Theory of Benchmarking and Implementation

1. Benchmarking
Concept and Implementation
Oleh :
Aekram Faisal
Supriyadi
Sripeni Inten Cahyani
Dosen : Prof. Ir. Syamsir Abduh , MM, Ph.D
Program Doktor Strategic Management
Universitas Trisakti
90

2. MISKIN AKAN
MODAL
SUMBER ALAM
SUMBERDAYA MANUSIA
KONDISI JEPANG SAAT ITU....

4. BENCHMARKING YG TERBARU
DIKEMBANGKAN OLEH

5. What is Benchmarking?
Author Definitions
Camp 1989 the continuous process of measuring products,
services and practices against the toughest
competitors or those companies recognised as
industry leaders.
Codling 1992 An ongoing process of measuring and improving
products, services and practices against the best.

6. Author Definitions
What is Benchmarking?
Vaziri 1992 A continuous process comparing an organisation’s
performance against that of the best in the industry
considering critical consumer needs and
determining what should be improved.
Watson 1993 The continuous input of new information to an
organisation.

7. Author Definitions
Evans 1993 Measuring own performance against best-in-class
organisations to determine how they achieve their
performance levels and use the knowledge to
improve own performance.
Kleine 1994 An excellent tool to use in order to identify a
performance goal for improvement, identify
partners who have accomplished these goals,
identify applicable practices to incorporate into a
redesign effort.
What is Benchmarking?

8. Author Definitions
Cortada 1995 A method for finding how to improve processes
quickly by learning from others dealing with
similar issues.
Cook 1995 A kind of performance improvement process by
identifying, understanding and adopting
outstanding practices from within the same
organisation or from other businesses.
What is Benchmarking?

9. Author Definitions
APQC 1999 The process of continuously comparing and
measuring an organisation against business
leaders anywhere in the world to gain
information which will help the organisation take
action to improve its performance.
What is Benchmarking?

10. • At its simplest, benchmarking means:
"Improving ourselves by learning
from others."
What is Benchmarking?

11. • Conditions are never identical
• You can pick up critical variables and apply them …
• Create a system – a comprehensive set of reinforcing practices
that are responsible for success
Benchmarking ≠ Copying
What is Benchmarking?

12. • Helps organisations understand strengths and weaknesses
• Helps better satisfy the customer’s needs by establishing new
standards and goals
• Motivates employees to reach new standards and to be keen on new
developments
• Allows organisations to realise what level(s) of performance is really
possible by looking at others
• Documents reasons as to why these differences exist
• Helps organisations improve their competitive advantage
• Is a cost-effective and time-efficient way of establishing a pool of
innovative ideas
Why Benchmarking?

13. Why Benchmarking?

14. • In Japan, benchmarking is a part of their manager's
job descriptions (Boxwell, 1994).
• This is one of the ways that the Japanese are able to
keep up with and surpass others in industries such as
automobiles, motorcycles, electronics, etc.
Why Benchmarking?

15. Benchmarking
as a strategic improvement methodology
• Lucertini et al. (1995), who state that “The concern about performance
evaluation has always existed in corporations, and has traditionally been
realised on an historical basis (by comparing the performance to the one
of the year before) and, sometimes, on a competitive basis (by
comparing the company to a competitor).”
• Skaplan (1984), As a methodology for assessing company performance,
concerns were raised in the middle and late 1980s.
• Hamel and Prahalad (1989), who state that “Traditional competitor
analysis is like a snapshot of a moving car. By itself, the photo yields little
information about the car’s speed or direction – whether the driver is
out for a Sunday drive or warming up for a grand prix.”

16. History of benchmarking Implementation
• the concept of benchmarking is, however, captured by the word
“Dantotsu” which when translated means “striving to be the best”
(Ohinata, 1993).
• Kearns defines benchmarking as “the continuous process of measuring
products, services and practices against the toughest competitors or
those companies recognised as industry best leaders” (Camp, 1989).
• Bendell et al. (1998), “benchmarking” was used by the Japanese to
improve their position on the international market in respect of their
Western competitors.
• Codling (1992), who states that “In the late 1970s benchmarking was
pioneered in the realms of management practice by the Xerox
Corporation in the US.”

17. Interface between
knowledge transfer and the law
• There is potentially a fundamental misalignment between the purpose of
benchmarking and the underlying objectives of intellectual property law.
• The purpose of benchmarking is to obtain knowledge that is made available on
an informal, non-contractual basis where no financial obligation is attached to
its release, acquisition and subsequent use.
• Conversely, the objective of intellectual property law is to guarantee a
monopoly over the exploitation of creative efforts and to recoup through
royalties, the resulting benefits.
• a survey of benchmarking practices conducted by Boulter (1998) addresses the legal
implications of benchmarking practices, across the three groups of survey
respondents (English private sector, European private sector and English public
sector), indicate lack of awareness , that only one survey respondent out of 60
specifically identified intellectual property as constituting an issue for
benchmarking.

18. • The survey analysis of benchmarking practices (Boulter, 1998), across the
three groups of survey respondents
• 29 percent claim that there is no organizational control for the release
of “best practice” information.
• 50 per cent claim that they do not use a non-disclosure agreement
when exchanging “best practice” information as part of benchmarking
practice.
• the practice of benchmarking can cross national boundaries, a company
undertaking a benchmarking study might identify companies from a
number of different countries, however, no common legal regime against
which to measure the legal risk stemming from an international
benchmarking study
Interface between
knowledge transfer and the law

19. • Boulter and Bendell, 1999, Potential competition law risks for
knowledge transfer
Interface between
knowledge transfer and the law

20. Since the concept of benchmarking can lead to unscrupulous
and sometimes unethical behavior. To guide benchmarking
encounters, to advance the professionalism and
effectiveness of benchmarking, and to help protect its
members from harm, the International Benchmarking
Clearinghouse, a service of the American Productivity &
Quality Center, has adopted this Code of Conduct. Adherence
to this Code will contribute to efficient, effective and ethical
benchmarking.
Benchmarking Ethics

21. Code of Conduct
• 1. Principle of Legality
• 2. Principle of Exchange
• 3. Principle of Confidentiality
• 4. Principle of Use
• 5. Principle of Contact
• 6. Principle of Preparation
• 7. Principle of Completion
• 8. Principle of Understanding and Action
http://ateam.lbl.gov/cleanroom/benchmarking/code.html
Benchmarking Ethics

22. 4 Questions
• What should we benchmark?
• Whom should we benchmark?
• How do we perform the process?
• How do they perform the process?
How The Benchmarking Process?

23. How The Benchmarking Process?

24. How The Benchmarking Process?

25. How The Benchmarking Process?

26. ImplementAnalyse
Decide
What to
BM
Identify
BM
Partners
Gather
info
How The Benchmarking Process?

27. Benchmarking Process
Benchmark Practices
How to close the Gap:
* Improved Knowledge
* Improved Practices
* Improved Process
Employee Participation
Organization
Communication
Management Commitment
Benchmark Gap:
* How much
* Where
* When
Benchmarking Standards
How The Benchmarking Process?

28. How The Benchmarking Process?

29. • https://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/benchmarking.html
• http://apo-tokyo.org/productivity/116_prod.htm
• http://ateam.lbl.gov/cleanroom/benchmarking/code.html
• https://www4.uwm.edu/cuts/bench/bm-desc.htm
• Boxwell, Robert (1994), Benchmarking for a Competitive Advantage, McGraw Hill, 1994
• Bendell, A., Boulter, L. and Goodstadt, P. (1998), Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage, Pitman/Financial Times, London.
• Boulter, L. (1998), “Legal aspects in the practice of benchmarking”, PhD thesis, The Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham.
• Boulter, L. and Bendell, A. (1999), “Competition risks in benchmarking”, Sweet and Maxwell European Competition Law Review, pp. 434-
44.
• Camp, R. (1989), Benchmarking the Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance, Quality Press American Society
for Quality Control, Milwaukee, WI.
• Camp, R. (1998), Global Cases in Benchmarking, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.
• Codling, S. (1992), Best Practice Benchmarking, Industrial Newsletters Ltd.
• Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), “Strategic intent”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 200, pp. 21-8.
• Lucertini, N., Nicolo, F. and Telmon, A. (1995), “Integration of benchmarking and benchmarking of integration”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 59-71.
• Ohinata, Y. (1993), “Benchmarking: the Japanese experience”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 48-53.
• Skaplan, R. (1984), “Yesterday’s accounting undermines production”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 105, pp. 32-8.
Reference

30. Articles

31. Transportation price benchmarking: implications for
firm performance
DOSEN : Prof. SYAMSIR ABDUH, Ph. D
Aekram Faisal
DOKTORAL MANAJEMEN STRATEGIK
PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI
2016

33. Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to understand how transportation
price benchmarking impacts firm performance.
Design/methodology/approach
• In this study, firm transportation costs and other financial
variables are examined with regression analysis.
• This study extends empirical research on benchmarking by
using current data, taking a longitudinal approach, using
additional research methods, and by taking a contingency
theory approach to examine firm performance contingent
on the relative size of benchmarking information.

34. Findings
• Firms can reduce prices paid for transportation (thereby
improving firm performance) by participating in benchmarking
consortiums, and the amount of price reduction is contingent
on the size of firm transportation spending relative to that of
the benchmarked firms.
• Furthermore, the contingent relationship is concave, which
indicates that participation in benchmarking consortiums can
be optimized.

35. Research limitations/implications
Despite the wide range of companies in this sample and the
longitudinal approach of this research, this study examined
benchmarking performance in just one marketplace (truckload
transportation).
Practical implications
The findings help managers to lower transportation costs and
optimize the benefits that can be obtained from benchmarking.

36. Originality/value
• Transportation prices paid by firms are difficult to obtain
because firms are not required to isolate and disclose this
information on financial statements.
• Therefore, the transparency of transportation pricing data
in this study which include a wide cross-section of firms
provides a unique examination of actual transportation
prices and how they can be used for benchmarking.

37. SUPRIYADI
222141510
DOKTORAL MANAJEMEN STRATEGIK
PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI
2016
Evaluation and Benchmarking of Lean Manufacturing
System Environment: A Graph Theoretic Approach
DOSEN : Prof. SYAMSIR ABDUH, Ph. D

38. I. POKOK PIKIRAN
• Penelitian Lean Manufacturing ini menekankan pada penghematan
terhadap pemborosan (waste) pada proses produksi, antara lain :
• Barang cacat (defect product)
• Persediaan ( Inventory)
• Operasional (Motion)
• Penambahan produk (Added processes)
• Kelebihan produksi ( Excess Production)
• Biaya transportas (transportation cost)

39. II. KELEBIHAN DARI ARTIKEL
• Proses manufacturing yang panjang, dan banyaknya sistem yang
digunakan (JIT suppliers, Kanban, Supplier development,
Supplier Feedback, TPM, LT Reduction, Kaizen, dsb) mampu di
ringkas menjadi beberapa kegiatan pokok saja.
• Kegiatan pokok tersebut dibagi menjadi :
1) Supplier oriented practices (Suppler Participation)
2) Manufacturing oriented practices (Operational initiatives)
3) Employees involvement in lean practices (employees involvement)
4) Customer oriented practices (Customer Participation)

41. 1. Supplier Paricipation

42. 2. Operational initiatives

45. 3. Employee’s involvment

46. 4. Customer Participation

47. Relative importance of Lean Attributes

48. • Peneliti terlalu optimis, sehingga kurang memperhatikan sisi lemah
dari penerapan Lean Manufacturing ini, antara lain :
1) Masalah pada Suppliers
Karena dalam LM, sistem invetory dibuat sekecil mungkin, bahkan
dihilangkan, hal ini guna mengurangi biaya-biaya yang berkaitan dengan
invetory. Pada LM perusahaan sangat tergantung sekali terhadap suppliers
untuk kelangsungan proses produksi. Ini artinya jalur suppliers tidak boleh
terputus, bila masalah pada suppliers muncul seperti employee strikes,
transportasi tertunda, dan kualitas barang kurang bagus. Maka hal tersebut
akan berakibat fatal bagi perusahaan. Aktivitas produksi perusahaan akan
terganggu secara berantai ke yang lainya (domino effect)
III. KELEMAHAN PADA ARTIKEL

49. Lanjutan
2) Implementasi biaya tinggi
Penerapan LM bertujuan untuk membuat lebih lengkap (completely) sistem dan
physical plant setups dari yang sebelumnya. Tentu hal ini memelukan waktu yang
cukup panjang utk memberi pelatihan kepada karyawan menjalankan proses LM ini.
Dan tentu hal ini dibutuhkan biaya yang tidak sedikit oleh perusahaan.
3) Penolakan dari para pekerja
Proses LM tentu akan merubah hampir semua peralatan produksi. Bahkan yang
semula dikerjakan oleh manusia, kini diganti dengan mesin. Tentu hal ini akan
membuat stress para pekerja yang telah ada. Terutama bagi mereka yang terkena
dampak sistem LM ini, antara lain para pekerja yang telah berusia lanjut. Bagi yang
masih muda mungkin mereka tidak begitu sulit utk penyesuaian, karena pada
umumnya mereka sdh terbiasa dgn teknologi. Sehingga kejadian ini akan
menimbulkan bayak penolakkan (demonstrasi) dari pegawai. Dan bila ini terjadi
maka akan berdampak pada proses produksi perusahaan, ketidakpuasan pelanggan,
dsb.

50. 4) Masalah ketidakpuasan (dissatisfaction) pelanggan .
Karena proses LM juga tergantung dari ketepatan dan kecepatan penyalur
(suppliers), bila terjadi gangguan pada rangkaian supply chain, maka proses
produksi akan terganggu. Sehingga pengiriman ke pelanggan juga akan
terganggu. Hal ini akan membuat kecewa/ketidakpuasan pelanggan.
• Peneliti terlalu mengeneral industri di India. Padahal tidak semua
industri mampu menjalankan sistem LM tersebut.
Lanjutan

51. IV. CARA MEMPERBAIKI KELEMAHAN
• Selektif dalam menjalin kerjasama kepada banyak supplier, hal ini guna
mencegah bila terjadi masalah pada supply chain. Yahya and Kingsman (1999)
menggunakan the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method untuk menyeleksi
para supplier nya.

52. • Sebelum menerapkan LM, pimpinan harus melihat
terlebih dahulu kesiapan internalnya, baik sdm, lokasi,
teknologi, finansial, dsb. (De Ciery, H. : 2005)

53. • Sebagaimana kita ketahui bahwa LM merupakan upaya yang
dilakukan oleh perusahaan utk mencegat pemborosan (waste)
shg bisa meningkatkan nilai tambah produk untuk konsumen.
Tentu hal ini diperlukan kerja keras semua komponen
perusahaan, tidak terkecuali karyawan. Bila perusahaan telah
mendapatkan profit atas kerja keras karyawan, maka sebailiknya
perusahaan juga harus mengimbangi dgn memperhatikan
karyawannya. Peningkatan atas salarynya, kesehatan,
kesejahteraan, dsb. Agar hal ini memicu dan memacu
(memotivasi) kerja karyawan perusahaan.
• Motivation are towards addressing the aforementioned issues
and aproaching to mitigate the negative effect of active power
mismatch. (Cecati, F. And P. Siano: 2010)

54. • Bila hal di atas telah dapat teratasi oleh perusahaan tentu kepuasan
pelanggan akan dapat terealisasikan.

55. V. SARAN
• Peneliti jangan terlalu fokus pada sisi menghilangkan pemborosan (waste) saja.
Akan tetapi harus memasukkan juga variabel lian, yakni variabel kearifan lokal
(local wisdom).
• Karena melakukan benchmarking tanpa memperhatikan local wisdom akan
menemui banyak rintangan, bahkan kegagalan.
• Sebagaiamana kita ketahui bahwa antara satu perusahaan dengan perusahaan
lain, tentu akan memiliki karakteristik yang berbeda-beda. Apalagi untuk
tingkatan negara, ini akan jauh lebih kompleks lagi. Norma budaya, sosial,
ekonomi, demograpi, geograpi, yang berbeda-beda.

57. Local wisdom is basic knowledge gained from living in balance with nature. It is
related to culture in the community which is accumulated and passed on. This
wisdom can be both abstract and concrete, but the important characteristics are
that it comes from experiences or truth gained from life. The wisdom from real
experiences integrates the body, the spirit and the environment. It emphasizes
respect for elders and their life experiences. Moreover, it values morals more
than material things (Nakorntap et. Al., 1996)

60. Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2008). Selection of lean manufacturing systems using the
promothee. Journal of modelling in management, 3(1), 40-70.
Cecati, F. Ciancetta, and P. Siano. (2010). A multilevel inverter for photovoltaic
systems with fuzzy logic control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron, vol. 57, no 12. 4115-4125
De Ciery, H. (2005). Human resource management is Austrlia. Strategy people
performance. New York. McGraw.
Dombrowski, U., Mielke, T., & Engel, C. (2012). Knowledge management in
lean production systems. Procedia CIRP, 3, 436-441.
Khadse, P. B., Sarode, A. D., & Wasu, R. (2013). Lean manufacturing in Indian
industries: A Review International Journal of Latest Trends in
Engineering and Technology, 3(1), 175-181.
Kim & Berry. (2006). Idigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People
in Context. New York: Springer.
REFFERENCES

61. LANJUTAN
Kumar, R., & Kumar, V. (2015). Lean manufacturing in Indian context A survey.
Management Science Letters, 5(4), 321-330.
Nakhorn Thap, S. (1996). Report of the Study on Patterns of Process in Promoting
Teacher an School Participation for Prevention and Solution of
Problems Concerning Child Labor in Thailand. Journal of Research on
Hunanities Information Study. Office of the National Education
Commision.
Phongphit, Seri, and Wichit Nantasuwan. (2002). The Learning Process to
Sustainable Development. Bangkok: Charoenwit.
Seri Pongpit and Vichit Nantasuwan. (2002). Community Model Scheme, People
Research and Development. Phthumtani University.
Singh, B., Garg, S. K., & Sharma, S. K. (2009). Lean can be a survival strategy
during recessionary times. International Journal of productivity
and performance management, 58(8), 803-808

62. Terdchai Chuaybamroong. (2011). Local Wisdom for Creative Community
Development, Bangkok : King Prajadhipok’s Institute.
The Center of Folklore Research, Faculty of Arts. (2007). Local Wisdom
Protection Fieldwork. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.
Yahya S, Kingsman R B. (1999). Vendor rating for an entrepreneour
development programme: a care study using the analytic hierarchy
process method.
LANJUTAN

63. Sripeni Inten Cahyani
DOKTORAL MANAJEMEN STRATEGIK
PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI
2016
Multicriteria analysis for benchmarking
sustainability development
DOSEN : Prof. SYAMSIR ABDUH, Ph. D

65. Purpose & Methodology
• Purpose : to formulate the process of measuring and
benchmarking the performance of sustainability development of
organizations as a multi-criteria analysis problem and presents an
objective approach for solving the problem in a simple manner.
• Design/methodology/approach : to developed for benchmarking
the sustainability development performance of individual
organizations in the context of multi-criteria analysis. The result,
an unbiased overall ranking of individual organizations on the
performance of their sustainability development can be obtained.
• An empirical study of several leading countries on their
sustainability development performance is conducte

66. Previous Study
• Sustainability reporting is the process of measuring and benchmarking the performance of sustainability
development of individual organizations with respect to a set of specific indicators in a given situation (Atkinson,
2000; Munda, 2005a, b; Lozano and Huisingh, 2011).
• evaluating the organizational sustainability performance :
• from ‘top-down’ annual reporting against standardized indicator sets with varying degrees of auditing assurance (Brunner and
Starkl, 2004), The top-down approach focuses on assessing the performance of sustainability development of an organization with
respect to the Global Reporting Initiative indicators and guidelines (Atkinson, 2000; Veleva et al., 2001).
• to ad hoc, one-off or semi-periodic assessments against ‘bottom-up’ and locally grown measures (Fraser et al., 2006; Munda,
2007; Magee et al., 2013). The bottom-up approach concentrates on identifying the potential improvement in sustainability
development while evaluating the performance of sustainability development of individual organizations (Atkinson, 2000; Agger,
2010).
• The performance of sustainability development of individual organizations is often reflected from different
perspectives including (a) economy, (b) politics, (c) ecology, and (d) culture (Brunner and Starkl, 2004; Munda, 2004,
2007; Scerri and James, 2010).
• To adequately assess the relative progress of individual organizations on sustainability development, the use of the
multi-criteria analysis methodology (Chen and Hwang, 1992; Yeh et al., 1999; Wibowow and Deng, 2012) is
appropriate. This is because the multi-criteria analysis methodology can adequately address the multi-dimensional
nature of the inter-organization comparison problem on sustainability development (Deng, 1999; Deng et al., 2000;
Munda, 2005; Tang and Zhou, 2012).
• Numerous approaches have been developed :
• for solving the general multi-criteria analysis problem (Chen and Hwang, 1992; Deng et al., 2000; Deng, 2009; Wibowow and
Deng, 2012).
• along the multi-attribute utility theory (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Yeh and Deng, 2004; Deng and Yeh, 2006) are suitable for the
interorganization comparison problem requiring a cardinal preference of alternatives in a given situation (Yeh et al., 1999;
Wibowow and Deng, 2012).
• the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) for solving the inter-organization comparison problem
on sustainability development is revised (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Deng et al., 2000; Deng, 2008).

67. Finding
The proposed approach is applicable for measuring and
benchmarking the performance of organizational
sustainability development through the presentation of an
example.
1. hardware, (c) social infThe International Data Corporation (IDC) publishes a
Worldwide Information Society Index annually as an indication of the relative progress
of individual countries worldwide on the progress of the sustainability development of
individual countries
2. The published index is based on four sustainability criteria including (a) information,
(b) hardware, (c) social infrastructure, and (d) internet infrastructure.

68. Finding3. To facilitate the inter-country analysis on their sustainability development performance, Table II
shows the overall performance rankings of these countries on sustainability development and the
rankings of these countries on individual sustainability criteria.
4. To provide a commonly acceptable overall ranking for these countries above on their
sustainability development performance, the objective approach developed in this paper is used.
5. Following the objective approach developed above, the decision matrix contained in Table I needs
to be normalized by (2). Table III shows the result.

69. Finding
6. To facilitate the comparative study on the ranking outcomes of different countries on their
sustainability development between different weighting methods, two additional objective
weighting methods including the CRITIC (CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation)
method (Diakoulaki et al., 1992) and the standard deviation (SD) method (Deng et al., 2000) are
used for determining the criteria weights shown as in Table IV as well.
7. Table V shows the index values and the corresponding rankings of these countries with the use of
three sets of objective criteria weights.

70. Finding
8. Table V shows that
• USA has the best performance on sustainability development, no matter which methods for
criteria weighting are used. This shows that US has excelled in every aspect of sustainability
development in this specific evaluation situation.
• that rankings of the ten countries with respect to their relative performance in sustainability
development using the objective criteria weights are different from the rankings resulted
from the use of the IDC approach
• the rankings resulted from the use of the EW weights and CRITIC are consistent.
• the bias of the decision maker in assessing the criteria weights is effectively avoided.
9. An empirical study on the real data available is presented that shows that the approach is effective
in presenting an objective view of individual countries on their relative progress on sustainability
development and the resulting comparison results are better acceptable to all the stakeholders
involved

71. Originality, Contribution
& Further Study
• The originality of the paper is on the development of the objective
approach within the context of multi-criteria analysis for measuring and
benchmarking the performance of sustainability development of
individual organizations.
• As a result, the methodology developed can be used as a decision making
tool to support various levels of government and consultancy
organizations worldwide in their effort to evaluate the adoption of
specific strategies and policies in sustainability development so that
effective decisions can be made for actively pursuing sustainability
development in individual countries as well as organizations.
• Further study could be conduct with the multidimensional nature of the
problem of measuring and benchmarking the organizational sustainability
development, these approaches have the potential for helping better
addressing such a problem in real world setting.

72. Referensi
Atkinson, G. (2000), “Measuring corporate sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 235-252.
Atkinson, G. (2000), “Measuring corporate sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 235-252.
Deng, H. (1999), “Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison”, International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 215-231.
Deng, H. (2008), “Towards objective benchmarking of e-government: an inter-country analysis”,
Transformational Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 162-176.
Deng, H. (2009), “Developments in fuzzy multicriteria analysis”, Fuzzy Information and Engineering, Vol.
1, pp. 109-115.
Deng, H. and Yeh, C.H. (2006), “Simulation-based evaluation of defuzzification-based approaches to
fuzzy multiattribute decision making”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 36
No. 5, pp. 968-977.
Deng, H., Yeh, C.H. and Willis, R.J. (2000), “Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with
objective weights”, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 963-973.
Munda, G. (2004), “Social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE): methodological foundations and operational
consequences”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 158 No. 3, pp. 662-677.
Munda, G. (2005a), “Multi-criteria decision analysis and sustainable development”, in Figuera, J., Greco,
S. and Ehrgott, M. (Eds), Multiple – Criteria Decision Analysis. State of Art Surveys, Springer, New
York, NY, pp. 953-986.