Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fargnoli, M., & Kimura, F., (Eds.) (2006). Sustainable design of modern industrial products. In: 13th CIRP International Conferent on Life Cycle Engineering, Belgium.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kesidou, E., & Demirel, P. (2012). On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK. Research Policy, 41(5), 862–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Suh, N. P. (1998). Axiomatic design theory for systems. Research in Engineering Design, 10(4), 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berchicci, L., & Bodewes, W. (2005). Bridging environmental issues with new product development. Business Strategy and the Environment., 14(5), 272–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stiassnie, E., & Shpitalni, M. (2007). Incorporating lifecycle considerations in axiomatic design. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology., 56(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Suh, N. P. (2001). Axiomatic design: Advances and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kulak, O., Cebi, S., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Applications of axiomatic design principles: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6705–6717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Suh, N. P. (1990). The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Arvidsson, M., & Gremyr, I. (2008). Principles of robust design methodology. Quality and Reliability Engineering International., 24(1), 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Afshari, H., Peng, Q., Gu, P., & Meng, W. (2016). Reducing effects of design uncertainties on product sustainability. Cogent Engineering., 3(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Thornton, A. C. (2003). Variation risk management: Focusing quality improvements in product development and production. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Matthiassen, B. (1997). Design for robustness and reliability: Improving the quality consciousness in engineering design. Denmark: Technical University of Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Garvin, DA. (1984). What does ‘product quality’ really mean? MIT Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. 1688. Baby stroller: 1688; 2016 [cited 2016 Mar. 1st]. https://www.1688.com/chanpin/-B3F6BFDAD3A4B6F9CDC6B3B. Accessed March 15 2017.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hamarat, C., Kwakkel, J. H., & Pruyt, E. (2013). Adaptive Robust Design under deep uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 408–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Artiles-León, N. (1996). A pragmatic approach to multiple-response problem using loss functions. Quality Engineering., 9(2), 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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).

  43. Forslund, K. (2009). Visual robustness: Effects of variation on product appearance and perceived quality. Göteborg: Chalmers University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Taguchi, G., & Clausing, D. (1990). Robust quality. Harvard Business Review., 68(1), 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kuo, T. C. (2000). Disassembly sequence and cost analysis for electromechanical products. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 16(1), 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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-.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, 200 Chung Pei Road, Chung Li District, Taoyuan, 32023, Taiwan

    Tsai Chi Kuo & Chi-Jung Wang

Authors
  1. Tsai Chi Kuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chi-Jung Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tsai Chi Kuo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuo, T.C., Wang, CJ. Integrating Robust Design Criteria and Axiomatic Design Principles to Support Sustainable Product Development. Int. J. of Precis. Eng. and Manuf.-Green Tech. 6, 549–557 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-019-00036-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-019-00036-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation