Content uploaded by Nina Boorsma
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nina Boorsma on Mar 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is an authors’ copy of the work. The definitive version was published in the
Proceedings of the International conference of Remanufacturing 2019,
June 2019, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
CIRCULAR BUILDING PRODUCTS, A CASE STUDY OF SOFT
BARRIERS IN DESIGN FOR REMANUFACTURING
Nina Boorsma a, Tanya Tsui b, David Peck b
a. Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology
b. Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology
¿
¿
¿
Abstract: The building industry contributes approximately 40% of the total waste generated
in the European Union (EU). Across the EU a shift towards closing product loops, as part of
a transition towards a circular economy, is considered as a promising approach to reduce
waste and pollution. Remanufacturing is an example of a strategy which supports this
approach. It is applied in various industries that are intensive materials users. It has, however,
not been applied in the building sector on a large scale. This is unfortunate, given that
buildings offer several favorable key conditions for remanufacturing, such as providing
access to high volumes of products, containing high material value, at fixed locations. This
paper aims to analyse the human, soft issues for design for remanufacturing at the design
stage of products used in the built environment. The methodology used consisted of a
literature review followed by a workshop with twenty professionals from the building
industry. The workshop approach was developed in a series of EU funded projects. The paper
concludes by proposing that, even though the technical barriers to remanufacture building
products are low, the soft barriers in the shift towards remanufacturing, on a larger scale,
appear to remain high.
¿
¿
¿
1. INTRODUCTION
The practice of remanufacturing is not new, nor is it
novel. In terms of materials and energy, the closing of
product loops, in this case extending the life of the
product via remanufacturing, is considered a
promising approach to cut down pollution and in
particular reduce CO2. Together with reducing energy
use and pollution production, remanufacturing
reduces the dependence of primary (geological
sourced) material use.
The closed loop, product life extension, lower
impact, approach fits within the frame of the circular
economy. Within the EU, Circular Economy (CE) is a
relatively new policy concept that has been brought
into the spotlight by the European Commission’s CE
Action Plan in 2015 (EC, 2015). There are diverging
views on what the EU, Member States and other
stakeholders mean by CE, with no universally agreed
definition. CE approaches have only been
incorporated in research and innovation activities in
recent years.
The EU circular economy approach not only seeks
to help meet the EU member states commitments to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing
primary material import dependency, but it also
supports the commitments to agenda 2030 via the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s). The driver
from the policy commitments is well stated, but policy
does not translate to business activity easily.
Remanufacturing is an example of a strategy which
supports this approach. It is applied in various
industries that are intensive materials users. It has,
however, not been applied in the building sector on a
large scale. This is unfortunate as a building contains
high volumes of products, at fixed locations,
containing high value materials. Moreover, even
though many buildings are bespoke, building products
are standardized, creating further opportunities for
remanufacturing.
Design activities of companies to develop building
products are generally centered around a single use.
However, for those companies who actively engage in
remanufacturing operations, it might prove profitable
to also incorporate ‘multiple use’ thinking in their new
product development process. Designing for multiple
use can, for example, incorporate Design for
Remanufacturing (DfRem) methods during the new
product development process. DfRem is a strategy to
design a product that is optimised to be
remanufactured. The aim is to restore the products
(known in remanufacturing activitities as ‘cores’) to
the original performance specification, with a
warranty, in box, as new. To help unpack the factors
which influence this process, the following central
research question was formulated:
For remanufacturing, what is the role of soft barriers
at the product development stage?
1.1. Methodology
The methodology to conduct this research is built up
in three parts.
Firstly, the description of a generic method for
product development was developed to act as a
reference point for the study. This was done by
consulting literature by leading authors in the field of
product development and product design. This was
complemented by reviewing the published product
development models as applied in education for
industrial design engineering at the TU Delft, The
Netherlands.
Secondly, an overview of current design for
remanufacturing methods and design rules from
literature was consulted. The literature was not
specific to the building industry and covered a range
of sectors. It was observed that remanufacturing
literature from the perspective of the building sector
was absent in the searches carried out. An overview of
approaches and design rules for design for
remanufacturing was selected to give a summary of
what is published in literature.
Thirdly, the scope of the research and the
framework to analyse the case is introduced. This was
also conducted via literature review. The search terms
which were used in the search engines of Scopus to
find an applicable framework, were ‘drivers’ and
‘product innovation’. For the selection of the
framework the following criteria were used:
- The framework should go beyond technical
product characteristics
- The framework should be based on literature
and tested in practice
- The framework should be acknowledge
within the academic field
And finally, a case study approach is deployed, using
a case from the building industry, which is analysed
using the proposed framework. The case data was
collected through an EU funded H2020 workshop and
follow up conversations with the company. The case
approach follows the structure of shorter case study
interviews as described in Yin (2018), by using a
protocol in the form of (unpublished) worksheets and
structure documents from the EU projects, these are
shown in appendix A.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. New product development process
In order to determine where and how soft issues
influence the design stage, the new product
development methodology was consulted. However,
before discussing the design methodology, it is
important to introduce the supply chain for building
parts. To explain this, the facade equipment
manufacturer was used as an example. First, the
typical legal process of constructing a building in the
Netherlands will be described; then, stakeholders
involved in the process of constructing a building will
be addressed; and finally, building product
manufacturers’ position in the system will be
explained. Even though an example from the
Netherlands was used, the basic frame is applicable in
other parts of the world.
2.1.1. Constructing a building
To start off with, a building should be seen as an
assemblage of products, instead of being one single
product. These products have different life cycles,
which vary from a few years (services) to a few
hundred years (structure), as shown in Figure 1
(Brand, 1995). These products include the structure,
skin (facade), space plan (such as interior walls,
partitions, finishes), and services (such as lighting,
water, heating, and ventilation systems) (ibid.) and
are designed by different product manufacturers. In
Figure 1 Shearing layers of products within a building’s life
cycle (Brand, 1995).
this system, a facade equipment manufacturer would
provide parts for the “skin” of the building.
When a client, such as a real estate developer,
seeks to construct a building, a contract is signed with
a contractor. The contractor then commissions an
architect and consultants to design the building, as
seen in Figure 3 (Azcarate-Aguerre et al., 2017). After
the building has been designed, the contractor,
architect, and consultants jointly select suppliers for
the required materials and products in the building,
examples of these materials are steel beams, windows,
roof tiles and air conditioning systems. Next,
architectural drawings are produced, specifying the
final selection of products and suppliers for the
construction process.
In their turn, suppliers, such as facade equipment
manufacturers, manufacture products and sell them to
contractors. The product will be mounted onto the
building by either the contractor or the supplier. In
some cases, companies have their own construction
team.
2.1.2. Development of building parts
An architect does not design every window, roof tile,
column and heater in a building. The architect’s role is
to design the form, materiality and organization of the
building. After this the selection of building products,
which fit into the architectural vision, takes place.
Although every building looks unique, the products
that make up the building are oftentimes mass-
produced commercial products.
This description is a generalised view of the
building industry. The processes to develop a building
are not standardised, which means that legal systems
and design processes can differ.
Often architects work closely together with suppliers
to modify existing products for optimal integration
with the building. And, at times, architects design their
Figure 3 Legal system of a typical building contract in the
Netherlands (Azcarate-Aguerre et al., 2017).
own building products, such as facades, stairs or
doors. However, in general, most building products
are not designed by architects: they are designed,
manufactured, marketed, sold and distributed like
other products in commercial markets.
2.1.3. New product development in commercial
product markets
Several leading authors in the literature of product
design engineering have generated theoretical models,
and refined each other’s models, for new product
development. This section will give a short description
of product design methodology.
According to Ulrich and Eppinger (1995),
characteristics which determine the success of new
product development are product quality, product
costs, development costs and development capability.
Ulrich and Eppinger argue, that the departments
carrying out the activities of marketing, design and
Figure 2 The product development flow chart, by Ulrich and Eppinger (1995).
manufacturing generally take in a central position in
the product development process (ibid.). Where
marketing forms the link between company and
market; design (engineering and industrial design) is
the embodiment of the artifact fulfilling the need of the
consumer; and manufacturing is responsible for the
design of the production process. In the product
development flow chart, the authors distinguish six
stages within the process, as shown in Figure 2, in
which each previously mentioned department has its
own activities.
Roozenburg and Eekels (1991) have also
developed a theoretical representation of the product
development process. This model is constructed using
the same elements as the model of Ulrich and
Eppinger, in which adjustment are made to the process
flow, acknowledging that several processes take place
in parallel. This model can be found in Figure 4,
starting from ‘Formulation goals and strategies’ and
ending at ‘Use’.
Buijs (2003; 2012) further developed the model
of Roozenburg and Eekels, specifying the process
steps in more detail and dividing the product
development into four phases in his Delft Innovation
Model. The four phases he distinguishes are: Fuzzy
Front End of innovation, New Product Development,
Muddy Back End and Product Use (Buijs, 2007).
- Fuzzy Front End - Identification and
anticipation on market opportunities (Buijs,
2007; Koen et al., 2001)
- New Product Development - Transformation
of a design brief into a physical product
(Buijs, 2012)
- Muddy Back End - Product launch and
market introduction (Buijs, 2007)
- Product Use - Origin of need for new product
innovation cycle (Buijs, 2007)
Balkenende & Bakker (2018) have adapted the
representation of Roozenburg and Eekels to meet the
present-day requirements for responsible product
development, by adding recovery as a final step
(Figure 4). This step is added to trigger designers to
incorporate decisions about the possible end-of-life
scenarios during the design phase.
With this adaptation the stages of the Product
Innovation Process are enriched by the task of
opportunity and solution finding for recovery
operations, allowing a company to discover potential
to improve its resource efficiency.
2.2. Technical design requirements for
remanufacturing
Applying technical design for remanufacturing
guidelines does not necessarily change the design
process, it more likely changes or adds requirements
to the product architecture and design. These technical
design requirements are extensively described in
literature. An overview of approaches and design rules
for design for remanufacturing was selected to give a
summary of what has been published in literature. The
first overview contains approaches for design for
remanufacturing as summarized by Hatcher et al.
(2011), and can be found in Table 1. The second
overview contains a list of design rules for X,
generated by Bovea & Pérez-Belis (2018) and can be
found in Table 2. The second part of the overview
consists of detailed design guidelines for designing
products for remanufacturing.
Figure 4 The Product Innovation Process by Roozenburg and Eekels (1991), with the recovery step added by Bakker,
adapted from Balkenende & Bakker (2018).
2.3. Framework of predictors for new product
performance
Manufacturing companies operating in commercial
markets in general, require a diverse set of
capabilities to run their operations. These capabilities
can be divided into two main categories. The first
category refers to soft capabilities, which are routines
needed to create new, or redirect existing, operational
capabilities in order to support innovation efforts
(Daneels, 2011; Pavlou & El Sawy, 2011; Teece et
al., 1997). The second category refers to hard
capabilities, which are sets of routines needed to
execute those business activities which are key to
delivering a promised offer to the customers (Pavlou
& El Sawy, 2011; Teece et al., 1997).
2.3.3. A focus on soft issues
In a previous paper, 16 journal papers revealing
barriers to remanufacturing were analysed using the
dynamic capabilities model (Boorsma et al. 2018).
This analysis pointed out a focus predominantly on the
hard capabilities (integrating, coordinating), and
limited focus on soft capabilities (sensing, learning).
This paper therefore deep dives into the soft
capabilities of a case study in the building industry.
According to Pavlou & El Sawy, the sensing
capabilities include capabilities related to identifying
market opportunities and being responsive to market
trends. The learning capability comprises capabilities
related to obtaining new knowledge and creative new
thinking.
2.3.3. Predictors of new product performance
An analysis of the soft barriers for the selected case
was made using the model for ‘Predictors of new
product performance’ generated by Henard &
Szymanski (2001) (Table 3). The assumption
supporting this choice, is that even though
remanufactured products contain previously used
content, when put on the market they are subjected to
the same influences as new products are. For this
Design for remanufacturing approaches
Approach
Authors
DfRem metrics
Bras and Hammond (1996); Amezquita et al. (1995)
Fastening and joining selection
Shu and Flowers (1999)
RemPro matrix
Sundin (2004)
REPRO2
Zwolinski et al. (2006);
Zwolinski and Brissaud (2008); Gehin et al. (2008)
DfRem guidelines
Ijomah et al. (2007a,b); Ijomah (2009)
DfRem metrics
Willems et al. (2008)
Hierarchical decision model
Lee et al. (2010)
Energy comparison tool
Sutherland et al. (2008)
Component reliability assessment
Zhang et al. (2010)
Modularisation
Ishii et al. (1994); Kimura et al. (2001)
FMEA
Lam et al. (2000); Sherwood and Shu (2000)
Platform design
King and Burgess (2005)
Active disassembly
Chiodo and Ijomah (2009)
Design for environment tools
Pigosso et al. (2009)
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Yuksel (2010)
Table 1 Design for remanufacturing approaches table was adopted from Hatcher et al. (2011)
Table 2 Design for remanufacturing guidelines table, adopted from Bovea & Pérez-Belis (2018).
Predictors of new product performance
Predictor
Definition
Product characteristics
Product advantage
Superiority and/or differentiation over competitive offerings
Product meets customer needs
Extent to which product in perceived as satisfying desires/ needs of the customer
Product price
Perceived price-performance congruency (i.e., value)
Product technological sophistication
Perceived technological sophistication (i.e., high-tech, low-tech) of the product
Product innovativeness
Perceived newness/ originality/ uniqueness/ radicalness of the product
Firm strategy characteristics
Marketing synergy
Congruency between the existing marketing skills of the firm and the marketing
skills needed to execute a new product initiative successfully
Technological synergy
Congruency between the existing technological skills of the firm and the
technological skills needed to execute a new product initiative successfully
Order of entry
Timing of marketplace entry with a product/ service
Dedicated human resources
Focused commitment of personnel resources to a new product initiative
Dedicated R&D resources
Focused commitment of R&D resources to a new product initiative
Firm process characteristics
Structured approach
Employment of formalized product development procedures
Predevelopment task proficiency
Proficiency with which a firm executes the pre-launch activities ( e.g., idea
generation/ screening, market research, financial analysis)
Marketing task proficiency
Proficiency with which a firm conduct its marketing activities
Launch proficiency
Proficiency of a firm’s use of technology in a new product initiative
Reduced cycle time
Proficiency with which a firm launches the product/ service
Market orientation
Reduction in the concept-to-introduction timeline (i.e., time to market)
Customer input
Incorporation of customer specifications into a new product initiative
Cross-functional integration
Degree of firm orientation to its internal, competitor, and consumer environment
Cross-functional communication
Level of communication among departments in a new product initiative
Senior management support
Degree of senior management support for a new product initiative
Marketplace characteristics
Likelihood of competitive response
Degree/ likelihood of competitive response to a new product introduction
Competitive response intensity
Degree, intensity, or level of competitive response to a new product introduction
(also referred to in the literature as market turbulence)
Market potential
Anticipated growth in customers/ customer demand in the marketplace
Table 3 Predictors of new product performance, adapted from Henard & Szymanski (2001)
reason, the commercial potential of remanufactured
products will be evaluated using a framework of
predictors for new product performance. The authors
acknowledge that the framework has been adjusted
since 2001, more extensive literature review is
required to analyse the successive versions.
3. CASE: WINDOW SHADE MANUFACTURER
To gain more insight in the full range of soft barriers
affecting remanufacturing operations, the case of a
facade equipment manufacturer was analysed. The
selected company for this analysis is a manufacturer
of high-end window shades. The company supplies
products to the contractors executing the construction
of a building. It is a mature company, with 500+
employees, established 50+ years ago and it
participates in the Facade Leasing Research project at
TU Delft. The company is currently exploring
opportunities for remanufacturing within its industry.
The case data was collected through an EU funded
workshop and conversations with the company during
the workshop.
The workshop was given on 22-Jan-2019, in the
Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft, the Netherlands. 22
people participated, mostly managers from SMEs in
the building industry, but also academics with related
research interests.
The participants of the workshop were mainly
from the building facade sector in Western Europe,
and were technical managers, business developers,
engineers, and architects. Details about the companies
joining the workshop can be found in Table 4.
The five-hour workshop started with two
presentations by TU Delft, followed by two exercises
in which participants got into groups of 2-3 to
understand how remanufacturing could be
implemented into their own companies using the
worksheet in appendix A. The workshop ended with
all participants sharing their final thoughts and the
most important findings from their day.
3.1. An introduction to remanufacturing
building products
Although building products are similar to non-
building products, several distinguishing factors can
potentially form barriers to remanufacturing. Firstly,
building products are part of the large supply chain of
an entire building. Since buildings are an assemblage
of products, the supply chain of a building highly
complex, and therefore includes more stakeholders
than for non-building products. Examples of these
stakeholders are: the user, the real estate developer, the
building contractor, the architect and other building
product manufacturers. The facade equipment
manufacturer, therefore, is not directly in contact with
the client. The only possible channel of
communication with the client is the architect or
building contractor.
Secondly, the lifespan of building products is
relatively long, while the period of ownership
generally is much shorter. Therefore, it is likely that
the building changes hands several times during its
lifetime. This often leads to a disconnect between the
building part supplier and the owner, making it
difficult for cores to be retrieved for remanufacturing
at end-of-life. For example, in the case a certain
building product needs replacement, those responsible
for maintenance might not know the original
manufacturer of that building product. Typically,
when a building product needs to be repaired, the user
contacts a general repair company, instead of the
original equipment manufacturer (Azcarate-Aguerre
et al., 2017). Companies like Madaster are trying to
create databases for building owners about their
Overview of workshop participants
Company type
Description
Product example
Facade shading manufacturer
Manufacturer of high end, bespoke
shading products for facades
Motorized sun shading for facades on
high-rises
Facade manufacturer
Manufacturer of standardized facade
products, including windows and
integrated building services
Window unit
Building material manufacturer
Manufacturer of bio-based, non-
structural, planar building materials
Bio-based interior wall
Building contractor
Builder and demolisher of buildings on a
contractual basis
Service - construction and demolishing
buildings
Architecture office
Designer of buildings, with interest on
circular design
Service - building design
Table 4 Details of workshop participants
products, however these services are not yet widely
applied within the building industry (Madaster, 2019).
Thirdly, in a broader perspective, in terms of
supply and demand, large scale market dynamics are
not yet in place. The concept of circular economy is
only just emerging in the building industry, therefore
there is a lack of awareness about the topic throughout
the supply chain. There were no examples found of
building products remanufactured at a large scale, in
the searches carried out.
3.2. Analysis of soft barriers to design for
remanufacturing
The following table shows the results of the case
analysis using the framework for predictors of new
product performance (Table 5). The table only
includes those topics which were addressed during the
workshop, remaining characteristics are potentially of
influence but require more extensive data collection.
4. DISCUSSION
4.1. Framework of predictors for new product
performance
In the previous section, the predictors of new product
development framework (Henard et al., 2001) is used
to evaluate the company’s soft barriers to
remanufacturing. While most of the barriers to
remanufacturing raised by the company could be
placed into the new product development framework,
some could not. The barriers that did not fit into the
framework were all related to the full life cycle
thinking that is essential for products and businesses
in the circular economy. This suggests that the
framework of Henard and Szymanski is more suited
for products in the linear economy, where the
objective and responsibility of companies is to sell
their products, with less emphasis on what happens
after these products have been sold. The framework
has been adjusted by different authors since 2001,
more extensive literature review is required to analyse
the successive versions.
The following paragraphs are recommendations
on how the Henard and Szymanski framework can be
adapted to evaluate a product’s success development
for remanufacturing. The four main recommended
additions are: business model related capabilities of
the company, upgradability of the product, consumer
input, and collaborations with other stakeholders.
The Henard and Szymanski framework should
include how business model related capabilities could
affect the performance of a product. The framework
focuses on the take, make, dispose business model for
products in the linear economy, and therefore does not
take into account services that accompany the product
after it has been sold, such as maintenance and repair
services.
The upgradability or adaptability of a product can
be taken into account in the framework. The
upgradability of a product is important in a Circular
Economy because this makes it easier for products to
have multiple lives; to be remanufactured after its first
use. In the case study example, this would mean
making the products adaptable to different
dimensions.
Although customer input is included in the
framework, the main focus of the framework is on
input before the product is sold. “Customer input”
could potentially be split into two parts: pre-sales and
after-sales. When operating in remanufacturing
markets, information on the products’ performance
during use, and the time and location of the product’s
end of life is important. Companies can obtain this
information if they focus on customers’ after-sales
input.
The degree of collaboration and connection with
other stakeholders in the supply chain could also be
added to the framework. In remanufacturing markets,
maintaining a connection with other stakeholders in
the supply chain allows for cores to be returned to the
original equipment manufacturer, allowing for smooth
reverse logistics.
At the same time as the linear approaches seen in
the new product development above, there is a
dominance of the ‘tech will fix it’ approach, which
even though applied to the circular, closed loop
thinking, results in a slow progress of the adoption of
remanufacturing and especially the uptake of design
for remanufacturing. The combination of the linear
thinking in new product development combined with
the circular hard tech frameworks leaves the human
soft aspects missing. This is an important gap as it can
be observed that the absence of the human drivers and
barriers can be more powerful than those from the hard
tech aspect. At the same time the frames for the soft
side are documented and applicable to the case of
DfReman.
4.2. Case
The case study company’s main barriers in identifying
market opportunities is caused by limited
investigation into markets for circular building
products, or remanufactured building products. The
company has not identified existing or potential
customers who may be interested in a circular building
product, and does not know of many clients,
architects, and contractors who are interested in
transitioning to a circular economy. The company is
also unsure of whether its existing customers would be
interested in any product that could be perceived as
“not new”, such as a remanufactured product.
Analysis of soft capabilities of a window shade manufacturer
Predictor
Sensing capability
Learning capability
Product characteristics
Product advantage
Being responsive to market trends
The case study company is aware of ways product
service systems could potentially create an advantage.
Obtaining new knowledge
Offering facade equipment as a
service is a novel idea with no
precedents.
Product meets customer
needs
Identifying market opportunities
The company has not investigated potential markets for
remanufactured building products (e.g. clients / architect
/ contractors) who could be interested in circular building
products
Obtaining new knowledge
The company has no experience in
performing tests that a
remanufactured product has the same
quality and performance as a new
product.
Product price
Identifying market opportunities
The company has not investigated potential price
strategies for remanufactured building products
Obtaining new knowledge
The company is concerned about
market cannibalization and does not
have the knowledge to prevent it
Product technological
sophistication
Identifying market opportunities
The company produces highly durable products, but lacks
information about the market perception of circular
products
Product innovativeness
Being responsive to market trends
The company is aware that Circular Economy is of
growing importance to the EU. However, sustainability is
no main selling points to the company.
Firm strategy
characteristics
Technological synergy
Identifying market opportunities
The company has not investigated required technical
skills to remarket remanufactured building products
Creative new thinking
The product's design allows for the
product to be easily constructed,
deconstructed, and transported, the
company is aware that this supports
remanufacturability.
Order of entry
Identifying market opportunities
The case study company is unaware of the potential
demand for remanufactured products, but does have
contact with clients who could supply cores for
remanufacturing
Firm process
characteristics
Marketing task proficiency
Identifying market opportunities
The case study company already recycles the aluminum
shades in the product, this is not marketed because
sustainability is not a main selling point in the market.
Technological proficiency
See learning creative new thinking
under ‘technological synergy’
Market orientation
Identifying market opportunities
The case study company is unsure if their customers
would accept a remanufactured product. Currently, the
case study company products are marketed as bespoke,
high end products.
Internal, competitor, and
customer input
Identifying customer needs
The case study company does not monitor sold products,
therefore there is a lack of information for core
acquisition.
Obtaining new knowledge
The case study company is unfamiliar
with strategies to monitor products,
such as building passports.
Table 5 Case analysis using the framework for predictors of new product performance
Because of the complexity of a building project,
the case study company has barriers in identifying
customer needs. The company does not maintain close
enough relationship with the user of the product after
it has been sold, which prevents it from knowing when
a product can be collected. The company also provides
limited maintenance and repair service to users, due to
the complex legal nature of the building industry.
The case study company is also encountering
learning barriers to remanufacturing, specifically in
the process of obtaining and transforming knowledge.
In terms of obtaining new knowledge, the company is
missing knowledge in ensuring that remanufactured
products have the same quality and performance as
new products, in preventing market cannibalization, in
offering facade equipment as a service, and on
strategies of monitoring cores, such as using building
passports.
The company also has existing knowledge that
could be transformed. The product’s design allows for
it to be easily assembled and disassembled, since all
the connections within the product are mechanical, no
connections with glue. The company recognizes that it
could explore how this product design could make the
remanufacturing process simpler.
The company is aware of the increasing
importance of Circular Economy in the EU, and has
therefore started to explore future strategies with TU
Delft, attending the Workshop and participating in the
Facade Leasing Project led by Professor Tillmann
Klein and PhD candidate Juan Azcarate-Aguerre. By
participating in the Facade Leasing Project, the case
study company is also aware of the potential benefit of
product services systems to businesses as well as its
customers.
5. CONCLUSION
To answer the central research question (‘For
remanufacturing, what is the role of soft barriers at
the product development stage’?), the role of soft
barriers for the success of remanufacturing products of
a window shade manufacturer, a case study analysis
was made using the model for ‘Predictors of new
product performance’ drafted by Henard & Szymanski
(2001). Prior to the analysis, the supply chain
dynamics for the building industry, the theoretical
model for product development, as well as the
technical requirements for design for remanufacturing
were discussed. The data collected during an EU
funded workshop was used to do the final analyses of
soft barriers.
The conclusions which can be drawn from this
analysis are as follow. Firstly, regarding the
framework, the main conclusion would be that the
framework of Henard and Szymanski is more suited
for products in the linear economy, where the
objective and responsibility of companies is to sell
their products, with less emphasis on what happens
after these products have been sold. The four main
recommended additions to the framework, to make it
relevant to remanufacturing, are: business model
related capabilities of the company, upgradability of
the product, after-sale consumer input, and
collaborations with other stakeholders.
Secondly, the case study company’s main soft
barriers were identified. In relation to the sensing
capability, the main barrier is limited investigation
into markets for remanufactured building products.
The company is also encountering learning barriers to
remanufacturing, main barriers are missing
knowledge about the performance of remanufactured
products and missing strategies to monitoring cores.
The results from this paper can be used to draft an
encompassing framework for characteristics for the
success of remanufactured products. Such a
framework can be used to reflect on the extent in
which existing new product development efforts
support product remanufacturing, from both a
technical and human perspective, and helps finding
gaps for improvement. This allows opportunities for a
shift in focus for design for remanufacturing, from a
predominantly technical one towards a combined one,
including human, soft capabilities.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was made possible by using results of EU
funded EIT KIC Raw Materials projects, called:
‘Remanufacturing Pathways’ (RemanPath), under
grant agreement number 17087, and Catalyse
Remanufacturing through Design Bootcamp
(CARED), under grant agreement number 18024,.
Prior work from EU Horizons 2020 projects
‘European Remanufacturing Network’ (ERN), under
grant agreement number 645984, ‘Key success factors
for re-use Networks’ (RUN), under grant agreement
number 15078, and ‘Bridging the raw materials
knowledge gap for reuse and remanufacturing
professionals’ (ReUK), under grant agreement
number 15023, are also acknowledged.
7. REFERENCES
Active Disassembly Research, 2005. Design for
Disassembly Guidelines. http://www.
engen.org.au/index_htm_files/DFD-guidelines.pdf.
Al-Okush, H., Caudi, R., 1999. Understanding the real
impact of DFE guidelines: a case study of four generations
of telephones. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE
International Symposium on Electronics and the
Environment, 1999. ISEE -1999, pp. 134–139 doi:0-7803-
5495-8.
Amezquita, T., Hammond, R., Salazar, M., Bras, B.,
1995. Characterizing the Rema- nufacturability of
Engineering Systems. Proceedings of ASME Advances in
Design Automation. Boston, pp. 271e8.
Arnette, A.N., Brewer, B.L., Choal, T., 2014. Design
for sustainability (DFS): the inter- section of supply chain
and environment. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 374–390. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.021.
Azcarate-Aguerre, J. F., Den Heijer, A. C., & Klein, T.
(2017). Integrated facades as a product-service system:
Business process innovation to accelerate integral product
implementation. Journal of Facade Design and Engineering,
6(1), 41-56.
Balkenende, A.R., Bakker, C.A. (2018). Designing for
a circular economy: Make, use and Recover Products. In K.
Niinimäki (Ed.), Sustainable Fashion in a Circular Economy
(pp. 76-95). Espoo, Finland: Aalto ARTS Books.
Behrendt, S., Jasch, C., Peneda, M.C., Weenen, J.C.,
1997. Life Cycle Design. A Manual for Small and Medium
Sized Companies. Springer Verlag.
Bogue, R., 2007. Design for disassembly: a critical
twenty-first century discipline. Assemb. Autom. 27, 285–
289. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445150710827069.
Boorsma, N., Peck, P., Fischer, S., Bakker, C.,
Balkenende, R. (2018) Capabilities required to tackle
barriers to remanufacturing. Proceedings of Going Green-
CARE INNOVATION Conference, November 26-29, 2018,
Vienna, Austria.
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., 1990. Product Design for
Assembly. Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc., Wakefield, RI, USA.
Bovea, M. D., Ibáñez-Forés, V., Pérez-Belis, V., &
Juan, P. (2018). A survey on consumers’ attitude towards
storing and end of life strategies of small information and
communication technology devices in Spain. Waste
management, 71, 589-602.
Brand, S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens
after they're built. Penguin.
Bras, B., Hammond, R., 1996. Towards
Remanufacturing- Metrics for Assessing
Remanufacturability. 1st International Workshop on Reuse.
Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 35e52.
Buijs, J. A. (2012) The Delft Innovation Method; a
design thinker’s guide to innovation. Den Haag, Eleven
International Publishing.
Buijs, J. (2003). Modelling product innovation
processes, from linear logic to circular chaos. Creativity and
innovation management, 12(2), 76-93.
Buijs, J. (2007). Design management education at the
Delft University of Technology. Design Management
Review, 18(3), 63-68
Chen, K., 2001. Integrated Manufacturing Systems
Development of integrated design for disassembly and
recycling in concurrent engineering Development of
integrated de- sign for disassembly and recycling in
concurrent engineering. Integr. Manuf. Syst. Assem. Autom.
J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 12, 67–79.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09576060110361555.
Chiodo, J., Ijomah, W., 2009. Active Disassembly
Application to Enhance Design-for- Remanufacture. 18th
International Conference on Flexible Automation and
Intelligent Manufacturing. Middlesbrough.
Danneels, E. (2011). Trying to become a different type
of company: Dynamic capability at Smith Corona. Strategic
Management Journal, 32(1), 1-31.
Desai, A., Mital, A., 2003. Evaluation of
disassemblability to enable design for dis- assembly in mass
production. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 32, 265–281.
https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0169-8141(03)00067-2.
Dowie, T., Simon, M., 1994. Guidelines for Designing
for Disassembly and Recycling. DDR/TR18. Manchester
Metropolitan University.
ECMA, 2010. ECMA-341 Environmental Design
Considerations for ICT & CE Products.
Eppinger, S. D., & Ulrich, K. T. (1995). Product design
and development.
European Commission (EC) (2015). COM 614 final -
Communication from the commission to the european
parliament, the council, the european economic and social
committee and the committee of the regions. Retrieved
from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0614.
Gehin, A., Zwolinski, P., Brissaud, D., 2008. A tool to
Implement sustainable end-of-life strategies in the product
development phase. Journal of Cleaner Production 16,
566e576.
Go, T.F., Wahab, D.A., Hishamuddin, H., 2015.
Multiple generation life-cycles for product sustainability:
the way forward. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 16–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Graedel, T., Allenby, B., 1996. Design for
Environment. Prentice Hall Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA.
Hata, T., Kato, S., Kimura, F., 2001. Design of product
modularity for life cycle management. Proc. Second Int.
Symp. Environ. Conscious Des. Inverse Manuf. 93–96.
https://doi.org/10.1109/.2001.992323.
Hatcher, G. D., Ijomah, W. L., & Windmill, J. F. C.
(2011). Design for remanufacture: a literature review and
future research needs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(17-
18), 2004-2014.
Henard, D. H., & Szymanski, D. M. (2001). Why some
new products are more successful than others. Journal of
marketing Research, 38(3), 362-375.
Huang, C.C., Liang, W.Y., Chuang, H.F., Chang, Z.Y.,
2012. A novel approach to product modularity and product
disassembly with the consideration of 3R-abilities. Comput.
Ind. Eng. 62, 96–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2011.08.021.
Hultgren, N., 2012. Guidelines and Design Strategies
for Improved Product Recyclability. Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ijomah, W., McMahon, C., Hammond, G., Newman,
S., 2007a. Development of robust design-for-
remanufacturing guidelines to further the aims of sustainable
development. International Journal of Production Research
45 (18), 4513e4536.
Ijomah, W., McMahon, C., Hammond, G., Newman,
S., 2007b. Development of design for remanufacturing
guidelines to Support sustainable manufacturing. Robotics
and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 23, 712e719.
Ijomah, W., 2009. Addressing decision making for
remanufacturing operations and design-for-remanufacture.
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 2 (2),
91e202.
Ijomah, W.L., Chiodo, J.D., 2010. Application of active
disassembly to extend profitable remanufacturing in small
electrical and electronic products. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 3,
246–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2010.511298.
Ishii, K., Eubanks, C., Di Marco, P., 1994. Design for
product Retirement and material life-Cycle. Materials and
Design 15 (4), 225e233.
Kimura, F., Kato, S., Hata, T., Masuda, T., 2001.
Product Modularization for parts reuse in Inverse
manufacturing. Annals of the CIRP 50 (1), 89e92.
King, A., Burgess, S., 2005. The development of a
remanufacturing platform design: a strategic response to the
directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment.
Proceedings of the IMechE 219 (Part B), 623e631.
Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A.,
Davidson, J., D'Amore, R., ... & Karol, R. (2001). Providing
clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end”.
Research-Technology Management, 44(2), 46-55.
Lam, A., Sherwood, M., Shu, L., 2000. FMEA-Based
Design for Remanufacture Using Automotive-
Remanufacturer Data. Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering University of Toronto, Toronto.
Lee, H.B., Cho, N.W., Hong, Y.S., 2010. A
Hierarchical end-of-life decision model for determining the
economic levels of remanufacturing and disassembly under
environmental Regulations. Journal of Cleaner Production
18, 1276e1283.
Lee, H.M., Lu, W.F., Song, B., 2014. A framework for
assessing product end-of-life performance: reviewing the
state of the art and proposing an innovative approach using
an end-of-life index. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 355–371.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2013.11.001.
Mital, A., Desai, A., Subramanian, A., 2009. Design for
assembly and disassembly. In: Integrated Product and
Process Design and Development, Environmental & Energy
Engineering. CRC Press, pp. 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420070613.ch7.
Mulder, W., Basten, R.J.I., Jauregui Becker, J.M.,
Blok, J., Hoekstra, S., Kokkeler, F.G.M., 2014. Supporting
industrial equipment development through a set of design-
for-maintenance guidelines. In: Proc. Int. Des. Conf. Des.
2014–Janua, pp. 323–332.
Pavlou, P. A., & El Sawy, O. A. (2011). Understanding
the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision
sciences, 42(1), 239-273.
Peeters, J.R., Vanegas, P., Dewulf, W., Duflou, J.R.,
2012. Design for demanufacturing: a life cycle approach. In:
I-SUP2012 Innovation for Sustainable Production. Bruges,
Belgium, pp. 6–9.
Pérez-Belis, V., Bovea, M.D., Gómez, A., 2013. Waste
electric and electronic toys: management practices and
characterisation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 77, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.05.002.
Pigosso, D., Zanette, E., Filho, A., Ometto, A.,
Rozenfeld, H., 2009. Ecodesign methods focused on
remanufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (1).
Poppelaars, F., 2014. Designing for a Circular
Economy. The Conceptual Design of a Circular Mobile
Device. (Schmidt-MacArthur Ed).
Roozenburg, N. F., & Eekels, J. (1998).
Productontwerpen structuur en methoden. Lemma.
Sawanishi, H., Torihara, K., Mishima, N., 2015. A
study on disassemblability and feasi- bility of component
reuse of mobile phones. Proced. CIRP 26, 740–745.
https://doi. org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.090.
Sherwood, M., Shu, L., 2000. Supporting design for
remanufacture through waste- Stream analysis of
automotive remanufacturers. Annals of the CIRP 49 (1),
87e90.
Shu, L., Flowers, W., 1999. Application of a design-for
remanufacture Framework to the Selection of product life-
cycle and joining methods. Robotics and Computer
Integrated Manufacturing 15, 179e190.
Sihvonen, S., Ritola, T., 2015. Conceptualizing ReX
for aggregating end-of-life strategies in product
development. Proced. CIRP 29, 639–644.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procir.2015.01.026.
Smith, S., Hung, P.Y.P.-Y., 2015. A novel selective
parallel disassembly planning method for green product
design. J. Eng. Des. 26, 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09544828.2015.1045841.
Sundin, E., 2004. Product and Process Design for
Successful Remanufacturing. Linkopings Universitet,
Linkoping.
Sundin, E., Bras, B., 2005. Making functional sales
environmentally and economically beneficial through
product remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 13, 913–925.
https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.04.006.
Sundin, E., Elo, K., Lee, H.M., 2012. Design for
automatic end-of-life processes. Assemb. Autom. 32, 389–
398. https://doi.org/10.1108/01445151211262447.
Sutherland, J., Adler, D., Haapala, K., Kumar, V.,
2008. A comparison of manufacturing and remanufacturing
energy Intensities with application to Diesel engine
production. CIRP Annals- Manufacturing Technology 57,
5e8.
Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic
capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal 18(7): 509–533.
Truttmann, N., Rechberger, H., 2006. Contribution to
resource conservation by reuse of electrical and electronic
household appliances. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 48, 249–
262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.02.003.
UNE 150062 IN, 2000. Guía para la Inclusión de los
Aspectos Medioambientales en las Normas Electrotécnicas
de Producto. [in Spanish].
Wang, F., 2014. E-waste: Collect More, Treat Better.
PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology
https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:91404545-dc7b-48c8-b9b5-
a37fbf74ce5c.
Watelet, F., 2013. Reuse of EEE Consumer Products, a
Potential End-of-life Strategy for CRM's. Master Thesis
PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology.
Website: Madaster (2019, April 1). Homepage.
Retrieved from https://www.madaster.com/en.
Willems, B., Dewulf, W., Duflou, J., 2008. A method
to assess the Lifetime Prolon- gation Capabilities of
products. International Journal of Sustainable
Manufacturing 1 (1/2), 122e144.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and
applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
Yuksel, H., 2010. Design of Automobile engines for
remanufacture with quality Function Deployment.
International Journal Os Sustainable Engineering 3 (3),
170e180.
Zhang, T., Wang, X., Chu, J., Cui, P., 2010.
Remanufacturing Mode and It’s Reliability for the Design of
Automotive Products. 5th International Conference on
Responsive Manufacturing- Green Manufacturing. Ningbo,
China, pp. 25e31.
Zuidwijk, R., Krikke, H., 2008. Strategic response to
EEE returns: product eco-design or new recovery processes?
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 191, 1206–1222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.08.004.
Zwolinski, P., Lopez-Ontiveros, M., Brissaud, D.,
2006. Integrated design of rema- nufacturable products
based on product profiles. Journal of Cleaner Production 14,
1333e1345.
Zwolinski, P., Brissaud, D., 2008. Remanufacturing
strategies to Support product design and Redesign. Journal
of Engineering Design 19 (4), 321e335.
APPENDIX A
Worksheets and structure documents from
the EU projects: workshop schedule and
exercise sheets: reman process map and
reman checklist.
I. Workshop schedule
13:00
Introduction of participants
13:30
Introduction to Remanufacturing by David Peck, TU Delft
14:00
Remanufacturing case study by Tanya Tsui, TU Delft
● Technical process
● Business model
14:30
Coffee break
15:00
Remanufacturing workshop
1. Reman process map: what are the processes in remanufacturing and is
your product ready for it?
2. Reman checklist: what are the conditions favorable to remanufacturing?
How can your company overcome barriers and utilize opportunities?
16:30
Final sharing
II. Exercise sheet: Reman process
map
III. Exercise sheets: Reman
checklist
