An Axiomatic Design Framework of Sustainable Product-Service Systems for Circular Economies

  • Alperen Bal
  • Sule Itir SatogluEmail author
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 279)


In recent years, sustainable product design process gained notable attentions and evolved having Triple Bottom Line (TBL) accounting perspective. TBL requires integrating environmental, social as well as economic factors at the design phase. Making a product sustainable is important from the customers’ point of view, because today customers show tendency not to prefer non-sustainable products. Besides, customers today are more and more interested in accessing to product usage or functions instead of its ownership. So, in this study, an Axiomatic Design Framework is proposed for the Sustainable Product-Service Systems, for the first time in the literature, so that a complete conceptual design is made based on the environmental, economic and social dimensions for the products that concerns the customer expectations for the circular economy. Besides, a washing machine design is discussed based on the proposed sustainable product service-system framework.


  1. 1.
    Ahmad, S., Wong, K.Y., Tseng, M.L., Wong, W.P.: Sustainable product design and development: a review of tools, applications and research prospects. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 132, 49–61 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babic, B.: Axiomatic design of flexible manufacturing systems. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37(5), 1159–1173 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahadir, M.C., Satoglu, S.I.: A novel robot arm selection methodology based on axiomatic design principles. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 71(9–12), 2043–2057 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bal, A., Satoglu, S.I.: A goal programming model for sustainable reverse logistics operations planning and an application. J. Clean. Prod. 201, 1081–1091 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baysan, S., Kabadurmus, O., Cevikcan, E., Satoglu, S.I., Durmusoglu, M.B.: A simulation-based methodology for the analysis of the effect of lean tools on energy efficiency: an application in power distribution industry. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 895–908 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bovea, M.A.D., Pérez-Belis, V.: A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. J. Clean. Prod. 20(1), 61–71 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., Saccani, N.: Assessing the impacts of circular economy: a framework and an application to the washing machine industry. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 1–27 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campadello, L., Deubzer, O., Langle, A., Amadei, A., Arienti, G., Sala, M.: Upgrading regulations and standards to enable recycling of CRM from WEEE. Solutions for Critical Raw materials—a European Expert Network (SCRREEN). Report no: D8.2 (2019)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cebi, S., Kahraman, C.: Determining design characteristics of automobile seats based on fuzzy axiomatic design. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 3(1), 43–55 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cebi, S., Kahraman, C.: Extension of axiomatic design principles under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(3), 2682–2689 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cebi, S., Kahraman, C.: A new weighted fuzzy information axiom method in production research. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 32(1), 170–190 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, C., Zhu, J., Yu, J.Y., Noori, H.: A new methodology for evaluating sustainable product design performance with two-stage network data envelopment analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 221(2), 348–359 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delaram, J., Valilai, O.F.: An architectural view to computer integrated manufacturing systems based on axiomatic design theory. Comput. Ind. 100, 96–114 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Du, Y., Cao, H., Chen, X., Wang, B.: Reuse-oriented redesign method of used products based on axiomatic design theory and QFD. J. Clean. Prod. 39, 79–86 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Durmusoglu, M.B., Satoglu, S.I.: Axiomatic design of hybrid manufacturing systems in erratic demand conditions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 49(17), 5231–5261 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ertay, T., Satoğlu, S.I.: System parameter selection with information axiom for the new product introduction to the hybrid manufacturing systems under dual-resource constraint. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50(7), 1825–1839 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    European Commission: Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). OJEU L 197/38 of 24.07.2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faulkner, W., Badurdeen, F.: Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM): methodology to visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance. J. Clean. Prod. 85, 8–18 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Favi, C., Marconi, M., Germani, M., Mandolini, M.: A design for disassembly tool oriented to mechatronic product de-manufacturing and recycling. Adv. Eng. Inform. 39, 62–79 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hebrok, M.: Design for longevity: taking both the material and social aspects of product-life into account. J. Des. Res. 12(3), 204–220 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang, C.C., Liang, W.Y., Yi, S.R.: Cloud-based design for disassembly to create environmentally friendly products. J. Intell. Manuf. 28(5), 1203–1218 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jawahir, I.S., Dillon, O.W., Rouch, K.E., Joshi, K.J., Venkatachalam, A., Jaafar, I.H.: Total life-cycle considerations in product design for sustainability: a framework for comprehensive evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Research/Expert Conference, pp. 1–10, Barcelona, Spain (2006, September)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jeurissen, R.: John Elkington, Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. J. Bus. Ethics 23(2), 229–231 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kapukaya, E.N., Bal, A., Satoglu, S.I.: A bi-objective model for sustainable logistics and operations planning of WEEE recovery. An Int. J. Optim. Control.: Theor. Appl. (IJOCTA) 9(2), 89–99 (2019)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, S.J., Suh, N.P., Kim, S.G.: Design of software systems based on axiomatic design. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 8(4), 243–255 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kulak, O., Cebi, S., Kahraman, C.: Applications of axiomatic design principles: a literature review. Expert Syst. Appl. 37(9), 6705–6717 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kulak, O., Durmusoglu, M. B., Tufekci, S.: A complete cellular manufacturing system design methodology based on axiomatic design principles. Comput. Ind. Eng. 48(4), 765–787 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ljungberg, L.Y.: Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products. Mater. Des. 28(2), 466–479 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rasmi, S.A.B., Kazan, C., Türkay, M.: A multi-criteria decision analysis to include environmental, social, and cultural issues in the sustainable aggregate production plans. Comput. Ind. Eng. 132, 348–360 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rüdenauer, I., Gensch, C.-O., Quack, D.: Eco-efficiency analysis of washing machinesGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stiassnie, E., Shpitalni, M.: Incorporating lifecycle considerations in axiomatic design. CIRP Ann. 56(1), 1–4 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Storbeck, O.: Adidas vows to use only recycled plastics by 2024. The Financial Times Limited 2019. (2018). Accessed 30 July 2019
  33. 33.
    Suh, N.P., Cochran, D.S., Lima, P.C.: Manufacturing system design. CIRP Ann. 47(2), 627–639 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Suh, N.P.: Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tasaki, T., Hashimoto, S., Moriguchi, Y.: A quantitative method to evaluate the level of material use in lease/reuse systems of electrical and electronic equipment. J. Clean. Prod. 14(17), 1519–1528 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tukker, A.: Eight types of product–service system: eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Bus. Strategy Environ. 13(4), 246–260 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tukker, A.: Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy—a review. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 76–91 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ulrich, K.T., Pearson, S.: Assessing the importance of design through product archaeology. Manag. Sci. 44(3), 352–369 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang, H.C., Li, H.: An energy factor based systematic approach to energy-saving product design. CIRP Ann. 59(1), 183–186 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringYalova UniversityYalovaTurkey
  2. 2.Faculty of ManagementIstanbul Technical UniversityBesiktas, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations