Integrated Eco-Design Decision-Making For Sustainable Product Development

International Journal of Production Research
ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
Integrated eco-design decision-making for

sustainable product development
Awanis Romli, Paul Prickett, Rossitza Setchi & Shwe Soe
To cite this article: Awanis Romli, Paul Prickett, Rossitza Setchi & Shwe Soe (2015) Integrated
eco-design decision-making for sustainable product development, International Journal of
Production Research, 53:2, 549-571, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2014.958593
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.958593
Published online: 18 Sep 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 543
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
Download by: [Universiti Malaysia Pahang UMP]
Date: 19 November 2015, At: 19:42
International Journal of Production Research, 2015

Vol. 53, No. 2, 549571, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.958593
Integrated eco-design decision-making for sustainable product development

Awanis Romlia,b, Paul Pricketta*, Rossitza Setchia and Shwe Soea
a
Cardiff School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK; bFaculty of Computer Systems and Software Engineering, Universiti
Malaysia Pahang, Peka, Malaysia
Downloaded by [Universiti Malaysia Pahang UMP] at 19:42 19 November 2015
(Received 18 December 2013; accepted 19 August 2014)

This paper presents an integrated eco-design decision-making (IEDM) methodology that is formed using three stages: life
cycle assessment, an eco-design process (Eco-Process) model and an enhanced eco-design quality function deployment
process. All product sustainability considerations are conducted within a special eco-design house of quality. This brings
together the analysis of factors relating to manufacturing processes, product usage and end-of-life strategy. The concentration of environmental considerations in one place insures that product sustainability is central to any design development and that the implications of change are fully identied and justied. The IEDM methodology utilises of a set of
Eco-Process parameters and their associated relationships to allow users with complementary knowledge to enter and
access information in a timely and controlled manner. They are then able to contribute their expertise to support decisions with the aim of providing more sustainable products. An application of the approach is presented in the context of
a case study considering the redesign of a single-use medical forceps. The materials and production methods used are
investigated with a view to quantifying their environmental impact. The resulting IEDM methodology can be seen to be
widely and easily applicable.
Keywords: sustainable product development; integrated eco-design decision-making (IEDM); quality function
deployment; life cycle assessment (LCA); eco-design process
1. Introduction
Consumer trends and technological innovation mean that manufacturers continuously need to develop their existing
products. Quality function deployment (QFD) has been used to support incremental, disruptive and radical product innovation. In this context, customer-led research and development is usually associated with incremental innovation, and
QFD can be used to identify the technology needed to meet future requirements (Ashihara and Ishii 2005). Radical
innovation can be associated with the denition of new customer needs that can arise from new technology (Govindarajan, Kopalle, and Danneels 2011). This implies that the usage of QFD can support an innovative approach for future
business creation (Ashihara and Ishii 2005). Disruptive innovations may not involve the newest technology but utilise
available technologies to provide product solutions based upon different values (Yu and Hang 2010). According to the
theory of disruptive innovation, disruptive technologies are usually initially inferior to the existing technologies
(Christensen 1997; Christensen and Raynor 2003) and this can delay innovation. This is particularly associated with the
need to develop technologies that can best use new and emerging materials. It has been asserted that in order to better
enable potential disruptive innovation, the technology perspective has received the least coverage and needs to be investigated (Yu and Hang 2010). This paper asserts that increasing considerations associated with sustainability can be seen
as stimulating disruptive innovation. It presents a methodology that manages the disruptive innovation process with the
aim of lowering environmental impacts without reducing the performance or increasing cost of the product.
Wide-ranging legislation and related considerations place great emphasis on environmental matters. All phases in the
product life cycle, including resource extraction, production, distribution, product use and disposal are increasingly subject to socio-ecological considerations to ensure sustainable development (Bevilacqua, Ciarapica, and Giacchetta 2007;
Hare 2010). The need to include a sustainable and practical end-of-life (EoL) strategy requires considerations such as
design for reuse, recycling and disposal. Good practice should make sure that the product will not be eco-destructive at
the end of its life cycle (Kaebernick, Kara, and Sun 2003).
To address some of these requirements, traditional QFD has been extended to consider environmental factors,
normally within the top-level house of quality (HoQ) stage (Masui, Sakao, and Inaba 2001). An additional house of
*Corresponding author. Email: Prickett@cardiff.ac.uk

2014 Taylor & Francis
550
A. Romli et al.
environment has been deployed (Emzer, Mattheib, and Birkhofer 2003). Other applications of eco-related QFD focus on
the initial product planning phase (Cristofari, Deshmukh, and Wang 1996; Zhang 1999; Mehta and Wang 2001; Dong,
Chuck, and Wang 2003; Emzer, Sakao, and Matthei 2004; Kuo, Wu, and Shieh 2009; Utne 2009). These studies did
not consider, in any depth, the implications of eco-design to the other phases of QFD that control part deployment, process planning and production planning. This paper will argue that these phases contain some of the most important elements in producing more sustainable product design and develop a methodology that integrates environmental
considerations across all four phases.
All production processes and products cause some environmental impact that may be assessed in terms of factors,
such as carbon footprint, water eutrophication, air acidication and total energy consumed during the product life cycle.
In a fully integrated approach to provide product sustainability, material and resource selection are often the rst and
most critical points of intervention. To promote sustainability, it has been shown that the most eco-friendly materials
should be considered with due regard to economic factors (Allione et al. 2012). Total energy consumption is a useful
consideration as operating a product with minimum energy consumption reduces the environmental impact and customer
costs (Devanathan et al. 2010). The maximum benets of eco-design are achieved by reducing the environmental impact
and cost for the whole product life cycle. If managed correctly, this process can improve design, increase productivity
and reduce material usage and ultimately cost. Eco-design strategies may also allow manufacturers to turn the processing needed and resources generated at the EoL of a product into a protable activity or business opportunity.
The integrated eco-design decision-making (IEDM) methodology described in this paper applies environmental considerations across three stages. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is used to identify critical areas in which the environmental
performance of the product can be improved. Analysis of the LCA information is performed in the second stage using
an eco-design process (Eco-Process) model. This identies environmental concerns in relation to the manufacturing process (MP), product use and EoL strategy (ES). These concerns are then addressed within the third stage using an
enhanced eco-design quality function deployment (Eco-QFD) process. The resulting methodology is capable of supporting improvements in the sustainability of a product. It is informed by access to knowledge base linking eco-design
parameters to product characteristics. The process is formed using an adapted eco-design house of quality (Eco-HoQ).
This allows the designer to establish and represent environmental considerations arising from user requirements in all
design and manufacturing phases. All eco-design considerations made can be embedded within the methodology using a
managed knowledge base and can be accessed and updated when completing subsequent design tasks.
Section 2 of the paper provides a brief overview of previous research into eco-design considerations within QFD.
The proposed Eco-QFD model, Eco-HoQ and eco-costs model are presented in Section 3. The IEDM methodology is
presented in Section 4 and is demonstrated using a case study in Section 5. This explores the redesign of a single-use
medical forceps with the aim of producing a more sustainable product using an alternative polymer material and manufacturing solution. The key elements are explored to demonstrate how this approach is able to quantify the products
environmental impact whilst ensuring that the selected alternative material is able to full its function. The implications
and usage of the IEDM are considered in Section 6. The nal section provides conclusions and directions for future
research.
2. Eco-design considerations within QFD
2.1 Eco-design
Eco-design aims to reduce environmental impact throughout a product life cycle (Sakao 2007). It has been applied at an
early stage in product development phase leads to an improved design specication (Gehin, Zwolinski, and Brissaud
2008; Cerdan et al. 2009; Vinodh and Rathod 2010). This process can include all drawings, dimensions, environmental
factors, ergonomic factors, aesthetic factors, cost, maintenance requirements, quality, safety and documentation describing the product. From the manufacturers perspective, environmental considerations have often been linked to cost
increases.
Various strategies have been explored to better incorporate eco-design consideration into product development. These
include the use of simple indicators to assess the impact of design for recycling and disassembly procedures (Cerdan
et al. 2009). Fuzzy logic considerations have been demonstrated to help align customer feedback to eco-design decisions
producing the concept of eco-efciency (Chen 2009). Strategies have also been formed to support the adoption of ecomaterials to lower the environmental impact of manufacture and product usage (PU) (Halada and Yamamoto 2001;
Allione et al. 2012). The characteristics of such eco-materials support a more sustainable resource prole and more efcient production processes. They also support improved levels of recyclability and reduced EoL environmental impacts
(Nguyen et al. 2005).
551
LCA has been applied to reduce resource use and environmental pollution during product design and manufacture
(Zhang 1999; Senthil et al. 2003; Heijungs, Huppes, and Guine 2010; Adhitya, Halim, and Srinivasan 2011). The integration of LCA into product development enables designers to evaluate economic and environmental impacts leading to
more cost-effective eco-friendly products. These characteristics can be exploited in good design practice to ensure environmental improvement throughout the product life cycle.
2.2 Quality function deployment

QFD is a four-phase methodology which focuses on understanding customer needs, most often using the rst-phase
HoQ process. The HoQ functions at the product-planning stage by translating the voice of the customer to produce an
agreed set of part characteristics. These are then progressed to assess design and production engineering considerations
and dene and control the MPs needed (Akao 1990).
QFD is a matrix providing a conceptual map for the design process. It acts as a construct for understanding customer requirements and establishing design priorities. Since almost all designs are a combination of new and existing
concepts, the knowledge needed to complete this process can be collected through product tear-down and benchmarking.
During tear-down, the designers identify the structure, behaviour and function of similar products (Otto and Wood
2001). QFD can support this procedure when combined with an information management process to assure the integrity
of the stored and accessed data.
To understand the structure and behaviour of functions within a product, it is essential to gather design requirements
from the stakeholders involved. To meet this need, the QFD process consists of four linked phases:
Phase I, Product Planning, denes the relationship between customer requirements and design specications.
Phase II, Part Deployment, denes the relationship between design specications and part characteristics.
Phase III, Process Planning, builds the relationship between part characteristics and manufacturing parameters.
Phase IV, Production Planning, produces performance indicators to monitor the production process used to
manufacture the required numbers of products.
The traditional concept of QFD is seen as owing down through these phases following a so-called waterfall process
(Zhang 1999; Emzer, Mattheib, and Birkhofer 2003; Sakao 2007). It should be noted that this term is misleading as
QFD is most effective when bidirectional communication is assured, allowing design decisions to be made concurrently
in each of the four phases.
Studies have been conducted into including eco-design consideration, including QFD for the environment (QFDE)
(Masui, Sakao, and Inaba 2001), which was based on previously dened green concepts (Zhang 1999) and developed
as Green QFD (GQFD) (Cristofari, Deshmukh, and Wang 1996). This approach integrated life cycle costing into QFD
and deployed quality, environmental and cost requirements throughout the entire product development process. An
enhanced GQFD II process was developed, integrating LCA, life cycle costing and QFD to explore cost requirements
throughout the entire product development process (Zhang 1999). Eco-QFD has been put forward as an aid to product
design teams when considering environmental concerns (Emzer, Sakao, and Matthei 2004; Kuo, Wu, and Shieh 2009;
Utne 2009).
Recent studies on Eco-QFD have identied design options using environmentally conscious quality function deployment (ECQFD) (Wangi et al. 2010). ECQFD has been integrated with LCA (Vinodh and Rathod 2010) and correlated
with TRIZ to select the innovative design alternatives (Vinodh, Kamala, and Jayakrishna 2013). The concept of EcoQFD has also been used to consider environmental concerns formulated as a fuzzy multi-objective model (Kuo, Wu,
and Shieh 2009). An enhanced QFD method has been applied using a fuzzy analytic network process to calculate global
warming and environmental protection (Lin, Amy, and Kang 2013). An enhanced QFDE carried out in all four QFD
phases has been reported (Masui et al. 2003). Generally, however, in extending QFD to include the environmental quality of a product, insufcient attention has been paid to the question of how to carry out an integrated Eco-QFD effectively and efciently.
Sustainable product development and design must balance social, economic and environmental factors (Ramani
et al. 2010; Souza and Pereira 2006). By embedding eco-design in the new product design process as part of good
design practice, companies can make signicant cost savings. The Design Council estimates that, over 80% of the
quantities and costs of materials and utilities required to manufacture medical devices are locked into the design stage
(Turnbull 2014). Another paper suggests that 75% of the product costs are committed during the product design process
(Weustink et al. 2000). In this context, Eco-costs may be dened as the costs of the preventative measures required to
reduce current emissions to a sustainable level (Vogtlnder, Brezet, and Hendriks 2001). This process can be assessed
552
A. Romli et al.
using an eco-cost per value ratio model (Vogtlnder, Hendriks, and Brezet 2002) This model is a practical tool for
decision-making which features a single sustainability indicator linking economy and ecology (environmental impacts)
(Firman et al. 2012).
It is clear from this review that Eco-QFD requires an Eco-costs model that can be used to keep the production costs
as low as possible whilst meeting sustainability cost targets. It is necessary to estimate these costs adequately and to
store the cost data in a generic way for future access and interrogation. The basis of the IEDM proposed here in is to
incorporate this information into a set of methodologies within a well-structured conceptual framework.
3. The proposed conceptual model

3.1 The Eco-QFD process
The Eco-QFD process generates eco-design parameters and integrates them into each of the QFD phases as shown in
Figure 1. There are ve linked elements; the four phases of Eco-QFD and the main the Eco-HoQ. This new approach
means that the Eco-HoQ becomes the platform that can be used to manage eco-design and eco-cost (production cost
and environmental cost) considerations within all four Eco-QFD phases. This concept is developed in this research to
ensure that all the phases include eco-design considerations to improve the product life cycle performance. The main
advantage of this approach is that it enables and encourages user feedback in each phase in an integrated manner. This
means that inconsistencies arising and compromises made when applying eco-design considerations to product, part
and/or process requirements, are detected, recorded and their effect and resolution are analysed. By accessing this information during this and future Eco-QFD cycles, a coherent strategy can then be deployed. Organisations will continuously learn and develop their expertise from this approach and improve the process of sustainable product development.
3.2 The Eco-HoQ model
The main Eco-HoQ model generates the environmental parameters used for all Eco-QFD phases shown in Figure 1. It
consists of six sections. Section (1) contains the demanded quality (DQ) requirements from the customer together with
the identied eco-design parameters. Section (2) provides the available quality characteristics (QCs) as technical
Figure 1. Conceptual model of Eco-HoQ with enhanced QFD process (Eco-QFD).
553
requirements and associated eco-design attributes. The Eco-HoQ matrix, completed within Section (3), is used to compare the DQ requirements with the QC. It also maps the associated eco-design considerations within the processes proposed to engineer the product. This is a critical function as it demonstrates the result of any eco-design-based proposals
within each Eco-QFD phase, including, most importantly, the level of any impact on customer satisfaction. This is
assured in this approach by the integration of the Eco-HoQ into a conventional QFD process thus supporting the
Eco-QFD process shown in Figure 2. The critical point here is the single Eco-HoQ, which means that all eco-design
considerations can be referenced wherever they arise in the other Eco-QFD phases. This is supported by the analysis
undertaken in the Eco-HoQ matrix in which the level of any relationship is mapped. This effectively represents the
eco-design considerations made and associates them to the attributes of the proposed design.
The evaluation used in the Eco-HoQ is based upon the Raw Score for each QC as assessed against the identied
DQs. This process is used to determine which parameters are important. The resulting information is employed across
the Eco-QFD phases. The parameters are weighted between 1 and 5 to represent customer priorities within the DQs.
The degree of importance of each DQ is analysed using the information and concepts identied by the developed product LCA. The approach incorporated into the Eco-HoQ matrix utilises symbols, consistent with those used in a tradition
QFD process (Park and Kim 1998; Dai and Blackhurst 2011). The symbols used have the following meanings and
associated values:
Strong positive relationship with a value of 9.
Marginally positive relationship with a value of 5.
Weak relationship with a value of 1.
The Raw Score is the sum of relational strength multiplied by customer weights for each column. The relative
weight for each parameter is then calculated by dividing each Raw Score by the total Raw Score. The values of relational strength are provided to inform the decision-making process. The Raw Score and relative weight are calculated
using Equations (1) and (2), respectively.
RSi
K
X
Ck Ri;k
i 1; 2; . . .; I
(1)
k1
Si
W i PI
i1
Si
100
(2)
where RSi is the Raw Score of the ith eco-design parameters for QC. Ck is the kth importance weight for DQ and Ri;k
is the relational strength of the ith eco-design parameter of QC to kth importance weight of DQ. In Equation (2), Wi is
the relative weight of the ith eco-design parameters in QC. i is the index number of the QC and k is the index number
of the DQ. The result of the analysis of the information presented in the matrix is used to prioritise the environmental
consideration for elements that are to be considered in each of the QFD phases to produce an improved product design.
The technical correlation Section (4) in Figure 1 forms the triangular roof matrix. It is used to identify how the
technical requirements and associated eco-design considerations that characterise the product support or impede one
another. This section performs an essential function in assessing the effect of any proposed changes using the negative
and positive correlations between parameters at any stage of the design process. It maps the relationships between
parameters so that the consequences of design changes are fully considered. This has a particular relevance where a
change providing a positive outcome in one phase may have a negative impact in another. The capture and analysis of
the effect of any environmental consideration can thus be assured across the entire Eco-QFD process.
The comparative evaluation in Section (5) summarises the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the matrix
entries. It consists of three parts: technical priorities, competitive benchmarks and targets. It can be used to demonstrate
the result of any design changes, compare post- and pre-design products and benchmark them against competitors provisions. The comparative analysis in Section (6) allows the comparison across and between existing and new attributes
as rated by the consideration of customer DQ characteristics. This ranks attributes in terms of their impact upon customer satisfaction, allowing decisions to be made regarding the efcacy of proposed design changes, including any environmental considerations.
3.3 Eco-costs model
The approach used in the methodology, shown in Figure 1, is to integrate the consideration of environmental and product costs into the single Eco-HoQ. By accessing and combining the information generated in each of the Eco-QFD
554
A. Romli et al.
Stage II
Stage I
Identify functional
requirements of
product
Calculate
environmental impact
using Life Cycle
Assessment
Analyse bill of
materials
Environmental
profile data
Stage III
Eco-design
process
modules
Manufacturing
process
Set eco-design parameters

in Eco-HoQ model
Product usage
Eco-QFD I
Define and
prioritise
customer
requirements
(DQ)
Identify design
specifications
and eco-design
parameters
(QC)
Assign a
weighting factor
to relationship
between DQ
and QC
Eco-QFD II
Eco-QFD III
Critical design
specification
(DQ)
Critical part
characteristics
(DQ)
Identify part
characteristics
and eco-design
parameters
(QC)
Identify
manufacturing
operations and
eco-design
parameters
(QC)
Eco-QFD IV
Critical
manufacturing
operations
parameters
(DQ)
Identify
production
requirements
and eco-design
parameters
(QC)
Assign a
weighting factor
to relationship
between DQ
and QC
Assign a
weighting factor
to relationship
between DQ
and QC
Assign a
weighting factor
to relationship
between DQ
and QC
Analyse
competitive
opportunities
Establish critical
design
specifications
and target
values
Establish critical
manufacturing
operations
parameters
Establish critical
part
characteristics
Establish
inspection and
test methods
and parameters
Expert decisions
No
Approve
product criteria
Yes
Product
database
Product
manufacture
Figure 2. IEDM methodology for sustainable product development.
End of life
strategy
555
phases, a coherent strategy can then be deployed to improve the process of sustainable product development. This
process is used to support the calculation of the total life cycle cost (LCC) of a product from the time of purchase until
EoL. LCC is assessed using the following equations (Zhou et al. 2009; Hassan et al. 2012):
Purchase cost of materials;
Cp CpxWD
(3)
where Cpx is the purchase cost of materials (/g); WD is the mass of product (g).
Process cost of materials;
CM
m
X
Cim xWD
(4)
i1
where m is the process number of materials and Cim x is the process cost function of ith processing (/g).
Recycle cost of materials;
CR CR xWD
(5)
where CR x is recycle cost of materials (/g).

The information used when completing the assessment reported in this study was taken from an appropriate current
LCA database (Vogtlander 2011). This database is a quick reference guide to LCA data and eco-based materials selection.
4. The IEDM methodology
The IEDM methodology supports the eco-design objectives by including environmental considerations in every phase of
the process. The relationships or mappings are developed between the functions/behaviours/structures of the product and
its environmental impact using three stages, as shown in Figure 2.
4.1 IEDM Stage I
Stage I uses a four-step process. It identies the functional requirements of the product, analyses the bill of materials,
calculates the environmental impact using LCA and produces the environmental prole data. This produces an environmental impact assessment using quantitative information and objective analysis of the detailed product design. LCA is
not a practical basis for product design as it only provides considerations of environmental aspects. Thus, its integration
within Eco-QFD, which is proposed in this methodology, is crucial as it allows designers to balance LCA recommendations with other design aspects to reach a feasible product design solution.
4.2 IEDM Stage II
Stage II assesses the outputs from Stage I and aligns them with the parameters within the Eco-Process model. It uses
three modules, shown in Figure 3(a), which relate to MP, PU and ES. These modules support activities in sustainable
product design. The information created in any individual design activity is stored within a knowledge base linked to
these Eco-Process modules; it is accessible for subsequent design tasks and can become a valuable eco-design resource.
The MP module supports the manufacturing phase, within which the selection of material is crucial. It is used to
identify and record the most important environmental features of a material. This module has been adapted and
enhanced from the work of Allione et al. (2012). Several parameters are used to characterise the environmental impact
of the item being designed. This data can be used to establish a source of information in support of sustainable product
development. The eco-design parameters which are included in this module are: environmental impact factors, transportation and manufacturing region, toxicity of material, renewable resources, material durability, EoL material, material
usage and product specication.
The PU module considers the product life span and durability, environmental impact factors, distribution and product
use. This information is measured and stored with reference to the usage module parameters.
The ES module considers ve factors: reuse, recycle, repair, remanufacture and disposal. This characterises the
design in terms of appropriate EoL scenarios and aims to nd the suitable design options corresponding to the chosen
strategy.
It must be noted that each parameter may have a relationship with other parameters from different modules as shown
in Figure 3(b). The Eco-Process module thus acts as a guideline in the IEDM methodology to produce a design tool
based on the assessments or requirements from customers, recyclers, manufacturers with the appropriate use of
556
A. Romli et al.
ECO-DESIGN PROCESS MODULES
MANUFACTURING PROCESS (MP)

MP1. Environmental impact factors
1-1: Air acidification
1-2: Carbon footprint
1-3: Water eutrophication
1-4: Total energy consumed
MP2. Transportation and
manufacturing region
2-1: Distance
2-2: Easy to transport and retain
MP3. Toxicity of material
3-1: EoL waste, inert, dangerous
MP4. Renewable resources
4-1: Rate of recycled material
MP5. Material durability
5-1: Years
5-2: Material maintenance
5-3: Wear resistance
MP6. EoL Material
6-1: Recyclable
6-2: Biodegradable
6-3: Landfill disposal
MP7. Material usage
7-1: Less material usage
7-2: Easy to process and assemble
7-3: Number of materials
MP8. Product specification
8-1: Weight
8-2: Volume
8-3: Number of parts
PRODUCT USAGE (PU)
EoL STRATEGY (ES)
PU1. Product durability

1-1: Years
PU2. Environmental impact
factors
2-1: Air acidification
2-2: Carbon footprint
2-3: Water eutrophication
2-4: Total energy consumed
PU3. Transportation and use
3-1: Easy to transport and
retain
3-2: Product use
PU4. Product life span
4-1: Years
ES1. Reuse
1-1: Easy to reuse
1-2: Easy to disassemble
1-3: Easy to smash
1-4: Easy to clean
1-5: Environmental impact
factors
ES2. Recycle
2-1: Rate of recycled materials
factors
ES3. Repair
3-1: Easy to repair
factors
ES4. Remanufacturing
4-1: Easy to disassemble
4-2: Easy to sort
factors
ES5. Disposal
5-1: Safe to landfill
5-2: Harmless to living
environment
5-3: Possible to dispose at ease
5-4: Biodegradability
factors
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. Eco-design Process model. (a) List of Eco-design Process parameters. (b) Eco-design Process relationships.
environmental parameters. These parameters are then used as inputs to inform the decision-making process based upon
the Eco-HoQ matrix as outlined in Figure 2 as Stage III.
557
4.3 IEDM Stage III
Stage III is used to evaluate the best opportunities for the development of a sustainable product. It uses the Eco-QFD
process previously shown in Figure 2. This means that the Eco-HoQ inputs into the four Eco-QFD phases can be combined with input data retrieved from the functional analysis of the product, the LCA and the Eco-Process model. Data
collected from the IEDM Stage II will also be utilised to evaluate and select important parameters that should be implemented in the product design.
The inclusion of the information from Stage II in an updated Eco-HoQ allows Stage III to continue with the design
process embodied within the four Eco-QFD phases. In Phase I, the designer denes and prioritises customer requirements and environmental requirements. As in the Eco-HoQ matrix, Equations (1) and (2) are used to calculate the relational strength between QC and DQ. The highest relative weight of DQ shows the critical design specications that
should be considered in this phase. The same process will be repeated in the remaining Eco-QFD Phases and any
changes made will be referred back through the process.
4.4 Expert decision

The Eco-QFD analysis will be continuously accessed and reviewed by the design team to decide if the design proposed
is practical and feasible. All of the information then will be stored in a product database. This data can be reused to produce a new or improved design that has similar characteristics. It will also provide support in cases where the designer
proposes the use of similar MPs and/or materials. Over time, with increasing numbers of IEDM cycles, the productrelated database will continue to collect data and eventually become a reliable and practical eco-design resource.
5. Case study
The application of the developed IEDM methodology is demonstrated in the redesign of medical forceps manufactured
by a company engaged in the provision of single-use surgical instruments. These sterile single-use medical forceps are
used primarily for ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery. The aim of reviewing the material and MPs used for the forceps
was to consider how the design could be improved to reduce its environmental impact. This product is currently manufactured in Pakistan; one of the manufacturers considerations was moving the production into the UK, more locally to
the company. The intention was to explore the benets of applying newly available material and manufacturing technology capabilities aligned with higher level manpower to provide cost-effective and reliable volume production to meet
the need of the market.
5.1 Stage I: product requirements using LCA

In Stage I, the features of the current medical forceps, depicted in Figure 4, are analysed. The product is manufactured
from stainless steel using manual forging and machining processes. It was proposed that a new product was to be made
from polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) using injection moulding. The functional requirements for the main parts of the
existing design were identied as:
Figure 4. Medical forceps.
558
A. Romli et al.
The 80 mm-long top slider, which forms part of the linkage used for operating the grip/jaw.
The grip/jaw which is used for grasping and removing small objects of 5 mm or less within ENT
procedures.
The forceps handles, with a maximum opening of 50 mm.
LCA is initiated as part of the IEDM methodology to determine the attributes of the forceps manufactured using
two materials, stainless steel and PEEK. The LCA procedure includes a number of widely used and accepted methods
for environmental impact assessment. In this case study, a standard commercial solid modelling-based computer-aided
design tool is used to quantitatively assess the environmental impact of the product throughout its entire life cycle, from
the procurement of the raw materials through the production, distribution, use, disposal and recycling of that product
(Solidworks 2013). The accessed technology measures sustainability impacts using LCA. This uses access to the GaBi
database (gabisoftware.com 2014) that was developed by PE International in collaboration with the department of Life
Cycle Engineering at the University of Stuttgart (lbp-gabi.de 2014). It is a widely used solution based on the CML
impact assessment methodology developed by the Institute of Environmental Sciences at the University of Leiden in the
Netherlands (leidenuniv.nl 2014). The solution provided has been critically reviewed to appraise it for consistency and
quality following a predened assessment procedure (Schulz and Mersiowsky 2013). The deployed system is also
appropriate for rapid design iteration, making it a good t to the research reported in this paper.
Table 1 illustrates the analysis of environmental impact of the life cycle stages for four forceps; two made from
stainless steel and two using PEEK. The analysis considers data for four of the main factors contributing to the environmental impact; carbon footprint, water eutrophication, air acidication and total energy consumed. These factors are
quantied based upon the functional unit of a single product. The boundaries of this LCA model are identied as; material, MP, manufacturing region, use region, transportation and EoL.
A products life cycle begins with the removal of raw materials and energy sources from the Earth. In the case of
stainless steel, the two main types of production are from ore-based primary raw material or from recycled material. Different combinations of these are widely used and it has been shown that there will be a 3233% reduction of carbon
footprint and energy consumed when producing steel from recycled material (Johnson et al. 2007). Consideration of the
percentage of recycled material used in the production and at the EoL of the product is therefore included in Table 1.
The reduction of carbon footprint and energy consumed associated with the recycling PEEK is not yet fully understood,
and a consideration of 30% reduction of these factors was estimated to be suitable for both.
To allow a realistic representation of current practice, the comparison of two forceps, Steel (2) and PEEK (1), is
used and discussed in this paper. It is thus assumed that 50% of the steel used in producing the forceps has been recycled and 100% will be recycled at the EoL. For PEEK (1), the analysis assumes that no recycled material has been used
to produce the forceps and no material would be recycled.
Table 1 can be used to consider the quantitative assessment of each phase in the product life cycle. During the material phase, the carbon footprint and energy consumption are shown as 84 g and 918.5 kJ for Steel (2), and 77 g and
1500 kJ for PEEK (1). In the manufacturing phase, which considers how the material is transformed into the nal product, the PEEK injection-moulding process produces a carbon footprint of 3.9 g and consumes 75 kJ. The values of the
stainless steel forging and machining processes are 21.0 g and 235.0 kJ.
The transportation life cycle phase assesses the energy impacts associated with transporting a packaged medical forceps from the manufacturing region to the retail outlet. Forceps Steel (2) produces a carbon footprint of 215.0 g requiring 3000.0 kJ when compared to PEEK (1) which produces 0.67 g of carbon footprint and 9.9 kJ of energy consumed.
This relates to the current manufacture in Pakistan and air transportation costs and their impact on the environment.
Although not considered here, it is of course possible to use this model to investigate the potential for moving manufacture to another region.
There is no carbon footprint or energy consumed in the product use phase because forceps do not require any electricity or gas energy to full their function. Considerations at the EoL stage of the life cycle include any emissions associated with the disposal or recycling of the product. The main factors governing this phase are how recyclable the
product is, its size and weight, and how it is disposed of. Here, Steel (2) produces a 7.9 g carbon footprint and consumes 5.60 kJ, while for PEEK (1), the values are 2.6 g and 1.8 kJ.
The overall LCA result shown in Table 1 indicates that replacing the Steel (2) forceps with PEEK (1) will
achieve a 75% reduction in the carbon footprint, 96% drop in water eutrophication, 79% fall in air acidication
and a 62% decline in total energy consumed. The assessments represented in Table 1 can be used to illustrate the
benets of increasing the recycling rate between Steel (1) and (2) forceps. This enables reductions of 4% in carbon
footprint, 12% in water eutrophication, 5% in air acidication and 4% in energy consumed. For information, Table 1
indicates the potential benets associated with PEEK (2) in which 50% of the material used to manufacture the for-
559
Table 1. Analysis on the environmental impact of medical forceps: stainless steel vs. PEEK.
Criteria
Forceps steel (1)
Forceps steel (2)
Forceps PEEK (1)
Forceps PEEK (2)
Material
Types of manufacturing process
Stainless steel
Forging and
machining
Pakistan
Europe
Plane
22
0%
Stainless steel
Forging and
machining
Pakistan
Europe
Plane
22
50%
PEEK
Injection
moulding
Europe
Europe
Truck
6.85
0%
PEEK
Injection
moulding
Europe
Europe
Truck
6.85
50%
50%
100%
0%
50%
Carbon footprint
Material
Manufacturing
Use
Transportation
EoL
Total
g
100.00
21.00
0.00
215.00
7.90
343.90
g
84.00
21.00
0.00
215.00
0.00
320.00
g
77.00
3.90
0.00
0.67
2.60
84.17
g
65.45
3.90
0.00
0.67
1.30
71.32
Water Eutrophication
Material
Manufacturing
Use
Transportation
EoL
Total
g
0.42
0.01
0.00
0.14
0.01
0.59
g
0.35
0.01
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.50
g
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
g
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
Air acidication
Material
Manufacturing
Use
Transportation
EoL
Total
g
0.37
0.24
0.00
0.64
0.00
1.25
g
0.31
0.24
0.00
0.64
0.00
1.19
g
0.22
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
g
0.19
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.22
Total energy consumed

