Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a customized multicriterion tool for product evaluation in the early design phases: the CMDET methodology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Owing to an increase in requirements and a reduction in time to market, evaluation phases have become particularly crucial steps in the design process, specifically during the early design stages. New domains of expertise are constantly being added to design processes, and the performance evaluation tools that are currently available are too heterogeneous to be used together. The differences mainly concern performance domains, which rely on different types of data. It is therefore necessary to create a methodology for merging compatible tools (i.e. usable during the same phase of the design process) and establishing the most appropriate form of evaluation. In this paper, we begin by describing the Creation of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation Tool methodology. This takes place in four stages: the analysis of existing tools, followed by their evaluation, selection and merger. This methodology will help designers create multicriterion evaluation tools that are tailored to their needs. We then report a case study involving the design of a sustainable and innovative product for additive manufacturing, where the characteristics of each domain were taken into account.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from [8, 12]

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson, D.M.: Design for Manufacturability: How to Use Concurrent Engineering to Rapidly Develop Low-Cost, High-Quality Products for Lean Production. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Contreras, A.M., Rosa, E., Pérez, M., Van Langenhove, H., Dewulf, J.: Comparative life cycle assessment of four alternatives for using by-products of cane sugar production. J. Clean. Prod. 17(8), 772–779 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kellens, K., Dewulf, W., Overcash, M., Hauschild, M.Z., Duflou, J.R.: Methodology for systematic analysis and improvement of manufacturing unit process life cycle inventory (UPLCI) CO2PE! initiative (cooperative effort on process emissions in manufacturing). Part 2: case studies. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17(2), 242–251 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Byggeth, S., Hochschorner, E.: Handling trade-offs in ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement. J. Clean. Prod. 14(15–16), 1420–1430 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu, S., Leat, M., Smith, M.H.: State-of-the-art sustainability analysis methodologies for efficient decision support in green production operations. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 4(3), 236–250 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mantelet, F., Segonds, F., Jean, C.: Additive creativity: an innovative way to enhance manufacturing engineering education. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 34(6), 1776–1784 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer, X., Nadeau, J.-P.: Research in Interactive Design. Virtual, Interactive and Integrated Product Design and Manufacturing for Industrial Innovation, vol. 3. Springer, Berlin (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shah, S.: Sources and Patterns of Innovation in a Consumer Products Field: Innovations in Sporting Equipment. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zimmer, B., Yannou, B.: Proposal of a radical innovation project selection model based on proofs of value, innovation and concept. In: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2012

  10. Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del Río, P., Könnölä, T.: Diversity of eco-innovations: reflections from selected case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 18(10–11), 1073–1083 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Segonds, F., Cohen, G., Véron, P., Peyceré, J.: PLM and early stages collaboration in interactive design, a case study in the glass industry. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM 10(2), 95–104 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Howard, T.J., Culley, S.J., Dekoninck, E.: Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Des. Stud. 29(2), 160–180 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K.: Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 15(4), 80–116 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brezet, H.: Ecodesign, a Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption. United Nations Environment Programme UNEP, Paris (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chenhall, R.H.: Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational performance. Manag. Account. Res. 8(2), 187–206 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saunders, M.N., Seepersad, C.C., Hölttä-Otto, K.: The characteristics of innovative, mechanical products. J. Mech. Des. 133(2), 1–9 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garcia, R., Calantone, R.: A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 19(2), 110–132 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Binz, M., Reichle, H.: Evaluation method to determine the success potential and the degree of innovation of technical product ideas and products. In: 35 Proceedings of ICED 05, 5th International Conference on Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia, 15-18082005, 2005

  19. Yannou, B., Zimmer, B., Farel, R., Jankovic, M., Stal Le Cardinal, J.: Proofs of Utility, Innovation, Profitability and Concept for Innovation Selection. ICED, Seoul (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jawahir, I.S., Dillon, O.W., Jr., Rouch, K.E., Josh, K.J., Venkatachalam, A., Jaafar, I.H.: Total life-cycle considerations in product design for sustainability: a framework for comprehensive evaluation, pp. 1–10 (2006)

  21. Tichem, M., Storm, T.: Designer support for product structuring—development of a DFX tool within the design coordination framework. Comput. Ind. 33(2), 155–163 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Luttropp, C., Lagerstedt, J.: EcoDesign and the ten golden rules: generic advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. J. Clean. Prod. 14(15–16), 1396–1408 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cluzel, F., Yannou, B., Millet, D., Leroy, Y.: Eco-ideation and eco-selection of R&D projects portfolio in complex systems industries. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4329–4343 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Hare, J.A.: Eco-Innovation Tools for the Early Stages: An Industry-Based Investigation of Tool Customisation and Introduction. University of Bath, Bath (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bocken, N.M.P., Allwood, J.M., Willey, A.R., King, J.M.H.: Development of an eco-ideation tool to identify stepwise greenhouse gas emissions reduction options for consumer goods. J. Clean. Prod. 19(12), 1279–1287 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hassan, M.F., Saman, M.Z.M., Sharif, S., Omar, B.: An integrated MA-AHP approach for selecting the highest sustainability index of a new product. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 57, 236–242 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Halog, A., Schultmann, F., Rentz, O.: Using quality function deployment for technique selection for optimum environmental performance improvement. J. Clean. Prod. 9(5), 387–394 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Arena, M., Azzone, G., Conte, A.: A streamlined LCA framework to support early decision making in vehicle development. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 105–113 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Laverne, F., Segonds, F., D’Antonio, G., Le Coq, M.: Enriching design with X through tailored additive manufacturing knowledge: a methodological proposal. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM 11(2), 279–288 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rias, A.-L., Segonds, F., Bouchard, C., Abed, S.: Towards additive manufacturing of intermediate objects (AMIO) for concepts generation. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM 11(2), 301–315 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Booth, J.W., Alperovich, J., Reid, T.N., Ramani, K.: The design for additive manufacturing worksheet. In: ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2016, pp. 1–8

  32. Segonds, F.: Design by additive manufacturing: an application in aeronautics and defence. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 13(4), 237–245 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Emmelmann, C., Herzog, D., Kranz, J.: 10—design for laser additive manufacturing. In: Brandt, M. (ed.) Laser Additive Manufacturing, pp. 259–279. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston (2017)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Ponche, R., Kerbrat, O., Mognol, P., Hascoet, J.-Y.: A novel methodology of design for additive manufacturing applied to additive laser manufacturing process. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 30(4), 389–398 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Laverne, F., Segonds, F., Anwer, N., Le Coq, M.: Assembly based methods to support product innovation in design for additive manufacturing: an exploratory case study. J. Mech. Des. 137, 1–8 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brackett, D., Ashcroft, I., Hague, R.: Topology optimization for additive manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, 2011, pp. 348–362

  37. Bovea, M.D., Pérez-Belis, V.: A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. J. Clean. Prod. 20(1), 61–71 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Howarth, G., Hadfield, M.: A sustainable product design model. Mater. Des. 27(10), 1128–1133 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cluzel, F.: Eco-Design Implementation for Complex Industrial System: From Scenario-Based LCA to the Definition of an Eco-Innovative R&D Projects Portfolio. Ecole Centrale Paris, Châtenay-Malabry (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Le Bourhis, F.L., Kerbrat, O., Hascoet, J.-Y., Mognol, P.: Sustainable manufacturing: evaluation and modeling of environmental impacts in additive manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 69(9–12), 1927–1939 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cheung, W.M., Marsh, R., Griffin, P.W., Newnes, L.B., Mileham, A.R., Lanham, J.D.: Towards cleaner production: a roadmap for predicting product end-of-life costs at early design concept. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 431–441 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Atzeni, E., Salmi, A.: Economics of additive manufacturing for end-usable metal parts. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 62(9–12), 1147–1155 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. De Benedetto, L., Klemeš, J.: The Environmental Performance Strategy Map: an integrated LCA approach to support the strategic decision-making process. J. Clean. Prod. 17(10), 900–906 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jasch, C.: Environmental performance evaluation and indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 8(1), 79–88 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Borgianni, Y., Cascini, G., Pucillo, F., Rotini, F.: Supporting product design by anticipating the success chances of new value profiles. Comput. Ind. 64(4), 421–435 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Budde, L., Nagler, O., Friedli, T.: A method to set up a complexity index to improve decision-making performance. Procedia CIRP 36, 53–58 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Campbell, R.I., Jee, H., Kim, Y.S.: Adding product value through additive manufacturing. In: Lindeman, U. et al (eds.) ICED 13: 19th International Conference on Engineering Design, Proceedings Volume DS 75-4, Design for Harmonies, vol 4, pp. 259–268. Product, Service and Systems Design, Seoul, Korea (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire de Conception de Produits et Innovation, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, 151 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013, Paris, France

    Kévin Audoux, Frédéric Segonds & Améziane Aoussat

  2. Gem - UMR 6183, Univ Rennes CNRS, 35000, Rennes, France

    Olivier Kerbrat

Authors
  1. Kévin Audoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frédéric Segonds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Olivier Kerbrat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Améziane Aoussat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kévin Audoux.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Audoux, K., Segonds, F., Kerbrat, O. et al. Toward a customized multicriterion tool for product evaluation in the early design phases: the CMDET methodology. Int J Interact Des Manuf 13, 981–993 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00549-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00549-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation