally, a
supermatrix representations are shown in Fig. 5. The input of sub- questionnaire is provided to all decision makers for the collection of the
matrices D, G, I, J (these are underlined) is determined from DE- required data to determine the relative weights of each attribute and its
MATEL method. The input of priority of performance measures with criteria. The decision makers’ preferences are collected and then, the
respect to performance perspectives K (see Fig. 4) comes from AHP relative weights are calculated. These weights represent a decision
method. maker’s judgment on the relative importance or preference of the at-
tributes. In the following sub-sections, the hybrid model consisting of

Goal Product Performance Strategies Processes Capabilities

Life Cycle Perspectives
Goal 0 0 A 0 0 0
Product Life 0 0 B C 0 0
Cycle
Performance 0 0 J 0 0 0
Perspectives
Strategies 0 0 E D F 0
Processes 0 0 0 0 G H
Capabilities 0 0 0 0 0 I

Fig. 5. General submatrix notation for supermatrix.

15
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Table 3
The total-relation matrix for Processes.
Processes GTK COL TRN SAS ASR INS DPS D D+R D−R

Gate keeping (GTK) 0.330 0.666 0.631 0.725 0.599 0.571 0.489 4.010 6.671 1.348
Collection (COL) 0.358 0.464 0.627 0.664 0.503 0.523 0.495 3.635 7.203 0.067
Transportation (TRN) 0.364 0.508 0.410 0.548 0.406 0.463 0.437 3.136 7.359 −1.087
Sorting and storing (SAS) 0.449 0.685 0.697 0.592 0.568 0.629 0.550 4.170 8.773 −0.434
Asset recovery (ASR) 0.403 0.064 0.653 0.787 0.461 0.632 0.601 3.600 7.188 0.013
Information system (INS) 0.489 0.749 0.763 0.820 0.715 0.542 0.610 4.688 8.399 0.977
Disposal system (DPS) 0.268 0.433 0.442 0.467 0.337 0.351 0.274 2.573 6.030 −0.884

R 2.662 3.568 4.223 4.603 3.588 3.711 3.457

MCDM methods such as DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and AHP methods is 1.50
GTK Cause group
applied.
1.00 INS

4.1. Evaluating the inner relationships between performance attributes and

Relation
criteria 0.50

COL
This section discusses the analysis and evaluation of the inner re- 0.00
5.00 6.00 7.00 AS R 8.00 9.00 10.00
lationships among the criteria of PM attributes (see Figs. 4 and 5). The

D-R
decision maker’s makes pairwise comparisons according to the five -0.50 S AS
scales of DEMATEL method: (i) 0 – no influence; (ii) 1 – low influence;
(iii) 2 – medium influence; (iv) 3 – high influence; and (v) 4 – very high -1.00 DPS
influence. The total-relation matrix and the inner dependence matrix Effect group
TRN
for the processes as presented in Tables 3 and 4, are acquired by uti- -1.50
lizing the steps presented in sub-Section 2.2.1. The impact-diagraph D+R Prominence
map for the processes is obtained by mapping the dataset of (D + R,
D − R) as given in Table 3 and Fig. 6. Gate keeping is the most im- Fig. 6. The impact-diagraph of total relation for processes.
portant process in the “cause group.” since (D − R) is the highest and
the transportation process is the most affected as its (D − R) is the (Buyukozkan & Cifci, 2012). The pairwise comparison matrix and im-
lowest in the “effect group.” Similarly, for the other performance at- portance of strategies for introduction phase of the product lifecycle is
tributes such as strategies, capabilities, performance perspectives, and shown in Table 5. Similarly, the pairwise comparison matrices for
their respective criteria, the initial direct-relation, total-relation, and growth, maturity, decline and obsolete phases of product lifecycle
inner dependency matrices are calculated. The inner dependency stages are calculated.
weights obtained within the cluster of various performance attributes Further, the pairwise comparison matrices for different performance
are placed in the unweighted supermatrix during the fuzzy ANP ap- attributes and their criteria and their relationships based on Fig. 4 are
plication. calculated. The relative weight for each pairwise comparison matrix
will be needed to form the various submatrices of the supermatrix. All
4.2. Calculation of the relative weights performance attributes pairwise comparison matrices are computed and given in the form of
unweighted supermatrix as shown in Table 6. The final limit matrix as
Here, the fuzzy ANP is used to calculate the weights of performance shown in Table 7, is obtained after the normalized values are entered in
attributes after illustrating the inter-relationship structure as shown in the supermatrix. Then, the supermatrix is raised to sufficiently large
Fig. 4. The pairwise comparisons are performed with respect to all those power M2n+1 until convergence occurs. From the limit matrix, the re-
criteria that have an impact on other criteria of various attribute clus- lative weights, or priorities of the performance criteria of the attributes
ters of the network. The fuzzy importance of performance attributes can be determined.
and respective criteria presented in Section 2.2.3.1, transforms the
linguistic preferences into comparable crisp scores by CFCS method. 4.3. Calculation of the relative importance of performance measures
The experts select among the linguistic terms as per their judgement
(Section 2.2.3.1, Fig. 3 and Table 2), and then the equivalent fuzzy The hierarchical relationship between the performance perspectives
number converted into a crisp score by CFCS method (Section 2.2.3.2). and performance measures are analyzed utilizing the AHP method. The
Hence the crisp value corresponds to the linguistic value. The lower and pairwise comparisons are made according to a nine-point scale, or 1–9.
upper values of triangular fuzzy numbers provide flexibility for human For illustrative reasons, the decision maker’s preferences and the re-
judgments and they are not expected to have rigid consistency lative weights for financial perspective are shown in Table 8. Similarly,
for other performance perspectives the relative weights are calculated.
Table 4
The inner dependence matrix for Processes.
4.4. Computation and discussion of the RL enterprise overall comprehensive
Processes GTK COL TRN SAS ASR INS DPS performance index (RLEOCPI)
Gate keeping (GTK) 0.124 0.187 0.149 0.158 0.167 0.154 0.141
Collection (COL) 0.135 0.130 0.149 0.144 0.140 0.141 0.143 The RLEOCPI reflects the RL enterprise performance in the re-
Transportation (TRN) 0.137 0.142 0.097 0.119 0.113 0.125 0.127 spective sectors. An enterprise can determine the areas that need more
Sorting and storing (SAS) 0.169 0.192 0.165 0.128 0.158 0.169 0.159 attention in terms of investment, process improvement initiatives, and
Asset recovery (ASR) 0.151 0.018 0.155 0.171 0.129 0.170 0.174
improving the corporate image. RLEOCPI is computed based on the
Information system (INS) 0.184 0.210 0.181 0.178 0.199 0.146 0.177
Disposal system (DPS) 0.101 0.121 0.105 0.101 0.094 0.095 0.079 data collected and presented from the previous steps. The RLEOCPI has
three important elements. They are: (1) Performance Perspective

16
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Table 5
Pairwise comparison matrix and importance of Strategies under Introduction (INT), in Life Cycle Attribute Cluster.
INT STS NTG ECC STA KMT VAR DIS Weights

Stakeholder satisfaction (STS) (1,1,1) (5,7,9) (5,7,9) (3,5,7) (1,1,3) (3,5,7) (3,5,7) 0.366
Implementing new technology (NTG) (1/9,1/7,1/5) (1,1,1) (3,5,7) (1,1,3) (1,1,3) (3,5,7) (1,3,5) 0.143
Eco-compatibility (ECC) (1/9,1/7,1/5) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1,1,1) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1,1,3) (1,1,3) 0.051
Strategic alliance (STA) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/3,1,1) (3,5,7) (1,1,1) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (3,5,7) (3,5,7) 0.118
Knowledge management (KMT) (1/3,1,1) (1/3,1,1) (3,5,7) (3,5,7) (1,1,1) (5,7,9) (5,7,9) 0.251
Value recovery (VAR) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/3,1,1) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/9,1/7,1/5) (1,1,1) (1,3,5) 0.040
Disposition strategy (DIS) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/5,1/3,1) (1/3,1,1) (1/7,1/5,1/3) (1/9,1/7,1/5) (1/5,1/3,1) (1,1,1) 0.031

weights; (2) Performance Measure weights; and (3) performance rating the information or data of the performance attributes and criteria are:
at the measures of the enterprise across the industry. The relative im- (1) available; and (2) not available.
portance weights of the RL perspectives (fuzzy ANP) and the relative
importance weights of the measures (AHP) are assigned in the columns
4.4.1. Industry data available – rating values
titled RL perspectives weight (Wpp) and performance measure weight
In this approach, the numeral values of the performance measures
(Wpm), respectively. The performance of the enterprise at performance
for benchmarking are collected from various publishing sources and
measure level can be calculated by multiplying the performance rating
trade associations. The numeric value of performance measures of other
at the performance measure (Wpr), the performance measure weight
RL enterprises collected from various sources and the enterprise itself
and the RL perspectives weight. The calculated performance scores of
are classified in the form of scales to assign performance ratings at the
the enterprise at the measures are placed in the column titled perfor-
measures level. For the scales, the assigned average numeric value of
mance score at the measure. The final RLEOCPI of the enterprise is
performance rating is 0.5, and the best and lowest performance rating
computed by the summation of the performance scores of the enterprise
values at each measure are 1.0 and 0.0 respectively. The performance of
at the measures. The calculation of RLEOCPI can be determined when
the enterprises for the twenty-four different performance measures

Table 6
Unweighted Supermatrix (W).

(continued on next page)

17
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Table 6 (continued)

developed in this research is presented in Appendix A. The RL en- as compared to the best in class standards. The comprehensive perfor-
terprise performance ratings are obtained using the scales provided in mance index supports the decision makers to evaluate and benchmark
Appendix A, and presented in the column entitled ‘Rating' of Table 9. with their competitor’s performance, and provide feedback for their
According to the position of the performance measure of an enterprise, continuous improvement of the RL activities.
the corresponding rating value of performance measure for that en-
terprise is selected. The final RLEOCPI of the enterprise is computed by 5. Results and discussions
the summation of the performance scores of the enterprise is 0.779 as
shown in Table 9. The PM model of RL developed in this study, structures the com-
prehensive PM problem in a hierarchical network form and links im-
4.4.2. Industry data not available – ratio approach portant attributes such as strategies, processes, capabilities, perfor-
In another approach, when the data in not available, the perfor- mance perspectives and performance measures. And, an overall
mance score at the measure can be computed by multiplying the performance score is obtained with the application of a multi-criteria
weights that are obtained for each perspective index, measure index approach. Yang, Shieh, Leu, and Tzeng (2008) conclude that the com-
and the ratio of target achievement (actual status quo values versus bined DEMATEL-ANP method is more suitable in real-world applica-
ideal values). In this approach when the data is not available, the tions than the traditional ones. The hybrid approach of DEMATEL and
performance score at the measure level can be computed by the ratio of ANP methods are widely used as they can effectively solve the inner
target achievement; i.e., the ratio of values (ideal values versus the and inter-dependency of criteria and provide quantified models, which
actual values) of performance measures is considered. The ideal values, help and support the decision makers seeking maximum efficiency and
actual values and the ratio of values are shown in columns 5, 6, and 7 of effectiveness.
Table 10. The RLEOCPI score for the enterprise performance is the From Fig. 4, for the PM attributes, the DEMATEL method is used to
summation of the quantities of all indexes is 0.664 as presented in capture the complex inner relationships. The relationship between the
Table 10. criteria of strategies (Stakeholder Satisfaction, Knowledge Manage-
From Tables 9 and 10, the RL enterprise can assess the performance ment, and Strategic Alliance) are the dispatchers or cause group.
scores across each performance perspective and performance measures Whereas strategies New Technology, Eco-Compatibility, Value

18
 Table 7
Limit Supermatrix (W′ raised to power 10).
Goal Product life cycle Strategies Processes

INT GRO MAT DEC OBS STS NTG ECC STA KMT VAR DIS GTK COL TRN SAS ASR INS DPS

GOAL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
INT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader

GRO 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
MAT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
DEC 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
OBS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
STS 0.000 3.36E−5 3.44E−5 3.29E−5 3.26E−5 3.25E−5 2.21E−5 2.21E−5 2.21E−5 2.22E−5 2.21E−5 2.07E−5 2.21E−5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
NTG 0.000 3.01E−5 3.08E−5 2.94E−5 2.91E−5 2.91E−5 1.98E−5 1.98E−5 1.98E−5 1.97E−5 1.98E−5 1.85E−5 1.98E−5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ECC 0.000 2.65E−5 2.72E−5 2.60E−5 2.57E−5 2.56E−5 1.74E−5 1.74E−5 1.74E−5 1.74E−5 1.75E−5 1.63E−5 1.74E−5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
STA 0.000 2.86E−5 2.93E−5 2.80E−5 2.78E−5 2.78E−5 1.88E−5 1.88E−5 1.88E−5 1.89E−5 1.88E−5 1.76E−5 1.88E−5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
KMT 0.000 3.02E−5 3.10E−5 2.98E−5 2.93E−5 2.92E−5 1.99E−5 1.99E−5 1.98E−5 1.99E−5 1.99E−5 1.86E−5 1.99E−5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
VAR 0.000 3.42E−5 3.51E−5 3.35E−5 3.31E−5 3.31E−5 2.25E−5 2.25E−5 2.25E−5 2.26E−5 2.25E−5 2.11E−5 2.25E−5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
DIS 0.000 3.00E−5 3.07E−5 2.93E−5 2.90E−5 2.90E−5 1.97E−5 1.97E−5 1.97E−5 1.98E−5 1.97E−5 1.85E−5 1.97E−5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
GTK 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 6.21E−4 6.17E−4 6.19E−4 6.18E−4 6.19E−4 6.19E−4 6.19E−4
COL 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 5.63E−4 5.60E−4 5.62E−4 5.61E−4 5.62E−4 5.62E−4 5.62E−4
TRN 0.000 9.18E−4 9.54E−4 9.18E−4 9.13E−4 9.15E−4 9.39E−4 9.40E−4 9.37E−4 9.42E−4 9.40E−4 9.45E−4 9.40E−4 4.97E−4 4.97E−4 4.94E−4 4.96E−4 4.95E−4 4.96E−4 4.96E−4
SAS 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 6.54E−4 6.50E−4 6.53E−4 6.52E−4 6.53E−4 6.53E−4 6.53E−4
ASR 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 5.59E−4 5.56E−4 5.58E−4 5.57E−4 5.58E−4 5.58E−4 5.58E−4
INS 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 7.26E−4 7.21E−4 7.24E−4 7.23E−4 7.24E−4 7.24E−4 7.24E−4
DPS 0.000 7.52E−4 7.81E−4 7.52E−4 7.48E−4 7.49E−4 7.67E−4 7.68E−4 7.66E−4 7.70E−4 7.68E−4 7.72E−4 7.68E−4 4.04E−4 4.02E−4 4.04E−4 4.03E−4 4.04E−4 4.04E−4 4.04E−4
OHC 0.000 0.046 0.049 0.047 0.047 0.047 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.099 0.093 0.186 0.186 0.186 0.186 0.186 0.186 0.186
RLC 0.000 0.034 0.035 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.072 0.067 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.134 0.134
TGC 0.000 0.044 0.046 0.045 0.045 0.045 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.095 0.089 0.179 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178 0.178

19
PRC 0.000 0.045 0.047 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.096 0.090 0.181 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180
FIC 0.000 0.034 0.036 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.075 0.070 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142
INC 0.000 0.044 0.046 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.095 0.089 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.180
FIP 0.098 0.073 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.072 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.045 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
STP 0.127 0.095 0.093 0.094 0.093 0.094 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.059 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
PRP 0.218 0.163 0.160 0.162 0.161 0.161 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.108 0.101 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
IGP 0.198 0.148 0.145 0.147 0.146 0.146 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.098 0.092 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
EVP 0.189 0.141 0.139 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.089 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SOP 0.171 0.128 0.126 0.127 0.127 0.127 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.085 0.080 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Goal Capabilities Perspectives

OHC RLC TGC PRC FIC INC FIP STP PRP IGP EVP SOP

GOAL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
INT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
GRO 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
MAT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
DEC 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
OBS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
STS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
NTG 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
ECC 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
STA 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
KMT 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
VAR 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
DIS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
GTK 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
COL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(continued on next page)
Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

0.000 Table 8
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.127
0.218
0.198
0.189
0.171
Pairwise comparison matrix “Performance Measures” of “Financial” perspec-
tive.
Financial perspective TRLC TCPI ASRP RVRD Weights

Total reverse logistics costs (TRLC) 1 4 3 2 0.478

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.127
0.218
0.198
0.189
0.171
Total capital input (TCPI) 0.25 1 1 0.5 0.128
Annual sales of returned products 0.33 1 1 0.5 0.138
(ASRP)
Revenue recovered (RVRD) 0.5 2 2 1 0.256

Consistency Ratio: 0.051

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.127
0.218
0.198
0.189
0.171
Recovery, and Disposition are the receivers, or effect group. “Strategic
Alliances” is the key strategy and the “Eco-Compatibility” is the
strategy that is affected. The “Stakeholder Satisfaction” could be im-
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.127
0.218
0.198
0.189
0.171

proved by enhancing “Strategic Alliance” and “Knowledge Manage-

ment,” and Stakeholder Satisfaction will further influence the strategies
“New Technology” and “Value Recovery.” Once improved, New Tech-
nology and Value Recovery will stimulate the Eco-Compatibility and
Disposition strategies.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.127
0.218
0.198
0.189
0.171

For the Processes, see Fig. 4, Gate Keeping, Information System,

Collection, and Asset Recovery are dispatchers (cause group), whereas
Sorting & Storing, Disposal, and Transportation are ‘receivers’ (effect
group). The processes Gate Keeping and Collection are inter-worked
and would positively affect Asset Recovery. Information System plays a
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.127
0.218
0.198
0.189
0.171

facilitation role by connecting all the processes for an effective and

efficient workflow. In RL operations, Transportation provides support
to Gate Keeping, Collection, Sorting & Storing, and Disposal processes.
In the Capabilities attributes in Fig. 4, Organizational Learning &
Human Resource, Innovation, Process, and Financial capabilities are
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.185
0.134
0.178
0.180
0.142
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

the dispatchers (cause group). However, Technology capability and

Relationship capability are the receivers (effect group). The Organiza-
tional Learning & Human Resource capability will positively affect the
Innovation capability, which influences Process capability. Financial
capability will support all the criteria. These capabilities together will
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.185
0.134
0.178
0.180
0.142
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

enhance the Technology capability and Relationship capability, which

are critical in the RL network.
From the Performance Perspectives attribute, Process (internal &
external), Innovation & Growth, Environmental, and Social perspectives
are dispatchers (cause group), whereas Stakeholder and Financial per-
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.185
0.134
0.178
0.180
0.142
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

spectives are receivers (effect group). The Process (internal & external)
perspective influences positively Innovation & Growth perspective,
which is enhanced by improved Environmental and Social perspectives.
It is evident that by satisfying targeted customers, the financial goals of
the enterprise can be attained. It is seen that in the RL network, the final
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.185
0.134
0.178
0.180
0.142
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

impact of Process and Innovation & Growth perspectives is on

Stakeholder’s satisfaction and Financial results.
Furthermore, the ANP method is applied to understand the de-
pendency of the various Performance attributes, see Fig. 4. The Goal
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.185
0.134
0.178
0.180
0.142
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

criteria affect the attribute “Performance Perspectives” cluster. Pairwise

comparison matrix and importance of perspectives under Goal shows
that the Stakeholder perspective has the most impact on the perfor-
mance of RL enterprise with weight of 0.368, followed by the Process
perspective with weight 0.286. The weights of other perspectives are:
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.185
0.134
0.178
0.180
0.142
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

Financial (0.160), Innovation & Growth (0.061), Environmental (0.092)

and Social (0.033). The Strategies attribute’s cluster is affected by the
Product Life Cycle attribute criteria. At the Introduction stage of Pro-
duct Life Cycle, the Stakeholder Satisfaction strategy is considered the
most important with weight 0.366, followed by the Knowledge Man-
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.127
0.218
0.198
0.189
0.171

agement strategy with 0.251. For the Growth stage of Product Life
Table 7 (continued)

Cycle, the Stakeholder Satisfaction strategy is most important with

weight 0.373, followed by the Value Recovery strategy with weight
0.218. Similarly, at maturity stage of Product Life Cycle, Value Re-
covery strategy (0.341) is important followed by Stakeholder Satisfac-
OHC
TRN

TGC
PRC
ASR

EVP
SOP
PRP
RLC
DPS
SAS

STP
INC

IGP
INS

tion strategy (0.214). During the Decline stage of Product Life Cycle,
FIC

FIP

20
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Table 9
Calculation of RLEOCPI when data is available.
Perspectives Measures Perspective weights Measure weights Rating Performance score at the measure Spmy
(Wpp) (FANP) (Wpm) (AHP) (Wpr) (Wpp × Wpm × Wpr)

Financial 0.098
Total Reverse Logistics costs (TRLC) 0.478 0.7 0.033
Total capital input (TCPI) 0.128 0.6 0.008
Annual sales of returned products 0.138 0.7 0.009
(ASRP)
Revenue recovered (RVRD) 0.256 0.5 0.013

Process- Internal & 0.218

External Reverse Logistics cycle time (RLCR) 0.395 0.9 0.077
Network capacity (NTCP) 0.179 0.9 0.035
Transport capacity (TPCP) 0.132 0.9 0.026
Recovery efficiency and rate (RERR) 0.293 0.8 0.051

Stakeholder 0.127
Customer Satisfaction (CUSS) 0.427 0.8 0.043
Government Satisfaction (GOVS) 0.285 0.9 0.033
Employee Satisfaction (EMPS) 0.159 0.7 0.014
Investor Satisfaction (IVTS) 0.129 0.8 0.013

Innovation & Growth 0.198

Management initiatives & Employee 0.395 0.6 0.047
competency (MIEC)
Information Technology capability 0.179 0.9 0.032
(ITCP)
Process technology innovation 0.293 0.8 0.046
capability (PTIC)
Product life cycle reviews (PLCR) 0.132 0.9 0.024

Environmental 0.189
Overall environmental compliance 0.373 1.0 0.07
(OECP)
Materials utilization (MTUT) 0.277 0.5 0.026
Energy utilization (EGUT) 0.226 0.6 0.026
Disposing capability (DPCP) 0.124 0.9 0.021

Social 0.171
Corporate image (CPIG) 0.499 0.7 0.060
Relationships (RLSP) 0.249 0.8 0.034
Safety (SAFT) 0.139 0.9 0.021
Security (SECT) 0.113 0.9 0.017

Reverse logistics overall comprehensive performance measurement index 0.779

Value Recovery strategy (0.403) is important followed by Eco-Com- Organizational Learning & Human Resource capability (0.425) is im-
patibility strategy (0.226), and for Obsolete stage of Product Life Cycle, portant, followed by Process capability (0.260). For Information System
Value Recovery strategy (0.447) remains important followed by Eco- process, the Technology capability (0.410) is important followed by
Compatibility strategy (0.220). Process capability (0.292). And for Disposal process, the Organizational
Further from Fig. 4, the “Processes” attribute cluster is affected by Learning & Human Resource capability (0.352) is important followed
the “Strategies” attribute criteria. For the Stakeholder Satisfaction by Relationship capability (0.291).
strategy, the Gate Keeping process is most important with weight 0.371, The Performance Perspectives attribute cluster is affected by the
followed by the Collection process with weight 0.239. The Gate Keeping Product Life Cycle attribute criteria in Fig. 4. At the Introduction stage
process is important, followed by Collection with respect to im- of Product Life Cycle, the Stakeholder perspective is considered most
plementing New Technology strategy. For Eco-Compatibility strategy, important with weight of 0.389, followed by the social perspective
the Gate Keeping process (0.348) is important, followed by the Asset strategy with weight of 0.192. For the Growth stage of Product Life
Recovery (0.267). Subsequently, for Strategic Alliance strategy, Asset Cycle, the Process perspective (0.412) is important, followed by the
Recovery (0.389) is important, followed by the Gate Keeping (0.263). Stakeholder perspective (0.267). Similarly, at Maturity stage of Product
Similarly, for various strategies such as Knowledge Management, Value Life Cycle, Process perspective (0.449) is important, followed by In-
Recovery, and Disposition, the important processes can be prioritized novation & Growth perspective (0.258). During the Decline stage of
accordingly. Product Life Cycle, Process perspective (0.402) is important, followed
The “Capabilities” attribute cluster (see Fig. 4, group H) is affected by Financial perspective (0.265), and for Obsolete stage of Product Life
by the “Processes” attribute criteria. For the Gate Keeping process, Cycle, Financial perspective (0.285) is important, followed by Innova-
Organizational Learning & Human Resource capability is important tion & Growth perspective (0.214). In Fig. 4, the Performance Per-
with weight 0.265, followed by the Process capability with weight spectives attribute cluster is affected by the Strategies attribute criteria.
0.249. For the Collection process, Organizational Learning & Human For the Stakeholder Satisfaction strategy, the Stakeholder perspective is
Resource capability has a weight of 0.328, followed by the Relationship most important, with weight 0.450, and is followed by the Process
capability with weight 0.307. For Transportation process, the re- perspective with weight 0.258. For New Technology Implementation
lationship capability (0.390) is important, followed by Technological strategy, the Process perspective (0.469) is important, followed by
Resource capability (0.295). For Sorting & Storing process, the Orga- Stakeholder perspective (0.262). Further, for strategies Eco-Compat-
nizational Learning & Human Resource capability (0.424) is important, ibility, Stakeholder perspective (0.402) is important, followed by the
followed by Process capability (0.268). For Asset Recovery process, the environmental perspective (0.305). For Strategic Alliance strategy, the

21
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Table 10
Calculation of RLEOCPI when data is not available using the ratio of values.
Perspectives Measures Perspective weights Measure weights Ideal Actual Ratio of Performance score at the measure
(Wpp) (FANP) (Wpm) (AHP) values values actual vs ideal Spmy (Wpp × Wpm × Wpr)
(Wpr)

Financial 0.098
Total Reverse Logistics costs 0.478 30 70 0.429 0.020
(TRLC)
Total capital input (TCPI) 0.128 40 70 0.571 0.007
Annual sales of returned 0.138 80 50 0.625 0.008
products (ASRP)
Revenue recovered (RVRD) 0.256 100 85 0.850 0.021

Process- Internal & 0.218

External Reverse Logistics cycle time 0.395 10 20 0.500 0.043
(RLCR)
Network capacity (NTCP) 0.179 90 60 0.667 0.026
Transport capacity (TPCP) 0.132 90 60 0.667 0.019
Recovery efficiency and rate 0.293 90 70 0.778 0.050
(RERR)

Stakeholder 0.127
Customer Satisfaction (CUSS) 0.427 90 70 0.778 0.042
Government Satisfaction 0.285 90 80 0.889 0.032
(GOVS)
Employee Satisfaction 0.159 90 60 0.667 0.013
(EMPS)
Investor Satisfaction (IVTS) 0.129 90 70 0.778 0.013

Innovation & Growth 0.198

Management initiatives & 0.395 20 12 0.600 0.047
Employee competency
(MIEC)
Information Technology 0.179 90 60 0.667 0.024
capability (ITCP)
Process technology 0.293 90 70 0.778 0.045
innovation capability (PTIC)
Product life cycle reviews 0.132 10 5 0.500 0.013
(PLCR)

Environmental 0.189
Overall environmental 0.373 9 5 0.556 0.039
compliance (OECP)
Materials utilization (MTUT) 0.277 90 60 0.667 0.035
Energy utilization (EGUT) 0.226 90 70 0.778 0.033
Disposing capability (DPCP) 0.124 90 80 0.889 0.021

Social 0.171
Corporate image (CPIG) 0.499 90 70 0.778 0.066
Relationships (RLSP) 0.249 60 40 0.667 0.028
Safety (SAFT) 0.139 3 8 0.375 0.009
Security (SECT) 0.113 3 7 0.429 0.008

Reverse logistics overall comprehensive performance measurement index 0.664

Innovation & Growth perspective (0.296) is important, followed by the input is 0.128. At the Process perspective level, RL cycle time (0.395) is
Process perspective (0.279). For Knowledge Management strategy, the the important measure when compared with other measures. These
Process perspective (0.465) is important, followed by the Innovation & results are not surprising as, at the process level, one of the important
Growth perspective (0.258). For Value Recovery strategy, the Financial tasks is synchronization and cooperation among the several means of
perspective (0.470) is important, followed by the Process perspective RL network including its partners that help the RL enterprise, to deliver
(0.252). For Disposition strategy, the Process perspective (0.387) is in the best possible manner. This is followed by the efficiency of pro-
important, followed by the Financial perspective (0.302). Finally, from duct recovery (0.293). The weight of the measure, Network capacity is
the limit matrix (see Table 7) the weights of the Performance Per- 0.179 and Transport capacity is 0.132. For the Stakeholder perspective,
spectives are obtained. The Process perspective is most important with the measure Customer Satisfaction (0.427) is important followed by
weight (0.218), followed by Innovation & Growth perspective with Government Satisfaction (0.285) is among the front-runners. This is an
weight (0.198), then come Environmental perspective (0.189), Social important factor that really transforms the objectives through the
perspective (0.171), Stakeholder perspective (0.127), and Financial strategic considerations. The weight of the measure, Employee
perspective (0.098). Satisfaction is 0.159 and Investor Satisfaction is 0.129. In the
The relative weights of Performance Measures are obtained by ap- Innovative & Growth perspective, the Management initiatives &
plying AHP method. From the point of view of Financial perspective, Employee competency measure (0.395) is important followed by
Total RL costs is found to be the most important (0.478), followed by Process technology innovation capability (0.293). It plays an important
the Revenue Recovered (0.256). It is evident that, for any successful RL role in directing and handling RL processes and to gain knowledge for
enterprise, the control of Total RL costs incurred is important followed any improvements, which is critical to RL enterprise. The weight of the
by the amount claimed from the product recovery. The weight of the measure, Information Technology capability is 0.179 and Product life
measure, Annual sales of returned products is 0.138 and Total capital cycle reviews is 0.132. For the Environmental perspective, Overall

22
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Environmental Compliance (0.373) is important, seconded by Materials obtained with the application of the hybrid MCDM approach. The uti-
utilization (0.277). The Overall Environmental Compliance of RL is lization of the hybrid approach presents an important feature that al-
critical to continuous monitoring and regulatory compliance of en- lows explicit trade-offs and interactions among performance attributes.
vironment-related issues. The weight of the measure Energy utilization It is useful and feasible for solving the irrational situation and is easier
is 0.226 and Disposing capability is 0.124. For the Social perspective, to capture the complexity of a problem, so that thoughtful decisions can
Corporate image (0.499) is important followed by Relationships be made. It provides the managers with a more accurate and realistic
(0.249). This leads to an increase in market value and building re- long-term performance index.
lationships with RL network partners. The weight of the measure, With the application of the PM model, a RL enterprise can view its
Safety is 0.139 and Security is 0.113. overall performance, identify its weak areas, in which its performance
The relative weights of performance attributes and performance scores are lower than the industry average, so that they develop ne-
measures are utilized for the calculation of RLEOCPI. It reflects the cessary programmes to close the performance gaps in those weak areas.
performance of the enterprise, where an enterprise can determine the The model provides not only the performance scores, but also weights
areas that need more attention in terms of investments, process im- of the areas of success. The weights of the attributes show the con-
provement initiatives and improving corporate image. The enterprise tribution of areas of success in the overall performance of the en-
can assess the performance scores across each Performance Perspective terprise, so that the enterprise based on the weights can prioritize the
and Performance Measures compared to the best in class standards. areas for investment. Once properly introduced and implemented in a
Since the results from this kind of analysis are quantitative, the deci- RL enterprise, the PM model of hybrid MCDM methods should improve
sion-makers can evaluate and benchmark with their competitor’s per- the PM of operations; and consequently, contribute to the efficiency and
formance and feedback their improvement decisions. profitability of the RL enterprises. The framework developed in this
study can be applied to independent RL enterprises. In a closed-loop
6. Conclusions supply chain network, RL enterprise can be utilized for the reverse
supply chain component. At the strategic level, the PM model offers RL
The RL enterprises continuously seek ways to improve the quality of enterprises an opportunity to raise vital questions and provides defi-
strategies, processes, and capabilities, to differentiate themselves from nitive answers on their activities. The PM model also helps by clearly
their competitors, as well as raising the stakeholders’ satisfaction. This defining goals, aligning behaviours and attitudes, disseminating
will have an impact on their performance and also on strategic, op- knowledge throughout the enterprise, and ultimately, has a positive
erational and tactical decision levels. The numerical example is meant impact on the enterprise overall performance. An enterprise involved in
not only to evaluate the importance of PM attributes and their criteria, RL operations can determine its overall performance, identify its
but also to describe the contextual relationships among them. The strengths and weaknesses, benchmark its performance, and improve its
contributions of this paper are: (1) investigating the highly implicit performance by introducing various resourceful programs.
relationships of PM attributes and their criteria which are oper- Determining the relative importance of the attributes and their
ationalized using relative weights; (2) demonstrating the integrated criteria in the selection process and combining them to get a single
MCDM methods as a powerful group decision-making tool in under- index, requires extensive discussion and brainstorming sessions and the
standing relationships in a network, analyzing not only direct impacts, accumulation of expertise and knowledge within the RL enterprise. The
but also the complex interactions and indirect relationships among the limitation of the framework is in the challenge to capture complex
attributes; (3) the hybrid MCDM methodology facilitates collective performance attributes with RL managers. In the future, an empirical
participation and structured discussions among decision makers and case study can be conducted to support and investigate the effectiveness
provides a measure of consistency that allows to improve the perfor- of the proposed approach.
mance of RL enterprise; and (4) an overall RL performance index is

Appendix A. Performance perspectives & performance measures, see Fig. 3, groups J & K

Financial perspective

Total reverse logistics costs (TRLC) Total capital input (TCPI) Annual sales of returned products Revenue recovered (RVRD)
(ASRP)

Range (Number) Rating Range (Number) Rating Range (Number) Rating Range (Number) Rating

0 < TRLC < 10 1.00 0 < TCPI < 10 1.00 ASRP = 100 1.00 RVRD = 100 1.00
10 < TRLC < 20 0.90 10 < TCPI < 20 0.90 90 < ASRP < 100 0.90 90 < RVRD < 100 0.90
20 < TRLC < 30 0.80 20 < TCPI < 30 0.80 80 < ASRP < 90 0.80 80 < RVRD < 90 0.80
30 < TRLC < 40 0.70 30 < TCPI < 40 0.70 70 < ASRP < 80 0.70 70 < RVRD < 80 0.70
40 < TRLC < 50 0.60 40 < TCPI < 50 0.60 60 < ASRP < 70 0.60 60 < RVRD < 70 0.60
50 < TRLC < 60 0.50 50 < TCPI < 60 0.50 50 < ASRP < 60 0.50 50 < RVRD < 60 0.50
60 < TRLC < 70 0.40 60 < TCPI < 70 0.40 40 < ASRP < 50 0.40 40 < RVRD < 50 0.40
70 < TRLC < 80 0.30 70 < TCPI < 80 0.30 30 < ASRP < 40 0.30 30 < RVRD < 40 0.30
80 < TRLC < 90 0.20 80 < TCPI < 90 0.20 20 < ASRP < 30 0.20 20 < RVRD < 30 0.20
90 < TRLC < 100 0.10 90 < TCPI < 100 0.10 10 < ASRP < 20 0.10 10 < RVRD < 20 0.10
TRLC = 100 0.00 TCPI = 100 0.00 0 < ASRP < 10 0.00 0 < RVRD < 10 0.00

23
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

Process (internal & external) perspective

Reverse logistics cycle time (RLCR) Network capacity (NTCP) Transport capacity (TPCP) Recovery efficiency & rate
(RERR)

Range (Unit time) Rating Range (Percent) Rating Range (Percent) Rating Range (Percent) Rating

RLCR < 5 1.00 NTCP = 100 1.00 TPCP = 100 1.00 RERR = 100 1.00
5 < RLCR < 7 0.90 90 < NTCP < 100 0.90 90 < TPCP < 100 0.90 90 < RERR < 100 0.90
7 < RLCR < 10 0.80 80 < NTCP < 90 0.80 80 < TPCP < 90 0.80 80 < RERR < 90 0.80
10 < RLCR < 12 0.70 70 < NTCP < 80 0.70 70 < TPCP < 80 0.70 70 < RERR < 80 0.70
12 < RLCR < 15 0.60 60 < NTCP < 70 0.60 60 < TPCP < 70 0.60 60 < RERR < 70 0.60
15 < RLCR < 17 0.50 50 < NTCP < 60 0.50 50 < TPCP < 60 0.50 50 < RERR < 60 0.50
17 < RLCR < 20 0.40 40 < NTCP < 50 0.40 40 < TPCP < 50 0.40 40 < RERR < 50 0.40
20 < RLCR < 22 0.30 30 < NTCP < 40 0.30 30 < TPCP < 40 0.30 30 < RERR < 40 0.30
22 < RLCR < 25 0.20 20 < NTCP < 30 0.20 20 < TPCP < 30 0.20 20 < RERR < 30 0.20
25 < RLCR < 27 0.10 10 < NTCP < 20 0.10 10 < TPCP < 20 0.10 10 < RERR < 20 0.10
RLCR > 27 0.00 0 < NTCP < 10 0.00 0 < TPCP < 10 0.00 0 < RERR < 10 0.00
Stakeholder perspective

Customer Satisfaction (CUSS) Government Satisfaction (GOVS) Employee Satisfaction (EMPS) Investor Satisfaction (IVTS)

Range (Percent) Rating Range (Percent) Rating Range (Percent) Rating Range (Percent) Rating