Material
Manufacturing
Use
Transportation
EoL
Total
kJ
1100.00
235.00
0.00
3000.00
5.60
4340.60
kJ
918.50
235.00
0.00
3000.00
0.00
4153.50
kJ
1500.00
75.00
0.00
9.90
1.8
1586.70
kJ
1275.00
75.00
0.00
9.90
0.92
1360.82
Manufacturing region
Use region
Transportation
Weight (g)
Recycle content (material) in product
(%)
Recycle rate at EOL product (%)
ceps will have to been recycled, and 50% of the material will be recycled at the EoL. It should be noted that the
variations in recycling rate cited in the table are selected from many possible combinations. All of the data generated and the associated information provided by this analysis are stored within the Eco-Process modules for subsequent reuse in the future design activities.
5.2 Stage II: Integration to the Eco-Process model
At this stage, the results obtained from the LCA are incorporated into the Eco-Process model. The eco-design parameters for the medical forceps are selected based on the criteria and functional requirements of the product. Figure 3(b)
shows the links between parameters within different modules in Eco-Process model. The relationship for eco-design
parameters among these modules can be dened through this model. Detailed information related to the relationships
between parameters can be represented and subsequently extracted using this gure which indicates how impact factors
in the MP have relationships to factors in both the PU and the ES. For example, the relationships enabling the consideration of air acidication are depicted as: MP1-1 $ PU2-1 and MP1 $ ES1-5, MP1 $ ES2-2, MP1 $ ES3-2,
560
A. Romli et al.
MP1 $ ES4-3 and MP1 $ ES5-5. This relationship is one example to show how the links between parameters can be
represented in this Eco-Process model.
The parameters selected from the Eco-Process model in Figure 3 are used as environmentally related inputs into the
DQs and QCs in all subsequent Eco-HoQs. The inputs for the DQs as identied in this study were: less material usage,
easy to process and assemble, easy to transport and retain, less energy consumption, material durability, easy to reuse,
easy to disassemble, easy to clean, easy to smash, easy to sort, safe to incinerate, safe to landll, harmless to the living
environment, safe emission and easy disposal. These parameters are dened in collaboration between the manufacturing
company and the expert designers considering the development of this product.
The parameters selected for the QCs were: weight, volume, number of parts, number of materials, hardness, product
life span, carbon footprint, water eutrophication, air acidication, manufacturing region, rate of recycled materials, biodegradability, toxicity of materials and total energy consumed. Each phase in the Eco-QFD will retrieve eco-design
parameters from this Eco-HoQ to ensure each will consider the set of identied eco-design elements.
5.3 Stage III: Eco-QFD relationship for medical forceps
The purpose of the third stage is to identify the best alternative design for the medical forceps using the conceptual
model of Eco-QFD. The case study will illustrate the process deployed in linking the Eco-HoQ model to the four EcoQFD phases to drive the sub-evaluation criteria importance ranking. The analysis of the LCA indicated that redesigning
the forceps using PEEK offered great potential as an alternative means of engineering a more environmentally friendly
medical product.
To continue the development of this re-engineered product, these results were integrated into the Eco-HoQ, shown
in Figure 5 for the medical forceps using the PEEK material. The Eco-HoQ matrix assesses the strength of the relationship between each DQ and QC.
All of the eco-design parameters are assigned a weighting factor to establish the relationship between DQ and QC.
These weighting factors are established through discussion between the manufacturer and the designer developing the
Figure 5. Eco-HoQ metrics.
561
product. For instance, the carbon footprint has relationship with the following DQ parameters (with assigned weighting
factor): less material usage (9), easy to process and assemble (9), easy to transport and retain (9), less energy consumption (9), material durability (5), easy to reuse (9), safe to landll (9), safe to the living environment (9) and safe emission (9). Inserting these values into Equations (1) and (2), the total weight or importance assigned to the carbon
footprint is shown as 259.0, giving a relative weight of 8.3. This is used to establish critical design specications and
target values for the Eco-HoQ process. A similar process was undertaken to analyse the existing stainless steel product.
With the analysis completed for all parameters, the results indicated that the ve most inuential environmental considerations with the highest impact on product sustainability were number of materials, number of parts, carbon footprint, weight and volume of parts. The result of setting these parameters is then considered in each of the QFD phases.
5.3.1 Eco-QFD Phase I

This Eco-QFD I phase uses the product planning matrix, as shown in Figure 1. In this phase, the DQ section consists
of two categories: customer and environmental requirements. In this case, the requirements from the customer were
based on discussions with the designers of the existing product range and consultant engineers, including the authors,
who were considering the development of these products. This produced the priorities for each requirement and these
requirements have been evaluated using average point to give the rank. Similarly, the QC inputs include those acquired
from the design specication of the product and eco-design parameters that are retrieved from the Eco-HoQ. The
designer assesses with the customer the importance of these requirements based on their priorities using values from 1
to 5. The result of the analysis of the forceps is given in Figure 6.
For example, from Figure 6, the DQ customer requirement that the forceps be comfortable to hold was set to priority
(5). With weighting factors assigned to all QCs parameters that have a relationship to this parameter, the total values
are summed. In this case, the parameters were: mouldable and machinable (9), as strong as stainless steel (5), maximum
Figure 6. QFD Phase 1.
562
A. Romli et al.
opening jaws (5), working length for shaft (5), thickness of the main shaft (5), weight (9), volume (9), number of parts (9)
and number of materials (5). These values are summed and multiplied by customer weightings to give the score of 305.
This score can be used to compare the results obtained for each design proposal in reducing the environmental
impact. Information from a previous study (Romli et al. 2014) of the existing stainless steel product is used as comparison. The comparative analysis between the two materials in each of the DQ and QC parameters is shown in Figure 7(a)
and (b), respectively.
Similar analyses were also undertaken for QC parameters, based upon the columns in Figure 6. Here, as strong as
stainless steel has relationships to the DQ parameters: comfortable to hold (5), able to grasp object (9), reliable (9),
easy to sterilise (5), inexpensive material (9), less material usage (5) and easy to process and assemble (9). Equations
(1) and (2) are used to calculate the Raw Score of 195 and a relative weight of 8.0. From this analysis, the list of the
most important QC parameters is established as volume, number of materials, number of parts, weight and mouldable and machinable with their respective values of 10.0, 10.0, 9.8, 9.2 and 9.0. These are considered as the
key parameters and are further deployed within the priorities in Eco-QFD Phase II.
The symbols ++ (high positive), + (positive), - - (high negative) and - (negative) included in all Eco-QFD phases
are used to indicate how the selected parameters contribute to the environmental and production costs. Here, in Figure 6,
the parameters involved in production cost are easy to sterilise, inexpensive material and less material usage while for
environmental cost, the parameters are easy to transport and retain, less energy consumption, easy to recycle and safe
emission. These parameters are considered in Eco-costs model to calculate the total LCC of the product.
5.3.2 Eco-QFD Phase II
Figure 8 shows the Eco-QFD for the remaining three phases. Phase II populates the part deployment matrix as shown in
Figure 8(a). The DQ parameters in this phase are retrieved from the QCs in Eco-QFD Phase I. They are grip, moveable
400
350
Score DQ for PEEK
300
Score DQ for Stainless

