4.7 Review

Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach

期刊

COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 327-356

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2005.01.017

关键词

reverse logistics; balanced scorecard; analytic network process; multi-criteria decision making; computer hardware industry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activities in reverse logistics activities are extensively practiced by computer hardware industries. One of the important problems faced by the top management in the computer hardware industries is the evaluation of various alternatives for end-of-life (EOL) computers. Analytic network process (ANP) based decision model presented in this paper structures the problem related to options in reverse logistics for EOL computers in a hierarchical form and links the determinants, dimensions, and enablers of the reverse logistics with alternatives available to the decision maker. In the proposed model, the dimensions of reverse logistics for the EOL computers have been taken from four perspectives derived from balanced scorecard approach, viz. customer, internal business, innovation and learning, and finance. The proposed approach, therefore, links the financial and non-financial, tangible and intangible, internal and external factors, thus providing a holistic framework for the selection of an alternative for the reverse logistics operations for EOL computers. Many criteria, sub-criteria, determinants, etc. for the selection of reverse logistics options are interrelated. The ability of ANP to consider interdependencies among and between levels of decision attributes makes it an attractive multi-criteria decision-making tool. Thus, a combination of balanced scorecard and ANP-based approach proposed in this paper provides a more realistic and accurate representation of the problem for conducting reverse logistics operations for EOL computers. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据