IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i8p3486-d350018.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Environmental and Operational Analysis of Quality Function Deployment-Based Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Fabio Neves Puglieri

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP), Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa 84017-220, Brazil)

  • Aldo Roberto Ometto

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Engineering School of Sao Carlos, University of Sao Paulo (USP), São Carlos 13562-190, Brazil)

  • Rodrigo Salvador

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP), Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa 84017-220, Brazil)

  • Murillo Vetroni Barros

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP), Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa 84017-220, Brazil)

  • Cassiano Moro Piekarski

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Sustainable Production Systems Laboratory (LESP), Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa 84017-220, Brazil)

  • Izabella Morré Rodrigues

    (Department of Production Engineering, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa 84017-220, Brazil)

  • Octavio Diegoli Netto

    (Department of Production Engineering, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná (UTFPR), Ponta Grossa 84017-220, Brazil)

Abstract

Ecodesign consists of integrating environmental considerations into the product development process by means of practices that involve the use of methods, techniques, tools, and guidelines. However, many published practices do not incorporate important environmental issues, often resulting in a product development process that is ineffective from an ecodesign standpoint. This paper’s aim is threefold: (i) Identifying environmental and operational criteria and determining weights to these criteria; (ii) assessing and selecting quality function deployment (QFD)-based ecodesign methods using environmental and operational criteria, and (iii) analyzing the practitioners’ perception of the most suitable QFD-based method identified by the second aim. To that end, a comprehensive literature review of ecodesign practices based on QFD and its requirements was carried out, and a survey was conducted with environmental science and product development experts, whose answers enabled the prioritization of the characteristics those practices must meet from environmental and operational standpoints. Thereafter, a workshop was carried out with design engineers from an automotive company in Brazil. This study’s findings indicate that many QFD-based ecodesign methods fail to consider the life cycle perspective, do not assess environmental impacts, and have not been tested before being published. Another finding from industry designers suggests that ecodesign methods should be easy to use and not time-consuming.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabio Neves Puglieri & Aldo Roberto Ometto & Rodrigo Salvador & Murillo Vetroni Barros & Cassiano Moro Piekarski & Izabella Morré Rodrigues & Octavio Diegoli Netto, 2020. "An Environmental and Operational Analysis of Quality Function Deployment-Based Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3486-:d:350018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3486/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3486/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Awanis Romli & Paul Prickett & Rossitza Setchi & Shwe Soe, 2015. "Integrated eco-design decision-making for sustainable product development," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(2), pages 549-571, January.
    2. Raphaëlle Stewart & Faheem Ali & Casper Boks & Niki Bey, 2018. "Architect, Catalyst, Advocate, and Prophet: A Four-Lens View of Companies to Support Ecodesign Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-27, September.
    3. Joao Victor Rojas Luiz & Daniel Jugend & Charbel José Chiappeta Jabbour & Octaviano Rojas Luiz & Fernando Bernardi Souza, 2016. "Ecodesign field of research throughout the world: mapping the territory by using an evolutionary lens," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 241-259, October.
    4. Atanu Sengupta & Sanjoy De, 2020. "Review of Literature," India Studies in Business and Economics, in: Assessing Performance of Banks in India Fifty Years After Nationalization, chapter 0, pages 15-30, Springer.
    5. Zhiying Zhang & Huchang Liao & Jiaying Chang & Abdullah Al-barakati, 2019. "Green-Building-Material Supplier Selection with a Rough-Set-Enhanced Quality Function Deployment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    7. Eng Wolniak & A. Sȩdek, 2009. "Using QFD method for the ecological designing of products and services," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 695-701, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dominika Siwiec & Andrzej Pacana & Andrzej Gazda, 2023. "A New QFD-CE Method for Considering the Concept of Sustainable Development and Circular Economy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Chunting Liu & Guozhu Jia & Jili Kong, 2020. "Requirement-Oriented Engineering Characteristic Identification for a Sustainable Product–Service System: A Multi-Method Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    3. K. E. K. Vimal & Jayakrishna Kandasamy & Angel Acevedo Duque, 2021. "Integrating sustainability and remanufacturing strategies by remanufacturing quality function deployment (RQFD)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(9), pages 14090-14122, September.
    4. Javier Maldonado-Romo & Mario Aldape-Pérez, 2021. "Sustainable Circular Micro Index for Evaluating Virtual Substitution Using Machine Learning with the Path Planning Problem as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Shedong Ren & Fangzhi Gui & Yanwei Zhao & Min Zhan & Wanliang Wang & Jianqiang Zhou, 2021. "An Extenics-Based Scheduled Configuration Methodology for Low-Carbon Product Design in Consideration of Contradictory Problem Solving," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-41, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gabriela Andrișan & Cătălin Grădinaru & Sorin-George Toma, 2022. "Circular Economy Business Models: The Case of Lush," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 491-497, Decembrie.
    2. José María López-Sanz & Azucena Penelas-Leguía & Pablo Gutiérrez-Rodríguez & Pedro Cuesta-Valiño, 2021. "Sustainable Development and Consumer Behavior in Rural Tourism—The Importance of Image and Loyalty for Host Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    3. Cristina Blasi Casagran & Colleen Boland & Elena Sánchez-Montijano & Eva Vilà Sanchez, 2021. "The Role of Emerging Predictive IT Tools in Effective Migration Governance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 133-145.
    4. Maria Maddalena Sirufo & Francesca De Pietro & Alessandra Catalogna & Lia Ginaldi & Massimo De Martinis, 2021. "The Microbiota-Bone-Allergy Interplay," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Oleh Pasko & Mykola Hordiyenko & Fuli Chen & Yarmila Tkal & Yulia Abraham, 2021. "Mapping Global Research on International Financial Reporting Standards: A Scientometric Review," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(3), pages 116-134, May.
    6. Zhang, Tianyu & Dong, Peiwu & Zeng, Yongchao & Ju, Yanbing, 2022. "Analyzing the diffusion of competitive smart wearable devices: An agent-based multi-dimensional relative agreement model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 90-105.
    7. Vitor Hugo Ferreira & André da Costa Pinho & Dickson Silva de Souza & Bárbara Siqueira Rodrigues, 2021. "A New Clustering Approach for Automatic Oscillographic Records Segmentation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-18, October.
    8. Maurizio Massaro & Francesca Dal Mas & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Carlo Bagnoli, 2020. "Crypto‐economy and new sustainable business models: Reflections and projections using a case study analysis," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 2150-2160, September.
    9. Ines A. Ferreira & Rachel M. Gisselquist & Finn Tarp, 2021. "On the impact of inequality on growth, human development, and governance," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-34, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    10. He Tingting, 2021. "Comparing Money and Time Donation: What Do Experiments Tell Us?," Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, Sciendo, vol. 41(3), pages 65-94, September.
    11. Beatriz Calzada Olvera & Mario Gonzalez-Sauri & Federico Louvin & David-Alexander Harings Moya, 2021. "COVID-19 in Central America: effects of firm resilience and policy responses on employment," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2021-166, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    12. Alberto Cerezo-Narváez & Andrés Pastor-Fernández & Manuel Otero-Mateo & Pablo Ballesteros-Pérez, 2022. "The Influence of Knowledge on Managing Risk for the Success in Complex Construction Projects: The IPMA Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-30, August.
    13. Iversen, Sara V. & Naomi, van der Velden & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2022. "Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    14. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Rafidah Md Noor & Nadia Bella Gustiani Rasyidi & Tarak Nandy & Raenu Kolandaisamy, 2020. "Campus Shuttle Bus Route Optimization Using Machine Learning Predictive Analysis: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, December.
    16. Dominika Ehrenbergerová & Martin Hodula & Zuzana Gric, 2022. "Does capital-based regulation affect bank pricing policy?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 135-167, April.
    17. Yu-Shan Chen & Ching-Hsun Chang, 2013. "Enhance environmental commitments and green intangible assets toward green competitive advantages: an analysis of structural equation modeling (SEM)," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 529-543, January.
    18. Bergeaud Antonin & Ray Simon, 2020. "The macroeconomics of teleworking [Macroéconomie du télétravail]," Bulletin de la Banque de France, Banque de France, issue 231.
    19. Ana Iolanda Vodă & Cristina Cautisanu & Camelia Grădinaru & Chris Tănăsescu & Gustavo Herminio Salati Marcondes de Moraes, 2022. "Exploring Digital Literacy Skills in Social Sciences and Humanities Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-31, February.
    20. Ana Teresa Ferreira-Oliveira & José Keating & Isabel Silva, 2020. "Sustainable HRM as a Pathway to Sustainability—HRMS Relevance on Affective Commitment through Organizational Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-27, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3486-:d:350018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.