An Integrated method for manufacturing Sustainability assessment in tire industry: a case study in Indonesian

Figures & data

Table 1. Literature review.

Author	VSM	SMI	Dimension			Workstation Weight	Workload	Equipment efficiency	Tools	Application
			Economic	Social	Environment
Paju et al. (2010)	√	-	√	-	-	-	-	-	LCA, VSM	-
Banawi and Bilec (2014)	√	-	√	-	√	-	-	-	VSM, LCA,	Manufacturing
Brown et al. (2014)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	VSM	Electronic
Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014)	√	√	-	√	√	-	-	-	Sus - VSM	Manufacturing
Vinodh et al. (2016a)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	VSM and LCA	Manufacturing
Helleno et al. (2017)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	VSM	Cosmetic
Huang and Badurdeen (2018)	-	√	√	√	√	-	-	-	AHP	Electronic
Garza-Reyes et al. (2018)	√	-	-	-	√	-	-	-	PDCA and VSM	Manufacturing
Purnama (2018)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	VSM, Fuzzy – AHP, Valsat	Batik industry
Ahmad and Yew Wong (2019)	-	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	Delphi	Food manufacturing
Djatna and Prasetyo (2019)	√	√	√	√	√	-	-	-	SVSM, (LCA), FMEA	Manufacturing
Hartini et al. (2019)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	LC-VSM	Beverage Company
Prasetyo and Adi Wicaksono	√	√	√	√	√	-	-	-	Sus - VSM	Furniture
Soltani et al. (2019)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	VSM, AHP and TOPSIS	Manufacturing Process
Bait et al. (2020)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	Simulation, VSM	Manufacturing
Hartini et al. (2020)	√	√	√	√	√	-	-	-	Delphi, AHP, VSM	Furniture
Zhu et al. (2020)	√	-	√	-	√	-	-	-	VSM, Kaizen	Manufacturing
Patalas-Maliszewska et al. (2022)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	AHP, Fuzzy. Decision Tree	Manufacturing
Salvador et al. (2021)	√	-	√	-	√	-	-	-	VSM and LCA	Manufacturing
Swarnakar et al. (2021)	√	-	√	√	√	-	-	-	VSM	Manufacturing
Castiglione et al. (2022)	√	-	√	-	√	-	-	-	MEIO	Manufacturing
Utama et al. (2022)	√	√	√	√	√	-	-	-	Delphi, Dematel – ANP, VSM	Furniture
Mubin et al. (2022)	√	√	√	√	√	-	√	-	AHP, VSM	Plastic Industry
This research	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	Delphi, AHP, SVSM	Tyre Manufacturing

Figure 1. Proposed framework for sustainable manufacturing performance.

Flow chart for Proposed Framework to assessment sustainable manufacturing performance.

Read the detailed description of this figure

Long Description: The flow chart for assessing sustainable manufacturing performance is divided into two stages: selecting relevant indicators and assessing sustainable manufacturing. Several steps at the selection relevant indicator stage include identifying lean and sustainable manufacturing indicators, assessing indicator relevance by experts, and determining relevant indicators based on WA and LC. The sustainable manufacturing assessment stage includes determining the formula and calculation of indicator efficiency, mapping efficiency with sustainable VSM, weighting indicators and workstations with AHP, determining the performance of each TBL dimension, and finally, calculating the manufacturing sustainability index.

Table 2. Indicator Formulas.

Indicator	Input	Formulas	Reference
Time	TE = Time Efficiency VAT = Time of value-added activities TT = Total Time NVAT = Non-value-added activity time n = number of process stages	$TE=\frac{VAT}{TT}$ $VAT=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(VATi\right)$ $NVAT=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(NVATi\right)$ $TT=\hspace{0.17em}VAT+NVAT$	Vinodh et al. (2014)
Cost	CE = Cost efficiency VAC = Costs on value-added activities NVAC = Costs on non-value-added activities TC = Total cost n = number of process stages	$CE=\frac{VAC}{TC}$ $VAC=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(VACi\right)$ $NVAC=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(NVACi\right)$ $TC=\hspace{0.17em}VAC+NVAC$	Hartini, Ciptomulyono, and Anityasari (2020)
Quality	QE = Quality Efficiency ND = Total Defects TM = Total Material	$QE=1-\hspace{0.17em}\left(\frac{ND}{TM}\right)$	Hartini, Ciptomulyono, and Anityasari (2020)
Inventory	IE = Inventory Efficiency NI = Total inventory TM = Total material	$IE=\frac{NI}{TM}$	Hartini, Ciptomulyono, and Anityasari (2020)
Equipment efficiency	A = Availability Rate LT = Loading Time TD = Total Downtime P = Performance Rate IC = Ideal Cycle time O = Output OP = Operating Time Q = Quality Rate TP = Total Product DP = Defect Product	$A=\hspace{0.17em}\frac{\left(LT-TD\right)}{LT}\hspace{0.17em}x\hspace{0.17em}100\mathrm{\%}$ $P=\left(\frac{IC\hspace{0.17em}x\hspace{0.17em}O}{OP}\right)x100\mathrm{\%}$ $Q=\frac{\left(TP-DP\right)}{TP}x100\mathrm{\%}$ $OEE=A\hspace{0.17em}x\hspace{0.17em}P\hspace{0.17em}x\hspace{0.17em}Q$	Nakajima (1988)
Material Consumption	ME = Material Efficiency VAM = Material in value-added process TM = Total Material NVAM = Material in non-value-added process n = number of process stages	$ME=\frac{VAM}{TM}$ $VAM=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(VAMi\right)$ $NVAM=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(NVAMi\right)$ $TM=\hspace{0.17em}VAM+NVAM$	Vinodh et al. (2014)
Energy Consumption	EE = Energy Efficiency VAE = Value-added energy use NVAE = Non-value-added energy use n = number of process stages	$EE=\frac{VAE}{TE}$ $VAE=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(VAEi\right)$ $NVAM=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(NVAEi\right)$ $TE=\hspace{0.17em}VAE+NVAE$	Vinodh et al. (2014)
Water Consumption	EW = Water Efficiency VAW = Value-added Water Consumption NVAW = Non-value-added water consumption n = number of process stages	$EE=\frac{VAW}{TW}$ $VAW=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(VAWi\right)$ $NVAW=\sum _{i=1}^n\left(NVAWi\right)$ $TW=\hspace{0.17em}VAW+NVAW$	Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014)
B₃ Consumption	BB = Raw materials that are hazardous TB = Total weight of hazardous raw materials FN = Normal Factor (normal weight of the product)	$BB=\frac{TB}{FN\hspace{0.17em}}\hspace{0.17em}x\hspace{0.17em}100\mathrm{\%}$	Rizal (2018)
Land Use	LT = Land Covered LA = Building Covered Area TL = Total Manufacturing Area	$LT=\frac{LA}{TL}\hspace{0.17em}x\hspace{0.17em}100\mathrm{\%}$	Rizal (2018)
Mental Load	NASA Task Load Index (NASA TLX) MLIE= Mental load index efisiensi	$MLIE=1-\left(\frac{ScoreNASA\mathrm{T}\mathrm{L}\mathrm{X}}{56}\right)$	Simanjuntak (2010)
Physical Load Index	Physical Load Index (PLI) PLIE = Physical load index efficiency	$PLIE=1-\left(\frac{Score\mathrm{P}\mathrm{L}\mathrm{I}}{100}\right)$	Faulkner and Badurdeen (2014) & Hollmann et al. (1999)
Satisfaction Level	SL = Satisfaction Level TO = Number of employee turnover NE = total number of employees	$SL=1-\hspace{0.17em}\frac{TO}{NE}$	Hartini, Ciptomulyono, and Anityasari (2020)
Safety Level	RE = Safety Level NR = Number of activities at risk Nac = total activities	$RE=1-\hspace{0.17em}\frac{NR}{Nac}$	Hartini, Ciptomulyono, and Anityasari (2020)
Healthy Level	HE = Healthy level NA = number of absent employees NE = total number of employees	$HE=1-\hspace{0.17em}\frac{NA}{NE}$	Hartini, Ciptomulyono, and Anityasari (2020)
Employee Training	E_HRD = Employee training level NT = number of employees who participated in training NE = total number of employees	$E\mathrm{\_}HRD=\frac{NT}{NE}$	Hartini, Ciptomulyono, and Anityasari (2020)

Table 3. Manufacturing Sustainability Index formula.

Dimension	Input	Formulas
Economic Index	${\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ = weight of indicator-i ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ = score of economic indicator-i $\mathrm{i}$ = total economic indicators ${\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{j}}$= weight of workstation-j ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{j}}$ = score on workstation-j $\mathrm{j}$ = total workstations	$E\mathrm{\_}I=\sum _{i=1}^n{W}_i\hspace{0.17em}.\hspace{0.17em}{E}_i$ Where $E_i=\hspace{0.17em}\sum _{j=1}^n{W}_j\hspace{0.17em}.\hspace{0.17em}{E}_j$
Environmental Index	${\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ = weight of indicator-i $V_{\mathrm{i}}$ = score of environmental indicator-i $\mathrm{i}$ = total environmental indicators ${\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{j}}$= weight of workstation-j $V_{\mathrm{j}}$ = score on workstation-j $\mathrm{j}$ = total workstations	$L\mathrm{\_}I=\sum _{i=1}^n{W}_i\hspace{0.17em}.\hspace{0.17em}{V}_i$ Where $V_i=\hspace{0.17em}\sum _{j=1}^n{W}_j\hspace{0.17em}.\hspace{0.17em}{V}_j$
Social Index	${\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{i}}$ = weight of indicator-i $S_{\mathrm{i}}$ = score of social indicator-i $\mathrm{i}$ = total social indicators ${\mathrm{W}}_{\mathrm{j}}$= weight of workstation-j $S_{\mathrm{j}}$ = score on workstation-j $\mathrm{j}$ = total workstations	$S\mathrm{\_}I=\sum _{i=1}^n{W}_i\hspace{0.17em}.\hspace{0.17em}{S}_i$ Where $V_i=\hspace{0.17em}\sum _{j=1}^n{W}_j\hspace{0.17em}.\hspace{0.17em}{S}_j$
Manufacturing Sustainability Index (MSI)	E_I = Economic Index L_I = Environmental Index S_I = Social Index α = weight of the economic dimension β = weight of the environmental dimension ^γ = weight of social dimension	$MSI=\left(\alpha .\mathrm{E}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{I}\right)+$ $\left(\beta .\mathrm{L}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{I}\right)+\left(\gamma .\mathrm{S}\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{I}\right)$

Table 4. Results of recapitulation of each indicator.

Dimension	Indicators	Relevance
		1	2	3	4	5	WA	LC
Economic	Time	0	0	0	4	1	4,2	1
	Cost	0	0	0	1	4	4,8	1
	Quality	0	0	1	3	1	4	0,8
	Inventory	0	0	1	3	1	4	0,8
	Equipment efficiency	0	0	1	2	2	4,2	0,8
Environment	Material Consumption	0	0	0	2	3	4,6	1
	Energy Consumption	0	0	0	2	3	4,6	1
	Water Consumption	0	0	2	3	0	3,6	0,6
	B₃ Consumption	0	0	4	1	0	3,2	0,2
	Land Use	2	3	0	0	0	1,6	0
Social	Mental Load	0	0	0	3	2	4,4	1
	Physical Load Index	0	0	0	5	0	4	1
	Satisfaction Level	0	0	0	1	4	4,8	1
	Safety Level	0	0	2	2	1	3,8	0,6
	Healthy Level	0	0	0	5	0	4	1
	Employee Training	0	0	2	3	0	3,6	0,6

Table 5. Pairwise comparison of TBL dimensions.

	Economic	Environment	Social
Economic	1,00	1,00	1,00
Environment	-	1,00	1,00
Social	-	-	1,00

Table 6. Pairwise comparison of economic dimension indicators.

	Time	Cost	Quality	Inventory	Equipment efficiency
Time	1,00	1/5	3,00	3,00	1,00
Cost	-	1,00	5,00	3,00	2,00
Quality	-	-	1,00	1,00	1/3
Inventory	-	-	-	1,00	1/3
Equipment efficiency	-	-	-	-	1,00

Table 7. Pairwise comparison of environmental dimension indicators.

	Material Consumption	Energy Consumption
Material Consumption	1,00	3,00
Energy Consumption	-	1,00

Table 8. Pairwise comparison of social dimension indicators.

	Mental Load	Physical Load	Satisfaction Level	Health Level
Mental Load	1,00	5,00	3,00	3,00
Physical Load	-	1,00	5,00	5,00
Satisfaction Level	-	-	1,00	1,00
Health Level	-	-	-	1,00

Table 9. Indicator weight of each dimension.

Dimension	Wight	Indicators	Wight Indicators	Global Wight
Economic	0.333	Time	0.19	0.063
		Cost	0.44	0.147
		Quality	0.07	0.023
		Inventory	0.09	0.030
		Equipment efficiency	0.21	0.070
Environment	0.333	Material Consumption	0.75	0.250
		Energy Consumption	0.25	0.083
Social	0.333	Mental Load	0.56	0.186
		Physical load index	0.26	0.087
		Satisfaction Level	0.12	0.040
		Health Level	0.06	0.020

Table 10. Indicator weight of each workstation.

Indicators	Raw material received	Mixing	Filtering	Extruding	Cooling	Splicing	Curing	Quality Control	Packing	Warehouse
Time	0,03	0,15	0,05	0,09	0,02	0,18	0,34	0,05	0,07	0,03
Cost	0,28	0,15	0,05	0,06	0,02	0,21	0,05	0,02	0,11	0,05
Quality	0,27	0,07	0,08	0,07	0,02	0,1	0,16	0,15	0,05	0,04
Inventory	0,35	0,15	0,06	0,05	0,03	0,09	0,12	0,07	0,05	0,02
Equipment efficiency	-	0,17	0,11	0,07	0,04	0,24	0,36	-	-	-
Material Consumption	-	0,26	0,12	0,13	0,09	0,09	0,13	0,04	0,07	0,07
Energy Consumption	-	0,53	0,13	0,16	0,06	0,09	0,03	-	-	-
Mental Load	0,03	0,11	0,05	0,04	0,07	0,15	0,11	0,17	0,2	0,08
Physical Load	0,21	0,2	0,05	0,03	0,05	0,04	0,07	0,08	0,1	0,17
Satisfaction level	1
Health Level	1

Figure 2. SVSM for a case study on the tire Industry.

Performance overview of each indicator and production process stage based on TLS presented in SVSM.

Read the detailed description of this figure

Long Description: An overview of the performance of each indicator and each stage of the production process. Based on TLS, 6 indicators need to be improved: time, inventory, equipment efficiency, mental load, physical load, and health level indicators. Three workstations need immediate improvement on mental and physical load indicators, including mixing, curing, and packing.

Figure 3. Index performance for each TBL Dimension.

Performance overview of each TBL with performance in the economic dimension of 30.09, environmental of 32.87, and social of 22.57.

Paju, M., J. Heilala, M. Hentula, A. Heikkilä, B. Johansson, S. Leong, and K. Lyons. 2010. “Framework and Indicators for a Sustainable Manufacturing Mapping Methodology.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 winter simulation conference.

 Google Scholar

Banawi, A., and M. M. Bilec. 2014. “A Framework to Improve Construction Processes: Integrating Lean, Green and Six Sigma.” International Journal of Construction Management 14 (1): 45–55.

 Google Scholar

Brown, A., J. Amundson, and F. Badurdeen. 2014. “Sustainable Value Stream Mapping (Sus-VSM) in Different Manufacturing System Configurations: Application Case Studies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 85:164–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.101.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Faulkner, W., and F. Badurdeen. 2014. “Sustainable Value Stream Mapping (Sus-VSM): Methodology to Visualize and Assess Manufacturing Sustainability Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production 85:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.042.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vinodh, S., R. Ben Ruben, and P. Asokan. 2016a. “Life Cycle Assessment Integrated Value Stream Mapping Framework to Ensure Sustainable Manufacturing: A Case Study.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 18 (1): 279–295.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Helleno, A. L., A. J. I. de Moraes, and A. Tadeu Simon. 2017. “Integrating Sustainability Indicators and Lean Manufacturing to Assess Manufacturing Processes: Application Case Studies in Brazilian Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 153:405–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.072.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huang, A., and F. Badurdeen. 2018. “Metrics-Based Approach to Evaluate Sustainable Manufacturing Performance at the Production Line and Plant Levels.” Journal of Cleaner Production 192:462–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.234.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Garza-Reyes, J. A., J. Torres Romero, K. Govindan, A. Cherrafi, and U. Ramanathan. 2018. “A PDCA-Based Approach to Environmental Value Stream Mapping (E-VSM.” Journal of Cleaner Production 180:335–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.121.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Purnama, D. A. 2018. “Pendekatan Metode Sustainable Value Stream Mapping Menggunakan Integrasi Fuzzy-AHP dan Valsat untuk Meningkatkan Produktivitas. Studi Kasus: CV. Sogan Batik Rejodani.

 Google Scholar

Ahmad, S., and K. Yew Wong. 2019. “Development of Weighted Triple-Bottom Line Sustainability Indicators for the Malaysian Food Manufacturing Industry Using the Delphi Method.” Journal of Cleaner Production 229:1167–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.399.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Djatna, T., and D. Prasetyo. 2019. “Integration of Sustainable Value Stream Mapping (Sus. VSM) and Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) to Improve Sustainability Performance.” International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology 9 (4): 1337–1343.

 Google Scholar

Hartini, S., U. Ciptomulyono, and M. Anityasari. 2019. “Life Cycle–Value Stream Mapping: Evaluating Sustainability Using Lean Manufacturing Tools in the Life Cycle Perspective.” Paper presented at the AIP Conference Proceedings, Surakarta, Indonesia, December 12–13, 2018.

 Google Scholar

Soltani, M., H. Aouag, and M. Djamel Mouss. 2019. “An Integrated Framework Using VSM, AHP and TOPSIS for Simplifying the Sustainability Improvement Process in a Complex Manufacturing Process.” Journal of Engineering, Design & Technology 18 (1): 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-09-2018-0166.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bait, S., A. Di Pietro, and M. M. Schiraldi. 2020. “Waste Reduction in Production Processes Through Simulation and VSM.” Sustainability 12 (8): 3291.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hartini, S., U. Ciptomulyono, and M. Anityasari. 2020. “Manufacturing Sustainability Assessment Using a Lean Manufacturing Tool: A Case Study in the Indonesian Wooden Furniture Industry.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 11 (5): 943–971. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2017-0150.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhu, X.-Y., H. Zhang, and Z.-G. Jiang. 2020. “Application of Green-Modified Value Stream Mapping to Integrate and Implement Lean and Green Practices: A Case Study.” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 33 (7): 716–731.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Patalas-Maliszewska, J., H. Łosyk, and M. Rehm. 2022. “Decision-Tree Based Methodology Aid in Assessing the Sustainable Development of a Manufacturing Company.” Sustainability 14 (10): 6362.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Salvador, R., M. Vetroni Barros, G. E. T. dos Santos, K. G. van Mierlo, C. M. Piekarski, and A. C. de Francisco. 2021. “Towards a Green and Fast Production System: Integrating Life Cycle Assessment and Value Stream Mapping for Decision Making.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 87:106519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106519.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Swarnakar, V., A. Raj Singh, J. Antony, A. Kr Tiwari, and E. Cudney. 2021. “Development of a Conceptual Method for Sustainability Assessment in Manufacturing.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 158:107403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107403.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Castiglione, C., E. Pastore, and A. Alfieri. 2022. “Technical, Economic, and Environmental Performance Assessment of Manufacturing Systems: The Multi-Layer Enterprise Input-Output Formalization Method.” Production Planning & Control 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2022.2054743.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Utama, D. M., N. Ardiyanti, and A. Apritha Putri. 2022. “A New Hybrid Method for Manufacturing Sustainability Performance Assessment: A Case Study in Furniture Industry.” Production and Manufacturing Research 10 (1): 760–783.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mubin, A., D. Marsetiya Utama, and R. Chandra Nusantara. 2022. “Manufacturing Sustainability Assessment Comprising Physical and Mental Workload: An Integrated Modified SVSM and AHP Approach.” Process Integration & Optimization for Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-022-00300-z.

 Google Scholar

Vinodh, S., K. Jayakrishna, V. Kumar, and R. Dutta. 2014. “Development of Decision Support System for Sustainability Evaluation: A Case Study.” Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 16 (1): 163–174.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nakajima, S. 1988. Introduction to TPM: Total Productive Maintenance.(translation)., 129. Productivity Press, Inc., 1988.

 Google Scholar

Rizal, R. 2018. Manufaktur Berkelanjutan (Sustainable Manufacturing); Manufaktur Hijau (Green Manufacturing). Jakarta: LPPM, UPN“Veteran”.

 Google Scholar

Hollmann, S., F. Klimmer, K.-H. Schmidt, and H. Kylian. 1999. “Validation of a Questionnaire for Assessing Physical Work Load.” Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment & Health 25 (2): 105–114.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article.