Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new model of sustainable product development process for making trade-offs

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The decisions made during product development (PD) lock in 70–80 % of total product cost, and the quality of the product is also largely fixed. Therefore, these decisions have a great influence on product life cycle cost, quality, and sustainability. To improve such decisions, designers need to make high-level trade-offs among various criteria to see their effects. Therefore, developing a model to support trade-offs for sustainable product development is a significant concern for designers. This research attempts to consider sustainability, quality, and cost simultaneously to make trade-offs between environmental issues and other customer requirements to select the best design specifications on their basis. Sustainability is considered as a customer requirement, which then is translated into design specifications. In this study, sustainable design is treated as an optimization problem to maximize value-added activities while minimizing environmental effects. Multi-attribute utility theory is utilized in order to formulate combination of the customer’s opinions and make a trade-off between different groups of customer requirements in the final model. An optimization model is then defined to model sustainability, quality, and cost in the product development process in order to find the optimum level of their combination thereof. By using this model, designers need not select between different solutions since they can find the optimal solution. A case study is illustrated and the results are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. K. Ramani, D. Ramanujan, W. Z. Bernstein, F. Zhao, J. Sutherland, C. Handwerker, J.-K. Choi, H. Kim and D. Thurston (2010) Integrated sustainable life cycle design: a review. J Mech Des 1–15

  2. S. Byggeth and E. Hochschorner (2006) Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement. J Clean Prod 1420–1430

  3. Ullman DG (2010) The mechanical design process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. C.-C. Wei, P.-H. Liu and C.-B. Chen, “An automated system for product specification and design,” Assembly Automation, p. 225±232, 2000.

  5. I. Ertugrul and N. Karakasoglu, “Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods,” Expert Systems with Applications, 702–715, 2009.

  6. D.-Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, pp. 649–655, 1996.

  7. Ingersoll JE (1986) Theory of financial decision making. Yale University, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mulder K (2006) Sustainable development for engineers. Greenleaf, Sheffield

    Google Scholar 

  9. Y. Zhang, H.-P. Wang and C. Zhang, “Green QFD-II: A life cycle approach for environmentally conscious manufacturing by integrating LCA and LCC into QFD matrices,” International Journal of Production Research, pp. 1075–1091, 1999.

  10. Dawson D, Askin RG (1999) Optimal new product design using quality function deployment with emprical value functions. Qual Reliab Eng Int 15:17–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fung RYK, Tang J, Tu Y, Wang D (2002) Product design resources optimization using a non-linear fuzzy quality function deployment model. Int J Prod Res 40(3):585–599

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. İ. Kaya and C. Kahraman, “Evaluation of green and renewable energy system alternatives using a multiple attribute utility model: the case of Turkey,” In: Soft Comput. in Green & Renew. Ener. Sys, Springer, 2011, p. 157–182

  13. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Kovach J, Cho BR (2008) Solving multiresponse optimization problems using quality function–based robust design. Qual Eng 20:346–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Franceschini F (2001) Advanced quality function deployment. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Locascio A, Thurston D (1998) “Transforming the house of quality to a multiobjective optimization formulation,” Structural. Optimization 16:136–146

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rao SS, Freiheit TI (1991) “A modified game theory approach to multiobjective optimization. ASME J Mech Design 113:286–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. E. E. Karsak, “Fuzzy multiple objective decision making approach to prioritize design requirements in quality function deployment,” International Journal of Production Research, pp. 3957–3974, 2004.

  19. Chan L-K, Wu M-L (2002) Quality function deployment: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 143:463–497

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. A. Halog, F. Schultmann and O. Rentz, “Using quality function deployment for technique selection for optimum environmental performance improvement,” Journal of Cleaner Production, p. 387–394, 2001

  21. C. Mehta and B. Wang, “Green Quality Function Deployment III: a methodology for developing environmentally conscious products,” Design Manufacturing, p. 1–16, 2001

  22. K. Masui, T. Sakao, M. Kobayashi and A. Inaba, “Applying quality function deployment to environmentally conscious design,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, pp. 90–106, 2003

  23. L.-H. Chena and W.-C. Koa, “Fuzzy linear programming models for NPD using a four-phase QFD activity process based on the means-end chain concept,” European Journal of Operational Research, p. 619–632, 2010

  24. G. S. Wasserman, “On how to prioritise design requirements during the QFD planning process,” IIE Transactions, pp. 59–65, 1993.

  25. H. Baumann, F. Boons and A. Bragd, “Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives,” Cleaner Production, p. 409–425, 2002.

  26. D. Maxwell and R. v. d. Vorst, “Developing sustainable products and services,” Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 883–895, 2003

  27. S. Byggeth, G. Broman and K. Robert, “A method for sustainable product development based on a modular system of guiding questions,” Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 1–11, 2007

  28. Tingström J (2007) “Product development with a focus on integration of environmental. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hallstedt S (2008) A foundation for sustainable product development. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona

    Google Scholar 

  30. S. L. Pochat, G. Bertoluci and D. Froelich, “Integrating ecodesign by conducting changes in SMEs,” Journal of Cleaner Production, pp. 671–680, 2007.

  31. Lindahl M (2005) Engineering designers’ requirements on design for environment methods and tools. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  32. G. Johansson, “Success factors for integration of ecodesign in product development: a review of state of the art,” Environmental Management and Health, pp. 98–107, 2002

  33. P. Kautto, “New instruments—old practices? the implications of environmental management systems and extended producer responsibility for design for the environment,” Business Strategy and the Environment, pp. 377–388, 2006

  34. C. Sherwin and T. Bhamra, “Beyond engineering: ecodesign as a proactive approach to product innovation,” Tokyo, 1999

  35. M. Lenox, B. Jordan and J. Ehrenfeld, “The diffusion of design for enviroinment: a survey of current practice,” in Electronics and the Environment, 1996. ISEE-1996., Proceedings of the 1996 I.E. International Symposium, Dallas, 1996.

  36. L. Berchicci and W. Bodewes, “Bridging environmental issues with new product development,” Business Strategy and the Environment, p. 272–285, 2005

  37. V. Lofthouse, “Ecodesign tools for designers: defining the requirements,” Journal of Cleaner Production, p. 1386e1395, 2006

  38. C. Kahraman, T. Ertay and G. Buyukozkan, “A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach,” European Journal of Operational Research, p. 390–411, 2006.

  39. C. Kwong, Y. Chen, H. Bai and D. Chan, “A methodology of determining aggregated importance of engineering characteristics in QFD,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, p. 667–679, 2007

  40. Y. CHEN, J. TANG, R. Y. K. FUNG and Z. REN, “Fuzzy regression-based mathematical programming model for quality function deployment,” International Journal of Production Research, pp. 1009–1027, 2004.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd W, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    Meysam Salari & Nadia Bhuiyan

Authors
  1. Meysam Salari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadia Bhuiyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meysam Salari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salari, M., Bhuiyan, N. A new model of sustainable product development process for making trade-offs. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 94, 1–11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9349-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9349-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation