Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-xkcpr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T07:59:00.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Generational Commonality of Short-Life Cycle Products in Manufacturing and Remanufacturing Processes

Part of: Responsible Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Jinju Kim  and
Harrison Kim

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Short-life cycle products are frequently replaced and discarded despite being resource-intensive. The short life span and the low utilization rate of the end-of-life products cause severe environmental problems and waste of resources. In the case of short-life cycle products, a new generation of products is released sooner than other products, therefore there are the opportunities to have various generations of products during the remanufacturing process. The commonality between generations increases the intergenerational component compatibility, which increases the efficiency of the manufacturing and remanufacturing processes, while at the same time weakening the performance difference between generations. This paper proposes a mathematical model to investigate the effect of commonality among generations on the overall production process. Based on various given new generation product designs with different commonality, we aim to propose optimal production planning and pricing strategies to maximize the total profitability and investigate how the results vary according to the commonality strategies between product generations.

Keywords

SustainabilityDesign for X (DfX)Ecodesign
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3331 - 3340
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Aydin, R., Kwong, C.K. and Ji, P. 2015, “A novel methodology for simultaneous consideration of remanufactured and new products in product line design”, International Journal of Production Economics, 169, pp. 127–140.Google Scholar
Aydin, R., Brown, A., Ali, A. and Badurdeen, F. 2017, “Assessment of End-of-life Product Lifecycle ‘ilities’”, In IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings (pp. 1691–1696). Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE).Google Scholar
Greenpeace reports. (2017), “Guide to Greener Electronics[Online]”, Available at: from https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics-2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, G.D., Ijomah, W.L. and Windmill, J.F.C. 2011, “Design for remanufacture: a literature review and future research needs”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 17-18, pp. 2004–2014.Google Scholar
Ijomah, W. 2002. A model-based definition of the generic remanufacturing business process.Google Scholar
Kim, S. and Moon, S.K. 2017, “Sustainable product family configuration based on a platform strategy”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 28 No. 10-12, pp. 731–764.Google Scholar
Klausner, M. and Hendrickson, C.T. 2000, “Reverse-logistics strategy for product take-back”, Interfaces, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 156–165.Google Scholar
Kwak, M.J., Hong, Y.S. and Cho, N.W. 2009, “Eco-architecture analysis for end-of-life decision making”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 22, pp. 6233–6259.Google Scholar
Kwak, M. and Kim, H.M. 2011, “Assessing product family design from an end-of-life perspective”, Engineering Optimization, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 233–255.Google Scholar
Kwak, M. and Kim, H. 2017, “Green profit maximization through integrated pricing and production planning for a line of new and remanufactured products”, Journal of cleaner production, Vol. 142, pp. 3454–3470.Google Scholar
Kwak, M. 2018, “Optimal Line Design of New and Remanufactured Products: A Model for Maximum Profit and Market Share with Environmental Consideration”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 11, p. 4283.Google Scholar
Simpson, T.W., Maier, J.R. and Mistree, F. 2001, “Product platform design: method and application”, Research in engineering Design, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 2–22.Google Scholar
Thevenot, H.J. and Simpson, T.W. 2007, “A comprehensive metric for evaluating component commonality in a product family”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 577–598.Google Scholar