Evolving Issues in Product Life Cycle Design

(Howto design products that are environmentally safe to manufacture/assemble, distribute, use,
servicehepair, discard/collect, disassemble, recycle/recover, and dispose?)
Vijay A. Tipnis (2),Synergy International, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia/USA
Received on January 14,1993
SUMMARY: Driven by the global environmental movement and consumer preferences to ‘green labeled products’, a new paradigm has emerged:
{‘GREEN’ ROBUST PRODUCTS) plus {CLEAN PRODUCTION} equals {SUSTAINABLE GROWTH).
This paradi,gn evolved from the growing environmental regulations and occupational health and safety laws that resmct gaseous, liquid, and solid
emissions and waste disposals from manufacturing processes and products in-use and -disposal. Also, disposal of product packaging and recycling of used
products is forcing the rethinking of the entire product life cycle from product strategy to recychg/disposal. There is a 50wing recognition of the fact that the
competitive position and, indeed, the very survival of companies depend on their response to this paradigm. This new paradigm is named the paradigm 2‘ because
to adopt it, a corporation must emphasize Ecology, Environment, Energy, Economy. Empowering, Education, and Excellence in all product life cycle decision.
Responding to this paradigm poses several new challenges beyond the traditional role and expertise of most product designers and production engineers. In this
paper, the evolving issues of the paradigm and their impact on product design and production are examined. The steps necessary for the adoption of the Paradigm
‘Eare presented. A review is presented of the available methodologies and analysis tools for making evaluation of environmental impact, product life cycle
economics, andcorporate competitive positioning. Activity modeling which provides acomprehensive methodology for these investigations is illustrated through
sample outputs from an on-going indusmal implementation of the Paradi,m ‘E‘.
KEYWORDS: Product Design, Process Design, Environmental Impact, Competitive Suategies. Concurrent Engineering, Economic Model, Penalty Costs.
INTRODUCTION paradigm shifts during its 500 years of operation in the production of hand guns
The responsibility of a manufacturer essentially extends over the entire (Jaikumar, 1988). As can be seen from the data listed in Table I, the number of
product life cycle, not just the wmanty period as in the past as shown in Figure 1. machines, the variety of pans, the ratio of staff to line workers, and the amount of
The manufacturer is responsible for the emissions, wastes, as well as recycling and rework, changed dramatically asBarreta adapted to the evolutions of manufacturing
disposal of worn products. Environmental regulations and consumer preference to from Craft and Guild (filing & fitting) to English System (machine tools) to
‘Green’ products are forcing corporations to design products that are environmen- American System (interchangeability: go/no go gages) to Taylor System (time and
tally safe to manufacture, use, and dispose. In the past. many U. S. Corporations motion study; Ford‘s Mass production) to Dynamic System (statistical process
viewed environmental regulations as unnecessary burden. Some of the European control) to Numerical Control and finally, to Computer Integrated Manufacturing.
and Japanese corporations have been more receptive to environmental challenges. The paradigm shift involved dramatic changes in the Engineering Ethos, Process
Now, this situation is changing because substantial cost savings are reported by U. Focus, Focus of Conwl, Instruments of Control, and Organizational Change. As the
S . Corporations that have empowered their work force to develop envhnmentally Standards of Work, the Work Ethos, the Skills Required, and the Control of Work
safe products, processes, and practices. Thesecorporations have progressed beyond changed because of the paradigm shifts. the entire practices of production became
abatement of pollution to satisfy the environmental regulations. What is more obsolete for those who did not adapt to the paradigm shifts.
important, these corporations gained acompetitiveadvantagebecause theircustom- Whenever we face a new paradigm, the current paradigm could prevent us
ers preferred their ‘Green’ products and practices. from recognizing the merits of the new paradigm. This is why the British delegation
Thesedevelopmentsmarkabeginningof a new paradigm formanufacturing that came to see interchangeability soon after theU. S. Civil war failed to recognize
called the Paradigm ‘El. To adopt it. a corporation must emphasize Ecology, its merits. This is also why Europeans failed to separate the value and universality
Environment, Energy, Economy, Empowering, Education, and Excellence in all of mass production from its unique American origin for almost a generation. Could
product life cycle decisions (Tipnis. 1993). In this paper, the steps necessary for the this be why westerncqorations havebeenslow torecognizethevalueanduniversal
adoption of the new paradigm are presented. And particularly, the challenges applicability ofLean Production and have ascribed it to its Japanese origins? When
product designers and production engineers face, the methods, and the analysis tools paradigms change, every thing changes. At this point, we must question the very
for the paradigm are discussed. assumptions of the current paradigm.
WHY SUSTAINABLE GROWTH IS IMPERATIVE NOW T H E PARADIGM ‘E’
Current indusmal activity which consists of material and energy flows ofthe The Paradigm ‘E’ demands ‘Green’ products and ‘Clean’ production pro-
‘Industrial Eco-system’ shown in Figure 2. accelerates the flow of material and cesses so as todesign products that areenvironmenlally safetomanufacture, use,and
energy through theeco-system‘s sources and sinks. It releases into the air, water, and dispose. Lean Production and Robust Design paradigms provide a solid
soil harmful chemicals, emissions, and wastes that inevitably get into the bio-food foundation for the adoption of Paradigm ‘E’ and hence, the Paradigm ‘E’ is:
chain. Once in the food chain, pollutants such as heavy metals, toxic chemicals, {‘Green’ Robust Products] plus (Clean Production}
including pesticides and herbicides used in agriculture, cause diseases in humans and equals
animals. Also, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer and global warming from (Sustainable Growth).
fossil fuel burning are proven environmental hazards that directly stem from the To adopt the Paradigm ‘E,a corporation must do the following:
current manufacturing processes, products, and practices (Elkinton. et al. 1990). Ecology: Compete on Ecology
World Systems Model Environment: Protect The Environment
What are the root causes of thesevere pollution problem we face? To answer Energy: Minimize Waste & Develop Clean Energy Resources
this question, we must examine three main mends: (1) the exploding human popula- Economy: Use Less Resources; Produce Most Economic Results
tion, (2) the growing indusmal and agricultural activities spurred by rising demand Empowering: Empower your Workers: Get Outstanding Results
for indusmal products and food accompanied by shrinking of the natural ecosystem, Education: Encourage Education; Stamp out Ignorance &Prejudice
and (3) OUT inability to control the harmful side effects of conspicuous consumption Excellence: Excel in Competing On Ecology
of materials and fossil fuels. Foundation For The Paradigm ‘E’:
Of the several attempts to evaluate the impact of these trends, Systems Lean Production: JITnQC, Toyota Production System Eiji Toyoda and
Dynamics Modeling (Forrester. 1968) under the auspices of ’TheClub Of Rome’ Taiichi Ohno, 1960-70s. It uses everything less compared to the Mass Production:
(Meadows, D. H.,et al., 1972) and its subsequent update (Meadow, et al., 1992), less capital, less time. less labor, less management. less space, less inventory,
presents an effective approach to evaluate alternative scenarios. The model consists responds more rapidly, and rapidly introduces andproduces producn thatsatish the
of 225 variables, and produces over 90,000 numbers for each run. Only a few major quality nee& of customers. Lean Production paradigm also proved to be a better
results are displayed in two sets of plots: ‘Stateof the World‘ and ‘MaterialStandard preparation for the adoption of the subsequent paradigms of Dynamic (SQC/SPC),
of Living.’ Two scenarios are of particular interest: Scenario 1: The ‘Standard Run’ NC, and C[M/FMS as well as for Concurrent Engineering than the Craft and Mass
from Limits to Growth (the world proceeds along its historical path without major Production paradigms. To minimize material and energy usage in production for the
policy change) and Scenario 10 The Transition to Sustainable System (the world Paradigm ‘E‘, Lean Production is, therefore, a sound star&ingpoint.
stabilizes by 199S.population andat the same time industriesintroduce technologies Robust Design Of Product and Process: Just meeting specifications (as
to reduce emissions, erosion, and resource use). The stark differences are evident followed by naditionalmanufacturingincludingcraft andmass production) doesnot
from these two scenarios: Overshoot and Collapse versus Sustainability. Therecom- necessarily guarantee quality; it also docs not automatically guarantee customer
mendations from the model are: (1) In order to avoid uncontrollable decline in per satisfaction with your product (Ishikawa, 1977. and Taguchi. 1986 among others).
capita foodoutput,energy use, and industrial production, the growth in material and “When a product fails, you must replace it or fix it. In either case, you must track it,
population must be eased down and at the same time there should be a rapid and transport it. and apologize for it. The losses are much greater than the cost of
dramatic increase in the efficiency of material and energy use, and (2) Sustainable manufacturing ic none will recover your reputation leading to the loss of market
society is technically and economically feasible (Scenario 10). However, transition share...” (Taguchi and Clausing, 1990). Taguchiintroduced a q u a h t i c loss function
to sustainability requires careful balancing of long and short term goals emphasizing known as Quality Loss Function in which as the product characteristics depart from
equity, and quality of life (for all inhabitants). Swtainabiliry isessentialnndurgent the target, the quality loss to the customer grows quadratically with the deviation.
for survival. Since Robust design provides a systematic and comprehensive methodology
WHY IS lT DIFFICULT T O SHIFT PARADIGMS for minimizing loss to the user from harmful side effects, it also provides a sound
Human progress happens by paradigm shifts, manufacturing is no exception. foundation.
The evolution of manufacturing processes and production technology can be uaced Quality Function Deployment: The methodology defines customer re-
back to distinct epochs, each of which involved a radical change in the way quirements and competitive benchmarksto set specificfunctional and esthetic design
manufactiiring was conducted. These pmdigm shifts are well illustrated through a targets ( k a o . 1987). It is useful in defining society’sand environmental protection
study of the case of Bmeta company founded in 1492, which adapted well to the requirements for the Paradigm ‘ E as well.

Annals of the ClRP Vol. 42/1/1993 169

The Seven Important Steps For Adoption Of The Paradigm ‘El:
1. Reformulate Corporate Strategy: Compete On Ecology.
You must reexamine the very premise of your competitive smtegy for
competing on ecology: (a) your responsibility to the product life cycle, (b) your
responsibility to the customer, (c) your relationship to the community and (c) 10the
ecosystem.
2. Transform Organization & Operations: Drop Obsolete Paradigms.
Craft and Mass Production paradigms are obsolete. The Hierarchical orga-
nization and compartmentalized operations of the traditional businesses do not work
when the most appropriate strategy calls for multi-functional. rapid response to
customer desires.
3. Undertake Frequent Comprehensive Dialogues With Everyone In
Your Organization To Change Their View Point:
Getting everyone in your organization to surface their doubts, fears, and
apprehensions is essential to getting them to look at the need and merits of the
transformation. Competing on ecology is an opportunity to revitdhZe your corpora-
tion by empoweringeveryone into sleuths for seeking out and destroying waste, and
saving the innocent victims of indusmal pollution.
4. Implement Robust Design & LPun Production Methods:
This Is The Foundation For Competing On Ecology because (1) Robust
Design forces you to produce products with on-target performance without harmful
side effects to the user, the worker, and society. and (2) Lean Production is a sound
discipline for learning how to do well with less: effort, inventory, space, time,
materials, energy, and cost.
5. Aggressively Seek out and Implement Environmentally Safe Product
& Process Technologies, and Customer Focused Product Life Cycle Systems:
Adopt The Paradigm ‘E’
You pledge to provide customer-focused products not just for the warranty
period but for the entire life cycle including, recycling, and recovery of materials and
energy. You,your suppliers, and your customers become environmentally respon-
sible.
6. Undertake In-house Development Of Key Product & Process Tech-
nologies: These Are Essential For Designing, Manufacturing, And Recycling
Environmentally Safe Products, Processes, And Practices.
Empowemd employees closest to the product and process take on the
responsibility of designing, manufacturing. and recycling envimnmentally safe
products, processes, and practices.
7. Form Strategic Alliances & International Cooperation: Become A
Global Corporation For Competitive Strength.
No single corporation can afford to ignore the environmental laws of any
country unless it wants to be shutout from that market. To protect you against these
global risks, you need allies and collaborations.
A Strategy For Transformation To The Paradigm ‘E’:
Before you begin the transformation, you need a strategy for the transfoma-
tion itself as you seek answers to the questions: How can your corporation gain
favorable status from environmentally conscious customers? What products and
product life cycle strategies provide competitive advantage for competing on ecol-
ogy? How to consmctively influence government’s environmental policies, and
derive investment credits, tax breaks, and incentives?
In the age of The Paradigm ‘E’, you cannot hide for long under your public
relations facade; your products’ and services’ me ecological performance will be
exposed. There will be many independent consumer groups ranking your perfor-
mance. BecauseundertheParadigm’E’,youmust now notonlydesign,makeandsell
the product: you must repairit,recoverit, recycleit, and dispose it. You will bejudged
by your socialcontracton goodcitizenshipeverywhereyousell your product. Indeed,
the very concept of ownership may change to user-ship.
Many U. S . and European corporations have recently completed or are in the
middle of Total Quality Management programs. Multi-functional teams are getting
the taste of self-managing their work at some leading corporations. The concepts of
Lean Production and Robust design are beginning to be introduced in leading U.S.
and European corporations. The stronghold of the now obsolete functional special-
ization of mass production paradigm is losing its grip. This is a step in the right
direction. However, in many corporations, the hierarchical organizations of the past
are still in place and introduction of any new initiative is an arduous topdown
campaign. Middle management layersresistchangesfor the fear of the unknown and
the work force closest to the product or process still is not empowered to take
initiative. There is no easy way to transform organizations and operations rooted in
years of traditions and company culture..
Should you appoint an environmental ‘Czar’? Should you let every division
do its own thing, instead? Theenvironmentalinitiatives at Dow,3M, Eayer. Toyoia
and others provide some lessons., However, your initiative must fit your own
conditions; Paradigm ‘E’ is not a cookbook program.
History shows that paradigm shifts in manufacturing involve radical changes
from the status quo. An incremental introduction of a new paradigm does not work
well under the prevailing precepts. organization. and operational procedures of the
old paradigm Also, partial adoption or a mixture of the old with the new paradjgm
invariably leads to disappointing results. A case in point is the introduction of NC in
traditional functionally-organized job shops where NC machines created islands of
automation with local high efficiencies but had little or no impact on the throughput
of the manufacturing system; it actuallyresultedin higheroperatingcosts. Computer
integrated and Flexible manufacturing systems are best implemented when a ‘Green
fie1ds”approach is taken, as several examples testify. The real reason for the success
of Barreta’s paradigm shifts is that Barretd adopted each paradigm totally and
completely; Barreta changed everything per the demands of the new paradigm (see
170
items listed under each paradigm in Table I). We must drop the obsolete p;lradigms
before we can fully adopt and benefit from the Paradigm ‘E’.
Your strategy will have to define: How can you derive savings from reduced
consumption ofmaterials andenergy, and from inmeased efficienciesofiheir usage?
How should you reduce wasre, reuse scrap, recoverenergy,and recycle materials and
components from used products? How should you minimize hnrmful emissions in
processing materials, product usage, recycling, and in disposal? The tasks of the
transformation can be broken-down into the following projects:
1. Implement abatement technologies to meet current environmental regula-
tions in the short run,and initiate projects for pollution prevention at the source
through redesign of products, processes, and practices.
2. Ensure that containment is provided to existing processes exhibiting risks
of harmful emissions so as to minimize potential hazard to your workers.
3. Initiate product recycling progmms to ensure that the products already in
use are collected and recycled per the regional regulations.
4. Redesign products to minimize recycling and harmful emissions to the
work place, surrounding community, and the ecosystem.
Clearly, design phase is crucial because it controls how well the subsequent
life cycle phases will be performed to provide you with a competitive advantage.
DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Concurrent or simultaneous engineering became necessary to overcome the
limitations of sequential engineering steps typical of functional specializdtion from
the era of mass production. Concurrent engineering compresses the new product
design cycle by simultaneous consideration of product, material. process, and
manufircturing system issues from the conception of design to the completion of
prototype (e.g. Solenius, 1992, among many others). Furthermore. it enhances rapid
introduction of product through a close link and a prompt execution of the resource
deployment including the entire logistics of mobilizing the material. machines, and
tooling, and human resources for launching the production.
However, concurrenr engineering may produce an undesirable impact on the
environmentif it accelerates the pace of new product introduction and thereby causes
increased material and energy usage and rapid product obsolescence. Nonetheless,
it is a sound foundation for the design of ‘Green’ Robust Products arid Clean
Production because the methodologies, organizations, and analysis tools of concur-
rent engineering can be enhanced for design for sustainability. Therefore, the
activities to be performed under Design for Sustainability are shown as a part of the
concurrent enginering phase with added tasks per the paradigm ‘ E in Figure 3.
Under the paradigm ‘E’,products, processes, and practices will be designed
with a specific sustainable growth rate for the control of pollution and for the
reduction of material and energy usage. Sustainable rates are the resultant rates
determined by how fast harmful effects of indusmal activity must be curtailed and
how rapidly non-polluting replacementscanbe developed and introduced. The target
sustainablerate of resource consumption and conuol of pollution will be decided on
thebasisofits global impact.asin thecaseofthephasingoutoftheCFC’sasaerosols,
refrigerants, and industrial cleaners. The CFC’s use was curtailed by international
agreements when its use was directly linked to the depletion of stratospheric ozone
layer. The use af fossil fuels in power plants and automobile that contribute to
greenhousegassesis anotherexamplewherelimits are forthcoming. Similarly,either
through increased penalties or environmental resmctions. recycling and disposal of
waste materials and worn products are being determined by the agreed upon
sustainable rate. As we have reviewed in the world model, the huge backlog of the
past harmful effects of pollution and the delay inherent in the system, forces the
effects of any pollution preventive action to be redized only a decade or so later.
Therefore, designing for sustainability necessarily demands a long term as well as a
global view of all design decisions.
It also demands conservation of material and energy resources through
increased efficiencies and elimination of conspicuous consumption. This means
unnecessary proliferation of products may not be in the interest of the envimnment.
Tax laws and incentives may be applied by governments to influence the behavior of
consumers and producers in cases where achieving sustainable rates is urgent, for
example, discontinuingthe use of leaded gasoline and adding catalyticconverters to
older automobilesto reduce smog in congested cities. In designing for sustainability,
corporations are seeking competitive advantage by staying ahead of the pack in
introducing environmentally safe products, processes, and practices so as to gain
preference to their products from consumers.
Design for sustainability provides specifictargets fordesign for manufacture,
assembly, service,disassembly, and recycle because these are subsets of it. The true
goals of desjgn for sustainability under the paradigm ‘E‘ are material and energy
resource consumption, waste reduction, and prevention of pollution because in
pursuing these goals you create Green Robust products and processes, and follow
Clean Production practices essential for competing on ecology.
AXIOMS, RULES METHODOLOGIES, AND ANALYSIS TOOLS
The expanded scope of manufacturer’s responsibility as shown in Figure 1
compel manufacturers toconsider all relevant lifecycle consequences during product
planning and design phases. This added responsibility is beyond the capabilities of
the available axioms, mles, methodologies. and analysis tools and hence, additional
developmenteffort has been initiated. The principal areas of the development are (1)
material andenergy flow andconsumption modeling, (2) investigation andmodeling
of emissions from manufacturing processes, (3) product life cycle economic models,
and (4) design rules and axioms for decisions on environmental impact of product,
processes, and practices. The scope of the material and energy flow relevant to the
earth’s industrial eco-system is shown in Figure 2. Material and energy flows for a
specific product, process, or practice can be traced back to the ecosystem’s sources
and sinks by constructing a schematic diagram similar to the one shown in Figure 2
 for industrial eco-system. Activity Modeling methodology is an effective way to
create logical sequence of activities for the entire industrial ecosystem involved.
Product life cycle phases for the Paradigm 'E' must include additional phases
beyond the production phases as shown in Figure 3 because the scope here is
essentially from womb-to-tomb of the product. Furthermore, Table I clearly shows
thatparadigm 'E' requires skills beyond the traditionalexpertise ofproduct designers
and production engineers. Hence, extensive research, development and training must
be B prerequisite for implementing the paradigm 'E'.
For the Paradigm 'E', product quality is judged on the basis of Ecological
Quality: In terms of the quality of life of our eco-system.
The material, energy, and information content during the life cycle of a
product should follow the following axioms:
I. iMaterinl Balance:
(a)Dischargeofharmfulgames, liquidr,andsolidrmurttendtozero.
(6)Ratio of Recycled to Input Materials should tend to one.
2. Energy Balance:
The energy expenditure during product manujamre, use, recycle.
and disposal should be minimized.
3. Information Content of every process must be such that
Oufput knowledgellnput knowledge must be greater than one (i.e..
we must learnfrom experiencefor the benefit of the next execution).
In practice, design for sustainabilityinvolves trade-offs between the risks and
benefits. weighed against the ecological damage, the economic consequences, and
competitive suategic goals for the product.
What Is Needed and Why:
The success of the design for sustainability will depend on how well the
subsequent product life cycle phases have been understood and modeled as well as
the new technologies of material, processes, and systems have been developed and
are ready for implementation.
The design axioms (Suh, I%), Rules of DFM. DFA,and DFD (Boothroyd
& Alting. 1992). and the methodologies of QFD (Akao, 1987). Robust Design
(Taguchi, 1986). and those of Lean Production (Taiichi Ohno, Eiji Toyoda, and the
Toyota Production system, 1960-1980) are well known. Adopting these is a prereq-
uisite for the Paradigm 'E'. However, specific axioms, rules, and methodologies for
the Paradigm 'E' are still in the early stagesof development Also, besides the readily
available material and process databases, databases for material separability,
recyclability, emissions. and others need to be developed. The emissions from
cleaning, abrasive, EDM, laser processing, painting, and other pmesses must be
modeled (Konig, 1991, Busch, et al., 1991, andHows, Tonshoff, andHeuer, 1991).
Research is needed to understand how gaseous and particulate emissions originate
durjng execution of manufacturing p e s s e s , and how these affect the workers'
health epidemiologically. Rules (Zust and Wagner, 1992) and design checklists are
introduced for assisting designers to evaluate alternatives for disassembly and
recyclability (Roth, 1992). The task of building aviable knowledge-base essential for
design for sustainability is, indeed, formidable. However, it is crucial for competing
on ecology.
PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE ECONOMIC MODELS
It is me that the macro-economic measure we use today such as the Gross
NationalRoduct doesnotconsiderthe 'cost'ofecologicalconsequencesofindusmal
and economic activities. The GNP goes up regardless of the damage caused by
industrial, agricultural,orirrigationactivity.Thecost ofthecleanuporthelossofthe
natural environment is not counted.
The situation for individual product, process. or practice within the industrial
eco-system is no different. To remedy this deficiency, a comprehensive product life
cycle model was introduced (Tipnis, 1991). In this model, the costs as well as
penalties and opportunities w m i n d u c e d to reflect the 'cost' consequences of
product life cycle decisions to the manufacturer, the user, the society, and the eco-
system. Because every product in a competitive market place has a target quality, .
price, and introduction timing, the economic model is written in terms of an
inequality:
(Actual Costs + Penalty Costs - Opportunity Costs) 5 Target Cost
Where, (Target Cost) = (Target Price - Desired Profit) over the product
manufacturing duration. This allowsinitidlosses toberecoupedonce the production
volume increases from the larger market share captured.
The penalty costs to the manufacturer arise from the risks of losing business
due to customer disfavor, worker health costs, and environmental fines, as well as the
cost of installing andoperating pollutionabatement facilities. Theopportunities arise
from benefits when customers prefer your products or because in the process of
pollution prevention, the product, process, or practice becomes even more cost-
effective, attain higher quality, or becomes more efficient. Examples are now
mounting where companies report m have derived more benefits than just pollution
avoidance once they undertook serious investigations of the entire production
process and the product life cycle to protect the environment.
Similarly, the introduction timing was defined as an inequality with respect
to the target timing for market introduction of a product.
(Actual Time To Market + Penalty Lags - Opportunity Leads) 5 Target Timing.
Meaningofthetimingtermsfollowsasimilarpatterntothatofthecostsgiven
above. Target quality is defmed through QFD and competitive benchmarks.
Furthermore. because the model consists of decomposition of activities from
the product life cycle phases into the individual activities and process operation, it is
possibb to construct scenarios for evaluation of alternatives. Any change in a single
activity at any level of the decomposition affects the overall life cycle costs and
timing. Acitivity modeling, therefore, provides a comprehensive smcture for the
evaluation of product life cycle economic alternatives,
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS TOOLS FOR THE PARADIGM 'E'
Activity Modeling was introduced to define data-flow for design phase of
large software projects during the 1970's. The task of breaking down individual
computational or data transformational activity for a large software design and
coding effort is now routinely done through the discipline of activity data-flow
models.
Activity modeling has been successfully applied to model manufacturing
systems consisting of several material handling, uansportation, and transformation
operations. Identifying what are the inputs, outputs and constrains in a systematic
decomposition allows us to keep track of hundreds to thousands of individual
activities and sub-activities at all levels of system decomposition. Furthermore, the
input, output, and controls or consuaints are readily defined and stored into a data
dictionary for conversion to a relational or spreadsheet database. Once in the
database, retrieval, computations, and further modeling becomes feasible.
A diagram of how activity model has been applied to the investigation of
material, energy, and data flow during a product life cycle is shown in Figure 4. The
logical activity model is constructed from the schematic of the material, energy, and
dataflowsat eachlevelof the manufacturing systemdecomposition starfingfrom the
Product Indusmal Eco-system's sources to the individual material transformation
processes that determinequality,productivity,material and energy consumption and
ending with the emissions andpollution from the processes enteringtheeco-system's
sinks. The applicable methodologies shown in circles in Figure 4 provide the
conuolling paradigms for the specific activity levels. The data from the activities is
storedinto relational or spreadsheet databases where computations areperformed for
evaluation of alternatives. The activity models also provide a sound starting point for
the consuuction of information models, Petrinet models, System Dynamics models,
and discrete event simulation models. Figures 5 and 6, illustrate two of the many
spreadsheet models that have been useful for product and process design evaluations
for machining, and painting processes which are described in some detail elsewhere
(Tipnis, 1993). Activity modeling has proved to be a sound focal point for multi-
desciplinq team work during the implementaion of the Paradigm 'E'.
THE CHALLENGE OF THE PARADIGM
The problems of industrial pollution and waste of material and energy are a
major part of the global environmental problems that are now urgent and real if we
are to avoid ecological catasmphy within the lives of our grandchildren. Fortu-
nately, industry has discovered that compcting on ecology is not only good for the
environment but also good for business. The stage is set for a massive paradigm shift
to the Paradigm 'E. The steps outlined in this paper urge what you must do and how
for competing on ecology. We must mount a concerted international initative to
attack the environmental issues. Design for sustainability, an esential element of the
Paradigm 'E', poses formidable research and development challenges. Can you
afford not to take on this powerful challenge?
References
Akao, Y., (1987). 'Quality Deployment', edited articles, GOAWLawrence, 1987.
Alting, Leo, 1991, 'Life-Cycle Design of Rcducts. A New Opportunity & Chal-
-1enges for Manufacturing Enterprises'. Concurrent Engineering: Issues,
TechnoIogy and Practices, Vol. I. Nov. 1991.
Boothroyd ,G. and Alting. L., 1992, 'Design for Assembly &Disassembly',
CIRP, VOI41/2/1992, pp. 625-636.
Busch, H.. Levsen, K.,Hollander, W., Trasser, F. J., and Rummenholler, S., 1991,
'Emissions of Hazardous Materials by Laser Beam Cutting and Milling of
Fiber Reinforced Plastics', Advanced matmals.. . (Ed.: A. Kwakeernaak
and L. van Arkel), SAMPEYElsevier. 1991. pp 427-438.
Elkinton, I., Hailes. J., and Makower, J., 1990, 'The Green Consumer'. Penguin.
Eversheim, W., Binding, J.. and Schea. R.. 1990, 'In der Producktion Engergie
und Materialkosten ensparen, M I - Z , 132(1990), Nr.2.
Hattori, M. and Inoue, H. 1992, 'Concept of Ecology-Based CIM System'. Japan/
USA Symposium on Flexible Automation, Proceedings, ASME & ISCW
Japan, Vol2, pp. 1663-1666.
Hauser, I. R. and Clausing, D. (1988). The House of Quality', HBR, MayJune,
1988, pp. 63-73.
Hows. T. D., Tonshoff. H. K., and Heuer, W., 1991, 'Environmental Aspects of
Grinding Fluids', CIRP Annals, Vol. 40/2/1991, pp. 623-630
Ishikawa, K., (1977). "Quality Analysis", 1977 ASQC Technical Conference
Transactions, Philadelphia, pp. 423-429.
Jaikumar, R., 1988, 'From Filing and Fitting to Flexible Manufacturing: A Study
in the Evolution of Process Control, HBSlReport No. 88-045.
Konig, W., 'Comments in CIRP 1990,1991 Round Table', reported by
Rammerswaal. J. L., CIRF', Vol40/2/1991, pp. 589-593. .
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, I.,and Beherns III, W. W., 1972,
' . . Signet Books.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J.. 1992, Bevond ?he Limts . . .,
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Roth. N., 1992, Pnsentation at CIRP STC A , Aix-en-Provance, Aug., 1992
Taguchi, G.,vt - Ewine&.& Asian Product. Press, 1986
Taguchi, G. and Clausing, D. (1990), 'Robust Quality-Taguchi Methods', HBR,
JadFeb., 1990, pp. 65-75.
Solenious, G.,1992, 'Concurrent Engineering', CIRP Vol41/2/1992, pp. 645-655.
Suh, N. P., 1990, M s Of De&, Oxford University Press.
Tipnis, V. A., 1991, 'Product Life Cycle Economic Models', Annals of the
CIRP Vol. 40/1/1991. pp. 463-466.
Tipnis, V. A,. 1993,
- ' ', To be published
Zust, R. and Wagner, R., 1992, ' Approach to the Identication and Quantification
of Environmental Effects', CJRP, Vol. 41/1/1992. pp. 473-476.
171
 TABLE I: EVOLUTION OF MANUFACTURING: PARADIGM SHIFTS
The Portion Enclosed In Bold Lines Highlights
. -
The Paradigm 'El: {'Green Robust Products} plus {Clean Production} equals
I {Sustainable Growth}

