MATEC Web of Conferences 333, 06006 (2021) https://doi.org/10.

1051/matecconf/202133306006
APCChE 2019

The Performance of Adaptive Approach in Lean and Green

Operations
Wei Dong LEONG1, Hon Loong LAM1*, Chee Pin TAN2 and SG PONNAMBALAM3
1Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, 43500 Semenyih, Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia
2School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan,

Malaysia
3Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang Darul Makmur, Malaysia

Abstract In recent years, the manufacturing sector has been pressured with global warming and resource
scarcity. This issue has triggered the industry to seek for solutions to improve the sustainability of their
production. Based on literature study, the main components of an organisation consists of manpower,
machine, money, material and environment. Thus, the fundamentals need to be addressed to improve the
production performance. In this study, an adaptive lean and green approach is presented to identify the
priority areas that can improve the organisation performance. Backpropagation algorithm is incorporated
into the adaptive model to analyse the dynamic performance of the organisation. However, the input of
industry expert is required to prioritise the initial input of the main components. This is relatively
important as prioritisation of main components defer from sectors. A case study will be illustrated with the
adaptive lean and green model. Operation improvements shall be observed through the implementation of
the proposed method.

1 Introduction 1994). The LM holds five main principles such as define

value, identify value stream, create smooth value flow,
Globalisation has unleased the feasibility and flexibility implement pull-based production and strive for excellent.
of manufacturers in global trading. The accessibility of On top of that, lean’s main principles target seven major
manufactured goods’ supply chain has never been so wastes (i.e., over-production, waiting, inventory, motion,
convenient. With the expansion of global market trade, transportation, over-processing and defects (Leong et al.,
the manufacturers are challenged with monetary 2019). Zimmer (2000) highlighted that lean approach
fluctuation, political uncertainty, social economic can improve the operation performance by 50% increase
stability and technology advancement (Issa et al., 2010). in capacity with existing facilities, 50% improvement in
On top of that, the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) product quality and 60% reduction in cycle time.
has been an ambitious initiative advocated by the United As from the environmental perspective, green
Nation Members to strive for global sustainable processing or green manufacturing is relatively
development (SDG, 2019). The SDG initiative has important due to the increasing concern for global
encouraged many manufacturing players with industry, warming and climate change. Green manufacturing
innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9) and responsible (GM) is known as business strategy that focuses on
consumption and production (SDG12) to improve global profitability through reactive and proactive
sustainability. By achieving SDG 9 and SDG 12, the environmentally friendly operation processes (Abdul-
competitiveness of manufacturers can be improved Rashid et al., 2017). Ferguson and Toktay (2016) stated
through practises such as reduction in production and that GM focuses on closed-loop operation that promote
environmental waste. As the supply chain expands, recycling and recuperation practices to reduce waste,
manufacturers are constantly looking for new ways to capturing product waste while implementing green
maintain the competitiveness with their competitors. technologies to reduce pollution. Apart from that, the
The elimination of production and environmental International Standard Organisation (ISO) has published
waste can contribute directly to the organisation’s the Environmental Management System (EMS) standard,
performance. Toyota who is pioneered in lean known as ISO14001, as a continuous improvement tool
manufacturing has led a role model in manufacturing to improve the organization’s environmental
sector. Lean manufacturing (LM) is known as the performance (Agan et al., 2013). Leong et al. (2019)
approach that eliminate all non-value-added product or mentioned that product life cycle assessment can be used
activity in the production process (Womack and Jones, as an evaluation for environmental impact. Jin Kim and
*
Corresponding author: honloong.lam@nottingham.edu.my
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
MATEC Web of Conferences 333, 06006 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133306006
APCChE 2019

Kara (2012) added that 80% of the economics, social and approach has not been effective. As the implementation
environmental impact can be determined during the of L&G requires experience and time, the lack of
product or process design stage. As the manufacturing competent personnel to implement L&G practices is the
sector is one of the major energy consumers, energy main hurdle for most organisation. Besides that,
efficiency and management can reduce environmental implementation of L&G practices requires continuous
impact through energy conservation and efficiency improvement through time to observe the changes in the
practices. performance. It is critical to establish a systematic
analytic framework that can assist the industry player to
make better decision making and improvement action in
1.1 Lean and Green Approach in Operations
the organisation. The adaptive approach is developed
The combination of both lean and green (L&G) approach
with the objective in addressing dynamic challenges in
shows strong commitment in reducing operation and
the industry. The adaptive approach incorporated with
environmental waste. The industry needs to strive a good
backpropagation algorithm will be used with the L&G
balance between operation and environment perspective
framework to optimise the organisation performance.
to gain the optimum sustainable output. Galeazzo et al.
This study will evaluate the performance of the adaptive
(2014) stated that organisations that focus in LM
L&G approach using a cogeneration case study.
approach has received positive influence and effect
towards better environmental performance. Chiarini
(2014) added that lean tools (i.e., 5S, single minute 2 Lean and Green model
exchange die (SMED), total productive maintenance
(TPM), etc.) will improve environmental performance. Figure 2 illustrates the L&G model. According to Figure
On the other hand, Jabbour et al. (2013) has also shown 2, the model started with information collection through
that the implementation of environmental program such a set of questionnaires. The questionnaires will be used
as ISO14001 can have positive impact on the to understand the priority and behaviour of the
organisation performance. organisation. Then, the critical components will be
Dües et al. (2013) highlighted that there are identified through checklist reflected in Figure 3. Data
overlapping between L&G in terms of people collection of an organisation is based on the L&G
involvement, waste reduction method, supply chain checklist. Upon completion of data collection, the data
relationship, key performance index (KPI) and tools. will be analysed to generation a lean and green index
L&G approach share the same objective in improving (LGI). Backpropagation analysis will then further
production, production quality and reduction in evaluate the performance by comparing the performance
production lead time without increasing the outcome with the expected outcome.
environmental emission. Figure 1 demonstrates the
relationship and integration between L&G.

Figure 2. Lean and green model.

Figure 1. Relationship between lean and green approach

(Dües et al., 2013).

Despite there are many established L&G tools in the

market, the application and implementation of L&G

2
MATEC Web of Conferences 333, 06006 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133306006
APCChE 2019

performance index (KPI) achievable rate

(MPKPI, %/year.pax), average employee competency rate
(MPCR, %/year.pax), employee late check-in time, (MPLT,
hr/year.pax), employee safety rate (MPSC, %/year.pax).
MP index is expressed as below:

MP = kMP,OT × MPOT + kMP,AB × MPAB +kMP,KPI ×

MPKPI + kMP,CR × MPCR + kMP,LT × MPL + kMP,SC ×
MPSC (2)

Moving on, the machine (MC) index is calculated as

the overall equipment efficiency (OEE) which take into
Figure 3. Lean and green checklist. consideration of the availability of equipment (A),
In this case, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is performance efficiency (P) and rate of quality product
(Q).
used with the L&G model. The AHP method is a multi-
criteria decision making (MCDM) tools developed by 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−
Saaty (2008). Ngan et al. (2018) highlighted that AHP is 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−�
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
�
𝐴𝐴 = (3)
a relative measurement that can transform both 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ×𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
qualitative and quantitative values into an objective 𝑃𝑃 = (4)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
measurement. AHP is used to gather the field expert’s 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑡𝑡−𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
opinion on the priority of critical components in the 𝑄𝑄 = (5)
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
organisation. The priority of components and sub-
components will be represented by a weight value. MC is expressed as below:
Figure 4 shows the AHP structure that will be used to
perform components prioritisation in an organisation. MC = A x P x Q (6)

The material (MT) index is calculated based on

resource consumption efficiency (MTRE), product to
defect indicator, (MIDI) rate of recyclable defects (MTRD)
and inventory (MTIN).

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = (7)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝−𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 = (8)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

Figure 4. Analytic hierarchy process structure. 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑−𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = (9)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
This model identified 5 major components and a
series of sub-component. The major 5 components (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
(4M1E) are manpower (MP), machine (MC), material 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 =
+𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 )
(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (10)
(MT), money (MY) and environment (EV). The +𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 )
formation of 4M1E model considers the fundamental
requirement of operation and environmental of an Thus, MT is calculated as below:
organisation.
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝑘𝑘𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀,𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 + 𝑘𝑘𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀,𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝑘𝑘𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀,𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ×
2.1. Lean and green index (LGI)
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 + 𝑘𝑘𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀,𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 (11)
The lean and green index (LGI) is generated as a
benchmarking tool to evaluate the improvement progress
As for money (MY) index, the index is represented
of organisation performance. In this model, the LGI is
by total operation cost, MYOC and total profit, MYTP that
expressed as:
reflects the core financial consideration in an
organisation.
LGI = wMP × MP + wMT × MT + wMC ×MC + wMY × MY
+ wEV ×EV (1) 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 / 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 =
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐/𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
(12)
where wMP, wMT, wMC, wMY and wEV represents the
weights of the components in obtained from industrialist 𝑀𝑀𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 / 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 (13)
feedback. 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐/𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
For manpower (MP) index, the employee total
overtime (MPOT, hr/year.pax), employee total absent day Thus, MY is calculated as below:
(MPAB, day/year.pax), average employee key

3
MATEC Web of Conferences 333, 06006 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133306006
APCChE 2019

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝑘𝑘𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀,𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 + 𝑘𝑘𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀,𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 × 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (14)

Where E is the error, LGIexpect is the quantified
Lastly, the environmental index (EV) mainly reflects improvement target but not implemented. The LGIactual is
on carbon dioxide (EVCO2), water emission (EVww) and measured after the improvement is implemented. A
solid waste (EVSW). gradient descent with chain rule is implemented for next
layer
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 = (15) 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 −𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖−1
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 /𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒/𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 −𝜂𝜂 (20)
𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 −𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖−1
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 = (16)
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 /𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠/𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = (17) wi is the weight of the 5 main components on the current
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 /𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
month. wi+1 is the new weight (target) for the next time
Thus, EV is calculated as below: step. A learning rate, 𝜂𝜂 of 0.05 is used in to update the
weight indicated above.
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 = 𝑘𝑘𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸,𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 + 𝑘𝑘𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸,𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊 + 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖 −𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖−1 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 −𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖−1
𝑘𝑘𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸,𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 × 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (18) 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖+1 = 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 −𝜂𝜂 × (21)
𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 −𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖−1 𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖 −𝑘𝑘𝑖𝑖−1

ki indicates the weight of each indicator under the 5 main

2.2 Adaptive approach
components, where i is the time step. The error will be a
The adaptive approach in L&G context is incorporated transfer down to the analytic model using the chain rule
with backpropagation (BP) algorithm. The BP algorithm and update the weight for each time step.
is an algorithm that was fully based on the reverse mode
of differentiation (Griewank, 2012). This method is
popularised by Rumelhard et al. (1986) with the
3 Case Study
application of neural network to learn representation. A cogeneration (combine heat and power) plant that
The application of the adaptive approach is to overcome produces electricity and steam by consuming natural gas
the limitation of static model. A static analytic model is is demonstrated by implementing the adaptive L&G
good in predicting model, but it is unable to cope with approach. Figure 6 illustrates the boundary of the case
dynamic challenges in the real world. study.
With the application of BP, continuous improvement
in dynamic situation can be carried with the updating
algorithm through depth of time. Figure 5 demonstrates
the framework of adaptive approach.

Figure 6. Case study of cogeneration.

Below indicates the specification of the case study:

a. Main fuel source : Natural Gas
b. Max electricity generation : 6.5MW
c. Maximum steam recovery : 16tonnes/hr
Figure 5. Adaptive analytic approach. d. Total operation days : 351 days
e. Total operation hours : 8424 hours
The adaptive approach reflects the output from the f. Annual shutdown days : 14 days
process plant by comparing with the expected
improvement criteria. Then, the approach will adjust the
improvement priority of the critical components in the 3.1 Results and discussions
organisation. As industry priority varies according to
sector, the ‘human expert’ input will depend on the In this case study, the operation data has been collected
nature of the industry. from year 2015 to year 2018. Based on the L&G model,
AHP indicates the priority of the 4M1E as MY with
The BP method utilises the update rules to update
the LGI. The error, also known as the different between 26.1%, EV with 21.5%, MP with 18.7%, machine with
actual and expected LGI, will be backpropagated within 18.2% and MT with 15.5%. The industry expert
the model representing in Eqn (1). categorised MY as the most critical component in the
operation.
1 2 Figure 7 illustrates the overall performance of
𝐸𝐸 = �𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 − 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � (19) individual components of the cogeneration plant. Each
2

