Advertisement

Multicriteria Evaluation Method in PLM Environment: A Pilot Study

  • Kevin Audoux
  • Floriane Laverne
  • Gianluca D’Antonio
  • Frédéric Segonds
  • Olivier Kerbrat
  • Paolo Chiabert
  • Ameziane Aoussat
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 540)

Abstract

During the whole design process, evaluation stages are required and should consider more and more criteria but some of them are not mastered by designers. They also need support tools or methods to ease the product evaluation during the design process and avoid the subjectivity of this task, to limit the choice’s risks and to allow the repeatability of the whole process. This article presents through an experiment the necessity of evaluation tools by comparing assisted and not-assisted evaluation of 9 products.

Keywords

Evaluation method Innovation Sustainable development 

References

  1. 1.
    Brundtland, G.H.: Rapport Brundtland. Ministère Aff. Étrangères Dév. Int. L’Odyssée Dév. Durable (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Paris Agreement - main page. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php. Accessed 25 Jan 2018
  3. 3.
    Rosiek, J.: The impact of the eu climate policy on green jobs creation. Econ. Manag. 18(4), 697–714 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., Oates, C.J.: Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 18, 20–31 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tomiyama, T., Gu, P., Jin, Y., Lutters, D., Kind, C., Kimura, F.: Design methodologies: industrial and educational applications. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 58(2), 543–565 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergsjö, D.H.: Management of Mechatronic Product Data in PLM Systems. Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sellgren, U., Törngren, M., Malvius, D., Biehl, M.: PLM for mechatronics integration (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garetti, M., Terzi, S., Bertacci, N., Brianza, M.: Organisational change and knowledge management in PLM implementation. Int. J. Prod. Lifecycle Manag. 1(1), 43–51 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuh, G., Rozenfeld, H., Assmus, D., Zancul, E.: Process oriented framework to support PLM implementation. Comput. Ind. 59(2–3), 210–218 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laverne, F., Segonds, F., D’Antonio, G., Le Coq, M.: Enriching design with X through tailored additive manufacturing knowledge: a methodological proposal. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 11(2), 279–288 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perrin, J.: Concevoir l’innovation industrielle: méthodologie de conception de l’innovation. In: CNRS (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Encaoua, D., Foray, D., Hatchuel, A., Mairesse, J.: Les enjeux économiques de l’innovation, the economics of innovation: trends and issues. Rev. Déconomie Polit. 114(2), 133–168 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saunders, M.N., Seepersad, C.C., Hölttä-Otto, K.: The characteristics of innovative, mechanical products. J. Mech. Des. 133(2), 1–9 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cluzel, F., Yannou, B., Millet, D., Leroy, Y.: Eco-ideation and eco-selection of R&D projects portfolio in complex systems industries. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4329–4343 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bocken, N.M.P., Allwood, J.M., Willey, A.R., King, J.M.H.: Development of an eco-ideation tool to identify stepwise greenhouse gas emissions reduction options for consumer goods. J. Clean. Prod. 19(12), 1279–1287 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    O’Hare, J.A.: Eco-innovation tools for the early stages: an industry-based investigation of tool customisation and introduction. University of Bath (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassan, M.F., Saman, M.Z.M., Sharif, S., Omar, B.: An integrated MA-AHP approach for selecting the highest sustainability index of a new product. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 57, 236–242 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Halog, A., Schultmann, F., Rentz, O.: Using quality function deployment for technique selection for optimum environmental performance improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 9(5), 387–394 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Contreras, A.M., Rosa, E., Pérez, M., Van Langenhove, H., Dewulf, J.: Comparative life cycle assessment of four alternatives for using by-products of cane sugar production. J. Clean. Prod. 17(8), 772–779 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Howard, T.J., Culley, S.J., Dekoninck, E.: Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Des. Stud. 29(2), 160–180 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A.: DRM, A Design Research Methodology. Springer, London (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-587-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yannou, B., Zimmer, B., Farel, R., Jankovic, M., Cardinal, S.L.: Proofs of utility, innovation, profitability and concept for innovation selection. In: ICED, Seoul Korea (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Binz, M., Reichle, H.: Evaluation method to determine the success potential and the degree of innovation of technical product ideas and products. In: 35 Proceedings of ICED 05 15th International Conference on Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia, 15–18 August 2005 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Audoux
    • 1
  • Floriane Laverne
    • 1
  • Gianluca D’Antonio
    • 1
  • Frédéric Segonds
    • 2
  • Olivier Kerbrat
    • 3
  • Paolo Chiabert
    • 2
  • Ameziane Aoussat
    • 1
  1. 1.LCPI/Arts et Métiers ParistechParisFrance
  2. 2.Politecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  3. 3.Univ Rennes, ENS Rennes, CNRSRennesFrance

Personalised recommendations