Integration of ECQFD and LCA for enabling sustainable product design in an electric vehicle manufacturing organisation

Figures & data

Figure 1 Methodology.

Table 1 ECQFD Phase I for an electric vehicle.

	EMs
VOCs	Customer weights	High-torque AC induction motor	AC motor controller	350 A microprocessor based with regenerative braking	Microprocessor-based battery management system	Power pack (lead acid batteries)	Power train performance
Easy to drive, fully automatic drive	5	5	5	5	3	3	5
Range of 80 km per charge	5	5	5		5	5	5
Easy to charge at home or office	5	5	3		5	5	1
Disc brakes, with increased regenerative braking	5	3	3	5	1		5
Tubeless tyres	3	5	3	5			1
Raw score		105	89	65	70	65	83
Relative weight		0.22	0.186	0.136	0.146	0.136	0.174

Table 2 ECQFD Phase II for an electric vehicle.

Engineering metrics	Phase I relative weight	AC motor	AC motor controller	Single reduction gear box	Battery pack	Battery charger	Energy management system	Energy absorbing bumper	Tubeless tyre
High-torque AC induction motor	0.220	5	5	3	1	3	1	3	3
AC motor controller	0.186	5	5	3	3	3	3	5	3
350 A microprocessor based with regenerative braking	0.136	3	5	5	3	3	5		5
Microprocessor-based battery management system	0.146	3	3	3	5	5	5
Power pack (lead acid batteries)	0.136	3	5	1	5	5	5	3	1
Power train performance	0.174	5	5	5	3	5	5	3	1
Raw score		4.154	4.698	3.342	3.118	3.906	3.738	2.52	2.208
Relative weight		0.183	0.207	0.147	0.137	0.172	0.164	0.111	0.097

Table 3 ECQFD Phase III of an electric vehicle for option I.

Engineering metrics	Phase I relative weight	AC motor	AC motor controller	Single reduction gear box	Battery pack	Battery charger	Energy management system	Energy absorbing bumper	Tubeless tyre	Score	Improvement rate of engineering metrics
High-torque AC induction motor	0.220									0	0
AC motor controller	0.186									0	0
350 A microprocessor based with regenerative braking	0.136			5						5	0.172
Microprocessor-based battery management system	0.146						5			5	0.208
Power pack (lead acid batteries)	0.136									0	0
Power train performance	0.174									0	0

Table 4 ECQFD Phase III of an electric vehicle for option II.

Engineering metrics	Phase I relative weight	AC motor	AC motor controller	Single reduction gear box	Battery pack	Battery charger	Energy management system	Energy absorbing bumper	Tubeless tyre	Score	Improvement rate of engineering metrics
High-torque AC induction motor	0.220		5							5	0.208
AC motor controller	0.186									0	0
350 A microprocessor based with regenerative braking	0.136									0	0
Microprocessor-based battery management system	0.146									0	0
Power pack (lead acid batteries)	0.136									0	0
Power train performance	0.174	5								5	0.156

Table 5 ECQFD Phase IV of an electric vehicle for option I.

	EMs
VOCs	Customer weights	High-torque AC induction motor	AC motor controller	350 A microprocessor based with regenerative braking	Microprocessor-based battery management system	Power pack (lead acid batteries)	Power train performance	Improvement rate of CR	Improvement effect of CR
Easy to drive, fully automatic drive	5	5	5	5	3	3	5	0.011	0.057
Range of 80 km per charge	5	5	5		5	5	5	0.008	0.041
Easy to charge at home or office	5	5	3		5	5	1	0.010	0.054
Disc brakes, with increased regenerative braking	5	3	3	5	1		5	0.012	0.062
Tubeless tyres	3	5	3	5			1	0.020	0.061
Improvement rate of engineering metrics	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.172	0.208	0.00	0.00		0.275

Table 6 ECQFD Phase IV of an electric vehicle for option II.

	EMs
VOCs	Customer weights	High-torque AC induction motor	AC motor controller	350 A microprocessor based with regenerative braking	Microprocessor-based battery management system	Power pack (lead acid batteries)	Power train performance	Improvement rate of CR	Improvement effect of CR
Easy to drive, fully automatic drive	5	5	5	5	3	3	5	0.014	0.07
Range of 80 km per charge	5	5	5		5	5	5	0.014	0.07
Easy to charge at home or office	5	5	3		5	5	1	0.012	0.062
Disc brakes, with increased regenerative braking	5	3	3	5	1		5	0.016	0.082
Tubeless tyres	3	5	3	5			1	0.028	0.085
Improvement rate of engineering metrics	0.00	0.208	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.156		0.369

Table 7 Assessment model for an electric vehicle components.

Description	AC motor	AC motor controller	Single reduction gear box	Battery pack	Battery charger	Energy management system	Space frame	Dent proof ABS body panel	Energy absorbing bumper	Tubeless tyre
Producing a new component
Product cost	32,374	31,238	28,000	57,952	46,628	8580	18,400	28,000	8800	9600
Environmental cost	3237.4	3123.8	2800	5795.2	4662.8	858	1840	2800	880	960
PLCC	35611.4	34361.8	30,800	63747.2	51290.8	9438	20,240	30,800	9680	10,560
MP	40,467	39,047	35,000	72,440	37,302	10,725	23,000	35,000	11,000	12,000
PE (1 for reuse  potential and 0  for non-reuse potential)	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
PVL	40,467	39,047	0	72,440	0	10,725	23,000	35,000	11,000	12,000
	4855.6	4685.2	− 30,800	8692.8	− 37,302	1287	2760	4200	1320	1440
Remanufacturing a old component
Procurement cost	9635	9297	8333	17,248	8881.42	2554	5476.2	8333	2619	2857
Re-manufacturing cost	14,715	14,199	12,727	26,342	13,564	3900	8364	12,727	4000	4364
Environmental cost	147.2	142	127.3	263.42	135.64	39	83.64	127.3	40	43.64
PLCC	24497.2	23,638	22,333	43853.4	22,581	6493	13,924	22,333	6659	7264.64
MP	40,467	39,047	35,000	72,440	37,302	10,725	23,000	35,000	11,000	12,000
PE	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
PVL	40,467	39,047	0	72,440	0	10,725	23,000	35,000	11,000	12,000
	15,970	15,409	− 22,333	28586.6	− 22,581	4232	9076	12,667	4341	4735.36
	11114.4	10,724	8467	19,894	14,721	2495	6316	8467	3021	3295.4

Figure 2 Comparison of PG for old and new components of an electric vehicle.

Figure 3 Comparison of PLCC for new and old components of an electric vehicle.

Figure 4 Format of questionnaire.

Table 8 Consolidated responses of the executives.

		Average response of the executives in a Likert's scale of range 1–10 (1, not at all possible; 5, partially possible; 10, completely possible)
Serial number	Question	E1	E2	E3	E4	E5	Average response
1	To what extent do you believe that the ECQFD would enable the attainment of sustainability in your organisation?	9	9	8	8	9	8
2	To what extent do you believe that the simplified LCA methodology is practically feasible and would enable sustainability in your organisation?	9	7	9	8	9	8
3	To what extent do you believe that the suggested product development cycle would enable sustainability in the process of designing product, process and services?	9	9	8	8	9	9

Table 9 Overall opinions of the executives.

Executive code	Response
E1	ECQFD and LCA integration is practically feasible in our organisation
E2	The method is useful for our organisation for enabling sustainability
E3	Suggested methodology indicates the feasibility of transforming traditional product development cycle into sustainable development cycle
E4	The tools like ECQFD and LCA consider environmental requirements as equal partners to the traditional requirements of cost and quality in our organisation
E5	The feasibility for reuse enables sustainability in the process of product development of our organisation