No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
USE OF DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS TO OPTIMISE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS: A CASE STUDY OF SHOWERS AND TAPWARE IN NEW ZEALAND
Part of:
Socio-technical Issues in Design
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2020
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.
Eco-tools and techniques often lack guidance and a robust methodology for improving the environmental performance of products with an active use phase. A case study was undertaken to investigate the role of Design of Experiments (DoE) in providing insights to improve the environmental performance of two product categories with active use phases: showers and tapware. The results show how varying the components can reduce energy use and demonstrated how DoE can be used as an objective method for optimising a products environmental performance when user behaviour can influence the results.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
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), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Adeyeye, K., She, K. and Baïri, A. (2017), “Design factors and functionality matching in sustainability products: A study of eco-showerheads”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142 No. Part 4, pp. 4214–4229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhamra, T., Lilley, D. and Tang, T. (2011), “Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour”, Design Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 427–445. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630611X13091688930453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boks, C. and Stevels, A. (2003), “Theory and practice of environmental benchmarking in a major consumer electronics company”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770310469653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devanathan, S. et al. (2010), “Integration of sustainability into early design through the function impact matrix”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 132 No. 8, pp. 0810041–0810048. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granato, D. and Ares, G. (2013), Mathematical and statistical methods in food science and technology: Chichester, West Sussex, UK : John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Gremyr, I. et al. (2014), “Adapting the Robust Design Methodology to support sustainable product development”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 79, pp. 231–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herring, H. and Roy, R. (2007), “Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect”, Technovation, Vol. 27, pp. 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (2011), Environmental Product Declaration as per ISO 14025 for hand showers Croma 100 and Crometta 85. Panoramastraße, Berlin.Google Scholar
Jolliet, O. et al. (2015), “Inventory Analysis of Emissions and Extractions”, In Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 57. CRC Press.10.1201/b19138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kutz, M. (2007), Environmentally conscious mechanical design, Wiley series in environmentally conscious engineering: Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.10.1002/9780470168202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenox, M. (2000), “An Assessment of Design-for-Environment Practices in Leading US Electronics Firms”, Interfaces, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 83–94.10.1287/inte.30.3.83.11669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, K.Y. et al. (2017), “User-experience-based design of experiments for new product development of consumer electronics and an empirical study”, Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2017.1363089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, K.N. and Wood, K.L. (2001), Product design : techniques in reverse engineering and new product development: Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Renee, W. et al. (2007), “Increasing the benefits of product-level benchmarking for strategic eco-efficient decision making,” Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 6, p. 711. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770710834509.Google Scholar
Roy, R.K. (2001), Design of experiments using the Taguchi approach : 16 steps to product and process improvement, John Wiley & Sons, New York ; Chichester.Google Scholar
Slater, S.F., Mohr, J.J. and Sengupta, S. (2014), “Radical product innovation capability: Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sousa, I. and Wallace, D. (2006), “Product classification to support approximate life-cycle assessment of design concepts,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 228–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.03.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanco, M. et al. (2008), “Is design of experiments really used? A survey of Basque industries”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820701749124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2012), Product design and development: New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
Wever, R., van Kuijk, J. and Boks, C. (2008), “User-centred design for sustainable behaviour”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397030802166205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access