ITEM CRAFT ENGLISH AMERICAN TAYLOR DYNAMIC NC CIM/FMS Lean Productio CLEAN Productioi
Period t1800AD >I800 >1850 >1900 >1950 > 1960 > 1970 >1960/80 >1990
Number of Machines 0 3 50 150 150 50 30 20 10
Staff Personnel 0 0 20 60 100 50 20 10 10
Line Foreman/Workei' 6 40 130 240 200 50 10 10 5
Productivity Increase 1 4 12 36 54 162 486 972 1458
Reworkflotal Work 1 0.8 0.5 0.25 0.08 0.02 0.005 0.0002 0.0005
Number of Products 1000 5 00 3 10 15 100 1000 >loo0 >loo0
Engineering Ethos Artist/Craft Mechanical Manufacturing Industrial Quality Systems Knowledge Qua lity/Sa t isF Ecology/Wisdom
Process Focus Design/Art Accuracy Repeatability Reproducibility Stability Adaptability Versatility Quick Change Clean Robustnez
Focus of Control Esthetics Prod./Function Prod,/Conform Proc./Conform Proc./Capability Integrate Proc./lntelligenc On-Target QC Sy s /I n t e IIig e nce
Instrument/Control Eye/Feel Micrometer GO/NOGo Gage Stop Watch Control Chart Dig/Electronics Computer/Nets Designed-in QC A r t i f i c i a l Realit]
Organizational Change Form Guilds Break Guilds Staff/Line Functional Org. Teams/Problem Cellular Org IntegrationlP3 Self-Mgt Team! Sys/lntegration
Standard of Work Master Absolute Relative Work Stds Process Stds Functional Stds Technology Stds Product Stds Unique Products
Work Ethos Art Expression Perfection Satisfy Reproduce Monitor Control Develop JIT/TQC/TQM lnven t Delights
Skills Required Artistic Mechanical Repetitive Repetitive Diaqnostic ExDerimental Learning/Know Team Learning :reativity/Learn
Empower Team Unattended Mfg.
Robust Product Green' Robust
Product Code Product Model
Very Short Very Short
Semi Concurren All Concurrent

Adapted from R. Jaikumar, From Filing to Fitting to Flexible Manufacturing: A Study in the Evolution of Process Control'
HBS Working Paper, 1988. (The Portion Above The Bold Lines is Extracted from the Paper.)

Formulate A Competitive Product

Strategy For Competing On Ecology

I / Products
\.. ,,,sz I
Expanded Responsibility o-f 7
Figure 1 PRODUCT & PROCESSES: Figure 3 Product Life Cycle Phases For Competing On Ecology
Expanded Responsibility of Manufacturer Over the Entire Life Cycle

2- - '

E N E R G Y , AND D A T A F L O W

172
 -
OPERATIONS SUM(PROCESSE5)
P R 0 C E S S : C O ~ O C ~ F O R O P n M I Z A i i OOFN
CONiROuABtiVARIABLES W m i W WOWNG REGION.
PRESENT SYSTEM = IN USE
PRPOSEO SYSTEM IMPROVED
OBJECTIVE: OPJIMIZE QUAu7y WHILE REDUCING
30.00 .20 00 -10 OC 0.CO iO.30 2000 30.30 EWLOG~OAMdGEAN)UFiC(CLEa3STASWELLAS
MPROVING ?RODUCJiViTt & THROUGHPUT FOR JUST-/A
% CHANGE TIME. CONDUCT ROBUST DESIGN TESTSTOVWDATE
W O S E D MANGES.

Figure 5 An Example of Activity Model Analysis For QUALITY, Ecology, Energy,

Throughput, Information, and Cost

F i g u r e 6: An E x a m p l e o f L i f e Cycle Cost o f A P r o d u c t ( F l c t t c l o u s N u m b e r s )

I % CHANGE I P R E S E N T ( A s - / s ) ~ R U P U S f D ( T o - E e j

173