4
MATEC Web of Conferences 333, 06006 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133306006
APCChE 2019

component has shown progressive improvement since 1 .6 0 .9 5

year 2015. Based on data collection, the improvement of

M T in d e x

In p u t re s o u rc e s
employee competency rate and KPI has reflected

M T In d e x S c o r e
In d ic a to r S c o r e
1 .4

0 .9 0 P ro d u c ts o u tp u t

improvement of MP index since year 2015. Figure 8 1 .2

reflects the improvement trend of MP. 0 .8 5

1 .0

1.00 0 .8 0 .8 0
2015 2016 2017 2018

0.80 MP Y ear

Figure 10. Material (MT) indicator.

0.60 MC
Index

MY is one of the most critical components in every

0.40 MT organisation that reflects the profitability of the
operation. Based on Figure 11, it shows that the
0.20 MY operation cost is managed effectively with an average
0.00 EV index of higher than 0.9. The profit is mainly due to
2015 2016 2017 2018 fluctuation of prices of raw material and product.
L&G Index
Year 1 .0
O p e r a tio n C o s t , M Y O C

Figure 7. Overall performance of L&G index. P r o fit, M Y T P

In d ic a to r S c o r e
0 .9
M Y In d e x

M P -O T 0 .8
1 .0
M P -A B
In d e x S c o r e

M P -K P I 0 .7

0 .8
M P -C R

0 .6
M P -L C
2015 2016 2017 2018
0 .6
M P -S C Y ear

Figure 11. Money (MY) indicator.

O v e r a ll M P

0 .4
2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8

Y e a r
From the EV perspective, the emission has a lower
Figure 8. Manpower (MP) indicator. index value due to incompetent operation control and
supply demand of energy. The demand of energy will
From Figure 9, it can be observed that performance have a direct influence on the combustion efficiency that
of the cogeneration plant has improved since year 2015. will reflected on the emission. Figure 12 reflects that EV
Based on the collected data, MC is mainly affected by has been progressively improving over the years.
the supply chain factor and the competency of 1 .0 A v e ra g e C a rb o n

employees in handling the task. In year 2017, the F o o tp r in t ( x 1 0

-6
tC O 2 )

organisation achieves the world-class performance

0 .8
In d ic a to r S c o r e

M in im u m C a rb o n

benchmark of 85%.
-6
F o o tp r in t ( x 1 0 tC O 2 )
0 .6

E V In d e x
0 .4
1 .1
A v a ila b ilit y , A
0 .2
1 .0 P e rfo rm a n c e , P
In d ic a to r S c o re

0 .0
Q u a lit y , Q 2015 2016 2017 2018
0 .9
M C In d e x Y ear

0 .8 B e s t P r a c tic e
Figure 12. Environmental (EV) indicator.
0 .7

In this study, the targeted LGI is determined as 0.96.

0 .6
2015 2016 2017 2018
The BP method has been implemented in the process for
Y ear 7 months starting in July 2018. Figure 13 shows the
Figure 9. Machine (MC) indicator. response in BP method in achieving the desire target.
Besides that, Figure 14 indicates the BP approach of
Moving on, Figure 10 reflects the performance of 4M1E. Based on the BP performance, the performance
material management. In this study, the cogeneration of BP has managed to close the gap between actual and
plant does not require storage of feedstock material (i.e., expected targets with a deviation of 1.3%. On top of that,
natural gas) and the output of the process will be the BP algorithm explores 4M1E in September and
produced based on demand. October for improvement. The BP model manages to
converge in November where the weightage is very close
to their initial value obtained from the industry expert.

5
MATEC Web of Conferences 333, 06006 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133306006
APCChE 2019

1 .0 5
Performance: a Study of Turkish SMEs,” J. Cleaner
Prod., 51, 23–33 (2013)
L e a n a n d G r e e n In d e x

1 .0 0
Ferguson, M. and L. Toktay; “The Effect of Competition
on Recovery Strategies,” Prod. and Oper. Mgmt, 15(3),
351–368 (2009)
0 .9 5

0 .9 0
Galeazzo, A., A., Furlan and A. Vinelli; “Lean and
Green in Action: Interdependencies and Performance
0 .8 5
J a n F e b M a r A p r M a y J u n J u l A u g S e p O c t N o v D e c of Pollution Prevention Projects,” J. Cleaner Prod., 85,
M o n th o f Y e a r 2 0 1 8 191–200 (2014)
Figure 13. Lean and green index for year 2018.
Issa, T., V. Chang, and T. Issa; “Sustainable Business
Strategies and PESTEL Framework,” GSTF Int. J.
0 .5
M P

0 .4 M C Comput., May, 1–8 (2010)

W e ig h ta g e

M T
0 .3
M Y
Jabbour, C., A. Jabbour, K. Govindan, A. Teixeira, and
W. Freitas; “Environmental Management and
E V
Operational Performance in Automotive Companies in
0 .2

0 .1 Brazil: the Role of Human Resource Management and

Lean Manufacturing,” J. Cleaner Prod, 47, 129–140
0 .0
Ju n Ju l A u g S ep O ct N o v D ec
(2013)
M o n th o f Y e a r 2 0 1 8
Kim, S. J. and S. Kara; “Impact of Technology on
Figure 14. Optimisation on 4M1E.
Product Life Cycle Design: Functional and
Environmental Perspective,” 19th CIRP Conference on
4 Conclusion Life Cycle Engineering, D. A. Dornfeld and B. S. Linke
eds, pp. 1–2, Springer, New York City, U.S.A. (2012)
This study reflects the enhancement of adaptive lean and
green model in cogeneration plant. The model aims to Leong W. D., H. L. Lam, W. P. Q. Ng, C. H. Lim, C. P.
provide a time-dependant multi criteria decision making Tan, and S. G. Ponnambalam; “Lean and Green
tool for the industry player to make better decisions. Manufacturing—a Review on its Applications and
Based on the outcome of the case study, the adaptive Impacts,” Process Integr. Optim. Sustain, 3, 5–23 (2019)
model can close the gap between the targeted and actual
lean and green index by 1.3%. Obvious improvement Mittal V. K and K. S. Sangwan; “Prioritizing Drivers for
can be seen as the lean and green practises are Green Manufacturing: Environmental, Social and
implemented in the organisation. The adaptive model Economic Perspectives,” Procedia CIRP, 15, 135–140
will continuously evaluate the priority of the components (2014)
stated in the model to reduce the deviation between
actual and expected outcome. Future work can be Saaty T. L; Decision Making with the Analytic
extended to improve the complexity of the adaptive Hierarchy Process (2008)
model to cope with multi-interrelated components
problems (i.e. continuous processing plant). SDG, Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable
Development Knowledge Platform.
Acknowledgements https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300
(accessed 4.29.19)
The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from
the Ministry of Higher Education Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones; “From Lean Production
(FRGS/1/2016/TK03/MUSM/01/1). Research funding and to the Lean Enterprise,” Harvard Business Review, 72,
support from Newton Fund and the EPSRC/RCUK (Grant 93–103 (1994)
Number: EP/PO18165/1) is also gratefully acknowledged.
Zimmer, L.; “Get Lean to Boost Profits,” Form. Fabr., 7
References (2), 36– 44 (2000)

Abdul-Rashid, S. H., N. Sakundarini, R. A. Raja

Ghazilla and R. Thurasamy; “The Impact of Sustainable
Manufacturing Practices on Sustainability Performance:
Empirical Evidence from Malaysia”, Int. J. of Oper. &
Production Mgmt., 37 (2), 182–204 (2017)

Agan, Y., M. Acar, and A. Borodin; “Drivers of

Environmental Processes and Their Impact on