An investigation of the most important factors for sustainable product development using evidential reasoning

Farzaneh Ahmadzadeh; Kathrina Jederström; Maria Plahn; Anna Olsson; Isabell Foyer

doi:10.3934/naco.2017027

Article Contents

2017, Volume 7, Issue 4: 435-455. Doi: 10.3934/naco.2017027

This issue Previous Article A robust multi-trip vehicle routing problem of perishable products with intermediate depots and time windows Next Article A study of numerical integration based on Legendre polynomial and RLS algorithm

An investigation of the most important factors for sustainable product development using evidential reasoning

School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden

^* Corresponding author
^* Corresponding author

Received: September 30, 2016

Revised: July 31, 2017

Published: November 2017

This paper was prepared at the occasion of The 12th International Conference on Industrial Engineering (ICIE 2016), Tehran, Iran, January 25-26,2016, with its Associate Editors of Numerical Algebra, Control and Optimization (NACO) being Assoc. Prof. A. (Nima) Mirzazadeh, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran, and Prof. Gerhard-Wilhelm Weber, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Abstract Full Text(HTML) Figure(3) / Table(6) Related Papers Cited by

Abstract

Those working in product development need to consider sustainability, being careful not to compromise the future generation's ability to satisfy its needs. Several strategies guide companies towards sustainability. This paper studies six of these strategies: eco-design, green design, cradle-to-cradle, design for environment, zero waste, and life cycle approaches. Based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews, it identifies 22 factors of sustainability from the perspective of manufacturers. The purpose is to determine which are the most important and to use them as a foundation for a new design strategy. A survey based on the 22 factors was given to people working with product development; they graded each factor by importance. The resulting qualitative data were analyzed using evidential reasoning. The analysis found the factors "minimize use of toxic substances, " "increase competitiveness, " "economic benefits, " "reduce material usage, " "material selection, " "reduce emissions, " and "increase product functionality" are more important and should serve as the foundation for a new approach to sustainable product development.

Keywords:

Sustainable design,
product development,
evidential reasoning,
sustainable product development strategy,
Multi Criteria Decision Making.

Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 62C86, 62P12; Secondary: 90B50.

Citation:

Full Text(HTML)

Figure 1. Generic framework to assess general property

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Figure 2. Visual representation of ER steps

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Figure 3. Diagram showing the importance of factors for sustainable product development

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of sustainable design strategies

Method	Advantages	Disadvantages
Eco Design	Increased competitiveness [13] Decreased variable costs [32], [36] Less use of toxic materials [32] Increased product functionality [36], [46] Improved economic performance [36] Increased revenue [13] Increased sales volumes [13] Less energy usage [32] Prolonged product life [32], [36], [46] Improved company image [13] Reduced material use [7], [24], [32], [36], [46]	Increased fixed costs [36] Only short term economic benefits [36]
Green design	Optimized operational practices [5], [17], [19] Reduced use of non-renewable resources [3], [19], [34] Waste minimized [6], [19], [34] Increased use of renewable materials [3], [34] Increased use of renewable energy [3], [19], [34] Social business strategies incorporated [10]	Requires investment in new operating tools [5] Too many unclear suggestions [6]
Cradle-to- cradle	Waste eliminated [8], [9], [33] Products are biodegradable [9] Eternal recyclability [9] Increased economic activity [9] Increased job opportunities [9] Certification available [33]	Might be overconfident [4]
Design for environment	Waste is reduced [16], [45] Improved material chemistry [39] Improved design for disassembly [16], [39], [45] Increased recyclability [39], [45]	Too many tools and techniques [45]
Zero Waste	Pollution is prevented [30], [55] Waste eliminated [18], [31], [55] Reduced toxicity [30], [55] Increased recyclability [18] Increased reuse of materials [55] Decreased costs of waste disposal [12], [18], [31] Increased revenue by selling used materials [14]	Requires transformation of current systems [54] Increased short- term costs [14]
Life-Cycle approaches	Reduced long term environmental impact of the product [29], [38] Decreased costs for service [41] Increased environmental impact awareness [57] Holistic approach [4], [38], [57]	Often used in retrospect [28], [38] Cannot be used properly for reused, recycled and re- manufactured products [41]

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 2. Factors identified in sustainable design and the corresponding strategies

Factors	Design Strategy
Reduce energy usage	Eco-design
Reduce material usage	Eco-design, Life-cycle approaches
Reduce use of non-renewable resources	Green design
Reduce waste	Design for Environment
Eliminate waste	Cradle-to-cradle, zero waste
Eliminate emission	Zero waste
Minimize use of toxic substances	Eco-design, zero waste
Minimize waste	Green design
Recycle materials/components	Cradle-to-cradle, design for environment, zero waste, life-cycle approaches, eco-design
Reuse materials/components	Zero waste, life-cycle approaches, eco-design, cradle-to-cradle
Increase product functionality	Eco-design
Increase product lifespan	Eco-design
Increase use of renewable energy	Green design, cradle-to-cradle
Increase use of renewable materials	Green design, life-cycle approaches, cradle-to-cradle
Increase use of biodegradable materials	Cradle-to-cradle
Closed loop material flow	Cradle-to-cradle
Holistic approach	Life-cycle approaches, cradle-to-cradle
Sustainable social standards	Green design, cradle-to-cradle
Economic benefits	Eco-design, cradle-to-cradle, zero waste
Increase competitiveness	Eco-design

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 3. Assigned weights, belief degrees and calculated probability masses

Evalutation Grade	Weight	Belief
$H_1, H_2, H_3$	$\omega_i$	$\beta_{1, i}$	$\beta_{2, i}$	$\beta_{3, i}$	$\beta_{H}$
$\varepsilon_1$	0.35	0.4	0.5	0	0.1
$\varepsilon_2$	0.65	0.1	0.75	0.15	0
Probability Mass
$m_{1, i}$	$m_{2, i}$	$m_{3, i}$	$m_{H, i}$	$\bar{m}_{H, i}$	$\tilde{m}_{H, i}$
0.14	0.175	0	0.685	0.65	0.035
0.065	0.4875	0.0975	0.35	0.35	0

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 4. Factors identified in sustainable design and the corresponding strategies

Evaluation grade (%)
Factors	H1	H2	H3	H4	H5	Unassigned
Reduce energy usage	5	15	27	24	10	19
Reduce material usage	1	5	22	31	37	4
Reduce use of non-renewable resources	1	21	21	18	23	16
Reduce waste	1	4	28	41	10	16
Reduce emissions	1	4	18	38	21	18
Eliminate waste	11	14	30	23	13	9
Eliminate emissions	10	5	24	31	8	22
Minimize use of toxic substances	0	0	8	26	50	16
Minimize waste	3	3	30	37	5	22
Recycling components/ materials	0	17	29	26	18	10
Reusing components/ materials	11	17	12	34	19	7
Increase product functionality	0	2	29	27	26	16
Increase product lifespan	3	19	36	26	14	2
Increase use of renewable materials	0	8	20	40	10	22
Increase use of renewable energy	2	8	20	29	19	22
Increase use of biodegradable materials	1	13	36	30	5	15
Sustainable material selection	0	9	15	47	25	4
Circular material flow	0	7	28	11	5	49
Holistic view	4	6	9	28	16	37
Sustainable social standards	4	3	21	26	20	26
Economic benefits	0	1	26	22	40	11
Increased competitiveness	0	1	27	31	38	3

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 5. Important design factors, relevant score and rank

Factors	Ranking score (%)	Rank
Minimize use of toxic substances	82	1
Increase competitiveness	76	2
Economic benefits	75	3
Reduce material usage	74	4
Sustainable material selection	72	5
Reduce emissions	69	6
Increase product functionality	69	7
Reduce waste	64	8
Increase use of renewable energy	64	9
Sustainable social standards	64	10
Increase use of renewable materials	63	11
Holistic view	62	12
Recycling components/materials	61	13
Reduce use of non-renewable resources	60	14
Minimize waste	59	15
Reusing components/materials	58	16
Increase use of biodegradable materials	58	17
Increase product lifespan	57	18
Eliminate emissions	56	19
Reduce energy usage	55	20
Circular material flow	54	21
Eliminate waste	53	22

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Table 6. Important design factors and corresponding design strategy

Most important identified factors	Design strategy (%)
Minimize use of toxics substances (82%)	Eco-design and Zero waste
Increased competitiveness (76%)	Eco-design
Economic benefits (75%)	Eco-design, Cradle-to-cradle and Zero waste
Reduce material usage (74%)	Eco-design and life-cycle strategies
Material selection (72%)	$\cdots$
Reduce emissions (69%)	$\cdots$
Increase product functionality (69%)	Eco-design

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Related Papers

Cited by

References

[1]	F. Ahmadszadeh and M. Bengtsson, Using evidential reasoning approach for prioritization of maintenance-related waste caused by human factors -a case study, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 90 (2017), 2761-2775. doi: 10.1007/s00170-016-9377-7.
[2]	F. Ahmadszadeh and M. Bengtsson, Classification of Maintenance-related Waste Based on Human Factors, Neuchatel, Switzerland, Conference on Operations, Management for Sustainable Competitveness (22nd EurOMA), 2015.
[3]	P. T. Anastas and J. B. Zimmerman, Through the 12 principles of green engineering, Environ. Sci. Technol, 1 (2003), 95-101. doi: 10.1021/es032373g.
[4]	C. A. Bakker, R. Wever, C. Teoh and S. De Clerq, Designing cradle-to-cradle products: a reality check, Internat J. Sus. Eng., 3 (2010), 2-8. doi: 10.1080/19397030903395166.
[5]	H. Baumann, F. Boons and A Bragd, Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives, J. Cleaner Prod., 10 (2002), 409-425. doi: 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00015-X.
[6]	G. Beheiry, S. M. Beheiry and M. M. Beheiry, Investigating the use of green design parameters in UAE construction projects, Internat. J. Sus. Eng., 8 (2015), 93-101. doi: 10.1080/19397038.2014.895066.
[7]	M. Borchardt, M. H. Wendt, G. M. Pereira and M. A. Sellitto, Redesign of a component based on ecodesign practices: environmental impact and cost reduction achievements, J. Cleaner Prod., 19 (2011), 49-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.006.
[8]	M. Braungart and W. McDonough, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, Vintage, London, 2008.
[9]	M. Braungart, W. McDonough and A. Bollinger, Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions: a strategy for eco-effective product and system design, J. Cleaner Prod., 15 (2007), 1337-1348. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.08.003.
[10]	S. Byggeth, G. Broman and K. H. Robert, A method for sustainable product development based on a modular, J. Cleaner Prod., 15 (2007), 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.02.007.
[11]	S. Byggeth and E. Hochschorner, Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement, J. Cleaner Prod., 14 (2006), 1420-1430. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.03.024.
[12]	S. Case, Zeroing in on zero waste, Gov Procurement, 19 (2011), 24.
[13]	M. del Val Segarra-Oña, M. De-Miguel-Molina and A. Payá-Martínez, A review of the literature on Eco-design in manufacturing industry: are institutions focusing on the key aspects?, Rev. Business Information Systems, 15 (2011), 61-67. doi: 10.19030/rbis.v15i5.6028.
[14]	R. Docksai, A world without waste?, Futurist, 48 (2014), 16-20.
[15]	J. Drexhage and D. Murphy, Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012, United Nations Headquarters, New York, 2010.
[16]	R. A. R. Ghazilla, N. Sakundarini, Z. Taha, S. H. Abdul-Rashid and S. Yusoff, Design for environment and design for disassembly practices in Malaysia: a practitioner's perspectives, J. Cleaner Prod., 108 (2015), 331-342. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.033.
[17]	K. Gowri, Desktop tools for sustainable design, ASHRAE, 47 (2005), 42-46.
[18]	P. L. Grogan, Zero waste: is ecotopia possible? BioCycle, 38 (1997), 86.
[19]	GSA U. S. General Services Administration, 2015. Available from: http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104462.
[20]	R. E. Hodgett, Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 85 (2016), 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-7993-2.
[21]	International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14000 family -Environmental management, Available at: https://www.iso.org/iso-14001-environmental-management.html
[22]	E. Jacquet-Lagreze and J. Siskos, Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multi-criteria decision making: the UTA method, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 10 (1982), 151-164. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(82)90155-2.
[23]	A. Jayal, F. Badurdeen, O. Dillon Jr. and I Jawahir, Sustainable manufacturing: modeling and optimization challenges at the product, process and system levels, CIRP JMST, 2 (2010), 144-152. doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2010.03.006.
[24]	G. Johansson, Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development, J. Environmental Management and Health, 13 (2002), 98-107. doi: 10.1108/09566160210417868.
[25]	S. J. Kim, S. Kara and B. Kayis, Economic and environmental assessment of product life cycle, J. Cleaner Prod., 75 (2014), 75-85. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.094.
[26]	M. Kumar Mehlawat and P. Gupta, A new fuzzy group multicriteria decision making method with an application to the critical path selection, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 83 (2016), 1281-1296. doi: 10.1007/s00170-015-7610-4.
[27]	R. R. Lekurwale, M. M. Akarte and D. N. Raut, Framework to evaluate manufacturing capability using analytical hierarchy process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 76 (2015), 565-576. doi: 10.1007/s00170-014-6284-7.
[28]	F. Lemke and J. P. P Luzio, Exploring green consumers' mind-set toward green product design and life cycle assessment, J. Ind. Ecol., 18 (2014), 619-630. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12123.
[29]	P. Llorach-Massana, R. Farreny and J. Oliver-Solá, Are cradle to cradle certified products environmentally preferable? Analysis from an LCA approach, J. Cleaner Prod., 93 (2015), 243-250. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.032.
[30]	E. Lombardi, Zero landfill is not zero waste, BioCycle, 52 (2011), 44-45.
[31]	E. Lombardi and J. Goldstein, Before zero waste comes producer responsibility, In Business, 23 (2001), 28-29.
[32]	C. Luttropp and J. Lagerstedt, Ecodesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development, J. Cleaner Prod., 14 (2006), 1396-1408. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.022.
[33]	W. McDonough and M. Braungart, Overview of the Cradle to Cradle Certified (CM) Product Standard -Version 3.0, Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute, 2012.
[34]	Q. Meng, A rapid life cycle assessment method based on green features in supporting conceptual design, Int. J. of Precis Eng. and Manuf. -Green Tech., 2 (2014), 189-196. doi: 10.1007/s40684-015-0023-x.
[35]	V. Paramasivam, V. Senthil and N. Rajam Ramasamy, Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with digraph and matrix approach, AHP and ANP, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 54 (2011), 1233-1244. doi: 10.1007/s00170-010-2997-4.
[36]	S. Plouffe, P. Lanoie, C. Berneman and M. F. Vernier, Economic benefits tied to ecodesign, J. Cleaner Prod., 19 (2011), 573-579. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.12.003.
[37]	J. Pontus, L. Nordström and R. Lagerström, Formalizing analysis of enterprise architecture, in Enterprise Interoperability (eds. G. Doumeingts, J. M¨uller, G. Morel and B. Vallespir), Springer, London, (2007), 35–44. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-714-5_4.
[38]	S. Prendeville, D. F. O'Connor and L. Palmer, Barriers and benefits to Ecodesign: a case study of tool use in an SME, IEEE ISSST, (2011), 1-6. doi: 10.1109/ISSST.2011.5936850.
[39]	M. Rossi, S. Charon, G. Wing and J. Ewell, Design for the next generation -incorporating cradle-to-cradle design into Herman Miller products, J. Ind. Ecol., 10 (2006), 193-210. doi: 10.1162/jiec.2006.10.4.193.
[40]	G. A. Shafer, Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, 1976.
[41]	Y. Umeda, A. Nonomura and T. Tomiyama, Study on life-cycle design for the post mass production paradigm, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, (2000), 149-161.
[42]	United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 17 sustainable development goals, 17 partnerships, 2015. Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/211617%20Goals%2017%20Partnerships.pdf
[43]	United Nations Goal 12: ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, 2015. Available at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/
[44]	J. C. van Weenen, Towards sustainable product development, J. Cleaner Prod., 3 (1995), 95-100. doi: 10.1016/0959-6526(95)00062-J.
[45]	N. Vargas Hernandez, G. Okudan Kremer, L. C. Scmidt and P. R. Acosta Herrera, Development of an expert system to aid engineers in the selection of design for environment methods and tools, Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (2012), 9543-9553. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.098.
[46]	W. Wimmer, R. Züst and L. Kun-Mo, Ecodesign Implementation: A Systematic Guidance on Integrating Environmental Considerations into Product Development, Springer, Dordrecht, 2004.
[47]	World Comission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987.
[48]	L. Xu and J. B. Yang, Introduction to multi-criteria decision making and the evidential reasoning approach, Manchester School of Management, Working Paper, 2001.
[49]	D. L. Xu, An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis, Ann. Oper. Res., 195 (2012), 163-187. doi: 10.1007/s10479-011-0945-9.
[50]	D. L. Xu and and J. B. Yang, Intelligent decision system for self-assessment, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal., 12 (2003), 43-60. doi: 10.1002/mcda.343.
[51]	J. B. Yang and M. G. Singh, An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man and Cypernetics, 24 (1994), 1-18. doi: 10.1109/21.259681.
[52]	J. B. Yang, Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainties, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 131 (2001), 31-61. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00441-5.
[53]	J. B. Yang and D. L. Xu, On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Syst., Man and Cypernetics, Part A. Systems and Humans, 32 (2002), 289-304. doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802746.
[54]	A. U. Zaman, A comprehensive review of the development of zero waste management: lessons learned and guidelines, J. Cleaner Prod., 91 (2005), 12-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.013.
[55]	Zero Waste International Alliance, ZW definition: Zero Waste International Alliance, 2015. Available at: http://zwia.org/standards/zw-definition/
[56]	Z. J. Zhang, J. B. Yang and D. L. Xu, A hierarchical analysis model for multi-objective decision making, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 22 (1989), 13-18.
[57]	M. Öberg, Integrated Life Cycle Design -Applied to Concrete Multi-Dwelling Buildings, Doctoral thesis, Div of Building Materials LTH, Lund University, 2005.