237 

AdvancesinProductionEngineering&Management ISSN1854‐6250

Volume13|Number3|September2018|pp237–253 Journalhome:apem‐journal.org

https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2018.3.287 Originalscientificpaper

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness 

Hussain, S.a,*, Jahanzaib, M.a  aIndustrial Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan 

A B S T R A C T A R T I C L E   I N F O

Sustainable manufacturing is advancing amidst the changing context and emergingparadigms. Business success and longterm sustainability today depends upon trans‐formingcontinuously,andmaintainingcompetitiveness throughbuildingcontextspe‐cific capabilities. To address these needs, this research presented a comprehensiveoverviewofsustainablemanufacturing, infirstpart,contributedbynumerousaspectsinthefield.Thesecondpartproposesaconceptualframeworkcomprisingthreeinter‐connected elements: 'Ideal', 'Strategy', 'Architecture'. The ideal is best depicted as anexplorationandchoice context. Synthesisof stakeholders’desiresandsystematicdis‐coveryofopportunities,incontextoflargercontainingsystems,manifestesintodesiredattributesandcharacteristicsofproducts,technologyandenterprisesystemthataretobeapproachedcontinuously.Thestrategyelementisamatchandtransformationcon‐text.Strategicplanning,focussedoncontinuousidentificationandbuildingofcapabili‐ties,evolvesintoabroaderconceptofthebusinesswhichenhancesthefirm’scapacitytoadapttochangingcontextsandmeetitsproposedends.Thearchitectureisafunctionand execution context at the operational level. It combines capabilities, organizationandoperationalstructure,andvaluecreationprocesses toperfomdesired function incontextofanagreeduponbusinessconcept.Asystemicandpotentiallyviableapproach,embeddedwithspecificcapabilitiestointegratesustainabilityintothecoreofamanu‐facturing business, is thus proposedwhich sets this researchwork apart. Contextualinterrogationgivesitanewwayofconstructingthebigpictureoftheissue,i.e.sustain‐ablemanufacturing.Thissimplisticschemeissupplementedandguidedbymulti‐aspectresearch in sustainable manufacturing, circular economy, capabilities, strategy andtransformation,andsystemsthinking.Theproposedframeworkisexpectedtofulfillthekeyneeds of enterprises in sustainablemanufacturingbusiness, i.e. to transformandmaintaincompetitivenessinafastpacedenvironment.

©2018CPE,UniversityofMaribor.Allrightsreserved.

    

Keywords:Sustainablemanufacturing(SM);Sustainability;Circulareconomy(CE);Strategy;Architecture;Capabilities;Systemsthinking(ST)

*Correspondingauthor:Sajj2u@yahoo.com(Hussain,S.)

Articlehistory:Received17November2017Revised8August2018Accepted24August2018

1. Introduction

Manufacturing is an indispensable featureof themodernsocietyowing to itsvital strength intermsofsocietalservice,andpivotalroleincontributingtowardsnationalandglobaleconomy.However, at thesame time, thesehumanactivity systemscollectivelyconsumeaconsiderableamountofresources,andgeneratewastesandemmissionsthusaffectingtheenvironmentandsociety[1]. Ithasbeenlargelyrealizedthatnaturalresourcesandregenerativecapacityoftheecosystemisnotinfinite.Currentproductionandconsumptionpatternsarebeingseenaslargelyresponsibletoassureaforeseeablefuture[2].Consequently,manufacturingisevolving,withintheframeworkoftriplebottomline3BL(environment,economyandsociety),forpursuingthebigpictureofsustainabledevelopment[3,4].

Hussain, Jahanzaib  

238  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018

ENVIRONMENT DOMAIN  ECONOMIC DOMAIN  SOCIAL DOMAIN 

• Environmental issues (climate change, global warming, pollution, ozone layer depletion) 

• Eco‐system concerns (waste and emissions, landfill, extinction of  species, bio‐diversity, restoration and conservation) 

• Policies, regulations and directives • Environmental performance • Impact assessment (frameworks, e.g. LCA) 

• Design philosophies  (DfE, bio‐mimicry, cradle to cradle etc.) 

• Resource conservation (minerals, energy, water) 

• Material and energy tracking (frameworks, e.g. materials flow analysis, energy flow analysis        

• Strategies (waste minimization, resource efficiency, eco‐efficiency) 

 

• Economic paradigm (e.g. Circular Economy) • Socioeconomic trends  • Production and consumption patterns • Policies, business strategy, business model • Economic growth and development • Economic advantage, competitive ad‐vantage 

• Financial performance (value added, stake‐holders’ return, profit, potential financial benefits etc.) 

• Economic performance (prod‐ucts/operations/facilities) 

• Product lifecycle costs (frameworks, e.g. LCC) 

• Economic impact (products, manufacturing chain) 

 

• Societal needs and values, issues and trends, lifestyle and culture 

• Social interaction and collabora‐tion, feedback and inputs, per‐spective 

• Policies, regulations and direc‐tives 

• Organization and social behavior  • Social performance, responsibil‐ity, reputation 

• Social value, social benefits (local, national, global) 

• Product benefits (customer, consumer, society) 

• Social equity, standard of living, quality of life 

• Health and safety , working condi‐tions, employment opportunities, education and training, communi‐ty well‐being,  

• Social impact (frameworks, e.g. SLCA) 

Fig.1Sustainabilityaspectsrelevanttomanufacturingbusiness

SustainableManufacturing(SMfromhereon)involvessimultaneousconsiderationofmulti‐plefactorsandtheirinteractionacrossthreedimensions.Interconnectivityandco‐dependenceoffirmswithothersintheentirevaluenetworkeveninceasesthebreadthandoverallcomplexi‐tyof the issue (SM), attributed to increasedplurality andhighdegreeof interdependencebe‐tweenelements[5‐7].Dealingwithsuchacomplexsystemnecessitatesaholisticunderstandingoftheissue.SystemsThinking(STfromhereon)isbeingrecognizedasoneofthekeycompe‐tenciestoaddresssustainabilityproblemssystemicallyacrossmultipledomainsandatdifferentscales[8].STpromotesholismwhichprovidestheoreticalawarenessofthesystemandavoidsunintendedconsequencesofsub‐optimization[9,10].Sustainability,viewedasasystemproper‐ty, impliesanalysisandcreationofsustainablevaluefromtheperspectiveof largercontainingsystems[11].Yet,balancingtheneedsandbenefitsfor3BLrequiresrobustmethodsincorporat‐ing an integratd analysis and evaluation of interaction among system elements. Nevertheless,exploring through vast literature, various aspects relevant to the issue (SM) are presented inthreedomainsinFig.1.

Manufacturingenterprises,amongothers,arefacedwithanincreasingcomplexity,uncertain‐ty, change and diversity. There are a number of factors whose interplay is supposed to giveemergencetothiscomplexanddiversemilieu.Namingfeware;constantlyshiftingexternalen‐vironment,growingenvironmentalandsocialconcerns,inter‐connectednessofindustrialprob‐lems,fasterlearninganddevelopmentneeds,andtransformationinsocietalneedsetc.Addition‐ally,thereareconcernsonrapidlydepletingnaturalresources,andincreasingpriceandvolatili‐tyofrawmaterialsandcommodities[12].Moreover,ithasbeenrealizedthatefficientmanufac‐turingprocesses, technological innovation,optimizationabilities, andother success factors incontextofindustrialproduction(e.g.economyofscale)areinsufficienttoamelioratetheoverallsituation[13].Further, ithasbeenlearntthatgradualimprovementsatthelevelofproductorprocessareinadequatetoembracelongtermbusinesssuccessandsustainability.

Sustainabilityframeworksandapproaches,inrelationtomanufacturing,aregenerallyaimedatdevelopmentandimplementationofsustainabilitystrategy,sustainablebusinessmodels,de‐signandinnovationcapabilities,performanceimprovementandassessment,anddecisionmak‐ingtoolsetc.Manyoftheproposedframeworksemphasizesystemicmanagementofsustainabil‐ityconceptsandrequirementsincontextofbroadersystems,andadeepinvolvementofstake‐holders.Theproposedframeworksandapproachesdemonstratesomeutilityindifferentindus‐trialaspects.Buttheylack,generally,inmanagingtheissue(SM)holisticallytowardscontinuous

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018  239

transformation and competitiveness in manufacturing enterprises. Moreover, despite wide‐spreadliteratureandenormousresearchontheissue,yetthereisneedtoexploreapproacheswhich are potentially viable amidst the changing contexts to ensure long term sustainability.Nevertheless, researchers are learning about the capabilities of various frameworks that canbringaboutachangeat the levelofentireenterpriseasasystem.Numerouspropositionscanfurtherincreasethespeedoflearningandimplementation.

SMbusinesseshavetoseekwaystocontributetosustainabledevelopmentobjectiveseffec‐tively,nowandinthefuture,whileadvancingamidstthechangingcontexts.Thisneedscontinu‐oussupportandguidancethatcouldsystematicallyenabletheenterprise’scapabilitytomeetitsdesired sustainability ends. Successful transformation requiresmore relevantand focusedde‐signs,andamind‐setchangeinrelationtoexistentialpurposeofthefirm,itsstakeholders,socie‐tyandenvironment.A framework,however,maybeestablished that servesasaguideline fortheenterprisetocreateandre‐createitself,tofittheproposedends.Theconceptualframewokproposedinthisresearchisanabstractconceptstructuredbythreeinteractingelements:‘Ideal’,‘Strategy’,and‘Architecture’.The‘Ideal’oridealintentoftheenterpriseischosenbystakehold‐ers throughexplorationofopportunitieswithin thecontextualspace.Thispropositionmaybesussessfullyrealizedprovidedtheenterprisesystemistechnologicallyandoperationallycapableenoughandtheonethatcanlearnandadapteffectively.The‘Strategy’orstrategicintentisfor‐mulatedincontextofidealintent.Itrepresentsamixofmanufacturingandbusinesslevelcapa‐bilities whose development and strategic deployment is potentially vital to gain competitiveadvantage and capture the proposed ends at large. Strategic planning and decisionmaking isaimedtowardsevolvinganinnovativebusinessconceptthatisoperationallyviable.The‘Archi‐tecture’atdownstreamconvertsthisconceptintoreality.Itformallydescribestheoverallbusi‐nessarchitectureframeworkforSMincludingitsfunctionalaspects,structuralissues,andvaluecreationprocessesandactivities.Thissimplisticschememayheraldlongtermbusinesssuccessandsustainabilityprovidedtheconceptisoperationalizedinasystematicandmeaningfulman‐ner.Theframeworkdesignandfunctioniscomplementedbyemergingconceptsandapproachesin ST, SM research and Circular Economy (CE fromhere on), capabilities, and various frame‐worksforstrategyandarchitectrure.Contextualinterogationgivesitanewwayofconstructingthebigpictureoftheissue,i.eSM.

Restof thepaperunfolds this scheme inquiteanaturalorder.After theconceptual frame‐workhasbeenintroducedinthissection,thenextsectionprovidesacomprehensiveoverviewoftheissue(SM)invariousaspectsandfrommultipleperspectives,toconstructitscontextualpo‐sition.Section3describesproposedframeworkandits individualelements indetail.Therela‐tionshipofproposedconceptualapproachwithsocialenvironmentandlevelofeconomicdevel‐opmentinacountryalongwithitsoperationalizationandmainobstaclespertinenttoaspecificenvironmentarediscussedinSection4.Finally,majorfindingsfromourdiscussionaredrawninSection5,whichconcludesthisresearch.

2. Sustainable manufacturing: An overview 

SMhasbeenreceivedwithevengreaterrecognitioninrecentyearsasacomprehensivestrategyforimprovingtheeconomic,socialandenvironmentalperformanceofafirm.Newmanagementconcepts (product lifecycle management and assessment, eco‐effectiveness etc) , innovativetechnologies,anddesignandengineeringapproacheshavebeenintroducedtoincorporatesus‐tainabilityinmanufacturing[14].Researchframeworksencompassnumerousaspectsatvaryingscale(enterprise,supplychain,manufacturingcellandoperationsetc.).Adoptingasystemde‐signapproach,Tonellietal.[15]proposedaframeworkforsustainableindustrialsysteminvolv‐ingsupplychaindesign,sustainabilityperformancemeasurementandmanagement,andorgan‐isationalchange.UsingDMAIC(Define,Measure,Analyze,Improve,Control)approach,Kohoetal. [16]proposedaconceptaimedatsupportingFinnishmanufacturingcompanies inrealizingsustainable productionwhile emphasizingmeasurement as basis of improvement. Subicetal.[17] developed a framework focused on development and assessment of relevant capabilitiesacross theentiresupplychain.Zhangetal. [7]yearned fora framework, in linewithLCAand

Hussain, Jahanzaib  

240  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018

SLCA, to integratesustainabilityassessmentwithdecisionmakingmethodology thatassists inprocessplanningattheproductioncelllevel.Forsustainabilityinmachiningoperations,Masoodetal. [18]proposedamillingtechniquewiththeaimtoenhancecuttingtoollife.Hassineetal.[19]presentedacasestudyonsustainable turningoperationutilizingaspecificallydevelopedmultiobjectiveoptimizationtechnique.

Anemergingresearch interest isobservedoncreatingvalue throughsustainable industrialproduction systems (Sustainable Supply Chains SSCs and Closed Loop Supply Chains CLSCs).Govindanetal.[20]highlightedthatreverselogistics(RL)andCLSCisnowarevenueopportuni‐ty insteadofacost‐minimizationapproach.Schenkeletal. [21]segregatedvaluecreation intofour types of values (economic, environmental, information and customer) and presented aninsightonmaximizingthevaluebycoordinatingtheforwardandreversesupplychains.Ageronetal.[22]recognizedthatsustainabilityissueswhenintegratedinSCM,asanintendedstrategy,contribute tobusiness in termsofcompetitiveadvantage.GopalKrishnanetal. [4]arguedthenecessityofdevisingsustainableoperationsalongthevaluechainandapproachingthe3BLinanintegratedmanner.Galaletal.[23]studiedsustainability,mainlyemissionreduction,acrossanagri‐foodsupplychainbydevelopingadiscrete‐eventsimulationmodel.

Fromthesystem’sperspective,SMneedstobeanalyzedincontextoflargercontainingsys‐tems [11]. Understanding of external interactions becomes significant becacause of a broadrangeoffactorsacrosstheproductlifecycleandtheirconnectivitywithbroadersystems(sup‐plychain,market,andecosystem)[24].Fiksel[25]developedatriplevalue3Vmodelbydivid‐ingthephysicalworldintothreetypesofinteractingsystems(industrial,societal,andenviron‐mental),whereintheintricatedynamiclinkagesandflowsofvalueamongthemmayprovideanarchitecture for systemmodelling.On the conceptsof complexity theory,Moldavska [26]pro‐posedasystemicmodelwherebyasystemcontributestonotonlyitsownsustainability,definedintermsofattractors,butalsotothatoflargercontainingsystem.Fromanoperationalperspec‐tive,Zhangetal.[7]proposeddefinitionsandassessmentframeworkforSMbasedonST.Mol‐davskaetal.[27]proposedaframeworkforsustainabilityassessmentsystemformanufacturingorganizations,guidedbyST.

Asustainableproductisjustaseffectiveandatleastthesamequalityastheproductitisre‐placingwhileproducedusingfewerresourcesandbettermaterials.Inadditiontoproduct’sat‐tributes,SMfocusesonhowtheproductismade,withtheaimtominimizeitsimpact.Inalifecy‐cleview,itincludesinputmaterials,productdesign,productionanddistributionprocesses,andendoflife(EoL)management.WithinLifecycleThinkingframework,manufacturerslookbeyondthesupplychaintomaximizetheproductperformancethroughoutthelifecycle.LifecycleEngi‐neering(LCE)isaimedatdesigningproductsthatmeetrequirementsforquality,cost,manufac‐turability,andconsumerappeal,whileat thesametimeminimisingofenvironmental impacts.Product life cycle, if analysed systematically,maydriveadvancements inproduct andprocesstechnology, and other improvement strategies. Sharing andmanaging of product data, infor‐mationandknowledgeacross thisentire lifecycle formstheessenceofProductLifecycleMan‐agement(PLM)whichseekstointegratestakeholders,processes,resourcesandinformationinaproduct‐centricknowledgeenvironment,tomakeinformedproductdecisions[28].

SMPrinciplesinclude;usinglessenergyandmaterials,usingrenewableenergy,usingfewerhazardousmaterialsandtoxicchemicals,closingtheloopofresourceflow,anddesigningprod‐ucts that canbeeasily andeconomically reusedor re‐manufacturedand consume lessenergyduringuse[15].Similarprincipleshavebeenproposedbyotherresearcherstowardsachievingsustainableends.Alayonetal.[29]referredto9principlesofsustainableproductionrelevanttoproducts, energy andmaterial; economic performance; worker and community development;andnaturalenvironment.Esmaeilianetal. [30]reffered tosevenmainstepsproposedbyRayAnderson,tobecomewhathecalleda'PrototypicalCompanyofthe21stCentury'.Forlong‐termsustainability,economicgrowthneedstobedecoupledfromenvironmentalconstraintsthroughtechnological changes and innovation in industrial systems [31]. CE and C2C are relevantframeworkshere.BasedonprinciplesofGreenEngineering,theyapproachsustainabilityfromaneco‐effectivedesignperspective.Principlestogetherwithrelativelyneweconomicparadigm

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018  241

ofCE,andmanufacturingparadigms(e.g.C2C,industry4.0),maycreatesustainablecompetitiveadvantagealongsideapositiveimpactonenvironmentandsociety.

ValuecreationinCE,aspopularizedbyEMF,isbasedprincipallyoneliminationofwasteanduseofrenewableenergyduringtheentirelifecycle.Resourceyieldsareoptimisedbymaximiz‐ingthenumberoftechnicalcycles(repair,reuse,orremanufacturing)andthetimespentineachofthemultipleusecyclesofproduct.Increasedinflowofvirginmaterialsintotheeconomymaybesubstitutedbycascadingordiversifyingthereuseofproductsacrossvaluechain.Moreover,theuseofuncontaminatedmaterialstreams(pureinputs)canincreasecollectionandredistri‐butionefficiency,andmaintainmaterialqualitythusimprovingproductlongevityandmaterialproductivity.Furthermore, theprincipleof dematerialization(minimizingcomparativemateri‐alsuse)isatplayduringprocessesofdesign,makinganddistributionofproductstoensurere‐useabilitywithlesserchanges,fasterreturns,andhigherpotentialsavings[12].Contrarytothelinearproductionpattern (take,make,waste), this regenerativemode ismanifested inhigherresourceutilityandoptimizationwhileminimisingsupplyrisksandenhancingofnaturalcapital[32]. C2C design protocol, based on the strategy of designing ecologically intelligent productsandprocesses,offersagoodpremiseforCE.Itredefinestheproblemtoaddressitssource,andshiftstheendofpipeliabilitiestoproductdesign.Adesignofindustrialsystemsonthisconceptnecessitates flow ofmaterials in safe, regenerative, closed‐loop cycles. To achieve an optimaleffectivenessclosetothenaturalsystem,inputsandoutputsshouldbesafeandbeneficial[33,34].Industry4.0isanevolutionaryindustrialparadigmcenteredonachievingquality,efficiencyand flexibility at the same time.Businessesneed to converge their capabilities, tomatchwiththiseraoffastpacedandbroadscaledisruptions[35].Themanufacturingsystemsin‘Industry4.0’utilize informationandcommunicationtechnology(ICTfromhereon) infrastructureinaninternet of things to deliver smart products. Cross‐linked value creation modules embeddedwithICTandCyber‐PhysicalSystems(CPS)enableefficientallocationofresources,decentral‐izeddecision‐making,andefficientworkdesignandorganization[36].

SMpracticesareaimedatreductionineachofenergy,water,wasteandemissions,improvedproductquality, enhanced corporate image andmarket competitiveness, better access tonewmarkets, reduced costs, and increased profits. Practices range from very simple process im‐provements to innovative product design [3], and large investments in new technologies forcleanerproduction.Creationofwildlifehabitats,promotionofcommunityengagementandoth‐er external practices e.g. product stewardship can help integrate stakeholders’ views into thebusinessoperationswhilecontributingtoamoresustainableworld[37].Firmsprimarilyfocusonconservingresourceuseandreducingphysicalwastewhichoftenwidenstolifecyclesustain‐abilitythroughadoptionofsuitablepoliciesandtoolswherebyaninitialfocusoninternalopera‐tionsgrowstoinvolveentiresupplychain.

IntegratingSMconceptsandstrategiesintothecoreofbusinessrequireslong‐termdecisionmaking[29]andradicallyrethinkingtheexistingbusinessmodels.Inasystem’sview,activitiesacrossallbusinessfunctionsneedtobefocussedandcoordinatedinsteadofisolatedimprove‐ments in either of product design, manufacturing technology or product end‐of‐life manage‐ment.SMstrategiescanbebroadlycategorizedunderthetwothemesordimensions[14];Eco‐efficiencyisaimedatincreasingeconomicdevelopmentthroughloweringofresourceintensitythroughout the life cycle [38]whileEco‐effectivity isdirectly tied to thereductionofenviron‐mentalorsocialburdens[14].Strategiestakeonadifferentperspectiveateachlevelofenter‐prise.Atthemanufacturingprocesslevel,thefocusisonimprovingefficiencyandquality,opti‐mizationofprocessparameters,andreductioninprocessingcost.Atthesupplychainlevel,con‐siderationmaybegiventotheuseofrenewableenergyacrossthechain,recirculationofprod‐uctsandmaterials intoproduct lifecycles,andeffectivemanagementofrawmaterialsandser‐vicesforanimprovementinsocialandenvironmentalimpacts.Attheenterpriselevel,thefocusisonpolicyanalysis,sustainablebusinessdevelopment,andachievementofbusinessobjectiveslikeproductivity,competitivenessandprofitability.Firmsmaystruggleattheonsetoftheiref‐forts towards SM. Yetmany firms embrace an early success. Their efforts and themanner inwhichcertainintiativesweretakencouldbemimicedandmodelledforgreaterunderstanding.

Hussain, Jahanzaib  

242  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018

Moreover,challengesencounteredbyothersinthecourseofsuccessfultransformationmaybehelpfulfromtheperspectiveofre‐usingtherelevantexperiencesandknowledge.

Manufacturingbusinessesneedsupportandguidanceiftheyaretocontributetosustainableends.Challengesandbarriersfacedneedtobeclarified.Futurechallengesincludecompetitionintermsofbothinputs(resources)andoutputs(productsandservices),diversityofcustomerbase,rapidlychangingconsumerlifestylesandpreferences,increasingbusinessrisksanduncer‐tainties, adherence to regulations, avoiding use of technologies that have adverse impacts onenvironment,and focussingon totaleconomic, social, andenvironmental costofaproduct in‐stead of low cost production [39]. The financial aspect of sustainability initiatives can be anenormous obstacle to the overall progress. Capital investment decisions need to be based oncost benefit justification because technologies required in reducing plant emissions to zeromightbebothcomplexandcostly.Othercommonlyencounteredbarriers includetimeandre‐sourceconstraints,generalbusinessconcerns,andcorporateculture.Aligninginternalcompanyculturewithsustainabilityobjectivesinday‐to‐daybusinessoperationsisnotaneasy.Manufac‐turingbusinessesneedfundamentalchangesintheirmissions,andsignificantimprovementsinwaysofdoingbusiness[16].Existingstrategies,proceduresandstandardsmightneedaradicaltransformationtoadapttothisnewrole.Transformationmightneedaredesignoftheorganiza‐tionwhichmayposedifficultiesinseveralaspectse.g.definingenterprisestructure,boundaries,decisionmakingprocesses,andresolvingconflictinggoalsetc.[40].

Manufacturingbusinessestodayarecopedwithchallengesofincreasingproductvarietyandshorteningproductlifecycles[5,41].Whilelargeanddiversifiedproduct‐mixcancaptureaddi‐tional business opportunities, added economic benefits and enhanced consumer value, it alsoposesincreasedcomplexityandunpredictabilitytothemanufacturingsystem.IncaseofSM,theconcernsareevenlargerintermsofmanagingvarietyacrosstheentireproductlifecycle.Manu‐facturingsystem’sflexibilityandadaptabilityisacriticalrequirementtoaccommodatechangesbrought about due tomanagement ofmultiple generations of a variety of products. From theeconomic perspective, effective resource utilization, and integration of product design withmanufacturingprocesseswillhavetobeensuredtoattainsustainablecompetitiveadvantageintheseenvironments[5].

Sustainabilityassessment,performancemeasurementandreporting isachallengingtask inmanufacturingorganizations[7,27]duetothecomplexityanddynamicsofmanufacturingoper‐ationsanddiverse theoreticalperspectiveson sustainability requirements, oftennormative innature [24].WBCSD, GRI, OECD, ISO,UNEP etc. have developed standards and guidelines, yettherearedifficultiesinseveralaspects.GRI’sgeneralaswellassector‐specificassessmentandreportingguidelinesneedcustomizationfortheirbefittingtotheneedsofafirmanditsstake‐holders. Life Cycle Thinking (LCT), a more popular framework, integrates three elements‐LifecycleAssessmentLCA,LifecycleCostingLCC,andSocialLifecycleAssessmentSLCA‐whichtogetherprovideamethodological framework forLifeCycle SustainabilityAssessment (LCSA)[42,43].AlthoughanLCAstudyhascertainlimitationsandchallenges,itisarobust andmostwidelyusedframeworkforevaluationofpotentialimpactsofaproductduringentirelifecycle[7].However,SLCAandLCCmethodsarerelativelylessdevelopedandlackscientificconsensus‐toofewtoolsandfullydevelopeddatabasesareavailable‐hencerarelyconductedinprocessindustries[43].Despitehugeamountofresearchinsustaiabilityassessment,thereisanabsenceofcomprehensive,universallyacceptedandwidelyapplicablemetrics.Organizationsfindlimita‐tions in termsof interpretationand implementation capabilities relevant to a varietyof tools,indicators,andmetricsonthelist.Organizationsareevenrecognizingtheimportanceofdevel‐opingsustainabilitytoolsandmetricsspecific totheiruniquebusinessenvironment[27] .Therealvalueofassessmentliesinattainingofsustainabilityobjectivesandprovidingvaluablein‐puttodecision‐makersratherthanexternalreportingonly[27,44].Toavoidsub‐optimization,thereisaneedtodevelopframeworksandtools,fromaunifiedandholisticperspective,capabletoassessandmonitortheentireorganizationasasysteminsteadoffocussingonindividualare‐asand functions.Moreover, thevalueadded throughsuchanendeavour shouldbe inbalancewiththeresourcesrequired[27].

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018  243

3. Proposed conceptual framework 

Continuousrenewalofenterpriseintentandtranslatingitintoanimplementationplanisacon‐testedproblem [45].Understanding thenature andpurposeof enterprise, as a startingpoint,mayguideinestablishingrequirementsfromafunctionalperspective.Anenterpriseasasystemconsistsofstructureandprocesseswhichcollectivelyperformeconomicfunction,characterizedbyproductsandservicesdeliveredincontextofanenvironment[46,47].Theprincipalobjectiveofanenterpriseisthe‘development’thatservestocontributetothedevelopmentofitselfandthelargercontainingsystems.Greaterthiscapacitation,betterthefirmscanattaintheirobjec‐tives[48].

Theframeworkproposedinthisresearchisbasedonenterprise'sdesiretocontributetothesustainabilityofsociety,environmentandeconomy,andstaycompettitiveinrelationtochang‐ingcontextualpositionofSM.AspresentedinFig.2,theframeworkasaconceptsystemcontainsthreefunctionalelementsorsubsystemsinterrelatedwitheachother: 'Ideal', 'Strategy', 'Archi‐tecture',andis itselfpartofa largerwhole, i.etheenterprise.Theideal isbestdepictedasanexplorationandchoicecontext.Systematicdiscoveryofopportunitieswithinallimportantbusi‐nessdimensionsandacoevolvedpropositionofproductsandenterprisesystemarewhatun‐derlyeaholisticandclarifiedvisionembeddedwithstakeholders'desires.Theenhancedcapaci‐tytosenseopportunitiesmanifestsintoanimprovedunderstangingofwhatsatisfiesstakehold‐ers,andwhichattributes(ofproduct,system)canleadcompetitiveadvantage?Theidealintentthus evolved serves as a reference to be approached continuously throughout the transfor‐mationcycle.Thestrategyelementisbestrepresentedasamatchandtransformationcontext.Strategic planning is aimed at identification of capabilities correspondingwith opportunities;formulation of policies and guidelines to enble an effective and efficient use of enterprise'smeans;settingofbusinessobjectivesandgoals;andcommitmentofresourcesandassets.Thedesirableconsequenceofthisplanningprocessisabroaderconceptofthebusiness.Continuousidentificationanddevelopmentofcapabilitiesenhancescapacitytoadapttochangingcontexts.Theeffectivenessisreflectedinthespeedanddegreetowhichspecificcapabilitiescanbecreat‐edandmatchedwithopportunities.Thearchitecture,attheoperationallevel,isafunctionandexecution context. It combines capabilities, organization structure and business processes toperfomdesiredfunctionsincontextofanagreeduponbusinessconcept.

Thecontextoftheissue(SM)andhencetheidealintentkeepchanging.Inresponse,thestra‐tegicplanningreformulatesthebusinessconceptandrenewsrelevantcapabilities.Thearchitec‐turereconfigurescapabilitiesandassets toadapt tochangingbusinessneeds.Thiscontinuousprocessharnessesthecapabilitiesandcollectivelearningoftheenterpriseasawholeunderdy‐namicbusinessrequirements.Byoperationalizingtheindividualelementsandmanaginginter‐actionamongthem,amanufacturingenterprisecanbetransformedcontinuouslyandsystemati‐cally in relation to its desired sustainability ends. In subsequent part individual elements areexplainedintermsoftheirrelationshipwitheachotherandwithlargersystems.VariousaspectsofSMarediscussedalongsideasdeemedrelevanttothenatureandscopeofeachelement.

Fig.2Structuralrepresentationofframework

Hussain, Jahanzaib  

244  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018

3.1 Ideal 

Sustainableproductsshouldnotonlybesafeforenvironmentbutalsocreateopportunitiesforlife‐systems, inaddition tosatisfying theneedsofbusinessandsociety.Determiningwhat theenvironment (life system)actuallywants, toattain itsownends, isbeyondscientificdelibera‐tion, andseemsunattainable.Nevertheless,businesses canapproach this limitby consistentlyturningsocialneedsanddesirestoenvironmentaladvantagespecifically,rathermerelycreatingopportunities that couldpositively impact [49].Thiscouldserveasan ideal tobeapproachedendlessly.Applehasrecentlypronouncedtomoveitsentiresupplychaintoclosedloopandre‐newable energy in the wake of undeniable climate change and depleting earth resources.Thoughitseemsunattainablecurrentlyasthereportsays,“Itsoundscrazy,butwe’reworkingonit”,Applehasembarkedonitsjourneybylaunchingprojectsrelatedtocapabilitiesenhance‐mentandtechnologydevelopment[50].

AnSMenterprisedeliversincontextofahierarchyoflargersystems:industry(economicsys‐tem);marketplace and society (social system); and eco‐systemor environment. Stakeholders’interestscansignificantlydrivemanufacturingtowardssustainabilityandcompetitiveness[51].Thiswholesystem’sviewhelpsunderstandthewayamanufacturingenterpriseinteractswithitssurroundings,throughouttheentirelifecycleofproducts.Morepragmatically,however,theidealcanbechoseninrelationtoopportunitieswithinpresentandfuturecontextofSM,contin‐uouslychangingbusinessenvironment,andSMprinciples,practicesandindustrycallenges.Be‐causeexternalenvironmentkeepschanging,itnecessitatesproposingofproductsandtechnolo‐gyinalargercontext,i.e.emergingsocialandenvironmentalneeds,andtrendsandchangesinbusinessenvironment(e.gindustrydrivers,technologicalinnovation,productlinesandcompet‐itive priorities etc.). This concept is presented in Fig. 3. Through this systemic inquiry, stake‐holders’desirescanbetranslatedintofullrangeofpotentialbusinessopportunities,anddesiredproperties and boundaries of enterprise system. To validate the content of a proposed ideal,interactiveplanning(IP)suggeststwomeans:1)inter‐subjectivityandconsensusamongstake‐holderswithregardtoaproposal,and2)experimentalfeasibility[52].

Creatingavision isakeyrequirement forsuccessfulorganizationalchange,consistentwithAckoff’snotionofanidealizeddesign.Re‐designandtransformationaredesiredconsequencesofathoughtfullysynthesizedvision.Externalvision(insights,beliefs,andassumptions)isbasedoninterpretationofall thefactors inthecontextthathaveanimpactonfirm'soperationsandperformance.Contextcanbeviewedasafieldofrelatedparts[53],constructedforanissue,saySM.Descriptionsofcontextualpatternwithinthissocio‐ecologicalfieldformthepresentcontext.Inregardstofuture,scenariosarechosenthatdescribealternative,comparablyplausiblelinesofchangingoverallfieldconditions.Althoughthereisnowayofdesignatingtheonefuturethatismostlikelytoemerge[54],scenarioscanfacilitatecognitionofmultiplepossiblefuturesincon‐cretedetailandguidethecontextspecificdesignofnewbusinessconceptsorinnovatingaroundexistingones.Businessenvironmentisasortofdesignspace,acontextinwhichtoconceiveoradapt the business. In fast‐paced competitive environments, assumptions about how marketforces,industryforcesandemergingtrendsunfoldgiveusthedesignspacetodeveloppotentialbusinessoptions[55].

TheboradenedscopeofactivitiesinSM,andlargenumberofactorsalongthevaluechainne‐cessitateallconcernedtohaveavoiceindecisionspertainingtoproducts, technology,market,andenterprisesystemat large.GuidedbySystem’smethodsrelevant tostakeholders’engage‐ment,andAckoff’sinteractiveplanning(IP)andhisviewoftheorganizationassocialsystemicinnature,theprocessofco‐creatingtheidealintentcanbemademorevaluable.Firm’sstakehold‐ers and their participation are centric to this process. We need to understand stakeholders’needsand interests, andpregressivelycombine them.Byestablishingagenerativecontext fortheengagementofdiverseperspectivesofmultiplestakeholders,asynergisticpropositioncanbeevolvedthatismeaningfulinacontextofuse[56].Animportantinsightisthatnoparticipa‐tiveprocesscan includeeverypossibleperspective, i.e.comprehension is impossible. Inan in‐terconnectedworld, knowing about any situationhas limits orboundaries [57]. In relation tosystemboundary,weneed todeterminewhat is inour control,who (peopleand issues) is toinclude,howtojustifyexclusions,andhowtoaddressmarginalization.

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018  245

Fig.3Evolvingsystemideal

3.2 Strategy 

Anenterprise’squesttowardsitsultimateendsiscorrespondingwiththecapabilitiespossessedbyitsends‐seekingsystem.Strategicintentofthefirmissoughtmainlytoconveythepurposeoftheenterpriseandhowit isexpectedtoperforminrelationtothoseends.Strategicobjectivesset thedirection fordesigningbusinesssolutionsandshapingoperationalstructure[58].Poli‐ciesgoverntheselectionofmeansandinstrumentsbywhichtheobjectivesaretobepursued,andprinciplesareformulationsofvaluestobepreservedinsuchselections[48].Principlespro‐videguidance inmakingstrategicallyconsistentchoices fromtheperspectiveofsustainability.Capabilities, derived from strategic principles, are a core concept to communicate and realizestrategicintent.Buildingofcapabilitieshasemergedasanewapproachunderstrategicplanning[59]tomaintaincompetitiveadvantageandattainlong‐termbusinesssustainabilityinaturbu‐lentenvironment.Afirmneedsspecificcapabilitiestoenhanceitscapacitytocreatesustainablevalueandadapttochangingcircumstancesfasterthancompetitors.Thestrategicplanningpro‐cess,usingidealintentasasasetofinputs,yieldsstrategicintentmanifestedinanagreeduponbusinessconcept.Thisprocess ispresented inFig.4.Capabilities identified inthisprocessarebuiltalongsidetoenablemeaningfulexecutionofthisbusinessconcept.Capabilitiesaresuperiorbusinessprocesses,representedasasetofknowledge,skills,andcompetences[60].Thecapa‐bilityof organization as awhole is ahigh‐level routine (or collectionof routines)which com‐bines tasks fromdifferentbusiness functions intoaparticularoutputorsolutionofsignificantimportancetothefirm[61].Capabilitiesnotonlyprovideaplatformforstrategybutalsoimpactgrowthandprofitabilitywhich in turnprovidemeans for furtherstrengthingof them.For themanufacturingsectorthisviewofstrategyhasimportantbearingsonorganization’sskillbase,anddynamicdecisionmakingespeciallyoninfrastructuralaspects[59].Theprinciples,policies,

Fig.4Evolvingstrategicintent

Hussain, Jahanzaib  

246  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018

and systems of actions, underlying the infrastructural choices (Organization, manufacturingplanningandcontrol,quality,newproductintroductionandhumanresources),governandrein‐forcethecapabilitiesandresourcesthataffectafirm’soperations.

Strategicimportanceofbuildingcapabilitiesisbeingrealizedbeyondmerecompetitiverea‐sonsdue to a shift in strategy focus fromdecreasing costs to increasing addedvalue [62]. Toembrace sustainability as anewbusinessopportunity inmanufacturing, a firm’skeymanage‐mentfunctionistobridgethegapbetweenstrategic intentandrequiredcapabilities.Capabili‐tiesneedtobedevelopedinalloftheimportantbusinessdimensions(product,market,technol‐ogyetc.)tocaptureentirerangeofopportunities.Thefutureofmanufacturingindustryischar‐acterizedbycapabilitiesinskillsdevelopment,CE,technologyandinnovation,supplychaininte‐grationanddigitization.Pre‐production(R&D,productdesign)capabilitiesincludethosetode‐velopeinnovativeproductconceptsanditssupportingtechnology.Withinproductionsegment,overallcapabilitiescanbeaddedtobyundertakingfabricationofincreasinglycomplexandin‐novativeproducts,flexibileoperationsandoptimizedprocessplanning,andimprovingresourceefficiency through new fabrication methods. In post‐production segment, capabilities are re‐quiredintermsofefficiencyandreliabilitytoperformmarketing,distribution,andEoLactivities[35].Both the individuals' learning capacity (competence)andcapabilitiesof theorganizationarecentraltoinnovatingthebusinessinmoresustainablewaysandaccommodatenewneedsofsustainability.Table1illustratesthesecapabilitiesalongwithsalientrequirementstoattainthem.

Table1Capabilitiesforsustainablemanufacturing

Capability Salientrequirements

Integratingsustainabilityintothecoreofbusiness

Adoptabusinessperspective,andtransformthetraditionalbusinessmindset. Innovationinbusinesstoturnenvironmentalandsocialconcernstocompetitiveadvantagewithoutincurringincreasedcosts.

Articulateandmaintainaholisticviewofsustainablevalueaimedatproposingabalancedvalueanddistributionofeconomiccostsandbenefitsamongallactors.

Judiciouscommitmentoffinancialresourcestoinvestmentopportunities. Create differentiated and innovative businessmodels and enhance capacity to create, adjust andreplacebusinessmodels.

Identificationandevaluationofopportunities

Gatheringandfilteringofinformationfrombothinsideandoutsidetheenterprise,andfromcoreaswellastheperipheryofrelevantbusinessenvironment.

Comprehendingthelikelyevolutionofindustry,technology,andmarketplace. Establishsearchanddiscoverymethodsandprocedures,andallocateresources. Enhanceinterpretiveskillsofindividualsandlearningcapacityoftheorganization. Aassessmentofrelevantopportunitiesthroughdecisionrulesandinformedconjectures.

Buildingofindividualskillsandcompetence

Education and training focussedmainly on internalization of sustainability concepts, creative andinnovationabilities,functionalcapabilitiesandlife‐cycle‐thinking.

Building of cross‐domain skills (technology, engineering, electronics, robotics, computational andcomputersciences)toperformmanufacturingfunctionsinindustriesoffuture.

Cost‐effective, innovative and exploratory teachingmethods e.g. in‐person training and coaching,experientialenvironmentsanddigitalmethods.

Adoptingastucturedapproachforcapabilityalignmentandassessment, i.e. tools,methods,proce‐dures,quantitativetargets,crediblemetricsetc.

Operationaliza‐tionofCE

Cultureadaptation,transitionprocesses,andstrategicdirectiontoappreciatedifficulties. Technologicalcapabilitiesforanimprovedreverselogisticset‐upaimedathighvaluerecovery. StrategicuseofICTtoestablishanefficientcollaborationandknowledgesharing. Capitalizingoninformationvaluetoaccelerateinnovationindesign,andidentifymoreopportunitiesforadditionalvaluecreationacrossthechain.

Productlifecycleplanningwithaclearfocusonproductreuse/re‐manufacturing. Understandingmaterials(formulation,quality,innovationetc.),andabroaderintegrationofmateri‐alscienceintothebusinesscaseandacrossvaluechain.

Productdesign&development

Effectivemanagementofdesignprocesswithinalifecyclethinkingframework. Captureandreusetheknowledgeacquiredthroughoutthelifecycletomodifyexistingdesigns. Understandingthecriticalityofdecisionsatearlystagesofdesigninviewoflifecyclecosts. Usefewermaterials,renewablematerials,non‐hazardousmaterials,andsubstitutematerials. Evaluatematerialsagainstchosencriteriae.g.servicelife,recoverability,separateabilityetc. Designproducts that consume lesser resourcesduringproduction,packing,distribution, recovery,reuse,re‐manufactureandrecycling.

Evaluatecompetingproductdesignsforpriceandecologicalimpact. Designproductsthatarere‐usable,re‐manufacturable,recyclable,andbio‐degradable.

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018  247

Table1(Continuation)

Evaluatereusability,andremanufacturabilityofdesignalternativesviapre‐determinedcriteriae.g.technologicalandeconomicfeasibility,andenvironmentalbenefits.

LCA,cost‐benefitanalysisandfinancialmodellingtorevealpotentialdesignsforincorporation. Incorporatedesign for sustainability (DfX) andother strategies e.g. design forupgrade,design fordisassembly,designformodularity,anddesignforreliabilityetc.

Productionanddelivery

Innovationandflexibilityinproductionandprocesstechnology. Chooseanddevelopproductionprocessesthatareefficient,resourceconserving,processingofmin‐imummaterial,andlesspolluting.

Understand technology, energy andmaterial as three interrelated components, vital to improvingresourceefficiency.

Effectivedeploymentanduseofinnovativetechnologies(e.g.ICT)forprocesscontrol,energysaving,productionefficiency,andsafetyetc.

Efficienttransportationandlogisticstoreduceenvironmentalimpactandcostofdistribution.

Endoflife(EoL)management

Establishmentofreverselogisticsactivities,andtheiralignmentwithaftermarketandremarkettingbusinesses.

Userfriendlyandcostefficientcollectionandsegregationdependingonproductquality,andeffec‐tivesegmentationtosupportdynamicrecoveryandeconomicsofvaluecapture.

CapitalizeonknowledgeacquiredduringlifecyletofacilitateEoLprocesses. Devise processes that enable product re‐usability with minimum possible resources to gain bestenvironmentalandeconomicadvantages.

LeverageexternalresourcestoincreasethethroughputandperformanceofEoLprocessese.g.out‐sourcing the coreacquisition, integrating the supply chainwith aftermarketdivisions, andaccom‐plishingeconomiesofscaleinre‐manufacturingbysharingresourceswithothers.

Standards

Establishnormsandrulesthatleadtoasignificantreductionofactivitiesandtransactioncosts. Strategicuseofstandardstoaddtothefirm’scapabilitiesandmanufacturingbase,re‐engineeringofthetechnologyandprocesses,andredesignofproducts.

Adoptionofinternationalstandardstowardsafasterknowledgeacquisitionandtechnologicaltran‐sition.

Establishinguniformstandardsalong thevaluechain for standardizationofproduct‐related infor‐mation,completelifecycleassessmentofproducts,sustainabilityperformanceevaluationofallup‐streamanddownstreampartners,andoptimizationofendproductsustainability.

Efficientcollaborationanddataexchange,distributionofrightinformationinafastandreliableway,andholisticmanagementofcomplextasksthroughtheuseofcommunicationstandards.

Allignmentandcollaboration

Extending capabilities in terms of exploiting additional resources through broad‐based externalsearchandcloseinteractionandcollaborationwithotherenterprises,entitiesandinstitutionsinthebusinessenvironmentandsociety.

Strategicinvolvementofcustomersinproductdesignanddevelopmentwiththeaimtoincludetheirperspective in value proposition, discover new opportunities and businessmodels, developmoresuccessfulandradicalvaluecreationsolutions,reduceproductcosts,anticipatethepotentialforap‐plyingnewtechnologies,andretaincustomerslonger.

Extendingcapabilities in termsofexploitingadditional resourcesor shifting certainactivities (e.g.procurement,productdesignetc.).

Establishingstrategicpartneringwithsuppliertocapturebenefitsofeconomiesofscalebyoutsourc‐ingtocontractmanufacturersandlargesuppliers,assimiliatingthecapabilityofsuppliersintermsof thosecapabilities thatareclosely linkedandmutually reinforcing, capitalizingonrapid innova‐tionsbycomponentsuppliersaheadofthecompetition,improvingsupplieroperations,andoptimiz‐ing supplier‐manufacturer interface to reducematerial costsandgainabetter insightonenviron‐mentalimpactreductionopportunitiesalongthesupplychain.

Leveraging benefits of co‐specialization and complementary innovations towards differentiatedproduct offerings and unique cost savings, improved performance, sustainable competitive ad‐vantage,andenhancedentrepreneurialcapacities.

3.3 Architecture 

Thearchitectureservesthepurposeofrealizinganagreeduponbusinessconcept,formulatedaspartoffirm'sstrategicintent.It linksbusinessstrategywithbusinessrolesandprocesses,andstructures the responsibility overbusiness activities along the value chain [46]. It determineseffectiveness inattainingfirm’sobjectiveskeeping inviewtheirstrategic impact.Froma func‐tional perspective, it manages interaction among structure, processes and activities, and re‐sourcesandcapabilitiestodeliversustainablevaluetoallstakeholders.Thisconceptispresent‐ed in Fig. 5.Within its functional framework, it utilizes a common andpreferably customizedknowledgebasethatallowsmanipulationofinformationaboutdifferentbusinessaspectsfromavarietyofperspectives.

Hussain, Jahanzaib  

248  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018

Fig.5Architectureframeworkforsustainablevaluecreation

Insystem'sview,architecturedesigninvolvesaholisticunderstandingofhowfunction,pos‐sible structures and processes should interact and communicate with each other to producedesiredoutputs,withinalargercontext.Theplanning,learning,andcontrolfunctionisthusanintegralelementhere,responsibletoevaluatetheeffectivenessoforganizationasawhole[10].Infunctionaldesignprocess,acomprehensivereviewofthestrategicintentisconductedfirsttounderstandbusinesspriorities,relationshipamongobjectivesandtransformationrequirements.BAroleisthendeterminedinrelationtobusinessneedsincludingrequiredcapabilitiesandcoreactivities.Thedetailedbusinessanalysisnextestablishesaclearviewofthebusinessintermsofitsorganizationandvaluechainstructure.Thefinalsolutiondictatesinitiatives(e.g.investmentanalysis,newproductrollout,capabilityoutsourcingetc.)andmeasurementcriteriarelevanttoset objectives. This process, however, is ongoing and continues to redeem the once finalzedstructure, processes, activities and even the business concept. Analogous to Checkland's [63]abstract concept of ‘system as an adaptive whole’, an architecture responds to the changingneedsandrequirements, interactivelymanagesthevaluecreation factors,andestablishesa fitbetweenproblemspaceandproposedsolution.Thedesirableemergentpropertiescharacteriz‐ingsuchasystemcouldbee.g.auniqueanddifferentiatedbusinessvalueorimprovedsustaina‐bilityperformanceetc.

Environmentalandsocialconcernstoday,changingmarketneeds,technologicalinnovations,andcapabilitiesbasedcompetitionaredrivingmanufacturingbusinessestowardssustainability.Structuralflexibilityontheotherhandmustcomplementtheprevalentdimensionofthecompe‐tition;basedoneitherofnewproductofferings,marketdominanceortechnologicalleadership,towardsanefficientandconflictfreeinternalenvironment.Amultidimensionalmodeofstruc‐ture–capableofproducingdifferentoutcomesinthesameordifferentenvironments–canin‐teractively manage the interdependent business dimensions thus eliminating the need for achangeof emphasis fromonebusinessorientation to another [10,48]. [45]Strategic intent isinterdependentwith firm’s operational structurewhich establishes relations between people,process, technology,managerial aspects, and information. The operational structuremust en‐sure thatwealth creation, cost reduction, and environmental and social perfromance are im‐provedsimultaneouslytosupportthesustainabilitystrategy.

Processesareprimarilyconcernedwithhowtheactualoutput(s)istobeproducedthroughanintegratedchainofactivitiesperformedbydifferentgroupsinanorganization,withastronginterface among them. Processes are technologically driven and subject to continuous changeandimprovement.Afirmmustcomprehendtherelevanceoftechnologiestoemergingcompeti‐tivechallenges,understandtheflowandinterfacebetweensystemelements,andacquireopera‐tionalknowledgeofprocesses.Inaddition,thesetechnologicalprocessesshouldmaintaincom‐patibilitywithalreadyinplaceorganizationalprocessesthatareconcernedwithcreatinginte‐gration,alignmentandsynergyamong thepartsofanorganization [10].A firm’scorecompe‐tence (unique resources and strengths)drives its coreprocesses. In caseof SM, the corepro‐cessesinthechainincludedesignanddevelopmentofnewproducts,productionanddeliveryofproducts,andEOLmanagement.SalientrequirementsintermsofcapabilityoftheseprocesseshavebeenillustratedinTable1.Eachprocessmustbedesignedtoachieveitspriorities.Opera‐tionaleffectivenessoftheseprocessesmaybeassessedwithkeymetricscorrespondingtothose

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness 

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018  249

keyactivities in thevalue chain that influence the criticaldimensionsof sustainabilityperfor‐mance. Inaddition tokeyactivities, the firmneeds toperformotheressentialactivitiese.g. totrainitsworkforce,todevelopnewcapabilities,andtolinknewactivitiestotheexistingactivitysystem[64].Thenatureofproductsandservices,andtheactivitiesperformedtodeliverthemcollectivelydetermine thestructureofvaluechain [46].Thechoicesoncontent, structureandgovernanceofactivitiesshapethearchitectureintermsofwherethesearetobeperformedandwhatkindofresourcesarerequiredtoperformthem?Theentirecollectionofactivitiescanbemanagedconvenientlybyaggregatingthematdifferentlevels(majorfunctionsattop‐levelandspecificactivitiesatlowestlevel)[64],orsegregatingthemaccordingtotheircore,supportingorperipheralnature.

4. Discussion 

Theproposedconceptualapproachrestsonsomekeytenets,elaboratedinsection3,whichcol‐lectivelycouldenable long‐termsustainability (ability to transformandmaintaincompetitive‐ness)formanufacturingbusinesses;amongthemgreatercapacitationofbusinessestocontrib‐ute to sustainable development, understanding stakeholders' needs and intersts, a coevolvedvision and business proposition, enhanced capacity to discover opportunities systematically,learningcapacity,competenceandadptabilityof individualsandorganization,buildingofcon‐textspecificcapabilitiesinallcoresegmentsofthebusinessandtheirstrategicusetowardscre‐atingaddedvalue,innovativesolutionsandfasterresponcetochangingmarketneedsandtech‐nologicalchallenges,andholisticunderstandingofproblemsandsolutionsinalargercontexttoimproveeconomic,environmental andsocialperfromancesimultaneously .Theexistingsocialenvironmentand levelofeconomicdevelopmentofacountrycouldberelevant/significant inview of implementation of proposed concept across its entire manufacturing sector. Specificstrategiesandpoliciesthatconsiderbotheconomicgrowthandsocialdevelopmentarevitaltonurtureanenvironmentforsustainablebusinessdevelopment.Leadingacompetitiveadvantagedemandseducatedandcompetentmanpower.Qualityofeducationhasadirectimpactonskilllevels of individuals. Equal opportunities for education, training, employment and health in‐creaseproductivity andgrowth.Exploration and capturingofnewbusinessopportunities is aknowledge intensiveandenterpreneurialendeavour.Nationalpolicies formatchingskillswithbusinessneedscouldaddtotheabilityofbusinessestotransformandcreatenewvalue.Strongfinancialmeansinacountryandbetteraccesstothose,alongwithothersupportingconditions,mayencourageentrepreneurshipandpursuitsofcompetitivenessandinnovativeness.Nationalspendingonresearchanddevelopmentcouldpavethewayforstrongcollaborativenetworksinasocietywhichfosterco‐creation.

Theproposedconceptual frameworkservesasaguideline inenablingcontinuous transfor‐mationandcompetitivenessof amanufacturingenterprise.However, it isnotan implementa‐tionmethodologyoraprocedureinitselfthatexpliciltydefinesanypreferenceastohowtogetthere.Itwillbeinstantiatedusingachosenordevelopedmethodology;conceptualframeworks,generally,donot includeor implyanyprocessmodel for implementation.Nevertheless,usefulinsightshavebeendrawnfromrelevantresearchinreferencetoenterprise.First,formalizationorstandardizationofproposedframework’selements,incontextofspecificmanufacturingenvi‐ronment, is critical for its consistency and common understanding acrossmanagement levelsandcommonpeople.Anexplicitmanagementproceduremaybeestablishedtoenablesystemat‐ic implementation and execution through relevant tools and techniques. Potential challengesandanyunforeseenconditionsorobstacles,posedbythedynamicsof theexternalor internalenvironment,maybeidentified.Buildingarobustcultureofsustainabilityisvitaltosuccessfulimplementationofproposedconcept.Sustainabilityeducationandskillsinthedomainofchangemanagement andorganizationalbehaviour are critical todeploymentprocess.Top levelman‐agementmustleadtheimplementationprocesstoelevateitsstatus.Employeeswhounderstandday‐to‐daybusinessroutinesmaybeencouragedtogettheminvolvedingeneratinginnovativeideas.Implementationobjectivesshouldbedefined.Moreover,itneedstobeassuredthatspeci‐fied initiatives and activities contribute to transformation goals throughout the course of im‐

Hussain, Jahanzaib  

250  Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018

plementation.Communicatingtotheemployeesandotherstakeholdersthatwhythecompanyhaschosenthiscontinuoustransformationpath,i.e.“ideal—strategy—architecture”isessential.Pertinenthere is to frameand relate stakeholders' apprehensions in anunderstandable form.Companywidecommuniqué,atthebareminimum,mayincludebusinessneeds,implementationissuesandrequirements,andexpectedbenefitsofsuchatransformativechangeorredesign.

Despiteaboverecommendations,anaveragemanufacturingenvironmentmayyetfacemul‐tiplechallengesonthewaytobecomeasustainablecompetitivefirminaccordancewithtrans‐formationpathproposedinthisresearch.Capturingopportunitiesforsustainablevaluecreationandbuildingandevaluationofcapabilities(Table1)arenolessthanaparadigmshiftforsuchenvironments.Theproposedconceptiscentredonsustainabilitybeingacorecomponentofthebusiness (strategy) alongwith its continual renewal to gain long‐term successwhile averagemanufacturersmostoftentargetshort‐termeconomicgains.Nevertheless,adeliberatesupportfromgovernmentandsociety, invariousaspects,couldplayasignificantparttobringthematparwithproposedrequirementsthroughasystematicincrementalapproach.Identificationandevaluationofopportunities(idealizationstage)couldbeaknowledgeintensiveandcostlyaffairposingresourceconstraints.Thisprocessmaybefacilitatedthroughanetworkofmanufactur‐ers, researchers anddomain experts therebyhelping traditionalmanufacturers seekalternateproductsandnewmarketstocreatecompetitiveadvantage.Expertsinculturalassessmentandchangemanagementcanassistindevelopingandpromotingacompanycultureneededforinte‐gratingsustainabilityintotheeverydaybusiness.Governmentcansponsorparticipationmecha‐nisms during idealization and strategic planning stage that could enable businesses to createnewvalueinnovativelywithexistingresourcesinsteadofhugeinvestmentsinnewtechnology.Evaluation of resource efficiency and lifecycle impacts needs specialized skillswherein provi‐sionscanbemadeforfreeofcostavailabilityofsuchservices.Allsuchinitiatives,atsignificantlylowcosttobusinesses,couldmotivatethemtowardsimplementationofproposedconcept. 

5. Conclusion 

Despite enormous research on SM, rarely the studies have focussed on continuous businesstransformation according to stakeholders’ desires while maintaining competitiveness in achangingcontext.Thisresearchtriedto fill thisgapby firstrecognizingtheneed foraholisticand systemic representation of the issue along with a potentially viable approach embeddedwithcapabilitytointegratesustainabilityconceptsinmanufacturing.Acomprehensiveoverviewoftheissue,contributedbynumerousaspects,providedanoveralldesigncontext.Aholisticandintegratedprocessofplanningandrealizationwasaspiredinrelationtosustainabilitygoalsanda systematic transformation. Ultimately, frameworkwas designed to provide a simplistic andprogressiveapproachthatcouldproduceconsistentlythesustainableoutcomes,andmeetpro‐posedends.The threeelements that jointlyconstitute thisapproach, i.e. ‘Ideal’, ‘Strategy’,and‘Architecture’, have been presented from their functional perspective and contextual relationwitheachotherandlargercontext.Asystemicplatformisthusestablishedbyconstructingandoperationalizing the individual elements. The dependency and relationship of elements witheachotherdrivestheconclusionthatwhenexecutedinisolation,eachelementcouldstillcreatevaluebutlimitedtoitscontextofuseandinitiatingchoices.Theholisticviewcanmaximizethecumulativesustainablevaluebymanagingtheinteractionamongitselements,andmaintainingthe traceability from proposed ideal to strategic intent, and finally to architecturewhich hasimplicationsforfunctionaleffectivenessoftheenterprise.Transformationcanbemoreeffective‐ly achieved and repeated by accomplishingwhat is necessary and in concertwith stakehold‐ers’desires within each of the three elements. The enhanced capacity of enterprise to satisfytheserequirements is thekeytoattainproposedsustainabilityends.Continuous identificationand re‐newal of capabilities build this capacity to exploit opportunities for sustainable valuecreation.

Embracing thisconceptual frameworkand itssystematicoperationalizationwilldrivecon‐tinuoustransformationofaSMbusinessinafastpacedenvironment.Italsoseemsfairtocon‐cludethatproposed frameworkcanplayacriticalrole inmaintainingcompetitivenesssince it

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness

suggests several capabilities whereby challenges can be addressed through meeting salient re-quirements underlying each capability. However, the framework is not yet embedded with methodology, procedures or tools for implementation, and there is room for further comprehen-sion in terms of implementation strategy. Further research is needed in actual settings to con-firm whether it can achieve the claimed ojectives in diverse manufacturing environments. The experience so gained will demonstrate its conceptualized role of integrating sustainability re-quirements and addressing challenges, pertinent to manufacturing businesses.

References [1] Duflou, J.R., Sutherland, J.W., Dornfeld, D., Herrmann, C., Jeswiet, J., Kara, S., Hauschild, M., Kellens, K. (2012).

Towards energy and resource efficient manufacturing: A processes and systems approach, CIRP Annals, Vol. 61, No. 2, 587-609, doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2012.05.002.

[2] Bi, Z. (2011). Revisiting system paradigms from the viewpoint of manufacturing sustainability, Sustainability, Vol. 3, No. 9, 1323-1340, doi: 10.3390/su3091323.

[3] Garetti, M., Taisch, M. (2012). Sustainable manufacturing: Trends and research challenges, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 23, No. 2-3, 83-104, doi: 10.1080/09537287.2011.591619.

[4] Gopalakrishnan, K., Yusuf, Y.Y., Musa, A., Abubakar, T., Ambursa, H.M. (2012). Sustainable supply chain manage-ment: A case study of British aerospace (BAE) systems, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140, No. 1, 193-203, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.003.

[5] ElMaraghy, H., Schuh, G., ElMaraghy, W., Piller, F., Schönsleben, P., Tseng, M., Bernard, A. (2013). Product variety management, CIRP Annals, Vol. 62, No. 2, 629-652, doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2013.05.007.

[6] Jawahir, I.S., Bradley, R. (2016). Technological elements of circular economy and the principles of 6R-based closed-loop material flow in sustainable manufacturing, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 40, 103-108, doi: 10.1016/j.procir. 2016.01.067.

[7] Zhang, H., Calvo-Amodio, J., Haapala, K.R. (2015). Establishing foundational concepts for sustainable manufac-turing systems assessment through systems thinking, International Journal of Strategic Engineering Asset Management, Vol. 2, No. 3, 249-269, doi: 10.1504/IJSEAM.2015.072124.

[8] Lönngren, J., Svanström, M. (2016), Systems thinking for dealing with wicked sustainability problems: Beyond functionalist approaches, In: Leal Filho, W., Nesbit, S. (eds.), New developments in engineering education for sustainable development, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 151-160, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32933-8_14.

[9] Jackson, M.C. (2006). Creative holism: A critical systems approach to complex problem situations, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 23, No. 5, 647-657, doi: 10.1002/sres.799.

[10] Gharajedaghi, J. (2011), Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture, Third edition, Elsevier, Burlington, USA.

[11] Gaziulusoy, A.I. (2015). A critical review of approaches available for design and innovation teams through the perspective of sustainability science and system innovation theories, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 107, 366-377, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.012.

[12] World Economic Forum (prepared in collaboration with Ellen MacArthur Foundation and McKinsey & Company). Towards the circular economy: Accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ENV_TowardsCircularEconomy_Report_2014.pdf, accessed August 23, 2016.

[13] Teece, D.J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enter-prise performance, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28, No. 13, 1319-1350, doi: 10.1002/smj.64.

[14] Oertwig, N., Galeitzke, M., Schmieg, H.-G., Kohl, H., Jochem, R., Orth, R., Knothe, T. (2017). Integration of sustainability into the corporate strategy, In: Stark, R., Seliger, G., Bonvoisin, J. (eds.), Sustainable manufacturing: Challenges, solutions and implementation perspectives, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-48514-0.

[15] Tonelli, F., Evans, S., Taticchi, P. (2013). Industrial sustainability: Challenges, perspectives, actions, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Vol. 7, No. 2, 143-163, doi: 10.1504/IJBIR.2013.052576.

[16] Koho, M., Tapaninaho, M., Heilala, J., Torvinen, S. (2015). Towards a concept for realizing sustainability in the manufacturing industry, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, Vol. 32, No. 1, 12-22, doi: 10.1080/ 21681015.2014.1000402.

[17] Subic, A., Shabani, B., Hedayati, M., Crossin, E. (2012). Capability framework for sustainable manufacturing of sports apparel and footwear, Sustainability, Vol. 4, No. 9, 2127-2145, doi: 10.3390/su4092127.

[18] Masood, I., Jahanzaib, M., Haider, A. (2016). Tool wear and cost evaluation of face milling grade 5 titanium alloy for sustainable machining, Advances in Production Engineering & Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, doi: 10.14743/ apem2016.3.224.

[19] Hassine, H., Barkallah, M., Bellacicco, A., Louati, J., Riviere, A., Haddar, M. (2015). Multi objective optimization for sustainable manufacturing, application in turning, International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 14, No. 1, 98-109, doi: 10.2507/IJSIMM14(1)9.292.

[20] Govindan, K., Soleimani, H., Kannan, D. (2015). Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain: A comprehensive review to explore the future, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 240, No. 3, 603-626, doi: 10.1016/ j.ejor.2014.07.012.

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018 251

Hussain, Jahanzaib

[21] Schenkel, M., Caniëls, M.C.J., Krikke, H., van der Laan, E. (2015). Understanding value creation in closed loop supply chains – Past findings and future directions, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 37, Part 3, 729-745, doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.009.

[22] Ageron, B., Gunasekaran, A., Spalanzani, A. (2012). Sustainable supply management: An empirical study, Inter-national Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140, No. 1, 168-182, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.007.

[23] Galal, N.M., El-Kilany, K.S. (2016). Sustainable agri-food supply chain with uncertain demand and lead time, International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 15, No. 3, 485-496, doi: 10.2507/IJSIMM15(3)8.350.

[24] Fiksel, J. (2003). Designing resilient, sustainable systems, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 37, No. 23, 5330-5339, doi: 10.1021/es0344819.

[25] Fiksel, J. (2012). A systems view of sustainability: The triple value model, Environmental Development, Vol. 2, 138-141, doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.015.

[26] Moldavska, A. (2016). Model-based sustainability assessment – An enabler for transition to sustainable manu-facturing, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 48, 413-418, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.059.

[27] Moldavska, A., Welo, T. (2016). Development of manufacturing sustainability assessment using systems thinking, Sustainability, Vol. 8, No. 1, doi: 10.3390/su8010005.

[28] Terzi, S., Bouras, A., Dutta, D., Garetti, M., Kiritsis, D. (2010). Product lifecycle management – From its history to its new role, International Journal of Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, 360-389, doi: 10.1504/IJPLM. 2010.036489.

[29] Alayón, C., Säfsten, K., Johansson, G. (2016). Conceptual sustainable production principles in practice: Do they reflect what companies do?, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141, 693-701, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.079.

[30] Esmaeilian, B., Behdad, S., Wang, B. (2016). The evolution and future of manufacturing: A review, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 39, 79-100, doi: 10.1016/j.jmsy.2016.03.001.

[31] Haas, W., Krausmann, F., Wiedenhofer, D., Heinz, M. (2015). How circular is the global economy?: An assessment of material flows, waste production, and recycling in the European union and the world in 2005, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 19, No. 5, 765-777, doi: 10.1111/jiec.12244.

[32] Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards a circular economy: Business rationale for an accelerated transition, from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/TCE_Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation_9-Dec-2015.pdf, accessed October 7, 2016.

[33] McDonough, W., Braungart, M., Anastas, P.T., Zimmerman, J.B. (2003). Peer reviewed: Applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 37, No. 23, 434-441, doi: 10.1021/es0326322.

[34] McDonough, W., Braungart, M. (2002). Design for the triple top line: New tools for sustainable commerce, Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol. 9, No. 3, 251-258, doi: 10.1016/S1066-7938(02)00069-6.

[35] World Economic Forum. Manufacturing our future: Cases on the future of manufacturing, from http://www3. weforum.org/docs/GAC16_The_Future_of_Manufacturing_report.pdf, accessed May 2, 2017.

[36] Stock, T., Seliger, G. (2016). Opportunities of sustainable manufacturing in industry 4.0, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 40, 536-541, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.129.

[37] Miroshnychenko, I., Barontini, R., Testa, F. (2017). Green practices and financial performance: A global outlook, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 147, 340-351, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.058.

[38] Abdul Rashid, S.H., Evans, S., Longhurst, P. (2008). A comparison of four sustainable manufacturing strategies, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 3, 214-229, doi: 10.1080/19397030802513836.

[39] Chatha, K., Butt, I. (2015). Themes of study in manufacturing strategy literature, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35, No. 4, 604-698, doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-07-2013-0328.

[40] Kappelman, L.A., Zachman, J.A. (2013). The enterprise and its architecture: Ontology & challenges, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 53, No. 4, 87-95, doi: 10.1080/08874417.2013.11645654.

[41] van Iwaarden, J., van der Wiele, T. (2012). The effects of increasing product variety and shortening product life cycles on the use of quality management systems, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 29, No. 5, 470-500, doi: 10.1108/02656711211230481.

[42] Halog, A., Manik, Y. (2011). Advancing integrated systems modelling framework for life cycle sustainability assessment, Sustainability, Vol. 3, No. 2, 469-499, doi: 10.3390/su3020469.

[43] Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena. Roadmap for sustainability assessment in european process industries, Technical report, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301823430, accessed 13 May 2016.

[44] Zhang, H., Haapala, K.R. (2015). Integrating sustainable manufacturing assessment into decision making for a production work cell, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 105, 52-63, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.038.

[45] Hendrickx, H.H.M. (2015). Business architect: A critical role in enterprise transformation, Journal of Enterprise Transformation, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1-29, doi: 10.1080/19488289.2014.893933.

[46] University of Cambridge. State-of-practice in business modelling and value-networks, emphasising potential future models that could deliver sustainable value, from http://www.sustainvalue.eu/publications/D2_1_Final_ Rev1_0_web.pdf, accessed November 10, 2016.

[47] Grassl, W. (2012). Business models of social enterprise: A design approach to hybridity, ACRN Journal of Entre-preneurship Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 1, 37-60.

[48] Ackoff, R.L. (1999), Re-creating the corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century, Oxford University Press, USA.

[49] Mathews, F. (2011). Towards a deeper philosophy of biomimicry, Organization & Environment, Vol. 24, No. 4, 364-387, doi: 10.1177/1086026611425689.

252 Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018

Sustainable manufacturing – An overview and a conceptual framework for continuous transformation and competitiveness

[50] Apple Inc. Environmental responsibility report, from https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environ mental_Responsibility_Report_2017.pdf, accessed May 15, 2017.

[51] Ocampo, L.A., Clark, E.E., Tanudtanud, K.V.G., Ocampo, C.O.V., Impas Sr, C.G., Vergara, V.G., Pastoril, J., Tordillo, J.A.S. (2015). An integrated sustainable manufacturing strategy framework using fuzzy analytic network process, Advances in Production Engineering & Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, 125-139, doi: 10.14743/apem2015.3.197.

[52] Haftor, D.M. (2011). An evaluation of R.L. Ackoff’s interactive planning: A case-based approach, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, 355-377, doi: 10.1007/s11213-010-9188-y.

[53] Rhyne, R.F. (1994). Contextual discipline: Its essentiality within social-systems analysis, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 47, No. 3, 277-292, doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(94)90069-8.

[54] Amer, M., Daim, T.U., Jetter, A. (2013). A review of scenario planning, Futures, Vol. 46, 23-40, doi: 10.1016/j. futures.2012.10.003.

[55] Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y. (2010), Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.

[56] Midgley, G. How can co-creation produce better outcomes for people and communities?, from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/303752603, accessed July 24, 2016, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2373.3360.

[57] Midgley, G. (2000), Systemic intervention: Philosophy,methodology and practice, Springer Science, New York, USA, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-4201-8.

[58] Ackoff, R.L. (1990). Strategy, Systems Practice, Vol. 3, No. 6, 521-524, doi: 10.1007/BF01059636. [59] Hayes, R.H., Pisano, G.P. (1996). Manufacturing strategy: At the intersection of two paradigm shifts, Production

and Operations Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 25-41, doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.1996.tb00383.x. [60] Bilge, P., Seliger, G., Badurdeen, F., Jawahir, I.S. (2016). A novel framework for achieving sustainable value

creation through industrial engineering principles, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 40, 516-523, doi: 10.1016/j.procir. 2016.01.126.

[61] Mills, J., Platts, K., Bourne, M. (2003). Competence and resource architectures, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23, No. 9, 977-994, doi: 10.1108/01443570310491738.

[62] World Economic Forum. The future of manufacturing: Driving capabilities, enabling investments, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Media/GAC14/Future_of_Manufacturing_Driving_Capabilities.pdf, accessed May 2, 2017.

[63] Checkland, P. (2012). Four conditions for serious systems thinking and action, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 29, No. 5, 465-469, doi: 10.1002/sres.2158.

[64] Zott, C., Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective, Long Range Planning, Vol. 43, No. 2-3, 216-226, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.004.

Advances in Production Engineering & Management 13(3) 2018 253