Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2004) 24: 925–931

DOI 10.1007/s00170-003-1809-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Hwai-En Tseng · Wei-Shing Chen

A replacement consideration for the end-of-life product in the green life cycle
environment

Received: 03 March 2003 / Accepted: 28 March 2003 / Published online: 5 May 2004
 Springer-Verlag London Limited 2004

Abstract With the rapid development of electronics and semi-
conductor technology, the life cycle of personal computers is
getting shorter. The design and development of such products has
become a regular and necessary routine. Because of this trend, it
is often the case that users need to upgrade their computers after
a certain period of time to cope with problems that can’t be han-
dled with a less powerful machine. It is therefore urgent to reduce
the upgrade expense and to save resources.
To solve the problem, this study employs the economic ben-
efit analysis of disassembling personal computers to reduce the
cost of product upgrading and to help protect the environment
and save resources. In the study, the authors first work out the
total economic benefit analysis flow. Then, with product depre-
ciation as the core concept, an algorithm is proposed. With the
use of computer programming, the product salvage is calculated
through the preliminary product database. In the interactive in-
terface, suggestions for computer upgrade were provided for the
users. Finally, personal computers are used as an example to il-
lustrate the economic benefit analysis model.
environmentally friendly manufacturing requirements. This will
allow resources to be used to their full potential. Furthermore, the
damage rate is minimised, and the impact the product has on the
environment is reduced as much as possible. Such a trend is the
so-called green life cycle engineering design [1, 2].
So what is a green life cycle engineering design? The so-
called product life cycle means the total product time from raw
material to manufacturing, assemblage, usage and finally dis-
carding or recycling the product, as shown in Fig. 1. The addition
of the concept of environmental protection in the product life
cycle can be defined as the green life cycle engineering design. It
is hoped that by undertaking environmental protection the influ-

Keywords Depreciation · Green life cycle

engineering design · Recycle

1 Introduction
Only in recent years have people realised the importance of en-
vironmental protection. People are concerned about the context
they are living in and the way people make use of resources.
Because of limited resources on Earth, recycling and garbage
classification have been given much attention. These methods,
however, are passive methods, used in the launch, usage and
damage of products. A more aggressive approach to this prob-
lem is to take into consideration product design and establish

H.-E. Tseng (u) · W.-S. Chen

Department of Industrial Engineering,
Da Yeh University,
Changhwa, Taiwan, R.O.C.
hwiaen@tcts.seed.net.tw Fig. 1. Consideration for green life cycle product
926
ence products have on the environment can be reduced and help
return the earth to its original status: beautiful and clean. During
the process, the latest two stages (product usage, discard or recy-
cling) have a major influence on the green life cycle of a product.
On one hand, the usage of a product influences the length of
the life cycle. On the other hand, discarding or recycling a prod-
uct matters a lot for the environment and resources. To lengthen
the life cycle of a product and make the most of resources, we
need to investigate the components and subassemblies of a prod-
uct. The understanding of the function and relationship among
components will make it possible for engineers to work out the
optimum solution. In this way, decision makers will know how to
deal with components in the future (reusing, recycling, discard-
ing or selling them to the second-hand market).
Take personal computers as an example. Owing to the rapid
and continuous development of technology, users will upgrade
their computers after a certain period of time. Because of this,
some components must be replaced even though they are not
out of date. The user can deal with such a problem in a more
economical way, i.e., by selling these components to a second-
hand store. In this way, the user won’t lose too much. Moreover,
other users can purchase the product they need for a lower price.
This will extend the concept of product life cycle to the max-
imum. At the end of the product use, disassembly can be pro-
cessed where the components can be discarded, reused, recycled
or sold to a store. In practical cases in Taiwan, the Environmen-
tal Protection Administration Bureau (EPAB) is in charge of the
disposal of such products [3]. The user of a discarded product,
for example, a vehicle, will be given an amount of money as
a reward. In the disposal of personal computers, however, no
suitable method is offered, thus causing difficulty in the treat-
ment of components. No proper method or related information is
provided for the users.
In the past, much research in the green life cycle area was
explored. For instance, Ishii proposed the life-cycle engineer-
ing design on the basis of minimum cost concept and product
life cycle engineering by artificial intelligence [1]. Penev and
DE Ron explored disassembly strategies through dynamic pro-
gramming [4]. Pnuell and Zussman formulated the life cycle
index and dealt with the AND/OR tree from the life cycle view-
point [5]. Lee et al. discussed a multi-objective methodology
for determining appropriate end-of-life options for manufactured
products [6]. A numerical index of the environmental impact of
a material or process – the eco-indicator – is adopted. After much
research, Johnson and Wang [7] dealt with the disassembly tree
from the profit loss margin concept synthesised from the cost
matrix and profit matrix. This is the first time that product disas-
sembly was investigated from the economic point of view. To our
knowledge, the upgrade and discard problem has not been given
much attention until now.
This study explores the replacement problem for the end-
of-life products from the economic viewpoint. It is necessary to
explore the replacement assessment for the following reasons:
1. Product remanufacturing can fill the new life for product or
component
2. Product reuse can reduce variable costs
3. Among products, it is important to distinguish between valu-
able components and unvalued parts
4. To ensure the non-profit surplus is discarded or recycled
5. Research replacement analysis to promote the progress of
green life cycle
Obviously, the traditional approach of engineering economy
(DeGarmo et al. [8]) can’t support this trend now. In this study,
the minimum cost method and utility theory are used to help
product owners make decisions in upgrading their products. In
upgrading a product, the disassembled components will be dealt
with by reuse, discarding, recycling, and selling to second-hand
stores as shown in Fig. 1. In Sect. 2, the framework for the
replacement evaluation of products’ life cycle is discussed. In
Sect. 3, the related algorithm is delineated. The example of per-
sonal computers is covered in Sect. 4 to illustrate the concept.
In Sect. 5, the authors make conclusions and offer future work
suggestions.
2 The basic concept about replacement analysis for
end-of-life product
This study deals with the end-of-life product with a considera-
tion to replace it. The proposed replacement analysis is shown
in Fig. 2, where several parts of product manipulation are cov-
ered: the depreciation value determination, component database,
upgrade evaluation and upgrade expense calculation.
After the product configuration data is entered by a decision
maker, the data is forwarded to create the bill of material (BOM)
from the viewpoint of disassembly. The component database pro-
vides all the necessary information for the users to build their
specifications.
Determine the recycling price or depreciation value of product.
After the user enters the specification data, the computer will
search for the recycling price in the database. If the price can’t be
found, the computer will calculate the depreciation value as the
recycling price from the depreciation factor. The recycling price
serves as a reference for the user to make decisions in dealing
with their product components – reuse, selling to a store, recy-
cling or discarding.
Component disposal. After the recycling price or depreciation
value is known, users need to decide how to deal with their prod-
uct. They can sell it to a store for a certain amount of money,
dispose of it or reuse it. Based on the user’s decision, the pro-
gram will calculate the product salvage according to the value
and disassembly cost of the components.
Select upgrade items. With the product salvage at hand, the users
need to select the upgrade items according to their needs in the
future.
Upgrade evaluation. The feasibility of upgrading is evaluated
from the upgrade selection and the original facility.

Fig. 2. Evaluation procedure for disassembly analysis from the replacement
viewpoint
Suggestion report. The suggestion report lists the optimum prod-
uct portfolios that not only call for the minimum upgrade cost
but also meet the user’s requirements. If the user can accept
a higher cost of upgrade, a couple of upgrade suggestions will
be offered. If the user is not satisfied with the suggestions
(some users may prefer a specific brand or dislike certain prod-
ucts), then the user can go back to the data entry part and re-
enter the upgrade category until the suggestion is satisfactory to
him/her.
3 The disposal model of end-of-life product
In this research, the decisions for the end-of-life product sal-
vage are different because four levels, including reuse, recycling,
discarding and selling to a store, were adopted to deal with the
products. After the user chooses the disposal method, the precise
value of product salvage will be generated.
In the disassembly analysis, the functions and purchasing
price are considered. To proceed with the economic benefit an-
alysis of product depreciation, the user needs to enter the depre-
ciation factor. The algorithm to calculate the depreciation value
927
is listed in Eq. 1:
X i = Mi × R (1)
where X i represents the depreciation value of a specific compon-
ent i, Mi represents the original price of a specific component i
and R represents the depreciation factor of a specific component
(the value of the depreciation factor falls in the range of [0, 1]).
The calculated depreciation value is close to the product
value after a period of usage time. From the viewpoint of engin-
eering economy, for an asset with an estimated life of n years,
the depreciation value that may be used with this method is
R = 2/n [8].
Because the disassembly task of a product will take an
amount of time, the disassembly cost should be taken into con-
sideration. The disassembly expense is calculated by the follow-
ing algorithm as listed in Eq. 2:
Hi = Pcost × T (2)
where Hi represents the disassembly cost whose value is smaller
or equal to the assembly cost, Pcost represents the man power
cost and T represents the disassembly time whose value is as-
sumed to be equal to that of assembly time.
The assembly time can be determined from the research re-
sult of Boothroyd et al. [9]
In addition, when the user chooses to reuse a component i,
the algorithm for reuse is shown in Eq. 3:
Reuse = X i − Hi (3)
where Reuse represents the value of product salvage, X i repre-
sents the depreciation value, the output of Eq. 1 and Hi repre-
sents the disassembly cost, the output of Eq. 2.
When the user chooses to sell it to a store, the user needs
to enter the price of the component on the second-hand market.
A precise value of product salvage will then be generated and
proceeded with the disassembly cost as is shown in Eq. 4:
Recycle = Rc − Hi (4)
where Recycle represents the value of product salvage, Rc repre-
sents the value of the product price on the second-hand market
and Hi represents the disassembly cost, the output of Eq. 2.
For recycling or discarding choices, the product is either too
old or damaged and cannot be sold to a store. Therefore, the
subsidy given by the government was employed in this study
to calculate the value for these two choices. And because there
are a few items to be recycled according to the EPAB’s regu-
lations, those not recycled will be discarded. The algorithm for
such product recycling is shown in Eq. 5:
Disposal = Ro − Hi (5)
where Disposal represents the product salvage value of recy-
cling, Ro represents the subsidy given by the government and Hi
represents the disassembly cost, the output of Eq. 2.
928

Because there is no compensation for choosing to discard,

only the disassembly cost is considered in the discarding choice.
The algorithm is listed in Eq. 6:

Donot = −Hi (6)

where Donot represents the product salvage value of discarding

and Hn represents the disassembly cost, the output of Eq. 2.
After the product is disassembled, and the parts are consid-
ered for reuse, discarding, recycling or selling to a store, the
total product salvage is the summation of the salvage value of
the components by specific disposal choices. This is denoted by
Eq. 7:

Si = Max(Reuse ∨ Recycle ∨ Disposal ∨ Donot) (7)

where Si represent the total salvage of product, Reuse represents Fig. 3. Utility function determination of Eq. 9
the summation of the salvage of reusing components, Recycle
represents the summation of the salvage of recycling compo-
nents, Disposal represents the summation of the subsidies of The Range for the value of each weight is [0,1] and their sum
components and Donot represents the summation of the salvage 
n
must equal 1. The formula Wi = 1 must be satisfied.
of discarding components. i=1
The total utility value is the sum of the individual utilities and


n is shown in Eq. 10:
Ssum = Si (8)
i

n
Utotal = wi U. (10)
where Si represents the salvage value for component i and Ssum i=1
represents the total salvage of products.
Upgrading product components can be regarded as a decision-
making problem. Each component has a corresponding utility
value for every decision maker. When a user desires a compon- 4 Illustrated example
ent located outside the feasible support region, it is impossible to
Based upon the framework in Fig. 2, the authors use personal
produce a component that completely satisfies the user’s require-
computers as pilot examples to build the system under the en-
ment. However, the user may have some level of satisfaction
vironment of Microsoft Visual Basic Version 6. The component
for a compromised component outside the feasible region. A re-
database provides all components for the users to enter their
placement system should be introduced so that satisfaction levels
specifications. The configuration of the PC Board, hard disk,
are as great as possible. Various models for expressing users’
demands for products have been presented ([10–12]). In this pa-
per, we model this utility function of user’s value as the fuzzy
membership function ([12]). An example of the utility function is
shown in Fig. 3. The figure shows that for input factors, a normal-
isation function can be determined by its average point (X 0 ) and
steeping rate (r). These two control parameters can be modified
based on the user’s intent. The steeping rate is related to the curve
shapes and X 0 corresponds to a value of 0.5 and influences the
relative position of the S-shape curve. Based on the membership
function, all input values can be normalised into a [0, 1] value.
The logistic function is calculated by the following formula:

1
Y= (9)
1 + e−r(x−x0 )
where x0 represents the average index and r represents the slope
of the curve.
The determination of the weights is dependent on the user.
The weight value can be entered directly by the decision maker. Fig. 4. Bill of material for a personal computer
 929
Table 1. Illustrated example modified
form Lin (1999) Component Original data Second hand price Upgrade data Price in May 2000

CPU Pentium 233 1000 K6-2 300 2,000

Main board Socket 7/AGP/PCI/ISA Same
RAM 32MB DIMM Same
Hard disk(HD) 4.3GB 300 8.6GB 3,500
DVD/CD-ROM 32X 32X Same
Display VGA card AGP(VGA card) Same
Total cost 1,300 5,500

monitor, CPU, RAM, audio and video cards, mouse, key board,
floppy disk, CD ROM, Power, and the like need to be speci-
fied and stored respectively. In the process, the PC board will be
linked to the CPU because they need to be compatible with each
other. Different CPUs are required for different PC boards.
In this system, the user needs to enter the disposal method
he or she likes, taking into account the depreciation value. The
disposal methods include reuse, selling to a store, recycling, and
discarding. One and only one of these choices should be made to
calculate the product salvage of each component. With these data
available, the user can pick one out of four specific functions:
word processing, multimedia, 3D games and graphics, where the
basic facility such as RAM and CPU are set up in advance. Based
upon the functions the user selects and those of the original, an
upgrade is necessary when the original facilities are lower than
those selected by the user. Accordingly, the upgrade expense will
then be calculated.
Table 1 shows a practical example of the upgrade specifi-
cation of personal computers. The content is obtained by the
experience of experts ([13]). The prices of components have been
adjusted for May 2001. The information listed in Table 1 is re-
lated to the manufacturer, product type and the price that will
serve as criteria for upgrading. Figure 4 shows the bill of material
for the personal computer. Figure 5 is the interface of the input
system.
To figure out the product salvage, the algorithm for depre-
ciation value will be used to calculate the present value of the
computer. In calculating the depreciation, the depreciation factor,
which is between 0 and 1 for each component, should be entered.
The depreciation factor is up to the user’s evaluation. If it is en-
tered casually, there will be some difference between the output
and the real depreciation value.
With the depreciation value generated, the user needs to
select one disposal method from reuse, recycling, discarding
and selling to a store. The disassembly cost will then be cal-
culated. In this study, the disassembly expense is based upon
the unit cost of man power: Pcost 33 (a charge of NT$1,000 for
30 min ([13, 14]) and an empirical observation: the disassem-
bly time (T ) for the CPU and the hard disk is 0.5 min and
1 min, respectively. Moreover, the prices for second-hand CPUs
and hard disks are NT$300 and NT$1,000, respectively (Rc in
Sect. 3). Consequently, the product salvage (Rcycle ) of CPU

Fig. 5. Configuration of the personal computer Fig. 6. Calculating for salvage value
930

Fig. 8. Calculating the utility value for the personal computer

Fig. 7. Selection for upgrade level

and hard disk is NT$285.5 and NT$967, respectively, as shown

in Fig. 6.
In the example shown in Fig. 7, the user chooses word pro-
cessing as the major function for upgrading. The system’s output
suggests that the CPU and hard disk should be replaced. From
Eq. 8 mentioned in Sect. 3, the upgrade expense amounts to
NT$4249.5. Compared with the experts’ opinion in Table 1, it
will cost NT$5,500 to upgrade the components according to PC
Magazine. Subtracting the money earned from selling the CPU
and hard disk to a store, which is NT$1,300, the upgrade cost
is 5, 500 − 1, 300 = 4, 200. Considering the disassembly charge, Fig. 9. Upgraded suggestion report

Fig. 10. Comparison between the original and

new PC

which is NT$49.5 (1.5 min * 33 = 49.5), the total upgrade ex-
pense is NT$4,249.5. Therefore, the authors suggestion is not
only to include the upgrade cost but also to include the recycling
consideration.
The upgrade level of the major components of a personal
computer is like the S-shape curve illustrated in Eq. 9. The utility
curve of the CPU, RAM and VGA card is shown in Fig. 8. The
total utility value is delineated in Eq. 10. Finally, we can com-
pare the portfolio between the original and the new product. The
suggestion report is shown in Figures 9 and 10.
With the complete database set up, the user will be able to
determine the facility and expense necessary to upgrade without
expert knowledge.
5 Conclusions
This study attempted to establish an economic replacement an-
alysis model for general products. This model helps a user de-
termine the best method to use when upgrading a product such
as a personal computer. In addition to solving the upgrading
problem, the model informs the user about product salvage pos-
sibilities so that the user can decide whether it is suitable to
upgrade the computer. That is to say, it not only helps solve the
upgrade problem but also meets the requirements of the PC user.
Because the design and development of products is influ-
enced by the external environment and time factors, it is ne-
cessary to update the database regularly. A network version of
such models should be established in the near future so that the
user can access the program through a network. Manufacturers as
well as second-hand store keepers can also update the related in-
931
formation when necessary. This will guarantee that the suggested
report is more precise.
References
1. Ishii K (1995) Life-cycle engineering design. Trans ASME 117:42–47
2. Güngör A, Gupta SM (1999) Issues in environmentally conscious
manufacturing and product recovery: a survey. Comput Ind Eng
36:811–853
3. Environmental Protection Administration Government of the Republic
of China, http://www.epa.gov.tw.
4. Penev KD, De Ron AJ (1996) Determination of a disassembly strategy.
Int J Prod Res 34(2):495–506
5. Pnuell Y, Zussman E (1997) Evaluating the end-of-life value of a prod-
uct and improving it by redesign. Int J Prod Res 35(4):921–942
6. Lee SG, Lye SW, Khoo MK (2001) A Multi-objective methodology
for evaluating product End-Of-Life options and disassembly. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 18:148–156
7. Johnson MR, Wang MH (1998) Economical evaluation of disassem-
bly operations for recycling, remanufacturing and reuse. Int J Prod Res
36(12):3227–3252
8. DeGarmo EP, Sullivan WG, Bontadelli JA, Wicks EM (2000) Engineer-
ing economy, 11th edn. Prentice-Hall, New York
9. Boothroyd G, Dewhurst P, Knight W (1994) Product design for manu-
facturing and assembly. Marcel Dekker, New York
10. Yoshimura M, Takeuchi A (1994) Concurrent optimization of product
design and manufacturing based on information of users’ needs. Con-
current Eng Res Appl 2:33–44
11. Mousavi A, Adl P, Rakowski RT, Gunassekaran A, Mirnezami N (2001)
Customer optimization route and evaluation(CORE) for product design.
Int J Comput Integr Manuf 14(2):236–243
12. Yu Y, Jin K, Zhang HC (2000) A decision-making model for materials
management of end-of-life electronic products. J Manuf Syst 19(2):94–
102
13. Lin EH (1999) The upgrade for Pentium old computer. The 3 Wave
Magazine 9:P246
14. Shiue LK (1999) Assembly one computer through 30 minute. PC Home
Magazine 40:123