Advertisement

The Challenge of Environmental Improvement in Different Types of Innovation Projects

  • Johan Tingström

Abstract

Product development tends to strive towards radical innovations of products to gain an advantage in a competitive market. Which tool should be used to evaluate environmental performance in order to reach the market faster with radically improved products? This paper discusses radical and incremental innovation and combines them with tools for evaluating environmental performance of products. The environmental tools examined or used in this paper are design handbook, life cycle assessment (LCA), and environmental effect analysis (EEA). This paper is based on a literature review in the field of innovation and environmental research. Primarily journal articles and conference papers have been used but also books and dissertations. The result of the discussion is that a radical innovation should use EEA as a supporting tool, and incremental innovation should use LCA. This is based on known facts about EEA and LCA. A design handbook can easily be used as a support for both types of innovation.

Key words

Incremental and radical innovation Product development Design for Environment (DfE) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Environmental Effect Analysis (EEA) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D.G. Ullman, 2002, The Mechanical Design Process. New York, USA, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 0-07-112281-8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Bergman, and B. Klefsjö, 1994, Quality from Consumer Needs to Consumer Satisfaction, Studentlitteratur, Lund, ISBN 91-44-46331-6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Lindahl, 2000, Environmental Effect Analysis (EEA) — An approach to design for environment, Licentiate thesis, Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Technology, KTH, Stockholm, ISBN 91-973906-2-3.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Lindahl, C. Jensen, and J. Tingström, 2000, A Comparison between the Environmental Effect Analysis and the Life Cycle Assessment methods — Based on four case studies, Proceedings of the 7th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Life Cycle Planning, Design and Management for Eco-Products and Systems, November 27–29, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Lindahl, J. Tingström, and C. Jensen, 2000, A small textbook about Environmental Effect Analysis (in Swedish), Department of Technology, University of Kalmar, ISBN 91-973906-0-7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. Stevens, and J. Burley, 1997, 3000 raw ideas = 1 commercial success! Research Technology Management, 40:16–27.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.F. Chalmers, 1999, What is this thing called science?, Open University Press, ISBN 0-335-20109-1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Tidd, J. Bessant, and Pavitt, 1997, Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organisational change, Wiley, New York, ISBN 0-471-49615-4, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.M. Christensen, 1992, Exploring the limits of the technology S-curve, Part 1 Component technology, Production and Operational Management, 1:334–357.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Afuah, 1998, Innovation management, strategies, implementation and profits, Oxford university press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Meyer, G. Brooks, and J. Goes, 1990, Environmental jolts and industry revolution: organisational responses to discontinuous changes, Strategic Management Journal, 11:93–110.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.L. Tuchman, and P. Andersson, 1986, Technological discontinuities and organisational environment, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31:439–465.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Koberg, D. Detienne, and K. Heppard, 2003, An empirical test of environmental, organisational, and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation, Journal of high Technology, 14:21–45.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Monroe, 1993, Winning in high-tech markets, Harvard School Press, Boston, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.L. Tuchman, and E. Romanelli, 1985, Organisation evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation, in Cummins, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Ed,) Research in organisation behaviour, 7:171–222, JAI press, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Hall, and R. Kerr, 2003, Innovation dynamics and environmental technologies: the emergence of fuel cell technology, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11:459–471.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.A. Abernathy, and J.M. Utterback, 1978, Patterns of Industrial Innovation, Technology Review, 80:40–47.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Suarez, and J. Utterback, 1995, Dominant design and survival of firms, Strategic Management Journal, 16:415–431.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Kortman, R. van Berkel, and M. Lafleur, 1995, Towards an environmental design toolbox for complex products; Preliminary results and experiences from selected projects, CONCEPT, Clean Electronics Products and Technology, 9–11 October, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. Wrisberg, H.A. Udo de Haes, U. Triebswetter, P. Eder, and R. Clift, 2000, Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a systems perspective, Eds. Report to the European Union. CHAINET-European Network on Chain Analysis for Environmental Decision Support, Leiden, NL, 326.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Skoglund, and J. Svensson, 2002, Environmental driven design in SMEs — a need survey (in Swedish), Master thesis, Dept. of Technology, University of Kalmar.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Volvo, 1999a, Corporate Standard STD 1009, 1, Chemical substances which must not be used within the Volvo Group (black list), Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Volvo, 1999b, Corporate Standard STD 1009, 11, Chemical substances whose use within the Volvo Group shall be limited (grey list), Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Volvo, 1999c Corporate Standard STD 1009, 2, Substitutes for hazardous chemical substances (white list), Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Tingström, and M. Lindahl, 2001, Evaluation methods for the Environmental Effect Analysis, CIRP, seminar on life cycle engineering, life cycle planning, design and management for eco-products and systems, June 18–20, Varna, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    C.J. Rydh, M. Lindahl, and J. Tingström, 2003,. Life cycle assessment — a method for evaluating products and services (in Swedish), Studentlitteratur, Lund, ISBN 91-44-02447-1-9.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P.R. Portney, 1993–94, The price is right: Making use of Life Cycle Analyses, Issue in Science and Technology, 10:69–75.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    L. Lave, E. Cobas-Flores, C. Hendrickson, and F. McMichael, 1995, Using Input — Output Analysis to estimate Economy — wide Discharges, Environmental Science & Technology, 29:420A–426A.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Fiksel, 1996, Design for Environment, McGraw-Hill, New York, ISBN 0-07-020972-3.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    C.T. Hendrickson, A. Horvath, S. Joshi, M. Klausner, L.B. Lave, and F.C. McMichael, 1997, Comparing Two Life Cycle Assessment Approaches: A Process Model-vs. Economic Input-Output-Based Approach. Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    E.G. Hertwich, P.S. William, and C.P. Koshland, 1997, Evaluating the environmental impact of products and processes: a comparison of six methods, The Science of the Total Environment, 196:13–29.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    C. Luttropp, 1997, Design for Disassembly — Environmentally Adapted Product Development Based on Prepared Disassembly and Sorting, Doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, ISRN KTH/MMK/R — 97/5 — SE.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Ritzén, J. Bäckmar, and M. Norell, 1997, Product development-Integration of environmental aspects, Proceedings 4th International Seminar on Life Cycle Engineering, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. Stevens, J. Burley, and R. Divine, 1999, Creativity + business discipline = Higher profits faster from new product development, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16:455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    G. Stevens, and J. Burley, 2003, Piloting the rocket of radical innovation, Research Technology Management, 46:16–25.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. Hall, and P. Andriani, 2003, Managing knowledge associated with innovation, Journal of Business Research, 56:145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    S. Poole, M. Simons, A. Sweatman, T.S. Bhamar, S. Evans, and T.C. McAloone, 1999, Integrating Environmental Decisions into the Product Development Process: Part 2 The Later Stages, EcoDesign 1999, pp 334–337, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. Tingström, 2003, Environmental Adapted Design — with focus on Environmental Effect Analysis, Licentiate thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, ISBN 91-973906-5-8, 2003.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    R. Handfield, S. Melnyk R. Calantone, and S. Curkovic, S., 2001, Integrating Environmental Concerns into the Design Process: The gap between Theory and Practice, IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, 48:189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    T. Magnusson, 2003, Architectural or modular innovation? Managing discontinuous product development in response to challenging environmental performance targets, International Journal of Innovation Management, 7:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johan Tingström
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of TechnologyUniversity of KalmarKalmar
  2. 2.Machine DesignRoyal Institute of TechnologySweden

Personalised recommendations