Steel
250
200
150
100
50
0
(b)
300
250
Score QC for PEEK
200
Score QC for Stainless
steel
150
100
50
0
(a)
Figure 7. Comparative analysis for DQs and QCs (from Figure 6) PEEK vs. stainless steel.
563
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 8. Eco-QFD Phases II, III and IV.
handle, top slider length and xed handle. The relationship weighting factor between DQ and QC is then assigned.
Here, in Figure 8(a), the QC grip has a strong relationship to the DQ engineering metric parameters mouldable and
564
A. Romli et al.
machinable, as strong as stainless steel and max opening jaws. It also has relationships with the following environmental metrics: weight, volume, number of parts, number of materials, carbon footprint, water eutrophication
and air acidication. The calculated Raw Score for this selected parameter is 597.4 and the relative weight is 26.0.
The results of this process showed that the most critical part of the medical forceps is the grip followed by the
other parts: top slider, moveable handle and xed handle with respective values of 26.0, 25.6, 25.6 and 22.8.
This allows the designer to focus their design concepts to allow for the most important aspects of the products. This
analysis can then continue by asserting that the jaw/grip, when made using PEEK, can be as strong as steel and can produce less environmental impact.
Here, the parameters involved in production cost are mouldable and machinable, weight, volume of parts and
number of materials, while for environmental cost, the parameters are rate of recycle material, product lifespan,
manufacturing region, carbon footprint, water eutrophication, air acidication and toxicity of materials. These
parameters are considered in Eco-costs model to calculate the Total LCC of the product.
5.3.3 Eco-QFD Phase III
Phase III utilises the Process Planning Matrix to consider part characteristics against manufacturing operations. The
product development path followed required the engineering of a MP using injection moulding and machining.
Figure 8(b) shows the resulting most important QC parameters as plastic powder fed into hopper, tube temperature,
body mould and assembly body with the same respective value of 14.7. Rate of recycled material is the most
important environmental parameter with the relative weight of 12.9. This assumes that the PEEK can be 100% recycled.
This is a very interesting point as the process of recycling PEEK is not fully developed and this gure is conditional
upon it being applied within an injection-moulding context (McLauchlin, Ghita, and Savage 2014).
Inputs from all the part characteristics (grip, moveable handle, top slider and xed handle) can be measured in production cost. In the next phase, the QC parameters considered above in this phase are used as the key parameters and
are further deployed within the priorities in Eco-QFD Phase IV.
5.3.4 Eco-QFD Phase IV
The Eco-QFD Phase IV is the Production-Planning stage that produces performance indicators between production
requirements and manufacturing operations. The weighting factors have been assigned in this relationship matrix. Figure 8(c) shows that the most important QC parameters, number of materials, manufacturing region, product lifespan
and product quantity, are with the respective relative weights of 24.0, 20.0, 18.2 and 17.3. In this phase, the parameters involved in production cost are plastic powder fed into hopper, tube temperature, body mould and assembly
body. The environmental cost, the parameters involved are rate of recycle material, carbon footprint, air acidication and water eutrophication. These parameters will be extracted to the Eco-HoQ eco-costs model.
5.4 Eco-costs model
Figure 9 shows the Eco-HoQ model which acts as a master platform to analyse the contributions of the important sustainable product design parameters retrieved from Eco-QFD phases. The designer can map the important correlation
between QC parameters to identify what the highest relative weight costs contribute to the product. For instance, the
parameter for material cost has a positive correlation to the purchase cost, injection moulding, number of materials and manufacturing region. For the QC section, this is divided into three main categories which are economic,
environmental and social.
The parameters in the economic category are purchase cost, labour cost, material cost and injection moulding,
and they are retrieved from the Eco-QFD phases II, III and IV. For the environmental category, the parameters are rate
of recycled materials, number of materials, manufacturing region, carbon footprint, water eutrophication and air
acidication derived from all four Eco-QFD phases. The last category is social, with the parameters legislation, comfortable to hold, able to grasp object and reliability, and these parameters are derived from the Eco-QFD phase I.
In populating the Eco-HoQ model shown in Figure 9, information was acquired and processed following the
approach represented in Table 2, which shows the parameters and allocated costs for the production and environmental
requirements for two types of different materials; PEEK and stainless steel. The Eco-costs model calculates total LCC
for the product based upon a functional unit of a single forceps. The goals here are to minimise the products total life
cycle cost and to minimise the environmental impact of the product. This table shows that the direct costs for the components of a single forceps using PEEK and stainless steel are 0.56 and 0.33, respectively. This cost is calculated
565
Figure 9. Eco-HoQ cost model.
based on the bill of materials of the product. It will be used to calculate overhead cost, purchase cost of material, total
manufacturing cost and recycle cost of the material.
In this study, there are two different values to measure the EOL recycling cost for these materials. PEEK considered
EOL recycled rates of 0% and 50%, while for stainless steel the recycled rates are 50% and 100%. The analyses on the
environmental impact based on the different values of recycling rates are shown in Table 2. This data is carried to
Table 3 to evaluate on the cost of manufacturing and sustainability. Table 3 shows the nal LCC comparison. Based on
the sustainability principles, the reductions of the material and energy consumption are considered as the priority in this
study. Table 3 indicates the total cost as the sum of the environmental and production costs based upon a single forceps.
Formulas for LCC in Equations (3)(5) are used to quantify the production and environmental cost using the available
data in Tables 1 and 2.
As an illustration, the mass of the PEEK forceps is 6.85 g. Information regarding the market value of PEEK was
found from an international web site (ptiplastics 2014) with the purchase cost of 0.082/g and the cost for recycling
PEEK is 0.04/g. For the landll cost, the information used was retrieved from the appropriate UK Government website
(WRAP 2013). Using Equations (3)(5) and the information from Tables 1 and 2 gives:
Purchase cost of materials;
Process cost of materials;
Cp 0:085 6:85 0:56
CM 0:05 0:17 0:05 0:29 0:40 0:96 1:92
Recycle cost of materials;
CR 0:04 6:85 0:28
566
A. Romli et al.
Table 2. Eco-cost parameters for medical forceps (PEEK and stainless steel).
Product cost
Parameters
QFD Phase I: Design
specication
PEEK
Mouldable and
machinable
As strong as
stainless steel
Weight (g)
Volume
QFD Phase II: Part

characteristics
Number of
parts
Number of
materials
Grip
Sustainability cost (From Table 1)

Stainless
steel
6.85
22
30,000
10,000
Moveable
handle
Top slider
Parameters
Recycle rate at
EOL product
Product life
span
Manufacturing
region
Manufacturing
process
Transportation
and use
Carbon
footprint (g)
Water
eutrophication
(g)
Air
acidication
(g)
Total energy
consumed (kJ)
PEEK1
PEEK 2
0%
50%
Single
use
Europe
Single
use
Europe
Stainless
steel 1
50%
Stainless
steel 2
100%
Single use Single use

Pakistan
Pakistan
Injection Injection Forging

moulding moulding and
machining
TruckTruckPlaneEurope
Europe
Europe
84.17
71.32
343.90
Forging
and
machining
PlaneEurope
320.00
0.02
0.02
0.59
0.50
0.25
0.22
1.25
1.19
1586.70
1360.82
4340.60
4153.50
Fixed handle
QFD Phase III:
Manufacturing operations
PEEK is using injection

moulding while stainless
steel is using machining
and forging
QFD Phase IV: Production
control
Total direct cost
Grip
Moveable
handle
Top slider
Fixed handle
Plastic powder
fed into the
hopper
Labour cost
(/h)
Product
quality
Product
quantity
Transportation
(/km)
0.05
0.17
0.02
0.10
0.05
0.29
1 kg
0.03
0.18
20
30,000
10,000
0.56
0.33
Table 3 also shows the information about the environmental cost per unit for this product. The eco-cost values per
kg are obtained from the LCA database, Eco-cost 2007 (Vogtlander 2011). These values are used to calculate the environmental cost for the medical forceps and to nd the total cost for both designs. This indicates that the environmental
costs for 0 and 50% recycled PEEK would be 0.17/g and 0.14/g and for stainless steel with the recycled rates at 50
and 100% it would be 0.22/g and 0.21/g.
Table 3 includes the analysis of the EoL alternatives for both PEEK and stainless steel. The recycling value for these
materials has been set to 50% of the actual purchase cost; for a PEEK-recycling rate at 50%, this will generate 0.14
per unit. However, if PEEK is unable to be recycled, it would be transported to landll at a cost of 3.3E05/g. EOL
cost is then calculated using Equation (6):
EOL cost Landfill cost Recycle value
(6)
567
Table 3. Summary of total LCC comparison.

Production cost components per unit
Grip
Moveable handle
Top slider
Fixed handle
Direct cost
Labour cost /h (PEEK)
Labour cost /h (stainless steel)
Overhead cost
Manufacturing cost (Mc)
Environmental cost per unit
Quantity
Cost
PEEK
Stainless steel (SS)
1
1
1
1
0.05
0.17
0.05
0.29
0.02
0.10
0.03
0.18
0.33
20.00
7.00
100%
1.2 min
3 min
0.05
0.17
0.05
0.29
0.56
0.40
Eco-costs () per g
PEEK
1.81E-03
4.53E-04
2.00E-06
1.00E-05
Carbon footprint
Air acidication
Water eutrophication
Energy consumption
Environmental cost (Ec)
Economic cost
SS
2.04E-04
5.00E-05
2.00E-05
3.50E-05
PEEK
Purchase cost of materials

Process cost of material
Landll cost (1 tonne 30.00)
Recycle value PEEK (1) 0%
Landll PEEK (1) 100%
Recycle value PEEK (2) 50%
Landll PEEK (2) 50%
Total LCC = Mc + Ec + EOL cost
EOL cost = Landll cost Recycle value
Cost (/g)
0.0818
0.2803
3.0E-05
0.0409
Eco-costs () forceps (g/unit)

PEEK (1)
1.53E-01
9.06E-06
4.00E-08
1.59E-02
0.17
PEEK (2)
1.29E-01
9.06E-06
2.00E-07
1.36E-02
0.14
Economic cost
LCC () (g/unit)
0.56
1.92
PEEK (1)
0.00
2.26E-04
0.14
1.13E-04
2.09
PEEK (2)
1.92
0.0409
0.35
0.68
1.36
0.96
1.92
Cost (/g)
LCC (g/unit)
Purchase cost of materials
Process cost of material
Landll cost (1 tonne 33.00)
Recycle value SS (1) 50%
Landll SS (1) 50%
Recycle value SS (2) 100%
Landll SS (2) 0%
Total LCC = Mc + Ec + EOL
cost
EOL cost = Landll
cost Recycle value
SS (1)
7.02E-02
6.25E-05
1.18E-05
1.52E-01
0.22
SS (2)
6.53E-02
5.95E-05
1.00E-05
1.45E-01
0.21
Stainless steel (SS)

0.0150
0.0618
3.0E-05
0.0075
0.33
1.36
SS (1)
0.08
3.63E-04
0.17
0.00
1.50
SS (2)
1.41
0.0075
While for the total LCC is based on Equation (7):

Total LCC Manufacturing cost Environmental cost EOL cost
(7)
Table 3 indicates that this analysis results in LCC totals of 2.09 and 1.92 for PEEK (1) and PEEK (2), respectively.
For stainless steel-recycling rates at 50% and 100%, the LCC totals for SS (1) and SS (2) are 1.50 and 1.41. This
shows that the value for recycling has a positive impact to product sustainability.
With IEDM-supported comprehensive eco-design considerations throughout the design process, it has been shown
that the manufacture of the medical forceps using PEEK has high a potential to support improvements in most areas of
environmental impact. Improvement can be seen in aspects such as reduction in material usage, energy consumption
and safe emission. However, the cost of the PEEK-based forceps exceeds that of the existing steel version.
6. Discussion
In the nal assessment of the results arising from the case study, the manufacture of the medical forceps using PEEK is
shown to potentially support improvements and savings in most areas of environmental impact. As part of this design
process, it was further concluded that the two possible methods available to process the material to achieve this shape
were additive layer manufacture (ALM) using selective laser sintering and injection moulding. ALM was investigated
and found to be unsuitable due to the high unit cost and the rate of production given the volume of products required.
Injection-moulded forceps manufactured from PEEK were thus adopted as the potential alternative. However, the
568
A. Romli et al.
economic costs involved in supporting this process, and in labour and material when switching to a product made from
PEEK within the UK have been found to be signicantly higher than the existing stainless steel product manufactured
in Pakistan. Currently, this analysis could not support the proposed move; however, as the costs involved with manufacturing from PEEK (which is still a relatively expensive material) and those involved with the manufacture of new injection-moulding tooling are reduced, then such a move may be reconsidered using the IEDM model already created.
One very interesting point relates to the process of recycling PEEK, which is based upon a technology that is not
yet fully developed. In the context of injection moulding, control needs to be exercised as to how many times the PEEK
has been recycled (McLauchlin, Ghita, and Savage 2014). The level of process control this will require will necessitate
a close relationship between the material user and supplier to assure the continued quality of the recycled material. Such
a relationship may be best managed by locating the processes close together, having the effect of reducing transportation
costs. As the process improves, it will also result in the costs associated with the recycling PEEK to reduce. Both factors will in turn be incorporated into the IEDM and be shown to increase the viability of the PEEK forceps. This is an
illustration of how the IEDM methodology can incorporate information associated with new and emerging technical
information related to improve the take-up of disruptive technology.
In this case, the Eco-QFD also stimulated the reconsideration of the rst phase of the QFD design activity. Using
the IEDM methodology presented in Figure 2, the designer is able to focus on important attributes of the product,
reducing effort wasted on unrelated or unimportant product attributes. Here, this included detailed analysis of the forceps ergonomics and aesthetics, both of which are important to ensure that the handles are comfortable for the surgeon
to hold. In this case, it is seen as being possible to improve the existing design as the comfort of the PEEK-based forceps could be enhanced by more rounded proles. The surface nish should also be pleasing to touch and maintain a
clean appearance whilst being used in a medical environment. The design of the jaw/grip is considered to ensure that it
is able to grasp the objects and not to break under the required loading.
The design analysis behind these improvements could equally be applied to the existing steel forceps, conrming
that the deployed approach can be applied to achieve design improvements of an incremental nature. For example, analyses indicated that the existing forceps have been over-engineered and were too strong. Following the IEDM methodology given in Figure 2, the creation of revised part characteristics may be considered between Eco-QFD Phases I and II.
Savings in the amount of steel that could be made have to be set against new tooling costs, etc. are then assessed
between Eco-QFD Phases III and IV. The IEDM model created can support such an activity that may be applied at any
time, when, for example, the existing tooling requires replacement. It can also then be applied to the design and operation of the new tooling itself.
Having proposed such signicant design changes, the designer should ensure that new modes of failure do not arise
and that functional performance is not affected throughout the products useful life. Responses from customers and users
of the existing and redesigned products can be incorporated into the data associated with each IEDM process to better
inform designers and manufacturers as to the consequences of any actions taken. These responses may be quantitative
and/or qualitative, but in all cases, they can be associated with changes made within the Eco-QFD decision processes.
In the case study, much of the eco-design consideration applied to the use of PEEK and stainless steel is generic, and
information resulting from this process can be accessed and reused for the continuous improvement of the product and
similar products, thus reducing the time and cost for future work.
7. Conclusions
The IEDM methodology has been designed to be easily and widely applicable to sustainable product development. This
has been applied in the context of a case study to demonstrate how information relating to environmental considerations
supporting more sustainable product design can be generated and incorporated within the IEDM. The work has shown
that design improvements can be achieved concurrent with measures taken to improve sustainability. The use of an innovative Eco-HoQ tool within an enhanced Eco-QFD process means that important eco-design considerations are made
with full consideration for their impact across the complete product design and manufacture process for the entire product life cycle.
The incorporation of information within the IEDM methodology is achieved in an easy-to-apply manner, using
established QFD tools in a newly dened three-stage process. This enables users with complementary knowledge to
enter and access information in a timely and controlled manner. They are then able to contribute their expertise to support decisions with the aim of providing more sustainable products. The concentration of environmental considerations
into the Eco-HoQ within the deployed Eco-QFD process insures that product sustainability is always central to any
design development and that the implications of changes are fully identied and consequently can be justied. The generic nature of these considerations means it essential that the information they produce is accessible for future usage.
569
This is achieved in this work by the denition of the three Eco-Process modules embedding sustainability into the consideration of MP, PU and ES. This approach is formed around the application of a set of Eco-Process parameters and
their associated relationships. It can be easily and widely applied.
Future work will centre on the application of the IEDM to develop the knowledge-base rules for the parameters in
the Eco-Process model. This can support the wider application of the IEDM, with more informed decisions being
enabled at each stage. The IEDM methodology is also seen as the basis for enhancements such as introducing multi-criteria analysis into the assessment of levels to represent customer priorities and the grading of DQ and QCs. To aid this
development process, an ontology-based approach will be deployed to provide a standardised method of encoding pertinent knowledge within the Eco-QFD.
Acknowledgements
The case study presented in this paper has been partially supported by the Advanced Sustainable Manufacturing Technologies
(ASTUTE) project, a 26.8 M consortium of Welsh Universities supported via the Welsh European Funding Ofce (WEFO). This
work was supported by Advanced Sustainable Manufacturing Technologies (ASTUTE) project, which is part funded from the European Regional Development Fund via the Welsh European Funding Ofce and the Ministry of Government, Malaysia and Universiti
Malaysia Pahang.
References
Adhitya, A., Iskandar Halim, and Rajagopalan Srinivasan. 2011. Decision Support for Green Supply Chain Operations by Integrating
Dynamic Simulation and LCA Indicators: Diaper Case Study. Environmental Science and Technology 45 (23): 1017810185.
Akao, Y. 1990. Quality Function Deployment QFD. Cambridge: Productivity Press.
Allione, C., Claudia De Giorgi, Beatrice Lerma, and Luca Petruccelli. 2012. From Ecodesign Products Guidelines to Materials
Guidelines for a Sustainable Product. Qualitative and Quantitative Multicriteria Environmental Prole of a Material. Energy
39 (1): 9099.
Ashihara, K., and Ishii, K. 2005. Application of Quality Function Deployment for New Business R&D Strategy Development. In
ASME 2005 International Mechanical Engineering Congress, 279287, Orlando, FL, USA, November 511. Paper
IMECE2005-81956.
Bevilacqua, M., F. E. Ciarapica, and G. Giacchetta. 2007. Development of a Sustainable Product Lifecycle in Manufacturing Firms:
A Case Study. International Journal of Production Research 45 (1819): 40734098.
Cerdan, C., C. Gazulla, M. Raugei, E. Martinez, and P. F. Fullana-i-Palmer. 2009. Proposal for New Quantitative Eco-design Indicators: A First Case Study. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (18): 16381643.
Chen, R. 2009. RFM-based Eco-efciency Analysis Using TakagiSugeno Fuzzy and AHP Approach. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 29 (3): 157164.
Christensen, C. M. 1997. The Innovators Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Christensen, C. M., and M. E. Raynor. 2003. The Innovators Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Cristofari, M., Deshmukh, A., and Wang, B. 1996. Green Quality Function Deployment. In Proceeding of the 4th International
Conference on Environmentally Conscious Design and Manufacturing, 297304. Cleveland, OH.
Dai, J., and J. Blackhurst. 2011. A Four-phase AHPQFD Approach for Supplier Assessment: A Sustainability Perspective. International Journal of Production Research 50 (19): 117.
de Almeida Souza, P. F., and H. B. de Barros Pereira. 2006. Towards Indicators of Sustainable Product Design. In Engineering
Management Conference, 2006 IEEE International IEEE, Bahia, Brazil, 274277.
Devanathan, S., D. Ramanujan, W. Z. Bernstein, F. Zhao, and K. Ramani. 2010. Integration of Sustainability into Early Design
through the Function Impact Matrix. Journal of Mechanical Design 132 (8): 18.
Dong, C., Z. Chuck, and B. Wang. 2003. Integration of Green Quality Function Deployment and Fuzzy Multi-attribute Utility Theory-based Cost Estimation for Environmentally Consious Product Development. International Journal of Environmentally
Conscious Design and Manufacturing 11 (1): 1228.
Emzer,M., Mattheib, C., and Birkhofer, H. 2003. EI2QFD An Integrated QFD Approach or from the Results of Eco-indicator 99
to Quality Function Deployment. Paper presented in Third International Symposium in Environmentally Consious Design and
Inverse Manufacturing, Tokyo, December 811.
Emzer, M., T. Sakao, and C. Matthei. 2004. Effective and Efcient Application of Eco-QFD. In International Design Conference,
Design 2004, 16. Dubrovnik.
Firman, M. A., C. R. C. Hassan, N. M. Sulaiman, N. Z. Mahmud, S. N. Mokhtar, and Y. Khairulzan. 2012. Eco-costs per Value
Ratio Assessment of Construction Waste: A Study in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Journal of Environmental Research and
Development 7 (1): 99106.
570
A. Romli et al.
Gabisoftware.com. 2014. Accessed March 2014. http://www.gabi-software.com/international/solutions/life-cycle-assessment/

Gehin, A., P. Zwolinski, and D. Brissaud. 2008. A Tool to Implement Sustainable End-of-life Strategies in the Product Development
Phase. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (5): 566576.
Govindarajan, V., P. K. Kopalle, and E. Danneels. 2011. The Effects of Mainstream and Emerging Customer Orientations on Radical
and Disruptive Innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (1): 121132.
Halada, K., and R. Yamamoto. 2001. The Current Status of Research and Development on Ecomaterials around the World. MRS
Bulletin 26 (11): 871879.
Hare, J. A. 2010. Eco-innovation Tools for the Early Stages: An Industry-based Investigation of Tool Customisation and Introduction. PhD diss., University of Bath.
Hassan, M. F., M. Z. M. Saman, S. Sharif, and B. Omar. 2012. Integration of Morphological Analysis Theory and Articial Neural Network Approach for Sustainable Product Design: A Case Study of Portable Vacuum Cleaner. International Journal Sustainable
Manufacturing 2 (4): 293315.
Heijungs, R., G. Huppes, and J. B. Guine. 2010. Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability Analysis of Products, Materials and
Technologies. toward a Scientic Framework for Sustainability Life Cycle Analysis. Polymer Degradation and Stability 95
(3): 422428.
Johnson, J., B. Reck, T. Wang, and T. E. Graedel. 2007. The Energy Benet of Stainless Steel Recycling. Energy Policy 36 (1):
181192.
Kaebernick, H., S. Kara, and M. Sun. 2003. Sustainable Product Development and Manufacturing by Considering Environmental
Requirements. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 19 (6): 461468.
Kuo, T. C., H. H. Wu, and J. I. Shieh. 2009. Integration of Environmental Considerations in Quality Function Deployment by Using
Fuzzy Logic. Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3): 71487156.
Lbpde. 2014. Accessed March 2014. http://www.lbp-gabi.de/30-1-Home.html
Leidenuniv. 2014. Accessed March 2014. http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/index.html
Lin, C. Y., H. I. L. Amy, and H. Y. Kang. 2013. An Integrated New Product Development Framework An Application on Green
and Low-carbon Products. International Journal of Systems Science May: 121.
Masui, K., T. Sakao, M. Kobayashi, and A. Inaba. 2003. Applying Quality Function Deployment to Environmentally Conscious
Design. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 20 (1): 90106.
Masui, K., Sakao, T., and Inaba, A. 2001. Quality Function Deployment for Environment: QFDE (1st Report) A Methodology in
Early Stage of DfE-. In International Symposium On Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing, 852
857, Tokyo.
McLauchlin, A. R., O. R. Ghita, and L. Savage. 2014. Studies on the Reprocessability of Poly(Ether Ether Ketone) (PEEK). Journal of Materials Processing Technology 214: 7580.
Mehta, C., and B. Wang. 2001. Green Quality Function Deployment III: A Methodology for Developing Environmentally Conscious
Products. Journal of Design and Manufacturing Automation 4 (1): 116.
Nguyen, X. H., T. Honda, T. Wang, and R. Yamamoto 2005. Eco-materials. http://www.d4s-de.org/. www.d4s-sbs.org/MH.pdf.
Otto, K., and K. Wood. 2001. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Park, T., and K. J. Kim. 1998. Determination of an Optimal Set of Design Requirements Using House of Quality. Journal of Operations Management 16: 569581.
Ptiplastics. 2014. http://www.ptiplastics.co.uk/.
Ramani, K., Devarajan Ramanujan, William Z. Bernstein, Fu Zhao, John Sutherland, Carol Handwerker, J. K. Choi, H. Kim, and D.
Thurston. 2010. Integrated Sustainable Life Cycle Design: A Review. Journal of Mechanical Design 132 (9): 091004.
Romli, A., P. Prickett, R. Setchi, and S. Soe. 2014. A Conceptual Model for Sustainable Product Design. Key Engineering Materials
572: 36.
Sakao, T. 2007. A QFD-centred Design Methodology for Environmentally Conscious Product Design. International Journal of
Production Research 45 (1819): 41434162.
Schulz, M., and I. Mersiowsky. 2013. Critical Review of LCA- Essential for Quality and Understanding. In The 6th International
Conference on Life Cycle Management, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Senthil, K. D., S. K. Ong, A. Y. C. Nee, and Reginald B. H. Tan. 2003. A Proposed Tool to Integrate Environmental and Economical Assessments of Products. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23 (1): 5172.
Solidworks. 2013. Accessed March, 2014. http://www.solidworks.com/sustainability/design/life-cycle-assessment.htm
Turnbull, A. 2014. Medical Eco-design. http://www.medical-ecodesign.com/drivers-benets/cost-savings.
Utne, I. B. 2009. Improving the Environmental Performance of the Fishing Fleet by Use of Quality Function Deployment (QFD).
Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (8): 724731.
Vinodh, S., V. Kamala, and K. Jayakrishna. 2013. ECQFD-TRIZ- AHP Integrated Approach for Innovative and Sustainable Product
Development. Applied Mathematical Modelling 38: 27582770.
Vinodh, S., and G. Rathod. 2010. Integration of ECQFD and LCA for Sustainable Product Design. Journal of Cleaner Production
18 (8): 833842.
Vogtlander, J. G. 2011. A Quick Reference Guide to LCA Data and Eco-based Materials Selection. 1st ed. Delft: VSSD.
571
Vogtlnder, J. G., H. C. Brezet, and C. F. Hendriks. 2001. The Virtual Eco-costs 99 a Single LCA-based Indicator for Sustainability
and the Eco-costs-value Ratio (EVR) Model for Economic Allocation. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 6
(3): 157166.
Vogtlnder, J. G., C. F. Hendriks, and H. C. Brezet. 2002. The EVR Model for Sustainability. A Tool to Optimise Product Design
and Resolve Strategic Dilemmas. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 1 (2): 103116.
Wangi, J., Y. Suihuai, Q. Bin, and R. Jinfeng. 2010. ECQFD & LCA Based Methodology for Sustainable Product Design. In Computer-aided Industrial Design & Conceptual Design (CAIDCD), edited by Y. Pan and Z. da Xue, 15631567. Yiwu: IEEE.
Weustink, I. F., E. T. ten Brinke, A. H. Streppel, and H. J. J. Kals. 2000. A Generic Framework for Cost Estimation and Cost Control in Product Design. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 103 (1): 141148.
WRAP. 2013. http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/les/wrap/Gate_Fees_Report_2013_.pdf.
Yu, D., and C. C. Hang. 2010. A Reective Review of Disruptive Innovation Theory. International Journal of Management
Reviews 12: 435452.
Zhang, Y. 1999. Green QFD-II: A Life Cycle Approach for Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing by Integrating LCA and
LCC into QFD Matrices. International Journal of Production Research 37 (5): 10751091.
Zhou, C. C., G. F. Yin, and X. B. Hu. 2009. Multi-objective Optimization of Material Selection for Sustainable Products: Articial
Neural Networks and Genetic Algorithm Approach. Materials and Design 30 (4): 12091215.

Integrated Eco-Design Decision-Making For Sustainable Product Development

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Integrated Eco-Design Decision-Making For Sustainable Product Development

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20