Evaluation and Implementation of Environmentally Conscious Product Design by Using AHP and Grey Relational Analysis Approaches

Yong-Sheng Tan, Hui Chen, Song Wu

Ekoloji, 2019, Issue 107, Pages: 857-864, Article No: e107101

OPEN ACCESS

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

With the increasing societal awareness of environmental conservation and laws of environment protection are rolling on and on by governments around the world. Green design become a critical consideration in new product development for more and more companies. However, there are still companies that give up implementing green initiatives because the increasing cost of manufacture or materials. This study proposed that green design need to base on comprehensively consideration of environmental performance and the market value. The rough-cut life cycle assessment, which is more feasible for small and medium enterprises, replaced traditional full life cycle assessment Trade-off model was then applied to evaluate the market implementing value with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks as criteria. For green design alternatives, Gray Relational Analysis (GRA) integrated with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to rank the priority order, which provides an optimized decision-making tool for small and medium enterprises to implement green initiatives in new product design processes.

Keywords

green design, rough-cut LCA, AHP, GRA

References

  • Avella L, Vazquez-Bustelo D, Fernandez E (2011) Cumulative manufacturing capabilities: An extended model and new empirical evidence. International Journal of Production Research, 49(3): 707-729.
  • Cai S, Yang Z (2014) On the relationship between business environment and competitive priorities: The role of performance frontiers. International Journal of Production Economics, 151: 131-145.
  • Chan JWK, Tong TKL (2007) Multi-criteria material selections and end-of-life product strategy: Grey relational analysis approach. Materials & Design, 28(5): 1539-1546.
  • Chen SY (2017) An improved fuzzy decision analysis framework with fuzzy Mahalanobis distances for individual investment effect appraisal. Management Decision, 55(5): 935-956.
  • Deng JL (1985) Grey control systems. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press (in Chinese).
  • Deng JL (1989) Introduction of grey system. J Grey System, 1(1): 1–24.
  • Deng JL (2002) The Fundamentals of grey theory. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press (in Chinese).
  • Devloo T, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A, Salanova M (2015) Keep the fire burning: Reciprocal gains of basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(4): 491-504.
  • Devloo T, Anseel F, De Beuckelaer A, Feys M (2016) When the fire dies: Perceived success and support for innovation shape the motivating potential of innovative work behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4): 512-524.
  • Filho AG, Rozenfelda H, Pigossoa DCA, Omettoa AR (2007) Improving environmental performance of products by integrating ecodesign methods and tools into a reference model for new product development, complex systems concurrent engineering—collaboration, technology innovation and sustainability, Springer Verlag London Limited: 355–361.
  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for life cycle assessment. Methodology report. Amersfoort, Netherlands: PRe ́ Consultants.
  • Hsueh JT, Lin CY (2015) Constructing a network model to rank the optimal strategy for implementing the sorting process in reverse logistics: case study of photovoltaic industry. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(1): 155-174.
  • Huang JJ (2011) Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  • Ihobe (2000) Manual Práctico de Ecodiseño. Operativa de Implantación en 7 Pasos; Ihobe: Bilbao, Spain.
  • Lindahl M (2006) Engineering designers’ experience of design for environment methods and tools – requirement definitions from an interview study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(5): 487–96.
  • Ng CY (2016) An evidential reasoning-based AHP approach for the selection of environmentally-friendly designs. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 61: 1-7.
  • Ng CY (2018) Green product design and development using life cycle assessment and ant colony optimization. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 95(5-8): 3101-3109.
  • Ng CY, Chuah KB (2011) Effect of Material Selection on the Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental Impact. Advanced Materials Research, 383-390(November): 3387-3394.
  • Ng CY, Chuah KB (2014) Evaluation of design alternatives’ environmental performance using AHP and ER approaches. IEEE Systems Journal, 8(4): 1185-1192.
  • Roy B (1990) The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. In Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 155-183). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  • Saaty TL (2013) Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
  • Sarmiento R, Shukla V, Izar-Landeta JM (2013) Performance improvements seen through the lens of strategic trade-offs. International Journal of Production Research, 51(15): 4682-4694.
  • Sarmiento R, Vargas-Berrones KX (2018) Modeling the implementation of green initiatives: An AHP-BOCR approach. Cogent Engineering, 5(1): 1432120.
  • Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication university of Illinois press Urbana Google scholar.
  • Shih HS, Cheng CB, Chen CC, Lin YC (2014) Environmental impact on the vendor selection problem in electronics firms - A systematic analytic network process with BOCR. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 6(2).
  • Skinner W (1996) Manufacturing strategy on the “S” curve. Production and operations management, 5(1): 3-14.
  • Tian GD, Zhou MC, Zhang HH, Jia HF (April 2016) An integrated AHP and VIKOR approach to evaluating green design alternatives. In Proc. IEEE 13th Int. Conf. Netw. Sens. Control, Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 1–6.
  • Tillman AM, Baumann H, EkvaII T, Rydberg T (1994) Choice of System Boundaries in Life-cycle Assessment. J. Cleaner Production, 2(1): 21-30.
  • Xu X (2001) The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 131(3): 587-602.