Advertisement

Integrating Robust Design Criteria and Axiomatic Design Principles to Support Sustainable Product Development

  • Tsai Chi KuoEmail author
  • Chi-Jung Wang
Regular Paper

Abstract

In order to move towards a goal of sustainability, many enterprises have developed sustainable products. When responding to sustainable product development, many enterprises have found that most engineers and designers have often not been trained in sustainability, since it covers multidisciplinary viewpoints. There are two streams concerning sustainable products: work on conventional new product development and work on sustainable management. Therefore, this research integrates these two different design criteria and guidelines and forms a development process. With this development process, designers can develop sustainable products more easily and effectively.

Keywords

Robust design criteria Axiomatic design principles Sustainable product design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology, Republic of China, Taiwan for financially supporting this research under contract 105-2621-M-033-001-.

References

  1. 1.
    Vallet, F., Eynard, B., Millet, D., Mahut, S. G., Tyl, B., & Bertoluci, G. (2013). Using eco-design tools: An overview of experts’ practices. Design Studies, 34(3), 345–377.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Golpîra, H., Najafi, E., Zandieh, M., & Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2017). Robust bi-level optimization for green opportunistic supply chain network design problem against uncertainty and environmental risk. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 107(Supplement C), 301–312.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fargnoli, M., & Kimura, F., (Eds.) (2006). Sustainable design of modern industrial products. In: 13th CIRP International Conferent on Life Cycle Engineering, Belgium.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidson, C. I., Matthews, H. S., Hendrickson, C. T., Bridges, M. W., Allenby, B. R., Crittenden, J. C., et al. (2007). Viewpoint: Adding sustainability to the engineer’s toolbox: A challenge for engineering educators. Environmental Science and Technology, 41(14), 4847–4849.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siva, V., Gremyr, I., Bergquist, B., Garvare, R., Zobel, T., & Isaksson, R. (2016). The support of Quality Management to sustainable development: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production., 138(Part 2), 148–157.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaebernick, H., Kara, S., & Sun, M. (2003). Sustainable product development and manufacturing by considering environmental requirements. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing., 19(6), 461–468.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kesidou, E., & Demirel, P. (2012). On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK. Research Policy, 41(5), 862–870.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gremyr, I., Siva, V., Raharjo, H., & Goh, T. N. (2014). Adapting the Robust Design Methodology to support sustainable product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 79, 231–238.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suh, N. P. (1998). Axiomatic design theory for systems. Research in Engineering Design, 10(4), 189–209.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Linke, B. S., & Dornfeld, D. A. (2012). Application of axiomatic design principles to identify more sustainable strategies for grinding. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 31(4), 412–419.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    14062 IT. (2002). Environmental management—Integrating environmental aspects into product design and development. https://www.iso.org/standard/33020.html. ISO. Accessed March 15 2017.
  12. 12.
    Schöggl, J.-P., Baumgartner, R. J., & Hofer, D. (2017). Improving sustainability performance in early phases of product design: A checklist for sustainable product development tested in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production., 140(Part 3), 1602–1617.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bocken, N. M. P., Allwood, J. M., Willey, A. R., & King, J. M. H. (2012). Development of a tool for rapidly assessing the implementation difficulty and emissions benefits of innovations. Technovation., 32(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berchicci, L., & Bodewes, W. (2005). Bridging environmental issues with new product development. Business Strategy and the Environment., 14(5), 272–285.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genç, E., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2015). Cross-functional integration in the sustainable new product development process: The role of the environmental specialist. Industrial Marketing Management, 50, 150–161.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., Ruekerf, R. W., & Bonnerd, J. M. (2001). Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(4), 258–271.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stiassnie, E., & Shpitalni, M. (2007). Incorporating lifecycle considerations in axiomatic design. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology., 56(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suh, N. P. (2001). Axiomatic design: Advances and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beng, L. G., & Omar, B. (2014). Integrating axiomatic design principles into sustainable product development. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology, 2, 107–117.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kulak, O., Cebi, S., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Applications of axiomatic design principles: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6705–6717.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Du, Y., Cao, H., Chen, X., & Wang, B. (2013). Reuse-oriented redesign method of used products based on axiomatic design theory and QFD. Journal of Cleaner Production., 39(Supplement C), 79–86.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kannan, D., Govindan, K., & Rajendran, S. (2015). Fuzzy Axiomatic Design approach based green supplier selection: a case study from Singapore. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96(Supplement C), 194–208.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suh, N. P. (1990). The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arvidsson, M., & Gremyr, I. (2008). Principles of robust design methodology. Quality and Reliability Engineering International., 24(1), 23–35.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Afshari, H., Peng, Q., Gu, P., & Meng, W. (2016). Reducing effects of design uncertainties on product sustainability. Cogent Engineering., 3(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arora, S., Shen, W., & Kapoor, A. (2016). Review of mechanical design and strategic placement technique of a robust battery pack for electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1319–1331.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thornton, A. C. (2003). Variation risk management: Focusing quality improvements in product development and production. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Johansson, P., Chakhunashvili, A., Barone, S., & Bergman, B. (2006). Variation mode and effect analysis: A practical tool for quality improvement. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 22(8), 865–876.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Matthiassen, B. (1997). Design for robustness and reliability: Improving the quality consciousness in engineering design. Denmark: Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ma, R., Yao, L., Jin, M., Ren, P., & Lv, Z. (2016). Robust environmental closed-loop supply chain design under uncertainty. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 89(Supplement C), 195–202.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Buren, K., Reilly, J., Neal, K., Edwards, H., & Hemez, F. (2017). Guaranteeing robustness of structural condition monitoring to environmental variability. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 386, 134–148.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ashtiany, M. S., & Alipour, A. (2016). Integration axiomatic design with quality function deployment and sustainable design for the satisfaction of an airplane tail stakeholders. Procedia CIRP., 53(Supplement C), 142–150.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Garvin, DA. (1984). What does ‘product quality’ really mean? MIT Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swan, K. S., Kotabe, M., & Allred, B. B. (2005). Exploring robust design capabilities, Their role in creating global products, and their relationship to firm performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(2), 144–164.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Amazon. amazon Pram strollers: amazon; 2016 [cited 2016 Mar. 1]. https://www.amazon.com/Pram-Strollers/b?ie=UTF8&node=16. Accessed March 15 2017.
  36. 36.
    ebay. Pushchairs & Prams: ebay; [cited 2016 Mar. 1]. http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Pushchairs-Prams/66700/bn_2317198/i.html. Accessed March 15 2017.
  37. 37.
    PChome. Stroller: PChome; [cited 2016 Mar 1st]. http://ecshweb.pchome.com.tw/search/v3.3/?q=%E4%B8%89%E8%BC%AA%E6%8E%A8%E8%BB%8A. Accessed March 15 2017.
  38. 38.
    1688. Baby stroller: 1688; 2016 [cited 2016 Mar. 1st]. https://www.1688.com/chanpin/-B3F6BFDAD3A4B6F9CDC6B3B. Accessed March 15 2017.
  39. 39.
    Murphy, T. E., Tsui, K.-L., & Allen, J. K. (2005). A review of robust design methods for multiple responses. Research in Engineering Design, 16(3), 118–132.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hamarat, C., Kwakkel, J. H., & Pruyt, E. (2013). Adaptive Robust Design under deep uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 408–418.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Artiles-León, N. (1996). A pragmatic approach to multiple-response problem using loss functions. Quality Engineering., 9(2), 213–220.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shimoyama, K., Lim, J.N., Jeong, S., Obayashi, S., & Koishi, M., editors. (2007). An approach for multi-objective robust optimization assisted by response surface approximation and visual data-mining. In: 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (pp. 25–28).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Forslund, K. (2009). Visual robustness: Effects of variation on product appearance and perceived quality. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shimoyama, K., Lim, J. N., Jeong, S., Obayashi, S., & Koishi, M. (2009). Practical implementation of robust design assisted by response surface approximation and visual data-mining. Journal of Mechanical Design, 131(6), 061007–061007-11.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3125207.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yadav, H. C., Jain, R., Singh, A. R., & Mishra, P. K. (2012). Robust design approach with fuzzy-AHP for product design to enhance aesthetic quality. International Journal of Design Engineering, 5(1), 65–90.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Marsh, S. J., & Stock, G. N. (2003). Building dynamic capabilities in new product development through intertemporal integration. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 136–148.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Spiridon, I., Darie-Nita, R. N., Hitruc, G. E., Ludwiczak, J., Cianga Spiridon, I. A., & Niculaua, M. (2016). New opportunities to valorize biomass wastes into green materials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 235–242.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kotabe, M., & Swan, S. K. (1994). Offshore sourcing: Reaction, maturation, and consolidation of US multinationals. Journal of International Business Studies., 25(1), 115–140.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Taguchi, G., & Clausing, D. (1990). Robust quality. Harvard Business Review., 68(1), 65–75.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kordupleski, R. E., Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Why improving quality doesn’t improve quality (or whatever happened to marketing?). California Management Review, 35(3), 82–95.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Veryzer, R. W. (1998). A special issue co-sponsored by the marketing science institute on the subject of really new productskey factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 136–150.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gu, W., Chhajed, D., Petruzzi, N. C., & Yalabik, B. (2015). Quality design and environmental implications of green consumerism in remanufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 162, 55–69.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ortega-Fernández, I., Calvet, N., Gil, A., Rodríguez-Aseguinolaza, J., Faik, A., & D’Aguanno, B. (2015). Thermophysical characterization of a by-product from the steel industry to be used as a sustainable and low-cost thermal energy storage material. Energy, 89, 601–609.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gelbmann, U., & Hammerl, B. (2015). Integrative re-use systems as innovative business models for devising sustainable product–service-systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 50–60.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fortuna, L. M., & Diyamandoglu, V. (2017). Optimization of greenhouse gas emissions in second-hand consumer product recovery through reuse platforms. Waste Management, 66, 178–189.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kuo, T. C. (2013). Waste electronics and electrical equipment disassembly and recycling using Petri net analysis: Considering the economic value and environmental impacts. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 65(1), 54–64.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kuo, T. C. (2000). Disassembly sequence and cost analysis for electromechanical products. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 16(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Smith, S., Smith, G., & Chen, W.-H. (2012). Disassembly sequence structure graphs: An optimal approach for multiple-target selective disassembly sequence planning. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 26(2), 306–316.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gu, Y., Wu, Y., Xu, M., Mu, X., & Zuo, T. (2016). Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) recycling for a sustainable resource supply in the electronics industry in China. Journal of Cleaner Production., 127, 331–338.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., & Gastaldi, M. (2017). Sustainable waste management: Waste to energy plant as an alternative to landfill. Energy Conversion and Management, 131, 18–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society for Precision Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringChung Yuan Christian UniversityTaoyuanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations