Articles
DOI DOI: 10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1098

A SYSTEM-LEVEL VALUE ANALYSIS-DRIVEN DECISION FRAMEWORK FOR COMPANY-WIDE PACKAGING SYSTEM ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION

Sasiwimol Weanchimple1, Kittiwat Sirikasemsuk1, Parida Wipoopinyo2, Yaikaew Silrak 3, Kanogkan Leerojanaprapa 4
  1. 1 Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand.
  2. 2 Field of Business Administration, Faculty of Management Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai, Songkhla Province, Thailand.
  3. 3 Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand.
  4. 4 Statistics Department, Faculty of Science, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok 10520, Thailand.

Abstract

Conventional Value Engineering (VE) typically begins with a predefined improvement target and therefore provides no systematic mechanism for prioritizing multiple packaging systems before redesign. This study proposed a System-Level Value Analysis-Driven Decision Framework (SVADDF) for factory-wide packaging assessment, prioritization, redesign, and performance evaluation. The framework integrates function analysis with cost evaluation to objectively identify packaging systems with the greatest potential for value improvement. Two complementary indicators were introduced: the System-Level Value Index (SVI) for factory-wide packaging prioritization and the Packaging Value Index (PVI) for evaluating the engineering value of redesigned packaging systems after implementation. The framework was validated through a case study involving nine packaging systems in an enamel wire manufacturing plant. Based on the SVI, the five packaging systems with the lowest values were identified as priority candidates, and four packaging systems were redesigned. The implemented redesigns reduced annual packaging costs while maintaining the required packaging functions, resulting in higher PVI values for all redesigned packaging systems. The proposed framework extends conventional Value Engineering by incorporating systematic prioritization and post-implementation performance evaluation, thereby providing a practical decision-support tool for industrial packaging and logistics systems.

How to Cite

Weanchimple, S., Sirikasemsuk, K., Wipoopinyo, P., Silrak , Y., & Leerojanaprapa , K. (2026). A SYSTEM-LEVEL VALUE ANALYSIS-DRIVEN DECISION FRAMEWORK FOR COMPANY-WIDE PACKAGING SYSTEM ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION. ACTA INNOVATIONS, 63, 286–302. https://doi.org/10.62441/actainnovations.v63i.1098
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. 1. Barton, R. T. (2000). BACK TO BASICS-AN OVERVIEW OF VALUE MANAGEMENT. In Proceedings of the Hong Kong Institute of Value Management (HKIVM) International Conference, Hong Kong Institute of Value Management.
  2. 2. Bhundarak, K., Silrak, Y., Sirikasemsuk, K., & Leerojanaprapa, K. (2026). Social Mechanisms, Interorganizational Coordination, and Collaborative Governance under Supply Uncertainty: Evidence from Automotive Supplier Networks in Thailand. Acta Innovations, Vol. 61, 98-113.
  3. 3. Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1985). Note—A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making). Management science, 31(6), 647-656.
  4. 4. Bytheway, C. W. (1971). FAST: Function Analysis System Technique. Society of American Value Engineers.
  5. 5. Dell'Isola, A. (1997). Value engineering: Practical applications... for design, construction, maintenance and operations. John Wiley & Sons.
  6. 6. Madzík, P., & Falát, L. (2022). State-of-the-art on analytic hierarchy process in the last 40 years: Literature review based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic modelling. PLoS One, 17(5), e0268777.
  7. 7. Hemsathapat, K., Sonpibool, J., Ratana-amornpin, D., & Boonsongpaisan, N. (2014). Cost Reduction through Value Engineering: A Case Study of Packaging Improvement in Rubber Thread and Rubber Tape Industry. Journal of Engineering and Digital Technology (JEDT), 2(1), 1-5.
  8. 8. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (2012). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Springer Science & Business Media.
  9. 9. Jerry, J. (2009). Value management: creating competitive advantage. Crisp Publications.
  10. 10. Kalluri, V., & Kodali, R. (2017). Component cost reduction by value engineering: a case study. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 98(2), 219-226.
  11. 11. Kittipanya-ngam, P., Chanthavutti, A., Sirikasemsuk, K., (2023). Applying Lean Concept and Software Packages to Support Critical Issue Monitoring Process in Office, Ladkrabang Engineering Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 10-26.
  12. 12. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications–a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 28(1), 516-571.
  13. 13. Miles, L. D. (1962). Techniques of value analysis and engineering.
  14. 14. Pålsson, H., & Hellström, D. (2016). Packaging logistics in supply chain practice–current state, trade-offs and improvement potential. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 19(5), 351-368.
  15. 15. Porter, M. E. (2008). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. simon and schuster.
  16. 16. Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, 2(8), 57-75.
  17. 17. Rundh, B. (2016). The role of packaging within marketing and value creation. British Food Journal, 118(10), 2491-2511.
  18. 18. Saaty, T. L. (1982). The analytic hierarchy process: A new approach to deal with fuzziness in architecture. Architectural Science Review, 25(3), 64-69.
  19. 19. Save International. (2007). Value standard and body of knowledge. The Value Society, Northbrook, IL, USA, 12.
  20. 20. Sharma, A., & Belokar, R. M. (2012, October). Achieving success through value engineering: a case study. In Proceedings of the world congress on Engineering and computer science (Vol. 2, pp. 24-26).
  21. 21. Sirikasemsuk, K. (2014). Impact of order splitting on bullwhip effect in supply chain: case of identical lead time at distributors-retailer links. Advanced Materials Research, 931, 1652-1657. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.931-932.1652
  22. 22. Sombunsook, S., Sirikasemsuk, K., & Leerojanaprapa, K. (2025). Analysis of Rear Differential Component Clustering in Transmission Systems Using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis with and without Procurement Strategy Matrix Variables. Engineering and Technology Horizons, 42(2), 420207-420207.
  23. 23. Soroka, W. (1999). Fundamentals of packaging technology. Institute of Packaging Professionals.
  24. 24. Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods. In Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study (pp. 5-21). Springer, Boston, MA.
  25. 25. Yam, K. L. (Ed.). (2010). The Wiley encyclopedia of packaging technology. John Wiley & Sons.
  26. 26. Uzan, Ş. B. (2025). Facilitating Decision-Making Processes in Packaging and Graphic Media: A Review of MCDM Methods from 2008 to 2024. Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, 8(2), 286-300.