An Optimization Approach for the Coordinated Low-Carbon Design of Product Family and Remanufactured Products

[EN] With increasingly stringent environmental regulations on emission standards, enterprises and investigators are looking for effective ways to decrease GHG emission from products. As an important method for reducing GHG emission of products, low-carbon product family design has attracted more and more attention. Existing research, related to low-carbon product family design, did not take into account remanufactured products. Nowadays, it is popular to launch remanufactured products for environmental benefit and meeting customer needs. On the one hand, the design of remanufactured products is influenced by product family design. On the other hand, the launch of remanufactured products may cannibalize the sale of new products. Thus, the design of remanufactured products should be considered together with the product family design for obtaining the maximum profit and reducing the GHG emission as soon as possible. The purpose of this paper is to present an optimization model to concurrently determine product family design, remanufactured products planning and remanufacturing parameters selection with consideration of the customer preference, the total profit of a company and the total GHG emission from production. A genetic algorithm is applied to solve the optimization problem. The proposed method can help decision-makers to simultaneously determine the design of a product family and remanufactured products with a better trade-off between profit and environmental impact. Finally, a case study is performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the presented approach.This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 51575264 and 51805253); the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant number NP2017105); Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral Research Funds (grant number 2018K017C); and the Qin Lan Project.Wang, Q.; Tang, D.; Li, S.; Yang, J.; Salido, MA.; Giret Boggino, AS.; Zhu, H. (2019). An Optimization Approach for the Coordinated Low-Carbon Design of Product Family and Remanufactured Products. Sustainability. 11(2):1-22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020460S122112Mascle, C., & Zhao, H. P. (2008). Integrating environmental consciousness in product/process development based on life-cycle thinking. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(1), 5-17. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.016Kengpol, A., & Boonkanit, P. (2011). The decision support framework for developing Ecodesign at conceptual phase based upon ISO/TR 14062. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 4-14. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.10.006Ferrer, G., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2010). Managing new and differentiated remanufactured products. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(2), 370-379. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.08.007Sutherland, J. W., Adler, D. P., Haapala, K. R., & Kumar, V. (2008). A comparison of manufacturing and remanufacturing energy intensities with application to diesel engine production. CIRP Annals, 57(1), 5-8. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.004Song, J.-S., & Lee, K.-M. (2010). Development of a low-carbon product design system based on embedded GHG emissions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(9), 547-556. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.10.012Qi, Y., & Wu, X. (2011). Low-carbon Technologies Integrated Innovation Strategy Based on Modular Design. Energy Procedia, 5, 2509-2515. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.431Su, J. C. P., Chu, C.-H., & Wang, Y.-T. (2012). A decision support system to estimate the carbon emission and cost of product designs. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 13(7), 1037-1045. doi:10.1007/s12541-012-0135-yKuo, T. C., Chen, H. M., Liu, C. Y., Tu, J.-C., & Yeh, T.-C. (2014). Applying multi-objective planning in low-carbon product design. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 15(2), 241-249. doi:10.1007/s12541-014-0331-zXu, Z.-Z., Wang, Y.-S., Teng, Z.-R., Zhong, C.-Q., & Teng, H.-F. (2015). Low-carbon product multi-objective optimization design for meeting requirements of enterprise, user and government. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 747-758. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.067He, B., Wang, J., Huang, S., & Wang, Y. (2015). Low-carbon product design for product life cycle. Journal of Engineering Design, 26(10-12), 321-339. doi:10.1080/09544828.2015.1053437Chiang, T.-A., & Che, Z. H. (2015). A decision-making methodology for low-carbon electronic product design. Decision Support Systems, 71, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2015.01.004He, B., Tang, W., Wang, J., Huang, S., Deng, Z., & Wang, Y. (2015). Low-carbon conceptual design based on product life cycle assessment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 81(5-8), 863-874. doi:10.1007/s00170-015-7253-5(Roger) Jiao, J., Simpson, T. W., & Siddique, Z. (2007). Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18(1), 5-29. doi:10.1007/s10845-007-0003-2Francalanza, E., Borg, J. C., & Constantinescu, C. L. (2012). A Case for Assisting ‘Product Family’ Manufacturing System Designers. Procedia CIRP, 3, 376-381. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.065Bryan, A., Wang, H., & Abell, J. (2013). Concurrent Design of Product Families and Reconfigurable Assembly Systems. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(5). doi:10.1115/1.4023920Wang, Q., Tang, D., Yin, L., Salido, M. A., Giret, A., & Xu, Y. (2016). Bi-objective optimization for low-carbon product family design. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 41, 53-65. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2016.02.001Tang, D., Wang, Q., & Ullah, I. (2016). Optimisation of product configuration in consideration of customer satisfaction and low carbon. International Journal of Production Research, 55(12), 3349-3373. doi:10.1080/00207543.2016.1231430Kim, S., & Moon, S. K. (2017). Sustainable platform identification for product family design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 567-581. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.073Xiao, W., Du, G., Zhang, Y., & Liu, X. (2018). Coordinated optimization of low-carbon product family and its manufacturing process design by a bilevel game-theoretic model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 754-773. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.240Mangun, D., & Thurston, D. L. (2002). Incorporating component reuse, remanufacture, and recycle into product portfolio design. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 479-490. doi:10.1109/tem.2002.807292Debo, L. G., Toktay, L. B., & Wassenhove, L. N. V. (2009). Joint Life-Cycle Dynamics of New and Remanufactured Products. Production and Operations Management, 15(4), 498-513. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2006.tb00159.xVorasayan, J., & Ryan, S. M. (2009). Optimal Price and Quantity of Refurbished Products. Production and Operations Management, 15(3), 369-383. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2006.tb00251.xKwak, M., & Kim, H. M. (2011). Assessing product family design from an end-of-life perspective. Engineering Optimization, 43(3), 233-255. doi:10.1080/0305215x.2010.482990Kwak, M., & Kim, H. (2012). Market Positioning of Remanufactured Products With Optimal Planning for Part Upgrades. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(1), 011007. doi:10.1115/1.4023000Debo, L. G., Toktay, L. B., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Market Segmentation and Product Technology Selection for Remanufacturable Products. Management Science, 51(8), 1193-1205. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0369Ferguson, M. E., & Toktay, L. B. (2009). The Effect of Competition on Recovery Strategies. Production and Operations Management, 15(3), 351-368. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2006.tb00250.xJin, Y., Muriel, A., & Lu, Y. (2015). When to Offer Lower Quality or Remanufactured Versions of a Product. Decision Sciences, 47(4), 699-719. doi:10.1111/deci.12175Liu, B., Holmbom, M., Segerstedt, A., & Chen, W. (2014). Effects of carbon emission regulations on remanufacturing decisions with limited information of demand distribution. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 532-548. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.957875Wang, Y., Chen, W., & Liu, B. (2017). Manufacturing/remanufacturing decisions for a capital-constrained manufacturer considering carbon emission cap and trade. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1118-1128. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.058Yenipazarli, A. (2016). Managing new and remanufactured products to mitigate environmental damage under emissions regulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(1), 117-130. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.020Perera, H. S. ., Nagarur, N., & Tabucanon, M. T. (1999). Component part standardization: A way to reduce the life-cycle costs of products. International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61, 109-116. doi:10.1016/s0925-5273(98)00179-0Jiao, J., & Zhang, Y. (2005). Product portfolio planning with customer-engineering interaction. IIE Transactions, 37(9), 801-814. doi:10.1080/07408170590917011Mukhopadhyay, S. K., & Ma, H. (2009). Joint procurement and production decisions in remanufacturing under quality and demand uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 120(1), 5-17. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.07.032Wang, K., & Choi, S. H. (2014). A holonic approach to flexible flow shop scheduling under stochastic processing times. Computers & Operations Research, 43, 157-168. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2013.09.01

Comparative Method of Weighted Product and TOPSIS to Determine The Beneficiary of Family Hope Program

The Family Hope Program (PKH) is a government program that provides cash assistance to impoverished households. The implementation of PKH in Cimrutu Village has not been implemented optimally, namely prioritizing the targets of PKH participants who are not yet on targets. This happened because the officers in registering the poor were still using manual methods. To simplify the work and avoid miscalculation of data with the old system, a decision support system was built that could help make decisions on PKH recipients quickly and more accurately. The calculation method used is the Weighted Product (WP) method. Data collection methods used in this study were interviews and documentation. System development in this study uses waterfall through black-box testing. System design tools in the form of DFD and ERD. The software used in making this application is Visual Studio 2012, Xampp, and Crystal Reports. The programming language used is Java with its supporting database using MySQL. This decision support system is expected to be able to help officers in Cimrutu Village in selecting and determining communities that are eligible for PKH

Proceedings of the 2004 ONR Decision-Support Workshop Series: Interoperability

In August of 1998 the Collaborative Agent Design Research Center (CADRC) of the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), approached Dr. Phillip Abraham of the Office of Naval Research (ONR) with the proposal for an annual workshop focusing on emerging concepts in decision-support systems for military applications. The proposal was considered timely by the ONR Logistics Program Office for at least two reasons. First, rapid advances in information systems technology over the past decade had produced distributed collaborative computer-assistance capabilities with profound potential for providing meaningful support to military decision makers. Indeed, some systems based on these new capabilities such as the Integrated Marine Multi-Agent Command and Control System (IMMACCS) and the Integrated Computerized Deployment System (ICODES) had already reached the field-testing and final product stages, respectively. Second, over the past two decades the US Navy and Marine Corps had been increasingly challenged by missions demanding the rapid deployment of forces into hostile or devastate dterritories with minimum or non-existent indigenous support capabilities. Under these conditions Marine Corps forces had to rely mostly, if not entirely, on sea-based support and sustainment operations. Particularly today, operational strategies such as Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS) and Sea To Objective Maneuver (STOM) are very much in need of intelligent, near real-time and adaptive decision-support tools to assist military commanders and their staff under conditions of rapid change and overwhelming data loads. In the light of these developments the Logistics Program Office of ONR considered it timely to provide an annual forum for the interchange of ideas, needs and concepts that would address the decision-support requirements and opportunities in combined Navy and Marine Corps sea-based warfare and humanitarian relief operations. The first ONR Workshop was held April 20-22, 1999 at the Embassy Suites Hotel in San Luis Obispo, California. It focused on advances in technology with particular emphasis on an emerging family of powerful computer-based tools, and concluded that the most able members of this family of tools appear to be computer-based agents that are capable of communicating within a virtual environment of the real world. From 2001 onward the venue of the Workshop moved from the West Coast to Washington, and in 2003 the sponsorship was taken over by ONR’s Littoral Combat/Power Projection (FNC) Program Office (Program Manager: Mr. Barry Blumenthal). Themes and keynote speakers of past Workshops have included: 1999: ‘Collaborative Decision Making Tools’ Vadm Jerry Tuttle (USN Ret.); LtGen Paul Van Riper (USMC Ret.);Radm Leland Kollmorgen (USN Ret.); and, Dr. Gary Klein (KleinAssociates) 2000: ‘The Human-Computer Partnership in Decision-Support’ Dr. Ronald DeMarco (Associate Technical Director, ONR); Radm CharlesMunns; Col Robert Schmidle; and, Col Ray Cole (USMC Ret.) 2001: ‘Continuing the Revolution in Military Affairs’ Mr. Andrew Marshall (Director, Office of Net Assessment, OSD); and,Radm Jay M. Cohen (Chief of Naval Research, ONR) 2002: ‘Transformation ... ’ Vadm Jerry Tuttle (USN Ret.); and, Steve Cooper (CIO, Office ofHomeland Security) 2003: ‘Developing the New Infostructure’ Richard P. Lee (Assistant Deputy Under Secretary, OSD); and, MichaelO’Neil (Boeing) 2004: ‘Interoperability’ MajGen Bradley M. Lott (USMC), Deputy Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command; Donald Diggs, Director, C2 Policy, OASD (NII

Decision support for build-to-order supply chain management through multiobjective optimization

This paper aims to identify the gaps in decision-making support based on multiobjective optimization for build-to-order supply chain management (BTOSCM). To this end, it reviews the literature available on modelling build-to-order supply chains (BTO-SC) with the focus on adopting multiobjective optimization (MOO) techniques as a decision support tool. The literature has been classified based on the nature of the decisions in different part of the supply chain, and the key decision areas across a typical BTO-SC are discussed in detail. Available software packages suitable for supporting decision making in BTO supply chains are also identified and their related solutions are outlined. The gap between the modelling and optimization techniques developed in the literature and the decision support needed in practice are highlighted and future research directions to better exploit the decision support capabilities of MOO are proposed

Decision support for build-to-order supply chain management through multiobjective optimization

This is the post-print version of the final paper published in International Journal of Production Economics. The published article is available from the link below. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. Copyright @ 2010 Elsevier B.V.This paper aims to identify the gaps in decision-making support based on multiobjective optimization (MOO) for build-to-order supply chain management (BTO-SCM). To this end, it reviews the literature available on modelling build-to-order supply chains (BTO-SC) with the focus on adopting MOO techniques as a decision support tool. The literature has been classified based on the nature of the decisions in different part of the supply chain, and the key decision areas across a typical BTO-SC are discussed in detail. Available software packages suitable for supporting decision making in BTO supply chains are also identified and their related solutions are outlined. The gap between the modelling and optimization techniques developed in the literature and the decision support needed in practice are highlighted. Future research directions to better exploit the decision support capabilities of MOO are proposed. These include: reformulation of the extant optimization models with a MOO perspective, development of decision supports for interfaces not involving manufacturers, development of scenarios around service-based objectives, development of efficient solution tools, considering the interests of each supply chain party as a separate objective to account for fair treatment of their requirements, and applying the existing methodologies on real-life data sets.Brunel Research Initiative and Enterprise Fund (BRIEF

Traceability for Model Driven, Software Product Line Engineering

Traceability is an important challenge for software organizations. This is true for traditional software development and even more so in new approaches that introduce more variety of artefacts such as Model Driven development or Software Product Lines. In this paper we look at some aspect of the interaction of Traceability, Model Driven development and Software Product Line

Current practice and challenges towards handling uncertainty for effective outcomes in maintenance

The combination of viable heuristic attributes with statistical measurements presents significant challenges in industrial maintenance for complex assets under through-life service contracts. Techniques to obtain and process heuristic attributes raise numerous uncertainties which often go undefined and unmitigated. A holistic view of these uncertainties may improve decision-making capabilities and reduce maintenance costs and turnaround time. It is therefore necessary to identify and rank factors that influence uncertainties originating from challenges in the above context. This, along with an identification of who contributes to such challenges and current practice to handle them, sets the focus for this study. The influence of 32 categorised factors on uncertainty is assessed through a questionnaire completed by nine experienced maintenance managers from a leading defence company. The pedigree approach is applied to score validity of respondents’ answers according to their experience and job role to normalise scores. Results are discussed in interviews with respondents along with current practice in and ways to improve uncertainty assessment. Scores are weighted through the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in order to identify the most influential factors on uncertainty in maintenance. The analysis revealed that these include: intellectual property rights (IPR), maintainer performance, quality of information, resistance to change, stakeholder communication and technology integration. These are verified with 40 practitioners from various industrial backgrounds. From the interviews, it is deemed that a holistic view of heuristic and statistical attributes ultimately allows for more accomplished decision-making but requires trade-offs between quality and cost over the asset’s life cycle