Implementation of a software platform to support an eco-design methodology within a manufacturing firm

Figures & data

Table 1. Existing barriers to implementation of an eco-design approach in industries and related impacts.

Existing barriers	Impacts	References
(1) – Lack of skill and expertise (environmental experts)	New figure/resources to involve; Training activities required; Long-term investment (time and resources).	Ritzén (2000); Lindahl (2006); Le Pochat, Bertoluci, and Froelich (2007); Rossi, Germani, and Zamagni (2016)
(2) – Data management for environmental analysis (design phase)	Data search and availability (where data are stored); Data quality and accuracy (upgradability); Reliability of results.	Marosky (2007); Morbidoni, Favi, and Germani (2011); Hernandez Pardo et al. (2011); Aschehoug and Boks (2016); Rossi, Germani, and Zamagni (2016)
(3) – Standardised methodology implementation (LCA, etc.)	New business structure; New project organisation; Redefinition of PDP.	Brezet and van Hemel (1997); Navarro et al. (2005); Lindahl (2006); Bovea and Pérez-Belis (2012)
(4) – Isolated software tools/platform	Time-consuming (inefficient data exchange); Interpretation of results (difficulty in transforming environmental issues into design actions); High level of expertise required.	van Hemel and Cramer (2002); Lofthouse (2006); Cappelli, Delogu, and Pierini (2006); Theret, Zwolinski, and Mathieux (2011); Teulon and Canaguier (2012); Germani et al. (2013a); Germani et al. (2013b); Dufrene, Zwolinski, and Brissaud (2013); Germani et al. (2016); Rossi, Germani, and Zamagni (2016)
(5) – Gap between academic methods and industrial needs	Resistance to adoption of proposed methods; Endorsement of academic approaches without testing/proof; Long-term investment (time and resources).	Blessing (2002); Stempfle and Badke-Schaub (2002); Rossi, Germani, and Zamagni (2016)
(6) – SMEs organisation	Low degree of follow-up (difficulty in ensuring the success of the eco-design in technical departments); Collaboration with LE and multinational.	Simon et al. (2000); van Hemel and Cramer (2002); Johansson (2002); Lindahl (2006); Le Pochat, Bertoluci, and Froelich (2007); Moss et al. (2008); Bey, Hauschild, and McAloone (2013)

Figure 1. G.EN.ESI methodology steps.

Figure 2. G.EN.ESI platform architecture.

Figure 3. G.EN.ESI platform main workflow.

Figure 4. Detailed workflow of the A2 activity.

Figure 5. T-shaped cooker hoods.

Table 2. Profiles of the testers.

Tester	Education	Background	Involvement
Designer – D1	Master’s degree, 25 years old, recruited two years ago as mechanical engineer	Involved in the development of new hoods and cost reduction projects, has basic knowledge in eco-design and environmental related aspects/regulations	Worked mainly with the CAD system and the software tools in the G.EN.ESI platform
Designer – D2	Master’s degree, 27 years old, recruited one year ago as designer	Knows the cooker hood product and worked in cooperation with the company designers and laboratory engineers during the entire period; has basic knowledge in eco-design and environmental-related aspects	Used all software tools in the G.EN.ESI platform; actively participated during the cooker hood re-design process following feedback obtained from the G.EN.ESI platform
Designer – D3	Bachelor’s degree, 23 years old, internal collaborator at the company for two months	No skills in product design (also including the cooker hood) and limited knowledge of eco-design, environmental issues, and recyclability (scholar level)	Used the G.EN.ESI platform during the thesis period with the focus of activities on LeanDfD
Designer – D4	Master’s degree, 25 years old, recruited six months ago as designer	Has basic knowledge of the cooker hood; no background in eco-design and environmental related aspects/regulations	Used all of the software tools of the G.EN.ESI platform; worked in cooperation with the company designers during the entire period
Product Manager – PM	Masters Degree, 48 years old, recruited after receiving degree.	Guides cooker hood designers and is responsible for developing new products for the company; manages the entire product line life, specifies the market requirements for current and future products, and drives a solution set across the development teams; ensures that all products comply with restricted substances legislations; supports the selection and implementation of software systems and tools for reducing the energy and CO2 emissions of products	Has not used the G.EN.ESI platform tools but has analysed the reports for driving the PDP
Environmental Manager – EM	Master’s degree, 30 years old, recruited after receiving degree	Involved in innovation product projects on blower development, noise reduction systems, and lighting systems; has knowledge of life cycle assessment (LCA), eco-design and environmental related regulations (Reach, RoHS, WEEE) and standard (ISO 14062) from previous work experiences	Continuously participated in cooker hood re-design process; managed feedback obtained from the G.EN.ESI platform

Table 3. Extract of the questionnaire for evaluation of the G.EN.ESI methodology and platform.

Existing barrier	Objective to evaluate	Description	Evaluation scope	Items	Attitude
(5) – Isolated software tools/platform	(1) Data integration between traditional design and G.EN.ESI tools	Platform ability to manage and retrieve the product data from the ‘traditional’ design tools, such as CAD, PDM and PLM systems	#2 and #3	The G.EN.ESI tools are able to retrieve the necessary information from company systems (CAD, PDM, PLM, and other traditional tools used inside company)	Positive
				The data retrieved from the company tools are useful for environmental analysis and adequate to conduct and perform analysis with the dedicated G.EN.ESI tools	Positive
				The data inserted into one of the G.EN.ESI platform tools are automatically stored in the XML file to be reused in other tools of the platform	Positive
				The platform recognises the commercial items present within a product	Positive
				The platform is not open to a data exchange with ERP systems	Negative
				The initial set-up of the platform database is too long	Negative
				The set-up of the platform database requires support by the software developers	Negative
(1) – Lack of skill and expertise (environmental experts)	(2) Personnel to involve	Background required by the employees for application of the methodology and use of the platform	#1	The personnel inside the company are able to use the G.EN.ESI tools and to interpret their results (after appropriate training activities)	Positive
				The introduction of the G.EN.ESI tools inside the company has not required the involvement of new personnel with a specific background in eco-design issues	Positive
				The use of the G.EN.ESI results (methodology/platform) inside the company has resulted in an increase in communication/exchanges between the different services/departments of the company	Positive
				The methodology requires engineers with a strong background in eco-design	Negative
(2) – Data management for environmental analysis (design phase)	(3) Inter-operability	Platform ability to exchange the data among its tools	#4	The inter-operability function of the G.EN.ESI tools facilitated the introduction of eco-design in the company	Positive
				The inter-operability function of the G.EN.ESI tools facilitated the design process in general	Positive
				The G.EN.ESI methodology implementation improved internal collaboration (among different company departments) for eco-design	Positive
				The G.EN.ESI methodology implementation improved external collaboration (including all the stakeholders involved in the supply-chain) for eco-design	Positive
(4) – Standardised methodology implementation (LCA, etc.)	(4) Impact on the traditional design process	Impact of the proposed methodology and platform on the standard design workflow. This performance can be evaluated in terms of time for design review and design changes required by the company to implement the proposed eco-design methodology and platform. For certain enterprises, a high impact means a great opportunity for improvements, but for others, it means a step too high to be overcome	#1 and #2	The time required during the PDP using the G.EN.ESI platform is acceptable and comparable to the time of a standard design process	Positive
				The additional skills required to use the platform are acceptable and are mainly compatible with existing employee skills	Positive
				The assessment of environmental aspects using the G.EN.ESI platform has been achieved with an acceptable and limited modification relative to the traditional design workflow	Positive
(1) – Lack of skill and expertise (environmental experts)	(5) Training activities	Evaluation of training required before implementing the methodology and use of the platform. This step allows estimation of the initial investment for implementing the proposed eco-design methodology and platform	#1 and #2	The time required for training on all tool functionalities is comparable to the training for other software tools used within the company	Positive
				The training activities are not too specific and can be followed by a wide range of company employees	Positive
				The introduction in eco-design issues methods and tools determine advantages in terms of environmental awareness	Positive
				The language and the support materials used during the training activities are adequate and easily understandable	Positive

Table 4. Weights for the objective (Ow).

Objective	Weight	Reason
Data integration between traditional design and G.EN.ESI tools	3	The company required that all software systems that elaborate product information must have an interface for integration with CAD and PDM systems
Personnel to involve	3	The company did not foresee the engagement of new employees for management of the product environmental aspects
Inter-operability	3	The company required an high level of data exchange among the software tools to avoid data duplication or misalignments between product information and product revision
Impact on the traditional design process	2	The company has mapped the PDP in terms of activities, actors and documents using a workflow management system. The company is open to acceptance of a low to medium level of impact changes on this process
Training activities	1	The company regularly plans training sessions for technical employees to increase their awareness of environmental and economic aspects

Table 5. Weights for the users (Uw).

Tester	Weight
Designer – D1	2
Designer – D2	2
Designer – D3	1
Designer – D4	1
Product Manager – PM	3
Environmental Manager – EM	3

Table 6. Results of the G.EN.ESI methodology and platform evaluation: average score and standard deviation (within round brackets).

Objective	D1	D2	D3	D4	EM	PM	Average score and standard deviation for each objective
(1) Data integration between traditional design and G.EN.ESI tools	3.40 (0.89)	3.60 (0.55)	N/A	3.60 (0.55)	3.60 (0.55)	3.60 (0.55)	3.56 (0.61)
(2) Personnel to involve	3.00 (0.71)	3.20 (0.84)	N/A	3.20 (0.84)	3.60 (0.55)	3.20 (0.84)	3.29 (0.74)
(3) Inter-operability	3.75 (0.52)	3.25 (0.55)	N/A	3.50 (0,82)	4.00 (0.41)	3.75 (0.52)	3.70 (0.52)
(4) Impact on the traditional design process	3.40 (0.55)	3.40 (0.55)	N/A	3.80 (0.45)	3.80 (0.45)	3.00 (0.71)	3.44 (0.55)
(5) Training activities	4.00 (0.00)	3.43 (0.53)	3.75 (0.50)	3.75 (0.50)	3.57 (0.53)	3.29 (0.76)	3.58 (0.50)
Average score and standard deviation for each user	3.43 (0.65)	3.34 (0.61)	3.75 (0.50)	3.57 (0.68)	3.70 (0.51)	3.41 (0.66)	3.53 (0.60)

Table 7. Average scores for the evaluation scopes.

Evaluation scope	Equation	Score
Impact of the G.EN.ESI methodology on the traditional design process of a company		3.44
Impact of the G.EN.ESI software platform on the traditional design process of a company		3.53
Interoperability between the G.EN.ESI platform and the design tools		3.56
Interoperability among the G.EN.ESI tools		3.70

Table 8. Average scores for the barriers in implementation of an eco-design approach.

Barrier	Equation	Score
(1) Lack of skill and expertise (environmental experts)		3.44
(2) Data management for environmental analysis (design phase)		3.70
(4) Standardised methodology implementation (LCA, etc.)		3.44
(5) Isolated software tools/platform		3.56

Figure 6. Score breakdown.

Figure 7. Cooker hood re-design solutions for the blower, lighting system and electric motor compared with the original designs.

Figure 8. Comparison of the disassembly times between the old and new design for a one-cooker hood model.

Ritzén, Sofia. 2000. Integrating Environmental Aspects into Product Development - Proactive Measures. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.

 Google Scholar

Lindahl, Mattias. 2006. “Engineering Designers’ Experience of Design for Environment Methods and Tools – Requirement Definitions from an Interview Study.” Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (5): 487–496. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.02.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Le Pochat, Stéphane, Gwenola Bertoluci, and Daniel Froelich. 2007. “Integrating Ecodesign by Conducting Changes in SMEs.” Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (7): 671–680. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rossi, Marta, Michele Germani, and Alessandra Zamagni. 2016. “Review of Ecodesign Methods and Tools. Barriers and Strategies for an Effective Implementation in Industrial Companies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 129: 361–373. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.051.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marosky, N. 2007. “Challenges of Data Transfer between CAD and LCA Software Tools.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management. Irchel: University of Zurich.

 Google Scholar

Morbidoni, Alessandro, Claudio Favi, and Michele Germani. 2011. “CAD-Integrated LCA Tool: Comparison with Dedicated LCA Software and Guidelines for the Improvement.” In Glocalized Solutions for Sustainability in Manufacturing, edited by Jürgen Hesselbach and Christoph Herrmann, 569–574. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19692-8_99.

 Google Scholar

Hernandez Pardo, Ricardo J., Daniel Brissaud, Fabrice Mathieux, and Peggy Zwolinski. 2011. “Contribution to the Characterisation of Eco-Design Projects.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 4 (4): 301–312. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/19397038.2011.560293.

 Google Scholar

Aschehoug, H. S., and C. Boks. 2016. “Towards a Framework for Sustainability Information in Product Development.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 6 (2): 94–108.

 Google Scholar

Brezet, Han, and Carolien van Hemel. 1997. Ecodesign: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption. United NationsEnvironment Programme, Industry and Environment, Cleaner Production. ISBN 928071631X

 Google Scholar

Navarro, G., T. C. Rizo, S. B. Ceca, and Collado Ruiz M. J. 2005. “Ecodesign Function and Form, Classification of Ecodesign Tools According to Their Functional Aspects.” In 15th International Conference on Engineering Design: Engineering Design and the Global Economy (ICED05), 605–606. Melbourne.

 Google Scholar

Bovea, M. D., and V. Pérez-Belis. 2012. “A Taxonomy of Ecodesign Tools for Integrating Environmental Requirements into the Product Design Process.” Journal of Cleaner Production 20 (1): 61–71. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van Hemel, C., and J. Cramer. 2002. “Barriers and Stimuli for Ecodesign in SMEs.” Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (5): 439–453. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00013-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lofthouse, Vicky. 2006. “Ecodesign Tools for Designers: Defining the Requirements.” Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (15–16): 1386–1395. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.013.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cappelli, F., M. Delogu, and M. Pierini. 2006. “Integration of LCA and EcoDesign Guideline in a Virtual CAD Framework.” In Proceedings of the13th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, 185–188. Leuven, BE.

 Google Scholar

Theret, J. P., P. Zwolinski, and F. Mathieux. 2011. “Integrating CAD, PLM and LCA: A New Architecture & Integration Proposal.” In Proc. International Conference on Renewable Energy and Eco-Design in Electrical Engineering, 23–24. Lille. http://www-lisic.univ-littoral.fr/~choquel/see-nord-www/conferences/2011/iREED2011/_Presentations/session2/02_DS_Integrating_CAD-PLM-LCA.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Teulon, H., and B. Canaguier. 2012. “Seeds4Green - Free Collaborative Internet Platform for LCA Studies.” In Electronics Goes Green 2012+ (EGG), 1–4. Berlin. doi:978-3-8396-0439-7.

 Google Scholar

Germani, Michele, Marco Mandolini, Marco Marconi, Maud Dufrene, and Peggy Zwolinski. 2013a. “A Methodology and a Software Platform to Implement an Eco-Design Strategy in a Manufacturing Company.” In Volume 4: 18th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 2013 ASME/IEEE International Conference on Mechatronic and Embedded Systems and Applications, V004T05A039. Portland, OR. doi:10.1115/DETC2013-12974.

 Google Scholar

Germani, Michele, Marco Mandolini, Marco Marconi, Alessandro Morbidoni, and Marta Rossi. 2013b. “A Case-Based Reasoning Approach to Support the Application of the Eco-Design Guidelines.” In Re-Engineering Manufacturing for Sustainability-Proceedings of the 20th CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle Engineering, Singapore 17–19 April, 2013, edited by Andrew Y. C. Nee, Bin Song, and Soh-Khim Ong, 81–86. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-4451-48-2_14.

 Google Scholar

Dufrene, Maud, Peggy Zwolinski, and Daniel Brissaud. 2013. “An Engineering Platform to Support a Practical Integrated Eco-Design Methodology.” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (1): 131–134. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.065.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Germani, Michele, Marco Mandolini, Marco Marconi, Marco Mengarelli, Maura Mengoni, and Marta Rossi. 2016. “An Approach to Foster Eco-Design in ‘Traditional’ Companies without Eco-Knowledge.” International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management 18 (2/3): 150–167. doi:10.1504/IJPQM.2016.076705.

 Google Scholar

Blessing, L. 2003. “What Is This Thing Called Design Research?” In Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14thInternational Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm, Keynotes, edited by A. Folkeson, K. Gralen, M. Norell, and U. Sellgren, 9–10.

 Google Scholar

Stempfle, Joachim, and Petra Badke-Schaub. 2002. “Thinking in Design Teams - an Analysis of Team Communication.” Design Studies 23 (5): 473–496. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2.

 Google Scholar

Simon, Matthew, Steve Poole, Andrew Sweatman, Steve Evans, Tracy Bhamra, and Tim Mcaloone. 2000. “Environmental Priorities in Strategic Product Development.” Business Strategy and the Environment 9 (6): 367–377. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/1099-0836(200011/12)9:6<367::AID-BSE262>3.0.CO;2-D.

 Google Scholar

Johansson, Glenn. 2002. “Success Factors for Integration of Ecodesign in Product Development.” Environmental Management and Health 13 (1): 98–107. doi:10.1108/09566160210417868.

 Google Scholar

Moss, J., C. G. Lambert, and A. E. W. Rennie. 2008. “SME Application of LCA‐based Carbon Footprints.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 1 (2): 134–141. doi:10.1080/19397030802332930.

 Google Scholar

Bey, N., M. Z. Hauschild, and T. C. McAloone. 2013. “Drivers and Barriers for Implementation of Environmental Strategies in Manufacturing Companies.” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 62 (1): 43–46.10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar