| Literature DB >> 24311979 |
Abstract
The trends of the green supply chain are attributed to pressures from the environment and from customers. Green innovation is a practice for creating competitive advantage in sustainable development. To keep up with the changing business environment, the construction industry needs an appropriate assessment tool to examine the intrinsic and extrinsic effects regarding corporate competitive advantage. From the viewpoint of energy and environmental protection, this study combines four scientific methodologies to develop an assessment model for the green innovation of contractors. System dynamics can be used to estimate the future trends for the overall industrial structure and is useful in predicting competitive advantage in the industry. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and utility theory focus on the customer's attitude toward risk and are useful for comprehending changes in objective requirements in the environment. Fuzzy logic can simplify complicated intrinsic and extrinsic factors and express them with a number or ratio that is easy to understand. The proposed assessment model can be used as a reference to guide the government in examining the public constructions that qualified green contractors participate in. Additionally, the assessment model serves an indicator of relative competitiveness that can help the general contractor and subcontractor to evaluate themselves and further green innovations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24311979 PMCID: PMC3842057 DOI: 10.1155/2013/624340
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1The proposed assessment model.
The regulations for the management of different classes of contractors.
| Classification | Class C contractor | Class B contractor | Class A contractor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capital | >3 million TWD | >15 million TWD | >100 million TWD |
| Establishment requirement | Registered as class C for two years and employed specialized engineering staff over last 5 years. Final contract amount over 100 million | Registered as class B for two years and employed specialized engineering staff over last 5 years. | |
| Contract amount | <22.5 million TWD | <75 million TWD | no cap |
Figure 2The casual loop diagram of the contractor rating system.
The meaning of variables used in the contractor rating system.
| Variables | Meaning |
|---|---|
| A numbers | Number of class A contractors |
| B numbers | Number of class B contractors |
| C numbers | Number of class C contractors |
| Upgrading | Number of class B upgrading to class A, annually |
| Upgrading | Number of class C upgrading to class B, annually |
| Degrading | Number of class A degrading to class B, annually |
| Degrading | Number of class B degrading to class C, annually |
| Capi. develop. Time 1 | Time needed for class C to upgrade to class B, in terms of capital development |
| Capi. develop. Time 2 | Time needed for class B to upgrade to class A, in terms of capital development |
| B threshold | Contract amount required for class C to upgrade to class B |
| A threshold | Contract amount required for class B to upgrade to class A |
| A market share power | Market share power of class A contractors |
| B market share power | Market share power of class B contractors |
| C market share power | Market share power of class C contractors |
| Ave. employees of A | Average number of employees of class A contractors |
| Ave. employees of B | Average number of employees of class B contractors |
| Ave. employees of C | Average number of employees of class C contractors |
| Capital amount level of A | Average capital of class A contractors |
| Capital amount level of B | Average capital of class B contractors |
| Capital amount level of C | Average capital of class C contractors |
| Ave. revenue of A | Average revenue of class A contractors, per year |
| Ave. revenue of B | Average revenue of class B contractors, per year |
| Ave. revenue of C | Average revenue of class C contractors, per year |
| A market size | Market size, above 75 million |
| B market size | Market size, between 25~75 million |
| C market size | Market size, under 25 million |
Figure 3Comparison between simulated and actual numbers of contractors.
Comparison between simulated and actual numbers of contractors.
| Years | Simulated number of contractors | Actual number of contractors |
|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 2,899 | 2,899 |
| 1992 | 3,335 | 3,236 |
| 1993 | 3,880 | 3,724 |
| 1994 | 4,660 | 4,490 |
| 1995 | 5,331 | 5,233 |
| 1996 | 6,281 | 6,158 |
| 1997 | 7,256 | 7,178 |
| 1998 | 8,457 | 8,464 |
| 1999 | 9,306 | 9,360 |
| 2000 | 10,528 | 10,606 |
| 2001 | 10,903 | 10,941 |
| 2002 | 13,139 | 13,254 |
| 2003 | 12,211 | 12,638 |
| 2004 | 8,900 | 8,822 |
| 2005 | 8,991 | 8,979 |
| 2006 | 9,146 | 9,089 |
| 2007 | 9,098 | 9,193 |
| 2008 | 9,056 | 9,198 |
| 2009 | 8,967 | 9,280 |
| 2010 | 8,922 | 9,454 |
| 2011 | 9,161 | NA |
| 2012 | 9,197 | NA |
| 2013 | 9,275 | NA |
| 2014 | 9,395 | NA |
| 2015 | 9,475 | NA |
| 2016 | 9,569 | NA |
| 2017 | 9,669 | NA |
| 2018 | 9,763 | NA |
| 2019 | 9,861 | NA |
| 2020 | 9,960 | NA |
| 2021 | 10,058 | NA |
Figure 4The AHP architecture of each criterion.
Weighting value of main criteria.
| Comparison of construction/management, design, and procurement | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Attributes | Construction/Management | Design | Procurement |
| Construction/management | 1 | 1 | 1 3/5 |
| Design | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Procurement | 5/8 | 1 | 1 |
| Eigenvector | 0.39 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
Weighting value of construction/management criteria.
| Comparison of green technology, disposal of waste building materials, and green construction management | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Attributes | Green technology | Disposal of waste building materials | Green construction management |
| Green technology | 1 | 4 1/2 | 1 |
| Disposal of waste building materials | 2/9 | 1 | 1 |
| Green construction management | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Eigenvector | 0.49 | 0.20 | 0.31 |
Weighting value of design criteria.
| Comparison of reduction in energy consumption, green building and multidesign | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Attributes | Reduction in energy consumption | Green building | Multidesign |
| Reduction in energy consumption | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Green building | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Multidesign | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1 |
| Eigenvector | 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.20 |
Weighting value of procurement criteria.
| Comparison of green procurement, green supply chain, green specifications | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Attributes | Green procurement | Green supply chain | Green specifications |
| Green procurement | 1 | 1/3 | 1/3 |
| Green supply chain | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Green specifications | 3 | 1/2 | 1 |
| Eigenvector | 0.14 | 0.52 | 0.34 |
Weighting value of each criterion.
| Main criteria (wi) | Subcriteria (wi ) | wi | Wi% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design (0.33) | Multidesign (0.2) | 0.066 | 6.60% |
| Reduction in energy consumption (0.4) | 0.132 | 13.20% | |
| Green building (0.4) | 0.132 | 13.20% | |
| Procurement (0.28) | Green procurement (0.14) | 0.0392 | 3.92% |
| Green specifications (0.34) | 0.0952 | 9.52% | |
| Green supply chain (0.52) | 0.1456 | 14.56% | |
| Construction/management (0.39) | Green construction management (0.31) | 0.1209 | 12.09% |
| Green technology (0.49) | 0.1911 | 19.11% | |
| Disposal of waste building materials (0.20) | 0.078 | 7.80% | |
|
| 1 | 100% | |
Most preferred point, constants, UF, and expected utility value for criteria.
| Criterion |
|
|
|
|
|
| Utility function |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Worst | Optimal | ||||||||
| Multidesign (6.60) | 100 | 0 | 60 | 100 | 0.025 | −1.50 |
| −9.90 | 6.6 |
| Reduction in energy consumption (13.20) | 50 | 0 | 20 | 50 | 0.033 | −0.66 |
| −8.71 | 13.07 |
| Green building (13.20) | 100 | 0 | 60 | 100 | 0.025 | −1.50 |
| −19.80 | 13.20 |
| Green procurement (3.92) | 100 | 0 | 60 | 100 | 0.025 | −1.50 |
| −5.88 | 3.92 |
| Green specifications (9.52) | 100 | 0 | 60 | 100 | 0.025 | −1.50 |
| −14.28 | 9.52 |
| Green supply chain (14.52) | 100 | 0 | 50 | 100 | 0.020 | −1 |
| −14.52 | 14.52 |
| Green construction management (12.09) | 100 | 0 | 60 | 100 | 0.025 | −1.50 |
| −18.14 | 12.09 |
| Green technology (19.11) | 100 | 0 | 50 | 100 | 0.020 | −1 |
| −19.11 | 19.11 |
| Disposal of waste building materials (7.8) | 100 | 0 | 70 | 100 | 0.033 | −4.00 |
| −18.17 | 7.8 |
| Expected utility value | −128.51 | 99.83 | |||||||
Figure 5Diagram of the FLIS.
Fuzzy set, fuzzy scale and output value.
| Input scenario | Fuzzy output value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Value range | Fuzzy sets | Description | Fuzzy sets |
|
| 6000 | good | Quantitative value | Very good (16%↑) |
|
| 85 | Very good | ||
|
| 100 | Good | ||
Figure 6Inputs and output mapping.
Optimal, worst output value, and simulated case.
| Criteria | Optimal | Worst | Simulated case | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 | |||
| Number of constructors | Good | Poor | 10000 | 10000 | 10000 |
| Green innovation | Very good | Very poor | 30 | 70 (good) | 85 (very good) |
| Corprate social responsibility | Good | Poor | 50 | 80 | 80 |
| Output value (profit) | 16.8 | 2.11 | 6.28 | 11.7 | 14.5 |