CUSS = 100 1.00 GOVS = 100 1.00 EMPS = 100 1.00 IVTS = 100 1.00
90 < CUSS < 100 0.90 90 < GOVS < 100 0.90 90 < EMPS < 100 0.90 90 < IVTS < 100 0.90
80 < CUSS < 90 0.80 80 < GOVS < 90 0.80 80 < EMPS < 90 0.80 80 < IVTS < 90 0.80
70 < CUSS < 80 0.70 70 < GOVS < 80 0.70 70 < EMPS < 80 0.70 70 < IVTS < 80 0.70
60 < CUSS < 70 0.60 60 < GOVS < 70 0.60 60 < EMPS < 70 0.60 60 < IVTS < 70 0.60
50 < CUSS < 60 0.50 50 < GOVS < 60 0.50 50 < EMPS < 60 0.50 50 < IVTS < 60 0.50
40 < CUSS < 50 0.40 40 < GOVS < 50 0.40 40 < EMPS < 50 0.40 40 < IVTS < 50 0.40
30 < CUSS < 40 0.30 30 < GOVS < 40 0.30 30 < EMPS < 40 0.30 30 < IVTS < 40 0.30
20 < CUSS < 30 0.20 20 < GOVS < 30 0.20 20 < EMPS < 30 0.20 20 < IVTS < 30 0.20
10 < CUSS < 20 0.10 10 < GOVS < 20 0.10 10 < EMPS < 20 0.10 10 < IVTS < 20 0.10
0 < CUSS < 10 0.00 0 < GOVS < 10 0.00 0 < EMPS < 10 0.00 0 < IVTS < 10 0.00
Innovation and growth perspective

Management initiatives & Employee Information Technology Process technology innovation Product life cycle reviews
competency (MIEC) capability (ITCP) capability (PTIC) (PLCR)

Range (Number) Rating Range (Percent) Rating Range (Percent) Rating Range (Number) Rating

MIEC > 20 1.00 ITCP = 100 1.00 PTIC = 100 1.00 PLCR > 20 1.00
18 < MIEC < 20 0.90 90 < ITCP < 100 0.90 90 < PTIC < 100 0.90 18 < PLCR < 20 0.90
16 < MIEC < 18 0.80 80 < ITCP < 90 0.80 80 < PTIC < 90 0.80 16 < PLCR < 18 0.80
14 < MIEC < 16 0.70 70 < ITCP < 80 0.70 70 < PTIC < 80 0.70 14 < PLCR < 16 0.70
12 < MIEC < 14 0.60 60 < ITCP < 70 0.60 60 < PTIC < 70 0.60 12 < PLCR < 14 0.60
10 < MIEC < 12 0.50 50 < ITCP < 60 0.50 50 < PTIC < 60 0.50 10 < PLCR < 12 0.50
8 < MIEC < 10 0.40 40 < ITCP < 50 0.40 40 < PTIC < 50 0.40 8 < PLCR < 10 0.40
6 < MIEC < 8 0.30 30 < ITCP < 40 0.30 30 < PTIC < 40 0.30 6 < PLCR < 8 0.30
4 < MIEC < 6 0.20 20 < ITCP < 30 0.20 20 < PTIC < 30 0.20 4 < PLCR < 6 0.20
2 < MIEC < 4 0.10 10 < ITCP < 20 0.10 10 < PTIC < 20 0.10 2 < PLCR < 4 0.10
MIEC < 2 0.00 0 < ITCP < 10 0.00 0 < PTIC < 10 0.00 PLCR < 2 0.00
Environmental perspective

Overall environmental compliance Materials utilization (MTUT) Energy utilization (EGUT) Disposing capability (DPCP)
(OECP)

Range (Number) Rating Range (Percent) Rating Range (Percent) Rating Range (Percent) Rating

OECP = 10 1.00 MTUT = 100 1.00 EGUT = 100 1.00 DPCP = 100 1.00
OECP = 9 0.90 90 < MTUT < 100 0.90 90 < EGUT < 100 0.90 90 < DPCP < 100 0.90
OECP = 8 0.80 80 < MTUT < 90 0.80 80 < EGUT < 90 0.80 80 < DPCP < 90 0.80
OECP = 7 0.70 70 < MTUT < 80 0.70 70 < EGUT < 80 0.70 70 < DPCP < 80 0.70
OECP = 6 0.60 60 < MTUT < 70 0.60 60 < EGUT < 70 0.60 60 < DPCP < 70 0.60
OECP = 5 0.50 50 < MTUT < 60 0.50 50 < EGUT < 60 0.50 50 < DPCP < 60 0.50

24
M.N. Shaik, W. Abdul-Kader Computers & Industrial Engineering 123 (2018) 9–25

OECP = 4 0.40 40 < MTUT < 50 0.40 40 < EGUT < 50 0.40 40 < DPCP < 50 0.40
OECP = 3 0.30 30 < MTUT < 40 0.30 30 < EGUT < 40 0.30 30 < DPCP < 40 0.30
OECP = 2 0.20 20 < MTUT < 30 0.20 20 < EGUT < 30 0.20 20 < DPCP < 30 0.20
OECP = 1 0.10 10 < MTUT < 20 0.10 10 < EGUT < 20 0.10 10 < DPCP < 20 0.10
OECP = 0 0.00 0 < MTUT < 10 0.00 0 < EGUT < 10 0.00 0 < DPCP < 10 0.00
Social perspective

Corporate image (CPIG) Relationships (RLSP) Safety (SAFT) Security (SECT)

Range (Percent) Rating Range (Number) Rating Range (Number) Rating Range (Number) Rating

CPIG = 100 1.00 RLSP > 65 1.00 SAFT < 2 1.00 SECT < 2 1.00
90 < CPIG < 100 0.90 60 < RLSP < 65 0.90 2 < SAFT < 3 0.90 2 < SECT < 3 0.90
80 < CPIG < 90 0.80 55 < RLSP < 60 0.80 3 < SAFT < 4 0.80 3 < SECT < 4 0.80
70 < CPIG < 80 0.70 45 < RLSP < 50 0.70 4 < SAFT < 5 0.70 4 < SECT < 5 0.70
60 < CPIG < 70 0.60 40 < RLSP < 45 0.60 5 < SAFT < 6 0.60 5 < SECT < 6 0.60
50 < CPIG < 60 0.50 35 < RLSP < 40 0.50 6 < SAFT < 7 0.50 6 < SECT < 7 0.50
40 < CPIG < 50 0.40 25 < RLSP < 30 0.40 7 < SAFT < 8 0.40 7 < SECT < 8 0.40
30 < CPIG < 40 0.30 20 < RLSP < 25 0.30 8 < SAFT < 9 0.30 8 < SECT < 9 0.30
20 < CPIG < 30 0.20 15 < RLSP < 20 0.20 9 < SAFT < 10 0.20 9 < SECT < 10 0.20
10 < CPIG < 20 0.10 10 < RLSP < 15 0.10 10 < SAFT < 12 0.10 10 < SECT < 12 0.10
0 < CPIG < 10 0.00 RLSP < 10 0.00 SAFT > 12 0.00 SECT > 12 0.00

References chains in a carpet manufacturer. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 4(2),

152–158.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2003). Defuzzification within a multicriteria decision
Alam-Tabriz, A., Rajabani, N., & Farrokh, M. (2014). An integrated fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP- model. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems,
TOPSIS methodology for supplier selection problem. Global Journal of Management 11(5), 635–652.
Studies and Researches, 1(2), 85–99. Pollock, B. (2010). Reverse logistics: Driving improved returns directly to the bottom line.
Alvarezgil, M., Berrone, P., Husillos, F., & Lado, N. (2007). Reverse logistics, stakeholders’ Ashland, MA: Aberdeen Group.
influence, organizational slack, and managers' posture. Journal of Business Research, Ravi, V., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2005). Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics
60(5), 463–473. for end of life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach. Computers and
Babic, Z., & Plazibat, N. (1998). Ranking of enterprises based on multicriterial analysis. Industrial Engineering, 48(2), 327–356.
International Journal of Production Economics, 56–57, 29–35. Rezaei, J. (2015). A systematic review of multi-criteria decision-making applications in
Bansia, M., Jayson, K., Varkey, J. K., & Agrawal, S. (2014). Development of a reverse reverse logistics. Transportation Research Procedia, 10, 766–776.
logistics performance measurement system for a battery manufacturer. Procedia Rogers, D. S., & Tibben-Lembke, R. S. (1999). Going backwards reverse logistics trends
Materials Science, 6, 1419–1427. and practices. Reno Center for Logistics Management, University of Nevada.
Buyukozkan, G., & Cifci, G. (2012). A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy Roxana, M., Behrouz, A., & Mahdi, A. (2016). Reverse logistics performance measurement
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers. Expert Systems by integrated Balanced Scorecard and Data Envelopment Analysis (Case Study in Pak
with Applications, 39, 3000–3011. Dairy Co.). International Journal of Advances in Management Science, 5, 17–34.
Cliville, V., Mauris, G., & Berrah, L. (2006). A quantified industrial performance mea- Saaty, T. S. (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the
surement system based on a Choquet fuzzy integral. In IEEE international conference analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 74(3), 426–447.
on fuzzy systems (pp. 1057–1064). Vancouver, Canada, 16–21 July. Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1978). Operations on fuzzy numbers. International Journal of process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
System Sciences, 9(6), 613–626. Shaik, M. N., & Abdul-Kader, W. (2012). Performance measurement of reverse logistics
Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1973). Perceptions of the world problematique: Communication enterprise: A comprehensive and integrated approach. Measuring Business Excellence,
procedure, communicating with those bearing collective responsibility (DEMATEL 16(2), 23–34.
Report No. 1). Geneva, Switzerland: Battelle Geneva Research Centre. Shaik, M. N., & Abdul-Kader, W. (2014). Comprehensive performance measurement and
Guimaraes, J. L. S., & Salomon, V. A. P. (2015). ANP applied to the evaluation of per- causal effect decision making model for reverse logistics enterprise. Computers &
formance indicators of reverse logistics in footwear industry. Procedia Computer Industrial Engineering, 68(1), 87–103.
Science, 55, 139–148. Skjott-Larsen, T., Schary, P., Mikkola, J. H., & Kotzab, H. (2007). Managing the global
Huang, R.-H., Lin, C.-C., Cheng, Y.-J., Cheng, H.-Y., Lee, C.-Y., Huang, Y.-J., & Tsai, M.-T. supply chain. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
(2011). Performance evaluation model for reverse logistics the case of recycled Steffen, B., Sebastian, S., Matthias, P., & Rolf, S. (2017). Development of a performance
computers. In Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on business and in- measurement system for international reverse supply chains. Procedia CIRP, 61,
formation in Bangkok, Thailand, July 4–6. 251–256.
Jianhua, Y., Lidong, Z., & Zhangang, H. (2009). Study on the performance evaluation Uygun, O., Tekez, E. K., Kacamak, H., & Simsir, F. (2014). An integrated approach using
system of reverse supply chain based on BSC and triangular fuzzy number AHP. DEMATEL, ANP and TOPSIS for evaluating research and development projects.
International Conference on Information Engineering and Computer Science, 1–4. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 2(1), 24–30.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive per- Yang, Y. P. O., Shieh, H. M., Leu, J. D., & Tzeng, G. H. (2008). A novel hybrid MCDM
formance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–99. model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of
Khalili-Damghani, K., & Najmodin, M. (2014). A conceptual model for measuring reverse Operations Research, 3(5), 160–168.
logistics performance in automobile industry. International Journal of Strategic Yang, J. L., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2011). An integrated MCDM technique combined with
Decision Sciences, 5(2), 21–29. DEMATEL for a novel cluster-weighted with ANP method. Expert Systems with
Lambert, S., Riopel, D., & Abdul-Kader, W. (2011). A reverse logistics decisions con- Applications, 38, 1417–1424.
ceptual framework. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(3), 561–581. Yellepeddi, S. S. (2006). A methodology for evaluating the performance of reverse supply
Lee, C. L., & Yang, H. J. (2011). Organization structure, competition and performance chains in consumer electronics industry. PhD ThesisTX, USA: The University of Texas at
measurement systems and their joint effects on performance. Management Accounting Arlington.
Research, 22, 84–104. Yogi, K. S. (2015). Performance evaluation of reverse logistics: A case of LPG agency.
Letza, S. R. (1996). The design and implementation of the balanced business Cogent Business & Management, 2, 1–17.
scorecard—An analysis of three companies in practice. Business Process Re-engineering Yuksel, I. (2012). Developing a multi criteria decision making model for PESTEL analysis.
and Management Journal, 2, 54–76. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(24), 52–66.
Lin, C. L., & Tzeng, G. H. (2009). A value created system of science (technology) park by Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(2), 338–353.
using DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 9683–9697.
Maulida, B. B., David, S., & Regina, F. (2016). Measuring performance of reverse supply

25