Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 775–793 | Cite as

Method for integrated product development oriented to sustainability

  • Pâmela Teixeira Fernandes
  • Osíris Canciglieri Júnior
  • Ângelo Márcio Oliveira Sant’Anna
Original Paper


The discussion on the new strategies related to the sustainable product development process has required a new perception of strategies in the design process. In this context, this paper proposes a method for integrated product development process oriented to sustainability. The method presents a logical sequence to promote the interaction between the definitions of product category, and the selection of design for environmental strategies for the product design. The proposed method consists of three steps: (i) definition of product category and phases most impacted by the strategies; (ii) definition of design for environment strategies for the product; and (iii) definition of recommendations for design. Its logical sequence promotes the interaction between the involved areas and its adoption does not depend on the integrated product development process model selected and does not generate any additional costs. Four case studies were developed to evaluate the method and the results showed that it is a comprehensive and practicable method that promotes significant reduction on resources and energy consumption in the product manufacturing processes. The method has great potential to support decision-making in the design process of a sustainable product since it guides the design towards the development of more efficient products and anticipates the visualization of critical points and the improvements that need to be addressed.


Product development Sustainable development Eco-design Design for environmental 



The authors would like to thank the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) and the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUC-PR), Brazil, for financial support of this research.


  1. Ashby M, Johnson K (2011) Materials and design: the art and science of material selection in product Design, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  2. Canciglieri Junior O, Sant’Anna AMO, Machado LC (2015) Multi-attribute method for prioritization of sustainable prototyping technologies. Clean Technol Environ Policy 17(5):1355–1363. doi: 10.1007/s10098-015-0962-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson RC, Rafinejad D (2008) Modeling sustainability in product development and commercialization. Bull Sci Technol Soc 28:478–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Devanathan S, Ramanujan D, Bernstein WZ, Zhao F, Ramani K (2010) Integration of sustainability into early design through the function impact matrix. J Mech Des 132(8):081004. doi: 10.1115/1.4001890 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fernandes PT, Canciglieri Junior O, Sant’Anna AMO (2014) Proposed method for sustainability development of consumable goods. Adv Mater Res 1061–1062:1233–1237. doi: 10.4028/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fiksel J (2001) Measuring sustainability in ecodesign. In: Charter M, Tischner U (eds) Sustainable solutions: developing products and services for the future. Greenleaf, Sheffield, pp 165–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fitzgerald DP, Herrmann JW, Sandborn PA, Schmidt LC, Gogoll TH (2007) Design for environment (DFE): strategies, practices, guidelines, methods, and tools. In: Kutz M (ed) Environmentally conscious mechanical design. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 2–21Google Scholar
  8. Gagnon B, Leduc R, Savard L (2012) From a conventional to a sustainable engineering design process: different shades of sustainability. J Eng Des 23(1):49–74. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2010.516246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gehin A, Zwolinski P, Brissaud D (2008) A tool to implement sustainable end-of-life strategies in the product development phase. J Clean Prod 16(5):566–576. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guimarães LBM (2012) Sociotechnical design for a sustainable world. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 13(2):240–269. doi: 10.1080/1463922X.2011.641230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heijungs R, Huppes G, Guinée JB (2010) Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis. Polym Degrad Stab 95:422–428. doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2009.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hemel CGV, Keldmann T (1996) Applying design for X experience in design for environment. In: Huang GQ (ed) Design for X: concurrent engineering imperatives. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 72–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hernandez NV, Kremer GO, Schmidt LC, Acosta Herrera PR (2012) Development of an expert system to aid engineers in the selection of design for environment methods and tools. Expert Syst Appl 39(10):9543–9553. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang GQ (1996) Introduction. In: Huang GQ (ed) Design for X: concurrent engineering imperatives. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kishita Y, Low BH, Fukushige S, Umeda Y, Suzuki A, Kawabe T (2010) Checklist-based assessment methodology for sustainable design. J Mech Des 132(9):091011. doi: 10.1115/1.4002130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu L, Fu L, Zhang S (2014) The design and analysis of two exhaust heat recovery systems for public shower facilities. Appl Energy 132(1):267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Löbach B (2001) Industrial design: basis for configuration of industrial products, 1st edn. Edgar Blücher, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowder B (2012) How the Broom Became Flat: a history of the sturdy household essential. Accessed 18 June 2012
  19. Luchs M, Swan KS (2011) Perspective: the emergence of product design as a field of marketing inquiry. J Prod Innov Manag 28(3):327–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00801.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manzini E, Vezzoli CA (2008) Design for environmental sustainability, 2nd edn. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Mattioda RAA, Fernandes PT, Casela JL, Canciglieri Junior O, Mazzi A (2014) Thoughts on product development oriented to sustainability in organizational overview. Adv Mater Res 1061–1062:1238–1244. doi: 10.4028/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maxwell D, Van Der Vorst R (2003) Developing sustainable products and services. J Clean Prod 11(8):883–895. doi: 10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00164-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moultrie J, Maier AM (2014) A simplified approach to design for assembly. J Eng Des 25(1–3):44–63. doi: 10.1080/09544828.2014.887059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ny H, Hallstedt S, Rob K, Broman G (2008) Introducing templates for sustainable product development: a case study of televisions at the matsushita electric group. J Ind Ecol 12(4):600–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Othman MR, Repke J, Huang Y, Wozny G (2010) A modular approach to sustainability assessment and decision support in chemical process design. Ind Eng Chem Res 49(17):7870–7881. doi: 10.1021/ie901943d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramani K, Ramanujan D, Bernstein WZ, Zhao F, Sutherland J, Handwerker C, Choi J, Kim H, Thurston D (2010) Integrated sustainable life cycle design: a review. J Mech Des 132(9):091004. doi: 10.1115/1.4002308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ritzén S (2000) Integrating environmental aspects into product development—proactive measures. PhD dissertation, Department of Machine Design Integrated Product. Royal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  28. Rose CM (2000) Design for environment: a method for formulating products end-of life strategies. PhD dissertation, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Sant’Anna AMO (2015) Framework of decision in data modeling for quality improvement. TQM J 27(1):135–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simpson TW (2004) Product platform design and customization: status and promise. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 18(1):3–20. doi: 10.1017/S0890060404040028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stead JG, Stead E (2000) Eco-enterprise strategy: standing for sustainability. J Bus Ethics 24:313–329. doi: 10.1023/A:1006188725928 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tyl B, Legardeur J, Millet D, Vallet F (2014) A comparative study of ideation mechanisms used in eco-innovation tools. J Eng Des 25(10):325–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Umeda Y, Kondoh S, Shimomura Y, Tomiyama T (2005) Development of design methodology for upgradable products based on function–behavior–state modeling. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 19:161–182. doi: 10.1017/S0890060405050122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vinodh S, Rathod G (2011) Application of ECQFD for enabling environmentally conscious design and sustainable development in an electric vehicle. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13(2):381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilkins EM (2016) Clinical practice of the dental hygienist, 12th edn. Wolters Kluwer, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  37. Zarandi MHF, Mansour S, Hosseinijou SA, Avazbeigi M (2011) A material selection methodology and expert system for sustainable product design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 57:885–903. doi: 10.1007/s00170-011-3362-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pâmela Teixeira Fernandes
    • 1
  • Osíris Canciglieri Júnior
    • 2
  • Ângelo Márcio Oliveira Sant’Anna
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Architecture and DesignPontifical Catholic University of ParanaCuritibaBrazil
  2. 2.Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate ProgramPontifical Catholic University of ParanaCuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.Polytechnic SchoolFederal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations